HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Politics & Government » Hillary Clinton (Group) » A question for the HRC gr...

Fri May 20, 2016, 10:34 AM

A question for the HRC group

Anyone who knows me on DU knows that I am, have been, and will continue to be a supporter of Hillary Clinton. In another thread, I posted Robert Reich's call for Bernie Sanders supporters to support HRC while continuing their fight on other fronts. This led to a discussion with another poster named Seekthetruth, who (whom?) I thank for his/her feedback. The poster outlined conditions that s/he would need to see from Hillary to get his/her vote. I'd imagine that a higher level discussion along similar lines will take place between the two camps in order to get Sen. Sanders' endorsement. This is Seekthetruth's list, and I thought it seemed pretty representative of what I've seen other Sanders supporters express as wants/needs from a candidate. I'm curious:

What do you think of the list?
What has Hillary already agreed with?
What on here do you think could be open to discussion if Hillary wanted to win over Sanders supporters?
What is a non-starter?

- immediately give back any campaign contributions that she has received from various corporations that exist in the oil, pharmaceutical, and banking industries
- support a complete and total ban on fracking
- support a framework of moving to a single-payer healthcare infrastructure. Of course, keep the ACA....but move towards single-payer
- support revised Glass-Steagall act which prohibits the intermingling of commercial and investment banking
- support for cap and trade on CO2 emitters
- a pledge to overturn Citizens United, and support the complete end to SuperPACS, thus relying only on individual contributions for campaign funding. And to nominate SCOTUS Justices who support such policies
- gun reform (a given....I do agree with her positions on this)
- a pledge not to engage in further military action in any Mideast conflicts (unless we're directly attacked), and to support a policy of supporting other Mideast countries taking the lead to combat terrorism
- a $15 federal minimum wage
- Release of the speech transcripts

140 replies, 4690 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 140 replies Author Time Post
Reply A question for the HRC group (Original post)
Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 OP
jehop61 May 2016 #1
Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #10
TwilightZone May 2016 #12
Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #18
TwilightZone May 2016 #21
Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #23
TwilightZone May 2016 #29
LisaM May 2016 #61
sarae May 2016 #88
LisaM May 2016 #90
sarae May 2016 #94
Surya Gayatri May 2016 #101
all american girl May 2016 #97
LisaM May 2016 #100
all american girl May 2016 #112
BlueMTexpat May 2016 #139
nini May 2016 #2
Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #16
nini May 2016 #63
kerry-is-my-prez May 2016 #86
Surya Gayatri May 2016 #102
leftofcool May 2016 #3
TwilightZone May 2016 #4
Cha May 2016 #6
Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #20
TwilightZone May 2016 #22
Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #26
TwilightZone May 2016 #32
Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #44
procon May 2016 #48
Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #56
TwilightZone May 2016 #60
Cha May 2016 #129
TwilightZone May 2016 #137
Cha May 2016 #138
Koinos May 2016 #66
procon May 2016 #67
Koinos May 2016 #68
LisaM May 2016 #77
Koinos May 2016 #82
procon May 2016 #83
LisaM May 2016 #89
procon May 2016 #91
BobbyDrake May 2016 #53
Koinos May 2016 #70
ProudProgressiveNow May 2016 #80
Stand and Fight May 2016 #124
Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #140
DemonGoddess May 2016 #133
LisaM May 2016 #95
TwilightZone May 2016 #98
LAS14 May 2016 #113
yallerdawg May 2016 #5
romana May 2016 #7
fleabiscuit May 2016 #8
obamanut2012 May 2016 #9
romana May 2016 #13
TwilightZone May 2016 #17
Surya Gayatri May 2016 #106
TwilightZone May 2016 #11
Cha May 2016 #14
caquillo May 2016 #15
TwilightZone May 2016 #19
Koinos May 2016 #24
Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #28
TwilightZone May 2016 #33
Koinos May 2016 #64
Blanks May 2016 #72
skylucy May 2016 #49
Surya Gayatri May 2016 #107
KitSileya May 2016 #136
misterhighwasted May 2016 #25
TwilightZone May 2016 #37
misterhighwasted May 2016 #46
DLCWIdem May 2016 #84
misterhighwasted May 2016 #93
DLCWIdem May 2016 #99
misterhighwasted May 2016 #111
Thinkingabout May 2016 #132
johnp3907 May 2016 #27
WI_DEM May 2016 #30
TwilightZone May 2016 #35
Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #40
LAS14 May 2016 #115
ismnotwasm May 2016 #31
KittyWampus May 2016 #41
ismnotwasm May 2016 #57
treestar May 2016 #45
fleabiscuit May 2016 #52
procon May 2016 #34
treestar May 2016 #43
beachbumbob May 2016 #36
KittyWampus May 2016 #38
treestar May 2016 #42
skylucy May 2016 #50
Thinkingabout May 2016 #134
Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #54
TwilightZone May 2016 #59
Pika78 May 2016 #69
DemonGoddess May 2016 #135
treestar May 2016 #39
MSMITH33156 May 2016 #47
BobbyDrake May 2016 #51
savalez May 2016 #62
TeamPooka May 2016 #104
fleabiscuit May 2016 #55
BootinUp May 2016 #58
liberal N proud May 2016 #65
TwilightZone May 2016 #71
Starry Messenger May 2016 #73
TwilightZone May 2016 #74
Starry Messenger May 2016 #76
TwilightZone May 2016 #78
Walk away May 2016 #75
bluestateguy May 2016 #79
MFM008 May 2016 #81
Her Sister May 2016 #85
Her Sister May 2016 #87
TwilightZone May 2016 #92
MirrorAshes May 2016 #96
1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #103
The_Casual_Observer May 2016 #105
Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #108
The_Casual_Observer May 2016 #114
TwilightZone May 2016 #118
CajunBlazer May 2016 #109
Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #117
texstad79 May 2016 #110
CajunBlazer May 2016 #116
TwilightZone May 2016 #119
Cha May 2016 #121
LAS14 May 2016 #120
jmowreader May 2016 #122
ucrdem May 2016 #123
Cha May 2016 #126
ucrdem May 2016 #128
Cha May 2016 #131
SunSeeker May 2016 #125
Cha May 2016 #127
OKNancy May 2016 #130

Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 10:42 AM

1. I think

Why would Hillary Clinton parrot Sanders talking points when her own are just fine and supportable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #1)

Fri May 20, 2016, 10:59 AM

10. I'm just looking to see where, if anywhere, there could be common ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #10)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:01 AM

12. Almost all of the ground is already common. The differences are overblown by DU Sanders supporters.

And the candidate himself.

In the real world, they voted together nearly all of the time.

In the real world, 72% of Sanders supporters have already said they would vote for Hillary in November, and Sanders hasn't even dropped out yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #12)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:10 AM

18. And that point about voting together nearly all the time needs to be emphasized

...as we run up to the convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #18)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:16 AM

21. Most people already know. It's the ones who are being intentionally obtuse that don't.

If you asked the average voter where Clinton and Sanders are on the issues, they would have a hard time coming up with any major differences.

Not that there aren't any. It's just that there are many more issues where they agree than ones where they don't. Some of the ones they don't - like free college, for example - are differences in interpretation of reality more than just differences in policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #21)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:28 AM

23. A lot of it is tone

Sanders' "Rigged Economy" line appeals to a certain segment of the voter base.

Some of it is a belief that all banks and all corporations are evil. The truth is that Ben & Jerry (Sanders supporters) sold their highly successful ice cream company t Unilever (a big evil corporation) and are very wealthy as a result. Yet somehow they are good, and an endorsement from Warren Buffett (lifelong Dem) is bad. The corporate media is bad, until FOX News invites Senator Sanders to a debate, or a FOX News poll has him doing better against Trump than Hillary.

However, (and I can't remember where I saw it), IIRC, Sanders and Clinton are in agreement on like 85% of issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #23)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:36 AM

29. Their outrage is highly selective, which makes it difficult to take them seriously

They rail against the military industrial complex, but it's ok that Sanders got a ton of money for VT from Lockheed Martin.

