clinton vs. sanders your vote?- Page 90

[South Florida]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 7:14am

Namo, you're a strange person.  

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2311

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/17/poll-hillary-clinton-least-honest-and-trustworthy-of-all-presidential-candidates/

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/poll-clinton-seen-most-dishonest-untrustworthy-top-presidential-candidate

These are just the top 3 at google, it goes on and on, until it finally stops with a Republican in the White House.  Now breathe Namo, and come up with something less than clever, but give it a few minutes because I know you're busy doing other things than romping around these boards.

[theaterdrew]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 10:10am

I live in an area where the three main network stations are each located in a different state, so we usually get a bizarro mix of political ads.  Right now, in one state, we're getting inspirational Bernie ads and no Hillary ads, in another we're getting anti-Trump superPAC ads but no other ads, and in the third, we're getting ads telling us to "send the establishment a message and choose conservative Marco Rubio."  The latter one is the most LOL.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 11:02am

romping around these boards.

 

Contributing?  Writing about shows I've seen?  Sharing new music I like?

 

Why don't YOU take a class and learn about polling bias?  And take another class and learn about statistics and take another class and learn about critical thinking.  At the very least spend some time figuring out how "the top 3 on google" is not representative of what you seem to think it is.

 

SoooooooooFlorida:  Oh man Namo.  You're too much.  But I get the gist of what you're saying.  Hillary is completely unelectable and will not receive a single vote in the general.  We agree.  

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 12:33pm

[South Florida]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 3:10pm

The next 20 are all the same Namo.  I rock polls 101.

 

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 3:21pm

An Enraged Bernie Sanders Trashes Tax Policy Center Analysis Of His Tax Plan

[South Florida]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 4:17pm

So, none of you guys and gals are sensing the Hillary hate?  You still have yet to grasp the biggest voter turnout will be to make sure she is not president.  Every GOP candidate will beat her except maybe not Trump, wow, thanks Hillary lovers.  A true loser of a candidate.

 

 

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 4:24pm

[South Florida]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 4:37pm

PRS is telling you that you lose Namo.

 

[South Florida]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 4:44pm

You Clinton supporters are, how do I put it straight, dumb as***.  We're about to nominate the least trusted person in politics and you guys..................

 

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 4:50pm

Shhhh

[StageManager2]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 4:54pm

South Florida, you're sounding desperate. Ever since SC, and especially after Super Tuesday, you've become nastier in your posts. I guess you're starting to see the writing on the wall.

[javero]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 5:06pm

SouthFlorida, If you haven't done so already, I encourage you either order the discs or download the episodes of the Netflix series House of Cards.  Granted, it's all somewhat exaggerated but not that much.  Seeking elected office at Hillary and Trump's level is not a recommended goal for anyone aspiring to become a Sunday school teacher.  If that were not so, Pat Robertson would have been sworn in as POTUS instead of the first Bush.

[South Florida]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 5:06pm

I'm not desperate.  I'm going to vote for her in November.  Feel like I'm gonna lose.

 

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 5:10pm

Shhhhhh

[tazber]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 6:16pm

When you start calling people names because they're voting differently than you, you sound desperate.

 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 7:54pm

'Round we go once again on Soflorida's endless Groundhog Days.

[binau]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 11:24pm

"An Enraged Bernie Sanders Trashes Tax Policy Center Analysis Of His Tax Plan".

 

Yes, it's irritating when the middle class are misled by the Clinton campaign and others into believing their economic situation under Sanders would be worse when it could be the opposite. Without private insurance premiums and with public health care, with a higher minimum wage and with free college education, middle-class families could have an unprecedented economic advantage.

 

A quote from Hillary Clinton regarding Sanders raising middle class taxes:

 

"I don't see how you can be serious about raising working and middle-class families' incomes if you also want to slap new taxes on them – no matter what the taxes will pay for"

 

She is either ill-informed or being intentionally misleading/dishonest (and my guess is it's the latter, she is not stupid). Considering what the taxes will pay for is absolutely important if it increases middle class net income, which is the most important outcome for increasing economic prosperity for middle class families. 
 

