|
These guys are the true laughingstocks
|
|
You're all fools if you gall for fake reality show elections.
|
|
We still don't know how a Trump presidency ends. If it causes the total annihilation of Republicans, with the remnants gathering around a much more moderate core, than that's worth whatever reversible damage Donnie causes in a term.
I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.
|
|
You're a laughing stock for not supporting candidates with different policies from your own?
|
|
Yeah Bernie bros are fools. Imagine wanting a Castro supporter as president.
Start me, bench Forte
|
|
Sojy posted...
You're a laughing stock for not supporting candidates with different policies from your own? Voting is always a compromise with reality. You should learn that.
Ring the bells that still can ring/Forget your perfect offering/There is a crack in everything/That's how the light gets in."- RIP, Leonard Cohen
|
|
Yeah, fuck them for not compromising on their beliefs!
"The only things I can trust right now are myself and this big gun." - Eric from Zero Time Dilemma
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Garioshi/wishlist |
|
and the worst of all- Hillary harpies. Those delusional fucks thought they had the election on lock and they've been shrieking about Russia for months now. Those republican-lites can eat shit.
|
|
Garioshi posted...
Yeah, fuck them for not compromising on their beliefs! Depends. Most people dislike Bernie Bros aka Bernie or Bust people. Thankfully, like 95% of Bernie Supporters aren't them. |
|
LightSnake posted...
Sojy posted...You're a laughing stock for not supporting candidates with different policies from your own? Easy to say that when you are the neoliberal wanting everyone else to compromise for you. I think we've done enough compromising with neoliberal scum. It is about time we stopped letting you sell the country out to every corporation that looks in your direction. |
|
TheShadowViper posted...
LightSnake posted...Sojy posted...You're a laughing stock for not supporting candidates with different policies from your own? Unfortunately, numbers aren't on your side. Got to actually win against Republicans before trying to purge your own side of "corruption". |
|
Pitbuller_26 posted...
TheShadowViper posted...LightSnake posted...Sojy posted...You're a laughing stock for not supporting candidates with different policies from your own? With more and more people leaving the Democratic Party perhaps it will finally be possible to form another one to compete. One thing is for sure, compromising with neoliberals is not going to bring change. They infected the Democratic Party leadership in the 90s and they will not let it go willingly. |
|
TheShadowViper posted...
LightSnake posted...Sojy posted...You're a laughing stock for not supporting candidates with different policies from your own? You have to love the overuse of 'neoliberal' as it's become just a buzzword for "anything Democrats do I dislike"
Ring the bells that still can ring/Forget your perfect offering/There is a crack in everything/That's how the light gets in."- RIP, Leonard Cohen
|
|
TheShadowViper posted...
Pitbuller_26 posted...TheShadowViper posted...LightSnake posted...Sojy posted...You're a laughing stock for not supporting candidates with different policies from your own? No. A third party will never gain significant traction in the USA. The past election was the best opportunity and we saw that fail pretty hard. Your differences with "Neoliberals" are minor differences that are negligible when you all agree on about 90% to 95% of things that matter. |
|
LightSnake posted...
TheShadowViper posted...LightSnake posted...Sojy posted...You're a laughing stock for not supporting candidates with different policies from your own? No actually, I use it correctly. Neoliberals like your Queen HRC are cowardly sellouts who hide behind the lies they tell the American worker while feeding the corporate machine time and time again. If you don't like the word that is your issue, it isn't my fault that scum like to congregate together on this forum. You are not a liberal, and you should be called out on your perversion at every available opportunity. No more hiding for you. And Pit, look up the term neoliberal because you clearly have no idea what the word means. |
|
I kind of think you should stop being so melodramatic.
Since you don't seem to know what neoliberalism is any more than that right-wing guy on Chris Matthews' show knew what Neville Chamberlain did.
Ring the bells that still can ring/Forget your perfect offering/There is a crack in everything/That's how the light gets in."- RIP, Leonard Cohen
|
|
LightSnake posted...
I kind of think you should stop being so melodramatic. Yawn. I'm not being melodramatic. I'm just calling you out for who you are HRC Neolib. If you don't like the title perhaps you should come up with a new one? How about, "We Sold the American People Out Party". That sounds perfect and is strikingly accurate. You can get Red and SPM and all your buddy Neolibs to join! Sounds like a plan! But discussion with you is pointless lightsnake, since you are routinely wrong on just about everything. |
|
Okay, to save you the time and effort of actually googling neoliberalism, here's the opening lines of the Wikipedia article:
" refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.:7 These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, unrestricted free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980." Most of us, you might find, are not in favor of fiscal austerity, unrestricted free trade, privatization or deregulation. It helps to know what words mean before you use them as pejoratives.
Ring the bells that still can ring/Forget your perfect offering/There is a crack in everything/That's how the light gets in."- RIP, Leonard Cohen
|
|
LightSnake posted...
Okay, to save you the time and effort of actually googling neoliberalism, here's the opening lines of the Wikipedia article: You listed everything that the candidates you support believe in. Do I need to teach you some history about Papa Clinton? |
|
Queen HRC, sellouts? The only group who sees the president as a king are Trump supporters.
Your only feasible options were Clinton or Trump. As we know, Sanders lost the primary as well as all the other Republican candidates. In the US, third parties do nothing beside cause trouble by taking votes from the more reasonable candidate (see Bush v. Gore and 2016). Can you say with certainty that Clinton would be doing everything Trump and his administration is doing? You don't even have to like Clinton to see what the obvious answer is to that question. |
|
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
Oh look at that! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act Oh no there is some more! Lightsnake, you are so hilariously wrong about everything it is amusing. I wonder how long you neoliberals can hide behind bullshit...Probably not much longer. |
|
LightSnake posted...
Voting is always a compromise with reality. You should learn that. Unless they're leftwing, then they're relentlessly attacked with baseless lies and self-fulfilling prophecy about being unelectable. |
|
Funny thing about the tele act of 96 if I remember this right, they only reported this in the business sections of newspapers. Probably the most dramatic transformation of the networks.
When in danger or in doubt
Run in circles scream and shout |
|
Bernie or Busters basically go "since the girl I wanted rejected me I'm going to become gay"
|
|
TheShadowViper posted...
Pitbuller_26 posted...TheShadowViper posted...LightSnake posted...Sojy posted...You're a laughing stock for not supporting candidates with different policies from your own? You need to read up on how the electoral college system works. If, say, 30% of all democratic voters* suddenly went off to make their own True Left party - 30%, btw, is an almost ludicrously large % - do you know what the result would be? An overwhelming GOP victory as they took all of the swing states, the democrats would hold on to the really blue states and the True Left would get precisely nothing at all, apart from 4 more years of Republicans and a completely powerless opposition. Sound like a good deal to you? *Voters being a key thing here, because your support for your candidate means absolutely fuck-button if you don't vote for them. Berniacas.
"The US military is not an effective proxy for humanity" ~ Folding Ideas
Faciendere id pro RAVz |
|
1337toothbrush posted...
and the worst of all- Hillary harpies. Those delusional fucks thought they had the election on lock and they've been shrieking about Russia for months now. Those republican-lites can eat shit. I would have voted for Bernie in 2016 had he won the nomination, and would have done so without hesitation. I can say without a doubt that I absolutely am better than you or anybody else who refused to see how vastly superior the Democratic nominee was compared to the alternative back in November.
Home is behind, the world ahead. And there are many paths to tread
Through shadow to the edge of night, until the stars are all alight |
|
TheShadowViper posted...
LightSnake posted...Okay, to save you the time and effort of actually googling neoliberalism, here's the opening lines of the Wikipedia article: I'm sorry, when did we vote for Bill Clinton in the last election?
Ring the bells that still can ring/Forget your perfect offering/There is a crack in everything/That's how the light gets in."- RIP, Leonard Cohen
|
|
BetaSquadron posted...
LightSnake posted...Voting is always a compromise with reality. You should learn that. As Wally said, if Bernie had won, we would've voted for him without reservation.
Ring the bells that still can ring/Forget your perfect offering/There is a crack in everything/That's how the light gets in."- RIP, Leonard Cohen
|
|
TheShadowViper posted...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 We know Bill Clinton governed more as a centrist. None of this is news. Also, you may want to look up whoo "Gramm, Leach and Bliley" were.
Ring the bells that still can ring/Forget your perfect offering/There is a crack in everything/That's how the light gets in."- RIP, Leonard Cohen
|
|
Have people forgotten that half of the people who drafted the 2016 Democratic platform were Bernie people? It was the most progressive manifesto in decades. Because "establishment Dems" were in fact willing to compromise.
|
|
lukabrosci posted...
These guys are the true laughingstocks The Bushes, Clintons, and Trumps are laughing all the way to the bank thanks to dupes like you. 
Bustin' Justin makes us feel good!
|
|
Sinroth posted...
We still don't know how a Trump presidency ends. If it causes the total annihilation of Republicans, with the remnants gathering around a much more moderate core, than that's worth whatever reversible damage Donnie causes in a term. That's true, if Trump forces the Republican party to rebuild itself that would be a good thing.
The internet, where people come to be a dumbass.
|
|
LightSnake posted...
TheShadowViper posted...https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 Centrism has absolutely nothing to do with it. I suggest you look up what his actual belief system is and that of his wife, you know, the one you apparently swore a blood oath for. We can add centrism to the list of terms you have no understanding of. I'm disappointed, my incredibly low opinion of you isn't even low enough to match reality. Sorry, the jig is up. You can't pretend to be a liberal anymore. |
|
I have a lot to disagree with what Bill Clinton did in his Presidency and his beliefs on a number of topics. I can also acknowledge a number of things he did right.
But Bill Clinton wasn't on the ballot in November of 2016, so that's not really relevant.
Ring the bells that still can ring/Forget your perfect offering/There is a crack in everything/That's how the light gets in."- RIP, Leonard Cohen
|
|
TheShadowViper posted...
LightSnake posted...Sojy posted...You're a laughing stock for not supporting candidates with different policies from your own? Notice, all this talk of unity, compromise, its all about the left wing moving to the right wing, never the other way around. Strange, its almost like they are essentially saying "Shut the fuck up and fall in line".
3DS FC:2939-0431-7791
|
|
wally posted...
1337toothbrush posted...and the worst of all- Hillary harpies. Those delusional fucks thought they had the election on lock and they've been shrieking about Russia for months now. Those republican-lites can eat shit. I voted for Hillary, genius. Anyway, nominating Hillary is what lost the democrats the election in the first place. |
|
Because one medium sized left wing party plus one small far left wing party against one very large sized right wing party will lead to good things for the left.
Unfortunately, the left will have to fall in line if they want to stand a chance against Republicans who always fall in line. |
 |
|
TheShadowViper posted...
Pitbuller_26 posted...TheShadowViper posted...LightSnake posted...Sojy posted...You're a laughing stock for not supporting candidates with different policies from your own? Holy s*** a Libertarian president can you imagine?
