*doublepromote

I'm hoping that the angry Sanders folks who admire Mr Oliver will watch this and understand that this year is just politics as usual, and has nothing to do with the specific players.

If you are in a swing state, please don't let your anger keep you from the polls on election day. Please don't help Trump become president.

I live in Washington State. A solidly blue state. My vote doesn't matter.

If you are in a swing state, yours does.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, May 22nd, 2016 11:54pm PDT - doublepromote requested by bareboards2.

How about tell them that if they live in a state that has yet to vote in the primary, they should not let the outrageous and unprecedented lies, irregularities, the clear 'fix' being perpetrated by the DNC, and attempts to dissuade or actually stop them from voting keep them from the polls on Primary day, and vote for Sanders, otherwise you are the one helping Trump become president. A Clinton candidacy means a Trump presidency, she's now well behind Trump in national polls, and his numbers are rising while hers are falling.
A vote for Clinton makes you responsible for Trump. A push for Clinton makes you responsible for Trump. A vote and support for Sanders makes you the only responsible party in the election. That simple.

Clearly not that simple.

But po-tay-to, po-ta-toe.

Whoever gets the nomination, please support the Dem nominee.

FYI the politifact piece that Jon is going by is written by Riley Snyder,. With all the retweets he does of Jon Ralston(one of the bigger "violent bernie-bros" pushers) I highly doubt he gave the claims a fair investigation.

He clearly ignored the Roberta rules being pushed through at 9:30 while delegates were still in line to get in. It did not have a 2/3 majority. The rest of Riley Snyder's fact checking was just as reliable.

It is politics as usual, and not nearly as bad as what happened to Ron Paul supporters in the Republican primary.

Vote for the candidate that you think will represent you the best not just the lesser of two evils.

And support the two party system...

No thanks.

Ending the two party system is far more important.

Yes, that simple. A Clinton candidate is a Trump presidency. EDIT: I, and MILLIONS of others, will NOT vote for Clinton under any circumstances. This is NOT the same as when Clinton supporters said the same thing about Obama, they were ALL Democrats, Sanders supporters are largely independent, and those that are Democrats are not at all happy with the party.

I'm not a Democrat. I'm an independent. The DNC has ensured that I WON'T just vote for the Democratic nominees. THEY have ruined the chances for many Democratic senators and representatives by turning so many independents against the Democratic party by being dismissive, dishonest, and disrespectful.
They have not even TRIED to earn my vote, they've done everything they could to ensure they DON'T get it. I won't reward that behavior.

Sure. Trump is the same as Hillary.

Well, I hope that more people have better sense than this.

Politics is dirty. Power is dirty. Do I like it? No. Am I surprised by it? No. Am I hurt by it? No.

It just is.

And Trump will be a disaster for the world, not just this country.

It's all good. It's all the same. It doesn't matter at all -- the only thing that matters is that a segment of the voters gets exactly what they want, regardless of the realities of an imperfect world.

Let it all burn. Good strategy.

@newtboy

This.

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/05/23/24115434/your-donald-trump-reader

People give Trump more credit than he deserves.
It won't be Biff Tannen 2016. It'll be a The Apprentice spinoff.

...
I predict a lot of air time for Back to the Future Part II this fall.

Who said that? One more straw man to disguise Clinton's inadequacies?

EDIT: Or did you miss-read. I do not say a Clinton PRESIDENCY is the same as a Trump presidency, I say a Clinton candidacy will lead to a Trump presidency. I do think she would probably (not definitely, they are both too random to predict at all) be better as president....but I don't think she can win, she's too hated and has too much heavy baggage.

Fortunately, most people have more sense than to fall for that straw man.

Politics is dirty. Do you like it? 'No.' Are you surprised by it? 'No.' Are you hurt by it? Absolutely, we all are. That's why when you are presented with a 'clean' candidate, it's astonishing to me that anyone would continue to support dirty ones.

Are you talking about Clinton supporters, who are the ones willing to let the world burn just to be able to put [force] a (admittedly terrible, widely hated, dishonest, divisive, and losing) woman up as a candidate?
Again, Clinton is BEHIND Trump in all national polls now, and while his numbers are rising, hers are falling. Sanders wins VS Trump by a landslide, and always has in national polls. Standing for Clinton is standing for Trump, but yeah, you would rather let it all burn so a (short sighted) segment of the voters (and the DNC) can get exactly what they want....good strategy.

