Support NeoGAF

[noshten]

So far Bernie hasn't been able to give a single piece of evidence that her paid speeches negatively impacted her legislation or office positions. Not a ONE. Everything is accusation and conspiracy theories. Absolutely no substance in his attacks, like his policies. She has made a ton of speeches, a lot for great causes and gave a lot of that money back to charity. Yet he focuses on that one speech or two because Wall St happens to be the devil incarnate.

Yes I am pretty comfortable with Hillary because her character is sound despite all the baseless insinuations otherwise.

So why aren't you comfortable that other people don't trust her character or her decision making ability? You think the burden of proof is with the voter rather than the candidate.

After the financial meltdown, after she saw Romney 47% comment, after she saw Trump's rise and his central point of self financing his campaign and how he bought favor and an audience with the people writing legislation. It is questionable how prepared she is and whether those speeches won't surface at the most inappropriate time. Just as Hillary's team has "research" so does the RNC - whether it's her or Sanders they will come out swinging. Despite the rhetoric here - a lot of people feel that the line of attack they would employ against Sanders will more ineffectual.
I've seen what negative press has done to Trump he will get a large majority of Republican if he is the nominee - there is no question in my mind. Cruz won't since Trump's voters might boycott the process altogether if he ends up the nominee. The problem for either is that - even if they get the majority of Republican voters voting for them - they cannot win unless the turnout is suppressed across key states.

It is questionable decision for Hillary to do a speaking tour before announcing her candidacy. It is questionable for her to use Obama or Republicans to shield herself. I don't understand the reason for her to do it and the main worry is precisely vetting for the GE.
Whether Sanders focuses on her Wall St speeches or her Verizon speeches or whatever other speech is immaterial - the attacks on her about this issue might not even surface in a GE if she faces Cruz. It's simply a weak issue for her because of Trump if you had the usual GOP candidate aka Romney 3.0 I would not even worry about her speaking engagements.
This election cycle it's an issue because you have two candidates on both sides who are going against the flow.

In any case if she wins NY tonight by double digits it would mean despite vetting she has maintained her position. If Sanders gets close/wins than obviously she is far weaker than we though previously.

 

[CCS]

HOLD ME.

UGH. I'm already a wreck.

SAD. MESS.

ADAM IN DISARRAY

 

[Brinbe]

FUCK!

Just to get it out of the way early. No worries, fam. Today will be a good day.

 

[Loudninja]

Good morning guys

FUCK.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

Reveling in disappointment is fun. That's why the Germans made up a specific word for it.
It would be kind of Hilarrious if she lost too.

Schadenfreude is the term

 

[shinra-bansho]

A billionaire born into privilege, who talks about punishing women for abortions, Hispanic rapists sneaking into the US, the Jews being great with money, who discriminated against the blacks in his company and said he would order soldiers to commit war crimes...

...is the big threat because she gave some paid speeches?

Because Wall St!!!!!!!! is the major issue for the moderates that need to be swung in Florida.

 

[Trancos]

Just as Hillary's team has "research" so does the RNC -

I have no doubt that the RNC has research on both candidates, but....
Are you arguing that the RNC will campaign on a 'Wall Street is evil' platform?
Anybody that has ever received money, worked, be associated with a big company is evil?
The party financed by big money is not worth of your trust?

That something that only Bernie can run on.
That is the whole reason she is keeping the transcripts. Even if it's bad optics.
It just won't matter in the GE. Again I have no doubt that the RNC has other things.

 

[BotoxAgent]

Las-yup I'm not worried about her speeches being used in the GE. It's a weaksauce line of attack.

 

[scoobidoo112]

A billionaire born into privilege, who talks about punishing women for abortions, Hispanic rapists sneaking into the US, the Jews being great with money, who discriminated against the blacks in his company and said he would order soldiers to commit war crimes...

...is the big threat because she gave some paid speeches?

Because Wall St!!!!!!!! is the major issue for the moderates that need to be swung in Florida.

Just because the Republicans are absolutely crazy, doesn't mean that Democrats can't be criticized for legitimate issues. Republicans threaten the country in one way, and the issues that concern Hillary affect the country in another. They can both be talked about in the proper context. Everyone that I know supports Bernie recognizes that Hillary is 100x better than any Republican, as Bernie himself has said many times now.

