• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why do you support Hillary?

FieldTheorist

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
3,325
Reaction score
2,348
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Dear Hillary supporters, I'm genuinely flummoxed. I would love to hear the reasons why people believe that Hillary Clinton deserves to be in the office of the POTUS over Bernie Sanders. So, please answer these three questions:

Just to attenuate, let's focus on the following:


1.) Please list the most important three issues to you in the 2016 election.

2.) What are the values that she has that makes you admire her?

3.) Which stated policies of hers do you support and which policies are you excited to see enacted?​
 
shes a christian capitalist

who rejects both the atheism of socialism, but also the economic philosophy of socialism, many democrats are just as, if not more so, anti-socialist/communist as the republicans. Jim webb was a vietnam war veteran who bragged about murdering a communist on stage at a debate. There are even more democrats who are just as deeply religous, as the worst snake-handling preachers in the bible belt. They reject not only the religous equality of socialism but even the religious equality of liberalism, so things like gay rights, anti zionism (since many christians beleive were still fighting a crusade), and the seeming abolition of state enforced marriage laws, absolutely turn off many democrats to communism, even a democratic socialist like bernie sanders

especilly in the south where super tuesday voters were largely for Clinton, something which was done purposefully by republicans to make sure that even the democrats would elect the most conservative of their candidates
 
She only beats Trump by one point.
Bernie is our last chance to stop him.
If he doesn't get the nomination - the DNC has proven their lack of desire to see real change.
 
1.) Please list the most important three issues to you in the 2016 election.

Environment, economy, protection of SS and medicare.

2.) What are the values that she has that makes you admire her?

I like her tenacity and endurance in the face of extreme opposition. I also like that she is willing to reach across the aisle like she did when she was senator. I think she has more experience than most of the other candidates. I don't think she will renege on treaties and agreements or undermine US credibility to the rest of the world.

3.) Which stated policies of hers do you support and which policies are you excited to see enacted?[/indent]

Global warming policies and incentives to reduce carbon emissions. Protecting the rights of women, gays, minorities, etc. I think her policies on healthcare are more realistic than Sanders or the other candidates.

The thing I don't trust her on is her policy on war and her connections to Wall Street...and that's what I like about Bernie. But she could turn that into an asset for compromise.
 
Last edited:
Dear Hillary supporters, I'm genuinely flummoxed. I would love to hear the reasons why people believe that Hillary Clinton deserves to be in the office of the POTUS over Bernie Sanders.

Both could perform well in the White House. However, Bernie Sanders simply isn't viable in a general election.
 
shes a christian capitalist

who rejects both the atheism of socialism, but also the economic philosophy of socialism, many democrats are just as, if not more so, anti-socialist/communist as the republicans. Jim webb was a vietnam war veteran who bragged about murdering a communist on stage at a debate. There are even more democrats who are just as deeply religous, as the worst snake-handling preachers in the bible belt. They reject not only the religous equality of socialism but even the religious equality of liberalism, so things like gay rights, anti zionism (since many christians beleive were still fighting a crusade), and the seeming abolition of state enforced marriage laws, absolutely turn off many democrats to communism, even a democratic socialist like bernie sanders
Given that rejection of another as a primary view is a hallmark of conservatism, it puts your two reasons in an entirely new light.

I'm not trying to be vitriolic. It just...struck me.
 
care to elaborate?
Rejection of threatening viewpoints is the core of conservatism. That conservatism is a product of reaction to liberal movements is a pretty well-established idea, but a couple google searches landed me here, if you'd like an example of this claim:
Whereas liberalism sought to liberate mankind from oppressive institutions (be they governments, religious institutions, oppressive social customs and traditions, or vast economic enterprises), conservatism developed as a reaction to what was perceived as dangerous tendencies within the liberal movements toward radicalism and a wholesale rejection of the past as valuable. There was and is an element within conservatism that holds the past in reverence and views with skepticism most change, particularly if it was planned change. If, however, conservatism means nothing more than a rationale' justifying the maintenance of the status quo then it cannot be correctly adjudged an ideology for it would be content neutral. Conservatism could, in that instance, be used to support political systems ranging from democratic to communist to fascist to anarchistic.
Liberalism & Conservatism
 
1.) Please list the most important three issues to you in the 2016 election.