Um...you know Dan Savage is a HUGE Clinton supporter, right?
You were able to read how one sided and assumptive his article is, right?
Read -"Another way to look at this is that these results is that they should be deeply worrisome to you if you're expecting that Hillary Clinton is going to win in a blow out in November." "HILLARY CLINTON", not "The Democratic Nominee".
THIS kind of one sided, dismissivness is what I'm talking about, and why independents won't vote for her, knowing that she and her zealots will toss them aside the instant they have their votes.

EDIT: Rereading him, I can also see how he's unintentionally pushing for Sanders without saying his name, by explaining why you should be extremely worried if you think Clinton can win in November. I wonder, will Clinton supporters all fall behind Sanders if HE is the nominee, or would they let the world burn? No one EVER asks THAT question.

@newtboy "That's why when you are presented with a 'clean' candidate, it's astonishing to me that anyone would continue to support dirty ones."

And this is our real divide.

You want the world to be different than it is. You are astonished? I'm not. There is nothing astonishing about that.

I don't agree that Hillary is "dirty" -- no need to say more than that. Please don't inundate with proof that she makes deals and compromises and takes fees for talks.

And I disagree with your assessment that Dems, if Bernie got the nomination, would not fall behind him. I have seen it in print over and over and over again, that Hillary supporters say they will vote for the Dem nominee. I have said it repeatedly myself. No need to ask the question, because there IS no question.

It is the Sanders supporters who say they won't support Hillary and say there is no difference between her and Trump.

Do what you want. If Trump gets the presidency, we'll come back in two years and here and discuss the state of America and its relationship to the world. I predict, if that happens, that I will woefully be saying -- I told you so.

Trump as president. My god.

And Dan has said repeatedly he will support Sanders if he gets the nomination, @newtboy.

OK, that's fine, but I hope you will concede at least that, to the majority that see politicians with a biased and suspicious eye, she may not APPEAR 'clean'. THAT is the problem, not my personal opinion, not even reality.

It is nice to hear that you and others at least say you would support Sanders. I have honestly not heard it from Clinton supporters before.
This being reality, and if you believe the Sanders supporters that say they won't support Clinton, (and being independents and not Democrats it's likely that enough won't vote for her no matter what, and how can you blame them? She doesn't represent them.), is it not prudent, intelligent, responsible, and the only safe move to put Sanders up as the candidate as the only clearly electable choice in ALL polls instead of rolling the dice against the odds on a painful compromise?

OK. Some do say that they're the same...not me. I do see a huge differences between them, but also many similarities. The biggest disturbing similarity being that you never know what either may actually do until they've done it....if then. Said another way, neither is known for being honest. I really think that 'primary Trump' is a character, and 'candidate Trump' is going to be a new character....but 'president Trump' is a situation where another character has power....I don't know what happens then, but it's pretty scary.

@newtboy - I suspect that the reason you haven't seen it in print that Dems who support Clinton will vote for Sanders is because you don't read anything but Sanders stuff. Dan Savage has even said in print he will support Sanders -- and yet what you repeated was the fact that he supports Hillary. You missed that he will gladly vote for Sanders. How could that be?

We all have our biases. And we all are, more or less, trapped in our own echo chambers.

What bothers me most about the attacks on HIllary is that the vast majority are bogus that were ginned up by the REPUBLICAN SMEAR MACHINE. And nobody looks that nasty beast in the eye and names it. Or when Hillary has done it, she is ridiculed for it. Instead, these lies are repeated as truth. You say you don't like lies -- how about pushing back on that crap, instead of embracing it, since it helps your candidate?

What I don't get from your position is what exactly you want to happen? Hillary is ahead on delegates and the popular vote. You want her to just concede right now? Is that what you think should happen?

I have lost track, but last I read, Sanders needed to win something like 65% of the remaining contests to win the nomination.

So do it. Go out and do it.

And I'll vote for Sanders.

To me, this is all more proof that you want the world to be different than it actually is.

And as I have said repeatedly, as much as idealists annoy the hell out of me with their purity tests and unrealistic, not of this world, points of view -- I am desperately glad these idealistic warriors exist. Because otherwise, nothing would ever change.

(I'm not happy about conservative idealists -- Tea Party purists who are constipated, me-me-and-mine ideologues. And I have to acknowledge that we need them, too. The continual pulling of the middle by the fringes -- that is indeed the way the world works. The pendulum that swings back and forth throughout human history.)

@newtboy, one thing I think you're missing is that a lot of the people arguing to vote Hillary are actually Bernie supporters.

