Sanders Blasts Clinton's Refusal to Debate 'Insulting to Voters'
53 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50384135]It's going to be really upsetting to watch Trump take the presidency[/QUOTE]
Upsetting is the biggest understatement of the millennium.
[QUOTE=ironman17;50384150]I dunno if I asked this already, but if Hillary got thrown in the stocks and out of the race, would Bernie sweep the win?[/QUOTE]
It's not going to happen, but yeah, it's quite likely. Trump's got a lot of dirt on Hillary because she wallows in it. He's really got nothing on Bernie aside from the fact that Bernie's in favour of more demanding tax brackets for the wealthy. And since they're both running on a platform of electoral reform, most Americans would go with the one who seems sensible, respectable and sane. Not to mention politically experienced with a pretty clean record.
[QUOTE=rilez;50384145]Because she said she would. Now that she is the presumed nominee, she won't.
It's not just about the debate. This is as an extension of her overall trust problem. If I can't hold her accountable to a debate schedule, does that mean she'll go back on other campaign promises? Like TPP?
Personally, she just reminds me of Romney. I don't want a Romney running against someone like Trump[/QUOTE]
This is the fucked up kind of thing. TPP is one of the MAJOR issues facing North America at the moment. Does the media talk about it? No, because they stand to profit from it being passed. Does any politician talk about it? No because they stand to profit from it.
TPP will pass, without a fucking hint of resistance, and voting for Hilary means it'll pass THAT much faster, but it's either vote for the TPP straight up, or it's vote for an orange zested lunatic
[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;50383035]All the more reason for him to paint her as insulting Californians in an attempt to paint her as cowardly to debate him. If he gets her to debate, he wins. If she refuses, he wins. It's a minute victory for him. Won't change much unfortunately.[/QUOTE]
Your post reminds me of Smurfy's post of a headline a while ago, "How Clinton's inauguration means Sanders is winning".
[editline]24th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Reshy;50383807]Really? Lots of people still don't know about him.[/QUOTE]
Bull
Shit
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50384165]This is the fucked up kind of thing. TPP is one of the MAJOR issues facing North America at the moment. Does the media talk about it? No, because they stand to profit from it being passed. Does any politician talk about it? No because they stand to profit from it.
TPP will pass, without a fucking hint of resistance, and voting for Hilary means it'll pass THAT much faster, but it's either vote for the TPP straight up, or it's vote for an orange zested lunatic[/QUOTE]
I'm not convinced that Hillary will immediately pass the TPP. If you look at her history with other free trade agreements, it's far more nuanced than it appears. She championed NAFTA as First Lady in 1998, but then later was hesitant towards the bill. She voted against CAFTA in 2005, expressing concerns that it would cause job loss in the US. In 2007, she repeatedly stated that NAFTA was detrimental and that its implementation caused job loss in the US.
Concerning the TPP, I'm not convinced her sudden change of opinion on it is an outright lie. She's promoted the TPP as up to higher standards than NAFTA and CAFTA, [i]before[/i] negotiations were finished. While the bill was being negotiated, she championed it. The bill was finally drafted on October 5, 2015. [i]Two days after the final draft was finally negotiated[/i], on October 7, she came out in opposition of it.
Is it possible that the TPP changed during negotiations and that Hillary's opinion of the final draft was negative? She's criticized both NAFTA and CAFTA and actively campaigned against CAFTA. It looks to me like the TPP's final draft reflected the same concerns she had towards CAFTA and NAFTA, and so she reneged on her support of it.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50384523]I'm not convinced that Hillary will immediately pass the TPP. If you look at her history with other free trade agreements, it's far more nuanced than it appears. She championed NAFTA as First Lady in 1998, but then later was hesitant towards the bill. She voted against CAFTA in 2005, expressing concerns that it would cause job loss in the US. In 2007, she repeatedly stated that NAFTA was detrimental and that its implementation caused job loss in the US.
Concerning the TPP, I'm not convinced her sudden change of opinion on it is an outright lie. She's promoted the TPP as up to higher standards than NAFTA and CAFTA, [i]before[/i] negotiations were finished. While the bill was being negotiated, she championed it. The bill was finally drafted on October 5, 2015. [i]Two days after the final draft was finally negotiated[/i], on October 7, she came out in opposition of it.
Is it possible that the TPP changed during negotiations and that Hillary's opinion of the final draft was negative? She's criticized both NAFTA and CAFTA and actively campaigned against CAFTA. It looks to me like the TPP's final draft reflected the same concerns she had towards CAFTA and NAFTA, and so she reneged on her support of it.[/QUOTE]
She only came out as against it because Bernie did. Don't forget during that time last year, Bernie support was swelling, and she was flip flopping as fast as humanely possible to get all the bernie votes.
She gets in office, that thing will fly through without objections. Her various thoughts on massive trade bills down the line has usually been "Well we could have done that better". As much as I want to believe she'll help the american people(and by extension, my nation) I don't think she will. I think TPP is too profitable for her, and her multinational backers to ever decline it.
Hilary is going to be beholden to her financial interests like any other politician is. Politicians at a national level aren't as easily bought, but they play the long game at that scale. I'm sure it'll pass.
Canada's Treudeau is in full support of the TPP despite public sentiment being 100% against it. You americans will see the same thing soon enough.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50384556]She only came out as against it because Bernie did. Don't forget during that time last year, Bernie support was swelling, and she was flip flopping as fast as humanely possible to get all the bernie votes.
She gets in office, that thing will fly through without objections. Her various thoughts on massive trade bills down the line has usually been "Well we could have done that better". As much as I want to believe she'll help the american people(and by extension, my nation) I don't think she will. I think TPP is too profitable for her, and her multinational backers to ever decline it.
Hilary is going to be beholden to her financial interests like any other politician is. Politicians at a national level aren't as easily bought, but they play the long game at that scale. I'm sure it'll pass.
Canada's Treudeau is in full support of the TPP despite public sentiment being 100% against it. You americans will see the same thing soon enough.[/QUOTE]
Again, based on her policy decisions and her words [i]decades ago[/i] in opposition to NAFTA and CAFTA, why should I think that her flop on the TPP is a reaction to Sanders' popularity? She criticized CAFTA because it would export US jobs and worsen economic conditions for American workers. She consistently criticized it for those exact reasons and opposed it throughout its lifespan. As soon as the TPP was finalized, she opposed it.
The idea that Hillary just wants to open up as much free trade as possible to get money from her corporate benefactors isn't true in the slightest. If you look at the language she used in support of the TPP during its negotiation stage, it isn't at all "this is the best thing ever we need to pass it." She said that she [I]hoped[/I] it would "create a new high standard for multilateral free trade." She was clearly optimistic about the bill - but she's opposed many other major free trade agreements, including CAFTA, because they weren't up to labor rights standards. She voted against the Trade Act of 2002, another free trade act.
She's consistently brought up concerns about labor rights in free trade deals. Consistently. Her flop on the TPP doesn't seem inconsistent to me - it seems natural based on her previous voting record of free trade deals. I am completely unconvinced that Hillary actually secretly supports the TPP, considering that Hillary [i]immediately[/i] reneged her support of the TPP less than 48 hours after the draft was finalized.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50384415]Your post reminds me of Smurfy's post of a headline a while ago, "How Clinton's inauguration means Sanders is winning".
Bull
Shit[/QUOTE]
We know about him because we're closely invested into the politics, I'm fairly certain a lot of people either can't place the name or if they do they don't know his policy positions (my grandparents are the latter, for instance).
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50384615]Again, based on her policy decisions and her words [i]decades ago[/i] in opposition to NAFTA and CAFTA, why should I think that her flop on the TPP is a reaction to Sanders' popularity? She criticized CAFTA because it would export US jobs and worsen economic conditions for American workers. She consistently criticized it for those exact reasons and opposed it throughout its lifespan. As soon as the TPP was finalized, she opposed it.
The idea that Hillary just wants to open up as much free trade as possible to get money from her corporate benefactors isn't true in the slightest. If you look at the language she used in support of the TPP during its negotiation stage, it isn't at all "this is the best thing ever we need to pass it." She said that she [I]hoped[/I] it would "create a new high standard for multilateral free trade." She was clearly optimistic about the bill - but she's opposed many other major free trade agreements, including CAFTA, because they weren't up to labor rights standards. She voted against the Trade Act of 2002, another free trade act.
She's consistently brought up concerns about labor rights in free trade deals. Consistently. Her flop on the TPP doesn't seem inconsistent to me - it seems natural based on her previous voting record of free trade deals. I am completely unconvinced that Hillary actually secretly supports the TPP, considering that Hillary [i]immediately[/i] reneged her support of the TPP less than 48 hours after the draft was finalized.[/QUOTE]
I guess we'll see. I get your stand point and you have your reasons for it. I just can't get myself to believe she'll do that. She's clearly the only choice left, which is horrendous, but she's the only choice you have. So vote for her. I'm just not going to trust that she's not going to sign the TPP. The american people are against it. So are my people, but we've already signed it. So I wonder, how much does that actually matter
[QUOTE=Reshy;50384636]We know about him because we're closely invested into the politics, I'm fairly certain a lot of people either can't place the name or if they do they don't know his policy positions (my grandparents are the latter, for instance).[/QUOTE]
Anyone who is planning to vote in the remaining primaries already know who the candidates are.
We've had election coverage for nearly 6 months now. Anyone who doesn't know the candidates aren't going to be voting anyway.
I honestly don't see the reason for more Democratic debates. They were boring as shit to watch because both candidates agree on nearly everything.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50384135]It's going to be really upsetting to watch Trump take the presidency[/QUOTE]
Americans will get what they deserve, one way or the other. When people lose their healthcare, when abortions become impossible, when LGBT rights are rolled back, when corporations gain more power and influence, and when the United States goes bankrupt due to a ludicrous tax plan that economists on the left and right both say is a disaster, people will want for the "status quo" nominee.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50384165]This is the fucked up kind of thing. TPP is one of the MAJOR issues facing North America at the moment. Does the media talk about it? No, because they stand to profit from it being passed. Does any politician talk about it? No because they stand to profit from it.
TPP will pass, without a fucking hint of resistance, and voting for Hilary means it'll pass THAT much faster, but it's either vote for the TPP straight up, or it's vote for an orange zested lunatic[/QUOTE]
I was watching CNN the other day and they were talking about TPP, it's definitely in the media.
[editline]24th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;50383692]Who would ever vote for the political hawk that fights to defend the broken status quo, when you can vote for an anti-establishment radical politician/businessman that could change the entire political game?[/QUOTE]
"Broken" status quo is a whole hell of a lot better than what Trump is offering.
it seems to me that Trump would hurt the anti-establishment platform more than anything else. in the very likely event that he fucks everything up it'll be really easy to say "this is why we had the status quo in the first place."
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50384910]"Broken" status quo is a whole hell of a lot better than what Trump is offering.[/QUOTE]
perfect case in point. "remember when the North Atlantic wasn't 70% garbage and battery acid? remember when America didn't have a half-built $3 billion wall on its south side? vote [B]secure[/B]: vote [B]Democrat[/B]." there is no cause which his name does not tar.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50384910]I honestly don't see the reason for more Democratic debates. They were boring as shit to watch because both candidates agree on nearly everything.[/QUOTE]
I couldn't disagree more. Sure they're in line with each other on social issues but on practically everything else they have very different positions. Sanders supports universal single-payer healthcare, which Clinton opposes. She talks plenty about achieving universal coverage under the ACA, but what's the use of getting coverage you can't afford? As for foreign policy, Sanders is practically the only candidate that recognizes the cycle of destabilization we've been pursuing since orchestrating the coup that overthrew Mosadegh in Iran. That, and his energy policy is geared toward reducing dependence on foreign oil, which has literally dictated our foreign policy for the last century. Clinton on the other hand is a war hawk who buys into the same "regime change" silver-bullet thinking that started this whole mess in the first place.
It makes sense for pundits to claim the Democratic candidates agree on everything when the logic of the political system is based on defeating the other side. Democrats need to beat Republicans, Republicans need to beat Democrats, etc. We don't take a hard look at the candidates' positions, because positions aren't relevant to the power structure.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50384910]I honestly don't see the reason for more Democratic debates. They were boring as shit to watch because both candidates agree on nearly everything. [/QUOTE]
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3iBb1gvehI]Relevant[/url]
[QUOTE=mcharest;50395427]I couldn't disagree more. Sure they're in line with each other on social issues but on practically everything else they have very different positions. Sanders supports universal single-payer healthcare, which Clinton opposes. She talks plenty about achieving universal coverage under the ACA, but what's the use of getting coverage you can't afford? As for foreign policy, Sanders is practically the only candidate that recognizes the cycle of destabilization we've been pursuing since orchestrating the coup that overthrew Mosadegh in Iran. That, and his energy policy is geared toward reducing dependence on foreign oil, which has literally dictated our foreign policy for the last century. Clinton on the other hand is a war hawk who buys into the same "regime change" silver-bullet thinking that started this whole mess in the first place.
It makes sense for pundits to claim the Democratic candidates agree on everything when the logic of the political system is based on defeating the other side. Democrats need to beat Republicans, Republicans need to beat Democrats, etc. We don't take a hard look at the candidates' positions, because positions aren't relevant to the power structure.[/QUOTE]
Yeah and those are really the only positions they disagree on rhetorically. I also somewhat doubt Clinton's new stance against free trade, but with regards to debates on almost every subject they either outright agree or slightly disagree except foreign policy where they differ quite drastically. I think they both want to see universal health coverage, it's just Clinton believes the best way to do that is working through the ACA, or conversely doesn't think that but believes it would be incredibly awkward to publicly trash Obama's keystone achievement.
I just don't know what more we can gain from the debates that we don't know already. Everything seems to have been said. I'm not specifically saying there shouldn't be any more, I'm just not personally interested. And it's not even an indictment against the candidates. If anything I think it's a good thing that the Democrats have two candidates that manage to go to a debate and consistently joust on policy. It's way better than the circus that is the GOP.
[editline]26th May 2016[/editline]
Like I don't think pundits claim that they agree on everything to push a narrative I think it's because both candidates agree on everything except three (tops?) issues. Personally I've always focused on positions and policy because that's what I want out of my leaders.
What I don't get about this contest is the obsessive focus on domestic policy. The President has little control over that. It has [I]grown[/I], but usually it is much less than power over foreign policy. Sanders can talk all he likes about his massive increases in taxing and spending, but none of it will get done. Domestic policy is ultimately controlled by Congress (unlike foreign policy), and given that Obama only got Obamacare passed through compromise with conservative Southern Democrats over issues like abortion, and got his stimulus packages reduced by them, how will Sanders, given that the Republicans are stronger than they have been in years, get anything through at all? Enough domestic policy.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397319]What I don't get about this contest is the obsessive focus on domestic policy. The President has little control over that. It has [I]grown[/I], but usually it is much less than power over foreign policy. Sanders can talk all he likes about his massive increases in taxing and spending, but none of it will get done. Domestic policy is ultimately controlled by Congress (unlike foreign policy), and given that Obama only got Obamacare passed through compromise with conservative Southern Democrats over issues like abortion, and got his stimulus packages reduced by them, how will Sanders, given that the Republicans are stronger than they have been in years, get anything through at all? Enough domestic policy.[/QUOTE]
So is the answer to everything with you just to perpetually kick the can down the road so we don't have to deal with any issues now?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50397365]So is the answer to everything with you just to perpetually kick the can down the road so we don't have to deal with any issues now?[/QUOTE]
No. I think there is a space for domestic issues. But any Presidential candidate should admit that their powers are limited (they aren't a dictator, and they don't control the executive) and their power over foreign policy is greater. Of course you can build a platform of political change domestically. But you need to make these admissions, and give enough room (which hasn't been done) to issues that your office truly will have control over.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397440]No. I think there is a space for domestic issues. But any Presidential candidate should admit that their powers are limited (they aren't a dictator, and they don't control the executive) and their power over foreign policy is greater. Of course you can build a platform of political change domestically. But you need to make these admissions, and give enough room (which hasn't been done) to issues that your office truly will have control over.[/QUOTE]
So yeah essentially any changes on that front will have to be fought "next time"
[QUOTE=mcharest;50395427]I couldn't disagree more. Sure they're in line with each other on social issues but on practically everything else they have very different positions. Sanders supports universal single-payer healthcare, which Clinton opposes. She talks plenty about achieving universal coverage under the ACA, but what's the use of getting coverage you can't afford? As for foreign policy, Sanders is practically the only candidate that recognizes the cycle of destabilization we've been pursuing since orchestrating the coup that overthrew Mosadegh in Iran. That, and his energy policy is geared toward reducing dependence on foreign oil, which has literally dictated our foreign policy for the last century. Clinton on the other hand is a war hawk who buys into the same "regime change" silver-bullet thinking that started this whole mess in the first place.