I suppose health care, the economy, and good old-fashioned proud Democratic partisanship. But many things are important.

2.) What are the values that she has that makes you admire her?

Intelligence, for starters. She's a policy wonk and she sees and understands the world for what it is: a very complex place. At the end of the day, I don't want bumper stickers, I don't want easy answers to tough questions.

I understand the appeal of Bernie (I even like him!): he speaks with such clarity, such forceful conviction that can be conveyed so succinctly. He knows who the mustache-twirling villains are. He knows the switch you can flip to make everything better. I understand the appeal of that! I don't like that. "Medicare-for-all" from Bernie's lips has the same substance as "across state lines" from the mouth of a Rubio or Cruz. It's a slogan, an easy appealing answer to a series of tough questions. The criticisms Bernie's crowd might say about Hillary--that she's too wonky, uninspiring, compromised, lacking in messianic convictions, whatever--I don't quite agree with all of them but I like that they'd be leveled against her. I take comfort in that.

I want a President I'm convinced can and will deal head-on with the nuances of life. Hillary isn't a particularly great politician, she's not a sound bite thinker, nor a great speaker (the best and most powerful part of her South Carolina speech a few weeks ago was the last 5 minutes when she stopped speechifying and just started talking), and she's no saint. It's the old Cuomo saying: you campaign in poetry and govern in prose. The best candidates (e.g., Obama) do, anyway. In the current field, I think Bernie's a lot more poetry and Clinton's a lot more prose. At this time in this election given the choice, I want prose.

She's smart, she knows policy, she knows politics, and she's been fighting for the Democratic party for a very long time. The next four years are going to be trench warfare, incremental progress and compromise, and all the great partisan causes (building party infrastructure, schooling Republicans, and fighting for every inch for progress). She's suited to that, perhaps more so than anyone in the current Democratic party. What took Obama ~3.5 years to learn, she knows from Day 1. Bernie's plan is predicated on a "revolution" supporting his agenda--one that isn't materializing and isn't going to. And it doesn't sound like he has a Plan B. No thanks! The gains of the past eight years, and any hope for more in the next four, are far too important to entrust to wishes on a dandelion.

I like Hillary. I want her to win, and I want her to be President.

3.) Which stated policies of hers do you support and which policies are you excited to see enacted?

The reality is that Hillary and Bernie for the most part have the same policy platform: http://www.debatepolitics.com/2016-us-presidential-election/247723-establishment-vs-revolution.html

They're running for the Democratic nomination and there's fairly broad consensus in the Democratic party on most things.
 
Rejection of threatening viewpoints is the core of conservatism. That conservatism is a product of reaction to liberal movements is a pretty well-established idea, but a couple google searches landed me here, if you'd like an example of this claim:
Liberalism & Conservatism

I see what you mean but i dont think "threatening" is the word your looking for, also I disagree strongly with the definitions provided in that link, he describes liberalism and conservatism as somekind of middle ground philosophy, but also says that the conservatives are neutral and lack ideology, but if conservatism is defacto moderate then it is by definition an ideology...... but yes in countries like saudi arabia a full monarchy and arguably the furthest right wing government in the world, they can have both conservatives and liberals in their government. that is the reason why communists believe in one party rule, because liberal democracy divides the masses into a hierarchy that is designed to benefit the ruling class

