Do you think she would veto Medicare for all?
I don't know. She may. She may not. The point is she isn't pushing for it and she did push against it when Bernie was pushing for it in debates. She called it "magical ponies".
She'll latch onto whatever she thinks will sell, and she isn't great at making that assessment.
That's the heart of who she is.
Clinton opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
After she supported it strenuously, because she saw the switch as politically expedient.
And in what way is it a liberal or conservative position?
I was tempted to ask you that.
That struck me especially hard in her debate with Sanders. He kept saying "get money out of politics". She kept replying "Yes, get dark money out of politics". She likes money in politics. She wants money in politics. She needs money in politics.
So you have your fever-brained idea that she really, really didn't mean it.
I can't tell if she meant it or not. What I can see is that she insisted on inserted the word dark. That's her admitting that she doesn't oppose money in politics generally, as Bernie does. She wants and needs it.
Whether it's a myth or not is still in dispute and it's definitely a liberal position.
Sure, on a lie. That's not liberal enough for me. I need liberal positions on truths.
Right before the election. She went and told her donors to "cut it out".
And that means what?
Who knows? It being said while accepting their campaign contributions speaks volumes however.
Clinton is in favor of maintaining American influence in the Middle East.
How is that liberal?
What is the liberal position on relations with middle eastern nations and how does Hillary diverge from it?
I asked you first. I've answered plenty of these. You can answer one. Is intervention in foreign lands and starting wars against brown people liberal?
The question you raised is whether she is liberal enough, not whether she's unique. Goal post movement noted.
For her to be liberal enough to me, she would have to stand out for her liberalism and not hold the positions of a Republican-light.
Liberals aren't afraid of calling nazis nazis.
Liberals ARE guarded against calling everyone they disagree with nazis and calling for punches to their faces though.
She told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, "America can't ever be neutral when it comes to Israel's security and survival."
That's definitely not liberal.
Hey, finally one I agree with you on.
Does that mean I should reconsider my position? Hmm.. maybe she didn't mean it as what she thought should be, but as a statement of what the facts are due to powers we know nothing about. Maybe she was saying even a President firmly against Israel couldn't get America to appear neutral on Israel because some unseen force would sweep in and edit her speech or assassinate her. Yeah, I'll go with that.
Frankly, most of your complaints about her is that you just don't believe her. That's your problem, not hers.
Most of my issues with her are that she's Republican-light. Another problem I have with her is that I don't believe her, yes. She picks up whatever policies she thinks will sell, because I think her goal is to get into power, and not so much to better the country. That is not really my problem. She isn't even running for leader of my country. But since I'm not the only one with that view of her, it is her problem. She may be your President today without said problem.