How can sane people really vote for a person

[NowSam]

who has consistently over decades had a problem with the truth? Are we really okay putting a proven liar in the White House? Does character count for nothing? Winning is all that matters? Even if war = peace and moderates=progressive and Jogging left and moving back to the center...this little dance of lies and selling out all values. I guess we will get the government we deserve if that candidate is elected.

Get ready because there will be lots of war and lots of for profit prisons and lots more poverty and all of what we have been getting for decades.

UNLESS we are brave and reject this false choice of the lesser of 2 evils and vote for a more perfect union that works for everyone.

[dchill]

1. Sane people can't.

Are you as confounded as I am?

[NowSam]

2. I believe I am indeed as confounded as you

Thanks for the reality check.

Crazy world.

[Stallion]

12. No You need to be Informed that You Are in a Small Minority of Democrats

Actual Democrats will vote for Clinton 2-1

[Mike__M]

22. That doesn't answer the OP's question

does it?

[highprincipleswork]

30. Decades of Reaganesque propaganda and defeatist DLC and Third Way polices...

have neutered any reasonable definition of what is a Democrat, to where it scarcely is something to be proud of to be a Democrat anymore.

So, you need to be informed that once upon a time the Democrats actually stood for things that helped real, average people, and they even did it in a big way. And they even held major majorities in Congress and elected Presidents for many years.

Here is something that President Truman said

The first rule in my book is that we have to stick by the liberal principles of the Democratic Party. We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it.

The record the Democratic Party has made in the last 20 years is the greatest political asset any party ever had in the history of the world. We would be foolish to throw it away. There is nothing our enemies would like better and nothing that would do more to help them win an election.

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.

We are getting a lot of suggestions to the effect that we ought to water down our platform and abandon parts of our program. These, my friends, are Trojan horse suggestions. I have been in politics for over 30 years, and I know what I am talking about, and I believe I know something about the business. One thing I am sure of: never, never throw away a winning program. This is so elementary that I suspect the people handing out this advice are not really well-wishers of the Democratic Party.

More than that, I don't believe they have the best interests of the American people at heart. There is something more important involved in our program than simply the success of a political party.

The rights and the welfare of millions of Americans are involved in the pledges made in the Democratic platform of 1948 and in the program of this administration. And those rights and interests must not be betrayed.


This is the kind of philosophy that makes me a Bernie supporter for as long as it takes. If he does not succeed, somebody else will take this up, and we will overcome, some day.

[pdsimdars]

49. My GOD you post great stuff!!

[highprincipleswork]

116. Thank you. That is so meaningful to me.

[bvf]

66. +1. n/t

[JaneyVee]

76. Guys, maybe we just dont want someone who wrote those weird essays and

Voted against the Brady bill 5x.

[RiverLover]

90. "we will overcome, some day."

[pangaia]

108. So well said.

[kath]

110. +1000.

[PWPippin]

111. Thank you posting this quote from President Truman.

Truman was and Bernie is true to his core. He's a rare human being, perhaps too good for the "business" he's in.

[highprincipleswork]

115. Right on.

[Stallion]

122. Truman was the Product of One of the Most Corrupt Political Machines in US History

nm

[BernieforPres2016]

123. Great post on Truman. More on Truman and then versus now

There was actually a time when Presidents didn't cash in because it would have been considered unseemly.

http://www.presidentprofiles.com/General-Information/A-History-of-the-Presidency-Salary-and-pension.html

"Harry Truman was so poor upon his return to Missouri that he had to move into his mother-inlaw's house. He hoped for some relief through the passage of a pension bill, but, for inexplicable reasons, Sam Rayburn, the Speaker of the House, sat on the proposal year after year. When it finally became law during the Eisenhower administration, the pension amounted to $25,000—much welcomed by Truman. The only other living ex-president was Herbert Hoover, a millionaire many times over, who had never taken a salary as president. But he accepted the pension anyway, because, he said, he did not wish to embarrass his friend, Harry Truman."

[mythology]

142. It amazes me people keep posting this

Objectively speaking the parties are further apart than any point since Reconstruction. There are no DINOS. This notion that Clinton or any other elected Democrat is similar or just like Republicans isn't supported by any political science measure.

By DW-NOMINATE score, Clinton was the 11th most liberal Senator. By that same measure, Rubio is the 9th and Cruz is even further right.

Party line voting is up to record levels.

You can have the Truman quote, but the facts obliterate your argument.

[highprincipleswork]

161. Keep dreaming. You'll see what she does and says if elected, nay even if nominated.

[John Poet]

144. You should make an OP out of this!

Give em hell, Harry.

