Hillary Clinton Refuses to Quit Burning Bridges - Says "Nobody likes him [Bernie Sanders]"

[Vic]

Because a public figure said something stupid, that in my opinion is part of a greater effort by the democratic establishment to smear a candidate that would disrupt the corporate control of the democratic party. When I said meaningless, I was referring to the criticisms themselves, not their potential impact.

I mean, how can you defend the claim that nobody likes Sanders? He literally has the highest approval rating in the senate right now.

You're right, the Democrats should keep fighting among themselves over the corporate control of the party in order to ensure the Republican party's corporate control of America.

 

[ivwshane]

Because a public figure said something stupid, that in my opinion is part of a greater effort by the democratic establishment to smear a candidate that would disrupt the corporate control of the democratic party. When I said meaningless, I was referring to the criticisms themselves, not their potential impact.

I mean, how can you defend the claim that nobody likes Sanders? He literally has the highest approval rating in the senate right now.

A double down on stupidity, nice!

So in your post you have now accused the Democrats of being controlled by corporations and you have taken Hillary’s comments out of context.

Dishonest troll is dishonest.

 

[VRAMdemon]

The reasons are many why Clinton lost. Ranging from she ran a bad campaign, skipped over the midwest, wasn't likeable etc. It really wasn't her political positions. One has to squint moderately hard to see any differences between HRC and Obama. BUT, the reasons for not voting for her over Trump I've heard don't make sense, or are borderline batshit.

For example..People have said they don't like Clinton as a person. She doesn't project warmth...

But...what is insane is when people say they didn't like Hillary Clinton as a person, she wasn't likeable - so they voted for Donald Trump. (WTF!) If Clinton lacked warmth, Trump reeked of contempt. Or they chose Trump over Clinton because they felt that Clinton was dishonest. *facepalm*

People said that they would have voted for another Democrat over Trump, but when presented with Clinton as the nominee, instead chose not to vote at all. In addition to the people not voting, there's also an element that "men are assertive, women are bitchy and emotional."

 

[mect]

You're right, the Democrats should keep fighting among themselves over the corporate control of the party in order to ensure the Republican party's corporate control of America.

Or they could unite behind a candidate that supports transferring power from corporate America back to the people. There are far more people than corporations, they've just become conditioned to believe that corporate America will take better care of them than an elected government.

 

[Vic]

Or they could unite behind a candidate that supports transferring power from corporate America back to the people. There are far more people than corporations, they've just become conditioned to believe that corporate America will take better care of them than an elected government.

The problem that so many people have with progress is that it is incremental, by definition.

 

[pmv]

The problem that so many people have with progress is that it is incremental, by definition.

Is it? That seems an odd use of 'by definition'. Nothing in the definition of progress says it must be incremental. It certainly doesn't say anything about the size of the increments. Oh, wait, having looked it up, seems that definition 3 is "gradual betterment ", so OK, by that definition you are right. However that's not the only meaning.

Cataclysmic Political/economic events, like the crash of 1929 or the financial crisis or the world wars, certainly don't happen 'incrementally' or 'gradually'.

I don't think everything gets fixed overnight by a 'revolution', but equally well I don't see how you can insist it must always be gradual, either. It moves by fits and starts, sudden leaps forward (sometimes violent) and multiple steps back, periods of 'gradual progress' and others of very rapid change.

 

[mect]

The problem that so many people have with progress is that it is incremental, by definition.

Not necessarily. Often progress comes from the extremes. It doesn't necessarily come from the middle. Take gay rights. Yes, you had to wait for the political middle to make it to that point, but once it did, progress came rapidly. The same with women's suffrage, and the civil rights act. These were all causes pushed by the left, and once a big enough portion of the population was on board, the change was very sudden.

