Republican financier Koch says Clinton might make better president

[FieldTheorist]

He's the worst of the GOP pandering to the religious right.

And fiscal conservatives (i.e. right-wing neoliberalism), traditional family values (which goes beyond the religious right, like transgender issues), and xenophobic voters (but not quite full-on racism). I mean, people don't seem to understand what they were voting for before now, but Ted Cruz is literally the most virulent, pure strain of conservatism the world has ever known and been elected to national public office. Reagan looks like a namby-pamby liberal by comparison.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Except she's come out for all of those things.

Only in the most facile and tritest way possible. Setting aside the TPP (which is essentially impossible to believe she's genuinely against given that she developed it early on and promoted it right up until she renounced it when Sanders pushed her to it) and Keystone XL (which, again, is pretty hard to take at face value knowing the amount of money she takes from Big Oil and frakking lobbyists, and how, again, she only did it after Sanders pushed her into it), outside of those, everything else is just talking points without even the thinnest veneer of sincerity or seriousness.

It's totally unsurprising that the Koch's are now looking at Hillary as the presidential candidate who will represent their interests best. If you follow politics even badly, this makes total sense.

She's signaled interest in using existing tools in the ACA to pursue public options

Oh wow. She's "signaled interest." In other words, she's not for it, but maybe one day we could hope that she might be for it --even though she's spent the entire 2016 primary stating how much she's against the idea because it's unfeasible and the US "isn't Denmark"? You do realize that's a wildly uncompelling non-argument, yes?

she's calling for the highest minimum wage in history

Wow, that's the definition of weasel-wording and why her talking points (which you're dutifully regurgitating) are obfuscatory. Do you mean this is the highest call in history for minimum wage? If so, that's wrong because Sanders' and FightFor15's is literally higher on the basic grounds the 15 > 12. Or do you mean that she's calling for the highest minimum wage in history? If so, then that's an absolutely facile, trite statement. If we raised the Federal minimum wage from the current 7.25 to 7.26, we would have "called for raising minimum wage to the highest in history." And you're also obfuscating the fact that it's not even the largest minimum wage in history, either, because California has a minimum wage of 15 dollars --the thing in this primary she's literally been fighting against while Sanders and FightFor15 have been fighting for.

That being said, this talking point is even worse than this because you're not accounting for the fact that when you present Congress with a bill for $12/hr, that's going to get "compromised" and "negotiated" down to 8-10 bucks an hour. Hillary isn't a stupid person, she's intelligent, educated, and experienced like most Hillary supporters love to mention; so we know that she knows that she's really arguing for 8-10 dollars an hour. Better? Yes. Livable? No, not unless you're in a really rural area.

she's said overturning Citizens United is a litmus for her SCOTUS nominees

It's great that she says that, only months after Sanders said it and it was transparent that it was going to become a talking point. And if she actually holds to that, she'll get my praise, but let's not pretend like overturning Citizens United is the end of campaign finance reform. She's openly against publicly funded elections, she's not against corporations contributing (How could she be, she makes so much money from it both personally and as a candidate), and all of the other discussions. As she loves to repeat, she's against the "dark, unaccountable" money in politics. But she's not against money in politics, and for all of the obvious reasons.

and she's put out the most comprehensive Wall Street regulation plan.

This is such an unthoughtful comment it's difficult to take it seriously. Comprehensive in what sense? Comprehensively and carefully deliberated so as to minimally obstructive to Wall Street as possible whilst still counting as a reform --yes, I agree with that. That's what Dodd-Frank was --the lackluster bill that allowed the top banks to get even bigger? My favorite fact about Dodd-Frank? Both Dodd and Frank now work for banks, and make more money a year than either of us are likely to see in our life times, and Frank openly admitted 6 years ago that money in politics affects a politicians decision-making. Yeah, it's shocking Dodd-Frank hasn't acted to stop almost any Wall Street fraud, recklessness, or obstruction. But this is her go-to example of a "good, strong progressive reform" on Wall Street, and she mentions it every time Wall Street reform is discussed as the kind of bill we could expect from her.


Again, the lack of seriousness or analysis in these arguments is pretty stunning.

 

[Greenbeard]

It's totally unsurprising that the Koch's are now looking at Hillary as the presidential candidate who will represent their interests best. If you follow politics even badly, this makes total sense.