They rail against Hillary's Iraq resolution vote, but it's ok that Sanders approved regime change in Iraq twice and has voted for just about every other bill involving military involvement and escalation the past decade and a half.

As you noted, they rail against the MSM except when Fox News releases a poll they like or invites their candidate to a debate.

They rail against the right-wing media, then use the Blaze and Fox News as sources.

They applaud threats of violence against women, children, and other family members, as long as the targets are Hillary supporters.

They demand that the will of the people be heard, then bitch when the will of the people couldn't be overturned by mob rule in NV.

All of that being said, I think a lot of Sanders "supporters" on DU are right-wingers and libertarians posing as progressives. Some of the trolls are obvious; some of them are pretty good at faking it. A couple of the best have 100k+ and 150k+ posts and have been here for a decade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #29)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:37 PM

61. This, so much this.

I am tired of being painted as a conservative myself. I'm not one, and neither is Hillary Clinton. I don't like fracking either, but people seem to enjoy the energy independence that's come with it - and Hillary talks about clean energy more than any other candidate and takes Germany as a model (and Germany has done amazing things lately), so I believe she would be able to move us away from oil dependence and fracking more quickly than any other candidate.

I think an immediate jump to a national $15 minimum wage is a bad idea because it will kill a lot of small businesses, favor chains (who will pay the wage, but skimp on the number of employees - Wendy's is already looking into a robot workforce), but I do support an increased minimum wage. I think it's terrible that it's been stagnant as long as it has, but a mom and pop grocery in Small Town, Main Street America might not be able to handle the jump.

I could go on with this, but you get the drift. I think the list of demands is also beyond arrogant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #61)

Fri May 20, 2016, 02:17 PM

88. Me too

So sick of the Republican Lite label, when it couldn't be further from the truth. If anyone's Repub Lite, it's Bernie – he's the one risking our chances for a win in November. We're on a precipice and he doesn't seem to care.

Since when does being progressive mean being completely impractical? How progressive can you possibly be when your proposals are so wildly unrealistic that they don't have a chance of passing? I'd rather throw my support behind the candidate I know will enact change. I don't want good to be the enemy of perfect, and I definitely don't want to endure 4 years of stagnation and gridlock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarae (Reply #88)

Fri May 20, 2016, 02:47 PM

90. They're also not really "proposals"

When confronted with the question of how he was going to actually break up banks (during the New York Daily News interview), Sanders went completely to pieces. He had no answer.

And that's just one example. He can't address any issue, not one, without bringing up income inequality, and I can give you two examples of that off the top of my head. The first was when Donald Trump made the ridiculous statement that women should be punished for having abortions and Rachel Maddow asked Sanders about it. He talked about the remark very briefly, but then said right in the same interview, "can we please move past that and talk about what really matters, income inequality?" The second example was in a piece I read here yesterday about a disabled person who had switched from Bernie to Hillary based on their plans to help disabled people. Hillary's plan was much more concrete and laid out (and among other things, it actually existed). In the response the Bernie people gave her, it said that if income inequality was addressed, that would by extension help the disabled. That's all he's got, he's got no actual plan to close the gap in income inequality, and I don't consider his ideas proposals!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #90)

Fri May 20, 2016, 03:43 PM

94. good point

It's an insult to voters to dismiss them like that when they ask for more info, and it's clear that his priorities don't include women, or anyone who doesn't care exclusively about "revolution" and "tearing down Wall Street". He's incredibly single-minded, and it's ridiculous for him to always respond with "income equality will fix everything", especially when he can't even explain how he'll achieve it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarae (Reply #94)

Fri May 20, 2016, 04:45 PM

101. +100!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #61)

Fri May 20, 2016, 04:04 PM

97. I think some of these people don't really know republicans and conservatives

My husband is in the Army, and we have been married for over 25 years...during the Clinton era, the officers HATED Clinton. I got to live through all that. Hillary is not republican lite, nor was Bill.

I'm not a fan of fracking, but I get why some communities like it. You talk about Germany, I live in outside Brussels, and have driven to Germany many times, they have so many solar panels...and where I lived in Germany a few moons ago, they had windmills where I lived. Germany makes so much energy from clean energy that they at times pay people to use it. Know, I will admit, that living over here, you do use electricity a bit different...such as, I hardly ever use my dryer...I hang clothes up to dry...a savings. But here if you use the dryer and wash from about 5:00 pm to 8:00 am it's cheaper on the electric bill. I make sure all lights are off...stupid things like that. It's Europe, and even though they've made great strides, it's still pricey.

I'm with you on the support of raising minimum wage, and like you, we have to do it in increments...such a bad word. Most of our businesses are small businesses, they just simply can't afford it. They would have to raise prices, and that's fine, but too much of a hike at one time would mean that only big corps could handle it.

And the whole middle east thing...no getting involved...again, I will defer to my husband who has experience in all this...you cannot tie the hands of the president when you have no idea what the future holds. I don't want us there, but I'm not naive to think we won't be doing something. I'm just not dumb. I'm 50, and we have always had to deal with shit there...it's not going to change. I'm also a person who thinks we should help...that's just me

Lisa M...we have the same name, so I feel a kinder spirit you are soooooo good and thoughtful

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to all american girl (Reply #97)

Fri May 20, 2016, 04:43 PM

100. Aww, thanks! Same to you!

I remember sitting next to a serviceman on a plane once when Bill Clinton was in office (he wasn't an officer) and he told me he loved having Clinton as president because there were no wars and he'd gotten three pay raises!

Europeans are much more discriminating about energy use - I've only been over there once, but there were things like the lights in the hotel were on a timer, everyone hung out laundry, etc. I'm in an apartment so I can't really do that but our complex is LEED certified so there are lots of energy saving things.

I don't think the people who want a giant increase in the minimum wage all at once would like the world of chain stores that will follow in the wake of that. Another thing is - maybe we should try to steer the economy so that McDonalds' employees are not depending on a fast food job to raise a family. That's another piece of the puzzle that's being left out. I think places like McDonald's originally meant for their jobs to be the kind of thing a high school kid would do for a few hours a day or in the summer (I worked there as a teenager and I actually had fun doing it). I'm not sure what the fix is there, but of course someone who's trying to support a family needs a $15 hour job - I just don't know that the job should be in a fast food restaurant. I understand that's the current reality, but I'd like to get to the source of that problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #100)

Fri May 20, 2016, 05:21 PM

112. Lisa (my name sake, because I have a feeling I might be older)


In the Clinton days, and my husband being an officer, the POC seem to love him...white dudes, not so much. I love the Berners hating on don't ask don't tell...they have no idea what the military was like back the...and Bill ran on letting gays service openly...we all knew someone who was gay, and they got out, and they were good. As someone who has seen this life, if tired of the Berners complaining about things they don't know.

I love living in Europe, but it's not what the Berner's think it is...I could go more into it, but I've had a few beers..so there's that

I worked at Wendy's a as high schooler and older...loved it, not a job I would want as a 50 year old...funny thing, would love going back to being a waitress. I think that was the most favorite I every had (and I had a great time working at Wendy's)...I love being around people.

I think we all need to realize that we are not in the 1950's with factory jobs (and they all weren't the best). Since the 1980's, when I got my first real job, things were changing, but we didn't want to see it. I remember everyone thinking that a lot of jobs were going to temp jobs...1980's....OK I just went back to the 80's.... now I'm singing in my head Genius, with the puppets..world we live in.

So sorry for my rambling...beers...night for me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #1)

Sat May 21, 2016, 12:10 PM

139. + a million! eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 10:45 AM

2. Those types will never go for Hillary

She could tell them every last thing they'd want to hear and they still wouldn't belive it, then they'd find something else to demand of her..

