Hillary had one of the most liberal voting records in the senate. Hillary was liberal. Hillary is liberal.
Hillary Clinton's lead a puddle in the Sanders Sahara #deadheat #feelthebern
- Thread starter And_Gignac
- Start date
- Status
Hillary had one of the most liberal voting records in the senate. Hillary was liberal. Hillary is liberal.
I mean, because of science? That's why I posted that study in that thread -- because all available evidence suggests that when presidential candidates make campaign promises and get elected, they tend to go ahead and try to act on those promises.
When reasonable people disagree, they do research. The research says you should probably trust Hillary to do the stuff she says she'll do, because that's what politicians do. Which makes sense. Getting to be a presidential nominee is a long and painful political road, and you don't get there by being untrustworthy to the party.
Now, if you would rather disregard all the studies and just go with your gut that says that Hillary is untrustworthy, then fine, but, you know, don't claim you're being rational about it!
I absolutely understand, and even Sanders has admitted this. He has said just electing him and him alone won't do a fucking thing: it requires a social movement to demand change, and not hope for it. This would also require electing people with similar views and principles through the entire establishment and finding a way to rally the people against the monied interests literally invested against them.
It would take electing Sanders, having people stay a part of the process on some level after his election, as well as electing other like-minded people such as him. It means fuck all to elect one man to solve issues, and you can see that absolutely clearly with Barack Obama.
The 40+ year history of Democrats self-immolating in the presidential elections each time they sent up a far-left candidate.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
At least Trump supporters can now claim he does as good or better than the establishment candidates. Am I supposed to support Sanders because he passed the liberal purity pledge? That's like Tea Party stuff.
Dude Abides
Banned
No politician can take big money out of politics.
If you want a repeat of 2000-2008 just so you can be pure, knock yourself out, but a lot of people are understandably unwilling to follow you off that cliff.
Hillary is very progressive. Just check her voting record:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...as-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate
Code:
Most liberal Dem 1 Sanders -0.523
11 CLINTON -0.391
Median Dem 33 Biden -0.331
Most conservative Dem 51 B. Nelson -0.035
Most liberal Rep 52 Specter 0.061
Median Rep 76 McConnell 0.409
Most conservative Rep 101 Coburn 0.809Obama ranked 23rd.
I have a feeling that many of the folks here don't remember those days. What they don't get is that we are STILL paying for all of those losses.
"Settling for less" isn't a real issue.
The current mess with immigration is a real issue. The lack of justice for black people is a real issue. Cost of college education. Equal pay. Those are real issues.
You talk about how shit the reform we got was. That was the best reform package we could have gotten in 2010your ideas would have never made it through Congress and nothing would have ever gotten done. So who is fucking garbage? The people who made something that helped millions of people or the person who sits around ruminating philosophical, theoretical models that do not jive with current reality?
The future has to be earned and negotiated. It's not ideal, but it's reality. I'm looking for actual solutions, not "settle for best" solutions. Solutions that could pass with Congressional support and go into actual effect.
I'm not settling for less. I'm settling on winning, because to get actual reform to make an idealistic world possible, we have to win first.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
The actual revolution is the Democrats winning a third consecutive term in the White House.
exactly. hasnt happened in 75 years.
This isn't 40 years ago. Things are different now- a lot more difference between the parties than 40 years ago, and Sanders is a lot more moderate than the folks the Dems put up back then.
How do you figure that?
The problem isn't those who don't support Sanders. The problem is the people who dismiss any candidate other than The Chosen One as a joke. The problem is the people who vote on perceived "electability" instead of voting for the candidate that aligns closer with their views.
ShironRedshift
Member
Hmm, perhaps.... But thinking about it more deeply, are you just proposing that we just don't talk about the evil "s" word at all? Because that's something I'd find quite surprising from you and indeed most of the people who seem skeptical about Sanders. Refusing to talk about problems doesn't make them go away. I know you understand this quite well regarding dumb as fuck shit like GamerGate: telling women to just ignore their harasses and just not use social media or to not do this or that clearly isn't a solution to that problem and in fact at best results in nothing changing at all and can even in some circumstances lead to the harasses feeling even more confident that their methods work and thus deploying them on others, making the problem worse. This is understood--silence isn't the solution there, clear and open discussion is, as nothing will change otherwise.
