Progressives (Liberals)

My memories a bit dim as well.

I'd forgotten this
WP

I don't have to complicate my life and look at past countries and compare it to ours. All I have to do is look at our own history since Reagan and his famous Trickle Down theory, we have been living in it for now for decades. We voters and citizens are the bureaucrats. (Ideally) We vote those in power who control the country. Right now the control is in the hands of the rich corporations which lobby congress who want to take us back to pre-union days of penny wages and child labor and sweat shops with unsafe work environments (not to mention pollution) while living high on the hog themselves.

There is an old small "town" not far from me way back in days past which depended on the local coal companies for everything, they even got paid in coal money and went to coal mine stores and they lived in old shacks. Most large corporations are running our country like those old coal mining towns. So in fact, corporations are the bureaucrats ruling class of our country instead of US citizens who vote for their politicians in office to represent their best interest. We votes are serving the corporations best interest. To your way thinking any government outside police and military and the like is described as socialism and it just ain't so.

Benghazi is as pointed out, a political trick that is still in play. I read yesterday that her assistants or whatever are getting investigated right now over emails. I never gave credence to any of it. And Trump and company do the same without cover. My unhappiness with Clinton began before the 2016 election campaign, but it had nothing to do with Benghazi and emails. Her record as Secretary of State is vicious warmongering. Obama was carrying on the policies of Bush, re the wars, but she said she wanted a more muscular foreign policy and she voiced a will to attack Iran. Her refusal to back progressive objectives during the campaign in 2016 was a major eff you to the working people. Her blatant fixing of the primaries was the final straw. I would not vote for her in a bus. I would not vote for her wearing a truss. I would not vote for her for the disgust. I would not vote for her at all.

I admit that was one of the issues I had with her, the war mongering she seemed to have had in her later years. But, you know the rest.

We have to remember that merely contrasting policies to some partisans is a vicious attack.

It gets tiresome having to restate it year after year, while people still act as though they don't understand.

Զso you didnt vote and instead we got trump as s result who is infinitely worse. Its better to choose someone who is less evil than to not make a choice and get stuck with the devil.

I voted. Just not for the two evils. We get what we are willing to accept.

So you remain pure of heart and the country gets shafted. Sorry, I don't buy it.

“We get what we are willing to accept.”

What a steaming load. Who the hell was or is willing to accept Trump? Isn’t that what we all “got”?

It is better to refuse to vote for corruption and put this country on notice that the lesser of evils will not be supported by the electorate.

Look at the vast changes that have resulted so far—after just one cycle. Money in politics is being rejected, Medicare for All is at the top of discussion when 2016 candidates said “It will never happen here.”

The people clearly have more power because of the decision to reject the status quo.

A few more elections like this and corrupt politicians won’t waste their time and money trying to be elected.

You almost make it sound as if the discussion weren't supposed to happen — it has happened and will continue. But we still don't have MforA. That will need to be addressed, subsequent to discussion, in legislation. Which must be passed by both houses and upheld in the courts because you know lawsuits will be filed.

People love to exercise the power of "NO!" but rejection of the status quo calls for a system to replace it. The country is currently closely divided between two competing types of "rejectionism" — and they are very different. I'm having a difficult time seeing what sort of consensus will emerge.

I don't know how you sustain such hope and optimism!

I'm not telling you who you can vote for. You are telling me my vote is owed to anything you decree. Meanwhile, you who would blame anybody but yourself continue to support the very causes of Trump, which is a corrupt candidate that elevated Trump in the first place instead of running an honest campaign on yet another level.

Clinton herself created more votes for Trump beyond his original base, by giving him free promotion and more than the margin of victory. Then she sat on her ass when she ought to have been working it off.

There were several factors that helped get 45 into office. Hillary has admitted that weaknesses in her campaign was one of them.
No accountability anywhere else.
The same people who want to make sure the point gets made over and over that Hillary fucked some things up DO NOT attribute any accountability anywhere else.
Not to the systematic, profound tampering from Russia.
And not to the sickeningly self-righteous Simon-pure Bernie fanatics who would rather watch the planet and the constitution burn than admit that refusing to support anyone else factors into what we have today.

Krugman

Question: What does it mean when a candidates fundraising numbers keep going up, but their poll numbers keep going down?

A passionate but limited fan base.

That's nonsense. Ralph Nader proved to e that there is a difference, and if you vote for anyone other than a Rep or a Dem who WILL unquestionably win, for a third party or a primary candidate who may be pure in your eyes and then nobody in the general election, you're throwiong your vote away, and we damned sure need EVERy person to vote this time arund.