How will they implement their proposed policies? Will they be able to implement them successfully given all the political, and technical challenges (Congress/Senate, Lobbies, etc.) that come with it all?
Many people view Hillary Clinton has the one with a legacy of experience because she herself has been an active politician, and very much a part of the Administration. She brings with her the experience necessary to push her policies through, or get them close to passage because she may know the right avenues, and right people to get it done. But she has been in the news for things less mention worthy such as Benghazi and by relation the Email situation, Bin Laden raid and circumstances surrounding it, among other things, and last by not least the factual/habitual accusation of her being backed by Big Money which makes her less able to move with freedom. How restricted she will be, is yet to be seen, as is the case with all candidates.
Many people, especially a large segment of age group typically defined as Youth back Bernie Sanders. He had a luke warm showing at first, but has picked up steam. He brings with him the idea of social equality. He is for Free Education at public universities and colleges, and taxing the wealthiest percentage. He has been labeled as a Democratic Socialist. Although he has political exposure, he was not a recognized name by many outside of Vermont until the Presidential race. That can be a good thing, or a bad thing depending on your viewing angel. He is considered to be string-free, because his backing apparently comes from the public for most part. He has given the people an idea of what they can have, but will he be able to deliver if elected? It is yet to be seen, as is the case with all candidates.
How do you see either of these candidates? How does each one fare when faced with the Republican front runners? Passionate remarks are allowed, but avoid making derogatory and/or personal remarks towards each other. You are the best judges, and expected to moderate yourselves to keep the decorum a fair one. Thank you.
Well before going into any detail, I would say that the 'cons' of democratic candidates are still better than 'pros' of republicans :)
The way I differentiate is very simple: Solutions proposed by Hillary are more pragmatic. she may not be promising wonders but we know wutever it is, she can deliver. Especially in terms of unifying the nation which this great country needs desperately. She is very strong in foreign affairs. The republican-majority senate committees grilled her on Benghazi for hours but she didnt sweat. These are the signs she can be a great President.
Her biggest strength is Clinton legacy and the black voters.
Bernie SAnders, a good candidate IMO but living more in a lala land. The system doesnt work in this country as he is saying or promising. We arent that socialist yet. Yes it looks lovely to have free education, levy more taxes on richer, making wallstreet accountable etc appears very sweet to ears, but how will do it? He has failed to draw a proper plan for that yet. In this manner he resembles a lot like trump who says things but without any practical plans to accomplish it.
His strength is the young generation and women on her side.
See in the end of the day, whoever gets the final nomination will face the biggest challenge: how to mobilize the democratic voters. So far republican voters turnout has been far more than democrats and if thats not turned around, nobody will be able to stop Trump.
Hillary's biggest weakness is the Clinton legacy. She was a STRONG advocate for three strikes and you are out law. That affected blacks the most. She was an advocate for the failed war on drugs. Again affect ting blacks the most, since cracked cocaine punishment far outweighed that for cocaine. She is in bed with Big Money - Banks, Pharmaceuticals and Fossil Energy.
What is not well known is she also takes money from Private Prison lobbyists. She continues to do so, while railing against Private Prisons! And fooling minorities into thinking she will reverse the institutionalized racism that targets African Americans. To put it mildly, she lies flibly, and cannot be trusted.
Hillary's biggest perceived strength - foreign affairs, is in reality, her biggest weakness. She voted for the Iraq war when it was popular to do so. And she spoke up against the Iraq war when it was popular to do so. Did I say she cannot be trusted?
Her role in the Libya mess cannot be denied. In Syria, she continues to insist the US fight Syria, Iran AND ISIS. And talks tough wrt Russia. In short, she has learnt nothing. She was, is and will remain hawkish.
Sanders on the other hand spoke up AGAINST THE Iraq war when it was UNPOPULAR to do so. So he has better judgment and more integrity. Ualities you need in a leader.
Hillary's other perceived strength - pragmatic. She boasts she can get things done with this Republican led Congress. The same Congress 2hich won't meet the Democrats 10 0ct of the way - forget halfway. I do believe she will get things done. She will give the Repubs what they ask for. And sell the 99 pct short. Whereas Bernie will hold firm. And not cave into pressure to give away the country's future to the Rethugs.
Hillary's other perceived strength - she will unify the nation. Yes, she does talk a good game. Look under the hood, and it will shock you.
