2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI am not a Hillary fan, but if you think Hillary is no better than Trump or Cruz you are insane.
And maybe should just leave now.
I want Bernie, but if he does not get the nomination I'll take Hillary over any GOP idiot!
Lets keep this all in perspective!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)
StevieM
(10,578 posts)Trump or Cruz could win the election. And they could secure the Supreme Court for the GOP for a generation.
Or a Democrat other than Sanders, like Hillary, could win and secure the Supreme Court for the Democrats for a generation.
Shorter version: Vote for the corrupt Democrat?
StevieM
(10,578 posts)no more corrupt in the eyes of the law than Bernie is.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)That's CORRUPTION! No conviction needed. I've seen her lie. And then there's her transcripts. You may support her blindly, but not me.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)He knows better than to say "someday in 8-15
Years....."
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)rjj621
(103 posts)Every politician lies when they say "We're going too...." Hillary isn't being any more truthful of what "She's going to do..."
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)It is colored by your desire for Bernie to win the nomination which if he did...he would lose the general after they painted him as the second coming of Stalin.
Avalon Sparks
(2,751 posts)By accepting all that influence money she has put herself in the position to either throw the industries that contributed millions to her and Bills personal bank account under the bus or throw the average middle and working class American who votes for her under the bus.
A person with integrity would never put themselves in that position.
She is corrupt by her very actions....
revbones
(3,660 posts)I would suggest you look up the definition again.
Avalon Sparks
(2,751 posts)Heres the definition of corruption:
Impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principles
She and her husband have made a personal fortune from influence money.
The bulk of it from Bill's speeches while she was a senator and then while she was SOS. The she hopped out of government for awhile, and racked up her millions, again by speaking, knowing full well she'd be attempting to hop back in.
At the end of it all, she either has the conviction to push for legislation that the voters want (which will hurt the bottom line of the majority of industries she accepted "speaking money" from. Or when she gets in office, she pushes agendas that benefit them.
She'll have to screw over one or the other.
A person with integrity would never put themselves in that position.
Most people don't bite the hand that feeds them, its only logical where her loyalty will be.
She is corrupt. It's also not surprising, and to be fair this is often what happens to anyone that holds political power for a long time. Money and power lead to corruption, a intoxicating blend that few can resist. Her and Bill were in the unique position of both holding some of the highest levels of political power, with the ability to legally accept influence money. You can try to justify that because it wasn't illegal that it's acceptable. However, it is unethical and morally reprehensible, because they should have both stepped out of politics for good, before going on their speaking tours.
As I took your suggestion and looked up the definition of corruption. Perhaps you'll take mine and learn about corruption in other countries, where it's quite common for those with money to funnel the bribes to close relatives of the decision makers in government. The difference being, the relatives generally don't have to speak for an hour to receive it. In the USA, where public officials are under closer scrutiny, calling bribes "speaking fees" is ever so more palatable, and so much easier to swallow.
eggman67
(837 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)Avalon Sparks
(2,751 posts)Sorry I wasn't paying attention. Cheers!
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)and people who are saying she is are morons.
Avalon Sparks
(2,751 posts)Heres the definition of corruption:
Impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principles
She and her husband have made a personal fortune from influence money.
The bulk of it from Bill's speeches while she was a senator and then while she was SOS. The she hopped out of government for awhile, and racked up her millions, again by speaking, knowing full well she'd be attempting to hop back in.
At the end of it all, she either has the conviction to push for legislation that the voters want (which will hurt the bottom line of the majority of industries she accepted "speaking money" from. Or when she gets in office, she pushes agendas that benefit them.
She'll have to screw over one or the other.
A person with integrity would never put themselves in that position.
Most people don't bite the hand that feeds them, its only logical where her loyalty will be.
She is corrupt. It's also not surprising, and to be fair this is often what happens to anyone that holds political power for a long time. Money and power lead to corruption, a intoxicating blend that few can resist. Her and Bill were in the unique position of both holding some of the highest levels of political power, with the ability to legally accept influence money. You can try to justify that because it wasn't illegal that it's acceptable. However, it is unethical and morally reprehensible, because they should have both stepped out of politics for good, before going on their speaking tours.
As I took your suggestion and looked up the definition of corruption. Perhaps you'll take mine and learn about corruption in other countries, where it's quite common for those with money to funnel the bribes to close relatives of the decision makers in government. The difference being, the relatives generally don't have to speak for an hour to receive it. In the USA, where public officials are under closer scrutiny, calling bribes "speaking fees" is ever so more palatable, and so much easier to swallow.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Call it name-calling all you want. I don't care.
Avalon Sparks
(2,751 posts)What utter nonsense.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)I don't respect you and don't care what you think about it.
Avalon Sparks
(2,751 posts)Or you wouldn't continue to post.
How easy it is to call someone a liar, but is has absolutely no validity when you can't back up your claim.
You claim you don't want to, but we both know it's because you can't. You got nothing.
Just silly name calling
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)I'm such a fool to think otherwise.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Bernie is the only option.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Always having to pick the least shitty choice has worn real fucking thin.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Otherwise the Democratic Party will shrink further.
Democrats will vote for her in the general election. It's the independents who ya'll are telling to be "loyal Democrats" who won't show up to vote for her, or will vote for another anti-establishment candidate.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)If she cheats her way into the General we are so hooped
w4rma
(31,700 posts)But, if/when that scandal does blow up, it needs to happen *during* the primary, not during the general election.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)Look for a landslide in WI
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)She has more delegates...there is no scandal ...made up crap...I will say it again both Rice and Powell had private servers...She will be the nominee and I can hardly wait to get this over before more of you damage our candidate. If Bernie gave a darn about the country he would suspend his campaign.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)She has won more delegates.
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)your candidate doesn't win the nomination? Do you really believe that our country will collapse, after 200 plus years of ups and downs? Is now more precipitous than the Civil War? 
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)they"ll make more!
merrily
(45,251 posts)UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)I'm voting for whomever gets the Dem nomination whether its Bernie or Hillary.
Wtf kind of world would have Trump or Cruz?
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)One will kill you faster than the other but you're just as dead either way.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)As opposed to not having more in dudes paychecks.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)wrong is wrong - and they are the same
Wanna go over the cliff at 69 mph or 70?
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)I'll vote for the nominee but we ought not nominate someone whose only benefit is being better than Trump or Cruz
StevieM
(10,578 posts)Hillary will give us a court that upholds Roe vs. Wade, and whole host of other things that Democrats believe in. And we will secure that court for a good 20 years.
By the time the 2036 election rolls around Millennials will mean voters under 55. At that point we will be in amazing shape as a party, while the Republicans are dying off. In the meantime, there is a lot we can still get done, especially if we can take back the Congress. We should unite as a party, regardless of who the people choose as the nominee.
And yes, if Sanders wins the PD count he will be the nominee. And yes, I will enthusiastically support him if he wins.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)You and I will both vote for the nominee no matter who it is, but Hillary is detested by millennials, detested by independents, detested by even moderate Republicans. Who - exactly - do you think is gonna turn out for Hillary's moderate status quo domestic policy coupled with a neocon foreign policy. Who wants that? I bet you don't even want that.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)No one wants Trump or Cruz, but no want likes Hillary and could care less if she gets elected. Especially after all the BS this primary season. If she wants it like this. F it. You're on your own. Stick your finger in your own face and yell in a mirror.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)investigation, she still is running a campaign so poorly conducted that Cruz would EASILY defeat her and Trump would possibly defeat her.
How many states must Hillary lose by a huge margin before her supporters realize she is ballot poison?
StevieM
(10,578 posts)Wisconsin is a really good state for Bernie. Not many minorities. I wouldn't count on him doing nearly as well there, even if he wins.
And let's see if he actually wins NY like his supporters are saying he will, or even California for that matter.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)if the were, Hillary doesn't get a pass just because she disliked in caucus states. She sucks ideologically and she's a miserable general election candidate.
Hillary is the only pathway to a Cruz administration.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Some states have very small populations (such as Hawaii and Alaska) relative to others. Since Hillary won bigger population states like Ohio and Massachusetts and Arizona, even though she won fewer individual non-Southern states than Bernie, that doesn't really reflect the total number of voters.
