Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, January 18, 2019

Hillary Clinton is not trustworthy.

That’s the belief of many, many Americans – and in this case, let’s exclude the right-wing orthodoxy, who have hated Hillary since she first said she’d rather not stay home baking chocolate-chip cookies in 1992.

Forty percent of Democratic primary voters, according to March CBS/New York Times poll, believe that Mrs. Clinton is politically calculating; somone they don’t trust with the presidency. She’s been asked about it in debates and on the stump, and there’s a whole genre of literature devoted to her “fabrications.”

But even journalists like Jill Abramson, who has covered Clinton for decades as the the New York Times’ Washington bureau chief, managing editor and executive editor, have defended Clinton against mostly-baseless accusations that she is “dishonest.”

Abramson, in an op-ed in The Guardian, writes that while Hillary has shown bad judgment before – she specifically refers to her use of a private email server while Secretary of State, over which Clinton will be speaking to the FBI, and her taking Wall Street money for speeches she’s given – she suffers from a level of scrutiny not given to male candidates, and her long record in politics gives her opponents ample fodder.

This type of criticism, which many use as a feminist defense, might fall on hostile ears. But as Chaz Pazienza argues in The Daily Banter, it’s Clinton’s reputation, for good or for ill, that makes it so impossible for many voters to look at her objectively:

The “personality” that’s been sold to the American electorate is largely manufactured, and not by Clinton herself (another facet of the smear: that she’s a phony). The reality is that Clinton was one of the most liberal members of the Senate during her time there, ranking within ten points of progressive messiah Bernie Sanders and her history as a crusader for progressive causes is precisely what so motivated the GOP to destroy her in the first place. As far as the right was concerned, Clinton stepped far over the line when she pushed for healthcare reform way back in 1993 and her activist past informed a future as a “difficult woman.”

Even using objective measures of trustworthiness, like Politifact’s Truth-O-Meter scale, she rates as the most honest compared to every other candidate in the 2016 race. (Let’s not even go into the GOP frontrunner, who’s entire candidacy is based upon saying the most outrageous lie he can think of in any given moment.)

But unlike other politicians, the supposed scandals stick. You might be sick of hearing about Hillary’s damn emails, but they’re still getting coverage.

Hillary has learned to become guarded through her decades in public life. When the most intimate details of your life are splayed across front pages for everyone to see – and judge and scold and criticize – it’s natural that she would carefully take pains to draw her private life around her as much as possible. And that’s made blunders about her lack of transparency – like not releasing transcripts of her private speeches to Wall Street – make her look like she’s hiding something, even if it’s just embarrassment or hypocrisy.

As Abramson points out, this doesn’t mean that Hillary is above scrutiny, and she’s not excusing her record. But Abramson isn’t alone in finding Clinton’s “liar” reputation extremely dubious.

After all, America has elected prevaricating politicians before.

Photo: Hillary Clinton: Whoever you want her to be? REUTERS/Mike Stone

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit1
  • Print this page
  • 4864

254 responses to “Why Do Voters Say Hillary Clinton Is Untrustworthy?”

  1. Dominick Vila says:

    The biggest problem for Hillary Clinton is the fact that she is an intelligent, and a very active political woman.
    None of the attacks directed at her, from White Water, to Benghazi, to the e-mail server controversy amount to a hill of beans, and none prove that Hillary broke any laws. On the contrary, they all prove the length her detractors are willing to go to bring down a person whose qualifications, experience, demeanor, and vision make her the most qualified candidate for the presidency of the United States in 2016.
    The only thing the Benghazi claims accomplished was to remind us of 9/11, and the 11 terrorist attacks that took place when W was in office.
    The e-mail server controversy suggests a desire to avoid scrutiny, but no evidence that she broke any laws. The desperate attempts to blame her for receiving e-mails that revealed the identity of foreign informants, simply indicate the desperation of those willing to tarnish the reputation and credibility of a formidable presidential candidate by blaming her for the classification of documents long AFTER they were sent to her, or after she sent them.
    Dirty politics is not new. This has been the norm throughout much of our history. What is new is the extent and desperation of all the claims. and the fact that the attacks are influenced by a desire to ensure a woman is never elected President of the United States.

    • TZToronto says:

      It’s strange how the various transgressions of the Republican candidates, even when uncovered and brought forward, seem to disappear for public scrutiny almost immediately. Perhaps those who support these right-wing candidates are so accustomed the Republican prevarication and hypocrisy that there’s no more empty wall for the GOP garbage to stick to. Or maybe it’s just that the Democrats aren’t very good at making Republican evil stay on the minds of the electorate. In HRC’s favour is the fact that most Republicans still think they’re running against President Obama.

      • Dominick Vila says:

        Our political strategists are amateurs compared to the Republicans when it comes to convincing the public that the reality they see is a chimera, and that their lies, distortions, and prejudice are attributes worth supporting, regardless of how illogical and irresponsible they may be.

        • Theodora30 says:

          I blame the mainstream media. They repeatedly give Republicans a pass. For example Colin Powell did not use State’s server and he has said he had all of his emails destroyed which is an egregious violation of the Public Records Act but there has been no media outrage. Back in the day Powell lied to the Iran Contra investigators and the media shrugged it off. Imagine if a Democrat had done either of those things.

        • charleo1 says:

          In my opinion many of these so called Republican political, “strategists,” are little more than unprincipled propagandists, that will whip up any useful lie, or scandal for a buck. Many times, completely out of thin air. Then, if the story gets any traction at all, online, it’s picked up, and repeated on air. Usually coming from one unnamed, but, “official” source or another. And pretty soon, viola, they’ve got themselves a hit piece. Something the RW media can talk incessantly about, instead of the real story, like why the gov. really shut down, or immigration failed, or Valerie Plame was outed, or where the phony yellowcake documents were made up, and how Dick Cheney’s go to war team came upon finding them.
          Yet, all we hear about today, is how untrustworthy all of us believe Hillary to be. What a huge credibility problem Hillary has with Democrats! Scarborough, on the supposedly liberal MSNBC, informs his viewers how the, “criminal,” FBI investigation is, Quote: “ramping up,” and, “immunities are being granted” Implying, can an indictment of Hillary be far off? It’s outrageous, irresponsible, and of course, unfair. But it doesn’t matter. While on the other side, candidates Trump, and Cruz trade moronic jabs about each other’s wives, and their anatomy parts, and make incoherent nonsensical promises, with no more than a “tisk-tisk,” now boys. play nice. Not a word about these two sleaze balls hurting their trustworthiness quotients with the American people.

          So there are two standards being applied. One for the Dems, and the other for the dysfunctional, nutty, and often off the chain, historical speaking, Republican Right. And why this is so? I’m not sure. I only know it is so, and seems to be clearly intentional. Perhaps it’s just a matter of following the money. Big money prefers Right Wing pols, who do the larger part of their water carrying. And big money outfits own most of the media. Or perhaps it comes from a patriotic standpoint? Where the consensus is, the Country needs two viable political Parties, and one of them on the Conservative side has gotten very ill. So we’ll cover for it , and coddle it along, until it can regain it’s health. For the good of the Country! Like that. So, anyway, speaking of trustworthiness in general. How does the press rank in all this trustworthiness business nowadays? Say compared to Hillary Clinton?

          • plc97477 says:

            In the 90s one of the schools did a study that found that repugs will crawl across hot coals to be able to vote for a repug who is the victim of mud throwing, even if the mud sticks. Whereas dems will not vote for a pol. who is throwing mud, yes even if the mud sticks. So dirty politics fits right into the repugs plan. It is a win win for repugs.

          • David says:

            In the early 2000’s, one of the schools did a study that found that libtard idiots will say just about anything to support their twisted view on politics.

          • JPHALL says:

            Still making up stuff I see.

          • David says:

            Kind of like you?

      • dpaano says:

        TZ….my biggest complaint about the Democrats is that they DO tend to sit on their hands and fail to support their party! They rarely, if ever, speak up in support of anything!! If they would just learn to stand up and speak out when these ridiculous things pop up in the news or wherever, more people would be aware of the GOP’s lies and scare tactics!!! They need to get a spine!!!

        • @HawaiianTater says:

          They’re paid very handsomely to not stand up and speak out about the injustices of the world.

        • A_Real_Einstein says:

          You forget that all of the Democrat establishment is on the take. It is a corrupt political system in which all the wealth goes to the top which is exactly what the leadership of both parties want. Research Debbie Wasserman Shultz and the payday loan industry for an egregious and current example. It is all rigged including this primary. You are being played. Wake Up!

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Don’t forget that shortly after DWS sided with the Republicans on this issue, Obama endorsed her in her reelection bid. DWS is also using her position as the head of the DNC to rig her election against her primary challenger, who is a true progressive in the mold of Bernie.

        • TZToronto says:

          I certainly can’t disagree with you. Maybe once the campaign for the general election gets going we’ll hear something useful from the Democratic candidates. The “people” don’t want to hear about policy. They want a soap opera.

    • Otto T. Goat says:

      Putting aside her lying and corruption, she has a track record of incompetence, mismanagement, and poor decisions.

      • Mr Corrections says:

        Yes, putting aside (fictional things), she has a track record of (more fictional things)

      • Eleanore Whitaker says:

        Putting aside your mental illness…Overdosing on Viagra much? Her track record is impeccable in case you morons missed it. She was right about Libya and now that has already been proven.

        Tell us…do you live a life of lies you can’t prove ALL the time? Or is this just one of your Goat boy mental breakdowns?

      • yabbed says:

        If only you could have accomplished as much in life as she has. Hillary Clinton just makes most men feel insufficient, don’t she?

      • dpaano says:

        Only in your dreams!

      • Independent1 says:

        Really?? And the lying just keeps a coming: See this lowife: From the SunSentinel editorial board as they endorsed her candidacy:

        Overall, however, Hillary Clinton is smart, steady and able to rebound quickly from defeat. When her attempt at health care reform failed during her husband’s first term, Clinton worked with senators from both parties – Democrat Ted Kennedy and Republican Orrin Hatch — to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which cut the uninsured rate of American children in half. More than eight million children have coverage because of the program.