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, Back Blue
I will fight socialism til hell freezes over, then I will fight on the ice. |
|
rockman202 posted...
TheShadowViper posted...LightSnake posted...Sojy posted...You're a laughing stock for not supporting candidates with different policies from your own? Nobody compromised to the left when Obama was President, no sir. His winning Indiana didn't happen.
Ring the bells that still can ring/Forget your perfect offering/There is a crack in everything/That's how the light gets in."- RIP, Leonard Cohen
|
|
kaiolino posted...
Have people forgotten that half of the people who drafted the 2016 Democratic platform were Bernie people? It was the most progressive manifesto in decades. Because "establishment Dems" were in fact willing to compromise. Bernie or busters aren't exactly known for being intelligent... |
|
Gryffindor1 posted...
Great comic! Is the alternate reality version where Hillary wins only have about 95% of the flames that are in this version? Are we still using that BS about her voting with Bernie *insert irrelevant percentage that doesn't take into account what is actually voted on*? Or how about we lament the loss of certain government agencies that served as homes for administration sycophants?!? Has that gone out of style already? It's hard to keep up with the sheer amount of your bullshit, apologies. So, vote for Hillary (and you sacrifice your beliefs that Democrats should actually be human) and you will only have 95% of your house burn down. You can also not vote for Hillary, and maybe face a similar fate... Wow that is a tough call! You're right! It totally makes sense to vote for the person supported by such laudable organizations like Comcast and the banking industry that her husband gave oh so much power to. I mean we already had Bill and Obama and they certainly didn't expand corporate power and increase inequality...oh wait. /s No one is buying it anymore. Sorry. And lol at "progressive platform". Obama's campaign motto was "hope and change" and his administration lacked both. You think people believe Hillary, a politician who openly admits to having a public and private position when talking to her corporate donors, is going to enact that platform? Hahaha |
|
Yeah. You realize that the people who cost Clinton the election weren't exactly hardcore Sanders supporters or Bernie or busters? Unless you think Great Lakes rural whites are just dying for some socialism.
Ring the bells that still can ring/Forget your perfect offering/There is a crack in everything/That's how the light gets in."- RIP, Leonard Cohen
|
|
LightSnake posted...
Yeah. You realize that the people who cost Clinton the election weren't exactly hardcore Sanders supporters or Bernie or busters? Unless you think Great Lakes rural whites are just dying for some socialism. Yeah it's almost like she didn't lose by 10% to Sanders in the Wisconsin primary and then not visit the state again. Oh no wait... |
|
TheShadowViper posted...
Gryffindor1 posted... Would our relations with allies be at an all time low with Clinton like it is with Trump? What about a Muslim ban? Or would Obamacare be on the verge of being replaced with something much worse? How about the wall? Would Clinton be pushing for that? Or the pulling out of the Paris agreement? Or nominated a conservative to the SC? Keep thinking to yourself Clinton would have been "almost as bad as Trump" to absolve yourself of fucking over the country for generations because you're a selfish entitled whiny brat. Your sins are not forgiven my son. |
|
If primaries were representative of general election votes, that would be a good point.
Ring the bells that still can ring/Forget your perfect offering/There is a crack in everything/That's how the light gets in."- RIP, Leonard Cohen
|
|
LightSnake posted...
If primaries were representative of general election votes, that would be a good point. Except he routinely polled ahead of both Hillary and Trump in Wisconsin. I'm not surprised you didn't know that though, I remember how accurate your pre-election analysis was lol. Who would have thought a state that hadn't gone Republican in 32 years would only go Republican when confronted with an abomination like Hillary. Oh wait, again, we run into that whole "anyone with a brain" thing. |
|
Gryffindor1 posted...
kaiolino posted...Have people forgotten that half of the people who drafted the 2016 Democratic platform were Bernie people? It was the most progressive manifesto in decades. Because "establishment Dems" were in fact willing to compromise. These people who were googling what superdelegates are en masse in June 2016 are now lecturing political veterans on how to understand politics and win elections. |
|
TheShadowViper posted...
LightSnake posted...If primaries were representative of general election votes, that would be a good point. "The guy who lost the primaries totally would have won in the general!" |
|
Hillary Clinton polled ahead of Trump is Wisconsin, too. Like the whole election. The dip happened after a certain event in October.
You'd have to explain Pennsylvania in a way that doesn't make you look like you have just a few double standards, too.
Ring the bells that still can ring/Forget your perfect offering/There is a crack in everything/That's how the light gets in."- RIP, Leonard Cohen
|
- Boards
- Politics
- Is there any bigger fool than a Trumpster? Yes a Bernie or Buster.
Gryffindor1 posted...TheShadowViper posted...
LightSnake posted...
If primaries were representative of general election votes, that would be a good point.
Except he routinely polled ahead of both Hillary and Trump in Wisconsin. I'm not surprised you didn't know that though, I remember how accurate your pre-election analysis was lol.
Who would have thought a state that hadn't gone Republican in 32 years would only go Republican when confronted with an abomination like Hillary. Oh wait, again, we run into that whole "anyone with a brain" thing.
"The guy who lost the primaries totally would have won in the general!"
Yes that's a fact.
A fact only sour, unintelligent Hillary supports aren't smart enough to comprehend."The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........LightSnake posted...Hillary Clinton polled ahead of Trump is Wisconsin, too. Like the whole election. The dip happened after a certain event in October.
You'd have to explain Pennsylvania in a way that doesn't make you look like you have just a few double standards, too.
Hillary also won Ohio in the primaries. And in both OH and PA she did tons of campaigning and still lost both states (in OH by an almost greater margin than Texas).LightSnake posted...Hillary Clinton polled ahead of Trump is Wisconsin, too. Like the whole election. The dip happened after a certain event in October.
You'd have to explain Pennsylvania in a way that doesn't make you look like you have just a few double standards, too.
Lol are we gonna play this game all day Lightsnake? You post something entirely inaccurate and then I correct you and you attempt to change the subject? I don't have to even discuss Pennsylvania because Wisconsin is all I need to show your claim is bullshit. She lost a state that hadn't gone red in 32 years after losing by 10% in the primary against Bernie. She didn't bother to revisit it. Bernie routinely beat Trump in polling in Wisconsin and it isn't hard to see him winning there in the general.
Do I need to go back to your post and quote your inaccurate assertion that I was responding to (again)? Or would you just try to change the subject then too?Why would a state that loves Scott Walker vote for Bernie Sanders?ozzyman314 posted...Gryffindor1 posted...
TheShadowViper posted...
LightSnake posted...
If primaries were representative of general election votes, that would be a good point.
Except he routinely polled ahead of both Hillary and Trump in Wisconsin. I'm not surprised you didn't know that though, I remember how accurate your pre-election analysis was lol.
Who would have thought a state that hadn't gone Republican in 32 years would only go Republican when confronted with an abomination like Hillary. Oh wait, again, we run into that whole "anyone with a brain" thing.
"The guy who lost the primaries totally would have won in the general!"
Yes that's a fact.
A fact only sour, unintelligent Hillary supports aren't smart enough to comprehend.
Oh so you expected Clinton supporters to fall in line and vote for Sanders in the general. How hypocritical.Okay...none of that counters the fact that Clinton also routinely polled ahead of Trump in Wisconsin. You cannot claim "Bernie polled ahead of Trump" there and ignore Clinton did as well for, again, the vast majority of the election and all the primary.
And even worse that if you give Bernie the same map, plus Michigan and Wisconsin, he'd still lose without Pennsylvania.Or are you forgetting who won that primary?Ring the bells that still can ring/Forget your perfect offering/There is a crack in everything/That's how the light gets in."- RIP, Leonard CohenGryffindor1 posted...ozzyman314 posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
TheShadowViper posted...
LightSnake posted...
If primaries were representative of general election votes, that would be a good point.
Except he routinely polled ahead of both Hillary and Trump in Wisconsin. I'm not surprised you didn't know that though, I remember how accurate your pre-election analysis was lol.
Who would have thought a state that hadn't gone Republican in 32 years would only go Republican when confronted with an abomination like Hillary. Oh wait, again, we run into that whole "anyone with a brain" thing.
"The guy who lost the primaries totally would have won in the general!"
Yes that's a fact.
A fact only sour, unintelligent Hillary supports aren't smart enough to comprehend.
Oh so you expected Clinton supporters to fall in line and vote for Sanders in the general. How hypocritical.
There were plenty of reasons for Bernie supporters not to "fall in line" behind Hillary.
It doesn't exactly work the other way around."The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........ozzyman314 posted...Gryffindor1 posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
TheShadowViper posted...
LightSnake posted...
If primaries were representative of general election votes, that would be a good point.
Except he routinely polled ahead of both Hillary and Trump in Wisconsin. I'm not surprised you didn't know that though, I remember how accurate your pre-election analysis was lol.
Who would have thought a state that hadn't gone Republican in 32 years would only go Republican when confronted with an abomination like Hillary. Oh wait, again, we run into that whole "anyone with a brain" thing.
"The guy who lost the primaries totally would have won in the general!"
Yes that's a fact.
A fact only sour, unintelligent Hillary supports aren't smart enough to comprehend.
Oh so you expected Clinton supporters to fall in line and vote for Sanders in the general. How hypocritical.
There were plenty of reasons for Bernie supporters not to "fall in line" behind Hillary.
It doesn't exactly work the other way around.
Hence this picture:ozzyman314 posted...There were plenty of reasons for Bernie supporters not to "fall in line" behind Hillary.
It doesn't exactly work the other way around.
Sure it does.
There were at least a couple of really good reasons to fall in line behind Hillary, the first being the projected GOP candidate, the second being the request of Bernie himself, and a desire to stay focused on the immediate goal of keeping our government institutions intact and controlling the next Supreme Court nominee.https://i.imgtc.com/72JF7CA.jpg (by mark2000)
14 Transwomen of color have been murdered since 1/1/2017wally posted...1337toothbrush posted...
and the worst of all- Hillary harpies. Those delusional fucks thought they had the election on lock and they've been shrieking about Russia for months now. Those republican-lites can eat shit.
I would have voted for Bernie in 2016 had he won the nomination, and would have done so without hesitation. I can say without a doubt that I absolutely am better than you or anybody else who refused to see how vastly superior the Democratic nominee was compared to the alternative back in November.Lights, they flash in the evening, through a hole in the drapes. I'll be home when I'm sleeping. I can't hardly wait.Gryffindor1 posted...Hence this picture:
As oppose to the to the alternative where Trump still wins because Hillary is an absolute shit candidate & even shittier campaigner?
hollow_shrine posted...
Sure it does.
There were at least a couple of really good reasons to fall in line behind Hillary, the first being the projected GOP candidate, the second being the request of Bernie himself, and a desire to stay focused on the immediate goal of keeping our government institutions intact and controlling the next Supreme Court nominee.