 

From Fortune magazine: "the middle class is not looking at very large tax increases at all, and what taxes they do spend would in many cases be more than compensated for in the form of free healthcare."

 

And let's not even get started on differences in the Clinton vs Sanders campaign on how the 1% are being taxed. Rest assured for everyone on Broadwayworld earning millions of dollars a year though, Hillary Clinton will protect your wealth and income more than Bernie Sanders will. Perhaps because Hillary continues to have ties with the rich and powerful (for example, she is part of the 1%; her campaign is partially funded by Super PACs; she won't release transcripts of wall street speeches she received more money to deliver than many Americans will earn in decades).

 

Updated On: 3/5/16 at 11:24 PM

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 11:25pm

OMG, you were South Florida all along!  Well done!

 

After the QuiltingMuriel illusion ( ), nothing would surprise me! Except in this case I would be happy.

 

I can't wait for this whole process to be over. One minute I'm convinced Hillary has it, the next I'm doubting, then Trump, now it could be Cruz...it's a rollercoaster of stress! Luckily it's Saturday night, and I'm well on the way to drinking myself into oblivion, not that it takes much....though I can still spell...does that qualify me for President? 

 

Somebody please reassure me that Hillary can beat Cruz. He's the devil incarnate.

 

Updated On: 3/5/16 at 11:25 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 3/5/16 at 11:46pm

qolbinau, you live in Australia, right?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 12:00am

 

So, none of you guys and gals are sensing the Hillary hate?  You still have yet to grasp the biggest voter turnout will be to make sure she is not president.  Every GOP candidate will beat her except maybe not Trump, wow, thanks Hillary lovers.

 

No, as I've explained before, This occurs only in the two or three bubbles in which you exist. PLUS--and crucial to Democratic turnout, this so-called "Hillary hate" does NOT exist among minority voters, to whom you and Bernie are--frankly--just two more totally untrustworthy old white guys, who can only seem to condescend to them, telling them how they ought to vote--"for their own damn good"--since Reconstruction.

 

And qolbinau--none of your anti-Hillary diatribes have any insight, intelligence or even basis in fact. You might consider expressing your outrage on your own repressive Australian government officials and leave our American election to Americans. 

 

 

 

Updated On: 3/6/16 at 12:00 AM

[binau]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 1:35am

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. 

 

 

Updated On: 3/6/16 at 01:35 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 2:19am

But I definitely do not prescribe to the blind fandomism that seems to emanate from this thread.

 

Where?  I mean, Soflorid keeps saying that too.  I see one person who seems to be a die-hard fan, but is really informed about it and doesn't seem to be blind in the fandom at all.  And then a whole lot of other people who don't really want to get into the misogyny that is shot through all of this "most evil and untrusted vagina-American in history" overstatement.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 8:05am

I found this interesting:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/8/1478776/-Why-Do-People-Hate-Hillary-Clinton-So-Much

[StageManager2]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 8:21am

I can't wait for this whole process to be over. One minute I'm convinced Hillary has it, the next I'm doubting, then Trump, now it could be Cruz...it's a rollercoaster of stress!

 

Rest assured, Sanders has almost no chance to catch up to Clinton in delegates, never mind surpass her, because Democrats award delegates proportionately, not by winner-takes-all. Despite Sanders' two wins yesterday, Clinton increased her lead by 8 delegates. She got 55 delegates (KS 10, LA 35, NE 10), while Sanders got 47 delegates (KS 23, LA 10, NE 14). Her pledged delegate count is now 668 and his 462. She now leads him by 206. (That's not even counting the superdelegates.)

 

If Sanders had any chance at this nomination, he should be catching up, not falling further and further behind, which is what has been happening. Even if he wins Maine today, it only has 25 delegates available, and Hillary will get some of those, too, And on Tuesday (March , 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%.

 

In short, Sanders is winning a few unimportant battles (mainly white states) but is losing the war.

Updated On: 3/6/16 at 08:21 AM