        .”She helped secure more than $21 billion for World Trade Center redevelopment. She led investigations into the health problems of 9/11 first responders. She promoted increased National Institutes of Health funding for research into cancer and asthma. She was the principal author of sanctions – particularly on oil imports to the European Union — that brought Iran to the negotiating table. She helped bring about a 2012 cease-fire between Hamas and Israel that headed off an Israeli invasion of Gaza. She named an “ambassador at large” for women’s rights.

        “Nearly every foreign policy victory of President Obama’s second term,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., “has Secretary Clinton’s fingerprints on it

    • Impasto says:

      Thank you, Hillary.

    • David says:

      Dominick- Seriously? As regards the emails, because they weren’t marked “Secret” she should not be held accountable. Well, either she was too stupid to know that the information contained in them was classified, or she just didn’t care. Which is it?

      • Dominick Vila says:

        The information sent to her was not classified at the time it was sent to her. Nobody in the government knows the names of all our foreign informants. The claims of wrongdoing are political garbage.

        • David says:

          So, which is it? Was she too stupid to know the information was secret or did she just not care? Will you answer the question?

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Neither. The contents of some of the e-mails sent to her cited people that attended meetings, or delivered speeches. The Office of the Inspector General decided, after the fact, that mentioning the name of some of our foreign informants compromised their security and ability to cooperate.
            Nobody, Hillary or anyone else, knows the identities of all our informants, with the possible exception of a few high caliber foreign officials.
            One of the e-mails sent to Hillary mentioned information broadcasted by FOX, and later by local newspapers. The information was not classified when the media divulged it, and it was not classified when the Department of State told her what the media was saying.

          • David says:

            Nice try. There were quite a few emails that compromised agents. The private server she was using should not have been used for government business. But she didn’t know, right?

          • Dominick Vila says:

            The information that has been revealed, which is not much for obvious reasons, does not indicate that the names of U.S. intelligence agents were compromised or put at risk. The little that is known is that the identity of foreign informants may have been mentioned, and that some of the information was reclassified after the fact because it reveals some vulnerabilities.
            There were no laws when Hillary Clinton was in office that prohibit the use of a personal or public server to send or receive official government correspondence. Only agency guidelines. I think she would have been much better off using government servers and the .gov system, but she did not break any laws and, therefore, she cannot be prosecuted, let alone jailed.

    • A_Real_Einstein says:

      The question is about trustworthiness not necessarily illegal activities. A great example of this is what occurred yesterday hen Greenpiece reporter asked her about all the money she had accepted on behalf of the fossil fuel industries. She became enraged and said that Bernie needed to stop lying about her. She explained that she only had accepted money from employees from people who happened to work for companies in the fossil fuel industry. She was insinuating that these were small contributions from supporters making personal contributions to her campaign that happened to work in the industry. Turns out she has received millions in contributions from LOBBYISTS of the Fossil Fuel industry. Then to attack Bernie who did not bring this up (Question came from Greenpiece) and say he also takes money from employees of the Fossil Fuel industry is so disengenuous. Now do you understand why so many non GOPers also think she is full of baloney?

      • Dominick Vila says:

        I watched her meltdown when a Greenpeace activist asked her about donations, but I missed the part about donations from employees. I think she is feeling the “burn”…
        She gets donations from corporations, PACS, and individuals, the same as everyone else. That’s SOP in the USA. It is not a crime or a reason not to support someone.

        • A_Real_Einstein says:

          It is when you have an alternative like Bernie who does none of that. Hillary is not evil but her cheese has been moved.

  2. Otto T. Goat says:

    Because she’s almost as big a liar as her husband.

    • Mr Corrections says:

      So not a liar at all, then. Got it.

    • Eleanore Whitaker says:

      Because you better be able to prove your accusations in a court of law Mr. MAN….or…maybe it is time some of us women hang you out to dry for libel and slander. Been a while since a woman was within 100 miles of you?

      Hillary is THE Most accomplished woman of our time. She has been on the most important government committees. IN case you missed it Mr. Goat boy…Hillary is the only woman to stare down the attack dog Gowdy at the Benghazi hearing and forced him to avert his Nazi gaze.

      • David says:

        Eleanore!!!! Maybe you can enlighten us on all the accomplishments of Hildebeast as Secretary of State? Or, what was her seminal accomplishment while she was senator from New York?

        • Independent1 says:

          Here’s an excerpt from a St. Petersburg SunSentinel article endorsing her candidacy: try finding any of the other candidates whose experience even remotely compares:

          Overall, however, Hillary Clinton is smart, steady and able to rebound quickly from defeat. When her attempt at health care reform failed during her husband’s first term, Clinton worked with senators from both parties – Democrat Ted Kennedy and Republican Orrin Hatch — to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which cut the uninsured rate of American children in half. More than eight million children have coverage because of the program.

          She helped secure more than $21 billion for World Trade Center redevelopment. She led investigations into the health problems of 9/11 first responders. She promoted increased National Institutes of Health funding for research into cancer and asthma. She was the principal author of sanctions – particularly on oil imports to the European Union — that brought Iran to the negotiating table. She helped bring about a 2012 cease-fire between Hamas and Israel that headed off an Israeli invasion of Gaza. She named an “ambassador at large” for women’s rights.

          “Nearly every foreign policy victory of President Obama’s second term,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., “has Secretary Clinton’s fingerprints on it.”

      • cleos_mom says:

        Staring down the attack dog might be just what is bothering some of the commenters here. Very bad form for the girl to not let the boys win.

        That and her not smiling enough.

        • Eleanore Whitaker says:

          It used to be a depressingly MAN’s World…not anymore. Hillary’s actions are recognized the most clearly by women who don’t allow men to pull the wool over our eyes.

          I’m at an age now where men no longer interest me and are just too exhausting to deal with. Ultimately, most of them have one and only one goal: to be the No. 1 reason women exist.

          Hillary won’t stoop to Trump’s level. And she has Sanders on the ropes and all she has to do is let him run his mouth. A tactic all women with high IQs know is a great way to out the truth out of any man.

    • yabbed says:

      Scares you silly, doesn’t she? 🙂 Well, start now practicing saying “Madam President”.

  3. Otto T. Goat says:

    “My two cents’ worth–and I think it is the two cents’ worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994–is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn’t smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.

    So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to John Breaux and Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate. And when substantive objections were raised to the plan by analysts calculating the moral hazard and adverse selection pressures it would put on the nation’s health-care system…

    Hillary Rodham Clinton has already flopped as a senior administrative official in the executive branch–the equivalent of an Undersecretary. Perhaps she will make a good senator. But there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president.”

    http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001600.html

    • Mr Corrections says:

      OK thanks for letting us know what an actual frigging Nazi thinks, it’s very helpful.

      • Otto T. Goat says:

        Brad DeLong isn’t a Nazi, you imbecile, he’s a left-wing professor at Berkeley who was a deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury during the Clinton administration.

        • Mr Corrections says:

          I meant you, obviously. Nobody cares what a white supremacist thinks, about anything.

          I hope that helps!

          • Otto T. Goat says:

            You meant DeLong, obviously, which is funny.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            No, I really didn’t. I meant you, the guy who unaccountably thinks he is superior to anyone, despite being an unemployable high-school dropout.

            I hope that helps!

          • Otto T. Goat says:

            You said, in response to a quote “OK thanks for letting us know what an actual frigging Nazi thinks, it’s very helpful”. Obviously you thought DeLong was a Nazi, probably because you have GRIDS dementia.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            I’m sorry you can’t read. Maybe you should have completed high school?

          • Otto T. Goat says:

            Maybe you should have looked up who DeLong is before idiotically claiming he’s a Nazi.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            I didn’t, though. I mean, I get you have difficulty with concepts like “words” and “numbers”, having had to drop out of high school after getting your sister pregnant, but really.

          • Otto T. Goat says:

            You did, it’s hilarious that you can’t let it go.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Weird how it doesn’t seem to be ME not letting your error go?

          • Otto T. Goat says:

            What’s weird is you believing DeLong is a Nazi.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            so you’re saying your sister’s period was just late?

          • Otto T. Goat says:

            Many believe Nazi’s exterminated gays in death camps, but that’s not true, unfortunately.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Hahaha fuckin’ WOW, who would have thought you were a Holocaust denier too

          • Otto T. Goat says:

            You think I’m holocaust denier, you think DeLong is a Nazi, you think your contracting GRIDS was a blessing.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            I’m sorry you’re a laughingstock, Holocaust Denier Otto.

          • Otto T. Goat says:

            You never explained why you thought DeLong is a Nazi.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Yes, it’s weird how I never took your stupid strawman seriously, angry dumb racist guy

          • Otto T. Goat says:

            Your claiming DeLong is a Nazi is not a strawman, and you calling other people angry is funny.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Sorry that you think I’m ever going to take a Holocaust-denying sister diddler seriously! I’m not, though! Good luck with your impotence!

          • Otto T. Goat says:

            Next time the Nazi high command meets I will tell DeLong you said “Hi”.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            It’s incredible how insecure you are. “Why won’t they take my dumb racist screeds seriously just because I’m a Holocaust denier? WHY????”

          • Otto T. Goat says:

            We’ve come up with a cure for your GRIDS, we are calling it Nolkyz B.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Haha I get it, you’re calling for genocide again!!! How edgy

          • Otto T. Goat says:

            Maybe you shouldn’t have allowed so many GRIDS infected schlongs into your anus.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            haha I get it! those 1950s comedy stylings never go out of date

  4. Mr Corrections says:

    A: Because Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers have spent the better part of three decades spreading every bullshit conspiracy theory they could think of.

  5. Integritydev says:

    Incredible story about nothing. There are very few publicly elected officials that do not have in their job description the requirement of being a “liar”. I don’t know if she is or not – I don’t really care.

    If there are ten (10) people on the Hill that are not professional liars, I would challenge the authenticity of the data. Is she a liar? I don’t know. Is there anyone in the mix that is NOT a liar? We can quickly start pointing fingers.

