My vote for Hillary in the GE is NOT a vote for the "lesser of two evils"

[Yavin4]

I will vote for whatever Democrat gets the nomination. And, no, I mean HELL NO, is my vote a vote for the lesser of two evils. My vote will be for continuing and improving on the recovery that we're going through from 8 years of GWB. I clearly remember 2000. Yes, I do. I clearly remember getting into heated arguments here and elsewhere with Liberals about how W was not that much different from Gore.

Then 9/11 happened. The Afghanistan war. The Iraq war. Torture. Katrina. The financial meltdown. We lurched from one major fucking crisis to another. John Kerry's wife, Theresa, was dead right when she said in 2004: "they want 4 more years of hell", and that's what we got in bundles. We got damn lucky in 2008 to get Obama, and things have improved tremendously. Not to the level that we all want, but they have improved and we're not lurching from one shit storm to the next.

If any one of those Republican ass clowns in office, and the damage to your fellow Americans, in particular those most at-risk, will be enormous. Given the 8 years of Bush, given that the current Republican field is a 1000 times worse than Bush, and given the hard work of recovery that Obama has had to go through to pull us back from the brink, it's fucking selfish of anyone to say, "I won't vote for the lesser of two evils" because that's a grotesque mis-characterization of this election. We're voting to maintain the pace of our recovery and to improve it.

If it's Hillary, then I'm voting for a continuation of the path that we're on. I don't want to go back to the fucked up days of Bush.

[gearhead12]

1. I don't mind the path we are on it's just

that I think Hillary would have handled the IRAN and Syrian deal differently .

She's wouldn't have been as diplomatic as President Obama was.

We would have been in another war if she was commander and chief now.

[Yavin4]

6. Bunk. Democratic presidents know full well that starting wars is not a good foreign policy strategy

and it makes for bad domestic politics.

[gearhead12]

11. I guess we disagree on the path Hillary would have chosen when challeged as commader and chief

[Ed Suspicious]

27. Iran is the "enemy" after all. I do not like that kind of talk out of my presidential candidate.

[lewebley3]

66. Democrats need to look after national security: I want a President who will protect us.

[7962]

28. If elected she'll be quicker to pull the trigger, too.

I think she'll be quicker because she will think that the world will think because she's a woman she wont be tough. So she'll SHOW 'em how tough she can be
Could be wrong, but that rarely happens

[lewebley3]

62. Nothing in the Clintons history shows she would quicker to war: Clintons were slow to Kosvo

However, when the Clintons chose a military action no American's
were killed.

[gearhead12]

68. Two entirely different personalities

Hillary is not Bill

I would at least hope if she is elected she would seek advice from him on matters before using the most powerful
weapon a POTUS has which is going to war.

[lewebley3]

72. Bill and Hillary were a team: The were married: and they were attacked together!

Bill chose not to go into Iraqi, he hunted down the people who
attack New York the 1st time and put them on trial. He didn't
create the Patriot Act; He used the tools under the constitution
to fight terrorism.

American was mostly at peace with the Clinton's in office, Kosvo
today has streets named after the Clinton's and they are grateful
to Americans. ( you could go there now they won't blow Americans
up).t

Bush's Iraqi war: was based on GOP greed, and Iraqi never wanted war
and Americans were not greeted as liberators, as they were in Kosvo.
The Clinton's were very careful about military use, but they were not
cowards either.

Three Cheers for Hillary and both Clinton's!!!

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. I completely disagree with this line of reasoning ...

Yes ... Bill and Hillary were/are married ... and, Yes ... they no doubt discussed EVERYTHING that came down the pike; but, Bill's course of action says nothing about Hillary's likely course of action ... any more than, looking at my course of action would tell you any thing about my wife's likely course of action.

But that said, those saying HRC would be quick at the trigger must have been asleep for the past 7 years.

[7962]

82. She hasnt had the last word for the past 7 yrs either.

[1StrongBlackMan]

86. True; but, she has spent the last 7 years ...

setting the table ... so that no trigger need be pulled.

