...to answer these responses, but more concerned about your tone. deary.
deary? really? could you be more insulting if you tried?
first, i never mentioned who i'm backing; for all you know, i have not decided. not just a wee bit presumptuous of you, consistent with your insulting tone.
second, your point about the media lacks any logical coherence and makes no sense. how do you figure it is "against the media's interest" if clinton wins? she's in bed with wall street, or at least sleeps on a mattress filled with their money, as far as i can discern, and when wall street wins, so do the media.
as for "[my] candidate" (again, where do i mention "my choice"? i'll assume you mean sanders from the rest of it) being "boring" and "polling poorly," the couple million donors and tens of thousands who attend his rallies and volunteer clearly don't find him boring, and he's on track to win NH and within striking distance in IA. these things can and do shift with the pollster and their methods, and with time, and have also been proven wrong, as 8 years ago in IA when obama won. your comparison with ron paul is beyond silly; sanders has drawn historically record-breaking rallies, beyond obama and others. you keep saying he's boring, but that's just your opinion; the data say otherwise. in fact, the data coupled with the brazen and obviously active trend of the media to ignore sanders does suggest they're fairly scared of him, as they should be, as sanders actively campaigns against their wall street greed (see above), whereas hillary has had to talk out of both sides of her mouth, for the public and for wall street, tho ne'er the twain shall meet. just because each member of the media behaves in their true best interest here, for hillary and against sanders, does NOT mean there is a conspiracy; no one that i'm aware of has suggested these maggots get together and decide to coordinate these things. they just do, and it serves their greedy interests, jointly and severally, to do so.
third, your argument that taking wall street money is ok "because it's legal" pretty much says it all, and is consistent with my point that winning has become the HRC/DNC guiding principle, just like the RNC. fwiw, the big short/inside job the big bankers pulled off in 07 and 08 was in fact quite legal. i was trying to insert some moral consideration here. too weighty for you?
which leads to your final point, that HRC is just a "hair" to the right of sanders. again, a matter of opinion; you call it hyperbolic, i call it the difference between sanders and everyone else; there are just too many issues on which (a) HRC has shifted her position only because of sanders' popularity, and (b) those shifted positions have been stated with astounding legal-speak, giving her tons of wiggle room for retraction later.
even beyond the issues themselves, where i find far too many far too wide gaps for my comfort zone, these observations about her are what make me cringe. she has been in the political trenches with this middle way (read: abandon the left, court the right and their money) too long, and has shifted her positions on so many of the hot-button issues (e.g., iraq war, gay marriage, etcetc.) too often to really believe these shifts come from a place of principle over politics.
i defended this woman till i was blue in the face (pun intended) all thru the 90s, and was impressed with her campaign for the senate. it took me a while, tho, to realize why she chose NYC (wall st, as if she did not make that abundantly clear in the recent debates), but i was royally disappointed with her iraq vote, tho all in all she did fine as a senator. the gild came off the lily, however, during her 08 campaign when i began to notice a good bit of chaos in her organization, too much slop in the system. i was disappointed, but did not finally make my decision to vote for obama in the primary till feb. of 08.
sadly, many other things she's done and said since then have cast my doubts about her, tho i've continued to defend her (e.g., benghazi, emails; crikey, we'll see loads more of that if she is the nominee). for instance, tho the email thing is clearly hyperbolic (used here by its definition, not hyperbolically), her handling of the email situation at the outset in 09 did not, imho, show the best judgment. also, she bailed on the very women and ethnicities she once honorably championed (see how she abandoned marian wright edelman, for instance), and undid her support as first lady for liz warren's bankruptcy protections only to vote against them as senator representing credit card companies.
these are things, amimnoch, i cannot admire.
hey, i'm a woman, and would love to see a woman in the WH; way overdue. but i'll not commit the crime so many PUMAs accused obama supporters of in 08; specifically, that support for him was just because he was black, especially if those supporters were black themselves (see bill's SC comment after that 08 loss).
instead, i chose long ago (the confession, here it comes!), years ago in fact to vote for and actively support sanders, in part due to years of following him in congress, and watching/listening to thom hartmann's time with him, but in general because i've studied with amazement his consistency, his passion (so decidedly NOT boring), and his sensibilities and principles. these are the things i will vote FOR, and will campaign FOR.
the comparison, by my observations, between him and HRC, are wide and vivid. and those differences at this time are so vitally important (if you have not as yet read naomi klein's this changes everything: capitalism v. the climate, or seen the film, please do so; our species, and most others on the planet, depend on it!), we cannot afford to allow ideological nit-picking, let alone petty rudeness, cloud our thinking. too much is at stake, and i take the larger picture here very very seriously.
as did sanders in the first debate when asked, along with the others, what they felt was the greatest threat against the US. he was the only one to say it out loud, to emphasize just how crucial our situation is, noting that even the military recognizes that climate change poses our biggest threat. this, please note, is NOT hyperbolic; this is reality. HRC, on the other hand, said a few years back we could wait a couple decades before doing anything, and her efforts at copenhagen in 09 (which she crowed about in the debates) were utterly disastrous, not to mention how long she waited to weigh in on keystone, clearly timed safely in line with obama's decision.
my apologies if these facts ruffle your feathers, but they are facts; she is not bold and passionate and consistent on the issues that matter, or the ones that should matter. in fact, she is fairly predictable (taylor branch, civil rights writer, noted she is not a "derring-do" kind of person); politically boring, by comparison to bernie's bold standard-shattering.
no amount of your snide rudeness will change the facts. if you wish to win over supporters, may i suggest you change your tone from nastiness and try some calm reason and logic. sadly, however, you cannot change the facts.
if HRC wins the nomination, she'll get my vote, but it will be cast more AGAINST the republican candidate. this is the problem her campaign faces now; there is virtually no passion for her, but lots of passion against her, which could prove deadly in the GE.
please make your decision wisely; the country - and planet - hang in the balance.
and that is NOT hyperbole. i so wish it were.
have a nice day, and happy 2016.
[/img]
= new reply since forum marked as read
