あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]SomeFakeInternetName 715ポイント716ポイント  (442子コメント)

So they're two wedge issues away from being full up republicans.

[–]ecloc 177ポイント178ポイント  (74子コメント)

Edit

Hit 10,000 char limit :(

Highlights

DNC platform committee meeting on June 24, 2016.

Hillary's delegates voted against:

  • TPP ban
  • fracking ban
  • medicare for all, single-payer option
  • $15/hr national minimum wage

What was approved:

  • eliminate mandate requiring 75yr prefunding of USPS pensions
  • new Glass Steagall financial protections
  • progressive tax on millionaires/billionaires
  • student loan refinancing, income based repayment, restore bankruptcy discharge
  • add tax to curb Wall St. speculation and HFT
  • abolish the death penalty
  • motion to de-criminalize marijuana

Democratic Platform Drafting Hearing - St. Louis - Day 1 - Morning section

00:52:18 - Congressman Keith Ellison proposes Amendment to oppose TPP, explains that TPP depresses wages, encourages wage stagnation
00:55:00 - Chairman Elijah Cummings objects to discussion of TPP Amendment out of order (under minimum wage)
00:57:00 - Congressman Keith Ellison re-iterates need for specific language
00:59:40 - Congressman Keith Ellison proposes Amendment to "raise minimum wage to $15/hr and index it"
01:07:42 - Ellison Amendment to raise mimimum wage to $15/hr and index for inflation defeated [vote 8-6]
01:35:22 - Chairman Elijah Cummings calls for 1hr lunch break. Video feed cut for 1 hour and 40 min
03:14:50 - Chairman Elijah Cummings introduces Debbie Wasserman Schultz to speak.
03:22:53 - Video ends abruptly


Democratic Platform Drafting Hearing - St. Louis - Day 1 - Afternoon section

00:06:38 - Bill McKibben introduces Amendment to lift cap on Social Security contributions from people earning above $250,000/yr.
00:16:05 - Keith Ellison introduces Amendment to remove US Postal Service 75yr pre-funding mandate.
00:23:34 - Amendment to eliminate USPS prefunding pension mandate - approved - [vote unanimous]
00:31:09 - Keith Ellison introduces Amendment to introduce HFT transaction tax to curb Wall St. speculation.
00:39:15 - Dr. Cornel West proposes an Amendment for an updated version of Glass Steagall
00:43:00 - West Amendment to re-introduce updated Glass Steagall - approved - [vote unanimous]


Trans Pacific Partnership

00:47:20 - Keith Ellison introduces Amendment to oppose TPP, long discussion ensues
00:51:15 - Dr. Cornel West expresses opposition to TPP corporate power
00:52:40 - Bill McKibben expresses opposition to TPP anti-democratic nature
00:54:18 - Deborah Parker expresses opposition to TPP
00:54:55 - Paul Booth expresses opposition to TPP {but votes to support TPP!}
00:57:45 - Luis Gutierrez expresses opposition to TPP {votes to support TPP because Obama supports it!}
00:59:30 - Chairman Elijah Cummings opposes TPP {votes to support TPP because Obama supports it!}
01:09:35 - Ellison Amendment to oppose TPP - defeated - [vote 10-5]

  • for Amendment to oppose TPP
    Cornel West, Keith Ellison, Bill McKibben, Paul Zogby, Deborah Parker
  • against Amendment to oppose TPP
    Chairman Elijah Cummings, Barbara Lee, Carol Browner, Paul Booth, Wendy Sherman, Patrice Taylor, Luis Gutierrez, Howard Berman, Bonnie Schaefer, Alicia Reece

01:12:48 - Dr. Cornel West objects to toothless party unity platitudes of Booth Amendment
01:13:28 - Warren Gunnels - we've been down this destructive free trade road before.
01:17:48 - Booth Amendment - toothless party unity platitudes - approved - [vote 10-4]


01:18:18 - Keith Ellison introduces Amendment to add progressive multi-millionaires and billionaires tax
01:20:15 - Ellison Amendment - progressive tax on millionaires/billionaires - approved - [vote unanimous]
01:20:30 - Keith Ellison re-introduces Amendment to add tax to curb Wall St. speculation and HFT.
01:22:00 - Ellison Amendment - tax to curb Wall St. speculation and HFT. - approved - [vote unanimous]


SHORT BREAK

01:23:00 - 01:50:00


02:11:35 - Bill McKibben introduces Amendment to remove Marijuana from controlled substances act.
02:15:35 - Dr. James Zogby introduces Amendment to abolish the death penalty.
02:47:50 - Zogby Amendment - abolish the death penalty - approved - [vote unanimous]


LONG DINNER BREAK

03:00:00 - 05:07:00


05:16:19 - McKibben Amendment - de-criminalize marijuana, push to states for legalization - approved - [vote unanimous]
05:49:45 - Discussion about climate change and DNC amendment for national fracking ban
06:00:59 - Dr. Cornel West discuses dire importance of climate change.
06:06:00 - DNC Amendment to call for national ban on fracking defeated [vote 7-6] shame!! lol
06:12:50 - Exchange between Dr. Cornel West and Carol Browner, Elijah Cummings drops gavel lol
06:14:20 - DNC Amendment - fossil fuels - no new leases on federal lands - defeated [vote 7-6]
06:44:35 - Dicussion about Amendment for DOJ to investigate corporate fraud by fossil fuel companies
06:51:15 - Cornel West: DOJ is already investigating Exxon/Mobil. Why not prosecute?
06:52:40 - DNC Amendment - have DOJ investigate fosil fuel corp fraud - approved [vote unanimous]
07:29:00 - Dr. James Zogby proposes Amendment for Medicare for all single payer healthcare
07:34:00 - Congressman Keith Ellison discusses skyrocketing costs of private insurance
07:42:18 - DNC Amendment - include medicare for all, single payer option - defeated [vote 7-6]
07:43:19 - Congressman Keith Ellison calls out Hillary delegate Patrice Taylors's weakened healthcare Amendment
07:48:10 - Dr. Cornel West discusses importance of using clear language, not abstract toothless language
07:50:10 - DNC Amendment - Toothless healthcare as a right, costs not addressed - approved [vote 12-1]
07:58:30 - Barbara Lee proposes Amendment covering student loans: refinancing, income based repayment, restore right to dischage in bankruptcy
08:01:00 - DNC Amendment - student loans: refinancing, income based repayment, restore bankruptcy discharge - approved [vote unanimous]
08:12:40 - Dr. James Zogby introduces Amendment to add stronger language to prevent perpetual war, no-fly zones, and military intervention in Syria.
08:33:24 - Dr. James Zogby introduces Amendment to add fair language to address Palestine and Israel.
08:53:58 - Dr. James Zogby gets fed up at time disparity in opposition to fair language of the Israel/Palestinian Amendment.
08:57:30 - Dr. Cornel West discusses importance of truth, occupation, and fair language regarding Israel and Palestine.
09:04:00 - DNC Amendment - Israel/Palestine two state solution, health/poverty, no occupations - defeated [vote 8-5]
09:05:45 - Discussion to adopt complete platform as discussed.
09:25:29 - Dr. Cornel West frustrated committee refuses to address TPP, medicare for all, fracking, Israel/Palestine.

[–]Simplicity3245 14ポイント15ポイント  (24子コメント)

I thought the convention was where they discussed the party platform. Am I wrong? I am kind of confused here, anyone mind explaining it to me?

[–]Abomonog 17ポイント18ポイント  (19子コメント)

That is exactly what is happening. The "Amendments" are merely current issues expressed as a formal platform that the DNC members vote for or against. Each amendment will be part of the official DNC platform for the next election cycle, or not, depending on how the vote goes for that particular amendment.

[–]Simplicity3245 12ポイント13ポイント  (18子コメント)

So, all those amendments voted against, will not even be discussed at the convention?

[–]lovesthebj 30ポイント31ポイント  (17子コメント)

So, all those amendments voted against, will not even be discussed at the convention?

That's likely correct, yes. The democrats are trying to pare down their agenda to the core issues they most want to campaign on. Some important issues that voters are passionate about will be eliminated from the campaign platform for a number of reasons. Sometimes the candidate just doesn't support that position, or doesn't believe it's a practical goal in their first term. Sometimes internal polling suggests that a given issue would hurt downticket races in key states. Sometimes the candidate doesn't have a voting record to support those positions, so coming out in favor opens them up to attack from the opposition.

Once the parties are down to a single candidate every interest group and lobby is making their case for inclusion in the party platform, to be one of the candidates key issues. Poorly run campaigns try to have a huge tent, and they become reckless and aimless. Smart campaigns have a laser focus.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but that's often why you'll see a key issue be defeated at this stage. It doesn't even mean that issue can't come back up in the event that candidate becomes President. Lots of things can change. But the campaign should have a narrow focus or each individual issue gets drowned out by the mass of information.

[–]Sheepdog__ 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

They have at least 2 more chances to pass those amendments i believe, In Florida at another meeting and at the convention in Philadelphia.

[–]flamingboard 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The committee comes up with the draft. Ratifying it is part of the convention.

[–]chiguy440 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah I also saw a buzzfeed article saying they passed $15 in August..

[–]LLv2 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

If we can't have everything then we want nothing!!!!

[–]tehbored 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

  • eliminate mandate requiring 75yr prefunding of USPS pensions
  • new Glass Steagall financial protections
  • progressive tax on millionaires/billionaires
  • student loan refinancing, income based repayment, restore bankruptcy discharge
  • add tax to curb Wall St. speculation and HFT
  • abolish the death penalty
  • motion to de-criminalize marijuana

That's still a pretty decent list. Though at this point I think they should support full legalization of marijuana since nearly 60% of the country is in favor.

[–]UDK450 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

I actually like what they're doing. Decriminalizing federally removes the grey area of when a state legalizes it. This also allows states to choose for themselves, and perhaps encourage some people to vote for politicians in favor of it.

[–]NeverDrumpf2016 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

In addition to that, it's not really a good idea to go from 4 states having it legal to 50 states having it legal when it's only been legal in some of those states for 4 years.

It's best if we let the states that have it legalized set up systems for how the regulate it, tax it, deal with DUIs, etc, before we send it to all 50 states so we can emulate the state that has the most success when it goes federal.

Decriminalizing it now is a good step though.

[–]Randvek 7ポイント8ポイント  (18子コメント)

Wow, student loan bankruptcy forgiveness? I know progressives want to bitch and moan, but that would help out a lot of people. I would even support Trump if he was going to make that happen...

[–]jmsjags 0ポイント1ポイント  (17子コメント)

Wouldn't that make interest rates go up for all student loan borrowers though? So in effect the student population as a whole would be subsidizing a few irresponsible people. I don't like that decision at all.

[–]just_a_tech 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

It would make it more difficult for future students to get loans as well. But part of the reason that tuition has skyrocketed so much is because it's so easy to get student loans.

[–]Randvek 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

The last time students loans were discharge able, they only did so at a very low rate. Congress acted to shut it off not because of the number of students doing it, but because a few high-profile students (doctors, mostly) would declare it right out of school. I don't currently practice bankruptcy law, but I have in the past, and inescapable student loans are, beyond a doubt, the biggest problem we saw.

Student loan rates right now are higher than mortgages (in some cases, twice as high!), despite the fact that you can walk away from a mortgage but not a student loan! They are twice the price and a safer investment! Student loan interest rates do not behave according to normal market factors, and having special protection for them while they are already ludicrously high is ridiculous.

[–]particle409 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

You can walk away from a mortgage because they're backed by hard assets (the property).

[–]Randvek 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

You can also walk away from nearly any kind of unsecured debt, aside from student loans.

[–]tomsing98 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Typical interest rates for a credit card, which is probably the most common type of unsecured debt, are around 15%. Federal student loans are around 5-7%. So, for the privilege of being able to discharge unsecured debt in bankruptcy, you're paying 2-3 times the interest rate.

Add to that the fact that most people taking out student loans have very little credit history, not to mention that they might not complete a degree and you have no way to really know their ability to repay. If those loans were going to be dischargeable, you'd definitely be paying a premium.

[–]bobdob123usa 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not really, it would mainly curb ridiculous loan sizes. Right now, they don't care if you rack up six figure loans because you can't discharge them.

[–]OhMyTruth 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

subsidizing a few irresponsible people

There is already a law that will allow student loan forgiveness for people that have paid their loans for 10 years after October 1, 2007 and are in certain public service jobs. People do not qualify for this forgiveness if they are in default on the loan.

In other words, it literally doesn't apply to the irresponsible people. I imagine that future laws would be written similarly.

[–]sirbissel 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Really, it'd be nice if they'd, again, make it so there was some reasonable way for people to go bankrupt on their student loans, if absolutely necessary.

[–]DouggiePhresh 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

In order for college to eventually get less expensive is for it to temporarily get more expensive. Will less students be able to afford to attend? Yes. When enrollment go down, colleges will reduce prices. Sorry, but not everybody should be able to afford higher education, that is why it is expensive.

[–]jmsjags 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm sorry but I disagree. Anyone that has a desire for higher education should be able to achieve it regardless of income. Limiting college to only wealthy or well off families is not morally acceptable. And nothing in your comment defends the fact that student loan interest rates in this case would increase just so a select few people would be able to discharge their loans. So we would be increasing costs for everyone for no reason. Higher loan interest rates would not make college costs go down.

[–]lostmonkey70 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This is why we shouldn't be using student loans and should be making public universities free. No one should be priced out of education, or be shackled with high 5 to 6 figure debt for the rest of their life because they wanted an education.

[–]musical 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

So the trade off you want is for less well off students (read: mostly minorities) can't go to college in the short term?

[–]genkaiX1 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

They approved $15 dollar minimum wage...

[–]ecloc 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

please list the time index where they pass it in the committee hearing. I'll update if it can be verified.

[–]tupacalypse7 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Woah props to Zogby for bringing up the Syria No Fly Zone, been waiting for that. Big deal

[–]david-me 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hit 10,000 char limit :(

You can comment reply to yourself and continue.

I guess I'm saying that I hope you do. :)

[–]ecloc 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's mostly covered except i had to delete some comments between the breaks in the second video. That and there might be some additional misc things between 5hr and 5hr 49m.

The most interesting part was the vote on abolishing the death penalty.

It passed 8-6 originally, then suddenly a few got cold feet, cummings tabled it after it passed, and Zogby was pissed.

Discussion of immigration, race, criminal justice platform positions

02:11:35 - Bill McKibben introduces Amendment to remove Marijuana from controlled substances act.
02:15:35 - Dr. James Zogby introduces Amendment to abolish the death penalty.
02:21:00 - Zogby Amendment - abolish the death penalty - motion tabled - [approved 8-6, then rescinded]
02:29:00 - Lee & Ellison Amendment to expand earned income tax credit to low wage workers without children.
02:31:50 - Lee & Ellison Amendment - expand earned income tax credit - approved - [vote unanimous]
02:47:50 - Zogby Amendment - abolish the death penalty - approved - [vote 13 for]

[–]MJWood 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Thank you for that. They got some good proposals through so it's better than I thought.

Does anyone else think this is the kind of debate and compromise that should be happening in Congress, between Dems and Republicans rather than between Dems and other Dems?

[–]ecloc 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Congress is highly polarized.

The only people winning are the billionaires and corporations buying politicians on both sides.

Support of TPP is by far the worst.

There is a lot of nasty stuff in that treaty, expansion of patents and copyrights, further criminalization of copyrights where no profit happens. Stipulations that encourage more exporting of manufacturing, stipulations that allow corporations to sue governments for hypothetical loss of profits.

Voting against medicare for all, single payer option, is just as bad. Without a government option, expect more collusion between private HMO and pharaceutical companies.

The corporate democrats included no language to set price controls, negotiation, or regulation on prescription drugs, insurance premiums, and deductibles.

[–]mthoody [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Thank you for this summary! It was very helpful to be able to jump directly to the timestamps on the issues I wanted to hear discussed.

[–]lostmonkey70 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What was approved:

eliminate mandate requiring 75yr prefunding of USPS pensions

new Glass Steagall financial protections

progressive tax on millionaires/billionaires

student loan refinancing, income based repayment, restore bankruptcy discharge

add tax to curb Wall St. speculation and HFT

abolish the death penalty

motion to de-criminalize marijuana

So three things that aren't a huge disappointment. Yay?

Edit: I missed Bankruptcy discharge being restored for student loans, that's certainly a step in the right direction.

[–]MightyMetricBatman 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't know what Bernie Sanders was thinking appointing Cornel West. He is notoriously far left, he is a marxist, pro-destruction of Israel and not just pro-Palestinian. He doesn't represent anything near average of the Democratic party.

[–]win_the_day_go_ducks 805ポイント806ポイント  (117子コメント)

Well you know how it is in this country. You either want babies aborted or you want to allow terrorists to have guns. That's the reason we have two parties.

