...According to the Green Papers, Clinton stands (today, April 28th) with 1,664 pledged delegates, while Sanders has gathered 1,371. The amount of delegates needed to secure the nomination is 2,383 and, if you’ll pardon me for my use of arithmetic, I will now demonstrate why that number is hopelessly out of reach for the Clinton campaign.†
Hillary needs 719 more delegates to reach 2,383 because:
2,383 – 1,664 = 719
Now, the pledged delegates that are available to grab in the remaining states all-together amount to 1,016 and in order to attain that blessed number, Clinton will have to win an average of 70.7% of the remaining states. This is because:
719 ÷ 1,016 = 0.707677 or approximately 71%
You might be thinking that 71% is not such an unattainable number for Hillary and her powerful Wallstreet backers — you might be thinking that but you’d be betting against longer odds than would be wise. You see, of the 1,016 delegates remaining, 475 of those delegates are to be won in California, alone — California, which has a semi-open primary. California, where Clinton is polling at a mere 49%. California, where Clinton’s support has been declining as the Sanders Campaign gains visibility and momentum. California — the ace that Sanders, as much as the media, have concealed up his sleeve.
It is no secret that Sanders, a previously invisible independent senator from the tiny state of Vermont, consistently climbs in the polls as he begins to campaign in the weeks before each state has had its primary. You don’t have to take my word for it — check the poll-histories for yourself or read this.
Because Bernie Sanders performs at his absolute best in open primaries and because he consistently rises in the polls, while Clinton consistently falls, it is extremely unlikely that Clinton will perform better than 49 points, let alone win the contest. Let’s do some more math:...
Back to the initial question, even though I wouldn't be a Hillary supporter until I had to be... The things I can think of about her that are okay: - experienced diplomat - knowledgeable about the things that a president should be knowledgeable about - Emotionally clearheaded and in control - A very solid, experienced, knowledgeable and clever spouse to use as an advisor (in the political sense of course - probably not the best spouse husband-wise, lol) - Female (first time ever - that is a really big deal) - Not a Republican (and not Trump or Cruz) - A pretty logical person - Not fanatical about any subject/issue
..... I guess I'm tapped. In other words, Hillary is a perfectly legitimate choice for POTUS. There are red flags all over the place, but none of them are particularly sinister. The strong alliegence with corporations is the most disturbing aspect IMO, but I also don't think that that is going to lead to some kind of dystopian nightmare. At worst it will be business as usual. I know that's bad.... but it could easily be worse!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
This guy spends most of his math conveniently ignoring the super delegates. While that's helpful in painting a more hopeful picture of Bernie's chances, the reality is that super delegates are in play and the vast majority have chosen Clinton. They could certainly change come convention time, but probably unlikely. If you factor in the super delegates at this point, the picture is significantly different than the one painted above.
A win for Clinton on Tuesday in Indiana, with 83 pledged Democrats on offer, would further complicate Sanders' rationale for pushing on to the end of the campaign in June and possibly on to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in July. A Sanders victory, however, would provide a morale boost to his struggling campaign but do little to dim Clinton's prospects of becoming the Democratic nominee.
Going into the Indiana primary, Clinton has 2,179 of the 2,383 delegates needed to win the nomination, including superdelegates -- senior party officials and lawmakers who can vote however they choose at the convention. She only needs to win 20% of the remaining delegates at stake to formally capture the nomination.
Sanders has 1,400 delegates so far, including superdelegates, and he needs to capture 97% of the remaining delegates to overhaul Clinton. There are 1,016 delegates remaining to be contested in the campaign. Clinton leads Sanders in the pledged delegate count by 1,666 to 1,359 and by 513 superdelegates to Sanders' 41.
The painful state of the race for Sanders means that his only hope of winning the nomination would be to convince Democratic superdelegates at the convention to abandon the former secretary of state -- an unlikely scenario considering that group is largely made up of party insiders long aligned with Clinton.
That is one reason why the Clinton campaign has begun stressing that it is time to unite the party and concentrate on the race against Republicans in the fall.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Let me recap as to why I support HRC, since for some reason people keep saying the question isn't being answered:
1. She is an astute stateswoman with a deep command of international issues, has tremendous credibility abroad and will represent US interests well in foreign affairs.
2. She is practical in dealing with economic affairs at home. She will champion issues I care about but understands we can't bankrupt ourselves into salvation. I trust her understanding of the budget, and I'm not too concerned my tax status will change dramatically under her proposals.
