• Do NOT click on any vaporpedia.com links. The domain has been compromised and will attempt to infect your system. See https://fuckcombustion.com/threads/warning-vaporpedia-com-has-been-compromised.54960/.

The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

Magic9

Plant Enthusiast
cybrguy said:
I have to ask a question. Do you (@Magic9 ) or anyone else actually believe that Hillary Clinton as POTUS would abandon the push towards alternative energy in this country and start sucking up to Oil, Gas, and Coal? Really?

The issue isn't whether she would suck up to fossil fuel energy. It's that she is accusing Sanders of lying when he isn't. Similiar to 08 when she accused Obama of being influenced by lobbyist money when he wasn't. This has been a 3 point attack on Sanders this week (tone, FEC complaints, lying accusation).

The bigger issue of money in politics is a good one. Either lobbyists money is ok, or it is not. It can't be ok for one party but not the other. It can't be some is good, but too much is bad.

"We have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans,” Clinton said in a statement. “Our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee.”


cybrguy said:
As has been said, The President took a lot of money from this industry and wall street, and then did everything he possibly could to control them and then defeat them. Does anyone remember Dodd-Frank? How bout the CFPB? How bout fuel economy standards and CAFE? How bout killing Keystone.

Did Obama take lobbyist money? Technically only one in 2012. None in 08, but Clinton attacked him for the employee contributions.

I do remember Dodd-Frank. It's being gutted if I recall right.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...bbyists-influenced-the-dodd-frank-bill/59137/

Remember the push out rule that Citibank lobbyists wrote?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/spending-bill-992-derivatives-citigroup-lobbyists

CFPB, fuel standards, and CAFE are all things lobbyists directly attacked.

Keystone? I remember Clinton ducked answering whether or not she supported it for two years.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-finally-comes-out-against-keystone-pipeline

cybrguy said:
I understand that the Bernie people are feeling desperate and want to throw as much shit as they can while still claiming the moniker of the "Moral" or "Ethical" candidate, but shit stinks no matter who throws it, and its not possible to keep from getting some on ya.

If I'm one of those desperate "Bernie people" you're referring to, I don't respond to personal slights. If any of the info I've posted is wrong, please point me in the right direction.
 

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
@Magic9 ... I decided awhile back to ignore, where I can, the personal attacks. I even came up with a way to appreciate them a little.....By telling myself that the person slinging them is simply showing how much my post got under their skin and caused them to lose control. Must have hit a nerve.

I've been called desperate and stupid recently and I think I may have even been compared to Cruz at one point. Rather than get into name calling I just try and stay on topic. If staying on topic causes another name calling event....Damn! My post must have been that good!
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Trump is being reckless saying the economy is in for a mass recession. Whether we are are aren't I don't know but it's a scare tactic on his part. Let's see what the American stock market does tomorrow.

I think there are some skeletons in Trump's closet pertaining to unwanted pregnancies. Call me kooky but I think that Trump has been in a situation where he needed the services of a doctor that performed abortions.

Lets say just a woman's intuition.
 
Last edited:

grokit

well-worn member
Holy shit, nevada just flipped. Chalk another one up for bernie :tup:

Bernie Sanders is Actual Winner in Nevada Caucus

zrBeRVH0bYOOIDL4nB9IuxnoR9LdDIQ4zBRFNhTrVPRsu9CJgggtio_V0QyFUAMwPYO8Ik1HhMihQBuTNzggkYWXZ0b0P6Vc6dYGB3bg8cwg-AN_DT4s3JJV0wPvnObs8KXRqzkTjLpxMk-PpRFKCmu6jDNssfXiaNFJm0o=s0-d-e1-ft

April 3, 2016

The Clark County Democratic Convention, which was the next step after February’s presidential caucus in determining Nevada’s 43 delegates, shows Bernie Sanders in the lead.

According to the Clark County Democratic Convention that occurred Saturday, Bernie Sanders has won Nevada even after losing in the February Nevada caucus. According to Las Vegas Sun reporter Megan Messerly, he is standing tall with more delegates.

After realignment: 2,386 Clinton, 2,964 Sanders, & 7 uncommitted. 5,357 total.

~ Megan Messerly (@meganmesserly) April 3, 2016​

The Clark County Democratic Convention, which was the next step after February’s presidential caucus in determining Nevada’s 43 delegates, had a lot of controversy associated with it from the beginning. There were even accusations of cheating from both sides. “We caught the Hillary campaign cheating, we caught the Nevada Democratic Party secretary cheating,” said Angie Sullivan, another member of the credentials committee for the Clark County Democratic Convention. “When it was apparent Bernie started winning, they really turned up the heat.”

Sanders supporters significantly outnumbered Clinton delegates by around 600 on Saturday meaning they’ll make up a larger percentage of Clark County’s delegates attending the state convention in May, even though Clinton won in February.


http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/04/03/bernie-sanders-wins-nevada-caucus-end/
 
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
What, does he have Ron Paul's people workin for him now? :)

Added: The whole idea of caucuses rather than primaries is archaic and awkward to the idea of fair and clear representation. The selection should be a single decision for each participant. The idea of peer pressure, cajoling, coordinating, allying, etc. lends itself to much more opportunity for mischief and corruption of the process, it seems to me.

The idea that we might not know final results for months after the caucus itself is ridiculous, and certainly not confidence building. We're not Republicans, after all.
(Sorry, couldn't help it)
 
Last edited:
cybrguy,

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Stop Global Whining

By D.R. Tucker

New York Times columnist Charles Blow didn’t go far enough: frankly, anybody who subscribes to the “Bernie or Bust” mentality needs to have his or her head examined. I’m sure such scans are covered by Obamacare (i.e., the shameful corporate compromise by that closet Republican in the White House!).

It is unfathomable that so-called committed progressives would selfishly sit out the 2016 general election because they can’t get over the fact that their preferred candidate did not win the Democratic nomination. It is unconscionable that those who claim to want to move America forward would allow the country to race backward over the next four to eight years. It is unbelievable that anyone with a halfway-rational mind thinks “Bernie or Bust” is a good idea.

The hatred that the “Bernie or Bust” camp holds for Hillary Clinton defies logic: how can one love Sanders and loathe Clinton? Both candidates are among the most accomplished public servants of the past half-century: despite their differences, they are united in their compassion for America’s shunned, stigmatized and suffering.

Sanders clearly respects Clinton, but for some reason, a critical mass of his supporters have nothing but disrespect for the former Secretary of State. These supporters have fallen for the false narrative that Clinton worships the wealthy and pleases the powerful—and that Sanders is the only morally sound candidate in the race. The Hillary-as-corporate-sellout meme is just as jaw-droppingly dopey as the argument that there was no substantive difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush sixteen years ago. What did Santayana say about those who don’t learn from history?

By the way, what exactly do the “Bernie or Bust” folks mean when they call Clinton a “corporatist”? Isn’t “corporatist” an inscrutable insult, not unlike the use of the term “politically correct” by right-wingers? I doubt any member of the “Bernie or Bust” crowd can provide a non-convoluted explanation of the term “corporatist.” The term is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

What will these holier-than-Hillary folks say if Donald Trump is elected President—and his hate-filled rhetoric leads to more Mexicans being mauled by the malevolent? “Oops”? “My bad”? “I wasn’t thinking”?

Neither Clinton or Sanders are saints: Clinton is as imperfect on fracking as Sanders is on firearms. Yet I don’t see Clinton’s supporters threatening to stay home if the Vermonter is victorious in the Democratic primary.

The “Bernie or Bust” folks are just as irrational in their quest for ideological purity as the Tea Partiers who went after Dede Scozzafava, Bob Inglis, Mike Castle and Richard Lugar were. By choosing to stay home in the general election in the event Sanders loses the Democratic primary, these folks could effectively rig the game against the middle class for good.

In addition to harboring a heightened hostility towards Hillary Clinton, the “Bernie or Bust” crowd is notorious for its obnoxious opprobrium towards President Obama.

How many times have you heard the #NeverHillary types lambaste the 44th President as a compromising “corporatist” who stabbed progressives in the back at every turn and genuflected to the 1 percent? (Even Sanders himself bought into this odd narrative: why else would he have called for Obama to be primaried in 2012, knowing full well that such a primary would have weakened Obama in the general election, just as Ted Kennedy’s 1980 primary challenge to President Carter made the incumbent easy prey for Ronald Reagan?)