And it's the same with the severe problems our nation has with institutional and more explicit forms of racism. Those are definitely problems that need to be discussed and taken seriously, and it's quite clear that the refusal to talk about them and attempting to sweep them under the rug is part of what let them got so severe in the first place and just maintaining radio silence certainly isn't going to make anything better. This is also understood.
And it's same for the subject of socialism. A large part of the stigma is aftereffects of the Red Scare and McCarthyism, meaning it's something that's been maintained and reinforced for over 60 years at this point. Clearly, continuing to remain silent about the issue isn't going to change that. I think that much can be agreed on, at least: that the only way to change that stigma and to potentially have a chance of changing things would be to have an open and honest discussion about it. It might not change views overnight, but nonetheless it's the only way of getting them to change at all and only then by continuing to discuss the subject more and more and more until opinions begin to change, just like those other issues. I think if nothing else, we can all agree on that much.
And the thing is, Bernie Sanders, as a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, gives us the perfect chance to discuss those issues. And indeed, tackling the stigmas concerning the word "socialism" and "socialized health care" and "free university" are very important issues that are effecting millions of lives all across this nation. Millions of people put off preventative care due to its cost here in the US and thus end up suffering from illnesses that could have been nipped in the bud had they been able to get that care. And even when they do seek out that care and it is able to help due to its costs it nonetheless still ends up bankrupting them and destroying their families and livelihoods. This is one of the most pressing issues facing us right now, as affects all of us on some level with health being so fundamental and cornerstone to being able to perform any function in society but it's also an issue that disproportionately affects women and minorities due to women's reproductive rights being something that's always under particular attack and institutional racism making it particularly difficult for African Americans to be able to get access to and afford care. Adopting a single-payer healthcare system could at least partially help tackle such issues.
That's all understood, but yet for some reason, despite the effect its having on so many millions of lives on a fundamental level, the issue of discussing socialism and ridding of it of its stigma so we can improve those lives is a tremendous way is apparently just something we should put on the backburner and fight another day. And I can kinda understand that. I mean, Clinton is the safe choice and could easily get elected if we all just jumped aboard her ship.
But the problem is... what's that really solve? It's just avoiding the issue. I mean, Clinton's certainly not going to do anything to end the stigmas surrounding the evil "s" word. There's absolutely no benefit for her to do so and indeed, if it's as dangerous of a subject to broach as some people are making it seem (which I disagree with, but that's a whole other kettle of fish), then it could potentially be detrimental to even bring it up. It doesn't serve her in any way, so it's not going to happen. The same with single-payer health care even being so much as on the table if Hillary is elected. After all, Obama exhausted all of his political capital just to get the ACA passed, something that Hillary would be well aware of and there's no way she would be willing to exhaust her own political capital by just retreading the same ground her predecessor did when she can expend her efforts elsewhere. It's just not going to happen.
And that being the case, then what? What comes after Hillary? If we choose not to fight this battle now, when do we fight it? I mean, this problem's not going away until we discuss it, we've established that much. And while Hillary might be able to appoint Supreme Court justices, unfortunately they're only able to do something if a case regarding the subject not only happens but is able to make it all the way to their doorstep which even if it does happen may not be for another 10, 20 years yet? Is that really the path we want to go? Is that really the best approach?
I mean, is that the approach you'd recommend to women undergoing harassment at this very moment and being denied access to basic reproductive healtchare? To just wait potentially 20 years for some hypothetical court case to happen, while they continue to be harassed in the interim? Is that what you would recommend to victims of institutional racism, to wait on such a court case, while their livelihoods are at risk due to the practices of corrupt and racist cops while they wait? Then why this?
This is the perfect chance to get this all out in the open. And indeed, nothing will change until we do. If it hasn't changed since McCarthy, it isn't going to change suddenly today until we do discuss it and make people understand what it truly means and why it's not a bad thing. And each day we dawdle, each day we hesitate to discuss what most of the rest of the world actually did decades ago, lives are literally lost due to people not being able to afford the care they need.
But yet, apparently it's still not time for someone like Sanders due to the evil boogeyman of the S word? Despite the fact that word won't ever stop being a boogeyman until we actually do discuss it and nothing will change until then? But yet apparently nonetheless it's just not the "right time" and we need to be patient and wait until the political climate is right for us to tackle something like that. But when will that "right time" be, if not now? Who can say when that be be and what will happen between now and then?