3. She will nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court and fight to the end for a woman's right to make decisions about her own healthcare. It boggles my mind when I hear people suggest Hillary has held women back. On whose planet? Because some stupid endorser said one stupid thing about young feminists? That's the basis for that assertion? I have been following HRC's career for 25 years, and I can't name more than five other women who have had as significant an impact as she has on the planet I inhabit. And I don't say that as a reason to vote for her. I just say it as a fact.
Those are the main reasons HRC appeals to me and why I will support her bid for the presidency.
justam, please see my post above. We get what we deserve when we cave into accepting "less of two evils" syndrome.
I'm thinking survival though. I'm half hispanic and I'm a woman. I CAN NOT take a chance on someone who might let Trump into office. He is a hate monger and HE is part of the 1%. I have nightmares about what he might do to our country!!!!!!!!
I think when you and your husband get 6 figures for a speaking engagement, you too belong to the 1%.
I'm loving folks who hated Bush rationalize going back to the well again.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Let me recap as to why I support HRC, since for some reason people keep saying the question isn't being answered:
1. She is an astute stateswoman with a deep command of international issues, has tremendous credibility abroad and will represent US interests well in foreign affairs.
2. She is practical in dealing with economic affairs at home. She will champion issues I care about but understands we can't bankrupt ourselves into salvation. I trust her understanding of the budget, and I'm not too concerned my tax status will change dramatically under her proposals.
3. She will nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court and fight to the end for a woman's right to make decisions about her own healthcare. It boggles my mind when I hear people suggest Hillary has held women back. On whose planet? Because some stupid endorser said one stupid thing about young feminists? That's the basis for that assertion? I have been following HRC's career for 25 years, and I can't name more than five other women who have had as significant an impact as she has on the planet I inhabit. And I don't say that as a reason to vote for her. I just say it as a fact.
Those are the main reasons HRC appeals to me and why I will support her bid for the presidency.
Condaleeza Rice Sandra Day O'Connor Mother Theresa Susan B Anthony Rosa Parks
That really wasn't all that tough. And Roe v Wade is never getting overturned.
Red Herrings. You're voting for red herrings with a loose definition of security and secrecy that fits convenience over your safety.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
justam, please see my post above. We get what we deserve when we cave into accepting "less of two evils" syndrome.
I'm thinking survival though. I'm half hispanic and I'm a woman. I CAN NOT take a chance on someone who might let Trump into office. He is a hate monger and HE is part of the 1%. I have nightmares about what he might do to our country!!!!!!!!
I think when you and your husband get 6 figures for a speaking engagement, you too belong to the 1%.
I'm loving folks who hated Bush rationalize going back to the well again.
Your comment assumes I'm bothered by dynasties. I'm not. This country has seen them before and survived. I never tired of the Clintons. I still count the day I shook Bill Clinton's hand in Charlottesville the day after the PJ concert as one of the most privileged days of my life.
What is it about Hillary Clinton that appeals to you and why do you support her bid for the presidency?
Thank you, Free, for pointing out what should be obvious. We're into page three of this thread and yet other than a few brief responses (thank you POD) there is nothing substantial here. What does that tell you?
What I've read so far tells me that Hillary supporters are a) pessimistic or unwilling to work toward a long shot that, though perhaps not perfect, would benefit more of us who are mostly average people, b) allowing that loud blaring Trumpet to instill in them that most American of traits which is the ongoing barrier to positive change in them, fear, and c) seem to like Hillary because she is "tough". But is tough a universally positive characteristic? I don't think so. Thugs are tough too. Big deal.
And the other thing I've noticed is how quick some of you are to characterize Bernie supporters as sycophants who drool over his every word. Believe me, the man is not perfect. But we see Bernie as the best choice. Some of you also characterize us as "radical left" and "idealists". I'm sure some are but as for myself, I'm just trying to be practical, realistic in my view of what is good for us and I'm actually rather conservative. Yes, that's true.
And look, I LIKE what I know of most of you who are Hillary supporters. If I didn't, I wouldn't give two shits about what you think. Damn it, I'm not your enemy.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
What is it about Hillary Clinton that appeals to you and why do you support her bid for the presidency?
Thank you, Free, for pointing out what should be obvious. We're into page three of this thread and yet other than a few brief responses (thank you POD) there is nothing substantial here. What does that tell you?