I’m not exactly sure where the “Bernie or Bust” crowd got the idea that Obama was supposed to be the ultimate progressive warrior: his famous speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention made it clear, to everyone who actually paid attention, that Obama was a pragmatist at heart, someone who believed that reaching across the aisle was a moral duty, someone who was committed to the idea that the red, white and blue, involved, well, red and blue.

That speech—an insight into Barack Obama’s soul—was not a particularly progressive address, and anyone who expected Obama to govern from a perspective of progressive purity apparently failed to grasp the true tenor of that speech. Having said that, progressives made gains during the Obama administration, as Paul Krugman has noted. Too bad some of those progressives don’t seem to appreciate it.

I argued last year that “a compelling case can be made that Barack Obama is one of the greatest presidents of all-time.” Sadly, it appears that Obama will not get the historical props he deserves for his accomplishments—not only because of the revisionist history of the reactionary right, but also because of the revisionist history of the self-righteous “Bernie or Bust”-ers on the left, the Union of the Ungrateful that fails to acknowledge Obama’s victories on economic reform, equality, climate change and health care, among other issues. This time, the cliche is appropriate: if Obama walked on water, progressive purists would say he couldn’t swim.

Like Prince’s parents in “When Doves Cry,” the “Bernie or Bust” crowd is too bold and never satisfied—and they will find new reasons to be disgruntled if Sanders upsets Clinton in the Democratic primary and becomes the 45th president. They won’t be happy once President Sanders compromises with Republicans and conservative Democrats, as he must in order to govern. They won’t be happy if President Sanders authorizes drone strikes and sanctions the strengthening of the surveillance state in an effort to incapacitate ISIS. They won’t be happy when President Sanders makes it clear that he cannot fully, or even partially, implement his economic vision.

Presumably, they will then turn on Sanders and denounce him as another traitor to the cause, another sellout to the “Democratic establishment” (cue the horror music). They will never acknowledge the truth: that governing is hard work and requires compromise. Bill Clinton understood this. Barack Obama understands this. If he succeeds Obama as President, Bernie Sanders will understand this. However, his most fervent supporters won’t—because, at bottom, they do not understand that in this world, you can’t break an appointment with disappointment.
 
Last edited:
cybrguy,
  • Like
Reactions: Gunky

grokit

well-worn member
^ All I can say to that rubbish is fuck the nyt, the rag that lied us into the iraq war by publishing, even shamelessly promoting, judy miller's pantheon of bs. The article is also wrong about this bob supporter, as I don't hate hillary; I just don't think she would make a good president. But it perfectly suits the nyt's zionist agenda, as hillary is more of a hawk than bill or barack ever was. I am perfectly aware of and okay with the fact that bernie would have to make compromises, so either that article is dead wrong or I don't fit the bob movement, again. The one similarity that I will admit I see with trump supporters is sincere passion; slimy attack articles like this one will become more prevalent as bernie becomes more of threat to the war machine, but they will serve only to galvanize rather than discourage enthusiasm for his campaign. The fear is in the air again, and the status quo's attacks will only get nastier as they continue to lose ground.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
First, It's not the New York Times. Second, I suspect you aren't who he's talking about. I don't believe you have said "Bernie or Bust". There are many out there saying that, and they are ...nuts.

If I am wrong and you are Bernie or Bust, then you are nuts as well. It makes no sense.
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Stop Global Whining

By D.R. Tucker

New York Times columnist Charles Blow didn’t go far enough: frankly, anybody who subscribes to the “Bernie or Bust” mentality needs to have his or her head examined. I’m sure such scans are covered by Obamacare (i.e., the shameful corporate compromise by that closet Republican in the White House!).

It is unfathomable that so-called committed progressives would selfishly sit out the 2016 general election because they can’t get over the fact that their preferred candidate did not win the Democratic nomination. It is unconscionable that those who claim to want to move America forward would allow the country to race backward over the next four to eight years. It is unbelievable that anyone with a halfway-rational mind thinks “Bernie or Bust” is a good idea.

The hatred that the “Bernie or Bust” camp holds for Hillary Clinton defies logic: how can one love Sanders and loathe Clinton? Both candidates are among the most accomplished public servants of the past half-century: despite their differences, they are united in their compassion for America’s shunned, stigmatized and suffering.