@bareboards2 actually posted this video
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Bernies-New-Ad-This-is-powerful-stuff-for-the-Heartland

@dag is also a Bernie supporter.

Bernie's New Ad. This is powerful stuff for the Heartland has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

No, I actually try hard to not read ANY biased stuff on either side, since it's all time wasting propaganda with an agenda...but I understand why you might think that. That does mean I have not read much from Clinton's camp either, so it's no surprise I missed it.

Yes, I agree that many charges thrown don't hold water, but some do, some might, and many more appear to because of her dismissive way of addressing concerns. I do push back when I hear claims against her that are pure fantasy, I'm not a Sanders fan AND a lie fan, I'm a Sanders fan because I hate lies, even when they help my cause.
BUT
Because most people don't give her that much, it doesn't matter what reality is, she's thoroughly painted as a dishonest self serving windsock, and nothing is going to change that perception for the masses, and it's the perception that matters come election day. You can be sure the worst smear campaign ever is coming at her, and she can't stand up to it by being dismissive. She's already tied for most disliked candidate EVER!

No, I think they should go to a contested convention and calmly debate who is the better candidate to win, and nominate that candidate, like they normally would. I just think that candidate is obvious, and it's not the one the DNC is going to let win.
(EDIT: There's a reason that the person who's 1 delegate ahead doesn't just 'win', because that person might be unelectable even if they're the favorite. That's why the threshold for victory is way more than 1/2 +1)

I'm doing my best, by contradicting anyone who says it's over. It's not an easy road, but there is a road to his victory, and an easier road to that debate on who's better to both win, and to serve the voters. I contend that both answers are Sanders.

Yes, I think the world is in horrendous shape on nearly every front, and I want it to be different....I want it, and us, to be better. I think everyone should. If you don't continuously try to be better, you undoubtedly are getting worse.
I think of myself as a realist idealist. I want people to try to do the right thing, but I understand that not only can all people not agree what that right thing is, but that it's actually not the same for everyone, and sometimes one person's 'right thing' denies another person's 'right thing'.
I don't look for purity, but when it's presented, I don't turn away either. Purity is a rare commodity, one that should be cherished if found. I see it in Sanders.

No, I do realize that they are both pro-Sanders (in a way), but that's why I'm mystified that either would suggest giving up at this point, or suggest that it's reasonable to think that his supporters would ever be hers in large enough numbers to matter. They should know that's not reasonable to think about many, if not most of them, and should also know that clearly the fight isn't lost yet, but every person that turns away from voting for Sanders to be the nominee is one vote closer to president Trump as I see it.
If they want to have that discussion after the convention, I would find much less fault with it.

@newtboy

You're right. I didn't say -- like I have been saying for weeks -- that IF IF IF Hillary gets the nomination, please vote for her.

I'll say it again. Get your 65% for Sanders in the next primaries and WIN THE NOMINATION.

But asking Clinton to give up? Because you say so? Because you want it?

That is pie in the sky thinking. Wishful thinking. And on what planet would that possibly happen thinking?

Win the primaries. Go for it.

I'll vote for Sanders.

I don't expect Clinton to give up. It would be nice, but I think there is a <0.00001% chance of that happening. What I do expect is for her to go to the convention and debate about which is the better candidate in the current climate. I think that answer is clear, and if the process was fair that would be what's happening...I still have hope that it will...at least until June 7th.
I lose it when I hear that 'it's over', which Clinton has said for months now, now from Sanders supporters before it's really over.
I'm sorry if I offended in any way.

I'm also upset when independents are expected to tow a party line of a party that they don't belong to and that excluded them in large part, or be blamed for the outcome. Since Sanders brings so many new people to the party that otherwise wouldn't vote Democrat should NEVER be a negative for him only a positive, and that blame game is an attempt to do just that, paint them and him negatively.

I sure hope he does win California big and turns it all around, or at least wins the convention.

Help me Bernie Wan, you're my only hope.

@newtboy

Ah, yes. "Fair." The cri de coeur of the idealist.

I can guarantee you that nobody who fights as hard as she has, and has the delegates to gain the nomination, is going to give it up nobly.

Obama didn't buckle under the pressure to give up. Sanders isn't buckling under the pressure to give up.

And Clinton should?

Ain't gonna happen. I don't think it SHOULD happen. I want a fighter for President, with a healthy ego and sense of purpose (I know you don't think she has one, but she does.)

And. Bernie might yet pull it out. He has gotten farther than anyone thought he would.

@newtboy

And yeah. I'll blame independents and moderate Republicans and Democrats who don't vote in November if Trump wins.

That will be on your heads. If you don't vote or vote for a third party and Trump wins.

Because Trump will be a disaster for the world and this country.

As one prominent solidly conservative R has said about his decision to vote for Hillary -- our republic will survive her presidency. It probably won't survive a Trump presidency.

And if moderate Rs vote Trump and Dems stay home and independents vote third party because they haven't been sufficient woo'd...

Yeah. I will blame all of you.

Sorry, I don't speaks no langijizz. ;-)
No, again, I don't expect, or even want her to drop out. I don't know what gave that impression. I expect, and want, a reasoned debate about which is better, and which is more likely to win. There may be some unknown on either side that would change minds if they discuss it rationally.
Bernie has continued to say often that he's going to the convention and not dropping out, even if Clinton locks it up. I don't think he's planning on pulling out, but yes, stranger things have happened. Wait until >3 days AFTER that day to ask his supporters to vote for Clinton would be my suggestion.
He has been far more successful than anyone expected 9 months ago, and she's been far less successful. Yes. ;-)

and i'll be blaming Clinton and the DNC for doing such a horrible job of giving the slightest shit to anyone that may not be behind her. If they only tried just a little they could win voters over instead of their followers blaming people that may not vote for her as if she's deserving somehow. I absolutely can't stand her and the DNC but would be willing to give her my vote if I felt they gave a shit about anyone else but their own. It wouldn't be that hard. Look at my options.

I have a hard time getting my thoughts down normally and when i'm worked up its twice as bad. I hope i make sense.

@newtboy

What gave the impression that you think Hillary should drop out is because you are calling for a "debate" at the convention EVEN IF she has it locked up. Why would she do that?

IF IF IF IF she has it locked up, I really want Sanders to use the political muscle he has accumulated to help shape the Dem platform. That is what he says he wants to do, and that is what I hope he does.

Get federal minimum wage increase as a plank in the platform (and good grief, tie it to consumer price index so we can stop having to beg for it every 20 years or so.)

This won't happen, but I would LOVE a tiny tax on all investment transactions. I don't need to have it tied to education, but it wouldn't bother me if it was. If we had that tiny tax, it would stop some of the horrendous volatility in the market as this folks chase fractions of a point going up and down. It's stupid what they do with computers and has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with chasing a buck in a virtual market (nothing being created except hard-ons -- tax those hard-ons, baby. Tax 'em.)

What other planks would you like to see in the Dem platform? Those are two that come to mind.

I refuse to accept "blame" for not voting out of fear. One should NEVER make an important decision based on fear. I refuse.
I also refuse to accept "blame" for not voting for someone else's candidate. That's not how the US works....or worked. Maybe it is part of why it no longer works...but I won't be a part of that.
You assign blame as you wish, it won't stick. It is not my responsibility to support the Democrats, it's theirs to make me WANT to. 'That other guy sucks more' is not going to cut it as an incentive or a reason.

I think the only one to blame is the DNC for making this an 'us against them' battle within their own party, and by insulting and dismissing the very independents they NEED to vote for them instead of courting them. I will blame THEM far more than the Republicans for Trump if he wins.
I will also blame all those dismissive Clinton supporters that used every tactic in the book against not just Bernie, but his supporters themselves to force a losing candidate over a likely winner. Independents have no responsibility in this R vs D battle, nor do we have a responsibility to chose one or against the other, so we can not honestly be "blamed" for it's outcome unless our direct action causes that outcome, like voting for Trump causing him to win, not for a lack of action like not voting for Clinton allowing her to lose.

No, I don't think I said that. Again, it would be nice, but if she locks it up (not counting super delegates) then Bernie's run as a Democrat is over, as is all hope. I don't hold onto even a shred of hope that he'll sway her policy, no matter what he gets her to say during the election.
She's already been incredibly inconsistent on the minimum wage thing, actually taking 3 positions in one sentence in one debate. Can't trust her.
Tax on investment transactions...you've GOT to be kidding, she'll never consider any such thing, it goes against her own, and her donors interests.
A speed limit on trading info so everyone has an equal chance would work better.
The one you didn't mention is the MOST important in my eyes, and also a non starter from her or them....campaign reform...both finance AND how elections operate from districts to electronic voting machines and everything in between. Without that, we'll never get candidates that will work for us OR fix the system that supports them, or even be able to trust our elections. As I see it, Sanders is our one and only hope of fixing the system, so the only hope of saving the union.