The problem right now is that there are a lot of issues where the centrist citizens of the country are on board, but even many democrats in congress are not. In my estimation, this country as a whole is much further left than our elected government. There are a lot of changes that have been building for years, that the citizens of the country support, but haven't been enacted. Most American's want to end Citizens United. Most Americans want universal healthcare. Most American's support cancelling student loan debt. Most Americans support stricter gun laws. Most Americans support mandatory paid parental leave. Most Americans support combating climate change.

The problem is, most of these things will cost the ultra wealthy money and power, and these are the two things they don't want to give up. The wealthy are going to continue to try to exert their disproportionate power to steer us either away from these types of policies, or at least so that we just kind of play around with them like what happened with the affordable care act. Yes, the affordable care act was an incremental improvement, but it still left the insurance agencies, health care agencies, and drug companies in positions of incredible power where they could continue to exert control. I think a lot of America is fed up with incremental change that leaves them falling continually farther behind. Personally, while we can argue about what led to Trump all day long, in my opinion that is the root cause, the reason he wasn't just laughed out of the primary in the first place.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Or they could unite behind a candidate that supports transferring power from corporate America back to the people. There are far more people than corporations, they've just become conditioned to believe that corporate America will take better care of them than an elected government.

I agree with this. But, this election is about getting rid of Trump. Normally I wouldn't vote for somebody in the billionaire class like Bloomberg for president. Normally I wouldn't vote for somebody that is as old as Biden or Sanders for president. Normally I wouldn't vote for a phony snowflake like Gabbard for president. The norms and many things I look for in a President are out the window in this election cycle. I'm looking for the person who has the best shot a beating Trump and bring our constitutional democracy back. Sadly, someone like Warren have the policies that I most align with, but I just don't think she can beat Trump and the Republican smear machine. People in this day and age have been brainwashed, lied to and gaslighted to vote against their own best interests. And many of these people haven't felt the pain of this choice, YET....Or they have felt the pain and just don't care or have been gaslit and will continue to vote with tribalism and a cult like mindset. I don't see these people deviating. Many people may have to settle with someone whom they may not align with this election just to take out the trash.

 

[mect]

I agree with this. But, this election is about getting rid of Trump. Normally I wouldn't vote for somebody in the billionaire class like Bloomberg for president. Normally I wouldn't vote for somebody that is as old as Biden or Sanders for president. Normally I wouldn't vote for a phony snowflake like Gabbard for president. The norms and many things I look for in a President are out the window in this election cycle. I'm looking for the person who has the best shot a beating Trump and bring our constitutional democracy back. Sadly, someone like Warren have the policies that I most align with, but I just don't think she can beat Trump and the Republican smear machine. People in this day and age have been brainwashed, lied to and gaslighted to vote against their own best interests. And many of these people haven't felt the pain of this choice, YET....Or they have felt the pain and just don't care or have been gaslit and will continue to vote with tribalism and a cult like mindset. I don't see these people deviating. Many people may have to settle with someone whom they may not align with this election just to take out the trash.

I do agree, first priority is getting rid of Trump. I personally think any of the democratic candidates can do this, though. But yes, whoever the Dem nominee is, I'll be voting party line. I may complain about the democratic party sometimes, but that is just because they're a centrist to center right party. The republicans are full on crazy.

 

[Maxima1]

Here we go again....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1223375556802174976

 

[ivwshane]

Here we go again....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1223375556802174976

Good news, if Bernie gets the majority of votes by democrats then there won’t be a brokered convention.

 

[NostaSeronx]

No one in the top likes commies like Sanders. So, this is obviously a non-issue if someone is at the bottom.

 

[senseamp]

Bernie is not a Democrat, I don't see why DNC would want to support him.

 

[Maxima1]

Bernie is not a Democrat, I don't see why DNC would want to support him.

If he wins their primaries, who cares if he had the Independent label. We have only two viable parties in our election system. Democratic party is the one he fits in.

If the DNC decides to change the rules midway or tries to manipulate the process in some other way, who should get the blame if a loss occurs? I'm guessing by the responses by some here, they'll still place it on Bernie and/or his supporters.

