The Left Turning AGAINST Sanders

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

12 minutes ago, ROARyals said:

Excuse me? That is the textbook definition of what she is and all her supporters are lmfaoooo. Change only when it's convient for them. Bernie wants change, and is gonna snatch all the rich'a uneeded coins to make everyone's lives better. 

No this is the textbook definition:

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

----

Let me know how Hillary's history or plans have ever been, or at worst, consistently been in support of these points to qualify as textbook neoliberal

She's definitely not on any extreme of the spectrum between socialism and capitalism. She believes in both in equal measure, unlike Sanders who repeatedly ignores the benefits that capitalism brings, such as incentives for entrepreneurship, that have made the USA one of the most successful countries in the world.

She's MOST DEFINITELY not for cutting expenditures on social services given that she's been spending her entire career doing just that particularly for women and children. Please read her history.

She's most definitely not against deregulation where it matters. Perhaps you're confusing her for her husband?

She is running in the complete opposite direction of Privatization legislation, working against Republican efforts to do so particular in the healthcare and social security fields.

The last one is just hilarious to even remotely associate with any Democrat  The mere fact that she has operated globally for the benefit of public good, as Americanized as it may be, should stop that notion dead in its tracks. For example, you really going to chastise her for lowering HIV medication costs in Africa from 10k a year to 200? That's only the tip of the iceberg. What a neoliberal shill!

It's like the antithesis of socialism. Do you view anything that isn't perfect socialism as the enemy?  

Please expand your narrow viewpoints. You limit your perceptions too much.

[Kayla 7,595]

Honestly I think Hillary and Bernie are BOTH good candidates, I just like Bernie better because he's actually showing more of a concern for the well-being and equality of people. The way that people on each side paint the other as practically the Devil is laughable. Honestly, I think these two are two of the best Democratic candidates we've had in a long time. They both have the public interest, the big ideas, the experience, and the drive to do great things. 

They have their pros and cons, definitely. But neithers' pros make them a ****ing messiah and neithers' cons make them a demon. 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

16 hours ago, Voltaire said:

I don't see any change, or any heightening of "toxicity" from him or his team. Of COURSE its going to be framed out this way. It's political and media genius to have it framed like this. Political framing is an art and is critical at this stage. Ignore the issues. Polarize it as much as possible. Don't address the actual gaping holes in the system, the party, the process, the candidate. Focus on something incendiary and blown out of proportion. 

I'm surprised, and yet not surprised. 

"If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power."-Eisenhower

Yes, in the last 8 years the democratic party has done nothing to advance social causes or the rights of its constituents. That's a good way to "frame" things. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

6 minutes ago, Kayla said:

Honestly I think Hillary and Bernie are BOTH good candidates, I just like Bernie better because he's actually showing more of a concern for the well-being and equality of people. The way that people on each side paint the other as practically the Devil is laughable. Honestly, I think these two are two of the best Democratic candidates we've had in a long time. They both have the public interest, the big ideas, the experience, and the drive to do great things. 

They have their pros and cons, definitely. But neithers' pros make them a ****ing messiah and neithers' cons make them a demon. 

You know what's funny? My ideals align with Bernie more than Hillary. I just know that pragmatism is the way to go. I suppose experience has tempered my idealism somewhat. I've been through a lot...

If I dog Bernie here, it's mostly because of his overzealous supporters, and recently his actions.. 

[Kayla 7,595]

6 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

You know what's funny? My ideals align with Bernie more than Hillary. I just know that pragmatism is the way to go. I suppose experience has tempered my idealism somewhat. I've been through a lot...

If I dog Bernie here, it's mostly because of his overzealous supporters, and recently his actions.. 

I agree...but I also think that voting for ideals is more important. I mean, we're not going to get anywhere if people just keep playing into the system. You know, the whole "voting is just choosing the lesser of two evils," "government is corrupt- what do you expect?", "we need someone who can play the system," mindsets. 

Yes, pragmatism is good, but we've been getting pragmatic candidates for decades. I want someone who's really passionate and consistent about the belief in getting ALL Americans a better life. 

That being said, it is bothering me how much Bernie is refusing to seek some form of compromise or acknowledging pitfalls. I think Hillary is too put together, calculated, and I think Bernie is too firey, off-putting. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

46 minutes ago, Kayla said:

I agree...but I also think that voting for ideals is more important. I mean, we're not going to get anywhere if people just keep playing into the system. You know, the whole "voting is just choosing the lesser of two evils," "government is corrupt- what do you expect?" mindsets. 

Yes, pragmatism is good, but we've been getting pragmatic candidates for decades. I want someone who's really passionate and consistent about the belief in getting ALL Americans a better life. 

That being said, it is bothering me how much Bernie is refusing to seek some form of compromise or acknowledging pitfalls. I think Hillary is too put together, calculated, and I think Bernie is too firey, off-putting. 

Well it's not about pragmatism in terms of voting. It's more about pragmatism in terms of what can be accomplished given the situation.

The current Senate is held by the GOP. The Supreme Court is about to be flipped in a crucial time. Years of legislation and progress despite obstructionism from the Republicans are under threat.

I just believe Hillary's approach is far more credible. She believes in one step at a time. Bernie wants to tear it all down and I'm not even exaggerating.

I don't get why pragmatism via policy and passion in human progress and dignity are mutually exclusive. Hillary has always been a liberal who worked for human rights for all throughout her history. She can still understand that sweeping changes are not the way to go until the public is ready for them, all the while maintaining that minorities deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. She has always been ideal in spreading American values to other countries through her work etc..

It is true that an amalgmation of Sanders and Hillary would be my ideal candidate. Still, given the situation, I prefer to operate under the side of caution.

 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

18 minutes ago, Kayla said:

I agree...but I also think that voting for ideals is more important. I mean, we're not going to get anywhere if people just keep playing into the system. You know, the whole "voting is just choosing the lesser of two evils," "government is corrupt- what do you expect?", "we need someone who can play the system," mindsets. 

Yes, pragmatism is good, but we've been getting pragmatic candidates for decades. I want someone who's really passionate and consistent about the belief in getting ALL Americans a better life. 

That being said, it is bothering me how much Bernie is refusing to seek some form of compromise or acknowledging pitfalls. I think Hillary is too put together, calculated, and I think Bernie is too firey, off-putting. 

Sorry, but Bernie is not making poor peoples lives in Vermont better. They way they run the TANF program in Vermont only keeps people a couple dollars above the poverty line while in Wisconsin, it keeps people a couple hundred dollars above the over the poverty line. Also tuition costs for public Universities are set by the states and has never been a national program. When he said that some Universities were free in the past that was a state taking the initiative. Why is tuition in Vermont the same as anywhere else in the country? He can't even get things done in Vermont, yet you guys are voting for him based on ideals but nothing gets done.