Trolling the other side's primary is a time-honored tradition in American politics.

Oh wow. She's "signaled interest." In other words, she's not for it, but maybe one day we could hope that she might be for it --even though she's spent the entire 2016 primary stating how much she's against the idea because it's unfeasible and the US "isn't Denmark"? You do realize that's a wildly uncompelling non-argument, yes?

Yes, she's for it. That's what interest is. She's running to be head of the executive branch, which means she'll have a great deal of control over how HHS encourages and allows states to use waiver authority to innovate. Signaling to states how she plans to use that authority is more important than you seem to realize. The executive branch isn't just an especially big soapbox for the right curmudgeonly doomsday prophet, it's the seat of policy implementation in our government.

And no, I don't recall her ever stating a public option isn't feasible. I think you're confusing some things here.

Wow, that's the definition of weasel-wording and why her talking points (which you're dutifully regurgitating) are obfuscatory. Do you mean this is the highest call in history for minimum wage?

The $12 minimum wage she's calling for would be the highest federal minimum wage in history in real dollars (the previous high was about $10.38, in today's dollars, in 1968). Indeed, it's higher than the $10.10 minimum wage Bernie supported just two years ago.

It's great that she says that, only months after Sanders said it and it was transparent that it was going to become a talking point. And if she actually holds to that, she'll get my praise, but let's not pretend like overturning Citizens United is the end of campaign finance reform. She's openly against publicly funded elections, she's not against corporations contributing (How could she be, she makes so much money from it both personally and as a candidate), and all of the other discussions. As she loves to repeat, she's against the "dark, unaccountable" money in politics. But she's not against money in politics, and for all of the obvious reasons.

They have the same positions on campaign finance reform:

• Overturn Citizens United
• Create a small donor public match
• Promote transparency via more required disclosures of political spending

This is such an unthoughtful comment it's difficult to take it seriously. Comprehensive in what sense?

Comprehensive in acknowledging that financial regulation in the 21st century requires more than just "break up the banks!" and re-instating Glass-Steagall.

Your claims were false. She has specifically endorsed a public option, has the same positions on campaign finance reform as Sanders, is pushing for the highest real federal minimum wage ever, and is indeed proposing Wall Street reform (in fact she has the support of the ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee and a well-known voice on the left, Sherrod Brown).

 

[reinoe]

Trolling the other side's primary is a time-honored tradition in American politics.



Yes, she's for it. That's what interest is. She's running to be head of the executive branch, which means she'll have a great deal of control over how HHS encourages and allows states to use waiver authority to innovate. Signaling to states how she plans to use that authority is more important than you seem to realize. The executive branch isn't just an especially big soapbox for the right curmudgeonly doomsday prophet, it's the seat of policy implementation in our government.

And no, I don't recall her ever stating a public option isn't feasible. I think you're confusing some things here.



The $12 minimum wage she's calling for would be the highest federal minimum wage in history in real dollars (the previous high was about $10.38, in today's dollars, in 1968). Indeed, it's higher than the $10.10 minimum wage Bernie supported just two years ago.



They have the same positions on campaign finance reform:

• Overturn Citizens United
• Create a small donor public match
• Promote transparency via more required disclosures of political spending

Comprehensive in acknowledging that financial regulation in the 21st century requires more than just "break up the banks!" and re-instating Glass-Steagall.

Your claims were false. She has specifically endorsed a public option, has the same positions on campaign finance reform as Sanders, is pushing for the highest real federal minimum wage ever, and is indeed proposing Wall Street reform (in fact she has the support of the ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee and a well-known voice on the left, Sherrod Brown).

You're really naive if you believe even half the things Hillary says she supports, months or years after Bernie said it. And she only took up certain causes because they gained traction with the publice. Lord knows she's in favor of Keystone pipeline and the TPP. And she couldn't care laws about law enforcement reform or any of the other social issues she claims to support.

You say that Hillary and Sanders have similar policies, but that's only because she's doing a copy/paste of the things he believes in. I've seen you talk about health insurance, so I know you're not dumb but I didn't know you were naive.

 

[danarhea]

Yeah, but you used the term "liberal progressives." Not a term I'd traditionally associate to Hillary Clinton. (Of course, it depends on your definition of liberal.)

Hillary is more of a Neoliberal, much like her husband was. Where Neoconservatives bomb nations, Neoliberals use the banking system to starve nations. The ends they seek are the same. Only the methods are different.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Hillary is more of a Neoliberal, much like her husband was. Where Neoconservatives bomb nations, Neoliberals use the banking system to starve nations. The ends they seek are the same. Only the methods are different.

I wouldn't even say their methods are different, they're both just outspoken neoliberals --except when they run for national office. Then they become mealy-mouthing neoliberals.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

You're really naive if you believe even half the things Hillary says she supports, months or years after Bernie said it. And she only took up certain causes because they gained traction with the publice. Lord knows she's in favor of Keystone pipeline and the TPP. And she couldn't care laws about law enforcement reform or any of the other social issues she claims to support.

You say that Hillary and Sanders have similar policies, but that's only because she's doing a copy/paste of the things he believes in. I've seen you talk about health insurance, so I know you're not dumb but I didn't know you were naive.

When your candidate gets endorsed by the Koch brothers, run the other direction. The Clintons, Kochs are the death of us. To hell with 'em! I don't see how anyone in their right mind can support such insane madness. Foreign policy: war hawk. Economic policy: big banks. Government: large and instrusive. Business: international mega-corporations. Koch bros approval: CHECK! Yep, she's a Dino REPUBLICAN! I respect your opinions, but they are rather ****ty ones!

It's looking like this election will certainly spell doom for the Republican party, but life's too short for half-ass. Let's go ahead and destroy the Democratic Party as well. Time to shut these war machines down. I'm serious! They need to go! Replace them with the Libertarians, Tea Party, Greens and the Independence Front.

At this point we may see a secessionist Wall St-led fascist country named 'Columbia' led by the one-party autocratic rule of the Totalitarian 'Democratic-Republican Party' break off relations with the United States and take over the Northeastern megalopolis dominated by the rich and international bankers.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Yes, she's for it. That's what interest is. She's running to be head of the executive branch, which means she'll have a great deal of control over how HHS encourages and allows states to use waiver authority to innovate. Signaling to states how she plans to use that authority is more important than you seem to realize. The executive branch isn't just an especially big soapbox for the right curmudgeonly doomsday prophet, it's the seat of policy implementation in our government.

As much as Clinton supporters like to have an air of smug condescension towards Sanders' supporters knowledge and understanding of politics and political culture and the related compulsory need to talk down to them, it would be wise to suppress that impulse. It's unlikely that you're going to inform me of some wildly new, major aspect of American politics that had escaped my attention in the decade plus that I've followed politics and voted.

Yes, it's important that states know how a president is going to use their power. But that's pretty wildly irrelevant in a primary (unless you're trolling for support), and given that the DNC gave up trying to seriously get a majority of Democratic governors back when Bill was president, it's pretty hard to argue that she's going to have much success with this outside of blue states. That leaves the lives of a lot of people --including the overwhelming support she's received from African-Americans and women in the South-- totally unchanged by this move, or by the rest of your post. So let's address that.

And no, I don't recall her ever stating a public option isn't feasible. I think you're confusing some things here.

Well, it's true that she now has said on her website that she's for the public option. Of course, that's the general problem with Hillary Clinton --how she "believes" about a topic tends heavily oscillate from election cycle to election cycle (You know, it's really heart-felt when you finally do it after 10 months into the campaign --but I digress). Just reading her website, nearly everything she wants to accomplish is totally and utterly contingent upon hoping that if you provide enough incentives, you will get die-hard, Tea Party governors in red states (which is most of them) to suddenly accept the Federal medicaid (and related) expansions from Obamacare. Well, that's pretty rich coming from someone who's strongest critique of her opponent is that he's not recognizing political realities. Again, just looking at her website, it's steeped in terms designed to hide what she's not for, which is real universal healthcare. She's for "universal coverage", which means private insurance with Federally-aided subsidies --on the hope that local state governments will accept the subsidies. If we've learned one thing from Obamacare, it's that red states will cut of their nose to spite their face.

To be clear here, when people say that they wanted a public option, they meant a national public option that wasn't based on the whims of arbitrary state governments and would function like a medicare-for-all run by the Federal government based off of Federal regulations. That was literally what Obama was campaigning for; what Hillary is doing is re-defining what "public option" means, proposing something she knows is virtually guaranteed to fail, and then claiming that this is "progress towards the right position." Fine, but only in the most unhelpful and minimalist sense possible.