Throughout the history of the socialist/communist movements, one of the persistent problems has been to establish the relation, in theory and practice, between the struggle for socialism and for democracy (or democratic rights), between socialist issues and democratic issues. Every distinctive socialist current or school has had its own characteristic answer to this problem. On one extreme end of the spectrum is the view (held consciously in theory or expressed in practice) which puts the advocacy of democratic forms in the forefront, for their own sake, and subjoins the advocacy of socialistic ideas as an appurtenance. (From the Marxist standpoint, this is merely the leftmost wing of bourgeois-democratic liberalism extruding into the socialist spectrum.) On the other extreme is the type of radical ideology which counterposes socialistic ideas – in the sense of anti-capitalist views – against concern with democratic struggles, considering the latter as unimportant or harmful

https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1974/xx/democracy.html
 
I'm not a Democrat and I don't support Hillary but my take on it is that she was already coronated so that no other viable candidates were going to run against her. Bernie was just thrown in for someone to help keep Hillary in the news to help them in the general. He didn't realize his place in the election and came in trying to win instead of just being a sparring partner. Then Hillary started to fall apart with scandal after scandal and the party got left with their pants down. All their chips were already in the game so they only had two choices:

1. lose all their chips

2. double down with the only option they had and hope for the best
 
I'm not a Democrat and I don't support Hillary but my take on it is that she was already coronated so that no other viable candidates were going to run against her. Bernie was just thrown in for someone to help keep Hillary in the news to help them in the general. He didn't realize his place in the election and came in trying to win instead of just being a sparring partner. Then Hillary started to fall apart with scandal after scandal and the party got left with their pants down. All their chips were already in the game so they only had two choices:

1. lose all their chips

2. double down with the only option they had and hope for the best

You clearly don't know anything about Bernie Sanders if you think this was true. That was probably true of Martin O'Malley and Lincoln Chaffee, but not Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders is actually ideologically on the Left, and is not a part of the DNC in any way, shape, or form. The entire candidacy was a protest candidacy to the neoliberal DNC, and as a way to drum up interest in the Progressive Left, as an opening to oust the neoliberal DNC establishment and replace them with Progressive Leftists.
 
Dear Hillary supporters, I'm genuinely flummoxed. I would love to hear the reasons why people believe that Hillary Clinton deserves to be in the office of the POTUS over Bernie Sanders. So, please answer these three questions:

Just to attenuate, let's focus on the following:


1.) Please list the most important three issues to you in the 2016 election.

2.) What are the values that she has that makes you admire her?

3.) Which stated policies of hers do you support and which policies are you excited to see enacted?​
I think the question boils down to 'why do blacks support Hillary by such a wide margin?' After all, were it not for her creaming Sanders among blacks, he might well be leading the race right now. I wouldn't vote for either, but I would far prefer a Sanders presidency for the simple reason that he is honest about what he believes. I would take an honest socialist over a dishonest liberal any day.
 
You clearly don't know anything about Bernie Sanders if you think this was true. That was probably true of Martin O'Malley and Lincoln Chaffee, but not Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders is actually ideologically on the Left, and is not a part of the DNC in any way, shape, or form. The entire candidacy was a protest candidacy to the neoliberal DNC, and as a way to drum up interest in the Progressive Left, as an opening to oust the neoliberal DNC establishment and replace them with Progressive Leftists.

I don't actually disagree with that but I think it's sad that our country has turned into nothing but the far left and the far right fighting each other for control. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have been throwing their own people (moderates) overboard for a while now. The American voters (as a whole) don't want either the far left or the far right in total control so they will always make sure that neither side has control of all three branches of government, and that's exactly what has been happening and why there is so much dysfunction in government. This is why the country is going down the wrong road, not because one or the other sides are in power. Democrats want to take back the House and Senate to have total control while Republicans want to take over the White House to have total control. Neither side will ever achieve what they want because even if they get close, obstructionists in both parties will deny the majority their way.
 
I don't actually disagree with that but I think it's sad that our country has turned into nothing but the far left and the far right fighting each other for control. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have been throwing their own people (moderates) overboard for a while now.

I don't think that's a totally accurate depiction of what's transpired/transpiring. The Republicans are throwing all moderates under the bus (They have been since 2010) and vying for the farthest Right candidates money can buy (literally).

The Democrats have been throwing out moderates and definitely the far Left for a long time now. Hillary is a center-Right neoliberal candidate. She always has been, she always will be. Anyone who's even properly a centrist at this point has gotten the boot.