They keep moving the goal posts and seem to have this idea that they're going to find one pure candidate -even Sanders can't give them that with some of the things he has done.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nini (Reply #2)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:05 AM

16. Let me cite Cap & Trade as an example

(and let me say I'm not picking on Seekthetruth, who answered my question graciously)

I personally don't think any Cap & Trade proposal could get through Congress. It's complicated; some think of it as system gaming; and it'd get hard core opposition in coal and gas states. However, I think there is a discussion to be had there. Could Hillary come out against fracking? Yes. Could she support sunsetting coal fired electrical plants and continuing the wind turbine tax breaks? Yes and yes. Could these also be combined with a Marshall Plan for WV, Western PA, and Eastern KY? They need to be.

My point is that there is room for discussion, or reemphasis of where Hillary and Sanders are already in agreement or near-agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #16)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:41 PM

63. Oh I agree we need to talk about all of those type things

However, I have zero confidence they will ever be satisfied because they seem to have no clue how Washington actually works.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nini (Reply #2)

Fri May 20, 2016, 02:06 PM

86. Yep

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nini (Reply #2)

Fri May 20, 2016, 04:50 PM

102. The definition of an ideologue:

 


They keep moving the goal posts and seem to have this idea that they're going to find one pure candidate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 10:46 AM

3. Those are Sanders positions.

Hillary does not need to make any concessions to win over anyone. They can vote for her or vote for Trump or not vote at all. Hillary will do what she can to get things through Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 10:47 AM

4. Losers don't set the agenda, and blackmail isn't terribly becoming

It's really not much more complicated than that.

According to a recent poll, 72% of Sanders supporters are already on board. This number will rise when Sanders drops out and endorses Hillary and will rise again as the rest of them contemplate the possibility of President Donald Trump.

Voters have chosen Hillary because they believe that she - and her stances on the issues - is the best option. They didn't choose her because they want her to capitulate to a Democrat of convenience who inexplicably seems to think he's still winning "the will of the people".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #4)

Fri May 20, 2016, 10:50 AM

6. Thank you, Twilight. Well put.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #4)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:14 AM

20. Objectively, his supporters are enthusiastic

You have to grant them that.

Losers may not set the agenda. This is true. But I'd like to win over some of that enthusiasm. I do think some will come over when it is clear Hillary is the nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #20)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:27 AM

22. Hillary has received more votes than Sanders or Trump. The enthusiasm gap is a myth

perpetuated by Sanders supporters.

"Our candidate can't get people to the polls, but we're sure enthusiastic!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #22)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:33 AM

26. I read RCP

Hillary is up 3 million + voters. That's not what I'm talking about.

I just did a driving trip from the Midwest to the East Coast. Bernie is winning the yard-sign and bumper sticker competition, and I see more Bernie t-shirts (yes - I sport a Hillary magnet on my vehicle). I see more pro-Sanders posts on Facebook. I'm not saying that makes him a better candidate -- Howard Dean had many of these qualities in 2004. I'm just saying his supporters are pretty fired up. That's partly a factor of age. His supporters skew younger -- it's simply a fact. Younger people also don't tend to show up reliably at the polls -- also a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #26)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:44 AM

32. "I'm just saying his supporters are pretty fired up. "

So are we, particularly after the bullshit in NV and Sanders' demand for concessions from the DNC after filing suit against them and publicly accusing them of laundering money.

Don't underestimate the enthusiasm for Hillary. Just because people aren't jumping up and down acting like imbeciles for her doesn't mean that people aren't ready to work hard to make sure she wins in November - and are doing exactly that. Like our candidate, we're more interested in getting the job done than spending every waking moment telling everyone how great and moralistic we all are.

13m votes for Hillary vs 10m votes for Sanders. In any other context, 3m votes is a blowout. Obama only won by 5m votes, with 5 times the total, and that was considered a fairly comfortable win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #32)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:54 AM

44. Fair point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #26)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:01 PM

48. Sure, young people buy t-shirts, but they don't reliably turn out to vote.

Buying T-shirts and planting yard signs only indicates that those people have time on their hands, nothing more. Its not an indication that victory is at hand or enthusiasm is winning the day, only that energy and discretionary funds were available for impulsive purchases.

Votes are the only reliable indicator of who is winning, and that would be Hillary, yeah?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #48)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:15 PM

56. I'd like all the help we can get in the GE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #56)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:22 PM

60. Appeasing the 5% who will never vote for her anyway by compromising on the things that led

people to Hillary in the first place would be misguided, at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #60)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:17 AM

129. Zactly. "Gallup: Clinton Supporters More Enthusiastic Than Sanders Supporters"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #129)

Sat May 21, 2016, 11:16 AM

137. Ha, another myth debunked.

Yes, Clinton voters are so unenthusiastic that they're out-voting Sanders voters by three million.

They just assumed that no one can be more enthusiastic than they are and always point to the big rallies. Means nothing if you can't get them to actually vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #137)

Sat May 21, 2016, 11:21 AM

138. It sure meant nothing in New York where Hillary won all 3 districts where BS

had his Big Expensive rallies.

We're so enthusiastic we get out to the polls.. burnie fans to rallies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #48)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:02 PM

66. Many of these young people didn't even make the effort to register and vote for Bernie.

How could they be expected to vote for Hillary?

The strongest and most reliable Democratic voting factions, PoC and the elderly, voted in strength for Hillary. And Sanders' outreach to PoC and the elderly was severely lacking.

We elderly could have used a bit more pandering, by the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koinos (Reply #66)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:05 PM

67. True dat... give us some love! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #67)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:12 PM

68. Not free college. But something free would be good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koinos (Reply #68)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:30 PM

77. Free community college, affordable four year colleges - yes!

I also think we need to get away from the four-year college model as the only path to a job. There are many jobs like being an electrician that are perfectly respectable, good-paying jobs and I think we need to encourage people to look at these fields.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #77)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:47 PM

82. Yeah, but I don't need dat school any more. And what counts is me, me, me.

We elderly have more complicated needs and wants, whatever they are (I forget).

How about free cable and free Netflix? And a free 4k 65 inch diagonal flat panel LED, with a full surround-sound setup and Blu-ray?

And a better couch? And all the beer and wine (exotic and foreign please) and popcorn we want?

And free gym membership to offset the sedentary non-activity cited above?

Maybe not. I don't like being pandered to, even if it never happened, so I don't know what it's like anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #77)

Fri May 20, 2016, 02:00 PM

83. It mystifies me why corporate planners aren't hooking up with

unions and community colleges to fund free training programs that produced the skilled workers they say they need. Seems like a win-win, and journeyman training could cover a wide range of skills from high tech to hands on, those would be marketable skillsets to could go any place in the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #83)

Fri May 20, 2016, 02:23 PM

89. I know. I don't get it either.

Part of the problem may be that these jobs don't appeal to younger people. I've read some of the stats and back when college was much more affordable, only 37% of people went to four-year schools. The rest went into jobs that didn't require degrees. Now, people are convinced that they all need four-year degrees and sure you do for certain types of jobs, but skilled training should really be considered on a par with a college degree. The 'free college" meme seems to me to be a mantra for (mostly white) people who want free tuition at prestigious four-year schools (forget about decent middle-level schools like Central Michigan, for example) and then want six-figure jobs afterwards. I went to a good school and I liked college a lot. I don't want to deny anyone else that experience. But I also attended on a mixture of scholarship money, help from my family, and yes, two loans that I had to pay back. And I never once expected that the world was going to hand me a job because of my English degree. I thought, instead, that the English degree would help me in whatever job I ended up getting. Which, by the way, it has.

But if the person who grew up next to me in my home town decided to be a plumber instead of going to college, I would hold that in high esteem because we can't really do without plumbers in this world, and yet I'm convinced that people increasingly disdain these careers. We spend time in the San Juan Islands and every year in May or June the small local paper does an issue devoted to the current graduating classes of the local high schools. They always ask what careers the graduates would like. It's a fascinating window into the minds of eighteen year olds. A huge number think they are going to change the world (they actually say this). They generally want to start their own companies, and they all are sure that life will hand them jobs that they love to do. Last year one of them had a stated goal of getting a degree in sports training and then becoming a personal trainer to Steph Curry (I laughed out loud at that one). And there is a small group every year on San Juan Island who state that they are going to do a two-year training as an apprentice in an electrician's program and my hunch is that these are the ones who are actually going to succeed in their chosen path.

