Support NeoGAF

[eBay Huckster]

Yeah, and they've been doing so well with Snapchat jokes, "Yaasss" merch, and "tell us how student loan debt makes you feel in 3 emojis or less!" - are you kidding me?

I'm not sure what any of those has to do with the fact that Obama's campaign infrastructure is very much in place for her own campaign and many of the same people from said Obama campaigns are still in leadership positions.

Right, and that's done so much during the Republican war on women.

I mean, considering the "Republican war on women" only gained steam in a major way within the last 7 years (when she was already out of elected politics), I'm not sure what she was supposed to have done in an international-facing position.

Oh that's not even a response and you know it.

1) Neither are half of the bollocks you keep spewing in every post, but I haven't chosen to post about that yet.
2) What metric for popularity should we be using, then? Facebook likes? Twitter hashtag mentions?

She's not a mainstream Republican party Republican. But outside of that shitshow she skews very, very much to the Right. Sorry that's so hard to understand looking at her record and her policies.

Yeah, you'll have to pardon me not understanding how she "skews very much to the Right" when your entire basis presented thus far for this is positions held 20 years ago in the immediate aftermath of Saint Goddamn Reagan (on which she has since campaigned on reversing, in a political reality in which she will almost certainly stump for said position as President if not implement it) and support for military interventionism (which is not necessarily a right-wing position).

 

[HylianTom]

She's not a mainstream Republican party Republican. But outside of that shitshow she skews very, very much to the Right. Sorry that's so hard to understand looking at her record and her policies.

So.. how do you resolve this with her tenure as Senator resulting in so liberal a voting record?

"Hillary skews very, very much to the right" is right up there with "We can lobby SCOTUS!!!" in the Annals of Goofy-Ass Berniefolk Comments™.

 

[gogosox82]

I think we should all step back a minute and think about these claims flying around. Circle back to the base point.

Hillary is represented by the old guard, and corporations and won't change a thing in office unless it benefits them. And she will pander to any group who gets her the presidency. This is where the anti Hillary people are coming from.

Can you blame them based on Hillary's past record? Her record is not something one can twist, its out there, and how she is funding her campaign, as well as how she has actd in the past is not something debatable.

For pro Bernie supporters, he has had a consistent message for the entirety of his career and it resonates directly with the common person in regards to equal opportunity.

So besides making claims about who is 'more qualified' for the Presidency based on name recognition or money, we should be looking at the actual issues that we claim to support and who best represents those.

And in my opinion, Bernie is that person. So i don't see how anyone can actually argue that.

I think people base their on more than just political beliefs because of the way our system is set up. The way the system is set up right now is money= electability and Bernie refusal to take superpac money makes him unelectable to some and even if he did take the money, he can't raise as much as Hilary. So she is the more logical choice to some. I reject this kind thinking as it smacks of triangulation but I do understand the sentiment.

 

[Kickz]

Go Bernie, Hilary can have her chance after Bernie get his 8yrs.

Bernie vs Trump would be so amazing

 

[Rubenov]

Go Bernie, Hilary can have her chance after Bernie get his 8yrs.

Bernie vs Trump would be so amazing

Hillary won't try again. This is it for her.

 

[Fenderputty]

She's not a mainstream Republican party Republican. But outside of that shitshow she skews very, very much to the Right. Sorry that's so hard to understand looking at her record and her policies.

People have posted in this very thread where she's stood on issues over the years concerning her voting record and you're still gonna hammer this point as though it's relevant. It's not. You're entering joke territory.

She's too hawkish for my tastes as well, but I'm not clinging to one of her faults and pretending none of her positive voting records exist. Which is exactly what Bernie supporters and you are doing.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

 

[theignoramus]

It's part cold war, part cultural identity of working hard to achieve the "American Dream".

Who is the most socialist leaning president post Ww2 (on domestic issues)? Was it Kennedy?
Nixon had socialist domestic policies aimed at the environment and the (white) working class.
Clinton? Which post Ww2 administration did the American middle class benefit the most from?

 

[eBay Huckster]

Who is the most socialist leaning president post Ww2 (on domestic issues)? Was it Kennedy?

Ironically in the first two cases: likely one of Truman, Eisenhower or Johnson.

Which post Ww2 administration did the American middle class benefit the most from?

Depends on what the meaning of "benefit" is here.

(Though if I had to wager who they benefited "the most" from, it's probably Johnson on the sole basis of the programs he got passed.)

