If Bernie Sanders endorses Hillary, he will lose all shred of credibility

[Freewill]

Bernie, who?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BTW- you a female/gender voter?

Why ask? Are you getting uncomfortable with your position since Bernie himself agrees with me.

I am a white make and I voted for Hillary in 2008 in the primary because she was better on national security and foreign policy. She is even better today. I voted for Obama and found that he came through on foreign policy as strong and competent as ever. I disagree with Obama on Crimea. Crimea belongs with Russia. Right wing Ukrainuans do not deserve our support.

It's not gender for me at all.

 

[Dot Com]

BTW- you a female/gender voter?

Why ask? Are you getting uncomfortable with your position since Bernie himself agrees with me.

I am a white make and I voted for Hillary in 2008 in the primary because she was better on national security and foreign policy. She is even better today. I voted for Obama and found that he came through on foreign policy as strong and competent as ever. I disagree with Obama on Crimea. Crimea belongs with Russia. Right wing Ukrainuans do not deserve our support.

It's not gender for me at all.

better in national security in 2008? lol Even SHE HERSELF is trying to distance herself from her record I get it, you're voting for her based on her gender

you should do stand up

she voted for vietraq whereas Sanders AND Obama didnt

 

[Dot Com]

Tehon 14536754

You are the only liar here. I am not arguing that it was OK what she did with the Foreign Affairs Manual. I said it ok with the officials since they knew all along she was doing it and was not asked to shut her system down. She is at fault and admitted she made a mistake but why did the officials in IT let it go for so long when they knew she was doing it.

If you argue it was not their job to prevent her from violating certain regulations then you are arguing that it was ok with them as well.

Not OK- they force her to stop.

That did not happen.

It was not OK for Hillary not to put in a request to set up a private account according to all regulations. But when she proceeded and officials became aware, it was apparently ok with them that she was not following their procedures. They did not deny her the use of her system.

What officials were aware of it and when did they become aware? Keep in mind that anyone working in the State Dept. would have been her subordinate. According to the Dept. of Diplomatic Security and the Bureau of Information Resource Management they would not have approved of it had they known.

^ that

she lied

 

[Bush92]

Sanders is a Socialist. Why not get the nomination of the SPUSA.

 

[Tehon]

How do you decide which big businesses cross a line from job and investment creation and energizing the economy to just being pure evil in your eyes?

When business colludes with government they have crossed the line.
Business–Government Collusion | Eric Banfield

Here is a list of 29 companies that have crossed the line.
Clinton groups’ big business ties could complicate a 2016 Hillary bid

 

[NotfooledbyW]

she voted for vietraq whereas Sanders AND Obama didnt

She was correct to vote the way she did when Saddam was not allowing the inspectors in. After Saddam allowed the inspectors in Bush decided and no one else to kick the inspectors out and start vietiraq.

Bernie ignored a threat to our nationional security in October 2002. Hillary did not. And she wanted inspectors to remain in 2003 - not invade.

You are among Bush's best buddies by co-blaming Hillary for the decision that Bush made entirely on his own to end Inspections and start a war.

Obama opposed the war didn't vote but he kept troops in Iraq as long as the Bush SOFA allowed and he correctly increased our troop presence in Afghanistan.

Just because you don't agree does not make Hillary evil. That is absolutely irrational to put her on an equal basis of evil as Bush and Cheney. Tough decisions had to be made after the 9/11/01 on the State she represented and on America.

She trusted Bush's word that peaceful resolution of Iraq's WMD potential threat was his primary goal and using the threat of military force to achieve a peaceful outcome was the correct way to go.

I don't blame Hillary for Bush's fatal decision to invade Iraq. You do. Perhaps it makes you feel good about yourself like Trump praising himself for thinking he predicted the deaths of 49 Americans in Orlando and it is all Obama's fault.

What's tragic is the threat of using military force against Iraq to force completion of inspections was working exactly as hoped.

Bush destroyed that hope, not Clinton.

She will make a great President. There is no doubt in my mind and you have offered no valid reasons to believe otherwise.

Bernie lost. Get over it and help save America from Republicans.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14540222

How do you decide which big businesses cross a line from job and investment creation and energizing the economy to just being pure evil in your eyes?

When business colludes with government they have crossed the line.
Business–Government Collusion | Eric Banfield

Here is a list of 29 companies that have crossed the line.
Clinton groups’ big business ties could complicate a 2016 Hillary bid

So you are citing a 1995 business philosopher who must have witnessed Bill Clinton create 20 million jobs after raising taxes on the wealthy and then watch Clintion's Republican successor waste budget surpluses to cut taxes for the rich mostly and then create zero jobs over eight years.

That's nice.

But here's a dose from your 2014 cite that has no point in this discussion.

