Clinton: 'There is no way I won't be' nominee
Source: The Hill
Hillary Clinton thinks the race for the Democratic nomination is all but over, telling CNN Thursday there's "no way" she won't be the party's presidential nominee.
"I will be the nominee for my party, Chris. That is already done in effect. There is no way I won't be," the former first lady told CNN's Chris Cuomo.
Clinton called her delegate lead over rival Bernie Sanders "insurmountable" and said she expects him to unite behind her and rally his supporters to take on Donald Trump once she clinches the nomination.
"When I came out and withdrew and endorsed Sen. Obama, about 40 percent of my supporters said they would never support him, so I worked really hard to make the case, as I'm sure Sen. Sanders will," Clinton said. "Whatever differences we may have, they pale in comparison to the presumptive nominee of the Republican party."
Read more: http://www.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/280565-clinton-there-is-no-way-i-wont-be-the-nominee
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
liberal N proud
(60,336 posts)I am with Hillary!
BootinUp
(47,165 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)It's so interesting to me. I notice a trend.
liberal N proud
(60,336 posts)Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)That's the whole problem.
She is oposite liberal.
Voting for Hillary is not an act made of liberal principles. But a rewarding legalized bribery and dirty campaign.
liberal N proud
(60,336 posts)
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)And what makes you think a neo-liberal who palls around with RW war criminals and woos Bush donors is a liberal?
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Dont be shortsighted. Democrats keep pointing out that Bernie isnt a real Democrat and is an independent. They should bite their tongues. Imagine if Bernie didnt run in this primary and instead ran as an independent. That would assure a Clinton loss in the general. Clintonites shouldnt act so spoiled because its turning them and their judgement rotten. Truth.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Im just curious.
Response to Jesus Malverde (Original post)
Post removed
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)laserhaas
(7,805 posts)
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)I'll have mine in the mail as soon as we can agree on that. Certified funds will be provided I assume...
basselope
(2,565 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)It would be perhaps more appropriate to suggest a colleague with no conflict of interest however.
My own sugguestion would be an entirely disinterested service like this:
https://www.betmoose.com/
basselope
(2,565 posts)make it 250k and we use the escrow company my wife works at.
The wording is simply Hilary Clinton will not win the presidency in 2016.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)How is this service unreliable exactly? And I should think YOUR wife is more reliable than a business set up exactly to do peer to peer betting? I'm assuming she's with a title company (if she even works in escrow at all; quite serendipitous that), which I suspect looks unkindly on private betting. Can I call the president of her company to verify this will be allowed, in writing on company letterhead?
Why not just follow through with the disinterested company? I'm willing. Still no PM with business details to even try your obviously fake smokescreen. I want to call your bluff....
basselope
(2,565 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)i posted the terms above and pmd you the escrow info.
and no you cant have a coversation with the owner.
You just need to prove access to 250k as stated in the pm
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)and no you cant have a coversation with the owner.
You just need to prove access to 250k as stated in the pm
How could he have sent me a PM with escrow instructions in such a way that meant I could not communicate with the president or owner? He'd have had to send me address and account numbers. How would that be possible without easy access to the relevant officer by a simple phone call or email?
No such PM was sent.
No such obfuscation would be possible if it were.
He's a welcher.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Follow the instructions in the PM.
No, the owner of the company will not have a conversation with you.
As stated, you don't have to supply the money, but instead simply prove you have access to 250K liquid funds.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)What can stop me calling if you had given me the name? Come on welcher fess up
basselope
(2,565 posts)send the information to the email address in the pm. its just verification of funds
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)I call your bluff! And I reject your unilateral terms change. You offered 10k I accepted. Follow through welcher!
Jury - be sure to read whole thread. He is as I state.
basselope
(2,565 posts)you were sent a pm with an email address for verification of liquid funds to cover 250k.
either follow the instructions or keep whining.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)For people who may still be confused on who is in the wrong here despite his obvious goalpost shifting and obfuscation and backtracking - THIS is what an escrow contract looks like. The whole POINT of escrow is nothing to do with verification but with physical control of the funds by an independent party and arrangements for their release after the contract is fulfilled. Anybody who has bought a house knows this. You'll note the silliness of the idea of being unable to speak to the escrow principle, as full name and address are on an escrow contract. How else are the funds supposed to be transferred in the first place?
http://www.biztree.com/doc/escrow-agreement-D1173
Can anybody honorable replace this lying welcher?
Jury - read the whole subthread.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Yes, I moved the goalposts, because you became a pain in the neck.
So, it's 250K now. You were sent instructions.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)The instructions I sent you just needed for you to prove liquid assets to cover the bet.
You chose to ignore it and continue this tirade.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)a) you sent no such instructions - post them here please for all to see to prove bona fides.
b) How would proving my liquid assets prove I would pay, and surely you need to do likewise. I want the actual money in escrow so it WILL be paid, not just proof it can be paid. THAT's what escrow IS. Why wouldn't you actually follow those rules if you were really willing to bet?
c) It's obvious you are backtracking on 124 because you thought I wouldn't take it. Tough shit because I did and you are now welching in public.
Jury - read whole thread.
basselope
(2,565 posts)a) not posting private information for that firm. Sorry.
b) proves you are capable of even entering into the bet.
c) It's called raising the stakes.
250K and follow the instructions in the PM.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)a) An escrow firm's name and address and phone number are not private. They have signs and websites and business cards for a reason - just post that and I'll be happy to give them a call.
b) And fuck all else. Why wouldn't you want to be sure I WILL pay and use real escrow contracts (escrow firms have nothing whatsoever to do with establishing net worth, folks - they just hold actual funds until a deal is finalized) ? I insist on that, as should anyone sensible.
c) It's called reneging on an originally agreed bet. AKA welching. One party cannot change the terms of an agreement.
There is and was no PM from you to me, only vice-versa from me asking for contact info. Give me the contact info in public, welcher, and post your actual funds to escrow too. There is no other way for you to be not demonstrated as the welcher you are.
Jury - read whole thread.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Given the nature of this website and the bet, I am not posting private information. I also gave you the direct e-mail address to my wife, who would be handling the matter.
She suggested proof of funds prior to entering agreements, which is what I explained in the PM (which I sent twice.)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
BigDemVoter
(4,150 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)
Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)dchill
(38,505 posts)
longship
(40,416 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)He was toast on super Tuesday.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)
forest444
(5,902 posts)While I grant her that the nomination is almost certainly hers at this point (although an indictment may still force her to withdraw on her own accord), it probably won't mean much in November.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)I'd write in O'Malley for president Joe Biden or Jim Webb.
MrChuck
(279 posts)puffy socks
(1,473 posts)MrChuck
(279 posts)all of Senator Sanders supporters are being labeled lunatics because of their devotion yet the post above suggests that a devotion to Sec'y Clinton would demand a useless vote against Sanders were she to withdraw.
Perhaps I was in error to assign your allegiance to Ms Clinton though. Forgive me.
Response to MrChuck (Reply #144)
Post removed
forest444
(5,902 posts)I'm no fan of the former Secretary; but barring some dramatic, unforeseen development I'll vote for her in November as the Democratic nominee. Like many others, I won't be voting for her as much as against the Rapepublican nominee.
Now then: if Hillary is forced to step aside because of something like a federal indictment, we should definitely keep our options open. Especially because should Hillary indeed step aside, I fully expect the DNC to nominate almost anyone except the candidate who, as the one in second place, should be entrusted with the nomination at that point: Bernie Sanders.
My guess though, is that Bitchy Mitchy will wait after she's nominated and after it's too late to change the ballots to have her indicted. At that point, she'll need a strong performance by Gary Johnson to win - and, as fate will have it, that may just happen.