1. That is actually one of the reasons to have supported Bernie over Hillary. Did you want 2 turd sandwiches going against each other where people will struggle to come out in support of either side? Or did you want a charismatic, popular candidate that rivals the support Obama had? turns out it was the former & you and everyone else paid the price for it.
2. Bernie never sounded genuine in his support of Hillary (likely because likewise, Hillary & DNC were never genuinely in support of his policies they claimed to have "adopted".
Unless you were actually a "Pro-corporate" establishment stooge like Hillary herself(in which case you might as well just supported Trump), there would be no reason not to support Bernie had he won.
One the other hand, Bernie supporters knew they weren't going to get what they really wanted under Hillary. As policies like "breaking up banks" and "getting corporate money out of politics" would be a huge conflict of interest for her. Also nevermind the fact she stood the absolute worst chance of any candidate against Trump.
Democrats had their chance at a near surefire victory against Trump, but they decided to go for the coin flip instead."The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........ozzyman314 posted...2. Bernie never sounded genuine in his support of Hillary (likely because likewise, Hillary & DNC were never genuinely in support of his policies they claimed to have "adopted".
The hell he didn't. He couldn't have been more clear. He was like: "Do you have eyes? Under no circumstances can DJT take the office of POTUS. That man is a fraud and embodies everything I'm fighting against. If you've ever shared my values you will unite against him and vote for Hillary."
As for the stuff about Bernie's charisma, much of that is subjective and there isn't much to debate there that we can frame in concrete terms, just a bunch of hypotheticals that were never quite supported by poll numbers.https://i.imgtc.com/72JF7CA.jpg (by mark2000)
14 Transwomen of color have been murdered since 1/1/2017LightSnake posted...As Wally said, if Bernie had won, we would've voted for him without reservation.
That's a blatant lie as Jeremy Corbyn demonstrated. He was smeared by the Blairites more than any other politician even after winning the party's leadership, even after the lies about being unelectable.
And you can't just sweep under the rug why Sanders wasn't allowed to win. Leftwing politicians have an uphill battle to fight in terms of fundraising and media coverage since they don't have sympathetic corporations on their side making it easy for them, and in this case the DNC leadership was blatantly corrupt and against him. Yet leftwing politicians are still competitive with their corporate opponents. Sanders set the record for small donations. That's no small feat. Clinton spent millions of corporate dollars on media coverage to get votes, Sanders got millions from the people. Now imagine how much better progressive politicians would do without the roadblocks from their own party and from liberals in the media attacking them for being too far left.BetaSquadron posted...LightSnake posted...
As Wally said, if Bernie had won, we would've voted for him without reservation.
That's a blatant lie as Jeremy Corbyn demonstrated. He was smeared by the Blairites more than any other politician even after winning the party's leadership, even after the lies about being unelectable.
And you can't just sweep under the rug why Sanders wasn't allowed to win. Leftwing politicians have an uphill battle to fight in terms of fundraising and media coverage since they don't have sympathetic corporations on their side making it easy for them, and in this case the DNC leadership was blatantly corrupt and against him. Yet leftwing politicians are still competitive with their corporate opponents. Sanders set the record for small donations. That's no small feat. Clinton spent millions of corporate dollars on media coverage to get votes, Sanders got millions from the people. Now imagine how much better progressive politicians would do without the roadblocks from their own party and from liberals in the media attacking them for being too far left.
No, you know the reason Sanders wasn't allowed to win? He spent his entire career making next to no inroads to the core Democratic constituencies needed to win a primary. For all this alleged corruption, nobody can ever point to things that made a verifiable change in the voting. Debates? Those just raised Clinton's support. Closed primaries? Those are picked by the states and were there previously. Superdelegates? Made no difference.
Corbyn isn't Bernie Sanders, and wasn't running in the same environment, with the same constituency, etc. What you ignore is Clinton got a lot of donations and support from the people as well. Those people just got dismissed by Bernie and his supporters ("Old Confederacy" anyone?)
And even then there were enormous files of oppo research on Sanders that Clinton never touched, that the Republicans were chomping at the bit to use. And after that, not a one of Bernie's chosen progressives have won their elections. Russ Feingold lost in Wisconsin despite running on a Bernie-esque platform and having name recognition and having the support of the party.
Small donations are nice, but they don't translate to votes, or even popular support turning out an electoral win in a general. Particularly when it wasn't enough to win a primary.Ring the bells that still can ring/Forget your perfect offering/There is a crack in everything/That's how the light gets in."- RIP, Leonard Cohenhollow_shrine posted...ozzyman314 posted...
2. Bernie never sounded genuine in his support of Hillary (likely because likewise, Hillary & DNC were never genuinely in support of his policies they claimed to have "adopted".
The hell he didn't. He couldn't have been more clear. He was like: "Do you have eyes? Under no circumstances can DJT take the office of POTUS. That man is a fraud and embodies everything I'm fighting against. If you've ever shared my values you will unite against him and vote for Hillary."
As for the stuff about Bernie's charisma, much of that is subjective and there isn't much to debate there that we can frame in concrete terms, just a bunch of hypotheticals that were never quite supported by poll numbers.
He was far more genuine about persuading people against voting for Trump, than actually voting for Hillary. Whenever he had to talk about supporting Hillary he never sounded as committed or enthusiastic as when he just straight rallied against Trump.
As far as charisma, that's actually one thing that is inarguable. Bernie was loaded with it, just like Obama and every candidate that did win the presidency in modern times(and yes, that does include Trump, that's 1 thing you can't take away from him). Hillary on the other hand, was a black hole of charisma. People actually liked her more the less they heard about/from her.
The polls actually supported him too. He was the only candidate consistently polling ahead of every GOP candidate, including Trump."The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........ozzyman314 posted...As oppose to the to the alternative where Trump still wins because Hillary is an absolute s*** candidate & even s***tier campaigner?
Because you Bern Outs didn't vote for her you mean. Again, hence the pic.Is there any bigger fool than a Trumpster?
Nope."Be excellent to each other... and... PARTY ON DUDES!" -Abraham LincolnThe ones who actually believe that Bernie could have beaten Hillary are fools, yes, but not in the same ways as Trump cultists.
Bernie was very popular among Gen Y and younger. He would not have hit it off with the Boomers however, esp. after the GOP's smear campaign, such as labelling him a draft dodger because he was a conscientious objector. The alt-right was also slamming him with the "Communist" label when pointing to his past in the 60's and 70's. They also hit him with that "rape fanfiction" thing.Meet Captain Euro, the coolest superhero this side of Aquaman!~~Portal of Evil
[Disillusioned Independent]Gryffindor1 posted...ozzyman314 posted...
As oppose to the to the alternative where Trump still wins because Hillary is an absolute s*** candidate & even s***tier campaigner?
Because you Bern Outs didn't vote for her you mean. Again, hence the pic.
How about instead of crying over the small niche that refused to vote for her on principle, you bitch about how she herself made next to no effort to get people to vote for her?
How about blame her for playing not to win?"The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........ozzyman314 posted...Gryffindor1 posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
As oppose to the to the alternative where Trump still wins because Hillary is an absolute s*** candidate & even s***tier campaigner?
Because you Bern Outs didn't vote for her you mean. Again, hence the pic.
How about instead of crying over the small niche that refused to vote for her on principle, you bitch about how she herself made next to no effort to get people to vote for her?
How about blame her for playing not to win?
Small niche that ended up allowing Trump to become president. Trump only won by a few thousand votes in a few key states.Hyena 20 posted...The ones who actually believe that Bernie could have beaten Hillary are fools, yes, but not in the same ways as Trump cultists.
Bernie was very popular among Gen Y and younger. He would not have hit it off with the Boomers however, esp. after the GOP's smear campaign, such as labelling him a draft dodger because he was a conscientious objector. The alt-right was also slamming him with the "Communist" label when pointing to his past in the 60's and 70's. They also hit him with that "rape fanfiction" thing.
The problem with that is that he would be going up against Donald Trump, who was also a draft dodger, along with a hundreds of other repugnant things.
Hillary already had a laundry list of scandals for GOP to deflect to both past, recent, and current. Not to mention was viewed just as unfavorably as Trump himself.
Bernie doesn't/isn't. unlike with Hillary & Trump, which is why people would have turned out for Bernie. Especially in the states like Michigan & Wisconsin (which Hillary lost to both Bernie & Trump and where was very popular)"The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........Gryffindor1 posted...ozzyman314 posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
As oppose to the to the alternative where Trump still wins because Hillary is an absolute s*** candidate & even s***tier campaigner?
Because you Bern Outs didn't vote for her you mean. Again, hence the pic.
How about instead of crying over the small niche that refused to vote for her on principle, you bitch about how she herself made next to no effort to get people to vote for her?
How about blame her for playing not to win?
Small niche that ended up allowing Trump to become president. Trump only won by a few thousand votes in a few key states.
So you're ignorantly assuming all those people were "Bernie or Bust", and it had absolutely nothing to do with Hillary arrogantly ignoring every warning sign (include her own husband, who actually won a presidential election) and refusing to visit any of those key states?
"Bernie or bust" didn't allow Trump to become President, Hillary Clinton allowed Trump to become President."The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........Here is a list of smears and crap against Bernie thus far.
--Bernie is an SJW who doesn't like white people
--Pals around w. Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton
--Pals around with Iranian diplomats
--Is part of or connected to the "treasonous" Boycott Israel movement
--Is an Atheist (he's not.)
--That opposition to Islam is racism
--Met with the Sandinistas and tried to meet with Fidel Castro in the 80's.
--Says that climate change is the biggest threat to global and national security (to be fair, he actually did say this)
--Is a self-hating Jew
--He has a summer home and blows through campaign money on his "luxurious" private jet where he and others dine upon lobster, artisan cheeses, and fine wines.
--He and his staff also chartered mostly empty passenger planes where they flew first class.
--Pot shops in Portland are donating the proceeds from a special "1 gram joint" to Sanders' campaign
--In the 70's, Bernie was so lazy that he was kicked out of a 'hippie commune'.
--Bernie's wife is involved in money laundering schemes involving NPOs, apartment tenents, and colleges.
--Also guilty of campaign fraud money laundering.Meet Captain Euro, the coolest superhero this side of Aquaman!~~Portal of Evil
[Disillusioned Independent]Hyena 20 posted...Here is a list of smears and crap against Bernie thus far.
--Bernie is an SJW who doesn't like white people
--Pals around w. Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton
--Pals around with Iranian diplomats
--Is part of or connected to the "treasonous" Boycott Israel movement
--Is an Atheist (he's not.)
--That opposition to Islam is racism
--Met with the Sandinistas and tried to meet with Fidel Castro in the 80's.
