For those who say they can't vote for Hillary, I have 2 words. Supreme Court.

[shraby]

Do you really want to take a chance that a republican will filling any openings?
That's what a no-vote for Hillary might allow to happen.
I'm not fond of voting for her either, but the Supreme Court is more important in the whole scheme of things.

[HERVEPA]

1. Succinct and accurate

[leftofcool]

2. They don't care about the Supreme Court

[artislife]

100. We don't think there will much difference. nt

[StevieM]

126. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Hillary's appointments to the court will be

any different than Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayer, Elena Kagan or Merrick Garland.

[artislife]

136. She wouldn't be bold enough to float people

Like Ginsberg.

[shadowandblossom]

147. Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Hillary is more liberal than Bill.

.

[HERVEPA]

130. Then you are ignorant of facts

[artislife]

137. I think I have been watching closely. nt

[HERVEPA]

139. Hillary's nominees will be similar to Obama's.

Would you rather have Sotomayer and Kagen or Roberts and Alito?
Pay attention!

[artislife]

145. I would rather have a Marshall

Pay attention.

Real progressives.

As a Latina, I was happy we got Sotomayer, but only for her race. She is pretty centrist.

[Arneoker]

151. How does she compare to the Republican picks?

Sotomayer is light-years different than them, whatever label you like to attach to her.

Think about real world consequences. Sometimes we have to look outside of our ideological bubbles.

[HERVEPA]

168. No she isn't. Look at the votes!

[Arneoker]

149. Then you need to think a lot more clearly!

1. Consider the Justices appointed by her husband and compare them to those appointed by the Bushes and Reagan.

2. Do you really think that her picks will be all that much different than those of her husband and Obama?

[bkkyosemite]

3. How long did the Supreme Court have a 5 - 4 margin Red?

[shraby]

5. Much too long.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

53. Long enough to allow Citizen's United and to gut the Voting Rights Act.

Both of which are issues we are dealing with the ramifications of today.

[chwaliszewski]

154. Citizen's United is helping Hillary

Why would she want that overturned?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

165. Do you know the history of Citizen's United?

It was all over this smear movie that a Republican think tank wanted to air and advertise during primary season. The movie? "Hillary: The Movie".

Hillary is firmly against it and has stated so since the decision itself.

[PeaceNikki]

4. They. Don't Care. It's a position of privilege, arrogance selfishness, narcissism and stupidity

LGBT rights, equal pay, healthcare and abortion rights are fucking toast if we let Republicans into office.

If your candidate not being strong enough to win a primary pisses you off badly enough that you're willing to be a part of throwing all of that away, all I can say is...

[Fawke Em]

51. Actually, it's because we're NOT privileged that we cant stand another

four to eight years of the status quo - and neither can our environment.

[Hortensis]

95. You're running with extremists who'd rather burn

down the national barn than allow liberals to restore it, Fawke.

The far left is not only not an ally of anyone but itself; but, like the right, the far left is an enemy of liberals and the Democratic Party and all our attempts to rescue America.

What are you doing?!

[kaleckim]

109. Nonsense

"The far left is not only not an ally of anyone but itself; but, like the right, the far left is an enemy of liberals and the Democratic Party and all our attempts to rescue America."

Excuse me, what have you "liberals" and your party done to "rescue America"? You have been in charge of the damn country for how long? Wages haven't grown in decades for most, de-industrialization has spread, inequality has exploded (under Obama as well), infrastructure is crumbling, finance has taken over the economy, and your party and presidents have backed policies that got us here. There is NO evidence you have done anything but make everything worse (just less so than the other corrupt train wreck of a party). Even on the non-economic issues, like marriage equality, your "leaders" in the party like Clinton and Obama were late to the game and didn't back it until it was safe. They had no impact on us progressing on those issues. None.

You have to now make the case to the left as to why we should vote for you and you are incredulous. How dare we ask you and your corrupt party to do something for working people, to implement the RADICAL changes needed to avoid ecological collapse and to change course on policies that have harmed us and the environment.

By the way, can you define "far left"? Cause it seems that Sanders' supporters take positions that place them right in the middle of popular opinion. You should clarify, far to the left of the establishment (which Clinton is part of, proudly). God forbid we want to actually do something to lessen the gap between popular opinion and government policy. If Sanders' supporters are "far left" then we have become a "far left" country and it is you that is the damn radical and outside the mainstream.

[Hortensis]

113. We've had a year of rhetoric. It's time for berners to decide --

focus on burning the Democrats' big tent down (or at least throw some torches at it and retire), or focus on rescuing America from the Right and repairing and rebuilding within the system?

The people are speaking, and, disappointing or not, those are now the choices of those who support Bernie Sanders, represented by

* Furious and destructive left-wing extremists who literally cannot work with others on one side and
* The Democratic Party, our nominee, and almost certainly* ultimately Bernie himself, on the other.

All the rest is just the noise of the crowd.

* Bernie is a sitting U.S. Senator, a very powerful man by position and now potentially far more powerful in the Senate than before. It's very unlikely he'll throw that away to join his anti-Democrat faction in defeat.

[kaleckim]

117. "left-wing extremists"

On what issue are his supporters extreme? Prove that your corrupt and hawkish candidate is more in line with popular opinion on the issues. Show a single issue in which Sanders takes a position that is extreme. You can't, you saying this just shows how right wing you are. To you, people that take positions that are right in the middle of popular opinion are "left wing extremists". I find it fascinating too that you are this angry that you have to earn the left's vote. Says a lot about how much your party has taken the left's vote for granted, and also telling that you are incapable of actually making the case.

"It's very unlikely he'll throw that away to join his anti-Democrat faction."

