gsquaredmom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,091
Jun 26, 2014 17:43:22 GMT
|
Post by gsquaredmom on Apr 19, 2016 12:10:23 GMT
Bernie is an idealist. Hillary is a pragmatist. Hillary has foreign policy experience. Bernie does not have any measurable foreign policy experience. This is country has always been govern from the middle shaded slightly to the left or right depending on who is in The White House. Countries are govern by pragmatists not idealists. The greater threat to this country are terrorists and the Middle East in general and not Wall Street as some would have one believe. And that is why I'll be voting for Hillary. This. Hillary is the most qualified of the entire field. I think foreign policy will be the most crucial aspect of the next presidency. She is the only one who knows how to play in the international sandbox. And Bernie can't pay for his agenda. Hillary is more realistic.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 20:15:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 12:10:54 GMT
Well, I am voting for Bernie Sanders.
However, if you have researched both candidate's platforms, you'll notice they pretty much have the same issues they are willing to work on as President.
For example, both appreciate the seriousness of climate change. Clinton however, is in support of fracking, which Sanders is vehemently opposed to. My personal opinion is that fracking may be the cause of all water contamination that is plaguing towns and cities across the country. It is also dangerous to the air, despite claims that fracking does not pollute the air as coal does. The greenhouse gases released into the air because of fracking could potentially cause dangerous conditions to the environment and our health.
That's just one reason I am voting for Sanders over Clinton.
|
|
NYCPea
Shy Member
Posts: 44
Jun 27, 2014 5:19:10 GMT
|
Post by NYCPea on Apr 19, 2016 12:37:33 GMT
Hillary is the Establishment's choice. Bernie is for the people and definitely not Establishment. Hillary sways her opinion to suit her audience. Bernie is steadfast and has been saying the same thing for 30 years. Hillary accepts contributions from Wall St, pharmaceuticals, and others of the billionaire class. Bernie is backed by unions and Americans.Hillary believes it's her turn to be president. Bernie believes corporations should not be running the president or the country. Morally, I cannot vote for Hillary. Morally, I can vote for Bernie. The Afl-CIO have not endorsed a candidate. (just like they didn't in 2008 until June when Obama had the candidacy locked up.) Over 20 unions have backed Clinton vs. 3 for Sanders. And Bernie is backed by Americans? I guess you are implying that Hillary is not? Who are all the people voting for her then? I guess I'm not American!!! If you dig a little deeper you'll see that a lot of union heads endorsed Hillary but not their members. They weren't asked who they wanted to endorse. The same thing happened with Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Both endorsed Hillary in the primary which they never do. Members were not happy and there was a lot of backlash. Don't confuse the board with members. There's a big difference and some groups of members have split off and endorsed on their own.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,011
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Apr 19, 2016 12:52:22 GMT
I think this election is a very interesting dynamic for some unions. Here in western PA, we still have a relatively strong union climate as compared to the rest of the country and my guess is that many of the rank and file support Trump.
I have to vote next week and at this point, I think I will vote for Hillary. Philosophically, I align more with Bernie but I think I'm going with pragmatism over idealism. Also, some of the Bernie people flat out scare me while the Hillary people just make me irritated and disgusted. Maybe that shouldn't factor into my vote but given my ambivalence, it does. The behavior of the supporters of both candidates has at times made me embarrassed to be a Democrat and I wish this primary was over.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Apr 19, 2016 13:01:17 GMT
Bernie is an idealist. Hillary is a pragmatist. Hillary has foreign policy experience. Bernie does not have any measurable foreign policy experience. This is country has always been govern from the middle shaded slightly to the left or right depending on who is in The White House. Countries are govern by pragmatists not idealists. The greater threat to this country are terrorists and the Middle East in general and not Wall Street as some would have one believe.And that is why I'll be voting for Hillary. This. Hillary is the most qualified of the entire field. I think foreign policy will be the most crucial aspect of the next presidency. She is the only one who knows how to play in the international sandbox. And Bernie can't pay for his agenda. Hillary is more realistic. I am not totally convinced that the Middle East is the greatest threat-I am leaning toward Putin who keeps poking the puppy lately by not stopping or even condemning the actions of his pilots that keep flying so closely to US Navy ships and planes. He has continually ignored and waved off all criticism and keeps pushing the boundaries and whomever wins the race is going to need to do something about him. Foreign Policy is going to be really important. Between Putin, North Korea and their weapons testing, and the Middle East we need someone who knows what they are doing from day one-not learning as they go.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Apr 19, 2016 13:06:55 GMT
The Afl-CIO have not endorsed a candidate. (just like they didn't in 2008 until June when Obama had the candidacy locked up.) Over 20 unions have backed Clinton vs. 3 for Sanders. And Bernie is backed by Americans? I guess you are implying that Hillary is not? Who are all the people voting for her then? I guess I'm not American!!! If you dig a little deeper you'll see that a lot of union heads endorsed Hillary but not their members. They weren't asked who they wanted to endorse. The same thing happened with Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Both endorsed Hillary in the primary which they never do. Members were not happy and there was a lot of backlash. Don't confuse the board with members. There's a big difference and some groups of members have split off and endorsed on their own. The article I read said that when surveyed the majority of union members supported Hillary. I have seen complaints that some members don't support the candidate endorsed.. of course that goes both ways. I have seen no definitive numbers that any organization is going against the majority of its membership.
