The OFFICIAL Hillary Death Spiral Thread!

[Rajoo]

I intend to support Bernie to the very end of his candidacy since his message needs to be heard and Hillary's feet held to the fire. If Hillary is the eventual nominee, I will swallow my pride and throw my active support behind her. c'est la vie.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

I intend to support Bernie to the very end of his candidacy since his message needs to be heard and Hillary's feet held to the fire. If Hillary is the eventual nominee, I will swallow my pride and throw my active support behind her. c'est la vie.

...and c'est le guerre. If Bernie somehow pulled off the greatest upset in history? I'd actively campaign for Bernie. No question.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by bobabode

...and c'est le guerre. If Bernie somehow pulled off the greatest upset in history? I'd actively campaign for Bernie. No question.

I am a pragmatist Bob first and foremost. So until the primaries are over, my principles matter the most. In the general election, SCOTUS matters the most. That's the reality we face.

The wimp Obama should have made a recess appointment and spared us from this unpleasantness.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

The wimp Obama should have made a recess appointment and spared us from this unpleasantness.

There are risks in recess appointments. Their appointment still needs to be confirmed by the Senate before the close of the next session of Congress. Even should Bernie or Hillary succeed Obama, the Senate would still have to confirm Obama's recess appointment by the end of the new president's first year. If the Republicans keep control of the Senate, that won't happen.

Right now, the principle Republican obstructionists are in very hot water with voters. They could fail to win re-election for blocking a replacement for Scalia. The smart money would be on their agreeing to hearings to save their political asses. "The Wimp" seems to have played this very well.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/...ing-obama.html

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Boreas

There are risks in recess appointments. Their appointment still needs to be confirmed by the Senate before the close of the next session of Congress. Even should Bernie or Hillary succeed Obama, the Senate would still have to confirm Obama's recess appointment by the end of the new president's first year. If the Republicans keep control of the Senate, that won't happen.

Right now, the principle Republican obstructionists are in very hot water with voters. They could fail to win re-election for blocking a replacement for Scalia. The smart money would be on their agreeing to hearings to save their political asses. "The Wimp" seems to have played this very well.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/...ing-obama.html

Very Spock-like of Obama. That's what I like about him.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lin

Do you have actual evidence of that or is it just a hunch? Now, I plan to force myself to vote for her, but there's a current shaming campaign that's really been pissing me off, because I think it's ridiculous to tell people the Trump presidency is going to be the Sanders-supporters' faults because they wouldn't vote for the crappy candidate the Democratic party has decided to stand behind. I hope my fellow Sanders fans won't largely sit this one out, but I really can't blame them if they do, and I feel the blame lies squarely on Hillary herself and the Democratic Party if she loses. Our bullshit meters go into the red with her, and no, sorry, but that has zero to do with the nonsense the Republicans spew about Clinton, many of us have come to our own conclusions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us...nton.html?_r=4

There's a fine old tradition of 'ratfucking' in politics. The Clintons have been a favorite target of Republicans for decades.

[Mr. Lin]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Dirty tricks is my characterization but the campaign exists: call after call to talk radio, posts on social media, pledges promising to stay home, etc.

Face facts here. If Hillary is the nominee and, as a result, a sizable portion of Bernie's supporters stay home or write Bernie in (another current campaign), that would very likely give Trump enough of an edge to win. Is your "principled stand" against Hillary worth enduring a Trump presidency?

Not trying to give you a hard time here, but unless you misread my last post, or didn't read the first part of it, I don't understand what the sentence in bold means, exactly. Are you saying that I shouldn't be so critical of Clinton because that sort of thing could lead to a Trump presidency?

[Mr. Lin]

Originally Posted by bobabode

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us...nton.html?_r=4

There's a fine old tradition of 'ratfucking' in politics. The Clintons have been a favorite target of Republicans for decades.

I find your insinuation rather offensive, and here's why: First of all, I've never liked Hillary Clinton. Not now, not a decade ago. So the implication that most of us on the left only dislike her so strongly because of a conservative social media campaign to "bait" us seems like a stretch to me, because there are plenty of red flags with her past and present that have been around for a long time.

Second, in support of my comment above, I don't really use social media. FB to communicate with family, no Twitter ever in my life, and YouTube only to listen to and watch music videos. I've heard about some of the memes, and seen a couple, shown to me by friends. We laugh because they're obviously part of the right's Hillary smear campaign (e-mails, Benghazi, personal attacks relating to her appearance, etc.).

The "dynasty" issue is mentioned in the article. For crying out loud, doesn't it bother you guys in the Clinton camp just a little that, yet again, the same family that's already been in the White House will be in it once more? Just as it was so troubling that the Bush family might have reigned for the third time? My point being that, immediately, there's a fundamental reason outside of Clinton's politics and career for us to be very concerned about what's going on in our country.

So no, I'm not the victim of the right-wing conspiracy in this case, and I'm confident most Sanders supporters would find the overall suggestion here offensive as well. As I said two posts ago, some of us have made up our own minds, and it didn't happen during this election cycle. I've been semi-dreading her presidency for many, many years, and I've believed in the core things Sanders represents and proposes since before I'd ever heard of the guy. I actively criticize Clinton because we do have a choice, and I see Sanders as a vastly superior alternative for many, many reasons. I don't owe the Democratic party anything, and I sure as hell don't owe Clinton anything - like I said, it's on them if she loses.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lin

I find your insinuation rather offensive, and here's why: First of all, I've never liked Hillary Clinton. Not now, not a decade ago. So the implication that most of us on the left only dislike her so strongly because of a conservative social media campaign to "bait" us seems like a stretch to me, because there are plenty of red flags with her past and present that have been around for a long time.

Second, in support of my comment above, I don't really use social media. FB to communicate with family, no Twitter ever in my life, and YouTube only to listen to and watch music videos. I've heard about some of the memes, and seen a couple, shown to me by friends. We laugh because they're obviously part of the right's Hillary smear campaign (e-mails, Benghazi, personal attacks relating to her appearance, etc.).

The "dynasty" issue is mentioned in the article. For crying out loud, doesn't it bother you guys in the Clinton camp just a little that, yet again, the same family that's already been in the White House will be in it once more? Just as it was so troubling that the Bush family might have reigned for the third time? My point being that, immediately, there's a fundamental reason outside of Clinton's politics and career for us to be very concerned about what's going on in our country.

So no, I'm not the victim of the right-wing conspiracy in this case, and I'm confident most Sanders supporters would find the overall suggestion here offensive as well. As I said two posts ago, some of us have made up our own minds, and it didn't happen during this election cycle. I've been semi-dreading her presidency for many, many years, and I've believed in the core things Sanders represents and proposes since before I'd ever heard of the guy. I actively criticize Clinton because we do have a choice, and I see Sanders as a vastly superior alternative for many, many reasons. I don't owe the Democratic party anything, and I sure as hell don't owe Clinton anything - like I said, it's on them if she loses.

Well said but I disagree. As Democrats we have a responsibility to ensure that Hillary if nominated, does not lose the election. Consequences are far greater than ourselves. Once she is in the WH by all means take the gloves off and more importantly ensure that there is no second term for her.

[Tom Joad]

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...on-healthcare/

"I don't know where he was when I was trying to get health care in '93 and '94,"
Hillary Clinton.