Regarding my citizenship. Yes, I am an Australian. Why do I care about the US election? Because America is the world's most powerful and influential country and because I generally care about others.
Also, to be clear I am not "anti-Hillary". But I definitely do not prescribe to the blind fandomism that seems to emanate from this thread. And as I have said on more than one occasion in this thread to a couple of people, why don't you respond to the actual issues involved instead of this pointless condescension regarding intelligence or insight. I find it far less intelligent or insightful for someone to simply dismiss a claim without actually responding to the issues. What in my post was factually incorrect? If I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong.
And respond to every single issue rather than potentially picking one that might be easier to refute than another because remember, your claim is that none of my "anti-Hillary diatribes" are based in fact. In other words, you are saying that every single claim I have made is incorrect. This is so unlikely to be true and how I already know that you have not really responded in an 'insightful or intelligent' manner. I dislike having to engage in these forum wars, but I feel compelled to stand up and talk for what I believe in when I can clearly see there some flaws in reasoning taking place here.
1. Is it not the case that Bernie Sanders is being criticised for raising middle-class taxes by the Clinton campaign and others without a proper consideration that this will likely not result in a lower net income for middle-class families? (but may be even higher given Bernie Sanders' progressive economic and healthcare policies).
My verdict: to me, this is clearly factually correct from the tax policy center of analysis tax plan and from Hillary Clinton's campaign trail quote. The report and Hillary's quote did not seem to fully take into account the impact of Bernie Sanders' taxes on the net income of middle class families.
2a. Is it not the case that Hillary Clinton, a well educated Yale law graduate would probably understand his basic economic principle?
My verdict: I think a Yale law graduate can clearly understand that a families' net income is determined by more than simply tax rates.
2b. Therefore, is it not the case that if Hillary Clinton reinforces the message that Sanders is going to "raise taxes" for the middle class without clearly explaining the actual implication of this for wealth of middle class families that there is an element of insincerity or dishonesty taking place?
My verdict: Assuming Hillary intentionally withheld this information, which seems far more likely to me than a lack of understanding given her high level of intelligence and education, then it is an example of insincerity or dishonesty aimed to influence voters by pandering to the "they're going to raise taxes rhetoric", causing voters to falsely believe their net income will reduce when as established above that is not the case.
3a. Is it not the case that Hillary Clinton's tax rates for the "top 1%" are substantially lower than Bernie Sanders?
My Verdict: According to this article, Sanders' taxes for the top 1% will be 6.7 times higher on average. Thus, it does seem to be the case.
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/4/11161616/bernie-sanders-tax-policy-center
3b. And you don't think that having a political campaign funded by Super Pacs of donors with big money interests might influence the decisions she wants to make about this? Hillary has criticised Bernie Sanders for his "artful smear" campaign suggesting she is influenced by money interests. But it's hard to sit here and pretend that there isn't a reason why millions of dollars are fed into political campaigns, particularly when looking at a case example here (Clinton vs Sanders). The Sanders campaign, which has received less than 0.1% of their campaign donations from Super Pacs (according to the NY Times) will have a much more negative outcome for "the 1%" in terms of income tax. The campaign that has received 31% of their donations from Super Pacs will have a much more positive outcome for "the 1%" in terms of income tax.
As Bernie Sanders has communicated, "People aren't dumb,” Sanders said. “Why in God’s name does Wall Street make huge campaign contributions? I guess just for the fun of it.
My verdict: This point is far more contentious than the other points, but it's hard to believe that people would be willing to spend tens of millions of dollars on a political campaign without expecting some kind of return on investment. And indeed, there is a clear return on investment at least in terms of income tax for the Clinton campaign (which for high-income earners is far lower), and for the longevity of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries (which would suffer economically should the USA move to a public health care system, even if it was better for the interests of citizens). Perhaps it isn't a coincidence either that Hillary Clinton has received seizable donations from the pharmaceutical industry.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/11/health/big-pharma-presidential-politics/
Now, regarding whether my comments have 'insight'. They probably don't because these issues are central to Bernie Sanders' campaign. But there are significant issues that it's hard to turn a blind eye to here.
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
Updated On: 3/6/16 at 01:35 AM
), nothing would surprise me! Except in this case I would be happy.
, Michigan and Mississippi hold their primaries. Clinton is leading in MI (130) by about 25% and MS (36) by around 60%. So she will continue to increase that gap. March 15 doesn't look promising for Sanders, either. She's leading in delegate-rich Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio by 20%-30%.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