If he simply supports your candidate and that is the end of it, he will lose the respect of tens of millions of people, and I doubt he will do that. He could support her this election, while stating his clear reservations, while working to form another party on the left that could run candidates for city council and even some congressional races here and there. It makes no sense for him to show allegiance to a party that has acted as biased and horribly towards him this election cycle, doubly given that those that control the party have rejected most of what he is pushing for (calling things like single payer, that used to be at the core of the party, utopian).

"The people are speaking"

If your party was democratic and open to new people joining to support him (and what person, outside of a Stalinist, would be against such a thing?), in other words if independents were able to vote in your primary, he would be leading. Now, why would you want a bunch of young people that support him to think your party might be a vehicle of change? He does better than she does versus top Republicans, is more liked, more trusted and does far better with independents. "The people" are your party, and it is telling that the general public is more supportive of the far more progressive candidate than your party is. Says a lot about what your party has become.

[Hortensis]

119. Don't deflect. The left wing has been mostly dormant

since the 1960s, but today's left-wing extremists were energized by Sanders' promise of a "revolution." (Extremists right and left always want revolution, never establishment measures accomplishing the same official goals -- that's kinda why they're called extremists.)

Critically, it is a revolution that isn't materializing. Extremists make their best contribution before opposition destroys hope, then it's all downhill. Expect riots at the convention. Not large enough to change squat, but some acting out by those who can't accept and can't change. If you're one of them, time to contact the organizers (by mail, not on line) and buy your plane ticket.

If you're not, time to separate yourself from destructive extremist forces that have nowhere to go but down in flames. As they always ultimately do in our blessedly stable United States.

[kaleckim]

120. You are stuck in 1965

Sorry, but Sanders' revolution was never about freaking violently overthrowing the government. It was about challenging the power structure and fundamentally changing a corrupt and inequitable system which is leading us to ecological collapse. It is, the changes that are needed to avoid that are radical and we don't have tons of time.

I am a socialist and have a background in economics. I know the damn issues and I supported Sanders because he focuses on the right issues and has policies that have proven to work in every other developed country, including our own in the past.

"Critically, it is a revolution that isn't materializing."

Says who? Once again, keep up, he polls better than she does versus Trump. Is more well liked and trust, and does better with independents. His stances on the issues are right in the middle of popular opinion and if you think that we can continue on this trajectory and that people will be less angry and that people will be less likely to be radicalized, then you are naive in the extreme. If the current trajectory continues, the changes he is calling for now (which used to be the stuff your party stood for) will be peanuts to what people will be calling for in a decade. You live in a bubble and don't seem to have grasped how much the populace has changed. Wake up.

[Hortensis]

121. I was in 1965, but never stuck. I recognize the

same kinds of people now as then from both experience then and research into them later. Having been there once, I have an interest.

LOOK AROUND. Way past time to wise up and understand what we are all a part of.

[kaleckim]

122. Not sure what you are talking about

but the bits of logic in there is unconvincing. Sorry. You can't back up your far left nonsense, can't make the case that she is the better candidate, and can't back up saying that the revolution (which you distorted) has failed.

Think what you want, I don't buy any of it and I am open to a good argument.

[Hortensis]

125. Are you? Well, then, who are America's Far Left/Radical Left

supporting and opposing this election?

Every society has various far left/radical left, mainstream left, mainstream right, and far right factions, and combinations thereof. In general, if I'm wrong that a significant block of America's Far-Lefters/radicals are supporting Bernie and very angry that he's losing, what are they thinking and up to these days?

Something to watch out for: Many writers ignorantly use the word "liberal" for both the kind of moderate-to-strong liberal Democrats who form the largest blocks of both Hillary Clinton's and Bernie Sanders' supporters and for those well to their left who may support Bernie but pretty uniformly despise and reject Hillary, Democrats, liberals, "the establishment," capitalism, and so on.

From Dictionary.com: "RADICALS AND RADICALISM. The word "radical" is popularly used to designate individuals, parties, and movements that wish to alter drastically any existing practice, institution, or social system. In politics, radicals are often seen as individuals and/or parties reflecting "leftist" views. This meaning originated during the French Revolution (1787–1789), where those most opposed to the king sat in the National Assembly at the far left, and those most committed to the king at the far right. It is therefore common to designate points on the political spectrum, reading from left to right, as radical, liberal, conservative, and reactionary."

From Wickipedia: "Far-left politics or extreme-left politics are politics further on the left of the left-right spectrum than the standard political left. Far-left politics are generally the province of extra-governmental groups and those espousing them are typically opposed to their governments." and

"The spectrum of left-wing politics ranges from center-left to far left (or ultra-left). The term center left describes a position within the political mainstream. The terms far left and ultra-left refer to positions that are more radical."

Also, note that these are personality types with very distinct characteristics, not just political, thus a lot of good discussion is also found in psychology journals.

Look forward to seeing what you find out.

[kaleckim]

138. Very scholarly of you, LOL! Thanks

for the Wikipedia reference. I will ask this one more time, on what issues are Sanders supporters extreme and outside the mainstream of political opinion in this country? Come on, answer the question. Just because they are far to YOUR left doesn't mean they are "extremist" or the "far left". The sad thing is that there is a far left. They want either want the workers to take over all the factories or for the state to nationalize all industry. They would like to nationalize all land, and level the differences in income entirely. So, what would your genius brain call them? The far, far left? Head slap.

"very angry that he's losing, what are they thinking and up to these days?"

No, people are angry at the system, because of how horrible the system is. You "moderates" forgot that if you want enough people to fight to maintain the system, you have to make the system equitable enough that enough people feel compelled to defend and maintain the system. Instead, you geniuses outsourced good paying jobs, gave the store to corporate interests, handed over the economy to financial capital, watched infrastructure rot from neglect and under-investment (your generation in passing on over a trillion dollar infrastructure gap, thanks for that), took capital out of inner cities and poor communities, militarized the police and supported harsh sentencing, and did nothing more than a bunch of nice words in speeches about the approaching ecological collapse. Now that the victims of those policies want to change the system, you want to call people names. Well, you should have listened to the "far left" (i.e., those right in the center of popular opinion) about the backlash that was coming. You chose to, as usual, arrogantly waive off our warnings.

