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

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJc4pogUu1o

[Santander]

I had to stop the video after a minute and a half. It was approaching Alex Jones levels of insanity.

[IceSpear]

I'm sure a well off straight white man knows what's best for women and minorities.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Whoever claims to be progressive and says that he prefers TRUMP over Clinton then he is either a crypto-fascist or an idiot.
In most cases both.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Hillary Derangement Syndrome is a serious condition. Ask your doctor if a swift kick to the head by mule is right for you.

[dax00]

I'm sure a well off straight white man knows what's best for women and minorities.

Thee prejudiced underlying hypocrisy in that statement is painful :/

[Landslide Lyndon]

I'm sure a well off straight white man knows what's best for women and minorities.

Thee prejudiced underlying hypocrisy in that statement is painful :/

So are most of your posts.

[Xing]

If the senate doesn't flip this year, there's no way in hell it flips in 2018. Even if a Trump presidency means a great midterm for Democrats, that doesn't mean it's worth four years of hell.

[Lief 🗽]

If the senate doesn't flip this year, there's no way in hell it flips in 2018. Even if a Trump presidency means a great midterm for Democrats, that doesn't mean it's worth four years of hell.

Lol yeah. Even if 2018 were a democratic wave election, we'd still probably end up losing senate seats.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

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.

[dax00]

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.

[Virginiá]

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.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

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.

Oh give me a break. Trump will do exactly what the lobbyists and corporations want him to do, because a Trump presidency would almost certainly have a Republican majority in Congress that is under the control of corporate America.

[MaxQue]

A good case for better mental healthcare in America.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[Thunderbird is the word]

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.

[Derpist]

I'm sure a well off straight white man knows what's best for women and minorities.

I'm always amused by how "straight white man" has essentially become such a nasty insult for the left. Even the connotation is negative - it comes off the tongue dripping in dairy-free poison

[Vega]

I'm sure a well off straight white man knows what's best for women and minorities.

I don't think he's all that well off. He is a rather washed up D list comedian.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I was actually arguing with #Bernieorbusters at one point and I was the only one arguing against Trump as the lesser evil and also the only straight white male in the argument believe it or not

Anyway, I disagree with Dore though I do think that things will be rough in the short term regardless. I think it would be better for progressives if Hillary wins so that the differences between the left and the democratic establishment are seen in starker view and our voices don't get drowned out by mainstream liberals just hyper focused on getting Trump out of office, that's kind of what happened during the Bush years. If you look at the anti-war and civil rights movement, the W2 protests and anti-globalization movements in the 90s and the current wave of Occupy and Black Lives Matter protest movements I think it's better for the left to have an even contemptible Democrat in the White House.

Another point is that if Hillary loses it wouldn't send a message to anybody. It would just mean that the Democratic establishment would spend four years smearing Bernie and his supporters and blaming them for losing the election and claiming that Bernie acted as a spoiler simply by daring to challenge Hillary's coronation. It would be a redux of what happened to Nader after 2000 except this time it would be worse since they'd now brand more progressive candidates running in the primaries as spoilers and thus give Booker or Cuomo or whoever else they put up in 2020 cover to essentially have a coronation, thus making coronation's the norm.

Also, at least we know where we are with Hillary whereas I don't trust Trump not to be an undiplomatic megalomaniac who would start a nuclear war just by shooting his mouth off at the wrong time.

[IceSpear]

I'm sure a well off straight white man knows what's best for women and minorities.

I'm always amused by how "straight white man" has essentially become such a nasty insult for the left. Even the connotation is negative - it comes off the tongue dripping in dairy-free poison

Not really an insult, just an observation. He couldn't care less about groups that actually would be affected by a Trump presidency because it doesn't make a difference to him personally. A very sad excuse for a "progressive", made all the more ironic by the fact that holier than thou sanctimonious narcissists like him frequently cloak themselves in the mantle of being a True Progressive™.

[Ogre Mage]

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.

This is a very ignorant statement.  First of all, there are currently four conservative (Roberts, Alito, Thomas and usually Kennedy) and four liberal (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor) Justices so whoever replaces Scalia will tip the balance of power on the Supreme Court, effectively giving one side or the other a 5-4 ideological majority.  That is absolutely not a "small price."  In fact it is arguably the most important thing at stake in this election.  You do remember Justices serve for life, correct?

Are you aware that Donald Trump has suggested William Pryor and Diane Sykes as Supreme Court nominees?  I am not a fan of Garland but he would be far, far, better than those two from a progressive perspective.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/19/3750758/what-if-donald-trump-wins-inside-his-plans-for-the-supreme-court/

[HAnnA MArin County]

Who's Jimmy Dore? Asking seriously, I've never heard of him.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

it could certainly be worse for rich white progressives and americans. not surprising that some hollywood loser would conflate that with beïng worse for progressives and americans as a whole

[Cory]

First of all, there are currently four conservative (Roberts, Alito, Thomas and usually Kennedy) and four liberal (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor) Justices so whoever replaces Scalia will tip the balance of power on the Supreme Court, effectively giving one side or the other a 5-4 ideological majority.  That is absolutely not a "small price."  In fact it is arguably the most important thing at stake in this election.  You do remember Justices serve for life, correct?

Are you aware that Donald Trump has suggested William Pryor and Diane Sykes as Supreme Court nominees?  I am not a fan of Garland but he would be far, far, better than those two from a progressive perspective.