 

[FieldTheorist]

The $12 minimum wage she's calling for would be the highest federal minimum wage in history in real dollars (the previous high was about $10.38, in today's dollars, in 1968). Indeed, it's higher than the $10.10 minimum wage Bernie supported just two years ago.

1.) That's such a preposterous response it's difficult to no where to respond. I just told you why that statement is either deceitful or else weasel words. Your response seems to be "I don't have a response to that, so let me repeat what I just said." Well, thanks for confirming.

2.) Clinton supporters don't get to have it both ways. Sure, Sanders will support bills that raise the minimum wage even if it's not as high as he likes, but his political career has literally been about income inequality and so that's such an insincere accusation it doesn't really merit further discussion. But I would like to mention that you can't blame Sanders for compromising with other senators to try to get a bill passed that will be at least better, while in the next breathe complain that he's an ideological nut who can't compromise on his loony-toon ideas.

They have the same positions on campaign finance reform:

• Overturn Citizens United
• Create a small donor public match
• Promote transparency via more required disclosures of political spending

That's pretty funny. Let's start with the obvious difference --people who actually want to address money in politics don't obfuscate with "would like to promote transparency by requiring more disclosures" or "would like to create a small donor public match." They say things like, "will make it unconstitutional for corporations and businesses to give any money to public elections" and "wants totally publicly funded elections." If they're really serious, they'll start talking about run-off ballots, online voting, universal voting registration, and Federal voting holidays. These reforms, of course, laregly can't be done through a president and must be done through Congress (which is laughable, and won't happen) or a state convention (very plausible, and being worked on, e.g. Wolf-PAC), but it's still important to know where the head of state you're voting for stands (particularly for SCOTUS nominations and vetoing power).

Comprehensive in acknowledging that financial regulation in the 21st century requires more than just "break up the banks!" and re-instating Glass-Steagall.

More obfuscatory language and smuggled premises. Yes, Wall Street reform and regulation requires more than just Glass-Steagall --but it still requires Glass-Steagall. The Clintons' destroyed Glass-Steagall because it competes with their ideological belief system (they're neoliberals), so of course she's not coming out for it. Instead she talks about different implementations of a few of the things that Sanders wants (e.g. taxing speculation), calls it "better," and then disregards the fact that she's missing key and crucial New Deal elements of her Wall Street reform. That's actually pretty typical of her positions, though --they're conspicuously all missing the crucial elements that made the New Deal function.




TL;DR: So, yes, like the rest of what you keep on raising, this is a bunch of weasel words, designed to make it sound like she's for huge, sweeping, meaningful change, when in fact she's for "More of the Same, I guess" dressed up in "Change!"/"Change, sort of!" language. And when people point out that it's neither meaningful nor lasting change, we can expect to now hear about how she's being "a practical, smart progressive" who "knows how to get things done" and "knows what's realistic" --which following her website, appears to be "Essentially nothing different than retry what Obama failed to accomplish and hope that it works out different this time, because reasons." Democratic loyalists --as they now love to refer to themselves as-- are insistent on giving her the national lime-light even if it means losing a third of their base and potentially losing some new blue states that were added over the last 10 years --but damned be the consequences. "I'm with her." No one is really sure why, but they know that they're with her. Fair enough, I guess we can wait out and see what the consequences of this will be.


PS:

(in fact she has the support of the ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee and a well-known voice on the left, Sherrod Brown).

Sherrod Brown may be on the Left relative to our system, but don't forget that this is the man who introduced SOPA and PIPA into the Senate. He's a little corporatist errand boy, too. Just because he's socially left-wing and once in a while stands up for progressives isn't that wonderful of an accomplishment.

 

[Greenbeard]

Well, it's true that she now has said on her website that she's for the public option. Of course, that's the general problem with Hillary Clinton --how she "believes" about a topic tends heavily oscillate from election cycle to election cycle (You know, it's really heart-felt when you finally do it after 10 months into the campaign --but I digress).

She ran on a public option in 2008, supported it behind the scenes in 2009-10, and she's running on the concept again in 2016. How inconsistent!