 

[Retromelon]

Weaver is the kind of guy who will let the whole world burn if Bernie could be the king of the ashes. No nuance, no negotiations, no mercy, never back down, always escalate. Destroy everything if it's necessary. 'We must prevail even if it is by destroying our allies'.

It scares me that a guy like that is (hypothetically) close to a very important cabinet role (in the alternative ending where Bernie wins) of the most powerful nation in the world.

Jeff Weaver!!! A would be Haldeman. Or Kissinger in the making. There have been far scummier people in power before.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Wow....that 7/11 comment was real. I saw the joke last night and just got up to see Trump mixed it up with 9/11.

More reason for the GOP being done.

 

[shinra-bansho]

You seem confused as to what my point was, when I thought it was pretty clear.

The issues of the GE and the issues that the Dem primary left flank care are not the same.

 

[royalan]

So why aren't you comfortable that other people don't trust her character or her decision making ability? You think the burden of proof is with the voter rather than the candidate.

After the financial meltdown, after she saw Romney 47% comment, after she saw Trump's rise and his central point of self financing his campaign and how he bought favor and an audience with the people writing legislation. It is questionable how prepared she is and whether those speeches won't surface at the most inappropriate time. Just as Hillary's team has "research" so does the RNC - whether it's her or Sanders they will come out swinging. Despite the rhetoric here - a lot of people feel that the line of attack they would employ against Sanders will more ineffectual.
I've seen what negative press has done to Trump he will get a large majority of Republican if he is the nominee - there is no question in my mind. Cruz won't since Trump's voters might boycott the process altogether if he ends up the nominee. The problem for either is that - even if they get the majority of Republican voters voting for them - they cannot win unless the turnout is suppressed across key states.

It is questionable decision for Hillary to do a speaking tour before announcing her candidacy. It is questionable for her to use Obama or Republicans to shield herself. I don't understand the reason for her to do it and the main worry is precisely vetting for the GE.
Whether Sanders focuses on her Wall St speeches or her Verizon speeches or whatever other speech is immaterial - the attacks on her about this issue might not even surface in a GE if she faces Cruz. It's simply a weak issue for her because of Trump if you had the usual GOP candidate aka Romney 3.0 I would not even worry about her speaking engagements.
This election cycle it's an issue because you have two candidates on both sides who are going against the flow.

In any case if she wins NY tonight by double digits it would mean despite vetting she has maintained her position. If Sanders gets close/wins than obviously she is far weaker than we though previously.

It isn't questionable. It's what literally every other high profile former politician has done. Going on a speaking tour isn't just a politician/celebrity getting money for nothing. It's a politician providing a good (their time and commentary) for money. It is not a promise of future access. Regardless of how easy or cushy you think it is, it is a job. By saying Hillary Clinton shouldn't have given paid speeches as a private citizen, you're basically saying she shouldn't be allowed to work.

You want to know what's questionable?

Questionable is not releasing your tax returns.
Questionable is lying about your voting record.
Questionable is sending a false cease and desist order to your opponent and then fundraising off of it.
Questionable is stealing your opponent's campaign data and then fundraising off of it.
Questionable is having your campaign staff impersonate union workers to gain restricted access to solicit for votes.
Questionable shit-talking southern states for being "conservative" but praising conservative Midwestern states that you won.
Questionable is demonizing your opponent for raising more for down ticket dems, when you yourself are guilty of accepting PAC money in the past.
Questionable is everything have to do with Sierra Blanca.

So let's not talk about Hillary Clinton giving commonplace speeches, the proceeds of which went almost completely to charity, when Bernie Sanders has run one of the shadiest campaigns on the Democratic side in recent memory.

 

[noshten]

I have no doubt that the RNC has research on both candidates, but....
Are you arguing that the RNC will campaign on a 'Wall Street is evil' platform?
Anybody that has ever received money, worked, be associated with a big company is evil?
The party financed by big money is not worth of your trust?

That something that only Bernie can run on.
That is the whole reason she is keeping the transcripts. Even if it's bad optics.
It just won't matter in the GE. Again I have no doubt that the RNC has other things.

