That's it! I'm calling it. Bernie Sanders will be the Democratic nominee in 2016.

[esmith]

I just can't think of anything she has really done wrong. I get what you are saying, but I've watched her closely for a long time now (she was our senator after all) and I just don't see it. I think a lot of men don't like her because of her no nonsense attitude but when it comes to policy and how she performed her job, whether in the Senate or as SoS, she always seemed to perform reasonably well.

I also think the smear campaign can't help but have an impact, it's either that or just the fact that she is a woman. But when I ask co-workers why they hate her, virtually to a man they all say the same thing. "I just don't like her." As a reason for not voting for someone that seems pretty weak. I wouldn't have been able to vote in half the elections if I had to like the candidates.

I see Hillary this way. I was in the military for over 20 years and was exposed to various levels of classified material. Now Hillary saying that she did nothing wrong in relation to classified material is total nonsense. Most of her defenders say she did not divulge classified information, or that it wasn't marked as classified. Point, one does not have to divulge classified information to be guilty of mishandling of classified information. She mishandled it by having it on a "private" server vice a "protected"server. Now her defenders say none of the material was marked as classified, I can neither prove or disprove this; However, if this is true she really has to be really stupid not to read something and realize that it should be classified.. Do I want anyone this dumb to be the Commander in Chief of this country. The answer is no. She is also being seriously looked at for "influence peddling". Yeah, I know nothing has been proven; However, what was going on with the Clinton Foundation, Bill's speaking payments, and other shady activities that the Clinton's have managed to avoid does not speak well for her. Her attitude is " I am above the law, and I'm smart enough to get away with it; also I'm a Clinton". Additionally although the US was not a leader, but just a participant in the overthrow of the government in Libya her activities shows that she played a very major part in the overthrow and eventual a failing state in Libya. GW gets blamed for Iraq but we see no blame placed on the current administration....she was Sec of State. In addition I do not directly blame her for what happened in Benghazi, other it happened on her watch as Sec of State. Either she didn't see a problem with lack of security, just didn't care, or didn't understand who was involved in Libya. If she couldn't see what could and did happen in Libya was it because she only looked at her desire to get rid of Kadifi and what happened afterward wasn't her problem. She also lied about the stupid video for political expedience then lied about telling the families of the fallen that the video wasn't to blame. This person will do or say anything to further her agenda and if anyone is harmed by her actions or inaction's so be it.

You will notice that I haven't mentioned anything about her political ideals for one simple reason, your statement wasn't about what she stood for but her past. Vote for her if you want, but maybe you should stop and really look at her

 

[Underhill]

Influence peddling is what happens in Washington daily. But I have a hard time believing that is the goal of the Clinton Foundation. It's not like they were hard up for cash with how many top selling books, not to mention a governor and presidents retirement.

Benghazi had virtually nothing to do with her. As for the classified stuff, I have no idea. But as I understand it, prior to her being in the SoS position, there were no rules on emails, classified or otherwise. So she may or may not have broke rules that either didn't exist or were brand new. Could she have done better? Probably. But it seems like much ado about nothing... Which is exactly how I feel about the video. That is the nature of PR. Disclosing information that may, or may not, help the administration is something all administrations do daily. It had no impact on anything as it was after the fact. If we are going to complain about this kind of 'subterfuge' then we need to start paying better attention. How many times did Bush and his staff talk about Iraq in reference to terrorism? It took months of that kind of behavior before people started complaining.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, but the question I have is whether Sanders can keep the momentum going into the convention and then the election. He's hot right now, and momentum, like in sports, is very important, but can he sustain it?

I keep donating to the campaign and keep worrying about whether or not I'm throwing my money away. I'll probably be in a much better position to judge after the South Carolina Republican Primary on February 20th ...

... which also happens to be the World Day of Social Justice. ​

 

[metis]

Democrats are just trying to make it look like they are being democratic.
Hillary was designated heir to the throne, but the Republicans with a much
more transparent and dynamic process were stealing the limelight.

So now the democrats are trying to make it look like Sanders actually has a chance.

So, you really don't believe Bernie has a chance and that this has all been a left-wing conspiracy of sorts? By chance, do you remember what Will Rogers said of the Democratic Party, which certainly still applies today?

As far as the Pubs are concerned, it seems that the candidates are in a battle for the bottom, changing leads faster than probably some here change their underwear. Yep, this "transparency" is killing them.

 

[metis]

I keep donating to the campaign and keep worrying about whether or not I'm throwing my money away. I'll probably be in a much better position to judge after the South Carolina Republican Primary on February 20th ...

... which also happens to be the World Day of Social Justice. ​

But you're so wealthy what's few thousand here or there?

BTW, Good Shabbos to you and yours.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Normally, I might agree with you. But I think with enough time the opposition has achieved their goal... Remember, they don't have to sway the entire democratic party. That would be a lost cause.

If they even manage to dis-way 10% of the party, probably those at the fringes (moderates who voted for Reagan), it could have a devastating affect.

Nah. Nothing the Republicans have said has swayed me against Hillary. Three things have swayed me from Hillary. Well I was neutral about her before and now I am against her.

1) I simply don't agree with her track record of voting. I agree with Bernie's.
2) I don't like the fact she is in the pocket of lobby groups. This ties back into #1.
3) Despite Sanders INTENTIONALLY not running a dirt campaign (because lets face it she does have weaknesses that the republicans have exploited) she has gone on the offensive in a massive attempt to slander him going so far as to hire a man who has been sued for slandering previous political opponents.

Basically I dont' like her policies, she's a gutless drone to the highest bidder and she fights with dirt. I don't particularly care about Benghazi that much. It sucks, it was handled poorly but it was a single incident that happened when she just so happened to be secretary at the time. It wasn't really any more her fault than Obama's. I think the email scandal is ridiculous for the most part and she definitely isn't the only one to use private emails.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, you really don't believe Bernie has a chance and that this has all been a left-wing conspiracy of sorts?

Was that a response to my (previous) post?

 

[Underhill]

Nah. Nothing the Republicans have said has swayed me against Hillary. Three things have swayed me from Hillary. Well I was neutral about her before and now I am against her.

1) I simply don't agree with her track record of voting. I agree with Bernie's.
2) I don't like the fact she is in the pocket of lobby groups. This ties back into #1.
3) Despite Sanders INTENTIONALLY not running a dirt campaign (because lets face it she does have weaknesses that the republicans have exploited) she has gone on the offensive in a massive attempt to slander him going so far as to hire a man who has been sued for slandering previous political opponents.

Basically I dont' like her policies, she's a gutless drone to the highest bidder and she fights with dirt. I don't particularly care about Benghazi that much. It sucks, it was handled poorly but it was a single incident that happened when she just so happened to be secretary at the time. It wasn't really any more her fault than Obama's. I think the email scandal is ridiculous for the most part and she definitely isn't the only one to use private emails.

Maybe your right. I suspect we are all right. The range of reasons why people vote the way they do is varied and often confusing... sometimes absurd. So I put nothing past anyone.

I remember talking to my grandmother about GWB. She said she didn't particularly like the guy (Bush), but he was so good looking. "That other guy just looks shifty." (talking about Gore)

 

[esmith]

. I think the email scandal is ridiculous for the most part and she definitely isn't the only one to use private emails.

Under E.O. 13526, each respective agency is responsible for maintaining control over classified
information it originates and is responsible for establishing uniform procedures to protect
classified information and automated information systems in which classified information is
stored or transmitted. Standards for safeguarding classified information, including the handling,
storage, distribution, transmittal, and destruction of and accounting for classified information, are
developed by the ISOO. Agencies that receive information classified elsewhere are not permitted
to transfer the information further without approval from the classifying agency. Persons
authorized to disseminate classified information outside the executive branch are required to
ensure it receives protection equivalent to those required internally. In the event of a knowing,
willful, or negligent unauthorized disclosure (or any such action that could reasonably be
expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure), the agency head or senior agency official is
required to notify ISOO and to “take appropriate and prompt corrective action.” Officers and
employees of the United States (including contractors, licensees, etc.) who commit a violation are
subject to sanctions that can range from reprimand to termination.43
36
ISOO Directive No. 1 (32 CFR Part 2001) provides further direction for agencies with
responsibilities for safeguarding classified information. Section 2001.41 states:
Authorized persons who have access to classified information are responsible for: (a)
Protecting it from persons without authorized access to that information, to include securing
it in approved equipment or facilities whenever it is not under the direct control of an
authorized person; (b) Meeting safeguarding requirements prescribed by the agency head;
and (c) Ensuring that classified information is not communicated over unsecured voice or
data circuits, in public conveyances or places, or in any other manner that permits
interception by unauthorized persons.

Note: EO 13526 is Executive Order 13526

 

[Midnight Rain]

Note: EO 13526 is Executive Order 13526

This isn't counter to what I have said. I think we should lock up all leaders who break the law. However we will have an almost empty building. Which means that all of congress and the presidency would have to be run by Bernie and Warren.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nah. Nothing the Republicans have said has swayed me against Hillary. Three things have swayed me from Hillary. Well I was neutral about her before and now I am against her.

1) I simply don't agree with her track record of voting. I agree with Bernie's.
2) I don't like the fact she is in the pocket of lobby groups. This ties back into #1.
3) Despite Sanders INTENTIONALLY not running a dirt campaign (because lets face it she does have weaknesses that the republicans have exploited) she has gone on the offensive in a massive attempt to slander him going so far as to hire a man who has been sued for slandering previous political opponents.

Basically I dont' like her policies, she's a gutless drone to the highest bidder and she fights with dirt. I don't particularly care about Benghazi that much. It sucks, it was handled poorly but it was a single incident that happened when she just so happened to be secretary at the time. It wasn't really any more her fault than Obama's. I think the email scandal is ridiculous for the most part and she definitely isn't the only one to use private emails.

I frubaled this post not so much out of agreement (although there is some of that), but because it was a clear
& comprehensive approach about evaluating a candidate without making it about the faults of the opposition.

 

[Ken Brown]

Shabbat Shalom All, what is see with Bernie Sanders and those who have socialistic ideals, is that they really don't understand human nature. Take for instance, the rich. Do you really think those with wealth (the top 1%) will willingly keep their businesses and wealth accessible to confiscation by a Sanders Administration? Look at what has happened in the past. Great vasts amounts of wealth has left our borders to be "protected" from the likes of greedy politicians, and it would only get worse under Sanders. On the other hand, those who would forgive or at least lower the taxes on the wealth "outside" of our borders, and let them bring that wealth back in, would do much more to help American, instead of making it like Greece, which Mr. Sanders, most assuredly, would do. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

So, you really don't believe Bernie has a chance and that this has all been a left-wing conspiracy of sorts?

yep

By chance, do you remember what Will Rogers said of the Democratic Party, which certainly still applies today?

nope

As far as the Pubs are concerned, it seems that the candidates are in a battle for the bottom, changing leads faster than probably some here change their underwear. Yep, this "transparency" is killing them.

getting all the publicity
while the news forgets the democrats exist

oh no!

quick ! give bernie support so that we can get some of that news stuff

 

[columbus]

So, you really don't believe Bernie has a chance and that this has all been a left-wing conspiracy of sorts?

I don't think this is anything like a left wing conspiracy. It is a corporate centrist Democratic conspiracy.
With Sanders way out on the left, and whoever gets the Republican nomination way out on the right, Clinton is the sensible moderate grown up in the room. The kind of candidate that centrist independent voters go for, generally.
Tom

 

[metis]

Was that a response to my (previous) post?

It was to Jonathan's.

 

[metis]

yep


nope


getting all the publicity
while the news forgets the democrats exist

oh no!

quick ! give bernie support so that we can get some of that news stuff

I'm really not much into conspiracy theories.

As far as Will Rogers' statement that relates is concerned, it was this: "I don't belong to any organized party-- I'm a Democrat!".

 

[metis]

I don't think this is anything like a left wing conspiracy. It is a corporate centrist Democratic conspiracy.
With Sanders way out on the left, and whoever gets the Republican nomination way out on the right, Clinton is the sensible moderate grown up in the room. The kind of candidate that centrist independent voters go for, generally.
Tom

I hear ya, and I think it possible that the DNC may have tried to protect Clinton by scheduling fewer debates and on odd dates, but that's about as far as it goes. In the final analysis, the primary voters will decide who gets the nomination unless they have a brokered convention.

 

[columbus]

I think it possible that the DNC may have tried to protect Clinton by scheduling fewer debates and on odd dates, but that's about as far as it goes.

The DNC was protecting itself. And it's working, she is the top contender for President.
Tom

 

[metis]

The DNC was protecting itself. And it's working, she is the top contender for President.
Tom

Yes she is, but it's not because what the DNC has done. She was long considered the front runner even before the DNC established the debate schedule. Heck, even Revoltingest said maybe a couple of months ago that she was already "anointed" as the Dem nominee, or words to that effect, but look what's happened to that ordination.

Note, the DNC does not control the polls nor how we may vote in the primaries.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes she is, but it's not because what the DNC has done. She was long considered the front runner even before the DNC established the debate schedule. Heck, even Revoltingest said maybe a couple of months ago that she was already "anointed" as the Dem nominee, or words to that effect, but look what's happened to that ordination.

Note, the DNC does not control the polls nor how we may vote in the primaries.

"Anointed" was the correct word.
However, I didn't mean it to be my prediction of her nomination.
I merely opined that the DNC intended her to win it, & toward this end greased the skids.