Core Shared Beliefs: Want healthcare? Sure, pay for it. Want make taxes fair for everyone? Sorry that's going to fuck up the economy. We're going to war. Must. Protect. Isreal! Carbon Taxes? Carbon has rights too you know. Did you say your family was deported? oh I'm so sorry to hear that. You can't afford college? How does $7.25 an hour sound? Environmental issues? Well, we you know have to take our time and really figure what has to be done.

Sorry, I'm high. And I'm pretty sure both parties would like to lock me up for that too.

edit: Thank you for the gold and all the comments! I'm glad to see my stoner ramblings actually started some great threads.

[–]right_mind_mechanic 22ポイント23ポイント  (7子コメント)

Right on....where's the party for the person who wants to give terrorists aborted babies guns?

[–]HillarysInflamedEgo 72ポイント73ポイント  (3子コメント)

i think thats libertarians.

[–]flamingboard 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

All gay terrorist babies must be armed and have no less than an ounce of narcotics on them at any time.

[–]Piroca22 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

No you misunderstood everything he said!

He wants pregnant women to have drug induced abortions, so they can sell their fetuses to terrorists, who will then use the babies as guns to fight christians.

You people never care about what the libertarians have to say!

[–]Courtlessjester 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

No. We want gay married couples able to defend their heroin poppy farm with m60s.

[–]chr0mius 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's crazy. We should give the guns abortions and terrorists get a $15 wage.

[–]asharwood 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

No I'm all in for 15 min but terrorists risk their lives...think of their kids. I feel dirty for this and prob on a list.

[–]ILikeLenexa 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Maddox runs it. He's calling it the Regressive party. The crux of the platform though is ending abortion, but allowing killing babies, and children, and well people in general.

[–]Geikamir 34ポイント35ポイント  (19子コメント)

They make sure to not focus on fiscal progressive motives because that's where they would start losing lobby money. It all goes back to to money in politics being the issue.

[–]Horsefarts_inmouth 15ポイント16ポイント  (16子コメント)

Yep, leftists must be suppressed because we threaten the global banking elite

[–]denizen42 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

lobbying™: putting the quotes in "democracy"!

[–]NeverDrumpf2016 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Except a more progressive tax on the rich is in the platform, as is student loan forgiveness, and a $15 minimum wage linked to median income.

[–]djn808 87ポイント88ポイント  (20子コメント)

or you want to allow terrorists to have guns.

That's like saying we can't have internet because it lets pedophiles have child porn.

[–]RipeManlyMango 66ポイント67ポイント  (14子コメント)

Great, now we know what they'll use for their next "War on ___" to take away our internet.

[–]DragoonDM 76ポイント77ポイント  (6子コメント)

"Pedophiles" are already one of the bogeymen they like to trot out whenever they try to pass new laws to spy on us, along with "terrorists." Don't support CISPA? Then you support child predators!

[–]in_the_saddle_again 20ポイント21ポイント  (3子コメント)

Salon supports child predators

[–]luckierbridgeandrail 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

I thought they supported child aliens. Which side are they on?!?

[–]mlnjd 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Super aliens.

[–]defaultfresh 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ah...the good ol' UFO crime bill

[–]Kind_Of_A_Dick [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If I ever became a politician and voted on stuff, the first thing I'd do is get a blog set up to explain what I was voting on that day and why I voted the way I did. Maybe even put up a little itinerary so people can see what I'm doing, or if that's considered too dangerous I would post on Monday everything I did the previous week.

[–]HillarysInflamedEgo 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

not take it away, justify massive assault on privacy online. they already use it pretty regularly.

[–]Tinytuna2 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

Are you against the protect our children bill that gives us 24/7 unwarranted access to your webcams and microphones? Think of the children plus you shouldn't be worried if you've got nothing to hide!

[–]system0101 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

And the one who wages this war will be caught with child porn on their computer. After the "Make America Safe Again" anti-net legislation is passed, of course.

[–]AadeeMoien 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Have you seen England?

Edit: to clarify, I'm referring to their internet restrictions which were largely justified with porn and child porn.

[–]EvenEveryNameWasTake 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You mean SJWs?, It's a lot more likely that they'll be fighting for normalization and acceptance of paedophilia.

[–]MoldTheClay 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

You're missing the point of the statement. He makes both statements as hyperbolic as possible to point out how these issues are used. Both parties by and large agree on a lot of economic issues but differ largely over key identity issues. Tell me your position on guns and I can probably guess your party affiliation. Gay marriage? Immigration? etc. Not that these aren't important issues but both parties go out of their way not to discuss economic issues. I still agree with democrats more than republicans, but by and large they are remarkably similar on too many issues.

edit: changed "out of their way to" to "out of their way not to."

[–]DeathDevilize 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not quite, the creation of child porn is whats damaging society, not giving others access to it, at least compared to the harm done during its creation, especially when compared with the malicious use of guns.

[–]HoldenTite 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I get you man.'

Stoned as well.

[–]SvenSvensen 24ポイント25ポイント  (23子コメント)

you want to allow terrorists to have guns

Oh for Chris's sake...

That has absolutely 100% nothing to do with guns. The people on the no-fly list are not terrorists. The list has had 9-year-old kids on it. It's a list with no oversight and no transparency. They could very well be drawing names out of a hat for all we know. If we're allowed to take away a persons rights, any rights, without due process then you are opening a very dangerous door that can never be closed.

If you don't believe me just ask the ACLU. They opposed those bills too.

[–]bartManSimpson 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Get out of here with your logical explanation

[–]servant-rider 0ポイント1ポイント  (16子コメント)

So the solution should be to prevent people on the list from buying guns -AND- make sure it has oversight and transparency.

[–]Darkeyescry22 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

One of those must come before the other. You shouldn't hand over your rights on the promise that the government is totes gonna be responsible about it this time.

Edit: should>shouldn't

[–]servant-rider 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Not really, preferably they would simultaneously occur in the same bill.