The American voters (as a whole) don't want either the far left or the far right in total control so they will always make sure that neither side has control of all three branches of government, and that's exactly what has been happening and why there is so much dysfunction in government.

1.) I'm not sure I agree with that, either. That was definitely true in the 90's, but not true really since then, I think. Whoever takes the Presidency takes Congress seems to be how it's gone since at least 2004, and as memory serves 2000, as well. The main thing is that whoever is out of power during midterms tends to be very irritated and votes in droves against the Party controlling the presidency. It's how '06, '10, and '14 worked.

The government is dysfunctional because in 2010, the Tea Party took over a significant part of Congress and has absolutely refused to budge on anything that isn't committed to far right-wing politics.

2.) The majority of Independents vote the same way, and elections are often decided by which Independents blocs vote, rather than Independents being fickle every other election. Independents seem to be strongly ideological, rather than moderate, even if they call themselves as such. Most people refuse to identify as "liberal" for instance, even if most Americans probably fall on the side of Democrats stated policies (I say stated because Dems never follow their stated policies).

If Sanders' popularity amongst Independents is any indication, it would seem that they may be ideologically on the Left as far as economic issues are concerned. That's unsurprising to me, because if a party isn't a part of your identity, then you're more likely to respond to the issues that will positively impact your life. And Left-wing economics definitely does that, particularly after the forty most grueling years for the low and middle-classes in recent American history.
 
Care to prove that Bernie could win in November?

I think that Salon handled this question best, in terms of the real latent question, which is "Should we really default to 'Hillary will do well'?" There's many serious issues with Clinton. There's a lot of reasons she's a serious liability going forward. Contained within the article is a link to Reich's article, which directly answers your question.

The other thing missing in this article is that she will not have the youth vote strongly like Obama, particularly after she went after and went after Sanders' supporters.
 
There's many serious issues with Clinton. There's a lot of reasons she's a serious liability going forward. Contained within the article is a link to Reich's article, which directly answers your question.

Contrary to the smug triumphalism of the Clinton camp, evidence suggests she is a shockingly vulnerable candidate. Her unfavorables are higher than any presidential frontrunner in modern history with the exception of Jimmy Carter in 1980. In poll mashups, she consistently trails Sanders, only the most recent poll has her beating Trump, by a fairly slim margin. If Trump is the nominee, and it's looking like he very well might be, the energy would be on his side. There's also the pesky matter of her ongoing FBI investigation, which could easily go sideways, and details her presidential ambitions. If she managed to prevail in the general, it would be the Republicans loss, not a Clinton victory.

The other thing missing in this article is that she will not have the youth vote strongly like Obama, particularly after she went after and went after Sanders' supporters.

Absolutely. She's consistently losing 18-30's, men AND women, by big margins. It seems safe to say most of the black, and Latino voters, and the minority of Democrats overy 50 who are carrying her, now, would vote for Sanders in the general. However, it seems equally clear that the opposite is not true. If she gets the nomination, which, I concede, is likely, many, if not most of them will not vote for her. I don't blame them.
 
Absolutely. She's consistently losing 18-30's, men AND women, by big margins. It seems safe to say most of the black, and Latino voters, and the minority of Democrats overy 50 who are carrying her, now, would vote for Sanders in the general. However, it seems equally clear that the opposite is not true. If she gets the nomination, which, I concede, is likely, many, if not most of them will not vote for her. I don't blame them.

This is the most toxic fact about Hillary Clinton that is almost certainly going to crush Hillary Clinton in the generals. I'm going to be making a thread about this, hopefully tonight. Look, here's the reality --at this point, everyone loses. If Sanders drops out now, if Sanders doesn't drop out now, Hillary is about to lose a substantially vital portion of the Democratic voting bloc (worse still, she is actually in the process of engendering Democrats to vote for Trump).

