Hillary Clinton's lead a puddle in the Sanders Sahara #deadheat #feelthebern

Status
Not open for further replies.

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Granted, I have bigger issues with Hillary, such as her oligarchical ties to big banks and potentially her stance on the unfathomably awful TPP, and those are big enough that I would feel shame in supporting her in any sincere way. She can literally be on point with Sanders on every other issue, but those are so big and so toxic all I see is a big red flag.

The worst thing with Hillary is that you say those two issues are big enough to doom her even if she agreed with Bernie on everything else. But from where i'm standing, she really doesn't.

Almost everything Bernie has been for his entire career, she was against at some point in time, and is just now coming back this year to pretend that she actually cares about some of those issues to pander to the Liberal voting bloc while getting huge payouts on the other side.

Its not even a contest who is slimy in this situation, i would not touch Hillary with a 10 foot pole. People don't have to argue this point, we have her votes, her political and civilian history and her stated stances on record.
 

Foffy

Banned
You realize we won't have single payer anytime soon, even if Sanders becomes president right? I agree Obama didn't fight enough for it but the fact remains that single payer wasn't going to pass with blue dog democrats and Joe Lieberman involved in congress. The bill is compromised because that's what it took to pass. Which is something that Sanders (and Ron Paul) fanboys don't seem to understand. If you want to change that you need to change Washington, sweeping out bad representatives and senators is essential. It's not hard to do that to the opposing party (see: 2008 when Obama stirred a wave election), but how do you sweep out the worst of your own party? That's harder.

Ultimately the ACA is a pretty obvious trojan horse for single payer in the future; the framework is in place (expanded/improved Medicaid or Medicare for all) to get it done. The law is far from perfect but to outright dismiss it is stupid. This isn't a fantasy: I'll take the ACA over nothing, which is what we would have gotten with an all or nothing approach.

Sanders is a fringe candidate who would hurt the democrat ticket nationwide. He is not Obama, who managed to get a ton of democrats elected. Nor is he Hillary who should also be able to increase turnout.

To make it clear, I do not think electing Hillary nor Sanders is enough here, and I have said so earlier: one person does not produce change, and we can look at Barack Obama for this. We need an upheaval of the scar tissue in office today to get any sincere efforts going forward, for we're truly held down by being led by the least among us. I am also not saying I would prefer the ACA over nothing, but let's be honest: the only good thing about it is it's better than what we had previous. By itself, however, it is atrocious. Let us not simply look at the past to relish in what we have, but acknowledge our improvements are only less worse than what was there prior, which are yet to be good of themselves. Settling here means what we have now is acceptable, and on all levels of reason it is not. It's an affront because we have so many shady people in the way of sincere efforts on every avenue here, some more toxic than others. And again, I do not believe electing Bernie nor Hillary is enough for the changes we need to do before we can even claim we live in a healthy, reasonable society. We need the American people to care about these issues too, and the only one championing that movement in a notable way is Sanders. Hillary's efforts seem dry and vapid by comparison with the way she is producing her campaign.

My big three concerns are dealing with climate change, universal health care, and an assured income. I legitimately believe I will be dead before any of these are manufactured in a way that is considered even remotely acceptable and accountable to reason. We will see these cause ruin, suffering, and death long before we really scope something to match the world as it naturally is against the affronts we evocate and confuse the world to actually be.
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
You realize we won't have single payer anytime soon, even if Sanders becomes president right? I agree Obama didn't fight enough for it but the fact remains that single payer wasn't going to pass with blue dog democrats and Joe Lieberman involved in congress. The bill is compromised because that's what it took to pass. Which is something that Sanders (and Ron Paul) fanboys don't seem to understand. If you want to change that you need to change Washington, sweeping out bad representatives and senators is essential. It's not hard to do that to the opposing party (see: 2008 when Obama stirred a wave election), but how do you sweep out the worst of your own party? That's harder.

