It’s pure comedy for anyone to pretend he’s going to support candidate X over Y because of tax returns or transcripts of speeches (one of which you don’t need, since it’s been on YouTube for a couple years.)
I’m so old, they used to call this a “red herring.” (Draws blank stares from millennials.)
And a Cruz fan, if additional info helps 
He did drop the law- suit he had against the DNC, and I thought he finally settled down.
See what you are doing here: you imply that she is corrupt, would sell us out to Wall Street and is not releasing speeches because she has something to hide.
Why does not Sanders release his speeches in Cuba and USSR?
See what I did here? I implied that he supports totalitarian regimes, would implement one here if he were elected and is not releasing his speeches because he has something to hide.
I believe neither of the above. We can judge both candidates without details of their speeches to this or that group. On the other hand, I am sure that there are nuggets in Clinton’s and Sanders’ speeches that could be used by the opposition. Release of Clinton’s Wall Street speeches (Sanders’ Cuba speeches) would certainly give ammunition to Sanders and Republicans (Clinton and Republicans). You see who is consistently winning in this scenario? As a society we might decide that all past speeches by candidates for public office must be publicly available. But that has to apply to everyone, not just Clinton.
I stopped paying close enough attention to the goofball to see that he was a Cruz missile-man. So his supporting a dominionist, theocratic fucknut shouldn’t surprise me, but I would have pegged him more as a Kasich nitwit.
And then we will have to sit through a speech of his at the Convention, no doubt.
Unicornly ? ? I prefer to aspire that my beliefs will totally be brought to naught when he
" tinkerbellily " spreads his magic dust about the Congress and … POOF ! ! —
I’ll say one thing about Cruz: he sure does get the supporters he deserves.
Let’s take him at his word that the Supers can change their vote. Um, where is the team that is approaching them to get in their good graces, when Hillary’s been on theirs for the past 30 years as she’s campaigned and donated to their re-elections and BS hasn’t ASFAIK, has he?
You see every now and then scrolling fails me.
FDR was from one of the wealthiest families in America. So was his cousin, Theodore. Did that make either of them right wing ideologues?
To say nothing of the Kennedys.
These last couple or three months have been pretty tough on many of us and with all the back and forth, it’s been difficult to keep this in mind – on both sides. I can honestly say that I felt the same way about Sen. Sanders – that if it were mathematically impossible for HRClinton to clinch the nomination, the vast majority of us Clinton supporters already had it in our minds we’d gladly support and vote for Sanders. Thank you.
[quote=“georgeh, post:155, topic:37047, full:true”]
Why won’t she release the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches? She made more money in an hour than most people make in 4 years giving those speeches.[/quote]
Because cherry-picking is a thing, and it’s a thing the Republicans will use to inflict damage more than Sanders could use it to compel a change in course.
I think all money, all goods, and all human interests are corrupting and influential, and if you want a politician to be incorruptible, you need to find one who is literally made of nothing but noble gasses. Xenon, perhaps. Here’s the thing: if you want to argue that that level of money in politics is bad, go for it. Hell, the Republican frontrunner agrees with you, as does literally everyone even an iota to his left. If you want to argue that a specific candidate has been corrupted by monied interests, then please, show your work. In the American tradition of Jurisprudence, the burden of proof is on the accuser.
That’s why Senator Sanders has been very careful in his scripting - careful to the point of inaccuracy, when it comes to avoiding calling Secretary Clinton corrupt. He can use the implication that ‘this sort of thing leads to corruption’ to push his message, but he’s got nothing to actually point at and say ‘she’s corrupt’. A side effect of this, by the way, is that by making this such a constant refrain that’s now reaching the level where the Secretary can just brush it off and laugh, there’s a case to be made that this inoculates against that issue in the general.
And what fight has he seen to the finish?
You should go troll a forum where you won’t immediately get called on your repeated lies.
The crowd here is too bright for you. The crowd here would be too bright for you after 4 or 5 drinks.
Well, Teddy was a Republican.
… in a very, very different Party. Ah, for the days when both parties had a broad spectrum of interests.
1 - I was not comparing Sanders and Obama - I was comparing Obama and Bush. I disagree with Sanders on the drone program. But it is undeniable that Clinton is far more of a war hawk than Sanders. Her vote on the Iraq war should disqualify her - end of story.
2 - You are correct, the rates of incarceration have gone down slightly in the last few years, but this is not due to anything that Obama has done to specifically address the issue of the New Jim Crow and the effect of the Clinton Crime bills and Clinton’s welfare reform bill.
3 - When it comes to criminal justice, Obama has increased federal funding of the war on drugs, police militarization, and, like Hillary, supports the death penalty.
Bernie and many of his supporters complete failure to understand the party process and the math involved is quite analogous to climate change deniers who put their head in the sand to deny facts.
Well given that she was voting on the AUMF in order to force UN inspectors in, and it worked, and not voting for invasion, your argument is worthless. End of story.