|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 06 2016 03:36 Seuss wrote:
The "Not Trump" argument is bad, but it's not the only one Hillary supporters have, it's just the only one that might possibly get through to people who have already bought the narrative that Hillary is dishonest/crooked/untrustworthy etc.
People aren't "buying a narrative" (can't believe someone is really still holding onto this). She was unquestionably deceitful about this and it's far from the only time. They are just observing reality.
|
On July 06 2016 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 03:15 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 03:05 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. No one is celebrating incompetence. We will either have Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton as president. This decision by Comey decreases the chances of Trump being president. That's all anyone is celebrating. I didn't say you were celebrating incompetence, I said you were celebrating that her incompetence/lying wasn't provably criminal in the view of the FBI, which you clearly are. On July 06 2016 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
No criminal charges!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Woooooooooooooooooooohoooooooooooooooooo
All legal matters are now behind Clinton and the media machine can blast everything else in people's ears from here until November. Phew! It's sad what this Clinton V Trump is doing to the Democrats and our system at large. On July 06 2016 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 02:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. Where did people say she did not handle this badly? Seems like people pretty much agree it was handled badly and some lies were told at the very least. However, there is no one better and/or viable in the race so you take the lesser of two weevils Did you see Moo's response? There certainly is a better alternative still in the race. One that wasn't under multiple FBI probes while running, one that wasn't lying regularly to the American people to play down this story, one that didn't have the FBI director say they "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.", etc... I knew this "well she's the best we got" line was going to get trotted out and that's why Bernie's still in the race. Democrats can pick a better nominee if they want, if we get Hillary it's because Democrats wanted her (bad parts included) not because there wasn't a better option. This "lesser of two evils" thing is categorically dumb as well. Americans could elect whoever we damn well wanted (within the law) if people didn't believe that ignorance. On July 06 2016 00:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
"hillary was careless" says guy who put a nazi meme on his twitter
lest we forget, remember all the bush administration emails? Did the Director of the FBI do that? What you (predictably) fail to realize is that despite all this many people still think Hillary is a better candidate then Bernie. Your free to disagree with that, but that doesn't change their opinion, nor the fact that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate. They can think it, but it doesn't make it true. Point being, that one can't suggest she's the best/only option as a fact, I'd say there's a LOT of evidence to the contrary as well. As much as Bernie supporters are made out to be fools, I have to say anyone still believing Hillary at this point is truly the fool. + Show Spoiler + If you operate under the assumption that (for better or worse), the only two people who have a chance at being president are Trump and Clinton, the celebration makes sense. You seem to loath the idea of lesser evils, but it's simply reality. Being able to write in a candidates name is not the same as that person having a shot at winning. The masses, who are profoundly intellectually lazy, will not do that. Clinton is the nominee and thus the only chance. I don't think it's worth arguing if Bernie still has a chance at being president. We've already said what we believe. But I am simply saying that your assumptions are not the same as mine. My celebration makes no sense with your assumptions, but it is clearly appropriate under my assumptions. We simply disagree on the assumptions. Even if I take you assumptions, it doesn't change what you are celebrating. Perhaps which veneer you would like to put on it, but the underlying thing you're celebrating is that her incompetence and deception wasn't provably criminal. Because both her incompetence and deception has been shown to be real (not part of some vast right-wing conspiracy like many here advanced) regarding this issue. So you can say you're celebrating her getting off because it makes Trump less likely to win, but her getting off is still what's being celebrated, or would have been lamented had it not happened. I believe Clinton's dishonesty would be less damaging to our economy and way of life than Trump. Looking at both candidates, and knowing Clinton is dishonest, I still believe 4 years of Clinton would be a net benefit over 4 years of Trump. I am celebrating the results of her innocence on our country, not the results themselves. Do you believe Trump would be a better president? That framing pretends like it had to end up this way, it didn't, people could have not vehemently denied what turned out to be true. So Hillary supporters have to take responsibility for getting her this far, so that they could now make the "She's better than Trump, right?" argument. She would have never gotten nominated with a "I'm better than Trump" strategy from the start, she lied about who/what she was all the way up to this point, her supporters denied it, it's confirmed that she was outright lying, and now they want to say "but she's not Trump" which, frankly, disgusts me. EDIT: I find it cute that Hillary supporters are already on the "well I didn't really like her, but she's better than Trump", like they hadn't been cheerleading and denying that she was obviously a liar the whole time.
Nothing you said here is relevant. There are no time machines. Talking about what could have been is useless and a poor use of time. You aren't even addressing what I say, just talking about how much you wish Bernie was the nominee. This is your problem, you don't discuss reality.
|
On July 06 2016 02:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 02:46 ZeaL. wrote:
I think very few people will be celebrating anything come November. Maybe dodging the apocalypse but that's about it. I can think of worse things, to be honest. I will celebrate if we can get the democrats to hold the senate so the gridlock in government ends. Reducing the number of tea party do nothing house members would be nice too.
All about that Supreme Court imo. That and not giving the country to a meglomaniac.
|
|
|
On July 06 2016 03:43 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 02:54 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 02:46 ZeaL. wrote:
I think very few people will be celebrating anything come November. Maybe dodging the apocalypse but that's about it. I can think of worse things, to be honest. I will celebrate if we can get the democrats to hold the senate so the gridlock in government ends. Reducing the number of tea party do nothing house members would be nice too. All about that Supreme Court imo. That and not giving the country to a meglomaniac.
Exactly. I don't like my options, but I'll be damned if I let that cheeto baron nominate someone to the supreme court.
|
I'm not falling for the "she's better than Trump" by any means so I'll let that lay, but if she does end up winning I'm not going to buy any of the "It's republicans fault she can't do anything" and "I thought she would do more on _____" that will inevitably be popular from her supporters (who will not so slowly morph into people who don't think she's a "goddess" and more into people who got stuck with her (like they didn't support her during the primary) during her tenure.
We've been telling you since day 1 what kind of president we would get in Hillary, there's been piles of evidence to support those suggestions (despite consistent denials) so there will be no passes handed out when she does what we told you she would.
On another note, has anyone else been getting blasted with Hillary commercials, or is that a WA/other state specific thing?
|
The problem is that talking about what could have been is not really productive. Right now, you have the choice between Hillary and Trump. You might not like it, but that is the only choice you have. I know that it's a really bad choice, but to me Trump seems to be so ridiculously bad that i would probably rather vote for a donkey with a toupée if those two were my only choices.
The reason you have such a shitty choice is your FPTP system that makes third party candidacies pointless. Try figuring out how to fix that election system at some point, but that is not going to be easy. Because the people who make that kind of decision are the ones that have won at your broken system.
I know that it is really shitty situation. But you have to deal with it. The next president is going to be Hillary or Trump. What could have been does not change what is.
Or you can emigrate if possible.
|
On July 06 2016 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm not falling for the "she's better than Trump" by any means so I'll let that lay, but if she does end up winning I'm not going to buy any of the "It's republicans fault she can't do anything" and "I thought she would do more on _____" that will inevitably be popular from her supporters (who will not so slowly morph into people who don't think she's a "goddess" and more into people who got stuck with her (like they didn't support her during the primary) during her tenure.
We've been telling you since day 1 what kind of president we would get in Hillary, there's been piles of evidence to support those suggestions (despite consistent denials) so there will be no passes handed out when she does what we told you she would.
On another note, has anyone else been getting blasted with Hillary commercials, or is that a WA/other state specific thing?
Where the hell is this goddess shit coming from?
And yes people know what kind of Hillary they are getting. And they seem to be fine with that. Because Hillary means the course of Obama gets continued rather then the US being dragged back into the 20th century.
And unlike Bernie her proposals are reasonable and achievable.
'She can't do anything' is a valid position if congress does not change because we have had 8 years of 'cant do anything' already under that. If the democrats win congress then it stops being an excuse.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 06 2016 03:36 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm in the Clinton is a mostly honest and decent person who has a pretty good record to run on camp. I like her, and going through this primary has really reinforced that because I've gotten a better handle on where she stands on the issues rather than "she's qualified and I have a generally good impression of her".
I think it's a pretty big camp actually, though some would like to either deny its existence or just say in various creative ways (shills, establishment, low information, naive) that we're wrong.
I mostly have a lower opinion of her after this campaign. All her identity politics and dirty past dealings (which are exaggerated by the Republicans/Sanders but still valid) come bubbling up to the surface and show her as a not-so-good candidate. On policies, she is reasonably socially progressive but unfortunately regressive on economic issues, and very flexible in her positions (changes them as it becomes politically expedient to do so). And while the Republican party is in a serious crisis of leadership now, the best argument she can make for herself is "we must stop Trump."
Yes, I'd vote for her over the very bad choice of the Republican party and its candidate. She is certainly worse for wear after this campaign though, and while she will probably pull out a victory, I can't even say that she is a good candidate. Merely passable, status quo minus, candidate.
On July 06 2016 03:57 Simberto wrote:
The reason you have such a shitty choice is your FPTP system that makes third party candidacies pointless. Try figuring out how to fix that election system at some point, but that is not going to be easy. Because the people who make that kind of decision are the ones that have won at your broken system.
Maybe if the public cares enough to amend the constitution it might happen. No chance of that in the near future.
On July 06 2016 04:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm not falling for the "she's better than Trump" by any means so I'll let that lay, but if she does end up winning I'm not going to buy any of the "It's republicans fault she can't do anything" and "I thought she would do more on _____" that will inevitably be popular from her supporters (who will not so slowly morph into people who don't think she's a "goddess" and more into people who got stuck with her (like they didn't support her during the primary) during her tenure.
We've been telling you since day 1 what kind of president we would get in Hillary, there's been piles of evidence to support those suggestions (despite consistent denials) so there will be no passes handed out when she does what we told you she would.
On another note, has anyone else been getting blasted with Hillary commercials, or is that a WA/other state specific thing? Where the hell is this goddess shit coming from?
Mohdoo's half-trolling antics.
|
On July 06 2016 03:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 03:36 Seuss wrote:
The "Not Trump" argument is bad, but it's not the only one Hillary supporters have, it's just the only one that might possibly get through to people who have already bought the narrative that Hillary is dishonest/crooked/untrustworthy etc. People aren't "buying a narrative" (can't believe someone is really still holding onto this). She was unquestionably deceitful about this and it's far from the only time. They are just observing reality.
That's one way to look at it. Alternatively, you can look at it and say she made a mistake, potentially even an honest one. It's the same reality, the difference is what is read into her actions and intentions.
I'll give you that "buying a narrative" was unfair, but regardless of how one comes to the conclusion that Hillary is dishonest once someone is there no argument outside of "Not Trump" will make headway. Hillary is dishonest, therefore you can't trust what she says or does, therefore nothing she says or does can be used in her defense.
That's also a little unfair, but I've seen it played out both here and in other forums I visit. It therefore doesn't surprise me that after months of having the other arguments ignored the default is "Not Trump".
|
On July 06 2016 03:57 Simberto wrote:
The problem is that talking about what could have been is not really productive. Right now, you have the choice between Hillary and Trump. You might not like it, but that is the only choice you have. I know that it's a really bad choice, but to me Trump seems to be so ridiculously bad that i would probably rather vote for a donkey with a toupée if those two were my only choices.
The reason you have such a shitty choice is your FPTP system that makes third party candidacies pointless. Try figuring out how to fix that election system at some point, but that is not going to be easy. Because the people who make that kind of decision are the ones that have won at your broken system.
I know that it is really shitty situation. But you have to deal with it. The next president is going to be Hillary or Trump. What could have been does not change what is.
Or you can emigrate if possible.
No it's really not. Neither Trump nor Hillary have to even be in the general election. That's a choice the parties and the people supporting them are making. Delegates for Hillary could easily say "She lied to us multiple times and doesn't even seem slightly remorseful about it, I can't in good conscious support her". Fact is they are making a different argument that looks something like
I'm in the Clinton is a mostly honest and decent person who has a pretty good record to run on camp. I like her, and going through this primary has really reinforced that because I've gotten a better handle on where she stands on the issues rather than "she's qualified and I have a generally good impression of her".
On July 06 2016 04:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm not falling for the "she's better than Trump" by any means so I'll let that lay, but if she does end up winning I'm not going to buy any of the "It's republicans fault she can't do anything" and "I thought she would do more on _____" that will inevitably be popular from her supporters (who will not so slowly morph into people who don't think she's a "goddess" and more into people who got stuck with her (like they didn't support her during the primary) during her tenure.
We've been telling you since day 1 what kind of president we would get in Hillary, there's been piles of evidence to support those suggestions (despite consistent denials) so there will be no passes handed out when she does what we told you she would.
On another note, has anyone else been getting blasted with Hillary commercials, or is that a WA/other state specific thing? Where the hell is this goddess shit coming from? And yes people know what kind of Hillary they are getting. And they seem to be fine with that. Because Hillary means the course of Obama gets continued rather then the US being dragged back into the 20th century. And unlike Bernie her proposals are reasonable and achievable. 'She can't do anything' is a valid position if congress does not change because we have had 8 years of 'cant do anything' already under that. If the democrats win congress then it stops being an excuse.
"Goddess" comes from Moh*
"She can't do anything" is not a valid position or the "Bernie wont get anything done" argument was total crap, can't be both.
The arguments she used to win the primary are getting eviscerated by the arguments being made for the general in several other instances too.
On July 06 2016 04:05 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 03:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 03:36 Seuss wrote:
The "Not Trump" argument is bad, but it's not the only one Hillary supporters have, it's just the only one that might possibly get through to people who have already bought the narrative that Hillary is dishonest/crooked/untrustworthy etc. People aren't "buying a narrative" (can't believe someone is really still holding onto this). She was unquestionably deceitful about this and it's far from the only time. They are just observing reality. That's one way to look at it. Alternatively, you can look at it and say she made a mistake, potentially even an honest one. It's the same reality, the difference is what is read into her actions and intentions. I'll give you that "buying a narrative" was unfair, but regardless of how one comes to the conclusion that Hillary is dishonest once someone is there no argument outside of "Not Trump" will make headway. Hillary is dishonest, therefore you can't trust what she says or does, therefore nothing she says or does can be used in her defense. That's also a little unfair, but I've seen it played out both here and in other forums I visit. It therefore doesn't surprise me that after months of having the other arguments ignored the default is "Not Trump".
There's no explaining it away as an honest mistake, she outright and knowingly lied until she couldn't cover it up anymore and hasn't apologized for it at all (the lying, not simply being extremely careless). I take your point that's it's all that's left for her camp to reach people who see her dishonesty for what it is, it's just not going to work either.
|
On July 06 2016 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm not falling for the "she's better than Trump" by any means so I'll let that lay, but if she does end up winning I'm not going to buy any of the "It's republicans fault she can't do anything" and "I thought she would do more on _____" that will inevitably be popular from her supporters (who will not so slowly morph into people who don't think she's a "goddess" and more into people who got stuck with her (like they didn't support her during the primary) during her tenure.
We've been telling you since day 1 what kind of president we would get in Hillary, there's been piles of evidence to support those suggestions (despite consistent denials) so there will be no passes handed out when she does what we told you she would.
On another note, has anyone else been getting blasted with Hillary commercials, or is that a WA/other state specific thing?
Nothing will get done unless the same party controls the house, senate, and presidency. The days of Democrats and Republicans working together and compromising are long gone.
The reason you have such a shitty choice is your FPTP system that makes third party candidacies pointless. Try figuring out how to fix that election system at some point, but that is not going to be easy. Because the people who make that kind of decision are the ones that have won at your broken system.
Clinton and Trump were both chosen democratically by their parties. Primaries are far from the most elegant system, but Americans did have a broader choice, and chose to narrow that choice down to Clinton and Trump.
|
Gh, my username is Mohdoo. If anything, moh makes sense. But not moo
|
On July 06 2016 04:06 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm not falling for the "she's better than Trump" by any means so I'll let that lay, but if she does end up winning I'm not going to buy any of the "It's republicans fault she can't do anything" and "I thought she would do more on _____" that will inevitably be popular from her supporters (who will not so slowly morph into people who don't think she's a "goddess" and more into people who got stuck with her (like they didn't support her during the primary) during her tenure.
We've been telling you since day 1 what kind of president we would get in Hillary, there's been piles of evidence to support those suggestions (despite consistent denials) so there will be no passes handed out when she does what we told you she would.
On another note, has anyone else been getting blasted with Hillary commercials, or is that a WA/other state specific thing? Nothing will get done unless the same party controls the house, senate, and presidency. The days of Democrats and Republicans working together and compromising are long gone. Show nested quote +The reason you have such a shitty choice is your FPTP system that makes third party candidacies pointless. Try figuring out how to fix that election system at some point, but that is not going to be easy. Because the people who make that kind of decision are the ones that have won at your broken system. Clinton and Trump were both chosen democratically by their parties. Primaries are far from the most elegant system, but Americans did have a broader choice, and chose to narrow that choice down to Clinton and Trump.
I can see the Democats being willing to work with the Republicans so long as they are reasonable (aka no defund PP BS)
And while the primaries are (more or less) democratic there can certainly be a 3e party candidate that would make a better President then Clinton or Trump but they have 0 chance of winning because of the FPTP.
A viable alternative to Clinton getting a bunch of Democratic votes means that Trump wins by merely being the Republican nominee (say a 40-30-30 split Trump-Clinton-3e Party rather then a 60-40 Clinton-Trump) and the visa versa for a Trump alternative.
Hence why people do not generally vote 3e party, because it actually increases the chance you lose out.
|
On July 06 2016 04:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 03:57 Simberto wrote:
The problem is that talking about what could have been is not really productive. Right now, you have the choice between Hillary and Trump. You might not like it, but that is the only choice you have. I know that it's a really bad choice, but to me Trump seems to be so ridiculously bad that i would probably rather vote for a donkey with a toupée if those two were my only choices.
The reason you have such a shitty choice is your FPTP system that makes third party candidacies pointless. Try figuring out how to fix that election system at some point, but that is not going to be easy. Because the people who make that kind of decision are the ones that have won at your broken system.
I know that it is really shitty situation. But you have to deal with it. The next president is going to be Hillary or Trump. What could have been does not change what is.
Or you can emigrate if possible. No it's really not. Neither Trump nor Hillary have to even be in the general election. That's a choice the parties and the people supporting them are making. Delegates for Hillary could easily say "She lied to us multiple times and doesn't even seem slightly remorseful about it, I can't in good conscious support her".
Yes, but you know as well as i that that is not going to happen. It doesn't have to be, but to change it, you would either have to get a lot of delegates to vote against the candidate that won the primary (good luck with that, it sounds like political suicide, and every one of them would demand that you are sure that you actually have enough people flipping that they don't also look incredibly silly because they did it and then it didn't work. Which is a very real possibility that noone is going to risk)
Or you have to actually get pluralities in enough states to matter for a third party candidate. Which is not going to happen because once again, for people to vote third party they need to be ensured that that candidate actually has a chance, but you need a lot of people to vote for him for him to have a chance. FPTP otherwise means that their votes are wasted, and the one of the two main candidates they agree with more is thus more likely to lose, because some of their voters wasted their vote. This is the main problem of FPTP, it is incredibly stagnant. You have two parties, and you are going to keep those parties for centuries. If you don't agree with any of them, you are fucked and have to either vote "lesser evil" or waste your vote.
|
On July 06 2016 04:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
No it's really not. Neither Trump nor Hillary have to even be in the general election. That's a choice the parties and the people supporting them are making. Delegates for Hillary could easily say "She lied to us multiple times and doesn't even seem slightly remorseful about it, I can't in good conscious support her". Fact is they are making a different argument that looks something like
So as a Sanders supporter you're saying that the delegates are supposed to turn their back on the constituents although Hillary has won the popular vote? That's going to be a little difficult to reconcile with Sanders original platform.
|
On July 06 2016 04:25 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 04:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
No it's really not. Neither Trump nor Hillary have to even be in the general election. That's a choice the parties and the people supporting them are making. Delegates for Hillary could easily say "She lied to us multiple times and doesn't even seem slightly remorseful about it, I can't in good conscious support her". Fact is they are making a different argument that looks something like
So as a Sanders supporter you're saying that the delegates are supposed to turn their back on the constituents although Hillary has won the popular vote? That's going to be a little difficult to reconcile with Sanders original platform.
I don’t know, that platform seemed to be fluid. With the constant refrain of “by any means possible.”
|
On July 06 2016 04:25 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 04:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
No it's really not. Neither Trump nor Hillary have to even be in the general election. That's a choice the parties and the people supporting them are making. Delegates for Hillary could easily say "She lied to us multiple times and doesn't even seem slightly remorseful about it, I can't in good conscious support her". Fact is they are making a different argument that looks something like
So as a Sanders supporter you're saying that the delegates are supposed to turn their back on the constituents although Hillary has won the popular vote? That's going to be a little difficult to reconcile with Sanders original platform.
Considering he went from saying that super delegates were completely evil to trying to have them overturn the delegate vote and popular vote I say hypocrisy is the easy answer.
|
I mean, you're directly disagreeing with Bernie Sanders if you think Clinton is worse than Trump. Bernie's said it repeatedly over the primary season. It's your prerogative to disagree with the candidate you wish won, I guess, but he clearly disagrees with a lot of his supporters on her suitability for office.
Edit: which, incidentally, is why so many default to thinking "never Clintoners" have bought into right wing propaganda on Clinton; they certainly haven't bought into Sanders' own statements and views on the subject.
|
On July 06 2016 04:25 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 04:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
No it's really not. Neither Trump nor Hillary have to even be in the general election. That's a choice the parties and the people supporting them are making. Delegates for Hillary could easily say "She lied to us multiple times and doesn't even seem slightly remorseful about it, I can't in good conscious support her". Fact is they are making a different argument that looks something like
So as a Sanders supporter you're saying that the delegates are supposed to turn their back on the constituents although Hillary has won the popular vote? That's going to be a little difficult to reconcile with Sanders original platform.
Not when the issue is that they were intentionally lied to and manipulated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