Now, I still don't believe that Donald Trump will be the nominee. There will be a brokered convention, John Kasich will be the nominee, and that's going to **** Hillary even worse. If she loses Ohio, and she loses a significant portion of the youth vote, her general election campaign just went terminal. The only good news there is that the economy will go tits up when a Republican is in office, and they'll take the fall. (Which I think is more than fair, given that they're the ones who sent us down this neoliberal rabbit hole.)
 
Hillary may have supporters that are retarded. This is why when asked to talk about Hillary Clinton's accomplishments, they have to rely on mentioning how many frequent flier miles she got on the taxpayer dime or mention the fact that she's a woman. Neither of these things are actual accomplishments.
 
This is the most toxic fact about Hillary Clinton that is almost certainly going to crush Hillary Clinton in the generals. I'm going to be making a thread about this, hopefully tonight. Look, here's the reality --at this point, everyone loses. If Sanders drops out now, if Sanders doesn't drop out now, Hillary is about to lose a substantially vital portion of the Democratic voting bloc (worse still, she is actually in the process of engendering Democrats to vote for Trump).

On trade, Trump would actually be able to outflank Hillary from the left. She simply has no credibility, there.

There's another piece, also in Salon , which you may have seen, regarding internecine conflict within the Democratic tent, between Sanders supporters, and the Clintonites. If you haven't seen it, you should check it out, here;

Stop laughing, Democrats! As the GOP goes down in flames, your post-Bernie civil war is almost here - Salon.com

Sanders represents what is now often referred to as the 'Warren wing' of the party, what Jesse Jackson used to call the 'democratic wing of the Democratic Party.' As the aforementioned article demonstrates, these two camps have fundamentally incompatible outlooks, and goals. I used to think there may have been a grain of truth to Michael Harrington's claim that the Democratic party opens the door to those on its left. Before Clinton, and the DLC, I think that might have been true. I just don't think that's possible, anymore. In the past, as much as I oppose the President's policies, I've argued that minimal improvementso were better than nothing, and that no matter how many drone strikes he ordered, or immigrants he deported, the GOP, particularly its completely deranged modern incarnation , was worse. I find it impossible to make that argument, today. I think if the Democratic party, as an institution, is exemplified by a corporatist hawk like Clinton, they deserve to lose. I'm actually starting to think that a Clinton victory might actually be worse, because it would further legitimize the profoundly anti-democratic neoliberal ideology she represents, by shrouding it in a micrometer-thin veneer of faux-progressivism.

My takeaway is, if Sanders loses the fight for the nomination, which looks likely to happen, is that the left has no choice but to abandon the Democratic party, wholesale, and devote itself, entirely, to the arduous, workmanlike task of building an institution which could one day challenge, and, ultimately, defeat it.

Now, I still don't believe that Donald Trump will be the nominee. There will be a brokered convention, John Kasich will be the nominee, and that's going to **** Hillary even worse. If she loses Ohio, and she loses a significant portion of the youth vote, her general election campaign just went terminal.

I concede, as the report from Global Research indicated, that evidence suggests Kasich would be the stronger candidate in the general. (As would Sanders.) However, I don't see how he could possibly get the nomination if he continues to trail Cruz, and Rubio. Cruz is the only one who has actually managed to beat Trump. The obvious course of action is for Rubio to join Cruz as his running mate, and consolidate the anti-Trump vote, and for Kasich to get out of the way. Again, unless we see a Kasich surge posthaste, I don't see how he could overtake Cruz/Rubio.

If Hillary loses Ohio, particularly if it's by upwards of 10 points, that would seem to necessitate a Sanders surge, that could close the gap. Unfortunately, I don't think this is likely.

The only good news there is that the economy will go tits up when a Republican is in office, and they'll take the fall. (Which I think is more than fair, given that they're the ones who sent us down this neoliberal rabbit hole.)

While this is a most anemic economic 'recovery', and I fullyour expect another economic disaster roughly on part with 2008, I don't see how we can be sure it would happen in the next four years. Furthermore, I see no reason why this would be the final straw for neoliberal economics, when the former was not.

I also think it's worth keeping in mind that while crisis can open opportunities for the left, that is a double-edged sword. Poverty, and inequality may push people towards a Sanders, or a Corbyn, but it might also push them towards Le Pen, or Mussolini.
 
Hillary may have supporters that are retarded. This is why when asked to talk about Hillary Clinton's accomplishments, they have to rely on mentioning how many frequent flier miles she got on the taxpayer dime or mention the fact that she's a woman. Neither of these things are actual accomplishments.

Every candidate has idiot supporters. That's only because the world has an oversupply of idiots.
 
My takeaway is, if Sanders loses the fight for the nomination, which looks likely to happen, is that the left has no choice but to abandon the Democratic party, wholesale, and devote itself, entirely, to the arduous, workmanlike task of building an institution which could one day challenge, and, ultimately, defeat it.

That's a good article, even if a bit douchy. But he's fundamentally correct, the Left is now locked into a fight that is going to occupy itself with for at least a decade or two, unless a financial collapse happens and then the conversation will get a lot shorter. I don't know that we're going to build up a new party (If we do, the Green party seems the most likely candidate, since it at least has some history, financial backing, and so forth). But if ActBlue decides to only work for Green candidates... That would be a serious, serious start in the battle. But this is a conversation that's going to happen until after November, and then the Progressive Left is going lodge everything it's got at Hillary. I'd be shocked if Hillary didn't become the most hated president in US history once we're done with her after her first term.

Everything we've got is going to go into primary'ing her in 2020. We'll probably fail with that, too, but it's a start. Also, we need to vote in Democrats like Alan Grayson, Elizabath Warren, and Bernie Sanders. We need to target the national level, but we also need them at the state and local level, too. One thing is clear --we need to start building up our institutional presence. Once that happens, we will topple the Democratic Establishment with ease and all of the groups will fall in line with the Progressive Left. Some direct attacks on the Establishment would include fighting for black communities in the South and women in the South. Beyond being a solidly good cause, the Establishment totally showed their underbellies in 2016. Those vulnerable in the South is their real firewall. We have to take the South from them, and that's going to be hard but very necessary.

However, I don't see how he could possibly get the nomination if he continues to trail Cruz, and Rubio.

Contested convention. There's no run-off ballot in the US; if one candidate doesn't get 51% of the vote (And right now, I doubt that Trump will), then all delegates become unpledged and they can choose whoever they want. You can guess how that's going to work. Like I've been saying for months, it'll be the most overt

If Hillary loses Ohio, particularly if it's by upwards of 10 points, that would seem to necessitate a Sanders surge, that could close the gap. Unfortunately, I don't think this is likely.

It would do that, but it's not happening. I'll support Sanders financially until the end, but we are going to lose this.

While this is a most anemic economic 'recovery', and I fullyour expect another economic disaster roughly on part with 2008, I don't see how we can be sure it would happen in the next four years. Furthermore, I see no reason why this would be the final straw for neoliberal economics, when the former was not.

Well, China's economy just went tits up for second time three months ago. I'm pretty certain that this is the start of it. You never know precisely when it's going to break, but it will break. Given that it's happened about once every ten years with increasing severity? Yes, I think it being within the next 4 years is a pretty solid bet, even if it's not certain.

It'll be the final straw because the first economic recession was itself practically the breaking point for neoliberal politics. It's impossible to argue that Sanders and Trump aren't 100% caused by the financial collapse.

I also think it's worth keeping in mind that while crisis can open opportunities for the left, that is a double-edged sword. Poverty, and inequality may push people towards a Sanders, or a Corbyn, but it might also push them towards Le Pen, or Mussolini.

Agreed, that's why I think it's very, very bad. But if there ever is to be socialism, it'll probably need to come about this way. This is how Monarchist Feudalism ended in Europe and Liberal Capitalism began; Feudalism needed to come crashing down before it started in France before everyone got together and said, "Nope, we're done with this now. This definitely doesn't work."
 
Back
Top Bottom