[–]Darkeyescry22 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

We won't know if the latter is actually being followed until it's too late. We won't have time to see the loopholes, the ineffectiveness, or the abuse. I'm not agreeing to the constitution being limited by an executive agency, unless they can prove due process.

[–]servant-rider [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well then good luck with the terrorists using nuclear bombs in your area, cause 2nd ammendment rights yo.

[–]Lionels_conscience 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

AND- make sure it has oversight and transparency.

that ship has sailed.

[–]SvenSvensen 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The solution is to get rid of the list entirely. It's terrible from top to bottom and isn't helping.

[–]mclumber1 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

If you feel good with a liberal president like Obama or Hillary using the list to deny people their 2nd amendment rights, what do you think Donald Trump could do with the list?

[–]ZachofFables [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

As long as there is no due process for getting on the no fly list you will have that same problem.

[–]rt46gh20 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

And I'm pretty sure both parties would like to lock me up for that too.

Trust me, they don't give a shit what any of us think.

[–]TrumpSanders2016 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

the dems voted for decriminalization of marijuana.

[–]Mofeux 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh shit. People are carbon based life forms, so does that mean that carbon is people?

[–]MoldTheClay 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fucking amen. I am tired of this identity politics horseshit.

[–]Was_going_2_say_that 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I started at $7.25 and hour on my first job. I was up to $12.50 before I quit for something better a few years later

[–]ieattime20 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Want healthcare? Sure, pay for it. Want make taxes fair for everyone? Sorry that's going to fuck up the economy. We're going to war. Must. Protect. Isreal! Carbon Taxes? Carbon has rights too you know. Did you say your family was deported? oh I'm so sorry to hear that. You can't afford college? How does $7.25 an hour sound? Environmental issues? Well, we you know have to take our time and really figure what has to be done.

Every single proposed healthcare plan from the two sides is vastly different. Neither one of them are extreme shifts from our current HC system. That doesn't mean they're "the same". HC is a huge conglomerate of systems that make up about 20% of our GDP. Even if we were to say that it's all bad and what we need is a single payer system (a belief I actually share), tossing it in the bin and starting over would have more impact than the housing crash by a lot. You want people out of jobs for a few months, destroying wealth and established infrastructure?

Taxes are a similar issue, further complicated by the fact that the only rational thing to do is to increase taxes, where doesn't matter, and if you increase taxes your constituency will revolt, even if they are liberal.

The Right dislikes carbon taxes because it would cost their donors a lot of hassle and some money (in the pockets of Oil/Carbon). The Left dislikes carbon taxes because there's not much proof they're effective. The market is extremely good at using tricks to keep the status quo, and at best carbon taxes (at the rates proposed by most economists) would slightly lower emissions and fuck over developing nations who don't have a leg to stand on. At worst it would be completely circumvented through some form of futures or securities by the largest industries that can bear the cost and destroy smaller innovators.

Israel, Obama has backed off severely from supporting Israel. He's one of the first presidents to openly criticize their policy. Sure it didn't fix anything, but what would fix it? We are terrible nation-builders and we are great at getting into military quagmire.

Democrats have supported, consistently, amnesty for illegal immigrants while the right have consistently opposed it. I literally don't know what you're talking about here.

College is... a mess. And none of the proposed solutions for either side would transition effectively. We have a lot to lose, even in our broken system; many countries have free or partially free colleges, but all of the colleges are worse.

As far as the environment, if you put carbon taxes aside, the Republicans have never ever ever supported an environmental issue since Nixon (oddly enough, he started the EPA), while the Democrats have consistently tried to push through stronger regulation, sometimes succeeding.

[–]thinkB4Uact 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Politics has always been the owners of the means of production vs the laborers. The sooner we see that, the sooner we'll break off formerly useful organizations that the owners have successfully corrupted for their own self-interests.

[–]i-rape-women -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

you really have a lot of faith in the government to fix every major and minor societal problem.

[–]Torgamous 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

He has faith in government to fix eight issues, four of which (unfair taxes, war, unconditional support of Israel, and deportation) exist at the government's sole discretion.

[–]Homebrewman 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think you miss what he was saying.

[–]sir_fancypants 88ポイント89ポイント  (113子コメント)

Clinton would be a right-wing candidate in nearly any other G7 country.

[–]HillarysInflamedEgo 55ポイント56ポイント  (57子コメント)

clinton would be a right-wing candidate in nearly any election pre-reagan here in the US.

[–]carlender 8ポイント9ポイント  (31子コメント)

which right wing candidate pre-reagan supported public healthcare and higher minimu wage?

[–]Clintonite 73ポイント74ポイント  (22子コメント)

Nixon

[–]lossyvibrations 29ポイント30ポイント  (19子コメント)

He started the EPA!

[–]Clintonite 22ポイント23ポイント  (16子コメント)

Yeah. He also substantially expanded Medicare and almost introduced single payer healthcare to all. Perhaps if watergate hadn't happened...

[–]_hungry_ghost 8ポイント9ポイント  (14子コメント)

And look how minuscule Watergate is compared to the shit that Hillary ALREADY has going on.

SHE IS UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION, for which anyone else would have already been prosecuted (Thanks Obama.)

The Clinton Foundation money laundering scheme is the biggest scheme of all. The Email investigation will precipitate a Clinton Foundation corruption investigation, unless Obama blocks it to try and save his own legacy. Pitiful.

[–]lapone1 13ポイント14ポイント  (13子コメント)

Not even in the same league. Nixon ordered burglaries of Daniel Elsberg's psychiatrist's office and the Brookings Institute. He had an enemy's list. He used the FBI and the IRS to punish his enemys. And I can go on. There is no evidence of quid pro quo (at least to date) of any Hillary Clinton's wrongdoings. Only acquisitions. And the acquisitions have been going on by Clinton's "vast right wing conspiracy" since BC took office. I know David Brock is frequently attacked on reddit, but I read his book "Blinded by the Right" (a really good read by the way). He was paid to dig up dirt on the Clintons. When he coudn't find any, he switched sides. The Republican congress spent nearly $80 million investigating the Clintons and the worst they could come up with was Bill Clinton's sex life. (Not good, but hardly worth the money spent to uncover it.) When the special prosecutor wanted to quit - he said there was nothing there - he was urged to continue looking. This congress did a similar investigation of Bengazi. Nothing came from that either.

[–]eedna 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think nixons biggest slap in the face was sabotaging vietnam peace as a political maneuver to get elected

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/yes-nixon-scuttled-the-vietnam-peace-talks-107623

[–]Clintonite 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

He had an enemy's list.

Huh. Sounds familiar.

He used the FBI and the IRS to punish his enemys.

And allegations of the Clintons doing that have been circling since the departure of Sessions.

When he coudn't find any, he switched sides. The Republican congress spent nearly $80 million investigating the Clintons and the worst they could come up with was Bill Clinton's sex life. (Not good, but hardly worth the money spent to uncover it.)

People went to prison over Whitewater. Maybe the Clintons just have shady friends. There wasn't a case to be built that didn't have reasonable doubt, but... then there's them pardoning people like Marc Rich and Susan McDougal.

Then there's the Clinton Foundation and the suspicious donations that coincided with large contracts from the State Department. There's plenty of evidence of the Clinton's being as crooked as Nixon.

Sure, the Clintons are polarizing, like Obama. Unlike Obama, they aren't clean.

[–]RIPGeorgeHarrison 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

single payer healthcare

it was a private based plan actually...

Also I believe he supported a lower minimum wage for people 16-18.

[–]rlbond86 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

He neutered the EPA, he only created it because of enormous political pressure.

He started the war on drugs.

[–]lossyvibrations [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

He was willing to compromise to create it. The GOP today does not believe in compromise when it comes to government agencies.

[–]rockyali 17ポイント18ポイント  (0子コメント)

I looked it up. Turns out just about every R platform 1930-1980 was pro-union and pro-minimum wage protections. When healthcare became a thing, Rs always wanted private insurance as a part, but always supported public healthcare benefits in some instances. A sampling of TIL planks below:

R platform of 1936--Support the adoption of state laws and interstate compacts to abolish sweatshops and child labor, and to protect women and children with respect to maximum hours, minimum wages and working conditions. We believe that this can be done within the Constitution as it now stands.

1940--We shall maintain labor's right of free organization and collective bargaining. We pledge that our American citizens of Negro descent shall be given a square deal in the economic and political life of this nation. We favor the extension of necessary old age benefits on an ear-marked pay-as-you-go basis to the extent that the revenues raised for this purpose will permit. We favor the extension of the unemployment compensation provisions of the Social Security Act, wherever practicable, to those groups and classes not now included.

1944--The Republican Party accepts the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act, the Wage and Hour Act, the Social Security Act and all other Federal statutes designed to promote and protect the welfare of American working men and women, and we promise a fair and just administration of these laws.

1948--There must be decent living at decent wages. We favor equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.

1952--Still pro-union, pro-racial and gender equality, pro extending SS to all. First mention of healthcare: We are opposed to Federal compulsory health insurance with its crushing cost, wasteful inefficiency, bureaucratic dead weight, and debased standards of medical care. We shall support those health activities by government which stimulate the development of adequate hospital services without Federal interference in local administration. We favor support of scientific research. We pledge our continuous encouragement of improved methods of assuring health protection.

1956--Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable; Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex; Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment; Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public. The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration. Republican action created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. We have fully resolved to continue our steady gains in man's unending struggle against disease and disability. We have supported the distribution of free vaccine to protect millions of children against dreaded polio. Republican leadership has enlarged Federal assistance for construction of hospitals, emphasizing low-cost care of chronic diseases and the special problems of older persons, and increased Federal aid for medical care of the needy. We have asked the largest increase in research funds ever sought in one year to intensify attacks on cancer, mental illness, heart disease and other dread diseases. We demand once again, despite the reluctance of the Democrat 84th Congress, Federal assistance to help build facilities to train more physicians and scientists.

1960--Relating wage and other payments in production to productivity—except when necessary to correct inequalities—in order to help us stay competitive at home and abroad. Spurring the economy by advancing the successful Eisenhower-Nixon program fostering new and small business, by continued active enforcement of the anti-trust laws, by protecting consumers and investors against the hazard and economic waste of fraudulent and criminal practices in the market place. Republican action has given to millions of American working men and women new or expanded protection and benefits, such as: Increased federal minimum wage; Development of a health program that will provide the aged needing it, on a sound fiscal basis and through a contributory system, protection against burdensome costs of health care. Such a program should: Provide the beneficiaries with the option of purchasing private health insurance;Include state participation; A single, federal assistance grant to each state for aid to needy persons rather than dividing such grants into specific categories.

1964--Start to sound a bit more like Rs, but advocate: full coverage of all medical and hospital costs for the needy elderly people, financed by general revenues through broader implementation of Federal-State plans, rather than the compulsory Democratic scheme covering only a small percentage of such costs, for everyone regardless of need; tax credits for those burdened by the expenses of college education; full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen;

1968--Organized labor has contributed greatly to the economic strength of our country and the well-being of its members. The Republican Party vigorously endorses its key role in our national life. We support an equitable minimum wage for American workers—one providing fair wages without unduly increasing unemployment among those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder—and will improve the Fair Labor Standards Act, with its important protections for employees. The forty-hour week adopted 30 years ago needs re-examination to determine whether or not a shorter work week, without loss of wages, would produce more jobs, increase productivity and stabilize prices. While believing no American should be denied adequate medical treatment; (mostly private solutions, but do not question a public role)

[–]arakele 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

Eisenhower was president when the minimum wage was increased from .75 to 1.00

He was against socialized medicine, but was for backing up private insurers financially so they would insure high risk individuals.