Like I said above, you are out of touch and behind the times in regards to the changes underway in this country. Long past time we moved past your mindset, it has been an utter failure across the board. Your generation was handed a country in far better shape than the one you handed over. The least you can do is check your arrogance and step aside, at least allow us to attempt to clean up the mess you created.

[Hortensis]

148. "Sanders supporters"? No. I'm talking specifically

about a small subset of Sanders supporters. We know probably 3/4 of his supporters are pretty much mainstream Democrats, from moderate to far left liberal mostly, who have chosen what he has to offer but are glad to have Hillary Clinton as a second choice.

Of Sanders' remaining supporters, an unspecified percentage (but not all by any means) are from mostly farther left and are a different personality and political type, variously described as "the far left," "radical left," "anti-Democrats," "left-wing extremist," etc. Some are registered as Democrats, some belong to the Green Party and other smaller left-wing parties, some unaffiliated.

These are the people we're talking about. They're considered "extremist" for the reasons I copied in. Not because they want left-wing solutions, but because they always insist only extreme changes will do. For instance, American left-wing extremists are currently rejecting the advances of the ACA and demanding it be replaced with a single-payer plan; but in Europe, where something like that is common, extremists are also dissatisfied with the various faults in their systems and also feel the only solutions are extreme or radical changes. Which is why they're called "extremists" and "radicals."

As a group they are emphatically not glad to have Hillary Clinton as a second choice, but they do range from will vote for her to complete rejection. As a group they not only reject "establishment" solutions en bloc but feel the establishment itself needs to be destroyed and replaced. They are unhappy with capitalism, of course, and feel it needs to be destroyed and replaced with something better. Etc. etc.

It may not sound like it, but in spite of some very large differences, they have a great deal in common with the Far Right. They are both extremely righteous and inflexible and refuse to cooperate with other groups to achieve their goals. Both groups are always sure disaster is imminent and only their solutions can avert it. Oh, yes, and both tend to loathe liberals and liberalism. Lol. A regretful sigh and mere disapproval of our activities are foreign to them -- we either cause or support everything wrong with America and we must be defeated.

To me, this makes fascinating reading and clarifies political activities not just here but around the globe tremendously. You sound as if you're going to pass, but if you do I'll regret it on your behalf.

Btw, I've never been what you're calling "moderate" in my life. Every test has confirmed what I've always known -- I'm a strong liberal, both by personality and thus of course politically, and well to the left on the liberal spectrum itself. There is tremendous overlap between solutions I would support and those the far left demands, but my reactions to the information I take in are liberal, not extremist. Yooooge difference. And all your other notions about people like me are wrong too. (There's a challenge there, btw.)

[kaleckim]

172. I'm about done with this

"For instance, American left-wing extremists are currently rejecting the advances of the ACA and demanding it be replaced with a single-payer plan; but in Europe, where something like that is common, extremists are also dissatisfied with the various faults in their systems and also feel the only solutions are extreme or radical changes."

For one, the costs of health care are still increasing faster than wages for most workers. The ACA makes some moderate improvements, but isn't sustainable. It isn't. It also does things like expanding Medicaid by privatizing Medicaid, and transforming it into the jumbled mess that is managed care, Clinton's old idea. It improves efficiency some, but not nearly to the point where it is at all comparable to say Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security in that regard, or health care systems in other developed countries. For some background on that, research the Chile's pension privatization (lauded by the right and the Wall Street Journal) and compare the waste in that system to the SS system here. There's a lesson there.

Your comment on health care systems in Europe is off too. Whatever complaints there are with single payer or socialized medicine in Europe or Canada, there is NO support for moving towards a system like ours. None. People in other developed countries find our system to be shocking and wouldn't accept it. In fact, I listened to a conservative politician in Europe around the time that the ACA was getting passed, he was being interviewed on NPR. The person doing the interview asked him about the ACA, thinking that as a "conservative" he'd agree with the right wing's critiques of the ACA. That conservative responded by saying that the people in his country would never go for it because it was too "right wing". Keep in mind that the ACA is not radically different than the far right's (and that is an accurate term) health care proposals from the 1990's.

Think what you want though.

[artislife]

101. She would elect centrists, at best

Look at who can't even be voted in now. LOOK

[senz]

140. Her nominees would be Wall Street-friendly.

They could very well make it in.

[kaleckim]

106. Drivel

So, a supporter of someone that has backed trade deals that have destroyed working people, neck deep in corporate/Wall Street money, hawkish foreign policy, a center-right record on economic issues and someone that is insanely rich is going to lecture the victims of those policies about being "privileged"? How freaking tone deaf can you be?

[seekthetruth]

6. Another two words

Global warming. Oh, and other - neoliberalism. And another one - war.

That's why I can't vote Hillary. Sorry......

[shraby]

8. You really think letting a republican fill the slot(s) will improve any of those problems?

Think again.

edited to add:
The right leaning court put Bush in office (a big no-no for the court)
it gave us Citizens United
Let the Alaskan oil spill perps off the hook.

Anyone want to add?

[MisterP]

44. Clinton's running a CU campaign and Obama let the Gulf spill perps off the hook

[Dr Hobbitstein]

55. Nothing Hillary is doing right now is in support of CU.

You might should look at what CU actually is. Here's a hint: it has NOTHING to do with Super PACs.

[artislife]

102. That's true...nt

[seekthetruth]

105. Sigh.

Both candidates engage in this America first foreign policy bull, and both support neoliberalist policy.

Both also aren't willing to do what's necessary to begin the work of transitioning to sustainable energy development.