Whatever happens, I intend to vote in whatever way will be most likely to prevent a return of the GOP to the White House. If that's ridiculous, tell them to count me in too.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)the DNC doesn't turn to Bernie, prepare for the party to explode into a thousand tiny pieces.
In this hypothetical situation, if the party wants to commit suicide it's on their heads.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)Hillary's supporters should fall in line if Bernie somehow becomes the nominee
But Sander's supporters should not now that she has the nomination?
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I can't figure out why (some of) y'all can't just wait.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)Oh yeah I forgot, y'all don't believe in math and somehow think death threats and wishes for public hangings are a great super delegate attractant. 
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)And (some of) y'all think this tone is helping your candidate with Bernie supporters how?
I myself am, should she be nominated, at the point of just voting in the general - no work, no money. I concede it's possible (though unlikely) that I might change my mind, but it would be in spite of, not because of her supporters.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)The needing to be begged for a vote you know darn well you'll never give anyway?
"And (some of) y'all think this tone is helping your candidate with Bernie supporters how?"
You think we should back Sanders as an alternate candidate... and readily admit Sanders supporters would destroy the party if they don't turn to him in such a scenario. your not trying to work with anyone, you're all trying (hilariously) to blackmail people into pleading with you.
It truly is "Bernie's way or they highway" with this campaign which is why I'm not concerned about my "tone" especially in light of the sarcastic , vile "tone" of Sander's supporters who post here 24/7 ,...and your tone, of course, you've completely dismissed.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)And I'm planning to vote for Hillary if nominated. But that's currently the entire extent of my general election plans for the presidential race. Take it as you will.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)overwhelming numbers. We didn't. Democrats - true-blue Democrats who care about the Party and want her strengthened, not "gutted"
- saw his anti-Democratic Party stances miles away. It's why we didn't go for him.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)against it.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)(I doubt you really did. But if you really did, well, I've always had my doubts about some Hillary supporters' grasp of human psychology.)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)But that does leave the question of why I care if some Hillary supporters shoot themselves in the foot.
I really should take the good advice downthread and just observe them doing it.
crim son
(27,464 posts)Don't bother engaging. Most of "them" will vote for the nominee, whoever it is and some folks on here want to make that as distasteful a prospect as possible.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts) 
sakabatou
(42,158 posts)So we'll see when it's all done.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)sakabatou
(42,158 posts)or sarcastic.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Seems kind of odd.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)desmiller
(747 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)to lie, cheat and steal her way into becoming the nominee. Heck, she has the money, and so many people can be bought these days.
I wonder how she is going to buy the independents who make up 1/3 of the electorate come the general election?
liberal N proud
(60,336 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)She has more delegates and more votes. I know it's frustrating when your nominee doesn't win but this conspiracy "she must have cheated' nonsense is laughable.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)worked for so many candidates, having compromised my values, my beliefs and having watched the disaster that was wrought on my country thanks to valueless, compromised presidential administrations and conservative Congresses, I just don't know whether I can compromise again.
I was 17 when JFK was elected, 20 when he was assassinated.
It's time for America to wake up and elect not just a president, but a Congress that works for everyone, not just for the oligarchs.
I just don't know whether I can bear to compromise again.
And Hillary gives me no reason to want to.
The debacle in Nevada, seen through my wise eyes, looked very much like a set-up to work Hillary voters in California without putting in much effort, without having to organize volunteers or much else (thus putting Barbara Boxer on the stage just at the moment when the crowd was most riled by the unfairness of the organization of the convention) into remembering to vote.
The debacle in Nevada is a warning about what will happen at the convention. If that convention is not handled fairly, this 72-year-old will be out there. I never was a demonstrator, but now that I am older, I can see the shape and form of events, and that convention had better be inclusive.
Thus far, the Hillaryites have shown no ability much less will to be fair and inclusive.
So, that is where this 72-year-old woman is.
Deal with it, Hillary.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)At 55 years old, I feel the same way about Bernie. He does absolutely nothing for me whatesoever. I'd still vote for him over donnie. The federal court is just too important to me.
hamsterjill
(15,222 posts)I was, at first, glad to see Senator Sanders broaching issues that I feel are important. I thought it would bring those issues attention and be a good thing for the party as a whole.
I've always thought that Hillary would be the nominee, and I voted for her in my primary, but I thought he was an asset to the process by opening up discussion.
But of late, my attitude about him has changed. I no longer think he's an asset but rather a liability now that won't do what he knows he should - bow out and work on unification.
I honestly cannot wait to see Hillary become the first female President of the United States. She's worked hard for it, I'm proud of her commitment, I'm proud of her accomplishments, and I don't give a rat's ass what anyone else thinks about that. I guess that means that, at my ripe old age, I have FINALLY learned something.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)The last time Hillary ran, she and Obama were almost twins, this time it is different. The DNC has shown that they would do anything to get Hillary elected, in the primary. She is probably the worse candidate that they could have put up. She has flip-flopped all over the place, and there is video, in HER OWN WORDS to prove it. She can't be trusted, period.
Z
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)I doubt if there will be any reunification.
Laser102
(816 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Hillary is arrogant and insensitive.
And I don't think she can win against Trump.
He runs on two primary personal traits: he acts like he is fun to be around -- he entertains -- and he says what people think. He is funny and he seems trustworthy.
He really is not trustworthy, but he convinces people that he is because he speaks with great sincerity.
Hillary does not have the personal tools to defeat Trump. She has very little sense of humor. She does not know how to use self-deprecation. She takes herself and everything very seriously.
Hillary also is weak on the trust factor. And what's more she is very boring.
That compared to Trump means that a lot of emotional voters will reject her.
That's just the way it is. She may win because of the race issue, but that is about all she has going for her.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Trump because of our multi-racial demographic. But in most states in the Union -- no way. Trump is addressing the trade and certain other economic issues. I don't trust him, but a lot of people will.
hamsterjill
(15,222 posts)When voters start taking a hard look at what harm President Trump might cause, I think there will be greater unity on the Democratic side. Just my opinion, but my opinion is as good as anyone else's. No better, but just as good.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)with your entire post. I too have stopped giving a shit about what people call me or what they think about who I support. You would have to be a weakminded wuss to let anonymous posters on the internet define you.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)See my post below about the housing prices in Los Angeles and the homeless problem we have here.
People who live in other parts of the country do not witness the pain that the extreme disparity of wealth in our country causes to many of our citizens.
So many people need basic services like universal healthcare, free college tuition at state schools and other financial help.
In a country that can afford so many bombers, aircraft carriers, and other instruments of death, can't we spend a little more on instruments of life and improve the quality of life for the least amongst us.
How can Hillary claim to be a Christian when she does not put the needs of the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, those that Jesus said we should care for if we are to care for Him, first and foremost in her policy proposals.
Bernie is the one who cares about the American people.
Hillary -- not so much. Hard to say what she cares about other than regime change in Syria. She is a neocon. I just can't do that anymore. Can't bear it.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)if you think Hillary is all about being a neocon. She's more hawkish than I would like but I don't care when the federal bench is on the line and the woman has been working for women and the disadvantaged her entire career. I can't vote for someone who wants to increase my taxes - I'm already paying for more bombs, more tax cuts for the oil and sugar companies and the wealthy than I care to. We're dealing with a republican congress (even if we do take the senate, it's meaningless when the fillibuster still exists) and none of what Bernie wants will get done. That's the reality.
hamsterjill
(15,222 posts)I did the calculator, and NO, I won't reap any benefits by paying less for health insurance. I work for a small employer who pays my health insurance (yes, I am lucky). He will benefit if he doesn't have to pay for insurance for me, but his taxes will increase exponentially, too, and none will be left to "trickle down" to me.
Reality MUST come into this equation. Pragmatism, too. Hillary will work for incremental change, not radical change. Radical change is a pipe dream. Incremental change is simply the way things get done.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)move to single payer.
Taxes will go up, but more people will be covered.
Are you an "I've got mine. Too bad for you," voter?
The cost of insurance will go down somewhat maybe a lot if we move to single payer because a lot of administrative costs and the profit will be taken out.
Clearly, although Hillary is ahead, she is not ahead by enough to mean that Americans reject the change that Bernie is suggesting.
Hillary is essentially the candidate of negativity and status quo. For many Americans, especially young Americans, that is unacceptable.
We will never, ever deal with either our drug addiction or our violence problems unless we change our healthcare and education (including vocational training) systems. We will never deal with our crime problem unless we realize that we are in this together, no matter what it costs us in terms of taxes.
If you read Bernie's book (see my sig line), you will learn that he is on the Budget Committee in the Senate. He knows where the waste is in the budget and lists a number of programs, quite a long list, that he would cut or review in order to save money for some of his proposals. He states in his speech in Los Angeles that one of the first things he would do would be to begin an audit of the military.
The plan for an audit of unaccounted for money in the military was, I heard, swept off the headlines by 9/11.
Bernie is the best bet if you want to save money. He is extremely frugal in his lifestyle. Hillary. No. When she wants money, she sells her time -- giving speeches, etc. Bernie works for the people and does not squander money. It's a matter of his character and the fact that he was raised in a relatively poor family. Read his book. It's great.
Apparently Bill Clinton's Secretary for the military started a program that Bernie calls pay-offs for lay-offs. Read the book and you will learn how it worked. Intriguing.
I do not want Hillary in the White House. Bernie's presidency will cost a lot less than you think, and we the citizens will get more for our money. Read his book.
hamsterjill
(15,222 posts)I don't pay for my health insurance premiums now. My employer does.
If my taxes increase by $8,000 and I already have insurance and get nothing in return, how does that help anyone? It's unfair to me and the many like me.
I am not wealthy. I have worked every day of my life since I was 16. I would love for everyone to be covered for health care, but I cannot afford to lose $8,000. It will put me out on the street. It's not a question of "I've got mine". It's the reality that I've got bills to pay.
Bernie needs to find a better way of paying for his pipe dreams.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If you employer does not have to pay for your healthcare, he/she/it can pay you directly what he/she/it would pay for the insurance. So that way you gain. And your employer can deduct the cost of your pay as a business expense.
If you get sick and for that or some other reason cannot work (let's say your company closes) and we do not have single payer, universal insurance, you have to buy your own insurance on Obamacare or on the open market. That will cost you a lot more than the value of the insurance your employer provides for you, and you will be unemployed and unable to pay for it. With our current system, you have the employer-paid insurance when you are working, i.e., when you are least likely to need it, and you don't have that insurance when you are most likely to need it --- when for some reason you are unable to work (and it is often a health reason). If you think COBRA is a good system for those out of work, I hope you have a lot of money saved because, especially for a family, it is very expensive.
Single payer insurance is, in the end, cheaper for everyone. A comparison of the cost of health insurance between our country and countries with single payer plans proves that. And having lived in countries with single payer, I highly recommend it in terms of healthcare. It's there when you need it and is, compared to ours, affordable and reliable and very good.
hamsterjill
(15,222 posts)Yes, my employer CAN pay me directly, but the question would be "WILL" he be willing to do that in any fashion since HIS taxes will increase even more than mine will under Bernie's plan. The answer is no, he will not.
Bernie implies that he's going after the 1%'ers. But I'm far from that - way, way, way, WAY down from that. Bernie's plan is punitive to ordinary Americans who live paycheck to paycheck just like I do.
As I said before, I am in favor of everyone having health care coverage. I want everyone to be taken care of. But as with all things, providing that must be PAID FOR in some manner. I don't doubt that single payer is, in the end, cheaper for everyone. But it's still all about GETTING THERE without bankrupting those of us who are barely hanging on as it is.
I am very familiar with COBRA and the fact that it's horribly expensive.
May I ask how much YOUR taxes would increase under Bernie's plan?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Your employer CAN stop providing health insurance any time he wants. And then where would you be? Unless of course, your employer is the government and your insurance is actually paid out of taxes that other people, some earning less than you and having to pay for their own insurance, pay.
Everyone should save. But people who live paycheck to paycheck are precisely the people who need a single payer plan. We never know when, as we have seen with Carrier in Indianapolis, a private employer will just decide to close our workplace for one reason or another.
Fact is most Americans are unable to save. Our cars cost us too much. Unless you live in a big city and have decent public transportation, you virtually have to have one. Education debt is a big item for young Americans. The cost of co-pays and medications including over-the-counter medications takes a good part of many budgets. We pay too much to watch the box. (We don't subscribe to cable. It's too expensive. A lot of Americans would be better informed and save a lot of time if they cancelled.)
A lot of people living paycheck to paycheck waste a lot of money. And then misfortune strikes. And when it does the cost to American society due to the lack of funds and preparation on the part of individual Americans is high. It isn't just the foreclosed homes, the bankruptcies, the alcoholism and drug addiction, the anxiety and fear. It's broken homes, confused and angry children and in extreme cases, a legacy of crime and imprisonment.
We have done what we can to oust dangerous animals from the areas of the world in which we live our daily lives. It's just part of being human to want to live in a safe, secure world and to raise your children in that world. But somehow, Americans seem to crave the adventure of sudden economic disaster. Very strange to me having lived in Europe so many years and having seen what a modicum of social security like knowing your medical bills will be paid in an emergency or should you become seriously ill that Americans enjoy the thrill and adventure of our private insurance system so much. I guess it's that old Wild West fantasy that we enjoy.
Bernie grew up in a family in which money was scarce and the source of tension and disputes. So did many Americans. That's why he favors making sure that the necessities like healthcare and education are available to ALL and not just to the lucky few whose employers agree to pay for them (for the moment).
We can choose to have a society in which even the disabled, the poor, the mentally ill and the just plain cantankerous can go to the doctor when they need to. Or we can have a society in which you only get the privilege of medical care when you can afford the monthly premiums PLUS the co-pays. I prefer the first. If the majority prefers the second, if the majority would rather pay the co-pays than the extra taxes, then I will keep working to persuade people that single payer is much better than they think because it is. I've enjoyed it. I've experienced it. When your husband falls and breaks his hip and can't work for eight weeks and hobbles on crutches for a year and you have two young children, you really appreciate the security of knowing that even if he can't work for some months, at least you don't have to pay impossible medical bills. It's really great. Also great if you are already overwhelmed by student debt and really want to have that baby that you couldn't afford when you were in graduate school.
Lots and lots of reasons to prefer single payer. Of course you pay for it. It isn't free. But you pay for it when your income is highest, now in those emergency periods when your income is low. So it is a matter of when you pay for your health insurance not whether you pay for it.
And remember, you are paying for your health insurance now because it is party of your salary.
I am pretty certain that health insurance will be much cheaper once we take the profit out of it. So your estimate of $8000 per year comes out to about $700 per month. If you are earning considerably more than the median, that is not an unfair share. Remember there are lots of people who are not lucky enough to be able to earn much. I spoke to a young, disabled woman last week who told me about her friends who earn 25 cents per piece where they work. They need your help.
As I have said, the Hillary supporters are Democrats when it comes to social issues but not when it comes to economic issues. Like Republicans, they've got theirs and that's all that matters.
By the way, when you go to the hospital, your insurance has to stretch to cover the cost of the care for indigents that your hospital is required to provide in the emergency room (a Reagan era rule that hospitals have to provide those services, I believe) so you pay for really bad, really expensive care for people who should have health insurance already. We can actually save lives and do it for a reasonable amount of money with single payer.