LonePirate
(14,367 posts)StevieM
(10,578 posts)Even if we can somehow take back the House, it will be close. We aren't going to have a Congress liberal enough to pass something like Obamacare. And even that Congress wasn't liberal enough to pass a public option or cap and trade.
I disagree that HRC's foreign policy can be accurately described as neocon. I doubt that she will be too different from Obama.
Millenials detest Donald Trump more than anyone. I am confident that Hillary can win them over when the primary ends. I am also confident that older voters will reject Bernie after three months of him being slammed as a Socialist. Many voters are not that into politics and don't know that about him yet. Or at least that is my conclusion.
I disagree that Hillary will win no GOP votes. Both parties have historically gotten a certain small percentage of the other party's votes. I saw a poll that showed Hillary getting 14 percent of the GOP vote against Trump.
Independents go back and forth. I am confident that Hillary can win the support of the majority of them. I don't agree that they detest her.
Right now her poll numbers have taken a hit. But poll numbers go up and down. Hillary's numbers were through the roof when she was Secretary of State. She will need to get them back up just as Bernie will need to keep his up. I have more confidence in her ability to get her numbers back up then I do in his ability to keep his numbers up. If you feel differently then that is a good reason for you to vote for Bernie.
You raise an interesting point about Millennials and our party's long term strength with them. Millennials vote Democrat because of their stance on the issues. We are not giving away our popularity just because the voters picked a candidate who wasn't the one they voted for. Moreover, you could say the same thing in reverse: how can Millennials insist that non-millennials not vote their own conscience, and instead vote for the candidate that younger voters and white voters seem to prefer? You cannot organize a party that way.
Do you seriously believe that Hillary's nomination will be so upsetting to millennials that they will stay home or vote Republican in the 2036 election? That is how long they will be embittered for? If Hillary loses--which she will if her prospects are as bad as you describe--then they will not be able to get excited for Elizabeth Warren in 2020?
My whole point is that we must win this election in order to guarantee the Supreme Court for 20 years. Obviously we disagree on the best way to do that. But I am glad that you will vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee, just as I will vote for Bernie Sanders if he is our nominee.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)the least well liked Democratic candidate in the party's history who is also under FBI investigation and who offers a platform so luke warm that many progressives can't and won't support it.
I'll pinch my nose and vote for her if worse comes to worst, but many progressives who don't identify as Democrats will vote for Jill Stein or will abstain. There are not enough Democrats to elect Hillary and independents HATE Hillary, and Hillary supporters can't fix that by trying to bully Sanders supporters on the internet.
StevieM
(10,578 posts)I gave you my analysis, whether you agree with it or not.
I specified that I thought Sanders would not make a good GE candidate at the end of the day. Maybe I am wrong, maybe we will never know, but that is my take.
Saying that someone is under FBI investigation means nothing to me. I am certain that she did nothing wrong, and I will not let unfair attacks influence my vote, especially since I am convinced that a different candidate would simply fall victim to a different set of unfair attacks.
Independents are about a third of the electorate and you can't make a blanket statement about all of them. I disagree that they hate Hillary, all though I agree that her poll numbers have taken a hit. But a couple years ago she was very popular among independents and I believe--rightly or wrongly--that she can recover.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)general statement about the tone in this forum.
If you think Hillary did nothing wrong, you haven't been following the story. She may or may not have committed an indictable criminal offense (and even if she did, the Department of Justice isn't going to prosecute no matter what the FBI recommends), but she almost certainly committed a deliberate violation of the Freedom of Information Act and if you read the judicial opinions in those cases, she is pushing the boundaries of obstructing justice in the Freedom of Information Act cases (and don't dismiss this as partisanship because one of the judges is a Clinton appointee).
Maybe you think a deliberate violation of the Freedom of Information Act is NBD because Bush and Cheney did it too, but that is not my threshold for right and wrong.
PS - Independents are at least 40% of the general election vote - way bigger than either the Democrats or the Republicans, and she is pure ballot poison with independents.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)don't blame Hillary supporters for voting for their candidate. Millennials don't like her, don't complain, vote. I never know what these statements are suppose to mean. This group won't vote for her in the GE, soooooo.....It's the primary, we get to choose. Hillary people can vote for her. If they don't want to vote for her in the GE if she should win, should Hillary people just throw their hand in the air and not vote for who they want because some people are upset? I just don't get it.
