his campaign of lies and insinuation. I guess we'll see how many people were fooled by his Hail Mary Papal ambush by this time tomorrow. Bernie has proven how gullible certain segments of the electorate are. Fortunately you can't fool all the people all the time.

a bag of rocks. Cogent: clear, logical, and convincing. Trump supporters are none of those things. They are muddled thinkers, illogically focused on "US white Americans vs THEM non-whites of any nationality but especially foreigners" solutions to problems and utterly unconvincing.

Hillary backers are misguided and, while more cogent than Trump supporters, less so than those of us who support Bernie.

her huge negatives aren't an issue? The fact that people don't trust her either? You can't expect people to buy that. Pretending she is a victim is not a winning argument, people don't trust her for the same reason they don't trust most politicians like her (but unlike Sanders): They ARE corrupt and HAVE backed policies that have benefited their largest donors. Not only is corruption systematic, but inequality is too and there are many studies out now showing that popular opinion has next to no impact on actual government policy.

Explain how Bernie has proven how gullible certain segments of the electorate are.

Is avoiding the worst of her many scandals and sticks to policy differences rather than her shady cash to "her foundation" in exchange for weapon sales such as cluster bombs and war aircraft to Saudi Arabia to be used against largely civilians. He has stayed away from the email (multiple scandals revealed within the emails themselves) as well as the truth that She is under FBI investigation and has already hired her criminal defense attorney among many other embarrassingly corrupt things she has been doing, a negative campaign would do that and wouldn't even have to resort to the non-existent lies you write of to pull off such a "negative campaign."

He has yet to run negative and you bloody well now it.

You are using the Rovian tactic that involves projection and lying in order to use a candidates strength and paint it as the opposite of what it is! This is called in political terms "swift-boating". Please stop, it is a GOP tactic and embarrasses all Democrats when a Democrat uses such GOP tactics. She even had her campaign announce her plan to go negative by telling the reporter attached to her campaign that she was as a warning, perhaps intended to intimidate him to drop out of the race after daring to win so many States in a row. Or perhaps due to pure Hubris

months.

posting this here to get as many people to see it as possible.

After all, if she gets the nomination the reality is it will be Billary on the ballot.


FEEL THE BERN - 2016

since he is equally corrupt, his policies were largely damaging in the long term for working people and his behavior this election cycle doesn't seem to have helped his wife much. In fact, I would be willing to bet that she isn't happy with how he has acted recently. The BLM reaction was cringe worthy and undermined all the apologizing he and she have done over their racist use of language.

He and his wife were probably the two people most responsible for dragging their party to the right in decades past. Hell, he was working on a plan to privatize Social Security, formed a secret team that worked on the idea (led by Rubin), and they were well along. Then the Lewinsky affair came to light and he had to back off. The more people delve into his record, the more you see the horrible long term consequences of many of the policies he personally pushed for, doubly given some of the other stuff that didn't come about (like diverting SS funds to private accounts). In fact, it can be argued that the rise of Sanders is largely in response to the actual impact of the policies the Clintons have supported.

Hill and the Donald will cancel each other out. It's past time the two parties went the way of the Whigs.

Not only is Trump's idiocy drowning out Sanders but now the delving into the dark side of Hillary has been added as a second front to edge out the alternatives. Research the candidates, turn off the TV and do democracy a favor. If educating oneself about Hillary or possibly the redo of bad 2008 campaigning has really woken her admittedly soft support up then OK. But it would still be nice to get fair treatment from the sources the soft voters all rely on.

By soft I mean those who vote for a candidate only as the best among bad options, the known among unknowns or a whiff of nostalgia and some glamour or prestige. Included are those who would jump or quit the whole thing without too much ado as well as those who excitedly make the candidate their choice for fan based logic with not much sense or substance. Of course the sizeable hardcore true blue supporters are not soft, but maybe their facts are. Lack of truth is an almighty Achilles heel.

"Guccifer," the hacker, claims to have stuff stored in the cloud to barter his sentence with. Popularity might be the least of her worries.