|
|
gsquaredmom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,091
Jun 26, 2014 17:43:22 GMT
|
Post by gsquaredmom on Apr 19, 2016 13:14:36 GMT
This. Hillary is the most qualified of the entire field. I think foreign policy will be the most crucial aspect of the next presidency. She is the only one who knows how to play in the international sandbox. And Bernie can't pay for his agenda. Hillary is more realistic. I am not totally convinced that the Middle East is the greatest threat-I am leaning toward Putin who keeps poking the puppy lately by not stopping or even condemning the actions of his pilots that keep flying so closely to US Navy ships and planes. He has continually ignored and waved off all criticism and keeps pushing the boundaries and whomever wins the race is going to need to do something about him. Foreign Policy is going to be really important. Between Putin, North Korea and their weapons testing, and the Middle East we need someone who knows what they are doing from day one-not learning as they go. I agree. Not just Middle East. Of all the candidates, Hillary is the best to sit across from Putin and the rest.
|
|
NYCPea
Shy Member
Posts: 44
Jun 27, 2014 5:19:10 GMT
|
Post by NYCPea on Apr 19, 2016 13:19:53 GMT
If you dig a little deeper you'll see that a lot of union heads endorsed Hillary but not their members. They weren't asked who they wanted to endorse. The same thing happened with Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Both endorsed Hillary in the primary which they never do. Members were not happy and there was a lot of backlash. Don't confuse the board with members. There's a big difference and some groups of members have split off and endorsed on their own. The article I read said that when surveyed the majority of union members supported Hillary. I have seen complaints that some members don't support the candidate endorsed.. of course that goes both ways. I have seen no definitive numbers that any organization is going against the majority of its membership. Many organizations endorsed without polling members in the first place. I'm a member of PP and NARAL and have lobbied in Albany with both. They didn't inquire the way MoveOn did. The board of both organizations, as well as HRC, went ahead and endorsed Hillary. If they had polled members we'd have a better understanding of what each group actually wants. I have no interest in who Cecile Richards (or Chad Griffin), etc.) supports. I'm interested in all of us on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by terri on Apr 19, 2016 13:21:15 GMT
I am voting for Bernie for many reasons. Polls have consistently shown he is the candidate who has the best chance of winning the general. I like that he has been consistent in his policies for 30 years. I admire that he found ways to pass legislation that others didn't care about. I agree with his climate change positions and especially his anti fracking views. He voted against the Iraq war and has been great on veteran issues and legislation.
