Possibly – we’ll see. Your assertion that “not even Democrats really believe a word she ever says” is ridiculous hyperbole. On most issues she’s been very consistent. Do you think Democrats doubt that she’ll push for women’s health and reproductive rights? That she’ll nominate SCOTUS judges that liberals feel good about? That she’ll push for a public option for the ACA or universal health care, if possible? That she’ll push for infrastructure spending and increasing the minimum wage?
Liberal Democrats like me are a tad worried that she’ll be a bit more hawkish then her campaign suggests. Anti-trade Democrats probably worry she’ll sign the TPP or something like it. But on almost every other issue, Democrats trust her.
Yeah, aside from foreign policy, trade, domestic spending and taxes, and issues where events turn against Democrats(such as crime and welfare), she can be relied on. She’s solidly liberal on abortion and women’s issues, so I’ll give you two issues where she’s sincere.
Bullshit. I named the two and only two issues (war and trade) that some significant numbers of Democrats worry that she might change her mind. On health care, infrastructure, taxes, the minimum wage, body cameras and law enforcement oversight, and many more, she’s been solidly in the middle of the party since before she was a Senator.
I hate to break it to you, but she’s very popular with Democrats. Most Democrats like her.
I know they do. Doesn’t mean any of them can actually tell you what she’d do as President on most issues.
Given how many of us Republicans are willing to embrace a Clinton Presidency, you might want to consider why that is: it’s because we’re a little more clear-eyed about how she operates. A politician’s record is everything. What they say during a campaign is nothing. Once she’s in the White HOuse, she’s our girl and the rest of you can follow along if you want. Doesn’t really matter to us.
I don’t believe you’ve presented an accurate picture of her record. I think your record in analyzing Democrats is particularly bad. Politifact shows that she’s far more accurate and honest than most Republicans. The Republicans in the Senate seem to like her because they’ve met her and interacted with her, and she’s willing to compromise. Most Republicans at large in the country seem to hate her with the white hot fire of a thousand suns due to decades of sustained infotainment attacks and conspiracy theories. Both aren’t bad things at all in my eyes.
Yeah, everyone who has actually worked with her says she’s awesome. As for the lies, you can’t fact check promises until she’s been elected and in office for awhile. But you can check her record, and her record is actually at odds with a lot of her future proposals. YOu cite foreign policy and trade, but you left out one of the big elephants in the room: wall Street.
It’s said that there are three legs to the Republican stool: foreign policy, family values, and small government. Clinton’s with us on at least one and a half of those and possibly a full two if she continues the policies of her husband on spending and regulations. Is the Era of Big Government about to be over again? I don’t know. And you don’t either.
That’s not a policy record, it’s a record of non-political ties and speeches. But we’ll see.
She’s not with you on more than half one of those stools. Hopefully none (considering how many dead Americans your preferred foreign policy would cause). But we’ll see.
Her Senate record is pro-Wall Street. Defenders say she was representing New York, which I guess is fine, but if there was really a risk of her being anti-Wall Street I can’t see her having so much Wall Street support today.
To clarify, I’m not talking about the rather bellicose foreign policy statements made by Republican candidates with more testosterone than brains. I’m referring more to Reagan/Bush 41 foreign policy. Us Republicans really do need to get back on track. GWB was just disastrous for us, turning half of us into crazy warmongers and the other half into isolationists. I’d argue that the 12 years of Reagan/Bush saw the most successful foreign policy of any post-war administration and I do think Hillary sees the world in much the same way they did.
Oh, and one very important part of her record is that she listens to the brass. And the brass says, “troops on the ground”. I just can’t see her ignoring that advice unless it’s a lot less unanimous than what the media has reported.
The world is very, very different now. I don’t think she sees the world the same way at all.
I don’t believe this is anything near unanimous (and I don’t think that’s what’s been reported) among the brass – they have actually learned some things from the last two decades (I wish to God that you had!). And do you seriously think she’d go against the overwhelming US public preference for no more ground wars? That would sink her reelection with near certainty. Not to mention the total idiocy and tragedy of getting thousands of Americans killed for nothing again.
Anyway, from what the press is reporting, ISIL is losing territory.
But it does have to be quid pro quo. I will give you money if you then give me a job.
The assumption is that money will get you access. Access which can then lead to changes in policy, or a job. But money doesn’t in and of itself buy you a job or a change in policy.
And maybe campaign finance reform should make sure that money no longer buys access. Lobbying would change. Big money donations would change. But no one really thinks that the Koch brothers can’t call up most Republicans (and probably quite a few Democrats) and say “hey, I need a favor, can you meet with Bob next week and hear his pitch on this thing.” Or that Soros can’t call up any Democrat with “hey, I need a favor, can you pull some strings to get Jane an interview over in Commerce.” When Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or Meg Whitman, you take the call - or make time to schedule a call.
And while some people will make noise - politicians don’t want to see too much noise made about this - its cutting off their honey pot. The media won’t make too much noise - they are owned by the people who want access. And I suspect most people have the sense to know that even Jill Stein is going to take a phone call from someone who gave her campaign a lot of money. And Donald Trump sure isn’t going to dodge those calls - he understands the Art of the Deal.
Troops are actually on the ground, just not as many, although the number slowly creeps up. The debate now is between big ground war and little ground war, not ground war and no ground war.
I wish there were none, but at least they aren’t dying. Hopefully they never will. There’s nothing we can do in that region that would cost American lives that would be worth that cost.
There may be. There are any number of dire and dreadful scenarios to avoid. But there is no action which guarantees that we avoid such scenarios. Only way we can know if we did the right thing is looking back. And even then, it would be murky.
Hillary will have to answer questions about her email server? That might be a big deal if she hadn’t already spent dozens of hours doing just that in public hearings.
There’s a weird thing about Clinton’s dishonesty, and it’s why there’s such a disconnect between her Politifact rating and public perception: she only dissembles about herself. She has a terrible habit of lying about bullets in Bosnia, about wiping servers with a napkin, about what the FBI said about her.
But when it comes to policies, I’m unaware of any lies she’s told–and certainly unaware of any that are greater than your run-of-the-mill politician. ON the contrary, she seems to be very precise and accurate when she discusses policy.
If Clinton tells me she ate scrambled eggs for breakfast, I’ll look for the doughnut crumbs. But if she tells me scrambled eggs have 175 mg of cholesterol, she’s probably correct.
Good points, but it’s different when trying to sell policies, such as when she tries to tell us that TPP is an awesome trade deal that will create jobs.