Ultimately the ACA is a pretty obvious trojan horse for single payer in the future; the framework is in place (expanded/improved Medicaid or Medicare for all) to get it done. The law is far from perfect but to outright dismiss it is stupid. This isn't a fantasy: I'll take the ACA over nothing, which is what we would have gotten with an all or nothing approach.

Sanders is a fringe candidate who would hurt the democrat ticket nationwide. He is not Obama, who managed to get a ton of democrats elected. Nor is he Hillary who should also be able to increase turnout.

Just so you know, ACA means nothing if its still fundamentally increasing the money pool of the corps who are still paying those politicians, while citizens have no other recourse but to use them for their health care. The last thing they would want to do is hurt their own bottom line with a public insurance option or single payer. That's why nothing happened. Why nothing will happen, as long as this continues.

Stop acting like this(in regards to every issue just about) is some policy dispute across party lines, democrat versus republican, as if democrats can't be bought and paid for just as easy to cower behind the money. This is about corruption and has been for a very long time.

If we want change in any direction whether it takes years or decades, we need bold elected officials, and Clinton is not only not bold, she is not willing to even start the conversation about ending the status quo because she is directly apart of that corrupt system, fully entrenched into it.

Nobody who stumps for Bernie is looking at him as the savior, as if he would somehow end world hunger in a night or even during his Presidency. But he's the only damn person on the ballot for President that even gives a crap about these issues to begin with, and so he inevitably gets support.
 

twinturbo2

butthurt Heat fan
If I had to choose between Hillary and Deez Nutz... I'd go with Deez Nutz if I knew his positions and if he went through with Hugh Jass as his running mate.
 

kirblar

Member
Walmart is making less money because they make less money when people pay for insured prescriptions.

Insurance companies are not the issue -other countries have setups similar to Obamacare with multiple private insurers competng. The endgame is severing the link be tween employment and coverage, not having only single payer which is simply not feasible in this country.
 

dramatis

Member
So, Hillary's position on mass incarceration in the 90s is constantly dragged out to show how harmful she has been for black people, but her position on healthcare in the 90s is "I don't know what her plan is".

Right.
 

Foffy

Banned
So, Hillary's position on mass incarceration in the 90s is constantly dragged out to show how harmful she has been for black people, but her position on healthcare in the 90s is "I don't know what her plan is".

Right.

I knew what her plan was then, queen. I even brought it up before.

We're not in the 1990's, and I'm not one to bury her under the idea her views can change, as some have here. What is her plan at present? Is it still the proposal of the 90's which included the monied interests at the table? Has she talked about it? The closest I have seen her wish to expand the ACA but reject single-payer, and she could have changed her mind.

Or at least, I hope she did. Because her idea really addresses fuck and all.
 
To make it clear, I do not think electing Hillary nor Sanders is enough here, and I have said so earlier: one person does not produce change, and we can look at Barack Obama for this. We need an upheaval of the scar tissue in office today to get any sincere efforts going forward, for we're truly held down by being led by the least among us. I am also not saying I would prefer the ACA over nothing, but let's be honest: the only good thing about it is it's better than what we had previous. By itself, however, it is atrocious. Let us not simply look at the past to relish in what we have, but acknowledge our improvements are only less worse than what was there prior, which are yet to be good of themselves. Settling here means what we have now is acceptable, and on all levels of reason it is not. It's an affront because we have so many shady people in the way of sincere efforts on every avenue here, some more toxic than others. And again, I do not believe electing Bernie nor Hillary is enough for the changes we need to do before we can even claim we live in a healthy, reasonable society. We need the American people to care about these issues too, and the only one championing that movement in a notable way is Sanders. Hillary's efforts seem dry and vapid by comparison with the way she is producing her campaign.

My big three concerns are dealing with climate change, universal health care, and an assured income. I legitimately believe I will be dead before any of these are manufactured in a way that is considered even remotely acceptable and accountable to reason. We will see these cause ruin, suffering, and death long before we really scope something to match the world as it naturally is against the affronts we evocate and confuse the world to actually be.