I'm not trying to knock idealism and dreaming in the least. I love idealism, but I like it with a dose of practicality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #89)

Fri May 20, 2016, 03:09 PM

91. Idealism often confuses vocation and avocation.

Few people are lucky enough to find a career with both, so kids need to learn a marketable skill that will pay for all the other things they aspire to.

Many jobs don't need a formal classroom setting, just hands on to master their trade. There are plenty of private enterprises that offer training at a premium price, and they will be glad to give you a high interest loan too, so why aren't the same courses available for free or at cost through the public school sector?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #26)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:12 PM

53. Yard signs and bumper stickers aren't votes, though...

 

Maybe if the Sanders campaign had invested a little less in swag and kitsch like yard signs and bumper stickers, it would have had more money to spend on GOTV operations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BobbyDrake (Reply #53)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:14 PM

70. And if they had spent less on negative internet campaigning, and more on GOTV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #26)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:43 PM

80. I am very active on social media....

57.79 Klout score as of today. This is the only place I get political. I am tired of the ugly intramural wars. I will quietly go about my business and support/vote for Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #26)

Sat May 21, 2016, 04:30 AM

124. I'm a member of several Pro-Hillary groups on Facebook, Twitter, and other sites...

As you might also know, I was a NV Hillary delegate -- along with my wife -- last Saturday. Since we were there so long, I got to have some very interesting conversations with the very people whom you know are enthusiastic for Hillary. All of us agree -- save one brave soul that I bumped into while I was networking among the hundreds of delegates-- do not sport bump stickers on our cars or signs in our yards, because of a fear that Sanders and Trump people will rip them off or damage our personal property.

I've found this is also the case online with the groups I belong to, and most of those groups were created as a refuge -- like this very forum group -- for HRC supporters to be able to talk w/o the bullying so prevalent from that side. I know it's anecdotal, but so is your story of driving from the midwest to the east. I saw for myself first hand that some of the Berners are unhinged and anyone paying attention has heard the death threats to the NV Democratic Party Chairwoman, Roberta Lange, who is widely liked by most stalwart democrats in the state. A bumper sticker or yard sign could very well invite unneeded attention from zealots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stand and Fight (Reply #124)

Sun May 22, 2016, 04:14 PM

140. Which is why I have a Hillary magnet

...and I had Obama magnets in '08 and '12. You never know where you will have to park.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #26)

Sat May 21, 2016, 07:12 AM

133. Wasn't it a Republican that some

journalist was convinced would win because of yard signage and bumper stickers some years back?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #22)

Fri May 20, 2016, 03:54 PM

95. You've made me laugh twice in the same thread.

I am very enthusiastic about Hillary, but frankly, here in Seattle, I don't feel like telling anyone or wearing a button or t-shirt because I don't want to get harassed by Trump or Bernie people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #95)

Fri May 20, 2016, 04:06 PM

98. And, yet, they think the harrassment is helping. Go figure.

Sanders supporters have spent so much time shouting everyone down that those of us who support Hillary are mostly just bystanders. Not really by choice, but by circumstances. Plus, his campaign has imploded pretty efficiently largely without our help, so why get in the way? Meanwhile, we're quietly getting out and voting and preparing for the big event.

And they wonder why Elizabeth Warren and Jerry Brown (among others) haven't endorsed anyone yet. A) they know what they're doing, and B) why put up with the harassment? Showing a united front after the nomination is official is more important anyway, especially in a season as contentious as this one has been.

Really, the silent majority was never a more accurate term. Based on the media and the Sanders contingent, one would never know that she's out-vote-getting *both* of her opponents. As I said in the other post, a 3m vote lead in a 23m vote race would be a blowout in any other context. The media and the Sanders campaigns have done a masterful job of making people believe otherwise. Until now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #20)

Fri May 20, 2016, 05:21 PM

113. I agree!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 10:49 AM

5. With all due respect...

I think we'll stick with the Democratic nominee's agenda - the agenda that won the nomination.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 10:50 AM

7. Well

Wow, all that for one vote! What can Clinton expect in return for all this largess? Will they call her nasty, sexist names and lie about her only half as often as they did before? That seems like a totally fair trade.

They lost, and losers don't get to dictate terms. I'm sure Sanders is negotiating with the Clinton campaign, which is good, but she is not obligated to upend her policies in favor of his. It's petulant, entitled, and sexist to suggest she has to. Failure to compromise on anything is about as useful as cutting your nose off to spite your face. You're certainly welcome to do it if you want, but it doesn't mean it's noble or worthy of any respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 10:56 AM

8. Dang. Was doing 'business' in the bathroom when I read that list. I got all bound up.

That's a metaphor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 10:57 AM

9. I think that person has never had any intention to ever vote for Hillary

And, never would, no matter what.

I am not begging anyone to vote for Hillary. No one begged me to vote for Obama in 2008, and I didn't need to act like an ass and ask to be begged. I voted for him, because it was the right thing to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #9)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:01 AM

13. Yes

Perfect point is perfect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #9)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:08 AM

17. Agreed.

These clowns who keep demanding that we beg them to vote for Hillary are the leftover Ron Paul fans and the massive 0.3% that Jill Stein draws every election. We should just chalk them up for the other side and move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #9)

Fri May 20, 2016, 04:59 PM

106. ^^^This!^^^

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 10:59 AM

11. "a pledge to overturn Citizens United" - damn, some of these people are clueless

Who do they think CU was ABOUT, for heaven's sake?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #11)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:02 AM

14. They're burnie washed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:03 AM

15. Doesn't Sanders want to get rid of ACA and isn't really into gun reform?

So why aren't those counted as strikes against Sanders?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caquillo (Reply #15)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:11 AM

19. On the ACA, he'll just wave his magic finger, er, wand, and single-payer will appear.

On guns, we're just supposed to ignore that because he got a D- from the NRA or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:28 AM

24. Too many misunderstandings in this list. I will start with items that are out of place.

"Release of the speech transcripts"? That is a political demand, not a policy issue. It doesn't fit on the list.

"- immediately give back any campaign contributions that she has received from various corporations that exist in the oil, pharmaceutical, and banking industries" Clueless misunderstanding of how campaign contributions work. All candidates can legally accept direct contributions only from individuals who work for these corporations. SuperPACS are another matter. What do you not understand about the target of Citizens United, which opened the door for unlimited spending by superPACS?

How about a list for Sanders, since "political demands" were mixed in with policy positions:

Release the tax returns, for as many years as Clinton has submitted hers.

Answer the FEC letters; and return all illegal campaign donations, including donations by foreign interests.

Stop lying to your supporters about your campaign, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic party.

Stop lying to the American people.

Start attacking Donald Trump, our real opponent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koinos (Reply #24)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:35 AM

28. Both candidates should say that Citizens United is a SCOTUS litmus test

All Democrats should at least be able to agree on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #28)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:45 AM

33. They already have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #28)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:48 PM

64. Repealing Citizens United

Democrats could make this a party platform plank. I see no problem with that. I frankly do not believe that Hillary would oppose that. Applying litmus tests to Supreme Court candidates can be iffy, however. One would have to appoint candidates who appear likely to be fair about this issue, without making the candidate state, in the Senate approval process, how he or she would rule in a specific case.

However, repealing Citizens United may require more than a new Supreme Court. We may need an amendment to the constitution that denies "personhood" to corporations. The damage was begun, when the 14th amendment was interpreted by the Supreme Court in the nineteenth century to give the status of "personhood" to corporations. Corporations were deemed artificial persons, possessing many of the same constitutional rights as individual (living, breathing, and embodied) persons.

From the moment the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, lawyers for corporations — particularly railroad companies — wanted to use that 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection to make sure that the states didn't unequally treat corporations," Moglen says.