    So, for me this was a non story that was entertaining at best but without any meaningful learning for any intelligent citizen. Her credibility is going to be constantly attacked because she is FEMALE. It is the American Way. If you are anything other than a White Heterosexual male, you are automatically under a different set of expectations and credibility scale. It’s America. The history is long and entrenched. Its sad but the beat goes on.

  6. FT66 says:

    Hillary is a very big threate to republicans. Some are losing their sleep at night when they think about her sitting in the White House as the first woman president ever in American history. One has to wonder why didn’t the trustworthy issue brought up during her 2008 bid? It was because they saw she had no chance of beating the then Sen. Obama. We have witnessed the way they crucified her during the Benghazi hearing (the woman was made to sit on the same chair for solid 11 hours) which failed totally flat and they didn’t achieve their goal. They are trying this or that and see what will stick to her and bring her down. I don’t understand when they talk on not being trustworthy. Does it mean she is going to the sell the White House or the entire nation to someone? What is it really about? Regarding emails. If, god forbid Hillary can announce now (of which I know can’t happen), that she is pulling out of the race, no one will ever hear about talking emails again neither talking about her untrustworthy. Think deeply about this voters wherever you are. It is all about big witch-hunting.

    • A_Real_Einstein says:

      Hillary in this primary has consistently lied about Bernie’s positions, record and motivations. She has gone as far claiming that if Bernie is elected that we will all lose our healthcare and seniors would lose their Medicare. Even 40% of democrats think she is a liar because she is a liar. Until she releases the transcripts nothing about this will change. She insults our intelligence when she accepts hundreds of millions of dollars from special interest groups and says it does not affect how she votes. Really?

      • @HawaiianTater says:

        As bad as not releasing the transcripts makes Hillary look, letting the public find out what she said would hurt her even worse. If there was nothing in them that would hurt her, she would have released them already.

        • dpaano says:

          They’ve all been released…..in fact, they just released the final group this past month, I believe. Nothing there to see…..

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            You’re thinking about her emails. We’re talking about the transcripts of her paid speeches to Wall Street, which she refuses to release.

          • dpaano says:

            Why should she release these? They should be public record if you look hard enough.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            If they were public record, everyone would already know what she said and it wouldn’t be an issue.

      • yabbed says:

        Nonsense. Bernie said himself he would do away with the ACA, the landmark advance in health care put in place by President Obama. He lies about which woman (but not a wife) was the mother of his one child. He lies about having lived on a kibbutz in Israel, saying, well, he might have visited a time or two. He lies about everything that he thinks would be a negative to voters. He’s a total fraud.

        • bobnstuff says:

          I looked up the fact check on Bernie and he is just about tied with Hillary on truth vs. lies. Both or over the 50% mark on true or mostly true and under 20% on false unlike Trump who is a 22%. true or mostly true and at 78% false. Even when attacking each other the democrats are much less likely to make false statements. Is Hillary the perfect candidate no, is she much better then the ones leading the republican race, very much so. I like Bernie and think he could be elected but I believe Hillary could do the job better. It would have been nice had the republicans found someone electable this time around. I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils and for once would like to be excited about a candidate.

        • David says:

          But, Hillary doesn’t lie! Does she???

      • dpaano says:

        Well, Einstein, we WILL lose our healthcare and seniors WILL lose their Medicare if Bernie is nominated. If he does away with Obamacare and pushes for a one-pay system, the Congress (which may or may not be run again by the GOP) will shoot him down significantly, and we would be left where we were before Obamacare! Apparently, you haven’t actually read OR researched this matter because there have been several articles and information about why this is true. As for 40% of Democrats thinking she’s a liar….I don’t really believe that. If you’re looking at polls….you have to take into consideration who took those polls. As for her accepting hundreds of millions of dollars from special interest groups…..where in hell did that come from? The Clinton Foundation has taken money from quite a few groups to help third world countries, and NONE of them have asked her for special favors. If they had projects, etc. that needed the Government’s approval, they would have had to go through committees of which Hillary was not a part of. Do you NOT know how our government works? If not, you should really look into this because you (and the GOP who are pushing this piece of BS) are entirely incorrect!

        • @HawaiianTater says:

          You should stop listening to Hillary’s lies. If Bernie is elected, it means he’ll fight for universal single payer healthcare. It doesn’t mean he would get rid of the ACA first. It would remain in place until he had something new to replace it.

          • dpaano says:

            Not talking about anything that Hillary has said about this…..am looking into many articles and have researched what he intends to do. Before you can put another healthcare plan in place, you have to do away with the original one…….besides, if the Senate and House remain in the hands of the GOP, he won’t be able to do much of anything that he says he wants to do, especially when it comes to taxes, which he intends to raise on all levels. He may get away with dropping Obamacare, but he will NEVER get them to agree to any other plan, especially one suggested by a Democratic president!

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Quite frankly, you’re misinformed. This issue has already been addressed by Bernie after Hillary and her surrogates lied about it. Bernie has not once ever said he would get rid of Obamacare first and then fight for single payer. The ACA would remain in place until it is replaced. We’re not going backwards. We’re going forwards.

            Hillary supporters sound silly when they make the argument that Bernie can’t get anything through Congress. You’re arguing against yourself here. If Bernie can’t get anything through Congress, then neither can Hillary. And if you’re interested in flipping Congress, Bernie has a much better chance of doing that than Hillary does. She might be performing strongly within the Democratic base but he crushes her with the Independent vote. You’re not going to flip Congress when half the country doesn’t trust you.

        • A_Real_Einstein says:

          Well dpanno this exactly why we do not like Shillary or her supporters. You really think Bernie would even consider cancelling anybody’s health care BEFORE INSTITUTING Medicare for all. Are you joking? Your saying he would expand Medicare for all by cancelling it first? Unlike Shillary, Bernie believes healthcare is a right and not a privilege. Please stop insulting us and making an ass out of yourself.

          • charleo1 says:

            Look, I understand you didn’t ask me. But a statement that starts out, “That’s why we don’t like Shillary, or her supporters,” is not the way we’re going to keep Trump, or Cruz, or any of these RW meat heads away from the levers of government. Debate, and strong opinions are great, as long as we keep in mind, we share a lot more in common with both Hillary, and Burnie, than we do with Trump, or Cruz. Plus, it would be nice if a few of their supporters developed a few pangs of guilt, and really thought about what’s best for the Country for a change. Okay, that’s not happening. So we’re gonna need to stick together!

        • A_Real_Einstein says:

          Hillary and Bill have taken over $140,000,000 in paid speeches in the last decade. $40,000,000 in 2014 alone. That does not include all of the Clinton Foundation, Superpac and campaign contribution monies that have been received from special interest groups. It is a disgrace. The definition of Cronie capitalism. Feel the Bern.

          • dpaano says:

            And, Einstein, why and how is that ANY different from any other politician or ex-politician? They ALL are called upon to make speeches after they leave office (and even some give speeches while they are still IN office). You might want to research how much GWB or his father have made on speeches. You don’t think they give them for free do you? Check into McCain also or any other politician who is still serving or has left service. You’re being so ridiculous.
            As for monies received from the SuperPACS, the candidates have NO control over these donations and have NO idea who the donors actually are. By law, candidates are not allowed to have any control over PACS and who they get money from and how. As for separate donations from “special interest groups,” not sure exactly what you mean by that since I would consider myself a “special interest” donator because I have a special interest in seeing Hillary elected….does that make me a bad person? Besides, there is a limit to how much a certain group can donate…..if I remember correctly, it’s $2500.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            You’re essentially making the argument that corruption is okay because everyone else is corrupt.

          • dpaano says:

            I don’t believe that I EVER said that…..I just pointed out that ALL politicians make speeches when they are in or out of office and get paid for them. It has nothing to do with corruption….some people like to have politicians or ex-politicians make speeches in front of their groups. Nothing corrupt about it, but you’re the one trying to make it corrupt by saying that Hillary made speeches to Wall Street individuals and got paid for it and that this was somehow corrupt! Not so!

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            I’ve said this to you earlier but it’s not the speeches that bother me. It’s the campaign contributions from every industry I oppose. Fracking. Bankers. Private prisons. Big pharma. Private healthcare. Etc. The list goes on and on. Do you not know how campaign contributions work? They give money to politicians who are then friendly to them in return when they get into office. They’re not giving them money out of the kindness of their hearts.

          • dpaano says:

            Again, as I said earlier, contributions are limited to a set amount when they are individual contributions, so bankers, frackers, etc. can only give a small amount. If they give to a PAC, I don’t believe they have a limit, but the PACs are not controlled by the candidate and they have NO idea who gave what and from where. The PACs can only use the money for ads and other campaign items….they can’t just willy nilly hand over bunches of money to the individual candidate! The government makes it VERY difficult for so-called “special interest” groups to give large amounts of money to a individual candidate. You may want to do some research on this.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Your last line just blew the irony meter off the chart. You honestly believe that money in politics is not a problem and everything is legitimate and above board and special interest groups have no influence on politicians. The level of naivety here is astounding.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Your last line just blew the irony meter off the chart. You honestly believe that money in politics is not a problem and everything is legitimate and above board and special interest groups have no influence on politicians. The level of naivety here is astounding.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Here are even more examples of Hillary being influenced by donor money.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Great argument for Bernie Sanders. He is probably the cleanest candidate we will ever have. No Superpac. No paid speeches. No campaign donations from special interest groups and corporations. The argument that everybody does it so it is ok that Hillary does it holds no water if Bernie is her opponent. He is the only candidate truly for the people. Care to try again?

          • bobnstuff says:

            Not to nit pick but where did you find those numbers, Either they are spending one large bunch of bucks or your numbers are wrong. Together their net worth is around $100,000,000. They charge a max of $225.000 per speech and get it. Since neither of them are in office if they can get it they should. If it were Trump making the money no one would say a thing. How much did Trump get paid to do his TV show?