@newtboy

We'll have to agree to disagree about your responsibility for not stopping Trump from being elected. A lot of words there, a whole bunch. But what is true is -- if people, all sorts of people, don't go to the polls in November to stop him, then Trump has a good chance of being President the way it looks currently. That is just a simple fact, and all the words you type don't change that simple fact.

I do have hopes that his lead will disappear. Sarah Palin started out strong, too. Surely the moderates will save us and we won't need the independents who are so upset.

And lastly -- I asked a simple and civil question -- what planks would you like to see in the platform. Instead of answering, that too was turned into an argument.

So I have come to the end for me.

Feel free to have the last word. I'm content with that.

Thanks for engaging with me.

Yes, we clearly disagree about independent voters' responsibilities. That's fine. Just know that when you assign blame, many won't accept it.

Yes, I also hope current poll numbers and trends reverse....unless Sanders IS the nominee, in which case I hope current poll numbers remain the same.

What? What argument? Instead of answering? I discussed your two suggestions, and offered two of my own, one being (I think) a more palatable alternative to your tax proposal for steadying markets, the other being campaign reform. To quote myself...
"Tax on investment transactions...you've GOT to be kidding, she'll never consider any such thing, it goes against her own, and her donors interests. A speed limit on trading info so everyone has an equal chance would work better.
The one you didn't mention is the MOST important in my eyes, and also a non starter from her or them....campaign reform...both finance AND how elections operate from districts to electronic voting machines and everything in between."
Is that an argument? It certainly wasn't meant as one.
It was meant as simple and fairly civil (if slightly snarky) answers to your question (answers that I guess you missed), with a note that IMO, my (and likely your) preferred planks are not going to be addressed acceptably by Clinton, and clear reasons why I think that. That was not meant to start an argument, I'm sorry you take it that way.

Truly well said eric. I feel this way too. Unfortunately, @bareboards2 is so intent on defeating the enemy (Trump) that she doesn't realize the enemy (the DNC and often Hilary) has already defeated itself.

@bareboards2 "But what is true is -- if people, all sorts of people, don't go to the polls in November to stop him, then Trump has a good chance of being President the way it looks currently. That is just a simple fact, and all the words you type don't change that simple fact."

Why not change that shit statement to this?

"But what is true is -- IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF people who were fucked and treated like morons, all sorts of people that were treated like they didn't fucking matter, which they don't because you have to vote a certain way to stop Trump, don't go to the polls in November to stop him, then Trump will be President the way it looks currently. That is just a simple fact, and all the words you type don't change that simple fact."

Also, congratulations, you are using Republican thinking. They too will vote for the same exact reason you are but just for a different candidate. They don't want Hillary to win because they fear she is as bad as Trump. And I say yes, yes she is. Slowly our country has went to shit as her and her ilk have drained any goodness out. Trump is just a quicker cancer.

@Lawdeedaw

Fair enough. You think Hillary is as bad as Trump.

That is what politics is all about. Different points of view. And urging others to join your point of view.

I'll continue imploring all reasonable people to come out and stop the "quicker cancer." Because just on the simple face of it, who would choose a quicker death and remove all hope for the future?

I have to hang onto the hope.

You can blame whomever you like. I will never vote for Hillary, which means I will be voting Libertarian this year. If that means Trump wins, then so be it. An inexperienced president is MUCH less of a threat than a corrupt one.

The worst harm Trump could do would be picking crappy SCOTUS judges, realistically an inexperienced President doesn't have that much power over anything else if Congress is against him/her. Look at Obama, other than the few years he had a Democratic led Congress, he has mostly been limited to presidential decrees that really don't do much.

Now a corrupt president that is motivated and knows how to work the system, that is an entirely different animal. I have no issues in saying that Hillary is the most corrupt person I have seen in the running for President since Nixon, and we all know how well that turned out. She is by far worse than Trump, who is just an idiot. Her husband was just as bad, his support of the deregulation policies of the late 1990s in regards to Wall Street directly led to the 2008 Depression.

@Mordhaus

So if you are happy with Trump, that is the name of game in politics. We vote and all have to live with the consequences.

So since Hillary won big in Washington when all voters were allowed to vote, but we go by caucuses here....

Shouldn't Bernie, to be fair, cede those delegates to her? Because Democracy? Because Voice of the People?

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/05/24/24121754/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-lead-in-pointless-washington-state-primary

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/05/24/24121759/clinton-winning-washington-state-democratic-primary

My county went overwhelmingly for Sanders both in the caucus and the primary. Bunch of old progressive hippies. They make me proud.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

He looks like an angry toucan funded by Shillary - and a young Henry Kissinger, and adult Millhouse. Feel the Bern™.

What does the President actually do? A few main things:

Chief Diplomat for foreign relations.
Commander in Chief of the military. (although legislature has some checks on that)
Appointing Supreme Court justices.
Presidential Pardons.
Veto power over Legislative bills.

Anything on any Presidential candidate's agenda that doesn't fall under one of those headings is hot air. Considering that, which of the candidates would actually be a better president?

Chief Diplomat role: Hillary wins here, pretty handily. Trump is generally hated by anyone outside of the US. Bernie isn't as smooth and well connected as Hillary. Interestingly enough, this is one area where I think Obama really shines. He's a good talker, and he increased the level of respect that other countries viewed the US with. Some of that was having a very easy act to follow -- Bush and the wars sent us pretty close to rock bottom in terms of how the rest of the world saw us, but Obama is legit as a diplomat even without the bonus of simply being an extremely welcome reprieve from Bush.

Commander in Chief: This one is more open to interpretation, but I think Bernie wins here. He had the right view on Iraq wars when most didn't, and a totally solid track record for a long time. Clinton acts like she was always on the correct side of that also, but she voted for Bush's war when she was in the Senate. Bernie didn't. Whatever she says to try to justify that doesn't change the simple facts of it. Trump could be pretty apocalyptically bad as Commander in Chief, but on the other hand he'd have the legislature and Joint Chiefs to keep him in check if he was doing anything truly insane. I think he's definitely the worst of the three, but I think saying a vote for him is a vote to "let the world burn" is a bit overly dramatic.

Supreme Court appointments: Sanders wins here by a LANDSLIDE. He's got the right idea on all of the judicial topics of the time, and knows exactly how important this is. Hillary is a massive corporate tool. She knows who pays her, and she'd definitely be looking out for their interests when it comes to stuff like Citizens United challenges, etc. I even think that Trump would be massively better than Clinton in this area.

Pardons: I'm specifically thinking of Ed Snowden here. Trump and Clinton both say he is a "traitor". Sanders at least acknowledges that Snowden's revelations did a lot of good, but still says that he should come home and face a trial. So that makes me think he's the best of the three -- but Jill Stein of the Green party says she would pardon Snowden, which makes her my favorite on this particular hot-button issue for me.

Veto powers: Opinions are going to vary on this one. I think Sanders wins considering that he simply stands by his record in the Legislature, which I think he deserves to be proud of. Clinton is a flip-flopping weasel of a politician, and she could easily swing things in favor of her corporate overlords with her veto power. Trump is a wildcard, but the inherent nature of veto power means that he can't do anything truly crazy with it unilaterally -- the worst he could do is get veto-happy and grind the legislature to a standstill (which they tend to do all on their own anyway) or pass something terrible (which would be more the fault of the legislature).


Depending on how any individual voter evaluates those topics, and how the prioritize them, I think it is perfectly reasonable for someone to think that any of the candidates would make a better president than any of the others. Personally, I think Sanders is the best of the three, but honestly I'd prefer incompetent President Trump to very dodgy President Clinton.

John Oliver looks like an angry Tucan who is funded by Shillary!

I feel she is bad as Trump over her record. Racist? Check. Even Obama spit on her apology when she went to ask for forgiveness for her blatant racism, then exploded on him when he wasn't about to be a fool.

Chronic liar? Check. I know some embellishing is to be expected but there is a certain point when it becomes too much. Florida Governor Rick Scott is a great example of batshit crazy lying. Sarah Palin is too. Yet they never claimed to be under sniper fire, downplayed a massive federal investigation (because she tried to be shady because she is fucking stupid) and lied about their record every chance they got.

Homophobic? Of course we can't ask and won't tell...I mean if those faggots try to marry she won't support it unless it wins her an election...stupid faggots... Oh wait, definitely against LBGT. Check.

Bribed? Check...

Inciting? Check. If it serves a purpose sure.

I could go on and on. But to do so is to lessen my own validity. And if you aren't sure about those examples, don't ask me to cite them please. They are well-known and anyone not paying attention to their candidate of choice doesn't deserve a to be handed the information they should know...