Super Tuesday 4. I'm really feeling (The After Bern) March 22, 26 contests

Status
Not open for further replies.
321florida said:
West spit that truth tho. Obama is a shucking ass p-wing grabbing dude.

Bum ass president went and gave a bunch of black college grads a "pull ya pants up ” speech. He wouldn't have did that with any other group.
Click to expand...

You definately aren't someone's troll alt account /s
 
Valhelm said:
How left, though? I expect she'll appoint a handful of centrist judges who don't hate gay people and have relatively liberal views on race.
Click to expand...
Is there any indication that Hillary would appoint judges to the right of those her husband nominated, one of whom was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the most liberal judge on the current court by many measures? Stephen Breyer, the other, is the most moderate of the four liberals, but they all vote in lockstep most of the time.

Even if Sanders cannot pursue every part of his agenda, he'll lay the groundwork, just like Bill Clinton did for universal healthcare.
Click to expand...
Bill Clinton did not lay the groundwork for universal healthcare (which the US still doesn't have, anyway). His healthcare reform was a disastrous failure that effectively took the subject off the table until Obama's election sixteen years later.
 
Valhelm said:
Nah, Hillary is Tyrion. Calling her Cersei is an insult to her experience and cunning



Again, why is that bad? Are his positions too left for your tastes? I don't expect Bernie to be the nominee, but I really hope he uses all of his spotlight to keep explaining the reality of class oppression and supporting down-ticket progressives
Click to expand...
No they aren't too left. I wish people would stop with these false narratives. I don't think he's a good candidate. He is also becoming more divisive the longer this goes on. Dems were becoming more progressive without Bernie being in the spotlight in the first place.
 
Sean C said:
Is there any indication that Hillary would appoint judges to the right of those her husband nominated, one of whom was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the most liberal judge on the current court by many measures? Stephen Breyer, the other, is the most moderate of the four liberals, but they all vote in lockstep most of the time.
Click to expand...

That's a good point, I probably shouldn't worry.

Big Baybee said:
No they aren't too left. I wish people would stop with these false narratives. I don't think he's a good candidate. He is also becoming more divisive the longer this goes on. Dems were becoming more progressive without Bernie being in the spotlight in the first place.
Click to expand...

Progressive how? Warren was really the only legislator actually willing to discuss the reality of class in America. We need to kill the idea that class striation is somehow more acceptable than other forms of social inequality.
 
Mimosa97 said:
Probably old but

a9c5b0d5cc6edf0c78149577d415a5ac79ce0311.jpg


As a european this is pretty much how I see this election
Click to expand...

well as a european you are definitely not seeing it in an accurate light

"disliked by pretty much everyone" as she is constantly being chosen and voted for over sanders. right.

so many dank facebook memes coming out of the sanders camp, can't handle the D4NKN355. who needs facts and numbers when you have catchy images on social media?
 
Miles X said:
He's literally had no dirt dug up on him. GOP wants him to be the nominee, Hillary needs to be nice to get his base on board. This is why ya'll think he is so perfect.
Click to expand...

This is a well constructured but fallacious fantasy by Clinton camp.

He has had plenty of "dirt" exposed. The fantasy rape poem, the Fidel praise, etc. It did nothing to him.
 
Melkr_ said:
This is a well constructured but fallacious fantasy by Clinton camp.

He has had plenty of "dirt" exposed. The fantasy rape poem, the Fidel praise, etc. It did nothing to him.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And this bears out in the results where Hillary is losing by negative 200+ delegates in the race.
 
Melkr_ said:
This is a well constructured but fallacious fantasy by Clinton camp.

He has had plenty of "dirt" exposed. The fantasy rape poem, the Fidel praise, etc. It did nothing to him.
Click to expand...

I'm failing to see the part where 100s of millions of dollars have been spent on attack ads toward him. You know, like Hillary. And anyone who's made it to the GE.

Heck, Bernie has spent more on ads this primary than Hillary has.
 
Melkr_ said:
This is a well constructured but fallacious fantasy by Clinton camp.

He has had plenty of "dirt" exposed. The fantasy rape poem, the Fidel praise, etc. It did nothing to him.
Click to expand...

1) That those were the only two instances you could mention proves the point.

2) The Castro praise CAN hurt him. There's an argument to be made that it padded Hillary's win in Florida and further hurt him with Latino voters. But, more to the point, it hasn't done much to him because nobody's done anything with it. Hillary's not attacking him with it because she doesn't need to. And Republicans haven't done anything with it because, outside of a throwaway comment here and there, they're largely ignoring Bernie because he's not the front-runner. Why waste money attacking the guy who's not winning?

If he were, you had better believe that the GOP would have ads with Bernie praising Castro juxtaposed with his proposed tax increases ready to go.
 
Valhelm said:
I live here. Miami politics are Miami's and nobody else's. There's a reason why our Republicans were the only ones in Florida to successfully resist Trump.
Click to expand...

How convenient that losing the Latino and overall vote in one of the most improtant counties in Florida for democrats for both the primary and the GE can be written off.
 
royalan said:
1) That those were the only two instances you could mention proves the point.

2) The Castro praise CAN hurt him. There's an argument to be made that it padded Hillary's win in Florida and further hurt him with Latino voters. But, more to the point, it hasn't done much to him because nobody's done anything with it. Hillary's not attacking him with it because she doesn't need to. And Republicans haven't done anything with it because, outside of a throwaway comment here and there, they're largely ignoring Bernie because he's not the front-runner. Why waste money attacking the guy who's not winning?

If he were, you had better believe that the GOP would have ads with Bernie praising Castro juxtaposed with proposed tax increases ready to go.
Click to expand...
Running on increasing taxes is so goddamn stupid. There is
No nuance in American politics. People won't get that it'll cover healthcare and college costs.
 
Armaros said:
How convenient that losing the Latino and overall vote in one of the most improtant counties in Florida for democrats for both the primary and the GE can be written off.
Click to expand...

Cuban, Nicaraguan, and Colombian Americans generally won't vote for somebody who identifies as a socialist, even if they agree with his policies.

This could be an issue with the general electorate in the event of a Sanders nomination, but other people are less averse to the s-word
 
Big Baybee said:
Running on increasing taxes is so goddamn stupid. There is
No nuance in American politics. People won't get that it'll cover healthcare and college costs.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the specter of putting people out of jobs and government takeover, along with wasteful spending etc. There is good reason the GOP is praying they are running against him.
 
Boney said:
I'm not black so I don't wanna put any personal stake on this, but him being a scholar and a black activist gives him credibility to denounce a wolf in a sheep costume from what he has seen. Using the black community as a way of displacing Obama from it is a very serious insult but not one which he throws lightly I'd imagine.
Click to expand...
West was out of pocket saying any of that shit to the media and no, Barack isnt a "wolf in sheeps clothing" (unlike the current DNC frontrunner). Hes been more active and bolder than any sitting president at holding the broken US justice system to account and addressing racial issues.
 
Mimosa97 said:
Probably old but

a9c5b0d5cc6edf0c78149577d415a5ac79ce0311.jpg


As a european this is pretty much how I see this election
Click to expand...

I have a friend who posted something similar to this, only using Hunger Games as an example and equating Hillary to President Coin; saying she's "pretending to be for the people but really just as bad as one of them." Trump was Snow.

It's sad how far some of my Bernie friends have gone in poisoning the water by demonizing Hillary to such an extent, they'll happily throw their vote away if Bernie isn't selected as the Democratic nominee. That, and the conspiratorial commentary about the supposed media bias in Hillary's favor making it only "seem" as if Hillary is winning when Bernie is "catching up."
 
royalan said:
No he's not.

He's the "least attacked" candidate. That does not make him more honest.

If every word he said was being picked apart like Hillary, he wouldn't be viewed as being so honest. He's getting a big leg up simply due to nobody really focusing on him.
Click to expand...
Straw man IMO.

Anybody can look back at his history and show his consistency. I doubt you will. But there are certainly WAY less videos on youtube of him being any kind of dishonest vs Hillary. That evidence is exactly why I stopped being a Hillary supporter and moved to montys ago. Shes plain sketchy.
 
Valhelm said:
But we need to start somewhere. Bernie Sanders is trying to fix some of this country's biggest problems, which Clinton doesn't seem willing to address. Even if Sanders cannot pursue every part of his agenda, he'll lay the groundwork, just like Bill Clinton did for universal healthcare.

The rapidly growing wealth gap has really dangerous implications for our society, and it's one of the few societal issues that doesn't show any signs of getting better. Bernie is also far stronger when it comes to climate change, that distant specter that most politicians don't even want to address.
Click to expand...
You want to address the country's problems? Advocate for switching to a parliamentary system. My biggest problem with Sanders is that he's right about a lot of things, but he's wasting his time dicking around with ways that won't get it done.
 
Hillary is actually disliked, quite a lot according to polls. At least half the country dislikes her.

She however is disliked less than her opponents.

She's likable enough, it seems.
 
legacyzero said:
Straw man IMO.

Anybody can look back at his history and show his consistency. I doubt you will. But there are certainly WAY less videos on youtube of him being any kind of dishonest vs Hillary. That evidence is exactly why I stopped being a Hillary supporter and moved to montys ago. Shes plain sketchy.
Click to expand...

You are basing a candidate's sketchiness from YouTube?

And how is using examples of his dishonesty by one metric making a strawman?