She has earned millions in speaking fees from Sachs et al. The Big Boys don't simply give their money away without expectations of a return. Her double talk in the past and present should serve as a red flag to anyone who bothers to look for the truth. Unfortunately, 80 pct of the population do not vote based on facts. They vote based on what the lamestream media parrots.
Her description of black male juveniles as predators was inflammatory enough to send chills down anyone's spine. The dog whistle could be heard round the country. But some put their head in the sand and prefer to look at her as a unifying force. Balderdash, I say.
Those who repeat the Clinton meme that Sanders does not have a clear plan have not bothered to read his plans. It is more convenient to repeat the lies that MSM perpetuates. For the media reports to Big Corporations. And does not want Sanders to upset the apple cart
I oppose Sanders proposal for free college. He shoukd focus on making inner city public schools and poor are public school better. His walking away from the BLM protesters in Seattle was disappointing. His stance against reparations for slavery is not very ethical.
In short, his poor standing among African Americans is justified. Except Hillary has done more to harm that community. So her good standing is not justified.
Not only Mr. Sanders voted in favor of guns, and then later when election campaign started he put it as a “mistake”, now he’s reverted towards NRA again:
Dude junoobi, you can write one or two posts, right? :D
As far as Syria goes, she had the right idea of setting up a 'no-fly zone' but Obama didn't do it. See, this is where I dislike Obama as he tries to be popular and doesn't go full in. Either America shouldn't have gone in at all or if it is supporting rebels to oust ISIS, then prepare to set up a NFZ as they won't go fight ISIS for fun when Assad is bombing the bits out of them. Russia wouldn't have joined in if there had been a NFZ in action.
As for Bern, dems will lose after 4 years if he is prez since even middle class is going to pay $4-5k in extra taxes to cover his plans. There is still no math coming from Bern on how exactly will he pay off the extra $15T in deficit spending w/o doing something radical like fixing medicare / SS loopholes or the biggest yet, the ever increasing Pentagon budget. Europe can afford it all because they don't spend on the military (NATO is pretty much a US funded alliance) and even then they are cutting back on benefits as they grow old just like us.
No so-called enlightened burn supporter has yet to explain how all the math works, so I am inclined to think of them as out of touch idealistic fanboys (& fangirls...).
I don't get why should gun manufacturers be held responsible for what people do? Do we blame the car companies if someone goes on a rampage in an F-150?
I don't get why should gun manufacturers be held responsible for what people do? Do we blame the car companies if someone goes on a rampage in an F-150?
No its not about holding them completely responsible, rather controlling them and bringing them within law. For example you could go to walmart and buy a gun or as it happens in south that you can even stop by at a gas station and buy it. I'm in favour of Obama's executive action though it rushed a lot of people away but every gun owner should go through background investigation. What's wrong in that? Ofcourse NRA doesnt want it. It wants guns in schools, churches everywhere. And then they use the lame 2nd amendment argument.
And with Sanders we really dont know what he wants. Today he is saying something, tomorrow something else. He is completely out of plans and actions
Sanders clearly stated his position. Gunmanufacturers shoukd not be sued if they sell legally. But if they are lax in the safety measures re selling indiscriminatel, they should be held accountable.
Re flip flopping, it is funny that Hillary the flip flop per Clintons supporters have angst withSanslders on this issue.
Here are her flip flops
Crime bill
War on drugs
Welfare reform
TPP
Keystone pipeline
Bug banks
Big pharmacy
Private Prisons - she still takes money from them while railing against them and pretend g she cares for the poor who are incarcerated indiscriminately.
Minimum wage - fighting it being Raised while on campaign she talks abt raising it.
On board of Walmart while pretending to be on the side of the working poor.
She is aptly names which way the wind blows Hillary.
I disagree with Sanders saying fracking is bad. It is easy to say fossil bad all the time. Nat gas is cleaner 5han coal. Hence if fracking is regulated properly, it shoukd benefit the environment by burning more cleanly.
Nat gas powered vehicles are also cleaner than gasoline powered vehicles.
Railing against fossil fuel is easy. Sanders does travel by private jets with his campaign staff and journalists. And that is powered by fossil fuel.
Hillary on the other hand carries hypocrisy to a Hillary level. She traveled by private jets 5o gu e speeches to Goldman Sachs et al. Since this did not involve campaign staff and journalist, the per person carbon footprint for a jet burning 350 gal pe4 hour is through the roof.