Some of us support Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Yes BOTH! Why?

[ALBliberal]

Because they both champion causes we believe in. Dispiriting to come here and still see so many discussions disparaging either Hillary or Bernie. For God's sake people... let's all fight the bad guys! You know? The GOP? Trump the fascist wanna be dictator? McConnell Ryan the enablers? Fox "News" propaganda? The brainwashed Trump followers that refuse to see that the attack on Austin was TERRORISM! We only have so much energy and time please don't let us waste it on attacking each other! Especially when we probably agree with each other on 95% of the issues.

[David__77]

1. I voted for both.

...

[TalenaGor]

19. yep same

[ooky]

20. Same here

[lunatica]

31. Me too.

I did it with pride too.

[Voltaire2]

87. Me too.

[denvine]

103. So did I!

[IronLionZion]

112. Same here. I even voted for Hillary when she was my senator in NY

Some DUers want to watch the world burn

[applegrove]

2. GOP-Russian trolls want to keep the bernie-hillary wound from healing

so they can use it again in future elections like they did in 2016. It is a wedge issue they never want solved. Like gun control or abortion. I liked both Bernie and Hillary too.

[elleng]

5. and they seem to be doing a good job of it.

[Sophia4]

16. Right.

[R B Garr]

76. Isnt this thread about supporting Hillary ALSO?

Haven’t you said that was not necessary because California is so big your vote didn’t count? Some folks on that JPR site are still very proud about a protest vote against Hillary — so not really into “healing”.

[Merlot]

79. Who cares what "some folks" at another webs site say or do?

You can find an anecdote about anything or anyone. And why is that fringe site always being brought up here?

[R B Garr]

83. Well, if you claim to be for supporting BOTH Bernie AND Hillary, but you

didn't really support Hillary, then the doublespeak will matter to some who notice the discrepancy.

[LiberalLovinLug]

113. You are the perfect example of why an OP like still needs to be posted

"you claim to be for supporting BOTH Bernie AND Hillary, but you didn't really support Hillary"

What the hell does "really" mean? And why is that wording so important? If you voted for her, and agreed with her platform (especially after she tweeked it because Bernie smartly did not concede too early) and even if you think she still didn't have a progressive enough record, and even though you supported Sanders in the primary, or for that matter O'Malley, Chafee, or Webb....but you supported her when it counted....why the bitterness and insults still so long after the primaries?

And why on a positive OP about supporting both, is your only contribution whining in the corner that you won't accept anyone else in your little sandbox unless they are not just Democratic voters, no....even more important than that, they also must have sworn their Hillary loyalty oaths from the very beginning. And this is to a woman that is now a private citizen who will most likely never run for office again, and the other is still a working politician, who is working with top Democrats as we speak?

Jesus...Let . It . Go .

[R B Garr]

115. You should take your own advice.

Do you ever post about anything besides other DUers and your false importance?

Unfortunately, I can’t answer your manipulative tripe with an honest and heartfelt response. Only you have that privilege. Must be nice to indulge....

It’s actually that type of manipulation that the Russian’s utilized to lie about Democrats. I hate those lies. You should, too. They got us a Republican President. You don’t seem outraged by that, but I am.

So I will certainly point out how my party and candidate were undermined. If someone did not vote for Hillary, then she has nothing in common with those that did. No hypocrisy.

[Sophia4]

89. I think you understood my message very well.

Hillary won the popular vote, especially in California. But thanks to the electoral college and the fact that the votes of Californians like me count for only a small part of the votes of people who live in mostly conservative states like Wyoming and Montana, etc. (less than one million in population and others with less than 20 million in population), Hillary did not win the presidency.

There are various ways that the elections in the US are twisted toward conservatives. I am writing about two of them.

One is depriving certain qualified citizens of the right to vote, and the ACLU is attacking that kind of deprivation. Good for the ACLU and all who take election officials and states to court who deprive citizens of the right to vote.

Another is the electoral college. Most of the very small states, say less than 20 million in population (because California has a population of 39 million approximately), have a disproportionate number of electors in the electoral college compared to California because each state, regardless of population get one elector based on its number of representatives which is one representative for each state no matter how small and two electors for each senator. California has 55 electors. The number sounds large, but because we have only two senators, the number of votes each of those 55 electors represents is very, very large.