Clinton's message packaging is a lot better than Trump's to attract Democrats, but as far as substance the differences are minimal with respect to what is needed now in this country (real healthcare reform, real education reform, real financial reform, etc).

Clinton is right on immigration, but that's about it, and that takes less precedence than energy, foreign policy, and financial reforms.

[TheProgressive]

7. I don't give into the Supreme Court pressure...

Putting Clinton is as president is almost the same as a republican.

Look at Obama's pick - basically a moderate republican. See what I mean...

[kayakjohnny]

11. Thank you.

There is no guarantee about who she would pick. That SC argument is stale at this point. And cheap.

[vintx]

13. +1

[leftofcool]

28. Of course not.

[Dawgs]

45. Don't worry. No chance the Republicans will let her pick anyone. n/t

[TheDormouse]

111. Who appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg & Stephen Breyer???

Do you really want to risk 2 or 3 more Scalia's on the court??

[TheProgressive]

124. Please reread my post....

I refuse to be 'forced' to vote for Clinton who I consider a republican.

Get it?

[TheDormouse]

146. I've reread it 3x--My response is still the same

Even if Hillary is in your view a Republican, there are Republicans (Susan Collins) and there are Republicans (Sam Brownback).

There are Republicans who can occasionally work with Democrats.

But then there are Republicans who gleefully will shut down the government and get the country's credit rating trashed.

You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Live and Learn]

9. I have 3 words. Definition of insanity:

Bush Clinton Bush Clinton.

[zappaman]

10. They don't care.

The hatred is too much.

[Andy823]

96. Most of those who make the claim

They won't vote for her, have never voted for a Democrat in their life, and never will. Every damned election year these kind of trolls show up and spew the same old shit "both parties are the same so why vote"! They play games with the most gullible people they can find here, and encourage them to NOT VOTE on a daily basis. Most people come to their sense before the election, and they will vote for the nominee.

[AirmensMom]

131. Bullshit

You have no clue how many lifelong Democrats won't vote for her. Slinging more mud surely won't help them "come to their senses." Too bad Hillary fans haven't come to their senses.

[Carolina]

141. What utter

crap. Some of us have been real democratic Democrats going back to the days of Eisenhower. We know what the party stood for before the ascendancy of the DLC Clintons with their legacy of financial deregulation, disastrous trade deals, media consolidation and regressive welfare and crime bills. We remember Vietnam because we were drafted to fight futilely in SE Asia and fought against imperialism here at home. So, we're sick of the death, debt, destruction and destabilization of more imperialistic wars promoted by those who have corrupted OUR party.

Before you spout such tripe, go study history

[chwaliszewski]

157. Horse Hockey!

I voted twice for Obama. I voted for John Kerry and Al gore before him. Think before you speak.

[Arugula Latte]

12. I'm in a blue state so I might not have to vote for HRC, depending on the polls in late October.

If I were in a purple state I'd probably have to hold my nose and vote for her no matter what.

[VulgarPoet]

63. I constantly thank the goddess I never changed my home of record from Texas. nt

[Kip Humphrey]

14. For those worried about a republicon in the White House and the Supreme Court,

vote for Bernie Sanders who smashes ALL republicon contenders.

[shraby]

15. I have, but it looks like Hillary will be on the November ballot unfortunately.

I don't like the Bush/Clinton juggernaut either.

[Kip Humphrey]

18. work for what you want

or not.

[NurseJackie]

16. Ignore them. Don't indulge their vanities. There aren't enough of them to make a difference.

What you're seeing here are the Hillary Haters who'd never vote for her under any circumstances. So why bother wasting your time trying to chase their vote and convince them do do something they'd never do anyway?

They're attention-seekers and wanting to feel as if they have some control over a situation over which they really have NO CONTROL.

Keep your eyes on the prize, don't be distracted by folks like that. Step around them and keep moving forward.

Hillary has got this.

[Arkansas Granny]

25. +1

[leftofcool]

31. +1

[Jackie Wilson Said]

32. True, can I ask if you do FB? If so please go to Van Jones and get his "Trumpzilla" video

and do a thread in GD about it.

I dont have access but I have seen the video, it is all about why we will NOT win the election regardless of who we have if we keep acting like it is in the bag.

Not a pro or con Bernie or Hillary thing, but why Trump is dangerous.

I want everyone here to see it..thanks

[Kang Colby]

36. +1000 n/t

[COLGATE4]

58. + another 100

[realmirage]

80. Those who think Hillary would choose a righty supreme court

May not be clever enough to vote at all.

[oasis]

144. If the anti-Hillary folks really gave it some thought,

it wouldn't make sense to them for Hillary to pick any Supreme Court justice who would ruin her chance for a second term.

[Starry Messenger]

150. This.

[Vattel]

17. That is a consideration, although mitigated by the fact that

Hillary is apt to be pretty clueless about what makes a good SCOTUS justice.

[yourpaljoey]

54. correct -- I do not trust Hill

[COLGATE4]

60. Yep. I find those stupid Yale Law graduates

in my practice all the time. Just like shooting fish in a barrel.
Unfortunately, had to add the all-too necessary

[Vattel]

67. lol, you do realize that Clarence Thomas graduated from Yale Law School.

It's not all about pedigree.

[COLGATE4]

77. No. It's usually about capabiities - or affirmative action.

[Vattel]

93. Huh? That sounds racist and sexist. I hope I misunderstood.

Be that as it may, my point stands.

[COLGATE4]

98. You misunderstand quite a bit.

[Vattel]

99. Good, I am glad you weren't being sexist and racist

[COLGATE4]

108. Am I supposed to appreciate that?

[NV Whino]

19. I also have two words

Bernie Sanders.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Your intentions are noble.

But I have three words ... If someone doesn't see the moral imperative of stopping Trump "Leave them alone."

[BernieforPres2016]

21. Thanks for a really compelling argument none of us have ever heard before

[rurallib]

22. I'll add two more that most never think about: net neutrality

[VulgarPoet]

65. Amen.

We wouldn't want a pro-cable lobby, SOPA/PIPA "Manhattan project against encryption" supporter anywhere near the White House or the Supreme Court.

[demwing]

23. Wait...there's a "Supreme" Court?

and the President gets to fill any openings?

Why has no one brought this up before?

[pdsimdars]

24. For those who say they can't vote for Bernie, I have 2 words. Supreme Court.

He is the more electable candidate. With such great stakes, why would anyone want to nominate the weaker candidate? It makes no sense.

[Arkansas Granny]

26. We can only vote for Bernie if he wins the nomination. I don't see that happening.

[leftofcool]

34. 12 million voters disagree

[kaleckim]

110. And none of them

can give a logically convincing reason why the hell (especially if they are on the left) they supported her. I know a few people that voted for her (my mother is one of them), and they don't follow politics. They don't know what her stances on the actual issues are, they just know her, don't know Sanders and are Democrats or Democratic leaning. The more people find out about her, the less they like her. She has horrible net favorables, isn't trusted, has been corrupt for decades (and was arrogant enough to give paid speeches to the damn banks that took the economy down just a few years ago, when she didn't really even need the money), does far worse with independents, polls worse versus Trump and the other Republicans than Sanders (and has for months). You all supported a horrible candidate and now you want to scare and browbeat everyone else to support something you are incapable of proving benefits most people, or the environment. You chose this candidate and if she loses it will be YOUR fault and no one else. Sadly, Sanders supporters will become something like Nader and his supporters in the coming years. Instead of looking at how angry people are, thinking about why, thinking about how the general public is to her left on the issues and thinking critically about the possibility that many of Sanders' supporters are the actual victims of the policies she and her husband supported, you'll blame everyone but her and your bad decision.

[Attorney in Texas]

27. How is voting for in a deep red state Democrats can't win or a deep blue state Democrats can't lose

going to effect the Supreme Court.

If you are going to be bombastic, at least you should strive to focus your bombast on a credible topic.

[UncleTomsEvilBrother]

161. It matters quite a bit.

True, the President does the nomination, but the Senate is who won't follow with the hearing process. Then again, we're talking for Presidential voting. I just want to make clear that we need to vote DEM in local and state elections, even in Red States. Thanks for giving me the space for this rant. LOL!

[Attorney in Texas]

170. Everybody agrees that it is key to elect more Democrats to Congress. The question is why should

anyone get their knickers in a twist because those Democrats in non-battleground-states who don't care for Clintonomics or aggressive foreign nation building interventionism may do a write-in or may vote for Jill Stein.

We should all agree on the need for unity at the top of the ticket in Ohio and Florida, etc., but when Hillary disappoints with a crap VP nominee and a milquetoast platform and no reform of the corrupt DNC rules and leadership, why force people to pinch their nose in states where it won't matter so long as we are in agreement that nose-pinching is necessary in battleground states?

[B Calm]

29. I don't want to take any chances, that's why I voted for Bernie Sanders!

[tonyt53]

30. They have no idea about this

Bernie, and evidently his supporter have no idea that it will take a Democrat majority at the very least in the Senate to get any real change moving. No other way for the SCOTUS to be changed without that Democrat majority. Since Bernie has not supported nay Democrat running for the Senate, he evidently has no idea either.

[oldandhappy]

33. Bernie Sanders

[peace13]

35. By law Obama is supposed to have a pick now.

There is no indication that the R's will ever let a Dem pick again. None. He needs to appoint someone now, as the law permits and requires! If we can't get this one in,it is time to stop the charade.

[bettyellen]

41. they will not leave them selves down one conservative man for too long.

[Joob]

37. For those who vote for Hillary, I have 2 words. Supreme Court.

Do you really want to take a chance that a republican will filling any openings?
That's what a vote for Hillary might allow to happen.
I'm not fond of the idea of people voting for her and don't know why since she's such a risk, but the Supreme Court is more important in the whole scheme of things

[StevieM]

128. It is ridiculous to believe that her Supreme Court appointments will be any different than

Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayer, Elena Kagan or Merrick Garland.

[Gothmog]

38. Control of the SCOTUS is one of my key issues

The next POTUS will get to control the direction of the SCOTUS for a generation

[kaleckim]

112. Yes

and if she wins this election and the next, and in eight years if the Democrats elect another Democrat like her (center-right on economic issues, pro-establishment, hawkish, pro-Wall Street, etc.), they'll point to the aging right wing justices and do the same thing. This movie has been shown so many times, and how many Democrats whistle past the fact that we are on a horrific trajectory economically and environmentally that requires radical changes? Your party is a graveyard for progressive activism, the left should have abandoned a party that abandoned it long ago. If current trends continue, your party will face an existential crisis in the coming years. I hope a third party emerges at the national level. Sanders could work to consolidate the smaller left of center third parties to start running candidates for city council and even some congressional races here or there. A socialist won in Seattle, almost won in Minneapolis and elsewhere as well. Change is coming. He'd have tens of millions on board, and most of them are done with your party.

[bvf]

39. More blackmail. How nice. How tiresome.

[StevieM]

127. It's not blackmail. It's about excepting who the people chose between the two contenders. (eom)

[bvf]

132. You meant "accepting," I assume.

And it is blackmail.

We've been told here on DU more than once that Clinton, if she were the nominee, wouldn't need the votes of Sanders supporters to win in the GE.

I take them at their word. Fuck all the kumbaya bullshit. And fuck all the prophylaxis geared toward blaming Sanders supporters, should she lose, which is a very real possibility.

[StevieM]

133. I'm not sure who said that but I haven't heard any Clinton supporters say it. It seems kind of silly

Last edited Tue May 3, 2016, 11:43 AM - Edit history (1)

to suggest that she won't need 45% of the party.

Hillary has made it clear that she wants the support of Bernie Sanders and his voters.

I hope that Bernie will endorse her if she wins and do everything he can to help elect her, just like she did for Barack Obama.

And if the roles were reversed, and Sanders were to win, I have no doubt that she would go all out to help him win, just like she did for Barack Obama.

[bvf]

169. The only thing Clinton has made clear

is that she is beholden to Wall Street. Between her reliance on corporate money, and her campaign's eagerness to smear Sanders in ways all too reminiscent of its treatment of Obama in 2008, she long ago pissed away any chance of my support, or that of any voter who recognizes that government shouldn't be controlled by the highest bidder.

It seems kind of silly
to suggest that she won't need 45% of the party.

It does, doesn't it? What a shame that her campaign has acted as if that were the case.

Again, I'm not buying this Johnny-come-lately come-to-jesus crap. That's for shills, suckers, and anyone blind to the rightward pull my party has undergone since her husband's first Oval Office blowjob.

[TheCowsCameHome]

40. So she would nominate someone more liberal than Sanders?

[COLGATE4]

61. No, but she will nominate someone liberal enough

to get approved by the Senate.

[TheCowsCameHome]

64. The senate will stonewall her, worse than they did Obama.

They are absolutely salivating at the prospect of her taking office.

[LonePirate]

68. Are you predicting Republicans will hold the Senate?

Almost no one with any knowledge or expertise on the matter thinks that Republicans will possess a Senate majority when the new Congress convenes in January.

[TheCowsCameHome]

70. Have they lost it yet?

N O P E

I hope the lose it, but don't count your chickens just yet.

[LonePirate]

76. So you are predicting Repubs will hold the Senate.

That's a bold prediction which defies all current conventional wisdom. Thankfully almost no one shares that prediction with you.

[TheCowsCameHome]

85. Call me back when the votes all the are counted.

Only a fool claims to see the future, especially in politics.

[COLGATE4]

78. No but they are absolutely salivating at the prospect

of Bernie being our nominee. Fortunately for us, that isn't going to happen.

[MisterP]

42. the Busters aren't going to lose the election, she is

there's millions outside the party who'll just shrug, and for those inside the party she's just more of the same "it's X's turn" crap that lost us 11 Governors, 13 Senators, 69 Reps, etc.--each time they screeched "WE were perfect, it's just that the voters didn't go for us!"

in fact they're the Busters, since they figure that once people are sick enough of GOP misrule they'll turn back to Dems again!

she's the candidate polling 10-15 points behind Sanders against the Pubs anyway

[HooptieWagon]

43. A RW democrat isn't going to appoint a progressive liberal Justice.

So your fear-mongering falls flat on its face. Anyone thinking more liberal justices should be appointed should be supporting the more liberal POTUS candidate.

[apnu]

69. Hillary Clinton is very liberal.

I think you mean "progressive"

[HooptieWagon]

74. Liberals don't associate with Kissinger, Kagan, and the Kochs.

You can crank up the super-turbine spin to '11', but you can't escape her neo-con leanings.

[apnu]

79. Not spinning anything.

Her voting record is aligned with Bernie 93% of the time. The causes she's championed are liberal causes. She's a liberal.

I have conservative friends, am I guilty by association too?

Judge Hillary by her deeds, you're better than this.

[HooptieWagon]

82. Okay, her deeds.

It starts with her supporting NAFTA and other free-trade agreements...including supporting the Colombia agreement behind closed doors while publicly criticizing it. Then there is her unbridled enthusiasm for war...Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Her public support of a hard-line stance against Iran, when Kerry was involved with delicate negotiations with them. Her cheerleading for fracking around the world. Her support for coups in Ukraine and Honduras...and then she wants to send Honduran children refugees back in order to teach their parents a lesson. She supported the repeal of Glass-Steagal, and is opposed to a replacement with more teeth.
In short, her deeds are those of neo-liberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy....identical to those of W.

[apnu]

84. Now you've made a good argument.

That's the way to do it. Let's stick to judging Hillary by what she's done, not who she married and who she's had a cocktail party with.

On Foreign Policy, she's hawkish. No question. But many other liberals are hawkish too. I'm sure you're aware of that.

On the social side of things, she's very liberal, more in the lines we on the left would consider being the way to go.

I believe Bernie a better choice, because his social liberalism and his forigen policy liberalism are more in line with each other than Hillary's. I'm not sure how she balances her hawkish ways with her social interests. I she's the one who fought for single payer in the 1990s as FLOTUS, no other FLOTUS has ever been so active in politics as Hillary. Only Eleanor Roosevelt compares to Hillary Clinton's campaigning and politics from her time as FLOTUS.

Hillary will be a mixed bag for Democrats, liberals and progressives.

[HooptieWagon]

87. Her social issue positions appear 'flexible'.

She supported DADT and DOMA until as recently as 2013, including making the statement that marriage " is between a man and a woman". Since 2013 she appears to back gay marriage.
She's historically been strongly pro-choice, although last fall she stated a willingness to compromise.
She was pro-guns in 2008, even causing Obama to call her 'Annie Oakley'. In 2016 she was anti-guns in CT and NY, and pro-guns in PA.
She supported the 'three-strikes' laws, increased prison terms for drug convictions, and welfare 'reform'...not to mention her "super predators" statement.
She has not made an unequivocal position on Social Security, and appears to be receptive to privitization which her Wall St backers would love.
Her immigration position appears to be hard-line.
In short, it doesn't appear she has 'core values' on social issues. They are flexible, and can be changed to suit political expediency. While I generally agree with some of her social issue positions, I don't trust her that she will remain firm on them. She'll say one thing, and turn around and do the other behind closed doors.

