I find the Hillary/Nixon comparison intriguing. It seems that they want to be president for themselves and will shoot people on the foot to make it happen. I think Nixon did a better job of acting like he ran for the people, while Clinton is extremely transparent.
I disagree, even if Sanders loses, a lot has changed. He is basically the first grassroots social media presidential candidate. He was practically completely publically financed and it is almost all due to social media. Our votes win or lose are a voice heard and shines a light on the crooked delegates primaries and caucuses.
Maybe not this election, but in the next two, we can get the power back by doing our research and doing our due diligence on voting on House and Senate.
Yes several times, Angie. And more.
Any such vote, even a write-in for Bernie, is a vote for Trump. The person who does this can far more constructively join with people to block what President Clinton might do.
Bernie has several times said that is he's not nominated he will do everything he can to make sure Trump loses.
Bernie knows that if he is elected president, a largely corrupt Congress will block his more progressive endeavors. How many of us know this?
Bernie knows that if he isn't elected, he can perform a legacy-making public service by leading his supporters (and millions more people too) in efforts to take the bribery out of election campaigns.
The Greens have not done that. Their candidates for president have failed to build their party by having candidates in state and local elections.
As usual, Tom, you provide the reasons I can change my position in good conscience. OK. I've got work to do! Thanks, dear friend. And thanks to Angie, as well. I like reasons that stand up to scrutiny.
And you did it, not by name calling, or screeching , you did it the civil way. Just as we on Atheist Nexus learn to do.
Angie, I now agree. I was wrong and very pleased to be shown how and why I was wrong. Thank you.
Yes, Angie, but not insane.
An attempt to criminalize Hillary's use of a private server would violate the Constitution's ban on ex post facto (after the offense) laws.
Tragically however, America's foreign policy since the 1953 overthrow of an elected government in Iran has violated more than the Constitution. It has violated international law too. In my opinion, the very best a President Sanders can do would result in America's accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC, the International Criminal Court.
That's a tall order. America would have to stop building an overseas empire and start cooperating with other nations to improve the lives of the world's people.
Right on Angie
Mr. Pianko states, with confidence, his expert opinion:
"Hillary C. did a bad job as secretary of state."
Well, No, she did a good job as Secretary of State.
Now, where do you go from here?
"A Hillary presidency would be a disaster."
No it wouldn't.
I expect you to back-up your empty, uninformed opinions, and if you can't, STFU.
Muslims hate atheist, christians, Jews, and all the minorities the liberals claim to care so much about. Do you want millions of them to come to this country???
Michael, they are here already, 3.3 million of them last year:
It's still jarring to me to see women walking around town in hijab, maybe because I was taught by nuns. But they are here, and they are Americans, and they have a right to be here and do what they want. One of my best customers is a Muslim global businessman, originally from Pakistan. Not a terrorist. Employs about a hundred other Americans of all faiths and sexes. Not a bad guy or a stereotype.
Please try to have a little perspective, ok?