What I've read so far tells me that Hillary supporters are a) pessimistic or unwilling to work toward a long shot that, though perhaps not perfect, would benefit more of us who are mostly average people, b) allowing that loud blaring Trumpet to instill in them that most American of traits which is the ongoing barrier to positive change in them, fear, and c) seem to like Hillary because she is "tough". But is tough a universally positive characteristic? I don't think so. Thugs are tough too. Big deal.
And the other thing I've noticed is how quick some of you are to characterize Bernie supporters as sycophants who drool over his every word. Believe me, the man is not perfect. But we see Bernie as the best choice. Some of you also characterize us as "radical left" and "idealists". I'm sure some are but as for myself, I'm just trying to be practical, realistic in my view of what is good for us and I'm actually rather conservative. Yes, that's true.
And look, I LIKE what I know of most of you who are Hillary supporters. If I didn't, I wouldn't give two shits about what you think. Damn it, I'm not your enemy.
When did Socialism define the Democratic party? Did Obama usher that in? Because I do not remember Slick Willie as being a socialist.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
What is it about Hillary Clinton that appeals to you and why do you support her bid for the presidency?
Thank you, Free, for pointing out what should be obvious. We're into page three of this thread and yet other than a few brief responses (thank you POD) there is nothing substantial here. What does that tell you?
What I've read so far tells me that Hillary supporters are a) pessimistic or unwilling to work toward a long shot that, though perhaps not perfect, would benefit more of us who are mostly average people, b) allowing that loud blaring Trumpet to instill in them that most American of traits which is the ongoing barrier to positive change in them, fear, and c) seem to like Hillary because she is "tough". But is tough a universally positive characteristic? I don't think so. Thugs are tough too. Big deal.
And the other thing I've noticed is how quick some of you are to characterize Bernie supporters as sycophants who drool over his every word. Believe me, the man is not perfect. But we see Bernie as the best choice. Some of you also characterize us as "radical left" and "idealists". I'm sure some are but as for myself, I'm just trying to be practical, realistic in my view of what is good for us and I'm actually rather conservative. Yes, that's true.
And look, I LIKE what I know of most of you who are Hillary supporters. If I didn't, I wouldn't give two shits about what you think. Damn it, I'm not your enemy.
I'm of the impression that you didn't ask the question because you truly want to understand our point of view. I'm under the impression that you only asked the question because you want to tell us how wrong we are. I find that insulting, and I'm backing out of this trap. I have said multiple times I understand Sanders's appeal to you . . . and hell, me, too, because I voted for him. But you have yet to even acknowledge my point of view and now you call all of our answers insubstantial, pessimistic, fearful, and maybe even thug-like. No thanks. Not interested in being part of this conversation anymore.
This guy spends most of his math conveniently ignoring the super delegates. While that's helpful in painting a more hopeful picture of Bernie's chances, the reality is that super delegates are in play and the vast majority have chosen Clinton. They could certainly change come convention time, but probably unlikely. If you factor in the super delegates at this point, the picture is significantly different than the one painted above.
A win for Clinton on Tuesday in Indiana, with 83 pledged Democrats on offer, would further complicate Sanders' rationale for pushing on to the end of the campaign in June and possibly on to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in July. A Sanders victory, however, would provide a morale boost to his struggling campaign but do little to dim Clinton's prospects of becoming the Democratic nominee.
Going into the Indiana primary, Clinton has 2,179 of the 2,383 delegates needed to win the nomination, including superdelegates -- senior party officials and lawmakers who can vote however they choose at the convention. She only needs to win 20% of the remaining delegates at stake to formally capture the nomination.
Sanders has 1,400 delegates so far, including superdelegates, and he needs to capture 97% of the remaining delegates to overhaul Clinton. There are 1,016 delegates remaining to be contested in the campaign. Clinton leads Sanders in the pledged delegate count by 1,666 to 1,359 and by 513 superdelegates to Sanders' 41.
The painful state of the race for Sanders means that his only hope of winning the nomination would be to convince Democratic superdelegates at the convention to abandon the former secretary of state -- an unlikely scenario considering that group is largely made up of party insiders long aligned with Clinton.
That is one reason why the Clinton campaign has begun stressing that it is time to unite the party and concentrate on the race against Republicans in the fall.
Your source says it all. Clinton News Network. She's just dying for him to drop out.
super delegates have not voted yet. It's been said since the beginning, that counting superdelegates in before the convention, when they can change their mind up till, is not nearly accurate. She has paid many off, for sure. How many? Including them in the count all this time merely shows CNN's bias.