I think Hilary's foreign policy has been a disaster from Iraq to Libya and Syria. I am against fracking. I do not believe she is motivated to do anything about the causes of income equality. I am disturbed about policies she previously promoted that I think were detrimental to minority populations (and her comments to black lives matters activists were appalling). I think she is a dangerous NeoCon who has been plagued by scandals from Whitewater to Benghazi. I will never trust someone who has shown such bad judgement and still refuses to release the transcripts of her paid speeches. This has become a real negative for her and she still won't release them which leads me to believe they contradict things she says in public.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 19, 2016 14:12:33 GMT
Hillary is the Establishment's choice. Bernie is for the people and definitely not Establishment. Hillary sways her opinion to suit her audience. Bernie is steadfast and has been saying the same thing for 30 years. Hillary accepts contributions from Wall St, pharmaceuticals, and others of the billionaire class. Bernie is backed by unions and Americans.Hillary believes it's her turn to be president. Bernie believes corporations should not be running the president or the country. Morally, I cannot vote for Hillary. Morally, I can vote for Bernie. The Afl-CIO have not endorsed a candidate. (just like they didn't in 2008 until June when Obama had the candidacy locked up.) Over 20 unions have backed Clinton vs. 3 for Sanders. 25 national, state, regional and local unions have endorsed Sanders. Here's the complete list: WikiAnd Bernie is backed by Americans? I guess you are implying that Hillary is not? Who are all the people voting for her then? I guess I'm not American!!! A lot of people are supporting Hillary. Bernie has a lot of support as well, in fact - the national lead Hillary had has completely evaporated (50% - 48% as of yesterday, WSJ - Hillary Clinton’s Lead Narrows Among Democratic Primary Voters, Poll Says)No one is saying you are not American. My statement reflects (or rather should have) that Bernie is a man of the people where Hillary is a woman of Wall Street/Corporations/Billionaire class - which she most certainly is.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Apr 19, 2016 15:39:33 GMT
The article I read said that when surveyed the majority of union members supported Hillary. I have seen complaints that some members don't support the candidate endorsed.. of course that goes both ways. I have seen no definitive numbers that any organization is going against the majority of its membership. Many organizations endorsed without polling members in the first place. I'm a member of PP and NARAL and have lobbied in Albany with both. They didn't inquire the way MoveOn did. The board of both organizations, as well as HRC, went ahead and endorsed Hillary. If they had polled members we'd have a better understanding of what each group actually wants. I have no interest in who Cecile Richards (or Chad Griffin), etc.) supports. I'm interested in all of us on the ground. Right it could have gone either way. When I was a board member for local Naral group back in the 80's we didn't poll our members, granted we didn't have the technology to do it easily like we do now, instead we looked at the policies and voting records and endorsed the person who best fit our goals. I believe that that is what these organizations have done today. I don't believe it is who the individuals support but who the board collectively believes will further the goals of the organization. I know that both Sanders and Clinton are firmly Pro-Choice, but I think that NARAL and PP would be considering who can better move the legislative agenda ahead.. particularly in light of all the recent anti-choice and anti-PP legislation. I was confused by the bit highlighted in blue... is HRC, Hillary Rodham Clinton, I would hope she has gone ahead and endorsed herself!
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Apr 19, 2016 15:41:09 GMT
HRC is probably Human Rights Campaign.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Apr 19, 2016 15:43:18 GMT
The Afl-CIO have not endorsed a candidate. (just like they didn't in 2008 until June when Obama had the candidacy locked up.) Over 20 unions have backed Clinton vs. 3 for Sanders. And Bernie is backed by Americans? I guess you are implying that Hillary is not? Who are all the people voting for her then? I guess I'm not American!!! 25 state, regional and local unions have endorsed Sanders. Here's the complete list: WikiMany local branches are supporting BC while the National organizations are supporting HRC. I don't think that is at all surprising... I imagine that at the end of the day... they will all support the Democratic Nominee.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Apr 19, 2016 15:43:49 GMT
HRC is probably Human Rights Campaign. Ohhh that makes more sense!!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 20:15:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 15:53:20 GMT
link
As to Sanders being more electable in a general election. Maybe not. A liberal by the name of Paul Waldman wrote an article called " Bernie Sander's Supporters are convinced he could win a general election. They're wrong." He makes the case that so far the Republicans have ignored Sanders but if he should get the nomination they will shift their full attention to Sanders. Besides being a card carrying Socialist Waldman lists a whole bunch of topics, along with links, on topics the Republicans will "attack" Sanders on. The last one really caught my attention "They'd say he is the author of smutty rape fantasies". I thought Bernie the author of "smutty rape fantasies". Really! No I didn't click on the link. As to Hillary we already know all her baggage. The Republicans have taken great delight in letting everyone know all about her baggage for years. I also think Sanders made a big misstep when he said he lost the Southern States because they are too "conservative". Ah no Bernie you lost the states because a majority of African Americans voted for Hillary which shows he still doesn't "get it" when it comes to minorities. Add to that Bernie thinks he can win a general election with his group of small donors. Right now Bernie is raising more money then Hillary. However he is also is spending more to get his message out to his supporters. The article makes the case that so far Hillary attacks have been soft. However can you imagine how much money Bernie will need to get his message out against an opponent who is well funded and attacks will be a lot harder than Hillary's. Can his small donors make sure he has enough money to go against a hard attacking well funded Republican candidate? My guess is no. Bottom line I think Paul Waldman is right.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 20:15:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 17:47:06 GMT
#ImWithHer
I need someone with the temperament to be President and Bernie doesn't have it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 20:15:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 17:52:51 GMT
HRC is probably Human Rights Campaign. It is the Human Rights Campaign....when I was volunteering, I met a whole bunch of them that traveled from DC to knock doors for Hillary in Iowa.
