ne0
Replies to this thread:

More by ne0
What people are reading
Subscribers
:: Subscribe
Back to: Kurakani General Refresh page to view new replies
 27 Honest Questions for Hillary Supporters

[Please view other pages to see the rest of the postings. Total posts: 27]
PAGE: <<  1 2  
[VIEWED 24264 TIMES]
SAVE! for ease of future access.
The postings in this thread span 2 pages, View Last 20 replies.
Posted on 04-12-16 8:12 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     2       ?     Liked by
 


To those who are supporting Hillary Clinton,

I love you.

And while I know that we’re technically on the same side fighting against a terrifying Republican reality, it seems that we disagree on many issues. I say technically because, outside the usual left vs. right is another critical battle: the fight to reclaim our government from the control of big money, corporations, lobbyists, and billionaires. And that’s the start of where many of our differences in viewpoints begin. For once in a very long time, we have the opportunity to elect a New Deal Democrat with a clean recordwho is calling out the system for what it iswho is changing the conversationwho has been on the right side of history time and time againwho refuses to rely on Super PACs, who is powered by contributions from everyday people, who continues to set unprecedented fundraising milestones ($44 million in March) - and who beats Trump by double digits in almost all of the national polls (at a greater margin than Clinton).

Let that all sink in.

A Sanders presidency would be revolutionary - a yuuge break from the stranglehold corporations have on our government. Those are but a few reasons why I#FeeltheBern.

Recently, however, there’s been a backlash as many Sanders fans express the sentiment that, should Clinton become the nominee, they will not vote for her — a fourth of Sanders supporters according to the latest poll. For them, it’s#BernieorBust — and they’ve gotten some flack as a result. Many Clinton supporters find this hypocritical, saying “We’ll vote for your candidate, but you won’t vote for ours? You will give the election to Trump. That’s f**ked up.” A paraphrased sentiment (no shade).

But before condemning the “defectors,” it’s worth investigating why.

For one, not all Sanders supporters are Democrats and feel no loyalty to the party; Sanders does especially well with independent voters who make up the largest voting bloc in America. Additionally, there are real moral dilemmas one must consider when pulling the lever for Clinton. In 2007, I was all about Hillary. Now, as I’ve learned more about her, I’m not sure that I would be able to vote for her in good conscience. And while a Trump vs. Clinton showdown is a very different and very serious moral quandary (please note: #NeverTrump), it would not be a guilt-free decision for me. For so many elections we’ve been forced to vote for the lesser of two evils that it feels incredibly dirty to give away my vote out of fear. To feel coerced into voting for a hoped-to-be ordained candidate when the DNC,establishment (which is all too real), and corporate media blackout have not given Sanders equal air time or a fair shot. See: hereherehereherehereherehere,herehereherehere, and here as but a few examples from a pool of the many ways the media has undermined and undercut his campaign (it’s also worth reading a bit about how the media manufactures consent). I, for one, refuse to be bullied into voting for a candidate because those in power wanted a coronation ceremony. That is not a democracy and my choice will not be predetermined for me (FYI our democracy has now been proven to be an oligarchy). A vote for the preordained candidate is a vote that enables this system to continue. It only feeds the illusion of choice, which is why it weighs so heavily on my heart.

But right now, despite what the mainstream media would have you believe, we still have a real choice. And instead of having to vote for the lesser of two evils, we have the opportunity to vote for the greater good.

In search of finding common understanding, I’d like to ask Clinton supporters a few honest questions. For me, as I’ve examined the evidence and asked myself the same, the number of issues surrounding Clinton that I must deny, justify, or rationalize is just too great. To some of these questions, I’ve heard people answer, “She’s a career politician. What do you expect?” I’d ask: Why not expect more from our politicians? Why not progress us forward to a new possibility? For others, there’s the Machiavellian argument for Clinton: that in order to game the system, you must play within the system - and she’s done just that. And perhaps she would be the best to continue the existing politics-as-usual system. But that system is no longer serving the people’s interests. And the country is waking up. We are the richest country that has ever existed in the history of the world who spends an astronomical amount of money on wars and military spending and yet income inequality is worse than it’s ever been since the Great Depression. We currently have a once-in-a-lifetime Presidential candidate who is calling for real changes - not small, incremental progress. A candidate who is calling us to stand together and say “Enough is enough!

So to those who like Hillary:

Consider that we never got the full picture. Consider that, due to the accessibility of information that’s now available to us, previously obscured facts can now be found with relative ease - with a bit of #HillaryResearch. Consider that not every attack on Clinton’s record is coming from the right-wing or is due to her being a woman, but may actually be rooted in reality. Consider that we’ve been sold a public personality - one that’s managed by strategists and public relations masters. Consider that the U.S. ranks 49th in the world in terms of freedom of press, that our media “options” are limited (Time Warner, CNN’s parent company, is the 8th largest contributor to Clinton’s campaign), and that they have their own agenda (see: $$). Consider that, when Clinton’s record is viewed as a whole, there’s a consistent narrative that can be understood.

We must ask ourselves: at what point are we willing to let go of the image we’ve been sold and instead look at valid criticisms? What does it say about our society when we’re more loyal to a party that’s been sold to corporate interests than we are towards our own human interests?

Consider too that all of the following questions can be raised by a Republican opponent in the general election come November. Consider that these are but a few reasons why many voters are calling for #BernieorBust. (I come bearing hyperlinks. Click them.)

1. International Money Ties
Money influences policy and politics, which is a fact. Another fact: the Clinton’s have created a massive $3 billion fundraising network. But if Hillary Clinton isn’t as influenced by money as she claims, how do you explain the weapons deals brokered by Clinton’s state department with foreign countries who made donationsto the Clinton Foundation? Many of these countries include the world’s worst tyrants with abysmal human rights records and are known to fund terrorism, execute gays, and discriminate against women and religious minorities. Perhaps this is how the system has worked, but how would we react if a Republican in office did the same?

2. Wall St. 
During the second debate, when Sanders pressed Clinton on her ties to the finance industry, Clinton said she went to Wall St. and told them to “cut it out”. She also bizarrely cited 9/11. But how are we to rectify this account when her approach was largely “hands off” as the Boston Globe put it? This only makes us wonder: who is she really representing? What are we to make of the Clinton’s being so close to the banks?

3. The Transcripts
Clinton made a total of $2.9 million from 12 speaking engagements to financial institutions upon leaving as Secretary of State - the most out of every candidate. Sanders called for her to release the speech transcripts (as did the New York Times) demanding that the public should have a right to know the contents, especially if we are to trust she will break up the big banks. First Clinton said she would look into it. Then she said that she would release them when everybody releases them. Some believe it’s a double standard to ask her to share them with the public. But in this moment, she’s running against Sanders for the nomination. How do we justify Clinton’s reluctance to release the transcripts? If her ties to Wall St. have no bearing on how she will regulate the banks then what is she hiding? Last year, the Clinton Foundation also reported that it received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups for speeches that were tallied as revenue rather than donations.

4. Campaign Finance
In 2008, after winning the Democratic nomination, Obama announced a DNC ban on accepting unlimited donations from lobbyists and Super PACs, stating:

 

 

“We will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. We’re going to change how Washington works. They will not fund my party. They will not run our White House. And they will not drown out the voice of the American people when I’m president of the United States of America.”

 

 

Cut to 2016. On a Friday before a holiday weekend, the DNC announced that it would lift the ban. Sanders immediately spoke out against it and urged Clinton to do the same. Clinton has not commented. When Clinton remains silent on issues of money infiltrating our politics, how are we to trust that she will prioritize people over big moneyed interests?

5. Panama Papers
The Panama Papers is the largest data leak in the history of investigative journalism. Thousands of the rich and powerful have been implicated in their offshore banking practices and the many ways in which they funnel their giant sums of money around the world in secrecy. The U.S. was notably absent from the initial release, but here’s a great primer. How does this pertain to our current Democratic election? When Obama and Secretary of State Clinton entered office in 2009, they both began pushing for the passage of stalled free trade agreements (FTAs) with Panama, Colombia and South Korea even amidst warnings that it would make it more difficult to crack down on Panama’s low income tax rate, banking secrecy laws, and history of non cooperation with foreign partners. Additionally, Clinton’s chief campaign staff John Podesta and his lobbying firm Podesta Group recently began representing Sberbank of Russia, a bank implicated in the leak. Again, how are we to feel knowing that the agreements Obama and Clinton pushed in 2011 only further enabled the 1% to continue to dodge paying their fair share? Sanders correctly predicted what the Panama Papers have revealed and spoke out against the trade deals.

6. LGBTQ Rights
While it was a different social and political climate and, yes, people can evolve (though The Economist called her shift on gay marriage “farcically late“), Clinton’s stances on DOMA, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, her speech against gay marriage, this “awkwardly strange” interview with NPR‘s Terry Gross, and this email about gay parents can leave an LGBTQ voter feeling dissatisfied. Even if you take a more forgiving approach, the Clinton’s attempts to spin it as a defense of a constitutional amendment contradicts with historical accounts and doesn’t sit well with many. When it mattered, Clinton did not have our best interests at heart - a sharp contrast to Sanders who has voted consistently on the right side of history even when it wasn’t the popular choice.

Additionally, her latest incident at Nancy Reagan’s funeral where she praised Reagan’s “low-key advocacy” for HIV/AIDS awareness, an inaccurate and offensive statement, triggered painful memories. It was quite the opposite of the truth in fact -“a f**king lie” as columnist Dan Savage called it. Clinton chose to bring this up in the interview herself, but later apologized when she was met with outrage and accusations of revisionist undertones. How many times will we continue to apologize for her? “Well, but people make mistakes...it was just a slip. She was tired,” we bargain. But for many, it’s more than just a mistake. What it demonstrates is a detachment from real social justice issues that Americans face - or historical facts for that matter. As a “progressive”, why wasn’t she better informed? In each of these instances, she had a chance to stand up for what’s right, but failed to do so.

7. Mass Incarceration
As Clinton continues to push her social justice platform, how do we make deal with the fact that she took money from the private prison complex up until October of last year? How do we rationalize her role in the rise of mass incarceration? This is where striking deals with Republicans and compromise has left us. Today, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rates in the world. Clinton has expressed that parts of the 1994 Crime Bill were a mistake. Sanders voted for the bill because it included a ban on assault weapons, as well as the Violence Against Women Act, but again vehemently spoke out against the effects of the bill, which ultimately came true.

How do we justify Clinton’s 1996 implication that black teenagers are “Super-predators that need to brought to heel“? Clinton has since apologized, but what these comments reveal to many is someone who is out of touch with the realities that face black America. Give me the candidate who has recognized the humanity in everyone since the beginning.

8. The Iraq War
How are we to justify Clinton’s vote for the Iraq War when Sanders was presented with the exact same evidence? His response was vastly different. The number of lives lost due to this decision is staggering and the cost is in the trillions. It was a war sold to us under false pretenses. Has she learned from this mistake? How has she earned our trust back since then? At what point does judgement trump experience?

9. Foreign Policy
Many cite Clinton’s experience as Secretary of State as one of her greatest strengths. But when we examine her record, Clinton took strong interventionist stances that had disastrous and catastrophic consequences. Her decision to support the coup in Honduras has left the country with widespread violence as well as a regime that murders indigenous leaders. Environmental activist Bera Cáceres, who was assassinated in her home this month, had previously called out Clinton on her decision to back the overthrow. Similarly, during the Arab Spring, Clinton’s push to topple dictator Muammar Qaddafi has left a political vacuum as extremists battle it out in the war-torn country. Then there’s Syria too. To tell voters to support a candidate whose decisions have caused thousands of lives lost, unnecessary violence and chaos, and displaced millions of refugees is, quite frankly, rude. How can you ask us to support a candidate who has taken such aggressive action and caused so much bloodshed? How can we know that Clinton will not lead us into endless wars? She recently gave a speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee convention (AIPAC) which confirmed many people’s fears of her imperialist approach. You can judge the transcript.

10. The Patriot Act
How are we to justify Clinton’s vote for the Patriot Act and its reauthorization, especially when the FBI later admitted it didn’t really do all that much? How are we to trust that she’ll protect our civil liberties and privacy rights in the future?

11. Cluster Bombs
Click here to read all 

http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/27-honest-questions-for-hillary-supporters/

Last edited: 12-Apr-16 08:18 AM

 
Posted on 04-15-16 7:24 PM     [Snapshot: 625]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Based on Online Statistics, internet usage reach by age group:
18-29 years - 96%
29 years and above - 58%

Based on census.gov, voting age population(2012):
18-24 years - 38%
45-64 years - 75.9%

Correlation between these two graphs, it's obvious why Bernie is winning Online polls. Majority of young bernie supporters dwells(troll) on Internet. Online polls do not represent 318 million people of the United States of America. Given when you factor in those two graphs up there, it's just so clear who is gonna win the nomination down the road. No one but Hillary. Because, primaries after primaries Hillary has been winning big and with vast differences. Last 7 small wins don't matter when Hillary wins big in all big states. Even the delegate math up until now says who is far ahead of the race. This was the exact scenario eight years ago, Obama lost on almost all online polls. Conservative trolls were everywhere sounding as if Obama was going to lose.

If someone conducts a poll on Sajha, result would not validate that of entire population of Nepalese population. Poll on few specific sites like Sajha, it's just voice of Nepalese diaspora or limited audience to say.

Hillary has never been seen so confident and content as last nights debates whereas bernie lost his ground(coughing/laughing) in many occasions followed by group of youngsters lack of civility towards Hillary.
Last edited: 15-Apr-16 07:26 PM
Last edited: 15-Apr-16 07:26 PM

 
Posted on 04-15-16 7:32 PM     [Snapshot: 639]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Six lol you just don't want to accept this bitter truth that trump is going to beat Hillary, if she wins DNP nomination, ppl like you flip flopping bytches .. Just listen to her answers .. $12 but now she will ready to accept $15 if states support it
 
Posted on 04-15-16 7:53 PM     [Snapshot: 659]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 


Who are primary voters anyway ?



 
Posted on 04-15-16 9:06 PM     [Snapshot: 686]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Ppl like six four aka bitter truth will still support this flip flopping bytch... This six can't argue and edits his replies to NSFW afterwards .. Why don't you go hide Somewhere lol like Hillary hiding her speech transcripts
 
Posted on 04-16-16 3:11 PM     [Snapshot: 749]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 



From The Hill -

"George Clooney’s next door neighbor is planning to hold his own fundraiser — to benefit Bernie Sanders — during the actor’s posh Hollywood soiree Saturday night with Hillary Clinton.

Howard Gold, whose family founded the 99 Cents Only store chain, is calling his bash the “99% Party,” with tickets selling for $27 per person. "


 
Posted on 04-17-16 9:02 AM     [Snapshot: 819]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     1       ?     Liked by
 

Khaobaadi, here is Clooney's response in case you missed it

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/george-clooney-on-why-he-s-not-like-the-koch-brothers-667867203818
 
Posted on 04-17-16 12:35 PM     [Snapshot: 849]     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 


Not even Bernie would talk trash about George Clooney even if he helps raise campaign funds for Hillary and her allies. George Clooney most likely is not the main source of frustration for many Bernie supporters. It's the old model of campaign fundraising and all the crap such a model brings to the table like special access to the candidate (should the candidate win upcoming election) bundlers or whoever throws in some of the biggest dollars get and so forth.


From Los Angeles Times - Turning big-money politics upside down

Bernie Sanders' campaign legacy could be how he raises money from so many people



Nate Thames, executive director of ActBlue Technical Services, keeps close watch of traffic through the fundraising platform at its Somerville, Mass., headquarters. (Evan Halper / Los Angeles Times)

In a barely marked storefront location down the street from Tufts University, this team heavy with millennials operating under the name ActBlue mills around an office space with the usual tech firm quirks -- beanbag chairs, a pingpong table, a massive net for dropping party balloons – doing work that is not particularly sexy. But it is turning big-money politics upside down.

ActBlue is a decade-old nonprofit that creates fundraising software to help Democrats build networks of donors, instead of leaving them isolated on the various databases controlled by individual campaigns. The system enables donors who might tap into it to give to one particular candidate or cause broaden their participation, and send money to any other ActBlue client by simply punching a button on their phone.

More at LA Times

 



PAGE: <<  1 2  
Please Log in! to be able to reply! If you don't have a login, please register here.

YOU CAN ALSO



IN ORDER TO POST!




Within last 30 days
Recommended Popular Threads Controvertial Threads
TPS Re-registration case still pending ..
ढ्याउ गर्दा दसैँको खसी गनाउच
From Trump “I will revoke TPS, and deport them back to their country.”
wanna be ruled by stupid or an Idiot ?
To Sajha admin
How to Retrieve a Copy of Domestic Violence Complaint???
NOTE: The opinions here represent the opinions of the individual posters, and not of Sajha.com. It is not possible for sajha.com to monitor all the postings, since sajha.com merely seeks to provide a cyber location for discussing ideas and concerns related to Nepal and the Nepalis. Please send an email to admin@sajha.com using a valid email address if you want any posting to be considered for deletion. Your request will be handled on a one to one basis. Sajha.com is a service please don't abuse it. - Thanks.

Sajha.com Privacy Policy

Like us in Facebook!

↑ Back to Top
free counters