Let's talk about the debate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Well, leading progressive economists and journalists who've reviewed the plan Sanders just released don't share your view of reality, at least as it applies to that. And that's opened the door to really looking at all his plans, and using terms like "half-baked" to describe them. But keep feeling the bern, my friend. The National Review thanks you.

If the Democrats had offered a viable option other than Clinton or Sanders, I'd have seriously considered the alternative. For me - a long time liberal - Clinton represents everything wrong with politics and so it goes against the grain to vote for her. Sanders has his flaws but he is honest and principled. I will take that any day over someone who I don't trust and is beholden to special interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrat here who was unsure about who she supports, Hilary or Bernie. Here's the thing. I don't agree 100% with Bernie's decisions regarding healthcare and some others. But his focus on taking money out of politics and breaking the banks is REALLY important. How can we have a functional political system when things that a majority of voters want cannot happen simply because it's money not votes or even knowledge and expertise that make decisions? If the system stays as is, who we vote for is meaningless because each person is simply a beholden to various wealthy groups.

This HAS to change.

Spot on!

What I find really offensive is when politicians keep insisting that large contributions from special interests and lobbyists makes no difference in how they vote or what legislation they push.

When Goldman Sachs pays Hillary Clinton $600K for speeches does anyone believe it is because the content of her speeches are so profound? When foreign governments donate millions to the Clinton Global Initiative, does anyone really believe they are not looking to buy influence or favorable treatment in the future?

Is it just coincidence that Sanders and Trump - both who are not accepting funds from special interests and lobbyists - are the one who generate the most excitement and passion among their supporters and they turn out in the thousands at rallies?

No, it would s because populists do well in times of uncertainty. Both are making crowd pleasing promises without actual plans that support,the,.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans would relish running against Hillary.

She is detested by the Republican base and it would ensure a large turn-out. Combine that with the fact that some Bernie supporters would just not vote for her and her general lack of credibility and trustworthiness and Republicans think she would be beatable.

Embracing Obama as she did may play well for the primaries but it may not when it comes to the general but we know that she will happily discard Obama at that time.

Sanders does not evoke among Republicans the same sort of antipathy that Clinton does.

He's a joke among republicans!! The GOP won't vote for anyone except the GOP...

Actually BOTH HRC and Bernie are jokes!

I fear for our future....

How dare you! Such sacrilege!!

Hillary's backers believe she will lead them to the promised land.

Bernie supports believe that too!

Seriously! I think HRC supporters are pretty clear-eyed about her: she's a pragmatist. Bernie supporters are the ones who are "promise land-ish."

[Anonymous]

Clinton is a moderate reformer, which is exactly what the country needs. Sanders proposals are fantasies that are much too expensive and so poorly designed they would fail if enacted. As with the GOP leaders, scapegoating a few groups of people or interest groups is not a legitimate platform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clinton is a moderate reformer, which is exactly what the country needs. Sanders proposals are fantasies that are much too expensive and so poorly designed they would fail if enacted. As with the GOP leaders, scapegoating a few groups of people or interest groups is not a legitimate platform.

Clinton would be a divider. This is NOT what our country needs right now.
She views the Republicans as her enemy. She is not someone who instills a sense of patriotism or confidence in voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clinton is a moderate reformer, which is exactly what the country needs. Sanders proposals are fantasies that are much too expensive and so poorly designed they would fail if enacted. As with the GOP leaders, scapegoating a few groups of people or interest groups is not a legitimate platform.

He's not scapegoating a few groups. He's pretty pointedly accusing a single group of people and those working with them to legalize exploitative practices that are debilitating most of the citizens of this country.

[Anonymous]

BO's healthcare reforms were described as outlandish, expensive, impractical, disastrous. Sanders' proposals have been enacted in many countries around the globe. The US is the richest nation in the history of mankind, and there's no reason why they couldn't work here. It's simply a matter of political (and corporate) will. Clinton herself chalks up it's destined failure to political will, not cost. She lacks the courage to ram it through...so do most other establishment Dems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BO's healthcare reforms were described as outlandish, expensive, impractical, disastrous. Sanders' proposals have been enacted in many countries around the globe. The US is the richest nation in the history of mankind, and there's no reason why they couldn't work here. It's simply a matter of political (and corporate) will. Clinton herself chalks up it's destined failure to political will, not cost. She lacks the courage to ram it through...so do most other establishment Dems.

Clearly you haven't read the plan or the critique. Almost all of the other countries pay for it with a VAT, Bernie plans massive taxes to n everyone including a top rate of close to 60 percent, which would also apply to capital gains. Goodbye economy and that is just to pay for one day his policies dies.

Then he plans to massively decrease medical spending. Goodbye innovation and doctors and nurses with half a brain.

[Anonymous]

The highest rate is 52%, not 60%. And that's only if you make $10 million per year. And truly, if you make $10 million per year, you can afford it. You will still bring home more in a year than I will probably make in my lifetime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The highest rate is 52%, not 60%. And that's only if you make $10 million per year. And truly, if you make $10 million per year, you can afford it. You will still bring home more in a year than I will probably make in my lifetime.

I can guarantee you that a plan that raises the top rate over 50 percent, pretty much doubles the capital gains tax, increases the tax on the middle class, and also has a dramatic increase in estate tax while all to deliver a lower quality of care is a non-starter.

If you can't see that, you are in serious denial.

How's he going to pay for a single other thing he has promised to do? Not through increasing taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton is a moderate reformer, which is exactly what the country needs. Sanders proposals are fantasies that are much too expensive and so poorly designed they would fail if enacted. As with the GOP leaders, scapegoating a few groups of people or interest groups is not a legitimate platform.

He's not scapegoating a few groups. He's pretty pointedly accusing a single group of people and those working with them to legalize exploitative practices that are debilitating most of the citizens of this country.

Please explain how most citizens are "debilitated" and the "explotive practices" that are causing it. You are throwing around some pretty meaningless rhetoric.

[Anonymous]

Goodbye economy? I disagree with your fearmongering. Our economy did just fine with top tax brackets significantly higher than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clinton is a moderate reformer, which is exactly what the country needs. Sanders proposals are fantasies that are much too expensive and so poorly designed they would fail if enacted. As with the GOP leaders, scapegoating a few groups of people or interest groups is not a legitimate platform.

Clinton would be a divider. This is NOT what our country needs right now.
She views the Republicans as her enemy. She is not someone who instills a sense of patriotism or confidence in voters.

Oh, grow up. Neither Sanders nor Clinton is or would be a divider; Republicans will just get more and more bullheaded toward anyone. If Jesus came back and ran as Jesus, Savior of Mankind (D), they'd still block him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BO's healthcare reforms were described as outlandish, expensive, impractical, disastrous. Sanders' proposals have been enacted in many countries around the globe. The US is the richest nation in the history of mankind, and there's no reason why they couldn't work here. It's simply a matter of political (and corporate) will. Clinton herself chalks up it's destined failure to political will, not cost. She lacks the courage to ram it through...so do most other establishment Dems.

We already spend 3 trillion a year on healthcare - which per capita is more than virtually any other country on earth. What happens is that it gets restructured and made more effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BO's healthcare reforms were described as outlandish, expensive, impractical, disastrous. Sanders' proposals have been enacted in many countries around the globe. The US is the richest nation in the history of mankind, and there's no reason why they couldn't work here. It's simply a matter of political (and corporate) will. Clinton herself chalks up it's destined failure to political will, not cost. She lacks the courage to ram it through...so do most other establishment Dems.

HRC tried, and failed.

Sanders hasn't tried yet.

I prefer Sanders