[apnu]

116. OK, I see where you're at.

I'm not opposed to politicians changing over time, I don't expect human beings to be rocks in the river like that.

But recently she does seem to be something of a chameleon when it comes to her views. We don't know where she stands, right now, and I'm thinking/remembering Hillary in the past when she was FLOTUS and less mutable.

I wonder why she's whirling around so much? I haven't the foggiest idea why she's acting this way. Desperation maybe? The Democratic electorate seems to be more liberal now than before. I'm a crusty Gen-X guy, so I look upon Millennials with some measure of derision, however I do respect and appreciate their social liberalism. In terms of race and gender, they're doing more work right now changing the culture for the better than my generation did. So I wonder if Hillary is having trouble with finding so many young, energetic voters, suddenly engaged and making demands she didn't expect.

I dunno, this is a very strange year for politics, strangest I've ever seen.

[HooptieWagon]

118. Her core 'value' is presidential ambition.

She wants to be the first female president. Everything else is a means to that goal.

[chwaliszewski]

159. HooptieWagon, you've hit the bullseye!

My wife of almost 17 years, who was from Canada, was fond of Hillary as she reminded her of her best friend & maid of honor. Since listening to her against Bernie, she has fallen for him and soured quite a bit on Hillary for all the reasons you've stated.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. There is no saftey in the cosmos. Alan Watts

I won't vote for Hillary.

I can guarantee that my vote won't influence the outcome of the election or decide who is selected to sit on the supreme court.

[Duckhunter935]

47. You really think she would

A left leaning justice, lol. And if she even did, they would never be allowed to be voted on. Your scare tactics are weak.

My conscience will be clear as my state will not matter in the general and I will vote down ticket.

[hrmjustin]

48. It is not even worth arguing with the Bernie or Bust crowd here.

Frankly some of the are not what they claim and the others will need to work through their own issues over voting for her.

[kaleckim]

115. Or

you just need to give good, logically convincing and factual reasons to vote for her. I know, how horrible, you have to earn the left's vote instead of taking it for granted and trying to browbeat people into voting for a reduction in their living standards and a candidate and party doing nothing really to help us avoid ecological collapse.

I find it fascinating that Clinton supporters are angry about this, seems that they are so used to systematic corruption that they have lost basics on how actual democracy works.

[Fawke Em]

49. I have two words for you: Merrick Garland

If a pro-corporate, pro-law-and-order type with virtually no record on choice or other social issues is the best the Democratic Party can come up with, then SCOTUS isn't really on the table.

Yeah, a Third Wayer might appoint someone who'll throw a few bones the liberal direction on social issues, but a Clinton will never appoint anyone who'll change Citizens United or take on Wall Street or rule against the oligopoly in any way.

Sorry - that's not a compelling enough reason for me.

[LonePirate]

73. You have no understanding of the situation if you think Obama expected Garland to win confirmation.

Garland was only nominated to highlight Republican obstructionism. If Obama had nominated another Ginsburg, the Republicans would have attacked and opposed the nominee for ideological reasons and they might have won that PR war. They can't argue ideology with Garland and Obama knows that. Obama realized he was never going to have ANY nominee confirmed so he picked one that would make the Republicans look bad, which Garland has.

Once McConnell realizes Trump has no chance to defeat Clinton, he might allow a vote on Garland. If that seems likely, Garland's nomination will be withdrawn. You can pick your reason. Then Obama will nominate someone Clinton recommends/approves or she will nominate someone a day or two after the inauguration.

[Carolina]

142. Exactly, Fawke Em

More SCOTUS blackmail when essentially we have a presumptive corporate candidate who will continue the of, by and for corporatism of the Court.

[Rebkeh]

50. I have two words as well

Citizens United.

[Ned_Devine]

52. I have two words: Scare Tactics

And they're not going to work with a lot of us.

[xloadiex]

56. My 2 words

Never,ever.

[Faux pas]

57. My two words

write in.

[TheDormouse]

59. 6-3 conservative majority--How's *that* sound?

Ginsburg's seat will be up this coming term.

You think 5-4 conservative majority was bad?

Just wait until a GOP POTUS puts 3 new 40-year-old Scalia's or Clarence Thomas' on the court.

Won't be no sometimes-slightly-progressive appointees like Kennedy.
So all those 5-4 decisions that went the other way (like gun control, gay marriage) won't be happening. It will be Bush v Gore, Heller, Citizens United & McCutcheon all the time.

[larkrake]

62. she would nominate corporatist and corrupt judges like Scolia

[mooseprime]

66. but if we vote for someone who genuinely embraces Democratic Party values,

it's a moot point!!!

[amborin]

71. NOPE! SCOTUS argument fails; HRC would easily nominate a centrist, at best

[TheDormouse]

83. I'll take another Kennedy over a Scalia or Thomas ANY DAY!!!!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

88. I think you are mistaken

It is more likely that she would appoint a Goldman Sachs person to the supremes. After all, even those poor, abused, hated Wall Street barons need protection and representation on the Court. If someone pre-owned by them is on the bench, it would be so much more efficient for them to steal from us.

[Jester Messiah]

72. I've got two words too.

"No Difference."

An oligarch is an oligarch.

[Yurovsky]

75. HRC will nominate whomever her corporate ownership green lights....

sorry but I refuse to support Goldman Sachs' plutocracy.

The SCOTUS argument falls way short of overcoming the fact that HRC supports corporations over people and is only too happy to go to war on behalf of the military-industrial complex.

[frylock]

81. Fresh take.

Never seen this argument made before.

[qdouble]

86. More than half of the Bernie or Bust crowd aren't democrats

A good chunk of BoB crowd are either Green Party Leftist, not politically active outside of the internet (show up to rallies or protest online but don't vote) or are right wing trolls.

Trying to convince such people who would never vote for a real democrat that we may lose the supreme court is not going to influence them as they only support losers anyway.

[liberal_at_heart]

103. Yeah, who needs the Independent vote? We only make up 40% of the vote.

[qdouble]

107. A huge chunk of independents either vote right or left the majority of the time...

If a part of the truly independent won't vote for Hillary, that's fine... all polling shows she has enough support to win the electoral college anyway.

[lumberjack_jeff]

89. Here's a couple of equally compelling words: Syria war. n/t

[imagine2015]

90. I have 5 words. Will Hillary appoint a conservative? Someone acceptable to Republicans

If she should capture the Democratic nomination and if she should somehow inspire tens of millions of young people and independents to come out and elect her the President.

I know that's a farfetched idea.

[Lizzie Poppet]

91. If I trusted Hillary any farther than I could spit a hippopotamus...

...that argument would carry more weight. But I don't...

[NorthCarolina]

92. Like we don't hear that every 4 years.

The "noose" hanging over everybody's head that gets dragged out every election cycle like clockwork...Hold your nose and support the establishment candidate because, you know, the Supreme Court.

I won't say it hasn't worked well in the past because it certainly has...but I think that this go-around they should probably get some new material.

[timmymoff]

94. Two more to describe the frontrunner

bought politician. So who knows what we'd get from her regarding the SC.

[Sky Masterson]

97. I live in Kansas where Democrats don't win.

So I can vote for who I want and blame the swing states for picking a weak candidate in Hillary Clinton.

[Betty Karlson]

104. No, I don't want the GOP to fill the openings, which is why I don't want a weak candidate.

Since Clinton polls abysmally with independents, we should not go with her but with - anyone really, as long as they are willing to forgo a 2014 style millennial-bashing and left-ignoring DINO-Debbie-campaign.

So because of the importance of the Supreme Court, I strongly suggest not running the extremely weak candidate Clinton is. (And especially not in a year when the anti-establishment mood among the electorate is reaching unprecedented levels!)

[TheDormouse]

114. The time to make a stand isn't DURING the election

It's several years BEFORE the election, when you can influence who decides to run.

Once we're on short final to the convention, it's too g-damn late. You're not going to change anything in a positive way.

All the people saying Bernie or Bust, or flirting with 3rd party candidacies, should have been engaged and active back when nobody was daring to challenge HRC as a candidate. THAT's when you should have been talking about a 3rd party.

[beedle]

123. There's only one criteria for a SCOTUS justice

... don't do anything that will fuck up the chances for reelection of party that nominated and appointed you.

Conservatives justices are not going to outlaw abortion, or reverse marriage equality, or anything that will piss of 80% of society and cause the Republicans to be wiped out the very next election ... (and neither will the 'liberals', given Obama's recent nomination, someone that will make sure that strongly held, and widely popular conservative values are in no danger.)

Social justice, or any real justice for that matter happens at the activist level. It wasn't electing Obama that brought about marriage equality, it was activists attacking the establishment over and over and over again while Obama at best stayed out of the way, and even at times worked against the cause by sucking up to bigots in the name of political expediency.

Same thing for DOMA, DADT ... no fucking politician or SCOTUS justice caused those ignorant policies to disappear, it was activists, people who while fighting for social justice were told they were radicals and extremists, people just like so-called '#BernieBros' who put principles above protecting the delicate sensibilities of the political elite that got the job done.

While establishment Dems were sitting around wringing their hands over what SCOTUS justice was going to be picked next, making excuses for why it was not the right time to 'rock the boat', real progressives, real activists were out there making a difference ... if it were up to establishment Dems, we'd still be sitting around, 'keeping out powder dry' while we wait for the three branches of government to all be 100% Dems before we even attempted to do something.

[wundermaus]

129. Kinda sucks backing a candidate that may lose to tRump.

Instead, maybe you should consider supporting Sanders instead of Clinton.
I feel a lot more confident that Sanders would beat Trump given is broader base of support with democrats, independents, and conservatives.
In an open election, Sanders wins and the general election will be open.
Are you feeling confident backing Clinton?
She wins when just Democrats are voting, but when the election is open to all voters...
she loses.
Good luck with that.

[kgnu_fan]

134. Vote for Bernie.

[EndElectoral]

135. Running HRC insures the Supreme Court goes Republican

[jillan]

143. I have 2 words. NO Fracking!

[Arneoker]

152. I have five words

Do you prefer burning coal?

[TrueDemVA]

153. 3 words, Not With Her

Sorry, still not voting for Hillary. There is no guarantee she will not put in a corporate puppet like herself. She has a horrible track record on issues that have impacted millions of lives. Fracking, war, regime change, free trade, etc.

If the party was worried about the supreme court they would have treated all candidates the same, instead of working so aggressively to silence any opposition to her highness.

[Mike Nelson]

155. We may have...

...some who are into self-inflicted abuse. Hillary Clinton will fill the Supreme Court with progressive-minded justices.

[Depaysement]

156. Hmmm

I thought we weren't needed. That seemed to be the Clinton meme du jour No long ago. Is that no longer true?

If Clinton is so concerned about the Court she should pledge to nominate a specific judge now. Many were just vetted. It shouldn't be that hard.

[silvershadow]

158. Ooh. Is this another triangulation plea? That is just a question. nt

[chwaliszewski]

160. Why not just nominate Bernie?

He'd try to give what the Democrats and Independents want. Makes sense to me.

[coyote]

162. Ooooooooo...another vote for her or else thread.

If she cannot beat Trump, it's all on her and her cult of personality.

[djean111]

163. Like Hillary wouldn't appoint a Third Way conservative corporate judge.

Oh, and 'bye. I have a rule about unity pledgey thingies.

[TheDormouse]

171. see reply #146

[WhiteTara]

164. Trump might consider CRUZ!

[kentuck]

167. Unless she has to choose in her last year in office...

then it don't mean crap.