You got what you deserve, Republican Party...

[A Black Falcon]

Honestly, there's things that were clearly untrue beyond the differences between state and FBI standards, but that's neither here nor there.

Like what? State is now saying that at least two of the three emails on her server marked classified actually should not have been marked classified, and that the server probably didn't have anything they would call classified on it: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisit...formation/ This kind of thing really reinforces to me that the main issue is the inter-agency argument...

Here's the big news. Sanders negotiated hard with Clinton over what it'd take to get his support, and the result is that the democratic party has been forced to adopt a platform a lot more progressive than originally planned.

I love it.

What I've seen of the platform this year sounds pretty good, yes. It looks like they took many of the better ideas from both candidates, and apart from wishing that anti-TPP plank could have been there (but Obama's support for TPP made that very unlikely) I like what I've heard. Of course party platforms don't actually matter, candidates usually ignore them, but it is something.

For all your complaints about Sanders ABF, I'm sure you can appreciate that Sanders was doing the right thing in this case by withholding support until certain key points were adopted by the democratic platform.

Considering that this race has been over for months and you can still argue for a more liberal platform as a Hillary supporter, no, how does holding out until now really make sense?

Anyway, so that's that. Clinton has my conditional support. So long as she doesn't go back on this deal (and that's always an option, since platform statements don't necessarily reflect what a politician will actually do), I'm voting for her. So hip hip hurray! It's something!

Yeah, it is something.




Weltall, have you noticed? Bernie endorsed Hillary now, finally. The primaries are over and the party is unifying. Did you watch video of their event together in New Hampshire? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NGosB4ieTE

Bernie Sanders had access to no more intelligence than Clinton did,

Bernie was in the House then, so he likely had less? The Senate had the key vote, from what I remember.

and he made the right decision because the war was a moral wrong and a political disaster waiting to happen regardless of how valid the administration's intelligence was on the subject of Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction. Sanders understood that, and exercised better judgment when it came up for a vote.

Bernie was far from the only person on the right side of the Iraq issue, you know. And if you hate her so much for supporting it, were you also vocal in opposing Biden for VP and Kerry for current Secretary of State since both of them voted the same as she did on that vote?

The base assumption that Clinton was more qualified than Sanders on the issue of foreign policy is debunked by that example alone.

Bernie kept trying to use this nonstarter of a point in the Democratic debates, and it just made him look desperate. It doesn't just strain credibility to say "I agree with most of the things you say about foreign policy but we can't trust you because you voted wrong on one vote 12 years ago". That's an obviously deeply flawed argument when you have NO major differences on actual current foreign policy issues, and when Hillary crushed him on the details in every single foreign policy section in the Democratic debates.

Sanders reasoned out what the consequences would be before it happened and that is a crucial element of leadership Hillary Clinton exercises too infrequently to make me comfortable.

Actually, literally his entire case against her on the foreign policy front began and ended with "but she voted wrong on Iraq". There was NOTHING else there because they agree on everything else to a much greater extent. Those foreign policy debates were interesting because of how rarely they actually disagreed about much... she's more vocal about supporting Israel (I'm entirely on her side of this one, I REALLY dislike the anti-Israel trend of some people on the left today -- but even there Bernie himself isn't as extreme on this issue as some of his supporters are), they have some slight wording differences about Iran... was there even anything else of note? If you can't come up with any actual current issue you think she's really wrong about, it's hard to make the case that you can't trust her you know!

You better believe that a hypothetical Secretary of State Bernie Sanders would have never set up a private email server to handle official State Department correspondence

You never know. Does he use email at all? Old people...

and classified materials, because how on earth could that have possibly sounded like a good idea?

She did not do that. The State Department has now said that those three emails known to have been marked as classified were actually marked that way in error, or two of them were for sure and the third probably was as well. Information State actually considered classified did not go onto Hillary's server. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisit...formation/

You could make that case that State did not want to call everything classified that the FBI does, because that's very clearly true, but that is a very different thing from claiming that she or her people sent emails her department considered classified to her server; they didn't.

I count on one finger the number of people who honestly felt like Hillary Clinton was done with her political ambitions when she gave those speeches. It's the guy who seriously just stated that these speeches are never done for nefarious reasons or political favors but probably forgot to add "except when Republicans do it".

Let's forget the gifts from Wall Street execs. Or how Prince Muhammad of Saudi Arabia claims that his country is funding 20% of Clinton's election expenses.

[IMG]http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2016/06/04/screenshot.jpg

Myseriously, 'hackers' 'hacked' the news site which posted this report and planted it there. The 'true' story is that the amount was 'undisclosed'. Nonetheless, the alleged progressive candidate (representing the alleged progressive party) is being funded, in part, by an 'undisclosed' amount of donations from everyone's favorite progressive desert kingdom that definitely doesn't also fund global Islamic terror organizations.

I'm sure they have only the purest of intentions.

So now you're repeating ludicrous, blatantly false conspiracy theories? I'd have hoped for better than repeating obvious falsehoods. I do not believe in conspiracy theories and you shouldn't either.

As for the speeches, you are not beholden to a group just because you spoke before them.

I think it would be the easiest thing in the world for her to do, and the non-Fox News media will never seriously grill her about it. The Fox News media won't grill her too hard on that particular issue since they are fine with her cooperation on that particular issue.

You do know she is currently explicitly running as being against TPP, yes? It's not just a line on her website, she's actually saying it in speeches and such. People are watching.

I wasn't being literal, but you have an unusual number of blind spots for this candidate.

This is the internet, it's hard to tell when someone is being serious when it's only text... and I often do take things literally when I read them.

Beyond that though, no, I don't have a blind spot for her; I'm actually looking at reality, instead of warped Hillary-hating-land stuff from Republican websites and whatever.