--Says that climate change is the biggest threat to global and national security (to be fair, he actually did say this)
--Is a self-hating Jew
--He has a summer home and blows through campaign money on his "luxurious" private jet where he and others dine upon lobster, artisan cheeses, and fine wines.
--He and his staff also chartered mostly empty passenger planes where they flew first class.
--Pot shops in Portland are donating the proceeds from a special "1 gram joint" to Sanders' campaign
--In the 70's, Bernie was so lazy that he was kicked out of a 'hippie commune'.
--Bernie's wife is involved in money laundering schemes involving NPOs, apartment tenents, and colleges.
--Also guilty of campaign fraud money laundering.
Good luck with any of those sticking. None of those are a fraction as bad as the smears about Trump & Hillary."The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........ozzyman314 posted...Gryffindor1 posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
As oppose to the to the alternative where Trump still wins because Hillary is an absolute s*** candidate & even s***tier campaigner?
Because you Bern Outs didn't vote for her you mean. Again, hence the pic.
How about instead of crying over the small niche that refused to vote for her on principle, you bitch about how she herself made next to no effort to get people to vote for her?
How about blame her for playing not to win?
Small niche that ended up allowing Trump to become president. Trump only won by a few thousand votes in a few key states.
So you're ignorantly assuming all those people were "Bernie or Bust", and it had absolutely nothing to do with Hillary arrogantly ignoring every warning sign (include her own husband, who actually won a presidential election) and refusing to visit any of those key states?
"Bernie or bust" didn't allow Trump to become President, Hillary Clinton allowed Trump to become President.
If they were a Bernie supporter and refused to vote for Clinton because it wasn't Bernie, then yes, they are Bernie or Busters.Gryffindor1 posted...ozzyman314 posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
As oppose to the to the alternative where Trump still wins because Hillary is an absolute s*** candidate & even s***tier campaigner?
Because you Bern Outs didn't vote for her you mean. Again, hence the pic.
How about instead of crying over the small niche that refused to vote for her on principle, you bitch about how she herself made next to no effort to get people to vote for her?
How about blame her for playing not to win?
Small niche that ended up allowing Trump to become president. Trump only won by a few thousand votes in a few key states.
So you're ignorantly assuming all those people were "Bernie or Bust", and it had absolutely nothing to do with Hillary arrogantly ignoring every warning sign (include her own husband, who actually won a presidential election) and refusing to visit any of those key states?
"Bernie or bust" didn't allow Trump to become President, Hillary Clinton allowed Trump to become President.
If they were a Bernie supporter and refused to vote for Clinton because it wasn't Bernie, then yes, they are Bernie or Busters.
And your proof of that is........?
But sure , ignore the fact Hillary didn't spend 1 second to campaign in in those states at all."The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........ozzyman314 posted...Gryffindor1 posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
As oppose to the to the alternative where Trump still wins because Hillary is an absolute s*** candidate & even s***tier campaigner?
Because you Bern Outs didn't vote for her you mean. Again, hence the pic.
How about instead of crying over the small niche that refused to vote for her on principle, you bitch about how she herself made next to no effort to get people to vote for her?
How about blame her for playing not to win?
Small niche that ended up allowing Trump to become president. Trump only won by a few thousand votes in a few key states.
So you're ignorantly assuming all those people were "Bernie or Bust", and it had absolutely nothing to do with Hillary arrogantly ignoring every warning sign (include her own husband, who actually won a presidential election) and refusing to visit any of those key states?
"Bernie or bust" didn't allow Trump to become President, Hillary Clinton allowed Trump to become President.
If they were a Bernie supporter and refused to vote for Clinton because it wasn't Bernie, then yes, they are Bernie or Busters.
And your proof of that is........?
But sure , ignore the fact Hillary didn't spend 1 second to campaign in in those states at all.
Clinton voters did their part to try and prevent Trump from becoming president. You didn't. You're not innocent. You are responsible for Trump being president. I don't need a candidate to visit my state in order to know Trump is worse. Passing the blame doesn't absolve you.ozzyman314 posted...And your proof of that is........?But sure , ignore the fact Hillary didn't spend 1 second to campaign in in those states at all.
.....
Oh ffs. Clinton campaigned in all the swing states.Last night I was lying in bed, staring at the stars, and I wondered... Where the **** is my roof?I think you can tell how much disdain someone has for supporters of a different candidate based off how many different nicknames they get.
Like, Bernie supports have two main ones I can recall: Bernie Bros, and Bernie or Busters.
Whereas Trump has like...10.I am snazzier, hot, hot rant. Warily slight as.
Croak rush, OK? Weirder, almighty make out. ::)Gryffindor1 posted...Clinton voters did their part to try and prevent Trump from becoming president. You didn't. You're not innocent. You are responsible for Trump being president. I don't need a candidate to visit my state in order to know Trump is worse. Passing the blame doesn't absolve you.
I'm not responsible, nor is any other "Bernie or Bust", because a good candidate would have been able to win despite a niche group as they would not have ignored very clear warning signs & advice from their own damn team about which states they need to visit, as well as run ads focused on policy instead of focusing only on their opponents latest gaffe.
Stop using "Bernie Bust" as a scapegoat for Hillary being a shit candidate & running an absolute failure of a campaign. The only person responsible for President Trump, is her.
aarrgus posted........
Oh ffs. Clinton campaigned in all the swing states.
While arrogantly ignoring Michigan & Wisconsin, despite the warnings of her campaign staff. Including her own husband(who you think would know a thing or 2 about winning a presidential election)."The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........ozzyman314 posted...While arrogantly ignoring Michigan & Wisconsin, despite the warnings of her campaign staff. Including her own husband(who you think would know a thing or 2 about winning a presidential election).
You literally said:
"Hillary didn't spend 1 second to campaign in in those states at all"
Which is completely false.Last night I was lying in bed, staring at the stars, and I wondered... Where the **** is my roof?I sometimes get caught up in the ins and outs of these arguments, but really, this topic isn't helping anything right now. I shouldn't have contributed to the argument.
We need to rally.Lights, they flash in the evening, through a hole in the drapes. I'll be home when I'm sleeping. I can't hardly wait.aarrgus posted...ozzyman314 posted...
While arrogantly ignoring Michigan & Wisconsin, despite the warnings of her campaign staff. Including her own husband(who you think would know a thing or 2 about winning a presidential election).
You literally said:
"Hillary didn't spend 1 second to campaign in in those states at all"
Which is completely false.
So Hillary did campaign in Michigan & Wisconsin?"The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........What the hell is a Bernie or buster?PSN: KillingLegacy Gamertag: Killing LegacyDyinglegacy posted...What the hell is a Bernie or buster?
Smart-aleck term used by butthurt democrats to call people who supported Bernie but refused to vote Hillary because none of her views lined up with theirs."The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........ozzyman314 posted...So Hillary did campaign in Michigan & Wisconsin?
Clinton was in Michigan on 8/11, 10/10, and 11/4.Last night I was lying in bed, staring at the stars, and I wondered... Where the **** is my roof?aarrgus posted...ozzyman314 posted...
So Hillary did campaign in Michigan & Wisconsin?
Clinton was in Michigan on 8/11, 10/10, and 11/4.
And when did she campaign in Wisconsin?"The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........ozzyman314 posted...aarrgus posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
So Hillary did campaign in Michigan & Wisconsin?
Clinton was in Michigan on 8/11, 10/10, and 11/4.
And when did she campaign in Wisconsin?
She didn't. That wasn't your statement though.
Edit: I will concede my point about her "campaigning in all the swing states" was incorrect because of Wisconsin. However many people didn't consider Wisconsin a "swing state" at the time based on polling, but in retrospect it was.Last night I was lying in bed, staring at the stars, and I wondered... Where the **** is my roof?ozzyman314 posted...aarrgus posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
So Hillary did campaign in Michigan & Wisconsin?
Clinton was in Michigan on 8/11, 10/10, and 11/4.
And when did she campaign in Wisconsin?
Literally the definition of moving the goalpost right here.ClintonCucksNow Playing: Horizon Zero Dawn / Legend of Zelda - Breath of the WildLightSnake posted...Russ Feingold lost in Wisconsin despite running on a Bernie-esque platform and having name recognition and having the support of the party.
Because Hillary was on top of his ticket.Dyinglegacy posted...What the hell is a Bernie or buster?
A person who refused to vote for Clinton after Sanders dropped out.
The belief is that there were so many of them, if they voted Clinton she'd have won (even though she won the popular vote) but that's debatable. Personally, I see them as a scapegoat for Dems not willing to admit Hilary's and the party's own failings. They were too confident she would win (they played the Access Hollywood video so many times) and there's still a problem with Dems simply not voting when they should be.http://i.imgur.com/szMsu.png
Validate your purchases and discredit the purchases of others whenever possible. Numbers objectively define quality and enjoyment.aarrgus posted...ozzyman314 posted...
aarrgus posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
So Hillary did campaign in Michigan & Wisconsin?
Clinton was in Michigan on 8/11, 10/10, and 11/4.
And when did she campaign in Wisconsin?
She didn't. That wasn't your statement though.
Edit: I will concede my point about her "campaigning in all the swing states" was incorrect because of Wisconsin. However many people didn't consider Wisconsin a "swing state" at the time based on polling, but in retrospect it was.
It 100% was.
I always bring up MI & WI specifically because those 2 key states are a "yyuuuugge" reason Trump won because only Hilary was terrible enough to be the first Democrat candidate to lose them in nearly 30 years"The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........Do you think Bernie Bros will ever let go? Or will they still be talking about how Bernie got robbed 20 years later?Gryffindor1 posted...ozzyman314 posted...
aarrgus posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
So Hillary did campaign in Michigan & Wisconsin?
Clinton was in Michigan on 8/11, 10/10, and 11/4.
And when did she campaign in Wisconsin?
Literally the definition of moving the goalpost right here.
If Wisconsin hadn't also been part of my original statement. But go ahead & ignore that, as you do with every fact that's inconvenient for your fictional narrative.
Bigpoppapump1 posted...Do you think Bernie Bros will ever let go? Or will they still be talking about how Bernie got robbed 20 years later?
Only ones bringing up Bernie Bros are the Hill-Shills using them as a scapegoat for why Hillary lost."The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........ozzyman314 posted...aarrgus posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
aarrgus posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
So Hillary did campaign in Michigan & Wisconsin?
Clinton was in Michigan on 8/11, 10/10, and 11/4.
And when did she campaign in Wisconsin?
She didn't. That wasn't your statement though.
Edit: I will concede my point about her "campaigning in all the swing states" was incorrect because of Wisconsin. However many people didn't consider Wisconsin a "swing state" at the time based on polling, but in retrospect it was.
It 100% was.