I have done the math on this many times on the internet and I am not doing it again today.

Each of these institutions dilutes the votes of individual liberal/progressive/Democratic voters in presidential and other elections.

And, similarly, within the Democratic Party, the existence of super delegates who get one delegate vote at the Democratic Convention which represents their own vote or opinion but not the vote of any other voter dilutes the votes of thousands of actual voters at the polls. So far, the super delegates have not actually changed the outcome at the Democratic National Convention as far as I know, but they could. And that is a threat and a potential injustice that could be easily prevented and should be prevented by doing away all together with the unnecessary rule that allows for super delegates at our conventions. The Democratic voters should decide who the Democratic candidate is. I don't think that super delegates have ever picked a candidate who was not also picked by the voters, but it could happen, and it should not be possible.

Please explain to me why you are so keen on keeping super delegates. What do they bring to Democrats that we would not have without them? Why are you so attached to the super delegate rules?

[R B Garr]

92. Yes, you have confirmed again that you did not support

Hillary. This thread is for people who support BOTH Bernie and Hillary, but because California is a huge state and the electoral college, you felt it okay to refuse to support her.

You like to spam the super delegate manifesto, although it had nothing to do with Hillary beating both male opponents by MILLIONS. Have you read about Tad Devine and super delegates? Your scare tactics about super delegates doesn’t match his agenda.

[The Wielding Truth]

57. Yep. There have been unnecessarily cruel comments and that doesn't seem like us.

[Voltaire2]

88. Well I am reluctant to blame everything

on Russians, but there seems to be no good reason for the endless in-fighting.

[left-of-center2012]

3. I voted for both too

Bernie in the primary.
Hillary in the fall.

We need move forward, together ...
leaving the hate & attack threads behind.

[zentrum]

108. I've found that the pure

….Hillary supporters just can't let it go. They attack and attack him and his supporters. Ignoring all the evidence and Democratic pundits who say he improved her message and her policies, which is what primaries are supposed to do.

I voted for both. And I'm glad Bernie is still so active.

[left-of-center2012]

111. Those who attack Bernie attack one of the "Democratic leadership"

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is a member of the Senate Democratic leadership.
Sanders was named 'chairman of outreach' ...

In the role, Sanders is in charge of reaching out to blue-collar voters who flocked to President-elect Donald Trump in 2016.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/306336-sanders-named-to-senate-leadership-post

[zentrum]

119. That's a really important point.

[elleng]

4. YES!

[ProfessorPlum]

6. when I see Bernie-bashing threads

I just think it is interesting that all of those Russian trolls and sock puppet accounts are fighting with each other. while the real DU members just shake our heads and move on.

[mvd]

29. I trash the threads when I see them

No, Bernie isn't perfect - no one is - but those threads usually aren't worth my time. Hillary bashing threads also are not useful.

[stranger81]

58. Sometimes I wonder how many apparently different posters

are really just Sally Albright talking to herself.

[ProfessorPlum]

61. LOL

nice.

But me too! it seems to be a nice little back and forth they have going with themselves.

[KTM]

80. Bingo

Seems like we have to Say Hi to Sally!! very often here these days.

[disillusioned73]

69. I never thought about it like that...

you may be right.. lol

[TheSmarterDog]

7. Sorry. I don't.

Sanders benefited from Russian interference in our election just as Trump did. He continually puts himself at the front of the parade & claims to be the reason it exists, and he refuses to work with anyone else to actually offer solutions to the issues he claims to care about.

He is not a Democrat, has never been a Democrat, and makes it more difficult to get Democrats elected. Therefor he helps Republicans.

[Sophia4]

17. Do you have any evidence that Sanders requested or invited Russian interference

on his behalf?

[TheSmarterDog]

24. .

Sanders and Stein Knew About Russian Influence….and Did Nothing to Stop it
https://medium.com/@SNovi/sanders-and-stein-knew-about-russian-influence-and-did-nothing-cd48122860c1

Indictment: Russians also tried to help Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein presidential campaigns
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/

Sanders' Local Social Media Organizer Claims He Noticed Russian Infiltration Years Ago
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Bernie-Sanders-HIllary-Clinton-Social-Media-Russian-Infiltration-Campaign-474369533.html

Bernie Sanders says his 2016 team saw effects of Russian anti-Clinton campaign
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2018/02/20/bernie-sanders-mueller-indictment-hillary-clinton-2016/356453002/

And what was his response once his culpability was exposed?