Nobody was talking about extending to corporations the right of free speech back then. What the railroads sought was equal treatment under state tax laws and things like that.

The Supreme Court extended that protection to corporations, and over time also extended some — but not all — of the rights guaranteed to individuals in the Bill of Rights. The court ruled that corporations don't have a right against self-incrimination, for instance, but are protected by the ban on warrantless search and seizure.


http://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution

Installing new Supreme Court justices who are more favorable to repealing Citizens United would help, but might not be sufficient. Reversing precedents would be difficult.

We also need a Democratic Congress (both houses) and a president who is energetic about pursuing this goal. We may have to wait for a while for that.

In our present campaign-spending environment, I cannot fault her for letting superPACs help her defeat the Republican disaster machine. But, once this election is over, I would very much like her to pursue vigorously campaign finance reform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #28)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:19 PM

72. The Supreme Court held that McCain-Feingold was a violation of free speech...

Congress needs to develop legislation that gets money out of politics without the supreme court interpreting it as a violation of free speech. IMO, the litmus test to overturn Citizen's United is as misguided as Roosevelt's 'hardening of the judicial arteries' plan (he wanted 15 supreme court justices). The Supreme Court appointment route is an unacceptable shortcut.

The supreme court shouldn't be charged with overturning a ruling that protected an individual freedom, congress needs to be the party that fixes that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koinos (Reply #24)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:02 PM

49. Best answer!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koinos (Reply #24)

Fri May 20, 2016, 05:04 PM

107. So good, I wish you'd re-post this as a separate OP.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koinos (Reply #24)

Sat May 21, 2016, 08:24 AM

136. You hit the nail on the head.

When their first demand is something that CANNOT be done by Hillary - firstly, she's forbidden to work with the Super PACs that can accept money from corporations - she'd be breaking the law, and secondly, why would she shut a group of individuals out of the political process just because of whom they work for? Perhaps all Bernie supporters who work for large corporations should also be banned from donating to Bernie? Is that what they want? That people who, often because of circumstances beyond their control, work for a set of "unacceptable" employers should not be allowed to support their chosen political candidates?

Their list starts with a demand that is so undemocratic it shows how unfit they are. Your list is much better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:28 AM

25. "support a complete and total ban on fracking "

When he OWNS his role in dumping VT's radioactive waste in Tx Sierra Blanca, does sanders ever have the right to damn toxic frack waste.

Brrnie Sanders voted to kill Sen Paul Wellstone's Ammendment that would have protected tge people of Sierra Blanca from VT toxic waste ala Jane Sanders board seating. She still collects $$$ from that VT board that Sanders pushed his Bill through, on behalf of GW Bush & his investor cronies.

Yes bernie, frack waste is a campaign position that gives you a great progressive image. HOWEVER, Sen Paul Wellstone was more of a true Progressive, it turns out, than you can ever lay claim to being.

I want to know how Sanders dare stump against toxic fracking when he clearly fought hard to dump VT's Radioactive waste in Sierra Blanca.

Answer that conflict first bernie, before you make any more swell sounding campaign year demands.

Yup. Talks outta both sides of his mouth, is correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #25)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:50 AM

37. My favorite BSS response about Sierra Blanca is "well, if Vermont had a desert, they would...

have just kept it there."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #37)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:58 AM

46. the guy is fubar

He has no answer. He doesn't give a shit about Sierra Blanca no more than he cares about frack waste. But since its an election year , he has to say things .


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #25)

Fri May 20, 2016, 02:02 PM

84. sorry I have to say something

Yes, Sanders pulled for the dumping in Sierra Blanca but there was no dumping because the town fought it and won through no help from Sanders, and of course that three state pact still exists so they could dump in another poor area of Texas. But there were lots of lawyers involved who fought against and forgetting that they won in the end, does them a disservice. Sanders did indeed fight Wellstone and strip Wellstone's environmental racism provisions out of the amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DLCWIdem (Reply #84)

Fri May 20, 2016, 03:39 PM

93. It was an election yr & GW scuttled the project cuz he needed the Latino votes in Tx

Following his election win, GW's investor built another waste dump site not far from Sierra Blanca. In the Senate, it was Bernie Sanders who introduced & quickly pushed for its passage, the same bill to allow VT dumping to move forward.

Sanders aided GW & his Tx investor in getting the second dump site approved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #93)

Fri May 20, 2016, 04:17 PM

99. I didn't know that tney selected a new site I knew they could because of the pact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DLCWIdem (Reply #99)

Fri May 20, 2016, 05:19 PM

111. Harold Simmons was the investor & also a GOP Mega Donor.

I believe the scuttled site was moved across the county line from Sierra Blanca to Andrews county tx. Its sick that Sanders would come to do the dirty work in the Senate for GW Bush & Simmons.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DLCWIdem (Reply #84)

Sat May 21, 2016, 07:06 AM

132. And now Jane is on the board, talk about influence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:34 AM

27. No.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:36 AM

30. Some concessions will be made but I doubt if this is what "seek the truth" is wanting

in total to get their support we will probably have to do without his/her vote. On many issues HRC and BS are in agreement and in others I'm sure that HRC will make concessions. (For instance, I think she already, like President Obama, wants Citizen United overturned. They are very close on the minimum wage. She is to the left of Sanders already on guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Reply #30)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:46 AM

35. He could get everything on the list...

and he's still not going to vote for her. He'd just come up with some other excuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Reply #30)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:52 AM

40. I want to reempasize that I'm not hating on the poster

I asked a question. The poster answered. I'm grateful.

Dialogue and compromise seem to have become bad words in American politics, and as a result, nothing gets done.

I agree 100% - minimum wage and guns are areas where there should not be an issue. I also think climate is an area in which we can find broad agreement.

As I said upthread, when we talk about climate, we also need to talk about what we are going to do for WV, KY, and PA. These areas of the country should be voting for us, but they are going deep red. Guns are part of it, but the main reason is that every discussion on carbon reduction is a discussion about the destruction of their economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #40)

Fri May 20, 2016, 05:25 PM

115. I support all your posts in this thread, Algernon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:37 AM

31. The first non-starter is the speech transcripts

The fact that even on the list negates any validity it might otherwise have.

The second is the "return" of campaign contributions--it implies Hillary has done something wrong or illegal, and she has not. I call bullshit.

The Citizens United one evolved from annoying woo, as it came into being as an attack against Hillary, and Hillary already supports repeal.

Most of the rest of the list is coached in the same way, an ultimatum and the implications that Hillary is corrupt.
Gun reform goes without saying for any candidate.

I am fine with Hillary's minimum wage plan.

People appeantly have zero clues about what Glass-Steagall did, as well as what it did and did not prevent. A kind of rallying cry for the economically ignorant, but fine--improve it and bring it back.

Actual conversations could be had about healthcare--do we want to evolve into single payer or universal healthcare? CO2 emissions, war, fracking--although those conversations need to take into account all the factors, and each conversation should be independent of the other--in general I see a laundry list of asinine criticisms of Hillary, almost all conspiracy theory based. I've quit paying attention
When I see a list of requirements, my first response is to roll my eyes, but I do appreciate what you are trying to do

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #31)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:52 AM

41. IKR! I typed out the answers to each and got to the last and just eye-rolled.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #41)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:16 PM

57. I saw your reply, it was great

But this list is an example of what's wrong with the entire Sanders Playground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #31)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:55 AM

45. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #31)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:12 PM

52. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:46 AM

34. It would be like trying to reason with the Birthers.

No matter what concessions were offered, no matter which of Sanders ideas Hillary might agree to, it would never be good enough. Hillary will certainly try to appease Sanders and even acquiesce to some of the demands from his followers, but they seem to think that the losing candidate should be entitled to equal billing with the nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #34)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:54 AM

43. +1

Talk about entitled.