Considering this was the 50's, those are both pretty liberal. He was also against the military industrial complex that we have today.

A lifelong Democrat is the current GOP frontrunner and a Republican in Wolf's clothing is the current DNC frontrunner. This cycle has made me lose all hope for modern politics in America.

[–]autopoietic_hegemony 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Did you like the Nixon response? Cause I sure did. Hillary supporters have thick blinders when it comes to their candidate. Maybe you should take them off and see your candidate for who she truly is, not who she wants you to see her as.

[–]OPDidntDeliver -2ポイント-1ポイント  (24子コメント)

Remind me of the right-wing candidate from the 1970s who supported higher minimum wage, expanded healthcare, (some) stricter environmental regulations, expansion of access for women to female medical necessities, LGBT rights, and equal pay.

I'm not saying Clinton is perfect--I don't like her personally--but she's not right wing.

[–]unkorrupted 13ポイント14ポイント  (11子コメント)

You just described Nixon...

[–]OPDidntDeliver 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

He did 2 or 3 of those things, not all of them or close. He also continued Vietnam and IIRC supported efforts to limit the influence dissenters had.

[–]unkorrupted 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

He also continued Vietnam

What's Hillary's plan for the Middle East? She criticized Obama for being too soft back in 2008...

[–]OPDidntDeliver 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Absolutely true, she's more right-wing in terms of foreign policy. But Nixon dropped Agent Orange and (sort of kind of) tried to silence protestors.

On the other hand, Nixon had good FP with the USSR and China. I don't know who is more right-wing, but Nixon has had much bigger swings of foreign policy (really good and really bad) while IMO Hillary has had less significant FP accomplishments/failures.

[–]unkorrupted 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

The longer we compare them, the more they're gonna sound alike.

But that's kind of the point of the parent comment... lol

[–]OPDidntDeliver 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I don't think they're that alike. They were around in different times and had many different viewpoints. That said, Nixon did create the EPA and was quite liberal in many areas.

[–]leredditffuuu 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

And Nixon wasn't even evil enough to be a member of the Walmart board of directors.

[–]Surf_Science 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, pushing for equality at walmart clearly makes clinton evil.

[–]zarzak 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Nixon expanded medicare and started the EPA ...

[–]OPDidntDeliver 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Which are 2 of that list. And Nixon was IIRC liberal for a Republican.

[–]zarzak [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

No one from either party really supported lgbt rights at the time. Nixon also signed a major minimum wage increase into law, and presided over wade vs roe (privately saying he thought abortions were necessary in some situations).

[–]OPDidntDeliver [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Of course no one would've supported that stuff back then. The guy I replied to said Clinton is comparable to Republicans before Reagan, which she isn't.

[–]lossyvibrations 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Even Democrats didn't favor those things in the 70s. we've moved right economically but left socially.

[–]MorganWick 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

We've been led to obsess on social issues while our economy has gone to pot. So the rich have gotten richer, the poor have gotten poorer, and everyone's going to suffer global warming, but at least we get to smoke pot with our gay spouses to forget about all that.

[–]OPDidntDeliver 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Of course not. But Clinton wouldn't be right-wing in the '70s as the other guy claimed.

[–]MushroomFry 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

we've moved right economically

And that is bad because ?

[–]lossyvibrations 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Depends on what your goal is. We've lost a solid middle class but gained a lot of wealth at the top.

[–]lossyvibrations 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Depends on what your goal is. We've lost a solid middle class but gained a lot of wealth at the top.

[–]HillarysInflamedEgo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

so you think the wedge issues of today were front and center half a century ago?

additionally, pre-regean republicans absolutely supported social programs and taking care of americans.

take a look at nixon. he'll check most of the boxes you need to see my point. started the EPA, OSHA, and here Nixon’s Plan For Health Reform, In His Own Words

[–]gogo_goblin 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

She's a right wing candidate in the USA as is.

[–]FatSputnik 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

this is what kills me

she knows there's nobody else now to vote for, so she can do as much bullshit as she pleases. She can do and back whatever she likes because, she isn't Trump and people will HAVE to vote for her to avoid him.

sigh

[–]thatnameagain 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So would Obama and Kerry and Gore.

The U.S. population is more conservative. The president is not the president of one party, they are the president of the whole country.

[–]BadgerRush 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not only Hillary Clinton, but also Obama, Bill Clinton, and all other Democratic presidents in history. The Democratic party is mostly a right-wing party, although it does have some left-leaning politicians on the very few districts where unions are strong, on a national level it is mostly neo-liberal style right-wingers.

[–]evadcobra2 48ポイント49ポイント  (21子コメント)

Republicans are far right & Democrats are center-right. No left wing party in the US.

[–]HillarysInflamedEgo 31ポイント32ポイント  (6子コメント)

exactly. its why the burgeoning progressive movement is so important.

[–]JimmyHavok 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Neither party is a monolith, both have different factions within them. Both Trump and Sanders are the result of factions within the respective parties.

The caucus system is a more accurate way to look at US politics than the party system, since we tend toward two big tent parties. Caucuses are groups with a common agenda who agree to vote together on related issues. You can get a good idea of a legislator's politics by looking at the caucuses they are in.

[–]MemoryLapse -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

I'm pretty sure there's just no party left wing enough for your tastes. There are plenty of Americans that see the Democrats as left wing, and considering they're the ones voting, who gives a fuck what the political climate is like in Canada or Europe?

[–]Onetok6 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Pretty sure most Bernie supporters don't think the Democratic Party is left wing enough.

[–]luis_correa 11ポイント12ポイント  (4子コメント)

Out of hundreds of issues that separate the two parties.