Avalon Sparks
(2,751 posts)Are more important then social issues like abortion.
Even right now some women that would like to have an abortion simply cannot afford to.
Regardless, I can't believe how many have bought into Trumps sudden change on abortion.
Even in September he said he was pro-chioce.
There is only one candidate that isn't lying his ass off to get elected, and that candidate is Senator Bernie Sanders. I'd advise everyone to take what both Trump and Hillary say with a gran of salt, too many flip flops from both candidates....
I actually don't know enough about Kasich to claim whether he is a liar. I know he was a t-bagger though and now he seems moderate, comparatively.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)Since she already said she was willing to compromise on abortion.
She's already proven that she won't hold to anything Democrats believe in, or rather used to.
StevieM
(10,578 posts)of the mother.
The law already bans those abortions.
The original Roe vs. Wade, before it was watered down by Casey vs. Planned Parenthood in 1992, allowed for that ban.
Barack Obama supports that ban and said so in the 2008 election.
Bill Clinton supported that ban in the 1990s, as did most Democrats. Most Democrats support that ban today.
Maybe it is a bad idea. But it isn't exactly a good example of Hillary bolting the party and establishing a conservative position on abortion.
It is ridiculous to suggest that Hillary isn't committed to Roe vs. Wade, or even that she wouldn't oppose the new round of restrictions that Republicans have passed in recent years.
Her Justices will be people like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayer, Elena Kagan and Merick Garland. It is silly to think otherwise.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)she is not the one
wake up
democrattotheend
(12,011 posts)Both Cruz and Trump are downright scary.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Over the present Repig frontrunners.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)I expect a war with Iran and the war hawk will ramp up war again in Iraq and Afghanistan.
She's works for the military industrial complex:
Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html
We might be better than Cruz or Trump but I'll need to know exactly how instead of making an assumption. I know women and children will die with Hillary's foreign policy if she gets elected. Her domestic policy is unlikely to be her new found liberal, "I'm just like Bernie," values, but her long held ones that are against everything I as a liberal care about. TPP, Fracking, Health care not being in the hands of the insurance industry, Womens right to a safe abortion even in late term, de-criminalizing drugs and get addicts help, not prison, etc. I suspect she will go exactly the wrong way and play deaf which is exactly what she did to us liberals when she was in the Senate.
I don't know where the Hillary voters here were when she was in the Senate but I remember her and Pelosi well. Pelosi would at least give us lip service and then cave. Hillary was just all out anti-social programs and pro war.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)is an idiot. There is a reason that the term "useful idiots" was coined.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)It's more about vindictiveness. If Sanders isn't the nominee, then his supporters want Democrats to learn a "lesson" for rejecting him and what better lesson than to sit out the election to increase the chances of Trump or Cruz winning.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)STOP LYING!!!!! But YOU support that, because you support the liar.
revbones
(3,660 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)The damn point was that Clinton is better than Trump or Cruz. There is really no disputing that when it comes to things like that Supreme Court, ACA and just about everything.
revbones
(3,660 posts)It seemed an important enough point for you to say "It's more about vindictiveness. If Sanders isn't the nominee, then his supporters want Democrats to learn a "lesson" for rejecting him and what better lesson than to sit out the election to increase the chances of Trump or Cruz winning. "
Aside from the fact that many may not believe as you do about the perils of electing Clinton, trying to malign them as not voting for Clinton out of vindictiveness is just petty and wrong.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts) Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)And no one's going anywhere.
Fuck the parolees.
Losing a hand is not as bad as losing both eyes, right?
So the whole strategy is that corporations running the country is not as bad as the religious right or fascists running the country?
What a choice!
I feel so much better now......
bvf
(6,604 posts)is to remind everyone that she's preferable to Trump, I'd say there's a big problem there.
What's more, these absurd attempts to get the same people on board who have been continually insulted by her constant bullshit make me think that every day is April 1st to her supporters.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I have, to the extent that I can see only posts from posters I am not ignoring.
But they have not said only that she is better then Trump. Shame on you for saying that.
She's also better than Cruz and leprosy (although cancer may be a tie, according to one post).
However, those who don't want to vote for her must be idiots, morons, ridiculous, vindictive, etc.
I guess I am trying to say, some threads are comedy gold; this one is comedy platinum.
bvf
(6,604 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)blm
(114,648 posts)I don't trust people who CHOOSE to be logic-averse. They are part of what is wrong in this country. The same types who didn't take the time to vote in 2010 and 2014.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)tell me more - ha
blm
(114,648 posts)Period.
Laugh, laugh - let millions of others do the crying, eh.
hillary - lol
blm
(114,648 posts)logic seems to have escaped you in this exchange.
However, it is also sad that your lack of concern for all those millions of people dependent on the outcome of Supreme Court cases is fully on display.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)be well
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)
tularetom
(23,664 posts)She can be better than them and still be unacceptable.
You do realize that don't you?
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... so think about it this way ...
... your choice is between a booger sandwich and an arsenic sandwich.
You have to take a bite of one.
Your choice.
bvf
(6,604 posts)if you add that the boogers have been chilled overnight in an arsenic marinade.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... history repeats ...
... bad choice.
bvf
(6,604 posts)The ellipses say everything.
revbones
(3,660 posts)And it's not whether people like her or not. Many people are able to get above the cult of personality and look at policies and actions. Her's have been disastrous and awash in corruption and lies.
No, if someone offers you a choice of a poop sandwich and a poop salad, you can choose to skip that meal entirely or order another item off the menu - it does have more...
Avalon Sparks
(2,751 posts)just curious, is Trump the booger?
Cruz is different then both of them, I think he's a lot smarter then the other two, and he also is consistent, what you see is what you'll get with him....a authoritarian religious zealot. As such, he's extremely unpleasant and unappealing to many.
Trump and Hill? Peas in a pond.
In my opinion, both are saying whatever it takes to get elected with no intention of following through. I see more similarities then differences. Neither candidate has an ounce of integrity or moral compass, and both appear to be master manipulators.
At least two, if not all three are likely to be the candidates. (If Trump runs 3rd party)
This is what you get when your government is drowning in corruption.
Sadly, the writings been on the wall for awhile now.
bvf
(6,604 posts)a war-mongering Wall Street tool have gotten pretty lame.
Let her have the votes of not-quite-brain-dead Republicans who wouldn't in a million years vote for Trump. They'll be fine with her, I'm sure.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Supporters, so that will be an interesting coalition.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)Thanks!
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Cheaters get NOTHING from me. Tough shit. I have principle too. Cheat on me and that's it. I can't stomach her anymore. When they cheat like visiting polls, I guess you don't care. You'll come to her rescue no matter what they do to us. I don't want her to have the chance at being the first female president, she'll ruin it for the rest of us.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)As long as you admit that, you can vote for whichever evil you please.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)A and B are fucked up
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)group.
Get a grip:
a) we are still in a primary
b) It may be very well Kasich, who has the
blessings of the official GOP. Don't ever
underestimate the establishment, in this
case from their side.
c) Please, stop this fear mongering, because
I don't think that it will work anymore.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)The guy who said that must be the worst corporatist turncoat DINO ever!
lunamagica
(9,967 posts) silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Here's a hint: Some are Bernie voters, period. They have no obligation to you, me, or the Democratic party. They would vote for Bernie if he ran as a Mushroom (whatever that is). They are a subset of the party as it currently exists, along with some regular Democrats like me who are for him.
The question is really: Who can pull more voters to the polls, from any political stripe, to vote for them. In order to address your concern you would have to also post your admonition to Independents boards, and to Republican boards, and minor party boards, etc.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)There's a reason the Republicans funded Nader's campaign in the coup d'etat of 2000.
Response to baldguy (Reply #98)
silvershadow This message was self-deleted by its author.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)but Building A looks less decrepit than Building B, I might think that Building A is much better than Building B. But the farther I move away from the buildings, the less distinct the differences become. And then I get a close-up view of Building C, which is clean and new, and I look inside, and see it is well-furnished and the owner says he'll make more improvements, and I'm impressed with Building C. But someone points me toward Buildings A and B in the distance, and says "Building A is MUCH better than Building B! You'd have to be crazy to think otherwise!" Well from my current vantage point, Building C beats the crap out of both of them.
hereforthevoting
(241 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)for any true progressive is Bernie Sanders. Period. End of story.