 

[Einhander]

I'm voting for Bernie.

 

[noshten]

So.. how do you resolve this with her tenure as Senator resulting in so liberal a voting record?

"Hillary skews very, very much to the right" is right up there with "We can lobby SCOTUS!!!" in the Annals of Goofy-Ass Berniefolk Comments™.

I'm sure a lot of Senators from New York push through many conservative policies - it's what their constituents want.

 

[HylianTom]

I'm sure a lot of Senators from New York push through many conservative policies - it's what their constituents want.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, we have to ignore her record as Senator.

Interesting. Also very convenient.

 

[eBay Huckster]

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, we have to ignore her record as Senator.

Interesting. Also very convenient.

You also have to ignore everything about why Hillarycare didn't get passed and the 1994 midterm election, because they're Inconvenient to the Narrative

 

[Walpurgis]

I heard that Sanders is not taking any money from big corporations and the like. Is that true? If so, how much does he have compared to the others?

 

[HylianTom]

You also have to ignore everything about why Hillarycare didn't get passed and the 1994 midterm election, because they're Inconvenient to the Narrative

I have the distinct feeling that if I were to provide, as John McLaughlin would say, metaphysically-certifiable proof of her left leanings, it magically wouldn't apply.. because reasons.

 

[noshten]

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, we have to ignore her record as Senator.

Interesting. Also very convenient.

Nope, all I'm saying is that her record is not surprising - it's the key issues where she shows her colors. I personally question whether her record being the same if her constituents were different, She is a pragmatist in that regard with the end goal getting electing or winning elections, the only major initiative she ever had she folded to carry on with any conviction as soon as she faced opposition. Her pragmatism is another thing she has in common with Romney.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

People have posted in this very thread where she's stood on issues over the years concerning her voting record and you're still gonna hammer this point as though it's relevant. It's not. You're entering joke territory.

She's too hawkish for my tastes as well, but I'm not clinging to one of her faults and pretending none of her positive voting records exist. Which is exactly what Bernie supporters and you are doing.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

This 538 post is hilarious because its literally reinforcing what I'm saying. Hell, the comments section is fantastic for ripping it apart.

When Clinton has shifted left, she has usually done so with her party

And her party has been forced to shift Right because the Republicans have dragged the narrative tooth and nail off the rails into cuckoo-land, where the Republican frontrunners want to repeal the Constitutionally protected right of birthright citizenship.

-Hillary backed gay marriage only when it was politically convenient. In 2013.

-Has been in support of every American military excursion since she's had a voice.

-Against legalizing pot.

-Clinton's record on criminal justice reform, well, nothing will overwrite her support of her husband in mass-incarceration policies.

This post doesn't make an actual argument that she's meaningfully Left in any way. And nobody's addressed the Jacobin article, I see.

I'm not sure what any of those has to do with the fact that Obama's campaign infrastructure is very much in place for her own campaign and many of the same people from said Obama campaigns are still in leadership positions.

And doing a miserable fucking job, it looks like, if Sanders can make a ten point gain in all of a month while Trump is behind her by single digits.

 

[inky]

I'd vote for Biden. Biden pls.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

I heard that Sanders is not taking any money from big corporations and the like. Is that true? If so, how much does he have compared to the others?

He wants to raise 40-50 million dollars through donations from a grass root movement, hoping that Americans will donate to his campaign.
Many in the thread are pointing out that it is futile when Candidates like Hilary and Trump have billions. They will run in circles around him and crucify him. So they say.



I never saw this video of him on the O'reiley factor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO4Ko-v-q0g

Bill grills him pretty good:/ Honestly I can see why Americans would want Hilary as a safe bet other than risking the GOP getting it. After all it is Americans who have to live in the country under a republican president.

 

[captainnapalm]

Or better yet, let's all just forget the fact Hillary rallied for America's involvement in Libya under faulty premises and bad info.

I wonder if any Hilary supporters will actually read that. Probably not, as it would be too damaging to their worldview.

That piece perfectly encapsulates the insanity of the current media-driven political discourse in America. All this coverage and focus on the Benghazi thing when what preceded it was the real political scandal - the bombing of Libya, set up and cheered on by Clinton and the Dems and sold unquestioningly to the masses by what passes for the liberal establishment media these days.

The effective destruction of yet another middle eastern country, built upon another foundation of lies. Pretending to be about promoting peace and democracy in the world when really you are quite happy to export death and destruction if it serves your own interests and those of your paymasters. Pretending to be about fighting terrorists when your actions only embolden them, and when you will happily support them if if furthers your agenda.

Clinton isn't just a bad choice for president. She's a monster. Completely self-serving and amoral. A pretty good example of the kind of frankly grotesque character it takes to be a career politician these days and prop up a system as deeply corrupt and broken as our current one. Admittedly, she is just one viper in a fairly large nest, but only someone woefully misinformed or deluded or sociopathic should be voting for her.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Oh, and to refute the "BLM more favorable than Sanders" talking point from earlier:

Wow, all of two whole percentage points. Margin of error means that's basically even. Sanders less unfavorable than BLM, to boot. Are you kidding me with this trash we're calling evidence based arguments?

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Who is the most socialist leaning president post Ww2 (on domestic issues)? Was it Kennedy?
Nixon had socialist domestic policies aimed at the environment and the (white) working class.
Clinton? Which post Ww2 administration did the American middle class benefit the most from?

I would say either Eisenhower (freeway system is hugely beneficial to the everyday person) or LBJ for obvious reasons.

 

[Rubenov]

HIllary is the poster child of politics as usual. Aside from a few core principles like women's rights, she'll go with whatever is politically popular at any given point, be it war or gay marriage. She's slightly more left than right overall.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I wonder if any Hilary supporters will actually read that. Probably not, as it would be too damaging to their worldview.

That piece perfectly encapsulates the insanity of the current media-driven political discourse in America. All this coverage and focus on the Benghazi thing when what preceded it was the real political scandal - the bombing of Libya, set up and cheered on by Clinton and the Dems and sold unquestioningly to the masses by what passes for the liberal establishment media these days.

The effective destruction of yet another middle eastern country, built upon another foundation of lies. Pretending to be about promoting peace and democracy in the world when really you are quite happy to export death and destruction if it serves your own interests and those of your paymasters. Pretending to be about fighting terrorists when your actions only embolden them, and when you will happily support them if if furthers your agenda.

Clinton isn't just a bad choice for president. She's a monster. Completely self-serving and amoral. A pretty good example of the kind of frankly grotesque character it takes to be a career politician these days and prop up a system as deeply corrupt and broken as our current one. Admittedly, she is just one viper in a fairly large nest, but only someone woefully misinformed or deluded or sociopathic should be voting for her.

 

[pigeon]

And your argument is that you can hack together some statistics to loosely back up a worldview that pretends the Democratic party hasn't been fucking up time and time again without a crutch like Obama to carry them.

Well, yeah. See, I'm not a true believer, so I have to rely on things like statistics and research and practical understanding of how the world works, like that if the Democratic Party were really consistently failing to understand how to win elections it would've been replaced by now.

I just stated how Hillary's college plan has its roots in No Child Left Behind, making federal funding reliant on what are still unknown metrics that will gut faculty independence, and the oversight necessary for this will create demand for even more technocratic admin roles which are already driving up college costs through the roof. Ransoming independence for money colleges have been starved of is somehow a progressive policy in 2015? Get the hell out of here.

It's not exactly surprising to me that Hillary's college plan is rooted in NCLB, for the same reason that all of Obama's education reform work has been rooted in NCLB -- it's an act that gives a lot of otherwise legislative power to the federal government, which means that the President can use it to control educational policy even when Congress isn't cooperative. Is federal regulation of education through the executive branch intrinsically conservative?

Once again, you seem to have no substantive critiques of it. It's going to make federal funding reliant on metrics? Good, that's how we control state-funded institutions at a federal level. How else were you going to do it? It's going to remove faculty independence? Yeah, faculty independence to do things we don't want them to do. That is literally the definition of a regulation, something that removes independence. (You're welcome, benji.) It's going to create new technocratic administrative roles? I mean, probably. When you create new regulations you need people to administer them. Is that what's driving college costs through the roof? Almost certainly not.

All of your critiques are critiques that would apply to any actually implemented educational reform system. I guess if your starting position is that everything colleges do is perfect from the beginning, then I guess you would want a reform where we just give colleges a lot more money. Sure! I think that that's the teacher's union position. But I don't see what makes it intrinsically more progressive than assuming that there are things colleges could do better and encouraging them to actually do those things better. With, you know, federal funding.

