The entire party is corrupt- see the wikileaks data dump.

The e-mails show debates that became heated between Sanders and mainstream Democratic leaders. So what? Sanders supporters were and are struggling to push issues into the Democratic platform. And they are succeeding. To call that corrupt by you is saying no debate should take place. It’s politics.

Are you really that blind to reality? You can’t see that HRC is a conniving charlatan whose opinions and decision making are driven solely by political expediency primarily motivated by her desire to satisfy her personal greed and aspirations for individual fame?

Not only are democrats changing in considering new ideas not brought up before,

No, these ideas are not new. In fact, they are part and parcel the Clinton/Clinton/Gore 1992 campaign promises. It was their refusal to follow through on their campaign promises and their subsequent neo-liberal agenda that lead to Nader’s first run and the entire 3rd party progressive movement.

Not only are democrats changing [and] considering new ideas but the entire comfortable [the] system is being shaken and reformed.

Again no , the Demoncrats are fighting tooth and nail to to stay with the status quo. That is why Wasserman-Shultz showed such blatant HRC favoritism during the primary process. It is also why the MSM counted super delegate polls as actual delegate votes in an effort to persuade the public that Bernie could not win. It is why very nearly every elected Demoncrat endorsed HRC even before seeing who else might enter the race. It is why establishment super delegates like Howard Dean declared that they would stick with Clinton even though 80+ percent of his state wanted Sanders. It is why, the MSM called the race for Clinton based on uncommitted super delegate polling on the eve of one of the largest primary days of the entire election.

With all due respect, Mr Carson the actions of establishment Demoncrats clearly show that they are trying to resist progressive reform, not embrace it.

The Republican party is shredded and dying. In my view, Trump supporters are way beyond ignorant. How could anyone having heard what this disturbed full of himself mental fop actually has said publicly, vote for him. Only because of ignorance.

I wholeheartedly agree with you here, with one small change to your final sentence, “Onlybecause of ignorance and/or bigotry.”


She accepts millions of dollars to do the bidding foreign governments. She has blatantly tried to circumvent the FOIA. Rolling over on bankruptcy relief legislation after receiving 100’s of 1000’s from the banking industry. Rolling over on single payer after receiving millions from the health care industry, etc., etc….

That’s just the tip of the iceberg, but as should be known to anyone that has followed her career, her political convictions tend change based on a combination of political expediency vs cash dollar donations.


Ok, this stuff is impossible to prove because each and every politician will swear to you you that large campaign donations and gifts do not affect their decision making, but I do know this, if you were to give me a million dollars, I would be favorably disposed toward you and would naturally feel an obligation yo help you to the best I my abilities whenever I could. Furthermore, I do not think that corporations would be giving millions to politicians, if it did not yield any beneficial results. Finally, the lion’s share of voters feel that it does influence politicians and would like to see it stop altogether or be seriously curtailed.

I am not so sure why you expect me to do your research for you, but…:

HRC and single payer:

HRC and Arms deals:

HRC and Rolling over on bankruptcy relief legislation:

As far as the eMail scandal, there has been so much written on it, that I would just suggest that you pay attention to the daily news. Yes, the FBI said that they could not prove intent, but if you believe that HRC did not use that server because she had hoped to keep her eMails from the public eye, I have a bridge that I’d like to sell you.

Of course it is not an excuse, however, would it not be true as well to critise both political parties ?

I never stated that I hold repuglican’ts harmless, while only blaming the demoncrats, but I will say this, you don’t hear the repugs complaining that they really wants to take the big money influence out of politics. Quite the opposite really. OTOH, the Demoncrats are constantly saying that they want campaign fiance reform, while never doing a thing about and laughing all the way to the bank.

In either respect, both parties are ignoring the wishes of their constituents in order to preserve a system that provides them with personal self enrichment and that, in and of itself makes them corrupt.

In my view, politics is really about who get our money. A dirty and cynical business.

Well, if you agree with me, I am not really sure why you are asking me to prove it.

Bernie Sanders, although he did not take the nomination, is the beginning of a real pushback to this. Key word, beginning.

And unfortunately, perhaps the the end.

It will never be the idealised perfect system,

All systems involve compromise, but this is like trying to use dog feces to make guitar strings.

but at least it is finally getting some traction.

WAS, finally staring to get some traction.

I don’t see Clinton as corrupt but a result of what politics necessarily is, or at least, includes.

Not true. Sanders would like to see it stopped and took measures to try and stop it. Warren would like to see it stopped and actively lobbies for change. Clinton/Clinton/Gore promised to address it, yet once in office, did nothing.

It does not have to be this way, other countries have shown us as much.

Sanders would not be able to totally be able to overturn it either.

That sir, quite sadly, we will never know.


As I said in the first sentence of my reply, I wasn’t trying to prove anything. You asked for some detail (even though they were at you finger tips via a simple google search), so I offered you some.

I’m am not inclined to paint her actions in the future with such a negative broad brush.

Of course not! Why would we want to consider a politician’s past record as evidence as of how they may behave as a future office holder? That would be presumptuous!

She may turn over a new leaf and become a stalwart of the progressive movement, even though she claimed her self to be a “proud moderate” before Sanders started to gain traction in the race. Surely, (other than tapping a faux liberal for VP) she has changed her thinking since Bernie showed her the light and now that Sanders has been dispatched she will cling to the parts of his message and platform that she co-opted when she found herself backsliding in the polls.

BTW, I still have that bridge for sale.

I think she will accomplish much in a progressive way that will be positive.

You mean like wiping out entire families with drone strike before they ever see a chance for due process? You mean like toppling dictators with no plan as to what may fill the resulting power vacuum. You mean like sending America’s finest and most promising young men and women to spill there blood on foreign sands while engendering more world wide hatred for America? Or do you mean like keeping America’s insurance companies rich and profitable while millions of citizens remain w/o decent access to healthcare? Like perpetuating the backslide of America’s middle class into the abyss of poverty, while continuing damagingly low top tax rates and pandering to the whims of our country’s moneyed elite? You mean like paying lip service to environmental stewardship while the planet dips further toward the inextricable sixth great extinction?

No one serving as President is perfect and who knows how it will be seen after her four years.

Sure just elect anyone and see how it pans out in a decade or two from now.

I hope the best for her being able to have a co-operative congress. About all you can say.

Why so she can do nothing with both a plurality in both the house and senate like Obummer did? So she can pretend to reach across the isle and accomplish nothing that truly helps the people?

To try to sabotage anything her administration will try to do before hand is a mistake.

I am doing nothing of the sort. I am working hard to see if we can get a respectable, decent and qualified president elected in this country for once.

I get that is what you are trying to do since you know the Democrats will at least take the Executive branch.

You don’t know what I am trying to do nor do you know who will be elected president.

Pres. Obama’s terms are more difficult to present time analyse and it will be seen more clearly after 10 years as to what was really what in his actions as President.

Sure why not? Elect any old money grubbing, lying, self-serving, corporate pandering war monger as see how it turns out in 14 to 18  years from now. Good plan!

How did GWB work out? How did Clinton/Clinton/Gore work out? GHWB? Teflon Ron? What a brilliant strategy!

Right now, I am working to support both the campaigns of Jill Stein and that of Gary Johnson. Both candidates have excellent qualifications and would make fine, forward thinking, reform minded candidates. While Jill Stein’s platform most closely matches my own beliefs, I have the utmost respect for Gary Johnson as a man of integrity and principal.

As the election draws near, I will make my choice based on both the quality of the campaigns they have run and how closely their platform matches the beliefs of my own. Both candidates merit your serious consideration.

If you compare closely, you will find some vast differences between their platforms. In addition, the demoncrats have a nasty history of supporting a very progressive platform, but abandoning that agenda once elected to office. The has been the case with Obama/Biden, Clinton/Clinton/Gore, Pelosi and others. Ever since the neo-liberals took over the core/establishment of the party, this has remained the case.

View story at

View story at

View story at

Two parties is not balance… it means all the time, half the people at least are disregarded

Prior to what is currently happening, that was more accurate. However, what I see happening now is, to achieve a common goal, the two differing democratic branches, the Sanders supporters and Clinton’s more established Democrats, must compromise to defeat Trump. A temporary allegiance,  but for now, it is a positive sign. Both want progressive protections to all groups and protections against exploitation by mega powerful financial interests in healthcare, energy, and military. Sanders is focused on a direct approach because in his view, anything less won’t cut it. Clinton is less inclined as she is and has been more beholden to those financial interests. But if she is to succeed in taking the white house, she needs to co-oporate with Sanders for his support. It will be a good compromise with good results. Unless the idiots succeed and divide the Democratic party. But as a whole, Democrats are a smart crew.

The “democrats” are a smart crew and are playing the game wonderful. There will not be much left from being against mega powerful financial interests, energy and military when Clinton II is in office, she is the status quo since Bush II and maybe even longer. Can only encourage you to read more about ClintonII.


What you see as strong, I see as problem. Being friend with Kissinger, Goldmen Sachs, MIC, Mubarak, Bibi… is more a sign of wrong values and if you look what ClintonI and II have accomplished, inclusive the world wide banking crises or how warmongering ClintonII is, then I can´t see much positive at all. What the republician say is not so important for me, much more interesting is what bigmoney thinks and WS, MIC, Israel, Prisonindustry, Surveilleinceindustry, Oilindustry,CNN,… are convinced of her, she seems an good investment for them and looking at her history I have to agree.

Yes the rest of the world can only hope that she will not course too much damage in and outside the US.