Hillary Clinton on TPP: "I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president" (
Source)
After supporting it and supporting Obama's fast track for it - until Bernie beat her up over it and she sees Trump is beating her up over it - THEN she changes - at least that's her public position. Trump opposed it from day one and also wants to reopen NAFTA. I believe less in Hillary's sudden conversion than I do in Trumps years of railing against big trade deals.
Clinton raved about Trans-Pacific Partnership before she rejected it
If she is elected and she doesn't push to pass it then that will be fine, but the real thanks should go to the whistleblowers that leaked the earlier drafts and to Bernie and his supporters.
She claims to have the most comprehensive plan for regulating Wall Street:
Link
Bill Clinton signed the law that lifted Glass-Steagall. Hillary gives speeches to banks at fee rates that cannot be justified by hours put in - it's just a bribe by another name. She supports fiddling around with Dodd-Frank which was so neutered by the bank lobbyists that it's almost as bad as no law and she talks about some more fiddling about the edges.
Donald, as far as I know, has no such relationship with the banks and his position is simply to bring back Glass-Steagall, a law with known implementation and well studied effects that kept the economy sound for decades.
Donald's plan on this seems more immediate and feasible returning the system to a known and safer state. Once that's done you can fiddle with it, maybe.
Possibly. I would not bet on whether the talk about Syria is just posturing or not. For me, it is too close to call.
Hillary calls for war with Russia and Donald calls for co-operation and it's too close to call because Hillary could just be lying? I have trouble buying that.
See, this is what I do not understand. If someone aligns closely with the political views of Bernie Sanders, wouldn't it matter to you what Bernie Sanders, the candidate you prefer, has to say about the available choices for this year's presidential election?
That's the reason you find it hard to understand. You think the people who followed Bernie were following him because he was Bernie. Some of them might have been, but many of them supported and worked for Bernie because of the policies he espoused. The people wanted those policies, and Bernie was backing those policies. The people who were supporting him on those grounds are free agents and since Bernie is now out of the race, it really doesn't matter what he says (and he knows this). Bernie made a deal to play the game and if he lost to endorse the party's candidate. His supporters understand that he made this deal and know that he says what hehas to say as he is an honourable man who must keep his side of the deal. Even though I think it's pretty clear that he was robbed (in much the same way that Ron Paul was robbed in the previous cycle) exemplified by the extremely large crowds those candidates were able to attract to rallies, filling arenas, even though the numbers were never shown in the media, while the "approved" candidates did well if they filled a school gym - Bernie played to raise the issues and he did that - he cracked the media silence and brought the debate to the public.
However, as with Ron Paul, Bernie's supporters aren't sheep to the cult of personality. The majority were attracted to the respective candidates by simply having someone who spoke their voice. After their candidates could no longer be president and carry their voice to that office they looked around afresh at who best fit their vision. Since both candidates were really outsiders of their respective parties, many of their supporters were ceither outsiders or very close to the edges of their parties. These people don't feel the need to vote the team colours because their voice isn't represented by the team colours.
Another thing is that, and it should be pretty obvious, a person isn't automatically correct on every issue just because you found him to be correct on several where you have agreement. He isn't a magician or a god that needs to be followed on every statement. If he says that in his opinion Hillary is best the individual who has agreed with him on other matters can still chose to disagree with him on that. Perhaps they weigh the individual policy positions differently and on their balance Hillary isn't the best.
What perpetually confuses me is that people don't understand this and think that they have to be slavishly loyal to someone who they will likely never meet or be friends with and with whom they will inevitably disagree on numerous issues despite those that they agree on.
"Why would we even expect Trump to come up with a serious plan to fix a rigged economy? He's the one who rigged it."
If that were so I would expect the winners of that rigged economy would support him most vigorously. They do not.