|
|
|
Post by terri on Apr 19, 2016 18:06:39 GMT
link
As to Sanders being more electable in a general election. Maybe not. A liberal by the name of Paul Waldman wrote an article called " Bernie Sander's Supporters are convinced he could win a general election. They're wrong." He makes the case that so far the Republicans have ignored Sanders but if he should get the nomination they will shift their full attention to Sanders. Besides being a card carrying Socialist Waldman lists a whole bunch of topics, along with links, on topics the Republicans will "attack" Sanders on. The last one really caught my attention "They'd say he is the author of smutty rape fantasies". I thought Bernie the author of "smutty rape fantasies". Really! No I didn't click on the link. As to Hillary we already know all her baggage. The Republicans have taken great delight in letting everyone know all about her baggage for years. I also think Sanders made a big misstep when he said he lost the Southern States because they are too "conservative". Ah no Bernie you lost the states because a majority of African Americans voted for Hillary which shows he still doesn't "get it" when it comes to minorities. Add to that Bernie thinks he can win a general election with his group of small donors. Right now Bernie is raising more money then Hillary. However he is also is spending more to get his message out to his supporters. The article makes the case that so far Hillary attacks have been soft. However can you imagine how much money Bernie will need to get his message out against an opponent who is well funded and attacks will be a lot harder than Hillary's. Can his small donors make sure he has enough money to go against a hard attacking well funded Republican candidate? My guess is no. Bottom line I think Paul Waldman is right. No offense but this is simply an editorial reflecting one persons opinion and a lot of conjecture. Polls, no matter who they are conducted by, have consistently shown Bernie would do much better in a general election. Independents, as a group, have said they won't vote for Hillary and I think it is wise to take them at their word. I understand people have lots of reasons why they might want to support Hillary but I don't think her chances in the general election should be one of them as the facts don't support that reasoning.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 20:15:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 18:51:18 GMT
link
As to Sanders being more electable in a general election. Maybe not. A liberal by the name of Paul Waldman wrote an article called " Bernie Sander's Supporters are convinced he could win a general election. They're wrong." He makes the case that so far the Republicans have ignored Sanders but if he should get the nomination they will shift their full attention to Sanders. Besides being a card carrying Socialist Waldman lists a whole bunch of topics, along with links, on topics the Republicans will "attack" Sanders on. The last one really caught my attention "They'd say he is the author of smutty rape fantasies". I thought Bernie the author of "smutty rape fantasies". Really! No I didn't click on the link. As to Hillary we already know all her baggage. The Republicans have taken great delight in letting everyone know all about her baggage for years. I also think Sanders made a big misstep when he said he lost the Southern States because they are too "conservative". Ah no Bernie you lost the states because a majority of African Americans voted for Hillary which shows he still doesn't "get it" when it comes to minorities. Add to that Bernie thinks he can win a general election with his group of small donors. Right now Bernie is raising more money then Hillary. However he is also is spending more to get his message out to his supporters. The article makes the case that so far Hillary attacks have been soft. However can you imagine how much money Bernie will need to get his message out against an opponent who is well funded and attacks will be a lot harder than Hillary's. Can his small donors make sure he has enough money to go against a hard attacking well funded Republican candidate? My guess is no. Bottom line I think Paul Waldman is right. No offense but this is simply an editorial reflecting one persons opinion and a lot of conjecture. Polls, no matter who they are conducted by, have consistently shown Bernie would do much better in a general election. Independents, as a group, have said they won't vote for Hillary and I think it is wise to take them at their word. I understand people have lots of reasons why they might want to support Hillary but I don't think her chances in the general election should be one of them as the facts don't support that reasoning. You are correct this is an opinion piece. However the polls today do not take into consideration how well Bernie will survive the attacks of the Republicans once they quit fighting among themselves. The