Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can any Sanders supporters or Republicans here explain if Hillary is so bad for one of the two groups why the other group hates her so much?
Those on the right hate her because she's a crook and a liar and embodies a legacy of crooks and liars on the left.

Those on the left hate her partly for the same reasons, and partly because they're frustrated with establishment politics and she's the establishment candidate on the left. I'm also frustrated with establishment politics, which is I why I'm swinging Trump this election. And it's also why I'd go for Bernie if the Democrats actually nominated him.

I guess the one permutation I haven't really considered is who I would vote for, between Bernie and a GOP establishment candidate. I'll have to think about that one.
 
Folks, you know what would be really great? Yep, some of you guessed right off: Getting back on topic. For those of you unfamiliar with how this works, we are fortunate in this thread that the thread title provides a big clue.

The popularity of Bernie Sanders, not so much. Donald Trump's tax return, nope. Hillary Clinton and her done-ness, yes.

In addition to random wanderings into Notthetopicland, some posts have tended towards bickering. Never a good thing. Please stop that.

I've moved some of the recent posts that were out alignment with rules 0, 11, and 12, and shuffled them off the place of shame. Not all, certainly, so do not assume an off-topic (or uncivil or attacking the arguer) post still remaining in the thread gives you license to misbehave.

Stick to the topic, please: Hillary, done, and things related.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jsfisher
 
Avid readers know that you are a Bernie Sanders fan, but they also assume you're a Trumpian due to your comical hatred of Hillary.I dunno. Maybe tone that down a bit? You're going to be stuck with her for 8 years.

Deep down even their supporters know the front runners are crooks, but they are supported because they're "their crook". But they also assume anyone lacking their cognitive dissonance must be really supporters of the other crook.
 
I just got here and can't post links but if you look at the PredictWise the prediction markets currently have HRC at 71% probability of victory in the general election. Granted these same markets didn't see the Trump ascendancy coming but generally prediction markets perform pretty well especially compared to typical pundits.

Everyone ignored this, but they shouldn't. The betting odds on trump (on this site) are 1 in 4.
 
Can any Sanders supporters or Republicans here explain if Hillary is so bad for one of the two groups why the other group hates her so much?

False dichotomy and poisoning the well.

Bottom line she is dangerously dishonest and disengenuous.
 
False dichotomy and poisoning the well.

Bottom line she is dangerously dishonest and disengenuous.

You are attempting to describe fallacies in the first sentence, then give a demonstration in your second, right? Because you nailed the poisoning the well one, but I think you whiffed on the false dichotomy.
 
You are attempting to describe fallacies in the first sentence, then give a demonstration in your second, right? Because you nailed the poisoning the well one, but I think you whiffed on the false dichotomy.

I answered the actual question asked.

I will frankly tell you that I consider your arguments among the most uninformed I have ever seen on this website and this is no exception.
 
I answered the actual question asked.

I will frankly tell you that I consider your arguments among the most uninformed I have ever seen on this website and this is no exception.

You may wish to reread the question asked, because your statement was not an answer to it. Your statement began by stating 2 logical fallacies, then demonstrating one of them. If you meant to demonstrate both, you whiffed on the false dichotomy one. If you meant to answer the question asked, your entire post was a non sequitur.
 
You may wish to reread the question asked, because your statement was not an answer to it. Your statement began by stating 2 logical fallacies, then demonstrating one of them. If you meant to demonstrate both, you whiffed on the false dichotomy one. If you meant to answer the question asked, your entire post was a non sequitur.
:words::words::words::words::words:
 
Please join 'Lawyers for Hillary' for an evening with Hillary Clinton

Tue, May 31, 2016, 5:00pm – 6:30pm (New York City)

Event Chair
Raise $27,000 in primary election contributions
Includes Host reception with Hillary, reserved premium table, and membership in Hillary for America Finance Committee and Lawyers Finance Council

Event Host
Raise $10,000 in primary election contributions
Includes Host reception with Hillary, reserved preferred table, and membership in Hillary for America Lawyers Finance Council

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/events/tickets/HMMO7FZT4W5FKNA6/?raiser=25709


Sitting at the "reserved premium table" for $27,000 a seat, is far too spendy for my pocketbook.

Hopefully, her upcoming 'Used Car Salesmen for Crooked Hillary' will be slightly more affordable.
 
Last edited:
Sitting at the "reserved premium table" for $27,000 a seat, is far too spendy for my pocketbook.

Hopefully, her upcoming 'Used Car Salesmen for Crooked Hillary' will be slightly more affordable.

I think most used car salesmen have moral standards that are too high to associate with such riff raff.
 
Everyone ignored this, but they shouldn't. The betting odds on trump (on this site) are 1 in 4.

Even back in December, I was pointing out how the odds were heavily in Clinton's favor.

And it appears they favor Clinton even more today. It is interesting how they are still offering odds for Ryan, Romney, and Biden, who aren't even in the race, as well as for Kasich and Cruz (but not Rubio!) who have already dropped out.

eta: the second paragraph was for the numbers given by your site. The one I linked to back in Dec still offers odds on Ryan, Romney, and Biden, but not Cruz or Kasich.
 
Last edited:
Watch Barbara Boxer have a total meltdown when Bernie Sanders fans boo her at Nevada convention (May 14, 2016)

Boxer, a Hillary Clinton surrogate, took the Las Vegas stage to raucous boos and, at first, tried to bring a unifying message to stop the onslaught.

"I bring a message from Bernie Sanders and I bring a message from Hillary Clinton,” she told the crowd. “We need civility in the Democratic Party. Civility."

As the boos rained down on Boxer, her tone became more acrimonious as she began to reprimand the malcontents.

“Let’s hear it for Hillary Clinton!” needling those who opposed her. “We have the votes, we have the voice, we have victory!”

“I grew up in Brooklyn. I’m not afraid of bullies,” The California senator continued.

“I’m for Hillary Clinton and she’s for all of us,” she yelled. “Keep on booing and boo yourselves out of this election.”

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/05...ders-fans-boo-her-at-nevada-convention-340696


"Let's hear it for Hillary Clinton!" Senator Barbara Boxer desperately pleaded, as she was heckled and booed off the stage by the fiercely strident #NeverHillary 'Bernie Bros', Saturday in Las Vegas.

Watch the 3.5 minute video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeqGvsu44Ec
 
Last edited:
Here's some information on what it was actually about - not mentioned in the braindead "bizpacreview" article.

The Hill said:
[...] Sanders supporters were angry over a voice vote that adopted a set of temporary convention rules as the permanent rules, according to the Las Vegas Sun.

And supporters also reacted angrily to the count of delegates attending the convention, which put Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton at an advantage. Final numbers announced later in the day showed 1,695 Clinton supporters in attendance to Sanders's 1,662. [...]

The vote on rules led to supporters flocking the front of the convention room and shouting “this is fixed” and “no confidence” at party officials. [...]

The convention ended, hours behind schedule, on a contentious note, with a delegate credentials committee member reading a minority report that said nearly 64 Sanders delegates were excluded from the convention process. A Democratic National Committee (DNC) member said the report would be submitted to the DNC.

Clinton ended up getting seven additional delegates, with Sanders winning five. [...]


If only those obnoxious "Bernie Bros" had behaved and let Her Entitledness play her little tricks peacefully... :rolleyes:
 
Here's some information on what it was actually about - not mentioned in the braindead "bizpacreview" article.

If only those obnoxious "Bernie Bros" had behaved and let Her Entitledness play her little tricks peacefully... :rolleyes:
Your commentary isn't at all in sync with your citation.

Clinton won Nevada. Why then is it noteworthy that her delegates outnumbered Sanders' delegates by a small margin?
 
Here's some information on what it was actually about - not mentioned in the braindead "bizpacreview" article.




If only those obnoxious "Bernie Bros" had behaved and let Her Entitledness play her little tricks peacefully... :rolleyes:

This is Nevada, where those reasonable populists stacked the previous confab and stole Bernie a delegate he didn't earn. They expected to do the same and the fact that they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar previously and were out-voted (in a state she carried) should only have surprised the truly deluded who think that they speak for the majority, even when they haven't won the majority.

How are we doing in Nebraska? Has the Bernie campaign asked those delegates to switch now that Hillary won the popular vote primary?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom