In a popular vote that Sanders handily won in New Hampshire, Clinton walks away with an equal share of delegates. The Super Delegates that can vote as they please and not according to their constituency award Clinton their tying votes. Yes the Democrats have decided to run their own campaign and offer up Clinton despite the voice of the voters. The system is most assuredly a sham.
It's early in the game. The will of the people will prevail at the convention, I believe. This inequity could be very good for Sanders. It could turn popular opinion even further away from Hillary in the upcoming primaries.
Robert Reich is running a petition to stop the Superdelegate vote. Go to http://act.democracyforamerica.com/sign … 99..pr0qgU to stop this travesty.
There is going to be a lot of light on this, the Clinton campaign best not open that pandora's box or there is going to be trouble for sure... Dirty tricks are not allowed and it will substantiate the reasons that folks are pulling away from her.
Dirty tricks are not allowed??!!
What planet do YOU live on, Credence? That's what politics is all about, here on earth!
Credence is right, though. It shouldn't be. And, when people become aware of how dirty some are, they turn to other politicians whose behavior hasn't been exposed, or don't appear to exhibit those traits. The Clinton's got away with it the first go round. But, Hillary doesn't have the charisma Bill had and will never pull it off the second time.
Yeah, Wilderness, I know that I reside on Terra Firma. I am not surprised, but everyone is expecting the possiblility of a 'slight of hand' used by the Clinton campaign. There will be a riot on the convention floor if she uses these super delegates to supercede the will of the majority of those delegate from all of the 50 states. That is not going to go unnoticed and will certainly be challenged. That won't be good for either her or the party.
The best news America could ever receive.
Cruz is a rightwinged brute, nobody likes him nor trust him. You will end up with Trump and that will 'trump' all other forms of entertainment in this election year.
A right winged brute, that is a specious assertion. Provide some proof or dry up. Trump will not be nearly as entertaining as the leftist media continuing to flack for Hillary. If you want a brute, you need look no farther than Hillary's Husband and there is ample proof of that assertion.
The only thing funnier than Hillary talking about the "war on women" when her Husband is a commando in that war, is the prospect of her and her friends frog marched into the black Suburbans by the FBI. That will be delicious.
Here is some evidence, Cowboy.
This from David Brooks, nationally renown conservative columnist for the New York Times, about as fair and balanced as it gets, huh?
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/new … ngelicals/
"That won't be good for either her or the party."
Hillary has proven that she has little in regards of scruples and is more than willing to do what is necessary to assure her objectives. Many have seen a quick turnaround from the "it's my turn" focus of her campaign because of Bernie's focus on the electorate and their wants. My other half cannot stand her because of how she stuck with Bill after all the numerous affairs and the shaming of the office with Monica Lewinsky. Bill should has stepped down and slinked away into obscurity but there he is beating the campaign trail for another eight years of a dynasty. It looks like Jed is doing the same thing with his brother. Go away and stay away is how I feel about these people.
I don't trust her and I put nothing past her ambition. But is her ambition what is good for this country? We shall see.
I hear you, RH.
I don't like superdelegates because it is undemocratic and a failsafe for the party apparachiks to ultimately decide the nominee over the will of the people.
We just as well revert to the old smoke filled rooms of the past.
I don't hold any angst about her concerning her marriage and family matters, maybe Bill roamed because he wasn't 'getting enough'? I can only speculate. I can live with bedrooms scandals much more than the ones like Iran-contra and the like that cuts into abuse of authority and discretion and deceives the public as to critical matters of national defense.
Like I said before, I believe that Sanders is the new face of the party and his tsunamic rise attests to that. I think that it will prove a dynamo that can't be stopped, save some sort of fatal revelation from the Sanders camp.
It reminded me of the contest between Mondale, the party apparatchik, and Gary Hart back in 1984. But, Bernie burns so much hotter!
With Hillary, I have the status quo, as bad as it is. But, there will be no major assualts on reproductive rights for women, back turning the clock on civil rights for minorities or homosexuals. As a democrat, she would at least avoid the appearance of a blantant appeal to money changers that are dragging us all down. I still think that we can do better, but we can also do worse.
Trump and Cruz will shake up the status quo, but take us backwards. This conveyance in neither in 'drive' and not even 'neutral', but in 'reverse' and that will never do.
Destroy Roe vs Wade, allow the money changers unlimited access to the Treasury, ramp up the military aggression abroad as a smoke screen for the economic travesty they promote stateside. More of the discredited 'trickle down'. It is clear from their stated policies whose side that they are on. No, I don't want these guys under any circumstance. They are determined to make the 'system' less fair from both and economic and political standpoint. Rather than leave the wound merely untreated, they pour salt into it. While they claim that they are outsiders, they are clearly working for the 1 percent and their interests to the detriment of the rest of us.
Yes, if we end up with either Trump or Cruz, it would be just that, 'hopeless'.
I just wanted to say. You keep harping about Cruz and Trump. Bad choices, to be sure. But, Hillary is not the lesser of three evils. She is just as bad as the other choices.
That is your opinion, but I disagree. I cannot abide having the clock turned back on progressive legislation and momentum already in place. Anglos are not going to relate nor understand. Of course, I should be aware of that. From my perspective, there remains a great deal to consider. Blatant Reactionaries are not going to help anyone. With OUR economic and political struggles over the past few decades, we cannot afford to have them return to political forefront. Still I am a progressive and yet my reality is different. We cannot simply have a candidate tear the system apart and let the pieces fall where they may, without being concerned about the why and wherefore.. That is white privilege and confidence that you will come on top regardless of where the chips fall. The reality of OUR economic and political circumstances do not allow US to be as confident and WE have never had that option
Strong stuff, but that is where many of us are. But I understand the place that you and RH inhabit right now. WE just are not on the same page, thats all.
That reality forces me to line our ducks up in a different way than you or RH would.
Seriously? If you are that prejudice, to make such a statement, my opinion of you just dropped considerably.
Cmon, are you listening? This is not prejudice, it is reality. We can't afford to have open bigots and such in the oval office setting the tone for the legislature and society at large. We are going to be the first to experience the adverse affects, that has always been pretty consistent. I am being honest as to why I attack Cruz and Trump as openly bigoted. In the face of that, anybody else is an improvement. I understand and appreciate why your perspective is different. How and why could I have voted for George Wallace?
No offense meant.
Clinton relies on minority support that she hopes will override the Sanders tsunami. Because of our fear of the GOP and its reactionary agenda, it has been an uphill struggle for Sanders to take a foothold in our communities, relative to a known quantity like Hillary Clinton. However, investigation reveals Sanders record in regards to Civil Rights and our issues and concerns are impeccable. He 'gets it' and as more of us see what I already do, the Clinton campaign will be forced to deal with even more of 'the Bern'
Since you stated that Anglos won't get it I'm surprised that you are even attempting to reason with me. Being anglo, and all.
I am always looking for those that will listen. I say many Anglos don't get it, that is not necessarily negative, as there as are certain aspects to being female that I can never really appreciate or understand totally. I can only empathize.
For us the 'two clowns' are more than an inconvenience, they constitute a danger. My concern about them may appear inordinate, excessive.
I think that we communicate well enough to be frank with one another. I will always attempt to do that without being offensive.
If you see where I am coming from then you do 'get it'. But when we see so many Anglos willing to board the train of the two GOP frontrunners and those numbers increase inspite of the abrasive things they have uttered about those that are not the 'Real Americans', this gives us reason to pause. Good people would recoil in disgust, not embrace them because they are not PC
So, now you are attempting to qualify the statement of Anglos are not going to relate nor understand.
Yet, you did state that. Unfortunately this is the very problem in our country today. Broad insults toward entire groups. How is that statement different than Trump shouting out that latinos are all rapist and such?
Either way. Staying the course of partisan politics is all that Hillary has to offer. Trump and Cruz are little different. Just the other side of the same coin. You can prefer heads to tails but neither side of that coin is going to be what we the people need. Your argument that she can, somehow, keep from turning some clock back makes it clear that you have an us against them attitude. Toward your fellow Americans. We need to stop letting the parties who have caused all of our woes continue to pit us one against each other. I am not your enemy anymore than you are mine.
Ok, I correct that first statement, some are. Yes, I was in error in the heat of the moment. No YOU are not my enemy, but there are many that remain so.
The other side of that coin is krytonite and is caustic to the touch for those of us that have traditionally been on the outside.
It is always US against Them, we just have to carefully identify the combatants.
In regard to Clinton when you say I have an us against them attitude, who is the 'us' and who is the 'them'?
The them are the folks that promote voter repression rather than fully encourage and promote participation by all when casting ballots.
The them are the folks that want to make their religion, your religion
The them are the folks that want to turn women into incubators and control their reproductive choices
The them are the people that insist on blaming demographics in this society for our economic woes, diverting attention from the real sources of economic inequity.
That is just a few, but there are many more.
The GOP in its current state of affairs are the 'them' both they and their candidates are my enemy. Regardless of how the Republicans paint it, right wing populism is just fascism in disguise
We, the people, don't need the 'them' If the price of avoiding the rule and control from 'them' is continuation of partisan politics, then that is where I am.
I support Sanders because I can do better than Clinton, but for me, I can do worse than her as well.
Yours was a general statement. I didn't consider it from an angle of regarding Clinton because it didn't appear that you were coming from that angle.
That complaint can be leveled against both sides here. It isn't limited to Democratic or Republican machinery.
I don't appreciate seeing taxpayer dollars wasted turning over all of these attempts but the Supreme Court has protected my rights quite nicely, thus far. I would prefer to lean toward the courts for equity than expect it to be somehow magically awarded by a president.
As a woman, I still trust the courts to protect my rights. However, I do disagree with Hillary on this issue to some extent. We should have reasonable time limits on our ability to chose abortion. And I don't think a president can change any law without a lot more behind them than their personal ideology.
I'm probably in line with your views as to the real sources of economic inequity. But, I will say that some minorities are not averse to blaming demographics on their financial woes any more than the majority. Again, an us against them stance that does nothing to improve our collective lives.
I have been fairly conservative and a Republican all of my life. On some issues. I'm quite liberal on others. I see several in the field I could never support because I agree with you that they appear to be fascists. But, not the whole field. If you see the whole field in that light I think you are allowing emotions and prejudices to cloud your vision. Heck. I'm impressed with a social democrat. Not because I like the term (I wish he could find any other way to describe himself) but he appears to be tuned in to many of our concerns. That is all I really expect of a politician. To understand and honestly care about finding solutions. Whatever they call themselves.
As if the democratic party could not be accused of the same at every turn.
Agreed on Sanders. But she is not, nor will she ever be, our next best option.
Sadly, LivetoLearn is correct; your post is rampant with prejudice and is beneath you.
"Anglos are not going to relate...". "With OUR economic...". "we cannot afford...". "That is white privilege...". "The reality of OUR economic...". "do not allow US...". "WE have never had...". "...line our ducks up in a different..."
You have made it extremely plain that you identify with a particular sub group of Americans - those with relatively more melanin - and demonize others with less of that chemical. It is properly termed prejudice and racism and has no place in the election of the primary leader of the country as a whole. The task of whoever inherits that position is not to selectively work towards the betterment of a specific group or race; it is to improve the entire country. To eliminate just such differences as you are encouraging and building.
Such prejudice is what created a great schism in this country that is still slowly healing; a schism that you are widening with attacks on other races, just as the likes of the white supremacists and Al Sharpton do, rather than filling it in and helping to eradicate it. You (and "YOUR" people) dislike being defined by your color (even as you yourself do it), and neither does anyone else.
When such a group set up camp in my (predominately) white state there was a great sigh of relief and cheering when they were taken down...by the same white people you claim do not understand and that exercise their "white privilege" with every move. Most of the country has come to understand that people are just people - that the level of melanin does not determine good or evil - but sadly there are still those that use that to demonize and spread hatred and fear. Al Sharpton is one, the white supremacists fall into that group and, with your post, so do you. It is disappointing in the extreme.
Your input is appreciated.
Trump and Cruz are making the racial, ethnic and religious distinctions as part of their campaign rhetoric. Am I supposed to ignore that? I am among that sub-group of Americans that the GOP front runners are attacking. Does Trump or Cruz make you believe that they are going to improve life for anyone?
We know that it is not as simple as just a difference in melanin between people. I wish that it were that simple.
Why do you all see things this way? The prejudice is coming from right winged candidates, we are just observing. Trump and Cruz have no problem defining US by our color.
People being just people is nice, but it is a platitude when looking at the disparity among certain people relative to others. We need to move in a positive direction and not have the Right and its champions drag us back to the 'before time'.
I apologize again, I should avoid blanket designations and I will be careful not to become my own worse enemy in the future.
Assuming this was meant as a reply to me:
If you see prejudice or racism in any candidate (though it's hard to believe that the entire GOP party, and no one else, is exhibiting that deplorable trait) you have not only a right but almost a duty to call them on it and to do it as publicly as possible.
But you do NOT have either right or duty to respond with the same prejudice and racism. It is not only morally wrong to do so, it is foolish in the extreme as you undercut and destroy your own position and words.
I assume that you recognize that what you posted was no different than what you feel those candidates are saying; apology accepted. I hope you have not taken offense as I truly hate to see the occasional racist post here on HP. I have worked hard in my personal circle of family and friends to make it known that I will not tolerate such discussion and those promoting such activity WILL be called on it. It can be a little tough on HP as sometimes calling a spade a spade will get you banned!
Addressed to Live to Learn,
This posting thing is kind of screwy.
Yes, against relentless onslaught, the court has protected your rights for now. But with a Cruz, particularely, and his ability to appoint at least a judge or two in his first term, that will tilt the court to the Right and make likelyhood of a successful attack on Roe vs Wade all the more likely, would you take that chance?
Minorities having far more people in economic dispair proportionally are most likely more keen as to the inequity and its sources. Where is there a 'moderate' candidate among the GOP candidates? Moderation is the kiss of death for the modern GOP. Whether it is Rubio, or Jeb Bush, all offer frightening scenarios as solutions to our national problems. Those that may touch on moderation have long left the field, i.e. Christy.
None of the GOP are as you say attuned to our concerns, when compared to Sanders. The philosophy that they cling to prohibits this kind of concern.
What is it that the democratic party could not be accused of?
I would venture to say that there is nothing the party could not be accused of. I see both parties on the national level waging the same war against each of us.We, as a nation, are not as polarized as the politicians would have us believe. It is in their best interests to attempt to paint our nation in this manner. They use hot button issues to gain support, causing us to ignore the fact that the greater problems we face as a nation are swept under the carpet.
Hillary gains a great deal of support by convincing some minorities that she is their champion. She is attempting to bring in women to convince other women that it is their duty and obligation to support a woman. If we are selfish and shortsighted..if we align by race, sex or religious affiliation (or lack thereof) how does this represent progress? How does it represent the desire to have a nation that is all inclusive? You mentioned that we are at war. The only war I see is ordinary citizens being whipped up into a belief that it is somehow us against them and we must break the opposition.
The vast majority of Americans today feel powerless. They feel as if things are getting worse, not better. That our future prosperity is on shaky ground. That Washington does not hear us or care about us. Those beliefs cross every line anyone could think up to put each of us into our separate little groups. And the parties, or the candidates, study those groups to determine how to appeal to each of them; and separate them even further. This is how Hillary and Trump have gained the advantage in their party races. But, those fears are what could bind us together to find the solutions we need if we listened to each other and stopped allowing our prejudices and fears to be used against us. If we don't come together as a people these parties will eventually bury us all.
"The only war I see is ordinary citizens being whipped up into a belief that it is somehow us against them and we must break the opposition. "
I like this, for it is very much in line with my opinion as well. For a long time I gave up on Americans having any pride or solidarity...until 911 happened. At that point we came together in a big way, but it has once more fallen by the wayside as demagogues from both far right and left exhort the people into believing that they are alone, that they are repressed and that it is, always someone else's fault.
We're not particularly concerned about helping people out of poverty; only in helping blacks overcome the oppression by whites. We're not concerned about what the millions of illegals are doing to our country and economy; only in keeping them here, feeding and educating them, protecting them from the evils of obeying the law and assimilation. We're not concerned about religious freedom for all; only in promoting the religious agenda and dogma of a subset of the country onto everyone else.
We've been told so many times that we're repressed by someone else, that we are entitled to what they've earned, that we actually believe it. There is always a demon hiding in the shadows doing bad things to us, but the demon inside us that refuses to apply any effort to our individual woes is never addressed. It's always them doing the harm to us; never ourselves.
And this attitude; that we are never responsible for ourselves, that it someone else doing the damage, is grabbed, amplified and spread by a vocal handful. While we, the people, are only too happy to take it all in because it relieves us from blaming ourselves in any way. We blame a different race, we blame the rich, we blame the poor, we blame any other group we don't identify with, we blame anything and anyone but ourselves. Until we once more decide that we are one group, albeit with differing concerns, and begin to supply answers that benefit the country instead of "our" group, we will never solve this.
To Wilderness, I am attacking the GOP candidates and racist rhetoric, there are no personal attacks here. Yes, I am calling them on it. That is what this is all about. The GOP has been more abrasive toward minority groups, that is common knowledge. All you have to do is read the papers and listen to the campaigners.
Wilderness, I am not talking about you and present company. But, YES, the GOP is the most responsible for the problems that are keeping us all apart. When have the Democrats made blatant racist attacks, as have Trump, Cruz and even Jeb Bush?
How do I respond to prejudice and racism in the GOP in any other way except to identify and call it out? Also, I am not running for nomination for the President of the United States...
As is your right (to attack the candidates) - I did say that.
But I do disagree with the idea that it is primarily the GOP that fomenting racial problems in the US today. Rather, I find it to be the man in the street and the demagogues that preach that one race is entitled, somehow, to what other races are not. Both are responsible for "teaching" discrimination and thereby racial unrest and hatred and both are responsible for attacks (verbal or otherwise) on other races rather than individuals that are actually doing wrong.
The whole "Black Lives Matter" thing, for instance - IMHO those that play that song aren't interested in equal treatment. They are interested in giving special treatment to black criminals and suspects; in requiring a "bye" card be issued for misdeeds simply because of skin color. The claim, obviously, is otherwise, but actions and rants tell a different tale. While the concept did have some merit (there are police departments that treat races differently and need called on it) it was very quickly over ridden by those wishing special treatment for anyone with dark skin rather than equal treatment for all.
Geez Louise Cred, I don't know what has happened, but it must be something in the water of your new home state.
I don't remember such vehemence or negativity or alienation coming from you when you resided in Hawaii or Panama. In past responses I purposely used cute quips about the Dark Side or the abyss of bombastic rhetoric in an effort to point out the changes in your perspective. Apparently they were failed efforts.
Com'on buddy, what's up with this new Credence2?
GA, this is war and why would you handle rightwing reactionaries and their campaign rhetoric with kid gloves?
So far as it goes, it looks like the choice for 2016 will have never been more stark.
Addressed to L & L
Your first paragraph is a reasonable perspective
I would dare to say that this level of contention among us has not been
Hillary Clinton is carrying the banner of the Democratic party, who through different policy objectives and platforms from the 'other party' gets the far greater support of minority communities. I am comfortable with Sanders as representing the best in the tradition of Democratic party ideals, yet does Clinton one better. The attempt to shame women into voting for one of their own is a dirty trick. I would have preferred that Elizabeth Warren throw her hat into the ring, but since that is not happening.
If you removed the political parties would the angst among differing groups grow away?
You said that you were a conservative, well I am a bit left of center, are we going to agree as to way things should be done as to how we solve our political problems? The difference between Colorado Springs and Boulder or Kansas and California. Those differences have always there, they have become exacerbated in the last 30 years or so from mostly extreme politics. We have always had political parties but the differences between the two, and by extension all of us were smaller. The issue is not so much we all having the same agenda, but the ability to compromise between differing visions of how we are to go forward. We see obstinance, replacing governing in Washington. Shutting down the government for instance. The 'them' are the money changers/ Wall Street etc having unjustified influence in how government is running
The 'us' are the ones that wish to curb this influence, that's Sanders. There are a lot more of 'us' then there are of 'them', but 'them' have a tremendous amount of wealth and influence that goes toward compensating for their lack of numbers. How many of those that would normally ally with 'US, actually ally with 'them' and why? Washington is under the stranglehold of the plutocrats and as such has been rendered deaf. Removing their power and influence is the start toward the answer and that is not coming from the Conservatives. Could we all agree on common solutions that would satisfy all disparate parties?
Addressed to Wilderness..
We now have a Senate Majority leader telling the President of the United States that he will not allow him to replace the late Antonin Scalia during his term. To offer this precedent for political purposes shows that many of us still don't get it. Where is the pride and solidarity that we all agree to operate within the rule of law and within Constitutional restraints? 9/11s, Pearl Harbors' and JFK assassinations are rare from the standpoint of common experience. We need something more enduring and permanent to bring the disparate together. I am troubled that 1 percent of the population have 22 percent of the nations wealth. I am not convinced that this concentration of wealth is due to the fact that they have earned it. Regardless, the problem lies for me with too much influence by the well heeled in the political process and the corrupt nature of legislators in allowing big money influence to divert them from the 'people's business'. They go through the door and are determined that no one follows them. At least, that much of the 'blame game' is valid. But which group supported Citizens United and fights tooth and nail every attempt of the progressives to rein in the power of finance industry? There are lots that are upset about that and this is the reason that Sanders will have flood of supporters, who acknowledge the 'universal bad guy'.
Yes, we need something more than a rare occurrence to bring us together. And we used to have it in the term we were proud of: American. Dividing us into small groups at each others throats and blaming every other group for our ills has nearly destroyed that.
That the ultra rich have most of the wealth doesn't bother me. That they are able to use that wealth to control our government does, but that's a problem with politicians (and the people electing them), not wealth. Nor do I see that the wealthy are slamming the door on anyone else becoming wealthy. That door remains open and it is still possible to become one of the uber rich. Of course, the question becomes "Why bother"? What good is a billion dollars to anyone? If we can accumulate a few million in our lives, what need is there for more? And that is well within the reach of anyone willing to work hard, foregoing other pleasures in the chase for the almighty dollar - just as it always has been. I think it's really sad to have watched the game of finance, where people collect vast wealth simply for the sake of having it and being able to strut in front of other rich people.
As far as those that fight to rein the power of the wealthy - you might look to Clinton. Or any of the other candidates; they are all extremely wealthy by my standards and have no desire to rein in the power that their wealth has gained them. It is pretense only that such abuse is limited to the GOP, or that the average Democrat isn't more interested in maintaining their own power base than in actually running the country. For I think that for every "progressive" you can find that will attack the finance industry you have also found one (in the same person) whose power comes from something else. Oil, maybe, or energy. Or maybe in convincing large numbers of people that they have their group's best interests at heart - that their particular group is being mistreated by other groups. Or their religion...that one is common enough!
I understand your point of view but I think that having an independent view of the two warring parties is more attractive to me. The reason being that aligning with one or the other only furthers the divide and misconceptions each have of one another. The warring has brought us to this point in the process whereby one party maligns the other with their past blunders and stymies the process with rhetoric and distortions. Until we can lose the mantel of the party of our choice these debates are meaningless as the candidates camps continue to revile each other with the nonsense and innuendo we see week after week. Do we really need to go back to an argument over 911 or Benghazi to see what colossal mistakes led up to and enforced these tragedies to understand that these candidates are not good choices? Do we need to know if they misappropriated funds in order to understand that they were not being responsible? Are we to know that the candidate has the right character and scruples to execute the office when some of our finest proved their inadequacies under the same scrutiny. Or would it be better to know that the office is in the hands of someone who REPRESENTS US and not a theory or better choice by their measure of what their party rhetoric is?
This government is all our fault and until we learn to respect and compromise for the good of the body of people who live and work here, we shall see more of the same waste and corruption it has turned into.
You are terming a popular Arab saying, "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" which is a detent of the issues. Hillary has run as a candidate of the old guard. She is in essence saying you know me and what I stand for so I am the best choice. Bernie is the total opposite by saying you know the past and the present so lets move forward. We cannot afford the old guard in charge anymore. They have robbed us and our children of their future. The money that pours into hers and others campaigns to leave the status quo in power is killing us. More war and taxes to make up for the pork that their contributors want is a disaster if left unchecked. If not Bernie I want Trump to get in there and tear it up. At least he has proven he doesn't care about the two faced rhetoric of these career politicians and will call them all out if needed. Hillary will just make another bad deal for America to save herself.
Thanks for your reply, RH, see my response to L & L.
Shaking the system up is most desirable, but having the charge to do to that left in the hands of those that promote bigotry, double down on economic disparity and inequity, saber rattling abroad and the general continued destruction of the middle class in favor of the one percent, is anything but progress. It is regress. So, my point is that ideology matters. That, in my opinion, is worse than the status quo.
One thing you should remember is that the Democratic Party put those super delegates in place for just such a contingency. In order to pick the nominee the party believed could win and stood in line with their agenda. They were preparing for a scenario just like this one. Which makes me wonder if the Democratic Party even cares about the will of the people or they simply care about their agenda.
Not very democratic, if you ask me.
by Susie Lehto 3 years ago
Strong language by the people working to rig the election. They pay people with mental illnesses to protest and anything goes at Trump rallies. "Hillary knows what's going on" ... "We're starting anarchy here." ... "If your there (at a Trump rally) and...
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
There were two distinct debating styles on display last night on Sept 26, 2016.How do you describe what in on?
by Credence2 4 years ago
I would have liked to have more of a reason to support the Democratic ticket beyond the fact that I strongly dislike and distrust Trump and Pense. Clinton with her recent VP pick hasn't given me one.While Caine is more of a centrist and safe choice, the fact is that there are so many of us...
by Hxprof 4 years ago
What is the likelihood of the Democratic Party imploding if Hillary Clinton is nominated?With Bernie Sanders clearly gaining popularity among party voters, would the nomination of Clinton split the party?
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
What do you feel about the revelations from Wikileaks concerning Hillary Clinton and the media?These documents are quite revealing. It appears CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS and others are nothing more than operatives for the Democrat party. The New York Times asked her permission to print quotes....
by Alexander A. Villarasa 8 years ago
Nowhere is the fact or truth of this assertion more evident than in the just concluded Democratic National Convention, when the convention chairman LA Mayor Villaraigosa decided to put to a general vote on the convention floor to re-instate the word God and Jerusalem( as the capital of Israel),...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|