Op-Ed "10 Reasons I'm Only Voting for Bernie Sanders and Will Not Support Hillary Clinton"

[Kulindahr]

I will vote for any Democrat that wins...period.

Three words: Supreme Court Justice.

That is reason enough to support any of them for me....

I like Hillary Clinton anyway...I like all of the Democratic Candidates to one degree or another. I think she is the most qualified candidate from either side of the aisle. All of the self described rebels WILL have to play the game they pretend they can ignore. Hillary already understands the game..and plays it well. I appreciate that.

Any candidate that isn't trusted by 57% of the country isn't qualified, period.

 

[Kulindahr]

To me Hillary is a Republican running as a Democrat. She will say anything to be elected. I distrust her to pick a good Supreme Court Justice just as much as those running as a Republican. She is all about power and money.

If she gets elected, and if she's smart, she'll find a SCOTUS nominee like the federal judge who got shot when Gabby Giffords was attacked: supportive of the individual rights in every single one of the Bill of Rights. A nominee who is for gay marriage, for making corporations non-persons politically, etc. etc., but who would uphold Heller and McDonald, would breeze through confirmation even in a Republican Senate.

 

[evanrick]

Republicans dont care about the bill of rights unless it's for their right to steal, murder, or torture.

 

[eastofeden]

Any candidate that isn't trusted by 57% of the country isn't qualified, period.

57%?..that's it?

After the recent fake Benghazi Scandal...and the fake bullshit the right wing propaganda machine has been churning out since she first arrived in DC and rolled up her sleeves to implement health care for ALL Americans as First Lady.....57% is damn good.

I don't think Rove and the Koch Boys have hated anyone as much as Hillary...and spent so much time, effort and money trying to discredit her.... 1992-2015...and she is still standing....

 

[xbuzzerx]

Any candidate that isn't trusted by 57% of the country isn't qualified, period.

I don't think how much someone has been the target of years of propaganda by political opponents has any direct bearing on their actual qualification level to be President.

 

[eastofeden]

I just had a thought...I can actually vote for any of the Dem Candidates without having to plug my nose next year. I had to plug my nose to vote for Obama in 2008...I didn't have to plug my nose voting for him in 2012 though...

I can see each of their strengths and weaknesses (my own interpretation of each of course)....and I am cool with all of them.....

 

[Kulindahr]

Republicans dont care about the bill of rights unless it's for their right to steal, murder, or torture.

And Democrats only care about it so far as they can twist it to mean what they want.

So we're screwed either way.

 

[frankfrank]

As I've said before, though: a DEMOCRAT isn't going to nominate somebody like Scott Lively or Rick Santorum to the Supreme Court.

A Republican litmus test would most CERTAINLY require extreme, genocidal hatred of all people who are "like us" on this website, i.e. all of those who share our most common trait.

 

[xbuzzerx]

And Democrats only care about it so far as they can twist it to mean what they want.

So we're screwed either way.

As you (should) know very well, much of our legal framework may as well be our "democracy Bible." Much of it is vague and open to interpretation. "Cruel and unusual?" What does that mean? It's going to vary by individual you ask.

It's completely dishonest to pretend there is one clear cut interpretation of everything in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and that you can declare who is interpreting it incorrectly or not. If that were even remotely close to reality there'd be little reason for the judiciary at all.

Then, there are the people who can't even seem to keep straight what was in the Constitution vs. what was in the Bible...

 

[BenDan]

Hillary hasn't actually accomplished anything - Senator of a state she had no connection with - appointed SOS as a favor/place to keep her close by her political enemy. She's a pro Wall St. Democrat who has been on the wrong side or no side of most major progressive issues that pertain to the lives of those who have less/no money or are minorities (gays/blacks) who needed her or her husband to take a real stand.

Hillary has the media in her pocket yet her people will suggest the opposite.

Here's one of many such pieces that tries to shit on Bernie as being "less so" on gay rights.

Which is akin to Republicans suggesting Hillary is a relative hawk (to them)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/u...ie-sanders-wasnt-always-in-vanguard.html?_r=0

that said, is Ted Cruz (polling better) or Trump or even Rubio a better play ?

LOL no way

so pull the lever with your hand over your nose if it comes to that

 

[Kulindahr]

Here's one big reason to choose Bernie over Hillary:

Bernie is flat out against the TPP and any other agreements that will elevate corporations above the will of the people. Hillary remains a corporate tool.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Hillary hasn't actually accomplished anything - Senator of a state she had no connection with - appointed SOS as a favor/place to keep her close by her political enemy. She's a pro Wall St. Democrat who has been on the wrong side or no side of most major progressive issues that pertain to the lives of those who have less/no money or are minorities (gays/blacks) who needed her or her husband to take a real stand.

It's more than a little bit dishonest to postulate an argument that she's a bad Democrat based off saying she agrees with you about too many things.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Here's one big reason to choose Bernie over Hillary:

Bernie is flat out against the TPP and any other agreements that will elevate corporations above the will of the people. Hillary remains a corporate tool.

Bernie's getting my vote.

But if he doesn't get the nomination, my support of Bernie is not a reason to vote against someone who is still orders of magnitude superior to the alternatives.

 

[Kulindahr]

Hillary hasn't actually accomplished anything - Senator of a state she had no connection with - appointed SOS as a favor/place to keep her close by her political enemy. She's a pro Wall St. Democrat who has been on the wrong side or no side of most major progressive issues that pertain to the lives of those who have less/no money or are minorities (gays/blacks) who needed her or her husband to take a real stand.

Hillary has the media in her pocket yet her people will suggest the opposite.

Here's one of many such pieces that tries to shit on Bernie as being "less so" on gay rights.

Which is akin to Republicans suggesting Hillary is a relative hawk (to them)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/u...ie-sanders-wasnt-always-in-vanguard.html?_r=0

that said, is Ted Cruz (polling better) or Trump or even Rubio a better play ?

LOL no way

so pull the lever with your hand over your nose if it comes to that

The latest I've seen shows Trump with a chance of beating Hillary -- but against Bernie, he wouldn't even be close.

But we're in a condition like the end of the Roman Republic: folks who actually fight for the people are going to get skewered; only those selected by the special interests have a chance. So Hillary will probably get elected, corporations will gain even more power, the police state will get stronger, and many who believe in liberty will close their eyes at the evil and praise her regardless, as has been done with Obama.

 

[frankfrank]

"Cruel and unusual?" What does that mean?

I'm still waiting for SCOTUS justices, someday, to interpret some heinous type of punishment (perhaps something such as Joe Arpaio's tent city which fries inmates in the desert...or prison assembly lines resulting in extreme slavery and overwork, fights-to-the-death gambled upon by the guards, etc.) as CONSTITUTIONALLY ACCEPTABLE, because it is used enough that it is no longer "UNUSUAL."


It may be extremely cruel, but if it's used routinely in some jurisdictions or prisons, then the punishment is no longer "CRUEL AND UNUSUAL" is it?

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm still waiting for SCOTUS justices, someday, to interpret some heinous type of punishment (perhaps something such as Joe Arpaio's tent city which fries inmates in the desert...or prison assembly lines resulting in extreme slavery and overwork, fights-to-the-death gambled upon by the guards, etc.) as CONSTITUTIONALLY ACCEPTABLE, because it is used enough that it is no longer "UNUSUAL."


It may be extremely cruel, but if it's used routinely in some jurisdictions or prisons, then the punishment is no longer "CRUEL AND UNUSUAL" is it?

The courts have tended to take those terms together, focusing more on the "cruel" aspect.

I'm waiting for society to realize, as was expressed in at least one Star Trek episode, that long-term incarceration is cruel. It's also "unusual" in that to a great extent it isn't so much punishment as a chance to enroll in "Crime U", making people more dangerous on release than they were when they went in -- something bad for the victim/prisoner as well as for the rest of society.

 

[cocksucker4use]

^ and ^^

ABSOLUTELY the same for me! "IT'S THE SUPREME COURT, STUPID!!" Get a Republican president in...and I would give more than 50/50 odds that GAY MARRIAGE (one of the VERY FEW, or perhaps only, rights that we have that are FEDERALLY recognized) will get to the Supreme Court, and the federal mandate will get struck down. Gay marriage would become absolutely illegal, again, in ALL of the South, and a number of other places that are conservative (such as Idaho), or where legislatures are Gerrymandered extremely to Republicans and are also plagued with a sitting Republican Governor.** There won't be a DOMA-style law passed again, but as determination of same-sex marriage is returned to the states, we KNOW what it means. (**Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc.)

I am not a one-issue guy at all. I also see the complete failure (or no hopes of ever enacting or reinstating) of voting rights, civil rights, ACA/Obamacare, banking regulations, sensible trade policies, combating climate change, any kind of legal abortion (even for a 9-year-old girl raped and beaten by her dad), etc.

