Clinton Cash/Foundation

[BigRedBuster]

The only distinction I'd draw is that most of Clinton's plans are within the political parameters of nonpartisan sanity. You can hate things like gun control or maintaining the ACA or addressing college tuition along ideological lines, but I think most people on both sides of the aisle could agree they're mainstream, sane ideas.

 

There's been backlash from both sides of the aisle for some of Trump's ideas, be it a deportation force to boot out 12M illegals, the Wall©, withdrawing from NATO or strengthening ties with Russia. I'd suggest that puts such plans beyond the political pale, even if his supporters think they're entirely legitimate.

 

I could be seeing this too much through my lefty lens, though.

Ummmmm....admitting a problem is the first step to solving it.

 

Free tuition is NOT a mainstream "sane" idea. It is way far left and only came out because she tried to get Bernie to endorse her.

 

Maintaining the ACA could possibly be mainstream but, it's already starting to crumble and major changes are going to need to be made. If she thinks it's just going to maintain it....she's ignoring the freight train headed her way.

 

Gun control COULD be mainstream, but, she has said some things about it that aren't mainstream and the GOP is going to latch on to that and hammer her for it.

 

 

Yes....most of what Trump has said is wacko loony tune junk.

[huskerfan2000]

Let me be clear. If there is legitimate corruption or quid pro quo there, let it be known. More transparency is good.

 

But until I see it spelled out before me, it's a bunch of people scrutinizing a charity. It has literally no effect on me whatsoever. The Clintons have always had a problem with bad optics. Even if the Clinton's played by a different set of rules, it wouldn't affect me at all. I care about what the candidates will do in office to make my life better.

 

The only other choice with a legitimate shot to win is incompetent and horrifyingly bigoted. It's an easy call.

 

 

WOW, this has got to be the most ridiculously statement I have seen on this site.

 

They are nothing more than criminals using the government to line their pockets.. to deny that is also blind and ignorant.

 

Both of those options (Trump and Hillary) are a disgrace to the office!

[84HuskerLaw]

The Clintons are the most corrupt and blatantly evil (they will both do and say anything to get what they want, right or wrong, on any subject) that they make some of the gangsters look like amateurs. . There is so dam much evidence of all of the many many scandals (there have been so many scandals involving the criminality and corruption of the Clintons you can't even remember half of them. They have corrupted the FBI and IRS and State Department, Justice Department, Attorney General's Office, etc etc.

[Danny Bateman]

 

The only distinction I'd draw is that most of Clinton's plans are within the political parameters of nonpartisan sanity. You can hate things like gun control or maintaining the ACA or addressing college tuition along ideological lines, but I think most people on both sides of the aisle could agree they're mainstream, sane ideas.

 

There's been backlash from both sides of the aisle for some of Trump's ideas, be it a deportation force to boot out 12M illegals, the Wall©, withdrawing from NATO or strengthening ties with Russia. I'd suggest that puts such plans beyond the political pale, even if his supporters think they're entirely legitimate.

 

I could be seeing this too much through my lefty lens, though.

Ummmmm....admitting a problem is the first step to solving it.

 

Free tuition is NOT a mainstream "sane" idea. It is way far left and only came out because she tried to get Bernie to endorse her.

 

Maintaining the ACA could possibly be mainstream but, it's already starting to crumble and major changes are going to need to be made. If she thinks it's just going to maintain it....she's ignoring the freight train headed her way.

 

Gun control COULD be mainstream, but, she has said some things about it that aren't mainstream and the GOP is going to latch on to that and hammer her for it.

 

 

Yes....most of what Trump has said is wacko loony tune junk.

 

 

I'm not even a fan of free tuition (I was more in favor of Clinton's previous, more conservative ideas for tuition), but at least she's trying to address that issue.

 

Maintain was poor word choice. She wants to make improvements to the ACA. We're seeing divergent priorities collide there: the government wants to expand affordable healthcare to as many people as possible, and the insurers want to maintain their profit margins. Hard to have both if healthy people are opting out. I'd say they should meet halfway and really focus on bringing premium costs down so it's moe affordable for the already insured and it incentivizes moe people to join in. As idealistic and humanitarian as it is to push towards universal healthcare, right now, people are clearly more pissed about rising costs.

