Should the Democratic Superdelegates refuse to nominate Clinton?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

NOT CLINTON.

[Devout Centrist]

NOT CLINTON.

Yes, they should follow the popular will of the voters.

Remind me, who said that again?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

NOT CLINTON.

Yes, they should follow the popular will of the voters.

Remind me, who said that again?

The voters cast their votes without the knowledge that FBI director would submit findings that that the candidate in question acted extremely carelessly in handling classified and sensitive state communication.  While the bar is not high enough for criminal proceedings, it is high enough to question the integrity of the candidate, and raise the question of whether the party should put forth a severely compromised nominee.

[Devout Centrist]

NOT CLINTON.

Yes, they should follow the popular will of the voters.

Remind me, who said that again?

The voters cast their votes without the knowledge that FBI director would submit findings that that the candidate in question acted extremely carelessly in handling classified and sensitive state communication.  While the bar is not high enough for criminal proceedings, it is high enough to question the integrity of the candidate, and raise the question of whether the party should put forth a severely compromised nominee.

Oh, so now democracy doesn't matter.

Guess Sanders should just plow a tank into the DNC and crown himself.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

NOT CLINTON.

Yes, they should follow the popular will of the voters.

Remind me, who said that again?

The voters cast their votes without the knowledge that FBI director would submit findings that that the candidate in question acted extremely carelessly in handling classified and sensitive state communication.  While the bar is not high enough for criminal proceedings, it is high enough to question the integrity of the candidate, and raise the question of whether the party should put forth a severely compromised nominee.

Oh, so now democracy doesn't matter.

Guess Sanders should just plow a tank into the DNC and crown himself.

Richard Nixon, 1974: "Oh, so now democracy doesn't matter?"

[beaver2.0]

Jim Webb.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Yes, just drop the winner of the primary... that would work out just great come November.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

NOT CLINTON.

Yes, they should follow the popular will of the voters.

Remind me, who said that again?

The voters cast their votes without the knowledge that FBI director would submit findings that that the candidate in question acted extremely carelessly in handling classified and sensitive state communication.  While the bar is not high enough for criminal proceedings, it is high enough to question the integrity of the candidate, and raise the question of whether the party should put forth a severely compromised nominee.

Oh, so now democracy doesn't matter.

Guess Sanders should just plow a tank into the DNC and crown himself.

The voters also didn't know they were voting for a borderline criminal at the time they voted.  New information, and they don't get a chance to re-vote.

[Sir Mohamed]

No, they would show the middle finger to millions of voters by doing this.

[MasterJedi]

NOT CLINTON.

Yes, they should follow the popular will of the voters.

Remind me, who said that again?

The voters cast their votes without the knowledge that FBI director would submit findings that that the candidate in question acted extremely carelessly in handling classified and sensitive state communication.  While the bar is not high enough for criminal proceedings, it is high enough to question the integrity of the candidate, and raise the question of whether the party should put forth a severely compromised nominee.

Oh, so now democracy doesn't matter.

Guess Sanders should just plow a tank into the DNC and crown himself.

The voters also didn't know they were voting for a borderline criminal at the time they voted.  New information, and they don't get a chance to re-vote.

They all knew exactly what they were voting for at the time. FBI cleared her as well. I knew this would happen though, no matter what people would declare her guilty.

[Seriously?]

Hillary! won the election fair and square. She evaded prosecution in the FBI primary.

Sandersbots just need to give it up and rally behind their crooked, flawed candidate in the general election -- or not.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Hillary! won the election fair and square. She evaded prosecution in the FBI primary.

Sandersbots just need to give it up and rally behind their crooked, flawed candidate in the general election -- or not.

It has always - ALWAYS - been my opinion that Clinton should be the nominee.  That she won the most popular votes, the most nominating contests, and the most pledged delegates.  And that the email scandal was much ado about nothing.  Now we have an FBI report that basically says, well, she was extremely careless with state secrets but no one should indict her.

Now, as an IT professional, I understand the desire to circumvent security lockdowns on electronic communications for the sake of convenience.  You want access to email and documents on all your devices, because you have a globetrotting job.  After all, the Secret Service had to rip the Blackberry out of Obama's hand when he became POTUS.  That shows a level of cluelessness, but nothing disqualifying you from being President.

But what exactly is convenient about hiring an IT staff to run servers out of your own home?  This is an elaborate scheme and we deserve to know the motives and reasoning behind it, in light of what the FBI has reported to us.  Complete openness and disclosure.  If we don't get that, my assumption is that there was a willful disregard for the security of classified communication, and not just "because muh blackburry!"

This is a damaged, compromised candidate.

[Hermit For Peace]

The voters cast their votes without the knowledge that FBI director would submit findings that that the candidate in question acted extremely carelessly in handling classified and sensitive state communication.  While the bar is not high enough for criminal proceedings, it is high enough to question the integrity of the candidate, and raise the question of whether the party should put forth a severely compromised nominee.

Yawn.

[john cage bubblegum]

NOT CLINTON.

Yes, they should follow the popular will of the voters.

Remind me, who said that again?

The voters cast their votes without the knowledge that FBI director would submit findings that that the candidate in question acted extremely carelessly in handling classified and sensitive state communication.  While the bar is not high enough for criminal proceedings, it is high enough to question the integrity of the candidate, and raise the question of whether the party should put forth a severely compromised nominee.

And to overturn such a strong PV and elected delegate victory, you need to reach a very high bar (such as a criminal indictment).  Overturning the clear will of the voters would obviously result in an even more compromised nominee.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Unless Clinton shoots somebody in cold blood in the middle of Fifth Avenue, she's getting the nomination.

[7,052,770]

It was literally less than 24 hours ago that you promised not to Chicken Little anymore...

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

It was literally less than 24 hours ago that you promised not to Chicken Little anymore...

I have never Chicken Littled.  This is actually serious, and people pretending it isn't are fooling themselves.

I want a full explanation from Clinton and her former SoS staff as to the justifications for running a private server, and security precautions taken.  Openness and disclosure.  No more evasion.  I'm tired of it.

I will still vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee.  Because Donald Trump is a threat to world security and completely unqualified and unfit to be President.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Hillary's supporters are among the most disenfranchised and systematically oppressed people in America. So let's ignore them even more!

[Xing]

Hillary's supporters are among the most disenfranchised and systematically oppressed people in America. So let's ignore them even more!

You're right. All Hillary supporters have it so much worse than Blacks, Native Americans, undocumented immigrants, and Muslims.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Hillary's supporters are among the most disenfranchised and systematically oppressed people in America. So let's ignore them even more!

You're right. All Hillary supporters have it so much worse than Blacks, Native Americans, undocumented immigrants, and Muslims.

Hillary overwhelmingly won minorities...

[DrScholl]

Still trying to spin lint into gold. What part of no charges do you people not understand? Get over it and move.

[Xing]

Hillary's supporters are among the most disenfranchised and systematically oppressed people in America. So let's ignore them even more!

You're right. All Hillary supporters have it so much worse than Blacks, Native Americans, undocumented immigrants, and Muslims.

Hillary overwhelmingly won minorities...

Okay, and white male Hillary supporters are more oppressed than minorities who supported Sanders because....?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Still trying to spin lint into gold. What part of no charges do you people not understand? Get over it and move.

Let's say a VP of operations at a public Fortune 500 company is found to have maintained close friendships with sales executives of several vendors.  On business trips they went to concerts, high-profile sporting events, cruises, and so forth.  He then signed lucrative, no-bid contracts with his friends' firms.  Some shareholders raised a stink and called the FBI in to investigate.  While the FBI said there was excessive impropriety, there was no evidence of criminal bribery, and no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges. Is this someone you would want to nominate as your CEO?

[DrScholl]

Still trying to spin lint into gold. What part of no charges do you people not understand? Get over it and move.

Let's say a VP of operations at a public Fortune 500 company is found to have maintained close friendships with sales executives of several vendors.  On business trips they went to concerts, high-profile sporting events, cruises, and so forth.  He then signed lucrative, no-bid contracts with his friends' firms.  Some shareholders raised a stink and called the FBI in to investigate.  While the FBI said there was excessive impropriety, there was no evidence of criminal bribery, and no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges. Is this someone you would want to nominate as your CEO?

Your novel is pretty crappy. No charges equals end of story. You might consider yourself a prosecutor on the internet, but you have no authority in real life.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Still trying to spin lint into gold. What part of no charges do you people not understand? Get over it and move.

Let's say a VP of operations at a public Fortune 500 company is found to have maintained close friendships with sales executives of several vendors.  On business trips they went to concerts, high-profile sporting events, cruises, and so forth.  He then signed lucrative, no-bid contracts with his friends' firms.  Some shareholders raised a stink and called the FBI in to investigate.  While the FBI said there was excessive impropriety, there was no evidence of criminal bribery, and no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges. Is this someone you would want to nominate as your CEO?

Your novel is pretty crappy. No charges equals end of story. You might consider yourself a prosecutor on the internet, but you have no authority in real life.

I'm a member of the court of public opinion.  And right now the integrity of Clinton and the Democratic Party is on trial.   Not being indicted criminally doesn't exonerate her of gross recklessness and dishonesty, and it doesn't exonerate the Democratic Party of culpability in endorsing these qualities as befitting the office of President of the United States.