There's a reason why "wedge" issues are always used to try and drive people apart.

[–]TheRealRockNRolla 28ポイント29ポイント  (68子コメント)

For starters, those "wedge issues" matter kind of a lot to the people involved in them. Like, I think gay people probably attribute some weight to the fact that Democrats are strongly in favor of protecting LGBT rights while Republicans want to treat them as second-class citizens for religious reasons.

As to the substance of what you're saying, nope. Not even close. You would never see Republicans advocating for this kind of stuff. The finished platform reflects Sanders's influence, a great deal more so than I'd like, actually. It's anti-TPP. (EDIT: I misspoke here, it's not anti-TPP; the candidates are, but the platform committee rejected an anti-TPP proposal, on the basis that they don't want to openly come out against something the administration has endorsed. Both the candidates have come out against it, though.) It calls for the expansion of Social Security and a $15-per-hour minimum wage. It called for a modern Glass-Steagall equivalent and the abolition of the death penalty.

But sure, it's borderline Republican because they rejected an outright ban on all fracking.

I really wish this edgelord 'both parties are basically the same except for those silly little wedge issues' bullshit would die a rapid death.

[–]Murgie 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I misspoke here, it's not anti-TPP; the candidates are, but the platform committee rejected an anti-TPP proposal, on the basis that they don't want to openly come out against something the administration has endorsed. Both the candidates have come out against it, though.

Oh, well now I feel better, knowing that they're claiming not to like the TTP as they plan to campaign for it.

[–]TheRealRockNRolla 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The platform, as I'm sure you're aware, isn't binding. I don't know whether Clinton will defer to the platform and advocate for it, or continue her opposition to it in spite of the platform. I simply thought it was relevant that, while the platform committee rejected an anti-TPP plank, both Sanders and Clinton have come out against it.

[–]poesse 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

How is it anti-TPP when they voted against the TPP ban?

[–]PurelyForElections 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

I really wish this edgelord 'both parties are basically the same except for thos silly little wedge issues' bullshit would die a rapid death.

You're forgetting that Reddit's demographic is increadibly weighted towards white, middle to upper class, college educated men who think anyone who isn't a light gust away from being full on communist is literally Hitler and super conservative. On this website anything that isn't "free weed and college for me, lmao!" is ultra-conservative, right-wing despotism.

[–]zyzzguido55 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nothing wrong with being educated and middle-upper class. It seems to be the idiots without any type of college education who vote republican ironically.

[–]laodaron 11ポイント12ポイント  (3子コメント)

I already have my education, I already have a career, I just want everyone to have equal opportunity and access.

[–]MoreBeansAndRice 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Then fix sexism, racism, and equal public education at the K-12 levels because that has a lot more to do why people are left behind than free college and other issues that Sanders supporters care so much about.

[–]Galle_ 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

You severely underestimate how absolutely batshit the Republicans are these days.

[–]clickfive4321 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

seriously. when american politics become a choice between a liar and a hypocrite, and we have to ask which is which

[–]Poolooloo 5ポイント6ポイント  (11子コメント)

Yeah, but luckily Dems can just call Republicans "RACIST SEXIST HOMOPHOBIC" and people will at least feel like they're supporting a progressive platform

[–]sheshesheila 38ポイント39ポイント  (9子コメント)

Well if the Republicans would stop electing racist sexist homophobic candidates, we could move on.

[–]Inlikealamb 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Move on to what? They would just find another reason to avoid discussing tough issues.

[–]Clintonite 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Like bathrooms. Absolutely no one cared about bathrooms two years ago, and all of a sudden it's an urgent issue.

[–]lossyvibrations 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Two years ago they hadn't lost gay marriage. Gotta give the base something to fear.

[–]mlnjd 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I need to pee badly so it's urgent!

[–]well_golly 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Democrats need to bring those Republican super-predators to heel! Maybe throw some hot sauce at them. I hear Hillary carries some in her purse.

[–]Ocinea 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And I feel that way about republicans.

That's when you know shit's fucked up

[–]EverGreenPLO 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

One, one wedge in my John McClain voice

[–]Flognickin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This whole election is making me wonder if I should even register as a Democrat as I had planned. I don't want to register as Republican though so I might register as Independent.

[–]WeJustOrderedBisque 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This headline is literally just a straight up lie. Look at the fucking platform, for Christ's sake.

[–]gunt_master -2ポイント-1ポイント  (11子コメント)

Well apparently most Democrats (those who voted Clinton) can't tell the difference between a Republican and Democrat.

"Oh, she wants gay rights? So progessive, she must be a Democrat!"

[–]MushroomFry 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Considering the republican politicians dont want gay rights, they would be right.

[–]gunt_master [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So you just basically said that it just takes one policy to go from Republican -> Democrat. And you are also saying the Clinton's were definitely Republicans until around 2012-2013.

[–]bartink 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

They seem to be able to, considering they are democrats.

[–]ZeusforPres -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

And know you.....how they look at the world and their general political philosophy. But yeah besides that.

[–]johnfrance -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

Truly, what are the different political philosophies the two parties express? Are they really at root, different philosophies? It seems to me that we are talking the difference between center-right liberalism and right liberalism.

[–]bartink 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Have you lived under republican rule?

[–]HillarysInflamedEgo 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

supply side economics highlights a fundamental right vs left philosophical difference, or at least used to. after bill clinton ushered in the third way democrats, the left has moved substantially to the right in lock step with the right moving even further to the right from reagan forward.

[–]johnfrance 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, I'm by no means saying that the gop and dems forever in a day have been identical or anything. I'm saying that right now and in recent years, on the federal level, they don't seem to represent positions that are much more than superficially different. While we catch republicans saying outrageous stuff more often when it comes down to it the policies they support aren't miles apart at all.