I always bring up MI & WI specifically because those 2 key states are a "yyuuuugge" reason Trump won because only Hilary was terrible enough to be the first Democrat candidate to lose them in nearly 30 years
And those states he won by only a few thousand votes. Maybe if some Bernie voters decided to vote for Clinton, she wouldn't have lost themozzyman314 posted...If Wisconsin hadn't also been part of my original statement. But go ahead & ignore that, as you do with every fact that's inconvenient for your fictional narrative.
But the only state that you can truly make this claim about is Wisconsin. You made it seem like she didn't "spend 1 second" in a bunch of states, Michigan specifically.
That is moving the goal posts.Last night I was lying in bed, staring at the stars, and I wondered... Where the **** is my roof?Gryffindor1 posted...And those states he won by only a few thousand votes. Maybe if some Bernie voters decided to vote for Clinton, she wouldn't have lost them
The Clintons were part of an effort to keep progressives away from control of the party. We're supposed to be voting for representatives, not for people going out of their way to keep us from being represented.Sojy posted...The Clintons were part of an effort to keep progressives away from control of the party. We're supposed to be voting for representatives, not for people going out of their way to keep us from being represented.
You are delusional.Last night I was lying in bed, staring at the stars, and I wondered... Where the **** is my roof?Sojy posted...Gryffindor1 posted...
And those states he won by only a few thousand votes. Maybe if some Bernie voters decided to vote for Clinton, she wouldn't have lost them
The Clintons were part of an effort to keep progressives away from control of the party. We're supposed to be voting for representatives, not for people going out of their way to keep us from being represented.- Boards
- Politics
- Is there any bigger fool than a Trumpster? Yes a Bernie or Buster.
Gryffindor1 posted...ozzyman314 posted...
aarrgus posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
aarrgus posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
So Hillary did campaign in Michigan & Wisconsin?
Clinton was in Michigan on 8/11, 10/10, and 11/4.
And when did she campaign in Wisconsin?
She didn't. That wasn't your statement though.
Edit: I will concede my point about her "campaigning in all the swing states" was incorrect because of Wisconsin. However many people didn't consider Wisconsin a "swing state" at the time based on polling, but in retrospect it was.
It 100% was.
I always bring up MI & WI specifically because those 2 key states are a "yyuuuugge" reason Trump won because only Hilary was terrible enough to be the first Democrat candidate to lose them in nearly 30 years
And those states he won by only a few thousand votes. Maybe if some Bernie voters decided to vote for Clinton, she wouldn't have lost them
He said, Ignorantly assuming they were all Bernie Supporters.
Maybe, just maybe Hillary would have won not only those states, but the whole election as well, if she knew a damn thing about running a presidential campaign. Like listening to her staff about campaigning in Wisconsin, or not running ads solely focused on Trump's "gaffe of the week" and instead on actual substance & policy.
But nah, it's so much easier to use "Bernie Bros" as a scapegoat rather than acknowledging Hillary as one of the shittiest & most incompetent presidential candidates in recent history."The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........ozzyman314 posted...Maybe, just maybe Hillary would have won not only those states, but the whole election as well, if she knew a damn thing about running a presidential campaign. Like listening to her staff about campaigning in Wisconsin, or not running ads solely focused on Trump's "gaffe of the week" and instead on actual substance & policy.
Maybe Bernie could have won the primary if he had known a damn thing about running a campaign.
Little things like not contesting in the South, or winning minority voters, or expanding beyond the youth vote. We can play this game all day long or we can move on. Although it's clear you don't want to.Last night I was lying in bed, staring at the stars, and I wondered... Where the **** is my roof?ozzyman314 posted...Gryffindor1 posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
aarrgus posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
aarrgus posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
So Hillary did campaign in Michigan & Wisconsin?
Clinton was in Michigan on 8/11, 10/10, and 11/4.
And when did she campaign in Wisconsin?
She didn't. That wasn't your statement though.
Edit: I will concede my point about her "campaigning in all the swing states" was incorrect because of Wisconsin. However many people didn't consider Wisconsin a "swing state" at the time based on polling, but in retrospect it was.
It 100% was.
I always bring up MI & WI specifically because those 2 key states are a "yyuuuugge" reason Trump won because only Hilary was terrible enough to be the first Democrat candidate to lose them in nearly 30 years
And those states he won by only a few thousand votes. Maybe if some Bernie voters decided to vote for Clinton, she wouldn't have lost them
He said, Ignorantly assuming they were all Bernie Supporters.
Maybe, just maybe Hillary would have won not only those states, but the whole election as well, if she knew a damn thing about running a presidential campaign. Like listening to her staff about campaigning in Wisconsin, or not running ads solely focused on Trump's "gaffe of the week" and instead on actual substance & policy.
But nah, it's so much easier to use "Bernie Bros" as a scapegoat rather than acknowledging Hillary as one of the shittiest & most incompetent presidential candidates in recent history.
And what does that make Bernie considering one of the shittiest and most incompetent presidential candidates absolutely destroyed him?
And no, I'm not making ignorant assumptions. These are demonstrable. Let's take your beloved Wisconsin. Clinton lost by around 20,000 votes. About 1%. Jill Stein alone got 31,000 votes. Johnson got 106,000. Guaran-damn-tee you that at least 20,000 of them were Bernie or Busters. Enough to make Clinton win.aarrgus posted...ozzyman314 posted...
Maybe, just maybe Hillary would have won not only those states, but the whole election as well, if she knew a damn thing about running a presidential campaign. Like listening to her staff about campaigning in Wisconsin, or not running ads solely focused on Trump's "gaffe of the week" and instead on actual substance & policy.
Maybe Bernie could have won the primary if he had known a damn thing about running a campaign.
Little things like not contesting in the South, or winning minority voters, or expanding beyond the youth vote. We can play this game all day long or we can move on. Although it's clear you don't want to.
Bernie had a lot of things going against him during the primaries. He was a complete unknown going against one of the most well known politicians in the country, he was an independent running on the Democrat ticket, independents who supported him had a difficult time voting for him because of closed primary.
Whereas Hillary's problems in the general election were entirely her own doing.
Bernie would have fared better in the GE as he had far more going for him there than Hillary."The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........Because the Rust Belt is totally full of educated millennials frustrated with crony capitalism and oligarchy, Bernie's core demographic, as opposed to middle-aged blue collar workers that were alienated by Hillary's support of TPP and lured by Trump's economic populist rhetoric. Yup, totally Bernie's fault Hillary lost three states that haven't gone red in over 30 years despite her campaign ignoring repeated warnings from union volunteers on the ground there and Bill Clinton himself that she was in danger of losing those states. /sarcasm
I believe Bernie would have won but that's irrelevant. My point is he can't be blamed for her loss given the three states that causes her to lose given Occam's Razor.Console war in a nutshell:
http://imgur.com/xA6GJZ9.pngOne thing those middle aged blue collar workers love? Democratic socialism!
They love that stuff. No way would Republicans successfully poison the well against it.
And hey, Xyn, might wanna check who campaigned in PA.Ring the bells that still can ring/Forget your perfect offering/There is a crack in everything/That's how the light gets in."- RIP, Leonard CohenEven if Bernie or Busters total 100 or 100k, they are still dumber than Trumpsters.ozzyman314 posted...Bernie had a lot of things going against him during the primaries.
That's true. But he also made tons of mistakes along the way. He also had more money than god at points and yet it didn't do anything to help his campaign. He burned millions on losing efforts, and wasted millions making Tad Devine rich.
He was late getting moving in the South, despite knowing that he was gaining in Iowa. His campaign didn't plan ahead. Then when he started losing in the South, his campaign surrogates decided the best course of action would be to belittle the Southern vote and act like it was unimportant. His campaign relied exclusively on the least democratic contests (caucuses) to keep him afloat. Sanders also had lackluster debate performances, with (IIRC) none of the subsequent post debate polling showing a "win" for him in them. He had a complete disaster in the Florida debate.Last night I was lying in bed, staring at the stars, and I wondered... Where the **** is my roof?Gryffindor1 posted...And what does that make Bernie considering one of the shittiest and most incompetent presidential candidates absolutely destroyed him?
On the wrong side of history.
But sure brag about how she won KY, Missouri, New Orleans & all the southern states like those would have mattered in the GE.
Remind me again though, how'd she do against Bernie in WI & MI?"The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........LightSnake posted...One thing those middle aged blue collar workers love? Democratic socialism!
They love that stuff. No way would Republicans successfully poison the well against it.
And hey, Xyn, might wanna check who campaigned in PA.
My point was not saying he'd have won there, though I believe he would have as all the things Trump had going for him there Bernie had more of.
My point was in response to the idiocy spouted by Gryddindor and Co blaming Bernie supporters for her loss, and I've seen you yourself agree with me on that.
I never said she didn't campaign in PA, but I'll admit my error on speaking of the states in aggregate for the sake of simplicity instead of spelling out Wisconsin which I was talking about.Console war in a nutshell:
http://imgur.com/xA6GJZ9.pngGryffindor1 posted...Sojy posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
And those states he won by only a few thousand votes. Maybe if some Bernie voters decided to vote for Clinton, she wouldn't have lost them
The Clintons were part of an effort to keep progressives away from control of the party. We're supposed to be voting for representatives, not for people going out of their way to keep us from being represented.
Reminder, most Bernie supporters voted for Clinton, and those that didn't voted for Jill Stein and even if Stein's votes all went to Clinton, she still would have lost to Trump because she was that bad of a candidate.3DS FC:2939-0431-7791ozzyman314 posted...Gryffindor1 posted...
And what does that make Bernie considering one of the shittiest and most incompetent presidential candidates absolutely destroyed him?
On the wrong side of history.
But sure brag about how she won KY, Missouri, New Orleans & all the southern states like those would have mattered in the GE.
Remind me again though, how'd she do against Bernie in WI & MI?
And I'll repeat it:
And no, I'm not making ignorant assumptions. These are demonstrable. Let's take your beloved Wisconsin. Clinton lost by around 20,000 votes. About 1%. Jill Stein alone got 31,000 votes. Johnson got 106,000. Guaran-damn-tee you that at least 20,000 of them were Bernie or Busters. Enough to make Clinton win.
It's you who was on the wrong side of history. I blame you for the Muslim ban. I blame you for the US being pulled out of the Paris Agreement. I blame you for the relationships with allies being the lowest in history. The sooner you realize that and make amends, the better off a person you will be.ozzyman314 posted...But sure brag about how she won KY, Missouri, New Orleans & all the southern states like those would have mattered in the GE.
And here you go, belittling, southern states.
There are MILLIONS of Democrats in those states. They have just as much right to have their voice heard in selecting a candidate as any other state. You don't get to bitch and moan about voices not being heard (independents) while at the same time belittling the voices of MILLIONS of people.Last night I was lying in bed, staring at the stars, and I wondered... Where the **** is my roof?ozzyman314 posted...Gryffindor1 posted...
And what does that make Bernie considering one of the shittiest and most incompetent presidential candidates absolutely destroyed him?