And willing to vote or not vote, against their own interests, over the power play. They seem to be leaving that out, wanting to have influence where they don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:47 AM

36. My answer is simple what do you think a

President trump with a conservative congress do with the above conditions...that's the answer that is most important...will many sanders supporters try to run away from it too?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:51 AM

38. #1. Oil, Pharmaceutical & Banking Companies CAN NOT DONATE. Poster exposes ignorance on this topic.

 

#2. Complete bans of fracking= huge rise in energy costs. Millennials love their computers but think the energy to run them comes from invisible pixie dust. Fracking needs to be heavily regulated and impacts mitigated. Like Coal, fracking isn't going to entirely disappear. Like Coal, it needs to be regulated and mitigated while simultaneously investing in green technology.

#3. Moving toward single payer would have to come from Congress. Which is Republican

#4. Hillary already has a comprehensive plan to further regulate banks. Just because Sanders and his supporters fail to learn about that doesn't mean she hasn't got the plans. Glass Steagall is used as a buzz-word, but Sanders supporters don't really know what it did, how it passed and what it's impact was in the recent past. Other regulations are needed much more now. And Clinton addresses what is needed.

#5. Citizens United can't be overturned by the POTUS. More ignorance exposed. And Clinton has the skills to get a nominee passed. Sanders has zero executive, managerial or people skills.

#6. Clinton has already spoken on gun reform, and is more credible than Sanders on this issue.

#7. Military action is based on knowledge we only get partial snippets of. If Clinton may err on the side of intervention, Sanders is the exact opposite. Plus, his inability to be diplomatic and interact with other people AND his lack of leadership skills make him unfit for CIC. As does his failure as Chair of Veterans Affairs Committee where he actually ignored the problems as Koch Bros conspiracy.

#8. $15 is not appropriate for every state but maybe for federal

#9. Speech transcripts are a bogus issue invented by Sanders. It's none of anyone's business. She is entitled as an American citizen to give private speeches and to hold them as her intellectual privacy. Throwing this in at the last just exposes the poster as an ignorant cult follower.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #38)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:53 AM

42. thank you

great post! #2 especially.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #38)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:07 PM

50. I agree!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skylucy (Reply #50)

Sat May 21, 2016, 07:18 AM

134. On Glass Stegall, Sanders has moved to Dodd Frank in breaking up banks,

He was unable to explain this in his interview on how it worked, don't hear as much about restoring Glass Stegall.

Hillary has been for universal health care, presented it to congress in the 90's.

They complain about Hillary voting for IWR, Sanders has voted many military actions, Sanders loves military action, it helps MIC's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #38)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:14 PM

54. Well, I don't want you wasting an eye-roll :)

#2. Complete bans of fracking= huge rise in energy costs. Millennials love their computers but think the energy to run them comes from invisible pixie dust. Fracking needs to be heavily regulated and impacts mitigated. Like Coal, fracking isn't going to entirely disappear. Like Coal, it needs to be regulated and mitigated while simultaneously investing in green technology.


I'd be OK with a ban or a phase-out fracking; continued tax breaks for electric vehicles and wind power; and a wind down of coal plants. IMO, Cap & Trade wouldn't even get through committee in Congress

#3. Moving toward single payer would have to come from Congress. Which is Republican


The ACA needs some work. A Republican Congress would not even consider a move to single payer on a national basis.

#4. Hillary already has a comprehensive plan to further regulate banks. Just because Sanders and his supporters fail to learn about that doesn't mean she hasn't got the plans. Glass Steagall is used as a buzz-word, but Sanders supporters don't really know what it did, how it passed and what it's impact was in the recent past. Other regulations are needed much more now. And Clinton addresses what is needed.


Agreed

#5. Citizens United can't be overturned by the POTUS


Both Hillary and Sanders would nominate justices in favor of an overturn of CU

#6. Clinton has already spoken on gun reform, and is more credible than Sanders on this issue.


Agreed

#7. Military action is based on knowledge we only get partial snippets of. If Clinton may err on the side of intervention, Sanders is the exact opposite. Plus, his inability to be diplomatic and interact with other people AND his lack of leadership skills make him unfit for CIC. As does his failure as Chair of Veterans Committe


Personally, I want to disengage from the Middle East, and I don't see either Hillary or Bernie granting my wish.

#8. $15 is not appropriate for every state but maybe for federal


I'm generally in favor of $15, as it would reduce the need (and the expenditure) for public assistance. That said, I personally could agree to $12, with $15 in the areas currently designated by the feds as "high cost of living."

#9. Speech transcripts are a bogus issue invented by Sanders. It's none of anyone's business. She is entitled as an American citizen to give private speeches and to hold them as her intellectual privacy. Throwing this in at the last just exposes the poster as an ignorant cult follower.


The speeches were legal. My guess is that the Sanders campaign wants to take something like "It's wonderful to be speaking here at America's finest investment bank" completely out of context.

Please don't see the poster as an ignorant cult follower. I asked a question and got an answer so a conversation could be had on what really divides the two candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #38)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:20 PM

59. That pretty much sums it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #38)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:13 PM

69. 100% agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #38)

Sat May 21, 2016, 07:29 AM

135. Thank you! Well said!

The only part I disagree with is your answer for #8. If the Federal minimum wage goes to $15, that affects the entire country, INCLUDING areas which cannot afford it. I like her approach, which eventually does get there, but incrementally, so as to not hurt the small businesses that for the most part can't do this without going under, and the states where the local economy itself cannot support that massive of a jump all at one time. I also appreciate that she wants to tie it to inflation, and index further automatic increases based on that, so that this doesn't become a fight every so often as it does now. Making it so that it increases REGARDLESS of which party happens to have dominance in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:51 AM

39. The first one is completely ridiculous

Who is going to pay it back?

The one about military action would be stupid - we have to be able to evaluate each situation - we don't know what will happen in the future.

Agree to them and they will move the goalposts. The transcript demand shows they are insincere.

What these people don't get is they should vote as it best for their own interests. It is not a matter "earning" their vote - a candidate runs and people band together to support them. It's not a personal matter. If they feel they can't vote for anyone who is not on board with all of that, then they can't. No candidate can accommodate them without losing other voters who feel strongly on other things.

They don't get that it is not about them, they are not the center of attention. For these things we band together. And put up with some differences in order to gain some power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:00 PM

47. My Answers would be

- immediately give back any campaign contributions that she has received from various corporations that exist in the oil, pharmaceutical, and banking industries


No. Not fighting this election with one hand behind her back. Also, it implies that those donations will corrupt her, when her entire record argues the obvious. She's spent months arguing, correctly, that those donations don't mean anything. To give them back would say the opposite.

- support a complete and total ban on fracking


No. I'm not a fan of fracking, but other forms of energy generation can be worse, it will devastate the economy in certain parts of the country. Just to ban it is Draconian. I'd restrict it, and also more importantly invest in clean forms of energy generation so this sort of thing isn't necessary. But you always have to transition. It's not a light switch. I think her stated position is the correct one.

- support a framework of moving to a single-payer healthcare infrastructure. Of course, keep the ACA....but move towards single-payer


She already supports this.

- support revised Glass-Steagall act which prohibits the intermingling of commercial and investment banking


Again, too simplistic, IMO. The financial system is so complicated. HRC understands that, so her position should remain nuanced. Monitor, don't trust, verify, but don't blow up the entire world economy.


- support for cap and trade on CO2 emitters


She already supports this.

- a pledge to overturn Citizens United, and support the complete end to SuperPACS, thus relying only on individual contributions for campaign funding. And to nominate SCOTUS Justices who support such policies


She's already there. But, and she hasn't said this, while Citizens United is a problem, privately funded campaigning in general is a larger problem. Bernie taking everyone's $27 isn't fixing the problem. It's showing that you need to raise a ton of money to even be heard. That's the root of the problem. It's BETTER if the money comes from small donors because then they have no way of owning the candidate, but that still isn't good. Anyway, tha twas a tangent.