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            I am referring to an article by Robert Yoon of CNN which was updated on 2/16/16. The number now stands at $153,000,000. I am not comparing Hillary to Donald. I have never voted for a Republican. I am comparing Hillary to Bernie. The scoreboard stands at Hillary at 153,000,000 to Bernie 0. I have no issue with paid speaking fees for people out of politics. But Hillary has been a Senator and SOS during this period and has run for President twice. This is a complete conflict of interest for any politician. I am insulted to think that she expects me to believe that she will not be swayed in any way by the people who made her a multi millionare. Remember how she said that they were broke when they left the White House? Please! We have a choice. We can go with one of the most corrupted politicians in the hostory of the party or the cleanest candidate ever. Feel the Bern.

          • bobnstuff says:

            If I believed for one minute that Bernie could deliver on his dreams I would be behind him 100% but I live in the real world and have no faith in congress letting a democrat run the country. Hillary with all of her flaws is the dragon lady and she might just be able to get a few things done. Unless we get a working congress the country will be stuck for another four or eight years in a hopeless state. Who ever gets to head the democrats ticket needs long coat tail. As far as buying Hillary I read a piece the other day that explained that when people give large amounts of money it’s not to buy favor as much as to get a like minded person into office. I’m not anti Wall Street, I just want them to play fair and if they don’t have a government that will do something about it. That isn’t the case right now and hasn’t been for a very long time.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            You are missing the point about the political revolution that Bernie is speaking about. Bernie is not just talking about what he can do as President by himself. He is talking about a political revolution where millions of people become engaged for the first time in politics and vote in their economic interests. If he is elected the revolution will have occurred and both the House and Senate will be run by Democrats like in 2009. That is the whole premise of his campaign. Clearly Bernie has the vision and credibility to make that happen. Neither of them will accomplish anything of significance without a democratic Congress. So who will be better to make that revolution happen? Feel the Bern.

          • bobnstuff says:

            You may be right but I fear your are not. I have no say in the matter either way being a republican in Pa. and our primary is so late it makes little difference most years. I get to vote for the one person in the race that I’m very sure will not be president, John Kasich. Bernie is a bit to far left for me but it would be a good thing to pull the country back that way. All I know is we need a government that works for the best interest of the people not the mega rich but the average guy. Unless we get a real congress nothing good will happen. We have a country divided like it hasn’t been in a very long time and even though thing are doing OK all you seen to here is how bad a job Obama is doing. I’m tired of the lies in the media coming from the republican media machine.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            There is no evidence that Hillary would have long coattails or any coattails at all. She might be doing well with the Dem base but Bernie crushes her with Independents and over half the country finds her untrustworthy. If nominated, she might win the WH and that’s really only because Cruz and Trump are so horrible but Congress will mostly stay the same and we’ll end up with another 4 years of obstructionism. You think the GOP hates Obama? They hate Hillary even more and have had a quarter of a century for that hatred to brew. Bernie is the one turning out the base and creating excitement. He polls better than her against the GOP every single time. He’s had more donations than any candidate in history. He has crossover appeal that Hillary will never be able to generate. If transforming Congress is in your interests, you’re backing the wrong candidate.

          • Ruby Andrews-Lester says:

            Stupid liar..I am a member of The Clinton Foundation, and that is an out and out lie..You need to go there and see what is really happening..Damn..

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Actually $153,000,000 in dicumented speaking fees for the Clintons according to Robert Yoon of CNN 2/6/16. I am sure the Clinton Foundation does wonderful things. That is not the point. You can’t expect her to change a rigged economy and corrupt political system that she benefits from. Bernie is the only candidate for the people. Feel the Bern. Feel the tide turn.

      • Ruby Andrews-Lester says:

        You are one stupid knee-jerk person, who refuse to think out of the box..and run with the herd off the cliff..

    • dpaano says:

      Yes, and because she’s been around a lot and has had quite a few positions in our government, they obviously have more fodder for their lies when it comes to Hillary. She’s as honest and forthright as anyone running (well….maybe not the GOP candidates), and would make an excellent president if given the opportunity.

  7. Eleanore Whitaker says:

    Voters don’t ALL say Hillary is untrustworthy. Just the right wingers, the Republican oversexed men and their man dependent women who don’t dare ever try to be financially independent as Hillary is.

    What in the hell can anyone NOT KNOW about Hillary after 4 decades of men trying to mash her to a pulp in the media? What? You don’t know her pantyhose size? Her last chocolate attack? Her last bowel movement?

    Men always always always say they don’t trust ANY woman. The truth is they don’t trust women because men know how unworthy of trust their brethren are.

    Take a look at the “men” who tried and failed to sink Hillary: Cotton, Gowdy, Issa and Chaffetz. Cotton tried to sink her over Libya when she was Secy of State. Now, it comes out in Cotton’s dirty laundry that he was complicit in communicating with the terrorist forces and told them to ignore the president of the US. Gowdy? Well, he is so trustworthy that he decided to use bogus emails that didn’t even belong to Hillary and weren’t on her server, doctored them and there he goes…off scott free from that little bit of violation of his oath of office. Then, there was Chaffetz and his bogus video that he and his attack dogs boys edited to sink Planned Parenthood…But..oh yes…Let’s mistrust Hillary. She might have an unannounced run to the bathroom and heaven help us if the boys of the GOP aren’t the first to be put on notice.

    • dpaano says:

      Eleanor, I always appreciate your comments, but I think you’re a little over the top with your obvious hate for men. Not all men are bad, and if you were treated badly by them, then I apologize. There ARE some men who are great….take President Obama for an example. Unfortunately, most of our politicians and leaders are men, and most of them are NOT examples of great politicians and individuals! But, that doesn’t mean that all men are not to be trusted.

      • Eleanore Whitaker says:

        I love men who use their brains…not the penises to think. I know not all men are bad. I also know that some men are the ones with the biggest mouths who don’t trust their own mothers.

        I don’t accept that politicians MUST always be men anymore than I accept that ALL CEOs must be men. What does that tell our younger generation of women? That this is still a depressingly ALL MALE World and Women NEED NOT apply?

        As I’ve posted many times, I have lived my entire life constantly surrounding by men and most of the time outnumbered by them in church, business and government. If I don’t know men and their machinations by now, I’d have to be a cutesy, coy little girl who thinks words are from God’s mouth to men’s ears and back again.

        I’ve had 5 brothers and half brothers growing up. It was THE most worthwhile education and all I ever had to do was observe them and their interaction with females and each other. Then, I worked in all male sales and marketing for a male CEO. Same thing…more lessons learned by observing their behavior and intellects.

        Later, I worked in the ALL MALE field of environmental engineering. You bet I learned how to think like men do. So..if I am rigid about men, you can thank them for educating me.

        By the way, when you are a 4’10” woman who wants to be validated by her brains and not her face or body, you are far more discerning about which men you can and can’t trust. Let’s just say that I’ve had relationships with lawyers, a priest, a truck driver, a PhD in robotics and a chemist. Men bore the hell out of me these days because most have only one thing on their minds…controlling the world.

  8. @HawaiianTater says:

    Why would anyone think Hillary is untrustworthy? I certainly trust her. I trust her to be exactly who she has always been. I trust her to pass the TPP and screw over American workers in the name of profit for the corporations. I trust her to let the banks grow exponentially. I trust her to continue letting Wall Street commit fraud against the American people. I trust her to continue feeding the military industrial complex. I trust her to continue the quagmire of our involvement in the Middle East. I trust her to do nothing to get money out of politics. I trust her to not stop corporations from poisoning the land by fracking. I trust her to continue putting profits ahead of people by further enriching the private healthcare industry with the capitalist scheme known as Obamacare. I trust her to not do anything about marijuana staying on the schedule 1 drug list next to heroin. I trust her to do nothing about mass incarceration and the for-profit prison industry.

    Hillary has never given any reason for us to think we can’t trust her on these issues. Her donors certainly trust her because everyone from those industries gives her money. If they couldn’t trust her, they’d stop giving her money, so of course she is trustworthy and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

    • dpaano says:

      Apparently, you haven’t actually researched what she’s said in her campaign speeches and in the debates. I trust her implicitly…..a heck of a lot more than I would trust any other politician running for the Presidency! I don’t think she’s going to do ANY of the things you mentioned…..in fact, she probably knows more about the Middle East than any candidate running! If anyone can get us out of that chaos, she would be the person that could possible do it! She has the contacts and the experience with dealing with foreign countries and their leaders! Bernie….not so much; Trump and Cruz….NEVER!

      • @HawaiianTater says:

        I’ve researched every single one of her positions, which is precisely why I oppose her. She wants a no fly zone over Syria. That’s not getting us out of the chaos. It’s the exact opposite. Citing someone’s foreign policy experience is not a good thing when said experience is being hawkish and all making the wrong decisions.

      • Ruby Andrews-Lester says:

        That is why The President chose her to be our Secretary of State, and she is well respected around the world among all peoples, and heads of State..around the world…

    • drdroad says:

      Did you actually read this article?? Where it was said her votes were very similar to Bernie’s??

      • @HawaiianTater says:

        If two people are similar on 90 small issues but vastly differ on the 10 gigantic issues, it is misleading to call them 90% the same. That 10% makes all the difference in the world.

        • Independent1 says:

          You are so over the top it’s totally unreal!! You have no common sense!!

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            If choosing to not support a war hawk Wall Street puppet is not common sense, then I am guilty as charged.

          • Independent1 says:

            Like I said You’re way over the top!! Which includes all you Bernie nuts posting on this thread!! None of you are using your heads!!!

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            I see you making claims about me but not disputing any of the points about Hillary.

            Do you have a problem with the private prison industry?

            Fracking industry?

            Banking industry?

            Private healthcare industry?

            How about the military industrial complex?

            Do you have a problem with foreign countries donating millions to the Clinton foundation so Hillary’s state department would sell them weapons they then used to commit acts of terror?

            Because she takes money from every single one of them. If you want to support her, that is your own prerogative. Just be honest about who she is. Be honest about supporting a person who cares more about the bottom line of her corporate masters than about people like you and me.

          • Independent1 says:

            Sorry, you’ve turned into a left-wing radical just like the right-wing nuts posting on this blog. You’re grossly exaggerating everything you post about Hillary. Blogging with you is a waste of time – you’re being totally unreasonable as several other sane posters on here have tried to point out to you and your left-wing nut buddies.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            I post FACTS about Hillary. If you cannot deal with that, that’s on you.

          • Independent1 says:

            Many facts which you think are a problem but which many of us blogging here have tried to point out to you are non-starters.

            And never mind that Bernie Sanders does not have any political experience beyond being a loner in the Senate except for his over zealous socialistic pronouncements!!

            Here’s a little more from the NYTimes article as to why NO SENATOR HAS ENDORSED Bernie:

            “Before I endorsed Hillary I spoke to Senator Sanders out of respect,” said Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware. “I think he is passionate about income inequality. I just think that Secretary Clinton has a unique set of experiences and insights to be the next president.”

            Also, Democrats who have concerned themselves with the party’s taking back the Senate, like Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, are not so excited about having a socialist at the top of the ticket.

            In at least some cases, senators are able to cite specific issues that have drawn them to Mrs. Clinton. Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, who has devoted his career to gun control legislation since the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, specifically cited Mrs. Clinton’s record in an op-ed article in The Hartford Courant.

            “We need leaders who don’t simply check the right boxes on the issues we care about, but who are champions day in and day out in the fight against gun violence,” he wrote. “By that measure, there is only one presidential candidate who qualifies.”

            Mr. Sanders enraged some gun control advocates over the years with his support of gun rights legislation. Former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat who was shot in the head during an event in Arizona in 2011, appears in an ad in support of Mrs. Clinton on the issue.

            Mr. Sanders enraged some gun control advocates over the years with his support of gun rights legislation. Former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat who was shot in the head during an event in Arizona in 2011, appears in an ad in support of Mrs. Clinton on the issue.

            “If you care about who can defeat the Republicans, who can lead the top of the ticket so we can get a majority back and who, once there, has the most capacity to get something done, it’s her,” said Guy Cecil, the head of Priorities USA Action, a “super PAC” supporting Mrs. Clinton. “Also, Hillary has been very focused on building a Democratic infrastructure, not just for her election but for state legislatures on up, and that is something that is encouraging to them.”

            By contrast, Mr. Sanders, who has been elected as a Vermont independent but caucuses with Democrats, has never been a party loyalist. He is more concerned with finding partners on issues he cares about — income inequality, Social Security expansion, affordable college — than with building political coalitions.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Why do you refuse to address the issues I raise concerning Hillary? Are you capable of anything outside of parroting corporate media talking points? Think for yourself, man. I know you’re capable of it. You are so blinded by your fear of Republicans that you cannot see that Democrats have sold us out.

          • Independent1 says:

            You mean the way Bernie sold us out when he voted against the gun background checks law?? And the way he sold us out when he refused to support Hillary back in the 1990s as she needed his help to get a healthcare law going??.

            What?? Are you smarter than all the Democrat senators in Congress who know that Bernie is nothing but a loser when it comes to trying to get support for legislation that he fights for!!

            If he were to get elected, it’s not just the Republicans that would be turning down his proposals it would also be a big majority of the Democrats!! He’s FAR TO MUCH OF A SOCIALIST IN TODAY’S WORLD!!!

            WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO WAKE UP TO YOUR OWN FANATASISM???

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            There you go again. I ask you a question about Hillary and you attack Bernie but you never answer the question about Hillary. Why is that? Are you afraid of what you might find out?

          • Independent1 says:

            Because the problem here is Bernie not Hillary – like I told you, the issues you’re bringing up on Hillary are non starters – I couldn’t care less. One example is you claiming she’s a war hawk and sighting Libya, when Bernie voted for the Libya intervention. And when Bernie IS NOT the progressive you think he is: he talks a good game but that’s more often than not the way he has voted.

            Before you spout off anymore on Hillary you need to read this article from TheWeek:

            Here are just some excerpts:

            Bernie Sanders is not nearly as progressive as you think he is

            But evaluated on the basis of his own lengthy record, Sanders is not as progressive as he makes himself out to be on at least three big issues: guns, criminal justice reform, and — despite the Iraq vote — foreign policy.

            Sanders’ staff has tried to explain his comparative conservatism here as part and parcel of representing Vermont, a left-wing but gun-friendly state, but either way, his is hardly a super-progressive record on guns.

            “We have got to reform a very, very broken criminal justice system,” he added. “It breaks my heart, and I know it breaks the hearts of millions of people in this country, to see videos on television of unarmed people, often African-Americans, shot by police. That has got to end.”

            The rhetoric is right. But Sanders’ record says otherwise.

            Finally, foreign policy. Sanders regularly touts his vote against invading Iraq in 2003, and that is unquestionably to his credit. But then there’s the rest of his record on matters of war and peace, which figures heavily into the wariness many actual socialists maintain toward Sanders’ campaign.

            Writing at the socialist Jacobin Magazine, Paul Heideman contends that though “Sanders is willing to criticize many of the most egregious over-extensions of American empire” — like the invasion of Iraq — “it seems he has no interest in contesting the American suppression of democracy across the globe.” The candidate cheered King Abdullah II of Jordan for his opposition to ISIS, of which Heideman snarks, “It is never a good look for a socialist to praise a monarch.”

            More broadly, it is never a good look for a progressive to have such an uncertain record in three major policy areas.
            And they didn’t even get into his failure to consistently support immigration reform. If anyone has failed progressives over the years it’s been Bernie Sanders. You keep harping about Hillary while Bernie has been an abstract failure over the past 2 decades many many times.

            And even you point out many Dems would not support him, so why should we elect a president just to sit in the Oval Office for four years and accomplish nothing because there would be few in Congress who would support his far left-wing agenda????

            http://www.theweek.com/articles/603044/bernie-sanders-not-nearly-progressive-think

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Just to be clear, are you unwilling to talk about Hillary and her policy positions? Every time I ask you about Hillary, you attack Bernie. You NEVER answer the questions I pose or even refute them. This is becoming a repeating pattern. I am perfectly willing to talk about Bernie and his policy positions all day long. The question here is if you are willing to talk about Hillary and her policy positions, because it is becoming clear that you are either unwilling or incapable of doing so.

            It is a very simple question. Will you talk about Hillary’s policy positions. Yes or no?

          • Independent1 says:

            I’m not going to waste my time. I’ve read the responses to your over-the top assessments of Hillary from dpaano, Danaand, Yabbed and drdroad who have all tried to tell you that you’re making over-the-top interpretations on what Hillary may do as president based on your own personal misguided interpretations of her and your own far left-wing biases, and you’re clearly not willing to listen. Even when presented with evidence from people who know one heck of a lot more about our political positions than you do like editorial boards of news papers and even people who have worked for years with Bernie and Hillary and in their judgement, like in mine Bernie Sanders is not qualified and does not have the correct temperament and ability to actually deal with people, to be our president.

            So given that Bernie is a non starter, whatever failings you think Hillary has, are also a non starter – I COULDN’T CARE LESS BECAUSE BERNIE IS NOT AN OPTION!!!!!!!!!

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            I’ve had intelligent conversations with you in the past, so I know you are capable of them. Why is it that you are now unwilling to even discuss the issues? Are you really so terrified of Republicans that you cannot admit that Democrats are screwing us over too? And it’s not just Hillary. It’s the entire political establishment. We’re talking about bought and paid for politicians who only serve the interests of the billionaire class. Our country is already an effective oligarchy. You keep citing editorial boards and newspapers without realizing that you are citing corporate propaganda. Of course they are going to praise the establishment and disparage anyone who challenges the system. Citing them doesn’t help your case. The American public at large is so brainwashed by corporate propaganda that they cannot even recognize the fact that we are not even represented by our government anymore. The same thing goes for citing all the politicians who support Hillary. Duh! Of course they do. They are a part of the establishment that is screwing us over.

            Put the Hillary vs Bernie argument aside for now and let’s talk about the state of our government and our country. Let’s talk about income inequality. Let’s talk about the banks. Let’s talk about Wall Street. Let’s talk about the fossil fuel industry and global warming. Let’s talk about the military industrial complex. Let’s talk about Big Pharma and the private healthcare industry. I’m interested in discussing the issues with you solely because I know you’re a smart person. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be wasting my time. Can you do that?

          • Independent1 says:

            Hillary Clinton Just Delivered the Strongest Speech of Her Campaign—and the Media Barely Noticed

             Clinton’s speech on the importance of filling Supreme Court vacancies, and on the values and ideals that should guide judicial nominations, was a deep and detailed discussion of a fundamental responsibility of presidents. What she said impressed not just her own supporters, who gathered Monday to hear her speak on the University of Wisconsin campus, but also Wisconsinites who are undecided or inclined to vote for someone else in the state’s April 5 primary.

            http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-just-delivered-the-strongest-speech-of-her-campaign-and-the-media-barely-noticed/

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Income inequality is at it’s worst levels since the 1920s right before everything crashed and led to the Great Depression. The biggest banks are now bigger than they were back in 07/08 when they crashed the economy and led to the Great Recession. Because of these two issues, I believe that another huge crash is inevitable if we don’t make drastic changes to the system. Are these things that concern you?

          • Ruby Andrews-Lester says:

            Why don’t you go and do your own on Hillary, it’s not like it’s a secret, seems to me you are one sided and only spewing what others have said about her, so you want Independent1 to explain it to you, do your homework like he has, as we all have done and compare what you find..Good Grief!!! Do your own homework..

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Thanks, Charlie Brown.

          • Independent1 says:

            And has it even occurred to you that Bernie hasn’t made any money from speaking engagements because up to his campaign he didn’t have any experience that companies and organizations were willing to pay money to hear about??????????

          • Independent1 says:

            And why do you suppose not one fellow senator has endorsed Bernie??

            From the NYTimes:

            .WASHINGTON — Senator Bernie Sanders may find himself mobbed as he moves about the nation stoking the flames of all those feeling the Bern. But back here in the Senate, his embers are cold.

            Mr. Sanders’s loner status was brought into sharp relief last week when Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, declared Mrs. Clinton his pick. “I think the middle class would be better served by Hillary,” he said.

            About 40 Senate Democrats have lined up behind Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Not one has come forward for Mr. Sanders

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Do I really need to explain to you why the establishment isn’t backing the anti-establishment candidate? Really? Really?

