SportsAndLady;1817386 wrote:Bernie didn't say, "I stand by my comment that hillary is not qualified to be our president, but she's definitely better than Trump." He went from "she's not qualified" to "she is qualified"

He's a partisan bitch any way you try and spin it.

Hell, 99% of politicians are. Don't be naive and think sanders is any different than the rest of them.

Well sure.. you're partially correct, but saying he isn't an different than the rest of them is lazy and a lie.

like_that;1817385 wrote:Bernie was going to fall in line regardless of whether it was trump or not. There was a reason he didn't make a bigger deal of how the DNC and superdelegates treated him. Also there is a reason he never went after Hillary's numerous red flags. He had so much ammo and could articulate it so much better than trump but he pussed out, because he knew he would need to fall in line if he lost. Half ass revolution at best. I've never seen someone start a revolution while also hedging their bets at the same time.

And he's also stated dozens of times he wasn't going to run a Ralph Nader campaign, which is why he supported Hillary. Who do you think has a better shot to push their platform.. Bernie or Ralph? I think that's a pretty easy answer huh?

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1817378 wrote:Is she any different than Joe Biden or Barack Obama or George Bush or Ted Cruz or Donald Trump or Mitt Romney..or any other politician.. I highly doubt it.

Here is where you are wrong. She IS different than all of those names you have in comparison. While they all have and have had their faults, some insidious faults at that, she is the epitome of everything that is wrong in our federal government. A first class example of how absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The rest of what you said is just platitudes.

CenterBHSFan;1817404 wrote:Here is where you are wrong. She IS different than all of those names you have in comparison. While they all have and have had their faults, some insidious faults at that, she is the epitome of everything that is wrong in our federal government. A first class example of how absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The rest of what you said is just platitudes.

Amen.

CenterBHSFan;1817404 wrote:Here is where you are wrong. She IS different than all of those names you have in comparison. While they all have and have had their faults, some insidious faults at that, she is the epitome of everything that is wrong in our federal government. A first class example of how absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The rest of what you said is just platitudes.

How so.. b/c someone decided to hack her and not anyone elses? What do you think would have happened if Bush's emails were hacked... or the 30k that were deleted were recovered? My guess is similar, corrupt shit. You can be deluded into believing its big bad hillary's problem and no one elses if you want to. You can also choose to believe Santa is real while you're at it.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1817416 wrote:What do you think would have happened if Bush's emails were hacked... or the 30k that were deleted were recovered? .

The media would actually cover it.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1817416 wrote:How so.. b/c someone decided to hack her and not anyone elses? What do you think would have happened if Bush's emails were hacked... or the 30k that were deleted were recovered? My guess is similar, corrupt shit. You can be deluded into believing its big bad hillary's problem and no one elses if you want to. You can also choose to believe Santa is real while you're at it.

What Hillary is has little to do with emails and everything to do with her history that is on film, from her own lips and actions. The list is quite lengthy.
The emails play some part of that, yes. But probably the smallest part.

like_that;[URL="tel:1817418" wrote:1817418[/URL]]The media would actually cover it.

Fair enough. My point remains though.

[/QUOTE=like_that]The media would actually cover it.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. My point remains though...

like_that;1817418 wrote:The media would actually cover it.

Gosh a ruddies they do cover it. But then this dumbass come out and says or does something so completely reprehensible that it steals all the headlines.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1817416 wrote:How so.. b/c someone decided to hack her and not anyone elses?

They did attempt to hack the RNC; they just couldn't get in. The R's do a better job of protecting information; Clinton and the dems are well known to put sensitive and classified information at risk. She is completely disqualified from being able to be president and commander-in-chief because of her failures in that regard.

isadore;1817306 wrote:Gosh a ruddies and after debating her, listening to her programs he now believes that she is qualified and should be elected President. As she advocates no taxes raises for the poor and middle class but higher taxes for the rich and corporations, where she offers a program to fund post secondary education for those in need, where she promises to legislate to remove corporate money from buying elections, where she promises a Supreme Court that does not consider corporations as people, he sees someone he can support, especially since he has called Donald Trump "a nut case."

Nobody's debating that Trump is a nut case.

And the policy to which you're referring is why he said he would vote for her. However, there's a difference between voting for someone and campaigning for someone.

The indictments he brought against her in the primaries ... that she's funded by Wall Street, for example ... are still true. Whatever lip service she pays to policy doesn't change the Goldman-Sachs backing. It doesn't change the ties to Wall Street and big business. Seems rather hypocritical if she's saying she's going to remove corporate money in elections.

Her body of work stands opposed to what she seems to conveniently support now. Not dissimilar from Trump suddenly being pro-life. It's a convenient platform, given his current situation.

I suppose he might believe it. At best, that makes him naive. However, the giftings make it more likely that he, like so many politicians, has been effectively purchased.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1817308 wrote:yes.. in the black and white hot taek world.. Bernie is a sellout.

In the real gray nuanced world, you both couldn't be any more wrong.
Not only did Bernie push Hillary left nearly 100%, the opposite, Donald Fucking Trump, who she happens to be running against, was pushed further right 100%. So in your opinion, Bernie should take his supporters (who happen to be a huge number) and pull a Ralph Nader and give Trump the election .. to .. you know.. stand up for da convictionsZzzzz!!!! That would show America! We'll take everything we stood for, gay rights, immigration reform, social justice reform, Affiordable college.. womens right.. you know.. everything Donald Trump is the opposite on..and we'll piss it out the window by letting the polar opposite win cuz muh feelz r hurtz!!! and I gotz da convictionzzzz!!! grow the fuck up lol It's larger than Bernie Sanders. Its larger than Hillary Clinton. It's a platform you're pushing that you're not going to throw away on the worst candidate to ever run for office, and give him the election. Get real.

How very establishment-supporting of him. He's still undercutting his entire message. And I have the same words for the independents or third-party voters who are now siding with Trump because they can't justify putting her in office.

We've got one opportunist against another opportunist. They're paying lip service to platforms that their bodies of work indicate they don't care about. Do you actually think she's actually changed her political worldview on those topics to the degree that her campaign promises carry weight? If so, she'd be the first in my lifetime whose campaign promises did so.

O-Trap;1817459 wrote:Nobody's debating that Trump is a nut case.

And the policy to which you're referring is why he said he would vote for her. However, there's a difference between voting for someone and campaigning for someone.

The indictments he brought against her in the primaries ... that she's funded by Wall Street, for example ... are still true. Whatever lip service she pays to policy doesn't change the Goldman-Sachs backing. It doesn't change the ties to Wall Street and big business. Seems rather hypocritical if she's saying she's going to remove corporate money in elections.

Her body of work stands opposed to what she seems to conveniently support now. Not dissimilar from Trump suddenly being pro-life. It's a convenient platform, given his current situation.

I suppose he might believe it. At best, that makes him naive. However, the giftings make it more likely that he, like so many politicians, has been effectively purchased.

Gosh a ruddies, if I believed one of the candidates for the Presidency was a nut case and if he would have control of nuclear weapons if elected, I should do everything in my power to save the nation, patriotic reason for Bernie to campaign for Hillary Clinton to save America.

isadore;1817467 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, if I believed one of the candidates for the Presidency was a nut case and if he would have control of nuclear weapons if elected, I should do everything in my power to save the nation, patriotic reason for Bernie to campaign for Hillary Clinton to save America.

Except that he's moving the goalpost. During his campaign, the biggest problem was corporate involvement in government. Was he lying?

O-Trap;1817475 wrote:Except that he's moving the goalpost. During his campaign, the biggest problem was corporate involvement in government. Was he lying?

gosh a ruddies I would think the survival of the nation would trump (sorry, unintended play on words) that cause. It overrides any campaign issue.