I’m sure you are aware that Hillary’s V.P. pick, Tim Kaine was a civil rights attorney for 19 years.
Where would minorities, women, the disabled etc…be in America, if you did not historically and presently have people who investigated discrimination and litigated civil rights claims/violations in court.
Yet another reason to vote Clinton-Kaine 
in 2016.
So was Fred Phelps. Being a civil rights lawyers in the past doesn’t magically make you suddenly not racist now and forevermore.
Here is an example of why civil rights attorneys are and can be important.
In my opinion the following person was and will forever be, the greatest constitutional lawyer and civil rights attorney that has ever lived. Part of his greatness is that he was able to litigate, pursway and win cases before federal judges who were systematically and historically hostile to the human and civil rights of African-Americans.
It is great (if elected), we will have a Vice-President in Tim Kaine, that made a decision to serve 19 years as a civil rights attorney–not something that many attorneys will do.
Why (** *** ***) to vote for Hillary Clinton
Because of her Alt-Right (White Supremacists) speech this past Thursday in Reno, Nevada. Because she manifests the leadership and moral courage to call out the sexist, racist, bigoted, antisemitic and xenophobic rhetoric and actions of Donald John Trump.
Now just in time for today’s Sunday political talk shows, comes a stinging and sterling rebuke of Donald Trumps racism and bigotry, from the editorial board of the Washington Post.
That was never my argument, Khepra.
What I’m saying is being a civil rights lawyer in the past is not a guarantee of being progressive in the present.
My point is, a lot of people talk the talk, but don’t fight the fight–on a grassroots level in the trenches. Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine are progressive and liberal.
,
You don’t get more progressive and liberal than serving as a civil rights attorney (Tim Kaine) for 19 years, because most lawyers, for lack of pay, simply won’t work as civil rights attorneys.
You don’t get more progressive and liberal than working undercover to bring discrimination to light (Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton), a hallmark strategy of the NAACP, that led to the accumulation of information and documentation, that allowed for successful litigation and the abolishment of Jim Crow laws.
I’ll just leave this here.
Being a avid Hillary Clinton supporter, her two extreme coughing episodes today (in Cleveland and later on her campaign plane talking to reporters), was sad to watch, difficult to watch-- and troubling. Hillary is not just coughing, but from a layman’s observation–facially appears to be in pain and distress.
Has Hillary’s absence from the campaign trail in the month of August, been the result of an onset and continued occurrence of the coughing episodes seen today?
Has Hillary been seeing a doctor for her extreme coughing episodes, which to my knowledge surfaced as early as February of 2016?
Why is she experiencing these continued occurrences of extreme coughing?
The 2016 presidential election will be close to begin with–a continuation of today’s extreme coughing episodes by Hillary could result in the election of Donald Trump. If a extreme coughing episode were to occur during the 1st presidential debate-- the optics could prove to be politically devastating.
This 2016 presidential election is more important than any one person. Hillary can win the 2016 presidential election, but a continuation of today’s troubling and extreme coughing episodes, will have to trigger a stark conversation between the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party–a stark conversation before early voting begins in Wisconsin on September 26th.
… Both the Republican and the Democratic parties have rules in their bylaws governing how to fill the vacancy. The Party Chair calls a meeting of the National Committee, and the Committee members at the meeting vote to fill the vacancy on the ticket. A candidate must receive a majority of the votes to win the party’s nod.
The same process would happen if the vacancy were to occur after the general election but before the Electoral College meets to vote. If a vacancy should occur on the winning ticket, it would then be the party’s responsibility to fill it and provide a candidate for whom their electors could vote…
Why (** *** ***) to vote for Hillary Clinton
The Dallas Morning News has not endorsed a Democrat for president since before World War II. Nearly 20 elections have come and gone since then and the paper has stuck with the Republican nominee in every one of them, its editorial board notes, saying the party more closely shares its values of free markets and strong national defense…
…Donald “Trump’s values are hostile to conservatism,” the editorial board wrote. “He plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best. His serial shifts on fundamental issues reveal an astounding absence of preparedness. And his improvisational insults and midnight tweets exhibit a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control.”…
The 2016 presidential election will be close-- and every vote will count. Could that be especially true in Texas!!! 
…To say the result is surprising is an understatement. The Lone Star State has sided with the Republican nominee in presidential elections for 40 years. In the past four elections, Texas has been one of the worst performing states for the Democrats:…
Texas becoming a blue state will forever change the electoral college in favor of future democratic presidential nominees. Texas behind only California, has the second highest number of electoral votes among states–with 38. With its changing and increasing minority demographic, Texas will eventually flip into the democratic column. However, as far as the 2016 presidential election is concerned:
If only wishes could come true. 
Nothing wrong with wishing on a “Lone Star”–it is good for the soul. 
There’s been a pneumonia going around the 60+ population in the past month. I’d guess maybe that.
My friend the professional Democrat says “Dank buds, man, dank buds.”
Finally!! In time for the lead up to–and actual first 2016 Presidential Debate.
Some great news on the improvement in median incomes; the result of the economic policies of democrats under the leadership of President Obama. Successful economic policies (regarding median incomes), that reached a peak of $57,909 during the presidency of Bill Clinton–and economic policies that will continue under the 45th President of the United States, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americans-got-raise-last-first-144054438.html
…“It’s really a broad, broad increase in median incomes, and one of the largest increases… that we’ve ever had,” said Trudi Renwick, assistant division chief at Census.
Median incomes picked up in all regions of the United States, across all age groups, and for most ethnic and racial groups, she said…
…The proportion of Americans in poverty also fell sharply last year, to 13.5 percent from nearly 14.8 percent. That is the largest decline in poverty since 1999. There were 43.1 million people in poverty last year, 3.5 million fewer than in 2014…
…Americans are also likely benefiting from an increase in middle-income jobs. Many of the jobs created in the early years of the recovery have been in low-paying sectors, such as fast food restaurants and retail.
But according to a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, in 2014 and 2015 the growth of middle-income jobs in sectors such as shipping and construction outpaced the gains in lower-paying and higher-paying work…
The DNC leaks proved me right on that. Also, you don’t know corporatists like I know corporatists. The corporatists within the DNC would rather have any Republican in power than someone like Bernie Sanders. It’s about the money.
Can you point me to where in the leaked emails or anywhere else someone in the DNC or Clinton campaign says they “would prefer Trump to Sanders”?
The DNC knew that Bernie was the better candidate against Trump:
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6216
Yet they actively colluded with the corporate media (that’s extremely friendly to mutual Republican corporatist causes) to thwart Bernie Sanders.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/03/leaked-dnc-emails-confirm-anti-sanders-conspiracy/
The DNC actively set up a true progressive for failure as best they could and the actions even continue to this day AFTER the primary.
Also, the leaks show pay-for-play collusion with corporatists such as Julius Genachowski with heavy ties to the Carlyle Group (who is in bed with defense contractors).
Look through the leaks and look up the pay-to-play DNC donors.
You really think most of these corporatists would rather have Bernie Sanders in office than any Republican that would keep their status quo profits safely squirreled away for them?
You’re falling for the corporatists trick where you think top Republicans and top Democrats despise each other. The top people in both parties are working for the same corporatist team.
Don’t believe me? Watch all the war and death (in the name of profits) Hillary will lead us into after she’s elected. I’ll be voting for Hillary, but I have no illusions that the corporatists would rather have any Republican (including Hillary or even Trump) in office than a true progressive like Bernie Sanders who would begin dismantling their profitable power structures.
That email is a forward of a NY Daily News opinion piece “in case you missed it,” not someone agreeing with the opinion.
My assertion was that the DNC would rather have Sanders than Trump or any other GOP candidate, and I explained why I thought that. You claimed to have evidence to the contrary, but your post doesn’t contain any. The emails revealed what we already knew, that the DNC deck was stacked in Clinton’s favor, but that is very much not the same thing as preferring Trump or even a Bush or Romney to Sanders.
It shows they were aware of the fact that Bernie was a better choice against Trump. You can pretend otherwise if you’d like.
Look, if you don’t see evidence of DNC and RNC collusion for corporatist agendas by now, you never will, I suppose. However, in case you’re not suffering from cognitive dissonance, here’s yet even more evidence to support my suppositions:
My post did, but you’re choosing to ignore it. I suppose you think all those Wall Street donors are just itching to see someone like Sanders in the executive office. So we’ll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose.
http://web02.gonzaga.edu/comltheses/proquestftp/McCloy_gonzaga_0736M_10210.pdf
It shows they were aware of someone expressing that opinion, which is a different thing than believing it. I don’t know what the various figures actually believed. Maybe there’s an email in that trove that actually expresses a position, but since I don’t really care, I’m not going to dig to see if there’s actual evidence rather believing that insinuation because someone read an opinion pice that they agreed with it.
I’m sure they were aware of the early polls, but I have no idea what they actually thought.
Why are you bringing this up? I neither said or implied anything on the topic. For the record, I believe the DNC to be swamped with DLC corporatist stooges, I can’t stomach the DLC, voted against Clinton and for Sanders in part because she’s a DLC poster child, and am only voting for Clinton because there’s no better choice in a winner-take-all election between her and Trump.