No one has even argued for settling. Nearly every single major program created in the US through legislation has been changed multiple times since its inception. Social Security today is nothing like the Social Security of the 1940s. It is significantly more expansive and better now. The same could be said of Medicare. The ACA will be no different. Congress will either improve it or make it worse over the next few decades. I tend to believe it will be improved. Any future advancement in healthcare in America will be an extension of the ACA; that's simply the reality of the situation.
 
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.

No, it's not. Benghazi was never an issue for her, it never penetrated into the moderate base, as evident to her ratings before entering the race.

The only people you hear Benghazi from are republicans or fanatic Bernie supporters.


ACA has pretty much always been viewed to many as a step to single payer. The politics of the US would never allow for an instant jump to the MARXIST COMMUNIST single payer.
 

Amory

Member
If the Dems give the nomination to Bernie over Hillary, I think Trump actually could become president
 

Foffy

Banned
ACA has pretty much always been viewed to many as a step to single payer. The politics of the US would never allow for an instant jump to the MARXIST COMMUNIST single payer.

This much I get. The question of course is: where do we go from here? While Sanders actually voted for the ACA, his endgame is a single payer model. It seems Hillary used to be for single payer, and is now just wanting to expand the ACA. These are really two totally different methods with their own headaches to get through.

While Sanders may not get his way as he may be the lone gun is wanting to chase that prize now, Hillary's intentions - as far as I am able to grasp as I have not found anything about her ideas through her campaign, so if anyone can give me something current, please do - is just an extension of a status quo model that ultimately has failed to address all of the major issues this system has. It would still fail to be anything decent.
 
Just so you know, ACA means nothing if its still fundamentally increasing the money pool of the corps who are still paying those politicians, while citizens have no other recourse but to use them for their health care. The last thing they would want to do is hurt their own bottom line with a public insurance option or single payer. That's why nothing happened. Why nothing will happen, as long as this continues.

Stop acting like this(in regards to every issue just about) is some policy dispute across party lines, democrat versus republican, as if democrats can't be bought and paid for just as easy to cower behind the money. This is about corruption and has been for a very long time.

If we want change in any direction whether it takes years or decades, we need bold elected officials, and Clinton is not only not bold, she is not willing to even start the conversation about ending the status quo because she is directly apart of that corrupt system, fully entrenched into it.

Nobody who stumps for Bernie is looking at him as the savior, as if he would somehow end world hunger in a night or even during his Presidency. But he's the only damn person on the ballot for President that even gives a crap about these issues to begin with, and so he inevitably gets support.

This isn't a response. It's rhetoric in place of reality.

"Obama got us the shitty ACA because he's weak and sold out / didn't try hard enough"

"He could of tried harder but it likely wouldn't have mattered because joe Lieberman and the rest of the blue dog dems needed to be on board"

"WE NEED BOLD POLITICIANS, BOO CLINTON YEA BERNIE"

I mean, wtf. Bernie stans ....

This much I get. The question of course is: where do we go from here? While Sanders actually voted for the ACA, his endgame is a single payer model. It seems Hillary used to be for single payer, and is now just wanting to expand the ACA. These are really two totally different methods with their own headaches to get through.

While Sanders may not get his way as he may be the lone gun is wanting to chase that prize now, Hillary's intentions - as far as I am able to grasp as I have not found anything about her ideas through her campaign, so if anyone can give me something current, please do - is just an extension of a status quo model that ultimately has failed to address all of the major issues this system has. It would still fail to be anything decent.

Status quo is all were gonna have form a while. Congress will see to that. If Bernie stans snub their nose on Election Day we may just get a repeal and back to square one.
 

megalowho

Member
It's not just me I think but Hillary is just not campaigning. She is hardly out there like sanders is she seems to be playing the waiting game. She hasn't even repeatedly attacked her opponents. Either a giant hornets nest is about to open and her campaign is going to come out guns blazing or they are confident enough to start late as she had only 1 realistic competitor who they are studying up on
This was also how her campaign felt in the leadup to 2008, and it backfired. Voters don't like inevitability, I know I don't. I place a lot of blame on her hyper protective inner circle for the "don't rock the boat" style of campaigning, and I don't see her as a particularly savvy or inspiring candidate either despite having the credentials for the job.

This private email server thing isn't going away either, and while it may not be the smoking gun republicans crave it was a stupid decision for a potential presidential candidate. She placed convenience, privacy and a personalized domain over security. And now the defiant and smug manner in which she's combating it has lowered my opinion of her crisis management ability. It's a criminal FBI investigation, take it seriously and show some contrition.

On the other hand, I don't believe Bernie is electable on the national stage and could easily hurt the democratic ticket in key races if he's the nominee. Personally hoping Biden runs, he will peel voters from both candidates if he does and instantly become a contender.
 

Ihyll

Junior Member
Fringe candidates never win when it comes to national elections. That's why Trump won't win nor will Sanders. I don't really know why Sander supporters think he even has a shot?

Past presidential elections have shown us that Republicans can count on around 60-61 million votes no matter what. On the other hand Democrats swing wildly from Kerry's 59 million to Obama's 66-69 million. Nominating a fringe candidate like Sanders could possibly result in a 30+ year mistake since the next president will most likely appoint several Supreme Court justices.
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
I keep asking the question but get no answer: Why is Bernie Sanders considered a fringe candidate, when a majority of the things he supports at a policy level are largely supported across party lines?

It feels like a narrative by people who want that to be the case. Like if they keep saying his ideas are too out there and crazy for America, then it will become true, even if it isn't anywhere near the case.

So again, what exactly is it about him that people think is unelectable besides "he's a socialist so scary!"
 
Calling Sanders "fringe" is a favorite tactic of Hillary supporters, who want to push the narrative that Hillary's nomination is inevitable and people should just get in line and accept it
It's also a tactic to try and get liberal-leaning people to look past Hillary's questionable record by hand-waving it as "political realism"
 

jtb

Banned
Bernie sanders is a "fringe" candidate because he exists on the extreme end on the liberal spectrum of American politics. Do the words "fringe" and "extreme" carry negative connotations? Probably. But that doesn't mean that they aren't objectively accurate terms when describing Bernie Sanders.

Isn't the whole problem Bernie supporters have with Hillary is that she's just a Republican in liberal's clothing (along with every Democrat who isn't Sanders, with the posible exception of Warren)? Well, if Bernie is to the left of all these democratically elected politicians.. then he's probably a fringe candidate.
 
It's a criminal FBI investigation, take it seriously and show some contrition.

This hasn't been confirmed by the FBI. This actually highlights another problem in the sense that the facts of the situation are not remotely clear and a lot of people are running with speculation or dubious reporting as fact.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Calling Sanders "fringe" is a favorite tactic of Hillary supporters, who want to push the narrative that Hillary's nomination is inevitable and people should just get in line and accept it

How do we define "fringe"? I mean, if we compare actual endorsements of elected officials within the Democratic party, he certainly seems to be "fringe".

In fact, both O'Malley and Biden have more endorsements from current elected officials than Sanders does. Vermont's own governor endorsed Clinton over Bernie.

If we define "fringe" by his ideals, well then yeah, that's a different conversation.
 

OuterLimits

Member
I didn't realize until recently that Sanders sang(kind of) some folk songs in 1987? Haha. Good stuff. He should play them on the campaign trail , especially This Land is Your Land.

If Hillary wasn't having the email scandal, I wonder how well Bernie would be doing? While many like Bernie, you have to think some of the support is because he is the only decent alternative in the Democrat contest.

I actually like Jim Webb. Granted, he has probably 12 people supporting him right now. Only Democrat I would vote for in general.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
Calling Sanders "fringe" is a favorite tactic of Hillary supporters, who want to push the narrative that Hillary's nomination is inevitable and people should just get in line and accept it
It's also a tactic to try and get liberal-leaning people to look past Hillary's questionable record by hand-waving it as "political realism"

Sanders stans sure do like to attack people's motives. For a guy running such an honorable campaign his supporters really enjoy throwing mud.
 
I keep asking the question but get no answer: Why is Bernie Sanders considered a fringe candidate, when a majority of the things he supports at a policy level are largely supported across party lines?

It feels like a narrative by people who want that to be the case. Like if they keep saying his ideas are too out there and crazy for America, then it will become true, even if it isn't anywhere near the case.

So again, what exactly is it about him that people think is unelectable besides "he's a socialist so scary!"

He's a self identified socialist. It's all in a name. Similar to Obamacare. People like the ACA when broken down into bullet points as well. People are idiots.
 

Foffy

Banned
I don't even care for single payer if we can get a well thought out public option.

With who we have in office? You're better off finding gold in your colon.

You'd have to not simply deal with the Republican party who would be against it in principle, but the many, many money-laden interests who want this current cash cow to get more exploitive, not more reasonable.

Money in politics kind of kills any sincere effort for the American people, which is why many of our issues today will probably be issues for decades, and probably the rest of our lives. Serious question: How do you get sincerity in an oligarchy? If it doesn't benefit the top, it's almost a non-starter policy.
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Sanders stans sure do like to attack people's motives. For a guy running such an honorable campaign his supporters really enjoy throwing mud.

My favorite Sanders supporter tactic is that every argument seems to flow from the (baseless) assumption that every liberal-leaning voter would in fact vote for Sanders if ONLY THEY BELIEVED HE COULD WIN! Honestly, the lack of actual understanding of the implications behind his alleged policy platform (beyond internet-sourced charts + slogans) is a little alarming.
 

pigeon

Banned
With who we have in office? You're better off finding gold in your colon.

You'd have to not simply deal with the Republican party who would be against it in principle, but the many, many money-laden interests who want this current cash cow to get more exploitive, not more reasonable.

Money in politics kind of kills any sincere effort for the American people, which is why many of our issues today will probably be issues for decades, and probably the rest of our lives. Serious question: How do you get sincerity in an oligarchy?

You probably can't. But why would you want it? I want a politician who is responsive to the demands of their constituents, not a politician who's "sincere" in their beliefs even if it means doing things the public doesn't want.

And, of course, most politicians are that -- as I've already posted in this thread, research shows that politicians almost always attempt to fulfill their campaign promises. So, from one perspective, most politicians are sincere -- they do their best to do what they say they're going to do. Which really shouldn't be surprising, because they want to get reelected and to advance in the party.

I'm not sure where this mental model comes from where most politicians are corrupt and working against American interests. My current hypothesis is that it's an attempt to avoid the much more terrifying truth -- most politicians are genuinely trying to serve their voters and govern the country, and things are still fucked up. But it's not because of the politicians, it's because the American public is seriously divided except on a few issues on which it's united in being wrong.
 

Flo_Evans

Member
This hasn't been confirmed by the FBI. This actually highlights another problem in the sense that the facts of the situation are not remotely clear and a lot of people are running with speculation or dubious reporting as fact.

lol its not the federal bureau of IT support. They are looking for criminal activity.
 
Where did I say that?

You said it was a favorite tactic of Hillary supporters like it was all their doing when it was just the reality of the situation. He is considered a fringe candidate by Republicans for sure and probably many independents.

lol its not the federal bureau of IT support. They are looking for criminal activity.

lol, can we get any sense of confirmation or official word? This whole mess is not going to be any clearer with everyone running around saying whatever they want.
 