And no. I do not work for the Bernie campaign or any other hospital or non-profit. I just am retired. At one time, I worked for a homeless project writing grants and doing other administrative work. I know whereof I speak when it comes to the importance of providing universal healthcare in our country. Employers could save on workers' compensation insurance costs if we folded the medical portion of workers' compensation into a universal, non-profit or Medicare-like health system. I used to buy the health insurance for our non-profit.
hamsterjill
(15,222 posts)That's just supposed to be okay? I'm supposed to be okay with that because I'm helping the general populace? And if I don't agree that the concept is okay, I'm a selfish moron who doesn't care about anyone else? No, I do not think so.
I'm close to retirement but not quite there. There are OTHER things that are important in addition to (notice I did not say "instead of"
health care. Like having electricity and running water and a car to drive and food.
Bernie should have stuck to sticking it to the uber wealthy who don't have to worry about every day expenses, but instead, his plan includes and involves middle class Americans just like me. Have him find a way to provide universal healthcare for America WITHOUT making it where we can't pay our bills. His plans sound wonderful, but when you get right down to the nitty gritty, he takes money away from normal, ordinary citizens, throws that money into a pot and then HE gets to decide how he returns that money to us. No, I don't think so. That is not the American way.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)As I pointed out, the insurance will be cheaper for everyone when we take the profit out and get people to the doctor before they need that unnecessary surgery.
You are already paying probably at least $500-600 for insurance (depending) per month but you just don't realize it.
Yes. I am saying that single payer will benefit all Americans even those who pay higher taxes but don't have to pay for-profit insurance premiums. Yes. It will.
And I have to mention that American health insurance costs will probably be lower under a single payer system than are those per person costs in Germany. In countries like Germany and Austria, there is a tradition of visiting the spa. The insurance covers in many cases visits to spas that we would consider to be vacations. They also get free dental insurance included in their insurance. That is something we need desperately.
A lot of Americans will give $50 a year to some charity that provides Christmas gifts to poor kids but balk when they are asked to pay a proportionately small amount of money in taxes in order to provide families and the indigent with healthcare.
My mother died at the age of 98. She lived modestly all her life but never lacked. Her secret? "Know your wants from your needs."
American needs universal healthcare. We want 75 stations on cable TV. We need to know our wants from our needs. Let's have universal healthcare first and then talk about how much cable TV we want.
hamsterjill
(15,222 posts)I'm a completely, 100% Democrat who has never voted for a Republican IN HER LIFE.
I realize how the economic factors work. What you don't realize because you can't possibly know it is my own, personal job situation. I'm not in the typical big company benefit mill, etc. Standards don't always apply.
But I'm not alone. There are plenty of Americans in the very same situation that I am in. But it's all naught anyway. Hillary is going to be the nominee. That's the reality. That's fantastic in my view.
Thanks for the lively discussion, but I think we're done here. Enjoy the rest of your day.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)zalinda
(5,621 posts)Let's not shoot for the stars. Let's not give everyone a chance to have a good life. You would pay a few extra dollars for a few years at most with Bernie. Do you even realize that one of the reasons you are paying higher taxes is because of all the people locked up in prison? Your taxes pay for that. Hillary and Bill have both supported the 3 strikes law, and locking people up for small amounts of marijuana. And then the private prisons that Hillary supports have contracts which state that their prison must fill a certain percentage of beds, and if that quota is not filled they are still owed the money. The average cost per prisoner is $44,000 a year. How does this make sense?
Then of course there is the military. You don't think that Hillary isn't going to keep the military budget where it is or expand it? She is known for invading countries, whether public or under the radar. Your taxes also go to the military, and will probably increase under Hillary.
These are just 2 things, but I could go on.
I just don't understand Hillary supporters.
Z
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)and it's getting tiresome to have people who don't know me feel they can shove words into my mouth. I already voted for Hillary in the primary but have maintained from the start of this race that I will vote for whoever has the D behind their name because MY issue is the federal courts (nothing else even comes close in my eyes). What I'm telling you is that I'm starting to hear more and more reliable Democrats who will NOT vote for Bernie if he's the nominee. To them it means another four years of getting nothing done, INCLUDING judicial candidates getting held up for no reason whatsoever. It means higher taxes (and they already play plenty) and a few have mentioned the gun issue which I really didn't care about until Newtown. Lately, they just think he and his supporters are annoying and have gotten turned off him from that. NOTHING Bernie supporting - free college tuition for state schools, his health care proposal - NOTHING is going to get past congress.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)Here's the problem with Hillary, the Republicans hate her, as well as some Democrats. Republicans in office will not go along with ANYTHING she proposes, they will fear for their political future if they do. This is one reason that very little got done under Obama and it will be twice as bad under Hillary. She bought the Democrats with re-election money, she will have to try to buy the Republicans, but they already have Koch money.
She has no coattails, and it will be a slog if she even gets elected. From the moment she is sworn in, she will face impeachment, they are itching to do it, and their constituents will demand it. Think of birthers on steroids. After 2 years of continued battering, do you think that people will all of a sudden vote in Democrats? Democrats will become everything that they hate about Hillary and Bill. She inspires no enthusiasm. And, quite frankly people don't trust her or like her.
Bernie on the other hand, has enthusiastic supporters, willing to work very hard to get him elected. He went from 50 points behind to beating her in almost half the states, with very little support from the MSM or the DNC, if fact you could say they worked against him. It was his supporters that got him where he is. His supporters will make sure that down ticket politicians will also be elected. Just take a look at what has happened with Tim Canova, Bernie supporters have gotten behind him and he has a real chance to win. And in 2 years, Bernie supporters will have lined up politicians that will work with Bernie and get them elected. It could be a real game changer.
Bernie is our leader, our voice, our figurehead for the movement, he is not our messiah, he knows that and tells us frequently. Bernie knows that change won't happen instantly, and he has told us that. But, if we don't reach for the stars, it will never happen.
Bernie supporters are not in it for just this election, but to change the system. They tried working within the Democratic Party, witnessed by Bernie joining the Democratic Party, but not only have they rejected him, they have done everything they could to destroy his campaign. They have been so blatant about it that it has not gone unnoticed, even by the MSM. Do we reward the Democratic Party and Hillary by voting for her, after they have done everything they could to demean us and push us away and destroy our leader? Why would we, why should we?
There is absolutely no chance of anything happening in my lifetime or my son's lifetime if things stay the same. Hillary is quite comfortable keeping everything the way it is. She has become a multi millionaire with the system, while more and more people have to turn to food stamps and food pantries to eat. More and more people have been arrested and imprisoned and died because of the system. Just because you don't see it or feel it, doesn't mean it isn't happening. In the near future, if things remain the same, expect all hell to break loose. The pressure is mounting, the feelings are real.
Z
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)The age of ivory towered moderate democrats playing footsie with other elitists like the Bush family is over. Let them go sip champagne into retirement. The world cannot suffer their vanity much longer.
jhart3333
(332 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Her payoff for kissing Clinton ass is gonna be a cabinet position.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)She announced that a year and a half ago.
You really should try to keep up.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)And I'm glad she's retiring. It's time for fresh blood untainted by years of success or entitlement.
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)And, more so than him on some issues.
Attacking her for "years of success and entitlement" in Congress and not Sanders is laughable.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)But about 6 years ago I noticed she was more establishment than not. She had little problem with wars at home and abroad.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)Your candidate seems to be in no big hurry to do the latter. In fact, there's almost no talk whatsoever from the Sanders campaign about getting other Democrats elected in November (other than the few who have endorsed Sanders) so that, regardless of our nominee, the incoming Democratic president can actually get shit done. It's just assumed that Bernie's coattails will sweep them in. That's not how it works.
Additionally, it's kind of hard for the campaign to claim that they're campaigning for other Democrats when they spend most of their time throwing most of them under the bus.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That is exactly what Bernie means with that term: electing progressives in every state at every level.
We are just starting.
Hillary and the corporate-dependent wing of the Democratic Party have had since 1994 when Bill lost the Democratic majority in Congress to elect a solid Democratic majority again for our Congress.
They have failed. In many cases, they haven't even tried. They are happy with "compromising."
I don't know whether I can compromise again. I have seen too many, far too many compromises in my life.
I worked for a homeless project for years. I walk out into my community, and what do I see? Homeless people. I see them with all their earthly belongings stuffed into shopping carts. I see them trying to set up a tent or stretch out a homemade bedroll under a freeway. I see them scavenging for food in the trash cans behind restaurants.
The city is trying to help, but what is needed is universal healthcare including mental healthcare, jobs and a livable wage as well as the housing assistance the City wants to invest in.
$300,000 per unit is not "affordable" housing. Not for people earning $15 per hour. And certainly not for the unemployed.
Los Angeles is stuck in a housing crisis with little hope for an easy escape. The standard definition of “affordable” is shelter that costs no more than 30% of a household's gross income; anything higher cuts severely into other types of consumption. Using that metric, to afford the median-priced home, the median household would require a staggering 52% raise, to $96,000 a year from $63,000. A more modest 14% raise would enable that family to rent the median-priced apartment. With housing costs rising faster than incomes, we are likely to retain our title as the least affordable city in the United States for years to come.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-habibi-housing-crisis-la-20150810-story.html
California’s Home Prices and Rents Higher Than Just About Anywhere Else. Housing in California has long been more expensive than most of the rest of the country. Beginning in about 1970, however, the gap between California’s home prices and those in the rest country started to widen. Between 1970 and 1980, California home prices went from 30 percent above U.S. levels to more than 80 percent higher. This trend has continued. Today, an average California home costs $440,000, about two–and–a–half times the average national home price ($180,000). Also, California’s average monthly rent is about $1,240, 50 percent higher than the rest of the country ($840 per month).
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housing-costs.aspx
M_A
(72 posts)I give up on the democratic party. I loathe the clintons and my family and hometown still suffer from NAFTA. My friends still suffer from DADT, DOMA and the Iraq war. We all suffer from the patriot act. Nothing about Madam Sec. appeals to me and my friends/family. We intended to vote third party (again) before Sanders threw his hat in the ring. We'll have no problem going back to that plan if she ends up the nominee. No more lesser evil voting for us.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)him at every turn? Hillary hasn't done squat, in fact the very fund raiser that was touted as being for down ticket candidates went to her campaign and the DNC, very little went to help the down ticket candidates. Apparently DWS found a loop hole, so all those people who thought they were supporting down ticket, was really supporting Hillary and DWS. When in the hell do those two not lie?
Z
Duval
(4,280 posts)I am donating to Bernie through Jack Pine Radicals, and am sending nothing to the DNC,DCCC, etc. I've so had it with their unfairness.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
world wide wally
(21,744 posts)This is simple math. Anything else is irrational
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)The MSM was ready to push the 'thugs for Bern' meme in the face of no evidence to support their contention that any physical violence took place or that Sanders supporters were behind anything that happened later. The Sander's delegates were there do participate in the democratic process, not a rigged carnival game. Media coverage also served as a great deflection from the real issue, which was what you have to do to seriously piss off that many serious people. It's a damn miracle there really wasn't a riot. I'm sure the Clinton campaign would still be doing a happy dance on its the way to California if there had been.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)
KauaiK
(544 posts)I don't know who scares me more, HRC or Trump. HRC's association with war-criminal Kessinger and ease with which she send other people's children to war is frightening.
The events in Nevada and the jaw-dropping photos of troopers in front of the podium reminded me of photographs of the Third Reich in Life and Look magazines I saw as a kid.
Add the sleaziness of the DNC and it's de facto head DWS and I'm fairly certain I will write Sander's name in if he is not the nominee.
I am NOT with her.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Though I am not quite as old as you, (I was only ten) I have been compromising for quite some time myself, as our Party goes down the tubes, only to join forces with those who we fought against in the past.
I also agree with your opinion on Hilliary. She just doesn't do it for me, and I am not willing to compromise.
Well for me it's kind of personal. When she lied about Nancy Reagan's role in helping the AIDS crisis, that was the moment that she lost any support from me ever in my lifetime. No apologies are accepted either. My younger brother died due to the fact that there was no early research. He got it from a transfusion, but the Reagan crowd called it a gay cancer. Yes it was early on, but had there been some early research, my brother might be alive today. So I have vowed to never vote for ANY Republican ever in my lifetime. When Hilliary lied, I extended that vow to anyone who tries to change the real history behind it.
Sorry Hilliary supporters, she will never get my support. Blood is thicker than political beliefs, when it comes down to it.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)And this 63 year old shares your sentiments. I will not fall in line and vote for $hillary, the panderer, the MIC corporatist, the abominable trade dealer who's owned by and beholden to Goldman-Sachs
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)They are the more centrist, conservative wing of the party. Why not just own it?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)so I don't know what the fuck you're talking about and obviously neither do you.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)I thought as a Clinton supporter you might know. Almost everyone I click on has Clinton Group as their favorite. It's a small group that has banned most people from DU and wondered if you also noticed the trend given your similar declaration of how left you are. But I probably misinterpreted. You probably mean you left NYC like I did years ago.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)and can't admit it. You ASSUMED something without checking it out and now have egg all over your face. No - I will never live anywhere but NY and will always consider myself a liberal - I don't give a crap what you think I should call myself.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)You do consider yourself left. I don't give a crap if you're actually in the Clinton Group or not. You're an extreme Clinton supporter and my question essentially is why do Clinton supporters always feel like they have to name themselves lib or left or democrat? Do you think we question it too much? And why do you think we do? It's an honest question and me think thou dost protest too much? The fact is Clintonites are centrists not leftists.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)In fact, for the pro-Hillary lurkers looking to create a new alias, I have a few suggestions:
SuperDuperLiberal
2Left4Skool
ImALiberalDontchaKnow
MostProgressiveOnDU
NoneMoreLiberalThanMe
2Progreessive4U
ImSoLeftItBlowzMyMind
MoreLiberalThanFDR
They'll have to check for themselves to see if any are taken. Also, they'll have to get their own "I'm with HER!" sig line graphics!
w4rma
(31,700 posts)or their posts. So, they loudly proclaim that they are what they aren't.
I've noticed the trend, too. A whole lot of Clintonites have names that proclaim that they are "left" or a "Democrat". Whereas I hardly see any progressives who do that.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Taking notes from NSA. 
DrToast
(6,414 posts)Getting more votes.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)I personally think that strategy sucks ass. You?
greatlaurel
(2,004 posts)Go Hillary!
stopbush
(24,396 posts)Are those millions of voters stupid? Part of the problem? Corporate shills? Even those "poor deep south" voters that Sanders loves to discount?
BTW - in case you didn't know, Independents never have and never will decide an election. Read about it.
The emptiest threat in politics is to say that people who can't make the commitment to join an actual political party need to be coddled to vote for any party's candidate. Such self-aggrandizing bullshit.
Checking the "Independent" box on your voter registration form? It may as well be labeled "Political Milquetoast."
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)They aren't just in the presidents club (never see Jimmy Carter hobknobbing). These two families have been spending vacation time together as admitted since 1982. After 2000 they have stated publicly numerous times they aren't just friendly colleges but consider each other intimate family members. If you want to really stop Bush you have to stop Clinton. It's that simple. It's amazing to me how people either don't read or rationalize this fact away. They consider themselves brothers and sisters. Even parent and child as Barbara Bush has also stated. Only a fool would explain this away as political niceties or a club.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)Nah, never.
?itok=jhv76H7J
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Those are actual presidents club official gatherings. Just like sec of state forums. I'm talking golf and BBQs. Cmon. You're smarter than that.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)you have no clue what you're talking about.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Of course it's a club. Just like sec of states. But it's a vastly different relationship the Bushes and Clintons have which existed a decade before Bill took office. I don't know about you but Bush Sr is a criminal in my opinion...an extraordinary president despite him tricking everyone into believing he was a wimp. This man was CIA Director and involved in the shadiest operations of the 20th century as well as developing the drug war. Bill is closely linked to this criminal and it's not normal or business as usual. They his the relationship until 2000 which like all deceit should raise your suspicions.
Duval
(4,280 posts)stopbush
(24,396 posts)you have to have at least one foot planted firmly in reality.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Try not just relying on CNN for your information. Everything I said is firmly rooted in reality. Just because someone is ignorant to the facts (not just a republican problem I'm noticing) doesn't mean we have to coddle them. There are many, many quotes of these two families stating their beyond special relationship. Barbara, GW, Daddy Bush and Jeb have all stated as such and the Clintons have never denied. And I'm not referring to public speeches honoring families at the Bush Library induction or other galas where they have also tried to charm each other. Did you watch those by the way? I doubt it. That would take to much time and paying attention. But those aren't the instances in referring to. Those were creepy yes but explainable nicities by apologists. I'm talking about statements made in unofficial arenas but still recorded by journalists. What about the 1983 photo of Bill, George Wallace and Bush Sr at a picnic at Bushes Kennebunkport, ME family estate? You do know that is and always has been reserved for private affairs right? Bill was very young and already dealing with essentially his other father.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)Sanders does only slightly better, within the MOE.
The "independents won't vote for Hillary" meme is demonstrably false. Sorry.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)This is what I don't understand. The public is just starting to know Bernie and they like him better. The early states voting didn't know who he was and DWS made sure that was the case, and still he does better than Hillary.
Z
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)wtf
votes, PDs, and SDs
Deal with it.
Tumbulu
(6,291 posts)laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Exposing the narcissist nature of the wannabe
reformist2
(9,841 posts)laserhaas
(7,805 posts)With this disigenuous bullchit
So the at home private server industry can boom
Hand in hand with private charities circumvention of undue influences law
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)We have a lot of enthusiastic Berners but we have a lot of older folk also. I walked my precinct. Hard to tell. My precinct is roughly 40% Dem and 60% Repub.
frylock
(34,825 posts)A loss, no matter how close, is going to make for some incredibly poor optics in the home stretch. The MSM is already talking about how weak she looks.
jmowreader
(50,560 posts)He can't even afford to contest California properly, and the FEC is probably going to throw him in jail for accepting contributions from non-US citizens - WHICH HE IS LISTING ON HIS FEC REPORTS!
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)jmowreader
(50,560 posts)This is a letter the FEC sent the Sanders campaign detailing his Excessive, Prohibited and Impermissible Contributions:
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/619/201602250300038619/201602250300038619.pdf
There are lists of hundreds of contributions credited to one name in there. And there are a LOT of people doing this. I think these people are all phonebankers...we've looked up a few of the names and they were all phonebankers, so the likelihood all his "two pages of contributions in one month" contributors are phonebankers is pretty high.
Are they doing this because the phonebankers are all too lazy to record contributors' personal data, because they're being paid on commission, or they're taking contributions from people not eligible to donate?
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)I can't wait until Obama gets out of jail. Oh, or I guess it is possible you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Even Hillary had to return illegal money in 2008 (Norman Hsu). It happens to someone every cycle. They get busted and pay a fine, or clean up the mess by refunding the overage/illegal contribution.
frylock
(34,825 posts)How sadz.
mac56
(17,570 posts) liberal N proud
(60,336 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)when Hillary loses in Cali.
jmowreader
(50,560 posts)First problem: Bernie does well in homogeneously-white states, poorly in diverse ones. California is a very diverse state.
Second problem: Bernie doesn't have enough money to properly campaign in California. He's going to have to restrict his ad buys to smaller markets and skip advertising in the Los Angeles, San Diego and Bay Area markets...which broadcast to roughly half the state.
Third problem: Bernie Sanders needs to earn 850 delegates to take the nomination. Hillary only needs 90. Bernie has no chance in hell of flipping a Clinton SD to his side, so he's going to have to take what he needs from the pool of remaining delegates. There are only 939 delegates left to be collected. This is where Math enters the picture: To win the nomination, Bernie has to sweep - literally take ALL the delegates - in all the remaining contests. This he will never do. Bernie's big problem is, if Hillary takes a mere 10 delegates per contest in each of the remaining nine, she will be on the ballot in November.
Or, in terms you will not understand: Bernie Sanders could win all nine contests and still lose the nomination.
It's over.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)But, here's the thing. She'll still show up, because this is about more than the primaries and about more than California. It's about helping to elect down-ticket Dems in November and about winning the presidency.
So, yeah, she'll show up.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)
bucolic_frolic
(43,190 posts)Trump boasts about the same thing
coco77
(1,327 posts)- ---- ---- ---.
McKim
(2,412 posts)What disgusting arrogance. She is shoving herself down our throats. She is way to used to the adoration of her Washington bubble. She is not respecting the huge masses of progressives and the people who are just plain fed up. This is a public relations disaster for her and she doesn't even recognize it, unbelievable!
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)She knows MATH. Sorry you have a problem with the simple concept that wishing really hard doesn't make shit come true.
Laurian
(2,593 posts)This failure to recognize reality baffles me.
Mz Pip
(27,451 posts)She will be the nominee. She has more votes. She has more delegates.
Stating the obvious is not arrogance.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)
SharonClark
(10,014 posts)She leads in pledged delegates, super delegates, and votes! Of course she'll be the nominee.
frylock
(34,825 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts) apcalc
(4,465 posts)Modesty? Anyone dare to talk modesty about the males and their claims?....
To hell with that...and she's right to boot.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)#FeelTheMath!
Skink
(10,122 posts)FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)Laurian
(2,593 posts)What does that say about your candidate....that he can't win the votes so he has to root for an indictment?
frylock
(34,825 posts)Just win, baby.
apcalc
(4,465 posts)Carolina
(6,960 posts)of her own horrific words in 2008: ya know... "remember Bobby Kennedy!"
840high
(17,196 posts)remind her also that she's under FBI investigation.
skylucy
(3,739 posts)as brilliant as Trump is stupid. Never has there been a more stark contrast between two candidates for President. Will America elect the stupidest man ever nominated (yes, Trump makes George W. Bush look like Einstein) or will America elect the highly qualified, brilliant woman? Our children will be watching. The world will be watching. HILLARY 2016.
JudyM
(29,251 posts)ALL her emails on a private server, an unsecured private server. Oh yes, that's brilliant. She thought "wiping" the server meant with a cloth? She's either not so smart or ... what...? Scheming, lying, duplicitous, what? You have to look at her whole picture. Is she dumb? I don't think so, but then why did she DO something so dumb? To evade the law of course.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512006901
This is coming to roost...
skylucy
(3,739 posts)who just gave an outstanding interview on CNN. I included some derogatory statements about the Republican nominee. And you reply with right wing talking points worthy of Fox News and the Trumpster himself. Hillary 2016
JudyM
(29,251 posts)And I'm asking a question about the assessment you pronounced -that she's so intelligent...how do you explain the unsecured server that was used for all of her emails?
Merryland
(1,134 posts)HOPNOSH
(37 posts)You might wanna check your facts Lucy.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)potone
(1,701 posts)I think she does feel entitled and is arrogant. On the other hand, she is highly intelligent and is a policy wonk who knows her stuff. That is why she is able to withstand lengthy Congressional hearings without losing her cool. But that is not to say that she is the best candidate. That is a different matter. I think she has too much baggage as well as being too hawkish and too pro-corporate to be a good president as a Democrat.
That is my opinion, but I truly cannot imagine a less qualified candidate than Donald Trump. If he wins, there is no telling what he will do; the man seems to care about nothing except for his own ego, which must be very frail since he has to brag so much.
I am scared either way. I want Bernie to win, and that is looking increasingly unlikely to happen.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I am not a huge Hillary fan. I do however have a lot of admiration for her. She has stood up through literally decades of character assassinations and keeps on going. I doubt I would have withstood a few days of what she has gone through in her life forget about decades.
I have disagreed with her many times over the years and I have no doubt I will continue to do so.
However.
You nailed it. In that interview she came off as brilliant as trump is stupid. The contrast will be stark after the conventions.
Her response on bringing the Dems together showed how much she understands where we are at now in the process and the work that is ahead. She was right where Bernie is now when she ran against Obama and she recognizes it fully. She also recognized that she too stayed till the end. She struck me as very clear eyed about the whole thing.
I am far from her biggest fan but she was wonderful in that interview and if she continues to bring that against trump going forward she is a shoe in to be the next president.
Response to Jesus Malverde (Original post)
NowSam This message was self-deleted by its author.
DawgHouse
(4,019 posts)stopbush
(24,396 posts)I'm sure that Sanders will counter by regurgitating a bit of his voodoo economic policies on how he'll pay for healthcare.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)Yep.
LexVegas
(6,067 posts)SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)Not with comments like this. Come to think about it, she walks back many things she says...they come out wrong. So I'll give her that, BUT, I had hard time living through the Bush years, and the gaffs.
Done. Bernie doesn't waste a syllable. And he says what he means.
Laurian
(2,593 posts)He's like a broken record with that stump speech. If I never hear the word "oligarch" again, it will be too soon.
-none
(1,884 posts)If not, the pink sky is the limit. Bernie is constrained. Hillary, on the other hand, is known to be rather loose on her 'facts'.
That makes no sense.
Constrained? If a candidate makes promises, he should back them up with details on how he will deliver. Bernie just rages against the OLIGARCHS and stokes discontent without offering credible solutions.
-none
(1,884 posts)That is the bigger problem for me.
merrily
(45,251 posts)TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)Will Sanders do the same?
Probably. I suspect he'll drop out after the 7th and endorse her some time before the convention. He'll support her for November, certainly, as he's clearly said he would.
merrily
(45,251 posts)TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)Careful, you've just painted yourself into a corner.
You can play semantics games, but the truth is that "withdraw" is a well-known term that applies to when a candidate ends their campaign, regardless of when it's done. If Sanders withdraws after the last primary and before the convention, everyone will say he withdrew from the race.
Just like every other time.
For example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/AR2008060601839.html
I guess they're lying, too. Give me a break.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)"I have stood on the stage and gone toe-to-toe with him in 22 debates."
She and DWS apparently learned well from 08 to keep her arse off the debate stage, making it hard for voters to be able to learn about her opponents. That alone is enough to make me work to take down DWS!
peace13
(11,076 posts)She set press conferences up and failed to show! I guess she was trying to get Obama on the line for the SOS job first. She held the show up for quite some time! And before she did that she continued to dirty Obama to the end. It was not pretty!
nxylas
(6,440 posts)I can't see Bernie being bought off with offers of personal advancement, though. He'd want to get policies on the platform that benefit ordinary Americans, not just wealthy Clinton donors. And that will never happen, never ever ever.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)On my timeline, that was after she withdrew, not before. Perhaps you live in an alternative universe where time travels backwards.
The Twilight Zone, maybe.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)Sorry, but I don't buy into conspiracy theory bullshit, especially when it's demonstrably false to anyone who can read.
merrily
(45,251 posts)in exchange for her and Bill giving him their full-throated support.
I think the campaign debt was the least of it. That was the story for the public, to stop speculation about what the deal consisted of. That was the reason the public learned about their "top secret" meeting. (Don't you love learning about "top secret" stuff from national TV?) He did exactly one fundraiser and sent his online donor base exactly one email asking that they help Hillary.
I think there was more to the deal than is in your post, though.
skylucy
(3,739 posts)phazed0
(745 posts)
FrenchieCat
(68,867 posts)mac56
(17,570 posts)Sure is good that she doesn't need any of them to win win win.
Pakhet
(520 posts)she didn't need or want my vote.
They_Live
(3,236 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Not that it would make much difference in its effect on me - just the cherry on top.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)Hillary Clinton continues to defy the media narratives aligned against her. Far from being a "bad campaigner," she's millions of votes ahead of any other candidate, Democrat or Republican. Far from being a "weak candidate," her primary opponent has trailed her for months now and has no current path to the nomination.
Clinton is on track to make history. It's well past time for America to acknowledge that.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Winning the angriest and bitter award?
Considering that he has expressed his dislike of the Democratic party and he isn't a Democrat, he's done pretty well trying to take it over and be it's leader.
Maybe next time he can run as a Republican! They seem to like him a lot.
Duval
(4,280 posts)Even if this is the case, bragging about it is tacky. It also diminishes Bernie's push for a Progressive Agenda. Instead of saying "I am including Bernie's Progressive ideas", she is saying "he needs to pull for me".
TryLogic
(1,723 posts)burn before the general election, or impeachment later. Hillary or Trump. What a sorry choice.
franannjo
(29 posts)Unite? So everything goes back to normal? Back these crooks and their queen up? After trump they might try again.they might even adopt some democratic values.I would prefere to get a new party going and clean that whole pigsty out.
TryLogic
(1,723 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)zalinda
(5,621 posts)She's a fucking multi millionaire. Hillary got where she is on the coattails of MEN, yes, that strong woman didn't do it alone, not by any means. MEN paved her way and she got her golden ticket.
Talk to me about paying her dues when she is a single mother trying to make ends meet on a minimum wage job. Then I'll respect her.
Z
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)No one does it alone, but no one gets to where she is because of MEN. You can not take her work ethic away from her, nor the class she displayed in 2008 when she nominated Obama, which was the grown-up thing to do. Millions of voters took note and she has reaped the rewards. She is where she is right now because she on talent and maturity. Deal with it.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)She was born into the middle class, and because of that could go to college.
She was first lady of Arkansas, thanks to Bill.
She was Senator of New York thanks to Moynihan.
She was Secretary of State thanks to Obama.
She is winning the dem nomination because of DWS, and when Hillary was in trouble, she called in Bill. And, of course let's not forget our favorite fuckster, David Brock, the man who tried to bury Anita Hill.
Talk to me about the single mom, who's husband was killed on the way home from his job. She works a minimum wage job, maybe two because unlike Hillary, she couldn't afford college. SHE works hard. Hillary is pushing papers and making speeches, that is not hard work. Breaking your body to support your family is hard work. I respect this single mom for just getting out of bed each day, much more than I could ever respect Hillary.
Z
Or the single mom whose husband was killed in Iraq because of the morally bankrupt political cowards on Dem side of the aisle like HRC who voted for IWR and thereby gave Shrub bipartisan cover for his war of aggression, lies and profit... a war that has wrought nothing for regular people but death, debt, destruction and destabilization.
And yet so many are thrilled by her possible nomination 
frylock
(34,825 posts)
bvf
(6,604 posts)
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)Cool.
bvf
(6,604 posts)I can't hear you over all the laughter.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Amen
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)She thinks this will dissuade CA voters from coming out. Bernie voters keep on keeping on. Every time she thinks, she gets in trouble! Let's do this!
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)I find it highly debt full that she said there was "no way" she wouldn't get the nomination in 2008, particularly at this month in 2008. But since you make your statement as if fact, I assume there is a link you can provide...
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)Go to 4 min 20 seconds for the exchange, questioned 3 times she insists each time she's going to be the nominee and hadn't even considered the possibility of not being nominated.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)I knew you were making it up.
