Trump Wants Sanders Voters - (Edited to Add) Or Wants Them To Not Vote Democratic In November

There's already one empty seat on the Court.  There are three justices between the ages of 77 and 83 who may want to retire.  That's FOUR (very) possible open seats for wing nuts to fill.  The prospect of a 25-40 year republican-packed court is more than chilling, and will survive multiple presidential administrations and congressional terms.  I would be really concerned for my kids - particularly my daughters - if this court came to pass.  

This just in.  The FBI will be questioning Hillary about her emails.  

http://usuncut.com/politics/fbi-question-hillary-clinton-email/

annettedepalma said:

There's already one empty seat on the Court.  There are three justices between the ages of 77 and 83 who may want to retire.  That's FOUR (very) possible open seats for wing nuts to fill.  The prospect of a 25-40 year republican-packed court is more than chilling, and will survive multiple presidential administrations and congressional terms.  I would be really concerned for my kids - particularly my daughters - if this court came to pass.  

I understand your concern, or, as Bill Clinton used to say, "I feel your pain."

It would be more than painful.  It would be devastating for half a century, because dismantling civil rights and reproductive rights - to name just a couple of areas - would happen at breakneck speed, and restoring them would come at glacial speed.  On balance, it will be much less painful for me to vote for my less-preferred candidate, who could serve a maximum of eight years, than it would be to have this court in place. 

You may be right. I think Hillary can't stop that from happening. l think Bernie can.

springgreen2 said:

You may be right. I think Hillary can't stop that from happening. l think Bernie can.

I don't understand - you think Clinton won't be able to appoint anyone if she is president and we'll just have empty seats for 8 years? Struggling to understand exactly how Clinton will fail to prevent Republicans from appointing justices if she is president.

PVW said:

springgreen2 said:

You may be right. I think Hillary can't stop that from happening. l think Bernie can.

I don't understand - you think Clinton won't be able to appoint anyone if she is president and we'll just have empty seats for 8 years? Struggling to understand exactly how Clinton will fail to prevent Republicans from appointing justices if she is president.

Because it's "Shrillary" of course. No basis for such hatred, but doesn't seem to matter to tulip. 

nan said:

This just in.  The FBI will be questioning Hillary about her emails.  

http://usuncut.com/politics/fbi-question-hillary-clinton-email/

So where's the smiley face? Or is that a personal attack? 

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

This just in.  The FBI will be questioning Hillary about her emails.  

http://usuncut.com/politics/fbi-question-hillary-clinton-email/

So where's the smiley face? Or is that a personal attack? 

Nope.  I decided to put it here rather than start a new thread.  I have not paid much attention to the email investigation, thinking it was a Republican slam thing.  But, lately I have read some things that say it might actually be a thing.  Have no idea, but it's a relevant topic.

PVW said:

springgreen2 said:

You may be right. I think Hillary can't stop that from happening. l think Bernie can.

I don't understand - you think Clinton won't be able to appoint anyone if she is president and we'll just have empty seats for 8 years? Struggling to understand exactly how Clinton will fail to prevent Republicans from appointing justices if she is president.

No, because she can't win against Trump. Sorry, but he's going to clean her clock. Bernie has the smarts to beat him.

annettedepalma said:

It would be more than painful.  It would be devastating for half a century, because dismantling civil rights and reproductive rights - to name just a couple of areas - would happen at breakneck speed, and restoring them would come at glacial speed.  On balance, it will be much less painful for me to vote for my less-preferred candidate, who could serve a maximum of eight years, than it would be to have this court in place. 

I agree and  I would add union rights and environmental protection as major concerns.

With regard to the discourse on this thread, it's important to point out that Bernie has stated repeatedly that regardless of who wins the nomination, he'll work 24/7 to make sure that Trump is not elected.

In other words, Bernie does not subscribe to Bernie or Bust.  And as I've said before, neither do I.