Sanders clearly respects Clinton, but for some reason, a critical mass of his supporters have nothing but disrespect for the former Secretary of State. These supporters have fallen for the false narrative that Clinton worships the wealthy and pleases the powerful—and that Sanders is the only morally sound candidate in the race. The Hillary-as-corporate-sellout meme is just as jaw-droppingly dopey as the argument that there was no substantive difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush sixteen years ago. What did Santayana say about those who don’t learn from history?

By the way, what exactly do the “Bernie or Bust” folks mean when they call Clinton a “corporatist”? Isn’t “corporatist” an inscrutable insult, not unlike the use of the term “politically correct” by right-wingers? I doubt any member of the “Bernie or Bust” crowd can provide a non-convoluted explanation of the term “corporatist.” The term is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

What will these holier-than-Hillary folks say if Donald Trump is elected President—and his hate-filled rhetoric leads to more Mexicans being mauled by the malevolent? “Oops”? “My bad”? “I wasn’t thinking”?

Neither Clinton or Sanders are saints: Clinton is as imperfect on fracking as Sanders is on firearms. Yet I don’t see Clinton’s supporters threatening to stay home if the Vermonter is victorious in the Democratic primary.

The “Bernie or Bust” folks are just as irrational in their quest for ideological purity as the Tea Partiers who went after Dede Scozzafava, Bob Inglis, Mike Castle and Richard Lugar were. By choosing to stay home in the general election in the event Sanders loses the Democratic primary, these folks could effectively rig the game against the middle class for good.

In addition to harboring a heightened hostility towards Hillary Clinton, the “Bernie or Bust” crowd is notorious for its obnoxious opprobrium towards President Obama.

How many times have you heard the #NeverHillary types lambaste the 44th President as a compromising “corporatist” who stabbed progressives in the back at every turn and genuflected to the 1 percent? (Even Sanders himself bought into this odd narrative: why else would he have called for Obama to be primaried in 2012, knowing full well that such a primary would have weakened Obama in the general election, just as Ted Kennedy’s 1980 primary challenge to President Carter made the incumbent easy prey for Ronald Reagan?)

I’m not exactly sure where the “Bernie or Bust” crowd got the idea that Obama was supposed to be the ultimate progressive warrior: his famous speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention made it clear, to everyone who actually paid attention, that Obama was a pragmatist at heart, someone who believed that reaching across the aisle was a moral duty, someone who was committed to the idea that the red, white and blue, involved, well, red and blue.

That speech—an insight into Barack Obama’s soul—was not a particularly progressive address, and anyone who expected Obama to govern from a perspective of progressive purity apparently failed to grasp the true tenor of that speech. Having said that, progressives made gains during the Obama administration, as Paul Krugman has noted. Too bad some of those progressives don’t seem to appreciate it.

I argued last year that “a compelling case can be made that Barack Obama is one of the greatest presidents of all-time.” Sadly, it appears that Obama will not get the historical props he deserves for his accomplishments—not only because of the revisionist history of the reactionary right, but also because of the revisionist history of the self-righteous “Bernie or Bust”-ers on the left, the Union of the Ungrateful that fails to acknowledge Obama’s victories on economic reform, equality, climate change and health care, among other issues. This time, the cliche is appropriate: if Obama walked on water, progressive purists would say he couldn’t swim.

Like Prince’s parents in “When Doves Cry,” the “Bernie or Bust” crowd is too bold and never satisfied—and they will find new reasons to be disgruntled if Sanders upsets Clinton in the Democratic primary and becomes the 45th president. They won’t be happy once President Sanders compromises with Republicans and conservative Democrats, as he must in order to govern. They won’t be happy if President Sanders authorizes drone strikes and sanctions the strengthening of the surveillance state in an effort to incapacitate ISIS. They won’t be happy when President Sanders makes it clear that he cannot fully, or even partially, implement his economic vision.