"Now, go churn us some butter, boy, and make your own clothes!"
840high
(17,196 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Sometimes apathy is it's own kind of evil.
840high
(17,196 posts)we have an honest candidate and I'll vote for him.
polynomial
(750 posts)The recent political history makes me uneasy about Bernie Sanders. Consider Joe Liebermann that ran as an Independent for a time yet was picked by Al Gore to run in the general election. It failed.
Also consider Liebermann Democratic independent eventually became a stanch supporter of the Republican Candidate, McCain. That independence clearly shows something was hidden in the background all the time.
It follows that Berne will make good Democratic speech but logically similarly that history of independence speaks widely that a serious agenda will be compromised. The Supreme Court issue needs are not an Independent issue, that is clearly the edge Hillary has.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)That is a FAIL, in office, too big to overlook.
Because of that, it doesn't matter if Berners will vote for her or not, if she is nominated, she will lose. If you don't believe that, consider this, said by the other side just yesterday (keeping in mind that her disapproval numbers are already at about 2/3 of the voters as it is)...
"... Whoever the Republican nominee is, whether it's Donald Trump, whether it's somebody else eventually, Hillary Clinton is going to face a withering amount of attacks from the Republican nominee on this issue regardless of what happens with this investigation, right? Even in the best case scenario for Hillary Clinton, which is that she's cleared of any wrongdoing after this investigation finally concludes, there's still a very serious question of judgment here, and whoever the Republican nominee is, is going to jump on that come the Fall.
...
If the Clinton campaign thinks that, even like I said in that best case scenario -- that she's cleared of any wrongdoing in this -- if the Clinton campaign thinks that's the end of the issue, as a general election issue, they're nuts. There's no way it is. It's going to be a major issue. It goes directly, it impacts her numbers on trustworthiness, honesty, I mean this is a big thing for Republicans to exploit in the Fall. So it's a problem for her, either way."
Shane D'Aprile, publisher Campaign and Elections magazine, former campaign reporter for The Hill (@ 4:10, 6:10)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/31/one-shot-at-queen-fbi-ag-intensify-focus-on-clinton-email-probe.html
She was not vetted on this because Bernie has not brought it up at all. Her excuses on this are outright lies: 1) she was not "allowed" to have a private server, 2) others didn't do anything remotely similar, and 3) some very classified stuff was transmitted.
But that only relates to HALF of the FBI's investigation. The other half is on pay-to-play corruption between the State Dept. and the Clinton Foundation, which is just as bad a minefield of legal jeopardy for her as the server issues if not worse.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/
http://nypost.com/2015/10/31/hillary-clintons-rogue-agenda-why-sid-blumenthal-matters/
Why no one blows the whistle and why she has so many endorsements:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/hillary-clinton-hit-list-102067
She is no more acceptable as a president than the Repubs. And no, the appointees of a bag-woman for mega-corporations wouldn't be any less damaging than theirs.
840high
(17,196 posts)PonyUp
(1,680 posts)I'll vote down ballot and write in Bernie's name. Call me crazy! 
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)defeat...and say many things they really don't believe in......we saw this in 2008 with hillary supporters who nearly all turned into obama supporters for the general election
djean111
(14,255 posts)Actuall, I hate it 24 hours a day. There is not reason for them.
So - new policy - trash thread, full ignore.
CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)I agree.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)an announcement!
It never gets old.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)High five! 
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...whose Supreme Court nominees won't have claws and hooves.
