world

Sanders says he'll vote for Clinton, but no endorsement yet

45 Comments
By KEN THOMAS

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

45 Comments
Login to comment

Asked if he would vote for the former secretary of state, Sanders replied, “Yes,” adding: “I will do everything I can to defeat Donald Trump.”

He has been signaling the transition of his movement from a presidential run to one aimed at bolstering liberal Democratic candidates for Congress and offices up and down the ballot.

Orderly transition. Senator Sanders deserves credit. A principled stand for justice for all.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Sanders knows how to horse trade as good as the best of them. He's either holding out his endorsement for something he hasn't yet traded for, or, more likely aiding his hard-core followers down in stages.

I live in the Bay Area, and am active in Democratic politics, and was an early Sanders supporter. For what it is worth, IMO the Sanderites need a very soft landing.

I think he will endorse HRC before the convention.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Good decision, Bernie.

Our country needs your vote for Clinton, and Clinton will need the votes from your supporters. Bernie is looking more like the sanctimonious messiah and less like the revolutionary for change.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

What the hell does "justice for all mean?" Sounds like a bullet point on a Powerpoint presentation...

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

By not endorsing Clinton, he has a great chance to help Democratic Party to get back for people oriented party.

Hillary already simulated Sanders idea of helping loss income workers, Sanders can complement Hillary's chance to appeal to voters. She now can concentrate on unti Ttuimp campaign,

.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What the hell does "justice for all mean?" - comments

Pledge of Allegiance - "with liberty and justice for all"

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Who could possibly endorse Hillary? A very serious ongoing investigation with no favorable news for her as it deepens. You would think they need a "cleared of allegations" before any respectful individual endorse any candidate.

Well, it is time for a woman though. After all she was under all that gunfire when she visited Iraq. We must have sympathy.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Many GOP elected people rushed to endorse Hillary.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

MarkG: Who could possibly endorse Hillary?

Well, actually, a lot of people have. I think endorsements are more of a problem for Trump.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I know they have and it may turn out to be shameful. And yes, Trump is lacking endorsements. I me just waiting for HEXIT!

Sanders is being cautious as he should. Hollywood endorsements only influence the sheep. DNC full support for Hillary is potentially shameful also.

HEXIT! Not that I'll endorse!

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Sanders is too much of a gentleman to come right out with it and say he's waiting for the FBI/DOJ to indict this lying criminal Hillary Clinton.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Hillary indxtgs action is not going tobe this year. FBI delayed to next year as it has to find CSand or I T expert, those experts are not cheap.

Sanders will help Hillary campaign to make sure Trump will not be elected. This is his quiet message to his supporters to vote for Hillary.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Hank Paulson, the Republican Treasury secretary under GWB, also endorsed Clinton yesterday.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Difficult for anyone to say what the supporters of Sanders will do. A lot depends on from what perspective one views the "role" that Sanders played in US politics and demographics. A lot also depends on how one identifies Sanders to be.

From a social political perspective, Sanders literally "identified" the idealistic Socialist population within the Democratic Party in the USA that is similar to the unionized socialism of Europe. Specifically he has a group that identifies with "public assistance, subsidies and aid" as "rights" and "privileges", "deserving" to have, just by being a "resident" in the USA and not necessarily a "working" and "contributing" citizen of the country.

He also identified those who feel that the rich and wealthy are "required" and have an "obligation" even if by "force" to "share" a much higher percentage of their wealth with others such as themselves, just because they live in the same country or world.

He also identified the population that are "radial" enough within that socialist population that are willing to promote and incite violence to influence their views and objective on the rest of the society.

At the same time he helped to identify those within the Democratic Party that either oppose or do not reach out as far as Sanders' group into idealistic socialism.

It is substantial enough to get the attention of all the political parties.

(It is also the kind of population, that the Rich and Powerful, the Unions, the Communists as well as the autocratic Monarchs and Dictators would love to have and control. It is exactly the kind of people that can be used and manipulated by "idealism" (rational or irrational), even Communism and Islam.)

It also forced Clinton to "appeal" to some of them to get the votes, making her less desirable for others in all three major political parties. It has forced her to a point where she may have to recruit someone that can identify with that group of Socialists that Sanders identified to get the votes to get elected.

It also helped to identify the rich and powerful within the Democratic Party that are established within the structure and system that do not want any change. That group is what Clinton represents but touting some of the idealism of socialism to gain control of the population but with no intention of changing the structure and system in place now that id designed to benefit them.

For the USA as a country, it indicates the large population that is "dependent" on the government believing that it is their "right" and "deserve" the government to provide for them. Which by the very nature of Congress today indicates most Democratic and Republican leaders alike share a similar need to keep their wealth and power.