- a pledge not to engage in further military action in any Mideast conflicts (unless we're directly attacked), and to support a policy of supporting other Mideast countries taking the lead to combat terrorism


No way. I don't want another war, but you never "pledge" away any foreign policy option. She's not nearly dumb enough to do this.

- a $15 federal minimum wage


She's pretty much there.

- Release of the speech transcripts


No, and this fake issue he created should not even be responded to. Is he going to release transcripts of all the meetings he held with lobbyists in DC? Of course not. He literally had nothing to prove that she was in bed with Wall Street, so he created a fake issue. No way she should even acknowledge this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:07 PM

51. Anyone bringing up the speeches as a condition for their vote is unserious.

 

Sorry, but you're giving the person you spoke with more credit than they deserve.

Another example is the first condition. The media already proved that Bernie has the same type of "fossil fuel industry" donations as Clinton, he just had less of them. Where was it published that HE had returned those donations? I will not put up with more and more double standards that only apply to Clinton and never to Bernie.

And POTUS doesn't make SCOTUS rulings, so there's no way for a President to single-handedly "overturn" a Supreme Court decision. They must be thinking of a constitutional amendment, which is a MASSIVE undertaking at both the federal and state level.

The person you spoke to appears to have been mocking you with this list. It is not the product of the mind of a rational adult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BobbyDrake (Reply #51)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:40 PM

62. Exactly

The person you spoke to appears to have been mocking you with this list. It is not the product of the mind of a rational adult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BobbyDrake (Reply #51)

Fri May 20, 2016, 04:54 PM

104. my thought exactly. Kidnapers and terrorists issue demands. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:14 PM

55. The answer that should make everyones face drain of blood >TRUMP<

You want that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:16 PM

58. In my humble opinion we might as well raise a white flag of surrender, but lets discuss them

- immediately give back any campaign contributions that she has received from various corporations that exist in the oil, pharmaceutical, and banking industries

So the feeling is that this would help us win the election? I don't get it at all. If you don't have more votes in DC you can't change policy, and that is a prescription for losing. It takes money to get our message out. We have to maximize our message under the rules. Change the rules after the victory.

- support a complete and total ban on fracking
This is a controversial issue, and either way there are going to be some pissed off people. The best answer is for Democrats to do everything possible to insure it is regulated to minimize any ill effects, and to fund research to learn as much as possible about its effects.

- support a framework of moving to a single-payer health care infrastructure. Of course, keep the ACA....but move towards single-payer
Hillary is already ahead of them and Bernie, she has said AGAIN as in '08, that she wants supports the public option. She was more liberal than Obama in '08 and now. Many believe that a public option would be a way to transition away from private insurance without great dislocation of jobs in the insurance industry.

- support revised Glass-Steagall act which prohibits the intermingling of commercial and investment banking
I support and believe Hillary is correct when she says her plan is better and stronger regulation of the banking and shadow banking industry. She has also said she supports breaking up institutions that pose a risk to the financial system. Like everything the devil is in the details, Bernie avoids talking about the details, so if people don't know the facts, they are inclined to think his idea is what is needed.

- support for cap and trade on CO2 emitters

Hillary approach is to set long term goals for reduction (increased regulation, increased investment, and regular assessments of progress. Read it: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/ .I presume that they determined cap and trade is not a vote getter in the GE, and/or not passable in DC.

- a pledge to overturn Citizens United, and support the complete end to SuperPACS, thus relying only on individual contributions for campaign funding. And to nominate SCOTUS Justices who support such policies
She has already MADE these pledges in regards to Citizens United and SCOTUS judges

- gun reform (a given....I do agree with her positions on this)
Not sure what position is being advocated for, Hillary is for common sense gun reform and takes a more liberal anti-NRA stance than Sanders

- a pledge not to engage in further military action in any Mideast conflicts (unless we're directly attacked), and to support a policy of supporting other Mideast countries taking the lead to combat terrorism
Too many Democrats and Independents do not agree with this pledge, however, she and they do agree with language that says "war is a last resort" and that we depend on Mideast allies one of her core statements. I think we are getting into semantics. Clinton and Obama agree in principle on more positions than they do not when it comes to foreign policy. Clinton de-emphasizes the use of military and emphasizes the use of diplomacy and other tools.

- a $15 federal minimum wage
Her plan supports $15 at the State and Local level, her plan is based on studies by respected economists, it is progressive and again more detailed than Sanders and can be argued to the American people on more sound footing

- Release of the speech transcripts
Red Herring, They need to Get over it. She is going to hold the line on protection of her private conversations. I support it 100%. I mean where does it stop? If her public record is not enough for them to take her down, then they create a false narrative that she is hiding something. This is just nasty politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:02 PM

65. Sounds like someone looking for a reason to not vote for Hillary

So I don't think there is any reason to try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #65)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:16 PM

71. More like self-justifying their already-established intent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:20 PM

73. If these weren't lines in the sand for a person who voted for President Obama

than it is a sheer double-standard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #73)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:24 PM

74. A lot of these guys didn't vote for Obama, either.

Certainly not the second time. Many have said as much. They were all "betrayed", you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #74)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:26 PM

76. Welp, than can't say we'll miss them this time either!

Since he won, their holding out affected nothing, and their doing it again will also...do nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #76)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:30 PM

78. Yep.

They imagine influence that they don't actually possess in the real world. Kind of like their candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:24 PM

75. I actually typed my opinion on each point and was about to post it...

when I realized it was useless anyway. I am tired of trying to reach out to these people. They make unrealistic demands based upon a Bernie Sanders' purity platform that never takes into account how the real world works.

This is why one of the best presidents this country has ever seen is treated like a failure and an enemy by the "Progressive" faction of his own party.

Nobody asks Bernie to pledge an immediate ban on assault rifles or even to "pledge not to engage in further military action in any Mideast conflicts (unless we're directly attacked), and to support a policy of supporting other Mideast countries taking the lead to combat terrorism", because he won't do either.

This is all just a bunch of bullshit. If they want to stay home and take their chances with Donald Trump, then that is their business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:33 PM

79. I'll just speak to one of the items

Cap and trade actually is a giveaway to Wall Street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:44 PM

81. My biggest concern

Is the destruction of Donald Trump. Settle the details later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 02:04 PM

85. If we wanted a candidate that lied and promised the impossible w/o a way to get there

 

HRC would not be ahead!

We like HER way and HER PLATFORM!

Thanks for trying to bridge b/w camps!

But personally their candidate is not winning, b/c of valid reasons!

We are going instead for the person with the temperament and the qualifications!

Someone who is a DEM, likes the DEMS, and will use DEM values to govern/preside over the Nation!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 02:07 PM

87. As for the speech transcripts, she is going to use it as leverage with the Trump

 

His speech transcripts sure would be a doozy!


As for returning monies, HELLO! The General is coming! About a billion is needed. So not, we are not going to cripple our side! We are not going to a gun fight with a knife!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Her Sister (Reply #87)

Fri May 20, 2016, 03:33 PM

92. As she's already noted, he more than likely has much more to worry about than she does.

She's not hiding anything, of course. It's about the principle of the matter - no other candidate has been asked. Sanders won't even release his taxes, which *everyone* does. Well, apparently except for Trump, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 04:00 PM

96. You get nothing! You LOSE! Good day, sir!

Blah. She needs to stand up to his bullying, not concede to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 04:52 PM

103. I would love for the discussion to begin ...

 

But, for me, the threshold question is, "Would you believe her if HRC agreed to adopt any/all of these positions.

