Sanders can't win the general election--why are people so blind to that?

[Anonymous]

I have voted Republican many times. I have voted for the Clintons the first time around. I voted for Obama in the last election because I thought Romney/Ryan were out of touch. I am not voting for anyone this election. I will write someone in. The election for president has become a circus. There is no one to vote for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing with the establishment folks: they are invested in maintaining the status quo, in rewarding the system that got them there. So no, I do not believe that Hillary will break up the banks, take money out of politics, fight for campaign finance reform, increase the minimum wage, work for fair wages, get rid of tax loopholes for the 1%, etc.

Tell me how Sanders as POTUS can do that.

I know he will try to find a way to do it. I don't know how. But he won't owe favors to the people corrupting the political system.

so someone can come along and promise the moon and I should believe them?

No that's what Hillary is doing.

I'm sorry, you just lost me there. The emperor has no clothes, pp

I believe Bernie because these have been issues and his concerns for a long time. He's not changing his focus based on polling, etc. He's focusing on issues he's passionate about.

That is not the case for Hillary.

Tell me how he fought for it then, because voting yea on bills others worked on and speaking in hearings for 20 years doesn't sound very revolutionary to me

Seriously. Actually 26 years I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeahhh... Michigan, Wisconsin, friggin Texas. Listen, state level efforts are fine, but it's a tactic used by the right to divide, weaken, fracture, dissipate reform. It's time for supreme courts and national legislation or executive orders to finally do the job our azzhole gop and Dems won't do.

You won't overturn Citizens United without a constitutional amendment. Gotta go through the states for that.

Not true. We don't need a constitutional amendment.

Yeah, you do.

[Anonymous]

Congress can overturn it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Congress can overturn it.

If you didn't take a civics class in high school, Google is your friend. Citizens United cannot be overturned by Congress, but Congressional Action is part of getting a constitutional amendment. But a sufficient number of state must also approve it, 38 in specific

Both Clinton and Sanders are on record as supporting such a constitutional amendment. The democrats already tried to start the process in the senate but did not have enough votes with all republicans opposing it ( need two thirds to support). Obama has also publicly urged that a constitutional amendment be passed. All of this is easily verified with a basic web search

All of this is easily verifiable. I can't believe how many Sanders supporters are utterly ignorant how arduous and long the process would be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congress can overturn it.

If you didn't take a civics class in high school, Google is your friend. Citizens United cannot be overturned by Congress, but Congressional Action is part of getting a constitutional amendment. But a sufficient number of state must also approve it, 38 in specific

Both Clinton and Sanders are on record as supporting such a constitutional amendment. The democrats already tried to start the process in the senate but did not have enough votes with all republicans opposing it ( need two thirds to support). Obama has also publicly urged that a constitutional amendment be passed. All of this is easily verified with a basic web search

All of this is easily verifiable. I can't believe how many Sanders supporters are utterly ignorant how arduous and long the process would be.

I don't recall hearing anyone saying it wouldn't be long or arduous.

I think around 16 or 17 states are already in. Jeb, Obama, Hillary Clinton also agree with Sanders that it can and should be done and the sooner the better. So I don't get where you single out Sanders as somehow being at right angles to them.

The biggest issue is I can't believe how many dumbass right wingers think Citizens United is a good thing that shouldn't be overturned. Makes me just fume every time one of those morons then goes on to say anything about "freedom" or "liberty" or "founding fathers" et cetera.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile back at the ranch, it seems there are still questions about Hillary's electability, with the dark clouds hanging over her head...

FBI just formally confirmed they are investigating her... http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/08/fbi-formally-confirms-its-investigation-of-hillary-clintons-email-server.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congress can overturn it.

If you didn't take a civics class in high school, Google is your friend. Citizens United cannot be overturned by Congress, but Congressional Action is part of getting a constitutional amendment. But a sufficient number of state must also approve it, 38 in specific

Both Clinton and Sanders are on record as supporting such a constitutional amendment. The democrats already tried to start the process in the senate but did not have enough votes with all republicans opposing it ( need two thirds to support). Obama has also publicly urged that a constitutional amendment be passed. All of this is easily verified with a basic web search

All of this is easily verifiable. I can't believe how many Sanders supporters are utterly ignorant how arduous and long the process would be.

I don't recall hearing anyone saying it wouldn't be long or arduous.

I think around 16 or 17 states are already in. Jeb, Obama, Hillary Clinton also agree with Sanders that it can and should be done and the sooner the better. So I don't get where you single out Sanders as somehow being at right angles to them.

The biggest issue is I can't believe how many dumbass right wingers think Citizens United is a good thing that shouldn't be overturned. Makes me just fume every time one of those morons then goes on to say anything about "freedom" or "liberty" or "founding fathers" et cetera.

You must have poor recall. Poster I was replying to disputed that a amendment was needed. have been many posters lauding Sanders for promising to get the money out of politics when his position on Citizens United is the same as any generic democrat, and identical to Hillary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile back at the ranch, it seems there are still questions about Hillary's electability, with the dark clouds hanging over her head...

FBI just formally confirmed they are investigating her... http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/08/fbi-formally-confirms-its-investigation-of-hillary-clintons-email-server.html

Your reading comprehension isn't top notch, apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile back at the ranch, it seems there are still questions about Hillary's electability, with the dark clouds hanging over her head...

FBI just formally confirmed they are investigating her... http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/08/fbi-formally-confirms-its-investigation-of-hillary-clintons-email-server.html

This is brand new information!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile back at the ranch, it seems there are still questions about Hillary's electability, with the dark clouds hanging over her head...

FBI just formally confirmed they are investigating her... http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/08/fbi-formally-confirms-its-investigation-of-hillary-clintons-email-server.html

This is brand new information!

So interesting how there is non-news about the emails on the eve of each primary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile back at the ranch, it seems there are still questions about Hillary's electability, with the dark clouds hanging over her head...

FBI just formally confirmed they are investigating her... http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/08/fbi-formally-confirms-its-investigation-of-hillary-clintons-email-server.html

This is brand new information!

It's been widely discussed on an unofficial/rumor/speculation level but the official confirmation is brand new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile back at the ranch, it seems there are still questions about Hillary's electability, with the dark clouds hanging over her head...

FBI just formally confirmed they are investigating her... http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/08/fbi-formally-confirms-its-investigation-of-hillary-clintons-email-server.html

This is brand new information!

It's been widely discussed on an unofficial/rumor/speculation level but the official confirmation is brand new.

No, I am pretty sure that everyone knew it to be true. A FOIA request is not exactly earth shattering. But, hey, if it makes you happy, who am I to rain on that parade?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile back at the ranch, it seems there are still questions about Hillary's electability, with the dark clouds hanging over her head...

FBI just formally confirmed they are investigating her... http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/08/fbi-formally-confirms-its-investigation-of-hillary-clintons-email-server.html

This is brand new information!

It's been widely discussed on an unofficial/rumor/speculation level but the official confirmation is brand new.

And yet entirely meaningless . . again, it seem like someone is very interested in packaging up old facts and releasing them on the eve of the primaries. No wonder the Clintons are paranoid.

[Anonymous]

The PP allows self-indulgence to cloud her thinking ability. She wants it to be true so she believes it to be true.