Jimmy Dore: Hillary Presidency worse for progressives & America than Trump

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

2018 and 2020 will determine redistricting for the next decade. That will got a lot worse under a Hillary Presidency.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

2018 and 2020 will determine redistricting for the next decade. That will got a lot worse under a Hillary Presidency.

Right, because having the Supreme Court stay in the hands of Republicans who will keep f**king up the Voting Rights Act is totally what the country needs.

A probable Republican Supreme Court Justice is a small price to pay for a president not beholden to lobbyists and corporations, as Hillary would be. Besides, it's not like Trump could pick anyone much more conservative than that filth Merrick Garland.

Uh, no? The next president is likely to appoint the justices that will set the direction of the USSC for at least the next 15 years or so, or until Clarence Thomas retires/dies. Kennedy will likely retire during the 4-8 year tenure of the next president, considering how old he is now. Same with Ginsburg and Breyer. If Democrats lose this, we could end up with an even larger conservative majority for decades.

Democrats will not get another shot for a long time if they lose this election. The USSC has been conservative since the 70s and it is time for that to end, given what they have done recently.

Hillary killed the Supreme Court argument when she attacked Bernie for wanting someone more liberal than Garland.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary killed the Supreme Court argument when she attacked Bernie for wanting someone more liberal than Garland.

Uh, so then that's an excuse for liberals who supported Bernie to stay home? I really don't care what she said (even if such a statement from her is stupid, which I think it is). This is control of the Supreme Court for a long time we are talking about, and a lasting majority on the rest of the federal judiciary. If you're willing to throw that away because wah, wah, you don't like Hillary, then don't come around saying you actually give a sh**t about the issues, because it would be clear that you do not. The only real shot we have to reverse CU and stop the deluge of conservative bs coming from the courts is by getting a Democrat in the WH for the next 4 - 8 years. So losing this year would completely ruin that and we won't get another chance for most likely a generation.

If she wanted the Supreme Court argument, she shouldn't have made that ridiculous attack on Bernie. Garland is certainly no liberal, so Hillary promised she won't be appointing liberals.  Hillary can not use every scorched earth attack against Bernie and his supporters and expect there to be no consequences in the general election.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary killed the Supreme Court argument when she attacked Bernie for wanting someone more liberal than Garland.

Uh, so then that's an excuse for liberals who supported Bernie to stay home? I really don't care what she said (even if such a statement from her is stupid, which I think it is). This is control of the Supreme Court for a long time we are talking about, and a lasting majority on the rest of the federal judiciary. If you're willing to throw that away because wah, wah, you don't like Hillary, then don't come around saying you actually give a sh**t about the issues, because it would be clear that you do not. The only real shot we have to reverse CU and stop the deluge of conservative bs coming from the courts is by getting a Democrat in the WH for the next 4 - 8 years. So losing this year would completely ruin that and we won't get another chance for most likely a generation.

If she wanted the Supreme Court argument, she shouldn't have made that ridiculous attack on Bernie. Garland is certainly no liberal, so Hillary promised she won't be appointing liberals.  Hillary can not use every scorched earth attack against Bernie and his supporters and expect there to be no consequences in the general election.

It's not like she picked Garland herself. There's nothing wrong with choosing consistency and standing by Obama's choices, and that by no means suggests that she will never appoint a liberal. Imagine for a second that not everything Clinton does is horrible, and that not every policy aspect she disagrees with Sanders on is an attack.

Bernie's argument that he'd appoint someone more liberal to the court, and would ask Obama to withdraw Garland's nomination if he's elected increases the odds that Garland is approved before the election. Hillary on the other hand doesn't seem the slightest bit interested in having someone more liberal.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary killed the Supreme Court argument when she attacked Bernie for wanting someone more liberal than Garland.

Uh, so then that's an excuse for liberals who supported Bernie to stay home? I really don't care what she said (even if such a statement from her is stupid, which I think it is). This is control of the Supreme Court for a long time we are talking about, and a lasting majority on the rest of the federal judiciary. If you're willing to throw that away because wah, wah, you don't like Hillary, then don't come around saying you actually give a sh**t about the issues, because it would be clear that you do not. The only real shot we have to reverse CU and stop the deluge of conservative bs coming from the courts is by getting a Democrat in the WH for the next 4 - 8 years. So losing this year would completely ruin that and we won't get another chance for most likely a generation.

If she wanted the Supreme Court argument, she shouldn't have made that ridiculous attack on Bernie. Garland is certainly no liberal, so Hillary promised she won't be appointing liberals.  Hillary can not use every scorched earth attack against Bernie and his supporters and expect there to be no consequences in the general election.

It's not like she picked Garland herself. There's nothing wrong with choosing consistency and standing by Obama's choices, and that by no means suggests that she will never appoint a liberal. Imagine for a second that not everything Clinton does is horrible, and that not every policy aspect she disagrees with Sanders on is an attack.

Bernie's argument that he'd appoint someone more liberal to the court, and would ask Obama to withdraw Garland's nomination if he's elected increases the odds that Garland is approved before the election. Hillary on the other hand doesn't seem the slightest bit interested in having someone more liberal.

So how do you explain Satan incarnate Bill Clinton (who is to the right of Hillary!) appointing Ginsberg and Breyer?

I guess it's good that they weren't too much more right-wing than Gerald Ford's appointee.