RNC desperation to suppress voter turnout?
GOP ties with most of the companies Hillary has given speeches to?
Most importantly their nominee will be Trump

If their nominee is not Trump than obviously this subject will be forever forgotten after the primaries.

It isn't questionable. It's what literally every other high profile former politician has done. Going on a speaking tour isn't just a politician/celebrity getting money for nothing. It's a politician providing a good (their time and commentary) for money. Regardless of how easy or cushy it is, it is a job. By saying Hillary Clinton shouldn't have given paid speeches as a private citizens, you're basically saying she shouldn't be allowed to work.

You want to know what's questionable?

Questionable is not releasing your tax returns.
Questionable is lying about your voting record.
Questionable is sending a false cease and desist order to your opponent and then fundraising off of it.
Questionable is stealing your opponent's campaign data and then fundraising off of it.
Questionable is having your campaign staff impersonate union workers to gain restricted access to solicit for votes.
Questionable shit-talking southern states for being "conservative" but praising conservative Midwestern states that you won.
Questionable is demonizing your opponent for raising more for down ticket dems, when you yourself are guilty of accepting PAC money in the past.
Questionable is everything have to do with Sierra Blanca.

So let's not talk about Hillary Clinton giving commonplace speeches, the proceeds of which went almost completely to charity, when Bernie Sanders has run one of the shadiest campaigns on the Democratic side in recent memory.

Is your memory wiped every 8 years?

 

[Slayven]

That's Devine. Future White House Chief of Staff Jeff Weaver ran a comic shop.

Weaver might be in the pocket of Big Comics

 

[excelsiorlef]

Weaver might be in the pocket of Big Comics

I hear he's on team #Cyclopswaswrong


Not surprise there.

 

[Retromelon]

It isn't questionable. It's what literally every other high profile former politician has done. Going on a speaking tour isn't just a politician/celebrity getting money for nothing. It's a politician providing a good (their time and commentary) for money. It is not a promise of future access. Regardless of how easy or cushy you think it is, it is a job. By saying Hillary Clinton shouldn't have given paid speeches as a private citizen, you're basically saying she shouldn't be allowed to work.

You want to know what's questionable?

Questionable is not releasing your tax returns.
Questionable is lying about your voting record.
Questionable is sending a false cease and desist order to your opponent and then fundraising off of it.
Questionable is stealing your opponent's campaign data and then fundraising off of it.
Questionable is having your campaign staff impersonate union workers to gain restricted access to solicit for votes.
Questionable shit-talking southern states for being "conservative" but praising conservative Midwestern states that you won.
Questionable is demonizing your opponent for raising more for down ticket dems, when you yourself are guilty of accepting PAC money in the past.
Questionable is everything have to do with Sierra Blanca.

So let's not talk about Hillary Clinton giving commonplace speeches, the proceeds of which went almost completely to charity, when Bernie Sanders has run one of the shadiest campaigns on the Democratic side in recent memory.

Are you going to respond to this las7 because royalan went in pretty hard on you
Nvm edited right before my post

Is your memory wiped every 8 years?

Ball's in your court hilldoges

 

[User 463088]

It isn't questionable. It's what literally every other high profile former politician has done. Going on a speaking tour isn't just a politician/celebrity getting money for nothing. It's a politician providing a good (their time and commentary) for money. It is not a promise of future access. Regardless of how easy or cushy you think it is, it is a job. By saying Hillary Clinton shouldn't have given paid speeches as a private citizen, you're basically saying she shouldn't be allowed to work.

You want to know what's questionable?

Questionable is not releasing your tax returns.
Questionable is lying about your voting record.
Questionable is sending a false cease and desist order to your opponent and then fundraising off of it.
Questionable is stealing your opponent's campaign data and then fundraising off of it.
Questionable is having your campaign staff impersonate union workers to gain restricted access to solicit for votes.
Questionable shit-talking southern states for being "conservative" but praising conservative Midwestern states that you won.
Questionable is demonizing your opponent for raising more for down ticket dems, when you yourself are guilty of accepting PAC money in the past.
Questionable is everything have to do with Sierra Blanca.

So let's not talk about Hillary Clinton giving commonplace speeches, the proceeds of which went almost completely to charity, when Bernie Sanders has run one of the shadiest campaigns on the Democratic side in recent memory.

