Originally posted by Bardock42
It's true that some Anti-Hillary Republican groups have hit her on these issues, but not because that's something Republicans care about. These groups dislike Hillary and probably think that they could defeat Sanders handily in the general election, but the points they use to attack Hillary are points that progressives care about (which is not to say that they are right in these criticisms, but they are definitely different from the constant attacks that, for example, the Republican candidates mount at Clinton.But maybe let me ask you this. You obviously think there are valid attacks on Sanders, since you have used some in the past. What do you think are valid criticisms of Clinton that Sanders supporters can put forth?
I prefer that Democrats talk about policy. For example, Clinton has a foreign policy and Sanders has a foreign policy. Let us discuss the areas where those policies are different and which will be better at helping us achieve our collective goals. At the end, if you believe that one candidate has a better vision for America, then support that candidate. That is how the Democratic campaigns were conducting themselves before conservative Super PACs started trying to pit them against each other. That is a stark contrast to dog whistling supporters with innuendos intended to impugn someone's character. Leave that shit to Republicans.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I prefer that Democrats talk about policy. For example, Clinton has a foreign policy and Sanders has a foreign policy. Let us discuss the areas where those policies are different and which will be better at helping us achieve our collective goals. At the end, if you believe that one candidate has a better vision for America, then support that candidate. That is how the Democratic campaigns were conducting themselves before conservative Super PACs started trying to pit them against each other. That is a stark contrast to dog whistling supporters with innuendos intended to impugn someone's character. Leave that shit to Republicans.
I agree with your general point, but it seems like you only seem to point it out when it comes to Sanders. Clinton is running a very aggressive campaign herself, often not focussing on policy, and attacking Sanders in a much more "mud-slinging" way. And if I recall correctly this is not just this election, the Clinton campaign in 2008 got similarly aggressive towards Obama as well.
At any rate, compared to the Republicans, the Democratic campaigns have been relatively mild so far, which I think is good, but as it is becoming more heated it seems to deteriorate more.
Again though, I would like to know if there is any criticism of Clinton (based on policy) that you think is valid or that you see as an issue?
Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree with your general point, but it seems like you only seem to point it out when it comes to Sanders. Clinton is running a very aggressive campaign herself, often not focussing on policy, and attacking Sanders in a much more "mud-slinging" way.
Examples? Because pushing back against an attack is not an attack.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Again though, I would like to know if there is any criticism of Clinton (based on policy) that you think is valid or that you see as an issue?
I think it could be argued that her policies do not go far left enough to appeal to liberal Democratic voters. Obama faced the same criticism. I think this is part of the reason for the enthusiasm gap among certain voters.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Examples? Because pushing back against an attack is not an attack.I think it could be argued that her policies do not go far left enough to appeal to liberal Democratic voters. Obama faced the same criticism. I think this is part of the reason for the enthusiasm gap among certain voters.
Well, the talking point that Sanders wants to dismantle Obama care is just nonesense, trying to make him seem like a cook. The attacks on female Bernie Sanders supporters is definitely not about policies either. The attack that Sanders is dishonest, for example for running an ad that claims he was endorsed by a newspaper, even though that ad actually wasn't run at all, is just a smear as well. Basically the whole campaign is trying to paint Sanders as someone who lacks integrity now. And a lot of the policy attacks are just twisted or outright misinformation.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, the talking point that Sanders wants to dismantle Obama care is just nonesense, trying to make him seem like a cook.
The Affordable Care Act is a reform of the private health insurance system. Medicare/Medicaid is a government health care system.
You cannot move everyone from private health insurance to government health care without effectively eliminating the private health insurance industry.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The attacks on female Bernie Sanders supporters is definitely not about policies either.
The Clinton campaign has not attacked female Sanders supporters.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The attack that Sanders is dishonest, for example for running an ad that claims he was endorsed by a newspaper, even though that ad actually wasn't run at all, is just a smear as well.
Actually, the advertisement in question did run. It was only revised after the newspaper released a statement that it made no such endorsement. Ordinarily, this would not be newsworthy, but this was the fifth time something like this has happened in so many weeks.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The Affordable Care Act is a reform of the private health insurance system. Medicare/Medicaid is a government health care system.You cannot move everyone from private health insurance to government health care without effectively eliminating the private health insurance industry.
The Clinton campaign has not attacked female Sanders supporters.
Actually, the advertisement in question did run. It was only revised after the newspaper released a statement that it made no such endorsement. Ordinarily, this would not be newsworthy, but this was the fifth time something like this has happened in so many weeks.
