dakota44

No one was trashing all of his supporters. It would be quite naive to not understand that some of them are tantrum throwing individuals who refuse to see the danger in a Trump presidency and might vote for the candidate who is totally the opposite of the man they admire. That would indeed be dumb and idiotic.

kimilseung

I am tying to imagine the persons whose principles are represented by both Sanders and Trump, and what those principles are. What principles do you see as involved here Mr Zargof?

zargof

Trade deals, getting money out of politics, fighting the corruption that Clinton represents, actually making the system work for the 99% rather than the 1%.

Now you can argue that Trump won't do anything to address any of that and everything he says is a lie to get votes. But really how is Clinton different?

People have been screwed by the system for decades with stagnating wages, increasingly paying the rich and corporations' share of the tax burden and getting less for it in return. People are tired of it.

Just like with Brexit you can talk about how much of a disaster it would be to elect Trump, but people just don't believe it any more. And to suppose only racists support Trump is as naive as thinking only racists voted Leave.

Giantaxe

And will therefore vote for a man who won't release his tax returns so we can see what share of the tax burden he is paying. Go figure.

True, but I suspect most racists voted leave and most racists will vote for Trump.

zargof

It's that or the candidate who won't tell us what she talks to Wall St about. Great choice right.

dakota44

Perhaps you missed the fact that Clinton and Sanders have included much of Sanders agenda in the Democrats platform. I much prefer to put my trust in her than in Trump. We can call it the lesser of two evils if you like. A few years after my discharge from the military I attended University at the age of 27. I became a vocal opponent of the war and had significant association with like minded 18 an 19 year old students whom I discovered were amazingly naive and absent any real knowledge of politics or even the 3 branches of government and how they worked. Most had no clue how to register to vote or even who their congressional representatives were. I had no faith in their ability to make a rational choice in the voting booth. I feel the same about many in that age group today.

dakota44

Quick...name a candidate that has ever released transcripts of every paid speach they have ever made. On ther other hand...name a candidate who has refused to release their tax returns in the last 50 plus years. The answer to both is zero.

Giantaxe

Well you made a point about voting intentions and taxes so I don't see what Clinton's private speeches have to do with that. After all, we know exactly what Clinton's income has been for the last quarter of a century and exactly how much tax was paid on it. And how many candidates in the past have released transcripts of their private speeches?

Anian

Why does anyone actually care about that? Apart from the Republicans who hope she said something as damning as Romney did. If you care that she made a paid speech in the first place then it doesn't matter what she said, if you don't care then it doesn't matter what she said.

zargof

Sure the changes to the platform are a good start, but nothing about fracking, opposition to the TPP or campaign finance reform. Also, it's more a case of how Clinton embraces the platform as you know as well as I do that the platform isn't worth the paper it's written on by itself.

If you want to cast aspersions based on stupid generalizations about age groups, remember it isn't millennials getting all their information from Fox News.

zargof

Bernie Sanders, he didn't make any.

Giantaxe

Is Sanders going to be a candidate in the General Election?

zargof

The point isn't really the content, it's more the fact that why did she get paid over 200K for a single speech. Why would Goldman Sachs pay that much? Is it because it's a good investment, and they're just waiting to see what rate of return they get when Clinton is President.

Now you can say it doesn't matter and just accept the corruption and legalised bribery because that's just how it is. Or maybe you'd like to do something about it.

dakota44

No casting aspersions...just making a point from personal experience

dakota44

Why does anyone pay anybody that k8nd of money for a speech? Highly paid speaking engagements have been the norm for a very long list of people out of public office...and remember...she was out of public office.


Now compare that with Dick Cheney who, while VP, sat with representatives of big oil and othr energy giants to discuss and write energy policy and then refused to release the the records or transcripts of that meeting citing executive privilege.