Bernie Sanders Mirrors Trump, Blames Hillary Clinton for Not Combatting Russian Meddling, Denies It Helped His Campaign
http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-hillary-clinton-816239

[Sophia4]

25. No evidence that Bernie requested or asked for Russian assistance then.

[TheSmarterDog]

26. He still benefited from it. And did nothing to stop it even after he knew.

At least you're not pretending the Russians were really put to help Clinton.

[Sophia4]

40. What could Bernie have done? He did not have much of a link to the government.

[ooky]

46. Great question.

[Squinch]

102. Did not have much link to the government? After decades in Congress? Then what the

hell was he doing all that time?

[Sophia4]

107. He did not have the links to the intelligence agencies or the White House that

others did.

He was in that sense an outsider to the government in the sense of the executive branch including the effective investigative and law enforcement parts of the government.

He was a member of Congress, but Congress does not do much in terms of law enforcement or intelligence investigation. And he would not have had the means to initiate or complete such an investigation much less related law enforcement.

I like Obama very much, but he and our Attorney General or maybe Homeland Security head were the only ones to really enforce the relevant laws or even make the Russian and other activities known to the public. Other of course than some who run various websites like Facebook.

[Squinch]

110. Oh, FFS. This is just ridiculous. He was not an outsider. He's the definition of government

establishment. To say he was not is to say he was ineffective and not doing his job.

And there were people in his organization that knew about this long ago. Look upthread for links.

[Sugarcoated]

53. I don't care

He's light years better than the chunk of vomit who sleazed his way in there

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

54. Of course not.

[George II]

73. No one said he requested or invited it, but he certainly didn't discourage it....

...after he found out about it.

He and some of his people said they knew about it. Did he say anything about it back then? No.

[George II]

44. You do realize that his top campaign adviser, Tad Devine, collaborated with Paul Manafort....

...on the campaign for a Ukraine Presidential candidate backed by Putin, don't you?

PS - the same Tad Devine was instrumental in advancing the Democratic Party system of super delegates.

[pangaia]

21. Surely you jest.

[Skittles]

32. you have guts

[lunatica]

35. Sanders lost the primary

So exactly how did he benefit just like Trump?

[George II]

74. The fact that he didn't win doesn't mean that he didn't get more votes than he would have...

...if there was no interference. More votes = benefit.

[lunatica]

90. So you think no one should have ever run for the primaries except Hillary?

That’s undemocratic the way I see it.

And she did win the popular vote, so really, how did he benefit? Your logic escapes me.

By the way I voted for him in the primaries and for her as President.

[George II]

91. Who said anything even remotely close to that? Certainly not me.

[lunatica]

93. Yeah sure

The fact you say he benefitted means he benefitted because Of Putin.

[George II]

94. You should read Robert Mueller's indictments from a few weeks ago. You saying...

...that Mueller is lying about the evidence he has?

[lunatica]

99. Do you not understand English?

Bernie ran a clean campaign and lost to Hillary in the primary and then she went on to win the popular vote and lost to Putin’s puppet.

It wouldn’t have mattered who ran against her.

But evidently you have to have your sour grapes. Well have at it!

[George II]

105. Oh I read English quite well, and in his indictments Mueller laid out some of the details...

...of how Russia interfered in favor of both trump and Sanders.

The full indictment document is available online.

[Jim Lane]

71. BRILLIANT proof of the OP's point! Very well done! (n/t)

[TheSmarterDog]

84. OP would have us ignore what happened.

If we do, it's liable to happen again. And that would totally defeat what I believe OP's goal is.

[LexVegas]

8. Thats twice as many as the Russians. nt

[Eko]

9. I must be a Russian troll

with a sock puppet account since 2011.

[betsuni]

51. Calling obviously strong and long-term Democratic Party supporters on DU

Russian trolls and sock puppets is the funniest thing -- how does that even work? It's not April Fools Day yet.

[sheshe2]

117. "Calling obviously strong and long-term Democratic Party supporters on DU"

Russian trolls and sock puppets is the funniest thing-- how does that even work?

Don't forget we are outspoken as well

[dhol82]

10. Sorry, no. I voted for the democrat

The interloper can go pound sand at this time.