It makes sense for pundits to claim the Democratic candidates agree on everything when the logic of the political system is based on defeating the other side. Democrats need to beat Republicans, Republicans need to beat Democrats, etc. We don't take a hard look at the candidates' positions, because positions aren't relevant to the power structure.[/QUOTE]
Sanders supports Universal Healthcare. Hillary used to support Universal Healthcare, but gave up on it after failing repeatedly time and time again between her time as First Lady and the last Democratic primary, so now she's aiming at improving the incremental progress that has been achieved in spite of a lack of cooperation. Trump does not support Universal Healthcare, and thinks it's "unrealistic."
Sanders does not want any boots on the ground in Syria. Hillary wants boots on the ground in Syria. Trump wants boots on the ground in Syria.
Sanders supports funding NATO to hold back Russian territorial expansion. Hillary supports funding NATO to hold back Russian territorial expansion. Trump wants to back out of NATO (because it's a "scam") and become friends with Putin.
Sanders supports a $15 minimum wage. Hillary supported a $12 minimum wage, and has supported an increased minimum wage consistently since the 90s. Trump does not support any minimum wage increase.
They don't agree entirely, no doubt. But if you really think Hillary's a war hawk when Trump advocates torture and open murder of civilians, you should really reconsider what counts as "hawkish" behavior.
[editline]26th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50397319]What I don't get about this contest is the obsessive focus on domestic policy. The President has little control over that. It has [I]grown[/I], but usually it is much less than power over foreign policy. Sanders can talk all he likes about his massive increases in taxing and spending, but none of it will get done. Domestic policy is ultimately controlled by Congress (unlike foreign policy), and given that Obama only got Obamacare passed through compromise with conservative Southern Democrats over issues like abortion, and got his stimulus packages reduced by them, how will Sanders, given that the Republicans are stronger than they have been in years, get anything through at all? Enough domestic policy.[/QUOTE]
Exactly why I usually spend my time focusing on how international relations will suffer under a Trump presidency. You thought people hated Bush? Trump's Bush on steroids. International relations would suffer. High tariffs and trade restrictions would put a bullet in international trade. Trade wars and retaliatory actions would be incited.
Yes, Trump's protectionist policies when it comes to [i]military action[/i] are [i]ever so slightly[/i] better than Hillary's. His foreign policy when it comes to international relations and trade are abysmal in comparison. He'd tank the image of the US and end diplomatic relations because people insulted him. The president is largely a figurehead that handles international relations - Trump would be awful in that role.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50397365]So is the answer to everything with you just to perpetually kick the can down the road so we don't have to deal with any issues now?[/QUOTE]
No dude he is saying that Congress controls and allocates spending not the president.
Why do you take practical statements and extrapolate them out to these sweeping emotional strawmen.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50397607]No dude he is saying that Congress controls and allocates spending not the president.
Why do you take practical statements and extrapolate them out to these sweeping emotional strawmen.[/QUOTE]
how is that a sweeping emotional strawman?
Yes it's in Congresses hands. It always has been. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that dismissing the domestic side of a president because of that difficulty is part of the attitude that helps prolong the system we're in. So emotional. So sweeping.
Okay we don't elect presidents based on domestic issues, but no one cares about local politics enough to make the change where it counts, so yes, that's in fact, kicking the can down the road.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50383166]Sanders hitting clinton on her awful poll numbers vs trump.
Transcripts still arent released, would be nice to force her to talk about that
Clinton is scared because she knows what little support she has is dwindling[/QUOTE]
why would clinton agree to this????
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;50397703]why would clinton agree to this????[/QUOTE]
She wouldn't, and she didn't. What's your point?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.