We at least have a chance at the current moment--perhaps we won't win, but we at least have a chance to bring these issues to the forefront with Sanders and have them discussed and fight for socialism and single-payer healthcare and the like with him. Who knows when the next chance will be? And who knows how many more thousands will die by then, due to America's woefully inadequate healthcare system even post-ACA while we wait. How many people will continue to shirk preventative care due to not being able to afford it, leading to a minor problem becoming a severe run. How many people will have their whole livelihoods turned upside down by medical bills they can't afford, completely bankrupting them, leading to foreclosures on their homes and a downward cycle of poverty from which they can't escape, just due to medical bills?
I mean, doesn't that sound like something we should be fighting tooth-and-nail for? Something that affects so many people on such a fundamental level, that's literally life-and-death for so many? Isn't that worth fighting for? But just due to the power of one word, apparently not and we have to wait for some mystical other to tackle the issue instead, despite having no clue when this other would come into play? And despite that word's power clearly not going away until we do tackle it head-on, leading to it being a self-perpetuating and perpetual problem until then?
That being the case, why not now? "Socialism" isn't going to lose its power as a buzzword until we tackle it head-on anyway, so why not now, with Sanders, when regardless of who it is it'll have to be someone eventually anyway, so why not him, in the here and now versus waiting for some theoretical other who will have to deal with the same problem regardless? Why "then" versus "now" when the same problem will remain regardless and the only difference being how many lives were lost while we were dilly-dallying on this? Isn't this something worth fighting for, potentially more than anything else, just as much the workers rights movements and the civil rights movements in the past with how it affects peoples lives on such a fundamental level? Isn't it worth at least fighting for, saying we at least tried and will continue to try and won't give it up until it actually happens, versus just throwing our hands in the air and giving up before anything actually happens at all and we've even tried anything? On this issue of all things, on something that has that much of an impact and won't change until we put up such a fight? Sorry for the rant, but I just don't get it, that perspective, no matter how many ways people try to rationalize it--it just doesn't make sense to not at least try to put up a fight and stick up for a such a thing and give up fighting for something so important before we've even begun. I just don't get it...
User 463088
Banned
That's also something I respect, but I disagree with. Sanders has not been able to explain how this grassroots movement is going to be able to do chicken squat. If Sanders were to win, his followers would become just as disillusioned as the Obama supporters who thought he could do everything with a magic wand.
Governing is hard. Governing with a majority in both houses of Congress is hard. Governing as the President of the minority party (in both houses) while hoping for some magical grassroots movement to force the GOP and moderate Democrats to magically turn into socialist progressives is unrealistic.
I guess I'm a pragmatist. I tried the whole ideological purity thing....but it just isn't realistic. Just my two cents, though.
Rabbi_Vole
Banned
In a socialist state, the overweight are very much a drag on society Food allocation, healthcare, a one-size-fits-all approach to clothing/automobiles/bus seats/doorways. This also applies to smokers, the elderly, the blind and anyone who may benefit from the ADA.
Do you not believe what you consider real issues have been given that settle for less approach in this country? Consider education and the fact people suffer for the awful crime of wanting to learn and potentially do good in society. You have people very plainly saying "you should know what you're getting into" as a solution. It doesn't solve any of the real problems, and again, the Affordable Care Act is the exact same thing. Granted it's a step up as it offered some solution, but a band-aid on a bullet wound does not solve a whole lot. There are people who think the ACA is enough and an expansion to that is our solution, but it isn't: it's to get monied interests out of the forefront of medical care, which the ACA has failed to accomplish. You can even argue that wasn't even a task to it, seeing as many places are still for-profit in the most parasitic sense imaginable. Even Obama has said an endgame is single-payer, but there were only two candidates that said we should have that: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Trump recanted his position during the Fox debate. Does Hillary support a Medicare-for-all system? Didn't her plans in the 1990's for healthcare reform specifically fail because she had the monied interests at the table?
Seriously, this settle for less issue is really big. The entire Republican party is focused on it, and when comparing Hillary to Bernie on certain issues, so is she. To a much lesser degree than the Republicans and their 1950's regressive ideas, mind you, but she's still far too much in the favor of corporate interests, which themselves are at a foundation of many a problem in this place we call a nation. Of the candidates running, I truly do see Bernie as the candidate who seems less eager to settle for less, considering he's talked about these issues for decades.
Lord_Byron28
Member
He's a democratic socialist.