[efhmc]

15. Agreed.

nt

[Skittles]

49. THANK YOU

[dembotoz]

64. So if hrc lost u would have voted for trump?

[Blue_true]

11. If Bernie secures the 2020 Democratic Party nomination.

I plan to support him 100%. But I will vote for someone else in the primary.

Bernie is far superior to Trump as a choice, I just think that we have plenty of people in the party that are superior to Trump in every conceivable way.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

55. Plenty in the party superior to tRump? More like every single Democrat in existence!

[Blue_true]

85. Exactly. We have newborn democratic babies that outthink that jackass. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

97. hahahaha... true dat Btrue!

[Mike Nelson]

12. True...

...it should be more about the Democratic/Progressive ideas and less about the personalities. Yet, Hillary and Bernie have strong supporters. As far as Bernie is concerned, it isn't going away - because I feel he is considering another run. If so, he will be running against Democrats. I believe Hillary is sincere when saying she is not considering a 2020 run, but the public mood is difficult to predict and I think there is an outside chance she would run again if the polls and climate favored her...

I still think we should and could do exactly what you suggest - fight the bad guys!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

14. I suspect many see ourselves as sincere & passionate

backers of Hillary or Bernie, & are driven by bitterness and/or
righteousness over the campaign & since. I know i do. Is there
any way out of this?

The Russian/GOP trolls won't stop
unless stopped, and the sincere/passionate are unlikely to
stop unless they/we have some kind of change of heart or mind
whereby we/they put unity over individual emotion & resist the
temptation to fire back when fired upon, or when we/they feel
fired upon.

As a Bernie backer i feel lotsa internal heat when
he is attacked, even in an area where i disagree with him. I don't
exclude myself. To the degree i've avoided the fray, it's mainly
because i hate to get into insane internet struggles that seem to
have no end, especially pointless argument that leads nowhere
but the arguers only becoming more entrenched. Plus i'm pretty
old now and my system can't take it and i've never been a good
arguer anyway. I out-yelled people when i was younger and still
drank.

Politics is definitely personal and emotional. We sort of fall in love
with a candidate, and can't understand how everybody doesn't
fall in love with him/her, too, or how anybody could fall in love
with the other candidate. I wonder how many advocates of
Bernie or Hillary have changed their hearts or
minds an iota because of the arguments here or elsewhere.
Especially when the arguments for or against are so obviously
(to me anyway) and so often driven almost by a kind of sadism
or glee at the knowledge that those on the other side are going
to feel the blade of the words once i/you/they hit enter. That's what
my ideal response would be from my arguing foe when i send a post
in this vein: i want them to cry and drop out of the argument and
have a change of heart and mind that causes them to think and
feel just like i think and feel. How many times has this happened?
My guess: zero times.

Having said all that, I agree with you that the threat to us and
to the country and the world calls for unity, or more unity. I saw
a video of two young girls who with their mother were hiding in
an apartment after leaving everything behind when their father
was deported, and their mother in danger of being deported, too.
That is what is the result of the current administration's evil policies
and practices. That kind of image and story and pain is what might
get us to (gradually?) lay down the antagonistic attitudes that a lot
of us still suffer from in this burning ongoing Hillary/Bernie divide.

Just writing this, many arguments against myself, against what i
am saying, spring up in me. So i know arguments have likely
sprung up in others, too. I don't have the solution. But i know that
unity, or more unity, won't happen if we can't even agree that we
need more unity in fighting the evil that is abroad in our land. It's
like the first step is admitting to the sickness, because it is a sickness,
this internal battle, at least to me, it feels like a sickness that keeps me
away from this place a lot more than it used to. You can tell me it is
the same as it always was here on DU, but i don't think it is & i've been
here since pretty early on. Maybe it's not a social contract kind of thing,
where groups soften toward the other wise, maybe it is only an individual
matter where there is some change inside, or decision, to not be controlled
by that white-hot righteous-feeling bitterness inside me that takes all this
more personally than it is healthy for me to take.

There just seem to me to be a lot more arguments for laying our
weapons down against one another so we can take them up together
against our real true shared enemy.

[Sophia4]

18. Thanks for your post.

"There just seem to me to be a lot more arguments for laying our
weapons down against one another so we can take them up together
against our real true shared enemy."