I wish strawman and ad hominem would just vanish from Internet discourse, people use it so incorrectly.
 
To me the crucial difference between the Bern/Hill camps is that accepting corporate money and rubbing elbows with moneyed interests is considered acceptable and 'just part of the game' by the latter. If you're okay with those rules, Bernie's arguments about how awful it is probably ring hollow -- and furthermore, you probably feel like the party would be conceding a chance to win by playing above board.

But the former group doesn't consider it acceptable, for various reasons. The biggest one to me is that I don't think the Democratic party can do a good job representing the people's interests when big money can preempt them. Or, to pick a blunt example, I think the left is fortunate that there wasn't a lot of money to be made by stopping gays from getting married.

The net result is that telling me how liberal Hillary really is doesn't move the needle for me. There's a second axis, it isn't just left vs right. It's also people vs money.
 
Armaros said:
How convenient that losing the Latino and overall vote in one of the most improtant counties in Florida for democrats for both the primary and the GE can be written off.
Click to expand...

As someone not involved in the discussion:

Cuban Republicans =/= White Republicans =/= Hispanic Republicans
 
GOP knows how to play politics. They know to hold onto their big guns and Bernie can easily be destroyed by their word of mouth (esp with Bernie's lack of presence in the South).

And a lot of Bernie's campaign staff seem to be incompetent which makes me think he'll get demolished even more so against a truly focused Republican anti-Bern campaign.
 
HillaryGAF seems grumpy today. Just wait it out until the convention. She'll get the nomination then. For the meantime, you should appreciate the continued debate. At least it's mostly civil and about the issues. GOP voters would kill to be able to say that, lol.
 
They say that Bernie doesn't do well with minorities, but the guy won Hawaii (the most diverse state) by a wide margin.
 
hydragonwarrior said:
GOP knows how to play politics. They know to hold onto their big guns and Bernie can easily be destroyed by their word of mouth (esp with Bernie's lack of presence in the South).

And a lot of Bernie's campaign staff seem to be incompetent which makes me think he'll get demolished even more so against a truly focused Republican anti-Bern campaign.
Click to expand...

I wish Bernie had Obama's campaign management. Obama had a legendary campaign...
 
hydragonwarrior said:
GOP knows how to play politics. They know to hold onto their big guns and Bernie can easily be destroyed by their word of mouth (esp with Bernie's lack of presence in the South).

And a lot of Bernie's campaign staff seem to be incompetent which makes me think he'll get demolished even more so against a truly focused Republican anti-Bern campaign.
Click to expand...

As much as it kills me, everyone is afraid of the word "socialist." It hasn't been getting a lot of play in the democratic side, but I deal with a lot of conservatives and they all HATE that word. it terrifies them, they think we sent troops to die to fight the terrible socialism and that now the young people just want free stuff. Its become a pretty potent buzz word that might kill Sanders, essentially since people are more afraid of the dreaded socialism than the KKK and Neonazi's apparently.

Though, I think the Hill camp is super underestimating how pissed people are about Benghazi. I think it was one of the biggest shams and waste of tax payer money's in a long time, but it has left a very negative connotation with Hillary. We have to acknowledge it's going to be a tough fight for whoever the Democratic nominee is.
 
Elfforkusu said:
To me the crucial difference between the Bern/Hill camps is that accepting corporate money and rubbing elbows with moneyed interests is considered acceptable and 'just part of the game' by the latter. If you're okay with those rules, Bernie's arguments about how awful it is probably ring hollow -- and furthermore, you probably feel like the party would be conceding a chance to win by playing above board.

But the former group doesn't consider it acceptable, for various reasons. The biggest one to me is that I don't think the Democratic party can do a good job representing the people's interests when big money can preempt them. Or, to pick a blunt example, I think the left is fortunate that there wasn't a lot of money to be made by stopping gays from getting married.

The net result is that telling me how liberal Hillary really is doesn't move the needle for me. There's a second axis, it isn't just left vs right. It's also people vs money.
Click to expand...
Bernie's arguments ring hollow because he's a huge hypocrite since he's admitted to doing the exact same type of thing--he's not a Democrat, but he's running as one anyway because he's "just playing the game" and trying to get whatever advantages he can, including those the DNC offer to their candidates. He and his supporters have no right to complain--if they understand that Sanders running as a Democrat doesn't lock him into the Democratic party's platform or the interests/standards of the "establishment," then they should be able to understand that it's the same with the money that Clinton receives from SuperPACs, especially since that money comes from such diverse sources that it's impossible for Clinton to be beholden to them all anyway and thus she'd have to make choices and it comes right back to the type of choices you think she would make and not the money since that doesn't actually tie her to anything in the same way that running as a Democrat doesn't tie Sanders to anything.
 