Nobody is disputing the fact Hillary is a Republican in sheep's clothing, she just isn't running in the batshit ratrace the modern Republican party has become so that somehow makes it different. It's half of why the Left is far from rallying behind her.

Yes they are! Everybody is disputing that, because it's nonsense! You're doing that thing where you just keep repeating how obvious your talking points are in the hopes that it will convince people. You have to provide evidence. That's how this stuff works.

 

[dramatis]

I heard that Sanders is not taking any money from big corporations and the like. Is that true? If so, how much does he have compared to the others?

Bernie has about $15 million, probably some more (number was reported a while ago).

In comparison, Hillary has $45 million. Both numbers are official campaign money, so they don't include PAC or SuperPAC money.

The leader in the fundraising race, if you include SuperPAC money, is actually Jeb Bush. His official campaign raised $11 million. His SuperPAC raised $100+ million. (In comparison, Hillary's SuperPAC raised about $25 million?)

Of course, this was all reported before Trump became a thing.

Oh, and to refute the "BLM more favorable than Sanders" talking point from earlier:

Wow, all of two whole percentage points. Margin of error means that's basically even. Sanders less unfavorable than BLM, to boot. Are you kidding me with this trash we're calling evidence based arguments?

Lol then wow Hillary is 18 points ahead of Bernie. Plenty more likely to win than Bernie.

 

[Fenderputty]

This 538 post is hilarious because its literally reinforcing what I'm saying. Hell, the comments section is fantastic for ripping it apart.



And her party has been forced to shift Right because the Republicans have dragged the narrative tooth and nail off the rails into cuckoo-land, where the Republican frontrunners want to repeal the Constitutionally protected right of birthright citizenship.

-Hillary backed gay marriage only when it was politically convenient. In 2013.

-Has been in support of every American military excursion since she's had a voice.

-Against legalizing pot.

-Clinton's record on criminal justice reform, well, nothing will overwrite her support of her husband in mass-incarceration policies.

This post doesn't make an actual argument that she's meaningfully Left in any way. And nobody's addressed the Jacobin article, I see.

.

It's hilarious you think a career politician won't change their views over time. Especially on issues like gay marriage. Then you hold that against them. We as constituents want our politicians to enact the policies that we desire. As the opinions constituents hold change, so will the party and the politicians they've elected. If they didn't enact policy we want, then they would no longer have a job. Both her and her husband have come out and said their tough on crime stances were wrong as well. Bill has even come out against the war on drugs in general.

 

[HylianTom]

I wonder if any Hilary supporters will actually read that. Probably not, as it would be too damaging to their worldview.

That piece perfectly encapsulates the insanity of the current media-driven political discourse in America. All this coverage and focus on the Benghazi thing when what preceded it was the real political scandal - the bombing of Libya, set up and cheered on by Clinton and the Dems and sold unquestioningly to the masses by what passes for the liberal establishment media these days.

The effective destruction of yet another middle eastern country, built upon another foundation of lies. Pretending to be about promoting peace and democracy in the world when really you are quite happy to export death and destruction if it serves your own interests and those of your paymasters. Pretending to be about fighting terrorists when your actions only embolden them, and when you will happily support them if if furthers your agenda.

Clinton isn't just a bad choice for president. She's a monster. Completely self-serving and amoral. A pretty good example of the kind of frankly grotesque character it takes to be a career politician these days and prop up a system as deeply corrupt and broken as our current one. Admittedly, she is just one viper in a fairly large nest, but only someone woefully misinformed or deluded or sociopathic should be voting for her.

If she's so very obviously an evil, no-good, everything-that's-bad-with-politics monster, then Bernie should have nooooo problem whatsoever beating her. This should be a slam dunk for him.. or for any other competent, viable candidate.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

It's hilarious you think a career politician won't change their views over time. Especially on issues like gay marriage. Then you hold that against them. We as constituents want our politicians to enact the policies that we desire. As the opinions constituents hold change, so will the party and the politicians they've elected. If they didn't enact policy we want, then they would no longer have a job. Both her and her husband have come out and said their tough on crime stances were wrong as well. Bill has even come out against the war on drugs in general.

Oh, that's what we really want. A politician that fucks up time and time again but its okay because they apologize later long after the damage is done and its politically convenient. Again, finally came around on gay marriage, in fucking 2013. Are you kidding me?

 

[pigeon]

Oh, and to refute the "BLM more favorable than Sanders" talking point from earlier:

Wow, all of two whole percentage points. Margin of error means that's basically even. Sanders less unfavorable than BLM, to boot. Are you kidding me with this trash we're calling evidence based arguments?

You're freaking out, man.

You're the one who made the claim that BLM was a weak and irrelevant movement and that it was discredited by the Sanders protests. I'm just pointing out that the polls don't show that at all -- in fact, BLM is more popular than before, and very well-regarded. Any loss in face it had was purely among members of r/SfP. If your defense is "it's not polling better than Sanders, it's polling even with Sanders," well, I mean, I think that speaks for itself regarding how irrelevant BLM really is.

 

[eBay Huckster]

And doing a miserable fucking job, it looks like, if Sanders can make a ten point gain in all of a month while Trump is behind her by single digits.

Yeah, it "looks like it" because you're more or less solely looking at polling toplines, in a primary process that literally hasn't started in any meaningful capacity, with one active campaigner, when literally nothing is going on publicly on the Democratic side of the campaign except for platform dumps.

Who has the stronger GOTV operation? Who has better canvassing? Who has better engagement outside of the 18-25 demo that never fucking votes to begin with? We don't know for sure, but an educated guess would probably tell us it's the campaign with the SITTING TWO-TERM PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN CHAIR on it.

And of course Trump is behind her by single digits: literally anyone in the Republican Party is only going to be trailing by single digits unless they're an actual nobody polling at 0%, let alone the actual party frontrunner. You've thus far failed to explain why the fuck anyone should care about this.

Your meaningful policy disagreements, beyond "she's a pragmatist", boil down to she doesn't want to legalize weed and she was approximately as slow as the entire Democratic Party to support certain social reforms.

Again, how does this make her a dyed in the wool Republican?

 

[noshten]

It's hilarious you think a career politician won't change their views over time. Especially on issues like gay marriage. Then you hold that against them. We as constituents want our politicians to enact the policies that we desire. As the opinions constituents hold change, so will the party and the politicians they've elected. If they didn't enact policy we want, then they would no longer have a job. Both her and her husband have come out and said their tough on crime stances were wrong as well. Bill has even come out against the war on drugs in general.

You've figured out that a lot of people want career politicians to be out of a job.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Yeah, it "looks like it" because you're more or less solely looking at polling toplines, in a primary process that literally hasn't started in any meaningful capacity, with one active campaigner, when literally nothing is going on publicly on the Democratic side of the campaign except for platform dumps.

And my argument also rests on the laurels that its too early to call.

Who has the stronger GOTV operation? Who has better canvassing? Who has better engagement outside of the 18-25 demo that never fucking votes to begin with? We don't know for sure, but an educated guess would probably tell us it's the campaign with the SITTING TWO-TERM PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN CHAIR on it.

Except everyone said Obama was a once in a lifetime candidate ad-nauseum in this very thread. That campaign came out swinging and the senior people in charge have almost all left for successful careers in the private sector.

And of course Donald "We have stupid people" Trump is behind her by single digits: literally anyone in the Republican Party is only going to be trailing by single digits unless they're an actual nobody polling at 0%, let alone the actual party frontrunner. You've thus far failed to explain why the fuck anyone should care about this.

Because everyone assumed Trump was not at all even worth the time of day and now everyone's in agreement he's a competitor to be fretting about it.

Again, how does this make her a dyed in the wool Republican?

You know just how fucking many dead civilians there are in the Middle East because of the last Republican President, who at one point started an illegal war in Iraq that Hillary was all in favor of? One of Obama's major gains was the fact he was against it from the get-go, and so was Sanders. The entire Democratic establishment has been dragged too far to the Right to truly serve a meaningful leftist agenda anymore. That's what you need to get through your head here, and Hillary is the figurehead of that.

 

[pigeon]

You've figured out that a lot of people want career politicians to be out of a job.

Yeah. It's the occupational hazard of being a politician -- people don't understand what you do.

There aren't a lot of easy solutions floating around for the problems a country faces. If there were easy solutions, we would already have done them. Almost all of the issues that actually need to be addressed have multiple interlocking aspects and any choice you make is going to involve tradeoffs and some groups making sacrifices so that the country as a whole can benefit. That's why we elect politicians -- to negotiate with each other and with interest groups to identify the tradeoffs and the sacrifices we need to make to actually make progress and get problems solved.

Unfortunately, that's not the general understanding of why we elect politicians. Lots of people have a tendency to think that there ARE easy solutions and that politicians should just do them. It's not their fault -- they probably have relatively deep fields of knowledge on some subjects, like on whatever they do for a living. But people don't, generally, have a deep understanding of how to govern a country. (Which is why career politicians are so important to have -- they have the chance to develop that deep understanding.)

So if you thought that the problems facing America were easy, and you kept electing politicians to go fix them, but they didn't get fixed, why wouldn't you want to hate them and get rid of them? It doesn't mean you'd be right to do so -- in fact, it'd be a terrible idea, as you'd lose tons of institutional knowledge on how to actually negotiate the country's problems. But from your perspective it would certainly seem reasonable.

 

[Fenderputty]

You've figured out that a lot of people want career politicians to be out of a job.

So then why do you guys support Bernie?

 

[Miracle]

In the Most Popular videos category, this video appeared.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=T2OJwsit0WY

I have no idea how much this will affect her negatively, but I can't imagine this is a good look for her no?

 

[eBay Huckster]

And my argument also rests on the laurels that its too early to call.

Except, no, your argument rests on the laurels that somehow Hillary Clinton's campaign is guaranteed to collapse when this scandal hits, just like she became unelectable after XYZ scandals in her last 23 years in federal politics, and therefore we shouldn't take that chance.

Except everyone said Obama was a once in a lifetime candidate ad-nauseum in this very thread. That campaign came out swinging and the senior people in charge have almost all left for successful careers in the private sector.

Obama was a once-in-a-lifetime candidate in the context that he managed to barely beat Hillary Clinton in spite of losing the Democratic primary popular vote by 1% and, at best, tying in every debate they faced off in.

He is not "once in a lifetime" in the context that his campaign infrastructure will never be effective in a presidential election again, given that it comfortably re-elected him in 2012 after losing some of its effectiveness - and, again, "the" senior person in charge is now running Hillary's SuperPAC.

Because everyone assumed Trump was not at all even worth the time of day and now everyone's in agreement he's a competitor to be fretting about it.

Setting aside my personal distaste with people continuing to count out a self-funded billionaire who has literally done nothing but throw red meat to a majority of the GOP's base, you seem to consistently have trouble with the concept that views change over time. Trump was always going to become competitive as his numbers among GOP voters improved - he wasn't worth the time of day when every matchup had a ton of that base undecided, and he's a competitor now that he's swinging 30% as first choice in a 17-candidate clown car.

("Competitor" being very loosely used here, on account of it's still a 6-percentage-point loss at best.)

You know just how fucking many dead civilians there are in the Middle East because of the last Republican President, who at one point started an illegal war in Iraq that Hillary was all in favor of? One of Obama's major gains was the fact he was against it from the get-go, and so was Sanders. The entire Democratic establishment has been dragged too far to the Right to truly serve a meaningful leftist agenda anymore. That's what you need to get through your head here, and Hillary is the figurehead of that.

Do you know what the words "domestic policy" mean? Because hawkish policy in the Middle East, distasteful and morally abhorrent as it is, does not singlehandedly make you a Republican.

 

[lednerg]

In the Most Popular videos category, this video appeared.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=T2OJwsit0WY

I have no idea how much this will affect her negatively, but I can't imagine this is a good look for her no?

The only people who care about that weren't ever going to vote for her in the first place.

 

[noshten]

So then why do you guys support Bernie?

If you can't figure that out by now I've no idea what the point is to explain it

 

[DarkFlow]

If you can't figure that out by now I've no idea what the point is to explain it

I doubt it's solely because he's white.

 

[captainnapalm]

If she's so very obviously an evil, no-good, everything-that's-bad-with-politics monster, then Bernie should have nooooo problem whatsoever beating her. This should be a slam dunk for him.. or for any other competent, viable candidate.

Sadly not. The media is pretty good at hiding these essential truths from the people. It's all political theater and choreographed elections, and corporate money and advertising makes the whole thing go round.

And then there is the other aspect of it where most Americans are focused on domestic issues and simply do not want to face the reality of what continues to be done abroad in their name. And the media is happy to cater to this need.

Nevertheless, a new consciousness is slowly starting to emerge, more and more people are seeing through the lies perpetuated by people like Hillary Clinton, which is why a fairly uncharismatic guy like Sanders is able to gain some traction. Not enough, but some.

 

[Fenderputty]

I doubt it's solely because he's white.

I don't like career politicians, unless their name is Bernie Sanders.

 

[DarkFlow]

I don't like career politicians, unless their name is Bernie Sanders.

Only a 25 year vet could have such fresh ideas.

 

[Walpurgis]

Bernie has about $15 million, probably some more (number was reported a while ago).

In comparison, Hillary has $45 million. Both numbers are official campaign money, so they don't include PAC or SuperPAC money.

The leader in the fundraising race, if you include SuperPAC money, is actually Jeb Bush. His official campaign raised $11 million. His SuperPAC raised $100+ million. (In comparison, Hillary's SuperPAC raised about $25 million?)

Of course, this was all reported before Trump became a thing.

I've heard of PACs/SuperPACs on The Good Wife. What are they, exactly?

 

[eBay Huckster]

I don't like career politicians, unless their name is Bernie Sanders.

Only a 25 year vet could have such fresh ideas.

Don't forget "the only foreign policy issues that matter are the ones I can shit on Clinton about - pay no mind to Bernie's baby-like approach to free trade (and its impact on his immigration record)"

 

[DarkFlow]

I've heard of PACs/SuperPACs on The Good Wife. What are they, exactly?

A work around for someone to spend unlimited money on their campaign.

 

[noshten]

I doubt it's solely because he's white.

Might be what does it for you, if that's all you can see. Career politician could much as easily be changed to corporate arse licker if it will make it easier. Because right now all career politicians are precisely that. As soon as someone threatens big business, wall street or the military industrial complex there is pressure applied to just the right bought votes to ensure someone down the chain is getting f-ed. Out of all the politicians that have exited politics the ones I trust aren't the ones sitting in corporate headquarters. Those are the people that stood by their principles and their votes weren't bought. They are the only part not rotten in the whole system.

The fact that politicians end up in board rooms, just proves the system is badly designed. If you are holding public office you and your entire family should be barred from doing any business 5-10 years after you've retired, the IRS should be tracking every bit of income coming in. That's the only way to clear out corruption out of the current system. As far as I'm concerned if you want to hold public office you should only have one thing in mind - helping the majority of people who got you elected. If you don't want to take part due to these draconian rules than by all means stay out of politics.

 

[DarkFlow]

Might be what does it for you, if that's all you can see. Career politician could much as easily be changed to corporate arse licker if it will make it easier. Because right now all career politicians are precisely that. As soon as someone threatens big business, wall street or the military industrial complex there is pressure applied to just the right bought votes to ensure someone down the chain is getting f-ed. Out of all the politicians that have exited politics the ones I trust aren't the ones sitting in corporate headquarters. Those are the people that stood by their principles and their votes weren't bought. They are the only part not rotten in the whole system.

The fact that politicians end up in board rooms, just proves the system is badly designed. If you are holding public office you and your entire family should be barred from doing any business 5-10 years after you've retired, the IRS should be tracking every bit of income coming in. That's the only way to clear out corruption out of the current system. As far as I'm concerned if you want to hold public office you should only have one thing in mind - helping the majority of people who got you elected. If you don't want to take part due to these draconian rules than by all means stay out of politics.

I'm not a bernie supporter, At all. Like not even a tiny amount.

 

[pigeon]

Might be what does it for you, if that's all you can see. Career politician could much as easily be changed to corporate arse licker if it will make it easier. Because right now all career politicians are precisely that. As soon as someone threatens big business, wall street or the military industrial complex there is pressure applied to just the right bought votes to ensure someone down the chain is getting f-ed. Out of all the politicians that have exited politics the ones I trust aren't the ones sitting in corporate headquarters. Those are the people that stood by their principles and their votes weren't bought. They are the only part not rotten in the whole system.

The fact that politicians end up in board rooms, just proves the system is badly designed. If you are holding public office you and your entire family should be barred from doing any business 5-10 years after you've retired, the IRS should be tracking every bit of income coming in. That's the only way to clear out corruption out of the current system. As far as I'm concerned if you want to hold public office you should only have one thing in mind - helping the majority of people who got you elected. If you don't want to take part due to these draconian rules than by all means stay out of politics.

Sounds good! What could be better for American democracy than ensuring that only independently wealthy people can afford to run for office?

 

[gogosox82]

I'm not a bernie supporter, At all. Like not even a tiny amount.

We can tell.

 

[DarkFlow]

We can tell.

Is that a bad thing? Am I out of the club now? Also, who is "we"?