2 Tips For Hillary Clinton

94 thoughts on “2 Tips For Hillary Clinton”

• I voted for Bernie Sanders. It’s too bad Hillary won. She has accepted $675,000 from Goldman Sachs and millions more from corporations for her super pac. She is a puppet of Wall Street and her corporate masters. She supported natural gas fracking, offshore oil drilling, and was late condemning Keystone. Expect a continuation of Obama’s failed all of the above energy strategy. Of course she’ll be better than Trump, who lies about Global Warming, but far from a superior progressive like Elizabeth Warren, Jill Stein, or Bernie Sanders, who would pursue a much more aggressive policy to attain 100% of our electricity from renewable energy by 2040. With the effects of Global Warming getting worse each day, I cannot see how any policy short of an all out race to replace dirty fossil fuels as quickly as possible, would be acceptable. Germany just broke a record, getting 90% from renewables for a short time. The USA has much better wind and solar resources than Germany, so I see no reason why the USA couldn’t achieve 100% renewable energy in 24 years.

  • Brian, you don’t do our battle against climate change any good by posting things that are not true about the person most likely to become the Democratic presidential candidate.

    In doing so you are assisting Donald Trump.

    • Nothing I said was untrue. It is a known fact. We cannot change the bad policies of our leaders that fail to address climate change, if we are silent about their dishonesty. If something I said about Hillary was untrue, please feel free to point it out to me. It is a known fact that Hillary supported natural gas fracking, offshore oil drill, and was late condemning Keystone. If we want our leaders to address climate change, then we must call them out when they support policies counter to our values.

      • “She is a puppet of Wall Street and her corporate masters. ”

        That’s just bull.

        ” Expect a continuation of Obama’s failed all of the above energy strategy.”

        Are we building coal plants or closing coal plants? Are ICEV fleet MPG requirements falling or rising? Are solar and wind installations falling or rising?
        —-

        Elizabeth Warren doesn’t want to be president. Jill Stein is unelectable. Bernie Sanders is unlikely to be the Democratic candidate. While many really like his goals he’s failed to convince enough voters that he has the skillset to achieve those goals.

        Clinton has a strong clean energy plan. She better understands how progress is made a step at a time, how moving too fast does not work.

        • Moving to fast doesn’t work? With every year setting records as the hottest year on record, how can we move too fast? Wasn’t 2015 the hottest year on record? Aren’t islands already sinking in the Ocean? No, we need a much more aggressive policy like China is pursuing to ramp up solar and wind power as quickly as possible. Jill Stein is unelectable because corporations own our country, and would never let her or Bernie Sanders become president, because they would stand up to corporations, unlike Hillary who has received 11 million from WS and corporations.

        • Obviously we haven’t moved fast enough.

          Obvious we can’t abandon fossil fuels in the next 30 seconds.

          We need a more aggressive national policy but it is impossible to get one through the current Congress.

          Why can’t you show some signs of grasping the obvious?

          Jill can’t get elected because the Green Party has not been successful in establishing itself as a major national party. And by their running Ralph Nader as a presidential candidate, they may never be more than a tiny fringe party in the US.

          Your bullshit over corporations picking presidents is getting old. Barack Obama was not put into office by large corporations. Jimmy Carter was not put into office by large corporations. JFK and Johnson were not put into office by large corporations.

          And large corporations are not backing Trump.

        • Of course we can’t replace our use of dirty fossil fuels in 30 seconds, but we are quickly running out of time. Islands are sinking, and 2015 was the hottest year on record. Why can’t you show some signs of grasping the obvious? It will always be hard to get anything through Congress that is bought and paid for by the dirty fossil fuel industry, but we need to keep trying, because we are running out of time. Jill Stein can’t get elected because the Green party has been shut out of the debates by a democratic party that is bought by corporate interest. Barrack Obama took corporate money to finance his campaign to get elected. I didn’t say Jimmy Carter or other presidents were put in office by large corporations. I said corporations own the two party duopoly and they have shut out the Green party, Jill Stein, and Ralph Nader from even debating. Corporations own our media the republican party and 80% of the democratic party, and they will do whatever they can to ensure Bernie Sanders doesn’t get elected, because he would stand up to their corporate oligarchy. Your lack of knowledge about politics is really embarrassing. I feel like I’m arguing with a 5 year old kid.