[hifiguy]

147. Mag-feaking-nificent!!

Bravo! Bravissimo!!



Harry knew what was what.

[appal_jack]

163. Excellent history that every Democrat (and American) should learn. nt

[EdwardBernays]

37. That is 20%

Of the total votes.
And that means 1 in 3 Dems won't vote for her.

Hardly a success.

[VulgarPoet]

93. I guess "actual democrats" have a love/hate affair with the truth then, don't they nt

[tazkcmo]

103. I see.

So when in the minority we're to bow to the majority? How very authoritarian of you.

[pangaia]

106. I think we just have a differing views of the term 'democrat.'

[dchill]

151. Actual Democrats is a term...

That you don't get to define. Neither do I.
That is, evidently, the privilege and prerogative of one Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

[Ferd Berfel]

162. Here's one answer

Because of this What's the matter with Kansas stuff


The most depressing discovery about the brain, ever

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/the-most-depressing-discovery-about-the-brain-ever/#.VtMdRZtVt0c.facebook

[Ron Green]

3. K&R, even though it's been said before.

Lying is so much a part of politics, and even of complex society, that we've come to expect it.

This is what we've got to change.

[rhett o rick]

4. People like tough authoritarian types. If Margaret Thatcher were running, she'd get

a lot of votes.

[zappaman]

8. Sure, Rhett.

Sure.

[nolabels]

77. But probably none from those that knew any better

Mostly what i have noticed about those authoritarian types is that they know little and mostly what they do is just shtick

[greatauntoftriplets]

89. I saw Margaret Thatcher once.

Gave her the finger.

[rhett o rick]

126. Good for you. nm

[oasis]

117. Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is you eventually run out

of other people's money".

She was insanely correct on taking that viewpoint. Many American voters would agree.

[rhett o rick]

127. Of course that statement makes no logical sense. nm

[thereismore]

149. You do know that Thatcher was a rw monster don't you?

[snooper2]

135. Like Maduro?

LOL

[onehandle]

5. Is Nader even running? nt

[Lucinda]

6. LOL

[rhett o rick]

128. You wish. nm

[still_one]

7. yeah that's it. You are the only "sane" person around. Anyone voting against your candidate is

full of it.

You have just marginalized anyone not voting for your candidate, lets see how well that works out for you

[passiveporcupine]

38. You are right.

It is wrong to call you insane. But it is not wrong to question how you can support someone who does not care about honesty, as shown by her campaign tactics.

I support my candidate because he has integrity and does not lie to win the race. His integrity has stood up with him his whole political career, and I have seen too many times when Hillary cannot say that.

So I question how anyone with any integrity can hold up a candidate, when they have proven to have so little integrity that they would run a dirty campaign against Obama and then Bernie.

She used Rove tactics and she hired the assassin Brock. She has no integrity when it comes to campaigning.

[pdsimdars]

53. Amen!

And these things are SO obvious I think you have to question the honesty and integrity of anyone who ignores them. I mean, they are right out there in the open and yet they refuse to see it.

[pdsimdars]

51. but all you talk about is Him vs Her

You never address the lies and deceit. I have never heard any Hillary supporter address that great video of Warren telling the story of how Hillary changed on the Bankruptcy bill. BEFORE she was elected, when she was first lady, she understood how horrible the bill was for average Americans so she lobbied against it. But once she got into office and was bought and paid for, her FIRST vote was to vote FOR the bill she once said would be a disaster.
That is how she is on virtually everything.
But you all seem to gloss over that and call people sexist and haters who bring up her ACTUAL RECORD.
It isn't about name calling, it's about her record.

[passiveporcupine]

57. There are so many things she's done that are horrific

I'd have to have them all on a spreadsheet to call them up when I need them. But I've never done that. Maybe it's time to.

[NowSam]

94. You said it better than I ever could

Thanks.

[Lizzie Poppet]

9. The "lesser of two evils" argument...it's like this:

"You, there! Come over here and let me shoot you with this .22 pistol."

"What?!? Fuck no!"

"It's for your own good! If you don't let me shoot you with this .22, that guy over there is going to shoot you with a .45. That's far worse!"

"But what if I don't want to be shot at all?!"

"That's not on the table! Be realistic. Now what'll it be...?"

[hifiguy]

148. The Turd Way Mantra.

[Hillary4Prez2016]

10. Because it's my right to vote for whoever I want

and my favorite candidate is Hillary Clinton.

[still_one]

11. A very fundamental thing that some seem to have trouble grasping. Not sure if calling anyone

who votes for Hillary as not "sane" is a very good strategy.