Just reading her website, nearly everything she wants to accomplish is totally and utterly contingent upon hoping that if you provide enough incentives, you will get die-hard, Tea Party governors in red states (which is most of them) to suddenly accept the Federal medicaid (and related) expansions from Obamacare.

Boy are you going to be very disappointed when you find out how Bernie's "free college" works. But we live in a federal system, so generally the states get to have a role in major policy initiatives.

Early 2016 Bernie could explain this to you, since his initial single-payer plan relied on state-level single-payer programs. Well, until he ditched it overnight to avoid having to discuss it in a debate. But hey, he's a principled guy.

To be clear here, when people say that they wanted a public option, they meant a national public option that wasn't based on the whims of arbitrary state governments and would function like a medicare-for-all run by the Federal government based off of Federal regulations.

The public option Bernie voted for in the Senate in 2009 included a state opt-out. I suppose you'd say it was "based on the whims of arbitrary state governments." But he seemed proud of it at the time.

I just told you why that statement is either deceitful or else weasel words.

Sure, Sanders will support bills that raise the minimum wage even if it's not as high as he likes, but his political career has literally been about income inequality and so that's such an insincere accusation it doesn't really merit further discussion.

Pointing out the facts is not "deceitful." A $12 federal minimum wage would be the highest (by nearly 20%!) in history--in real dollars, not just nominal. Individual states and municipalities can and will go beyond that where feasible, as they always have (and Clinton has been clear that she supports them doing that). But this would be by far the highest federal floor ever.

It's not an "accusation" to point out that Bernie co-sponsored legislation calling for a $10.10 minimum wage just two years ago. He wrote to Obama urging him to adopt a $10.10 minimum wage for federal contractors just two years ago. This was the consensus opinion among progressive Democrats. Which is why it's absurd for Bernie's disciples to now argue that a $12 federal minimum is somehow insufficiently progressive, some kind of moral failing, or a sellout of the American worker.

Let's start with the obvious difference --people who actually want to address money in politics don't obfuscate with "would like to promote transparency by requiring more disclosures" or "would like to create a small donor public match." They say things like, "will make it unconstitutional for corporations and businesses to give any money to public elections" and "wants totally publicly funded elections." If they're really serious, they'll start talking about run-off ballots, online voting, universal voting registration, and Federal voting holidays. These reforms, of course, laregly can't be done through a president and must be done through Congress (which is laughable, and won't happen) or a state convention (very plausible, and being worked on, e.g. Wolf-PAC), but it's still important to know where the head of state you're voting for stands (particularly for SCOTUS nominations and vetoing power).

I have to say, I'm staring at the campaign finance issues page of Bernie's presidential election site (i.e., what he's running on) and he's not calling for any of that in this campaign. So I guess he's not "really serious."

Sherrod Brown may be on the Left relative to our system, but don't forget that this is the man who introduced SOPA and PIPA into the Senate. He's a little corporatist errand boy, too.

A sharp digression! That'd be like me responding to a point about the minimum wage by pointing out that Bernie thinks poor kids need soda more than they need pre-K. Accurate, but not particularly on point! But go ahead, throw Sherrod under the bus. Why shouldn't one of the most consistently progressive Senators fail the Sanders purity test?

 

[KevinKohler]

Then let the Republicans and Democrats merge and become the Republicrat party. Their mascot can be a donkey's ass sticking out of an elephant's ass.

Wait...this hasn't already happened?

 

[KevinKohler]

Question...Why are the Koch brothers SO AFRAID of Donald Trump that they would be willing to support HILLARY CLINTON?


Would now be a good time to revive some of the **** these people said about her the last run around?

 

[SheWolf]

Nobody likes Cruz. The rumors are that he doesn't work well with others, and he stabs people in the back. Trump isn't willing to work with anybody, but himself. The only person left for the lobbyists to buy off is Hillary... :lol:

I don't see Hillary going to the Koch's, but I don't see her standing up to them either. She'll keep them in her back pocket in case she needs them at a later date.

I am still picking my jaw up off the floor. If you are a Republican presidential candidate, and Charles Koch says that Hillary Clinton might be a better president than you, then you'd better take a serious look in the mirror, because there is something seriously wrong with you. America already knows it. Too bad you don't............. Yet!!

Article is here.