"
David Almasi, executive director for the right-leaning National Center for Public Policy Research, agreed: "It is always going to raise suspicions." Almasi owns shares of Boeing Co., a Dow member that has donated considerable resources to the Clinton Foundation.

"It's the appearance of impropriety that is the problem," he continued. "If they are going to play like this, they are going to have to accept that we are going to be skeptical."


So a right leaner says the appearance of impropriety on Clinton's behalf means a right leaning organization thinks Hillary shouldn't run for President. Kind of an outdated opinion piece don't you think?

Anyway the the appearance of impropriety is not evil. What is your point posting 1995 and 2014 links?

 

[Dot Com]

she voted for vietraq whereas Sanders AND Obama didnt

She was correct to vote the way she did when Saddam was not allowing the inspectors in. After Saddam allowed the inspectors in Bush decided and no one else to kick the inspectors out and start vietiraq.

Bernie ignored a threat to our nationional security in October 2002. Hillary did not. And she wanted inspectors to remain in 2003 - not invade.

You are among Bush's best buddies by co-blaming Hillary for the decision that Bush made entirely on his own to end Inspections and start a war.

Obama opposed the war didn't vote but he kept troops in Iraq as long as the Bush SOFA allowed and he correctly increased our troop presence in Afghanistan.

Just because you don't agree does not make Hillary evil. That is absolutely irrational to put her on an equal basis of evil as Bush and Cheney. Tough decisions had to be made after the 9/11/01 on the State she represented and on America.

She trusted Bush's word that peaceful resolution of Iraq's WMD potential threat was his primary goal and using the threat of military force to achieve a peaceful outcome was the correct way to go.

I don't blame Hillary for Bush's fatal decision to invade Iraq. You do. Perhaps it makes you feel good about yourself like Trump praising himself for thinking he predicted the deaths of 49 Americans in Orlando and it is all Obama's fault.

What's tragic is the threat of using military force against Iraq to force completion of inspections was working exactly as hoped.

Bush destroyed that hope, not Clinton.

She will make a great President. There is no doubt in my mind and you have offered no valid reasons to believe otherwise.

Bernie lost. Get over it and help save America from Republicans.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

she voted for vietraq whereas Sanders AND Obama didnt

She was correct to vote the way she did when Saddam was not allowing the inspectors in. After Saddam allowed the inspectors in Bush decided and no one else to kick the inspectors out and start vietiraq.

Bernie ignored a threat to our nationional security in October 2002. Hillary did not. And she wanted inspectors to remain in 2003 - not invade.

You are among Bush's best buddies by co-blaming Hillary for the decision that Bush made entirely on his own to end Inspections and start a war.

Obama opposed the war didn't vote but he kept troops in Iraq as long as the Bush SOFA allowed and he correctly increased our troop presence in Afghanistan.

Just because you don't agree does not make Hillary evil. That is absolutely irrational to put her on an equal basis of evil as Bush and Cheney. Tough decisions had to be made after the 9/11/01 on the State she represented and on America.

She trusted Bush's word that peaceful resolution of Iraq's WMD potential threat was his primary goal and using the threat of military force to achieve a peaceful outcome was the correct way to go.

I don't blame Hillary for Bush's fatal decision to invade Iraq. You do. Perhaps it makes you feel good about yourself like Trump praising himself for thinking he predicted the deaths of 49 Americans in Orlando and it is all Obama's fault.

What's tragic is the threat of using military force against Iraq to force completion of inspections was working exactly as hoped.

Bush destroyed that hope, not Clinton.

She will make a great President. There is no doubt in my mind and you have offered no valid reasons to believe otherwise.

Bernie lost. Get over it and help save America from Republicans.

I guess this is whats to be expected from sore loser Bernie supporters.

I'm glad most won't behave this way and Bernie himself is being grown up about it.

 

[Dot Com]

Stop wasting my time!!!

 

[HappyJoy]

Stop wasting my time!!!

What are you going to do in November? Vote for Trump, third party, ignore Sanders eventually endorsement of Clinton?

 

[Synthaholic]

Hillary wanted Iraq as much as Dubya.

Bullshit.

 

[Synthaholic]

CrusaderFrank 14522365

Hillary wanted Iraq as much as Dubya.

Also, remember her bragging how she killed Qadaffi, she sounded like Cheney

That's Bull crap. Hillary wanted Bush to keep the inspections going weeks before Bush kicked them out. That's a huge difference which right wingers and far lefties won't accept.

Ha ha ha!! So funny how she destabilized Libya, right?

Ghaddafi had rape rooms. He deserved to be overthrown.

 

[Synthaholic]

So Sanders was only fooling when he said that she was a corrupt, untrustworthy corporate shill out to fuck people over?

He never said that.

Why are you supporting a guy who lies multiple times a day?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—


Dot Com 14539108

better in national security in 2008? lol Even SHE HERSELF is trying to distance herself from her record I get it, you're voting for her based on her gender

Distance herself from her record? That's BS.
She reiterated what I've been telling mostly right wing morons for years.