attacks will be brutal as there is two thing Conservatives don't like and that is higher taxes and an expanded Federal government. Sander's entire agenda revolves around those two things. Way more than Hillary's. The one thing the Democrats do not want to do is give the Republican voters a reason to come out and vote. Voting against someone like Bernie with higher taxes and expanded government would be a reason. Back when W won his second term against Kerry one of the theories floating around on why W won again was conservatives were afraid the left was really going to push same sex marriages. This happened after cities like San Francisco started to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. How much did this contribute to Kerry's loss I don't know but I do believe it paid a part in Kerry's loss and was not reflected in any polls prior to the election. Bottom line you just never know what will or will not catch a voter's interest 6 months prior to the general election.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Apr 19, 2016 18:58:21 GMT
No offense but this is simply an editorial reflecting one persons opinion and a lot of conjecture. Polls, no matter who they are conducted by, have consistently shown Bernie would do much better in a general election. Independents, as a group, have said they won't vote for Hillary and I think it is wise to take them at their word. I understand people have lots of reasons why they might want to support Hillary but I don't think her chances in the general election should be one of them as the facts don't support that reasoning. You are correct this is an opinion piece. However the polls today do not take into consideration how well Bernie will survive the attacks of the Republicans once they quit fighting among themselves. The attacks will be brutal as there is two thing Conservatives don't like and that is higher taxes and an expanded Federal government. Sander's entire agenda revolves around those two things. Way more than Hillary's. The one thing the Democrats do not want to do is give the Republican voters a reason to come out and vote. Voting against someone like Bernie with higher taxes and expanded government would be a reason. Back when W won his second term against Kerry one of the theories floating around on why W won again was conservatives were afraid the left was really going to push same sex marriages. This happened after cities like San Francisco started to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. How much did this contribute to Kerry's loss I don't know but I do believe it paid a part in Kerry's loss and was not reflected in any polls prior to the election. Bottom line you just never know what will or will not catch a voter's interest 6 months prior to the general election. I still blame Gavin Newsom for starting the ball rolling on that one. He couldn't wait a year, nope, so we had marriage protection bills on so many states' ballots that November, which brought all the Republicans out to vote for Pres. Bush again. grrrrr ...
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Apr 19, 2016 19:00:18 GMT
Samantha Bee perfectly captures my irritation with Bernie's plans: www.vox.com/2016/4/19/11457704/samantha-bee-bernie-sanders-full-frontaltry as she might, Bee just couldn't get it. She kept asking them about the political process and Sanders's chances of sustaining a movement to change America, and they repeatedly came back with the same determined enthusiasm for their presidential candidate. Why couldn't President Barack Obama deliver on some of his campaign promises? "He faced tremendous opposition and a lot of prejudice." So how will Sanders be different? "It takes a movement to get this stuff done." "The difference is that the people will rise and stay awake after Bernie is elected." "If he has problems with Congress, I think he would call on support. … 'Let's have a big protest.'" Bee wasn't buying it. "So are you literally saying to me right now that the difference between Obama and Bernie Sanders is that the people of America are going to continue to be motivated within the political process, and they're going to keep putting pressure on our elected leaders to make change?" she asked. "Have you met people?" Despite Bee's prodding, the Sanders supporters remained optimistic. "Do you ask for a loaf of bread and get a half, or do you ask for a slice and get crumbs?" one asked. It's easy to mock these people on a late-night TV show, but they're really making one of the main arguments for Sanders: that he will somehow galvanize a political revolution by inspiring Americans — particularly white Americans who have left the Democratic Party — with his vision for the country, empowering him to win not just the White House but Congress as well. Bee just didn't buy it, but she said it's admirable. "I can't have my heart broken again," she said. But she added, "I respect these people's unshakable willingness to dream big."
|
|
|
Post by flanz on Apr 19, 2016 19:01:02 GMT
I love Bernie. I do agree with his ideas. But even if he can win the general, I don't think he can get his agenda through. He's too much of an idealogue to make the compromises necessary to get things done. He's not Establishment, and the Establishment will shut him down. I wish I could find it.. I read a great opinion piece on why Bernie would be better "for us, the non-1%" than Hillary, even if he had a Republican controlled House and Senate. He can make improvements just by the people he puts in top cabinet positions, for example, in the Justice Department - making sure the crooks who caused the market collapse in '08 are tried and jailed. there were a ton more examples.
|
|
|
Post by flanz on Apr 19, 2016 19:03:39 GMT
I am voting for Bernie for many reasons. Polls have consistently shown he is the candidate who has the best chance of winning the general. I like that he has been consistent in his policies for 30 years. I admire that he found ways to pass legislation that others didn't care about. I agree with his climate change positions and especially his anti fracking views. He voted against the Iraq war and has been great on veteran issues and legislation. I think Hilary's foreign policy has been a disaster from Iraq to Libya and Syria. I am against fracking. I do not believe she is motivated to do anything about the causes of income equality. I am disturbed about policies she previously promoted that I think were detrimental to minority populations (and her comments to black lives matters activists were appalling). I think she is a dangerous NeoCon who has been plagued by scandals from Whitewater to Benghazi. I will never trust someone who has shown such bad judgement and still refuses to release the transcripts of her paid speeches. This has become a real negative for her and she still won't release them which leads me to believe they contradict things she says in public. I agree 100%!
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,387
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on Apr 19, 2016 19:11:52 GMT
I love Bernie. I do agree with his ideas. But even if he can win the general, I don't think he can get his agenda through. He's too much of an idealogue to make the compromises necessary to get things done. He's not Establishment, and the Establishment will shut him down. I wish I could find it.. I read a great opinion piece on why Bernie would be better "for us, the non-1%" than Hillary, even if he had a Republican controlled House and Senate. He can make improvements just by the people he puts in top cabinet positions, for example, in the Justice Department - making sure the crooks who caused the market collapse in '08 are tried and jailed. there were a ton more examples. Hmm. I can see that, if I'm honest. But can he pass a budget? And can those people in Cabinet do much without House/Senate approval? That's not a rhetorical question - I'm Canadian. Here, our cabinet wants to do anything they need to write legislation.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 20:15:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 19:15:32 GMT
Mollycoddle, that is about Bernie's supporters though. Did she interview Bernie himself and have him answer those same questions? I wouldn't expect any candidate's supporters to know all the ins and outs of what their candidate proposes. I have read his platform and his plans to get them done, and I understand most of it. But not all of it.
I would challenge Ms Bee to question Hillary on why she refuses to release the transcripts to her paid speeches. She is just so secretive. Why?
|
|
|
Post by flanz on Apr 19, 2016 19:17:53 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 20:15:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 20:54:14 GMT
Why couldn't President Barack Obama deliver on some of his campaign promises? "He faced tremendous opposition and a lot of prejudice." Bee just didn't buy it, but she said it's admirable. "I can't have my heart broken again," she said. But she added, "I respect these people's unshakable willingness to dream big." The last paragraph says it all for me. It's almost like these folks have not been paying attention for the last 7+ years. If anything the obstruction by the Republicans will be worse because they don't have to tread lightly because they will no longer have to worry their actions could be labeled "racist" against a black president.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Apr 19, 2016 21:22:08 GMT
Mollycoddle, that is about Bernie's supporters though. Did she interview Bernie himself and have him answer those same questions? I wouldn't expect any candidate's supporters to know all the ins and outs of what their candidate proposes. I have read his platform and his plans to get them done, and I understand most of it. But not all of it. I would challenge Ms Bee to question Hillary on why she refuses to release the transcripts to her paid speeches. She is just so secretive. Why? I don't think that she did. Her experience echoes mine: it's not enough to get more voters. You have to get more voters in those red areas. The safe seats-in the House
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 19, 2016 21:26:29 GMT
I would challenge Ms Bee to question Hillary on why she refuses to release the transcripts to her paid speeches. She is just so secretive. Why? Seriously. She is far more protective of her speech transcripts than she was of her emails. FYI: Another union has endorsed Bernie Sanders.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Apr 19, 2016 22:33:59 GMT
I have nothing to add except:
1. This is a good example of the kind of political thread I enjoy. 2. Bonus: I think everybody so far has spelled "Hillary" right. Kudos.
|
|