 

[Trancos]

Most importantly their nominee will be Trump

If their nominee is not Trump than obviously this subject will be forever forgotten after the primaries.

You mean Donald 'I will sell my name to be associated to any product as long as I get paid enough' Trump? Because you actually have proof that you can buy TRUMP endorsement, name , likeness for anything as long as it has golden packaging and you pay enough.
I'm not sure the RNC is fool enough to think that will sway moderates.
I'm not actually sure anything could sway moderates when running against Trump.

moderates: Trump is a bigot, racist, sexist, sell-out, accused rapist (by his own ex-wife) but hey he didn't do speeches.
I think it's a no issue.

 

[Clefargle]

That's just sad. Maybe try convincing them to vote for her in November? Seems more productive...

I'm not gonna be posting anything there. I just go to see the kneejerk reactions and cognitive dissonance and overblown rhetoric that place is so infamous for.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I am only about half way through but this is killer.

Thanks for sharing.

I couldn't make it to the end.

It reflects how I feel, but it's so damn wordy and at times seems to be too reaching. I wish there were something a little more succinct that I could point Bernie friends to.

 

[Slayven]

It isn't questionable. It's what literally every other high profile former politician has done. Going on a speaking tour isn't just a politician/celebrity getting money for nothing. It's a politician providing a good (their time and commentary) for money. It is not a promise of future access. Regardless of how easy or cushy you think it is, it is a job. By saying Hillary Clinton shouldn't have given paid speeches as a private citizen, you're basically saying she shouldn't be allowed to work.

You want to know what's questionable?

Questionable is not releasing your tax returns.
Questionable is lying about your voting record.
Questionable is sending a false cease and desist order to your opponent and then fundraising off of it.
Questionable is stealing your opponent's campaign data and then fundraising off of it.
Questionable is having your campaign staff impersonate union workers to gain restricted access to solicit for votes.
Questionable shit-talking southern states for being "conservative" but praising conservative Midwestern states that you won.
Questionable is demonizing your opponent for raising more for down ticket dems, when you yourself are guilty of accepting PAC money in the past.
Questionable is everything have to do with Sierra Blanca.

So let's not talk about Hillary Clinton giving commonplace speeches, the proceeds of which went almost completely to charity, when Bernie Sanders has run one of the shadiest campaigns on the Democratic side in recent memory.

Monday morning and I am in church

I hear he's on team #Cyclopswaswrong


Not surprise there.

Mutant Purity tests, only omega levels or higher

 

[CCS]

It isn't questionable. It's what literally every other high profile former politician has done. Going on a speaking tour isn't just a politician/celebrity getting money for nothing. It's a politician providing a good (their time and commentary) for money. It is not a promise of future access. Regardless of how easy or cushy you think it is, it is a job. By saying Hillary Clinton shouldn't have given paid speeches as a private citizen, you're basically saying she shouldn't be allowed to work.

You want to know what's questionable?

Questionable is not releasing your tax returns.
Questionable is lying about your voting record.
Questionable is sending a false cease and desist order to your opponent and then fundraising off of it.
Questionable is stealing your opponent's campaign data and then fundraising off of it.
Questionable is having your campaign staff impersonate union workers to gain restricted access to solicit for votes.
Questionable shit-talking southern states for being "conservative" but praising conservative Midwestern states that you won.
Questionable is demonizing your opponent for raising more for down ticket dems, when you yourself are guilty of accepting PAC money in the past.
Questionable is everything have to do with Sierra Blanca.

So let's not talk about Hillary Clinton giving commonplace speeches, the proceeds of which went almost completely to charity, when Bernie Sanders has run one of the shadiest campaigns on the Democratic side in recent memory.

Preach. Preach. God damn I say, God dayuuuuuum.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

RNC desperation to suppress voter turnout?
GOP ties with most of the companies Hillary has given speeches to?
Most importantly their nominee will be Trump

If their nominee is not Trump than obviously this subject will be forever forgotten after the primaries.



Is your memory wiped every 8 years?

If Trump is the nominee the speeches will become even less important than they already are.

 

[royalan]

Is your memory wiped every 8 years?

I don't know. Was Hillary '08 guilty of stealing Obama's campaign data? Wake me up if she was.

And, even if she were, that doesn't absolve the actions of Bernie Sanders in 2016 - the so called "moral candidate."

 

[Gruco]

I woke up today to a bell tolling. I thought it was symbolic. CAN'T WAIT! Going to go vote multiple times by using the aliases of dead convicted felon black lesbian women who are illegally registered six times.

Man, I wish I was rich enough to afford the "vote seven times" package. Some of us had to save up just to be able to vote twice!

In any case if she wins NY tonight by double digits it would mean despite vetting she has maintained her position. If Sanders gets close/wins than obviously she is far weaker than we though previously.

I don't understand. Are you saying that the vetting of Hillary Clinton took place between March 15th and today? And that prior to Super Tuesday she was unvetted? Or something? Not trying to be difficult, just not sure I'm following.

Because Wall St!!!!!!!! is the major issue for the moderates that need to be swung in Florida.

Well, I read that Hillary can only compete in deep red southern states, so clearly Bernie is the more competitive GE candidate in a swing state like Florida.

 

[Slayven]

Links bro. I need to see eyebrows being stupid. He's more awkward than Mitten's and about as likeable as Cruz. I'd take Jeb over Kasich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE23uSUbraM

 

[noshten]

You mean Donald 'I will sell my name to be associated to any product as long as I get paid enough' Trump? Because you actually have proof that you can buy TRUMP endorsement, name , likeness for anything as long as it has golden packaging and you pay enough.
I'm not sure the RNC is fool enough to think that will sway moderates.
I'm not actually sure anything could sway moderates when running against Trump.

moderates: Trump is a bigot, racist, sexist, sell-out, accused rapist (by his own ex-wife) but hey he didn't do speeches.
I think it's a no issue.

I see complacency where there shouldn't be - we know end of the day there is a certain number of voters that will vote Trump if he is nominee. We know he is likely going to lose the minority vote by 80%. We know he would lose if turnout is above 50%. I think the gender gap might be 20% in favor of the democrats.
But there still needs to be a level of urgency this election and if Trump is losing for months to Hillary at the polls, this type of complacency and underestimation is dangerous.

The majority of Republican candidates are bigots, racists, sexists, sellouts - Trump is no special snowflake in that regard.
He is a blowhard that knows how to manipulate the media and bring the entire race to his level.

 

[BotoxAgent]

It isn't questionable. It's what literally every other high profile former politician has done. Going on a speaking tour isn't just a politician/celebrity getting money for nothing. It's a politician providing a good (their time and commentary) for money. It is not a promise of future access. Regardless of how easy or cushy you think it is, it is a job. By saying Hillary Clinton shouldn't have given paid speeches as a private citizen, you're basically saying she shouldn't be allowed to work.

You want to know what's questionable?

Questionable is not releasing your tax returns.
Questionable is lying about your voting record.
Questionable is sending a false cease and desist order to your opponent and then fundraising off of it.
Questionable is stealing your opponent's campaign data and then fundraising off of it.
Questionable is having your campaign staff impersonate union workers to gain restricted access to solicit for votes.
Questionable shit-talking southern states for being "conservative" but praising conservative Midwestern states that you won.
Questionable is demonizing your opponent for raising more for down ticket dems, when you yourself are guilty of accepting PAC money in the past.
Questionable is everything have to do with Sierra Blanca.

So let's not talk about Hillary Clinton giving commonplace speeches, the proceeds of which went almost completely to charity, when Bernie Sanders has run one of the shadiest campaigns on the Democratic side in recent memory.

I like you

 

[Trancos]

Anyways this day will be interesting.

Bernie effort has been very impressive in the last days. He started the NY campaign with a lot of gaffes, and I think his performance in the debate was pandering to his base but not to the undecided. However I'm seriously speechless at the millions of calls over the weekend. The effort and energy of his army of volunteers swarming NYC is commendable. Something tells me that he must certainly have done an impact in the margin, but the polls don't seem to move at all.

Are the polls missing a surge in the 20-35 demographic (they are all assuming the turn out will be the same as 08)? Or is that half the masses following Sanders are just ineligible to vote in NY?

Looking forward to today.

But there still needs to be a level of urgency this election and if Trump is losing for months to Hillary at the polls, this type of complacency and underestimation is dangerous.

Totally agree with that.

 

[Retromelon]

I don't know. Was Hillary '08 guilty of stealing Obama's campaign data? Wake me up if she was.

And, even if she were, that doesn't absolve the actions of Bernie Sanders in 2016 - the so called "moral candidate."

Her campaign released those madrasa photos of obama, remember. And as I recall it, bill used some language towards barack that if someone said on here would be swiftly derided as racially charged ("he [obama] couldn't hold our bags", paraphrasing from memory). As far as not absolving bernie, well, so? They both engage in, whats the word, phuckery. Those are our only choices so it will have to be a battle of issues, and I prefer bernie's to hillary's. I'm sure it is the reverse for yourself.

 

[benicillin]

Bernie's gonna lose NY but he won't stop campaigning until the convention, everyone just needs to accept that fact and move on. This campaign cycle hasn't even been that negative, lack of anything to talk about has everyone whipping themselves up into a frenzy about how Bernie is Benedict Arnold to the Democratic party even though a few months from now it's all going to look silly in hindsight.

 

[Y2Kev]

I voted! Getting back in line now.

Body checked two Bernie supporters who they loaded onto stretchers and carried out. -2 Bernie!!!

 

[googleplex]

I voted! Getting back in line now.

Body checked two Bernie supporters who they loaded onto stretchers and carried out. -2 Bernie!!!

Y2Kev doing the Lord's work.

 

[shinra-bansho]

YASSS King. WERK. Slay.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I voted! Getting back in line now.

Body checked two Bernie supporters who they loaded onto stretchers and carried out. -2 Bernie!!!

I thought you were in NJ

 

[Y2Kev]

What does that have to do with me voting in NY

 

[User 463088]

Bernie's gonna lose NY but he won't stop campaigning until the convention, everyone just needs to accept that fact and move on. This campaign cycle hasn't even been that negative, lack of anything to talk about has everyone whipping themselves up into a frenzy about how Bernie is Benedict Arnold to the Democratic party even though a few months from now it's all going to look silly in hindsight.

It's not going to look silly. He's suing the Democratic Party for Pete's sake! He's managed to piss a lot of progressives off over the last few months.

 

[CCS]

Kev apparently not clear on the difference between suppressing voters and suplexing voters

 

[gcubed]

Her campaign released those madrasa photos of obama, remember. And as I recall it, bill used some language towards barack that if someone said on here would be swiftly derided as racially charged ("he [obama] couldn't hold our bags", paraphrasing from memory). As far as not absolving bernie, well, so? They both engage in, whats the word, phuckery. Those are our only choices so it will have to be a battle of issues, and I prefer bernie's to hillary's. I'm sure it is the reverse for yourself.

the problem is Bernie is trying to sell himself as the morally superior candidate, Hillary is not. I dont get what is so hard to grasp when this comes up over and over again.

If you fully brandish yourself as a trustworthy candidate, then lie, you will get more shit. Don't complain about getting outsized criticism if you are going to bring it on yourself

 

[Trancos]

Bernie's gonna lose NY but he won't stop campaigning until the convention, everyone just needs to accept that fact and move on. This campaign cycle hasn't even been that negative, lack of anything to talk about has everyone whipping themselves up into a frenzy about how Bernie is Benedict Arnold to the Democratic party even though a few months from now it's all going to look silly in hindsight.

The difference is that Obama and Hillary ran against each others. Yes their was dirty tricks, yes it was tense. But they never attacked the party.

Bernie is running against the DNC, his blows are directed at the party, its members, officials, democrat supporters (Clooney). It's a scorched earth tactic.

 

[Slayven]

It's not going to look silly. He's suing the Democratic Party for Pete's sake! He's managed to piss a lot of progressives off over the last few months.

But are they Bernie tested and approved progressives? You know like Cornell West

 

[soundscream]

Kev apparently not clear on the difference between suppressing voters and suplexing voters

Just another follower of the Mike Hagger school of politics

 

[benicillin]

The difference is that Obama and Hillary ran against each others. Yes their was dirty tricks, yes it was tense.

Bernie is running against the DNC, his blows are directed at the party, its members, officials, democrat supporters (Clooney). It's a scorched earth tactic.

I'm fairly sure that the DNC can survive Sanders 'scorched earth' tactics. If Hillary or the DNC were ever actually concerned about it they would tactically nuke him from orbit. I'm sure it's pissed off a lot of Democrats, but all in all people really worry too much about whatever negative impact Sanders is having.

As far as I can tell I haven't seen Hillary's polling get any worse having Sanders around, and I haven't seen people flocking to the Republicans, and I'm pretty sure that everyone has a much stronger ground game going into the GE, and the vast majority of Sanders supporters will happily vote for Hillary in the Fall. All these crazy posts and meme's and everything you see are a fraction of a fraction of Sanders supporters - on social media or online 100-200 people can make it seem like the whole world is of the same mind, that's one of the dangers of it.

 

[Retromelon]

the problem is Bernie is trying to sell himself as the morally superior candidate, Hillary is not. I dont get what is so hard to grasp when this comes up over and over again.

If you fully brandish yourself as a trustworthy candidate, then lie, you will get more shit. Don't complain about getting outsized criticism if you are going to bring it on yourself

*karin laugh* silly me I didn't know that bernie claimed to be morally superior to hillary clinton, if you could post a link that'd be great because I must have missed it. And lmao at the bolded, hillary by your own implication is not a fully trustworthy candidate

 

[Y2Kev]

*karin laugh* silly me I didn't know that bernie claimed to be morally superior to hillary clinton, if you could post a link that'd be great because I must have missed it. And lmao at the bolded, hillary by your own implication is not a fully trustworthy candidate

He's basically said she's corrupted. Is he not morally superior?

 

[shinra-bansho]

Hillary won't even answer whether she'd ever lie to the public without hedging her bets.

The assertion was selling himself as pure and morally superior. Not overtly claiming so. The only honest voice railing against the corrupt establishment like Planned Parenthood and EMILY's List. You'd have to be completely oblivious to not recognise that he's been doing this through the whole campaign.

 

[KingK]

Bernie's gonna lose NY but he won't stop campaigning until the convention, everyone just needs to accept that fact and move on. This campaign cycle hasn't even been that negative, lack of anything to talk about has everyone whipping themselves up into a frenzy about how Bernie is Benedict Arnold to the Democratic party even though a few months from now it's all going to look silly in hindsight.

.

Bernie will stay in until the end, giving people who aren't satisfied with Hillary an outlet to display that dissatisfaction while still participating in the election. Hillary will win without a problem, Bernie will endorse her, and she'll crush Trump/Cruz. Everything is going to be fine.

The difference is that Obama and Hillary ran against each others. Yes their was dirty tricks, yes it was tense. But they never attacked the party.

Bernie is running against the DNC, his blows are directed at the party, its members, officials, democrat supporters (Clooney). It's a scorched earth tactic.

This "party above all" attitude some of you guys have is bizarre and creepy as fuck. It's why I always roll my eyes at the "he's not even a real democrat" attack on Sanders. It's a political party, not a cult. It's not above all criticism. Support it when it supports your political positions and apply pressure to change when it doesn't, that's how politics works. Not by worshipping the one true religion of Democratic Orthodoxy.

 

[HylianTom]

*karin laugh* silly me I didn't know that bernie claimed to be morally superior to hillary clinton, if you could post a link that'd be great because I must have missed it. And lmao at the bolded, hillary by your own implication is not a fully trustworthy candidate

retro, I love ya, but you can read between the lines of what Bernie and his campaign have been dog-whistling over the past year. He is sunshine and bunnies and rainbows and righteousness, she's a corrupt coal-belching cash-chomping corporate ****. He might not say it as plainly as you're asking for, but we can all hear it. Quit being disingenuous.

I'd have much more respect for him if he'd quit it with the weasel wording and just be blatant.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I mentioned that Bernie's vote against TARP was a major strike against him in my book. The medium article articulates it well:

First, his desire to break up the banks seems to be focused on punishment, and his opposition to TARP was also focused on punishment. To use his language, I think that opposition to TARP “disqualified” him from the presidency. In 2008, the Bush administration and Congress had a choice about whether to let financial institutions collapse or bail them out. Sanders was willing to let those institutions, consequences be damned, fail, because bad actors had made bad choices. He preferred to have an extended worldwide global depression — the certain outcome without TARP — rather than let those actors avoid some form of retribution for their role in the collapse.