Why Hillary Clinton sucks balls

[The Mountain 105]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

 

 

[Brennan 568]

I could go on forever about this but I'll give a couple of moments from the second debate to illustrate how I feel.

Sanders was trying to hammer Clinton for not supporting a national $15 minimum wage. She was defending her position of a $12 minimum wage nationally while encouraging urban areas or states with higher standards of living to implement a higher minimum for their area. Clinton defended her position as more supported by economists and as more politically practical. Sanders' argument was that his was a better policy because it was a higher amount and was trying to portray Clinton as insufficiently liberal. He made no effort to argue why $15 would be economically more optimal than $12 but instead was basically playing his usual game of "I'm more liberal than you so you must be corrupt." It would have politically been expedient for her to neutralize his criticism by embracing $15 but instead offered a good justification for her policies.

I think it was also evident during the exchange over Glass-Steagall. Clinton's plan was more comprehensive and has support from prominent liberal economists. Elizabeth Warren has admitted that G-S would not have prevented the 2008 meltdown. But Sanders started hammering on Clinton for not embracing a liberal buzzword rather than addressing her larger plan. Clinton explained why how her plan was more comprehensive, had expert support, and would better address the 08 crisis but Sanders basically just came back to "she's corrupt because she doesn't agree with me." It has also come up on things like free trade or immigration where he has repeated all sorts of protectionist nonsense, ignoring expert opinion, and then called everyone everyone who disagrees with him a sell-out. Meanwhile he can propose whatever policy a liberal could wish for and then when asked about his tax increases to pay for it, he can only assure people that the top marginal rate will be less than 90%. It just goes to show that it is easier to oppose everyone else for not being as far left but he doesn't seem as interested in a putting out a realistic and detailed plan of his own.

Basically I support Clinton over Sanders because she seems intelligent, pragmatic, and actually cares about getting the nuts and bolts right. Sanders seems more focused on just checking off boxes for the far-left than really considering what the best policy is. Clinton has been consistently liberal but has also come to better appreciate that there is more to good policy than just being more pure than the other guy. She understands that there has to be some gameplan beyond hoping for a political revolution to deliver the liberal wishlist. It is one thing to a senator from ultra-liberal Vermont where you can make symbolic votes knowing that you almost never wield that much power by yourself. The president though has several areas where he or she alone has to make a realistic decision for the good of the entire country and I don't think should be primarily guided by passing a purity test.

I'm not saying you're wrong in your stats there, but to simply say "We focus on a middle man getting wealthy instead of people being healthy" is a massive oversimplification of not only our system, but also how we arrived at our system. The system we have now is the culmination of many changes in the law over many decades, each change crafted to attempt to improve the system in some way. I think it's wrongheaded to say that for all (or even many) of those changes, they came about because the individuals involved were focused on middle men getting wealthy and not on health. I think it's fairer to say that in each change, there was probably a combination of folks with good ideas/intentions and with bad ideas/intentions. If we attempted to pass some kind of universal health insurance program it's safe to say we'd have a similar grouping of good/bad ideas/intentions, not to mention consequences, intended and unintended. It's completely reasonable to be concerned over possible problems with that system even if the people who initiated it had the best of intentions.

My post above on your Atlantic article: The Atlantic is generally a good source, but it is a journalistic one, and the opinion article you reference is not written by an economist. You can't compare that to the words of PAUL KRUGMAN or the stated opinion of THE ECONOMIST staff (in their article on Bernie a few weeks ago) and pretend that your article in the Atlantic stands on equal footing.

Your "Bernie has many more" statement and link: while you do provide a list of economists that back Bernie on that, you provide no evidence that this is greater than the number of economists that support Hillary's position. Furthermore, the list of economists that you provide includes exactly zero big-name economists. I am in the final selection group for a position in banking regulation with the federal government, and did some of my studies at the LSE, a very highly ranked school. I recognize MAYBE one of the names and the last name is fairly common among economists so I can't be sure. Hillary is vocally supported by many big name economists,and from my own admittedly anecdotal experience the majority of economists overall.

As far as pushing through legislation, elsewhere in this thread I had a discussion with cloudy1 where we look at the numbers. They are not hugely different, but Hillary does have a bit more success in terms of co-sponsored and sponsored legislation pushed through per year than Bernie.

Finally Bernie chooses MMT (modern monetary theory) economists as his main advisers. While some non-MMT economists support his minimum wage policy, his overall plan has much less support. It should only take a little bit of research to discover that most economists consider MMT to be off in left field a bit.

Part of the problem with a $12 minimum wage where more urban populations have the choice to raise it is that those places will choose not to, because the services/goods they are selling will give slightly less profit to the company and thus if their counterparts are not paying more, why should they? There would be no incentive for them, from the perspective of their success. Even a $15 minimum wage is not enough to support a family on without government support.

By allowing employers to pay such low wages, we are subsidizing corporations with tax money. Why should we be paying so that McDonald's can have a higher profit?

It's been shown that when Seattle began raising the minimum wage, it didn't actually hurt their economy. They are raising it at about $1 per year, until it is $15. This is very similar to the plan Sanders has put forward.

Consumer spending drives our economy; we need to put more money in the hands of people who will spend it. As people working minimum wage jobs make very little money, they will spend what they make, thus stimulating the economy.

This reflects a lack of understanding of Sanders. He has consistently operated pragmatically on policy (if not in rhetoric) both in congress and as a mayor, and has worked with Republicans extensively. This mythology has been created of Sanders as the idealist and Clinton as the pragmatist, but it's pure fiction. Sanders is buying into the idea of him being an idealistic outsider because it's probably his best shot, at least for now, but he has just as much experience and policy understanding as Clinton.

Clinton meanwhile has been anything but consistent or successful. Her push for universal healthcare as first lady failed, her senate term was marred by her support of the Iraq war and produced no notable pieces of legislation (Sanders has accomplished veteran's health reform and a suite of important amendments) and her time as secretary of state only yielded a disastrous invasion of Libya. Her lack of consistency is concerning less because she's "evil" but because it means that as a voter I have no idea what policies she would actually advocate for as President.

Sanders has the consistency, the experience, and the pragmatism needed in a president. He has been unflinching in his rhetoric, and yet willing to compromise in his actions, I can think of no better quality in a president.

[The Mountain 105]

6 minutes ago, Brennan said:

I could go on forever about this but I'll give a couple of moments from the second debate to illustrate how I feel.

Sanders was trying to hammer Clinton for not supporting a national $15 minimum wage. She was defending her position of a $12 minimum wage nationally while encouraging urban areas or states with higher standards of living to implement a higher minimum for their area. Clinton defended her position as more supported by economists and as more politically practical. Sanders' argument was that his was a better policy because it was a higher amount and was trying to portray Clinton as insufficiently liberal. He made no effort to argue why $15 would be economically more optimal than $12 but instead was basically playing his usual game of "I'm more liberal than you so you must be corrupt." It would have politically been expedient for her to neutralize his criticism by embracing $15 but instead offered a good justification for her policies.

I think it was also evident during the exchange over Glass-Steagall. Clinton's plan was more comprehensive and has support from prominent liberal economists. Elizabeth Warren has admitted that G-S would not have prevented the 2008 meltdown. But Sanders started hammering on Clinton for not embracing a liberal buzzword rather than addressing her larger plan. Clinton explained why how her plan was more comprehensive, had expert support, and would better address the 08 crisis but Sanders basically just came back to "she's corrupt because she doesn't agree with me." It has also come up on things like free trade or immigration where he has repeated all sorts of protectionist nonsense, ignoring expert opinion, and then called everyone everyone who disagrees with him a sell-out. Meanwhile he can propose whatever policy a liberal could wish for and then when asked about his tax increases to pay for it, he can only assure people that the top marginal rate will be less than 90%. It just goes to show that it is easier to oppose everyone else for not being as far left but he doesn't seem as interested in a putting out a realistic and detailed plan of his own.

Basically I support Clinton over Sanders because she seems intelligent, pragmatic, and actually cares about getting the nuts and bolts right. Sanders seems more focused on just checking off boxes for the far-left than really considering what the best policy is. Clinton has been consistently liberal but has also come to better appreciate that there is more to good policy than just being more pure than the other guy. She understands that there has to be some gameplan beyond hoping for a political revolution to deliver the liberal wishlist. It is one thing to a senator from ultra-liberal Vermont where you can make symbolic votes knowing that you almost never wield that much power by yourself. The president though has several areas where he or she alone has to make a realistic decision for the good of the entire country and I don't think should be primarily guided by passing a purity test.

I'm not saying you're wrong in your stats there, but to simply say "We focus on a middle man getting wealthy instead of people being healthy" is a massive oversimplification of not only our system, but also how we arrived at our system. The system we have now is the culmination of many changes in the law over many decades, each change crafted to attempt to improve the system in some way. I think it's wrongheaded to say that for all (or even many) of those changes, they came about because the individuals involved were focused on middle men getting wealthy and not on health. I think it's fairer to say that in each change, there was probably a combination of folks with good ideas/intentions and with bad ideas/intentions. If we attempted to pass some kind of universal health insurance program it's safe to say we'd have a similar grouping of good/bad ideas/intentions, not to mention consequences, intended and unintended. It's completely reasonable to be concerned over possible problems with that system even if the people who initiated it had the best of intentions.

My post above on your Atlantic article: The Atlantic is generally a good source, but it is a journalistic one, and the opinion article you reference is not written by an economist. You can't compare that to the words of PAUL KRUGMAN or the stated opinion of THE ECONOMIST staff (in their article on Bernie a few weeks ago) and pretend that your article in the Atlantic stands on equal footing.

Your "Bernie has many more" statement and link: while you do provide a list of economists that back Bernie on that, you provide no evidence that this is greater than the number of economists that support Hillary's position. Furthermore, the list of economists that you provide includes exactly zero big-name economists. I am in the final selection group for a position in banking regulation with the federal government, and did some of my studies at the LSE, a very highly ranked school. I recognize MAYBE one of the names and the last name is fairly common among economists so I can't be sure. Hillary is vocally supported by many big name economists,and from my own admittedly anecdotal experience the majority of economists overall.

As far as pushing through legislation, elsewhere in this thread I had a discussion with cloudy1 where we look at the numbers. They are not hugely different, but Hillary does have a bit more success in terms of co-sponsored and sponsored legislation pushed through per year than Bernie.

Finally Bernie chooses MMT (modern monetary theory) economists as his main advisers. While some non-MMT economists support his minimum wage policy, his overall plan has much less support. It should only take a little bit of research to discover that most economists consider MMT to be off in left field a bit.

Part of the problem with a $12 minimum wage where more urban populations have the choice to raise it is that those places will choose not to, because the services/goods they are selling will give slightly less profit to the company and thus if their counterparts are not paying more, why should they? There would be no incentive for them, from the perspective of their success. Even a $15 minimum wage is not enough to support a family on without government support.

By allowing employers to pay such low wages, we are subsidizing corporations with tax money. Why should we be paying so that McDonald's can have a higher profit?

It's been shown that when Seattle began raising the minimum wage, it didn't actually hurt their economy. They are raising it at about $1 per year, until it is $15. This is very similar to the plan Sanders has put forward.

Consumer spending drives our economy; we need to put more money in the hands of people who will spend it. As people working minimum wage jobs make very little money, they will spend what they make, thus stimulating the economy.

This reflects a lack of understanding of Sanders. He has consistently operated pragmatically on policy (if not in rhetoric) both in congress and as a mayor, and has worked with Republicans extensively. This mythology has been created of Sanders as the idealist and Clinton as the pragmatist, but it's pure fiction. Sanders is buying into the idea of him being an idealistic outsider because it's probably his best shot, at least for now, but he has just as much experience and policy understanding as Clinton.

Clinton meanwhile has been anything but consistent or successful. Her push for universal healthcare as first lady failed, her senate term was marred by her support of the Iraq war and produced no notable pieces of legislation (Sanders has accomplished veteran's health reform and a suite of important amendments) and her time as secretary of state only yielded a disastrous invasion of Libya. Her lack of consistency is concerning less because she's "evil" but because it means that as a voter I have no idea what policies she would actually advocate for as President.

Sanders has the consistency, the experience, and the pragmatism needed in a president. He has been unflinching in his rhetoric, and yet willing to compromise in his actions, I can think of no better quality in a president.

What is this copy pasted out of?

[ComradeGoonie 325]

*resisting urge to comment on politics.*

 

 

Democrats...

[BENJI 1021]

Hillary Clinton is a rat

[Linka 2935]

8 hours ago, Brennan said:

I could go on forever about this but I'll give a couple of moments from the second debate to illustrate how I feel.

Sanders was trying to hammer Clinton for not supporting a national $15 minimum wage. She was defending her position of a $12 minimum wage nationally while encouraging urban areas or states with higher standards of living to implement a higher minimum for their area. Clinton defended her position as more supported by economists and as more politically practical. Sanders' argument was that his was a better policy because it was a higher amount and was trying to portray Clinton as insufficiently liberal. He made no effort to argue why $15 would be economically more optimal than $12 but instead was basically playing his usual game of "I'm more liberal than you so you must be corrupt." It would have politically been expedient for her to neutralize his criticism by embracing $15 but instead offered a good justification for her policies.

I think it was also evident during the exchange over Glass-Steagall. Clinton's plan was more comprehensive and has support from prominent liberal economists. Elizabeth Warren has admitted that G-S would not have prevented the 2008 meltdown. But Sanders started hammering on Clinton for not embracing a liberal buzzword rather than addressing her larger plan. Clinton explained why how her plan was more comprehensive, had expert support, and would better address the 08 crisis but Sanders basically just came back to "she's corrupt because she doesn't agree with me." It has also come up on things like free trade or immigration where he has repeated all sorts of protectionist nonsense, ignoring expert opinion, and then called everyone everyone who disagrees with him a sell-out. Meanwhile he can propose whatever policy a liberal could wish for and then when asked about his tax increases to pay for it, he can only assure people that the top marginal rate will be less than 90%. It just goes to show that it is easier to oppose everyone else for not being as far left but he doesn't seem as interested in a putting out a realistic and detailed plan of his own.

Basically I support Clinton over Sanders because she seems intelligent, pragmatic, and actually cares about getting the nuts and bolts right. Sanders seems more focused on just checking off boxes for the far-left than really considering what the best policy is. Clinton has been consistently liberal but has also come to better appreciate that there is more to good policy than just being more pure than the other guy. She understands that there has to be some gameplan beyond hoping for a political revolution to deliver the liberal wishlist. It is one thing to a senator from ultra-liberal Vermont where you can make symbolic votes knowing that you almost never wield that much power by yourself. The president though has several areas where he or she alone has to make a realistic decision for the good of the entire country and I don't think should be primarily guided by passing a purity test.

I'm not saying you're wrong in your stats there, but to simply say "We focus on a middle man getting wealthy instead of people being healthy" is a massive oversimplification of not only our system, but also how we arrived at our system. The system we have now is the culmination of many changes in the law over many decades, each change crafted to attempt to improve the system in some way. I think it's wrongheaded to say that for all (or even many) of those changes, they came about because the individuals involved were focused on middle men getting wealthy and not on health. I think it's fairer to say that in each change, there was probably a combination of folks with good ideas/intentions and with bad ideas/intentions. If we attempted to pass some kind of universal health insurance program it's safe to say we'd have a similar grouping of good/bad ideas/intentions, not to mention consequences, intended and unintended. It's completely reasonable to be concerned over possible problems with that system even if the people who initiated it had the best of intentions.

My post above on your Atlantic article: The Atlantic is generally a good source, but it is a journalistic one, and the opinion article you reference is not written by an economist. You can't compare that to the words of PAUL KRUGMAN or the stated opinion of THE ECONOMIST staff (in their article on Bernie a few weeks ago) and pretend that your article in the Atlantic stands on equal footing.

Your "Bernie has many more" statement and link: while you do provide a list of economists that back Bernie on that, you provide no evidence that this is greater than the number of economists that support Hillary's position. Furthermore, the list of economists that you provide includes exactly zero big-name economists. I am in the final selection group for a position in banking regulation with the federal government, and did some of my studies at the LSE, a very highly ranked school. I recognize MAYBE one of the names and the last name is fairly common among economists so I can't be sure. Hillary is vocally supported by many big name economists,and from my own admittedly anecdotal experience the majority of economists overall.

As far as pushing through legislation, elsewhere in this thread I had a discussion with cloudy1 where we look at the numbers. They are not hugely different, but Hillary does have a bit more success in terms of co-sponsored and sponsored legislation pushed through per year than Bernie.

Finally Bernie chooses MMT (modern monetary theory) economists as his main advisers. While some non-MMT economists support his minimum wage policy, his overall plan has much less support. It should only take a little bit of research to discover that most economists consider MMT to be off in left field a bit.

Part of the problem with a $12 minimum wage where more urban populations have the choice to raise it is that those places will choose not to, because the services/goods they are selling will give slightly less profit to the company and thus if their counterparts are not paying more, why should they? There would be no incentive for them, from the perspective of their success. Even a $15 minimum wage is not enough to support a family on without government support.

By allowing employers to pay such low wages, we are subsidizing corporations with tax money. Why should we be paying so that McDonald's can have a higher profit?

It's been shown that when Seattle began raising the minimum wage, it didn't actually hurt their economy. They are raising it at about $1 per year, until it is $15. This is very similar to the plan Sanders has put forward.

Consumer spending drives our economy; we need to put more money in the hands of people who will spend it. As people working minimum wage jobs make very little money, they will spend what they make, thus stimulating the economy.

This reflects a lack of understanding of Sanders. He has consistently operated pragmatically on policy (if not in rhetoric) both in congress and as a mayor, and has worked with Republicans extensively. This mythology has been created of Sanders as the idealist and Clinton as the pragmatist, but it's pure fiction. Sanders is buying into the idea of him being an idealistic outsider because it's probably his best shot, at least for now, but he has just as much experience and policy understanding as Clinton.

Clinton meanwhile has been anything but consistent or successful. Her push for universal healthcare as first lady failed, her senate term was marred by her support of the Iraq war and produced no notable pieces of legislation (Sanders has accomplished veteran's health reform and a suite of important amendments) and her time as secretary of state only yielded a disastrous invasion of Libya. Her lack of consistency is concerning less because she's "evil" but because it means that as a voter I have no idea what policies she would actually advocate for as President.

Sanders has the consistency, the experience, and the pragmatism needed in a president. He has been unflinching in his rhetoric, and yet willing to compromise in his actions, I can think of no better quality in a president.

i think your are now better than benji and dustin87

and your voice is cute af

[Dustin87 864]

3 hours ago, Linka said:

i think your are now better than benji and dustin87

and your voice is cute af

hey hey hey i have made attempts to be more mature lately.

 

On the political matter... I dont support Hilary, I don't like Trump (although aspects of his campaign i do like ie the Immagration does need to be reformed). I like Sanders because he seems to be the lesser of two evils, not all of his policies are horrible but I would vote for him just so Hilary or Trump DOESN'T win. It's really an undesirable situation voting at all, I'm almost glad I can't vote because I honestly don't have a real clue what I would do. Also you have to factor that if you live in a D state like me, if you vote for Trump it literally doesn't count.

[Lethal 636]

I am ashamed to admit this. I will not be voting this year

 

 

[krypton 354]

9 hours ago, Dustin87 said:

hey hey hey i have made attempts to be more mature lately.

 

On the political matter... I dont support Hilary, I don't like Trump (although aspects of his campaign i do like ie the Immagration does need to be reformed). I like Sanders because he seems to be the lesser of two evils, not all of his policies are horrible but I would vote for him just so Hilary or Trump DOESN'T win. It's really an undesirable situation voting at all, I'm almost glad I can't vote because I honestly don't have a real clue what I would do. Also you have to factor that if you live in a D state like me, if you vote for Trump it literally doesn't count.

You realize only trump or hillary can win, and if u vote otherwise it gives the worse of those 2 candidates(in the voters own opinion) a better chance.