| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 11/14/2008
Posts: 24,988
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
And his stance on Wall Street will probably be a factor that will cost him that state.
|
Pretty much. What I'm surprised people haven't brought up is, Wall Street is essential to a boat load of jobs in the Tri-State area (NY, NJ, and CT). Breaking them up, doesn't just hurt consumers, but it hurts the job market as well. Yes, the big banks need regulation, but to close shop on them would be a horrific decision to make.
While I don't think our economy will reach the levels of Greece, you can look at them with how their banks collapsed as well. At a point, their customers were only allowed to withdraw a marginal amount of money. People couldn't pay their bills. Bailing and not bailing out banks isn't as black and white as people would like to think. You have to evaluate the cause and effect of each decision made.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
What I'm surprised people haven't brought up is, how drilling down into the earth is essentially prioritizing the discovery of new gas/oil sources over renewable energy, that half of the American population is experiencing water droughts and massive amounts of high-pressure water mixture is only playing right into the hands of those shortages, that it increases pollution, spreads toxins, noise pollution, potentially generate earthquakes, and possibly increase water contamination.
But when we're too busy discussing how Bernie is suing the DNC and how Hillary is going to 'sweep' on April 26, when the media is too busy focusing on Trump's distracting, divisive and insulting rhetoric, when social media geeks are too busy spreading lies and hatred towards Hillary, when hunters and obsessed gun owners are too busy discussing how Cruz is going to be 'their champion' this coming November, I don't expect anything but disregarding the numerous environmental, safety, and health hazards that come along with hydraulic fracking.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Adonis
I'm just waiting for the plethora of bad legislation passed during a second Clinton administration and people justify it by saying it was a product of its time when the next democrat president has to unwind all the nonsense.
|
 Legislation can't get passed without Congress. If anything bad passes, blame her, Congress. And then there are times when Governors don't have to enforce it like Obamacare so if they do then blame them too.
The only thing we can truly blame a president for are executive actions, war, and appointing unexperienced cabinet positions (which I'm sure Hillary is smart enough not to do). Bernie is the one who has a better chance of damaging our country than she has.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 11/14/2008
Posts: 24,988
|
 
Meet three of the kids covered by the Children's Health Insurance Program, all grown up.
Quote:
As first lady, she took that fight to the highest levels—including testifying before Congress as the head of the President’s Task Force on National Health Care Reform.
When Republicans—with help from their friends in the insurance lobby and health care industry—blocked efforts to expand health care, Hillary didn't give up. She worked with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to help pass the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which provides health insurance to eligible children from low-income families.
Today, the program insures more than 8 million children.
But access to lifesaving health care is about more than numbers. Here, three of the countless families with a personal stake in this issue share what Hillary’s fight for children’s health care meant to them.
|
Always has been at the front of the line when fighting for women, children, and healthcare. This is such a great read and I'm so happy to see the CHIP program going strong all these years later. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/20/2011
Posts: 4,134
|
How can this not be over if Hillary wins NY?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/12/2011
Posts: 3,256
|
The catch words this time are - the establishment, wall Street
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Quote:
Originally posted by spree
How can this not be over if Hillary wins NY?
|
It kind of already is, but he wants to be stubborn and go all the way. He think he can stay close to her in pledged delegates and convince super delegates to vote for him. Although he and his supporters have attacked them and the Democratic Party for decades.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/12/2011
Posts: 3,256
|
If Hillary loses NY or narrowly wins it, then she doesn't deserve the nomination... Next 2 weeks out of 607 delegates she MUST get at least 350.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 26,488
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Monster Megamind
If Hillary loses NY or narrowly wins it, then she doesn't deserve the nomination... Next 2 weeks out of 607 delegates she MUST get at least 400.
|
Wrong.
Her projection says she only needs a little less than 350 to stay on track. It's closer to Bernie, who if he doesn't get around 400 it's done for the fifth time.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/12/2011
Posts: 3,256
|
How did Sanders build a rabid fan base so quickly? It reminds me of Gaga...
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Monster Megamind
If Hillary loses NY or narrowly wins it, then she doesn't deserve the nomination... Next 2 weeks out of 607 delegates she MUST get at least 350.
|
That's not how this process works. New York isn't the entire country. She'll still be ahead in pledged delegates and the popular vote. And any narrow loss would be made up on April 26th.
But she's winning and at least by 10 points so idc.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 23,857
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
It kind of already is, but he wants to be stubborn and go all the way. He think he can stay close to her in pledged delegates and convince super delegates to vote for him. Although he and his supporters have attacked them and the Democratic Party for decades.
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
Legislation can't get passed without Congress. If anything bad passes, blame her, Congress. And then there are times when Governors don't have to enforce it like Obamacare so if they do then blame them too.
The only thing we can truly blame a president for are executive actions, war, and appointing unexperienced cabinet positions (which I'm sure Hillary is smart enough not to do). Bernie is the one who has a better chance of damaging our country than she has. |
That is very subjective and arguable. Many people would view her long history of coming out and apologizing/recognizing the mistakes she has made in terms of decisions she's made, legislation she's supported, legislation she's passed, etc. as a counterargument to that. I don't think we should be treating who has a better chance of "damaging the country" objectively.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
It kind of already is, but he wants to be stubborn and go all the way. He think he can stay close to her in pledged delegates and convince super delegates to vote for him. Although he and his supporters have attacked them and the Democratic Party for decades.
|
I mean he does have pretty decent support (even though he's still behind) and his campaign is generating momentum across the country. Please stop acting like the fact that he's staying (which is still reasonable so far) is an act of being "stubborn" - he's still in it and he is going to try his best not to disappoint his supporters this early around when in fact his campaign still has more energy to drag this further. Clinton doesn't just own the nomination.
And he's been pretty civil with the Democratic Party over those "decades" you speak of, at least for someone who wasn't even part of the party. He's been caucusing with them in Congress his entire career and fighting for Democratic values all along.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dessy Fenix
|
You know what I meant.
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
That is very subjective and arguable. Many people would view her long history of coming out and apologizing/recognizing the mistakes she has made in terms of decisions she's made, legislation she's supported, legislation she's passed, etc. as a counterargument to that. I don't think we should be treating who has a better chance of "damaging the country" objectively.
|
Well economists and other scholars seem to say Hillary's 'Breaking Down Barriers' plans are more effective and safe. She's basically riding on Obama 3rd term. She's not promising anything to drastic for our current state of the economy and job market.
Bernie wants huge change that he does not even know for sure could get done at this particular state in America. So yes his chances are greater.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
Well economists and other scholars seem to say Hillary's 'Breaking Down Barriers' plans are more effective and safe. She's basically riding on Obama 3rd term. She's not promising anything to drastic for our current state of the economy and job market.
Bernie wants huge change that he does not even know for sure could get done at this particular state in America. So yes his chances are greater.
|
Sighting economists and "other scholars" claiming that Hillary's plans are safer won't make your argument any more objective, and I have already shown the legitimate counterargument to that, which "other scholars" can't predict, but her record would reflect itself. Bernie advocating for change doesn't increase his chances of "damaging the country", at least not objectively so.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2011
Posts: 31,849
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Monster Megamind
If Hillary loses NY or narrowly wins it, then she doesn't deserve the nomination... Next 2 weeks out of 607 delegates she MUST get at least 350.
|
How did you come to this ridiculous conclusion?  So you are saying Bernie should get it even though Hillary has over 2 million more votes than Bernie, over 200 more pledged delegates than Bernie and nearly all of the superdelegates?  A true reverse Sandersion Experience.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
And while divisive figures like Trump are dangerous for the country's women, I still don't think someone like him can reverse SCOTUS' decision on women's productive rights, for example. But with Secretary Clinton joining Ted, Donald, and John on fracking, I think there's some real dangerous stuff we need to be worrying about that could potentially "damage" the country. Whether Hillary supporters, Bernie supporters, or neutral, these types of issues concern humankind, and shouldn't be dealt with based on personal political support.
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
What I'm surprised people haven't brought up is, how drilling down into the earth is essentially prioritizing the discovery of new gas/oil sources over renewable energy, that half of the American population is experiencing water droughts and massive amounts of high-pressure water mixture is only playing right into the hands of those shortages, that it increases pollution, spreads toxins, noise pollution, potentially generate earthquakes, and possibly increase water contamination.
But when we're too busy discussing how Bernie is suing the DNC and how Hillary is going to 'sweep' on April 26, when the media is too busy focusing on Trump's distracting, divisive and insulting rhetoric, when social media geeks are too busy spreading lies and hatred towards Hillary, when hunters and obsessed gun owners are too busy discussing how Cruz is going to be 'their champion' this coming November, I don't expect anything but disregarding the numerous environmental, safety, and health hazards that come along with hydraulic fracking.
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 15,589
|
I wish i cared more about green energy (and fracking, and the whole 9) but i really don't 
|
|
|
|
|
|