I guess we will see all through March.

[Lizzie Poppet]

15. I concur.

Just because someone's reasoning is opaque to me (as is the case for me with most Hillary supporters) doesn't make them insane. It just means we're far from being on the same page. These things happen...

[pdsimdars]

58. Not "opaque" but non existent

Her lies and deceit and flip flops are all right there, right in the open for anyone who has the interest to see it.
The fact that people willfully ignore it is puzzling to rational people. Like the climate deniers, the facts are there, but they willfully refuse to accept them. Hillary's lies are there but you all refuse to acknowledge them. Like that huge flip flop on that bankruptcy bill that Elizabeth Warren told the story of. Once Hillary got the money and got into office, she voted for a bill she KNEW was bad for Americans but what the banks wanted.
That isn't being a Hillary hater or sexist, that is simply stating what happened, you can rationalize it any way you want but you are ignoring reality if you do.

[earthshine]

18. Exactly! It's just like electing a class president in elementary school -- a popularity contest! nt

[Kall]

24. Maybe she'll tell you stories

of dodging sniper fire in Iraq this time.

[That Guy 888]

36. Look the campaign trail can be exhausting, haven't you ever been exhausted?

I remember being hunted by super predators! That could Fly!

Ok. so maybe I fell asleep during a marathon of Alien vs Predators movies. Trust me the hallucinations were so realistic it should count as foreign policy experience. Still Hillary is a great candidate with tremendous foreign policy experience, so why don't you just... um hit the reset button on your view of her truthiness.

Or is that “perezagruzka”?

[passiveporcupine]

40. People can vote for whoever they want, and for whatever reason they want

It does not necessarily make them rational.

[pdsimdars]

59. And you have the right

to be as uninformed and misinformed as you want to be. But don't blame anyone else when things don't turn out well, remember, it was your choice.

[sheshe2]

13. Quote: "Winning is all that matters?"

What exactly are you saying here? Please explain.

[NowSam]

17. It means don't sell your soul

just to win.

[Tortmaster]

14. Senator Sanders is not a liar.

When he said he was going to have a positive campaign and went negative, that's just what all politicians do, which is not lying. It is just cheery hopefulness.
And during the debate about datagate when he claimed that the Clinton campaign accessed his data--even though he admitted he had no evidence of it--that wasn't a lie just a conspiracy theory, and conspiracy theories are not lies.
Same when he questioned whether the Iowa vote was "honest" immediately after that caucus. Conspiracy theories are not exactly lies.
And when you Google "false" and "Bernie Sanders" and "Politifact" and get a bunch of responses those aren't lies. Somebody at Politifact has called them lies but that doesn't make them lies. It might be that Senator Sanders misspoke or he was wrong, unintentionally. It has to be intentional to be a lie, right?
And when you give a false impression that's not exactly a lie either! For example, in the debates when he implies that he's the NRA's worst nightmare because he has a "D-" rating from them and voted against them that one time (assault weapons), but failed to mention that he voted FOR the NRA 15+ times (Brady Bill x 5; gun industry immunity x 2; guns on Amtrak; guns in National Parks; making it harder for the ATF to prosecute gun violations, etc), and he failed to mention that he believes that gun control is a State's Rights issue, or that he was endorsed by the NRA when he first came to Congress doesn't make him a liar!

[betsuni]

86. Why isn't this comment getting the luv it deserves? I lurve it!

[onecaliberal]

16. What do we tell the kids. I've always told my kids not to lie.

[AzDar]

19. She is being propped up and protected by Corporate Media...Many don't realize the extent of

her mendacity and corruption...they are simply too busy scratching out a living to pay close attention.

[gwheezie]

21. They want their country back

It's painful for some but the country is changing. I don't want to go back,

[BainsBane]

23. We won't go back.

Ever.

[RoccoR5955]

32. We will go forward with Clinton allright

Forward into the dark side.

[sheshe2]

35. I will not go back.

[senz]

55. You don't want to get big money out of politics?

You don't want American manufacturing in America?

You don't want decent wages and good working conditions for the American people?

You don't want to protect the environment from corporate polluters?

You don't want a strong middle class?

You don't want education that doesn't entail massive debt on students?

I must be old-fashioned, because I remember all of those things from the fifties, sixties and seventies.

And I hope we can undo Reaganism and get them back.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

67. Of course we all want that...

.but governing is also about convincing the people who don't see those changes to be in their best interest to instead, vote with you. So governing is also about relationship building with the other side. That's the politics part of governing and legislating.

It's not accomplished by calling everyone who doesn't see it your way, corrupt and careless.

