That's the meme from here to China. On MSM, all her cohorts, Wall Street, Corporate America, Banks, Legislators all of them say the same thing which is really not true. But in hopes those who are listening with busy schedules will just believe and vote.

We could have an website link & youtube video war for the next 12 hours straight and it wouldn't change one opinion.

Most qualified! Most effective! Most electable! Nothing to the investigations! on her side and Sexist! Skeletons in his closet! on the other.

In fact, you listed several of them yourself. For example, the IWR vote. Some people think the vote was a good thing, some think it's a bad thing, still others don't have a a strong opinion on the topic.

The point you're making is that you disagree with many (most?) of the positions she's taken, and using that to say she's not the most qualified ever. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but someone else might agree with most of the things she's done, and believe she is the most qualified.

My point is that it's a subjective opinion, and the "facts," in your mind, will support whatever your view is.

"Some people think the vote was a good thing, "

Honestly? Real people? Someone out there actually thinks a war based on lies that killed thousands of soldiers and maybe a half a million civilians was a good idea? Even though its aftermath caused even greater death and destruction that the War itself?

Is that person free to walk the streets? Unsupervised?

That scares me.

Yeah, Dick Cheney maybe. Is that who you have to agree with to rationalize and justify thinking Hillary is qualified to be POTUS?



.

Probably wise given their only reason for existence is furthering/preserving White Privilege.

Accuracy matters.

It's her time!!!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

I was quoting more than a few Hillary supporters.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

What you think isn't a reliable source.

side is there are no facts to prove Sanders would be a better candidate/Prez. Unrealistic goals and promises won't get us anywhere.

What is unrealistic about his vision? The things he is pushing for are very popular, have proven to work, and in some instances (like publicly funded college) we used to have that stuff. No one is arguing that he would get it immediately or that the changes would happen overnight. What though is unrealistic about what he proposes? If you party doesn't stand for those policies, what exactly does it stand for? Nothing. The Democratic Party used to stand for most of what Sanders is pushing for, but moved to the right in recent decades and now doesn't. God forbid you all be forced to deal with that.

Can you, or any of her other supporters, name a single movement of historic importance that lacked a long term vision that couldn't be accomplished overnight? I guess the labor movement of the 19th century should have never tried, because as of 1850, child labor laws, the weekend, safe working conditions, overtime pay, the eight hour work day and the right to form unions were not things that the elites at the time were in favor of. Are you under the illusion that the long term vision the movement had wasn't a vision they organized around and didn't motivate people to take part in the fight?

Somehow Clinton is realistic because she will start negotiations from an already compromised position? Let's just assume she is a "centrist" (not sure what she is in the center of exactly, but lets assume it for the sake of argument), and she is negotiating with the right. Every negotiation ends up with a compromise somewhere in the middle of the negotiating parties. So, what would we expect the actual policies to be if they were somewhere between where she is and the right? How is that acceptable, not just ideologically, but the impact of those policies, doubly given how bad things have been in recent decades as is? This makes even less sense when her silly followers seem to think that it is their duty not to push her from the left, but to simply protect her from critiques from the right, as if giving them a monopoly on pushing her makes any logical sense what so ever.

I say all of that assuming that the Republicans would even work with her and none of her followers have ever given any actual logic as to why in the hell the Republicans would work with Hillary Clinton, of all people in the entire universe. They froth at the mouth when you say the word Clinton, but somehow they're more likely to work with her than Sanders. They just can't be honest that the only situation in which they would work with her is if she were to give away the entire store to the rich and corporate interests. Given her record and her top donors, that is decently likely anyway, but they have to pretend otherwise. If you question them, or people like yourself, you'll get a link to a speech where she says some nice buzz words (which were undoubtedly vetted and carefully crafted).

First off, the assumption is standard practice in economic models. The economists that acted so horribly in critiquing Friedman used the same damn model and assumptions. I assume you look at the assumptions of Clinton's economists with equal attention to detail? If you want to dismiss studies based on those types of assumptions, I'd suggest ignoring economics all together, especially the hacks backing your candidate. If you have time, look at the assumptions needed for something as straight forward as a straight, downward sloping demand curve. Those same clowns were wrong on their trade model (have links on what they predicted NAFTA would accomplish), and were telling everyone (literally up until months before the crash), that we were in the middle of a great moderation, and that all our economic problems had been solved. Beyond that, if we only think about policies that can be implemented based on what the GOP will now do, then what the hell is left? This is kind of the problem with you people, you offer people absolutely nothing, assume nothing will change (mainly because you have no interest in even trying), and then basically assume an inequitable and corrupt system that is leading us to ecological collapse is set in stone.

Then why should anyone want to maintain the system at all?

to lose it with the majority of voters.

Your mindset is so tone deaf and behind the times (also ignores actual polling on the issues). If you asked someone, in isolation, if they want their taxes raised, many people would say no. However, if you asked someone if they would be willing to pay higher taxes in order to secure comprehensive universal health care (no more dying young, no more bankruptcies thanks to health care, no more horribly inefficient health care system with massive amounts of waste, no more being concerned about health care if you change or lose your job or want to start a business, no more businesses having to pay directly for the health care of their workers, etc.) , and if the taxes would be far more than offset by reductions in private expenditures for the overwhelming majority of people, no logical person in the world would turn that down. This is why there is massively strong support for the public option and strong majority support for single payer. We know that single payer systems are far more efficient too, because every other damn developed country has this and there are endless studies and data to prove this. Amazing that the modern Democratic Party is making these reactionary and right wing arguments. Beyond this, some of his plans involve tax increases, but not for 99.9% of the population. I challenge you to prove that a tax on speculative financial transactions would impact all but the super rich and the blood sucking damn banks. I also challenge you to prove that high frequency trading has an ounce of social benefit.

Most voters that pay more in taxes don't see direct benefits from that. What they see is candidates like Obama, Clinton and Republicans giving their tax dollars to banks and corporations, and using it to fund wars and war profiteering. No one has offered something like Sanders is offering in a generation, and his stances on the issues are right in the middle of popular opinion. You can't deny this, sorry. Reality is reality.

Most people understand SBS would be a lame duck for his entire term, and for many of us, that is not acceptable.
And PBO is much more popular than you seem to realize, only the extreme fringe hates him and lumps him in with Republicans. LOL.

for one, I'd like to know what makes me extreme...LOL! My positions are right in the middle of popular opinion. Again, you explain the logic as to how in the hell Clinton will get them to work with her, and you explain anyway how working with them will accomplish anything. Go ahead. The truth is that they have to be fought, and the Democrats are just as corrupt as they are and have no interest in that. Even given that, even given that the Clinton is just as corrupt as the Republicans, they still won't work with her (obvious). Why? Cause she's f*cking Hillary Clinton.

"History says otherwise."

First off, we don't live in a period that can be compared to, say 1984. We might as well be two different countries. Beyond that, the present says otherwise as polls on this are clear as freaking day. I will post some evidence for you, since doing so seems to be beneath you. Again though, you explain the actual logic of a person wanting to pay more out of pocket for overpriced and inefficient health care that still won't cover them when they need it most (bankruptcies in the happen because of health care costs more than any other reason and the majority of cases occur with those that have private insurance), versus paying far less (for most people) through tax dollars for comprehensive care? You explain the actual logic. You can't, cause it makes no freaking sense. I also tried to explain to you that you could structure taxes (as Sanders does) to be more progressive to pay for these things. In some instances, the poor and middle class wouldn't pay anything more in taxes. So, instead of relying on things like regressive sales taxes, you could actually raise taxes on speculative financial transactions, upper income brackets, corporations, estates, carried interest, dividends, and capital gains (all of which have been drastically reduced since Reagan, Obama made Bush's tax cuts permanent). Even if people were opposed to paying more in taxes (they aren't, provided that they benefit more from services that they currently pay more for out of pocket), that doesn't address PROGRESSIVE TAXATION. Again, I find it shocking I have to explain this to a "Democrat".

Even beyond this, it is also possible for the government to create a currency debt free through the Treasury, which it chooses not to because of the financial interests bankrolling Clinton. If it did so, it could eliminate a good portion of federal debt. It could and has done this at times in our history, it could create money to pay for anything and wouldn't even need taxes. It could use taxes in that regard to control inflation and those taxes could be focused on the rich too.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/04/21/why-dont-americans-want-soak-rich-its-trick-question

Gallup has asked 17 times since 1992 whether upper-income people pay too much, too little or their fair share of federal taxes, and every time a majority has said they pay too little. Only twice–in 2010 and 2011–have less than 60 percent said they thought the rich were not paying enough federal taxes.

“The income gap between wealthy Americans and those who are less well off”: 51 percent called it “a major problem,” while 15 percent said it was “not a problem” (ABC News/Washington Post, 1/12-15/15)
“The economic system in this country unfairly favors powerful interests”: 62 percent agree (Pew, 2/18/15)
“Should the government do more to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor in this country?”: 55 percent say yes (CBS News, 1/9-12/15)
“The government should work to substantially reduce the income gap between the rich and the poor”: 66 percent agree (CNN/ORC, 1/31-2/2/14)
“Do you feel that the distribution of money and wealth in this country is fair, or do you feel that the money and wealth in this country should be more evenly distributed among more people?”: 62 percent called for more redistribution (CBS News, 1/17-21/14)
“How much, if anything, should the government do to reduce the gap between the rich and everyone else?”: 69 percent said “a lot” or “some”; 26 percent said “not much” or “nothing at all” (Pew, 1/15-19/14)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190775/americans-say-upper-income-pay-little-taxes.aspx?g_source=Economy&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles

Americans Still Say Upper-Income Pay Too Little in Taxes

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-majority-would-pay-higher-taxes-for-universal-health-care/

Poll: Majority Would Pay Higher Taxes For Universal Health Care

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/229959-majority-still-support-single-payer-option-poll-finds

Majority still supports single-payer option, poll finds

Some people would have to believe they could get free health care , some free education, some better jobs. The problem is few believe he can achieve ANY let alone all of that with the congress we have now. That is a lesson most have learned from the Obama years. IDK how anyone could hate Obama when he only had five non-sequential months out of eight years with a majority.

thank god King and the Civil Rights Movement didn't listen to people like you. He didn't ask what Bull Connor would allow and worked within those confines. After all, the system in the South was centuries old, how dare he have an alternative vision and fight the power structure to see that through. He had a long term vision that wasn't possible in the short term and he and the movement organized around that vision. The labor movement didn't look at what the corrupt politicians at the time would allow and work within those confines. They had a long term vision in mind and simply fought the power structure. If those movements listened to people like you, and adopted your mindset, we as a country would we worse off. Same is true with how Canada got Medicare.

What you are basically arguing for is for your party to not fundamentally change an inequitable and corrupt system, which is leading us to ecological collapse. You pretend this mindset is a virtue, which really just provides cover for corrupt politicians like the Clintons, Obama and the Republicans to do what is in the interest of their largest donors and the owners of our society, political system and media. THEY don't want the system to change, so if everyone believes in some justification that makes it okay to not push for fundamentally changing the system, good for them. I also don't hate Obama at all, I certainly like him more than Clinton, I just have an appreciate for objective reality. His largest donors were also banks, something Clinton seems to think is just fine, so it is no surprise to me that he has backed policies that have benefited the freaking banks. He got major support from giant corporate interests, so I am not surprised by his three free trade deals, his support for school privatization, his push for the TPP, his support for austerity, or him making Bush's tax cuts permanent on carried interest, dividends, capital gains and estates (all of which benefit the super rich).

It isn't a virtue, it's pathetic and it will do in the coming years what it has been doing now for decades. It will lead to people falling further behind, more inequality, more corruption, even worse infrastructure, and within a few decades, outright ecocide. People like yourself and those that run the DNC don't even attempt to pretend they propose actual alternatives anymore. Pathetic, and I hope a party does emerge on the left to challenge you for votes.

shame on you for comparing Sanders to MLK. What an embarrassment.

Saved me from having to compose a response.

Get over it already! What's done is done, you can't change it.

Don't really try to understand why people are angry and frustrated with the system, or candidates like Clinton that are largely fine with how the system is. Ignore that many people have been suffering, they see no hope in the system, and have been harmed by many of the policies your candidate has chosen. Ignore that people are angry about corruption and don't like how bought off she is. Mock people, belittle them, dismiss the victims of the system, because you are doing just fine and don't want to put any effort towards being empathetic. I find the arrogance of Clinton and her supporters to be really repugnant. I don't want Trump to win, but I want all of you to be knocked down a peg or two. Maybe if Trump is elected, and many of her bourgeois followers also fall into the working class or poor, these real things won't continue to be such abstractions.

Working people have been massively harmed by a trade model your candidate supports? Mock them, talk down to them, show you could give a damn. Brilliant.

You're saying both things in your post.

"I don't want Trump to win, but I want all of you to be knocked down a peg or two. Maybe if Trump is elected, and many of her bourgeois followers also fall into the working class or poor, these real things won't continue to be such abstractions."

Enough with the whole wanting-innocent-people-to-be-punished idea. That's been going around here for the last week or so.

First off, this situation is complex, it is. There isn't just two teams, Clinton's or Trump's. For too long people like yourself have used this logic, yes, Clinton/Obama/Clinton aren't perfect, but how horrible are the Republicans? Well, things have gotten progressively worse. De-industrialization, inequality has exploded, infrastructure is collapsing, private debt has exploded, wages haven't grown in decades, inner cities have been decimated and we are on the way to ecological collapse. All you want is for the conversation to be about Trump, you refuse to critique the other side, and look where that mindset has gotten us. You are proving that the Democratic Party is a graveyard for progressive activism, a dead end, proposes no alternatives and only wants to prove it is less bad than a horrible party with really bad ideas. We are now in a situation where the Republicans continue to get worse, which makes it easier for the Democrats to be less bad. What does the left really demand, if they just sit on their hands and do nothing, don't push Clinton or the Democrats? The left's ideas are wildly popular, and yet the left within the Democratic Party is in a pathetic position, as always. Clinton knows she has to do nothing what so ever for the left, cause she and her husband have long argued the left has nowhere to go. They're right too, they have nothing to fear because most of the left in their party doesn't force them to do anything and hasn't threatened to leave, until very recently.

"Enough with the whole wanting-innocent-people-to-be-punished idea."

I don't want anyone to get hurt. I want Clinton supporters to have some damn empathy and to actually put effort into understanding why people may not support them, might be opposed to the system on the whole, and why they don't see your party as deserving their vote. Instead of listening they want to talk down to people, make fun of them, taunt them, and don't try to see things from the perspective of the poor and working class (which makes sense, since the Clinton's policies decimated those groups and those groups already don't exist to them). It seems that the only thing that will get many of her out of touch supporters to that point is for THEM to experience what those people are experiencing. I am honestly shocked at how detached and arrogant so many Clinton supporters are. It is radicalizing people, I hope you realize that. The Democrats are going to face an existentialist crisis in the coming decade if things don't radically change. The shut up and vote for our corrupt candidate crowd is the Democrat's worst enemy, not the Republicans, and has been for a long time.

In addition, you made a whole lot of assumptions and accusations about me which are not true. You know nothing about my decision making at all and how I think and vote. Nothing.

Then there is this: "and why they don't see your party as deserving their vote." "YOUR party." Yes, it is my party, but you just basically said that it is not yours. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and let you tell us if you are a Democrat or not. ?

You are the one who made the post about Clinton supporters deserving to be punished:

"I don't want Trump to win, but I want all of you to be knocked down a peg or two. Maybe if Trump is elected, and many of her bourgeois followers also fall into the working class or poor, these real things won't continue to be such abstractions."

There are many of us out here who are not "bourgois" (your word) or "out of touch" (again your words). So, who is really doing the taunting and mocking instead of answering a simple yes or no question.

On edit: Feel free to answer and make any attempt at analyzing me that you want. You won't get a reply, as I've seen what needed to be seen here.

It isn't a freaking yes or no, black or white, issue. It isn't my fault that you can't think with any complexity and want a complex situation to be boiled down to yes or no. I don't want Trump president and won't vote for Clinton, and the situation is more complex than the simplistic "not voting for Clinton (a vote to maintain a corrupt and inequitable system she benefits from) is a vote for Trump" logic.

All the OP needed to do was a simple Google search on Hillary Clinton's accomplishments. It's easy. It's free.

I'll even help.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/seven-hillary-clintons-biggest-accomplishments/

He had a shitload of impressive positions with important sounding titles.

But if you paid attention, he never emphasized what he actually accomplished at any of these big jobs. And with good reason. Turned out he was was fired from every one of them. And anything he claimed as an "accomplishment" was undone shortly after his departure.

He was fired from that job too. But of course he wound up with an even better job somewhere else.

Sound familiar?

whose resume was as you described. He failed upward repeatedly because when he applied for new positions, people recommended him to get rid of him. He proved to be a disaster at our office and was arrogant as hell. He was ultimately fired and Lord knows where he is now. I am just glad I no longer have to work with him.

wins - 2 renaming post offices.

I know - he has a s***load of amendments. But I consider those to be the work of others with him riding the coattails.

the people and he worked hard on the va legislation.

Bernie's most important major accomplishment: NEVER selling out the American People.

How did Bernie vote on that one?

She voted for a disastrous war too, and that war did create lots of jobs for people that economic rely on and benefit from war. Didn't consider that, did you? She supported the coup in Honduras, and horrible policies in Libya, Ukraine, Syria, Haiti, and wants a more "muscular foreign policy". That will create some jobs. She supports a horrible trade model too, which has created lots of very low wage jobs, here and abroad. She and her husband have also proven to be very accomplished at holding out their hands when the rich and corporations want them to get on stage and say words. Three billion dollars in their 40 some odd years in politics. That's an accomplishment. I don't know if another family, other than the Bush family, can say that they are as successful at being corrupt.

She's progressive too ya know, even if her supporters can't prove that the country HAS progressed economically in decades and even if they can't prove her policies would help us to progress. She's progressive, and if you question them, they'll link you to a speech where she says all the right buzzwords, all the hits.

decrease in unemployment as economic progress.

okee dokee then

Explain the connection between the DOW/S & P and, say, the growth in good paying jobs. Explain the connection to that metric and inequality, de-industrialization, etc.? Do you understand the difference between the financial part of the economy (whose product is debt) and the rest of the economy? Do you understand that finance can, and often does, do well when the economy of production and consumption doesn't?

Your unemployment number is nonsense too. The official rate is not the actual rate (doesn't include people, for example, that have given up trying to find work, and that number is far higher than, say, two decades ago) and you are comparing that rate to when he took over. Yes, we are no longer losing 750,000 jobs. I consider that to be equivalent to the right wing saying that global temperatures haven't risen since the late 1990's, when there was a huge El Nino spike in global temperatures. Long term trends, guy. Wages haven't grown in decades for most (fact), inequality has exploded (under Obama too, fact), de-industrialization has spread (fact, take a look at his South Korean deal), private debt has exploded (fact), and I could go on.

I have a background in economics and know the damn data, to say there has been economic progress since Reagan is absurd. Everything has continued to worsen, everything, and it has gotten worse thanks to the policies of both parties. NAFTA, the WTO, the Telecommunication Act, the bailing out of finance in Mexico in the mid 90's, SE Asia in the late 90's, the gutting of the New Deal financial regulations, the deregulation of finance and derivatives, harsh sentencing and a push to privatize prisons, and a strong push to privatize Social Security, that all happened under Clinton, among many other things. Even his vaunted (LOL!) surpluses were a disaster in the long term and caused an increase in private debt. Read Stephanie Kelton, Sanders' chief economic adviser, or John Kenneth Galbraith on that. Then there is the austerity, the bailout of financial capital under Obama (did absolutely nothing for indebted home owners, students, and local governments), the three free trade deals (in addition to South Korea, with a now known tax haven and another county in which more union organizers are killed than the rest of the world combined). Then there's the push for the TPP and TISA, the push to privatize everything from public education to the TVA, the failure to prosecute financial capital (even with bond rigging, Libor rigging, etc.). I could go on and on. Even Biden has acknowledged this stuff recently.

The data is clear, the economy is a wreck for working people and the poor. Should be obvious though. Why do you think a democratic socialist have gained so much support and attention? Did everyone decide to read Das Capital, or are people responding to the impact of actual policies?

are directly linked to the economy.

True?

And you are claiming that not losing hundred of thousands of jobs now is not progress? Sure the jobless situation could be better - but it has certainly improved under Obama

Again, what do corporate profits have to do with the well being of working people? A corporation makes a profit when it ships jobs to Vietnam, pays people a fraction as much in wages, then imports the goods produced there to be bought on credit here (since wages haven't grown for most people, adjusted for inflation, since the Bee Gees were king). Even beyond that, a corporation makes profits the lower wages are in general, which is something David Ricardo even realized over 200 years ago, and he was a pro-capitalist, stock trading economist. A corporation makes higher profits when they don't have to pay to dump pollution in a river, and a financial corporation makes a profit when you go into debt to them. See the problem with your logic? My god, do you realize how much banks have bought their own shares and bid up their own prices?

http://michael-hudson.com/2014/10/imf-meeting-review-austerity-to-cost/

"PERIES: Michael, only thing that held up yesterday were some of the transportation stocks. Why is that? And also explained to me–you wrote to me saying 91 percent of the S&P 500 earnings are spent on stock buybacks and dividends. What does that mean?"

"HUDSON: Well, in 2008 the Federal Reserve here and the central bank in Europe lowered interest rates way down to almost nothing. It’s one-tenth of a percent in the United States. That means that banks can borrow cheaply from the Fed to make loans. What they’ve been lending for is for corporate takeovers and for stock buybacks. In the stock market in the last year, one-third of all of the stock transactions in the United States were corporate buybacks. The S&P 500 have used, I think, 54 percent of their earnings to buy back their own stock, and they’ve been using another 40 percent or so to pay dividends. Now, that has left only 9 percent of earnings of the S&P 500 available for new investment. Never before has this ratio been so low."

http://michael-hudson.com/2015/08/smoke-and-mirrors/

"PERIES: Michael, explain how buybacks are actually causing this. I don’t think ordinary people quite understand that."

"HUDSON: Well, what they cause is the runup–companies are under pressure. The managers are paid according to how well they can make astock price go up. And they think, why should we invest in long-term research and development or long-term developments when we can use the earnings we have just to buy our own stock, and that’ll push them up even without investing,without hiring, without producing more. We can make the stock go up by financial engineering. By using our earnings to buy [their own] stock. So what you have is empty earnings. You’ve had stock prices going up without corporate earnings really going up. If you buy back your stock and you retire the shares, then earnings per shares go up. But all of a sudden the whole world realizes that this is all financial engineering, doing it with mirrors, and it’s not real. There’s been no real gain in industrial profitability. There’s just been a diversion of corporate income into the financial markets instead of tangible new investment in hiring." (End of article citation)

"And you are claiming that not losing hundred of thousands of jobs now is not progress?"

No, I am claiming that it is a manipulative argument to make. It is so narrow it is nonsensical. Of course we aren't losing that many jobs, how horrible of a president would he or anyone else have to be to be losing 750,000 jobs a month, eight years after an economic crisis? There aren't than many jobs TO lose anyway.

One last time, can you make the claim that working people are doing better since Reagan, regardless as to which party is in power? In other words, can you claim that in the last 40 or so years, that working people have progressed, or regressed? Have wages grown, adjusted for inflation, for most? Nope. Have our trade deals created good paying jobs and reversed, or exacerbated, de-industrialization? Low paying, often part time, jobs with little to no benefits, and the deals have exacerbated de-industrialization. Is inequality more or less (even under Obama)? More, of course. Is infrastructure in better shape? Nope, and there is no over a trillion dollar infrastructure gap. Is private debt higher or lower? Higher, and finance's share of domestic profits are much higher too. When Reagan took over they were less than 10%, leading into the crash the number was almost 40%, it is now again approaching that. Kind of a problem when finance's product is debt and 70% of demand comes from consumers. Every dollar I pay towards debt servicing, I don't pay to buy goods and services. I could go on too.

I first responded to a post that stated there has been no improvement in the economy.

I see improvement - particularly in the past 8 Obama years.

Consumer Confidence is significantly improving.
Unemployment is on a downward trend.
The market has more than doubled in the Obama years.
Jobs added have averaged around 200k per month in the past year - a definite improvement.
Foreclosures are trending down.

Is it better than ever? of course not. Are some folks hurting? of course. But overall I see improvement.

So - enjoy your doom-n-gloom. I'm sorry but have a more positive view of the economy.

and cherry pick data to back up a viewpoint on the matter that you decided on before you analyzed the data. YOU are doing fine, and you decided to pretend that everyone else is, that became your position, and so you just look at facts that supports that (which is not much, you won't address the stuff I mentioned). It isn't a convincing argument, especially given that most people you make this argument to live in a different reality and most people in the country don't agree with you. Not a single structural economic defect has been addressed, forget solved. Think whatever you want though.

and you list a half dozen means by which profits are made - each one at the expense of workers or illegal. Not one single positive way in which profits are made - innovation, r&d, territory expansion, streamlining. Why - because your doom-n-gloom glasses see nothing but negative with regard to corporations. And you accuse me of only looking "at facts that support" my position. Too rich, but typical BB elitism.

but thanks for allowing me to "think whatever".

You need the help:

De-industrialization has spread and Clinton/Obama supports a model that has led to factor closures and job losses (jobs which paid well): Yes or no.

Wages haven't grown, adjusted for inflation, for most of the country for decades: Yes or no.

Inequality has exploded in recent decades (and under Obama): Yes or no.

Private debt has exploded in recent decades: Yes or no.

Finance's share of domestic profits are (according to the Economic Reports to the President) much higher now than when Reagan took over: Yes or no.

Infrastructure is in much worse shape during that time and there is no, at least, a one trillion dollar infrastructure gap: Yes or no.

The environment is in very bad shape has gotten much worse in that time: Yes or no.

Answer the questions and read your simplistic nonsense above about the S&P and corporate profits. I provided links too on the S&P and you aren't mature enough to admit that your claims were off.

I take what I said above back: DON'T think what you want, think in a holistic way and deal with reality honestly.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

Some treat qualifications as paragraphs.

The people making the "most qualified" claim are the former...and are utterly unaware of the "qualifications" of our previous presidents when they make that claim (Look up HW Bush's pre-presidential history sometime. Lots more checkboxes filled.).

Love the smell of red herring in the morning.

--imm

Just because many people have bought into the frame makes it no less nonsensical. People can believe just about anything. Hell, I once thought that Aliens had most likely visited earth (I was pretty young though, lol). Perhaps a better argument on that is to see how many people in America think Trump is a good choice for Repuke nominee.

So what is a better frame for who is Hillary and her record.

#1 Hillary has fought against the Republican Party for most of her life. There is not one instance I can think of where she advocated against the Democratic Party and for the Republican position. Remember that positions change in the real world when people are trying to accomplish things in Government. If you don't see that, then stop reading now, and instead read some history about how Democrats achieved things in the past. Seriously.

#2 Hillary has fought for human rights around the world. This was a core focus of her State Department efforts.

#3 Hillary is not a warmonger. You may disagree with her vote on IWR and with some of her rhetoric. But her rhetoric includes "war is a last resort". And she has the support of many respected people who believe that war is the last resort.

I could add more but those are some key points that I think are the most important ones.

and very little in the way of answers.

.....and Hillarycare was not a precursor to the ACA. Among so many other things, she simply does not fit the bill for the most qualified candidate.

so you are sick and tired of not accepting the conclusions other people make from the same set of facts.

So you are sick and tired of people disagreeing with you on what the same facts mean. Good luck in life, you sound like a lot of sick and tired are in your future.

each one. So what? Then you ad hominemly attack anyone who disagrees with your characterization, simply poisoning the well. Millions of democratic primary voters (and a majority of millions) apparently disagree with those attacks. You are certainly welcome to embrace them, we wouldn't be interested in trying to convince you to adopt a less partisan view of dealing with the events of the world as they unfold.

it would clearly show that she is a more effective legislator.

She certainly is more qualified than W was.

The fact that the Sanders supporters do not like this fact amuses me

and enjoy your amusement at our not acknowledging your misstatement.

Yes indeed she is--the most qualified and experienced candidate we've had in decades. The amusement factor is built into all the faux memes and temper tantrums. Oh, and Bernie math.

St Bernard's Brigade just keeps on digging. As if that deep hole leads anywhere.

Kerry and Gore were more qualified when they ran than Hillary is today.

Hillary is qualified, she has sufficient experience, I don't dispute that. But I definitely don't agree that she's the most qualified ever, or the most qualified in the Democratic race this year.

everyone why he is so qualified to be president. Everyone already knows Hillary Clinton is qualified.

Nothing will ever please those of you who are so irrationally blinded by hatred that you dismiss any and every positive thing that Clinton has ever done.

She is over qualified and she will be the next President.

If anything, most of us are sick and tired of the hyperbolic swift boating of a Democratic candidate that is going on right here at DU.

I have been saying the same thing to all my friends who simply want to see a woman become president before they die.

Now that Trump is the presumptive repuke nominee, they keep saying: so ya gonna vote for Trump.

Of course not... I vote neither. Time for Bernie to go independent, again. Combine disgusted anti-establishment repukes with progressive Dems and Independents and we beat the rigged system.

Trump and HRC are both AWFUL

and from her supporters, you've netted

1.) A link to her website

2.) A shitload of nothing else to recommend her.

Seems to go the same way in other areas around here, too.

The typical argument in her favor seems to be:

"Clinton is qualified because Sanders should drop out already."

last 100 years was probably the guy who had US Rep, Senator, AND Vice President on there before becoming President.

So take from that what you will.

investigations appear to be winding down. I think that's the selling point today.

We hear this ever four years from someone or another.

Leaving aside Thomas Jefferson, the top five (based on resume, like Hillary) would be:

John Quincy Adams
James Buchanan
William Howard Taft
Herbert Hoover
George H.W. Bush

There's some stellar company, huh?

Meanwhile, least-qualified presidents would include one-term congressman Abraham Lincoln, 1/4-term governor Theodore Roosevelt, political neophyte Dwight D. Eisenhower, and of course 2/3-term senator Obama.

Yeah, "most qualified in history" is definitely the way to play this...

I thought you'd never ask!
I like Hillary because she did not get involved in Honduras. Why help one coup replace another? They need to be left alone to sort it out for themselves.
I want Hillary for president because she understands we can't just scrap our current healthcare system and replace it with universal healthcare without totally destroying our economy and the lives of the very people she is trying to help.
She is correct, it is smarter to build off of the ACA.

I want Hillary for president because I like her Wall Street plan. We do need to focus on specific financial instruments and regulating them because even when Glass-Steagall was still in place in the mid 90s the banks nearly crashed the economy making the same sort of risky trades. Just ask Brooksley Borne.

I am voting for Hillary because her plan to make college "debt free," which requires families to contribute some money based on their need is a better more viable plan We have no idea how the stock market will do, we have no idea what Wall Street will do to try and skirt trade fees.
It is too drastic a move to just wipe out tuitions altogether and replace with a system that has never been tried before and I think people should have to put something in lest college become a 4 yr party resort for many high school graduates

Her voting record nearly matched Sanders when they were in the senate.

These are just a few of the many reasons I want Hillary Clinton to be the next president.

Notice none of them have anything to do with her being a woman.

Sanders votes before Hillary was in office.
Sanders voted for more wars, the 94 crime bill, thinks Daniel Ortega and the Sandanistas are really great ppl.
I could write more negative about Sanders but what's the point . Sanders supporters will willfully ignore it all and we'll see the same lame post about "how come no one can say why they support Hillary."