On the wrong side of history.
But sure brag about how she won KY, Missouri, New Orleans & all the southern states like those would have mattered in the GE.
Remind me again though, how'd she do against Bernie in WI & MI?
This is a good point. She won the primary by carrying a bunch of states she had zero chance of winning in the general.Console war in a nutshell:
http://imgur.com/xA6GJZ9.pngrockman202 posted...Gryffindor1 posted...
Sojy posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
And those states he won by only a few thousand votes. Maybe if some Bernie voters decided to vote for Clinton, she wouldn't have lost them
The Clintons were part of an effort to keep progressives away from control of the party. We're supposed to be voting for representatives, not for people going out of their way to keep us from being represented.
Reminder, most Bernie supporters voted for Clinton, and those that didn't voted for Jill Stein and even if Stein's votes all went to Clinton, she still would have lost to Trump because she was that bad of a candidate.
Wisconsin: Clinton lost by around 20,000 votes. About 1%. Jill Stein alone got 31,000 votes. Johnson got 106,000. Guaran-damn-tee you that at least 20,000 of them were Bernie or Busters. Enough to make Clinton win.
Want to try that again?rockman202 posted...Gryffindor1 posted...
Sojy posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
And those states he won by only a few thousand votes. Maybe if some Bernie voters decided to vote for Clinton, she wouldn't have lost them
The Clintons were part of an effort to keep progressives away from control of the party. We're supposed to be voting for representatives, not for people going out of their way to keep us from being represented.
Reminder, most Bernie supporters voted for Clinton, and those that didn't voted for Jill Stein and even if Stein's votes all went to Clinton, she still would have lost to Trump because she was that bad of a candidate.
The election was an epic showing of why false equivalency is such a dangerous fallacy.PraetorXyn posted...ozzyman314 posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
And what does that make Bernie considering one of the shittiest and most incompetent presidential candidates absolutely destroyed him?
On the wrong side of history.
But sure brag about how she won KY, Missouri, New Orleans & all the southern states like those would have mattered in the GE.
Remind me again though, how'd she do against Bernie in WI & MI?
This is a good point. She won the primary by carrying a bunch of states she had zero chance of winning in the general.
So take a Republican play and not hold primaries in certain states?aarrgus posted...ozzyman314 posted...
But sure brag about how she won KY, Missouri, New Orleans & all the southern states like those would have mattered in the GE.
And here you go, belittling, southern states.
There are MILLIONS of Democrats in those states. They have just as much right to have their voice heard in selecting a candidate as any other state. You don't get to bitch and moan about voices not being heard (independents) while at the same time belittling the voices of MILLIONS of people.
Independents in say North Carolina or even Democrats in New York just factually matter more in a general election than Democrats in Kansas because of winner take all and the electoral college (which isn't going anywhere), I thought you lot were the pragmatists? Pragmatism is supposed to be about winning. The pragmatic thing to do would be make your primary mirror the general so you know you're nominating someone with a better chance at winning the general.Console war in a nutshell:
http://imgur.com/xA6GJZ9.pngaarrgus posted...ozzyman314 posted...
Bernie had a lot of things going against him during the primaries.
That's true. But he also made tons of mistakes along the way. He also had more money than god at points and yet it didn't do anything to help his campaign. He burned millions on losing efforts, and wasted millions making Tad Devine rich.
He was late getting moving in the South, despite knowing that he was gaining in Iowa. His campaign didn't plan ahead. Then when he started losing in the South, his campaign surrogates decided the best course of action would be to belittle the Southern vote and act like it was unimportant. His campaign relied exclusively on the least democratic contests (caucuses) to keep him afloat. Sanders also had lackluster debate performances, with (IIRC) none of the subsequent post debate polling showing a "win" for him in them. He had a complete disaster in the Florida debate.
Sure he made mistakes, every campaign does. But again, Hillary's were bigger, easily more avoidable, and mostly her own doing.
He definitely could have managed his money better, as far as the south, you can kind of see his point since not 1 of those southern states was going to go Democrat in the GE anyway. But he should have made an effort there for the primaries.
Debates are more or less subjective. While he did have weaker performances than others. But like Trump, his rallies are where his charisma & people's enthusiasm for him stood out."The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........Clinton kind of won North Carolina in that primary. And Florida. And Pennsylvania.
Can we stop pretending primaries are indicative of general election votes? Obama won the primary due to his strength in the southRing the bells that still can ring/Forget your perfect offering/There is a crack in everything/That's how the light gets in."- RIP, Leonard CohenPitbuller_26 posted...PraetorXyn posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
And what does that make Bernie considering one of the shittiest and most incompetent presidential candidates absolutely destroyed him?
On the wrong side of history.
But sure brag about how she won KY, Missouri, New Orleans & all the southern states like those would have mattered in the GE.
Remind me again though, how'd she do against Bernie in WI & MI?
This is a good point. She won the primary by carrying a bunch of states she had zero chance of winning in the general.
So take a Republican play and not hold primaries in certain states?
Why not?
We already took a Republican play by having nothing but white candidates, why shouldn't we just be as openly shitty as they are when we already are behind closed doors?The solution to every problem isn't throwing acid on it, unless that problem is a solution with an overly alkaline ph balance.
Carlos Danger / El Chapo 2020!!!Gryffindor1 posted...ozzyman314 posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
And what does that make Bernie considering one of the shittiest and most incompetent presidential candidates absolutely destroyed him?
On the wrong side of history.
But sure brag about how she won KY, Missouri, New Orleans & all the southern states like those would have mattered in the GE.
Remind me again though, how'd she do against Bernie in WI & MI?
And I'll repeat it:
And no, I'm not making ignorant assumptions. These are demonstrable. Let's take your beloved Wisconsin. Clinton lost by around 20,000 votes. About 1%. Jill Stein alone got 31,000 votes. Johnson got 106,000. Guaran-damn-tee you that at least 20,000 of them were Bernie or Busters. Enough to make Clinton win.
It's you who was on the wrong side of history. I blame you for the Muslim ban. I blame you for the US being pulled out of the Paris Agreement. I blame you for the relationships with allies being the lowest in history. The sooner you realize that and make amends, the better off a person you will be.
Without any proof (which I guaran-damn-tee you don not have), those are nothing blind accusations akin to the ones Trump himself would make. For all you know, the could have been real Johnson or stein voters.
But sure, keep throwing your little tantrum and blaming everyone/everything except the one person truly responsible(Hillary Clinton). That's a fantastic way to ensure Trump gets a full 8 years."The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........PraetorXyn posted...Independents in say North Carolina or even Democrats in New York just factually matter more in a general election than Democrats in Kansas because of winner take all and the electoral college (which isn't going anywhere), I thought you lot were the pragmatists? Pragmatism is supposed to be about winning. The pragmatic thing to do would be make your primary mirror the general so you know you're nominating someone with a better chance at winning the general.
So out of one side of your mouth I hear "LET EVERYONE VOTE!" and out of the other side of your mouth it is "ONLY PEOPLE THAT MATTER GET TO VOTE!".Last night I was lying in bed, staring at the stars, and I wondered... Where the **** is my roof?LightSnake posted...No, you know the reason Sanders wasn't allowed to win? He spent his entire career making next to no inroads to the core Democratic constituencies needed to win a primary. For all this alleged corruption, nobody can ever point to things that made a verifiable change in the voting. Debates? Those just raised Clinton's support. Closed primaries? Those are picked by the states and were there previously. Superdelegates? Made no difference.
Corbyn isn't Bernie Sanders, and wasn't running in the same environment, with the same constituency, etc. What you ignore is Clinton got a lot of donations and support from the people as well. Those people just got dismissed by Bernie and his supporters ("Old Confederacy" anyone?)
And even then there were enormous files of oppo research on Sanders that Clinton never touched, that the Republicans were chomping at the bit to use. And after that, not a one of Bernie's chosen progressives have won their elections. Russ Feingold lost in Wisconsin despite running on a Bernie-esque platform and having name recognition and having the support of the party.
Small donations are nice, but they don't translate to votes, or even popular support turning out an electoral win in a general. Particularly when it wasn't enough to win a primary.
Corbyn faced worse attacks from the press and from his own party than Sanders. The situation in the UK is directly analogous to the US, so I don't know what you're talking about. I know you care more about domestic politics, so it's fine if you don't know what happened in the UK. But the poor treatment of leftist politicians from the mainstream press the last several decades is a common trope, so it shouldn't be surprising. They're negatively accused of being communists or socialists when many times they're at most social democrats, they're called loony and unelectable despite their views being more in line with the public's than corporate-backed candidates.
Well all of those smears were thrown at Corbyn constantly more than any other politician in recent memory, not just from the right but Blairites in his own party (comparable to centrist Dems like Hillary). I can show you the plethora of headlines from Labour-leaning news organizations like the Guardian if you don't believe it. Even with that steep opposition from the mainstream, Corbyn shattered the false narrative that folks like you continue to put forward. He won the party's leadership despite the protestations from Blairites that he's unelectable and the party needs to move to the center. He humbled the Conservatives lead by May who called an election because they thought they were going to pick up seats but got a rude awakening instead. He did all this at a disadvantage. Imagine if he was also supported by alleged progressives who didn't choose to spend their time going to bat for loser centrists who want the Democrats or Labour to be center-right parties.ozzyman314 posted...Gryffindor1 posted...
ozzyman314 posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
And what does that make Bernie considering one of the shittiest and most incompetent presidential candidates absolutely destroyed him?
On the wrong side of history.
But sure brag about how she won KY, Missouri, New Orleans & all the southern states like those would have mattered in the GE.
Remind me again though, how'd she do against Bernie in WI & MI?
And I'll repeat it:
And no, I'm not making ignorant assumptions. These are demonstrable. Let's take your beloved Wisconsin. Clinton lost by around 20,000 votes. About 1%. Jill Stein alone got 31,000 votes. Johnson got 106,000. Guaran-damn-tee you that at least 20,000 of them were Bernie or Busters. Enough to make Clinton win.
It's you who was on the wrong side of history. I blame you for the Muslim ban. I blame you for the US being pulled out of the Paris Agreement. I blame you for the relationships with allies being the lowest in history. The sooner you realize that and make amends, the better off a person you will be.
Without any proof (which I guaran-damn-tee you don not have), those are nothing blind accusations akin to the ones Trump himself would make. For all you know, the could have been real Johnson or stein voters.
But sure, keep throwing your little tantrum and blaming everyone/everything except the one person truly responsible(Hillary Clinton). That's a fantastic way to ensure Trump gets a full 8 years.
Lol. "Real Johnson or Stein voters". They don't exist. Other than a few a rabid feminazi SJW hippies for Stein and some edge lord 18 year old wannabe libertarians who live in their mom's basement for Johnson, Johnson and Stein completely banked on Sanders voters.
No a fantastic way to ensure Trump gets a full 8 years is to not vote for the Democratic candidate, like you already did. GJ getting Trump his first 4.ozzyman314 posted...He definitely could have managed his money better, as far as the south, you can kind of see his point since not 1 of those southern states was going to go Democrat in the GE anyway. But he should have made an effort there for the primaries.
No. His point should have been to win a primary, not to win the general election in the primary. This was the fatal flaw of his entire campaign.Last night I was lying in bed, staring at the stars, and I wondered... Where the **** is my roof?aarrgus posted...PraetorXyn posted...
Independents in say North Carolina or even Democrats in New York just factually matter more in a general election than Democrats in Kansas because of winner take all and the electoral college (which isn't going anywhere), I thought you lot were the pragmatists? Pragmatism is supposed to be about winning. The pragmatic thing to do would be make your primary mirror the general so you know you're nominating someone with a better chance at winning the general.
So out of one side of your mouth I hear "LET EVERYONE VOTE!" and out of the other side of your mouth it is "ONLY PEOPLE THAT MATTER GET TO VOTE!".
Everyone should get to vote, period, but if you're going to keep some people from voting like the party does now, at least keep out the ones whose vote will absolutely never matter in the general instead of the ones who matter most in the general like they do now.Console war in a nutshell:
http://imgur.com/xA6GJZ9.pngGryffindor1 posted...rockman202 posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
Sojy posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
And those states he won by only a few thousand votes. Maybe if some Bernie voters decided to vote for Clinton, she wouldn't have lost them
The Clintons were part of an effort to keep progressives away from control of the party. We're supposed to be voting for representatives, not for people going out of their way to keep us from being represented.
Reminder, most Bernie supporters voted for Clinton, and those that didn't voted for Jill Stein and even if Stein's votes all went to Clinton, she still would have lost to Trump because she was that bad of a candidate.
Wisconsin: Clinton lost by around 20,000 votes. About 1%. Jill Stein alone got 31,000 votes. Johnson got 106,000. Guaran-damn-tee you that at least 20,000 of them were Bernie or Busters. Enough to make Clinton win.
Want to try that again?
Huh, ok, didn't realize they were that close, I remember reading somewhere that Stein got a significantly less percentage of the vote. Oh well. Although I would love for you to to show me how you know 20,000 were Bernie or Bust, especially when I remember in the primary they were literally so small that their protests were "insignificant". Atleast according to the corporatists on this board.3DS FC:2939-0431-7791aarrgus posted...No. His point should have been to win a primary, not to win the general election in the primary. This was the fatal flaw of his entire campaign.
if there was any "fatal flaw" in his campaign, it's that he was an independent but rasn in the dem primary where a majority of those who supported him(independants or people not registered with either major party) most of the time could not vote for him."The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........PraetorXyn posted...Everyone should get to vote, period, but if you're going to keep some people from voting like the party does now, at least keep out the ones whose vote will absolutely never matter in the general instead of the ones who matter most in the general like they do now.
"The party" doesn't keep people from voting... a whole bunch of states making up their own rules do that.
"The party" can't force every state to go to one uniform standard. Both sides would if they could. There are enormous costs to elections, not to mention legal hurdles in each state to standardize primaries. I would welcome one standard. It would be fantastic. But it's not as easy as "the party" saying "do this right now".
Heck, look at what Kentucky had to do for Rand Paul.... they had to change from a primary to a caucus to avoid an issue with candidates appearing on multiple ballots. That is just one example of the legal minefield that each state has when it comes to elections.
The point is, it's hard work. Politics is hard work. Too many BoBers act like it's easy.... you want change then fight for it. But don't act surprised when it's hard work.Last night I was lying in bed, staring at the stars, and I wondered... Where the **** is my roof?rockman202 posted...Gryffindor1 posted...
rockman202 posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
Sojy posted...
Gryffindor1 posted...
And those states he won by only a few thousand votes. Maybe if some Bernie voters decided to vote for Clinton, she wouldn't have lost them
The Clintons were part of an effort to keep progressives away from control of the party. We're supposed to be voting for representatives, not for people going out of their way to keep us from being represented.
Reminder, most Bernie supporters voted for Clinton, and those that didn't voted for Jill Stein and even if Stein's votes all went to Clinton, she still would have lost to Trump because she was that bad of a candidate.
Wisconsin: Clinton lost by around 20,000 votes. About 1%. Jill Stein alone got 31,000 votes. Johnson got 106,000. Guaran-damn-tee you that at least 20,000 of them were Bernie or Busters. Enough to make Clinton win.
Want to try that again?
Huh, ok, didn't realize they were that close, I remember reading somewhere that Stein got a significantly less percentage of the vote. Oh well. Although I would love for you to to show me how you know 20,000 were Bernie or Bust, especially when I remember in the primary they were literally so small that their protests were "insignificant". Atleast according to the corporatists on this board.
1% is small, but it was enough to help Trump win. Let's take some other important states.
Florida: Clinton lost by around 100,000 votes. Or around 1%. Johnson + Stein votes = 275,000 votes, or around 2%.
Pennsylvania: Clinton lost by 75,000 votes. Less than 1%. Johnson + Stein votes = 200,000, or more than 3%.
Michigan: Clinton lost by 10,000 votes. 0.25% Johnson + Stein votes = 225,000 votes, or almost 4%.
It's pretty clear than even if you want to say Bernie or Busters made up 1%, it made a huge difference.The number of people that wrote in a joke candidate numbered more than the difference between Hillary and Trump in Rust Belt states.Seattle Seahawks
Super Bowl XLVIII Championsozzyman314 posted...if there was any "fatal flaw" in his campaign, it's that he was an independent but rasn in the dem primary where a majority of those who supported him(independants or people not registered with either major party) most of the time could not vote for him.
Yet when you actually look at the states won and lost, the closed vs open debate didn't hurt Sanders nearly as much as some claim.
Closed and Semi-closed Sanders won:
New Hampshire
Colorado
Oklahoma
Kansas
Nebraska
Maine
Democrats Abroad
Alaska
Hawaii
Wyoming
Rhode Island
West Virginia
Oregon
13 of Sanders 23 wins came in closed or semi-closed contests.
In open primaries Sanders won only 4 of the 16. He did win all 4 open caucuses, but that's not really the same thing as allowing everyone to have a vote.Last night I was lying in bed, staring at the stars, and I wondered... Where the **** is my roof?I don't know when they updated the vote counts. Several months ago, Clinton was at a 100k vote deficit in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Stein had around the same number of votes in Wisconsin ~30k as she's claimed to have now. So how the heck did the gap between Clinton and Trump shrink by 80k votes while Stein picked up none? These counts are not very precise.
In any case, why on earth would you include Johnson as lost Clinton voters? Libertarians are far more likely to vote for any Republican over a Democrat. Those are lost Trump votes. So if you're converting 100% of Stein votes to Clinton, then the more numerous Johnson votes should likewise be added to Trump.BetaSquadron posted...I don't know when they updated the vote counts. Several months ago, Clinton was at a 100k vote deficit in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Stein had around the same number of votes in Wisconsin ~30k as she's claimed to have now. So how the heck did the gap between Clinton and Trump shrink by 80k votes while Stein picked up none? These counts are not very precise.
In any case, why on earth would you include Johnson as lost Clinton voters? Libertarians are far more likely to vote for any Republican over a Democrat. Those are lost Trump votes. So if you're converting 100% of Stein votes to Clinton, then the more numerous Johnson votes should likewise be added to Trump.
Johnson voters weren't actually Libertarians. Sanders supporters were largely first time voters and people who never paid attention to politics, so they don't know differences between ideologies. I personally know at least 5 Sanders supporters who voted for Johnson simply because Hillary won the primary and they didn't want to vote for Trump. I tried explaining how Johnson was ideologically the opposite of Sanders. They didn't care. I tried explaining how Sanders helped make the Democratic platform the most progressive in history. They didn't care. Johnson made a BIG push to gain Sanders supporters with slogans like "There's a third option" and "If you felt the Bern, feel the Johnson".
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/287389-gary-johnson-makes-pitch-to-burned-sanders-supportersaarrgus posted...PraetorXyn posted...
Everyone should get to vote, period, but if you're going to keep some people from voting like the party does now, at least keep out the ones whose vote will absolutely never matter in the general instead of the ones who matter most in the general like they do now.
"The party" doesn't keep people from voting... a whole bunch of states making up their own rules do that.
"The party" can't force every state to go to one uniform standard. Both sides would if they could. There are enormous costs to elections, not to mention legal hurdles in each state to standardize primaries. I would welcome one standard. It would be fantastic. But it's not as easy as "the party" saying "do this right now".
Heck, look at what Kentucky had to do for Rand Paul.... they had to change from a primary to a caucus to avoid an issue with candidates appearing on multiple ballots. That is just one example of the legal minefield that each state has when it comes to elections.
The point is, it's hard work. Politics is hard work. Too many BoBers act like it's easy.... you want change then fight for it. But don't act surprised when it's hard work.
By "the parrty" in this instance I meant each state's respective branch of the party, as I assumed each state holds a branch of the party and that branch runs that state's party primary with the requirement to adhere to rules and regulations set forth by the state itself. If that's not how the primary works, my bad on that statement.
My overarching point was that it's pointless for a primary to pick the nominee that best represents your party if that nominee doesn't end up winning, and I don't want to hear the proponents of a system like that claiming to be pragmatists and deriding others as the hopeless idealists chasing rainbows and unicorns, because that's sheer hypocrisy.Console war in a nutshell:
http://imgur.com/xA6GJZ9.pngGryffindor1 posted...BetaSquadron posted...
I don't know when they updated the vote counts. Several months ago, Clinton was at a 100k vote deficit in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Stein had around the same number of votes in Wisconsin ~30k as she's claimed to have now. So how the heck did the gap between Clinton and Trump shrink by 80k votes while Stein picked up none? These counts are not very precise.
In any case, why on earth would you include Johnson as lost Clinton voters? Libertarians are far more likely to vote for any Republican over a Democrat. Those are lost Trump votes. So if you're converting 100% of Stein votes to Clinton, then the more numerous Johnson votes should likewise be added to Trump.
Johnson voters weren't actually Libertarians. Sanders supporters were largely first time voters and people who never paid attention to politics, so they don't know differences between ideologies. I personally know at least 5 Sanders supporters who voted for Johnson simply because he wasn't Hillary and they didn't want to vote for Trump. I tried explaining how Johnson was ideologically the opposite of Sanders. They didn't care. Johnson made a BIG push to gain Sanders supporters with slogans like "There's a third option" and "If you felt the Bern, feel the Johnson".
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/287389-gary-johnson-makes-pitch-to-burned-sanders-supporters
Careful you don't fall off the page with that broad brush your stroking with."The left doesn't take anything seriously except bashing the right"
Loading Signature..........Sinroth posted...We still don't know how a Trump presidency ends. If it causes the total annihilation of Republicans, with the remnants gathering around a much more moderate core, than that's worth whatever reversible damage Donnie causes in a term.