[A-Schwarzenegger]

23. Thank you, Sophia.

i was just about to take it down, feeling cyber-naked, when you posted... ...

[thewhollytoast]

36. I'm with Sophia too.

Thank you for your post.

Toast

[ooky]

28. Exactly.

At this point I will vote for any candidate the democrats nominate to defeat Trump and his fascist movement aimed at destroying our democratic way of life, no matter how moderate or progressive that candidate may be. Anybody who has lived though the last 14 months and still hasn’t figured out who the the real enemy is just isn’t paying attention. We need Democrats to take over the Congress and the White House, period.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

39. I agree. I supported Bernie in the primaries and was glad to vote for Hillary

in the general. I have carefully avoided all Hillary v. Bernie arguments since the election because I think they're pointless in light of what we are all up against. Like you, I do feel irritated when I see Bernie still being bashed on DU, even though I don't agree with him on some things (and didn't even in the primaries) and have been disappointed in some things he's done and said more recently, even though he's still supporting principles I believe in. I checked out JPR very briefly and found the ongoing sulking and griping after Hillary won the nomination to be stupid and pointless, and from what I hear it's become much worse; I haven't looked. All I want is for those who are still bearing a grudge against Bernie for whatever reason is: Please just ignore him. He's just another politician; IMO he's not at all likely to seek the nomination in 2020 (and if he does I doubt I'd support him). In the larger scheme of things he's not any more important than any other single senator. I can speak only for myself, but I am not interested in Bernie any more. I'm not going to either defend him or criticize him. We really, really need to focus on defeating Trump and the GOP, which we can't do if we're divided and still arguing about something that no longer warrants argument.

Don't let Bernie live rent-free in your head.

[Leith]

22. Yes! I Agree

As Democrats, we support issues first and candidates second. Since I support the issues that both of them espoused, I support both. To do otherwise is to hand elections to the rethugs.

[djacq]

27. This purity crap needs to stop!

[lunatica]

38. Agreed. Its really getting old

Like a married couple still fighting furiously over something that happened long ago and will never get resolved by having the same fight yet again.

[Skittles]

50. or maybe we are just hoping the SAME MISTAKE won't be made

[erronis]

114. I'm fairly new here - which SAME MISTAKE?

[aeromanKC]

30. I support the Democratic Party

I enthusiastically vote for any D (an "I" will work if no D on ballot) as apposed to ANY R.

[nini]

33. One of them went dirty during the primaries

that's all I need to know.

[Arazi]

34. Agreed 100%. This divide is bullshit and stinks of RU agitprop

[FuzzyRabbit]

43. The Russian/Republican trolls are still quite active on DU.

Some of them post here a lot more than I do. Divide and conquer is their goal.

[Me.]

48. Yes They Are

and it's not for the sake of HRC

[cilla4progress]

37. Excellent.

Thanks! 👍

Me, too. Bernie in the primary; Hillary in the national. Proudly and happily.

[Mountain Mule]

41. I voted for both and that was then, this is now

My focus is on winning in the coming midterms. I'm a yaller dog dem these days with my eyes on the prize. Once we win in 2018 and 2020, we can engage in the dubious luxury of infighting. Until then we need to work together to save our democracy. Nothing else matters.

[enid602]

42. Party

But ultimately you have to decide which party you're supporting.

[liberalnarb]

45. I was a staunch supporter of Sanders in the primary, still adore him.

And I backed Hillary once Bernie endorsed her.

[dae]

47. I did the same and believe the same as you.

[Greybnk48]

67. That is me too!

I have, and still do, support and adore both of them.

[liberalnarb]

70. Yep, I hate all the demonization that goes on here lately.

[Sugarcoated]

52. Dems here need to STOP attacking Sanders

and STOP attacking Clinton. It's petty and destructive.

[Kentonio]

62. When was the last time you say anyone attack Clinton here?

Honest question.

[all american girl]

66. Why would anyone attack her, she's not a politician anymore.

She's a private citizen and doesn't deserved to be attacked. bernie is still in office, so we can look at what he does/doesn't do, and discuss it. bernie is planning to run in 2020, so he will be under the microscope...it's kind of how all this works.

[mcar]

82. There were a few recent threads about her speaking at Rutgers

Where she was criticized for having the audacity to be a woman who gets paid for speeches. Some posters didn't have a problem with OR's planned protest at the speech.

[Jim Lane]

86. I don't recall seeing a single post that said her gender was relevant.

If you care to back up your smear of unnamed DU members, I'd be interested enough to follow a link.

My personal view is that, long before the Rutgers incident, I've been repeatedly surprised at how much some colleges pay for celebrity speakers -- even the ones with penises. If we insist on taking Hillary Clinton as an example, the obvious points are that she's written more than one book and engaged in more than one national campaign, in which she crisscrossed the country giving speeches for free. Was it really worth $25,000 so that students too lazy to read one of her books or search the internet for her statements could hear her in person? Even if you think it was worth it, I hope it's obvious that reasonable people could disagree, and could disagree without being tarred as misogynists. I'd be dubious about any school paying that much to hear Bill Clinton or Barack Obama -- or even Bernie Sanders.

[Awsi Dooger]

56. I never bothered to pay much attention to Bernie Sanders

Hillary was always going to be the nominee and Sanders is not a Democrat.

I like puzzles like that. Not a complicated choice.

The Sanders threads are mostly a blur to me. Since I don't believe in daily obsession over details I don't understand why they exist. I guess Sanders says things once in a while.

Good Bernie. Bad Bernie. Those two sentences summarize at least 95% of the related threads.

[democratisphere]

59. Can't have it both ways. The result is where we are.

..........and will be?!

[ProfessorGAC]

68. Really?

Then what is the point of primaries, if we can't have it both ways.

One cannot like the message of one politician more, but if the majority of like-minded people choose another person, they cannot support the nominee?

That makes zero sense, and flies in the face of primary politics and its entire history.

[Raine]

60. Yes, EXACTLY and

THANK YOU!

[DLevine]

63. K&R.

[Locrian]

65. if you pick

If you voted / supported either Bernie or Hillary
and didn't vote /support trump....

we're on the same side
why is that so hard?

[treestar]

75. I don't support Bernie now in that

he is the one still running, apparently, and could be a cause of the divide again (though it is the supporters and not him, but he knows that). So unless he wants Dotard to have another term, the thing he would do is stop bashing the Democratic party or running himself.

[jalan48]

77. Is it Bernie or his message of economic populism that upsets some so much?

If another candidate stepped forward (maybe younger) with the same message would it be OK?

[Jim Lane]

78. I also voted for both. I disagree with you on only one point.

You write that you "come here and still see so many discussions disparaging either Hillary or Bernie." This is a false equivalence. There are virtually no posts disparaging Hillary. The closest one comes is the posts along the lines of "Bernie and Hillary are both too old and we need new blood in 2020."

I wouldn't count it as disparaging either one of the 2016 contenders to call for new blood. (Whether you agree with it or not, it's a reasonable argument to make.) Take away those posts and it's very hard to find anything that anyone could reasonably describe as disparaging Hillary. There is no comparison with the daily Bernie bashfest.

[LAS14]

81. I do, too! For your reasons. nt

[Progressive dog]

95. Unless one of them is again running for office

it is impossible to support either as a candidate. Unless you are from Vermont, you must have supported Bernie over Hillary in the primaries.
I voted for the Democrat in both the primary and the general election.

[MBS]

96. Thank you. n/t

[yurbud]

98. I agree in principle but there are serious policy difference between them that have consequences

[Honeycombe8]

100. You're rehashing the 2016 election. It's over! They are not running. Move on!!!!

There's a new crowd to consider, now.

[Squinch]

101. Oy. Time to keyword trash "Bernie" again. Life was good when I was blocking the name,

then I unblocked it and now I'm getting all these terrible divisive fights. Some people have that effect.

[BigOleDummy]

104. I agree with you .....

... totally! Bernie is great! Hillary is great! Both of them have many more good points than bad and trashing either is just playing into the repuglicans hands. There are things about Bernie I don't like just as there's things about Hillary I don't care for but at the end of the day EITHER ONE OF THEM is 1000 times better than anything/anyone from the "other side of the aisle". Imho of course.

[BlueJac]

106. We should all focus on the future.....

and quit reliving the past. Time to move forward!

[HootieMcBoob]

109. Thank You!

[Lunabell]

116. Bernie in the primary

HRC in the general.

[bluestateboomer]

118. Me too!