[TheKentuckian]

93. Generally inaccurate. Wildly optimistic. Thumbs the nose at nearly all observation.

Real solid construct there. She hasn't been at State trying to clean up her negatives since the first term to start.

The inclination for loose lipped saber rattling and generally belligerent posture is unacceptable. Nearly every time her instincts lean toward exceptionalism, arrogance, aggression, and broadly foolish reactions.

Considering her weird ass taking pleasure in enmity with Iran, I believe she had to be pressured into supporting the Iran deal even if not directly and it was more of a general warning that you will not get my endorsement if you go against this one and I might think kinder in that comparison to those who got my back this time kinda deal.

You combine that and truly dangerous Syrian no fly zone idea along with past positions I'm not seeing why I'm particularly more comfortable with her that Condelezza Rice and that ilk here or on our civil liberties at home along with the over the top Snowden condemnation, the continued support for the Patriot Act and that is just her present day wrong-headed up to the moment of evolved self.

She is less dangerous than McCain, other than that I'm not overly sure of most comparisons.

[1StrongBlackMan]

97. Okay. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

98. I'm glad you came around!

[1StrongBlackMan]

99. Okay ... No; but, Okay. n/t

[lewebley3]

100. One thing is true Bill made the his final decisions: Hillary will make hers!

Hillary has been a loyal Dem for years, that in of
itself says, she believes in public service to the
American people. ( and the politics of caring, most
Dem's do).
The GOP is a party of greed, and people of have no
value against money to them. The GOP sells God like a s bum-ber
sticker to get elected. They don't have family values, they are worst
sexual hippo's : They don't believe in Christianity,
because if they did they would put the sick, the elderly,
and children first. If they care did they would be strengthening SS, and etc:
Instead the GOP's greatest wish is to get rid of SS.

Hillary was secretary of state, she was charged with carrying out
Obama's policy. ( Secretary's of state don't' have trigger fingers Presidents
do). Obama has been a fantastic commander in chief, not perfect,
but smart mostly right about most of his decision.

[gearhead12]

71. I didn't want to post that but I can't disagree

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. I realize Hill ain't Bill but he didn't start stupid wars...

The only war he involved us in was the NATO action in Kosovo and we got in , won, and got out.


He also had Saddam in a box with the no fly zones and sanctions regime. Gawd, to go back to those days!!!

[Scootaloo]

34. Over a million preventable deaths due to the sanctions.

Clinton administration: "Totally worth it!"

[George II]

39. First, that can't be reliably documented and second, how many "preventable deaths" would have...

....occurred otherwise?

[Scootaloo]

40. Here's your documentation

[7962]

83. Here's your "documentation" quickly debunked as the nonsense it is.

http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/the-iraq-sanctions-myth-56433

The originator of the "500k" estimate retracted her entire study after going back and REALLy finding out the truth

[Scootaloo]

85. "These remarks became a notorious example of extreme American callousness toward the Muslim world."

So says your link. Albright didn't contest the numbers. She literally embraced them.

[7962]

89. Albright was thinking about the sanctions. Your numbers are wrong, accept it.

A 5 second clip means nothing. She was answering before the question was even finished
As the story shows, there is no way of knowing how many would normally die over a dozen years, but either way 500,000 did NOT die.The author of the original study realized she was wrong and retracted her numbers.
But repeat a lie often enough and people, like you, will eventually believe it. Just like the "million killed in Iraq" lie. Many here on DU believe that whopper too, because it furthers what they want people to think. But its false too.

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. LOL ...

Amazing isn't it?

Let's all just throw rocks, from the distance of our keyboards, making judgments about what would have, or should have (wouldn't, or shouldn't have) occurred, while in, neither, the position to make such judgments, nor, in a position to be accountable for such judgments.

I know ... I Know ... I'm just some lackey to the authoritarians.

[gearhead12]

64. Yeah +1

If only we could turn back the hands of time.

It was just a better world back then with President Clinton.

[Skidmore]

60. Sanders has not given a statement

that he would not go to war. Why should he be trusted?

[daleanime]

2. Mine would be.....

sorry about that. Have to worry about what new war she might drag us into.

[Dawgs]

3. So, status quo.

[uponit7771]

8. of perfecting what can be perfected!? I'm not buying the notion that America will not progress under

... Hillary.

Wingers hate her that much

[Yavin4]

9. YES. Exactly.

The current status quo is: no new wars in the Middle East. Higher taxes on the wealthy. A recovering job market. A better regulated health insurance system. Marriage equality. Low gas prices. etc.

Status quo is pretty damn good compared to 7 years ago if you ask me.

[Maedhros]

16. No new wars in the Middle East, but a plethora of new conflicts in Africa

http://www.thenation.com/article/why-us-military-averaging-more-mission-day-africa/

Last year, according AFRICOM commander General David Rodriguez, the US military carried out a total of 546 “activities” on the continent—a catch-all term for everything the military does in Africa. In other words, it averages about one and a half missions a day. This represents a 217 percent increase in operations, programs and exercises since the command was established in 2008.

...and a visual depiction:

http://www.thenation.com/article/us-militarys-pivot-africa/

If the proverbial picture is worth a thousand words, then what’s a map worth? Take, for instance, the one created by TomDispatch that documents US military outposts, construction, security cooperation, and deployments in Africa. It looks like a field of mushrooms after a monsoon. US Africa Command recognizes fifty-four countries on the continent, but refuses to say in which ones (or even in how many) it now conducts operations. An investigation by TomDispatch has found recent US military involvement with no fewer than forty-nine African nations.

In some, the US maintains bases, even if under other names. In others, it trains local partners and proxies to battle militants ranging from Somalia’s al-Shabab and Nigeria’s Boko Haram to members of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Elsewhere, it is building facilities for its allies or infrastructure for locals. Many African nations are home to multiple US military projects. Despite what AFRICOM officials say, a careful reading of internal briefings, contracts, and other official documents, as well as open source information, including the command’s own press releases and news items, reveals that military operations in Africa are already vast and will be expanding for the foreseeable future.

If you think the status quo is "pretty damned good," then you haven't been paying attention.

[Unknown Beatle]

76. No wonder people are homeless and starving in the US.

And Obama cut some of LIHEAP funding, he needs money for other ventures.

Our tax dollars are funding the military and tax cuts for the rich while we get scraps.

[enid602]

59. revolution

Makes me wonder why Bern didn't try to pedal his revolution 7 years ago.

[RoccoR5955]

61. Was I asleep or something?

When was this "current status quo" started? Last I saw, we were still bombing the Middle East, taxes have not changed for the wealthy, and the current healthcare system is a great big handout to the insurance industry. Ok, there is marriage equality, and gas prices are low (but due to climate change they should be 2-4 times higher).

Really, I know that I was out of the country for 18 days. Did this happen then?

[randys1]

26. If status quo is Gay marriage legal, yes. If status quo is healthcare for all, yes.

Better than the god damn alternative

[Fumesucker]

31. Except that not everyone can afford health care

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7271999

When Billy Sewell began offering health insurance this year to 600 service workers at the Golden Corral restaurants that he owns, he wondered nervously how many would buy it. Adding hundreds of employees to his plan would cost him more than $1 million — a hit he wasn’t sure his low-margin business could afford.

His actual costs, though, turned out to be far smaller than he had feared. So far, only two people have signed up....

Evidence is growing that his experience is not unusual. The Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate, which requires employers with more than 50 full-time workers to offer most of their employees insurance or face financial penalties, was one of the law’s most controversial provisions. Business owners and industry groups fiercely protested the change, and some companies cut workers’ hours to reduce the number of employees who would be eligible.

But 10 months after the first phase of the mandate took effect, covering companies with 100 or more workers, many business owners say they are finding very few employees willing to buy the health insurance that they are now compelled to offer. The trend is especially pronounced among smaller and midsize businesses in fields filled with low-wage hourly workers, like restaurants, retailing and hospitality. (Companies with 50 to 99 workers are not required to comply with the mandate until next year.)

[trumad]

4. Great post

[uponit7771]

5. +1, the notion that the path we're on is 100% tore up is bunk... it can be enhanced but its not

... teh evil that we had during the Bush admin and America is becoming more progressive

[zappaman]

7. I wish this board would get back to focusing on the Republicans instead of tearing apart Democrats.

Obama turned this country around and got it out of the ditch Bush drove us into.

[MineralMan]

10. Sadly, that will not happen until after March 1, when

it becomes clear how the primaries will go. At that point, I believe we'll know who the nominee will be, and what is allowed on DU may change to be in keeping with the TOS. Until then, though, the warfare about Democrats will continue apace. That's to be regretted.

[Maedhros]

12. The path we are on is horrific.

Remorseless murder of civilians by drone strikes. Military operations across the Middle East, and ramping up all across Africa. Criminalization of investigative journalism and whistle blowing. An Executive Branch that has claimed the power to kill anyone, anywhere, without due process or oversight. An out-of-control civilian surveillance operation. Increasing wealth inequality. Trade deals that undercut the working and middle classes and nullify environmental and labor laws. Social Security "reform" being bandied about by Democrats.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for the corporate bloc. I VOTE NO.

[leftupnorth]

14. This!

[Maedhros]

23. Well, at least we can rest easy knowing that these things aren't REALLY a problem,

because a Democrat is doing them.

As it stands, when we put Democrats in power they promptly fall all over themselves to capitulate to the Republicans. "Give us subpoena power!" instantaneously becomes "Impeachment is off the table!" Heinous shit that Democrats once found abhorrent (e.g. mass surveillance, destroying other countries based on lies, civilian casualties from needless violence) becomes pragmatic and regrettable but necessary.

At least if a Republican is elected, then Democrats will go back to opposing this shit instead of cheering it on.

[Bluenorthwest]

65. So you are advocating for a Republican to be elected and fuck that.

Just not into it.

[Jester Messiah]

21. Well said! [nt]

[Yavin4]

46. Using your logic, if this were the 1930s, you would have to vote against FDR

Japanese internment camps, Jim Crow laws in the South, the subjugation of women, the criminality of homosexuality, etc. In fact, no one ever in the history of the U.S. would be worthy of voting.

[Maedhros]

58. Did you just compare Hillary to FDR? LOL!

Your analogy is a bit off. For one, were I voting in the 1930's the Japanese internment camps wouldn't be an issue, since they were not implemented until WWII -which, as you probably know, didn't start for the U.S. until December 1941.

For another, FDR wasn't responsible for Jim Crow laws in the South, subjugation of women, or criminality of homosexuality - but Obama is responsible for all the things I cited. Obama is NOT responsible for ongoing racism, the war on women, or the assaults on LGBTQ rights, so I did not list those things.

In your hypothetical 1930s, then, were FDR responsible for the things you call out, I definitely wouldn't have voted for him.

[Yavin4]

63. No. I used the logic behind your decision making and applied it to a different era.

Okay. Not the 1930s, but definitely during WWII, you wouldn't vote for FDR. As president, he WAS responsible for excluding African Americans from sharing in government programs due to an agreement with Southern Democrats.

My overall point is that your logic would dictate that you wouldn't vote for him given your criteria. Correct?

[Maedhros]

69. I don't know - I wasn't alive at the time, and don't know how my political consciousness

would have developed under those circumstances.

But, given my actual political conscience as it exists today, no - I would not have voted for FDR after he put people in internment camps. No way, no how.

[firebrand80]

13. A Republican President with a Republican House & Senate

will dismantle nearly everything Obama accomplished within a year. Make no mistake about it.

The icing on the cake will be another ground war in the Middle East.

[leftupnorth]

15. We get the government we deserve. Eom

[Yavin4]

20. Well beyond dismantling. They will stop funding the government entirely.

A President Ted Cruz and a Republican congress will stop funding the govt. full stop.

[TM99]

32. I know.

Look at what Clinton and Gingrinch did in the 1990's.

Banking reform. Fairness doctrine out the windows. NAFTA. DADT. DOMA. Welfare reform.

Thank the gods we had a Democrat in the White House to stop those things...no wait....what?!

[stupidicus]

48. indeed, one step forward, then two back

is what passes for progress

Hell, and if that "liberal" MSM is truly a thorn in her side, she has the slick one to blame for that step backwards as well.

As I argued to my lefty allies during the lead up and well past the war in Iraq, that Bush wouldn't have sold his wmd lies to the extent that he did without those told by the BC admin, which as the Kay report years later showed, they couldn't have been any more "certain" (as their various commnets were) than Bush was.

"We all got it wrong" he said, no? Well, I say they all lied -- at least in terms of the "certainty" -- and HC was likely aware of them.

And she will of course be standing in the way of single-payer, won't she?

[Scootaloo]

35. As will a sellout president with a Republican house and senate.

Compromise after compromise after compromise after compromise, all to create the look of "gettign thigns done" and "making warm purple sauce."

As far ground wars in the middle East?

Clinton
• Voted and further endorsed the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq
• Voted AGAINST the Levin Amendment which would have required rigorous diplomatic efforts, and a congressional vote for war.
• Endorsed Senator McCan's foreign policy over Obama's during the '08 campaign. McCain's centerpiece was "bomb, bomb Iran."
• Voted FOR Kyl-Lieberman, an amendment - an amendment so over the top that even Jim Webb thought it was crazy
• Threatened to obliterate Iran
• Considers Iran her "best enemy"
• Advocates a no-fly zone in Syria, an act that would have to be unilateral and could lead to open conflict with Russia. The president OPPOSED this idea.
• Got a severe case of the giggles when talking about the murder and mutilation of an Arab nation's leader, and the subsequent chaos that resulted.

Tell me again how she's going to keep us out of wars in the middle east, and try to be convincing.

[tex-wyo-dem]

52. ^^^^ This! ^^^^

[bigbrother05]

56. And a lock on SCOTUS for a generation or longer

[7962]

84. They'd likely bitch and moan about each other and never get anything done!! nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

17. I am going to vote for the best candidate in the General election to represent my interests.

Having looked at all the possibilities, that will not be a Republican.

[Dawson Leery]

18. Needs to be repeated:

Theresa, was dead right when she said in 2004: "they want 4 more years of hell", and that's what we got in bundles.

I will fully support the Democratic nominee when the time comes.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Mine would be if I voted for her.

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” ― Thomas Paine

[JRLeft]

22. Mine is, it's a about the Republican is worse.

[Maedhros]

24. Not "lesser", just "differently flavored." [n/t]

[Hepburn]

25. Mine would be. n/t

[azurnoir]

29. Mine will be if she gets the nomination that is

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

33. What ever gets you through the night

Myself it's the lessor of 2 evils so I won't be voting for HRC I have to live with myself.

[840high]

57. Same here. I'm tired

of voting against. I want to proudly cast a vote for a candidate I admire and respect. Hillary is not it.

[DirtyHippyBastard]

45. +1. nm

[stupidicus]

37. well, goody. Then if you have the time, pack up the wife and kids

and go Laos and assorted places and pick up what's left of those cluster bombs that your political grandma loves so much...

[Vincardog]

38. I'm voting for a path radically different than the path that we're on. The continuation

Or status quo leads to the same fascist hell.

The choice before us is Bernie and real change or HRC and continue down the rabbit hole.
I say"
Hell no Hillary won't deliver the change we need."

[DrBulldog]

41. You missed the big point.

If Hillary gets nominated, the progress of this country won't ever amount to much. She will probably win the general, although likely not by much, but both houses of Congress will remain firmly within Republican control. Why? Because the 75,000,000 millennials in this country will not only NOT vote for her but also they will mostly NOT vote at all! Thus she will sit on her butt in the Oval Office for four years doing NOTHING.

Bernie has already the support and the EXCITEMENT of 2/3 of these millennials. Do I really need to explain the probable consequences of that for the next four years if he gets nominated?

[jalan48]

42. I wish the path we are on didn't include the big, secretive trade agreements.

[raindaddy]

43. Evil's a strong word. Let's just say social issues aside you'll be voting for a continuation

of the current economic class war being waged against the poor and middle class.

[Maedhros]

67. That's the best way to put it. [n/t]

[modestybl]

44. Hillary Clinton failed her two most important tests...

... she set back any talk of reforming healthcare by her disastrous leadership in 1993, and she set the country back decades by not standing up against the Bush admin's ruinous war. All of the email and Banghazi nonsense has worked to her in advantage, apart from the Repub clown car antics, in that she and the Obama admin have never answered for why they thought overthrowing another despot in another Arab country was a good idea.

She is protecting the banks, and she will be protecting the oligarchs... she might extract some concessions as window dressing... her admin won't be racist or sexist or homophobic, but the middle class will be woefully underserved economically ... which only exacerbates all of the other social issues.

It will be a very depressing GE if she is the nominee...

[7962]

90. She protected someone else too.

[cantbeserious]

47. Absolutely It Is - Both Parties Wish To Field Corporate Backed Candidates - Corporations Are Evil

By Definition.

[Android3.14]

49. I applaud your naivete

We will still be in an endless cycle of war, and the ruch (along with Clinton) will get richer on the backs of regular folks.

[MisterP]

50. so we have to fight Iraq, torture impunity, and neoliberalism with someone who backs

Iraq, torture impunity, and neoliberalism?

how's that even the lesser evil?

[angrychair]

51. If that happens

HRC is our general election candidate, I will vote for her.

Would I rather vote for Bernie Sanders? YES

Bernie is the only canidiate that said climate change was our country's greatest enemy in the 1st debate (For the record, HRC said "Iran" the people we have a newly minted treaty with)

Bernie is the only one I believe is truely committed to addressing income inequality issues and an out-of-control wall street (HRC will not bring back Glass-Steagall)

Bernie is the only one I believe is truely committed to campaign finance reform (has convinced no one she is really interested in overturning Citizens United-12 SuperPACs speak volumes).

Bernie is the only one I believe is truely committed to addressing the student loan crisis (HRC's idea of just cutting interest rates is fucking insulting and will do nothing to fix the issue) and do away with college tuition.

Bernie is the only one I believe is truely committed to increasing the tax burden on the super-wealthy and yes it will likely increase mine as well.

So would it be a "lesser of 2 evils" vote? I wouldn't call it that but it is a vote that I would not enjoy casting. As a life-long Democrat I just don't get the feeling she honestly and truely cares about me as lower middle class American and considering only 17% of her donations are from individuals contributing $200 or less, neither do most of my peers.
She has my vote if she is the general election Democratic candidate, if she wants it with a smile, she has a lot more work to do.

[Sheepshank]

53. Well reasoned...good job

of course your reasons are not valid or worth anything unless they fall in line with the militant reasoning of some Bernie supporters...so there is that

my suggestion.... don't underestimate your own personal perspective and view, in favor of a negative nellie anon person on the interwebs. lol

[JoePhilly]

54. You generated lots of angry responses from the ...

... DU's Combustible Hair Club.

And DU's ... OBAMA BAD OBAMA BAD OBAMA BAD Chorus.

And DU's ... self appointed High Priests of Liberalism.

And DU's ... perpetually disgruntled congregation.

The fact that you dare to question their analysis of why you are supporting Clinton, has upset them greatly.

Well done.

[SoapBox]

55. I will NOT vote for her.

I will write in Bernie, if needed.

I will then change my registration in California to "Undeclared", after being registered as a Dem for my lifetime.

It's now, in my life, a matter of heart and principle.

She is just more Big Money, Billionaire, War Machine...she will not make change...and that is related to trust...I trust, she will not help the 99.99%.

Period.

[ffr]

70. Amen! x1000

I know exactly how you feel. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Any Democrat or Bernie (Ind) would be better and will get my vote. No one with an "R" by their name will get my vote for the foreseeable future. The GOP is that bad at governing, if not flat out corrupt, that I'll go to the added length of determining the political leanings of non-partisan candidates. Those who are liberal get my vote, those who are conservative don't.

Elections are not a joke to me and I vote!

THANK YOU!!

[Motown_Johnny]

73. So you are saying Hillary is the greater of the two evils?

That is really harsh.

[liberal_at_heart]

74. You are free to vote for whomever you chose and for whatever reason you chose. So am I, and

I will not vote for a continuation of the path we are on.

[Persondem]

75. Wonderful post!! Thank you. K & R nt

[artislife]

78. You settle for so little. nt

[restorefreedom]

79. i am voting against corporate owned candidates,

the continuation of the mic, and the distribution of wealth to the already obscenely wealthy.

[bowens43]

81. You may right , voting for hillary may not be voting for the lesser of the two evils....

'If it's Hillary, then I'm voting for a continuation of the path that we're on' and there in lies the problem. ' The path we are on is the CONTINUATION of the bush path

[Yavin4]

87. "The path we are on is the CONTINUATION of the bush path"

That is absolute bullshit. Dead wrong on its face.

[colsohlibgal]

88. Channeling Mclauglin

Wrong!!

She is in bed with Wall Street. She is in bed with the perpetual war machine and security state apparatus.


And healthcare? We still see charity events to raise money for cancer stricken individuals, so they can pay the exorbitant medical costs in this nation. All so some CEO of UHC or wherever can make 12 million a year - and for what?

I cannot do it anymore. If Hillary gets the nod I will vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party.

[TheKentuckian]

91. It's all been the same path at least since 1980 and my votes from here on are against that highway

to off the cliff.

A vote for Clinton is not some idiosyncratic one off nor a second step along any new golden path.

I've been warning for years and here we are so it is on y'all from here on out. You wants it? You gets it and whatever flavor we get, it is what it is but not with my help.

Four or five Presidential cycles ought to do it but whatever it takes to unstuck off stupid.
It is a damn shame but folks seem quite insistent so a decade or two of the uncut, straight dope combined with basic survival instincts out to shake sleepers from their slumber.

Whatever happens may well be in large part the future the Turd Way tolerant and sympathetic build. Who will these folks enable? If the signs hold we have no beachhead to hold back the forces of ignorance and entropy. Forces where mitigation extends longevity and often plumbing deeper depths than would be swallowed quicker and from just the regressive party.

[WillyT]

92. So... Voting Out Of Fear ???

Better to go standing on your feet, then bowing on your knees.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

94. Fear is all that HRC has to run on now. The message is coming through loud and clear the proof

the almost daily loyalty oath posts by her supporters.

They are scared shitless.

[cantbeserious]

95. Scared Of Their Own Shadows It Would Seem - Whatever Happened To American Courage

eom

[Yavin4]

102. No fear. Common sense. I want the path that we're on to continue and improve.

I don't believe in the fairy tale that one person elected to president can just give a speech and everything we want as progressive will just magically appear. Progress takes time, energy, and effort. It requires control of the congress, the SCOTUS, and the presidency.

[RiverLover]

96. Endless war for corporate profit, privatization of public services (education, water, mail service,

prisons, etc), vilification of unionization, BigAg cancers & destruction of clean water & soil, & bees & birds, wall street self-regulating & writing their own rules in DC, BigOil continuing to kill sustainable life on earth.

That's what I would be voting for, whether it be Hillary or a rethug. Only with Hillary, she would call it "reaching across the aisle" and "getting things done."


....but she would be quite poised & sound very presidential while doing it all! That's what matters!

[Arugula Latte]

101. I have low expectations for a Hillary presidency, but at least the Supreme Court would be

presumably safeguarded from another Con addition.