 

As with Johnson in the other thread, hopefully the rest of the government has a tempering effect and moderates whatever plans she has for these areas into a mainstream enough realm.

[TGHusker]

By this dialog I think we can see that both parties have played to the extremes - Clinton has to move far left and talk about free tuition and other Bernie ideas. Trump has far hard right views on immigration plus unrealistic nationalistic views on leaving NATO and deporting millions. The first 'moderate' (range from just right of center to just left of center) candidate who has real convictions and doesn't pander to the extremes please stand up. Maybe Webb and Kasich should form a coalition - unfortunately to late for this cycle.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

The only distinction I'd draw is that most of Clinton's plans are within the political parameters of nonpartisan sanity. You can hate things like gun control or maintaining the ACA or addressing college tuition along ideological lines, but I think most people on both sides of the aisle could agree they're mainstream, sane ideas.

 

There's been backlash from both sides of the aisle for some of Trump's ideas, be it a deportation force to boot out 12M illegals, the Wall©, withdrawing from NATO or strengthening ties with Russia. I'd suggest that puts such plans beyond the political pale, even if his supporters think they're entirely legitimate.

 

I could be seeing this too much through my lefty lens, though.

Ummmmm....admitting a problem is the first step to solving it.

 

Free tuition is NOT a mainstream "sane" idea. It is way far left and only came out because she tried to get Bernie to endorse her.

 

Maintaining the ACA could possibly be mainstream but, it's already starting to crumble and major changes are going to need to be made. If she thinks it's just going to maintain it....she's ignoring the freight train headed her way.

 

Gun control COULD be mainstream, but, she has said some things about it that aren't mainstream and the GOP is going to latch on to that and hammer her for it.

 

 

Yes....most of what Trump has said is wacko loony tune junk.

 

 

I'm not even a fan of free tuition (I was more in favor of Clinton's previous, more conservative ideas for tuition), but at least she's trying to address that issue. But, that doesn't mean her free tuition is mainstream.

 

Maintain was poor word choice. She wants to make improvements to the ACA. We're seeing divergent priorities collide there: the government wants to expand affordable healthcare to as many people as possible, and the insurers want to maintain their profit margins. Hard to have both if healthy people are opting out. I'd say they should meet halfway and really focus on bringing premium costs down so it's moe affordable for the already insured and it incentivizes moe people to join in. As idealistic and humanitarian as it is to push towards universal healthcare, right now, people are clearly more pissed about rising costs. The ACA is going to end up a disaster without major overhaul or something else coming in and completely replacing it. Minor adjustments here and there isn't going to cut it. One heck of a lot of Americans are waking up to that fact and even more are going to when more insurance companies pull out of the marketplace and the one remaining company can jack prices sky high.....and then the government starts fining people for not buying it. Maintaining it with a few modifications is becoming less and less mainstream.

 

As with Johnson in the other thread, hopefully the rest of the government has a tempering effect and moderates whatever plans she has for these areas into a mainstream enough realm. That is all I can hope for at this point. However, the Dems will probably win the Senate too. If they have control of the Senate, they aren't going to moderate their golden girl President much.

 

Funny thing is, the Republicans will have nobody to blame but themselves for putting up such an incompetent ass as a candidate against her.

 

[Danny Bateman]

That's funny, TGH. Just earlier today I saw on my Twitter feed a Politico article wherein Tony Blair said he was afraid centrism was dying.

 

That's a shame, IMO. I very much hope it makes a comeback as well. Playing to the extremes is very problematic sometimes-- look at our wonderful gridlock in Washington.

[zoogs]

Clinton isn't a far left candidate. Not even close. She's the status quo candidate that batted back a candidate who himself couldn't really be called "far left".

Trump isn't a far right candidate.

He feeds on base impulse responses to mainstream fears shared by a lot of people. The sort of ideas the "elites" tend to say "no way" to. He's dangerously pliable and self-serving, yes, but I don't think he has a coherent enough political agenda to really frame him in any conventional way.

Johnson isn't a moderate.

[BigRedBuster]

 

She's the status quo candidate that batted back a candidate who himself couldn't really be called "far left".

Johnson isn't a moderate.

 

I'm interested in knowing how you could say Bernie isn't "far left" but Johnson isn't moderate?

 

Hey...I'm fine with claiming Johnson isn't a moderate and I'm fine with saying Clinton is a status quo candidate. I'm just scratching my head on the Bernie side of the equation.

[zoogs]

He simply isn't so far out there. Yes, relative to the heretofore *very narrow* band of what's mainstream acceptable in the United States, he wears that label as a badge of honor, and he's done well to legitimize certain ideas. Some of these are routine or settled in other parts of the world.

An actual socialist would look at his proposed platform and say, "That's cute."

And possibly add, "Capitalist swine."

[BigRedBuster]

 

He simply isn't so far out there. Yes, relative to the heretofore *very narrow* band of what's mainstream acceptable in the United States, he wears that label as a badge of honor, and he's done well to legitimize certain ideas. Some of these are routine or settled in other parts of the world.

An actual socialist would look at his proposed platform and say, "That's cute."

And possibly add, "Capitalist swine."

 

OK....I don't measure someone by "the rest of the world". If that's the case, I could find the most staunchly conservative person in the US and find examples around the world proving they are pretty dang moderate.

[zoogs]

Well, I mean, Bernie's platform just wasn't very far from Hillary's. He supports single payer. That was on the agenda in 2008, but didn't make it into the final law (I think). He has policies and rhetoric that tacks boldly to the left, but it's not way out there.

 

Hence, we could take even a very conservative Congressman. I could call him "staunchly conservative". I'd have an issue with using the term "far right."

 

Bernie's very liberal, in a lot of ways. And in that vein he has some good ideas, and some bad ones. He's not far left.

[TGHusker]

 

 

He simply isn't so far out there. Yes, relative to the heretofore *very narrow* band of what's mainstream acceptable in the United States, he wears that label as a badge of honor, and he's done well to legitimize certain ideas. Some of these are routine or settled in other parts of the world.

An actual socialist would look at his proposed platform and say, "That's cute."

And possibly add, "Capitalist swine."

 

OK....I don't measure someone by "the rest of the world". If that's the case, I could find the most staunchly conservative person in the US and find examples around the world proving they are pretty dang moderate.

 

agree - I was wondering were zoogs was going wt the Bernie - "not a far left' jargon. We are talking USA politics only. I would say that Trump while not a hard right candidate - plays to the extreme right on some of his policies - immigration being the leading one. While Hillary is no Bernie she is IMO much more left than a left of center candidate when it comes to most social issues of our time (and before this current time when she introduced Hillary care back in the 90s). I think wtout Bill's 'moderation' she would have gone full blown left and only has the political chops not to fully show her hand now. I think she is much more a leftist than Bill was or maybe Bill just had the political savvy and pragmatic sense to be more moderate. Hillary is a status candidate only that she would continue many of Obama's policies esp in foreign affairs.

[Lil' Red]

 

https://twitter.com/AP/status/768166957728358400

Those of you who are backing Clinton - what do you do with this information? You can no longer keep on saying - Trump is worse. 1. He may not be worse (worse prepared for the office yes, but not worse corruption wise)

 

You can definitely make a case that Trump is worse corruption-wise. Trump University, refusing to pay his employees and contractors, the thousands of lawsuits against his companies, his mob ties, his bankruptcies, his using of campaign funds on his businesses, and whatever he's hiding in his tax returns make him the more corrupt candidate in my opinion.

[zoogs]

Hillary and Obama diverge on foreign affairs, or at least that's the conventional wisdom.

 

You could say Bill Clinton was more to the center, but he was at the helm of the Democratic Party in the 1990s.

 

If you're suspicious of Hillary veering way left, I'd say people on the other side are equally suspicious that she will rein the Democratic Party back towards the center.

 

We're all dealing in a relative range of normal here -- outside of Trump. I don't know what direction would be appropriate to assign to him. Again, I don't think there's a coherent agenda there. It's more that he's a seriously loose cannon. Is targeting Muslisms "right wing" so much as it is just horrible?