            Now answer my questions. If you can.

          • Independent1 says:

            Just one more of your nonsensical notions – that an outsider like Bernie would be able to get anything accomplished as president being the left-wing radical that he is.

            One reason the SunSentinel endorsed her is because she’s not an outsider. The world is too complex a place today for us to elect a non insider as president:
            ——————————————————————–
            From the SunSentinel:

            Of course, that makes Clinton the ultimate establishment insider, which to some voters is hardly an asset this year. But if you wouldn’t go to a doctor who hadn’t graduated from medical school, why would you elect a president with no experience in government? Donald Trump, for example, would be the first president never to have served in government or the military. His lack of experience already shows.
            ————————————————————–
            Bernie Sanders as president would be like you going to quack to fix a terminal illness.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Bernie is less left wing than FDR. Do you consider the greatest president of the 20th century to be a left wing radical?

      • cleos_mom says:

        Reedin iz 4 peeple wit buk smartz. Lotza xklammashion poyntz opshunul.

  9. A_Real_Einstein says:

    There is only one honest candidate in this race and is truly for the people. Feel the Bern and release the transcripts! When it looks like you are hiding something, you are hiding something. Bernie has more integrity in his pinky then Hillary has inher whole body. Join the revolution. There is a better choice!

    • yabbed says:

      Bernie is a total fraud. If he had any integrity he would have run as who he is: the Socialist Party candidate, the Liberty Party candidate, or the Independent candidate. He is not a Democrat.

      • @HawaiianTater says:

        He is not what the Democrats are now but he is what they used to be back in the days of FDR/JFK/LBJ before they turned into corporate sellouts. Even the Eisenhower Republicans were further to the left than what the Democrats are today. What used to be a balance of center right Republicans to center left Democrats is now extreme right Republicans to center right Democrats. The thing America truly needs is for the parties to go back to their respective centers where they belong.

        BTW, if you think anyone is capable of successfully running outside of the two party system, you’re ignorant of how the duopoly has rigged the game to maintain their power. Both Democrats and Republicans are owned by the same money establishment and they don’t like outsiders crashing their party. That’s why they hate Bernie and Trump so much, because they are not puppets of the oligarchs, like Hillary and Cruz are.

        • dpaano says:

          Agree with most of what you said, but don’t agree with you that Hillary and Cruz are cut from the same cloth and are subsidized by the corporatists.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Follow the money. Donors give to both sides to hedge their bets. No matter who wins, they win, and we lose.

        • cleos_mom says:

          “Back in the days of FDR”? The Democrats were the party of Jim Crow in that era. Not a nice thing to say about either of this year’s candidates.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Yes, we all know the Democrats were racist before the Civil Rights era and then the racists switched to the Republican party. I was talking about things like foreign policy, the economy, bank regulation, taxing the rich, etc. Today’s Democrats may be socially liberal but they are very right wing when it comes to the big issues.

          • cleos_mom says:

            Damage control can be so entertaining. You’re full of it, Bub.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            America has become a society where facts are received with scorn if they go against the fictional narrative people have created for themselves. Sadly, people prefer comforting lies over hard truths. The hard truth is we used to have laws and a government that looked out for the interests of the common people. Now, we have laws and a government that only serves the interests of the billionaire class. And yet, people are so brainwashed by propaganda that they honestly believe the establishment is looking out for them when nothing could be further from the truth.

    • dpaano says:

      I believe they’ve already released all the transcripts….you may want to check that out. I know they released the last of them just recently. She has not hidden anything! As for Bernie, I do like some of what he says, but I sincerely doubt his ability to get any of his ideas through Congress, especially if it remains in Republican’s hands.

    • cleos_mom says:

      Been there, done that.

      Not all it’s cracked up to be, especially if you’re female.

    • Ruby Andrews-Lester says:

      Why don’t everybody release their transcripts? All of the candidates..why does it have to be just her? Answer me…BS is a liar in wait. You know nothing about that man yet you vilify women as all men do.. you all are abusers…

      • David says:

        First, it is “doesn’t” not “don’t”. Learn subject-verb agreement. Secondly, your statement that all men are abusers probably stems from your serious case of penis envy.

  10. yabbed says:

    It’s been decades of Republicans telling lies about Hillary Clinton. Republicans do not like competent no nonsense women. They cannot take the challenge of a strong woman.

    • dpaano says:

      Agreed….it’s my opinion that most Republicans are scared to death to see this country run by a woman (mostly because they know a woman might do a better job than any man who has had the job). They were just as scared of a black man taking the job…..all for no reason at all! Republicans are so anti-woman that they do all they can do to put them down. Look what they’ve done to our rights to our own bodies…..ridiculous! I wonder what they would do if a “President” Clinton took away their Viagra or pushed for male vasectomies….the doo doo would hit the proverbial rotating blade!!!

      • David says:

        As an attorney, you do know that our President is half black, don’t you?

        • JPHALL says:

          And that is meaningful why?

          • David says:

            Because, if you read her post, she says that he is”black”. Nope!

          • JPHALL says:

            Wow! Almost all non racist people have given up figuring out to what degree someone is to be considered Black or White or anything. But I guess that this degree of Blackness is of the utmost importance to you. How sad! Subject: Re: Comment on Why Do Voters Say Hillary Clinton Is Untrustworthy?

          • David says:

            The issue isn’t “racism”. The issue is being accurate with what you say.

          • JPHALL says:

            As I said who cares if someone is mixed? Only racists care.

            Subject: Re: Comment on Why Do Voters Say Hillary Clinton Is Untrustworthy?

          • David says:

            The subject is accuracy in your statements. Nothing to do with whether or not he is “mixed”.

          • David says:

            And, as I said, the issue is accuracy–not racism.

          • JPHALL says:

            And as I have said twice now, only a racist cares if somebody is mixed or pure blood. So I guess that explains your intense interest. Subject: Re: Comment on Why Do Voters Say Hillary Clinton Is Untrustworthy?

          • David says:

            Okay, wake up! If I said that Obama was Asian because he was born in Hawaii, that would be inaccurate. To point out that he is not Asian would not be RASCIST, it would be factual. Similarly, pointing out that he is half black is not rascist, it is telling the truth. What is the problem you have with facts?

        • Ruby Andrews-Lester says:

          That doesn’t matter, they still think he is beneath them..

      • Ruby Andrews-Lester says:

        Republicans think all Black women and men are not worthy and are takers, should continue to bow to the white man , always looking down, and never smart enough to be President..whoda thunk?

    • cleos_mom says:

      And some of the Democrats’ novelty-occasion voters have eaten it up like popcorn.

    • Ruby Andrews-Lester says:

      Thank you yabbed. That’s because the women that they are married to doesn’t have a private or independent thought of their own, we call them Stepford wives..They are yes women..they don’t host charities for children or the such. They shop all day..never talk back, followers..are not allowed to say a word on the campaign trail..Hillary has always been her own woman..

  11. HowardBrazee says:

    She’s as trustworthy as any candidate of the last few decades other than Bernie. But psychologist studies have shown time and time again, we don’t like it when a woman has the same leadership characteristics as men. Sad.

    Wall Street seems to trust her.

    • bobnstuff says:

      Wall Street knows Trump and Cruz. That’s why Hillary looks good to them.

      • Ruby Andrews-Lester says:

        And I too, know Wall Street, So? What’s your point?

        • bobnstuff says:

          Cruz and Trump are both unstable people and with do things that will hurt the economy. They know Clinton and feel that she won’t destroy the economy and in fact will help the country grow.

    • @HawaiianTater says:

      That last line says it all.

      • dpaano says:

        Really? Just because she was asked to speak in front of Wall Street individuals and got paid for it (as most speakers do)? Seriously? I know of several politicians who have spoke in front of groups like this (and got paid handsomely for it……like GWB, for example), and no one seemed to have a problem with it until now. Much like President Obama’s campaign, most RW voters just don’t want to see a woman in the President’s seat, and they have no other reason other than that they are bigoted! She’ll do as good a job as any president, maybe even better!

        • @HawaiianTater says:

          Forget about the paid speeches during her time as a private citizen. The banks are still giving her money now. Donors don’t donate to people who oppose them when elected. That’s not how this works.

        • A_Real_Einstein says:

          Hillary $25,000,000 in Superpac donations from special interest groups in 2016 alone. Bernie 0. That about sums it up. Shillary will make a great Republican President if she wins the nomination.

          • Ruby Andrews-Lester says:

            You sir are a liar..and Bernie has done the same thing, I doubt that anyone in Washington has not gotten paid large sums of money for speaking at affairs, including your Bernie and your congressman, Senator, Pastor. And your Bernie will not be president, all of those women out there including me, will never vote for the no nothing nowhere BS. I suggest you join our women’s movement, we out number you in everything. BS can’t even get the black vote he, is too white, and he’s afraid of Black people…knows nothing about the other side. And who says the world is going to vote for Granpa. And if he shakes that bony finger at me one more time…You call Hillary all out of her name, but what about you?? You’re not men you’re boys lying to get your way..NOT!!! You have filled these sites with vitriol and what used to be a meeting ground for ideas and diverse conversation among people of different ideas, you’ve poisoned it with your lies and your ignorance about something that you could easily get answers for..Keep making up your own drama…One day someone is going to call all of you out and it ain’t gonna be pretty, Karma is a B, what you put out there will come back to you, whatever it is that you put out there.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            $153,000,000 in paid speaking agreements for the Clintons. Bernie 0. Your gal is on the take. Everyday something new. Today we learn of $4,500,0000 of contributions from LOBBYISTS directly from the Oil and Gas lobby. She tries to tell us it was just small donations from her supporters who happened to work in the oil and gas industry. Does she really think we are that stupid? Her support even among women is collapsing. All the polls are trending down. She may not win another state. She is in big trouble in WI , NY and CA. Sorry.

        • David says:

          Coming from a respected, licensed attorney, your statement carries weight.

        • Ruby Andrews-Lester says:

          You know, I’ve noticed that there are far more men than women dragging Hillary through the mud. And talking dirty about her, my God where is all of the respectable MEN.

    • yabbed says:

      We trust Bernie to turn the mighty United States of America into Greece.

      • HowardBrazee says:

        Agreeing or disagreeing with one’s policies is a separate issue from trusting or not trusting a politician. That said, we can easily compare states in the United States which have tried austerity with similar states in the United States which have not. Greece has tried austerity (actually Germany forced it on it). Sanders’ campaign is against austerity and trickle down economics. I suggest that the more common criticisms that he wants to turn the U.S. into a Scandinavian country will work better.

  12. @HawaiianTater says:

    Brilliant new piece by Ana Kasparian over at Raw Story. http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/hillary-demonstrates-her-weakness-by-not-committing-to-ny-debate-with-sanders/#.VvqQ5HibULE.twitter

    Hillary demonstrates her weakness by not committing to NY debate with Sanders

    “Sanders has gone out of his way to avoid commenting on Hillary’s email scandal, which says a lot about his principles considering how many opponents see the issue as an easy way to attack and discredit her. But he has been very vocal about how financial interests have shaped her policy decisions. If pointing to Hillary’s ties to Wall Street amounts to an attack, then Sanders should do more of it. The American people deserve to know the truth about political corruption and how deeply it has tainted the country’s democratic process.

    Regardless of how the mainstream media attempts to slant this story in Hillary’s favor, the truth is that she demonstrates her fundamental weakness by dodging a debate with Sanders. He’s picking up steam and gaining more momentum, and part of the reason why is because his message against political corruption is resonating with progressive voters. Hillary is only reinforcing the idea that she’s so guilty of Sanders’ criticisms that she simply can’t defend herself in a debate.”

    • Danaand says:

      There are some fair points about judgment, but let’s clarify one thing here – the statement that “he has been very vocal about how financial interests have shaped her policy decisions.” This is false. He has insinuated that this is the case. He has made baseless accusations. What he has not done is present a shred of evidence or be able to come up with a single thing in her voting record, ever, to tie a financial contribution to a policy decision.

      As far as the debate goes, this is all chatter. There is no doubt she’ll debate him again, even though she doesn’t need to.

      • @HawaiianTater says:

        If you think donor money having an influence on politicians is a baseless accusation, then I have a bridge in New York to sell you.

        • dtgraham says:

          Any more weekends like the last one, and the people who bought and paid for Hillary will be asking for a refund.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Notice how quiet this place was on the article about his victories? lol

          • dtgraham says:

            This is starting to become a serious matter. This website has now dropped all pretence to professionalism with their Democratic primary coverage.

            We were both wondering how they could possibly spin this one. Even I didn’t think that they’d just not say a word about such a big important day. That was a really big day because of the results. The cable news networks seemed to agree on that, for obvious reasons.

            The NM straight up lied about the delegates won after Arizona/Utah/Idaho, generically claiming that she stretched her lead. No apology or explanation was ever given later. They wouldn’t even mention what states Bernie won that day and by how much, preferring to simply say that he won a couple of contests.

            This is really getting sick. On other stories, what other lies are they telling us? What other stories don’t they want us to know about?

            ** I checked for about a day and a half for any article about last Saturday. If one eventually came out after that, they must have buried it awfully fast.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            *shrugs* I gave up on non-biased reporting from this place long ago. I just show up for the comment section now.

            About last Saturday… NM didn’t produce an article at all. All they did was post something from Reuters. http://www.nationalmemo.com/bernie-sanders-wins-alaska-washington-hawaii-caucuses/

          • dtgraham says:

            One PM on Sunday? I was positive I checked in the afternoon and later in the evening. Could have been a little one liner off to the side and well down, although I thought I checked for that too. Huh. Must have missed it somehow. I think it was designed that way.

            Agreed, comments are the main attraction.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            You’re not actually surprised by this are you? lol

          • dtgraham says:

            Not any more.

          • JPHALL says:

            No it wasn’t. It just did not reach the level of adoration you wanted!

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            What do you mean no it wasn’t? LOL! There were 15 comments and 9 of them came from you and me. This article alone has 147 comments now including this one.

          • Independent1 says:

            Sorry, caucus state wins which are most of Bernie’s wins really are borderline with respect to being a true indication of what the majority of voters would have choosen.

        • Danaand says:

          Same old bull$hit – baseless allegations. Show me where she has been compromised, or stuff it. And BTW – Bernie is not immune to influence himself. Look at his record on guns, among other things.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Bernie hasn’t been influenced by donations from the gun industry because he hasn’t taken money from the gun industry. Try again.

            Meanwhile…

          • Danaand says:

            He did worse than take their money. He gave them his vote.

        • Independent1 says:

          When are you going to wake up to the fact that the vast majority of Bernie’s primary wins are in caucus states where only small percentages of the voting Democrats often participate (often less than 10%): meaning that his wins are not necessarily a true indication of what the majority of Dem voters would have chosen.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            When are you going to wake up to the fact that the reason Bernie does so much better in caucuses is because it’s a lot more difficult to rig them than it is primaries? Research Diebold and get back to me. It sure is odd how when actual people are counted, Bernie always crushes her. It sure is odd how in all the places in Massachusetts where the ballots were hand counted, Bernie won easily, but in the places where they used certain voting machines, Hillary won. It sure is odd how so many primaries have been won by Hillary based on early ballots when Bernie wins amongst the people who actually showed up to vote. It sure is odd how they proclaimed Hillary the victor of Arizona with 1% of voting reported while tens of thousands of people were still standing in line. It sure is odd how many registered Democrats mysteriously had their registrations switched to Independent so their votes wouldn’t count.

            Open your eyes. The oligarchs own our government. Establishment politicians are their puppets. People like Hillary only serve their interests while the rest of us are expected to be happy with bread crumbs. They’re not going to go down without a fight and if that means pulling every dirty trick in the book to rig the primaries in favor of their chosen candidate, you can bet your sweet ass that’s what they’re gonna do.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Odd, indeed.

            Arizona is the most blatant case of electing fraud committed in this primary but it sure as hell isn’t the only state where it has happened.

  13. dpaano says:

    Interesting that people are so enamored with Trump, who has told more lies than Clinton ever even thought of telling! That goes for Cruz also!

  14. Belushi Jimbo says:

    Only a masochist or a sycophant would believe that Hillary Clinton is a feminist instead
    of just famous.

  15. FT66 says:

    Hillary is most trustworthy comparing to those congressmen/women who were trusted by voters, sent them to Washington to do their job and they do nothing. They continue receiving checks which they don’t deserve to get.

  16. dtgraham says:

    Trustworthy or not, you’ll have to admit you Clinton apologists—Bernie is giving Hillary Clinton a run for her and Wall Street’s money.

  17. Sam Osborne says:

    After the Republican apparatchik has played an even more pointed TV ad campaign of this segment of Hillary Clinton (https://l.facebook.com/l.php…) I will have no need to imagine what I might say in explanation to the younger grand kids and older great grand kids were they to ask: “And who did you think ought to be president, grandpa?” Hum, worse case—to feel good about knowing I will be telling them that I supported Bernie Sanders to the point of writing him in on my ballot—I failed, and can only say that I tried.

  18. harleyblueswoman says:

    Maybe it’s because she is wishy washy….all of sudden she is for lots of things she wasn’t because of Bernie!!! Maybe it’s because she is in the Millionaire club and tries to act like she isn’t….Maybe its because she and Bill are in with the Bilderberg group and the trilateral commission …..lot’s of reasons to not trust Hillary, I’m afraid!!!! Feeling the Bern!!!!

    • Independent1 says:

      Why is it you Bernie nuts have to mischaracterize Hillary and Bill since they’ve done more for the truly disadvantaged in America and around the world than anyone in America other than maybe Bill & Melinda Gates. And certainly FAR MORE than Bernie Sanders ever has!!!

      See just this from mcclatchydc.com:

      But Hillary Clinton’s connection to the state dates back to the 1970s, when the recent law-school graduate came to South Carolina to work for the Children’s Defense Fund, founded by Bennettsville-native Marian Wright Edelman. Since the 1990s, she and her husband also have repeatedly visited the state.

      Then-President Clinton visited rural, predominantly black communities after a spate of church burnings, which helped build “good will and gave weight to the notion that he cares,” Cobb-Hunter said. “People were saying, ‘What in the world was going on?’ ” Cobb-Hunter said. “It mattered to the most powerful person in the world that this is happening.”

      The Clintons also are regulars at Renaissance Weekend, a nonpartisan annual gathering in the Lowcountry of notables from diverging backgrounds and opinions on everything from civics, politics or academia, to the arts, science or business.

      Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article62932607.html#storylink=cpy

      • cleos_mom says:

        Well, there’s always those birds…..

      • The lucky one says:

        “Hillary and Bill since they’ve done more for the truly disadvantaged in America and around the world than anyone in America other than maybe Bill & Melinda Gates.”

        Well you are entitled to your opinion but the Gates and Clintons have never done anything that wasn’t designed to benefit them in the long run. Like gates touting of standardized testing, all to sell software.

        • Independent1 says:

          With those comments, you’ve proven YOU KNOW NOTHING about what you post.

          Bill & Melinda Gates have not only poured billions into helping women and girls around the world and in working to irradicate diseases; they’ve actually spent weeks and months of their time traveling to rural villages to see first hand the poverty and need that they’ve spent billions trying to alleviate. You’re clearly no better than the right-wing radicals who routinely post on the NM spreading your lies and distortions of the truth.

          See this from Forbes:

          Alone in this room of world leaders, Gates can single-handedly make that happen. Prime ministers have parliaments; CEOs have boards; Melinda Gates has a $41.3 billion endowment, and she can deploy it in pretty much any manner that she and husband Bill, the world’s richest person, see fit.

          This represents a personal transformation. For the first decade and a half of its existence the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation deployed its remarkable scale toward eradicating polio and malaria, and experimentation in education issues. But over the past few years Melinda Gates has embraced having her name on the letterhead of the largest-ever charitable foundation, along with the influence that comes with that. She has become the most powerful person on the planet whose singular focus is women and girls.

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinehoward/2015/11/23/the-first-woman-of-women-how-melinda-gates-became-the-worlds-most-powerful-advocate-for-women-and-girls/#477045ace940

          • The lucky one says:

            And you don’t see billionaires as a huge part of the problem of poverty?? Laughable if it wasn’t so tragic. For Gates, as for Trump as different as they may be in some ways, it’s all about glorifying their name and possibly salving their conscience about their role in creating poverty. I may be giving the Gates’ more credit than they deserve but they may actually think they are part of the cure rather than a cause of the disease. With Trump we know he has no conscience.

          • Independent1 says:

            No! I don’t paint all billionaires with a broad brush as being a huge part of the problem any more than I label all poor people as takers of the system. Are you aware that hundreds of millionaires and billionaires in New York wrote to the governor saying they were willing to pay much higher taxes in order to help improve the states infrastructure and in any way possible help the plight of many in the middleclass and poor?? And that their request has been brushed aside by one side of the NY legislature that is controlled by the GOP??

            And are you aware that it is really the Dems in Congress who represent the truly wealthy districts in America, the wealthy who play the game fairly and not only actually pay taxes they owe but often volunteer to pay more??

            No, the problem is not Billionaires in general, it’s select billionaires who connive and cheat to get more money like the Koches and Adelsons and Waltons and Singers and on and on.
            We shouldn’t be condemning all billionaires because some of them are corrupt, any more than we should be condemning all Muslims because of ISIS and some other Muslim radicals, or even condemning all people on welfare because there are some who take advantage of the system.

          • The lucky one says:

            “Are you aware that hundreds of millionaires and billionaires in New York wrote to the governor saying they were willing to pay much higher taxes in order to help improve the state’s infrastructure and in any way possible help the plight of many in the middle class and poor?” No and frankly i don’t believe it. All they have to do is stop taking some deductions if they want to contribute more tax revenue. Are some worse than others including those you mention, no doubt. Perhaps you are familiar with the saying “Power corrupts” Nothing confers power more effectively than vast wealth concentrated in the hands of a few.

          • Independent1 says:

            You clearly live in your own fantasy world just like the far right-wing nut cases.

            Excerpts from an article in The Guardian:

            The letter was put together with the Fiscal Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank, and the Responsible Wealth project, a network of hundreds of the wealthiest Americans who support “fair taxes and corporate accountability”. Among the backers of the plan are Steven Rockefeller, a fourth-generation member of the Rockefeller family; Elspeth Gilmore, who works to get wealthy people under 35 to donate to philanthropic efforts; and Joshua Mailman, son of the inventor and philanthropist Joseph Mailman. maintenance, food inspections or public schools.

            “Those of us in the top 1% of incomes have a particular responsibility to contribute to the public sector at a higher marginal tax rate than everyone else,” Cullman said in a statement.

            The signees emphasized that funds are needed to address issues such as child poverty, homelessness and crumbling infrastructure.“It is a shameful fact that child poverty in New York state is at a record level,” they wrote, “exceeding 50% in some of our urban centers. New York State has a record number of homeless families – more than 80,000 people – struggling to survive across the state. And far too many adults in our state do not have the work skills needed for the 21st-century economy.”

          • The lucky one says:

            Talk is cheap. None are willing to address a system that not only allows but promotes wealth accumulation in the hands of a very few at the expense of the many. It did serve to help them feel better about themselves though I’m sure as do the band-aid contributions some make to temporarily ease the lot of those who must remain in poverty if we are to have billionaires.

      • The Clintons were horrible and they are corrupt. The Clinton administration, more than any other, is responsible for the economic collapse of 2008. The roots of the housing bubble trace back directly to his policies.

        Just look at the obscene amount of money they’ve made since coming to power. Public service is not supposed to make you filthy rich. That’s not the idea.

    • Independent1 says:

      And maybe you should read this article from TheWeek:

      Bernie Sanders is not nearly as progressive as you think he is

      http://www.theweek.com/articles/603044/bernie-sanders-not-nearly-progressive-think

      And if he’s such a progressive, explain why he voted against improved gun control, supported the downfall of Ghaddafi in Libya, and voted against immigration reform, and refused to support Hillary back in the 1990s when she was pushing for a healthcare law similar to Obamacare.

    • Independent1 says:

      And this endorsement of Hillary by the SunSentinel certainly doesn’t fit your ‘wishy washy’ nonsense:

      Clinton’s experience and steadiness make her best choice

      Hillary Clinton brings assets we’ve seen too little of this primary season — steadiness and experience at the highest levels of government.

      Her resume is impressive. She spent eight years in the U.S. Senate, representing New York from 2001 to 2009. She followed that with four years as secretary of state. Though she ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination in 2008, she was in the White House for eight years working on policy while her husband was president.

      http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/endorsements/fl-editorial-hillary-gs0306-20160304-story.html

    • Independent1 says:

      And how many people from around the world do you think would say the following about Bernie Sanders:

      But that night in the theater two years ago, the other six brave women came up on the stage. Anabella De Leon of Guatemala pointed to Hillary Clinton, who was sitting right in the front row, and said, “I met her and my life changed.” And all weekend long, women from all over the world said the same thing:

      “I’m alive because she came to my village, put her arm around me, and had a photograph taken together.”

      I’m alive because she went on our local TV and talked about my work, and now they’re afraid to kill me.”

      I’m alive because she came to my country and she talked to our leaders, because I heard her speak, because I read about her.”

      You won’t see Hillary Clinton in the same light ever again

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/18/1248523/-You-won-t-see-Hillary-Clinton-in-the-same-light-ever-again

      • The lucky one says:

        And plenty of idiots and shills rave about how Trump cares about them and how his candidacy has changed their lives. So what?

        • Independent1 says:

          Just more of your total nonsense!!

          • The lucky one says:

            And more of your delusional thinking, just like your name “independent” when you are anything but..

          • Independent1 says:

            Like I said in another post YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU POST SO YOUR COMMENTS ARE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. (My positions are fundamentally right in line with Maine’s independent senator Angus King. Who’s not a fake independent like Bernie. Bernie’s a socialist who couldn’t even get the endorsement of one senator – not even the other independent in the senate. Wonder why??)

          • The lucky one says:

            Funny how you claim your alignment with someone else as “proof” of your independent thinking. LOL.

            ” Bernie’s a socialist who couldn’t even get the endorsement of one senator – not even the other independent in the senate. Wonder why?” The reason is included in your statement. he has claimed the title “socialist” though he is a socialist lite but that is enough to scare away establishment Dems who worry about having that label used against them.

          • Independent1 says:

            No Bernie isn’t a socialist because he says so, he’s a socialist because even though all the things he’s proposing to do would be nice to haves, he’s not even thinking about the costs involved and how implementing them would negatively affect the lives as many or more people than they would help. He’s just wanting to socialize everything he sees whether it’s truly beneficial or not OR EVEN DOABLE!!!

          • The lucky one says:

            Yes, not doable because most Dems “progressive” intentions end where it begins to threaten their privileged life styles.

          • Wrong. He has thought of the costs and they are not pie in the sky. 170 prominent economists have endorsed his Wall Street plans, including a nobel prize winner. Even Thomas Piketty backs Sanders.

    • Eleanore Whitaker says:

      Actually, No one EVER heard of Sanders. He only chose to run against Hillary because his attitude is that no woman is ever his competition. Hillary was 1st to introduce healthcare reform..Not Sanders. Hillary has headed the International Women’s Rights Group since she was an entry level lawyer. Hillary has Secy of State. Why wasn’t Sanders?

      I’ll tell you why not..Because Sanders is a flash in the pan. His fellow Dem from VT, Patrick Leahy is far more well known nationally than Sanders.

      And, Sanders is a relic of the 1960s college boys who couldn’t commit to their educations and decided being on the protest trails was a way of evading their responsibility to commit to getting their college degrees.

      Sanders also ran for mayor unsuccessfully 7 times before he was finally elected. And if the locals in VT didn’t want him, why should we?

    • greenlantern1 says:

      Trust Trump?
      Trusted Nixon?

  19. greenlantern1 says:

    Ever hear of Ahmed Abu Khattalah?
    Right now, thanks to Loretta Lynch and her DOJ, he is in custody!
    The charge?
    The murder of Ambassador Stevens!
    Did he use the movie, THE INNOCENCE OF THE MUSLIMS, to stir up his mob?
    Why didn’t Gowdy ask to see it?
    What did he know and when did he know it?
    Our ONLY, jailed, attorney-general was Nixon’s first, John Mitchell!
    That party is preaching about truthfulness?

  20. Lyra James says:

    Sanders warned of the widespread corruption that would follow should the pact become official.“Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade US taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens. The Panama free trade agreement will make this bad situation much worse. Each and every year, the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations evade about $100 billion in taxes through abusive and illegal offshore tax havens in Panama and in other countries
    It’s been known since 2012 that elites in the US and around the world are sitting on a gargantuan amount of tax-free assets worth at least $21 trillion. And according to James Henry of the Tax Justice Network, that number may be as high as $31 trillion. But for the sake of argument, let’s say $21 trillion. What could we fund with that?

    For starters, we could give each of the approximately 600,000 homeless people across America a $650,000 home for $400 billion, amounting to just 2 percent of those offshore assets. We could provide a basic income of $10,000 a year to all 247 million Americansover age 18 for a little over than $2 trillion a year, and do that for ten years.

    Obviously, not all this sum is owned by US companies, but $21 trillion is an insane amount of money. Even a portion could easily pay for all of Bernie Sanders’ proposals, from free college ($75 billion/year) to 13 million new infrastructure jobs (one-time cost of $1 trillion), to free comprehensive healthcare for every man, woman, and child ($1.38 trillion/year), to expanding Social Security ($1.2 trillion spread out over 10 years), to a youth jobs program ($5.5 billion/year). The list goes on.

    The global elite embarrassed by the Panama Papers are still counting on parroting the one mantra used to forestall all hopes of a livable future: “We simply don’t have the money.” But as the Panama Papers have shown us with just one quick glimpse, this claim is bunk

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.