You said it was a favorite tactic of Hillary supporters like it was all their doing when it was just the reality of the situation. He is considered a fringe candidate by Republicans for sure and probably many independents.

I wasn't saying it like it was anything other than something Hillary supporters constantly harp on to dissuade people from trying to support him, or as an answer to people asking why Hillary doesn't adopt more of Sanders' policies. And if you ask Republicans, Hillary has "fringe" views, lol
 

Flo_Evans

Member
lol, can we get any sense of confirmation or official word? This whole mess is not going to be any clearer with everyone running around saying whatever they want.

Highly doubtful. Obama justice dept is not going to tank Hillary by announcing anything until they are sure. Even then I highly doubt she will face serious charges.
 
I wasn't saying it like it was anything other than something Hillary supporters constantly harp on to dissuade people from trying to support him, or as an answer to people asking why Hillary doesn't adopt more of Sanders' policies. And if you ask Republicans, Hillary has "fringe" views, lol

Lol, that's the point. It's not some hillary supporter conspiracy to call Sanders fringe. It's common public perception.

Highly doubtful. Obama justice dept is not going to tank Hillary by announcing anything until they are sure. Even then I highly doubt she will face serious charges.

lol, FBI and justice dept are two different things there buddy.
 
Keep on keepin' on, Bernie.

You go get that presidency!



Uhhh why? People act like she is entitled to it somehow. What's to admire about her, as the other half of the Clinton Dynasty she is getting so much handed to her it isn't even funny. Bernie is the one deserving of admiration. He's working from the bottom.

Yep, he started from the bottom and he didn't need any ghostwriters to do it.
 
Lol, that's the point. It's not some hillary supporter conspiracy to call Sanders fringe. It's common public perception.

For something that's "common public perception" you'd think Hillary supporters wouldn't have to cry out "SANDERS IS FRINGE" constantly every time he's mentioned. It's almost like they're threatened by him or his supporters or something.
 

megalowho

Member
This hasn't been confirmed by the FBI. This actually highlights another problem in the sense that the facts of the situation are not remotely clear and a lot of people are running with speculation or dubious reporting as fact.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/19/fbi-treating-clinton-emails-as-a-potential-criminal-investigation.html

Not confirmed by the FBI but I wouldn't just call it dubious reporting either. Either way, I don't think she's been handling it very well in the court of public opinion.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/19/fbi-treating-clinton-emails-as-a-potential-criminal-investigation.html

Not confirmed by the FBI but I wouldn't just call it dubious reporting either. Either way, I don't think she's been handling it very well in the court of public opinion.

What's there to handle? She's turned everything over. There's nothing to talk about. And there's also no evidence that Clinton herself is being targeted by the FBI, at least not according to the NYT who first broke the story.
 
Yeah I know, FBI investigates criminal activity, justice dept charges. We are in phase 1.

Yet we have zero confirmation or official word.

For something that's "common public perception" you'd think Hillary supporters wouldn't have to cry out "SANDERS IS FRINGE" constantly every time he's mentioned. It's almost like they're threatened by him or his supporters or something.

Beats me, I don't follow the back and froth that closely.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/19/fbi-treating-clinton-emails-as-a-potential-criminal-investigation.html

Not confirmed by the FBI but I wouldn't just call it dubious reporting either. Either way, I don't think she's been handling it very well in the court of public opinion.

Clinton has done her part and has given them everything. Now we wait.

When the FBI seize your computer and are trying to recover wiped data they are not looking for your lost cat photos.

Tell me what you probably assume she might be hiding? Clinton is not being targeted. Heck no one specifically has been accused or charged with anything.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
When the FBI seize your computer and are trying to recover wiped data they are not looking for your lost cat photos.

It's also likely there's nothing there that puts Clinton at fault, but would but that could other people at fault. We don't know! What we do know is that, according to sources, it doesn't seem as if Clinton herself is being targeted, at least not at this point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom