big difference

bigger difference, and we're experiencing it firsthand in the Dem primary.

.

He's enough of a realist to know that a Sanders Administration would have to include some of the usual suspects. I'd be happy enough to see fewer corporate cronies setting and advising on policy.

That just troubles me...

If Sanders can somehow win the nomination, I think we'll see his Administration remain pure more or less in proportion to the strength of his victory.

He might not get everyone he wants but he'll make damn sure the people know he's fighting for their interests and trying to appoint people who will protect them.

...but he would say what no other president has dared do more than hint at.

to the American people on a regular basis...

There is a reason Sanders has fewer Senate endorsements than Ted Cruz. You can't change society by telling everyone to behave better. Without specifics, Sanders, if he were elected, would get less accomplished than Clinton will, imo.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

they want.

Sanders will fight for the American people and make wise appointments of people who will protect the people from corporate malfeasance.

Let the GOP try and stop him. The GOP is corrupt and by fighting Sanders they will show that are against changing the system.

The people are done letting the politicians sell them out...

And you have no idea what type of people Clinton will support, never mind that you probably have no definition of what a 'Wall Street type' is. Is it someone who's rich? Someone who understands business? Like it or not, we do need savvy business types in the mix. Sanders would have them, as well.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

no one goes to jail. That's the kind of cesspool Hillary will get people from. The banks that have already paid her millions will get their people appointed to key positions.

It has nothing to do with being rich or from a corporation. It has everything to do with coming from a corrupt corporation that wants something from the government.


You can't honestly tell me that Eric Holder did a good job of prosecuting bank crime can you?

He wouldn't even have a cabinet - the GOP Congress would refuse to confirm anyone.

the American people exactly where they stand....

the American people still vote for them.

Government shutdown, anyone?

... times

The banks that paid millions will do well in finding key people they approve of in a Hillary administration...

on that?

Who are these progressive choices you think would be good fit and likely for Hillary to appoint?

i don't want any thing to do with progressive.

Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert

Mail Message
On Mon Apr 25, 2016, 11:07 AM you sent an alert on the following post:

Don't feed the trolls. n/t
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1829229

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

No comments added by alerter

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Apr 25, 2016, 11:15 AM, and voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: First Amendment strikes again
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I am tired of seeing the label "Troll" applied to anyone a poster does not like and wishes to silence.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oy!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: REALLY?!?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Calling a long term DU'er a troll. Insulting.

Thank you.

Where's Hillary?

... to anyone who isn't enamored by them but they continually speak as they are.

I have no confidence Sanders cares about getting any of what you posted getting down since his "We'll see" in regards to supporting most of the down ballot dems (not just 3 of them and some offshoots).

Sanders is NOT the standard bearer for progressivsm

that was signed by president Bill Clinton. The audacity of Hillary to even bring up such a claim is sheer lunacy. The CFMA author is her top guy on economics!

... duty and allowed the over leveraging experienced during the 08 crash.

Sanders gun views gets him a passing D- by the NRA which is still horrible

He's not the standard for progressiveness so his cabinet would be full of people who think they are

that omnibus spending bill as it was a priority to keep the government functioning.

Blaming Sanders for voting to the omnibus spending bill as a way of claiming he was responsible for the CFMA is just lunacy.

The Clinton president attached it to the spending bill and signed the spending bill. It was his appointee Gensler that wrote it. Gensler is now Clinton's top economic adviser.


The Clinton's are much more responsible for the CFMA and the damage it caused...

... so whatever is given as an excuse for him he should've voted against something that affected so many people so bad.

He should've voted against it with the CFMA stuck in it as principle ... PERIOD... horrible vote

pay our bills and NOT default which would have caused billions in massive extra costs.

Bill and the GOP attached the CFMA crap to the omnibus spending bill.

Gensler who wrote the damn thing is Hillary's top economic adviser!

You're promulgating the notion that Bernie Sander's ideological purity will be the litmus test to staff this imaginary cabinet. So you want him surrounded by sycophants and yes-men, even at the risk of precluding what might be some of the best qualified people? Chapter and verse, that reads like a page ripped out of the Republican playbook.

Bernie would put an end to the pay to play politics that have allowed corporations to commit crimes while the companies still make profits and no one goes to jail.

claiming a purity test is ignoring the corruption.

Bernie will push for strong enforcement on corporate crime. This is something you should want from Hillary.

Do you already plan to have Hillary try to appoint persons weak on corporate crime to her cabinet and already claim its because she has no choice?

Sad....

of enacting sweeping legislative change in today's Congress. You know the game that Republicans have been playing fore the past 8 years. What are the odds that the GOP will change their stripes just because either one of those Democratic candidates replaces Obama?

You understand that they hate us, yeah? They loathe and despise all Democrats from the deepest, darkest depths of their withered souls. Republicans will gleefully see us all, every goddamn progressive, liberal, woman, and socialist, disappear, dead and buried, before they'd ever again vote for any bill that the Democrats wanted to enact.

I can applaud your magnificent dream, even knowing that reality makes it impossible.

The GOP can be voted out if people are sick of their obstruction. It may take a few years but I don't want to see lame ass policy and lame ass regulation. It's time to force their hand and demand results. The people want it. The corporations want the game to remain the same.

If you are promoting good smart policy & appointments and the people get behind you the GOP will be forced to play along and give in.

It's time the Dems did the demanding the GOP did the giving in. We don't need to be the party that caves in when the issues are on our side.

Will it work in every case? No. But there is no victory where there is no effort...

The numbers will keep the Republican in the House until after the next census count. You can't achieve any victory unless the demographics shift in favor of Democrats at the state level. Since Sanders isn't real keen on financially supporting all these down ballot Dems, that job will fall to the DNC whose leaders may not be all that inclined to back the candidates you want.

You'll need a more comprehensive plan to deal with political change on a national level, and I just don't see any evidence of that from Bernie Sanders.

will get some of that money. So far there have been no reports of that money reaching them except for $2 million which the states then turned around and fed straight back to the DNC.

In the meantime Bernie has helped candidates with direct appeals for them and some that yielded very big results:

http://mynews4.com/news/local/lucy-flores-reports-windfall-after-help-from-bernie-sanders

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/206462-tim-canova-says-campaign-nearing-100k-first-week-april

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/04/13/bernie-sanders-endorses-three-women-house-candidates/

And again. Bernie's issues and appointments would be popular with the people. The GOP isn't afraid to damage itself even amongst their own base. Let them. There should be no backing down from a GOP congress that demands more corruption.

So you switched from discussing Sander's ideas to taking shots at Clinton. Enjoy your ideological purity while it lasts, it's a lesson yet to be learned.

There is no purity test in fighting known corruption. It's common sense.

I posted facts to counter your claim. You cast weak insults in return.

because after the 2008 election when we saw what cabinet President Obama had, we knew we were screwn.

in their efforts to stop him.

Hillary will just go with the flow....

Something tells me that they aren't exactly cabinet material.

alluded to would his choice to be in his cabinet.

Care to make a guess at who Hillary would choose? I mean really. She must have some people in mind....

I have imagine that Elizabeth Warren would be up for a position if she wanted it, as well as other Senators and Governors.

But why are you asking who Clinton would pick? I thought Sanders was already guaranteed the Presidency?

taking away a strong member of the Senate to do so.

Hillary has a strong chance of being the nominee. No one is denying it. She hasn't won yet but if she expects independents and others to vote for her in the general she's going to have to show her progressive credentials.

After all the MILLIONS she took from corrupt Wall Street banks and other corporations people who aren't die hard Hillary supporters aren't going to just take her word she won't be influenced by all that money. She'll need to prove it.

That's about as straight up as one can get about the situation. Hopefully Hillary and her Democratic cohorts that are supporting her understand how important this is.

Trust is big factor. Hillary chose to take tons of money from Wall Street and the corporate lobby. She gave speeches to 60 corporations and groups that actively lobby the government. That was her choice. Now it's up to her to prove all that cash isn't going to influence her presidency when it has been seen throughout history that it has with the majority of politicians.

I''m still rooting for Bernie to pull it out but the odds aren't good at all and I've never claimed they were. But if Hillary is nominated just telling me to fear Trump and lump it isn't going to set well....

his lieutenants. It seems almost everyone who is "qualified" is corrupted or has bought into the corrupt system we currently have.

I think is one is willing to look outside the realm of corporate America there are still lot's of quality choices.

We may not be familiar with them and Wall Street will throw a fit as will the GOP but who cares what they want. They've gotten away with far too much already. It's time to roll back the current wave of soft corruption and clean up our act as a nation...

His programs will be implemented by the people he hires. Regulators will once more do their jobs rather than take money or be intimidated by corporations. That's huge.