That's the misrepresentation though. Sanders wants to evolve it into a public system, Clinton pretends he wants to scrap Obamacare and start over. It's intentionally misleading to make it seem like he would destroy Obamacare, when really he's saying he wants to build on it to get everyone covered (which Obamacare sadly failed to do).
The Clinton campaign has people speak for her saying "there's a special place in hell for women who don't help other women" just a couple days ago, and Clinton does support that, and yes, that is an attack on female Sanders supporters.
The advertisement did not run claiming that there was an endorsement, that again is misleading.
I just think it's pretty obvious that the Clinton campaign is not focussing solely on policy and is not solely replying to attacks, but they are partaking in attacking the Sanders campaign in ways that you disagree with when Sanders campaign does it, some may say they use "artful smears" to discredit Sanders personally in many different ways.
#gottem
Moving on, who thinks that Rubio is an actual automoton, or robot, or had some MK Ultra programming breakdown?
He had another breakdown.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's the misrepresentation though. Sanders wants to evolve it into a public system, Clinton pretends he wants to scrap Obamacare and start over. It's intentionally misleading to make it seem like he would destroy Obamacare, when really he's saying he wants to build on it to get everyone covered (which Obamacare sadly failed to do).
It is not a misrepresentation. Replacing the private system with a public system in no way builds on the private system, it eliminates it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The Clinton campaign has people speak for her saying "there's a special place in hell for women who don't help other women" just a couple days ago, and Clinton does support that, and yes, that is an attack on female Sanders supporters.
"People are talking about revolution. What kind of a revolution would it be to have the first woman president of the United States? Young women, you have to help. Hillary Clinton will always be there for you. And remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don't help other women."
In an interview, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright did not apologize for her recent remarks, but rather said she felt that people were taking her remarks out of context.
The place-in-hell quote is something Albright has said for more than 40 years, and was more aimed at older women not helping younger ones get a leg up in the workforce.
"I said that I think that people need to understand who has been really fighting on their behalf on issues that are of interest to women and clearly Hillary Clinton has and I have said there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women a lot—it’s so famous that it ended up on a Starbucks cup—because I do think that just generally, we are very judgmental of each other. And that we put women through tests that we do not put men through. And so that’s what I was saying."
To extrapolate that to "There is a special place in hell for female Sanders supporters who do not vote for Clinton" is dishonest.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The advertisement did not run claiming that there was an endorsement, that again is misleading.
Bernie Sanders Ad Claims or Implies Endorsements from New Hampshire Newspapers: TRUE
Bernie Sanders Mistaken About Whether His Campaign's Ad Had Cited a Nonexistent Endorsement: TRUE
Originally posted by Bardock42
I just think it's pretty obvious that the Clinton campaign is not focussing solely on policy and is not solely replying to attacks, but they are partaking in attacking the Sanders campaign in ways that you disagree with when Sanders campaign does it, some may say they use "artful smears" to discredit Sanders personally in many different ways.
Examples?
Well, it's obvious that we disagree on how to weigh these examples. I feel that these three examples show very well how the Clinton campaign and its supporters twists things to attack Sanders. And I don't think we'll be able to convince the other on this particular topic.
Additionally I feel that Sanders very much stands up against wrong doings by his supporters and campaign, while Clinton tacitly supports it, which I find distasteful (we probably disagree on that as well).
At any rate, I am ultimately not a die-hard Sanders supporter, I am perfectly fine with either of them, but Clinton's messaging has struck me as more disingenuous and aggressive than Sanders.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
#gottemMoving on, who thinks that Rubio is an actual automoton, or robot, or had some MK Ultra programming breakdown?
He had another breakdown.
He's what Christie pointed out, a sound bite machine, spewing prepared points at given trigger words.
There's still a lot of variety since the precincts voting in tend to be small, and numbers could change a *lot*. We won't have the real answers for awhile.
Seabrook Precinct- the first one to come in that has a four digit population-
Donald Trump 954 votes 51.8%
Jeb Bush 196 votes 10.6%
Ted Cruz 177 votes 9.6%
Marco Rubio 174 votes 9.5%
John Kasich 120 votes 6.5%
Chris Christie 109 votes 5.9%
Other 45 votes 2.4%
Ben Carson 34 votes 1.8%
Carly Fiorina 32 votes 1.7%
Jim Gilmore 0 votes 0.0%
Decision Desk live updating page.
At the moment, Sanders leads Hillary by 16 points (about what I predicted), Trump's ahead of Kasich by 14.
Still only 7% of precincts reporting, though.
Originally posted by Robtard
"Other" managed more votes than Carson. Ouch, that has to hit the ego.
There's also Gilmore, who at an impressive 6 votes is shaping up for a come-from-behind win.