Those were her values in August last year! What use is that?
12 Likes
What amazes me is that everyone seems to be concentrating on what little legislative influence the head of the executive branch has in this discussion, as the Republicans have shown us how much they are willing to obstruct in congress. And yet, no one really notices that the next president will most likely nominate the replacements for Scalia, Ginsberg and Thomas. That is a big deal. And that is why we need both a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in the Senate.
2 Likes
That was specifically my point. Oh yours, indeed.
You seem to think so, but Thomas isnât so old, Scalia could probably pull another decade out of his ass by sheer will and anger alone, and both were appointed by the forebears of the current GOP crop.
Ginsburg may well be replaced, but the decision is hardly the Presidentâs alone and if the GOP does capture the Oval Office there is a goodly chance that change will be had in the legislative branch.
Sanders appointments would be genuinely interesting IMO and honestly if Clinton appoints people who think the way she and her .01% friends do weâre no better off.
But yes yes be afraid be afraid
1 Like
I said âvaluesâ, not campaign talking points.
Her values are exemplified by what sheâs actually done over the last few years.
1 Like
Then Get Out There & Vote. And make sure others do, as well.
1 Like
Totally with you on this. Just wanted to vent for a sec beforehandâŚ
5 Likes
But with Clinton in office, you wonât be getting a Democratic controlled Senate or House.
Bernieâs grassroots revolution is the only way to overcome the Republican gerrymander. Turnout is key.
6 Likes
In response to those arguing here, for strategic votes cast for Clinton - [on the basis of her allegedly higher likelihood of victory]. This premise and itâs basic assumptions are flawed. Current polls are showing greater support and enthusiasm in regards to Sanders - but you shouldnât assume that it follows that these supporters would default to Clinton. She represents everything that motivates the supposed apathy and lack of engagement that characterized âGeneration Xâ's departure from politics. (Think about it - if you were born anytime since the late 70âs/early 80âs, by now there has been either a Bush or Clinton in the Presidency or Vice Presidency for pretty much oneâs entire life - (save for the last 7 years)). Alternatively - Sanders is harkening to a very different tradition - in fact it is the one that laid the groundwork for the prosperity that allowed that generation to temporarily ignore politics ⌠a mistake which we are now aiming to correct.
4 Likes
And superdelegates.
Yeah really. Itâs so bizarre.
Still bitter re* Bush v Gore*, (2000). Extra bizarre, that.
3 Likes
Not sure if you would include my comments in response to those arguing for a strategic Clinton vote - Iâve been arguing that if you like Sanders, vote Sanders in the primaries - if he doesnât win the nomination and doesnât run as an independet, you should vote Clinton though.
My issue is this:[quote=âaudaxaxon, post:78, topic:72187â]
Current polls are showing greater support and enthusiasm in regards to Sanders - but you shouldnât assume that it follows that these supporters would default to Clinton
[/quote]
because most of the current polls have Clinton ahead in Iowa, while Sanders is leading in New Hampshire: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new-hampshire-democratic/#polls-only
What ultimately happens in Iowa may affect what happens in New Hampshire.
Also, nationally, Clinton leads by a wide albeit narrowing margin: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
The polls do indeed show that Sanders has a âbetterâ shot at beating Trump - however, I think itâs more likely the Republicans nominate a more anodyne candidate like Bush, Rubio or even Cruz. So Sandersâ electability vs. Trump doesnât matter much.
I donât have a vote. If I did, I would vote Sanders in the primary. I think his likelihood of winning the nomination - although improving - is being overblown at this point though.
Oh, I donât see much âhysteriaâ. The problem of ISIL is real, or havenât you been keeping up on how many wannabe terrorists the authorities have already arrested? Would you like more people moving to this country who would rather live under Sharia law, than under the Constitution, and Bill of Rights? I certainly donât. For some reason, I donât like these Evil bastards who would like to come here and blow people up, get a kick out of raping âinfidelâ women, and force us to live by Sharia law. I donât like that there are already people here who would rather live by Sharia, than our Constitution.
That is not a good thing for our Representative Republic.
Thereâs a lot of it.
In comparison with the other day by day threats, the ISIS-related risks we are exposed to are minuscule, at the level of being hit by a lightning or bit by a disease-vectoring mosquito in temperate areas, maybe even lower.
You may like to watch less Faux News. PBS is a decent alternative if you want to really know more.
1 Like
Appreciate the sentiment, (and might begrudgingly vote Clinton if she were to win the primary) - but I personally fear that outcome could give a Democrat a lower likelihood of winning the election. What we are seeing right now, in terms of energy for both Sanders and Trump (unfortunately) - is a rejection of the (any) establishment. From where I sit, I honestly think that Sanders has the possibility of energizing a wider base. Many of the under 45 generation would rather sit at home than vote for another insider to the corrupt system that has been bleeding this country for the last 30+ years. The grass roots up-swell that is building right now is a long time in the making.
3 Likes
âBernie Sanders is the only candidate in either party with a net-positive favorability ratingâ
2 Likes
First of all, I donât watch âFauxâ news. And I still donât know what you mean by âhysteriaâ. You stated, there is a lot of it? Well, I listen to all kinds of radio every day, and I donât hear a lot of âhysteriaâ. Maybe YOU do, but, if there is âhysteriaâ, my point is, terrorism is still a serious issue, âhysteriaâ, or not. Sure, itâs more likely to get killed in a car accident and all, but that doesnât mean we should be lax on protecting ourselves from terrorist Jihad threats. The actions ISIL and others want to perpetrate are nothing to sneeze at.
What they actually manage to perpetrate is quite laughable.
And the overreactions they cause with their piddly kill score would be comical if not for taking our freedoms away. Thanks to people like you I now have to go through hurdles to get my favorite circuitboard etchant.
I fear the fearmongers way WAY more than ISIS.
Besides, the politicos who diverted money into âsecurityâ instead of into improvements in health care killed more people than al-Qaida can dream of. That is whatâs truly scary.
8 Likes