I'm of the impression that you didn't ask the question because you truly want to understand our point of view. I'm under the impression that you only asked the question because you want to tell us how wrong we are. I find that insulting, and I'm backing out of this trap. I have said multiple times I understand Sanders's appeal to you . . . and hell, me, too, because I voted for him. But you have yet to even acknowledge my point of view and now you call all of our answers insubstantial, pessimistic, fearful, and maybe even thug-like. No thanks. Not interested in being part of this conversation anymore.
From my original post:
"At the outset let me say this: I'm creating this thread with the intent to ask an honest question, NOT to bate or troll any Clinton supporters."
I was not bullshitting when I said that. I'm asking why some of you support Hillary because I honestly don't know the answer to that. I'm also hoping maybe if you do support her you will ask yourself the same question.
But you just seem to want to be pissed off with me. OK fine.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I'm of the impression that you didn't ask the question because you truly want to understand our point of view. I'm under the impression that you only asked the question because you want to tell us how wrong we are. I find that insulting, and I'm backing out of this trap. I have said multiple times I understand Sanders's appeal to you . . . and hell, me, too, because I voted for him. But you have yet to even acknowledge my point of view and now you call all of our answers insubstantial, pessimistic, fearful, and maybe even thug-like. No thanks. Not interested in being part of this conversation anymore.
From my original post:
"At the outset let me say this: I'm creating this thread with the intent to ask an honest question, NOT to bate or troll any Clinton supporters."
I was not bullshitting when I said that. I'm asking why some of you support Hillary because I honestly don't know the answer to that. I'm also hoping maybe if you do support her you will ask yourself the same question.
But you just seem to want to be pissed off with me. OK fine.
In the interest of peace, can you please tell me at what point I got pissed at you so I never say whatever I said again? I haven't been pissed this entire thread and you keep telling me I'm pissed. I'm getting pissed because you think I'm pissed. Hahaha. You asked a question. I answered it. You told me you didn't like my answer and started with the Bern speech. I continued to support Hillary while reminding you I like Bernie enough to have voted for him. You lectured me again. Then I told you I'm not that much of a pie in the sky person, said a few intermittent things about the election process, and now you come back with a flippant thing about how I must not question my own reasons for supporting her. Fuck that. It's patronizing and smug. And I'm surprised because you are not normally this way. So please tell me at which point you think I got hostile so I can study that and not do it again.
I'm of the impression that you didn't ask the question because you truly want to understand our point of view. I'm under the impression that you only asked the question because you want to tell us how wrong we are. I find that insulting, and I'm backing out of this trap. I have said multiple times I understand Sanders's appeal to you . . . and hell, me, too, because I voted for him. But you have yet to even acknowledge my point of view and now you call all of our answers insubstantial, pessimistic, fearful, and maybe even thug-like. No thanks. Not interested in being part of this conversation anymore.
From my original post:
"At the outset let me say this: I'm creating this thread with the intent to ask an honest question, NOT to bate or troll any Clinton supporters."
I was not bullshitting when I said that. I'm asking why some of you support Hillary because I honestly don't know the answer to that. I'm also hoping maybe if you do support her you will ask yourself the same question.
But you just seem to want to be pissed off with me. OK fine.
Brian, you have had multiple people give you well thought out and fair answers. I really don't get what more you want. I'm just giving you my honest opinion here that this thread is starting to come off as sour grapes that Clinton is going to be the nominee.
I'm of the impression that you didn't ask the question because you truly want to understand our point of view. I'm under the impression that you only asked the question because you want to tell us how wrong we are. I find that insulting, and I'm backing out of this trap. I have said multiple times I understand Sanders's appeal to you . . . and hell, me, too, because I voted for him. But you have yet to even acknowledge my point of view and now you call all of our answers insubstantial, pessimistic, fearful, and maybe even thug-like. No thanks. Not interested in being part of this conversation anymore.
From my original post:
"At the outset let me say this: I'm creating this thread with the intent to ask an honest question, NOT to bate or troll any Clinton supporters."
I was not bullshitting when I said that. I'm asking why some of you support Hillary because I honestly don't know the answer to that. I'm also hoping maybe if you do support her you will ask yourself the same question.
But you just seem to want to be pissed off with me. OK fine.
In the interest of peace, can you please tell me at what point I got pissed at you so I never say whatever I said again? I haven't been pissed this entire thread and you keep telling me I'm pissed. I'm getting pissed because you think I'm pissed. Hahaha. You asked a question. I answered it. You told me you didn't like my answer and started with the Bern speech. I continued to support Hillary while reminding you I like Bernie enough to have voted for him. You lectured me again. Then I told you I'm not that much of a pie in the sky person, said a few intermittent things about the election process, and now you come back with a flippant thing about how I must not question my own reasons for supporting her. Fuck that. It's patronizing and smug. And I'm surprised because you are not normally this way. So please tell me at which point you think I got hostile so I can study that and not do it again.
I know I come across as an asshole sometimes. I'm sorry if that's true. I just get pissed off when it seems like a chance for good changes to happen and then they seem to get buried in the same old fuckin' quagmire. I don't understand why Hillary has so much support. I could be the one who is fucked up (I know I am in some ways anyway) so I should probably just go grey and let it be someone else problem. I'm not quite ready to give up on things changing but I have a feeling this election is it for me one way or another. Am I aged and disgruntled? Maybe (probably). Fuck it.
But sorry for the bad vibes, what dreams. I mean that. I won't give you any more shit. Thanks for being honest and forthright.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I'm of the impression that you didn't ask the question because you truly want to understand our point of view. I'm under the impression that you only asked the question because you want to tell us how wrong we are. I find that insulting, and I'm backing out of this trap. I have said multiple times I understand Sanders's appeal to you . . . and hell, me, too, because I voted for him. But you have yet to even acknowledge my point of view and now you call all of our answers insubstantial, pessimistic, fearful, and maybe even thug-like. No thanks. Not interested in being part of this conversation anymore.
From my original post:
"At the outset let me say this: I'm creating this thread with the intent to ask an honest question, NOT to bate or troll any Clinton supporters."
I was not bullshitting when I said that. I'm asking why some of you support Hillary because I honestly don't know the answer to that. I'm also hoping maybe if you do support her you will ask yourself the same question.
But you just seem to want to be pissed off with me. OK fine.
Brian, you have had multiple people give you well thought out and fair answers. I really don't get what more you want. I'm just giving you my honest opinion here that this thread is starting to come off as sour grapes that Clinton is going to be the nominee.
Good call, dignin. See above.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I'm of the impression that you didn't ask the question because you truly want to understand our point of view. I'm under the impression that you only asked the question because you want to tell us how wrong we are. I find that insulting, and I'm backing out of this trap. I have said multiple times I understand Sanders's appeal to you . . . and hell, me, too, because I voted for him. But you have yet to even acknowledge my point of view and now you call all of our answers insubstantial, pessimistic, fearful, and maybe even thug-like. No thanks. Not interested in being part of this conversation anymore.
From my original post:
"At the outset let me say this: I'm creating this thread with the intent to ask an honest question, NOT to bate or troll any Clinton supporters."
I was not bullshitting when I said that. I'm asking why some of you support Hillary because I honestly don't know the answer to that. I'm also hoping maybe if you do support her you will ask yourself the same question.
But you just seem to want to be pissed off with me. OK fine.
Brian, you have had multiple people give you well thought out and fair answers. I really don't get what more you want. I'm just giving you my honest opinion here that this thread is starting to come off as sour grapes that Clinton is going to be the nominee.
I have to agree. But you're not being an A-hole Brian, lol.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm of the impression that you didn't ask the question because you truly want to understand our point of view. I'm under the impression that you only asked the question because you want to tell us how wrong we are. I find that insulting, and I'm backing out of this trap. I have said multiple times I understand Sanders's appeal to you . . . and hell, me, too, because I voted for him. But you have yet to even acknowledge my point of view and now you call all of our answers insubstantial, pessimistic, fearful, and maybe even thug-like. No thanks. Not interested in being part of this conversation anymore.
From my original post:
"At the outset let me say this: I'm creating this thread with the intent to ask an honest question, NOT to bate or troll any Clinton supporters."
I was not bullshitting when I said that. I'm asking why some of you support Hillary because I honestly don't know the answer to that. I'm also hoping maybe if you do support her you will ask yourself the same question.
But you just seem to want to be pissed off with me. OK fine.
In the interest of peace, can you please tell me at what point I got pissed at you so I never say whatever I said again? I haven't been pissed this entire thread and you keep telling me I'm pissed. I'm getting pissed because you think I'm pissed. Hahaha. You asked a question. I answered it. You told me you didn't like my answer and started with the Bern speech. I continued to support Hillary while reminding you I like Bernie enough to have voted for him. You lectured me again. Then I told you I'm not that much of a pie in the sky person, said a few intermittent things about the election process, and now you come back with a flippant thing about how I must not question my own reasons for supporting her. Fuck that. It's patronizing and smug. And I'm surprised because you are not normally this way. So please tell me at which point you think I got hostile so I can study that and not do it again.
I know I come across as an asshole sometimes. I'm sorry if that's true. I just get pissed off when it seems like a chance for good changes to happen and then they seem to get buried in the same old fuckin' quagmire. I don't understand why Hillary has so much support. I could be the one who is fucked up (I know I am in some ways anyway) so I should probably just go grey and let it be someone else problem. I'm not quite ready to give up on things changing but I have a feeling this election is it for me one way or another. Am I aged and disgruntled? Maybe (probably). Fuck it.
But sorry for the bad vibes, what dreams. I mean that. I won't give you any more shit. Thanks for being honest and forthright.
It's okay. I understand. I'm sorry if I miscommunicated in any way.
The Sanders people should not feel so defeated even if he doesn't get the nomination. One way I hope he uses his leverage is to force Clinton to take a more pro- environment position. I agree with both you and him that this has to be a national priority.
What everyone fails to see clearly, and it's because the media wants the public to think otherwise, is that the Democrat race is very close, unlike the republican race with Cruz finally stepping out.
But everyone can go back to thinking Sanders should step out even though this race is far from over. Because "the media says so".
What everyone fails to see clearly, and it's because the media wants the public to think otherwise, is that the Democrat race is very close, unlike the republican race with Cruz finally stepping out.
But everyone can go back to thinking Sanders should step out even though this race is far from over. Because "the media says so".
I don't think I've ever said he should drop out. Yes, it's close. It's been an interesting race. I don't think anything I think because the media says so. I get practically all my information from primary sources. I understand what I do about the count from Sanders's own speeches.
I don't have much to add because I am a Bernie supporter.
But I would vote for her over Trump or Cruz because obviously she is not Trump or Cruz.
It's your damn 2 party system Brian, you don't have many options.
We have a Green Party. Depending on what happens in July, I may suggest more of us focus on that party.
I guess people didn't learn from 2000. Sorry not to be flippant, but this is not sound logic.
2000 was a super close election. That won't be the case this year. Trump will be annihilated no matter who he faces.
And until we free our minds to vote for whom we think is most qualified, we will continue to allow ourselves to be a manipulated people in a controlled society. It's like the woman who won't leave an abusive husband because it is what she is used to or hopes the abuser will change on their own and thus allows that abuser to carry on indefinitely.
Free yourselves!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I don't have much to add because I am a Bernie supporter.
But I would vote for her over Trump or Cruz because obviously she is not Trump or Cruz.
It's your damn 2 party system Brian, you don't have many options.
We have a Green Party. Depending on what happens in July, I may suggest more of us focus on that party.
I guess people didn't learn from 2000. Sorry not to be flippant, but this is not sound logic.
And until we free our minds to vote for whom we think is most qualified, we will continue to allow ourselves to be a manipulated people in a controlled society. It's like the woman who won't leave an abusive husband because it is what she is used to or hopes the abuser will change on their own and thus allows that abuser to carry on indefinitely.
I don't have much to add because I am a Bernie supporter.
But I would vote for her over Trump or Cruz because obviously she is not Trump or Cruz.
It's your damn 2 party system Brian, you don't have many options.
We have a Green Party. Depending on what happens in July, I may suggest more of us focus on that party.
I guess people didn't learn from 2000. Sorry not to be flippant, but this is not sound logic.
And until we free our minds to vote for whom we think is most qualified, we will continue to allow ourselves to be a manipulated people in a controlled society. It's like the woman who won't leave an abusive husband because it is what she is used to or hopes the abuser will change on their own and thus allows that abuser to carry on indefinitely.
Free yourselves!
LOL! Best user name ever!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I don't have much to add because I am a Bernie supporter.
But I would vote for her over Trump or Cruz because obviously she is not Trump or Cruz.
It's your damn 2 party system Brian, you don't have many options.
We have a Green Party. Depending on what happens in July, I may suggest more of us focus on that party.
I guess people didn't learn from 2000. Sorry not to be flippant, but this is not sound logic.
2000 was a super close election. That won't be the case this year. Trump will be annihilated no matter who he faces.
And until we free our minds to vote for whom we think is most qualified, we will continue to allow ourselves to be a manipulated people in a controlled society. It's like the woman who won't leave an abusive husband because it is what she is used to or hopes the abuser will change on their own and thus allows that abuser to carry on indefinitely.
Free yourselves!
I don't think he will be annihilated like you say..I think he has a shot to win actually. He obviously has a great team that gets his message out. It may be wack in some regards but effective. It's remarkable what he has done thus far. Lots of people can't stand Hillary. A true Bernie supporter would vote for the Donald before her right? I supported..I mean voted for Hillary (I don't give money to politicians)
Campaign finance reform would help, though it's not going to happen. Right now, the candidate who spends the most has the greatest advantage. They might not always be the winner but they usually are. So yeah, vote your conscience, but prepare to be disappointed.
I don't have much to add because I am a Bernie supporter.
But I would vote for her over Trump or Cruz because obviously she is not Trump or Cruz.
It's your damn 2 party system Brian, you don't have many options.
We have a Green Party. Depending on what happens in July, I may suggest more of us focus on that party.
I guess people didn't learn from 2000. Sorry not to be flippant, but this is not sound logic.
2000 was a super close election. That won't be the case this year. Trump will be annihilated no matter who he faces.
And until we free our minds to vote for whom we think is most qualified, we will continue to allow ourselves to be a manipulated people in a controlled society. It's like the woman who won't leave an abusive husband because it is what she is used to or hopes the abuser will change on their own and thus allows that abuser to carry on indefinitely.
Free yourselves!
I don't think he will be annihilated like you say..I think he has a shot to win actually. He obviously has a great team that gets his message out. It may be wack in some regards but effective. It's remarkable what he has done thus far. Lots of people can't stand Hillary. A true Bernie supporter would vote for the Donald before her right? I supported..I mean voted for Hillary (I don't give money to politicians)
Well, I really have not counted Bernie out yet so I'm not putting the cart before the horse but if it comes down to Trump vs Hillary and for some odd reason it looks like Trump might have a chance (though I sincerely don't see that happening) I might consider voting for Hi... Hil... well, shoot, I can't even say it so I dunno...
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
https://johnlaurits.com/2016/04/28/this-is-what-will-happen-at-the-democratic-convention/
Only a portion:
Back to the initial question, even though I wouldn't be a Hillary supporter until I had to be... The things I can think of about her that are okay:
- experienced diplomat
- knowledgeable about the things that a president should be knowledgeable about
- Emotionally clearheaded and in control
- A very solid, experienced, knowledgeable and clever spouse to use as an advisor (in the political sense of course - probably not the best spouse husband-wise, lol)
- Female (first time ever - that is a really big deal)
- Not a Republican (and not Trump or Cruz)
- A pretty logical person
- Not fanatical about any subject/issue
..... I guess I'm tapped. In other words, Hillary is a perfectly legitimate choice for POTUS. There are red flags all over the place, but none of them are particularly sinister. The strong alliegence with corporations is the most disturbing aspect IMO, but I also don't think that that is going to lead to some kind of dystopian nightmare. At worst it will be business as usual. I know that's bad.... but it could easily be worse!
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/indiana-primary-highlights/index.html
1. She is an astute stateswoman with a deep command of international issues, has tremendous credibility abroad and will represent US interests well in foreign affairs.
2. She is practical in dealing with economic affairs at home. She will champion issues I care about but understands we can't bankrupt ourselves into salvation. I trust her understanding of the budget, and I'm not too concerned my tax status will change dramatically under her proposals.
3. She will nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court and fight to the end for a woman's right to make decisions about her own healthcare. It boggles my mind when I hear people suggest Hillary has held women back. On whose planet? Because some stupid endorser said one stupid thing about young feminists? That's the basis for that assertion? I have been following HRC's career for 25 years, and I can't name more than five other women who have had as significant an impact as she has on the planet I inhabit. And I don't say that as a reason to vote for her. I just say it as a fact.
Those are the main reasons HRC appeals to me and why I will support her bid for the presidency.
I'm loving folks who hated Bush rationalize going back to the well again.
Sandra Day O'Connor
Mother Theresa
Susan B Anthony
Rosa Parks
That really wasn't all that tough. And Roe v Wade is never getting overturned.
Red Herrings. You're voting for red herrings with a loose definition of security and secrecy that fits convenience over your safety.
Thank you, Free, for pointing out what should be obvious. We're into page three of this thread and yet other than a few brief responses (thank you POD) there is nothing substantial here. What does that tell you?
What I've read so far tells me that Hillary supporters are a) pessimistic or unwilling to work toward a long shot that, though perhaps not perfect, would benefit more of us who are mostly average people, b) allowing that loud blaring Trumpet to instill in them that most American of traits which is the ongoing barrier to positive change in them, fear, and c) seem to like Hillary because she is "tough". But is tough a universally positive characteristic? I don't think so. Thugs are tough too. Big deal.
And the other thing I've noticed is how quick some of you are to characterize Bernie supporters as sycophants who drool over his every word. Believe me, the man is not perfect. But we see Bernie as the best choice. Some of you also characterize us as "radical left" and "idealists". I'm sure some are but as for myself, I'm just trying to be practical, realistic in my view of what is good for us and I'm actually rather conservative. Yes, that's true.
And look, I LIKE what I know of most of you who are Hillary supporters. If I didn't, I wouldn't give two shits about what you think. Damn it, I'm not your enemy.
What I've read so far tells me that Hillary supporters are a) pessimistic or unwilling to work toward a long shot that, though perhaps not perfect, would benefit more of us who are mostly average people, b) allowing that loud blaring Trumpet to instill in them that most American of traits which is the ongoing barrier to positive change in them, fear, and c) seem to like Hillary because she is "tough". But is tough a universally positive characteristic? I don't think so. Thugs are tough too. Big deal.
And the other thing I've noticed is how quick some of you are to characterize Bernie supporters as sycophants who drool over his every word. Believe me, the man is not perfect. But we see Bernie as the best choice. Some of you also characterize us as "radical left" and "idealists". I'm sure some are but as for myself, I'm just trying to be practical, realistic in my view of what is good for us and I'm actually rather conservative. Yes, that's true.
And look, I LIKE what I know of most of you who are Hillary supporters. If I didn't, I wouldn't give two shits about what you think. Damn it, I'm not your enemy.
When did Socialism define the Democratic party? Did Obama usher that in? Because I do not remember Slick Willie as being a socialist.
we will find a way, we will find our place
What I've read so far tells me that Hillary supporters are a) pessimistic or unwilling to work toward a long shot that, though perhaps not perfect, would benefit more of us who are mostly average people, b) allowing that loud blaring Trumpet to instill in them that most American of traits which is the ongoing barrier to positive change in them, fear, and c) seem to like Hillary because she is "tough". But is tough a universally positive characteristic? I don't think so. Thugs are tough too. Big deal.
And the other thing I've noticed is how quick some of you are to characterize Bernie supporters as sycophants who drool over his every word. Believe me, the man is not perfect. But we see Bernie as the best choice. Some of you also characterize us as "radical left" and "idealists". I'm sure some are but as for myself, I'm just trying to be practical, realistic in my view of what is good for us and I'm actually rather conservative. Yes, that's true.
And look, I LIKE what I know of most of you who are Hillary supporters. If I didn't, I wouldn't give two shits about what you think. Damn it, I'm not your enemy.
I'm of the impression that you didn't ask the question because you truly want to understand our point of view. I'm under the impression that you only asked the question because you want to tell us how wrong we are. I find that insulting, and I'm backing out of this trap. I have said multiple times I understand Sanders's appeal to you . . . and hell, me, too, because I voted for him. But you have yet to even acknowledge my point of view and now you call all of our answers insubstantial, pessimistic, fearful, and maybe even thug-like. No thanks. Not interested in being part of this conversation anymore.
super delegates have not voted yet. It's been said since the beginning, that counting superdelegates in before the convention, when they can change their mind up till, is not nearly accurate. She has paid many off, for sure. How many? Including them in the count all this time merely shows CNN's bias.
"At the outset let me say this: I'm creating this thread with the intent to ask an honest question, NOT to bate or troll any Clinton supporters."
I was not bullshitting when I said that. I'm asking why some of you support Hillary because I honestly don't know the answer to that. I'm also hoping maybe if you do support her you will ask yourself the same question.
But you just seem to want to be pissed off with me. OK fine.
But sorry for the bad vibes, what dreams. I mean that. I won't give you any more shit. Thanks for being honest and forthright.
But you're not being an A-hole Brian, lol.
we will find a way, we will find our place
The Sanders people should not feel so defeated even if he doesn't get the nomination. One way I hope he uses his leverage is to force Clinton to take a more pro- environment position. I agree with both you and him that this has to be a national priority.
But everyone can go back to thinking Sanders should step out even though this race is far from over. Because "the media says so".
And until we free our minds to vote for whom we think is most qualified, we will continue to allow ourselves to be a manipulated people in a controlled society. It's like the woman who won't leave an abusive husband because it is what she is used to or hopes the abuser will change on their own and thus allows that abuser to carry on indefinitely.
Free yourselves!