​

In response, Clinton acknowledged, as she has on previous occasions, that she’d made a mistake. But she also offered an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.

Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth. I had written many Slatecolumns about the Iraq debate and the ensuing war, but I couldn’t remember the details of then-Sen. Clinton’s position. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth.

This fact doesn’t vindicate her vote back in 2002—far from it. But it does take some of the sting out of Sanders’ attack. In short, her vote on Iraq, under the circumstances, should not be seen as the indicator of her stance or judgment on armed intervention generally.


The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or “with any allies we can muster.” Such a course, she said, “is fraught with danger,” in part because “it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,” legitimizing invasions that Russia might launch against Georgia, India against Pakistan, or China against Taiwan.



“So,” she continued, “the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.”

She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote


Clinton admits it was a mistake to take Bush at his word. Bush is a liar. I do not fault her for that.

 

[Synthaholic]

If Bernie Sanders endorses Hillary, he will lose all shred of credibility

Why?

As Bill Maher says, "If you're on a airline flight and they've run out of steak, get the chicken".

Bernie, unlike you extreme fringe of society wingnuts, knows it's not a zero sum game.

You wingnuts are the ones who have issues with compromise, not us Liberals.

I have an issue with how Liberals define compromise. Your definition is for the rest of the people to sit down, shut up, and do what you're told then find a way to be OK with it. That's not compromise.

Then you haven't paid any attention the past 8 years. Obama has offered compromise after compromise to the Republicans and the teabagger faction has said no every time.

Republicans can't even say compromise. They say "find middle ground". Sad!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So Sanders was only fooling when he said that she was a corrupt, untrustworthy corporate shill out to fuck people over?

He never said that.

Why are you supporting a guy who lies multiple times a day?

If you weren't actually supporting a candidate so completely corrupt and incompetent that she's under a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION by the FBI, I might give a single fuck

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Stop wasting my time!!!

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—


Dot Com 14539108

better in national security in 2008? lol Even SHE HERSELF is trying to distance herself from her record I get it, you're voting for her based on her gender

Distance herself from her record? That's BS.
She reiterated what I've been telling mostly right wing morons for years.

​

In response, Clinton acknowledged, as she has on previous occasions, that she’d made a mistake. But she also offered an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.

Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth. I had written many Slatecolumns about the Iraq debate and the ensuing war, but I couldn’t remember the details of then-Sen. Clinton’s position. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth.

This fact doesn’t vindicate her vote back in 2002—far from it. But it does take some of the sting out of Sanders’ attack. In short, her vote on Iraq, under the circumstances, should not be seen as the indicator of her stance or judgment on armed intervention generally.


The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or “with any allies we can muster.” Such a course, she said, “is fraught with danger,” in part because “it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,” legitimizing invasions that Russia might launch against Georgia, India against Pakistan, or China against Taiwan.



“So,” she continued, “the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.”

She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote


Clinton admits it was a mistake to take Bush at his word. Bush is a liar. I do not fault her for that.

Why not spending your time reading something from the person to whom you are directing your hate? So you were wrong to declare Hillary trying to distance herself from her vote but can't admit it so we are wasting your time.

Why did waste our time by telling a lie about what Hillary Clinton said about her record.

She runs proudly on her record.

 

[Dot Com]

whatever you say guy. How old, or rather young are you?

Stop wasting my time!!!

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—


Dot Com 14539108

better in national security in 2008? lol Even SHE HERSELF is trying to distance herself from her record I get it, you're voting for her based on her gender

Distance herself from her record? That's BS.
She reiterated what I've been telling mostly right wing morons for years.

​

In response, Clinton acknowledged, as she has on previous occasions, that she’d made a mistake. But she also offered an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.

Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth. I had written many Slatecolumns about the Iraq debate and the ensuing war, but I couldn’t remember the details of then-Sen. Clinton’s position. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth.

This fact doesn’t vindicate her vote back in 2002—far from it. But it does take some of the sting out of Sanders’ attack. In short, her vote on Iraq, under the circumstances, should not be seen as the indicator of her stance or judgment on armed intervention generally.


The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or “with any allies we can muster.” Such a course, she said, “is fraught with danger,” in part because “it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,” legitimizing invasions that Russia might launch against Georgia, India against Pakistan, or China against Taiwan.



“So,” she continued, “the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.”

She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote


Clinton admits it was a mistake to take Bush at his word. Bush is a liar. I do not fault her for that.

Why not spending your time reading something from the person to whom you are directing your hate? So you were wrong to declare Hillary trying to distance herself from her vote but can't admit it so we are wasting your time.

Why did waste our time by telling a lie about what Hillary Clinton said about her record.

She runs proudly on her record.