I was wondering how you would justify that. She didn't say he wasn't supportive of healthcare initiatives. She said Bernie wanted to take healthcare away from millions of Americans. She was deliberately misleading. It was a dirty political trick.
That's called misleading people. It isn't an accident and it isn't helping her with people who do know what the candidates positions are and that's exactly why she isn't liked. The people being mislead may not realize it because they obviously aren't paying attention as much as others are but it seems pretty blatant to the people who are paying attention. I'm not going to say she doesn't care what those people think but maybe she thinks we'll just forget, forgive or fall in line later......yeah.....again....pretty presumptuous. Not a positive character quality.
^exactly. We all know Bernie has been advocating for single payer his whole career, but not everyone knows that. Some who aren't familiar with his policies would and probably did take that comment at face value.
If you want to avoid misleading the HF members, you should point out that it was Chelsea Clinton, not Hillary that made those statements. You know guys I understand all that, my only complaint is that Hillary is painted as the only person in history to ever do this stuff. Let's look at Bernie: If I wanted to smear Sanders I could point out that Hillary does have a plan to deal with climate change, it doesn't include a carbon tax but it does have other provisions aimed at combating climate change. Clearly an attempt by Sanders to misled the public. "This $72 billion debt did not appear solely thanks to the maneuvers of Wall Street. Rather, it’s been building up for decades, resulting from a combination of U.S. policy, local mismanagement and economic decline....We rate his claim Half True." ~ Politifact Clearly an attempt by Sanders to misled the public. "Sanders’ tweet rests on an analysis of increasing the minimum wage to $10.10, not to $15. In reality, economists have never modeled potential job losses caused by increasing the minimum wage to $15, which would be more than double the current level. In fact, some suggest that raising the minimum wage that high could produce enough job losses to increase -- not decrease -- public assistance costs." ~ Politifact Clearly an attempt by Sanders to misled the public. "She actually had more lines than that -- seven mentions of the word "Palestinian" in five sentences. And overall, she spent about 10 percent of her speech talking about the peace process, of which Palestinians are an integral part.That’s still an imbalance -- Clinton spent twice as many words discussing Israeli security -- but Sanders’ assertion is still a significant exaggeration. We rate it Mostly False." ~ Politifact Clearly an attempt by Sanders to misled the public. "The clear impression is that Sanders is talking — exclusively or not — about members of Congress, the premiere political class of Washington. Can they really accept more than $200,000 an hour for speeches? The ad is very misleading. Senators and representatives have been prohibited from accepting money for speeches since 1991. Before then, members of Congress would often accept speaking fees from the industries they oversaw, which critics characterized as a form of bribery. And it's not just members of Congress. In the House, for example, even senior staff can't be paid for speeches, appearances or writing an article. Junior staff also can't do it if the topic relates to their official duties. The executive branch has a similar ban. But once a person leaves government service, those rules no longer apply, and they're free to charge for speeches." ~ Politifact Clearly an attempt by Sanders to misled the public. And I'll stop there. Time to grow up and realize that there are no perfect political candidates, Hillary has made misleading statements...who hasn't? Name one candidate whose every statement has been absolutely factual. One. I'll wait. My argument is only that Hillary is the only one that is vilified for the same thing everyone is doing. I don't see people around here picking on Sanders, like he's a saint or something and we can't criticize him, I don't see much on this site about all the shit Trump puts out...in fact people eat it up as he's "just telling it like it is". But Hillary is the only one who is misleading the public and lying, oh, she's sooo evil!
Sanders isn't a saint but for a political figure he has a lot of integrity. And in truth that is why Hillary looks so bad, because Bernie set a new standard for the Democratic party. People don't want a typical politician. Voter turnout is really low in this country comparative to our population. Typical politicians have created a spirit of apathy in politics. This is one reason why Bernie has energized the 18 -34 demographic so much - he makes people feel like maybe things can be different. Hillary doesn't give people this feeling. I respect that you want to be fair towards Hillary, but I also feel like you're missing this point. As for Donald Trump, I can't speak for everyone but I can't be bothered to speak out against him on here. He is an idiot and his supporters scare me. That's all I can say, really. This is a left leaning site for the most part - isn't it a given he isn't going to have widespread support here? But I guess I feel the need to speak up about Hillary because it also seems to be a given that anyone with liberal views should fall in line and throw their support behind Hillary. I think this line of thinking bothers a lot of people
I think this is becoming true only because of the calendar. California is the only big primary left on the schedule.
And I get that there is a lot at stake with this election. I will be pretty upset if Donald Trump is our next president. But this feeling like voters are constantly presented with this false choice of two completely undesirable candidates, just one more undesirable than the other, creates a lot of disillusionment in our political system.
Bernie did a good job, ran a good race, got his positive message out to the people very well, and damn near won. Maybe some of that momentum will carry over to another candidate, next time. He has a lot of young supporters. They're going to be around for a long time.
The race isn't over, so enough with that false narrative already. The convention will be contested, because neither of them have enough pledged delegates to win. They need superdelegates, which don't vote until July 25th. Many have said they will switch if Sanders wins California. Likely as not, Clinton will not beat Donald Trump. She is too scandalous, too corrupt, independents don't like her, the majority of people find her untrustworthy. We really don't buy this whole, "Well it depends on what your definition of ____ is," bullshit. The fact that we even have such discussions proves how much the Clintons want to blur the lines between fact and fiction.
That's two days from now. Anyway, nobody should forget about all the young Sanders supporters, because they have to be feeling good about the way they made this a real contest when older people had been telling them from day one that you can't do anything in politics without wealthy donors. The internet has changed all that. Jeb Bush entered the race with the most cash and the best political connections, by far, and his campaign was a miserable failure. All the old rules are out the window, forever. Sanders people will figure out ways to do better next time. They're a serious political force now.
Ha, that's good, I've been refraining from commenting on your posts as that is useless, but this one takes the cake! Clinton is too scandalous when compared to Donald Trump!!!
I agree Karen. The cats out of the bag, so to speak. As the old die off with their old ideas, change is inevitable. The more the young vote, the faster the changes will come. Conservatism has its place, but does not and will not address the needed changes in the area of economics, equality of all citizens under the law and the --all important (to me)-- ---'we're all in this together' attitude. The idea of America--the constitution, the freedom, the BALANCE of the 3 legislative branches was/is brilliant. Now it's distorted beyond belief. I believe that ALL of Bernies ideas/ideals will become reality eventually. WE can't go on like this with a few owning most of everything and companies shutting down here in favor of MORE MONEY AND FEWER JOBS FOR AMERICANS. I mean where can this actually all end up----? More of the same ?
Regardless of who wins the democratic convention and is the nominee-----the election of a republican and the power to appoint 2 or 3 of the next supreme court nominees will only continue (maybe even worse) the imbalance in society as the right wants----and has gotten.
If you keep repeating the same stuff, several times every day, with just minor wording differences, I'm going to start deleting most of it as spam. We heard you the first 6000 times. That's probably the best word.
Well we Sanders people don't get what you're talking about when you say we'll do better next time. Of course we'll do better next time. But there's still this time. It's not over. But yeah, next time we'll probably have our own political party. Unless Hillary gets elected and makes it impossible to form a new political party in any meaningful way. You know me so well that you know it's useless to reply to me. That's rich. You don't know Clinton well enough to see that she's a liar, but you know me, a stranger on the internet, well enough to know how I internalize your replies and what they mean to me. If Hillary herself can't out scandal Trump, which I think she can, certainly she and her husband can do it together. Who wants to see that dirty old man in the White House. Not me. What have you got on Trump besides his lawsuit, which he could have settled out of court but chose not to, and really isn't a scandal. I think you've been watching too much MSNBC if you think anybody cares about his stupid university. I don't repeat the same stuff several times a day. Why don't you go back and catalogue every time I've said Clinton will be defeated. It's not that many. And it's totally pertinent to the conversation we're having. Also, thanks for taking my quote out of context, since I said "AS LIKELY AS NOT, Clinton will not beat Donald Trump." This is what the poll numbers are showing. So sorry for bringing up that bit of unfortunate information. I think we really ought to be discussing, though, if we're going to be realistic about this, the likelihood that Clinton will defeat Donald Trump. Maybe I ought to bring it up more often, since nobody ever seems to address the fact that it's not looking too good.
Failure to contribute any money to veterans' groups after the big fundraiser, until a reporter pressured him for full disclosure. That's also fraud, at the felony level. That, plus policies that we normally hear only from obnoxious little jerks in middle school.
Don't forget our constitutionally protected independent media which is currently undergoing vast changes due to the rapid advancement of technology on the one hand allowing everyone access to report, debate, and research and also the attempts being made on the other hand to monopolize the major traditional outlets. The media is a very important safeguard.
