Hillary Clinton Is In...

Me too :-(

But hey, there's always tomorrow (the next step)! That's what I'm really wondering about...

 

Why do you think there's nothing better than Hillary Clinton? Yes, serious question

 

Get organized in a different more constructive way. Hey, I don't have the solution ready. Otherwise I would certainly share it and not only that: a lot of others might have figured it out too.
I also wanted that movement to do more but frankly it seemed more concept than content. It was in some ways an inspiring effort and many constructive people did join. I hope they do not all think "hey we did try but it didn't work, lets's settle for the Democrats. It's the best we can do". There are many possibilities. I also think progressive America has a lot more to offer than Hillary Clinton.

edit: maybe the occupy movement had an ok organisation in some ways (not sure if that's why it went global but if so, there's certainly something that was well organized ) but I don't think they're a good example of an organized movement. But I am also not sure it is a 'movement' what America needs. It doesn't need revolution, except maybe when nobody works on (political) evolution (yes, rhyming sounds more fancy. sue me)

 

I can't say I understand the occupy movement whatsoever, but I'm not represented in your percentage. More like the 20% agaisnt the 0.05%

 

She's not "in" yet, but so far I support her above all the republicunt candidates.

 

Do you also see her and/or her party as the 'lesser evil'?

 

I think Hilary is a nice smart person and all,but she coerced Obama to bomb Libya,which has been a total disaster.Still it would be cool to have a woman in the top job.I just think she's a bit hawkish is all.

 

New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio is considering a presidential run, he would be to Hillary's Left.

 

actually, BOTH of todays major parties DID start out as third parties. neither were the parties in power, nor even yet existed, when the u.s. was getting started. so that statement is neither true nor logical.

back to the subject, hillary would not be my first choice. she just doesn't have anyone running against her, who wouldn't be a thousand times worse.
i think elizabeth waren would make a much better pressident, but she seems to feel, and she may actually be right about this,
that she could accomplsh more, by remaining in the senate.

 

Elizabeth has a smart head on her shoulders. It seems to me that increasingly the "President of the USA" has less power than the senate. Unless you're a Reagan or Bush -- that's a whole different story

 

I totally agree. But the senate has so much power (now) that I can see how she decided to do what she did. Elizabeth just might do more for the country than Hilliary is capable of. Now wouldn't that be a really cool twist?

 

i didn't know all the details. or had forgotten them if i ever did. i just remembered the names being different, and had never traced the connections. they certainly seem to have traded constituencies back and forth over those first hundred years. before the telegraph enabled news papers to keep more or less up to date, it must have been just as hard or harder to cast a knowledgeable informed vote.

 

The Democratic and Republican parties have essentially reversed roles since the time of Lincoln.

There's definitely some truth to that, but the right to vote used to be more restricted, more severely as you go back further in time, and the better educated voters were not so easily fooled as the masses of today.

That's not to say that political fraud was impossible in old times. The Spanish-American war was manufactured by manipulative power brokers, just as shrewdly as the Iraq War.

 

Problem with Hillary to me, is that she defines "the machine." Warren & Sanders for me. They seem to be the only pair that would actually

do something for the middle class. Of course that's exactly why they will never get in because for some "reason" coughfoxcoughlimbaughcoughhannitycough, people keep electing republicans.

 

Considering that her and Bill were cheerleaders for NAFTA, one not need fathom too hard what effect her presidency would have, millions of domestic manufacturing jobs and thousands of factories closed down, no bid contracts to Mexican trucking companies, her role in helping to keep bailing wall street out, etc. As well as her adamant attitude to want to keep the same perpetual war campaigns up, that often only get blamed on the neocons, we all know how it would turn out. All they can do is keep offering us the same type of candidates and fooling the impressionable into believing change is coming. There's no turning back from any of this, a debt climbing upwards of eighteen trillion and counting, while corporate profits keep soaring anyways, we know the score.

 

Her great strength is that she's a fucking republican?

Not even a moderate republican at that. She wants to closely regulate your life, she loves banks, she loves big companies like walmart that are literally responsible for selling america to china, not to mention down the drain, and fucking the middle class she claims to worry about. She likes war and the defense industry, and constantly wants to intervene the world over - don't forget that clinton was for helping ISIS before she was for fighting ISIS.

Her promise is to bring back the america that she's sold down the river, as she continues to do so.

How about warren or sanders.... or anybody but clinton.

 

Where are all these jobs? Where I live, all the manufacturing jobs were sent to China by the two Bushes. We don't have any left to lose.

 

It's all the republicans fault right.

If that would be true you guys could vote for a third party If you guys really had nothing to lose why the F would you settle with voting for Hillary Clinton?

 

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT A REPUBLICAN!!! How many times do I need to say it?