Even at gunpoint nobody can keep me away from the voting booth in 2016, where I **WILL** vote for the Democrat...because I can accept Hillary Clinton (sort of "holding my nose" all the way) or Bernie Sanders (doing cartwheels, cheering, and giving high-fives all the way).

As I told anyone who would listen in 2000, Bush was a fuck-up, but the collateral damage his presidency would cause would be much, much worse. Hence, the Roberts Court. The next time round, we could get a new crop of under-50 Scalias and Thomases and Aliotos. Who the fuck knows what Trump would do?

The 99% has a chance to vote. All of us who would suffer the most in a Republican Administration (think NO federal spending on anything but war and huger tax breaks for billionaires and the companies that make them that way; think Theocracy a la Davis-ites) we blacks, gays, poor, latinos, undocumented aliens off all stripe.....basically, non-straight -white -conservative -Christian-multi-millionaire -Republicans will be super fucked dead in the water. We can VOTE. We can get our heads out of our boyfriend's asses long enough to register to vote and while we're at the mall, anyway....why not find out how to sign up others? Register minorities, your fuck buddies (there's enough right there)....college age and young working class people. Donate to the Democratic Party. Support Hillary. Bernie is my first choice, but: a) he can't win and b) he wouldn't live to see two terms. Hillary is experienced and most qualified and smarter than most anybody else on either side. And she's a DEMOCRAT. GIVE, VOTE and get others to do the same. This election will shape the future for ourselves and our nation for years to come, and we CAN do something about it now. Later will be too late.

 

[eastofeden]

^^^ Good points....

One other thing to consider...

Hillary has been the object of scorn and an intense disinformation campaign from the GOP now for 25 years...AND SHE IS STILL STANDING!!!!

They have thrown more shit at her than anyone else....AND SHE IS STILL STANDING!!!

THAT is the nail in their coffin....Benghazi didn't work....the "email scandal" didn't really attract anyone except for people who already hate her

Now they have "Hillary lies" ....LOLOLOLOL.....ya think? OF COURSE she lies...she is a politician. The funny part is the people calling her a liar......Pinocchios....all of them....

Bernie doesn't have a chance against the GOP lie machine (and yes..I like him as well but I also like Hillary)....which is why so many Republicans are praising him. They managed to turn a decorated war hero and purple heart recipient into a treacherous anti-American traitor using the phony Swift Boaters....and who do you think funded them?

 

[Kulindahr]

^^^ Good points....

One other thing to consider...

Hillary has been the object of scorn and an intense disinformation campaign from the GOP now for 25 years...AND SHE IS STILL STANDING!!!!

They have thrown more shit at her than anyone else....AND SHE IS STILL STANDING!!!

THAT is the nail in their coffin....Benghazi didn't work....the "email scandal" didn't really attract anyone except for people who already hate her

Now they have "Hillary lies" ....LOLOLOLOL.....ya think? OF COURSE she lies...she is a politician. The funny part is the people calling her a liar......Pinocchios....all of them....

Bernie doesn't have a chance against the GOP lie machine (and yes..I like him as well but I also like Hillary)....which is why so many Republicans are praising him. They managed to turn a decorated war hero and purple heart recipient into a treacherous anti-American traitor using the phony Swift Boaters....and who do you think funded them?

The only hope for avoiding an even tighter police state is Bernie -- Hillary is to the right of Obama on that, and Obama was just another Bush. Hillary will happily sign bills further militarizing the police and further weakening the Fourth Amendment if they're attached to reform of the disaster of "Obamacare" for the middle class.

Not, I think, that it matters any more; the majority of Americans will be content to live in an empire rather than a Republic so long as they can maintain the fantasy that they're in no danger from their government.

 

[TX-Beau]

The only hope for avoiding an even tighter police state is Bernie -- Hillary is to the right of Obama on that, and Obama was just another Bush. Hillary will happily sign bills further militarizing the police and further weakening the Fourth Amendment if they're attached to reform of the disaster of "Obamacare" for the middle class.

Not, I think, that it matters any more; the majority of Americans will be content to live in an empire rather than a Republic so long as they can maintain the fantasy that they're in no danger from their government.

Depends on what you mean by empire. The people I see screaming law and order the loudest are generally the people who fear other people refusing to be oppressed by them anymore.

The South stopped being an Apartheid state only 50-ish years ago, I know Jim Crow seems like ancient history, but it's really not, and I doubt that anyone who grew up on the wrong side of things felt they were in a "republic."