Morning Joe: Millennials will start to like Clinton in the general election.
Last edited Mon Apr 18, 2016, 09:37 AM - Edit history (4)
Because they will start to like Clinton, her favorability rating will go up.
Sorry to burst the bubble, but the more people learn the facts about Hillary, the less they like her.
(Talk about not being grounded in reality....)
Above added to provide clarification.
= new reply since forum marked as read
start a new party. 
There is certainly a section of Bernie's supporters ( let's call them the progressive left) who might be atracted to the Green Party.
But his appeal on working class voters (the old left, if you will) far excedes the Green Party's appeal. Possible explanation: the Green Party's focus on environmental issues has - probabaly undeservedly so - acquired an aura of academic study rooms and their well-to-do occupants having an élite issue with emissions.
Then there is Bernie's appeal on all those who are fed up with the status quo. This is the largest group, cobbled together from left to right from irregular voters and new voters. There is a substantial (but minoritarian) section of this group who'd rather vote for Donald Trump ("at least he'll shake things up"
then vote for Stein - as her proposals all have that aura of "15 year plans". Again, that aura may not be deserved, but it's there. If Stein can change that reputation in a few months, and assuming that Clinton manages to weasle herself into the top slot on the ticket, we'd be talking a different game here ( - we'd be talking a different ballpark).
Most likely, a significant part of Sanders' supporters would return to not voting at all - which is exactly why Clinton's candidacy would spell big trouble for the whole Democratic ticket. The irregular voters came out in force for Obama in 2008 (landslide), in moderate numbers in 2012 (thank goodness for Ohio's gratitude for the auto-bail-out); imagine what would happen if they came out for Trump in moderate numbers and not for Clinton at all.
The Green Party may have to adjust it's platform to some extent - and it's message to a larger extent to tap into the 40% of the electorate that calls itself Independent. It would do well to lend some of Sanders populism about the way every American system is rigged against millennials, the left, the poor, and minorities. It would have to become a tent big enough to house even those who don't immediately see how climate change is affecting their family income, and enthouse them to come out against the status quo by voting Green, and so on.
And I'm the star of the Boston edition of Cirque du Soleil.
wing smear? Really?
And I could go on and on and on......
When the information about Bill, Hillary, and the women start rolling out I'm sure the vast right wing conspiracy defense will work well. And the support by younger women, I am sure it will skyrocket. 
?itok=yY3i6pNO
likability ratings for Hillary among young millennial women will skyrocket.
Sorry, but those are not trifling and negotiable issues, for a LOT of us. They are huge differences. And I don't believe Hillary for an instant about whatever she does agree with Bernie on.
No matter how prettily worded the plea to just forget principles is.
So, really, this is the end of this conversation. 'bye! 
You know you can easily look these things up on the internet....
And Trump isn't in the Democratic primary, so obviously the comment was about Clinton/Sanders. Obviously.
And it's just BernieMath to say that Clinton leading Sanders by 2.4 MILLION means *he* is the better candidate, LMAO. How does that work. Obviously millions of people disagree.
And falling for false promises of Sanders doesn't mean they are "informed voters". Quite the opposite.
with bogus BernieMath.
The Trump and Sanders campaign mirror each other in false promises. So it looks like the Democrats are smarter to overlook the false promises and MILLIONS of them affirmed that by voting for Hillary. 
So, not all of them are. But there sure are plenty of them. And they sure do love harassing people on social media or recording their stunts to brag about. After that Hillary event, it was all over the local Los Angeles news that bernouts were throwing money at Hillary's motorcade and dancing in the street. All to get on the news and post to social media.
Anyway, the day you are as concerned about insulting other Democrats as you are about yourself, then we can talk. Let me know, but I won't hold my breath...
I won't like her. Maybe I'll vote for her if she's on the GE ballot.
I don't like super-hawks.
Bernie votes already and the shit ain't over.
Millennials will just roll over and suddenly love her.
Talk about out of fucking touch.
Repeat the fairy tale to yourself and it will come true!!!!!!
Man that is some rich ass, hysterically funny shit.
After all your shit!?!?
And all I can say is
plunder, pillage, lie and cheat... then unite.
Guess what? No fucking way. And it's not just millennials; it's people like me who are HRC's peers who will also never vote for her. Her record is disaster after disaster.
She rode Bill's coat tails to power. He had the intellect (Georgetown Univ, Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law), charisma, gift of gab, and natural ability to connect with people. She was smart, too (Wellesley, Yale Law). After law school, she went to DC to work on the Nixon impeachment committee, but her stint there did not last long because, among other reasons, she did not pass the DC bar. She tells the story that she went to work for the Children's Defense Fund (CDF) founded by Marian Wright Edelman as evidence of her advocacy for children and that's true... some 20 plus years ago. But recall that Marian’s husband, Peter Edelman who became Bill Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, resigned in protest over the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act better known as Welfare Reform because of the dire effects it would have on the poor, especially women and children. HRC supported Bill and the bill; but Peter Edelman was right.
So after leaving DC, what did HRC do? She ran off to Arkansas! Yes, this dynamo of feminism whom so many women say could have done anything, been anything on her own… did not go back to her native Chicago, did not go back to New England (MA, CT) where she was educated. No, she ran off to Arkansas. She chased after Bill because she recognized his rising star. He had the talent to go along with the intellect. He had held leadership positions nearly all his life: high school (Boy’s State) and college (class president for 2 years, etc.). He became Governor, chaired the National Governors’ Association and finally became POTUS. It was only through him that she was introduced to the nation and even then, it was rocky because of her abrasive, snarky remarks about baking cookies.
When she ran for POTUS in 2008, she cited her 20 years of experience. Really? First Lady of AK for 12 years and FLOTUS for 8 years. Oh, and she was a corporate lawyer at the Rose Law Firm where her client was Walmart – that champion of poor people – and where she relied heavily on the counsel of Vince Foster.
She could never have carpet bagged her way to the NY Senate seat had she not been FLOTUS. And once in the Senate, what did she DO? What legislation or amendments to legislation illustrate her initiative or activism on behalf of the people. The aye votes for IWR, the Patriot Acts 1 & 2 and Bush's Bankruptcy bill sure were a big help to us all
And let's talk about that IWR vote in depth because there was, and remains, no excuse or justification for it and here's why
Reason 1: Iraq did not attack the US; fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis while the other four were from the UAE, Egypt, Yemen. They learned to fly here in the States (Florida, Arizona). Bin Laden was also Saudi!
Reason 2: Iraq had been under horrific UN sanctions since the first Bush war on Iraq in 1991; so how could it have morphed into an imminent threat to the US in 2002 when IWR was being peddled
Reason 3: W's administration introduced IWR and demanded a vote on it right before the 2002 midterm elections. Wise men and women questioned the timing and the rush, but not those who voted aye... they had their eyes on being POTUS and cast calculating votes that reeked of political and moral cowardice.
Reason 4: Anyone who was paying attention knew about PNAC and therefore knew how the Bush cabal and Carlyle group had their eyes on carving up Iraq's oil fields. Clinton sure knew because the signers of PNAC policy papers wrote Bill seeking pre-emptive action while he was POTUS.
Reason 5: the Bush cabal STOLE the White House in 2000 because they had their PNAC plans. Then, they ignored all the warnings/chatter leading up to 9/11 including the August 6th PDB. They allege they were blindsided and could not have foreseen such an attack. But that flies in the face of the fact that the airspace had to be closed around the G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy in July 2001 precisely because of terrorists' threats to fly planes into buildings! So therefore, why would any sentient 'leader' of the opposition party trust or "have good faith" in ANYTHING proposed by W
Reason 6: Anyone who knew history, knew that Reagan sold WMDs to Saddam/Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war (recall the photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand). So when Cheney took to the airwaves in 2002 talking about WMDs and said he knew where they were and how they'd been used against the Kurds, he was telling the truth... about 1988. He was using his dirty past to foment a new war for oil
Reason 7: the Bush cabal withdrew the weapons inspectors because they were not finding anything. Scott Ritter (who was smeared) and his fellow inspectors' findings would not/did not conform to the desired Bush narrative, so Colin Bowel sold his soul and did his 'tube' presentation to the UN
Reason 8: Citing the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, Robert Byrd gave an eloquent and passionate speech about lies that lead to war, about the waste of war, about the unintended consequences of war... and he challenged the rush to war. Bob Graham (who actually read the documents available to Congress) and Ted Kennedy spoke as well. Why didn't HRC listen to them rather than Bush or Cheney? No, she gave Bush bipartisan cover with her aye vote, and so she has blood on her hands, too!
Clearly the rationale for IWR was all a LIE, and if millions of citizens could see all this THEN, why not Clinton?! She voted aye, ran for POTUS and lost in large measure because of that vote. Votes have consequences and there is no apology large enough to cover a cowardly, finger-in-the-wind vote that has caused so much death, debt, destruction and destabilization (ISIS)!
Back to the narrative. Then there was her abysmal management and nasty conduct during the 2008 primary campaign. She had the money, she had the name, she was entitled, she was "in it to win it" and so arrogant that she claimed it would be over by Super Tuesday. But when it wasn't and she was losing, she resorted to the gutter. She praised McCain and derided Obama as someone who only gave pretty speeches. And when the Party urged her to bow out gracefully, she said that she was going to stay in the race through the CA primary because "you never know... remember Bobby Kennedy..." Her insinuation (a veiled wish?) that Obama might be assassinated like RFK was beyond classless and tasteless. It was evil (google Keith Olbermann on that atrocity). And when she finally, gracelessly bowed out, she did so on condition that the Obama organization and DNC pay off her campaign debt. Some management skills, just like her Wall Street benefactors who f--- things up, then expect others to pay for the disaster they created.
On to SOS, where Obama selected her because he'd been inspired by Lincoln's team of rivals and wanted to keep her busy and away so she couldn't be a quasi-backbencher sniping at him. Or more likely, some sort of deal was struck. In the end, she was also terrible in that position. Her Honduras regime change led many men, women and children, some alone, to flee the disaster that nation subsequently became. Same with Libya and Syria. HRC, the consummate pro-MIC corporatist, never saw a war she didn't like. And last I checked, war is not good for women, children or men! Also at State, she sold weapons to Saudi Arabia (home of bin laden and most of Sept 11th hijackers) while the Saudis donated to that slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation.
She is also part of the Clinton legacy (the two for one, the 8 years of reflected experience derived from Bill). She helped found the DLC and fully supported: NAFTA, the Telecommunications Bill of 1996, Welfare Reform (not), and overturning Glass-Steagall. She and Bill kept Alan Greenspan at the Fed, placed the then Mr. Goldman Sucks himself Robert Reuben as head of Treasury and hired as financial advisor that abominable Wall Streeter Larry Summers (who lost a $1.8 billion from Harvard's endowment!). This Clinton triumvirate wrecked the economy for main street, but saved Wall Street, especially Goldman-Sachs which has subsequently paid her handsomely. And as DUer tularetom once said: "They didn't pay her that kind of money because of her oratorical skills, her charismatic personality or her insight into current events. She has none of the first two and very little of the third."
We, the people, reaped the whirlwind of that 1999 Glass-Steagall reversal for which every repuke in the Senate voted AYE while every Dem -- save one -- voted NAY. Bill signed it into law anyway, paying no heed to the canary-in-the-mine Dems who said that this dastardly new law would lead to disaster 10 years hence. Sure enough it did, harming families throughout the land. And Wall Street, Hillary's BFF, continues to be such a benefactor for the people
This is HRC's history. And I haven't even touched on fracking and the TPP. She has DONE nothing that is positive or constructive. She's in it for herself, she plays sexist gender politics, she lies about her awful record, she changes her mind with the political winds, she panders, she pads her pockets, and she is a triangulator to her core.
