When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

I guess you missed his angry remarks on the Senate floor before he did. He made a blistering speech about the unfairness of how a general crime bill affected black Americans. Thanks for bringing up what Bernie did and said.
_________________________________________
Mr. Speaker, let me begin with a profound remark: Two plus two equals four.

In other words, there is a logical and rational process called cause and effect. In terms of Newtonian physics, that means that every action causes an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there are reasons why things happen, as controversial as that statement may be.

A farmer neglects to tend and care for his fields—it is likely that the crop will fail.

A company neglects to invest in research and development—it is likely that the company will not be profitable.

In a similar way, Mr. Speaker, a society which neglects, which oppresses and which disdains a very significant part of its population—which leaves them hungry, impoverished, unemployed, uneducated, and utterly without hope, will, through cause and effect, create a population which is bitter, which is angry, which is violent, and a society which is crime-ridden. This is the case in America, and it is the case in countries throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, how do we talk about the very serious crime problem in America without mentioning that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, by far, with 22 percent of our children in poverty and 5 million who are hungry today? Do the Members think maybe that might have some relationship to crime? How do we talk about crime when this Congress is prepared, this year, to spend 11 times more for the military than for education; when 21 percent of our kids drop out of high school; when a recent study told us that twice as many young workers now earn poverty wages as 10 years ago; when the gap between the rich and the poor is wider, and when the rate of poverty continues to grow? Do the members think that might have some relationship to crime?

Mr. Speaker, it is my firm belief that clearly, there are some people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them. But it is also my view that through the neglect of our Government and through a grossly irrational set of priorities, we are dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence. And Mr. Speaker, all the jails in the world, and we already imprison more people per capita than any other country, and all of the executions in the world, will not make that situation right. We can either educate or electrocute. We can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails. Mr. Speaker, let us create a society of hope and compassion, not one of hate and vengeance.

If he felt that strongly about it, why did he vote for it?

Gosh. You mean Bernie's rhetoric doesn't match his voting? He voted FOR what you are attacking Hillary for being for while she had no vote on the issue.

Up to this point, I've always found a thoughtful answer by Bernie that explains his actions. I'm interested to find him speaking to this.

I was very proud of his statement before the vote. Moments like this have earned him enormous respect from the progressive community and growing support from the black community as these fiery speeches (on CSPAN, not commercial news) are shared.

Still, I want to know his rationale. I'll bring it if I find it.

Even if you can find a rationale, I don't doubt your ability to do it, the fact remains, you attacked Hillary's support of the same bill Bernie Sander's voted for irrespective of his speech before voting yes.

So the progressive community respects those that pander to them in speeches while acting in the opposite fashion?

I thought that was what you disliked about Hillary.

I think it would be very hard to find any politician of any party whose rhetoric has consistently matched his/her voting. In the first place opinions change over time; in the second the complexity of cuntemporary lawmaking with often unrelated provisions taped onto pending legislation significantly add to the complexity of the problem of matching the rhetoric to the legislation. Some draft laws have lofty titles but provisions that substantially deny their declared intent. Often legislators find themselves voting fot things they only partly approve in situations where they find the alternatives to be worse. Indeed that is a necessary part of the democratic process.

I'll readily agree that some politicians and legislators excell in their sometimes self-serving pragmatism while others are relatively consistent in adhering to their stated political principes. That distrinction is evident among members of both parties.

I certainly don't favor Bernie Sanders' political and economic views, but I believe most people would put his behavior during his long years in the Senate in the second category above . He has been remarkably steadfast to his principles and his rhetoric regarding them throughout his service there, even to the point of openly declating himself a socialist. I also believe that consistency and the authenticity he demonstrated is indeed an important part of the surprising appeal he has demonstrated particularly among young voters.

I'm also confident that our nitpicking Parados will find a few apparent exceptions to that behavior in Sanders' record, most of which will likely fall in the complex categories I noted above. I suggest that he consider just where that masterful praticioner of self-serving political "triangulation" and exploitation, Hillary Clinton fits in the same spectrum.

I've just decided not to entertain his picking any further.

I know you disagree with Sanders' platforms, but I'm grateful to see you can still cut the wheat from the chaff - and are willing to do it, even when it doesn't directly benefit you.

Quote george:


So in your book, Sanders voted for it, but you should use the moral outrage over that to hate Hillary all the more. Sure, that makes sense.

I'm not morally outraged at all by either of them. You can do that for me.

The event at issue involving Sanders may or may not involve some political expedincy on his part. I don't know enough of the detals to be sure either way. However, I do know that throughout his career , and during his current campaign, Sanders has - in my view - stuck firmly to his views even in places and situations where conventional political calculations and behavior would indicate evasion or compromise, all to a far greater degree than most politicians of either party -- and certainly much more than Hillary Clinton. Indeed I believe the stark contrast between him and Hillary in precisely this area is one of the important factors in the truly remarkable - and unpredicted - success Sanders has enjoyed so far in the Democrat primaries.

I don't hate Hillary Clinton at all. I do believe that she has amply demonstrated that her character is such as to make her unsuitable (by my standards) for high office and great responsibility. I don't trust her and I don't have confidence in her judgment.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/clintons-bipartisan-bluster/

Quote georgeob1:


Well, Lash sure seems to be and you joined in enthusiastically, so it was a fair deduction. I just thought it funny that even Lash admitted that Sanders is guilty here, (if anyone should be called "guilty" for voting for the bill), and you turn it around to make it seem like it should be considered a reason to consider Sanders morally superior. It appears you've become so single mindedly committed to finding fault with Hillary for the usual Republican reasons that even when Sanders gets caught, most of the blame gets directed to Mrs. Clinton. That takes talent and dedication.

Quote Mrs. Clinton:


And after examining the record, it turns out that 80% of the 70 Republicans she was in committee with sponsored bills with her. That is, at worst, a minor overstatement, like "Everybody in town hates Harry", when in fact there might be a few people who either like Harry or consider him tolerable compared to the other people in town.

I found this.

I didn't join in on any moral outrage at all. I simply tried to put the whole situation in an accurate context. Your deduction was no deduction at all: it was simply more of your projections and prejudices.

You don't know my thoughts (as you've amply demonstrated). You only imagine a "committment to find fault with Hillary" on my part.

What are "the usual Republican reasons? Are there any 'usual Democrat reasons'. Are they what guides you?

I wasn't shifting any blame at all. Instead I was pointing out something that I think is obvious to all here: namely that Hillary, over her political career, has demonstrated a far greater inclination towards, and proficiency in, politically self-serving shifts of position, ratinalizations and evasions of respoinsibility for her missteps. In comparison to her, Sanders is a disinterested novice. In view of that, I found the attacks on Sanders a bit hypocritical.

So if Sanders votes for a bill that Lash doesn't like, you go into more criticism of Hillary. Of course you're only in this conversation to do just that, as evidenced by your constant tirades against her, which is an effort to continue the attacks on the Clintons because they broke up the Reagan-Bush run in the White House decades ago. And then Bill had the gall to be incredibly better than the Republican who followed him by just about any measure.

It's just that you reveal yourself in this series of posts more than the others, because your position is even more absurd this time.

Amazing. Hillary Clinton has just single-handedly lured old birds, Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright straight into hell. I respected both of those chicks previously, but they are being toasted on social media.

I excoriated both of them on Twitter for stupid-ass comments, and I received 65 retweets and 45 likes - which may sound silly, but it is by far the most positive comments I've ever received on Twitter.

The place is Berning up with condemnation for really sexist, stupid remarks from these women on Hillary's behalf. They really miscalculated.

And, given your far more consistently directed tirades what shll I conclude is your purpose in conversation here?

You made some rather sweeping generalizations about Sanders based on a single, somewhat ambiguous, event. At the same time you ignore two decades of prevarications; retaliations on their accusers; misues of position for personal gain and coverups by the Clintons and Hillary herself. I found that a bit odd. You call that absurd.

You are in way above your head or abilities.

Quote georgeob1:


I made no sweeping generalizations about Sanders or his character at all, which just goes to show how far down into your bag of prefab accusations you are reaching these days. I merely pointed out that Lash says she was opposed to the crime bill and that she was appalled that Sanders voted for it, which you somehow took as evidence that Hillary has to go. I realize that most posts you make in this thread consist of a short paragraph or two where you pretend to pay attention to what somebody posted previously before you launch into your well-rehearsed litany of anti-Hillary denunciations, but I thought this last time was a strain even for you.

You lie.

If you don't cease lying about what I say, you'll find out how irritating it is when it's done to you.