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)Back when she was The First Lady she was against a bill that made student loan debt immune to bankruptcy. Then as she was running for Senate she got money Banks that provide a large number of student loans. And then while she was a Senator she voted on a bill that did the same thing she was against. Money influenced her and she screwed over college students who are poor and fill bankruptcy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/09/elizabeth-warrens-critique-of-hillary-clintons-2001-bankruptcy-vote/
If that does not bother you then you really need to examine how good your life is that you do not carry that Clinton can be bought by the highest bidder. Who is to say some one like Trump does not give Bill Clinton a few million dollars and then Hillary bans all Muslims she has a proven track record of being influenced by "donations" to her family
randome
(34,845 posts)The Clinton-Hate has blinded many of us to reality -all politicians change positions occasionally. Instead of focusing on how much one can hate another candidate, why not focus on the so-called 'revolution'?
I thought this election was supposed to be about positive issues, not recycled hatred.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)Not voting to help out banks. Big difference but I don't expect you to understand that. And I don't hate Clinton she is just a product of a corrupt system. But you do hate Sanders because your projection is showing.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)At this point it is not a binary choice between Clinton and Trump.
And if it does become a binary choice, people will have to search their own souls to determine what to do. But even if Clinton is the nominee she will have to EARN votes.
Flyingbird5066
(75 posts)Not that that's saying a lot. If the election's close I'll vote for her, if she's blowing the repub out I'll just stay home
FSogol
(47,613 posts)Don't be a clown.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I think everybody should vote for the candidate they prefer.
A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. Thomas Paine
tabasco
(22,974 posts)must continue. The Democratic party must change or a new party must take its place.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)all scare me. Cruz most of all. Clinton will, most likely, be better on most social issues.
However, Clinton is notoriously fickle, and only does what is politically expedient for Hillary. If she is elected, and the national climate continues to move right, I worry that she will turn against the LGBT community again, and work with republicans to limit women's choices.
For many traditional Democrats and left independents, voting for Hillary will be the most ethically challenging political choice of their lifetime. A large majority of Americans do not trust Hillary Clinton, and nominating her is an enormous and unnecessary risk.
It would be so much wiser to simply take the safe bet, and nominate Bernie.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)/ignore.
Umbral18
(105 posts)that a small but determined group can quite effectively shut down the entire government.
LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]And I agree Clinton is better than Rump. That is why, should she beat Bernie, I will vote for her.
But, until the primary is over, I plan to stick with Bernie.
Even if the math gave him 0% chance as I believe every vote for him, every moment of attention he gets no matter how small, will make the democratic party move more to the left where it needs to be.[/font]
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)I wish ballots came with a vote of no confidence option, tbh.
blm
(114,648 posts)Or, do you live in a solid blue or solid red state where you have the luxury to not vote for HRC if she is voted in as the Dem nominee?
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)And thank you for the attempted guilt trip.
blm
(114,648 posts)So, I'll take your indifference for what it is.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Hi, military-- so I'll take your condescension for what it is, and you can have a hearty handful of expletives that would earn me a hide here along with my "indifference".
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Sanders or Stein.
Avalon Sparks
(2,751 posts)Also, if I were pressed to only have a choice between Hillary and Trump, which isn't the case and won't be. But theoretically,
I'd hold nose, roll the dice and choose Trump for two reasons.
He's not owned by the corps, and he said he won't sign the TPP.
I also believe he is more Dem then she, despite the bs coming out of his mouth these days
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Avalon Sparks
(2,751 posts)It's my opinion only.
Logical
(22,457 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Based on the content of pm's you have sent in the past.
You are going on full ignore now.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,842 posts)
WMDemocract
(52 posts)I too prefer Bernie but will still vote for Hillary over any GOP candidate. I am quite sure that the vast majority of the "#NeverHillary" Dems will fall into line as soon as the Republican propaganda machine goes into full gear and they realize there are worse things than having Hillary as President.
greymouse
(872 posts)since she changes according to what is expedient.
As to corrupt, $1/4 mil per speech, give me a break. "Earning" $100 mil since she and Bill left the White House, give me a break.
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)so aside from maybe abortion (and I don't think Trump really cares about that), what difference would she make vs a GOP president?
She talks Left but governs - and more importantly LIVES - right of center. And we, as a nation, a can't take much more of that. The poor & working class are dying while she and her ilk are living like rock stars... and the last thing she wants is to live like a commoner.
Power an money, it's all she's about. Please remind me how that's different from the GOP?
LyndaG
(683 posts)I so agree.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)It's Bernie or nothing, I'm afraid.