 

[ivwshane]

It really doesn’t matter who the nominee is now. You either vote for the democratic nominee or you are voting for trump (even if you vote for a third party).

 

[Vic]

If he wins their primaries, who cares if he had the Independent label. We have only two viable parties in our election system. Democratic party is the one he fits in.

If the DNC decides to change the rules midway or tries to manipulate the process in some other way, who should get the blame if a loss occurs? I'm guessing by the responses by some here, they'll still place it on Bernie and/or his supporters.

I'm sure you've been told this many times before, but the DNC did not rig the primaries in 2016, and Bernie did lose by more the 3 million votes.

My lack of respect for people who keep repeating the same lies over and over again long after they've been debunked is boundless. If only they'd take the blame for their bullshit, but of course that will never happen.

 

[Maxima1]

I'm sure you've been told this many times before, but the DNC did not rig the primaries in 2016, and Bernie did lose by more the 3 million votes.

My lack of respect for people who keep repeating the same lies over and over again long after they've been debunked is boundless. If only they'd take the blame for their bullshit, but of course that will never happen.

RIGGED

 

[ivwshane]

RIGGED

Ah yes YouTube videos with no supporting evidence, the hallmark of deep thinkers./eyeroll

 

[Maxima1]

Ah yes YouTube videos with no supporting evidence, the hallmark of deep thinkers./eyeroll

Hahaha, apparently you didn't watch it, since Warren says in both instances that she believes it was rigged.

 

[ivwshane]

Hahaha, apparently you didn't watch it, since Warren says in both instances that she believes it was rigged.

Oh Warren said? Well shit then it must be true!!!


I really wish stupidity was a bannable offense.

 

[Vic]

Hahaha, apparently you didn't watch it, since Warren says in both instances that she believes it was rigged.

Which part, specifically, of losing by more than 3 million votes was rigged?

 

[Jhhnn]

Which part, specifically, of losing by more than 3 million votes was rigged?

Russian trolls & bots convinced them, so it must be true!

 

[Maxima1]

Oh Warren said? Well shit then it must be true!!!


I really wish stupidity was a bannable offense.

So she told a bald-faced lie, haha? Or maybe there was a nugget of truth with the questions given in advanced to Broom Hilda, the manipulation of the debates, and the inaction by the Democratic party to change the half-assed solution of the superdelegates.

Which part, specifically, of losing by more than 3 million votes was rigged?

Even if a process is "rigged", it doesn't necessarily guarantee a loss. The "losing by more than 3 million votes" point gets old, since the candidate that gets the early lead will tend to snowball.

Russian trolls & bots convinced them, so it must be true!

Let's say Trump did nothing else in the upcoming election but get Ukraine to announce a bogus investigation. Everyone would still say the election is "rigged" even if it came to pass that it did nothing to Biden in the general election.

 

[ivwshane]

So she told a bald-faced lie, haha? Or maybe there was a nugget of truth with the questions given in advanced to Broom Hilda, the manipulation of the debates, and the inaction by the Democratic party to change the half-assed solution of the superdelegates.



Even if a process is "rigged", it doesn't necessarily guarantee a loss. The "losing by more than 3 million votes" point gets old, since the candidate that gets the early lead will tend to snowball.



Let's say Trump did nothing else in the upcoming election but get Ukraine to announce a bogus investigation. Everyone would still say the election is "rigged" even if it came to pass that it did nothing to Biden in the general election.

So again, you’ve got nothing. I suggest you up your troll game as it’s pretty weak.

 

[Vic]

Even if a process is "rigged", it doesn't necessarily guarantee a loss. The "losing by more than 3 million votes" point gets old, since the candidate that gets the early lead will tend to snowball..

This didn't answer my question, you're just displaying your contempt for truth and democracy. Rigged would have been if Bernie had won the nom despite losing by millions of votes.

It wasn't rigged. Bernie lost Get over it already.