![]() |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11890688)
I'm sure she'll bring her brand of success that she brought to HP and her own campaign.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by amideislas
(Post 11890695)
Clinton isn't proposing a "revolution", rather a steady migration toward her policies, one step at a time, no huge, unrealistic campaign promises that she'll be patently unable to fulfill.
Bernie's idealism is completely unrealistic, if for no other reason than like Clinton, he'll be tied to a whipping post for the first 2 years, unable to achieve any resemblance of his dramatic reforms, only to be voted out at the end of the first term for not having achieved anything. How is Sanders going to be treated any differently by Republicans than Clinton. I mean Clinton has been loved by the GOP for years right? |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by amideislas
(Post 11890695)
Clinton isn't proposing a "revolution", rather a steady migration toward her policies, one step at a time, no huge, unrealistic campaign promises that she'll be patently unable to fulfill.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11890725)
Again, name a policy of Clinton's that will get through the current Congress. Don't forget as well that Clinton is sounding more and more like Sanders, which makes her policies less and less realistic right?
How is Sanders going to be treated any differently by Republicans than Clinton. I mean Clinton has been loved by the GOP for years right? However, she is quite a bit more moderate, and that alone makes her quite a bit less of a threat to dyed in wool conservatives. Besides, she's a "player" just like them, and knows how to play the game. I'd expect Bernie to be completely and in all ways sentenced to a political prison without parole. He'd be a huge threat to the right. Nobody seriously believes he will win the nomination, so nobody's really wasting time attacking him yet. But if he did, it would be a right-wing onslaught of biblical proportions. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by amideislas
(Post 11890740)
That wasn't my point. You seemed to be asking what the difference was. What Clinton can achieve remains to be seen. I'm not a prophet.
However, she is quite a bit more moderate, and that alone makes her quite a bit less of a threat to dyed in wool conservatives. Besides, she's a "player" just like them, and knows how to play the game. I'd expect Bernie to be completely and in all ways sentenced to a political prison without parole. He'd be a huge threat to the right. Nobody seriously believes he will win the nomination, so nobody's really wasting time attacking him yet. But if he did, it would be a right-wing onslaught of biblical proportions. As for the idea that she is more moderate, that fails to take into account conservatives personal animosity towards the Clintons. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 11890734)
Her policies seem to be anything that she thinks would get her elected. And bearing in mind she would make Obama look like the great conciliator, how would any get passed?
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11890752)
All I'm doing is questioning the idea that Clinton's policies are more realistic. So far, I haven't had an answer.
As for the idea that she is more moderate, that fails to take into account conservatives personal animosity towards the Clintons. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11890752)
All I'm doing is questioning the idea that Clinton's policies are more realistic. So far, I haven't had an answer.
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11890752)
As for the idea that she is more moderate, that fails to take into account conservatives personal animosity towards the Clintons.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by amideislas
(Post 11890767)
You were just given a quite reasonable answer. Choosing to ignore it is exactly why idealism fails so often, and frankly, how Trump might actually end up as president.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by amideislas
(Post 11890740)
What Clinton can achieve remains to be seen. I'm not a prophet.
However, she is quite a bit more moderate, and that alone makes her quite a bit less of a threat to dyed in wool conservatives. . That being said, they would much prefer to have Bernie Sanders as an opponent because he can be torn to shreds as a pinko commie socialist. They haven't bothered to attack him because it is presumed that he will not be the nominee and because they are hoping against hope that he might be the nominee. Their efforts to attack Clinton has gone as far as they can go and they really won't be able to do much to her that they haven't done already, whereas Sanders represents fresh meat. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11890768)
You have, but you don't want to hear it. Take healthcare, for example. What Sanders is proposing isn't even supported by his own party. Back in the first half of Obama's first term when there was a Democratic majority in both the Senate and the House, there wasn't support within Democrats to pursue the "public option". Unless something untoward happens in the makeup of Democrats within Congress, I cannot envisage Sanders even being able to persuade his own party that they should hitch themselves to his healthcare proposals. Clinton, otoh, wants to build on what is already there and is working in the ACA. Will she succeed? Maybe not, but surely she has better odds of doing something.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11890779)
Sure, let's take healthcare. Why do you expect that the Republicans in Congress who have voted over 60 times to repeal the ACA are now going to vote to expand it. Is that really realistic?
|
Re: 2016 Election
If Clinton wins the stalemate between the Exec branch and Congress will continue. If Trump or Cruz win and with the backing of the Tea Party things will get done alright. Not for the general benefit of the middle class either.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11890784)
Who said anything about "expanding" it :confused:
Hillary Clinton previews plan to expand Obamacare and lower health costs - LA Times |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11890774)
You still haven't said which of Clinton's will pass Congress. There's not much difference between "no chance" and "absolutely no chance".
Frankly, I don't really like Clinton at all. I like Bernie, but only because he's kind of a cute old guy with an honest passion. But in politics of the two, her chances are far better. I am a right-leaning centrist by nature, but there is not one republican candidate that I find remotely sensible. The entire party is living in an alternate reality. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 3:58 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.