Okay. So how would Bernie accomplish any of his goals without compromising? Or, as it is more commonly known, "settling for less"?
Jeevesmeister
Banned
Way to take what I'm saying out of context. For all this assumption that Bernie doesn't have a shot in hell, to turn around and say Hillary has half a shot with all the shit sitting around for the Republicans to throw together in attack ads its like leaving a toddler in a room with a shiny chrome plated .44 on the table, leaving a box of ammo out, and assuming they're too stupid to do any harm with it.
It's a bad election for the Left. But instead of voting an unelectable Republican we can at least take a risk with Bernie and get the overall party actually addressing the needs of its constituents again.
The difference is she's running for President. Benghazi with the Bay movie coming out and the e-mail server unfolding is a huge fucking mess, a massive liability in the eyes of moderates/undecideds.
BLM fucked themselves on this one, Bernie has been more than admirable. They got Hillary 1-on-1 and totally made fools of themselves.
Ninja Scooter
Member
lmao it's been 8 years of people calling Obama a socialist and they still don't know what it means. Most people probably think socialist, communist and muslim are all the same thing.
Rabbi_Vole
Banned
So mob rule?
So Hilary's lead is irreverent just like it was against Obama - good to know
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
have you actually looked at the candidates the right is running
BertramCooper
Banned
News flash: If Bernie Sanders somehow wins the Democratic nomination (he won't), he's absolutely going to have to rely on superPACs to help support his campaign in the general election. He won't have a choice.
So Bernie can wax all he wants about getting big money out of politics, but if he legitimately wants to win the presidency, he's going to need big money.
If you want to win in politics, you play by the rules as they currently exist - not the rules you think should exist.
Lord_Byron28
Member
He's a democratic socialist not a pure socialist.
Yes, let's add "Democracy/Democrat/Democratic" to America's list of "scary no-no words."
You have this exactly backwards. The Republicans have had twenty years to throw shit at Hillary. Everything that there is in Hillary's past has been dug out and gone over. The fact that she's still the presumptive nominee is proof enough that none of those scandals matter (or, more to the point, have any substance). If they were dangerous, the party would've dumped her already. From an oppo perspective, Hillary is as vetted as any candidate in history.
By contrast, Sanders has never run a national campaign and has never been the subject of sustained presidential-level oppo research. Remember how the week after he announced Vox suddenly had a front page story about the article he wrote about women having rape fantasies? Yes, the article was misconstrued and I thought actually interesting. But the point is that Bernie's history is basically a closed door. If he gets close to the nomination, a lot of Republican money is going to suddenly pour through that door looking for anything, no matter how small or irrelevant, they can use to attack him.
A candidate that's already weathered several manufactured Republican scandals is absolutely better defended against Republican attack ads than a candidate who's never seen the hell a presidential campaign investigation can unleash.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
I agree with this guy.
User 463088
Banned
Amen.
I genuinely don't think a lot of Sander's supporters realize what the GOP will be able to do to Bernie, should he get the nomination. Just because you don't feel "socialist" isn't a bad thing, doesn't mean the GOP can't paint him into a corner. With him refusing PAC money, he'll have no way to battle it. The GOP can run ads showing what happens in Soviet Russia and end it with "And Sanders thinks this is what America deserves?"
And what's he going to do? Stand up and say, "Yes, I'm a socialist, but I'm the good kind of socialist." It's toxic. It doesn't matter that socialism, especially democratic socialism, isn't evil. Socialism has become a disgusting word in American politics. It has always been this way. I'm not saying the perception can't be changed, but it sure as heck is not going to be changed in a single year.
Also, that terrible PAC money can be integral in forming a ground game. If people genuinely think campaign money just goes for TV commercials. Remember, we're democrats, not an organized political party. Grassroots activism is not free. You don't pull a competent ground game out of thin air. You have to spend money...a lot of money to get something competent.
Dude Abides
Banned
This has nothing to do with Bernie's inept initial handling of the issue. It's not surprising, since he's never had to appeal to anyone outside Burlington before, but it's a bit risky to pin your hopes on someone who's learning how to campaign as he goes.
Your post can be unpacked in numerous ways but I think I'll just tackle your main questions of "why not now" when it comes to helping redefining socialism in the American popular consciousness. The problem with tackling the issue now as opposed to any other time is one to do with political expediency and urgency. Currently, as the infamous Gallup Poll shows, socialists are the least likely to be voted for president. Less than Muslims or even the hated Atheist. Like you said above, this probably has a lot to do with propaganda of the right through the 50s and 60s but it's not just conservatives who are vehemently against a socialist president.
If you look at the poll breakdown, a large minority of democrats wouldn't vote for a socialist either. Regardless of party affiliation, socialists are the least popular candidate for president and this is over a 50 year time period. We're talking about deeply ingrained prejudices that stretch generations. Obama has done a decent job of showing that socialist policy isn't necessarily awful (even if the ACA isn't as socialist as it needs to be) but he also fought his entire presidency to distance himself from the actual idea of socialism, because he and his staff know it's so politically toxic.
So we've established that political suicide is written on the back of avowed socialism, an extremely popular and effective president spent 8 years combatting the idea that he was a socialist, and the policies of socialism are looked down upon by both democrats and republicans alike.
Now lets look at the importance of this specific election. As has been mentioned before, as many as 3 Supreme Court nominations are coming up in the next 4-8 years. The previous 8 years have made it completely obvious to even the most politically ignorant that the supreme court is an extremely important policy shaping device for the nation and the President of the US is the ONLY person who can nominate someone to the supreme court. That does not mean that the person he nominates will automatically get in, but Presidents generally eventually get their way on this issue.
So imagine Bernie wins the nom, runs for President and is rocked by accusations of socialism that he can't completely deny and loses to Walker or Bush. Now we have a republican POTUS, republican House, and republican Senate. Ginsburg is out and Kennedy is likely out as well in the next 4 years. The (hypothetically) republican president would be able to stack the Supreme Court for conservatives for the next 30 years conceivably. That would be disastrous for monetary and social issues in America. I'd rather take the chance on a well-qualified and left leaning establishment candidate than an out of the box, radical leftist.
We can fight the good fight for socialism when so much isn't at stake.
Jeevesmeister
Banned
We can go forth in circles on just who has it backwards but I counter with the fact that Hillary has never ran for President in a general election before, and that's a whole new ballgame that brings its own hilarity to the table when we're talking attack ads and all sorts of shit - you don't think they aren't already planning some sort of false flag for the general to paint Hillary's history of racist policies to make her out as the Real Racist to dissuade the minority vote? Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Michael Bay's a huge draw and its going to bring Benghazi back to the mainstream headlines if at least for a short while - it hasn't stuck because the majority of people simply don't understand the intricacies of what took place there. You think a glitzy, jingoistic Hollywood mainstream blockbuster won't affect perceptions in some way, and then not do the typical "oh those good for nothing politicians let it happen," won't be a talking point? For fuck's sake, we've had Scalia use 24's Jack Bauer as a legal argument.
The e-mails are still being poured over and you bet some Republican interns locked in a room somewhere are being paid 12/hr to pour over as much as they can get their hands on. Again, I've already named 3 pretty effective attack campaigns to dissuade independents/undecideds, and considering how little Hillary can actually rally the Left, you're going to need them. You have one Vox piece that everyone's already long forgotten, if that's the worst we've got he's a hell of a lot cleaner than Hillary when it comes to the mess of a national campaign free-for-all.
Bernie handled it fine. People turned on BLM more than anything else. They clearly have no handle on affecting tangible change outside of making more money for the companies that manufacture just as many body cams as "less lethal" and "tactical" gear for a militarized police force, and while Sanders has acted fantastically in good faith, its overblown to focus on this.
What we're seeing on both the Left and the Right with Trump and Sanders both is a turn against The Establishment and how bought the system is. This election is crucial to keep that momentum going if we're going to positively affect change, and more so with getting the Left behind Sanders instead of letting Hillary crumple up (again, the server wipe money shot is something you haven't seen the last of) against a Republican party forced to unite behind The Donald.
That's perfectly fine. If you informed yourself and like Hillary more that's great.
When another person likes Hillary because they actually know her but lack information on Sanders I hope they take the time to look him over.
It's the people though that say they like Sanders more but will vote for Hillary that I'm lashing out against. Maybe I shouldn't bother because these people have zero political willpower.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
gaf users probably are slightly above average in terms of political awareness and insight, but the amount of "sure i would vote for bernie but everyone else is dumb so they want be able to see past the socialism label" in this thread is kind of staggering.
most people aren't as stupid as you think, and most of us on this forum are probably still of about average intelligence.
most people aren't as stupid as you think, and most of us on this forum are probably still of about average intelligence.
But he's an Socialist, so he gets an pass on that. ^_^
Damerman
Member
I agree with this...
The only people using the word socialism as slander are tea partiers and republicans... And we already know how most feel about those two.
Jeevesmeister
Banned
Yeah, this, and he doesn't read like the typical ideal of what falls under the negative connotations with being a career politician. CNN polls have Hillary and Trump neck-and-neck, and Sanders surging 10 points in just a month. She's going to fade as time goes on, sad to say. If Biden doesn't step in there's certainly a path to victory for Sanders and the sheer, colossal difference between Sanders and Trump will make for a really interesting election, albeit with grave consequences that will almost guarantee a Sanders victory.
Sanders would need to find a way to eat away at Hillary's support from the African-american and Hispanic voting blocks if he wants to beat her. Right now he isn't doing that.
To Far Away Times
Member
I live in CA, so my vote's already decided. Might as well vote for Bernie anyway.
Fenderputty
Banned
Lol no. The older generation of dems are just as terrified. They didn't fall for the rhetoric with Obama because he's not a real socialist. However Bernie has claimed the term himself. There's no running from it
CA's an open primary. Go have fun on the GOP side!
Netherscourge
Banned
Don't worry:
Hillary still has 1 major weapon:
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/634075501615808512
Her faithfully devoted Hubby!
And a happy B-day to him too!
Hillary still has 1 major weapon:
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/634075501615808512
Her faithfully devoted Hubby!
And a happy B-day to him too!
You're right, Hillary's never run for President. She ran for First Lady.
Hillary Clinton has an advantage held by no other candidate in American history -- she has already been through, not just two presidential campaigns, but two actual presidential terms as a front-row participant with just as much vulnerability and just as many people targeting her as the big guy himself. If there's one thing you can say for sure, it's that nothing that happened before 2000 will have any relevance whatsoever to Hillary's campaign, because it's been picked clean. That's something you can't say about anybody else.
The GOP try a Party of Lincoln campaign every single time. It's never worked, because, well, people of color aren't stupid. (But on that topic, it's yet another place Bernie's actually more vulnerable than Hillary -- in case you didn't notice the people of color protesting him already.)
Sure, it'll be a talking point. For Hillary. You're right, this isn't Dinesh D'Souza. This is Hollywood. You know, Los Angeles? The city that gives Democrats a million net votes every four years? You know, the liberal media establishment? You don't think this movie will offer the Democratic perspective on Benghazi? If you think this movie is going to make Hillary look bad, you've radically misunderstood how American culture actually works. If anything, it'll make her look like an American hero. She might do a guest star appearance.
The point is that it's not the worst we've got. The point is that that took one reporter one week! And it's not even a conservative reporter, because Vox is a liberal mouthpiece! You don't think a full year of superPAC money, conservative bloggers and professional smear artists won't dig up much, much darker dangers?
That story was the definition of low-hanging fruit. But there's always a lot more fruit in the tree if you're willing to climb. The only presidential nominee without a scandal in modern politics was Barack Obama, and that's only because, as an African-American with a Punahou education, he knew exactly how to keep his hands on the dashboard at all times. (And even he had to disavow Reverend Wright in order to make it to the White House.)
The fact that you already know the campaigns the GOP will run against Hillary is her strength. The fact that nobody knows what people will run against Bernie is his glaring weakness.
Interfectum
Member
Don't worry:
Hillary still has 1 major weapon:
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/634075501615808512
Her faithfully devoted Hubby!
And a happy B-day to him too!
https://twitter.com/pmerc2041/status/634075998519173120
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
"I don't think Sanders can win the general" is actually a legitimate position that reflects someone voting in their best interest. As far as I can tell, the retorts to this that Sanders supporters typically rely on are basically just slogans about political willpower or change or revolution or whatever. None of those actually matter, nor is there any evidence to suggest Sanders can, in fact, actually win a general election while simultaneously keeping a promise to accept no money, because the source for the contrary proposition is every election ever.
Not to mention that having a ready-made retort about political willpower to use on someone who says "I don't think Sanders can win the general" isn't the same thing as having a deeper understanding of his actual policy aims.
Not to mention that having a ready-made retort about political willpower to use on someone who says "I don't think Sanders can win the general" isn't the same thing as having a deeper understanding of his actual policy aims.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked