US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3619

On April 16 2016 06:37 CannonsNCarriers wrote:


Bernie raises $139M -- pure as snow and will "pay back his donors" with college and healthcare by taxing the rich.
Clinton raises $159M -- hopelessly tainted by Corruption and Wall Street because she had some expensive fundraisers.

Please, continue making this argument.

On April 16 2016 05:15 cLutZ wrote:Garland is not really a compromise candidate.

On April 16 2016 08:26 zf wrote:

Run the same set of questions for, say, Kavanaugh and Sutton on the one hand and Liu and Watford on the other (or even Obama's other nominees). Then factor in Garland's age, and you'll see why he's a compromise candidate.

On April 16 2016 08:46 cLutZ wrote:Liu and Watson are not substantially different (except for criminal justice, which I've said is almost inconsequential to Republicans at this point in time). Sutton and Kavanaugh would have been "compromise candidates" in that theywould be more likely to be filibustered by Democrats...

On April 16 2016 11:01 oneofthem wrote:
that is just lurid speculation from the rabid left.

Washington (CNN)There's an independent senator -- a democratic socialist, no less -- with climate change on the brain making a real play for the Democratic nomination against Hillary Clinton, who exudes establishment politics.

What's the Green Party, which has been railing against the Democratic Party for years, to do in the year of Bernie Sanders?

For Jill Stein, 2012 Green Party presidential nominee and current candidate, the answer seems to be keep on going.

"Forward movement is a good thing, but I always include that it's not enough, and we have to have a base where we can truly build," Stein told CNN. "That cannot be done inside of the corporate, establishment political parties."

Stein's third party bid for the presidency is centered on student debt, climate change and opposition to the economic and political establishment -- also focal points for the Sanders campaign, a similarity Stein readily acknowledged.

"I think we share very similar values and visions," Stein said. "I just happen to be working in a party that supports those values and those visions."

Sanders has made changing the Democratic Party a key pitch to his voters. Stein's disdain for the Democratic Party is key to hers.

"I have long since thrown in the towel on the Democratic and Republican parties because they are really a front group for the 1%, for predatory banks, fossil fuel giants and war profiteers," Stein said.

On April 16 2016 10:22 Mohdoo wrote:
I keep seeing people on FB talking about these transcipts. I think it's adorable that these people think she has even the slightest incentive. Her campaign can tank like hell after NY and still be fine. She will never release them. And she'll still win and there's nothing Sanders can do unless he wins NY by some freak miracle. But it's a closed primary. He's toast.

On April 16 2016 08:16 Nebuchad wrote:


I will continue, thanks. What's wrong with that picture according to you?

On April 16 2016 15:17 JW_DTLA wrote:


This argument reveals the deep perception biases of the Berners. Bernie and Clinton are doing the same thing. Both are raising money. That Clinton sometimes raises money in high dollar dinners is a distinction with no difference.

// I am CnC

On April 16 2016 15:17 JW_DTLA wrote:


This argument reveals the deep perception biases of the Berners. Bernie and Clinton are doing the same thing. Both are raising money. That Clinton sometimes raises money in high dollar dinners is a distinction with no difference.

// I am CnC

On April 16 2016 15:27 Soularion wrote:


Well, no, they aren't. What Bernie is against isn't getting -all- money out of politics, it's getting -corporate- money out of politics. I suspect a majority of Berners dislike Clinton less for getting money and more because she gets money from the big banks, possibly from the oil & gas industry, etc. and then turns around and says how she's gonna crack down on these industries. How would that affect Bernie at all? How would Bernie be 'corrupted' by the same people who vote for him? People are suspicious about Clinton because her source is different from her voters and might have different goals with that money especially when Clinton and those sources don't align ideologically - bribery becomes a concern - and this is made a LOT worse by Clinton's constant refusal to release the transcripts and events such as the white noise machine. Your argument makes no sense, at all. They are not doing the same thing. Bernie is raising money from civilians who are likely going to/would vote for him. This is how campaigns always have been. Clinton is raising a ridiculous amount of money from corporations WHICH ISN'T EVEN THE PROBLEM. The problem is that people question how Clinton can be trusted to be on the right side of these issues when she's taking so much money from the industries that she's going to have to regulate, and I think that's an entirely valid question. Now, if Clinton were to release her transcripts and show that they're legitimate critiques of the problems in those indutsries and Berners still went after her.. that'd be stupid. But that hasn't happened, so it's still a valid question which Clinton keeps dodging which only makes her look worse.

Just to give a simple addition:

Bernie betraying his views for money is literally impossible because the money comes from people who support his views.

Hillary betraying her views for money is more possible because of her general shadiness, because of her history of being on the other side of these issues, and because the industries are quite clearly against the stances she has. Doesn't mean she won't be a good president - I think she'll be great if she does everything she says she will, and mediocre if she doesn't - but it means that liberals question her on these issues while they have no reason to question Sanders. Understandable, albeit some take it too far.