Why don't Hillary supporters/enablers like to discuss her position on the issues?

[Lone_Wolf]

Most would rather attack Sanders instead of discuss her stance on things. I'd be curious to read how her position is better than Bernie's on things like:

Fracking
Federal minimum wage
Israel/Palestinian conflict
Global Warming
Wall Street regulation
Citizens United and getting money out of politics
Getting people out of poverty
Education


Also, I'm curious why she plays the gender card so much instead of discuss things honestly.

[Buzz Clik]

1. I discuss her positions all the time. Her views on environmental are why I chose her over Sanders.

[Lone_Wolf]

2. Why are her views on the environment better? Explain.

[reddread]

4. more fracking and climate change

some people really want this and they have money. and they want more..

[Buzz Clik]

6. You think HRC is a climate change denier?

Really?

[egalitegirl]

132. No but she wants to use it as excuse to enrich Wall Street through cap and trade

What Hillary really supports is trading pollution licenses on exchanges and there is no way it will have any impact on climate. The only reason to support cap and trade is to ensure that Wall Street firms which have hoarded up pollution licenses (called carbon credits) will get paid for these licenses when they are sold to companies that produce something for society by hiring hard working people.

[Baobab]

139. She is solidly behind TremovethisTremovethisIremovethisP

and its terrifying "energy chapter" which could lead to huge amounts of lost affordable housing in the US as the price of heating and electricity soar irreversibly.

Also, health care reality bears little resemblance to the cover story we are all fed which frames her as a crusader for affordable health care when the truth is basically that the deal they were wrapping up at the same time made affordable health care nearly impossible.

Hillary care and its successor was basically a diversion tactic to hide a trade deal thats been devastating for public services globally, for 20 years, and a potentially exploitable artificial crisis which could be use to scare us into extreme measures.


that's her real health care 'plan'.

[Buzz Clik]

5. I guess I can repeat them here (about the 4th or 5th time this week)

• Sanders's "no fracking anywhere" is ridiculous.
  
• HRC's view on Keystone XL was measured and reasonable. Flatly opposing the pipeline with no compromise was embraced only by those who had no concept of the facts involved.

Those are a couple.

[Lone_Wolf]

12. So you think the Pickens Plan is the best idea?

Many climate experts would disagree with that. Most think we need to shift to solar, wind, and other renewables. Why are they wrong?

[Buzz Clik]

24. Did I say that? Let me set one rule of this discussion:

You don't get to put words in my mouth. We'll move on this time, but I really dislike that silly trick.

No, I don't embrace the Pickens Plan. But, natural gas is a helluva lot better than petroleum for many applications and better than coal. It's a segue to renewables. A clean-burning bridge.

[Lone_Wolf]

34. Please explain the difference between them. Seriously, I don't see it

[Buzz Clik]

37. Between my approach and the Pickens Plan?

In my view, I see the ultimate goal as moving as much as possible to renewables. Pickens sees it as just another energy investment.

[Lone_Wolf]

40. The Pickens Plan uses NG as a bridge fuel to the future. Hillary Plan does also

Again, I fail to see how they are meaningfully different.

[Buzz Clik]

42. Ok. You don't see a difference.

[Lone_Wolf]

48. Are the meaningfully different or not? If so, please give me an example

You claimed you were well informed on the issues, so educate me.

[Buzz Clik]

50. What exactly is your point here? I told you why I thought they were different, and you disagreed.

Where else is this to go? If you have a point to make, get on with it.

[Lone_Wolf]

56. In all due respect... No, you didn't tell me how they were different

[Buzz Clik]

58. I'm not much into contradiction as a form of discussion.

So, let's agree for the sake of discussion that you are correct: they are no different. Then what?

[Lone_Wolf]

84. It's simply not enough to address climate change

We need emergency measures right now to stop climate change. Climate scientist like James Hansen think we should have been doing this kind of stuff 3o years ago. It's time to address climate change with a Apollo Program type seriousness.

[Buzz Clik]

86. I agree 100%.

[bkkyosemite]

57. Fracking is destroying our water tables and is polluting the ground. It is causing earthquakes.

[Buzz Clik]

61. In order: no, a little, no.

[Loudestlib]

80. What?

Stanford researchers show fracking's impact to drinking water sources

A case study of a small Wyoming town reveals that practices common in the fracking industry may have widespread impacts on drinking water resources.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2016/march/pavillion-fracking-water-032916.html

First-of-its-kind study finds toxic fluids in water Pennsylvania water supply after fracking

http://www.businessinsider.com/toxic-fluids-found-in-pennsylvania-drinking-water-2015-5

Fracking Wells Tainting Drinking Water in Texas and Pennsylvania, Study Finds

http://www.newsweek.com/fracking-wells-tainting-drinking-water-texas-and-pennsylvania-study-finds-270735

[Buzz Clik]

82. revisit the title of the post on which I was commenting.

I certainly don't dispute a single word of the research you posted, but I do suggest it doesn't negate my point. You'll need to revisit that post.

[Loudestlib]

118. Again what?

"Fracking is destroying our water tables and is polluting the ground. It is causing earthquakes."

"In order: no, a little, no."

Fracking is destroying our water tables = no?

I revisited it and I found you wrong a second time.

[Buzz Clik]

119. So you think that the articles you posted confirmed that fracking is "destroying our water tables".

That's your take home from those articles?

[Loudestlib]

121. Yes!

"Toxic fluids used in drilling and hydraulic fracturing likely escaped an unlined borehole and migrated thousands of feet into a residential drinking-water supply in Pennsylvania, according to a study published Monday."

[notadmblnd]

85. But you just broke that rule yourself when you replied to Reddread

You put words in that person's mouth.

If it is ok for you to do it, then it's quite alright for others to twist and spin what you write also.

Remember you are merely a Hillary surrogate, not Hillary herself.

[Avalux]

16. You are either a satirist, or a delusional mess. I'm going with satirist for now. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

19. I'm dead serioius, and quite well informed on the issues. Probably better than you.

So, fire away with the insults. They won't really bother me.

[bkkyosemite]

69. Do you work for a fracking company..

[Buzz Clik]

71. LOL!

no

[w4rma]

140. You're explanations are as slippery as a fracking lobbyist's, Buzz Clik. (nt)

[Armstead]

18. Fracking is fracking. The effects affect everywhere.

She chose a politically expedient time to get off the fence on Keystone. The rtealities and cost/benefits didn't change. her political situation did. That's an opportunistic follower not a leader.

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. So... more fracking and yes on Keystone are ... good?... for the environment? n/t

[Buzz Clik]

35. no

[Lazy Daisy]

43. I may not be as well informed as some

but one thing stands out when the topic of fracking comes up. The enormous amount of earthquakes in Texas and Oklahoma.
I give leeway on the issue of poisoned water, as it can be faked. I don't believe it to be faked, but I give the benefit of doubt.

But earthquakes in Texas and Oklahoma? An area not known for earthquakes? To me that speaks volumes against fracking

[Buzz Clik]

44. The earthquakes are triggered by injection of waste into the holes, not the fracking.

[Lazy Daisy]

64. which is part of the fracking process?

So isn't that still caused by fracking?

[Buzz Clik]

66. No, it is not. Some states don't allow deep injection of waste.

And some waste injected in fracked wells is not from the fracking. And, you cause earthquakes by injecting waste deep in the ground in wells not from fracking.

I am all for banning injection of waste in deep wells.

[rickford66]

90. I have some reservations about this

I live close to the PA border. We can see the flaring from our property. Think about this. Large volumes of fracking fluid is pumped into the ground to release gas. That same fluid is then pumped into the ground to dispose of it. How does our water table and rock formations know the difference between these two injections of fluid? We have met many people affected by fracking. Non-disclosure agreements keep the majority of problems secret. So when the gas companies say there's no published data to support the problems, don't believe they don't exist.

[creeksneakers2]

130. The injection is very deep

Far below the water table. In extraction, the wells are lined with cement. In some cases there have been leaks, but they are local.

[rickford66]

134. Since we live in gas country we got educated.

A few cement liners leak immediately, but they all leak eventually. All concrete cracks as a function of curing. Since the disposal is essential to the fracking industry, the earthquakes are caused by the fracking industry. If you live in or near where fracking will occur, I suggest you get educated also. As for the notion that the fluid stays far below the water table, I guess you haven't heard of the illegal dumping of fluid on the surface. Oh, and those local leaks you mention, no problem unless it's in your back yard or your neighbors'. We had clean water from our well for 10 years. Then a neighbor drilled a well, We ended up with sulfur in our water. An expensive device clears it up. If they fracked, we'd be out of luck.

[daleanime]

3. Too bad her owners would never let her implement those plans....

as long as money holds control taking any serious steps forward on Climate change remains a fantasy.

[Buzz Clik]

7. What plans? Please be specific.

[The Old Lie]

13. So you support fracking?

That's who your candidate support - our state cannot handle fracking and we need the water.

[Buzz Clik]

54. I support fracking that is far more regulated than it is now.

our state cannot handle fracking and we need the water

What state?

[zappaman]

81. Which state?

In CA, there have been earthquakes in places that have been fracked that haven't had earthquakes in 100s of years.

[SHRED]

49. You like fracking?

Then she's your candidate.

How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World
http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

[bkkyosemite]

53. Really?

[Buzz Clik]

55. "really" what?

[Fuddnik]

8. She doesn't have any positions.

They change faster than they can be printed. Sometimes a couple of times a day.

Whatever it takes to keep up the facade and get elected.


on edit: Damn. I'm reply #8, and I can't see any others.

[tomm2thumbs]

83. the problem for Hillary is she has a cold callousness with her issues

she's indifferent to her own views because they are 100% driven by polls
that is why her untrustworthy numbers have remained LOW through the years, and why she lost to Obama

Even Obama did not trust her enough to offer her the Vice Presidency. 'Secretary of State' was a consolation prize and frankly was more than she deserved after throwing 'assassination' comment out there, and after her campaign aimed to make Obama 'UN-AMERICAN'

[CrowCityDem]

9. Because Sanders' supporters don't listen...

... to positions that are nuanced, and reflect the fact that the issues we face are complex. If it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, like "no fracking" or "free college", it gets written off as being watered-down corporate whore-dom, so why bother?

I would turn around and ask a similar question: why don't Bernie supporters talk about the long-term ramifications of his plans, like relying on Republican governors to go along with him, or taking us off of certain energy sources when we don't have enough clean energy to supply us without major cost increases?

[Lone_Wolf]

15. I'm listening. Go ahead...

[CrowCityDem]

29. Ok

Let's take three issues, for the sake of brevity.

1) Minimum wage: I think we can all agree that the living conditions in NYC are far different than in a rural town. While both candidates support large increases to the federal minimum wage, there are serious economic questions regarding whether less affluent areas can absorb an increase to $15 as quickly as other areas. Like the bill New York just passed, phasing in the increases, and seeing the economic impact being made before going even further, is a prudent way of making sure that we balance the need for a higher wage with our interest in making sure not to stunt economic growth.

2) Fracking: Banning fracking would be an easy solution, as would eliminating nuclear power. But if we do that, we do not currently have the supply of clean renewables to satisfy our energy needs. We would therefore have to either burn more coal for the time being (a worse option for the environment), massively reduce our energy needs (unlikely), or return to buying gas and oil from other countries (which is both costly, and supports unfriendly regimes). The end result is that, until clean power sources scale, we would face large price increases in energy costs that lower and middle class families can't afford.

3) College: Free tuition sounds good, I'll admit. But for starters, the plan relies on Republican states to chip in 30% of the cost. That won't happen, as we have seen with the Medicaid buy-in. Furthermore, that plan does nothing to address the costs of room/board, fees, and other ancillary costs that colleges can continue to raise at will to make up the difference. The quality of education would be questionable with millions of new students flooding into the system, and there has not been much talk of how to keep those tuition costs from rising exponentially when the government is paying the bill. This plan would require large tax increases at the state level that are never mentioned by Bernie.

As you can see, I have serious questions about Bernie's plans on these issues that lead me to believe that they are wholly unrealistic, and ill-thought out. They are sound-bite answers to deep questions. Hillary's plans may not be as 'liberal', but they are far more realistic, and address the after-effects of our systematic changes.

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. So long as energy is cheap, alternative sources aren't developed.

[Gregorian]

41. Fracking is a no brainer.

Free college is part of every advanced nation but ours.

Minimum wage is $15 and working in many major cities around the nation.

So what's the problem?

[CrowCityDem]

51. The problem is I asked serious policy questions, and you just dismissed them.

[Gregorian]

104. You're welcome.

I thought I was being cordial.

[pinebox]

52. A few things

Minimum wage---
We need a higher wage because people in red states will suffer, badly. Everything is a starting point. Think of it as dickering at a flea market over the price of an antique. Bernie's high number is $15, Hillary's high number is $12. Neither will get what they want however in the end, Bernie will get a higher wage for American's than Hillary will who will probably get $8.95 an hour compared to Bernie's $11. If you want economic impact, you pay people more which results in more consumer spending, we all know this and the Costco and In-N-Out Burger revenue models show this. You turn your employees into customers.

College---
We can't continue to enslave our young to debt. If other countries can have free college, so can we. We're the richest nation in the world and there is absolutely no excuse for not doing this. My kids live in Germany with their mom and neither of them will never know student loan debt in their lifetime because they essentially have no cost when it comes to attending college. My girlfriend is considering going to Germany to get her second doctrine which is free. In fact, American's are flocking to Germany because of their free college. http://usuncut.com/world/american-students-flock-to-germany-and-stay/ If we want to be a competitor on the world stage and believe me, we are barely that in so many areas anymore, we need to keep these kids here and offer them what they could get there. Otherwise, poof.

[CrowCityDem]

60. Those points don't address my questions. "Everyone else does it" is not a solid answer.

[Lone_Wolf]

88. I'm going to address #2 because I think it's the most serious

The cost argument is short term thinking. Every time someone brings up climate change there is someone who likes to bring up cost because they think it sounds pragmatic. It's not. Think about this for a moment. There are experts who think Hillary's pan doesn't go far enough. I would submit the levee system to keep our coastlines safe would be much more expensive.

[CrowCityDem]

92. It is short-term thinking...

but we live in the short-term. I'm not dismissing long-term thinking, and eventually we will absolutely be moving to renewable energy as the basis of our system.

That doesn't, however, diminish that in a time where we keep being told that the rich are the only people doing well, lower and middle class families can't afford to pay more for their energy, on top of the other costs that Bernie's plans would require. We do need to balance what's best for the long-term with what allows people to live and thrive now.

It doesn't sound in line with Bernie's talk of morality to dismiss the costs that rising energy prices would have.

[Lone_Wolf]

115. Delaying it is only going to make it more expensive.

You are missing the major point. Hillary is essentially playing a game of chicken with climate change. The longer we delay this the more expensive it becomes to deal with the consequences.

[smiley]

96. Let me see....

1. You seem to agree with gradual increases in the minimum wage. I haven't seen Bernie speaks against gradual increases, but I believe he is raising the bar higher than Clinton here. It's a negotiation and Bernie is smart to start higher.

2. Again you seem to be taking the cautious approach. I've witnessed the environmental impact of fracking personally. It was a boom economy for a few years and some people got rich. But now the wells (for the most part) are all drilled and most of the workers have left. The town is stuck with 5 newly built hotels vacant hotels, fracking sites that keep getting flooded by overflowing rivers, and the constant threat of water contamination.

3. We're the richest nation on earth from what I hear. There's no excuse for not offering an education for free. All of your concerns here are noted, but I believe if we can spend the kind of money we spend on wars and spreading 'freedom', then we can find the money offer an education. I will say however, your talking point on this sounds like a conservative talking point. If this is Hillary's stance then, I would not consider her have a progressive point of view on this subject.

As you can see, I have serious questions about Bernie's plans on these issues that lead me to believe that they are wholly unrealistic, and ill-thought out. They are sound-bite answers to deep questions. Hillary's plans may not be as 'liberal', but they are far more realistic, and address the after-effects of our systematic changes.

This is also a conservative talking-point and I'm not sure but the last time I checked, Democrats were supposedly liberals. We've been taking the cautious approach for far too long. The system needs to change and the incremental change that Hillary and her supporters seem to be preaching simply won't come soon enough to help the millions of people who need help now. I'm not going to support a candidate who has a conservative approach to the issues I know we need to fix now.

I believe in Bernie's message. I'm realize he will not achieve every one of his goals. But he certainly will lead the charge a helluva lot faster than Hillary will. That's the type of democrat I want to support in the GE.

[CrowCityDem]

97. So you note my points, and then don't say anything to answer them.

[smiley]

103. ok.

You're pushing a conservative approach to every issue facing our country.

I address that in each one. I'm certain anything I could say to you would've been greeted with the exact same response.

1. You're afraid 15$ is too much money for rural areas. Each candidate is currently supporting gradual increase. The only issue you seem to have with this is Bernie wants to much.

2. You seem to support fracking because currently you feel fracking is the cheapest source of fuel and the best alternative. Therefore we can't afford to invest in more environmentally sound energy sources because it will just be to costly. Again, this is absolutely insane. Let's keep destroying our environment because it will cost too much to invest in safer practices. This is exactly how conservatives think.

3. Again, you preach that it simply can't be done. You give the same argument conservatives give about universal healthcare. Quality will suffer, tuition taxes will go up, republican states won't go along with it, blah, blah, blah. You offer nothing to back any of these opinions up other than your own opinion, so I don't think there should be a problem when I simply say you're wrong. If we can spend trillions of dollars on wars, then we can somehow find a way to educate our children.

I don't expect any of this response to be satisfactory to you and I'm okay with that.
Have a great day!

[CrowCityDem]

107. Ugh

What I'm advocating is not 'conservative'. That word is why these discussions keep devolving into chaos. Save it for Republicans, who don't want to do anything to fix any of these problems.

1. My issue is not that Bernie wants too much, it's that he dismisses talk that different areas could require different amounts. There's nothing 'conservative' about wanting to make sure we do the right thing for each area.

2. You misstate my point entirely. I am saying that ending fracking is a goal we should be working towards, but doing so right away, without a plan to make up for the lost energy, is reckless. Making people pay more because of a lack of foresight is 'conservative', not making sure we can balance our long and short term interests.

3. It is not an opinion. Red states have refused to extend Medicaid, when it entailed far less expenditures than this college plan would require. There is literally no evidence out there to suggest those states would participate, which would create a system where you have to move your family across the country in order to get free college. There's nothing 'conservative' about asking if we're wisely spending out tax money, trying to make sure it doesn't get pumped into a system of waste an uncontrolled costs. Since state budgets are tight as things stand, yes, I'm concerned with where they are supposed to get these tens and hundreds of millions of dollars to fund this program, without states raising taxes above even Bernie's proposed increases.

[smiley]

109. double ugh...

Everything you're advocating is a conservative approach to fixing our problems.

1. Bernie supports a living wage. His approach may be a little to quick for your comfort and not quite as conservative, but a national wage of $15/hr is a great place to start the negotiations. Currently a living wage is different for every region. I would not have a problem with this being factored into any future negotiations and as far as I know Bernie has not dismissed this. I would hope that Bernie does not. I don't know Hillary's stance here. I know at one time she was for $12/hr, now she's the champion of it or something.

2. Do I believe fracking will disappear the day Bernie is elected? No. He's advocating for the move away from these policies. This will take time. But only recently has Hillary's opinion changed on this. I do not believe she will be an advocate for a move to cleaner energy sources unless there is a big payout for someone.

3. Again... if we can find the money for endless wars, then we can find the money for education. I could care less what the republican states think. It's high time they evolved with the rest of the planet. I also believe Bernie is advocating for a tax on stock derivatives to help pay for his college plan. This will also be unpopular with a core group of people, but again I don't care.

It's time for real change in this country. Bernie is the only one offering it. You're advocating for a candidate who's approach is too closely aligned with the conservative point of few. Sorry if you don't see it that way, but that's my take on it.

[CrowCityDem]

110. The 'conservative' positions...

are to drill anywhere and everywhere, eliminate the minimum wage, codify discrimination, privatize Social Security, and on and on. You make this a disingenuous discussion by equating a slightly less liberal approach to conservatism.

[smiley]

117. Yes that is some extreme 'conservativism'

I know plenty of conservative's who aren't advocating for the extreme approaches you mention above. I know a few who are.

But If conservative is to harsh for you, then let's just say that I believe Hillary's position on these issues to be either blurry or too incremental for my liberal point of view.

[mythology]

122. Except we can't afford endless wars

You may have noticed that we're trillions in debt. Sanders education plan funding would be disastrous for public education in this country. States like Kansas aren't going to buy in. Do we just leave those states behind?

Also I would point out that the three countries with the highest rates of college education are South Korea, Canada and Japan and all 3 charge for tuition. Most of the countries that do offer free public college have lower rates of post-secondary education than we have. It's not a panacea to just offer free college tuition.

Scotland recently made public colleges free and didn't see any change in the graduation rates for low income students. Yes I know that part of the point is to limit/eliminate student debt, but I think we should focus at least equally on getting more low income students to graduate as that will have a long term impact on income levels.

[smiley]

123. You're right we can't afford endless wars.

[SHRED]

63. Here's some "nuance" for you...

How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World
http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

Hillary was paid heavily for speeches to the same institutions who crashed the economy with their hedge fund schemes and toxic mortgage-backed securities.

Her son-in-law worked 8 years in the hedge fund industry at Goldman Sachs before starting his own hedge fund group into which the Goldman Sachs CEO is invested.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/business/dealbook/for-clintons-a-hedge-fund-in-the-family.html

And her campaign manager John Podesta (Group) handles PR (public relations) for billions of dollars in arms sales to the Saudis from such big players like Lockheed Martin.
You know Saudi Arabia?... the country responsible for 9/11?
Well the John Podesta Group is essentially a go-between that helps Saudi Arabia with their image to further sales growth in weaponry, etc.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/07/washingtons-multi-million-dollar-saudi-pr-machine

The military industrial banking complex is powerful and they want her at the helm.
The powers that be are much more comfortable with her as President rather than Bernie.

[TreasonousBastard]

95. Have you noticed that both Bernie and Trump supporters...

often tend to wander off into a semi-religious zone when promoting their candidate?

Details, and often facts, are lost in the zeal to get the message out. It's as if they found a candidate who voices their own choices, but they lean on faith when asked how it can be done.

With Trump, however, there is no evidence that he could run an airline, hotel, or football team, much less a country. And with Bernie, there is no evidence of a record of progressive legislation.

Just to make things clear-- I do not support Trump in any way, shape, or manner, but I do like the way Bernie talks. My only problem with Bernie is that it may end up being all talk.

[smiley]

108. here's some fact based evidence of progressive legislation for you.

S. 2399: Climate Protection and Justice Act of 2015
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s2399

S. 2391: American Clean Energy Investment Act of 2015
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s2391

S. 2398: Clean Energy Worker Just Transition Act
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s2398

S. 2237: Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2015
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s2237


Google is your friend, my friend.

[TreasonousBastard]

111. Wunnerful! You found four bills he introduced...

last year, after he decided to run for Prez.

I, and others, have asked about his record after all those years in the House and Senate, and I found this:

http://wafflesatnoon.com/bernie-sanders-bills-passed/

How Many Bernie Sanders Bills Have Passed?
<...>

If we look at Sanders’ record at Congress.gov, we can see that he has in fact sponsored a small number of bills which made it to the President’s desk. Although Sanders sponsored hundreds of pieces of legislation which date back to 1991, only three have become law.

Of all the bills that Sanders sponsored, we have the following breakdown:

357 introduced by Sanders
190 were considered by committee
12 were considered by the floor
1 failed one chamber
6 passed one chamber
3 passed both chambers, went to the President, and became law

Those three bills, according to Congress.gov, are:

S.893 Introduced 5/8/13. The Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 which became law in November 2013

S.885 Introduced 5/7/13. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 35 Park Street in Danville, Vermont, as the “Thaddeus Stevens Post Office” became law in November 2014.

H.R.5245 Introduced 4/27/06. To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, Vermont, as the “Matthew Lyon Post Office Building” became law in August 2006.

Thus, the claim that Sanders have never sponsored a bill that passed is untrue. Detractors may point out that two of those three bills merely renamed post offices, but even without those, Sanders does have one significant bill to his name.

Further, Sanders is cited as a co-sponsor on 203 other bills which have become law.
Summary

It is incorrect to state that Bernie Sanders never sponsored a bill that became law. He penned a total of three bills which were enacted as law, although two of those simply renamed post offices. Sanders is listed as a co-sponsor on over 200 pieces of legislation.

This not a horrible record, since it's not easy to get legislation on the floor and passed, but it's not a great one, either-- the best he did was get a vet's CoL adjustment?

[smiley]

112. I'm impressed!

I knew I had the right candidate. Thanks!

[Marrah_G]

133. I listen, I just do not agree

I think we need a new direction and the courage to make significant changes.

[QC]

10. It's too risky. Agree with one of her positions today

and you will very likely be contradicting her tomorrow.

That would be most embarrassing.

You might never be invited to a good salon again!

It's much safer just to throw poo.

[Marr]

14. Because they're either repulsive, or likely to change at the drop of a hat.

More than that though, her support is much more cult of personality than policy-based. Fans of Hillary are just that-- fans of Hillary. They don't actually give a shit about issues.

[boston bean]

17. Because discussing them with a bunch of maniacal Bernie supporters aint

worth our time.

[Armstead]

21. Do you think the national minimum wage should reflect actual cost of living or not?

[boston bean]

22. Is the cost of living the same in every state, location?

[Armstead]

31. Yes and No

When you talk about living costs a lot has to be factored in. A nice wonderful little house or apartment may vary from place to place. But the basic cost of a place to live has risen everywhere. $12 won't cut it.

There is another reality. Gentrification.

I live in a rural area, where one could think the cost of living is low. but in reality, we are struggle with a cost of living that has escalated beyond local income levels because of affluent urban residents who buy nice little "country getaways"or come up for vacations and have a lot of disposable income which pushes up all costs.

[boston bean]

33. Well, then you ought to give Clintons position a bit more thoughtful understanding.

[Armstead]

39. The bottom line is what is needed to stay afloat

$15 is a more realistic goal than $12....even if you just want to keep people from sleeping in cardboard boxes.

[boston bean]

47. LOL, can you stop implying what it is you think I want.

And no, I do not agree that $15 is a realistic living wage for every single part of this country.

Some places it can be detrimental to the local economies, in others it's not high enough.

[Armstead]

62. I was not referring to you -- that was a figure of speech

But setting aside what "luxuries" individuals and families should be expected to sacrifice, one basic fact remains.

Even in the most cynical interpretation, if you want $12, you start by asking for $15. If you start with $12, maybe you'll be lucky and get $9 or $10.

[boston bean]

65. Hillary supports $12 at the federal level.

There is a reason states have a say in this, you know.

Anything else you say is pure speculation and just more moving of the goal posts.

[Armstead]

67. I know all the reasons....I have done reports professionally on it

And my original response to you was in response to "why bother discussing issue with those maniacs?"

I raise an issue in a a reasonable, non aggressive way, and you retreat into ad hominum insults coupled with "delicate" objections to "personal insults."

Point taken

[boston bean]

72. Yes, they were all just sweet as pie.

Intimating that people who think about this in a more nuanced, educated way, want people to live like paupers, sleeping in cardboard boxes.

It was so sweet!

That is indicative of the reasoning for my original response in this thread.

Have a good one.

[Armstead]

75. There you go. Taking a figure of speech personally.

I was not aiming that at you. But "ooooooooooooooooooooo my hurt-feelings."

I used a cliche. How maniacal of me.

[boston bean]

77. Your framing needs some work. It comes across

as insulting and rude.

[Armstead]

79. Sometimes to some...Others (including some who disagree with me) don't see it that way.

Okay perhaps if you took my use of a figure of speech personally, because I did not express it correctly...there is a difference in tone between writing and speaking in person sometimes.

However, that is not being maniacal.

[Sancho]

30. This is the best answer. I'd rather spend time and energy getting Hillary elected...

instead of arguing with people who are either Hillary haters or paid trolls.

Let them waste time posting bash and trash - I'm working to GOTV for Hillary.

[TreasonousBastard]

91. And then you got...

discussing it with them anyway.

But, you are right-- often enough you have to show them two or three times why they are wrong. Then they still won't accept it, but they might shut up as they go off after more windmills.

[leftofcool]

125. Not only do I not discuss her issues with BS supporters, I don't engage them at all on anything

I am better than that as are most Hillary supporters.

[99Forever]

23. Because her positions are shit.

[BernieforPres2016]

25. For Hillary's supporters to discuss her real position on the issues, and theirs

would be to acknowledge that they are really Rockefeller Republicans, socially liberal and economically conservative.

[smiley]

98. +1

ain't that the truth.

[BernieforPres2016]

100. I should have added imperialist interventionist hawks to cover foreign policy

My first post only addressed domestic issues.

[oberliner]

26. She has basically the same position as Bernie on all of those issues

Slight variations here and there but basically the same.

Whereas the Republicans are literally on the extreme opposite of both of them on all those issues.

[boston bean]

28. That is just not acceptable to the high and mighty, here.

[oberliner]

59. "Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and President than the Republican candidate"

"Yes, we do agree on a number of issues, and by the way, on her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and President than the Republican candidate on his best day."

- Bernie Sanders

[Kip Humphrey]

27. They don't know what they are. Nor, apparently, do they care.

[DLnyc]

36. Honestly, it's hard to get a clear sense of her position on anything, because she hedges so much.

Like in the debate, when Sanders tried to get her to say clearly whether she was for raising the cap or not. She just could not give a straight answer. She seems to always basically say yes, but no in a way also, but not no really at all except for certain cases so actually no, mostly, but in important ways yes also so that is my very clear position absolutely I both agree and disagree in the most certain uncertain way can we change the subject now already since I've clearly stated my position(s)!

I understand some issues are complex, but I think most people want a presidential candidate to set a clear direction, a vision, for where we want to go as a country. How we get there can indeed be a complex issue, but I feel like we need to start out with a very clear consensus (and mandate) for where we want to go!

It's very hard to figure out how to get somewhere if you are not clear where you are going!

[Blanks]

120. The democrats will have a platform...

The platform will have specifics about what the party is pushing for and what they are not pushing for.

The presidential candidate will be the leader of the party, but they aren't czar. This is a democracy and anyone who has observed politics for a few election cycles knows that what the president is campaigning on, may or may not work within the platform.

Of course, Bernie, not being a member of the party can say whatever he wants, but those who have watched politics for a while know that the president, being just one person in an elaborate political system, can stand where ever they want, but that shouldn't in any way shape or form, be construed as something that they can be expected to accomplish.

This is why Hillary isn't as 'concrete' as Bernie. She knows that it may not be the position the party takes. At least I assume that's why she isn't solid on some of these things, and that's why it doesn't bother me.

The presidential candidate that wins is the one with the most votes (electoral anyway) and the platform needs to be tailored to appeal to the most people. Speaking in 'applause lines' is not impressive to me. When we get closer to the election, we will know exactly where the candidates stand. I'm a democrat, I know I'm going to vote for the democrat. I don't care where Bernie (or Hillary) stand on every issue. I'll wait until the platform is being advertised and talk about what the democrats are gonna do to make America strong, not what the president is going to do, because the president ain't doing shit without congress anyway.

[DLnyc]

135. Interesting, but this approach leaves us without any direction whatsoever, it seems to me.

I'm not really sure what it is Hillary wants to get done when she says "I'm a progressive who gets things done."

But, it seems to me, the main 'currency' a president has to work with is the consensus he or she has demonstrated by having successfully run on a clear platform. That, I think, is the idea of a "mandate", an expression of the will of the people to go a certain direction.

Your post pretty much reinforces my feeling that Hillary either does not want to, or is unable to, express clearly what direction she wants to go. I think that implies that even if she does get elected (which is hard to do without some clear sense of direction), she will not have any sort of mandate to point to, having failed to express, during the campaign, a clear vision of where she wants take our country and the world.

So, all in all, sorry, but I am pretty uninspired by this approach!

[Blanks]

136. I'm not surprised that you're uninspired...

It's a reality based approach.

It's more fun to believe that you're part of a nonexistent revolution.

[DLnyc]

138. Well, I would say it's more effective leadership to say clearly where we want to go.

Speaking in vague platitudes only prepares us to wander around for four years while serious problems like our corrupt campaign finance system and global warming get dangerously worse.

Giving a clear agenda and vision gives us a chance to to move forward with a strong mandate and a confident, committed and clear-headed progressive movement as an engine.

Which, yeah, I guess is more fun, too!

[Blanks]

141. I like your attitude...

You seem positive and that's a good thing, but it doesn't matter what the president plans, if the president doesn't have a congress that will work with him/her - coming up with a vision is a waste of time.

Flexibility is actually a better plan.

[senz]

45. In an NPR interview, Sherrod Brown said he helped write her issues to make them more palatable

for progressives. The interview was several days ago.

[SHRED]

68. Brown flip flops

Just when you think he's a Progressive he pulls this kind of stunt.

[senz]

93. I pity him. She must have made an offer he couldn't refuse.

[onecaliberal]

46. For the most part, it changes daily. You can't nail down an actual position on anything she

hasn't changed except two. That is war and taxes. She's always for more war and tax cuts for the wealthy.

[RufusTFirefly]

70. Death penalty, free trade, Iraq war, foreign interventionism, PATRIOT (sic) ACT...

etc., etc.

That's why I oppose her. With the exception of some vital social issues (some of which she's conveniently "evolved" on), she and I are completely at odds when it comes to policy.

[SHRED]

74. wait a minute...

We Bernie supporters are suppose to be unreasonable fanatics.

[djean111]

73. Because her positions on those things are positions no true Democrat would take?

Oh, wait, "true Democrat" has nothing to do with principles these days - I forgot.

[hobbit709]

76. Because they have to check in several times a day to find out what her position is.

[LeFleur1]

78. Hillary's Position on Issues

Fracking. Clinton is a realist. She intends to try to convince the congress to make rules that inhibit fracking. She knows the government of the USA is not a dictatorship. The easiest thing in the world to do is wag a finger and say, "That's wrong." Analyzing HOW it can be stopped is something else, and much harder to do.
Federal Minimum Wage. Many states are poorer than many other states. She feels $12.00 with a rise to $15.00 would have a chance of happening. Again. Realism vs. Grumbling.
Israel/Palestinian: She has negotiated with these people. She knows what is going on. She believes until the terrorist attacks stop there will be no chance of peace between those countries. She has always believed there should be a Palestinian State. Getting there requires much effort from all parties involved and that doesn't seem to be high on their list right now. Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had those involved at the negotiating table. A plan didn't happen. It requires cooperation by everyone involved.
Global Warming. Many in this country, and in the Senate and House do not even believe it is happening. Even though big things COULD be done right now, it requires those votes and state cooperation. Every move forward is good. If this country had a dictator who believed in global warming it could be stopped in this country today. Other countries would have to do their own work with our encouragement. See? That's how it works. Bernie knows that, or it would have happened by now because he has had plenty of opportunity in the Senate.
Wall Street Regulation. Some has been done with Hillary's support. More will be done when it can get through Congress. See Dictatorship.
Citizens United. Hillary has been against this for years. She's tried to get government funding for campaigns. The Supreme Court has decided this is A OK and either the House and Senate have to pass a law or an amendment. The President cannot do it alone.
Getting people out of Poverty. No one has worked harder at this than Clinton in all of her jobs in government and out, including children's insurance, which she pushed through. She has always worked for the people. All of the people. The money from her much criticized paid speeches went to this cause.
Two years of free college with jobs, lower interest rates for all of college, and less expensive college with jobs the last two years could work. California had free college education until it could not be sustained.
She is a realistic person and she would be the best person to get some of these things done, because her eyes are wide open concerning HOW it happens.
There are vast differences between the two candidates. Not on the issues, but on the plans to solve the problems. Bernie seems to have no ideas or plans that have any chance of passing the House and Senate, and Hillary does.
Gender card? Show me. For all the nonsense she puts up with as a woman, being called a whore, and ll of the other slurs, she has remained pretty calm about the insults she endures because she is a woman.

[Betty Karlson]

87. Because that would create a record of what her positions are (or purported to be)

and we can't have that, now? Not when she prefers to pivot back to something close to Republican positions as soon as possible?

[Doctor_J]

89. It might be because she is more conservative than Reagan

[LibDemAlways]

94. Because her positions on the issues mostly suck.

[Onlooker]

99. Perhaps because Bernie supporters don't want to either. At any rate, just for you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511761120

[orpupilofnature57]

101. It's more about Legacy, franchising and feeling inside, than connecting dots or issues .

[HassleCat]

102. It's the re'sume'

That re'sume' is long and impressive until we look into the specific items in it. Then we kind of wish she didn't have so much "experience."

[longship]

105. They'd rather faint about birds and Popes.

and other meaningless stuff.

That is what happens when one has a mean spirited, meaningless candidate.

Birds and Pope visits upset you to the point that no number of lies will suffice. And a fainting couch had better be close at hand.

Meanwhile, the campaign goes on.

I sincerely hope that we aren't stuck with a candidate whose supporters go apoplectic over a little finch or who tell lies about a Vatican City visit when they have to know that their made up shit will be exposed.

How can anybody support that candidate?

[SHRED]

106. Good question

I don't have an answer.

[MisterP]

113. they don't think they owe us any explanation: she's The Candidate, whatever she supports

they're for, end of story

[Vinca]

114. Her stand on an issue changes according to wind direction.

The wind was blowing left since Bernie gained traction so she's tracked left. Once he's gone I'll go back to worrying about whether my Social Security and Medicare will be compromised.

[Bjornsdotter]

116. What issues?

[TheDormouse]

124. For the real progressives, it's the only way to maintain the cognitive dissonance nt

[eastwestdem]

126. I don't think anyone comes to DU for actual facts. I learn more by reading candidates websites and

listening to the debates (and following up on their claims). There is actually a lot of stuff out there.

[Kalidurga]

127. Oh come on we have seen why Hillarians don't want to talk about the issues

When they do Hillary comes up short. So, it's easier to use rofl smilies and snark to deflect from talking about anything. They lost their collective shit over Bernie going to the Vatican. This is not a good sign for that wing of the party if they can't handle Bernie going on a two day trip and shaking hands with the Pope.

[creeksneakers2]

128. "Enablers"

isn't an issue. Its a groundless insult.

[Csainvestor]

129. Is Hillary still in favor of Outsourcing

I have no idea what she stands on the issue, I know she takes money from companies that love Outsourcing, I know she's touted the benefits of Outsourcing before, but is she still for it?

[pdsimdars]

131. One more "list of particulars"

[Odin2005]

137. Hillary changes her stance on issues every day.

And her supporters are like "we've always been at war with Eastasia".