Regardless of who is elected President, Senate procedures will give Democrats the power to block extremist, right-wing appointments.  They could have used this power to block Thomas, Scalia and Alito, but chose not to.  Democrats can and should have a fall-back position, a Plan B, to block extremist, right-wing appointments through Senate procedures, if the unthinkable happens in November.

paulsurovell said:

Regardless of who is elected President, Senate procedures will give Democrats the power to block extremist, right-wing appointments.  They could have used this power to block Thomas, Scalia and Alito, but chose not to.  Democrats can and should have a fall-back position, a Plan B, to block extremist, right-wing appointments through Senate procedures, if the unthinkable happens in November.

Three years ago the Democrats used the "nuclear" option to change the Senate procedures to prevent Republican filibustering of most presidential nominations. The rules were changed so that now a majority, not 60 super majority, of senators can advance a confirmation vote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html

They didn't apply that option for SC nominations, so, yes, senate procedures still gives Democrats the power to block those nominations.

But what prevents the Republicans from using the "nuclear" option for SC nominations? Nothing. Whereupon the blocking power Democrats will have evaporated like mist.

Well here's someone who says what I've been trying to say much better than I do.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-bernie-sanders-donald-trump-worst-nightmare-article-1.2624564

BG9 said:

But what prevents the Republicans from using the "nuclear" option for SC nominations?

Yes, they could use the nuclear option.

But in making that decision they would have to choose between giving up their power to block a future Democratic President's nominees versus offering a less extreme nominee acceptable to about 10 or so Democrats.

Of course all of the above assumes that the Republicans retain their majority in the Senate.

springgreen2 said:

PVW said:

springgreen2 said:

You may be right. I think Hillary can't stop that from happening. l think Bernie can.

I don't understand - you think Clinton won't be able to appoint anyone if she is president and we'll just have empty seats for 8 years? Struggling to understand exactly how Clinton will fail to prevent Republicans from appointing justices if she is president.

No, because she can't win against Trump. Sorry, but he's going to clean her clock. Bernie has the smarts to beat him.

Let's assume that Trump can do at least as well as Romney. Which additional states do you see him winning? Or the converse - that Clinton does not do at least as well as Obama. Which states that Obama won do you see Clinton losing?

nan said:

This just in.  The FBI will be questioning Hillary about her emails.  

http://usuncut.com/politics/fbi-question-hillary-clinton-email/

And this just in, "Email Scandal Crushed As FBI Finds No Evidence Clinton Broke The Law With Private Email"

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/05/email-scandal-crushed-fbi-finds-evidence-clinton-broke-law-private-email.html

It's rather easy to find a story that supports a position but going to usuncut.com or politicususa.com (as I did) is grasping at straws to make a point.  Most of us know that the truth lies somewhere in between.

While they might be interviewing her about the emails, this would pretty much be standard procedure so it really isn't worthy of breaking news to be dropped into a thread without any commentary by the poster.

I made no comment because, while I think the email issue is relevant, I'm not sure where it is going.  Did you read the article in usuncut.com?  It was fair and balanced and seemed to feel the investigation would lead to nothing.  However, a Presidential candidate being questioned by the FBI is a significant event and could change the election. We shall see.

Guccifer says there's nothing to see in her emails.  That's good enough for me.

springgreen2 said:

You may be right. I think Hillary can't stop that from happening. l think Bernie can.

Why do you think that Hillary will differ markedly from Bernie on SCOTUS appointments?  I'm a Bernie supporter, but on this point I am adamant that we need to have Hillary if we can't have Bernie!

From the Forward

No, Hillary Clinton Is Not Corrupt... And No, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders Is Not A Saint
The Only Way Donald J. Trump Wins Is If You Keep This BS Up... ENOUGH!

The Right-wing knows their only hope of winning in November is to
divide Democratic votes. Many of them have been posing as Bernie
supporters for this purpose. Voting for him in open primaries. And
giving bogus info to polls. What's worse is the fact that many Liberals,
Progressives, Independents & Democrats have adopted their cult like
mentality, using the same tactics & smears. This Foolish reckless
behavior must stop. We should be smarter than this. — with Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Donald J. Trump, Democratic Party and Democrats.

As far as elections go, I don't think this Democratic primary has been unusually nasty.  However, this non-stop yammering about the transcripts of Clinton's speeches to Wall Street groups and the yammering about breaking up the big banks may come back to haunt.  Anybody with a brain knows perfectly well that public officials release nothing without a fight on the grounds that if you give an inch, your opponents will take a mile.

librarylady said:

From the Forward

No, Hillary Clinton Is Not Corrupt... And No, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders Is Not A Saint
The Only Way Donald J. Trump Wins Is If You Keep This BS Up... ENOUGH!


The Right-wing knows their only hope of winning in November is to
divide Democratic votes. Many of them have been posing as Bernie
supporters for this purpose. Voting for him in open primaries. And
giving bogus info to polls. What's worse is the fact that many Liberals,
Progressives, Independents & Democrats have adopted their cult like
mentality, using the same tactics & smears. This Foolish reckless
behavior must stop. We should be smarter than this. — with Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Donald J. Trump, Democratic Party and Democrats.

The source for this seems to be a Facebook page called "Forward," not "The Forward."

tjohn said:

As far as elections go, I don't think this Democratic primary has been unusually nasty.  However, this non-stop yammering about the transcripts of Clinton's speeches to Wall Street groups and the yammering about breaking up the big banks may come back to haunt.  Anybody with a brain knows perfectly well that public officials release nothing without a fight on the grounds that if you give an inch, your opponents will take a mile.

The "yammering" would have gone away if the transcripts had been released.  She's running for President, why is she hiding transcripts?

Now that Trump is the only Republican candidate, under Hillary's own criteria she must release her transcripts, unless their is evidence that Trump is hiding similar speech transcripts.

paulsurovell said:

librarylady said:

From the Forward

No, Hillary Clinton Is Not Corrupt... And No, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders Is Not A Saint
The Only Way Donald J. Trump Wins Is If You Keep This BS Up... ENOUGH!


The Right-wing knows their only hope of winning in November is to
divide Democratic votes. Many of them have been posing as Bernie
supporters for this purpose. Voting for him in open primaries. And
giving bogus info to polls. What's worse is the fact that many Liberals,
Progressives, Independents & Democrats have adopted their cult like
mentality, using the same tactics & smears. This Foolish reckless
behavior must stop. We should be smarter than this. — with Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Donald J. Trump, Democratic Party and Democrats.

The source for this seems to be a Facebook page called "Forward," not "The Forward."

Thanks Paul..didn't seem that it came from the Forveitz but I just assumed . And you know what they say about people who assume.....

paulsurovell said:

tjohn said:

As far as elections go, I don't think this Democratic primary has been unusually nasty.  However, this non-stop yammering about the transcripts of Clinton's speeches to Wall Street groups and the yammering about breaking up the big banks may come back to haunt.  Anybody with a brain knows perfectly well that public officials release nothing without a fight on the grounds that if you give an inch, your opponents will take a mile.

The "yammering" would have gone away if the transcripts had been released.  She's running for President, why is she hiding transcripts?

Now that Trump is the only Republican candidate, under Hillary's own criteria she must release her transcripts, unless their is evidence that Trump is hiding similar speech transcripts.

As I noted, when you are at this level, you release nothing without a fight because everything can and will be used against you if your opponents can find some way to spin things.

So, I would guess that Clinton is hiding nothing.

Sometimes you don't release stuff because you are hiding something. Sometimes you don't release stuff because that relinquishes control. They won't stop asking for stuff. Suddenly the campaign becomes about what was released and what wasn't. 

Anyone remember the birth certificate?

"Fine, here's my birth certificate."

Not good enough.

"Here's the long form."

Not good enough.

"Here's the birth announcement from the Honolulu Times."

Not good enough.

tjohn said:

paulsurovell said:

tjohn said:

As far as elections go, I don't think this Democratic primary has been unusually nasty.  However, this non-stop yammering about the transcripts of Clinton's speeches to Wall Street groups and the yammering about breaking up the big banks may come back to haunt.  Anybody with a brain knows perfectly well that public officials release nothing without a fight on the grounds that if you give an inch, your opponents will take a mile.

The "yammering" would have gone away if the transcripts had been released.  She's running for President, why is she hiding transcripts?

Now that Trump is the only Republican candidate, under Hillary's own criteria she must release her transcripts, unless their is evidence that Trump is hiding similar speech transcripts.

As I noted, when you are at this level, you release nothing without a fight because everything can and will be used against you if your opponents can find some way to spin things.

So, I would guess that Clinton is hiding nothing.

Maybe not:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969

What does that article reveal that she's hiding?

These two paragraphs reiterate my point:

The problem is, if Clinton releases the transcripts, Sanders and other progressive candidates could take even seemingly innocuous comments and make them sound as though Clinton is in the tank for Wall Street. And if she doesn’t, it makes her look like she has something very damaging to hide.

“On the one hand, if Clinton discloses these speech transcripts that’s not going to be the end of it,” said Dennis Kelleher, chief executive of financial reform group Better Markets. “I think you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t in this never ending game of gotcha. But as a political matter, she should probably just disclose it all and disclose it quickly.”

Bernie demands fairness at the July convention and warns that if the deck is stacked against him, there will be a floor fight to change the rules.

(my bold)

https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/sanders-letter-to-dnc-5-6-16.pdf

May 6, 2016

Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol Street Southeast
Washington, DC 20003

Dear Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz:

I am writing to follow up on our discussion about the composition of the standing committees of the Democratic National Convention. In order to reflect the views and aspirations of the millions who support both my candidacy and Secretary Clinton’s, I believe that the composition of the standing committees must reflect the relative support that has been received by both campaigns.

That was why I was so disappointed to learn that of the over forty people our campaign submitted at your request you chose to select only three of my recommendations for the three standing committees. Moreover, you did not assign even one of the people submitted by our campaign to the very important Rules Committee of the Democratic National Convention.

If we are to have a unified party in the fall, no matter who wins the nomination, we cannot have a Democratic National Convention in which the views of millions of people who participated in the Democratic nominating process are unrepresented in the committee membership appointed by you, the Chair.

That sends the very real message that the Democratic Party is not open to the millions of new people that our campaign has brought into the political process, does not want to hear new voices, and is unwilling to respect the broader base of people that this party needs to win over in November and beyond. Fairness, inclusion and transparency should be the standard under which we operate.

In our conversation, you told me with respect to the platform Drafting Committee that you would consider allowing each campaign to submit ten names from which you would choose four from each and then you would add an additional seven. While having four members on the Drafting Committee is an improvement, it does not address the fact that up to this point Bernie 2016 has secured some 45% of the pledged delegates awarded. Frankly, we believe that percentage will go up in the coming weeks and, of course, we hope it will end up being a majority.

I believe that each campaign should chose seven members to serve on the Drafting Committee. The fifteenth member would be a chair who would be jointly picked by the two campaigns. This process will ensure that all the standing committees reflect the full range of views of voters who have participated in the Democratic nominating contests.

This process will also ensure that the chairs of the standing committees conduct their proceedings with fairness and transparency. As it stands now, the chairs of the Rules Committee and the Platform Committee are active supporters of Secretary Clinton’s campaign. But even more than that, they both are aggressive attack surrogates on the campaign trail.

I do not, and the millions who have supported our campaign will not, have any confidence that either of them will conduct committee proceeding in an even-handed manner. In fact, the suggestion that they would be appropriate chairs in and of itself suggests the standing committees are being established in an overtly partisan way meant to exclude the input of the voters who have supported my candidacy.

As you know, there are already over 9 million voters who, during this nominating process, have indicated that they want to go beyond establishment politics and establishment economics – and want to transform our country with bold initiatives. I will not allow them be silenced at the Democratic National Convention.

It is my hope we can quickly resolve this in a fair way. If the process is set up to produce an unfair, one-sided result, we are prepared to mobilize our delegates to force as many votes as necessary to amend the platform and rules on the floor of the convention.

Thank you in advance for your help in establishing standing committees that are fair and inclusive. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Senator Bernie Sanders