I'm thinking of abandoning Bernie

[TragicMonkey]

That dismisses her entire adult life.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

She threw my lot under the bus when it suited her, then dragged us back out for props when it became politically convenient to pretend to be our champion. She proclaims that "women should be believed!"....except for the ones who accused her husband of stuff. She's a machine politician, every response a carefully focus-grouped nonstatement geared solely to try to win advantage. Which makes her no worse than most politicians, but it sure as heck doesn't make her any better.

 

[fuelair]

You new here?

Look at his post count!!!!

 

[Travis]

It would make him like all the rest. The point of him is that he's not like them.

So Bernie's appeal is that he isn't the frontrunner?

Does that make him the hipster candidate?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

She threw my lot under the bus when it suited her, then dragged us back out for props when it became politically convenient to pretend to be our champion. She proclaims that "women should be believed!"....except for the ones who accused her husband of stuff. She's a machine politician, every response a carefully focus-grouped nonstatement geared solely to try to win advantage. Which makes her no worse than most politicians, but it sure as heck doesn't make her any better.

Which under-the-bus lot are you in?

I'm not going to trash Hillary over Bill's behavior and despite the claim he was a rapist, not just a philanderer. That's hard to say given just about every accusation except maybe groping Kathleen Wiley was tainted with GOP interference akin to the Benghazi lynch mob. Show me the untainted evidence.

Clinton's pro-women's & human rights body of work isn't exactly peanuts.

As for being a politician, that's the point, we need one skilled enough to deal with the GOP control of Congress.

 

[Dog Town]

Clinton's pro-women's & human rights body of work isn't exactly peanuts.

I would be interested, to know exactly, what you consider her "body of work".

Thanks in advance.

 

[TragicMonkey]

So Bernie's appeal is that he isn't the frontrunner?

It astonishes me that you can misunderstand this so very badly.

Does that make him the hipster candidate?

We return to you favoring political candidates only if they are or aren't popular with certain stereotypes of people. Maybe politics isn't for you, Travis. Maybe you should follow popstars instead, or unknown musicians you can then abandon when they become too popular with people you don't like.

 

[logger]

I'm not going to trash Hillary over Bill's behavior and despite the claim he was a rapist, not just a philanderer. That's hard to say given just about every accusation except maybe groping Kathleen Wiley was tainted with GOP interference akin to the Benghazi lynch mob. Show me the untainted evidence.

The only evidence is a stained dress. The only thing that shows is a male employer taking advantage of a very young girl. Something I thought would horrify leftists. The only other things we have is many many accusations of sexual harassment, assault and flat out rape.

Its curious, the Clinton team has been such a moral train wreck in so many different ways, I'm incredibly surprised your side is bringing them back.

Is it still just because she's a women that you're voting for her?

Bernie is worse than her on policy but at least he has his principles.

 

[quadraginta]

The only evidence is a stained dress. The only thing that shows is a male employer taking advantage of a very young girl.

<snip>

Do you find it interesting that Lewinsky, a 22 yr. old college graduate already in the midst of a five year affair with another older, married man is described by certain circles as a 'very young girl', while Tamir Rice, a 12 yr. old, is considered to be a 'young man'?

 

[varwoche]

She threw my lot under the bus when it suited her, then dragged us back out for props when it became politically convenient to pretend to be our champion.

I'm also highly unimpressed by how long it took for her to come around.

She proclaims that "women should be believed!"....except for the ones who accused her husband of stuff.

I don't think it's appropriate to use her defense of her husband against her. It's human nature for people to be biased in favor of their mates. On top of which, if ordinary citizens had their marital issues play out in the public spotlight, they might cut her a tad bit of slack.

She's a machine politician, every response a carefully focus-grouped nonstatement geared solely to try to win advantage. Which makes her no worse than most politicians, but it sure as heck doesn't make her any better.

In the grand scheme, the perceived character of the candidate doesn't matter a heck of a lot -- what matter is what the candidate will do as POTUS. There's going to be a choice between Clinton and a GOP nominee. The difference between their SCOTUS appointments alone should be a wake-up call.

(Time allowing, I intend to create a thread documenting the important 5-4 SCOTUS decisions, and the age/health of the SCOTUS members.)

 

[Trakar]

...There's going to be a choice between Clinton and a GOP nominee. The difference between their SCOTUS appointments alone should be a wake-up call.

(Time allowing, I intend to create a thread documenting the important 5-4 SCOTUS decisions, and the age/health of the SCOTUS members.)

Presumably you acknowledge that Sanders' SCOTUS selections would be as acceptable, if not superior to, Clintons, and that Clinton's supporters and voters would support Sanders, while many Sanders supporters will not support Clinton, so why are you supporting a candidate who will not get as much support from the Democratic base in the general election and put at risk the future of the SCOTUS composition?

Sanders as nominee would gain Clinton Supporters as well as Sanders Supporters 1+1 = 2

Clinton Nominee would only gain Clinton supporters and some Sanders supporters 1+.5 = 1.5

And this doesn't include the enthusiasm factor.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Presumably you acknowledge that Sanders' SCOTUS selections would be as acceptable, if not superior to, Clintons, and that Clinton's supporters and voters would support Sanders, while many Sanders supporters will not support Clinton, so why are you supporting a candidate who will not get as much support from the Democratic base in the general election and put at risk the future of the SCOTUS composition?

Sanders as nominee would gain Clinton Supporters as well as Sanders Supporters 1+1 = 2

Clinton Nominee would only gain Clinton supporters and some Sanders supporters 1+.5 = 1.5

And this doesn't include the enthusiasm factor.

Math is off because they have different numbers of supporters. Also ignores the swing and undecideds in the general.

 

[logger]

Do you find it interesting that Lewinsky, a 22 yr. old college graduate already in the midst of a five year affair with another older, married man is described by certain circles as a 'very young girl', while Tamir Rice, a 12 yr. old, is considered to be a 'young man'?

If the perp was a republican you'd telling us how society gave her this terrible life. But since we're dealing with a dem, you'll fire on her with both barrels. Forgetting the all important fact of the kind of judgement it takes to do what Clinton did.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, I figured out the under the bus reference, so I looked at Sanders' history.

Slate: Bernie Sanders Claims He’s a Longtime Champion of Marriage Equality. It’s Just Not True.

Sanders did oppose DOMA—but purely on states’ rights grounds. And as recently as 2006, Sanders opposed marriage equality for his adopted home state of Vermont. ...

In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions. Sanders told reporters that he was “comfortable” with civil unions, not full marriage equality. ...

Earlier in his political career, Sanders was even more indifferent toward gay rights: As mayor of Burlington in 1990, Sanders told an interviewer that LGBT rights were not a “major priority” for him. Asked if he would support a bill to protect gays from job discrimination, Sanders responded, “probably not.” That was 25 years ago.

Bill Clinton allowed a damaging abstinence-only education claus to be added to major legislation. Politicians sometimes have to compromise and they don't always hold to perfect ideals. It was and still is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars:

Socially conservative legislators arrived at the narrow, eight-point definition (often referred to as the “A-H definition”), not through public health and social science research into effective programs, but as a reflection of their own conservative views. These ultra-conservative legislators were savvy enough to insert the obscure policy add-on into a “must-pass” piece of legislation at the center of the policy agenda of then President Clinton. Since then, the government’s investment in abstinence-only programming has grown enormously, reaching over one billion dollars in total. Now after a decade of extravagant funding, the government’s own long-term research has clearly shown that abstinence-only programs do not delay sexual initiation nor do they reduce rates of either teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

I don't imagine either Bill or Hillary are actually pro-conservative values and while it's unfortunate, the left is outnumbered by these religious fanatics.

 

[quadraginta]

If the perp was a republican you'd telling us how society gave her this terrible life. But since we're dealing with a dem, you'll fire on her with both barrels. Forgetting the all important fact of the kind of judgement it takes to do what Clinton did.

Not sure if you missed the point or are just dodging it.

("fire on her"? "both barrels"? Hyperbole much?)

By all accounts she had a pretty good life. She was certainly a victim, but she was a victim of the people who used her as a tool to get at the President.

What she wasn't was a "very young girl". She was a full grown woman who was perfectly capable of making her own decisions, and had ... apparently with no regrets ... until she found herself as the unwilling cause célèbre in a conservative hatchet job.

I have no ill feeling at all toward her. I think she was badly used. Just not by the same people you seem to.

 

[Trakar]

Math is off because they have different numbers of supporters. Also ignores the swing and undecideds in the general.

Please demonstrate that swings and undecided will matter in the Hillary vs. Sanders.

Sanders support seems to have a larger and more enthusiastic swing, independent and nontraditional voter count than Clinton.

http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-explains-the-new-math-of-2016-to-democratic-leaders/

http://observer.com/2015/12/shock-p...the-most-electable-candidate-in-either-party/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-hager/whos-spoiling-now-polling_b_8792692.html

This article looks at polling data from the point of view of an Independent plurality which favors Bernie Sanders by 36% over Clinton, making him in turn a likely winner against any Republican, while leaving Clinton only a toss-up chance in November. It is risky for a party that shares only 30% of the electorate to ignore the decisive role that Independents play in choosing Presidents. The Democratic Party's own shrinking base gives it features of a third party in need of coalition with the larger "party" of Independents that Bernie Sanders brings to the table.

Meanwhile, due to their partisan resistance to understanding President Obama's deepest flaws, Democrats fundamentally misunderstand what the rest of the country seeks in a 2016 candidate. Polls show misinformed Democrats failing to form a coalition for these reasons.

This article warns that Democratic voters flirt at their peril with using their control over primaries at the front end of a defective run-off process to deny victory in November to the nation's preferred choice, Sanders. Democrats thereby play a similar role today that they labeled "spoiler" in the past when they complained that a third party denied victory to the nation's preferred choice, thereby allowing the reviled minority candidate Bush II to take power and inflict permanent damage on the country.

To win in 2016, Democratic primary voters need to vote strategically, based upon reliable information, in favor of the alliance with Independents that Sanders offers them. This alliance would join voters across the line now separating those who accept systemic political corruption as a lesser evil than electing a Republican, on one side, and a growing majority that does not, on the other.

The polls' most optimistic message can be summarized in the mathematics of the Democratic primary. With 30 percent of the electorate expected to vote 2:1 for Clinton, Democrats provide Sanders half the votes he needs to win the primary. But since he leads Clinton by 36% among Independents, who are 43% of the electorate, he can gain another 14% if his Independent supporters will only deign to contaminate themselves by participating in the primary of the Democrats they otherwise disdain. This would deliver Sanders a 24-20% victory over Clinton in the primary. If he wins the primary, again with the support of Independents, Sanders is a slam dunk to win the general election against any Republican.

 

[varwoche]

OK, I figured out the under the bus reference, so I looked at Sanders' history.

Slate: Bernie Sanders Claims He’s a Longtime Champion of Marriage Equality. It’s Just Not True.

Hmm, it appears that Sanders' evolution is not all that different than Clinton's.

 

[Tony Stark]

Presumably you acknowledge that Sanders' SCOTUS selections would be as acceptable, if not superior to, Clintons, and that Clinton's supporters and voters would support Sanders, while many Sanders supporters will not support Clinton, so why are you supporting a candidate who will not get as much support from the Democratic base in the general election and put at risk the future of the SCOTUS composition?

Sanders as nominee would gain Clinton Supporters as well as Sanders Supporters 1+1 = 2

Clinton Nominee would only gain Clinton supporters and some Sanders supporters 1+.5 = 1.5

And this doesn't include the enthusiasm factor.

Even if you're right, it would still be extremely irrational for anybody who doesn’t want more Republicans on the Supreme Court to not vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination.

 

[logger]

By all accounts she had a pretty good life. She was certainly a victim, but she was a victim of the people who used her as a tool to get at the President.

To get at the president?
She was a victim of the president, one of his many victims. Lay the blame where it belongs.

I have no ill feeling at all toward her. I think she was badly used.

She certainly was used, one of many the serial predator used. Astonishing that you don't have the same outrage at what this guy did. Hillary was right there firing at this girl (woman) with both barrels.

Just not by the same people you seem to.

Yes, because the repubs put that cigar in his hands.

Bernie wouldn't even come close to what these two monsters have gotten into.

 

[Tony Stark]

To get to the president?
She was a victim of the president, one of his many victims. Lay the blame where it belongs.




She certainly was used, one of many the serial predator used. Astonishing that you don't have the same outrage at what this guy did. Hillary was right there firing at this girl (woman) with both barrels.


Yes, because the repubs put that cigar in his hands.

Did it ever occur to you that women are capable of choosing who they want to have sex with and that there are women who would freely choose to have sex with the President of the United States?

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk

 

[logger]

Did it ever occur to you that women are capable of choosing who they want to have sex with and that there are women who would freely choose to have sex with the President of the United States?

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk

Did it ever occur to you Bill Clinton is a sexual predator of women?