(That is probably the reason why for the lack of support for Trump within the Republican Party.)

If taken worldwide, that is exactly what Saudi Arabia and other monarchies and autocracies have; supposedly a benevolent and powerful person/family that "provides" for their citizens/subjects. (The easiest way to control that population is religion, and specifically Islam.)

It also helps to identify the group that supports Trump.

Sanders has in a way helped to identify Trump's supporters and even to strengthen his position.

In any case, Sanders will not endorse Clinton until the final votes at the convention. With a group that has the ability to bring violence, he cannot afford to commit either way till things play-out at the convention.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Too many republican congressmen come up to say they vote for Hillary. On the contrary, no democracy said they vote for Tramp..

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Conservatives here are really starting to push to the fringe.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

We forget that there is a problem and difference in identifying Conservatism with the Republican Party, just as identifying The Tea Party movement with conservatism.

The Republican Party is a political group that is designed to place candidates that can by the election process, establish and institute laws, policies, rules, policies and procedures that represent a point of view that will benefit that particular group and hopefully by that, the entire nation. The Democratic Party as with the Libertarian Party is there for the same reason.

Also there is problem in defining exactly what conservatism means.Things get worse when one tries to define progressivism. Really... what do those terms actually define? What do each group claiming to be a representative for those -isms really want to accomplish? What are differences among the different groups within each that claim to be the real representatives of those -isms?

Here, the discussion is going off in many tangents, because each participant identifies with a different perspective of progressivism and conservatism. Sanders basically is progressing from unionism to socialism within a capitalistic and semi-democratic system. Clinton appears to be progressing from socialized capitalism to capitalistic communism like China.

There is no way those two will meet in between.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"Hank Paulson, the Republican Treasury secretary under GWB, also endorsed Clinton yesterday"

But wait, there's more! Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary under Presidents Ford and G.W. Bush, endorsed Trump! The game's afoot!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Bernie needs to stay in for two reasons. First, new dirt about Hillary is comong forth every day, her former aides are making deals for immunity, or pleading the fifth amendment (which is invoked when one is likely to be "incriminating"). Hillary is getting closer to a criminal indictment rather than movong further away. Next, even if she were to be the candidate to run against Trump, her likelyhood of winning is much smaller than people might think. Sanders might actually be a more viable candidate. But in the end, I think the Pomeranian headed candidate is going to be the next president. America will have it's own "Brexit" of sorts, and take a step away from conventional politics and politicians.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Makes one wonder who Lying Ted Cruz is voting for?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Sanders is not going to vote for Hillary because after she's indicted the Democrats will dump her and nominate him.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Hillary seems to be elected.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Makes one wonder who Lying Ted Cruz is voting for?"

He'll probably write in himself.

"Hillary seems to be elected"

After she's indicted for ignoring State Department internal guidance that her email setup broke federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers, she won't be able to be elected dog catcher.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

He's not pro-Hillary, he's just anti-Trump. And that folks is why I keep saying we're stuck with the lesser of two evils these days. I know I'm not pro-Hillary either.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

So Mr anti war Sanders is going to vote for Hillary? Well, someone should have told him, this since he's too slow to understand, who Hillary really works for:

Neocons Endorse Hillary as the US Party of Empire Is Finally Revealed- June 24, 2016

Exclusive: A prominent neoconservative intellectual and early promoter of the Iraq War is headlining an official campaign fundraiser for Hillary Clinton next month, Foreign Policy has learned. -FP. The husband of State Dept. political agitator Victoria (cookies and coup) Nuland is raising money for Hillary. According to Foreign Policy, Robert Kagan, co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, is going to speak at Hillary’s fundraiser in DC’s Logan Circle neighborhood, July 21.

Don't say I didn't warn you. Sad really, all the Hillary supporters here can't get past their own dysfunctional thinking and finally realize they support a warmonger. I just better not hear you whine about what a mistake you made, or tell us "how could we have known" when the truth is right in front of your eyes. Cry about bigotry and racism in bed please, just get ready to duck and cover if the warmonger wins.

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/neocons-endorse-hillary-as-the-us-party-of-empire-is-finally-revealed/

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Conservatives here are really starting to push to the fringe.

You haven't been paying attention. American Conservatives have been either insane or cravenly catered to the insane for two decades.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

What about that bet?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Hillary has to choose. VP candidate. White male support poll is too high. She does not need female. Maybe war veteran.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

After she's indicted for ignoring State Department internal guidance that her email setup broke federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers, she won't be able to be elected dog catcher.

Enough of this nonsense already! She's not going to be indicted for anything. Please, stop posting this garbage. It's tiresome.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Sounds various medias and WH analyzed Hillary will win overwhelmingly.

They are debating how WH will call Bill. Outside he is called President as he earned. Inside, Hillary is only President. Staffs includes butlers, chauffeurs,,Dinintoom workers, etch so very important,, they are arguing.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

And now we have this from the New York Post:

"Clinton White House was a den of cocaine and mistresses: ex-Secret Service officer

"Gary J. Byrne has devoted his life, and risked it, to serve his country — as a member of the US Air Force, a uniformed White House Secret Service officer, and a federal air marshal. And he believes it is his patriotic duty to do anything he can to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president of the United States. As someone who guarded the Oval Office during the Clinton presidency, Byrne, in an exclusive interview with The Post, tells how he witnessed “the Clinton machine leaving a wake of destruction in just about everything they do.” He says he has also seen Hillary’s “dangerous,” abusive, paranoid behavior. “It’s like hitting yourself with a hammer every day,” says Byrne."

Good grief... .

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

he believes it is his patriotic duty to do anything he can to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president of the United States.

Things like making up lies to make the Clintons look bad.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"Things like making up lies to make the Clintons look bad."

OK, Stranger, I guess we can't believe anything from the New York Post, lol, how about the fact that she's ignored State Department internal guidance that her email setup broke federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I guess we can't believe anything from the New York Post

No, just unverified single accounts from someone who has directly stated that they would do anything to prevent Hillary from becoming president. Add some proof of some sort, and then we can talk.

how about the fact that she's ignored State Department internal guidance that her email setup broke federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers

Let's see what the FBI has to say about it. At the moment, she is not even charged with anything, much less guilty.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Stranger... Yes, we'll see what the FBI and the Department of Justice has to say about Hillary's crimes very soon.

Until then, check out "Hillary's Unbelievable Tweet Shows Her Lying Skills Need Work" on The Jimmy Dore Show on Youtube - if you dare! Or is he all BS too? lol

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Or is he all BS too?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Maybe. Never heard of him.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Until then, check out "Hillary's Unbelievable Tweet Shows Her Lying Skills Need Work" on The Jimmy Dore Show on Youtube - if you dare! Or is he all BS too? lol

Yes, he's biased BS too. Youtube (where anyone can post anything that they want) is not a credible source for factual information.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Yes, he's biased BS too"

According to who? Clinton New Network?

"Youtube (where anyone can post anything that they want) is not a credible source for factual information."

Oh, but Clinton News Network IS a credible source for factual information, right? Haha

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Yes, he's biased BS too"

According to who? Clinton New Network?

No, according to the fact that you are trying to pass off a comedian's opinion as a fact. Opinions are not facts. Learn the difference.

Oh, but Clinton News Network IS a credible source for factual information, right? Haha

Really? Did I say that? There is no such thing as the "Clinton New Network." You made this up--like so much of the other nonsense that you post here.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Yes, he's biased BS too"

"According to who? Clinton New Network?"

"No, according to the fact that you are trying to pass off a comedian's opinion as a fact. Opinions are not facts. Learn the difference."

You didn't watch any of Jimmy Dore's videos, did you? But just because you say he's BS doesn't mean that's true.

If you can't bring yourself to watch Jimmy Dore, try The Young Turks' "Clinton Brags About Her Rich Donors"

"Opinions are not facts"

I'm aware of that. Check out these facts:

https://www.americarisingpac.org/hillary-clintons-top-10-lies-exaggerations/

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You didn't watch any of Jimmy Dore's videos, did you? But just because you say he's BS doesn't mean that's true.

Actually, I did, and that was a half an hour of my life I will never get back.

He is not a very funny or witty comedian. However, his comments fit your views, so it must be true, right? Interesting logic you have there. Again, he was providing an opinion and not a fact, so your claims are still BS.

I have wasted enough time with all of your hoax postings and other ridiculous rantings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dmacleod - Check out H.A. Goodman's latest video "Clinton Foundation Subpoenaed Alongside VA Gov Terry McAuliffe's FBI Probe."on Youtube. He ain't lyin'!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

dmacleod - Check out H.A. Goodman's latest video "Clinton Foundation Subpoenaed Alongside VA Gov Terry McAuliffe's FBI Probe."on Youtube. He ain't lyin'!

Get back to us when there are actual charges that get filed or better yet, a conviction. Until then, it's just more political mudslinging.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is interesting:

"Bernie Sanders Made The Democratic Platform More Progressive" - The Young Turks on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ7wAC2jYLA

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites