Democrat Debate 10 |CNN| Sometimes I just wanna punch you in your perfect teeth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Davilmar said:
To be fair, do you really think Bernie Sanders would stand on the stage and call her corrupt? Its no difference than Obama saying that Hillary was "likeable enough," even though from his body language and the tone of that debate we all knew what his real answer was. This speaks nothing as to whether that charge of corruption is true or not, mind you. I don't really see it as a counter, but it will play well with audiences that won't look into the deeper nuances of elections.
Click to expand...

But that's just the thing. This entire primary season Bernie has consistently implied that Hillary Clinton is corrupt without outright saying it. The implication is so obvious that not even his campaign denies it anymore, they just won't say the words "Hillary Clinton is corrupt." But they keep saying "The system is corrupt. A politician is corrupt if they accepting money from big corporations. Hillary Clinton accepts money from corporations, soooo..."

So it was a pretty major deal that, for the first time this entire primary, Bernie was directly asked to name ONE instance of Hillary displaying that she is bought, and he couldn't give one example. He just handed the Clinton campaign a whale of a counter.
 
Rompin Raider said:
Earlier someone said Hillary sounded like a Republican. The only difference in Hillary and Cruz is....Cruz looks better in a pants suit. LOL
Click to expand...

And hates gay people, is a fundamentalist religious anti-abortion zealot, a racist and so forth but yes they are very similar... :|

And hey way to focus on the only woman candidate's looks and imply she's ugly
 
royalan said:
But that's just the thing. This entire primary season Bernie has consistently implied that Hillary Clinton is corrupt without outright saying it. The implication is so obvious that not even his campaign denies it anymore, they just won't say the words "Hillary Clinton is corrupt." But they keep saying "The system is corrupt. A politician is corrupt if they accepting money from big corporations. Hillary Clinton accepts money from corporations, soooo..."
Click to expand...

How are his constant claims that 'those people would not have given her money without expecting something in return' not him calling her corrupt, anyway? It sure sounds like that's exactly what he's doing to me, whether or not he uses that specific word! I don't know how much it matters that he hasn't said "she is corrupt" in those exact words when everything else he says makes that point.

So it was a pretty major deal that, for the first time this entire primary, Bernie was directly asked to name ONE instance of Hillary displaying that she is bought, and he couldn't give one example. He just handed the Clinton campaign a whale of a counter.
Click to expand...
He doesn't have specifics for much of anything, though. This is just one more thing to add to that pile.
 
Rompin Raider said:
Earlier someone said Hillary sounded like a Republican. The only difference in Hillary and Cruz is....Cruz looks better in a pants suit. LOL
Click to expand...

So Hillary wants to do the following.

- Make the have/have not bullshit of health care in America worse
- Disempower minorities because of bronze age bullshit like religion
- Empower the rich at all stops at the expense of people
- Prevent any action on climate change

Someone help me find the desires of the regressives, please. They're too comic bookish that I almost discredit them wholesale as being a real thing that exists.
 
royalan said:
But that's just the thing. This entire primary season Bernie has consistently implied that Hillary Clinton is corrupt without outright saying it. The implication is so obvious that not even his campaign denies it anymore, they just won't say the words "Hillary Clinton is corrupt." But they keep saying "The system is corrupt. A politician is corrupt if they accepting money from big corporations. Hillary Clinton accepts money from corporations, soooo..."

So it was a pretty major deal that, for the first time this entire primary, Bernie was directly asked to name ONE instance of Hillary displaying that she is bought, and he couldn't give one example. He just handed the Clinton campaign a whale of a counter.
Click to expand...

You're essentially advocating a "If I can't see it, it can't be real" stance.
Bernie Sanders has specifically said throughout his entire campaign that he does not wish to engage in loaded questions that take focus away from the issues and reducing himself to engaging in character assassination. Listing Hilary scrupulous behavior is impossible to prove, further more it is going to persuade nobody when it comes from the podium of her opponent. Every claim he would make would be his word against her, and that is the manufactured sensationalism that the pathetic american mainstream media likes to get off on.
 
Vigilant Walrus said:
You're essentially advocating a "If I can't see it, it can't be real" stance.
Bernie Sanders has specifically said throughout his entire campaign that he does not wish to engage in loaded questions that take focus away from the issues and reducing himself to engaging in character assassination. Listing Hilary scrupulous behavior is impossible to prove, further more it is going to persuade nobody when it comes from the podium of her opponent. Every claim he would make would be his word against her, and that is the manufactured sensationalism that the pathetic american mainstream media likes to get off on.
Click to expand...

If it's impossible to prove, how do we know it's true aside from deeply held moral beliefs?
 
Vigilant Walrus said:
You're essentially advocating a "If I can't see it, it can't be real" stance.
Bernie Sanders has specifically said throughout his entire campaign that he does not wish to engage in loaded questions that take focus away from the issues and reducing himself to engaging in character assassination. Listing Hilary scrupulous behavior is impossible to prove, further more it is going to persuade nobody when it comes from the podium of her opponent. Every claim he would make would be his word against her, and that is the manufactured sensationalism that the pathetic american mainstream media likes to get off on.
Click to expand...
That's quite odd since he keeps on insinuating it and focusing on things that are nothing but loaded questions and "taking away from the actual issues and reducing himself to engaging in character assassination" such as his relentless focus on Hillary's transcripts which has nothign to do with the issues at all and is nothing but such a character attack. You're quite right that it's his word against her's, but that doesn't seem to bother Sanders much. Not sure what your point really is here, since it doesn't match the Sanders that was actually at this debate whatsoever but rather a version of Sanders that seems long, long gone at this point.
 
Vigilant Walrus said:
You're essentially advocating a "If I can't see it, it can't be real" stance.
Bernie Sanders has specifically said throughout his entire campaign that he does not wish to engage in loaded questions that take focus away from the issues and reducing himself to engaging in character assassination. Listing Hilary scrupulous behavior is impossible to prove, further more it is going to persuade nobody when it comes from the podium of her opponent. Every claim he would make would be his word against her, and that is the manufactured sensationalism that the pathetic american mainstream media likes to get off on.
Click to expand...

Sensationalsm like #ReleaseTheTranscripts or calling Hillary unqualified?
 
royalan said:
But that's just the thing. This entire primary season Bernie has consistently implied that Hillary Clinton is corrupt without outright saying it. The implication is so obvious that not even his campaign denies it anymore, they just won't say the words "Hillary Clinton is corrupt." But they keep saying "The system is corrupt. A politician is corrupt if they accepting money from big corporations. Hillary Clinton accepts money from corporations, soooo..."

So it was a pretty major deal that, for the first time this entire primary, Bernie was directly asked to name ONE instance of Hillary displaying that she is bought, and he couldn't give one example. He just handed the Clinton campaign a whale of a counter.
Click to expand...

Those are some good points. I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but I really didn't see what Sanders sought to gain by insinuating that she was corrupt if he wasn't going to draw blood. All of these innuendos about her being part of "the establishment" are all fair game, but that link with corruption was a poor move. Maybe he thought that he would gain the nomination and didn't have to worry about it coming to bite him in the ass.

I think Bernie Sanders should have played on the establishment card, talking about Hillary Clinton and her close connection with Wall Street, WalMart, etc. and talk about how those forces have made reform impossible. That would have been a charge he could have stood behind, without the inflammatory language of calling her outright corrupt. Alas, it is one of the many mistakes of his entire campaign and it won't matter at this point. I can't see how Sanders can give a full-throated endorsement of Clinton after both more or less burned bridges, with Sanders bearing more of the burden. Or how his supporters manage to coalesce around Clinton to win in November.
 
Davilmar said:
Those are some good points. I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but I really didn't see what Sanders sought to gain by insinuating that she was corrupt if he wasn't going to draw blood. All of these innuendos about her being part of "the establishment" are all fair game, but that link with corruption was a poor move. Maybe he thought that he would gain the nomination and didn't have to worry about it coming to bite him in the ass.

I think Bernie Sanders should have played on the establishment card, talking about Hillary Clinton and her close connection with Wall Street, WalMart, etc. and talk about how those forces have made reform impossible. That would have been a charge he could have stood behind, without the inflammatory language of calling her outright corrupt. Alas, it is one of the many mistakes of his entire campaign and it won't matter at this point. I can't see how Sanders can give a full-throated endorsement of Clinton after both more or less burned bridges, with Sanders bearing more of the burden. Or how his supporters manage to coalesce around Clinton to win in November.
Click to expand...

This is nothing compared to 08.
 
Davilmar said:
I agree, and I never once implied that it was anything like 2008.
Click to expand...

Well:

I can't see how Sanders can give a full-throated endorsement of Clinton after both more or less burned bridges, with Sanders bearing more of the burden. Or how his supporters manage to coalesce around Clinton to win in November.
Click to expand...

We all know what happened to the PUMAs.
 
ivysaur12 said:
Well:



We all know what happened to the PUMAs.
Click to expand...

We all do, and I agree with your point. I am not literally saying that Sanders will not endorse Clinton and give a rousing speech. He ultimately will. I am speaking more in the sense that it will be hard for him to be taken seriously after all the criticisms he launched against Clinton. His entire raison d'etre was to be the anti-thesis of Clinton, and for him to endorse her will be hard for his supporters to swallow.
 
Davilmar said:
We all do, and I agree with your point. I am not literally saying that Sanders will not endorse Clinton and give a rousing speech. He ultimately will. I am speaking more in the sense that it will be hard for him to be taken seriously after all the criticisms he launched against Clinton. His entire raison d'etre was to be the anti-thesis of Clinton, and for him to endorse her will be hard for his supporters to swallow.
Click to expand...

No, but I find it unlikely that his supporters won't fall behind Clinton when presented with the alternative. We have, what, 50% of Clinton supporters in 08 who said they wouldn't vote for Obama in the general? But they did. I think that Hillary needs to reach out to these voters (a super progressive VP would help), but I also don't buy that they're going to migrate to Trump.
 
Davilmar said:
I can't see how Sanders can give a full-throated endorsement of Clinton after both more or less burned bridges, with Sanders bearing more of the burden. Or how his supporters manage to coalesce around Clinton to win in November.
Click to expand...

Bernie will give his endorsement just like every other losing candidate has - even when the campaigns went negative. Hillary fully endorsed Obama in 2008, and that campaign wasn't a shining example of civility by the end.

As for the supporters, the Bernie PUMAs are a rounding error in the scheme of things and I'd be perfectly fine with them taking their ball and going home to reddit or caucus99percent or whatever other echo chamber they choose to live in. They can vote for Jill Stein or Donald Trump for all I care. We certainly don't need them to win, and I definitely don't like them holding their votes hostage and making demands - either suck it up and support the Democrat, or go away.
 
Davilmar said:
We all do, and I agree with your point. I am not literally saying that Sanders will not endorse Clinton and give a rousing speech. He ultimately will. I am speaking more in the sense that it will be hard for him to be taken seriously after all the criticisms he launched against Clinton. His entire raison d'etre was to be the anti-thesis of Clinton, and for him to endorse her will be hard for his supporters to swallow.
Click to expand...
It isn't hard for him to back Clinton at all. Both of them have repeatedly said that what they have to offer is still better than anything the Republicans have to offer. That's the only platform he needs to back Hillary after the primaries.
 
Karsticles said:
It isn't hard for him to back Clinton at all. Both of them have repeatedly said that what they have to offer is still better than anything the Republicans have to offer. That's the only platform he needs to back Hillary after the primaries.
Click to expand...

How would him backing Clinton not be disingenuous given how much fervor much of his rhetoric has given to the "establishment" or "corrupt" charge? Whether intentional or not. Mind you, he will endorse her as every other competitor does at the nomination stage. I just don't understand how more people aren't called out for the charges they launch against their opponents in the primary fight. Just seems like a huge disconnect to me, personally.
 
metalslimer said:
You guys realize Bernie has to start winning states by 10 points or more just to even overtake her lead in pledged delegates. He can win every state going forward by 5 points and still lose this easily because of how badly he bungled the south.
Click to expand...
Serves his campaign right.
 
ivysaur12 said:
No, but I find it unlikely that his supporters won't fall behind Clinton when presented with the alternative. We have, what, 50% of Clinton supporters in 08 who said they wouldn't vote for Obama in the general? But they did. I think that Hillary needs to reach out to these voters (a super progressive VP would help), but I also don't buy that they're going to migrate to Trump.
Click to expand...

Well you know she could just offer Bernie the VP post
 
Unknown Soldier said:
Well you know she could just offer Bernie the VP post
Click to expand...
Why would anyone even want Sanders to be a tiebreaker in the Senate though, when he could keep being an actual Senator (and the same goes for Warren, who also sometimes gets brought up along the same lines)? Both Sanders and Warren can do much more good as Senators then they ever could as Vice President. It's a position for campaigning at this point and that's about it. I don't understand why people entertain that as something they want at all when it would be one of the worst possible outcomes with how useless the position is, especially with all the filibuster bullshit pretty much eliminating even the one function the VP has.
 
googleplex said:
Oh....Jesus Christ no. Hillary is smarter this that. Bernie Sander would bring absolutely nothing her ticket but impotent, an flailing rage.
Click to expand...

Also he would lose all credibility actually going and campaigning under her moniker after everything he said. It wouldn't strengthen Clinton at all. He would do much better as the "outsider senator" putting in his lofty support because there was "no one else better" or some such line.
 
metalslimer said:
You guys realize Bernie has to start winning states by 10 points or more just to even overtake her lead in pledged delegates. He can win every state going forward by 5 points and still lose this easily because of how badly he bungled the south. There's no moral victories this late into the game. If New York was earlier and he had a 50-49 loss it could have been huge, but it doesn't matter now unless he makes Hilary unviable in California (LOL)
Click to expand...

bishoptl said:
Serves his campaign right.
Click to expand...

15QHCs9.png


Get Rekt Bernie.
 
ant1532 said:
so cringeworthy hilary dodging transcripts with bernies taxes hahahaha
Click to expand...

While her excuse is poorly worded, it's still correct. Tax Returns have become a standard to release for candidates. Speech Transcripts? That's totally new. Still a pretty terrible answer considering the time she has had to formulate an answer.

When you are behind, you have nothing to lose for asking someone to unveil anything, and everything to gain.
 
Suikoguy said:
While her excuse is poorly worded, it's still correct. Tax Returns have become a standard to release for candidates. Speech Transcripts? That's totally new. Still a pretty terrible answer considering the time she has had to formulate an answer.

When you are behind, you have nothing to lose for asking someone to unveil anything, and everything to gain.
Click to expand...

Yeah well speech transcripts are totally new because its not normal for someone to get paid over 200,000 dollars for a speech to a banking company. And then run for president and claim to fight as hard as she can for the working class.

Comparing voters interest in that to bernie sanders basic bitch tax returns is hilarious.
 
ant1532 said:
Yeah well speech transcripts are totally new because its not normal for someone to get paid over 200,000 dollars for a speech to a banking company.

Comparing voters interest in that to bernie sanders basic bitch tax returns is hilarious.
Click to expand...

It's rare to have a candidate as qualified as Hillary running for office.
 
Suikoguy said:
Laugh all you want, but it's true. It's also pretty sad that's all you could reply with.
Click to expand...

literally laughing because of your response. we're talking about the debate and transcripts and that's all you could reply with? It's rare to have a candidate as qualified as Hillary running for office.

i legit thought you were joking.
 
ant1532 said:
literally laughing because of your response. we're talking about the debate and transcripts and that's "all you could reply with"? i legit thought you were joking. ]
Click to expand...

Since you seem to be having difficulty making basic logic comparisons, I will help.

1.) Clinton commands a high speaking fee due to her popularity.
2.) That popularity is in part due to her experiences and direct connection with a former president.

Can you make the logical connection, now that both points are separated out?

btgorman said:
God... Are fact checkers HIllary's worst nightmare?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/politics/democratic-debate-fact-check/index.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-bernie-sanders-has-been-largely-ve/
Click to expand...

That would actually be Sanders, as he has a worse record when it comes to fact checking.
 
I just feel like people (read: Bernie supporters) are woefully misinformed about the nature of banks at Wall Street. These are boring businesses by and large. The risk these companies take on is localized to relatively small divisions of the bank (I would wager that Goldman's CDO desk pre-crisis was no bigger than 100 heads), and at this point has been largely blotted out by diversification into less risky enterprises. Morgan Stanley is a glorified wealth manager at this point with the Smith Barney build-out for Chrissake. Malfeasance isn't rampant. Most employees at these firms are boring, average Joes. I just feel bad for the Bernie supporters who have been pushed so deep into the vicious cycle of haplessness fueling misinformation fueling resentment that they have to focus their efforts on an illusory boogeyman to make sense of the world.
 
ant1532 said:
Hilary is Hilary's worst nightmare.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Clinton is so much worse than Sanders

9A7yUOy.png


That's the problem with thinking your candidate is above being a politician, when in reality he is just another politician.
 
Suikoguy said:
Since you seem to be having difficulty making basic logic comparisons, I will help.

1.) Clinton commands a high speaking fee due to her popularity.
2.) That popularity is in part due to her experiences and direct connection with a former president.

Can you make the logical connection, now that both points are separated out?
Click to expand...
I can make the logical connection that you are adorbs <3

Honestly this view on her demanding >200,000 dollars for an hour of time in speeches to the banking companies being some king of right and justification because of all her work in the government is naive and ignorant of the working life of the majority of americans.
 
ant1532 said:
I can make the logical connection that you are adorbs <3

Honestly this view on her demanding >200,000 dollars for an hour of time in speeches to the banking companies being some king of right and justification because of all her work in the government is naive and ignorant of the working life of the majority of americans.
Click to expand...

Hillary is in very high demand. Her bank speeches make up a small part of the total speeches she gives. I wish I could command that much of a speaking fee and have so many to do.

There is no evidence the speeches affected her performance as SOS or as a Senator so i'm not even sure why you care so much about them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
I just want to thank you, Americans
1
780
Digital-Aftertaste replied
Fantasy/Sci-Fi books - GAF Reads sometimes.
29
982
Trogdor1123 replied
  • Poll
Do you pick your nose?
17
18
p_xavier replied
  • Poll
Do you put pennies in your penny loafers?
2
56
2K
Days like these... replied
I remove teeth
2
67
4K
Machine replied
Top Bottom