Feb 26, 2016 well, two things: first, it doesn't matter if it's true or not, we're probably in too deep to reverse it. second, it's at least a partially valid criticism: until pushed, sanders insists on seeing everything through rigid lenses of class and income.
Feb 26, 2016 if you think reversing citizens united is going to have any significant effect on how investment banks operate, or have any bearing on the private prison industry, or directly reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, you're wrong. it's a myopic stance, like i said. campaign finance law is important, but you definitely own at least one rope bracelet.
Feb 26, 2016 sigh are you capable of having, like, an adult conversation? campaign finance law is very important. nowhere did i say it "has no affect on anything at all." restricting the power of money during campaigns helps keep private interests at bay, especially (and in some cases almost exclusively) during house races. but it is not going to itself end any institutions or financial practices that you dislike. it's naive to think it will.
Feb 26, 2016 Oh, I am capable. It's taking me a minute to decide if I should take you seriously or not. Considering it took you a page and a half to realize I meant it was taking YOUR voice away. But if you think the 'fossil fuel industry puppet' Republicans denial of global warming, the "We've made 153 million $$ off wall street speeches since '01" Clintons repeal of glass-steagal, and the terrible trade deals that basically encourage outsourcing have nothing to do with the campaign funding these interests provide, then YOU are naive. I'm glad you brought it up because we haven't even touched on congressional seats yet.
Feb 26, 2016 l m a o first of all, calm down bud, this isn't a youtube comment section. i'm pretty sure anyone who can log on and navigate to a website understands the implications of money in political campaigns. you're not a crusade. chill. second, the speaking engagements that made the clintons all that money weren't campaign contributions. third, this isn't black and white. it's childish to think that the pet issue of your favorite candidate is a cure-all for the world's ills. it's not that simple. do you think people in flint would agree that campaign finance reform is the #1 issue in the election? what about women who can't access abortions? how about the families of black people who are killed by cops?
Feb 26, 2016 first, ? I am calm? lol. What made you think I wasn't? second, No, they were not campaign contributions. Well, a good few million of them were. But I'm just saying that it's a tie between an obvious political favor and money. third, I wouldn't call it his pet issue though, it's just an incredibly easy to dig at Hillary "when the republicans do it" Clinton. I think its obvious income/wealth inequality is his pet issue. You kept harping on about citizens united but the problem is deeper than that one supreme court decision. Campaign finance reform could mean anything, but to me it means large money out of politics period. If money = free speech like they so often said, then you, me, and Joe schmo are a lot less free than a CEO of GE is. Yes, those are extremely important issues. Good thing all democrats stand on the right side of those issues. So to me, the primary is more about the differences between democrats. Because no matter who wins, we will have a champion for police brutality and womens rights. At least, in my honest opinion. I guess I should have said the most important issue in this PRIMARY, is campaign finance reform then.
Feb 26, 2016 A major difference that seems to get talked around is that Hillary supporters believe the system works well enough to affect change through, and Bernie supporters argue there are problems with the system that have to be addressed in order for lasting change to take effect. Hence the question of whether campaign finance reform is a more fundamental issue. Also IMO: Hillary's foreign policy experience is an argument against her, not in her favor. The longer people spend in the Defense world, the more wed they get to the existing models and ways of thinking that got us into where we are in the first place. Hillary has always been hawkish. The counterargument was made by Bernie in one of the debates: experience is good, but judgment is important too. I tend to think it's way more important. Experience is a vice in that regard.
Feb 26, 2016 I agree. You could see that in the Chris Mathews interview last night. Bernie is approaching executive politics from a perspective people in the establishment (media, DNC) don't quite understand. They want to keep playing the same game. He wants to play a different one. Which is why he is also seen as "radical" by the media and that talking point gets regurgitated to the hive-mind that watches it.
Feb 26, 2016 i mean, ideally both should matter.. but this is a kernel of thinking which has allowed the once stately republican party to descend into madness. experience shouldnt be an albatross across someones neck, particularly in hillarys case here - politics/world affairs are something a person needs to know how to navigate and not just approach theoretically. i shudder when bernie brings up his time as the mayor of burlington as if that somehow qualifies him for negotiating with terrorists.
Feb 26, 2016 Great points, but to be fair. I've watched every debate and he tends to stick to the War in Iraq vote, the danger in overthrowing dictators with no plan for after-the-fact, and ISIS being a threat and that being a war over the soul of Islam. In my opinion, there are plenty ways to attack the three things he sticks to, lets not pretend that he brings up his mayoral experience when foreign policy comes up as a talking point. He has plenty of legitimate arguments against his foreign policy stances.
Feb 26, 2016 Literally today: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-.../2016/02/bernie-sanders-vladimir-putin-219847 Also, re: his persistent evocation of her iraq war vote. this isn't 2007, it's not 2003, it's not 1972. lets grapple with real day 2016 issues, not relive past political fights in the hopes of scoring points. im sure if bernie had his way he'd happily indict the past 45 years of american politics. he's still bringing up kissinger as a way to malign hillary afterall lol
Feb 26, 2016 Lol. Well I guess you have a faster news feed than I do. Touch'e. But if this were yesterday, I'd be right lol. Jp. But yeah, see. You just provided a legitimate argument to his talking points. They do exist. I more than concede that lol.
Feb 26, 2016 I don't know if I agree that it's a sentiment shared by Republicans at all. Obama's lack of foreign policy experience was one of the biggest arguments used against him leading up to his election in 2008, and he hasn't exactly been incompetent. If anything, he got s----d the f--- in to the war machine. I'd be more worried about Bernie being corrupted by those same forces than about him being unable to do the job because of "inexperience," lol.
Feb 26, 2016 obama has natural gifts which exist beyond ordinary political convention/trends -- there's a reason why hes the second democrat elected to two terms since WWII. i dont think it's fair to compare him, the defining politician of his era, to a 73 y/o socialist from vermont running (initially) as a principle candidate. you arent alone in slighting hillarys judgement tho. here's a piece from a conservative columnist making essentially the same argument about her imminent qualifications! https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...l-candidate/oVQRpgfUR5xvtmZylUYUbO/story.html i dont understand your thinking. obama hasn't been incompetent but hillarys experience should be used against her?