ShironRedshift said:
Bernie's arguments ring hollow because he's a huge hypocrite since he's admitted to doing the exact same type of thing--he's not a Democrat, but he's running as one anyway because he's "just playing the game" and trying to get whatever advantages he can, including those the DNC offer to their candidates. He and his supporters have no right to complain--if they understand that Sanders running as a Democrat doesn't lock him into the Democratic party's platform or the interests/standards of the "establishment," then they should be able to understand that it's the same with the money that Clinton receives from SuperPACs, especially since that money comes from such diverse sources that it's impossible for Clinton to be beholden to them all anyway and thus she'd have to make choices and it comes right back to the type of choices you think she would make and not the money since that doesn't actually tie her to anything in the same way that running as a Democrat doesn't tie Sanders to anything.
Click to expand...

Fair point but humans are not magical logic machines that can just handwave away the subtle effects of donations/fundraising/knowing the people in person.
 
ShironRedshift said:
Bernie's arguments ring hollow because he's a huge hypocrite since he's admitted to doing the exact same type of thing--he's not a Democrat, but he's running as one anyway because he's "just playing the game" and trying to get whatever advantages he can, including those the DNC offer to their candidates. He and his supporters have no right to complain--if they understand that Sanders running as a Democrat doesn't lock him into the Democratic party's platform or the interests/standards of the "establishment," then they should be able to understand that it's the same with the money that Clinton receives from SuperPACs, especially since that money comes from such diverse sources that it's impossible for Clinton to be beholden to them all anyway and thus she'd have to make choices and it comes right back to the type of choices you think she would make and not the money since that doesn't actually tie her to anything in the same way that running as a Democrat doesn't tie Sanders to anything.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the way the bipartisan set up of our government basically makes it impossible for independent parties. Not a snow balls chance in hell. They're just there to appease the small base saying "yeah yeah yeah we hear you or whatever" Though, i don't get why every keeps saying "the money doesn't matter." People are throwing a LOT of money into politics in general. We've all known lobbyist exist, we all know why it took SO GOD DAMN LONG for cigarettes to officially be connected to cancer. It's no secret(rather it used to be a joke) that the government takes money from big corporations to better serve their needs. Yet, now people are saying money has no sway on Hillary. I mean really? not even a little sway?
 
ShironRedshift said:
Bernie's arguments ring hollow because he's a huge hypocrite since he's admitted to doing the exact same type of thing--he's not a Democrat, but he's running as one anyway because he's "just playing the game" and trying to get whatever advantages he can, including those the DNC offer to their candidates. He and his supporters have no right to complain--if they understand that Sanders running as a Democrat doesn't lock him into the Democratic party's platform or the interests/standards of the "establishment," then they should be able to understand that it's the same with the money that Clinton receives from SuperPACs, especially since that money comes from such diverse sources that it's impossible for Clinton to be beholden to them all anyway and thus she'd have to make choices and it comes right back to the type of choices you think she would make and not the money since that doesn't actually tie her to anything in the same way that running as a Democrat doesn't tie Sanders to anything.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Sanders and his supporters are fine with "playing games" when it comes to party affiliation, downticket support, Bernie super PAC and party loyalty. But they turn and attack Clinton as a shill machine who only exists to serve her corporate masters when it's convenient for them to do so. They have shown that their principles are less important than what will help them at any given time.

FlowersisBritish said:
To be fair, the way the bipartisan set up of our government basically makes it impossible for independent parties. Not a snow balls chance in hell. They're just there to appease the small base saying "yeah yeah yeah we hear you or whatever" Though, i don't get why every keeps saying "the money doesn't matter." People are throwing a LOT of money into politics in general. We've all known lobbyist exist, we all know why it took SO GOD DAMN LONG for cigarettes to officially be connected to cancer. It's no secret(rather it used to be a joke) that the government takes money from big corporations to better serve their needs. Yet, now people are saying money has no sway on Hillary. I mean really? not even a little sway?
Click to expand...

To be fair the way our government is set up requires massive amounts of money for presidential candidates and downticket dems. Clinton is just another politician, not some super corrupt money dumpster. It's impossible to be elected without enough money but we are seeing that it doesn't always decide the presidential races. It's like there is a threshold of money you have to have to have a ground game, and after that it doesn't matter. ( on the presidential side) . It absolutely does matter in the smaller state and local races. You're saying that Clinton shouldn't be able to explain her actions by pointing at the system she has to run in to get elected but Bernie can.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Super Nintendo World (Universal Orlando) - opens 22nd May 2025
42
1K
RetroGamingUK replied
iPhones are really hard to break
17
537
Mistake replied
Superman (2025) 4 minute scene released
2 3
126
4K
FeralEcho replied
Not really depressed...
2
50
3K
Valedix replied
Being in the hospital really sucks
2
51
2K
E-Cat replied
Top Bottom