All she said was the standard campaign trail line that most candidates, including Sanders, say when asked if they will be the nominee: that they are "confident" they will be. That is VERY different from stating there's "no way I won't be nominated."
And like most candidates, including Sanders, when asked what they will do if they don't win, they demurr and say they are just focused on their campaign. They want to stay on a positive topic. As Hillary said in that clip, she hasn't considered what she will do if not nominated because "it takes up all my energy presenting my candidacy." The Sanders campaign just recently has made similar statements:
Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders, said the campaign did not think its attacks would help Mr. Trump in the long run, but added that the senator’s team was “not thinking about” the possibility that they could help derail Mrs. Clinton from becoming the first woman elected president.
“The only thing that matters is what happens between now and June 14,” Mr. Devine said, referring to the final Democratic primary, in the District of Columbia. “We have to put the blinders on and focus on the best case to make in the upcoming states.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/bernie-sanderss-campaign-accuses-head-of-dnc-of-favoritism.html
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)Yeah she didn't use the exact words "no way" but she said the same thing semantically - three times, no less, so you couldn't miss it. Same level of extreme overconfidence - and no, it wasn't the standard campaign boilerplate that everyone else does, it was the standard Clinton boilerplate of pretending inevitability.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)Stop making stuff up to smear our party's front-runner.
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)two sets of words with virtually identical meanings are in fact saying the same thing
you've gone down the "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" rabbit hole of indefensible anti-semantic nitpicking
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)
postatomic
(1,771 posts)
lamp_shade
(14,836 posts)
Ford_Prefect
(7,901 posts)Ah, the Hubris of demi-royalty. So confident of victory. So certain that no progressive ideas could pollute the purity of the convention.
The last time I checked the elected delegates vote on many aspects of the party at the convention. Their effect applies to much more than the candidate chosen and the party platform. It ain't over yet no matter the wishful thinking.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)Like you said eight years ago, anything can happen. Why, you could be shot and killed like Bobby Kennedy was.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Every time she opens her mouth, I find myself more reluctant to hold my nose to vote for her in November.
She is as arrogant as Trump.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)the person most likely to win for the Democrats. It seems to be heating up, which may mean it is close to conclusion. That is what is in the best interest of the Party. Get it out and over with.
Squinch
(50,955 posts)SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)Squinch
(50,955 posts)nxylas
(6,440 posts)"Dear peasant,
I'm inevitable, dammit.
You may as well vote for me, it's not as if you have any choice in the matter.
Yours sincerely,
Hillary R"
MisterP
(23,730 posts)world wide wally
(21,744 posts)over reaching government stands in their way. We wanted one back in the 60's and we were successful on some levels (ending the war, Civil Rights, and a greater tolerance for all people although the clock is being turned back on the last few). But we DID have a majority of voters on our side.
I was originally all in for Bernie but I have this problem with reality, I accept it.
He does not have the most votes or the most delegates and super delegates can vote for whoever they want to. If they don't choose to vote for your candidate, that is just the breaks. Does anyone suggest strong arming them to over rule the vote and the way people choose to vote as a delegate?
I hate to say it, but Bernie agreed to play by the rules of the Democratic party. They welcomed him in. And I think he ought to just do what he agreed to a long time ago. Destroying the other Democratic candidate out of spite is not what I would have expected from Bernie.
So, if that is your plan then you get Fasciist Trump… and don't even pretend he and Hillary are the same. That would be just plane ignorant of any facts.
TryLogic
(1,723 posts)Bernie supporters could push him as an independent. That would make for a real election rather than something rigged by BM (Big Money), DWS, and the Clinton Quid Pro Quo Machine.
Ford_Prefect
(7,901 posts)I understand the mere presence of the TRump lowers the intellectual tone of any conversation but I think you probably meant to use the adjective for simple rather than the noun for a surface: plain, not plane.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)But hey, what a surprise.
johnp3907
(3,732 posts)And thank goodness since Bernie blows goat.
frylock
(34,825 posts)What, like Monica blew Bill? Really?
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)92 delegates away and an insurmountable lead with pledged and super delegates but con man sanders keeps duping people....nothing worse than a con man
thereismore
(13,326 posts)
marble falls
(57,112 posts)
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)26 states, etc won for Hill vs 21 for Bernard.
Hill needs <92 more delegates, Bernard needs 855.
Hill has 3,000,000+ more votes than Bernard.
Hill has almost 1.8M more votes than Trump.
I'm with her!!!
seekthetruth
(504 posts)I am opened minded, and I do agree that there are certain things that can be compromised over, but given the historical trends and current state of our economy, our healthcare system, infrastructure, and energy consumption rates along with how we obtain energy, I feel there is little to compromise over if I stand for a progressive platform. I do agree that the various purity tests that many Sanders supporters always fall back on can seem to be tiresome, but they are based on certain "absolutes" with respect to the environment, war, and many other matters.
So, in essence, this is what Mrs. Clinton would absolutely have to do to earn my vote both in private (i.e. behind closed doors with other politicians, lobbyists, etc.) and to the public:
- 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
Those are the main things she'd need to support to get my vote. However, given her past performance, I highly doubt I could trust her. I distinctly remember her frantically shouting that universal healthcare would never happen only to hear about her support for such legislation a few weeks later......just one example of her flip-flopping.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The convention because Hillary will have more than enough delegates to get the nod on the first vote.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
Merryland
(1,134 posts)
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)That's a sweeping over-generalization. I know five PUMAs from 2008 who voted for McCain. Two were close relatives who were gung-ho Hillary fans who hated Obama for beating her, and with such intensity that they voted McCain/Palin. Throughout the primary, Hillary kept up the refrain that John McCain was more qualified to be president than Barack Obama. I'll never forget. And both of those relatives were older Democrats who have since died, and I've always been sad that two life-long Democrats wasted their last votes on McCain/Palin because of Hillary. She convinced them that McCain was better than Obama.
LS_Editor
(893 posts)It treats its liberal faction worse then the Republican treat the Tea Party or its religious right. And the Democratic Party has betrayed the cause of liberalism for decades now. More tax cuts for the wealth, fuck the poor, the sick, and other segments of society that are the weakest. The plutocrats own the party, and trickle-down economics endorsed by the Third Way is what we need to keep doing. You know, despite the failure of nearly four decades of this supply side economics bullshit.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)
TeamPooka
(24,229 posts)projects confidence, even if they're mathematically eliminated.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Because, you know, math.
world wide wally
(21,744 posts)That means Hillary will overturn Roe V Wade
She will cut off Planned Parenthood
Eliminate Social Security
Cut back Medicare
No free school lunches for poor kids anymore
Abolish rhe Civil Rights act through her activist RW Supreme Court appointments
Ban Muslims from America
Tear apart millions of Mexican families
And probably a few more I am leaving out
That leaves only one question:
What color do you think she will paint the wall?
Donkees
(31,421 posts)world wide wally
(21,744 posts)That's an easy solution.
It's going to be one or the other (speaking from reality, of course)
wisteria
(19,581 posts)No e-mail scandal, no switching of supper delegates, and no cheating. Hillary Clinton is so close to clinching the nomination, that Sander's can not catch up. She is actually closer than Trump is, and all his rivals saw the writing on the wall.
UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)
brooklynite
(94,601 posts)I wonder how many people would believe him.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)Sorry, but NOT falling in lockstep. She has not earned my support, nor my vote.
Flame away.
ileus
(15,396 posts)
UpInArms
(51,284 posts)"my brother promised me that state!"
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)We had a choice in the first place?
libodem
(19,288 posts)The fix is already in?
yurbud
(39,405 posts)
dubyadiprecession
(5,716 posts)So as you can see bernie is very needy. Yes, Hillary is the nominee. Sorry BS.