Presumably, they will then turn on Sanders and denounce him as another traitor to the cause, another sellout to the “Democratic establishment” (cue the horror music). They will never acknowledge the truth: that governing is hard work and requires compromise. Bill Clinton understood this. Barack Obama understands this. If he succeeds Obama as President, Bernie Sanders will understand this. However, his most fervent supporters won’t—because, at bottom, they do not understand that in this world, you can’t break an appointment with disappointment.
The most astonishing thing is people are actually quoting Republican hit pieces here to attack Clinton and parroting Lush Rim-Bowel talking points. Idiotic. Some of these Clinton haters need to do some research. Clinton has real bona fides as a progressive. Bernie by contrast is a wannabee who has accomplished very little but talks a good show about policies which are completely doomed from the outset. The biggest problem is the misunderstanding these folks have about American democracy - they think a president is some singular, independent actor and agency, a dictator who needs no allies or cooperation. This is the exact same mistake Cruz and Trump supporters make. Voting for someone because you think they will poke sticks in the eyes of the "establishment" is deluded and pointless. That is precisely how to get more of the same gridlock, not progress.
 
Last edited:
Gunky,

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Tho, since you mentioned the NYT article I went and read it and I agree with it to. So here it is. Thanks for gettin to read it. :)

‘Bernie or Bust’ Is Bonkers

Charles M. Blow MARCH 31, 2016


Bernie Sanders’s surrogate Susan Sarandon went on MSNBC’s “All in With Chris Hayes” earlier this week and said something that made folks’ jaws drop.

When Hayes asked Sarandon whether Sanders’s supporters would vote for Hillary Clinton if Clinton won the Democratic nomination, this exchange followed:

SARANDON: I think Bernie probably would encourage people because he doesn’t have any ego. I think a lot of people are, sorry, I can’t bring myself to do that.

HAYES: How about you personally?

SARANDON: I don’t know. I’m going to see what happens.

HAYES: Really?

SARANDON: Really.

HAYES: I cannot believe as you’re watching the, if Donald Trump…

SARANDON: Some people feel Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in then things will really, you know, explode.

HAYES: You’re saying the Leninist model of…

SARANDON: Some people feel that.

(I don’t generally use the Republican front-runner’s name in my columns, but I must present the quote as transcribed. Sorry.)

What was Sarandon talking about with her coy language? “Bring the revolution”? Exactly what kind of revolution? “Explode”? Was the purpose to present this as a difficult but ultimately positive development?


The comments smacked of petulance and privilege.

No member of an American minority group — whether ethnic, racial, queer-identified, immigrant, refugee or poor — would (or should) assume the luxury of uttering such a imbecilic phrase, filled with lust for doom.

But I don’t doubt that she has met “some people” with a Bernie-or-bust, scorched-earth electoral portentousness. As The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month, “A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicates one third of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ supporters cannot see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton in November.”

Be absolutely clear: While there are meaningful differences between Clinton and Sanders, either would be a far better choice for president than any of the remaining Republican contenders, especially the demagogic real estate developer. Assisting or allowing his ascendance by electoral abstinence in order to force a “revolution” is heretical.

This position is dangerous, shortsighted and self-immolating.

If Sanders wins the nomination, liberals should rally round him. Conversely, if Clinton does, they should rally round her.

This is not a game. The presidency, particularly the next one, matters, and elections can be decided by relatively small margins. No president has won the popular vote by more than 10 percentage points since Ronald Reagan in 1984.

When Al Gore ran against George W. Bush in 2000, some claimed that a vote for Gore was almost the same as a vote for Bush and encouraged people to cast protest votes for Ralph Nader. Sarandon supported Nader during that election. Bush became president, and what did we get? Two incredibly young, incredibly conservative justices, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr., who will be on the court for decades, and two wars — in Afghanistan and Iraq — that, together, lasted over a decade.

In addition to setting the tone and direction of the country, the president has some constitutional duties that are profound and consequential. They include being commander in chief, making treaties and appointing judges, including, most importantly, justices to the Supreme Court. Bush demonstrated the consequences of that.

The real estate developer is now talking carelessly about promoting nuclear proliferation and torture (then there’s Ted Cruz’s talk of carpet bombing and glowing sand).

And, there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Not only that, but as of Tuesday, there were also 84 federal judiciary vacancies with 49 pending nominees.

The question of who makes those appointments matters immensely.

As Jeffrey Toobin pointed out in The New Yorker in 2014:

“When Obama took office, Republican appointees controlled ten of the thirteen circuit courts of appeals; Democratic appointees now constitute a majority in nine circuits. Because federal judges have life tenure, nearly all of Obama’s judges will continue serving well after he leaves office.

Furthermore, Toobin laid out the diversity of the Obama transformation, writing:

“Sheldon Goldman, a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and a scholar of judicial appointments, said, ‘The majority of Obama’s appointments are women and nonwhite males.’ Forty-two percent of his judgeships have gone to women. Twenty-two percent of George W. Bush’s judges and 29 percent of Bill Clinton’s were women. Thirty-six percent of President Obama’s judges have been minorities, compared with 18 percent for Bush and 24 percent for Clinton.”

And beyond war and courts, there is the issue of inclusion.

Take Obama’s legacy on gay rights. He signed the bill repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell.” And in 2012, Obama became the first sitting president to support same-sex marriage. Last year, Obama became the first president to say “lesbian,” “transgender” and “bisexual” in a State of the Union speech.

Of more substance, according to the Gay & Lesbian Victory Institute:

“To date, the Obama-Biden Administration has appointed more than 250 openly LGBT professionals to full-time and advisory positions in the executive branch; more than all known LGBT appointments of other presidential administrations combined.”

There is no reason to believe that this level of acceptance would continue under the real estate developer’s administration. In fact, the Huffington Post Queer Voices editor at large Michelangelo Signorile wrote an article in February titled, “No, LGBT People Aren’t Exempt from Donald Trump’s Blatant Bigotry,” responding to a trending idea that the Republican front-runner wasn’t as bad for queer people as other Republican candidates:

“It’s absolutely false — he’s as extreme as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and will do nothing for LGBT rights — and it’s time to disabuse the media and everyone else of this notion once and for all.”

Then there are all the other promises — threats? — the real estate developer has made. He has said he would deport all undocumented immigrants, build a border wall between the United States and Mexico, end birthright citizenship, dismantle Obamacare and replace it with something “terrific” (whatever that means), defund Planned Parenthood and temporarily ban most foreign Muslims from coming to this country, among other things.

There is no true equivalency between either of the Democratic candidates and this man, and anyone who make such a claim is engaging in a repugnant, dishonorable scare tactic not worth our respect.

next
 
cybrguy,

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
More

It is unfortunate for Sanders, who seems infinitely sober and sensible, that some of his surrogates and supporters present themselves as absolutist and doctrinaire. As Sanders himself has said, “on her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and president than the Republican candidate on his best day.”

The New York Times Upshot even pointed out last May that Sanders and Clinton “voted the same way 93 percent of the time in the two years they shared in the Senate” and in many of the cases in which Clinton voted differently from Sanders, “she voted with an overwhelming majority of her colleagues, including Republicans.”

That doesn’t mean that those differing votes weren’t significant. They were. As the Upshot put it, the 31 times they disagreed “happened to be” on some of “the biggest issues of the day, including measures on continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an immigration reform bill and bank bailouts during the depths of the Great Recession.”

And yet those differences hardly bring either candidate anywhere close to being as frightening as the specter of the real estate developer assuming the office of president of the United States.

Elections are about choices, not always between a dream candidate and a dreaded one, but sometimes between common sense and catastrophe. Progressives had better remember this come November, no matter who the Democratic nominee is.
 
cybrguy,

Chill Dude

Well-Known Member
Bernie is mainly a wannabee who has accomplished very little.

Telling Bernie supporters this, and calling them stupid or idiotic for supporting Bernie will make them LESS not MORE likely to support Hillary. Perhaps it's Clinton supporters who may want to do some research...

I'm supporting Bernie as his world view is more in line with mine. However, I'm totally okay with those that support Clinton. Moreover, I don't view Clinton supporters as stupid or idiotic. I just see them as people who are supporting Clinton because they feel she's the best choice for the country.... And I don't feel compelled to convert them to the Bernie side.. Everyone thinks differently and sees the issues differently. There is no right or wrong.
 

grokit

well-worn member
First, It's not the New York Times. Second, I suspect you aren't who he's talking about. I don't believe you have said "Bernie or Bust". There are many out there saying that, and they are ...nuts.