So let's say Bernie did get elected. What next? He's called most of congress, all of banking and many in business corrupt. So naturally there will be push back.

How does he overcome not having more than a few legislative allies?

You can't just wish for something. You have to create a path through to something. Because the other side gets a vote too.

I'm for Hillary. She's the better relationship builder. And I plan on holding her feet to the fire to strive for all she's running on.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

78. Yes he is known as the amendment King

But how many of those amendments went on to become laws? That's where the real push lies.

During his time in the senate two of his bills became laws: S 885 renames a post office in Vermont.
S 893 gives a cost of living adjustment to veterans and their families. Admirable but is that really a hard sell?

His greatest legislative accomplishment - again admirably aiding veterans - added funding to the ACA for veterans to go outside of the VA for health care services. It's noted that the real push was in getting 11 already liberal democrats to sign on to the provision. They were voting no because the ACA eliminated single payer option.

Think about that: the jewel in his legislative crown was negotiating to get liberal senators to vote a little less liberally, and vote FOR the ACA.

Not what I'd call a tough slog.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

82. Thanks for the link but...

...again, it lists just the amendments he got passed. The real work comes -and I would respectfully argue the success is judged - by just how many of your amendments become actual, affecting-the-lives-of-people laws.

I believe the actual number in his entire legislative career is over 500 amendments passed, 43 became laws. (Some, he co-sponsored).

So that's what, less than 10% ? Again, admirable but not particularly earth shattering. Many of them were reporting requirements and softball laws.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

88. I'd have to argue with the "incredibly important" part, still

Yes he did get things done. And I will concede that Senator Sanders accomplished more in his 26 years in congress than Secretary Clinton accomplished in her 8. (Although she did get Two Post offices renamed to his one)

He is a fine Senator. I think he should stay in the senate.

Although with a 10% batting average...if this was baseball, he'd probably get traded, not made captain of the team.


Good debating with you. Gotta go to work.

[Bluenorthwest]

96. And as Senator Hillary got 3 entire laws passed!! Named a post office after a historical figure, a

highway after Tim Russert and the designation of a National Historical place. Those are the laws she got passed. Not 'incredibly important' unless you are Luke Russert. Not bad laws. Just vapid laws about naming things.

So your theory is 'Bernie has not done enough, so let's vote for the one who did even less in the Senate!!!' and I don't see the logic in that.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

113. Actually, that's not what we were debating.

But nice pivot.

We were debating whether or not one can point to Senator Sanders' legislative accomplishments as proof that he is skilled at building relationships in order to bring his legislative goals to fruition.

Because having ideas is one thing, making them law is where change lies.

While I did concede that Sanders accomplished more in his 26 years than Clinton did in her 8, I'd put her work in helping negotiate the Iran nuclear deal up against what he calls his greatest legislative accomplishment: getting 11 already liberal senators to vote Yes on the ACA, thus making part of the law his amendment to add funding for Veterans to obtain health care services outside of the VA.

Which do you imagine was a bigger hill to climb?


And by the way, not to split hairs here but that actual legislation basically says, this government program isn't working (the VA) so here's some money for you to obtain services in the private sector.

What's the word I'm looking for here? Ah yes, irony.

I think he's a fine Senator who should stay in the Senate.

[ismnotwasm]

138. I'm not insane and I won't go back either

#Imwithher

[polly7]

25. I've watched Sanders supporters here and what they're desperately hoping for change.

Your post is complete, divisive, bullshit. These supporters ARE ordinary Americans who are asserting their democratic rights. You make it sound like you and yours are all that count. Typical. Nasty. Victimizing (always!) Crap.


Audacity! ................ What a pile.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Mon Feb 29, 2016, 03:33 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I've watched Sanders supporters here and what they're desperately hoping for change.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1369422

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This post would be hidden in a heartbeat if it came from a Clinton supporter.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Feb 29, 2016, 03:50 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Stop the "gotcha" alerts already. Leave it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The entire discussion is fairly unproductive but this doesn't deserve a hide.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Someone gets no button for 24 hours!.

[polly7]

54. Thank you.

Darn it .... they're going to have to find a surrogate now, eh?





Hmmmmm ......... who's it gonna be

[NanceGreggs]

27. Righteous rant!!!

[Logical]

157. LOL, and locked. nt

[NanceGreggs]

160. What a SHOCKER!!!

Given that DU's "jury pool" is comprised of 85% Bernie supporters, it's a wonder that any HRC supporters' posts survive at all.

On second thought - the jury pool is now probably upwards of 90% Bernie fans, considering how many HRCers wind up on time-outs thanks to their "hides", and can't participate in the juries as a result.

The only real LOL here is BSers thinking that if they own DU, their guy will somehow win the nomination.

[Logical]

164. Isn't really weird a really liberal website is 85% Bertie supporters??? Nt

[NanceGreggs]

165. Nothing weird about it.

Discussion sites tend to attract the like-minded while repelling those of differing opinions.

DU's traffic started declining back in '08, when Obama-bashing and Dem-bashing were permitted by changes to the TOS. Over time, many Obama supporters left and more and more Obama bashers registered.

That trend became even more pronounced with the move to a jury system, whereby jurors are "not expected to enforce the TOS" (as per Skinner). By then, lines were clearly drawn between Obama/Dem supporters and those who did nothing but rail against both. Not held to any rules or guidelines, jurors were free to vote for a "hide" or a "leave" based on who the alerted-on was and which "side" they were on.

Not surprisingly, many of the Obama/Dem bashers quickly morphed into HRC/Dem bashers. And again, HRC supporters started to leave, while BS-supporting newbies signed up.

Imagine you've just discovered DU for the first time, and you see post after post about the Evil Hillary. If you're an HRC supporter, you're very unlikely to sign-up. And nowadays, if you're a staunch Democrat, when you see people like John Lewis being thrown under the bus, you're probably not going to stick around either.

The other side of that coin is that if you're a BS supporter (or someone posing as one in order to join-in the HRC/Dem bashing), you're very likely going to sign up and stay.

I post on two pro-HRC sites that are full of Hillary supporters who have left DU - some permanently, some temporarily in hopes that the "no bashing the nominee" rule kicks-in when Hillary is declared.

DU hasn't been a "really liberal website" for years, and it is certainly not a "Democratic-supporting site" anymore. It's just another political message board, where anyone can post whatever they like. The rules that once kept RWers and poseurs from posting here are no longer applied.

It's just simple logic, Logical. If you're an HRC supporter and you keep getting "hides" and "timeouts", while you see some of the vilest crap about Hillary, about the Party, and personal attacks being left to stand, eventually you just leave. And that's what many, many Hill supporters have done, just as many, many Obama supporters did years ago.

Believing that DU is representative of liberals/progressives - or even representative of Democrats of any stripe - is sheer folly. DU's traffic has been in a steady decline for years, a decline that continues unabated. That decline started with the exodus of Obama supporters, and continues with the exodus of Hillary supporters.

Right now, many members don't want their posting privileges curtailed or suspended at the whim of BSers, so they're leaving for sites where they can express their thoughts without that threat hanging over their heads. In addition, many Democrats have left - regardless of which candidate they support - because of the nasty posts that are left standing by juries, and the general anti-Democratic Party atmosphere that has been allowed to flourish.

Every DU post that denigrates long-respected Dems, every post that regurgitates RW talking points, every post that links to RW authors, journalists, bloggers and/or pundits is that last straw for someone who reads it and says enough is enough, and signs-off for good.

DU has become BU - BernieUnderground. Those who aren't Bernie fans either leave in frustration, or get driven off by being stalked, harassed, and attacked. So saying that DU is a "liberal website" is ludicrous, when the vast majority of posters here aren't even "liberal" enough to allow differing opinions to be expressed.

[Logical]

166. I think you meant to post this in creative speculation. Nt

[NanceGreggs]

167. In other words ...

... you have no rebuttal.

If you think it's creative speculation that DU's traffic is in decline, you might want to refer back to Skinner's December OP about the site not breaking even last year.

[sheshe2]

34. + Infinity.

Thanks Bains, so well said.

[passiveporcupine]

44. There was a post on here recently that shook me to my core

It's becoming increasing obvious that target is not Wall Street or corporations but the democratic rights of voters, especially people of color and women.

Because it sounded like the OP was saying that blacks in South Carolina did not have the right to vote the way they wanted and still be recognized.

I am sorry for that thread.

It was ugly (and I seriously hope I misunderstood the intent of the poster).

I don't believe most people here feel that way, regardless of whom they support.

[BainsBane]

45. I hope you're right about that

And I'm glad to see you denounce it.

[jfern]

60. That's so fucking insulting

[Logical]

158. It was locked. nt

[kimmylavin]

26. I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet.

But I feel that either choice would be sane... and that this post is incredibly insulting.

[jsmirman]

46. Yes

I consider myself extremely sane. In fact, what I want out of this election, I want so desperately that I cannot but look at the possibilities with anything but a clear eyed, hard-eyed assessment.

I certainly could explain my thinking, as it is based on a deep analysis of how I think things will play out and what I think is best for the country, but the OP certainly invites no such thoughtful rejoinder.

I find the OP deeply insulting, but I'm getting used to such abuse.

[Freelancer]

28. I always vote for the one I can picture stroking a white cat while plotting to kill 007 :) -nt

[840high]

29. k/r

[NanceGreggs]

31. Interesting to watch ...

... how many anti-HRC OPs there are these days as opposed to pro-Bernie OPs.

Given BS's chances in the upcoming primary contests, you'd think his supporters would be promoting his positives as much as possible.

It's almost as though some Bernie supporters can't actually think of anything to say about HIM - they only have a lot to say against HER.

Things that make you go hmmmm ...

[Mr. Brutus]

39. Hillary supporters are no different.

Neither are Trump, Cruz or Rubio ones.

It's that time... The candidates don't have to go negative. Their respective supporters do it for them.

We all know where the candidates stand on the issues at this point, at least we pretend to.

The fact is that no matter who gets elected this country is screwed. No single candidate is going to fix anything. We're too far gone.

[Rebkeh]

41. Bernie supporter here. Any number of the people you are talking about

are trolls that switch sides according to whoever has the momentum at that time. Rest assured, next week, they will argue against Bernie and for Hillary. For all we know, they are paid to create discord, probably by right wing sites.

There are also people on both sides that confuse revolution with violent unrest and say a lot of things that don't represent Bernie at all. As if a quiet, calm and rational evolution cannot possibly be effective.

Then, of course, there are people that are out to derail constructive conversations because ... who knows? Because they like starting shit. They like chaos.

This is the internet, there are all kinds of misrepresentations and distortions everywhere. Just something to keep in mind.

[NanceGreggs]

43. "This is the internet ...

... there are all kinds of misrepresentations and distortions everywhere. Just something to keep in mind."

Oh, believe me, it is something I keep in mind at all times - especially when on this site.

[Fumesucker]

56. Nicely done...

[George II]

92. Like water running down the side of a hill.

[treestar]

100. +1

[jmowreader]

42. How can same people really vote for a person as easy to defeat as Bernie will be?

I could go line-by-line through Bernie's proposals and show you exactly how wrong they are, but there's no real need to do that: The GOP can bury this guy in a New York minute and if you think they'll hesitate to do it, you're crazier than I am. Sanders on the general election ballot means a Republican follows President Obama...and the very first thing that Republican will do is overturn everything our president spent eight years fighting for.

[anotherproletariat]

130. Exactly! nt

[pdsimdars]

48. Reality TV

It's like people are treating the election as if it were a reality TV show. They don't really look at the issues, they just want to win . . .because . . . . . .
Didn't the guy who wrote "Idiocracy" say that it has actually arrived?

[NowSam]

50. I think you are right

It must be. Reality TV.

[NowSam]

52. Notice I didn't mention any candidates by name

and yet so many replies seem to know.

[LuvLoogie]

62. It is obvious that you speak of She Who Laughs Inappropriately.

[NowSam]

64. Lol.

You got me.

[treestar]

101. ...

[IMG][/IMG]

[betsuni]

87. Because this is GDP.

Post about Hillary: hundreds of comments about how terrible fictional Hillary is.
Post about Bernie: hundreds of comments about how terrible fictional Hillary is.
Always same buzz words. Duh. Not clever.

[treestar]

102. Exactly!

If the post is intended as Bernie-positive, there are tons of Hillary-negative mentions.

[mcar]

121. This!

Same statements about terrible, evil fictional Hillary. Same links to debunked RW videos. Over and over again.

I wonder why those who post them do it. Do they really think HRC or MOM supporters are suddenly going to convert to their side?

[LuvLoogie]

61. I am all in for Hillary, here.

[LuvLoogie]

63. The Revolution will not be institutionalized.

[Agschmid]

65. Unrec.

[Recursion]

68. Because I don't need a President to teach me things?

I have a lot of complaints against Senator Clinton (to the extent that I'm not voting for her in the primary) but this obsession with finding an honest politician just seems bizarre to me. I suppose it's not new (lampmakers didn't lack for work in Diogenes's day), but seriously? You really think the problem with the country here is that politicians are insufficiently honest?

I mean, yeah, it seems a lot of people do; so, I appreciate that you vote those beliefs. It's just not something that resonates with me at all.

[Bluenorthwest]

98. I think honesty is valuable. Clinton spent years dishonestly claiming she strictly adheres to the

Bible and because of that she kept trying to teach America that LGBT must be denied the right to marry. The Bible says women are not permitted to seek or hold power over men. Like me, Hillary rejects the teachings in that Book, very obviously. And yet she spent years seeking power over men while claiming that the bits in that Book against others were valid while the long passages applicable to her were invalid and to be ignored, do not even mention it.
She quotes a man who says she should not be in politics as reason for denying rights to others. That's dishonest. And that does matter.

[no_hypocrisy]

71. "Did you ever think you'd love a play called 'Springtime for Hitler?'"

[Adrahil]

72. Jeebus H..... The end of thismprimary can't come soon enough.

Thiese bullshit rants are getting old.

Now Clinton supporters are insane.

Enough al-fucking-ready

[randome]

73. Unless Sanders is Jesus Christ, we are ALWAYS voting for the lesser of two evils.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Cobalt Violet]

83. well Sanders is not a fairy tale, Jesus Christ is.

Sanders is not evil.

[treestar]

105. Figurative speech for a sinless person

It is true that we are always voting for the lesser of two evils, especially if we are negative people who only see the bad sides of things. But there are no good sides to Republicans.

[Lil Missy]

74. because we're smart enough to sort out the right-wing claptrap that is repeated by the far left.

You start with a false premise, that's why you keep losing this argument.

[JaneyVee]

75. NO WONDER WHY BERNIE IS FAILING. HIS FANS....

[madokie]

80. Last Wednesday and last night

has me hopeful that Oklahoma will turn at least purple. Bernie with over 9000 on Wednesday in Tulsa and last night with over 6000 in OKC
We can win this one all we have to do is get out the votes. Please fellow Okies lets show them what we're made of.

last night the Hill had all of 800 show up for a rally in Tennessee. And with her penchant for lying that number very well may be inflated.

[Cobalt Violet]

81. They're willing to bury their heads in the sands because they got theirs

They are comfortable and that's all that matters to them. The me, me, me generations.

[lostnfound]

85. It's tough to understand how little people recognize real politics

By that I mean the money business of politics.
It is very frustrating to be aware of the extraordinary corruption that exists on both sides of the aisle, to be aware that there's a realistic chance of getting a corruption-free candidate elected to the highest office on the country, breaking free of the stranglehold of corporate money and billionaire influence, and watch people choose to continue with the corrupt model of politics instead.
Many of us have had moments of feeling similar things.

[actslikeacarrot]

91. Most people would choose...

...a beautiful lie over the ugly truth. Also, only ONE candidate running has dodged sniper fire matrix style while saving a puppy.

[Onlooker]

95. How can sane people buy into Republican memes? n/t

[NaturalHigh]

97. *Sigh*

Are you really trying to say now that anyone who votes for Clinton is insane?

[NowSam]

118. No. I'm asking HOW a sane person can vote

for a liar. I never said Someone was insane. .I just want to know how a sane thinking person can vote for a proven liar. I never even mentioned the candidate by name. You assumed that it was Clinton - is that because you know she is a liar? If you know she is a liar and you are sane then how can you cast your vote that way? I'm just asking and no one is forced to participate in this thread. How can you trust a known liar to look out for your interests?

[treestar]

99. I believe this is called circular reasoning

you've decided she's a "liar" and expect everyone else to automatically agree. That being a given, we are supposed to go from there. Except we don't agree with the premise.

[NowSam]

109. So you believe she is truthful?

In that case I would suggest that Confirmation Bias is strong, real, and dangerous. A house divided cannot stand.

[fredamae]

104. It's easy when you Only "Hear"

what you want and bury the "red flags".

[ladjf]

107. That is the question of the year. nt

[nc4bo]

112. Programming is complete.

They've been raising us like sheep, from cradle to grave, for a very long time.

It is all by design.

[Attorney in Texas]

114. If you ARE the establishment, you fear the candidate who takes on the establishment. A minority of

Democrats identify with the establishment, but that minority is powerful and they are fighting to keep that power.

[basselope]

119. Because they believe

in #winning at all costs.

[NowSam]

125. You won the internet!

Very concise. Thank you!

[MisterP]

139. precisely--it's not policies, not issues, not language, not supporters

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/27/us/elections/south-carolina-democrat-poll.html

Can win in November 12% of voters

82/18

Cares about people like me 31% of voters

68/31

Honest and trustworthy 23% of voters

51/49

Has the right experience 31% of voters

94/6

it's all in the framing

[mcar]

120. Gee, thanks for the diagnosis

I thought Bernie supporters wanted to talk about the issues?

[NowSam]

124. I do.

Let's talk about issues. We know Bernie's stand on issues and that he has been consistent for decades in his championing causes to care for the children, the poor, the elderly, the sick, the veterans and the working people. In this, your candidate has called him a one issue candidate. ON the other hand, your candidate has taken every side of every issue for decades. No one knows where she really stands on anything since she lies constantly. IF it were a single issue for me it would be honesty. I believe Hillary Clinton is unelectable because she cannot be believed. Thank you for getting back to the issues. Honesty is an issue.

[MaggieD]

129. You know what's insane?

I've been asking what she has lied about for almost a year now and none of you can come up with anything.

[NowSam]

131. Here is 13 minutes of her lying

[MaggieD]

132. Oh please that 13 minutes of edited BS

Or just shit you disagree with. You got nothing.

[NowSam]

137. Did you actually watch it?

You don't believe your own eyes and ears? She says one thing and then says the exact opposite. Over and over. Depends who she is talking to.

[MaggieD]

140. Yes. That propoganda wasn't released yesterday you know

Ain't a single lie in that whole damn clip.

[NowSam]

141. We must be watching different videos then. nt

[Logical]

159. LOL, look at her trust numbers, get back to me. nt

[MineralMan]

133. Well, Now, Sam...

You appear to be talking about the current leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for President. Apparently, many people are voting for her, and more will do so tomorrow. So far, she has won in three out of the four primary events that have taken place and leads her competitor by 26 pledged delegates. Tomorrow, there are several more primary events. After those, she will be leading her competitor by as many as 250 pledged delegates, just based on current polling?

So, is it your opinion that all of those voters are not sane? Really? I'm quite puzzled by your logic here. Do you think that your post is going to somehow straighten out all those people who are not sane? What is your point, really?

I'm puzzled. Very puzzled by this.

[NowSam]

136. Okay so assuming you are all sane..

Then would you be kind enough to answer my question? How can a sane person vote for a proven consistent liar? That was my question. It has been twisted to suggest I said Hillary voters were insane. Instead I am asking HOW can you wonderfully sane people put your trust in her?

Is that a little less puzzling for you? You asked if my opinion is that all those voters are insane. No I don't. I just don't know by what rational you can cast your vote for the status quo. In my opinion winning isn't everything if it just perpetuates the status quo.

[yawnmaster]

134. This illustrates a problem. Living in a large and diverse society such as ours, one needs to try...

and understand other's points of view, understand where they are coming from. One does not have to agree with them, but understanding them is so important. We live in a country where it is likely that over 50% of the people are not going to have your same vision for the future. Does one desire to just eliminate those people? Those that are left would just start disagreeing on something else.

50% or more of the people are not insane. They come from diverse backgrounds with differing ideas.
Live with them. Make them your friends or at least acquaintances. Politics is not everything but it starts becoming an overwhelming game for many.

Open your sphere of acquaintance. See the diversity. Engage it. Love it!

[LanternWaste]

143. I question the sanity, bravery and honesty of people who don't think like me too!

I question the sanity, bravery and honesty of people who don't think like me too! (A somewhat more succinct truncation of your conclusion, minus the unsupported allegations, the bias, the faith-based prophecies and the false premise).

[NowSam]

146. I don't question your sanity

I ask how a sane person can vote for a liar. You took that as a question to your sanity. So, let's agree you are sane. Now let us agree you are voting for Hillary. Now I ask you, a sane person, HOW can you cast your vote for her?

The reason I ask HOW is because you are sane and rational and I would assume that integrity and honesty matter to you. If you would like to tell me how you, Mr. or Ms. Sane Person, can, in good conscious vote for her, I will listen. So far all you have done is defended your sanity. That isn't my question. I accept you are sane. Now how about the "How?"

[pdsimdars]

145. it's called a cult of personality

[Stand and Fight]

150. HA! Pot meet kettle. n/t

[Califonz]

152. Reminds me of the Gore Vidal quote...

“There is no human problem which could not be solved if people would simply do as I advise.”

[Bleacher Creature]

153. Oh good, another post personally insulting Clinton supporters.

That should help bridge the gap. . .

[CoffeeCat]

154. I'm constantly dumbfounded.

She's a neocon and a warmonger. The founder of the neocon movement, Robert Kagan, endorsed her HRC last week.

She's also owned by the corporations and is a big part of why our democracy is eroding--due to powerful corporate influences, dirty money in politics and sell-out politicians.

Those two things should disqualify her from being our frontrunner.

Ten years ago--the Democrats were united against the neocon sociopaths. Now, warmongering is what the cool kids are doing...apparently.

I don't get it. I will never get it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

155. "Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs,

"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

[NowSam]

156. Excellent

Thanks for the perspective.