Some HRC supporters are as fact aversive

[chapdrum]

as the Republicans:

She did support W's fraudulent, murderous invasion of Iraq (got WMD?);

She does receive $200,000 (or so) for willingly speaking to the predatory likes of Goldman Sachs, and when asked
to release the scripts, she laughs in response (a variation on "let them eat cake&quot ;

Her daughter does have an affiliation with the Peter Peterson (another billionaire Reagan hack) Foundation; one of its missions is to dismantle or privatize Social Security;

She does take campaign contributions from Wall Street.

If these can be refuted, please post. Thank you.

[DURHAM D]

1. and Jane Sanders has off shore accounts

So what?

[JonLeibowitz]

3. Do you have evidence of that assertion? n/t

[chapdrum]

4. What was that about two wrongs?

Not condoned and yes, can you prove it?

[JonLeibowitz]

8. I suspect not -- the only google hits refer back here and involve conspiracies about Israeli ties.

Obviously a antisemitic assertion if that is what is intended.

[Live and Learn]

18. I think you have Jane mixed up with Hill2016. nt

[JonLeibowitz]

20. LOL! Good one! Hill2016 is middle class right?

I heard middle class is when you can afford a gardener, housekeeper, private schools, nanny, and vacations.

[Live and Learn]

23. Yep and have money hidden overseas, apparently. nt

[mwooldri]

50. And Colonel Sanders is more visible in PR China than Chairman Mao.

My reply makes as much sense.

[bvf]

53. Do tell, won't you?

[Kalidurga]

70. See that is that fact adverse thingy we are talking about.

[cali]

92. Made up shit.

[Ed Suspicious]

2. Her whole angle on the ACA smacks of Burkean conservative incrementalism. I think the centrist

dems are just that - old world republicans sprung from the loins of Edmund Burke. They lost influence in their own party, so they invaded ours with their incremental change, defending the traditional meaning of marriage, welfare reform, tough on crime, cutting taxes, scepticism of democracy, and much much more.

[chapdrum]

9. Ed, you're on to something

and I agree, though not certain about just how much "[T]hey lost influence in their own party."

Would like to see that much further manifest, so we no longer have to pin our
hopes on the likes of Obama and the Clintons.

[LuvLoogie]

5. What are you going to do if she wins the nomination?

[JonLeibowitz]

7. What a strange question. What relevance does that have to the present discussion?

[LuvLoogie]

11. Okay. As this is GD: Primaries, for the sake of discussion,

let us stipulate that everything that the poster says is true, and Hillary wins the primary election and the nomination.

What will the Original Poster do?

[JonLeibowitz]

12. Why should I or the OP answer your question when you can't answer how it is relevant to the OP?

[LuvLoogie]

14. The OP presents a few adorned facts that may or not be relevant to the primary.

There are plenty of facts about Hillary and her daughter that one could enumerate, list, recite and which may or may not be relevant to a discussion of the primary election.

So in the catalogue of facts pertaining to Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, let us assume that they are all true.

Let us assume that they are all true, and Hillary wins the nomination.

What would the OP do given that result in the primaries?

[JonLeibowitz]

16. Wait, what the actual FUCK?

You don't think the unjustified invasion of an independent country is relevant to the primary?!?!? What the fuck? Adorned?

Every single fact listed in the OP is true. No assumption. Your question is unrelated to the facts of the OP.

I'm not going to dignify your absurd question, obviously designed to elicit a TOS violation, with a response as your post makes it clear that you may not think the invasion and ultimate slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is relevant to a presidential primary.

[Live and Learn]

19. +10,000 And well said! nt

[LuvLoogie]

21. I'm not trying to get anyone TOS'd. We are discussing the primary.

The OP presents some facts, that are relevant to the primary. There are alot of facts about Hillary and Chelsea. I'll let you and the OP decide which of the catalog of facts about them are relevant to the primary.

Lets line up all the facts about Hillary and Chelsea that you and the OP think are relevant to this primary. Just do it in your heads.

I'll wait.....

Okay, now imagine that Hillary Clinton wins the primary and the Democratic Presidential Nomination.

[JonLeibowitz]

24. What effect does a hypothetical scenario where she won the primary have on our choices when voting..

in the primary?

There is none. Therefore your question is ridiculous and frankly insulting. I refuse to answer it.

[RobertEarl]

48. The OP stated: Some HRC supporters are fact aversive

And that there is one of 'em. Good job, Jon

[senz]

29. You can "wait" all you want.

There is no reason for you to hijack the thread with personal questions to the OP.

Whatever they do, it's nobody's business but their own.

[LuvLoogie]

34. Hijack? You are the third person to repond to me.

Does the OP expect to have their facts disputed? Must Hillary's supporters be aversive to facts in order to support her candidacy? There are a lot of facts about Hillary Clinton.

[senz]

41. Requesting personal information is not "disputing facts."

[LuvLoogie]

44. The OP would impugn the fact-averse Hillary supporters and their choices.

And yet the OPs choices are nobody's business. Got it...

[senz]

49. That's gobbledygook.

Too illogical; I don't wish to engage with you any further.

[passiveporcupine]

58. Nobody is obligated to say whom they would vote for before an election

We all have a right to privacy in that regard. You are pushing your luck with this ugly game you are playing.

It's none of your goddamn business. It's personal. If he chooses to say who he is voting for, at some point in time, that's his choice. You do not have the right to brow beat him into doing it for your satisfaction.

[LuvLoogie]

69. I'm not brow-beating anyone. I posed the question once to the OP.

All my other posts in this thread have been in response to others. I have not initiated any exchanges in this thread beyond my original question to the OP.

[passiveporcupine]

75. Yes you are. You have been told no over and over again yet you won't let up.

[LuvLoogie]

80. You are like the sixth person to initiate a discussion with me in this thread.

I asked my question only once, and it was to the OP.

They are free to answer or not. And I am free to answer any question or comment posed to me.

[passiveporcupine]

82. In various ways you've asked the question or demanded an answer nine times in this thread

What are you going to do if she wins the nomination?

What will the Original Poster do?

*just curious, how will jon know what the OP (Durham) do?

What would the OP do given that result in the primaries?

Okay, now imagine that Hillary Clinton wins the primary and the Democratic Presidential Nomination.

(question implied, not outright asked)

And yet the OPs choices are nobody's business. Got it...

(complaining that your question has not been answered)

If Hillary wins the nomination, (this is GDrimaries) what will the OP do?

What will the poster do if Chelsea's Mom wins the nomination?

Let's say that I, and enough others, vote for Hillary so that she wins the nomination.

(again implying the question being asked)

I'd call this harassment.

[LuvLoogie]

85. Harassment? I am responding to questions posed and restating my position in response to

several challenges. People keep asking; I keep responding. I have only asked the question once to the OP. I've restated it both rhetorically and as a matter of staying on point--but not to the OP.

[passiveporcupine]

87. keep on playing

[JackRiddler]

10. What are you saying?

How is your post relevant? Would her winning the nomination change any of these facts?

[LuvLoogie]

15. There are a lot of facts about Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.

Let's assume they are all true.

If Hillary wins the nomination, (this is GD rimaries) what will the OP do?









(That is an awesome typo, BTW. Should be "GD: Primaries" I think I'll leave it.)

[JackRiddler]

22. Still irrelevant.

What will the OP do if this or that has nothing to do with the post. Zero.

There are "many facts about Hillary Clinton." The ones listed happen to be very relevant ones. Respond to those.

[LuvLoogie]

28. Are we not discussing this in the context of the primary election?

Lets assume that this OP stays open until the Democratic Convention, and nobody disputes these facts.

What will the poster do if Chelsea's Mom wins the nomination?

The OP wishes to elicit a response, no? Hillary Clinton is a Democratic candidate for the Presidency, no?

Elections are choices, no?

[JackRiddler]

38. You are avoiding the issues of the OP. Why?

[LuvLoogie]

43. What are the issues of the OP?

[retrowire]

46. .... woooowwww nt

[LuvLoogie]

52. State the issues...

[retrowire]

55. ....t-they're in the OP. nt

[LuvLoogie]

77. Which states that some Hillary supporters are as fact aversive as Republicans.

Then the OP lists some facts and challenges that the facts be disputed. Let's say that I acknowledge the OPs facts. Let's say that I, and enough others, vote for Hillary so that she wins the nomination.

[Unknown Beatle]

94. Give up, man.

You're digging yourself in deeper.

You're stating than if Hillary wins the nomination, what will the OP do? Right? Okay, got that.

But the OP doesn't want to answer. Let it go.

[LuvLoogie]

109. It's fine if the OP does not want to answer.

I made one comment to the OP. All my subsequent posts have been in response to others.

[retrowire]

99. you're changing the subject of the op

you said it yourself.

the op wants the facts disputed. that's the topic at hand.

[LuvLoogie]

108. There are a lot of people here not disputing the facts.

Should they remove their comments? I have not changed the subject. I accept the premise. I am not disputing "the facts." I draw certain conclusions about Hillary's suitability for the job from a multitude of facts about Hillary Clinton.

What is the purpose of the OP? It states that some Hillary supporters are as fact averse as the Republicans. I am not disputing the facts in the OP; I take them into account in my decision to support Hillary. I take a lot of facts into account.

The OP impugns some of Hillary's supporters as being fact-averse. Fine. Some may be, and others are not. So does the OP then accept as valid the support for Hillary from the non-fact-averse?

[retrowire]

110. the purpose is to dispute the facts lol

hiding behind the defense of "well no one else is disputing it" is not really a good angle.

you acknowledged the question of the OP. Now you know it. that's all.

I don't expect answers from anyone, so there's no need to plead your case to me. I don't care what you do. you asked what the issues were, I told ya.

what you do now, is up to you.

[LuvLoogie]

112. The purpose of the OP is to impugn Hillary and her supporters using a set of facts.

I ask what the OP will do if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, given those same facts. Whether the OP answers is up to them.

I openly support Hillary Clinton's candidacy. I am not hiding behind anything.

[retrowire]

113. as the op requested...

dispute the claims. that's all.

[passiveporcupine]

63. The person you are stalking here is not the OP

eom

[senz]

31. What do you care what the OP will do?

Is it any of your business?

[LuvLoogie]

45. see my response #44

[840high]

33. Not your business at all.

[LuvLoogie]

37. The OP states that some Hillary supporters are as aversive to facts as are Republicans.

Then the OP lists some facts. Now are all Hillary supporters as averse to facts as are Republicans, or just some Hillary supporters?

Which Hillary supporters deny the facts, which ones have an aversion to the facts and which ones acknowledge the facts. Are the facts not true in all cases?

And yet there are Hillary supporters. A lot of them.

edit to add: The OP calls out Hillary supporters choices in the face of facts that the OP presents.

[RobertEarl]

54. I get what you are asking

Given that Hillary has shown she is not worthy of the nomination, but since there is a chance that she somehow gets nominated, what would we do?

Gawd, the idea is just to damned awful to contemplate.

An easier question to answer would be : If Godzilla attacks your town, what would we do?

As for H... all we can do is try and make sure she loses, again. Right?

[LuvLoogie]

62. I'll several steps further than the OP does regarding Hillary's supporters.

Let's say that, not only are Hillary supporters fact-averse, but that they are generally uninformed and lacking of any empathy beyond wanting to win. How would you ever hope to ever win them over, given their sheer density?

Does a Hillary nomination equate to a cataclysm?

[RobertEarl]

65. Yes

If she wins the party will die.

But let's realize that most H supporters are just lazy and will do what they are told. Those, as the votes come in and they find out who Bernie is ... well, H will lose their votes.

Back to you and the OP: How can you continue to support H when you know how bad her record is?

[Arazi]

74. Thanks for drilling down to the crux eom

[LuvLoogie]

84. As I said, there are a lot of facts about Hillary. We can dispute

what those facts mean regarding her being the right person for the job. That we weigh them differently or consider the context of her record differently is not being fact-averse, adjectives notwithstanding.

If one's choice to support Hillary is to be impugned by the OP against a few facts, then it is well within one's right to point out that those facts might be starring right back at the OP come the general election.

[Unknown Beatle]

95. That's just it, don't you get it?

Facts are facts, there's no discounting them even though people try hard to either hide them or spin them until the facts are lost to people that aren't paying attention. And the OP states that Hillary supporters are fact averse, which to my understanding, they are very fact averse. They call facts and truth about their preferred candidate smears. Imagine that, facts and truth are smears, doesn't get more fact averse than that.

All I can say that if Hillary becomes president, we're fucked. Not only will the middle class almost completely disappear, she'll start more wars in the ME. That's only two of a few things that will completely fuck up this country.

[LuvLoogie]

111. Your last paragraph, for example, contains no facts.

Whether Hillary's supporters are fact averse or not, she may gain the Democratic nomination. Your decision will then be how to best stave off the destruction of the planet, I suppose.

[Unknown Beatle]

118. Silly me!

You're right, the last paragraph was devoid of facts. Nothing in her history would suggest that she would do any of those things.


Read this to see where Clinton stands on war.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/hillary-clintons-libya_b_8590130.html

Google the rest - Hillary Clinton On War



Read this to see where Clinton stands on the middle class.

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/23/9780162/clinton-middle-class-tax

Google the rest - Hillary Clinton Middle Class

[azurnoir]

56. ah 2 of the 3 D's of Hillsbara distract and divert I guess distort isn't really possible here

[LuvLoogie]

90. Hillsbara? Don't know about that.

[reformist2]

6. How dare you post such negativity about The Inevitable One!

[ecstatic]

13. I support Clinton and O'Malley

and will vote for Sanders if he's the nominee. That being said:

(she did support W's fraudulent, murderous invasion of Iraq (got WMD?);

I know and I was thoroughly disgusted and angry with her for that. I think she's learned from that experience, and I hope she surrounds herself with advisers and an SOS who prefer peace as the first option.

She does receive $200,000 (or so) for willingly speaking to the predatory likes of Goldman Sachs, and when asked
to release the scripts, she laughs in response (a variation on "let them eat cake&quot ;

So what? I don't spend my time hating the rich nor worrying about how much speaking fees someone takes in. Sorry, not a priority.

Her daughter does have an affiliation with the Peter Peterson (another billionaire Reagan hack) Foundation; one of its missions is to dismantle or privatize Social Security;

More details please? On the face of it, it seems like another non-issue. Guilt by association. Yawn.


She does take campaign contributions from Wall Street.

Another yawn/ so what for me. I don't hate Wall Street. Just regulate it, enforce the laws, and move on. Many Americans (democrats included) work, invest, or have 401ks tied to Wall Street and are not looking to have Wall Street shut down by anti-capitalists.

[chapdrum]

17. Thanks for responding.

As to Iraq: For heaven's sake, she's married to a former president. She didn't see what was coming? Highly unlikely.
More likely: Just like BushCo, she doesn't give a damn.

As to Goldman Sachs: I don't "worry" either, nor do I hate the rich. There are legitimate gains and ill-gotten gains; we know which ones GS received, as they took them out of our hide and are well-poised to do so again, if they feel like it (must be nice).

The foundation of Wall Street is a house of cards (nothing new there). We could decide to do away with it (Wall Street and corporations are not immutable laws of nature, but we treat them exactly like they are), but we'd rather not bother. Better to give them the opportunity to willfully crash the economy yet again and. like Hillary, go to the beast, take its money for speeches, and then refuse to disclose the contents of same (which is ok as a private citizen but not, in my view, as a presidential candidate).

When I find details of Chelsea's affiliation (if they've not been removed from the Peterson site), they will be posted.

[chapdrum]

36. What's found about Peterson Foundation

The link below is to a pdf download of an IRS Form 990 filed by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation (PGPF) in 2014. (Peterson was Secretary of Commerce under Nixon.)

On page 39, there is the title "Attachment 21." On the far left side, under the field "Recipient Name and Address," the "Clinton Global Initiative" (in NYC) is found at the bottom of p. 39.

http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/Tax-Form-990-2014-PF.pdf

Per Wikipedia: "In 2008, (Peterson} founded the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, an organization devoted to spreading public awareness on fiscal sustainability issues related to...Social Security policy."

"From 2007 to 2011, Peterson is reported to have contributed $458,000,000 to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to promote the cause of fiscal responsibility..."

Note (via DU'er Hedda_Foil's post on this thread) the presence of the PGPF (Peterson's son Michael) at a healthcare confab attended by Bill Clinton (Sorry - he is as close as I could get to Chelsea; guess his presence will have to suffice). Also at the confab is a Harvard rep, another of PGPF's recipients.

[hedda_foil]

25. What is Chelsea's connection to the Peterson Foundation?

Goodling only got me this, which is cringeworthy but unlikely to be what you're implying.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/press-releases/president-clinton-chelsea-clinton-host-fourth-annual-health-matters-summit

Healthcare Summit

Indian Wells, CA—On January 25 – 26, President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton will host the Clinton Foundation’s fourth annual Health Matters Activation Summit, which each year brings together leaders from a variety of health fields to identify strategies for systemic health improvement and ways to implement those strategies. This year’s Summit convenes innovators from healthcare, public policy, business, education, and sports industries. The Summit will be held in Indian Wells, California, in conjunction with the Humana Challenge in partnership with the Clinton Foundation PGA TOUR event on January 20 – 25 in La Quinta, and the final event in the Clinton Foundation’s Women’s Health Codeathon series from January 16 – 18 in Los Angeles. Tenet Healthcare Corporation is a title sponsor for this event.

The Health Matters Activation Summit is the embodiment of the continued work of the Clinton Health Matters Initiative (CHMI) throughout the year to improve the health and well-being of all people throughout the United States. CHMI, an initiative of the Clinton Foundation, activates individuals, communities, and organizations to make meaningful contributions to the health of others. Through work in local communities and programs dedicated to improving the health of everyday Americans, Health Matters positively impacts 75 million lives.

Closing Plenary – Health and the Economy
Crystal Ballroom

The Economics of Healthcare Transformation: A moderated discussion among the nation’s leading experts and authorities on the healthcare system, clinical care, economics and finance.
Moderator
President Bill Clinton – Founder, Clinton Foundation and 42nd President of the United States
Panelists
Trevor Fetter, President and CEO, Tenet Healthcare
Michael Peterson, President and COO, Peter G. Peterson Foundation
Bruce Broussard, President and CEO, Humana
Steve Beshear, Governor of Kentucky
Dr. Meredith Rosenthal, Professor of Health Economics and Policy, Harvard University

[chapdrum]

30. thanks Hedda

This is helpful.
There is also the "Clinton Global Initiative" in NYC. This may or may not be in addition to the Clinton Foundation noted.

[hedda_foil]

32. That doesn't answer my question about the Chelsea/Peterson connection you posit.

[chapdrum]

40. I didn't notice your question

Will look again.

[chapdrum]

42. OK, now I see it

In the headline

[R B Garr]

26. What do we do with Elizabeth Warren's $5.3 Million mansion?

[chapdrum]

27. She's not running for president

and if she was, would she be asked to sell it?

Are any of the candidates being asked to sell their homes, expensive or not?

[R B Garr]

57. She was the Berniebros obsession before he announced, which

was mere months ago. They must have known about her millions months ago. Apparently she gets hundreds of thousand for teaching gigs and who knows what else. She used to be a Republican. All of that is fine, though. Strange. The lofty standards only apply to Clinton.

Jane Sanders got a $200,000 Golden Parachute from a former employer. I don't know anyone who has gotten $200,000 from a former employer; do you?

[retrowire]

60. 200,000 is not a golden parachute for a retiring president of a college. lol nt

[R B Garr]

64. Yes, it was from her struggling former employer.

Yes or no. Do you know anyone who has gotten $200,000 from a former employer?

[retrowire]

67. sure i do. a quick Google of

"CEO gets golden parachute" will tell you plenty of CEOs that leave with 100 million or more.

100 million or more.

that's why Jane Sanders paltry 200,000 is merely a sort of severance pay appropriate for her former position.

not a golden parachute.

besides, Hillary gives private chats to banks for 600,000 a pop so... severance pay vs private banker conferences... hmmm I wonder what's more troubling to me....

[R B Garr]

71. LOL, how many of those worked for small, struggling

colleges like she did? It was a Golden Parachute, that's a fact.

You are now just making excuses and trying to hide behind some arbitrary mindless Google searches. Hey, the Kardashians get millions, too. It says so on the Google machine!

Yes or no, do you know anyone who has gotten $200,000 from a former employer?

[Fearless]

81. Yes, they used to be called pensions and a few of us are still lucky to get something at all.

Let me guess, retirement packages are a unicorn too?

[R B Garr]

83. "SIZEABLE severance package" is a

Golden Parachute. LOL that you are trying to wordsmith to avoid facts.

Looks like there is plenty of fact adversity from Bernie fans.

[Fearless]

117. Who are you even replying to??

[retrowire]

101. point stands

200,000 is a severance package.

100 million golden parachute is an obscene amount of money for someone to take after falling a business.

you're really coming off as desperate.

[R B Garr]

78. Nice edit there. You must be afraid that your

so-called facts are really just a personal bias. I'm more troubled by the hypocrisy of someone claiming to be financially pure but it turns out to be phony propaganda. That's why Jane Sander's $200,000 is more concerning. It is truly ill-gotten.

[retrowire]

100. ??? ooookay. lol try harder nt

[R B Garr]

105. Yeah, same to you. Try harder yourself.

Last edited Sun Jan 31, 2016, 01:14 PM - Edit history (2)

oooooo. lololol wtf.

The Sanders berate others for financial practices that they themselves have benefitted from. Spare me the phony superiority complex.

And as to your disingenuous complaint about me harassing you in this thread. YOU are the one who called me desperate and went personal because you cannot accept the facts about Jane Sanders payoff so you tried to shut me up another way. Let people be aware that you resort to these tactics. How pathetic...

And you edited again after saying that I was harassing you by responding. LOL. How silly The point is that the Sanders benefit from financial practices that they campaign on as being unethical, yet they benefitted from the same practices. That's dishonest. Your biased sidebars about who else.got what are irrelevant

[retrowire]

106. its clearly not the same but whatever.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/university-president-financial-perks-petraeus

Jane got a meager 200,000 compared to all these presidents for her retirement package. check the link.

the median salary for a university president in Vermont is 250,000-300,000

Jane's retirement package was less than her yearly salary.

that is as reasonable and legitimate as you can get.

Hillary gets 600,000 for a private speech with the people who are actually screwing over our nation and you're concerned by a reasonable retirement package?

[lob1]

93. $200,000 is one speech for Hill.

[Z_California]

114. "Berniebros"?

You just disqualified yourself from reasonable and intellectually honest discussion.

[uponit7771]

88. whoa

[enid602]

35. aversive

What does 'fact aversive' mean, anyway? Is that like 'fact-averse?'

[chapdrum]

39. Yes.

[JDPriestly]

47. K&R.

[OhZone]

51. FDR came from wealth and had tons of connections to wealth.

And team Clinton raised taxes on the rich in the early 90s leading to prosperity. I'm pretty sure he had rich doners AND he knew he would be in the upper tax brackets eventually.

Most politicians are well off or get well off.

Doesn't mean as much as you think, or there would be no democrats at all.

[Ford_Prefect]

61. FDR was born to his wealth. He was not paid by powerful lobbyists to speak to their meetings

nor approve their plans to pillage what is left of the world economy. He spent much of his career fighting corruption in NY government. You can't make superficial similarities into substantive meaning because you don't appear to be able to see the difference between a paid shill and a principled leader. You fail political logic 101.

[OhZone]

66. Giving a speech for money, which is super common -

does not mean she'll do anything else.

My work pays me pretty well, but after work I do nothing special for them.

You're just assuming EVERYBODY is corrupt.

It's pretty sad.

[Ford_Prefect]

72. I assume that the people who pay her $200,000 and more per speech are investing in her future

and are expressing their agenda by that investment.

When was the last time you were paid that kind of money to present your ideas on international trade agreements to a trade association who has a direct interest in the outcome of those agreements?

[chapdrum]

79. Damn good question that

Laughing at the request to release her speech scripts speaks for itself.

Again: A private citizen can withhold. A presidential candidate (presumably) also can. The question is: What kind of message does that send to the voters?

[uponit7771]

91. HRC makes 15 million a year, 200,000 is a drop in the bucket for her... she's underpaid

[OhZone]

96. Seriously -

Again, Team Clinton raised taxes on the rich, despite knowing that they'd be well off eventually, AND whatever doners or friends might have to pay a little more.

In fact, that bilL, THAT NOT ONE CON VOTED FOR, is credited for a large part of the prosperity of the post Bush Sr 90s.

Team Clinton is the team that did that. Don't assume that they'd be influenced now, when they weren't then.

ALSO, her Wall Street bill has been called stronger than Bernie's.

[uponit7771]

97. +1

[uponit7771]

89. +1

[JohnnyRingo]

59. The same can be said about Sanders' supporters.

ie: "Some supporters are fact aversive".

Sanders is promising to pull rabbits out of his hat to circumvent congress which will undoubtedly work to restrict him to anything other than picking out his own necktie, let alone sweeping social changes.

Imagine an administration that kills off insurance giant Anthem Blue Cross to institute govt health care. How can Congress possibly stop him?

Can you see a future where Wall Street knuckles under because a democratic president wants to end corporate greed? Who would oppose that besides most of the Senate?

What kind of magic wand would guarantee free college for all without raising sin taxes on the middle class?

There's no word if David Copperfield is available as a running mate.

[chapdrum]

76. At least he's raising the issues

Of course he'd have an uphill battle.

It takes a lot of courage to speak out publicly, and in unmistakable language, against the forces that are working diligently to tear down our country.

Hillary courts them; that's the difference.

[Z_California]

115. Link to promises to pull rabbits out of hats and magic wands please

Congrats on continuing the false narrative.

[JohnnyRingo]

119. I can't believe I'm replying to this...

Sanders has repeatedly promised, much to the delight of his supporters, to grant single payer health care to everyone. That's wonderful, but it obviously means an end to big insurance companies that will not go down without a fight. Completely a non-starter considering Obamacare began as just such a plan. Cooperation from lawmakers whose campaigns are partly funded by the insurance giants will deny him from the onset.

Sanders garners great enthusiasm from supporters for promising to reform Wall Street and take down the big banks. Once again, these are some of the biggest lobbys in the country and change will happen very slowly if at all. Remember when Occupy Wall Street was going to bring about reform? Another promise beyond what he can deliver.

Finally, I don't need a link to reference Bernie's promise to send everyone to college for free. It's been a foundation of his campaign for months. All he has to do is either raise taxes or convince Yale to hand out free educations. Obviously the former is the only option, but it requires congress to tell their constituents that they voted to raise their taxes. That'll be one mean trick indeed.

Congrats on continuing the false narrative that Sanders can accomplish great things without the consent of congress. He's a great statesman, but he's no Merlin. If you doubt Sanders made any of these promises, I invite you on a trip to the greatest threads page where such posts are recced to high heaven on a daily basis.

[Z_California]

120. The false narrative is yours

Bernie has stated over and over again that this will take a political revolution. He hasn't promised to "grant" anything.

You've made an assertion that bears no resemblance to reality. Not surprisingly, the HRC campaign is playing your same riff.

[JohnnyRingo]

122. If Bernie can't do those things...

...there's no reason to take the chance of losing the White House by promoting someone from the far left. Might as well go with the favored candidate instead of alienating the moderate voters who traditionally elect our presidents.

I can hear Bernie's slogan now: "No we can't!".

[billhicks76]

68. A Reason Hillary Is Best Friends With The Bushes

If you support her you really end up supporting the Bush Family.

[chapdrum]

73. Right you are

The uber-rich take care of their own; they belong to the same club.

Their kind of wealth transcends ostensible or petty political divergences.

[billhicks76]

121. Exactly

And worse there's an even smaller club the Bushes allowed the Clintons into. You know there had to be quid pro quo. All investigations into the Bushes were stymied in 1993 and 2009.

[CharlotteVale]

102. Bush even called her his sister-in-law.

[uponit7771]

86. So what!? tia

[DanTex]

98. Most importantly, she's the best candidate for president.

[olddots]

104. These are facts that should alert peoples logic

if they consider themselves to be Democrats .Why we harp on Hillary Clinton is because day after day the issue of economic equality is sidestepped by her while it is very important to more than 99 percent of us ........Cue the commie comments in 3. 2. 1.

[pandr32]

107. You know HC gave a cautionary speech about the Iraq vote

...and laid out her very serious concerns at the time. Funny that is never mentioned, or that the "evidence" had been falsified in the first place, or that Sanders' "nay" vote was symbolic, and then he turned right around and voted to fully fund the "murderous invasion" which he and his supporters neglect to mention now.
Political rhetoric at its best from a seasoned career politician.
Sanders voted for the legislation that deregulated derivatives and credit-default swaps in 2000 that contributed to the crash of the economy (and to grant Enron and other BIG OIL companies exemption from any regulatory trading oversight), and he has voted to fully fund every single war measure. He is really pretty darn conservative and in-step with some pretty nasty players.

[chapdrum]

116. note to "ecstatic"

If you have any remaining interest, please see #36.