If I am wrong and you are Bernie or Bust, then you are nuts as well. It makes no sense.
It's been on my avatar for quite a some time now, so I'm not sure how you missed it. I will admit I knew nothing of "the movement" when I thought of the term and googled it, but I "signed on" when I got there. As I've explained, three times now in this thread, my state's lone electoral vote will never go to anybody named clinton anyways, so I might as well write sander's name in. If it's close then I'll re-evaluate.
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
-snip-

I'm supporting Bernie as his world view is more in line with mine. However, I'm totally okay with those that support Clinton. Moreover, I don't view Clinton supporters as stupid or idiotic. I just see them as people who are supporting Clinton because they feel she's the best choice for the country.... And I don't feel compelled to convert them to the Bernie side.. Everyone thinks differently and sees the issues differently. There is no right or wrong.
That attitude is not compatible with slamming Hillary as bribed by energy companies. (If you think it is please let me know because then I will no longer reply to your posts). If that is not negative campaigning there is no such thing as negative campaigning (but Bernie said he wasn't going negative! Yeah right.). You have to walk the walk too. And yeah, that pisses me off. Because there are rights and wrongs.
 
Last edited:
Gunky,

Chill Dude

Well-Known Member
That attitude is not compatible with slamming Hillary as bribed by energy companies. You have to walk the walk too.

Why can't one believe that Hilary could be beholden to certain energy companies do to accepting campaign contributions from them. Everyone is free to believe what they want and base their political positions accordingly. You think one way others think differently... And hence we have a democracy!
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Why can't one believe that Hilary could be beholden to certain energy companies do to accepting campaign contributions from them. Everyone is free to believe what they want and base their political positions accordingly. You think one way others think differently... And hence we have a democracy!
This is so like conversations between kids where one slams hell out of the other and then says 'no offense'. So forking lame. Hey just cuz I believe and post stuff saying your candidate is corrupt, that's no reason to be miffed...
 
Gunky,

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
It's been on my avatar for quite a some time now, so I'm not sure how you missed it. I will admit I knew nothing of "the movement" when I thought of the term and googled it, but I "signed on" when I got there. As I've explained, three times now in this thread, (you have to remember we're all stoned in here...) my state's lone electoral vote will never go to anybody named clinton anyways, so I might as well write sander's name in. If it's close then I'll re-evaluate.
You should do what makes you feel right, in deep red Texas or deep blue Massachusetts. I don't think I noticed the text on your avatar but I probably wouldn't have taken it literally anyway. I don't normally expect people who speak intelligently to think that differently from me. :)
While the President is not King, (sorry Donald) who is President is HUGELY important in America, even if the Supreme Court were the only compelling reason. The idea of not doing EVERYTHING I possibly can to make sure that Trump or Cruz are never more than visitors to that office would just never occur to me. If you truly believe your vote doesn't matter due to your states politics, I'm sorry for that. I personally don't feel that way even when my candidate wins (or loses) by a lot. But I live in a blue state. (with a red governor who is making us crazy)
 

Chill Dude

Well-Known Member
Hey just cuz I believe and post stuff saying your candidate is corrupt, that's no reason to be miffed...

Exactly right and I'm not miffed at all. I'm okay with you saying that Bernie is corrupt.. That's fine with me... I just disagree. You feel the way you do, and who am I to tell you to think differently.

As you've noticed, my posts aren't angry at all!
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
It's too bad our actual vote doesn't count. The good ole Electoral College.

Edit
The same here @grokit Washington State sometimes feels like an afterthought. That was a funny bit of presidential trivia.
Thank goodness for Starbucks, Amazon, Boeing and Microsoft. Big business has to be good for something.

Edit again
@grokit if I could give you 10 likes for your post regarding Elizabeth Warren I would. She sounds like she might be getting close to possibility endorsing Bernie. Those are his ideas. I wonder?
 
Last edited:

grokit

well-worn member
You should do what makes you feel right, in deep red Texas or deep blue Massachusetts. I don't think I noticed the text on your avatar but I probably wouldn't have taken it literally anyway. I don't normally expect people who speak intelligently to think that differently from me. :)
While the President is not King, (sorry Donald) who is President is HUGELY important in America, even if the Supreme Court were the only compelling reason. The idea of not doing EVERYTHING I possibly can to make sure that Trump or Cruz are never more than visitors to that office would just never occur to me. If you truly believe your vote doesn't matter due to your states politics, I'm sorry for that. I personally don't feel that way even when my candidate wins (or loses) by a lot. But I live in a blue state. (with a red governor who is making us crazy)
It's more than just our politics, and even more than the fact that we also only get one vote, and are at the end of the electoral timeline as well save hawaii. Because of this my whole state's participation in electoral politics is pretty limited, historically. Except for that one time when president harding stopped in for a meal and died shortly afterwards of food poisoning, but I digress. T'was just a rumor. Back on topic!
:rip:


edit:
historic-election.jpg

:haw:
 
Last edited:

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Exactly right and I'm not miffed at all. I'm okay with you saying that Bernie is corrupt.. That's fine with me... I just disagree. You feel the way you do, and who am I to tell you to think differently.

As you've noticed, my posts aren't angry at all!
So what you are saying is: Hillary is corrupt - no offense! I didn't say you were angry; I said you were offensive. OK, whatever. Smile and smile and be a villain. Ignore from now on.
 
Last edited:
Gunky,

grokit

well-worn member
:tup:

Elizabeth Warren Just Went Straight Savage On Donald Trump And It's Everything We've Ever Wanted

16601667814_ebd04356ce_k.jpg


Remember Elizabeth Warren? The patriotic defender of the poor, minorities, unions, and all hardworking Americans who want to see a stronger country for ALL people?

Remember Donald Trump? The petty nitwit who spends all day tweeting out insults instead of maybe, trying to understand how international politics actually works?

Well, in an epic Facebook post, the two come to a head, with Warren straight up roasting Donald Trump. She begins her post with “Donald is a loser,” and boy, she couldn’t be more right!

Many people praise “The Donald” for his business acumen, but Warren savagely dispels that myth:

“Count all his failed businesses. See how he kept his father’s empire afloat by cheating people with scams like TrumpUniversity and by using strategic corporate bankruptcy (excuse me, bankruptcies) to skip out on debt. Listen to the experts who’ve concluded he’s so bad at business that he might have more money today if he’d put his entire inheritance into an index fund and just left it alone.”

But she isn’t done yet! Warren goes on to summarize the core of Trump’s character, which she does perfectly:

“His embarrassing insecurities are on parade: petty bullying, attacks on women, cheap racism, and flagrant narcissism.”

But she is also wants to remind us something VERY important: Don’t underestimate this loser:

”But just because Trump is a loser everywhere else doesn’t mean he’ll lose this election. People have been underestimating his campaign for nearly a year – and it’s time to wake up.”

The full text of her post can be found here — on her Facebook — or below:

"Let’s be honest – Donald Trump is a loser. Count all his failed businesses. See how he kept his father’s empire afloat by cheating people with scams like TrumpUniversity and by using strategic corporate bankruptcy (excuse me, bankruptcies) to skip out on debt. Listen to the experts who’ve concluded he’s so bad at business that he might have more money today if he’d put his entire inheritance into an index fund and just left it alone.

Trump seems to know he’s a loser. His embarrassing insecurities are on parade: petty bullying, attacks on women, cheap racism, and flagrant narcissism. But just because Trump is a loser everywhere else doesn’t mean he’ll lose this election. People have been underestimating his campaign for nearly a year – and it’s time to wake up.

People talk about how "this is the most important election" in our lifetime every four years, and it gets stale. But consider what hangs in the balance. Affordable college. Accountability for Wall Street. Healthcare for millions of Americans. The Supreme Court. Big corporations and billionaires paying their fair share of taxes. Expanded Social Security. Investments in infrastructure and medical research and jobs right here in America. The chance to turn our back on the ugliness of hatred, sexism, racism and xenophobia. The chance to be a better people.

More than anyone we’ve seen before come within reach of the presidency, Donald Trump stands ready to tear apart an America that was built on values like decency, community, and concern for our neighbors. Many of history’s worst authoritarians started out as losers – and Trump is a serious threat. The way I see it, it’s our job to make sure he ends this campaign every bit the loser that he started it."



https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...d-Trump-And-It-s-Everything-We-ve-Ever-Wanted

:rockon:
 
Top Bottom