What is Clinton’s most insane policy proposal? That is, what proposed policy does she have which you believe is the most harmful, most ill-conceived, most blatantly wrong?
And how does that stack up with Trump’s proposal to deal with the national debt by not paying it all back? Please keep in mind that this idea would, if enacted:
[ul]
[li]Immediately and completely tank the USA’s credit rating[/li][li]In essence detonate the bedrock of the world economy by making US Treasury Bonds an unsafe bet[/li][li]Not actually help us deal with our debts, as it would lead to an immediate and drastic increase in our interest rates[/li][li]Probably be immediately rejected as unconstitutional[/li][/ul]
Yeah, I know Trump stepped back from the proposal, apparently realizing for once that the idea was too stupid even for him. He never should have made it in the first place. It’s an insane and irresponsible thing for a candidate for president of the united states to say, given how much the market relies on investor confidence in T-Bills. And while this is indicative of a much larger trend of Trump not having even the slightest fucking clue what he’s talking about, I look at this and see a candidate who I cannot ever imagine voting for - if this had been a Clinton statement, and all else had remained equal, I would support Trump, because voting for the racist blowhard with no ideas is preferable to the competent candidate who happens to support a policy that would destroy the world economy in a way that is absolutely unprecedented for modern times.
Can Trump supporters find anything even remotely this completely batshit insane from Clinton?
Not sure this qualifies as “crazy”. You may feel that repealing this would be a bad idea. But “crazy”? There are reasonable arguments to be madefor the repeal of these laws, including that "the Helms and Hyde restrictions harm access to needed reproductive health services, and "disproportionately affects young, poor, women of color across the globe. ", and that "U.S. abortion restrictions are out of step with international standards "
As I say, you may not agree with these arguments. But many reasonable people do. Nice try, but not “Crazy”. Just something you do not agree with.
The Thread title doesn’t require crazy proposals, just which proposal of all the non-crazy proposals is the craziest.
Like, if I have no red shirts and someone challenged me to present my reddest shirt. I would probably present my orange shirt. It is not a red shirt but it is redder than my green shirt or my blue shirt, therefore it is my reddest shirt.
She said a ban on fossil fuel production on federal lands was a done deal. That represents 14% of natural gas production, 18% of oil production, and 40% of coal production.
Now do I think she really meant that? No, of course not. It’s more of an empty campaign promise as she was trying to move left of Bernie Sanders. Nevertheless, that’s an insane proposal that would lead immediately to a severe depression and an inability to meet power demands.
Considering she’s also said that she doesn’t include nuclear power in her energy policy (although she keeps flipping back and forth on whether she supports or opposes nuclear) then it’s kind of hard to see her energy policy as anything but crazy.
How about her position on the Trans Pacific Partnership? She helped negotiate the deal, she heavily promoted, and because she ran against Bernie Sanders she changed her position to being against it. It seems pretty crazy to me to be against a proposal that you are one of the key individuals responsible for. It would be like Barney Frank coming out opposed to Dodd-Frank.
Clinton wants to flood the country with them while young African Americans can’t get jobs. Those riots in Charlotte reflect more that just the shootings.
Actually, she said a ban on ‘future extraction’ (it’s in the headline), so I don’t see any immediate impact and hence this is at least less crazy than you make out. And as a fan of not burning hydro-carbons (there are lots of more interesting things to use them for), I’m fine with leaving the local ones in the ground and wasting those from other areas.
No she didn’t. Read her quotes. She didn’t write the headline to an article, she said directly to the question of “Would you ban extraction on public lands?” with “Yeah, That’s a done deal.” There’s also a video of her saying exactly that.
Will she / has she had to walk back that promise? Of course, because it is a totally insane thing to say.
“FLOOD THE COUNTRY WITH THEM”?? What constitutes a FLOOD-- give me some numbers. According to this site, the African-American population of the United States in 2015 was estimated at 74.5 million, or 17.9 percent of the nation’s total population. So a FLOOD would be what? 10 million? 35 million?
You’re saying she DELIBERATELY wants to FLOOD the country with immigrants and doesn’t have the slightest awareness of or concern for unemployment in our own African-American community?
Yeah. If you really want to know what Trump (and presumably his followers) thinks Clinton’s crazy ideas are, read the “survey” he’s put out as part of his debate prep, https://www.gop.com/debate-prep-survey/ . If you ever had to take a sociology class that touched on how to create surveys, it will make you scream.
But I think Clinton’s craziest stance is her belief that she can somehow shame or pressure large companies to keep jobs in the US instead of outsourcing to cheaper markets. (Trump seems to share this belief). In this NPR article she is quotedas saying “I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages – including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as President.” Seriously, how is she (or anyone) going to accomplish that goal?
Not so, what I have seen is something similar to what many on the Republican side choose to ignore when they vote for congress critters that are radical or bigoted, Many Republican voters clearly think that those people in the legislative and executive power that are radical will do little harm as the laws many conservatives make “simply make sense” and they (the voters) themselves are not radical or bigoted. But simple solutions are often wrong. And the bigots and radicals count on that hyper tolerance of their ways among the Republicans.
It is like when many honest Republicans thought about how the bigots in their midst will not interpret the new voter laws they are passing in the worst prejudiced way. Well, they did. And the high courts are very busy playing Whack a Mole with a lot of those abusers in the states.
In the case of the abortion restrictions in the laws dealing with funding of family planning in the USA or in aid overseas there were supposed to be exceptions to fund abortions in cases of rape and incest, but the result has often been that the aid is being denied in cases where clearly there had been rapes and other abuses.