Your Entertainer
Member
Hillary when pinned against the wall about campaign finance: "Blah blah blah... uh... 9/11!, SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH, first WOMAN president!!!"
*crowd goes crazy*
DNC suspends Sanders campaign access to database after staff breached Hillary's data
- Thread starter Cerium
- Start date
- Status
Hillary when pinned against the wall about campaign finance: "Blah blah blah... uh... 9/11!, SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH, first WOMAN president!!!"
*crowd goes crazy*
To be fair, that was the shadiest shit this side of the party line shitflinging did.
That is different than this. Unless, of course, we're comparing both Hillary and Bernie and terrible dodges for shady shit, then it's the exact same.
Bernie is literally financing his campaign with fundraisers based on his own theft and misconduct. He's a common thief running a political ponzi scheme. His supporters are part of something bigger in the same way that the other Bernie (Madoff) had investors who were part of something bigger. Their return on that investment will be identical.
Wafflecakes
Member
Its easy to reject corporate money when you have <5% chance of winning the general. You can turn away money all day when you are going to lose already.
You're right. He's in it to lose.
It's not us thinking that. Hillary was the eleventh most liberal senator in the senate (more liberal than Obama!) when she was in the senate. All those 'who do you stand with' tests show the unbelievable narrowness between the two campaigns on policy issues - I don't think it's possible to get more than a 5% difference between the two, simply because so many positions are the same.
I hate to appeal to authority Crab, but really, if you weren't around and following 2008 you really won't get how astonishingly brutal it was. Both campaigns waged a bloody, difficult war, and the idea that the current situation is worse is just not at all believable (see the numerous people saying the same thing in this thread). Heck, many of Bernies primary voters on this very board have said they will happily support Clinton when she wins - that was unheard of in 2008.
Obama and Clinton basically split the party in two, and it was a huge concern of everyone that it wouldn't be possible to mend that breach. It took a huge amount of work from both sides. Bernies not getting near that level of acrimony - yes, he has a small, passionate base of support. So did Ron Paul.
Coriolanus
Banned
Fwiw, RuPaul never quite broke 10% preference in late 2011. Or 15% in 2012.
So yeah. Not exactly the best comparison.
RuPaul didn't run! The only campaign he ran was that he was not Ron Paul!
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
Eh, there were 8 candidates in late 2011.
I still think Bernie is a more ethical and principled person but I'll be the first to say trying to fundraise off of this is shady. Being perceived as honest and trustworthy is something that Bernie had in spades over Hillary before this debacle. The posturing after the breach really fanned the flames of something that otherwise would have ended with firing the responsible parties.
In the end I never expected Bernie to win but I'm sad to see anything that hurts his campaign as it's purpose to me seems valuable as a means to extract more progressive stances out of Clinton.
In the end I never expected Bernie to win but I'm sad to see anything that hurts his campaign as it's purpose to me seems valuable as a means to extract more progressive stances out of Clinton.
Wafflecakes
Member
He never got into this to win.
... I think any rational person knows this. He entered to push Hillary to the left.
If ANY other major candidate was running, such as Biden or Warren, Bernie would have never broken 5% in the polling.
Your Entertainer
Member
lol.
Bernie and Trump have been the only ones keepin it 100 on the need for campaign finance reform. Still needs to change regardless of what Bernie's doing. Not to mention, nine eleven, tragedy, brave men and first WOMAN for the president of the UNITED STATES!!!
By all means go vote Trump in the general election when the pyramid scheme falls apart. You can experience losing twice in one year, and show your true colors in the process.
It's absolutely a black mark on him and his campaign. But to suggest this situation puts him even in the same universe as Hillary when it comes to ethics is insane. Even ignoring everything but 2008's campaign against Obama she still comes off as unprincipled and calculating.
Just reading the online reactions to this by many Sanders supporters has been pretty disgusting, puzzling and has left me pretty frustrated overall.
One can only wonder what their feelings on this would be if the roles were reversed and Clinton's data director were caught doing this.
I don't think a "oh but we fired him, it's all good now!" would suffice. Just a feeling... Sad shit.
One can only wonder what their feelings on this would be if the roles were reversed and Clinton's data director were caught doing this.
I don't think a "oh but we fired him, it's all good now!" would suffice. Just a feeling... Sad shit.
dr3upmushroom
Banned
What's this ponzi scheme you speak of?
I would have the same views as I do with Bernie on this actually. Guilt by association, but the real hanging should happen if Sanders knew of it to the degree he condoned and greenlit it.
Hang the leader if the leader said yes, otherwise, hang those that did it who represent said leader.
Then again, most people still just generally think Hillary is untrustworthy and inconsistent, so I doubt my example will be how most would react..
Bernie my not have known about it, but he's already shown his true colors by only firing one person involved.
Dictator93
Member
Jesus fucking christ. :/
Your Entertainer
Member
Who said I'd vote for Trump? Lol at "pyramid scheme". You remind me of Hillary or every single Republican sans Trump when confronted on the nature of campaign finance today or the need for campaign finance reform - babble on about nothing, insult the opposition or change the subject entirely.
Coriolanus
Banned
Even in 2012, when there were four and then three, he could not stay above 15%.
You know he is. Reason ain't a strong suit in the domain of being binary. It's an all-or-nothing view. That's in all of his political posts about Bernie vs. Hillary.
To his defence, Bernie fans sometimes do this. Always calling Hillary a liar and how there's some rigging against Bernie. But it usually has less hyperbole and more holes.
Did he fire the one who approved of the action? I mean, does that not make a point? Who followed suit from there is always the grey area. How many people do shady things at their line of work because some brass above them says so? I can somewhat sympathize because the way we rig order and control, but as such I don't have a clear cut "remove all of their heads!" in these types of cases. The same would go if Hillary's campaign was the offender.
Do we demand companies who shell shrimp to fire their local staff because most shrimp is taken through slavery? You get deep questions like that when it comes to shady actions, those who know about it, and those underneath the ones condoning it. Just to be aware that when heads roll, it's not as clear as we tend to conceptualize.
QuiteWhittle
Member
This is complete bullshit.
Sanders raises $1 million in a single day
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...million-in-a-single-day-campaign-source-says/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...million-in-a-single-day-campaign-source-says/
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I lived in Louisiana for the first half of the primary, fyi.
The price of a man's integrity. Bernie sold his cheap.
Sanders has no leg to stand on when it comes to campaign finance.
Wafflecakes
Member
Nothing like stealing from your opponent to convince your base that in fact YOU are the victim.
Coriolanus
Banned
Yeah, but you're a foreigner and know nothing about our very particular ways. Also you were probably too young to pay proper attention to the developments around you, what with all the teenage hormones and having to get used to clapping after every meal.
Hillary stands on the legs of Wall Street
Wafflecakes
Member
Sanders campaign steals data.
Sanders supporters pony up the cash because the DNC is "out to get him".
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'll be honest, I didn't like Louisiana much. Trying to motivate myself to clap was trying.
Wafflecakes
Member
Hillary breaks the rules and uses a private email server. Responds with "It was a mistake... sorry. I was not thinking".
Bernie's campaign steals info. Responding with "Fuck you DNC. Why are you out to get me? This is all a plot!"
Easy to see who the adult in the room is.
Bernie's campaign steals info. Responding with "Fuck you DNC. Why are you out to get me? This is all a plot!"
Easy to see who the adult in the room is.
Did they try to take away Hillary's email rights hmm
Some on the side that argue against the climate probably would have...
Wafflecakes
Member
"Mom. I robbed the bank last night, and they wouldn't let me access my account this morning! How dare they! After all... I robbed someone elses account, so shouldn't I still have access to mine?"
Your Entertainer
Member
nine eleven, first WOMAN PRESIDENT!!
Come on, let's be reasonable; your retorts are aiming for the bottom of the barrel.
I doubt anybody on GAF is enough of a shill to applaud those hollow claims like the mainstream American did. In fact, most people have her shit every time she cites "I'm a woman" or even worse, "God-given potential."
Wafflecakes
Member
Red Herrings, how do they work?
If the most definitive evidence we have about this widespread aversion to socialism is that "polls suggest" it's "not popular" then that sounds like a body of evidence that needs far more rigorous inquiry. I don't see any reason not to make the most of all the time and money we throw into the world's longest election cycle to better test this polling.
I was not remotely suggesting that the far right and the general electorate are one and the same, but neither would I make the equally stupid argument that they are somehow entirely separate and distinct from each other, completely immune to whatever political fears tend to infect the other. Plenty of the general electorate watch Fox News. Obama may not be an avowed socialist, but if socialism carries such a strong, unelectable stigma in this country, then just the possibility he was Socialist certainly should have had more impact on his presidential career.
The socialist attacks were hardly successful by themselves - as you say, they "participated" but it's hardly definitive how integral they were. Between the likes of the birther movement, "death panels", Benghazi and his refusal to acknowledge "radical Islam" as a thing, absolutely unprecedented congressional obstructionism and plenty more anti-Obama initiatives, those socialist attacks have had a whole metric fuckton of help. If simply associating him with Socialism was such a strong leading attack by itself, they'd hardly have had to throw everything *and* the kitchen sink at him as well.
If anything, all they probably did was dilute the efficacy of using Socialism as an attack going forward.
What risk? If Sanders makes it past the primaries to a Democratic nomination, he'd already be far more electable than anyone but his most ardent supporters seem to be giving him credit for. The biggest barrier to that seems to be the Democrats self-inflicted psych out about everyone's supposed crippling aversion to Socialism which doesn't seem to hold up to a lot of scrutiny outside of some polls.
Why would you think that? A truly strategic Republican is going to understand that everything matters, and they're going to throw everything at a candidate. Hillary has received literally 99% of all attacks and is still the massive front runner by leaps and bounds, it is not even close. Bernie cannot even comprehend what that means.
All this is is another reason why Hillary is more prepared than Bernie, as if the majority of polls didn't already suggest this. Hillary is their target, and she has weathered it. Bernie can't even keep his campaign in order.
Again, I submit: This is no game. Real people are going to be hurt by not having a Democratic president. Still, no one has proposed how they will get any - even a single piece - of Democratic socialist legislation through Congress.
Show me how. If you can't, then that's essentially conceding that I should vote for Hillary. Until that point, I can't help but feel I'm on the right track.
The risk that the majority of odd makers and pollsters concede - Hillary is indisputably more electable than Bernie. You can pretend that's not true, but it's true. Until that stops being true, it's a massive risk to support Bernie when so much is on the line. Call me when this stops being the case. I'm not risking it for ideology and the random poll that disagrees with the vast majority of evidence. Show me the money, in other words. Bernie supporters have been unable to, even once. Literally even once. I'm saying straight up that this means something. It's no coincidence they can't make a better case.
Agent_Carnage
Member
Im voting for Sanders but if he don't get the non I'll vote for Clinton. Gotta keep Trump from winning. A vote for a third party is a vote for trump.
The Party cannot fracture not now when Trump is running. If the party fractures due to this Trump will win and that's not a good thing.
The Party cannot fracture not now when Trump is running. If the party fractures due to this Trump will win and that's not a good thing.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Where is this idea coming from?
Elfforkusu
Member
:lol @ equating dubious campaign information tactics to accepting payment from lobbyists for the promise of future political favors.
One of these implies a desire to win, the other implies a willingness to sell out to the highest bidder.
re: Political positions, if you go by what Hillary and Bernie say, they're very very close. But they're politicians, this isn't really about what they say. The same thing, BTW, is true of Trump. The reason to not vote for him isn't that he's saying crazy shit and he's going to act on it (although that's a good reason not to vote for him, on principle), but that he's said so much crazy shit and has such a non-record (apart from bankruptcy) that it's impossible to predict how he'll govern. (not a wise decision to elect that)
One of these implies a desire to win, the other implies a willingness to sell out to the highest bidder.
re: Political positions, if you go by what Hillary and Bernie say, they're very very close. But they're politicians, this isn't really about what they say. The same thing, BTW, is true of Trump. The reason to not vote for him isn't that he's saying crazy shit and he's going to act on it (although that's a good reason not to vote for him, on principle), but that he's said so much crazy shit and has such a non-record (apart from bankruptcy) that it's impossible to predict how he'll govern. (not a wise decision to elect that)
- Status