A Michigan primary exit poll found only fifty-eight percent of Democratic voters consider Hillary Clinton to be “honest and trustworthy.” In contrast, eighty percent of Democratic voters, including people who voted for Clinton, consider Bernie Sanders to be “honest and trustworthy.”
Only 1237 delegates are needed for the 2016 Republican nomination and 1432 are still outstanding. Since your Republican tactics, consistent with your Republican mindset, might just earn you that nomination, why not consider reflagging your campaign with a nice red R? That way you can wait to have your a$$ handed to you in November. Just a thought.
I think Clinton was accurate about the auto bailout vote but it was rather unfair. The senators knew the money for the auto companies was in the Wall Street bailout bill (TARP 2). They knew if they voted against the bill that the loans would not be given to the auto companies but of course if they voted for the bill they would be bailing out the big Wall Street banks. I don't think Clinton was dishonest in this case but certainly it could be called an unfair charge, particularly since Sanders did vote for a separte auto bailout bill that wasn't passed. It was just a tough vote and his priority was not to bail out the Wall Street banks.
Good question. I was at a phone bank yesterday, voicing my concern at how Bernie did not counter with the truth of HRC's backing despots after the ridiculous smear about him and Castro. And this article shows that she did it all night.
I was surprised to hear people making excuses for her, saying they didn't want to damage her b/c they were supporting her in the general. And at least one person was indignant that anyone could think otherwise.
I'll admit that if it's Trump v. Hillary, I would be scared to write in Sanders, but who's to say that the next Republican candidate won't be even worse and at some point, the Dems have to realize that many of us can no longer vote for "their," not our, candidate.
HRC could implement policies that further our disintegration, but with the support of these people and the Party giving her cover. At least most Dems would have to oppose Trump and his horrible policies. And I'm not so sure that even he means half of what he says.
Your remarks remind me of how earlier this year, CD was innudated with creels of red herrings, that is, that Bernie voted to cut food stamps. Debbie Stabenow, D. Michigan, ranking member on the Ag Committee agreed to the cuts with the majority party, Bernie could either vote for the Ag Bill with many important provisions for farmers, including farmers in Vermont, or vote against the bill. Of course if the bill were to fail, there would be no food stamps period. Technically Bernie voted to cut food stamps. Given the nature of the legislative process, Brock and Mook no doubt know that many such anomalies can be found in making sausage.
Were you promised a job by the Clinton Administration if Her Majesty won the thrown by hook, crook, disinformation, and lies boldly told often?
The problem is that Mr. Sanders isn't given enough time to counter Mrs. Clinton's CIA-like allegations: tiny fragments of truth served up in gigantic shit sandwiches!
It's well-known now that Trump gets much more media time than either; but Clinton also gets much more media time than does Mr. Sanders.
It's virtually impossible to oppose every false talking point (that Mrs. Clinton espouses) in short time cycles. And unfortunately, just as it's noted that 40% of citizens ONLY read headlines (rather than full stories), hearing Mrs. Clinton tout her version of Sanders' "headlines" can close off the possibility of many learning (or understanding) the full truth or whole story, given its nuances.
This is a dirty fight.
The super delegate item is dirty.
The mainstream media granting its preferred candidates lots of time-homage is dirty.
In the past, vote counts were dirty.
Making unfounded allegations without giving the target of smear enough time to answer those allegations is dirty.
The money being given to certain insider groups (as has been suggested, significant Black organizations in the south) in order to secure their support is dirty.
And on and on.
Perhaps it's a good thing that the horror, Scalia "recused himself" so that this time The Supremes couldn't put their boy or gal into the Oval Office.
LOL! Fat Tony did the ultimate recusal- his first and last. Very timely, indeed.
The joke probably went over at least a few readers' heads. Thanks for getting it!
That was quite the pretzel logic redefining of the word "accurate".
I think if that were the case, gopher for Press Secretary would be a good fit.
“At Miami Debate, Clinton Campaign Builds On Pattern Of Dishonesty”
This gives new meaning to the Panthers' credo, "Use what yuh got to get what yuh need".
What else has she got?
...won the throne...
It's certainly not anything new...
The following is a brief & rather telling comparison of Obama & Sanders campaign ads, 8 years apart...
"Obama and Sanders both called out Hillary campaign for "false attacks" that "distort the truth""
Line from an Obama campaign ad "Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected. Now she’s making false attacks on Barack Obama."
It's too bad Sanders ad didn't quite hit back as hard as Obama's tho.
For a while I thought Hillary would at least have a better chance of beating Trump but she seems unable to control her basic dishonesty, as shown in the Miami debate and in her bizarre praise for Nancy Reagan. When a person has no guiding ideas other than self-promotion, this is bound to happen. I am still worried that Bernie could be mauled by a blitz of Red-baiting but at least he knows what he thinks and will have no trouble figuring out how to respond to the fascist Trump.
Why do people vote for someone they think is dishonest? Aside from an obvious joke about the lesser of two dishonest people...
They think Trump is far worse than Hillary but the media keeps telling them that Bernie can't win so they end up being doubly afraid that Trump could win. Thus it is offered to them as the democrats may be dishonest but look at how bad the republicans are... Which is exactly how most of them already see it anyway ... And that is why Americans don't vote... Usually.
This election looks like it would have a huge turnout if Bernie is a candidate and I think the status quo Dems and Repubs are afraid of that. They prefer a lower turnout of dedicated party members rather than the general public and independent voters joining in.
No one in the media polls or even talks about who the independents will vote for. Independents should be allowed to caucus for one or the other parties without having to join a party.
What does that even mean disavow the Dems? The Repubs will be giving him a hard time but I actually think less of a hard time than they would Hillary in some ways since Hillary is already pre-hated by Repub supporters. Except about trade deals, Repubs can't wait to hate Hillary (as an extension of hate Obama).
Because the media is biased people seem to think Bernie is a new commodity to the political scene and to Republicans. They know who Bernie is and that will help Bernie because they can't just make up new stuff after working alongside him for decades. Funny about that huh? Bernie might just be able to work better with Republicans ( okay maybe he could work more civilly with them anyway) than will Hillary. They are dusting off all those old hate Hillary comments from the good old days when they used her name as a rallying cry.
Bernie doesn't have to disavow anyone or anything. He just needs to work with people. He isn't elected king despite Trump having a throne being measured for addition to the oval office's furniture.
Bernie is everyone's president.
No I think it would look unethical and one of Bernie's greatest strengths is his ethics. Bernie isn't about bait and switches. That was Bill Clinton and Obama not Bernie.