Anybody remember the phrase "not a dimes worth of difference"?

[redstateblues]

Unbelievably I'm hearing a lot of BSS saying essentially the same thing-that Trump and Hillary are equivalent. Maybe some of our younger voters don't remember what eight years of Bush/Cheney was like. I am appalled at the hatred that has blinded some people to what the reality of a Republican Trump Presidency would be like. As a Hillary supporter, I know Hillary has things the hard left isn't happy about-there are things I'm not thrilled about. Take the SCOTUS- If Trump nominates someone to placate the crazies, we could end up with 40 year old Scalia-he's be there for a generation. There is a lot at stake.

[BillZBubb]

1. Not the "hard" left, red, the LEFT.

Hillary is a disaster waiting to happen. You don't want president trump, support a New Deal Democrat, not "New Democrat" money grubber.

The old Democrats are the real thing. There was no need for "New Democrats"--there were already plenty of republicans.

[redstateblues]

9. Sorry to disappoint you-I'm a real lifelong liberal old Democrat. Hillary will win with Bernie's full support

You don't get to say someone is not a Democrat because they don't think Bernie would make a good President. That's bullshit

[BillZBubb]

12. I never said you weren't a Democrat. But you're now a "New Democrat."

You support the policies of the Clinton wing of the party. That is the "New Democrat" wing. They have systematically dismantled the New Deal. You support them, they are Democrats, and you are a Democrat. No doubt.

But you are NOT on the left. You are on the right of the party. A little more than half the party is there with you. That's why Hillary will win the nomination. I don't dispute that either.

You are entitled to support the destruction of the New Deal and to move the party more in line with the goals of the big corporations. You do that by supporting Hillary--that's a fact whether you admit it or not. You think that is OK.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Compare the policy stuff on their web pages. There is quite a difference.

[Kelvin Mace]

3. Oh, there is more than a dime's

As far as climate change goes for example, Trump will drive the world off a cliff in a coal-powered Hummer at 100 mph, laughing all the way. HRC will drive the world off a cliff at a more sedate 40 mph, so as not to upset her Wall Street passengers.

But, either way, we are going over the cliff.

[JaneyVee]

4. You think Bernie is going to reverse climate change?

Hilarious.

[Kelvin Mace]

5. Nope.

But he is the only candidate who will, to continue my metaphor, jam on the brakes, slam the tranny in reverse and do his damndest to stop short of the abyss. Continuing forward is NOT an option. The price for continuing forward, regardless of how fast or how slow, is fatal to a massive number of humans.

I noticed you jumped right in to make your Bernie point, while letting my Trump v. HRC point stand unchallenged.

Awesome.

[JaneyVee]

6. No he wont. Where do you guys get this stuff from?

Jam on the brakes?

What will you put in your car?

Your lawnmower?

Airplanes?

We need alternate energy first. Then a long transition phase. Then transition. Both candidates are calling for that investment.

[Kelvin Mace]

15. Bernie would make the issue a national emergency

which it is.

HRC will just dither and delay.

We HAVE alternative energy sources. In the first quarter of THIS year nearly ALL the energy that went online was from existing RENEWABLE sources.

A Q1 infrastructure update from FERC shows renewable energy made up almost all new capacity added in the United States so far this year: 1,291 MW, compared to 18 MW of new gas capacity and no nuclear or coal.

More than 700 MW of wind and 500 MW of solar were added in the first quarter, from a combined 53 new generating facilities.

Old-school fuel generation still dominates overall, however: Natural gas holds the largest generation share, with 500 GW or about 43% of U.S. capacity, followed by coal (26%) and nuclear (9%).

We need to double and triple these numbers, but we won't, because our leadership will NOT upset the oil companies. HRC is already backpedaling on phasing out coal.

As protesters outside chanted within earshot of people inside, Clinton went on to apologize for her past comments. She argued that while she believes the comments were taken out of context, she acknowledged it was a "misstatement."

"I don't know how to explain it other than what I said was totally out of context for what I meant because I have been talking about helping coal country for a very long time," Clinton said. "It was a misstatement because what I was saying is the way things are going now, they will continue to lose jobs. It didn't mean that we were going to do it. What I said is that is going to happen unless we take action to help and prevent it."

We have the technology, but only one candidate who would try to take the steps needed. We have too many people like you ready to make excuses for fixing the problem isn't "prgamatical" "practical" or "realistic".

When it comes to war, we ALWAYS have the money, but when it comes to the survival of the race, apparently we mustn't upset our Wall Street Masters.

[insta8er]

16. One is calling for Fracking also, limited in controlled areas etc. Not because that industry

is giving her money or anything. Just because she thinks it is good...yeah right. It's great to see how camp weathervane keeps bending the explanations so it fits the narrative of "madam president".

[JaneyVee]

17. Fracking or coal. Choose.

Because without an actual alternate energy in place, we are reliant on them.

[insta8er]

18. What about solar or wind, those are here today. Last week Germany produced more

renewable energy then they could consume. The price for electricity went negative for that day. Don't tell me we can't do it now.

[Fawke Em]

7. Bingo.

[insta8er]

14. No but Hillary will right?

[Attorney in Texas]

8. Trump's less of a neocon when it comes to foreign policy so there's a difference. Trump's sister

is a senior-status federal judge nominated to the Third Circuit by Bill Clinton. She is, by all accounts, a reasonable person who was a good and fair judge. I doubt that Trump would nominate someone who his sister would roll her eyes about. In the unlikely event that Trump were to win, it is not all that likely that he'd nominate crazy people to the SCOTUS. You can't scare me with such boogeymen.

Sanders would nominate judges from a different mold, but Trump and Hillary would both likely nominate judges like Merrick Garland - middle-of-the-road referees who would neither excite nor radically disappoint.

[redstateblues]

10. You obviously didn't see the list of potential nominees Trump released. You need to pay attention

before you enable Trump. It was a Heritage Foundation wish list

[redstateblues]

11. Less of a neo-con? Are you kidding. Trump has been in favor of every intervention.

Hopefully you haven't been duped by his current statements. On the one hand he says he was against going into Iraq(a lie)he also says he is "the most militaristic person, more than George Bush" I don't know where you have been getting your news.

[BillZBubb]

13. So has Hillary! Yes on Iraq. Yes on Afghanistan. Yes on Libya. Yes on Syria.

Yes, yes, yes. She's a neocon and the father of the neocons loves her.

I don't know where you have been getting you news.