The nomination was stolen from Bernie, lock stock and rigged elections, the press hates him, the MSM hates him and all the so-called "Democrats" hate him. They like the way things are, thank you, with their crony corporate friends, funding them, and their buddies don't want change, or to lose their power. It is vile and disgusting and I am with Bernie all the way and never voting for the Agent of the 1%, the corrupt crook HRC, a phony if their ever was one.

Count me in.

My god, what a poor loser you are. You need to chill out, get an appointment. take your meds.

My God, what a corporate propaganda catapulter you are. You need to get a life.

You have not proof the elections were rigged and the nomination stolen from Bernie, but every time you make that claim you help Trump get closer to being the president of the United States. .

The proof is in the hands of lawyers and judges reviewing nearly one hundred separate cases. Millions of votes involved.

Forget the personalities of Sanders and Clinton.

For all of us, now and our immediate futures, these cases should be prosecuted and the system corrected to rebuild trust & transparency.

Please send me any links to cases that you have.

Lawsuits in each of > one dozen states, though the largest lawsuit is filed in Ohio and may be refiled in every state.

http://www.dailykos.com/sto...
Proven-at-Audit-by-Chicago-BOE-flipped-precinct-by-18pts-from-Bernie-to-Hillary

https://electionfraud2016.w...

http://thefreethoughtprojec...

http://justicegazette.org/b...

NY: https://www.youtube.com/wat...
CA: https://www.youtube.com/wat... (THIS ONE)
CA: https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Thanks for sending. I do hope there are credible sources in there.

I wish they were not credible.

Do people 'tamper' with elections ?
I think we can admit so, yes.

The scale and scope of these lawsuits is far beyond acceptable.

Internationally the US ranks 47th of some 100+ democracies in election fairness and transparency.

Our last three elections rank as the bottom three for least fair (or most 'manipulated').

How I wish it were not so.

Watch Karl Roves reaction in 2012 when they call Ohio for Obama, not Romney. Watch the lawyers who've filed the current lawsuit in Ohio.

The evidence is staring us all in our faces. The body language and non verbal communication in videos is revealing.

Many will continue to believe what they prefer to be true.

Sincerely.

JBF

Well said!

That is a paragraph almost as full of paranoia as it is full of excrement.

The words "stolen" and "Hillary" should be a given by now. The woman is a crook and criminal much like her husband. The fact that she's keeping the FBI at bay should tell you that the laws that would put 99% of us in jail, don't apply to her and the upper 1%. But she'll fit in with the last several criminals who have occupied the White House.

You are a liar. There are no facts anywhere to support anything you say about either of the Clinton's. Bigger, bigger men than you have tried for decades to take them down but none have found any criminal activity. Nor moral activity that would bring them down.

As I continue down this thread, every time I read another of your comments I become a little more embarrassed for you. If you have the slightest sense of self-respect and dignity, you'll close your Disqus account and slip away. Or at least change your handle and avatar. Pretty soon, if not already, you're just going to be a laughing-stock around here.

"Bigger, bigger" brains than yours have tired to elevate Hillary to heights she cannot sustain in the minds of those who seek truth to power. Those who would rather hold the moral high-ground than to give it up merely for the sake of witnessing historical posterity.

It does seem these days that a position of stature can be attained without merit; such as Obama winning the Nobel "Peace" Prize. But there is that still-seen contradiction.

A man of war given a peace prize...

Or Senator Warren endorsing Hillary. A bank fighter and a bank enabler...

So what meaning is there for us in a woman who becomes the first of her gender to become POTUS, if her character and ensuing actions do not measure up to that achievement?

And they will not.

Lmao.

Gonna take a long time to laugh your fat ass off. Maybe you should laugh your brain off. That'll only take a few seconds of chuckling.

Your slimy attempt at intimidation will not scare me off, nor stop me for fighting for the truth. And you a'int got none.

Diane, you can't handle the truth.

No, Punkette, it is the lying I cannot handle.

Well look in the mirror, honey. You're spreading the pro-Hillary propaganda far and wide.

I'm not trying to intimidate you. That would imply some kind of challenge.

I'm exposing your lack of character. Your lack of respect for the pursuit of truth-to-power.

You on the other hand are only interested in an agenda of self-interest. That doesn't require either truth or character.

If you had any real sense of compassion, justice, humanity, etc., you'd be wondering how so many people, who claim to want real democracy for everyone, could possibly be against the idea of Clinton as POTUS unless there was good reason.

And if you'd step back a moment and give it some critical-thought, then you could go out with an open mind and find vast amounts of evidence to show how her mind works. And that it doesn't work for you or me. Certainly not for everyone.

Why else would she argue the fact that Sanders wants the democratic things he does for us? For ALL of us.

No one should enjoy a full democracy unless everyone can. Only a blind fool would believe Clinton will try to deliver that.

Wake up or shut up. No one will listen to you except the other politic zombies.

Preach to your choir if you must, but please, please spare the rest of us...

Otherwise you risk judgment on your own character. Though it is likely too late in this thread.

What "vast amounts of evidence" is there that shows she does not care about the 99%? Can you give any substantiated
incidents that show Clinton does not care about equality for all?

The only support for your claim is your believe Clinton "argue(s) the fact Sanders wants the democratic things he does for us." She does not challenge that Sanders wants to give you democratic things. She argues the fact he cannot deliver some of those things.

I have a right to comment on this site just as much as you do, and I will continue to attempt to correct the lies. If you don't like my comments, just don't read them.

"What "vast amounts of evidence" is there that shows she does not care about the 99%? Can you give any substantiated incidents that show Clinton does not care about equality for all?"

Well, thank you for asking. How's this for starters? A great example that illustrates quite well how little regard that both husband and wife have had for their fellow working man and woman for quite a long time. From the beginning as a matter of fact. It also demonstrates how they believe themselves "exceptional" insofar as they don't have to follow the rules they proclaim to expect of others.

http://inthesetimes.com/wor...

Do you want more? Oh, I can give you more. I started collecting stuff like this last year after running into others like you who prefer their establishment-quo alternative reality.

I can fill you up with examples of Clinton-style neoliberal family forays, from AK to NY to DC and all over the world. On nearly any topic, but mostly in the financial sector and the foreign military-economic complex.

Just say the word, and I will oblige.

And you do have the right to voice your opinions.

Just as I have the right to disagree.

That's what you've been doing here.

And that's all I'm doing here. Don't insert a double-standard.

I'm sorry if you can't handle the truth. But you need to. For your own sake and everyone else.

The Clintons can take care of themselves. And that's what you should be most worried about...

Seriously, James, this is best you can do; the example of prime hate against unions that was supposed to get me interested in your crap about the Clintons? A couple of lovebirds "sneak" into a deserted museum.

Just what I figured - you have nothing worth reading.

Just the reaction I expected. You only prove you are just as democratically shallow as the Clinton dynasty. And I didn't imply the emotion "hate". I don't know what emotions they feel with regard to those things, such as the labor movement that they disavow. I only know how they act and react. My description for that relationship is better described as "disdain" or "impudence". Or "condescension". And hugely disrespectful.

Sprinkled with a hefty dose of elitist arrogance.

Those "lovebirds" were supposed to be in public political support of that "picket line". That was the intent of the action making the museum "deserted".

Do you even understand the concept and implication/purpose of a "picket line"? That crossing one, for whatever childish and/or disrespectful reason is in direct opposition to the action's objective? And that the action's success or failure is dependent on how it is respected or not. Crossed or not?

It was not an objective decision for them to make. No matter who they are. They were on record in support of that action. So what they did was hypocritical and showed they weren't serious.

But merely seeking PR status.

You reveal the exact nature, in your own response, of the character flaw that makes either Clinton disreputable in claiming support for organized labor. Or the working class for that matter. As do you in your belittling what they did.

That's how you interact too. Among the progressive bloggers here from what I've seen. In absolute blind ignorance and conceit. As though we are all childish and silly in our political observations and complaints.

You believe what? That's it's most important that we elect the 1st woman POTUS? In your lifetime. That is it, isn't it? That's your high-horse prerogative, that is supposed to somehow outweigh any other global consideration. Including those that threaten the life, limb and livelihood of the disenfranchised and unrepresented of the world.

So it doesn't really surprise me that you too have little regard for labor. The working class or the working poor. Probably most especially the latter. That's at the root of the neoliberal theology. It's their self-serving and self-justified response to their belief in the concept of Social Darwanism.

I never expected you to take any opposition to your political conviction seriously. Only someone who is open-minded, who sincerely wants to be honestly and adequately informed. And who has a desire to stand upon the moral high-ground, where all people share in the fruits of democracy with equal measure. And on a planet where collective global sustainability is the reality. Only then would you have the kind of second-thought anyone capable of critical-thinking would. Should. Your convictions are more banal and vain. There is little evidence of selflessness in the historical trajectory that has been the political lives of the Clintons. And that leaves yours in question for that reason. Or maybe you're merely and innocently deluded. Indoctrinated. Brainwashed.

I begin with some recent articles, including some opinion/analysis. I understand that opinion is just that. But I am including as well some other articles that report on some of the activities since their first date. I'm also including articles on topics, current events/policy that relate to or hint at what can be expected of another Clinton POTUS/WH.

I would welcome your unbiased attention, but I am not overly confident you will give it. Still others may who read this thread. I do thank you at least for remaining in this discussion. For giving me this opportunity.

To wit. Two considerations that should be of some serious concern. There is the onging FBI investigation and there is now an investigation into the state of her health. She may be at risk of stroke. Something to do with a fall and some possibly dangerous blood-thinning medication she is taking. You'll have to Google that yourself. I didn't save the article link. It was on OpEd News I think.

As to her war-footing. Whatever is in the works by November will be further acted upon by whoever is elected. The recent calls for US engagement against Bashar al-Assad in Syria is, and should be of paramount concern to any peace-loving American. There is little doubt by her own rhetoric that this would be a made-to-order go-to military policy move for her to execute or continue, whichever would apply.

http://www.commondreams.org...

http://www.dailykos.com/sto...

http://www.opednews.com/art...

http://www.opednews.com/Qui...

http://yournewswire.com/sta...

https://theintercept.com/20...

http://www.counterpunch.org...

http://www.counterpunch.org...

https://theintercept.com/20...

http://www.activistpost.com...

http://www.opednews.com/art...

https://theintercept.com/20...

https://www.washingtonpost....

http://www.commondreams.org...

https://therulingclassobser...

https://theintercept.com/20...

http://www.truthdig.com/rep...

http://www.wsws.org/en/arti...

http://freebeacon.com/colum...

http://www.truth-out.org/op...

http://readersupportednews....

http://www.commondreams.org...

http://www.opednews.com/art...

http://www.counterpunch.org...

http://www.alternet.org/com...

http://www.commondreams.org...

http://www.wsws.org/en/arti...

http://www.commondreams.org...

http://www.counterpunch.org...

http://www.truthdig.com/rep...

http://www.counterpunch.org...

http://www.alternet.org/ele...

http://www.counterpunch.org...

http://www.counterpunch.org...

http://www.commondreams.org...

http://www.liveleak.com/vie...

http://www.anonews.co/hilla...

https://theintercept.com/20...

http://www.alternet.org/new...

http://www.alternet.org/com...

http://www.dailykos.com/sto...

https://theintercept.com/20...

https://theintercept.com/20...

http://www.counterpunch.org...

http://www.commondreams.org...

http://www.truthdig.com/ear...

http://www.alternet.org/ele...

http://www.counterpunch.org...

http://www.counterpunch.org...

http://www.counterpunch.org...

http://www.counterpunch.org...

http://www.commondreams.org...

https://theintercept.com/20...

http://inthesetimes.com/art...

http://www.counterpunch.org...

http://www.truthdig.com/ear...

http://www.commondreams.org...

https://theintercept.com/20...

http://www.counterpunch.org...

https://theintercept.com/20...

http://www.timesofisrael.co...

http://fair.org/home/media-...

Your tactic reminds me of Ed Ball, a ruthless businessman that worked for the DuPont dynasty. His favorite saying was "Confusion to the enemy." Smother them with useless paperwork to keep them busy until I steal what I want.

Am I confusing you with the facts?

How unsurprising...

James, you don't have any "facts." Just lies and innuendo.

Typical Orwellian response from the zombie politic.

You expect me to wade through a trove of accusations? No, you state the violation or what other evil deed you believe Clinton did and a credible source that substantiates your allegation, then I will read it and provide to you the truth.

In the interim, I'll share with you a new Harvard study wherein the researchers found the media reported negatively on Clinton, ignoring her accomplishments.

http://shorensteincenter.or...

Always an excuse to deflect, distract, avoid or just duck...

Every article has a title. The title represents the allegation or topic being analyzed. Then the content of the article makes the case with sources. If the document itself is not the source.

Were I to do what you ask, I would just be cutting and pasting those titles, then giving you the same links. All of the links should have the article titles as part of the URL.

This way I also avoid your accusing me of making things up. Although you may nonetheless I suppose. It would follow that you might.

I'm not real hopeful here anyway. Your responses are what most give you away regardless. And for others to see, and I can tell they have from other comments in this thread.

You know, this corrupt democrat party, these people that you politically support represent the establishment-quo. And those people represent the continued existence and preservation of the elite ruling class. And together they all represent noting more than self-interested wealth and power. Their long-term agenda is the eventual Domination of all civil society, and dominion over the global labor populations and the planet's dwindling resources.

With little or no regard for the ramifications of their actions; the threats they create as a result of them. Global Warming being at the top of the list.

So tell me. How does someone come to that? Where you now seem to prefer to be? That you are so willing to sacrifice, to risk so much for mostly their benefit?

How do you honestly justify yourself? Do you even know any longer what is true and what isn't? It really seems you do not...

Do what you will with what I have provided to you.

It is your right.

Exercise it while you still can...

I justify myself because I know I am right. When I research issues, I look at a variety of sources. Your list of sources comprises off the wall sites and sources whose bias is well established.

I read both sides, including Clinton's. I search for gov documentation. Just as I did with the IG report. The headlines screamed Clinton Guilty so I read the gov document and deciphered the truth.

Then I use common sense. Just like "if it sounds too good to be true, it isn't" - if an act sounds too risky for a presidential candidate to take - I question it.

But and most if not all of Bernie supporters don't use critical thinking to process accusations against Clinton. Plus, you've been biased against "msm" which is a decades old ploy of the right-wing.

Girl, you really are such a tool of the establishment.

The only "ploys" going on in this pointless conversation are all on your end. And pretty pitiful at that.

For example.

"Plus, you've been biased against "msm" which is a decades old ploy of the right-wing."

Actually I believe I did include some mainstream media story links...

Aside form that, I honestly can't tell if you're attempting to deny the right-wing business influence on the "mainstream media". Or if you're openly admitting the neoliberal influence on them. It sounds like a little of both. And I absolutely agree that both wings of the vulture duopoly, of which you are willingly a part of, are in complete collusion with the MSM agenda of control, domination and dominion over all who receive their signals, and beyond as they can.

But it's no meme, and all the credit doesn't go to the "right", who cannot be blamed for seeing the same rotten system we on the "left" do. They just respond so terribly different.

Aside form that, I don't feel the need to defend my political leanings. Anyone reading my comments, and of those who know me, I'm sure laugh at anyone accusing me of being on the "right". Except others of your ilk, as a meme, such as you attempted to do.

Although that's not to say there are not some who may be further "left" of me. Though I feel once we are outside the establishment-quo bubble, what measures there are for "how far left I am" are more subjective than anything.

I am a Humanist. I believe all people are born with the same rights and that those rights should follow them throughout their lives. And that our collective society should work for the people in order to allow the execution of those rights, while at the same time the people should work together to improve the society so that it may better function for them.

Our common enemy is any system that allows for the accumulation of wealth and power among individuals and groups where in the process it demeans the democratic equality of everyone else. In our society that would be Capitalism. And since this is the core economic value of both neoliberal democrats and big business republicans, then neither party deserves my support. It neither deserves yours. And if you are part of such a system, insofar as you directly benefit in those same ways that create further inequality, then you don't even deserve my/our respect.

I won't be imploring you to find your Humanity any longer. I suspect you are quite aware of what you are doing. Except for the deep denial you are in, of being on the same side that is the least concerned with your lost Humanity.

As you become less useful to their system, so too will you be discarded. Your only security is in your wealth. It's that simple. The people you follow are only concerned with your well being so long as you can contribute to their power structure. Without such material support you are a gutter child in their eyes. Not worthy of their hand. Except in rejection and disdain.

You may know this already, as an unconscious matter-of-fact. But if you wait until you are forced to consider the implications of that truth, when some future economic catastrophe forces you into a corner, then I fear you may find yourself alone at sea. With no land in sight. The land you feel so safe and secure upon now as you profess your loyalty to it's owner's.

Oh, but yes it may be that they will still throw you a life preserver, if you have made a significant impression. If you have been a very useful slave, as you tread water in the shark-infested sea of debt collectors and others who smell death at your feet.

But they will no longer allow you into their boat. Not without a ticket...

How can you prefer such a system that judges you more on the superficial? Where selfishness is the rule rather than the exception? What use is there for a soul if it has no bearing on how you calculate your daily priorities? Where "expense" is always a component of anything you do that holds personal value in your mind. Alone or together.

When it doesn't have to be that way.

I prefer a system that accepts and protects equally all who work for the greater common good. And of those who do not, are nonetheless only denied having any dangerous influence on the continuation and evolution of our coming utopia. You are welcome as well. So long as you leave your false gods at the door. Find your moral high ground, and help us all seek truth to power.

Otherwise I can promise you this.

That anyone who reads or hears your opinions, politically-speaking, who might be looking for any
measure of intelligent thought will come away either sadly disappointed or
outright amused.

Maybe both...

The exception being only those like-minded as you. None of whom can offer you anything in the long run beyond their own miserable company.

Epilog.

Quite a few of those article links contained Hillary in her own words. Some in document form. Others as video. All links, even in opinion pieces came from legitimate media outlets. Most of which run positive articles about Clinton as well. Such as on AlterNet or Truthout, etc. I seriously doubt you spent very much if any serious time reviewing them. I am acutely aware of your suspicious nature and the qualification you demand on anything I submit. I have no love of wasted time, and so only included links to articles that have been vetted beyond the scope of their reporting. I think in one or two cases I did include multiple links on the same topic just for that reason.

For all your bluster and ragging on the questionable validity of the evidence against Clinton, you have made no effort to actually refute anything. That would require "qualified" evidence in return. I don't see anything but your adamant, but pathetic denials.

There is no Plan-et B.

Appears you don't know the meaning of "msn". These are the major television networks and newspapers. Your list comprises mostly left-wing online sources, although I think some maybe run by right-wingers against Clinton, and no network or newspapers. Based on your list, you get all your information from one ideological source. You frequent those sources that just re-enforce what you already believe.

Appears you can't read my writing. MSM=Mainstream Media. Where all the propaganda originates. The corporate media that colludes with the corporate politician.

As for the sources I submitted, why would I give you right-wing sources? Of course I'm going to believe the progressive media are the more honest and reliable sources. They have the least to gain politically. They follow the money in order to reveal the truth. Everyone else hides it. Or disguises it.

But I do know that there was at least one WaPo article. They qualify as MSM in my view. Sometimes though, real stories slip through their cracks. Or maybe it's just part of the design, to delude us into thinking they relentlessly tell the truth.

If I already knew specific stories before I actually read about them, wouldn't I be the supreme clairvoyant? How daft can you be?

And I gave you many more than one single source. You'd know that if you took a serious look. Instead you followed your inherent bias and that merely skewed your perception. People like you have completely lost their democratic bearings, and either refuse or just do not know the truth when faced with it.

You are without doubt part of the problem.

A ridiculously deluded person, whose arguments are the same as the imperial agenda you support.

I can assure you that your ignorance is NOT our bliss.

"Say what?" in response to your first paragraph.

You identify your problem when you say you "believe the progressive media" -- as you define them --- "to be honest and reliable resources."

The progressive media...."have the least to gain politically"? That doesn't even make sense. NBC doesn't have anything politically to gain.

Yes, WaPo is MSN, but I said "mostly."

"If I already knew specific stories before I actually read about them..." Are you saying you had not read that list of articles you posted?

I am tired of butting my head against this wall.

Here is what you support. This is the future that Hillary will bring us more of. Obama said she could be the most qualified person ever. "Ever"? And no one found that pretty damn incredulous? Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy. Just to name a few. And she ranks above them? Wow.

But did you notice the sly smile as he spoke those words? He was serious by what he meant to imply.

He was talking about WAR. Lots and lots of it. More endless war. More a threat to the environment than any other before her.
https://theintercept.com/20...

See that's part of the problem you're having. Why you're confused. You keep trying to define the progressive movement in the only terms you understand. And your square peg just doesn't fit our round hole.

Otherwise you'd know how ridiculous it is to suggest the progressive movement is looking for political power. We want to tear your world down. And replace it with something better than the political horse race BS that does nothing to further populist democracy. Where only corruption and betrayal is given over to the people. We want to destroy the political power structure that you believe in. That can only produce the selfishly ambitious. The Trumps and the Clintons.

You are lost to a world of deepening madness. And it has been let loose upon the innocence of the world. Because of your own lack of compassion and sense of moral justice. And in all that folly, the years of abuse and neglect, Mother Nature has been compromised. She will sooner or later unleash herself and all life may eventually suffer an end because of it.

All because you prefer to have your way with no regard to what damage is done in the process.

One excuse after another. Deflection, dismissal, distraction won't give you cover. No where do you even attempt to discuss anything of substance. The issues that face America. The world. Mankind. I doubt you even give it much thought beyond how to ensure your own petty future. Little good it will ultimately do you.

Just as Hillary will spend most of her campaign forward talking Trump's platform down rather than detailing the merits of her's. That's all I've heard so far from your MSM.

I've been done with you. I've only continued this long so that others may see you for the feckless fool that you, and your peers, truly are.

Tell David Brock "Hi" when you pick up your check.

Yeah, remember when Brock was the go-to-guy to get the dirt on the Clintons? Wow! What a change.

Sex with an intern? Maybe "moral" in your world, not in mine.

OMG, thank you so very much for pointing out my inexcusable mistake of leaving off the "im". Moral or immoral, it didn't bring him down, did it?

I am not justifying Bill's actions, nor would I exonerate Lewinsky. Bill was stupidly weak. But, it still didn't bring him down. Because like many fallen people whose good outweighed the bad, people forgave him.

good??? like his financial giveaways to Wall st., NAFTA, starving Iraqi children ( 500,000 dead) "It was worth it" MAD Maddie Albright, deregulation, bombing women and children in Waco....wow, what a list of Achievements. I almost forgot. Incarceration rates #1 in the world.

You are a republican, obviously. Sorry, not worth my time to dissect your misinformation.

No, Diane, YOU are the Republican.

You are just too dim to pick up on the fact that Hillary is a neocon Republican wet dream.

Wall Street and the Warlords are orgasmic over the impending selection of Hillary.

a republican, please , the duopoly is totally corrupt including your Democrats. Look at the primaries. Stolen from Bernie, especially here in California, so many votes yet to be counted yet the Red Queen was declared the winner. Both parties support eternal wars and Wall St. Sad , you buy in.

Actually, you are the Republican here, defending the Clinton crime family, Republicans to the core, whose great virtue in your depraved mind is that no one has yet "taken them down." Hey, they've gotten away with murder, theft, corruption on every conceivable level, so who are any of us nobodies to criticize them? They're "bigger" than all of us put together. Diane suffers from celebrity worship.

Not 'stupidly weak', just thinking with his little head, as most Philanderers do.

Of course, women who vote for women just because they sit down to pee are making the same mistake of thinking with their genitalia..

Can you carry on conversations without describing bodily functions?

I am not voting for Clinton because she is a woman, otherwise, I would have voted for her in 2008 primary. I am voting for her because she is the best qualified, in fact the only qualified of the standing candidates to run this country.