        • If you think large corporations are not backing Hillary Clinton, your delusional. Some of the biggest corporations including Lehman Brothers have donated large amounts of money to her. Obama wouldn’t have been elected without money from the banking industry to finance his campaign. Do you think corporations including the dirty oil and gas industry that gave Ted Cruz millions for his super pac, weren’t buying him off? Your lack of knowledge about politics and sophomoric arguments that are easily disproven, are really disturbing. Trump is supported by small businesses, because he promised to cut their taxes. However his largest cut in taxes will be for the wealthiest 1%.

        • After Hillary took $675,000 from Wall Street for speeches, and millions more for her super pac, and failed to release her transcripts, you don’t think she is a puppet of corporate America? Yes, we’ve expanded solar and wind power dramatically since Obama took office but we’ve also expanded NG fracking, and we still do Mountain top coal mining. Coal is down which is great, but we still need to faze it completely along with nuclear power. Obama approved two nuclear power plants, which is not good. Overall, Obama has been better than any dirty fossil fuel shill republican, but we still could do better.

      • I missed that:
        “Expect a continuation of Obama’s failed all of the above energy strategy.”
        …till I read Bob’s comment. Are you nuts? Have you noticed the rate of deployment for Wind and Solar PV in the USA? Do you remember what it was before Obama took office. He kicked off an effing renewable energy explosion in the USA. If the GOP doesn’t get a presidential candidate into office this time, then it’s a done deal.
        Obama’s all of the above policy stopped a lot of the bickering about unfairness and gave the NG and oil industries a chance to flourish briefly and bolster our economy so we could afford to switch …while Wind and Solar PV continued to come down in price. Now you cannot argue against using Wind and Solar PV rationally. They cost less!!! Hillary was backing him on the “all of the above policy” to his benefit and all our benefits. She ain’t perfect, but she was a good team player, ON THE RIGHT TEAM, for that one. …and she will continue to support Wind and Solar PV. She gets it!!! None of the republican presidential candidates have gotten it, Trump definitely included.

        • Obama has done a lot to advance wind and solar, but still he supported offshore oil drilling and NG fracking. Yes Obama is better than any republican, but we can do better. Hillary will do well to advance wind and solar, and I fully support that, but I fear she may favor NG fracking or offshore oil drilling to reward her corporate supporters. Bernie Sanders has no corporate supporters, so we wouldn’t have to worry about that. Since he will not be elected, we must make sure Hillary follows through and supports 100% clean renewable energy. Please understand that the only reason I criticize Hillary is to make sure she doesn’t double down on NG fracking or offshore oil drilling. Of course we must never have a republican dirty fossil fuel shill like the liar Trump in the White House, but we must make sure the democrat is fully on board with a policy that strives to get 100% of our electricity from clean renewable energy.

        • Obama supported natural gas and oil because without natural gas and oil the US economy would tank. Can you try to understand that on at least a basic level?

          Clinton, if she becomes president, will have to do things that some of us would rather not see happen simply because they must be done.

          Personally, I’d rather see oil and gas extracted in the US, under EPA regulations, than in some non-regulated setting like happens in other countries. And, as long as we’re going to be burning NG and oil, I’d rather see the money stay in the US rather than go to people who don’t like us.

        • Personally I’d like to see all dirty fossil fuels left in the ground. I realize it can’t be done over night, but we will have to do it fast, because islands are already sinking, and 2015 was the hottest year on record. Do you understand that we don’t have time, and we must transition into electric cars, busses, and replace dirty fossil fuels much quicker? After the horrible Gulf oil spill, we don’t need more offshore oil drilling. Leave oil and dirty fossil fuels in the ground, and transition into clean renewable energy now.

        • Obama supported offshore drilling because… he’s an idiot. There was no reason whatsoever to support it. After announcing a big offshore drilling program, the BP disaster happened and he backed off.

          This is the sort of stupid-ass move I expect from Hillary Clinton, unfortunately.

        • Anyone who thinks PBO is an idiot is a leading candidate for the position of dumbest wanker of the year.

          A US president has to support offshore drilling enough to keep the economy from crashing. Purity practices work only in fantasies.

  • Obama has already given enough assistance to Wind and Solar PV. All Hillary has to do is appose repeal of the ITC by the congress and Wind/Solar PV will rule. The current ITC is all we needed to finish the job. Extending it was a cynical gamble by republicans …to win votes in 2016 …before repealing it in 2017. Vote for Trump and see what you get. Wind and Solar PV will still win, but it will take longer, the planet will be warmer, and we’ll be buying all our PV panels and Wind turbines from China. Bernie would be better, but Hillary will do just fine this time around.

• What is the chance that the Bern will become Hilary’s running mate

  • Hillary would never even consider selecting Bernie Sanders after he correctly criticized her for taking money for speeches and her super pac, from Wall Street, and corporations. Hillary is bought and paid for by Wall Street, and her corporate masters, and she would never let an honest politician like Bernie Sanders, run with her as a VP.

    • You may be right, but I think that she will do what ever it takes to win in November.

      • I think it would be wise fill the VP slot with a younger person.

        I’m in the age cluster with Clinton, Sanders and Trump. I question the ability of someone our age to hold up under the pressure of the job for four years and can’t see someone in the presidency at the age of 80. A senator or justice, sure, a wise older person can bring the wisdom of age but stamina goes and being president is a very demanding job. (If done well.)

        It seems to me that there’s an age sweet spot, old enough to be mature enough. Bill Clinton would likely have been a much better president had he been a bit older, especially more mature. But not so old that ones body starts being an additional burden. And not so old that being a child is a distant memory.
        —-

        Will Clinton do whatever it takes to wind in November?

        You better hope she will. You think the Bush administration was bad? Trump could do far more damage that blow up the Middle East and create ISIS.

        • I’d rather have a wise old man, than, a women who undermined Obama’s Iran deal and sided with the traitor Tom Cotton’s treacherous letter, which almost led to war with Iran. Hillary has been very belligerent in her tone toward Iran, and would go to war much quicker than a wiser more reserved Bernie Sanders.

      • Hillary is an incompetent campaigner. Every campaign appearance she makes will lower her poll numbers.

        Thank goodness Trump seems to be quite good at pulling the same trick and lowering his poll numbers with every appearance.

        My vote in the general election doesn’t matter, because I don’t live in Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Florida. This country is so messed up.

        Bernie is the better candidate against Trump. By a *lot*. Hillary underperforms significantly in Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire — Trump is likely to win them — while Bernie trounces Trump in all of those states.

    • Something about “Honest Bernie” is starting to eat away at me, Brian.

      Why is Bernie refusing to release his income tax records?

      • Why is Hillary refusing to release the transcripts showing the $675,000 she took from speeches for Goldman Sachs? I agree Bernie Sanders tax releases are less extensive than anybody’s but Donald Trump. He only showed his 2014 returns. However his networth is only about $300,000 compared to 20 million for Hillary Clinton. Hillary makes more in one speech than Sanders makes in a year.
        http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/bernie-sanders-tax-return-taxes-2014-released-net-worth-hillary-clinton-democratic-debate-refund-salary-donations/

        • Two of the speeches she gave are on YouTube. Go look at them.

          And quit parroting Fox News talking points.

          Trump released some of his 2014 tax returns. You think that’s an excuse for Sanders to release none of his? Clinton has released hers from 2007 through 2015.

          Whose fault is it if no one wants to hire Bernie to speak to them? He has only one speech, it’s the one he’s been giving since the 1970s.

        • I believe it is against the law to do paid speeches while serving?

        • At least while in Congress. I’m not sure if the law applies to people in the administration.

        • We’ll, if the law doesn’t apply to those in the administration, it should be changed, because it is a conflict of interest, and could allow corporate interest to bribe our politicians.

        • Sanders gave his 2014 tax returns. I admit he has not been nearly forthcoming enough. He should release all his tax returns, but still he has released the 2014 return. Hillary still refuses to release her transcripts for the $675,000 she took for speeches from Goldman Sachs. Maybe she has something to hide. No one wants to hire Bernie for speeches because he refuses to give them, and doesn’t serve Wall street and corporate America like Hillary does. Hillary should no better than to take money for speeches from Wall Street or corporate interest.

        • Hillary’s simply hiding her speeches of praise of Goldman Sachs. People who were there said it sounded like stuff they’d expect a GS partner to say.

        • The speeches Hillary is concealing — well, people who were there have said that they were basically hymns of praise to the awesomeness of Goldman Sachs. That’s why she’s not releasing them.

          There is no reason whatsoever for Bernie Sanders to release his tax returns and I appreciate him standing on a point of principle regarding privacy with the IRS.

        • What have you heard about Jane possibly being in legal trouble over tax evasion? Any truth to that rumor? Might it explain why Sanders won’t release his tax returns other than 2014?

          I understand Romney and Trump not wanting to release theirs. They almost certainly have something to hide.

        • It’s a good speech and he hasn’t changed his position multiple times like Hillary. So he doesn’t need to change speech. I personally consider that a major plus.