(It would help me weed out/screen future response reading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 04:57 PM

105. What do they figure they are going to see in the speech transcripts?

"I promise to do your bidding!!!!!" ???? Those speeches are full of motherhood,country and hokum interesting only in that they were presented by one of the most well known and connected people on the planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The_Casual_Observer (Reply #105)

Fri May 20, 2016, 05:11 PM

108. Pretty much

I realize that it offends certain sensibilities that people made speeches to banks and brokerage houses. However, it's entirely legal and pays real money. Elton John played Rush Limbaugh's wedding for $1M - I heard very few objections to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #108)

Fri May 20, 2016, 05:23 PM

114. Getting a well known celebrity to give a speech is extremely

expensive. Perhaps this isn't common knowledge. This is a big business for sports figures, movie stars, politicians. There are talent agents that specialize booking these things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The_Casual_Observer (Reply #114)

Fri May 20, 2016, 05:33 PM

118. Companies hire motivational speakers all the time.

The idea that someone as successful and prominent as Hillary Clinton shouldn't be in demand and attract top dollar in that same environment is a little silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 05:11 PM

109. Since when does the supporter of the losing candidate get to dictate terms?

We can talk about it sure, but I can't imagine that Hillary gives a rip about Seekthetruth's conditions:

I personally care very little what one of Sanders supporter thinks is necessary to get her cooperation. Everyone of his supporters will have different list and there is no way Hillary is going to try to appease even one of them.

The only one that gets any kind of a say is Sanders, and he doesn't have a lot of leverage. He lost remember and he has already said the will work like hell to defeat Trump. So one could ask why she would have concede much to him?

Bottom line, whether Sanders most zealous supporters fall in line rests on Sanders shoulders and I think that he has already missed his best opportunity to start turning them in the right direction when he reacted poorly to the Nevada Convention situation. I personally think he has created a "revolution" monster he can no longer control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #109)

Fri May 20, 2016, 05:31 PM

117. Seektruth was asked by me for conditions. I saw them as looking pretty common of what I'd seen from

...other Bernie supporters. There is no intent in the thread to hate on the poster. I'm looking to see if we can have a discussion about common ground. I've gotten interesting responses so far.

You posted twice, FYI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 05:17 PM

110. I am against any concessions

With the exception of a handful, I don't expect any Sanders supporters on this site to vote for Hillary in November, because they are not really Democrats. The reality is that there aren't enough of them to make a material difference in a general election.

The vast silent majority of Bernie voters will vote for HRC to keep Trump out of the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 05:25 PM

116. Since when does the supporter of the losing candidate get to dictate terms?

We can talk about it sure, but I can't imagine that Hillary gives a rip about Seekthetruth's conditions:

I personally care very little what one of Sanders supporter thinks is necessary to get her cooperation. Everyone of his supporters will have different list and there is no way Hillary is going to try to appease even one of them.

The only one that gets any kind of a say is Sanders, and he doesn't have a lot of leverage. He lost remember and he has already said the will work like hell to defeat Trump. So one could ask why she would have concede much to him?

Bottom line, whether Sanders most zealous supporters fall in line rests on Sanders shoulders and I think that he has already missed his best opportunity to start turning them in the right direction when he reacted poorly to the Nevada Convention situation. I personally think he has created a "revolution" monster he can no longer control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #116)

Fri May 20, 2016, 05:34 PM

119. The candidates traditionally get some kind of concession. The supporters? Nah.

Just another version of the pipe dream many of them seem to have. They are more important than anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #116)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:47 AM

121. Right.. BS not only lost but he's lost poorly. And, he better right his

damn ship before it's too late.

It's kind of moot right now whether he can "control it" or not.. because he's not even trying.. nor has he ever. He instigated it and keeps throwing on more fuel.

Cajon~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 05:38 PM

120. An attempt to answer.

I'm really glad to see a bunch of posts that accept the premise that some sort of negotiation with the Sanders camp is in order. Not because they are right where the campaigns disagree, but because they've mobilized a lot of people/energy, and we should model compromise to move forward with a united party. Would that the congress used this model.

I was not happy to see the plethora of "we're right we don't need to talk to them" responses. Good bye Sanders voters with that attitude. I'm far from a wonk, and tend to trust the positions of people I've followed for a long time, but here's my best take on how we might at least talk to the Sanders people.

- immediately give back any campaign contributions that she has received from various corporations that exist in the oil, pharmaceutical, and banking industries

I think this is a non-starter. It would accept the premise that somehow this money has influenced her policies. This is not to say donors don't influence some pliticians... not at all. On the other hand, perhaps the focus could be shifted to the future. To overturn Citizens United, either with an amendment or with SCOTUS appointments. There are probably other ways the two camps could agree on reducing the costs of running political campaigns.

- support a complete and total ban on fracking
Hillary already has a complex stance on this. Could they suggest modifications?

- support a framework of moving to a single-payer healthcare infrastructure. Of course, keep the ACA....but move towards single-payer

I'd be interested in hearing the Sanders examples of how you move toward that while supporting ACA. Would they be interested in fixing the problems in ACA? Problems that would have been fixed already of we could have engaged in the iterative legislation that accompanies most large, complex projects. (Think big, Bernie!!!)

- support revised Glass-Steagall act which prohibits the intermingling of commercial and investment banking
I don't pretend to understand the differences between Hillary's position and Bernie's. I just know that people I trust (eg., Paul Krugman) think Hillary's is better. Are there details that could be discussed?

- support for cap and trade on CO2 emitters
I'm all for this. I'm surprised Hillary's not. I'll have to investigate.

- a pledge to overturn Citizens United, and support the complete end to SuperPACS, thus relying only on individual contributions for campaign funding. And to nominate SCOTUS Justices who support such policies
I think this is her position. Yes? No?

- gun reform (a given....I do agree with her positions on this)
Non starter.

- a pledge not to engage in further military action in any Mideast conflicts (unless we're directly attacked), and to support a policy of supporting other Mideast countries taking the lead to combat terrorism
I'm against such pledges re foreign policy. You can't know what's in the future.

- a $15 federal minimum wage
$13.50?

- Release of the speech transcripts
Baloney

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:54 AM

122. All of it.

ESPECIALLY the damn SPEECH TRANSCRIPT bullshit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 04:21 AM

123. The first one will sound pretty foolish when Hillary is helping Sanders pay off his campaign debt.

Because he's going to over spend by many millions if he stays in til the end and he's already in trouble with skeezy contributions he'll need to return.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #123)

Sat May 21, 2016, 04:59 AM

126. Oh you so nailed that one.. they should know by now that it's a foolish question..

but there ya go.

And, as SunSeeker wrote below.. "Anytime they ask for the speech transcripts, they're just looking to harm Hillary. This is not a good faith attempt to state what Hillary needs to do to get their vote. It has nothing to do with the issues or Hillary accepting positions they like. It's trolling."

And, it's burnie induced.

Mahalo, ucr~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #126)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:05 AM

128. Aloha Cha! yes and one accidental benefit of the Nevada showdown

is that the Sanders campaign has lost its credibility and is really not in a position to ask for anything. They'll be treated graciously of course but why they keep up the howling when all the evidence points to them I don't know. I wish they'd give it a rest because it's pretty corrosive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #128)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:35 AM

131. Aloha, ucr~ Yes, finally the world is seeing what we've seen for so long.. and

wouldn't you know it.. it was the BBB who started it.. but BS did an astounding wrap up with Not unequivocally condemning the violence and misogyny in Nevada.. he lost Wonkette, Sally Kohn, and Charlie Pierce(to name a few).. for cripe sake!

Yes, they'll be treated graciously because that's who they are.. President Obama is the head of the Dem Party that they're so busy disingenuously degrading.

That's part of the reason they lost.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 04:36 AM

125. Anytime they ask for the speech transcripts, they're just looking to harm Hillary.

This is not a good faith attempt to state what Hillary needs to do to get their vote. It has nothing to do with the issues or Hillary accepting positions they like. It's trolling. These hypocritical people asking for her transcripts support a candidate who will only release one year of tax returns!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #125)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:01 AM

127. Mahalo for that, SunSeeker.. so well said!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:25 AM

130. I'll add some about Fracking - she does not "support" fracking

She has said when she was Sec. of State, that in Eastern Europe, it may be an alternative to use for energy requirements.
This was said at the time when Russia was threatening to turn off gas supplies to places like Bulgaria. So these countries have the choice... freeze or try fracking to increase energy supply. She wasn't pushing fracking. She said it was an alternative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread