What if she does...

[angrychair]

If HRC is our general election candidate, I will vote for her.

Would I rather vote for Bernie Sanders? YES

Bernie is the only canidiate that said climate change was our country's greatest threat in the 1st debate (For the record, HRC said "Iran" the people we have a newly minted treaty with)

Bernie is the only one I believe is truely committed to addressing income inequality issues and an out-of-control wall street (HRC will not bring back Glass-Steagall)

Bernie is the only one I believe is truely committed to campaign finance reform (has convinced no one she is really interested in overturning Citizens United-12 SuperPACs speak volumes).

Bernie is the only one I believe is truely committed to addressing the student loan crisis (HRC's idea of just cutting interest rates is fucking insulting and will do nothing to fix the issue) and he will honestly work to abolish college tuition.

Bernie is the only one I believe is truely committed to increasing the tax burden on the super-wealthy and yes I realize it will likely increase mine as well, money isn't going to fall out of thin air.

So would it be a "lesser of 2 evils" vote? I wouldn't call it that but it is a vote that I would not enjoy casting. As a life-long Democrat I just don't get the feeling she honestly and truely cares about me as lower middle class American and considering only 17% of her donations are from individuals contributing $200 or less, neither do most of my peers.
She has my vote if she is the general election Democratic candidate, if she wants it with a smile, she has a lot more work to do.

[arcane1]

1. "Iran"

Dishonest, intelligence-insulting, warmongering horse-shit.

"Lesser of 2 evils" is an apt description of someone who would reply with that asinine answer

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I'm done with lesser-evilism.

I vote only for those I consider worthy of my vote. If no one worthy runs, then no vote gets cast. Voting is a privilege, and not to be undertaken lightly. And voting simply to be voting 'against' someone is taking it lightly. Any vote I cast is a vote to make America better, not 'slightly less worse'.

[840high]

4. ...^ that

[onenote]

9. You don't think voting for a president who might have the opportunity to change the current

right-leaning supreme court wouldn't be making America better?

I support Bernie, and if he gets the nomination, I'll follow up my primary period contribution with a general election contribution. But if he doesn't get the nomination, and Clinton (or Biden or O'Malley) does, I'll give them the same amount.

Why? For starters, on inauguration day, Ginsberg will be 83, Scalia and Kennedy will be 80, and Breyer will be 78.

There is a very good chance that more than one of these seats on the court will become open between January 2017 and election day 2020. If a repub is elected, that vacancy will be filled with another very conservative justice with views along the lines of Alito-Scalia-Thomas-Roberts. If the vacancy is Ginsberg or Breyer or even Kennedy the court moves even further to the right. And Scalia might view it as an opening to retire so that a younger right-winger can be appointed so that the court is guaranteed to stay majority right wing for another generation.

That will mean that same sex marriage rights will be reversed, that Citizens United will be preserved and extended and that other 5-4 decisions in which the justices appointed by Clinton and Obama were on the winning side are overturned and other decisions in which those justices were on the losing side are preserved and extended. It also means that new cases will come up in which protections for voting rights are further scaled back, thus making it even harder for Democrats to win elections going forward. It means cases involving matters of so-called religious liberty will be decided in favor of a theocratic position. And it means a wide variety of actions taken by President Obama by executive order will be reversed, probably overnight.

In other words, the stakes are incredibly high. Would Bernie push the envelope further than Clinton will? Yes, which is why I support him. But if he doesn't get the nomination, and voters don't come out and support the Democratic nominee, the adverse impacts of that result will be felt not just during our lifetimes, but in those of our children and grandchildren. I'd rather start pushing the envelope from the yard line we're on now than from the yard line a repub president will put us on.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. I'm putting it all on this one last roll of the dice.

If I lose, I lose, and I'm done with politics. I've voted in every election since I was 18, and almost exclusively for Dems, and the country just keeps getting worse and worse off. More people in poverty, more people in near poverty, fascist cops roaming the streets shooting people like it's a game, with no consequences. Hell, our Democratic administration working WITH them to break up any protests of the obscenely wealthy who've been sucking the marrow from our bones. Wasting money creating terrorists abroad by droning people when we don't even know who they are, continuing stupid wars, refusing to prosecute our war criminals, killing, killing, killing, all in the name of money. Poisoning our water and air with 'all of the above' energy plans. Driving us into the arms of the next extinction event all to keep the 1% happy and dancing towards killing us all off.

We either turn it around, or we keep on with the status quo. And the status quo is death.

[FSogol]

3. The only one? O'Malley has plans to streghten social secruty, break up the banks, regulate Wall St,

tackle the student loan crisis, and provide debt-free college to Americans.


Links to his dam good, workable, and comprehensive plans here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12813600

[JaneyVee]

5. She fights to cure AIDS in Africa. But tell me more about how she doesn't care about the poor.

[arcane1]

7. So does George Bush. Does that make him a good candidate who cares about the poor?

"George W. Bush's Legacy on Africa Wins Praise, Even From Foes"

The George W. Bush Presidential Library dedication brought together five living presidents who have been at odds about much of the 43 rd president's foreign policy legacy, particularly the Iraq war. But they all agreed on, and offered effusive praise for, Bush's work on Africa.

From the historic peace agreement between Sudan and South Sudan in 2005, to Bush's work on HIV/AIDS and malaria, all the presidents, regardless of party, thanked No. 43 for his involvement in African policies and issues.

Jimmy Carter - who now runs the Carter Center, a non-profit organization whose mission is to fight for human rights, conflict resolution and global health in the world's most impoverished countries - laid out Bush's accomplishments, including increasing aid to the continent by more than 640% by the time he left office.

"Mr. President, let me say that I'm filled with admiration for you and deep gratitude for you about the great contributions you've made to the most needy people on Earth," said Carter.

-snip-

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/george-w-bushs-legacy-on-africa-wins-praise-even-from-foes/

[restorefreedom]

6. no more nose holding for me

and no more strategic voting. i am voting for someone, not against the greater evil. because at the end of the day, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Those of you that feel comfortable doing it go right ahead. But not me.

[NCTraveler]

8. K&R for your sentiment...

and for the manner you just sold Sanders. Great argument for him.