It's one helluva gamble betting right-wing idiots hurt the Country so bad with easily reversible policies that it would lead to the destruction of the GOP and a rise of the left. But what if your wrong? Say the opposite could happen, Trump does irresersable damage to the US (and he's already done that, cabinet appointments, SCOTUS, harm to the Planet, etc.) The left does nothing but sit on their hands like usual and the GOP stays in power. This is a real possibility!Greatest Shows of All Time.
Avatar: The Last Airbender, SWAT Kats, Sailor Moon, Tetsuwan Atom 2K3, Transformers, SpiderfriendsPraetorXyn posted...By "the parrty" in this instance I meant each state's respective branch of the party, as I assumed each state holds a branch of the party and that branch runs that state's party primary with the requirement to adhere to rules and regulations set forth by the state itself. If that's not how the primary works, my bad on that statement.
While the state party can influence, it does not have the ultimate authority in each state in deciding how a primary is held or the rules. Again elections are an enormous expense for many states, so some decide to do things like hold caucuses. Others bundle the primaries together with other elections. And even when you get past the expense problem, you have the legal hurdles. Some states have their primaries codified into laws that you have to untangle to change how the system works. Some even have potential state Constitutional issues. It would be wonderful to standardize it all, but that's just not an easy thing to do.
PraetorXyn posted...My overarching point was that it's pointless for a primary to pick the nominee that best represents your party if that nominee doesn't end up winning,
But that happens in every election. Newt Gingrich won South Carolina in the 2012 Republican primary... It wasn't a "pointless" primary. It was irrelevant to the outcome, but not pointless.
PraetorXyn posted...and I don't want to hear the proponents of a system like that claiming to be pragmatists and deriding others as the hopeless idealists chasing rainbows and unicorns, because that's sheer hypocrisy.
I don't think anyone has called you that. Heck I can't think of *anyone* who has ever said that. Most people would prefer a standardized system of primaries, both parties included. But the reality of that means a lot of hard work, dealing with a lot of issues most people are probably largely unaware of.Last night I was lying in bed, staring at the stars, and I wondered... Where the **** is my roof?LightSnake posted...TheShadowViper posted...
LightSnake posted...
Sojy posted...
You're a laughing stock for not supporting candidates with different policies from your own?
Voting is always a compromise with reality. You should learn that.
Easy to say that when you are the neoliberal wanting everyone else to compromise for you. I think we've done enough compromising with neoliberal scum. It is about time we stopped letting you sell the country out to every corporation that looks in your direction.
You have to love the overuse of 'neoliberal' as it's become just a buzzword for "anything Democrats do I dislike"
Don't listen to such regressive banter Snake. LightSnake posted...I kind of think you should stop being so melodramatic.
Since you don't seem to know what neoliberalism is any more than that right-wing guy on Chris Matthews' show knew what Neville Chamberlain did.
I literally laughed out loud when I read this, I recall that episode like it was yesterday, nice one! XDGreatest Shows of All Time.
Avatar: The Last Airbender, SWAT Kats, Sailor Moon, Tetsuwan Atom 2K3, Transformers, SpiderfriendsTheArcade posted...Don't listen to such regressive banter Snake.
Let me guess, you think sweatshops are good but you're not a neoliberal.Gryffindor1 posted...And what does that make Bernie considering one of the shittiest and most incompetent presidential candidates absolutely destroyed him?
The primaries were the second closest in 30 years, stop spreading this bullshit lie.
Anyway, Bernie lost in a competition where people of his political affiliation (independent) were largely barred from voting.Gryffindor1 posted...Florida: Clinton lost by around 100,000 votes. Or around 1%. Johnson + Stein votes = 275,000 votes, or around 2%.
Pennsylvania: Clinton lost by 75,000 votes. Less than 1%. Johnson + Stein votes = 200,000, or more than 3%.
Michigan: Clinton lost by 10,000 votes. 0.25% Johnson + Stein votes = 225,000 votes, or almost 4%.
Many Johnson voters would've just voted Trump instead. In Florida especially you can't really say those guys are Bernie people, Florida hates socialists and soundly rejected Bernie during the primaries.Sojy posted...Gryffindor1 posted...
Florida: Clinton lost by around 100,000 votes. Or around 1%. Johnson + Stein votes = 275,000 votes, or around 2%.
Pennsylvania: Clinton lost by 75,000 votes. Less than 1%. Johnson + Stein votes = 200,000, or more than 3%.
Michigan: Clinton lost by 10,000 votes. 0.25% Johnson + Stein votes = 225,000 votes, or almost 4%.
Many Johnson voters would've just voted Trump instead. In Florida especially you can't really say those guys are Bernie people, Florida hates socialists and soundly rejected Bernie during the primaries.
Florida is two different states. Southeast Florida is Democrat. Everywhere else is Republican with exception of Orlando.aarrgus posted...ozzyman314 posted...
Maybe, just maybe Hillary would have won not only those states, but the whole election as well, if she knew a damn thing about running a presidential campaign. Like listening to her staff about campaigning in Wisconsin, or not running ads solely focused on Trump's "gaffe of the week" and instead on actual substance & policy.
Maybe Bernie could have won the primary if he had known a damn thing about running a campaign.
Little things like not contesting in the South, or winning minority voters, or expanding beyond the youth vote. We can play this game all day long or we can move on. Although it's clear you don't want to.
Problem is that argument is nonsense as primaries are different than generals. Clinton didn't have to fight the people running the general election and Bernie had no method of winning the minority vote or the south (he's a fucking socialist) against a Clinton.aarrgus posted...PraetorXyn posted...
By "the parrty" in this instance I meant each state's respective branch of the party, as I assumed each state holds a branch of the party and that branch runs that state's party primary with the requirement to adhere to rules and regulations set forth by the state itself. If that's not how the primary works, my bad on that statement.
While the state party can influence, it does not have the ultimate authority in each state in deciding how a primary is held or the rules. Again elections are an enormous expense for many states, so some decide to do things like hold caucuses. Others bundle the primaries together with other elections. And even when you get past the expense problem, you have the legal hurdles. Some states have their primaries codified into laws that you have to untangle to change how the system works. Some even have potential state Constitutional issues. It would be wonderful to standardize it all, but that's just not an easy thing to do.
PraetorXyn posted...My overarching point was that it's pointless for a primary to pick the nominee that best represents your party if that nominee doesn't end up winning,
But that happens in every election. Newt Gingrich won South Carolina in the 2012 Republican primary... It wasn't a "pointless" primary. It was irrelevant to the outcome, but not pointless.
PraetorXyn posted...and I don't want to hear the proponents of a system like that claiming to be pragmatists and deriding others as the hopeless idealists chasing rainbows and unicorns, because that's sheer hypocrisy.
I don't think anyone has called you that. Heck I can't think of *anyone* who has ever said that. Most people would prefer a standardized system of primaries, both parties included. But the reality of that means a lot of hard work, dealing with a lot of issues most people are probably largely unaware of.
Me specifically? No, but the entire election season was filled with Clinton supporters deriding Bernie supporters as idealists chasing unicorns (I'm sure I could find plenty of posts by searching unicorn in the archive assuming the search is half decent), and these people are the ones who don't think Independents (the ones who decide elections) should be allowed to vote in the Democratic primary, so their stance there is decidedly not pragmatic, the irony of which being my point.Console war in a nutshell:
http://imgur.com/xA6GJZ9.pngPraetorXyn posted...No, but the entire election season was filled with Clinton supporters deriding Bernie supporters as idealists chasing unicorns
But that's not this discussion....
PraetorXyn posted...and these people are the ones who don't think Independents (the ones who decide elections) should be allowed to vote in the Democratic primary, so their stance there is decidedly not pragmatic, the irony of which being my point.
The idea that non party members shouldn't be able to decide who leads a party is not limited to anti-Bernie people. Taking 2016 out of it, if you asked people if people unaffiliated with something should be able to decide leadership or policies of that thing, you'd get a resounding "absolutely not" from most people. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but demanding that people not affiliated with either party absolutely be included in deciding that parties candidate is ridiculous, because the issue isn't as simple as you make it out to be. If you want to change the way the primaries are run, go right ahead. Work towards that goal. But these are the rules. Everyone knew them going in. Do the hard work of changing it, if you don't like it. It is not "pragmatic" to demand changes so late in the game that it would only be designed to favor one candidate.Last night I was lying in bed, staring at the stars, and I wondered... Where the **** is my roof?aarrgus posted...PraetorXyn posted...
Independents in say North Carolina or even Democrats in New York just factually matter more in a general election than Democrats in Kansas because of winner take all and the electoral college (which isn't going anywhere), I thought you lot were the pragmatists? Pragmatism is supposed to be about winning. The pragmatic thing to do would be make your primary mirror the general so you know you're nominating someone with a better chance at winning the general.
So out of one side of your mouth I hear "LET EVERYONE VOTE!" and out of the other side of your mouth it is "ONLY PEOPLE THAT MATTER GET TO VOTE!".
So his mouth is a mirror image of yours?
Not making yourself look good.The solution to every problem isn't throwing acid on it, unless that problem is a solution with an overly alkaline ph balance.
Carlos Danger / El Chapo 2020!!!Pitbuller_26 posted...TheShadowViper posted...
LightSnake posted...
Sojy posted...
You're a laughing stock for not supporting candidates with different policies from your own?
Voting is always a compromise with reality. You should learn that.
Easy to say that when you are the neoliberal wanting everyone else to compromise for you. I think we've done enough compromising with neoliberal scum. It is about time we stopped letting you sell the country out to every corporation that looks in your direction.
Unfortunately, numbers aren't on your side. Got to actually win against Republicans before trying to purge your own side of "corruption".
Except this time they were, and you screamed the polls mean nothing.261 - More troll food than any other board on the net.
What the right sounds like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rYqF_BtIwAUodanzrexorc posted...aarrgus posted...
PraetorXyn posted...
Independents in say North Carolina or even Democrats in New York just factually matter more in a general election than Democrats in Kansas because of winner take all and the electoral college (which isn't going anywhere), I thought you lot were the pragmatists? Pragmatism is supposed to be about winning. The pragmatic thing to do would be make your primary mirror the general so you know you're nominating someone with a better chance at winning the general.
So out of one side of your mouth I hear "LET EVERYONE VOTE!" and out of the other side of your mouth it is "ONLY PEOPLE THAT MATTER GET TO VOTE!".
So his mouth is a mirror image of yours?
Not making yourself look good.
What are you talking about? I haven't attempted to hold both positions on the issue at the same time at all.Last night I was lying in bed, staring at the stars, and I wondered... Where the **** is my roof?
No comments:
Post a Comment