          You keep missing that Bernie isn’t in it for the money. Never has been, never will be.

          I have no idea of why Bernie won’t release tax returns, first I’ve heard about it. It is definitely possible there is nothing “wrong” with his returns. His life has been consistently “open”; I doubt he’s hiding millions in off shore havens or the like.

      • Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had income approaching $140 million over the last eight years, according to previously released returns. Bernie Sanders only has a net worth of $300,000, making him one of the poorest politicians. Hillary Clinton’s net worth is $31.3 million. Bill Clinton has an estimated net worth of $80 million. That gives a
        combined Bill and Hillary Clinton net worth of $111 million dollars. Seems strange that you think Bernie Sanders who is worth only $300,000 is dishonest, and yet Hillary is worth 31 million, and taken money from WS and corporations, and you give her the pass.
        http://moneynation.com/hillary-clinton-net-worth/

        • People were willing to pay Bill and Hillary to give speeches.

          Apparently Bernie isn’t very interesting….

        • Goldman Sachs and other corporations were very interested in paying big money to the Clintons for speeches, because they wanted favors in return, which should be illegal. Sanders doesn’t give paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, or corporations, because he has integrity.

        • I thought you agreed above that it was against the law to give paid speeches while a Congressman?

          “Apparently Bernie isn’t very interesting….”

          He went from “Who’s Bernie” for about 90% of the electorate to almost winning the nomination – in less than a year.

          He’s consistently drawn overflow crowds.

          You have an interesting definition of interesting.

        • I tried to delete comments when I finally noticed discussion was months old. Unsuccessful.

        • You’d be surprised how often people comment on very stale dated articles.

          Spammers often hit very old articles. I suspect it’s people being paid by the number of comments they can get embedded and find that their spam gets tossed less often if put in older articles.

        • My comment about Bernie was intended to be tongue in cheek. Should have added a ;o)

        • Yeah, better to overdo than risk being taken seriously by someone who doesn’t even notice posts are a month
          old 🙁

          I take comfort in an April Fools prank around time of Mt St Helen eruption – A DJ said the big hill near Boston was going to erupt – he was fired because so many took seriously.

      • Why did Hillary have super delegates already committed to vote for her? Could these party insiders be paid off by the same Wall Street and corporate donors who paid Hillary? Seems dishonest to have voters already committed to a candidate before the elections even begin. Also DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz scheduled the debates to favor Hillary.

        • Largely because Hillary has been a Democrat for a long, long time. Bernie is not a Democrat so it should not be surprising to anyone that Democrats support the Democrat rather than the Independent Socialist, or whatever Bernie’s party of one is called.

          Hillary has been working to support other Democrats for decades. Bernie has not. It is not surprising that members of the Democratic party support those which have been supporting them.

          Bernie, for the most part, has chosen to stand on the outside and criticise. Support, one earns.

        • The super delegates were already committed to supporting Hillary long before Bernie entered the race. They are democratic party insiders. I think the rules need to change, and they should be eliminated. Bernie doesn’t take money from Wall Street for speeches, or his super pac from corporations like Hillary does. He chooses honesty.

        • Oh.My.God!

          The Democratic superdelegates are Democratic insiders.

          We should pass a law that requires Democratic superdelegates to be members of the Independent Socialist party.

        • Yes, support one earns through favors. Hillary is supported by the largest corporations in America, including Lehman Brothers. Bernie Sanders has integrity, and refuses to take money for speeches from Wall Street or corporations to support a super pac. Bernie criticizes the corruption he sees in the democratic party, and with Hillary. Bernie is a true progressive who marched with MLK, unlike Hillary who worked for Goldman Sachs, and was late advocating to raise the minimum wage, advocating for gay rights, advocating for criminal justice reform and legalizing marijuana. Bernie has been a much stronger champion who has fought for the rights of the poor and middle class than Hillary, who is a puppet of her Wall Street, and corporate masters.

        • Shultz’s behavior has ranged from crooked (revoking Obama’s campaign finance rules to help Hillary launder money) to undemocratic (deliberately trying to schedule the debates so nobody would watch any of them). She has been an utter disaster for the Democratic Party and many Hillary supporters agree.

          My family has a longer record with the Democratic Party than Hillary Clinton does. We don’t pull rule-changing abusive crap like that.

    • “What do Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Franklin Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson all have in common? They all accepted campaign contributions from Wall Street tycoons.

      And, for those on that list who have already been president, all successfully imposed regulations on corporations anyway.”

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/08/why_its_ok_to_accept_wall_street_campaign_cash_129584.html

      You want Wall Street money out of politics? The make sure Democrats take back Congress and hold the White House. And then start pushing for changes in campaign financing.

      • Just because others took money, doesn’t justify it. Sanders proved that one can run without taking money from WS or corporations.

        • Weak tea, Brian.

          Our campaign financing practices are deeply flawed. They need to be changed. Let’s see if Bernie goes back to Congress and creates change or does what he’s done for the previous 25 years.

        • If other candidates would be honest, and show solidarity with him, instead of just saying the system is corrupt but I must do it to, to have any chance of getting elected, we could change the campaign finance laws.

        • I think he proved he can run a primary campaign without it. Not sure that proves he can do it through the whole race?

    • “You can’t always get what you want ..but if you try sometime. You just might find. You get what you need.”
      “Never let perfect be the enemy of better.” If you do you’ll never get anywhere in life. Hillary is good enough. ITC stays. Wind, Solar PV, Storage, and EVs rule by 2020. The day is still coming for Wall Street and abusive Monopolies. Maybe next time. Maybe the one after that.

    • Did you just completely fail to get the point of this article? …or listen to the video clip? Yeh, Trump is great. We need to get rid of the EPA which he can’t even spell, let alone understand what they do. Yeh, we need more lead in the water in places like Flint Michigan. Yeh, we need more Mercury in the Water in Louisiana. We need more coal pollution. It worked so well behind the Iron Curtain. It’s working so well in China. Just watch “Under the Dome”. Coal and car exhausts don’t harm people, just makes’em grow faster.

      …and no I’m not defending Hillary’s WS connections, just saying Trump will be worse. He’s already been a billionaire bailout benefitiary. He’s goes to reform corruption in our system?

      Brian, Thank you for getting me going this morning. mike

      • Look, nobody wants a bigot and liar like Trump to get elected, but we can’t ignore Hillary’s WS connections and previous support for Obama’s all of the above energy plan that includes NG fracking, and offshore oil drilling. Just because I criticize Hillary doesn’t mean I like Trump. Trump lies about GW, and would cut the EPA, department of Education, and fund dirty coal plants. However we must push Hillary to the left by reminding her of her past bad positions on issues about the environment. So please try to use a little common sense here. I’m backing Hillary as the lesser of the two evils, but still We must make sure she fights for strong progressive environmental values. So please don’t get offended if I criticize mistakes she made in the past. This is necessary to make the party better in the future.

        • Brian, you seem to come up short when it comes to common sense.

          We do not have the ability to simply close coal plants. We have to replace them with something. Do I need to explain why that is to you?

          Using NG to fill in around wind and solar allows to cut back on fossil fuel use while we develop better storage technology for fill-in. Has that not been sufficiently explained to you?

          Fracking is nasty. Coal is almost certainly more nasty than NG. Even were they equally nasty moving from 100% coal to < 50% NG is a net gain in the fight against nasty. Do you understand that math?

          You want Clinton to achieve more of your personal progressive agenda? First, make sure she (or Bernie) wins over Trump. And, second, do what you can to put Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress. Both Sanders and Clinton have the same overall agenda. The Democratic party seems to feel that Clinton has better skills to move the country along.

        • Bob you seem to really have a lot of faith in the democratic party. I suggest you watch Democracy Now, Cenk Uygur, of the Young Turks, or Ralph Nader, and educate yourself about politics, because you are brainwashed by the two party duopoly. Corporations own the republican party and 80% of the democratic party. The election was rigged by corporations who gave an unfair super delegate advantage to Hillary. The DNC chair also scheduled the debates to favor Hillary. Corporate America owns Hillary and would never allow Bernie Sanders to be elected, because he is honest. Bernie’s net worth is $300,000, compared to Hillary’s 31 million, and you think Hillary who has taken $675,000 for speeches from Goldman sachs, and millions more from corporations for her super pac, is honest? Get real. your the one who lacks common sense. If you think that Hillary will not be beholden to wall Street, and corporations for the millions they gave her, you are a fool.

        • ​Brian, I have zero respect for your judgement. Try to understand that. ​

        • I have zero respect for your opinion period. I present you with facts, that you cannot dispute. Your defense of Hillary’s dishonesty, like your NG argument has been a hugh failure. You have no defense to justify Hillary taking millions for speeches from Goldman Sachs or corporations to support her super pac, except to point out others do it to. As if that makes it right.

        • We don’t need NG as a bridge fuel. I’ve told you this a thousand times.Trading one evil for another is not necessary. When you factor in the methane emissions and fracking which involves pumping toxic poisonous chemicals underground, NG is as bad as dirty coal. At first perhaps to facilitate the closing of dirty coal plants, NG was good as a bridge fuel, but now the price of wind and solar has come down, and we can build wind farms and solar power plants in 18 to 24 months. Also we can get 40% of our electricity from rooftop solar. Zachary the Lead editor of this site is very much against NG fracking. Why don’t you argue with him. Germany set a record and got 90% of their electricity from wind, solar and biogas, so why can’t we. NG will have to replaced with wind and solar. Wasn’t 2015 the hottest year on record? We don’t have time for polluting NG, which poisons our water. We need to close all our dirty coal plants, and replace them with roof top solar, solar power plants with battery storage, solar thermal with molten storage, onshore wind, small wind, and offshore wind. their is another forum here, where Zachary, along with me and others condemned NG. Why don’t you scroll up to it, and fight for your position, since you are so sure of yourself? Why did New York state ban fracking if it is necessary as a bridge fuel, so we can close our dirty coal plants as you erroneously assert.

        • “We don’t need NG as a bridge fuel.”

          Right, Brian.

          When the Sun is shining or the wind blowing we can run our factories, power our businesses and homes.

          When the Sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing we can sit quietly and wait for the power to come back on.

          Why can’t we all be as intelligent as you?

        • Right, like we don’t have battery storage, pumped hydro, or solar thermal power plants that store energy in molten salt. Germany gets 30% from renewables, and recently set a record and got 90% from renewables for a short time. Intermittency can be overcome by significantly ramping up solar and wind power like Germany is doing. With islands sinking, and each year setting a record as the hottest year on record, we don’t have time to use NG as a bridge fuel, to wait until we can go 100% renewable.

        • Brian, I’ve explained it to you over and over. I’m simply tired of dealing with your foolishness.

        • Bob, we don’t need NG as a bridge fuel. This has actually been demonstrated a couple of times ON THIS WEBSITE. Why are you spouting bull?

        • Please give me links to those ‘couple of times’. I don’t recall them.

        • Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein of the Green party are a threat to the corporate controlled democrats, which is why they will never be allowed to win. Corporations own our media, and you are brainwashed by them as well. Hillary won’t release the transcripts because she knows she was wrong to take $675,000 for speeches and millions to support her super pac. In addition Bernie’s net worth is $300,000 compared to Hillary’s 31 million, and you don’t think she is bought and paid for? If you think Hillary will not be beholden to Wall Street, and corporations for the millions they gave her, you are a complete fool. The democratic party supports Hillary because she is one of them, and bought and paid for by Wall Street and corporations. True she is better than any republican, but not by much. Like your failed NG argument, you have proven that you lack the common sense to understand the difference of a corporate puppet democrat like Clinton, and honest progressives like Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders. I suggest you go to the Green party’s website, and educate yourself.

        • Bernie is losing and Jill heads a losing party.

          Did you not listen to the two paid speeches that Hillary gave and someone recorded and put on YouTube?
          —

          You call me, or anyone else, names again and I’ll toss your ass.

        • Nobody called you or anyone else any names. You don’t need to threaten someone just because your on the losing end of an argument, and clearly no nothing about politics.

        • How can you legitimately criticize something you don’t understand?

      • Trump is a bullshitter. He doesn’t even bother with checking whether what he’s saying makes sense and he certainly doesn’t believe any of it.

        I think he’s genuine when he attacks the other billionaires, though. They never treated him with respect.

        I bet if Trump is elected, he changes the tax code to give huge breaks to real estate developers (who currently get basically nothing in tax breaks) and tax the wazoo out of the other rich people (who have always been getting great deals). Just cause, y’know, to sock it to the other guys.

  • She’ll not select Bernie for a running mate, but she should offer him a cabinet post so he’ll campaign for her. Obama did that with Hillary 8 years ago.

    VP: Biden?

    • I realize that she will not ask Bernie to be she running mate. And I agree with the cabinet position. It would be nice if the Bern would bring the party together. But Bod brings up a good point. The Bern is not in the Party! He could become the Trump of the Democratic party. Although he is not here to split the party. On the other hand Trump, according to Glen Beck, will split the republican party if not nominated. If Trump becomes the nominee, The Bern will cave in to Hillary and unite the Dem’s to keep Trump out of office

      • Bernie needs to go back the Senate and help Democrats turn the Senate back into a functioning body.

        As he leaves the campaign he needs to do what he can to get his most ardent supporters to deal with their loss and realize that their goals will be addressed by Democrats and not by Republicans.

        • I totally agree and be leave that is his plan. He is try to move Hillary as far as possible.

        • Turning the Senate into a functioning body is actually impossible.

          Hillary’s a loser. Look, I live in New York, she was my Senator. She’s about the worst candidate we can nominate, just from an electoral point of view. Pretty likely scenario: she limps into office with the bare minimum of electoral votes over Trump and a Republican landslide in Congress. Also very likely: she loses outright to Trump. Either way, Republicans run the government for the next 8 years.

          If we nominate Bernie, we actually have a chance of having Democrats run the government for the next 8 years.

        • I’m sorry, I can’t find a connection between that comment and reality.
          Sanders has done exactly nothing to help Democratic candidates for Congress. Clinton has been working for years to increase the number of Democrats in Congress.

• Hillary gives energy policy speech in Sept. of 2014. I doubt it has changed much. Full text here.
  http://cleantechnica.com/2014/09/08/nces-7-0-summary-report-full-speeches-hilary-clinton-harry-reid/

  • Shoot, I forgot about that again!

• There is a good recent piece on Hillary’s energy ideas:

  http://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11548354/hillary-clintons-climate-and-energy-policies-explained

  There really isnt much more one could want there, aside from one wishing that her recent stutter step on coal had instead been grasped as a chance to move forward. Its not as if she is going to win any of the miners votes anyway; but during a campaign one has to expect a candidate to play it safe.

  • Hillery’s “gaff” was nothing more than one sentence taken out of context. Here’s what she said -​

    “​I’m the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country.Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right, Tim?

    And we’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

    Now we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don’t want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.”

    The gaff was not said. The gaff was manufactured by dishonest people.

    • Gaff? I dont think she made a gaff in any shape or form.

      What she could have done was to have moved the discussion on coal forward by talking more about the need to remove coal from our electricity production. Instead we have her campaign staffers trying to down play any talk about coal. Most of the country does now understand that we have to move away from coal, the part that doesnt is not going to support her anyway.

      The campaign played it safe, by reflex.

      It was a missed opportunity.

      • Right. Clinton made no gaff. Someone took a sentence out of context and presented it as a gaff.

        I understand the ‘playing it safe’ rather than ‘go for bold’ strategy. The goal is to get elected.

• What makes you think Hillary will “seal the deal” on the other side? Have you been listening too much to main stream media? This will go down to the wire at the Democratic National Convention. Don’t write off Bernie just yet.

  • It takes 2,383 delegates to win the Democratic primary.

    Clinton is short by 143.

    Sanders is short by 911.

    There are 1,053 left to be decided. Sanders would need to win 86.5% of the remaining delegates in order to win the primary.

    • I foresee the possibility of no Democrat winning the proper # of delegates. It would come down to a contested convention. No use going back and forth about it. We can just wait and see what happens!

      • That would take something very unusual happening.

        I’ll take a look outside to see if there’s a comet heading our way, you check to see if Yellowstone is about to blow….

    • You’re assuming superdelegates are committed. THEY ARE NOT.

      Use the real numbers, i.e. the pledged delegate numbers. Any election decided by superdelegates will be perceived as illegitimate.

      • So what?

        People who have been backing Clinton for years are going to switch to Sanders because some of his followers are shouting loudly?

        Sanders is far behind in both pledged delegates and total votes.

        Come on, man. Try to grasp some reality. Sanders is an outsider and has earned no support within the Democratic party. The insiders who are Superdelegates aren’t going to support the Independent Socialist party.
        (You’re forcing me into Clinton’s corner with your distorted statements. I’m trying hard to stay non-committed and objective until I hit the voting booth next month.)

• The primary isn’t over, guys.

  It’s not over until California votes. California has more delegates than any other state. Remember, Bernie had a landslide in Washington. If he has a huge landslide in Califorina, HE WINS THE PRIMARY.

  This is still a possibility, even if it’s unlikely. Stop conceding defeat premptively.

  • It takes 2,382 delegates to win the Democratic primary. Sanders has 1,533, he needs 850 more.

    There are 939 delegates still to be won. Sanders would have to win over 90% of all remaining delegates in order to win the nomination.

    California has 548 primary delegates. Sanders would need to win 155% of all California delegates in a huuuuuge landslide in order to become the Democratic candidate.

    At some point rational thinking needs to enter the scene….

• “To assume that this movement is going to dissolve with a few concessions
  slightly to the left would be a massive mistake. To assume it isn’t
  going to grow bigger and stronger and potentially much more disruptive
  to the Democratic party if the party doesn’t reverse its decades-long
  trend toward the right would be a massive error in judgement.”

  This is a very polite way of putting it.

  The earliest date I can mark for the predecessors of *this movement* is the Perot campaign. This was followed by the “Censure and Move On” organization (now moveon.org) and several others founded aroung that time. The anti-globalization movement started to coalesce and get really angry at the anti-WTO rallies in Seattle in 1999. But serious organization and coalsecence of the movement started after the American coup-d’etat in 2000. It coalesced around the Clark and Dean campaigns in 2004.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

  It started getting involved with a lot of lower-level election campaigns, including the “secretary of state project”. It sank back into various NGOs and low-level elections until 2008; the movement supported Edwards until his sex scandals, and then Obama. Notice that it’s getting larger each time and adding supporters.

  After Obama’s general refusal to do anything but assist Republicans from 2008-2010, the movement sank back into an ever-increasing list of NGOs and statehouse races. Occupy Wall Street appeared in 2011 and was attacked by criminal “police”. There were dozens of Occupy spinoffs, including a lot of white-collar groups, and they’re all part of the movement too.

  The movement as a whole reappeared backing Bernie in 2016, and attracted an even larger group of supporters. Much, much larger.

  The relatively pacifist MoveOn types have been radicalized by abusive government behavior and the protestors at Seattle in 1999 have been saying “See, we told you so”.

  This isn’t quite our last chance for a peaceful fix. We probably get another chance in 2020. But if arrogant, election-stealing elitists like Clinton — really, look up what happened in Nevada, which she should have condemned but instead supported — go straight for riot police — again — I question how long people are going to tolerate this. The movement grows stronger each round, for obvious reasons, and also gets more desperate and more radicalized.

  In Spain, Podemos is basically set to win the election… but we have such a screwed-up election system here that the equivalent isn’t happening here, though it should be. The question is how long a movement which is quickly attaining absolute majority status will tolerate being completely shut out of government.

  We are living through a classic leadup to a French Revolution or Fascist Coup scenario.

  • This is more of the “same old, same old”.

    In my generation our issues were segregation and then the Vietnam war. Followed by women’s rights.

    Generations before mine dealt with workers’ rights.

    Generations before that dealt with slavery.

    Generations before that dealt with the abolishment of monarchies.

    I heard far more than enough “We are living through a classic leadup to a French Revolution or Fascist Coup scenario.”. It was bullshit then, it’s bullshit now. It’s the hyperbole of excited people.

    A new generation is coming into the game. They are most excited by the the issues that most impact them. Cost of education and loss of good paying jobs to the greed of the 1% are some of the current major problems. Those who are most impacted will have to do most of the work to fix those problems and they will fix them at the ballot box, not by packing the richest into tumbrils.

    Time to buckle down, kiddies. Organize, educate, and most importantly vote.

    • ” election-stealing elitists like Clinton”

      Hillary Clinton who has won more pledged delegates (1,768 to 1,494) and gained more votes (12,989,134 to 9,957,889) is not stealing the primary. She is winning the primary.

      More people have voted for Clinton than have voted for Sanders.

      The rules were not changed after the election began.
      —

      Re-read your own post. You’ll find, I hope, that your pants are on fire.

      Your personal issues are very important to you. Most others voting in the Democratic party primary have your issues on our issues list, but in a different order.

      If you’re a minority then you may care more about cops getting away with shooting black people or with the state of the schools in poor neighborhoods. If you’re transgender you’re likely to put the issues in a different order. If you’re a senior your issues will likely be ordered to fit your needs.

      We Democrats, left-of-centers, progressives, liberals beat each other up over which issue should be number one.

      We need to stop that. We need to not be our own enemy.

  • Don’t stop your look back into history.

    The history of “this movement” extends back to the ’60s anti-materialism movement. Back to the -30s flirtation with socialism and the movement away from monopolies. Back to the American and French revolutions. Back to the Magna Carta….

    It’s simply the most recent version of the people with too little power, too small a share of the goodies, pushing against the rich and powerful in an attempt to get them to give up some of what they’ve grabbed.

Comments are closed.