[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Sorry, I don't see it.

"every time a candidate runs on a Progressive platform, a real progressive platform, we spit in his/her face."

You can find her platform here: hillaryclinton.com

Resulted in numerous days of bombing and was used over and over again by Bush as justification for the war. I don't give Sanders or Clinton a pass on their fucked up positions there. I do give Sanders credit for opposing the IWR. Good move on his part. Too little too late after he had already helped to support the ground work.

I have a memory that actually works. I didn't wake up the day of the IWR. The groundwork was being laid a long time before that and thoughtful people know that. Sanders helped lay the ground work. That is simply a fact.

Fuck Bush.

"Hold your friends close, hold your enemies tight!"

It's OK if you don't get it.

You've been played. They've got you sputtering "the republicans must be stopped at any cost!" out one side of your mouth, and defending and mischaracterizing the Clinton's close and affectionate relationship with the Bush family out the other.

You're making great process with your self diagnosis! I am so proud of you.

rock

Not even close.

When expectations don't align with reality -- that's what that is!

but that doesn't mean they would have thought we were ready, or likely, to actually implement any of it.

And if you asked someone a few years ago about the minimum wage, they would have been thrilled to raise it to $10.10. That was the level Congress was trying for, eagerly supported by one Bernie Sanders. They would have thought at the time that $15 was great, but utterly unrealistic.

They seem to think not voting for Sanders is spitting in his face.

Because of their unprecedented desire to accept even the smallest bit of compromise, we need to find the best leader for our party who can accomplish the most in this restricted system. Big ideas are great, and I think the majority of us wish we could see more extensive programs to help benefit the most vulnerable in our society. Both of our Democratic canditates have similar long term goals, the job for voters is not to dream, but to determine who has the most workable plan that takes current congressional limitations into account.

It's the Republicans fault.

Anything is acceptable on that basis. Bizarre!

Look into your heart, and I have no doubt that it's a good place, since you want so many positive social changes…but, how can Sanders possibly make any of his ideas happen given an obstructionist congress? Wishing your hardest to make something happen, and having it actually happen are two different things.

I agree with Sanders that this will take a revolution. But I think we've seen in the past several months, that the majority of Americans do not think this is the time for the revolution. I believe the timing of his campaign was really the problem. A progressive revolution needs to follow a Republican president who has taken our country in the wrong direction, thus angering all of those who believe in liberal values. We saw something similar in 2008, but with the economy so weak, people were reluctant to totally get behind a Democrat since the repubs are so good at pushing their self-described superiority in economic issues.

The reason we have Bernie leading a movement now is because so-called Democratic leaders have been fiddling while Rome burns. The last thing this country needs right now is more of the same, and that's exactly what we'll get from the Triangulating One. Democrats have taken our country in the wrong direction as well -- no ifs, ands or buts about it and anyone who disagrees with that isn't really a democrat at heart.

Our system was founded in a way that necessitates slow progress. The very definition of democracy requires give and take, and every little change is discussed and fought over. There have been times in our country where the two parties have worked well with each other, and times when they certainly have not.

The bottom line is that progress is supposed to happen slowly, by design. I prefer a candidate who has shown ability to get things done in such a system, and who has clear plans to move towards goals with which I agree.

I think what you are seeking is a total overhaul of democracy and our capitalistic system.

"Idiocracy" was prescient.

Oh yeah, almost forgot ... "progress is supposed to happen slowly" or something to that effect. GROAN, BANG HEAD AGAINST WALL, etc.

Oh yeah, one more. You "prefer a candidate who gets things done in such a system" or something like that again ... a friggin system that you think is supposed to move slowly!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you nuts??????????????

is not designed for rapid change.
The system requires consensus and compromise. When one side refuses to compromise, we end up stuck, and that can last a long time.

...once every other option has been exhausted.

More seriously, it takes warm bodies to fight the influence of money, the source of most of our ills. Once enough of us have had enough, we'll make change happen.

By that time, it may just be a question of who gets to nap under the solar panels in the unfashionable end of the dome.

the time Miami and NY are underwater we will finally be willing to admit that climate change is real.

The US has never done anything particularly quickly; as designed, I think, by the founders

who claim to know what the "founders intended". Is this DU?

I said "I think" as I'm not an expert, I'd be interested to know what your perspective is on this idea...

free college, peace, equal pay for equal work, banning fracking, and reversing climate change are all terrible things?

...on the middle class, and also skipping the part where anyone elected you to decide what is or is not best for everyone. Remember democracy? Probably not, because otherwise you wouldn't be pretending that the supposed virtue of your ideas automatically means you or someone you support should be put in charge regardless of the will of most Americans.

How about you learn to operate within a democracy before deciding how everyone else should live their lives? Or maybe admit that you're an authoritarian fraud who wants to use the government to impose their will on everyone else, regardless how anyone else might thing, because that's really what's happening. And that's not very "progressive."

We're the logical ones. When executed correctly, those ideas wouldn't cost the middle class money. The point of these plans is to SAVE the middle class money.

Only right of center individuals worry about 'excessive taxes' and 'free stuff'.

Because we sure don't have one here? What percent of Americans favor stricter gun controls, higher taxes on the wealthy, etc.,? And what have we got?

It sure in hell ain't democracy.

Time to burn it all down and start over. Bernie or Bust -- and bust we must!

where the people democratically decided that supply side capitalism was our agreed upon national economic model.

Anyone else miss that bit of history class too?

Pathetic.

corporations and/or billionaires).

Find a way to separate the wheat from the chaff and its possible! And leave the chaff to be in their own country.

If Hillary is President I think we continue this path we are on - with a middle-of-the-road incremental inching towards progress. I think we stand a better chance of a decent Supreme Court justice - but I don't think it will be a progressive - just as Obama wasn't naming one - because with the Republicans in control - no real progressive will get on the Supreme Court. But at least we won't have another Clarence Thomas. Women's rights will be protected at the federal level - but all the damage is being done anyway at the local level and I don't think Hillary is going to be able to do anything about that.

Other than that . . . I expect we will continue to see decent jobs disappearing and being replaced with low paying service jobs. We will talk about fixing the ACA - but what ultimately could be done? Does anyone really think Hillary is going to take on pharmaceutical industry and fight to allow negotiation of pricing? Obama wouldn't and neither will Hillary. SS will be "protected" by way of chained CPI - but she won't lift the cap so this argument of SS being unfunded will continue. I expect with the Republicans in charge of the House we will get more threats of shut downs - and Medicare "compromise" might be on the table for a President Clinton - with an increase in age - or means testing it so that it ultimately becomes a "safety net" program rather than a real program for all citizens. Once that happens - it's much easier for Republicans to get rid of it.

We'll have lots of "strong" talk about ISIS, Iran, etc. Got to show our foreign policy experience after all - and damn if anyone will accuse President Clinton of being soft. Whether we find another war we can live with - not sure - but I do know that many of the Clinton's good friends and donors to the Clinton Foundation received contracts when she was SoS - so I think we'll have to find mini-wars to keep those dollars flowing to them.

The rich will keep getting richer and the poor will see their wages continue to flat-line. We'll plod on as usual and the people in Congress that leave will have lucrative lobbying jobs to fall back on. Life will go on . . . and the establishment Democratic Party will toss something out to the masses every now and again to make us think they really care.

Will it be better than a Republican President? Yes if we keep measuring in inches. But I don't see people reengaging when this primary was such a good example of how establishment politicians and corporate media can lead people to drink the water - tainted or not.

However, I do think progressives have got to fight - and fight at local and state levels as well as Republicans have done. It's where we need to make changes. We need progressives in local politics. We need them in State Congress and we need them to be elected, whenever we can fight the establishment, in the House and Senate. We need more Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren's and Keith Ellisons to fight for us against a Republican-lite agenda.

I pray for a young exciting and smart progressive to continue Bernie's fight - and if in 4 years of a Clinton administration, we are still in this downward spiral of rising poverty, infant mortality, decreasing wages and lack of healthcare - I pray there is someone to (dare I say it . . .Primary) the President and start this fight all over again!

The corrupt now own this nation's government and the only thing that will get their foot off our neck, is a good old fashioned violent revolution, complete with guillotines.

Not something I want to see. So, get used to being ripped off by the .01%ers, with the assistance of the the Federal Government. That is until the affects of Global Climate truly kick end and basically turn Mother Earth into an inhospitable hellhole, where most won't survive.

Hey, but Wall Street will have more fucking profits that they know what to do with, and so will the warpigs.

What arrogant assholery to think that only your own candidate represents the greater good.

Do these Sandersites even hear themselves? Good Lord.

I can't agree that Obama dug us out of recession. Because

1. All but the 1% are still in recession (i.e., while Wall St. execs have continued to profit like crazy from the kinds of non-productive speculation that should be illegal but isn't bec. they own D.C., those of us who had any retirement savings have been looted, we've pretty much all remained grossly underemployed, and inflation re- the actual basics of life – housing, food, medical care, let alone edu. – have continued to skyrocket (because they have us where they like us: over a barrel);
2. All Obama did was keep in place the existing pro-Wall St. policies;
3. Which have been a continuing shell game, just waiting to explode even more sh*t on us.

Systemic change won't come about as the result of an election or an administration. The US is extremely individualistic and oriented toward the Cult of Personality, which results in people putting far too much hope or blame in/on individual actors.