Clinton campaign wants Sanders to change his tone

[Morphine Prince 109,984]

 

[StarstruckIllusion 53,708]

7 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

shes a feminist progressive, what do you expect?

She is NOT progressive lmao 

[mmm 879]

4 minutes ago, ROARyals said:

She is NOT progressive lmao 

According to her, she is.

[mmm 879]

2 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

Bernie wasn't pro marriage equality either until recently. This viewpoint is pretty much common among people of the older generation. It's understandable, if ultimately wrong by today's standards.

No its wrong by all standards and its not understandable.. many people throughout history supported homosexuality so why cant people born 50 years ago do the same? if you base morality on what is the standard, then dont hate anyone in the middle east for being anti gay and taking away your rights.

[Aura Veil 2,395]

Everyone, calm down. Let's consult Hillary about this

 

Honestly, a candidate who hinges their campaign on low voter turnout, cowardly tactics, and overall allowances for misdeeds from her "loyal" voter base is NOT PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL. Her attempt to deflect on her loses over the past week is transparent. But yeah, see you guys at the George Clooney fundraising dinner, only $300,000+ a couple, which is more than most of us will make in a year. Oooop. #ImWithBern

[Morphine Prince 109,984]

4 minutes ago, Aura Veil said:

Everyone, calm down. Let's consult Hillary about this

 

Honestly, a candidate who hinges their campaign on low voter turnout, cowardly tactics, and overall allowances for misdeeds from her "loyal" voter base is NOT PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL. Her attempt to deflect on her loses over the past week is transparent. But yeah, see you guys at the George Clooney fundraising dinner, only $300,000+ a couple, which is more than most of us will make in a year. Oooop. #ImWithBern

 "It's the toughest, most important job in the world. You should work for every vote; be willing to debate anytime, anywhere."
-Hillary Clinton, 2008

If her campaign thinks Bernie is negative, oh boy they will hide in fear when she's up against Trump. 

[Whispering 18,865]

5 minutes ago, Aura Veil said:

Everyone, calm down. Let's consult Hillary about this

 

Honestly, a candidate who hinges their campaign on low voter turnout, cowardly tactics, and overall allowances for misdeeds from her "loyal" voter base is NOT PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL. Her attempt to deflect on her loses over the past week is transparent. But yeah, see you guys at the George Clooney fundraising dinner, only $300,000+ a couple, which is more than most of us will make in a year. Oooop. #ImWithBern

Bernie's campaign is saying his losses are because "he didn't try in those states", despite the fact that he was in those states earlier and longer than Hillary and he had more offices and spent more money in several of those states. That's deflecting losses. How transparent! 

I would love to go to that dinner! Lol I wish Clooney would run for president in the future!  (Why not, if Trump can?) 

[Aura Veil 2,395]

10 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Bernie's campaign is saying his losses are because "he didn't try in those states", despite the fact that he was in those states earlier and longer than Hillary and he had more offices and spent more money in several of those states. That's deflecting losses. How transparent! 

I would love to go to that dinner! Lol I wish Clooney would run for president in the future!  (Why not, if Trump can?) 

Bernie lost the conservative South because there was a pathetic voter turnout.

Low voter turnout + Center Right values= win. He owms his shortcomings in those contests. No argument there. And if you want to go to the dinner, cough up the cash. :^) 

At this point, we have our preferences. Not trying to sound sharp or anything.

[Whispering 18,865]

37 minutes ago, Aura Veil said:

Bernie lost the conservative South because there was a pathetic voter turnout.

Low voter turnout + Center Right values= win. He owms his shortcomings in those contests. No argument there. And if you want to go to the dinner, cough up the cash. :^) 

At this point, we have our preferences. Not trying to sound sharp or anything.

Bernie lost the south mainly because of the minority vote. That's one of his biggest shortcomings. Bernie hasn't owned his losses, he and his campaign team are making excuses and spinning the losses, like every candidate does. 

I'm not in that income bracket, but this is typical for people that are. Actually, the tickets available for that price are seats at the same table as Clooney, his wife and the Clintons. The other tickets are 33,000. Still way too expensive for me, but to millionaires...that amount is like $30 to many people. Everyone can contribute or get involved as their income and time available allows. 

[Bt1 5,213]

5 hours ago, Aura Veil said:

Everyone, calm down. Let's consult Hillary about this.

 

Honestly, a candidate who hinges their campaign on how voter turnout, cowardly tactics, and overall allowances for misdeeds from her "loyal" voter base is NOT PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL. Her attempt to deflect on her loses over the past week is transparent. But yeah, see you guys at the George Clooney fundraising dinner, only $300,000+ a couple, which is more than most of us will make in a year. Oooop. #ImWithBern

Bernie has spend on his campaign in the same range as Hillary, so he has the money too.

I hate how Hillary is beeing attacked for everything, while Bernie sits comfortable and pretend that he didnt start those attacks. No one is asking why he didnt want to debate before the states where he was favorite. Why now? Why it is acceptable this behaviour from him? 

The democratic party had the number of debates it was known to have. I could understand another debate and Hillary actually said it is possible for another one, but not at this point. If Bernie continues to get closer to Hillary after New York and Pennsylvania, it is totally understandable. But you cannot want debates only when you know that  it is probable to loose.

 

[Zsolti 2,688]

back off grandma

[socotra 3,357]

22 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

I fail to see how evolution is bad in any shape or form, especially when it serves the best interests of the nation and its people at the time.

Hillary doesn't lack integrity. What she lacks is consistency throughout her entire career, but like I said that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Selling out is a relative term really. When someone switches to a pro-LGBT stance for example, that can be viewed as selling out the anti-LGBT ones. So would you call "selling out" a bad thing in this regard to you? In this case one wonders when and where "selling out" is a bad thing. Also it's important to remember that your ideals are not necessarily shared with others, and despite them being the correct thing to you, it's a politicians place to work with everyone at the same time... even your political enemies. 

And trust me... you've got a lot of political enemies. Hillary can't afford to stick to principles all the time when managing foreign affairs. Do you suggest cutting all ties with India because they are anti-LGBT and have horrendous work ethics? Where do you draw the line? I think you're viewing things too simply. Sometimes you have to step on one principle to achieve one that's currently more important. While doing so, and further down the line, one can revise positions when one has more leverage. Influence plays an important part too. Over time, principles become more aligned and nations change. That's how cultural influence works after all.

You say that someone should get things right "the first time". First of all, that's as silly as saying that someone should get an essay right on the first try. In politics there are dozen of drafts, collaborations and reviews, opinions and criticisms. All of these need to be addressed. You can't ever get things right the first time.

I'm not going to get into detail here as this would involve a deeper conversation regarding his policies.

Bernie also really falters in the field of diplomacy. He immediately shuts out anyone who doesn't agree with him, including those that he's cooperated with in the past. He has no political friends, and is basically considered a Messiah by the populace for being so hardlined. It's not inaccurate to compare Bernie to Trump in political terms. Bernie's democrat to Trump's republican. This is only proven by how zealous their supporters are. 

The main issue here, and this addresses your last point, is that Hillary is a centrist. She's basically at the center, and any deviation from that center can be seen as a breach of consistency. 

So Hillary, just like Bernie, is not a stereotypical member of a party. She's simply one that is a moderate, with policies that don't qualify her as a model image for any party.

Still, she identifies as a democrat because ultimately that's how she views herself. I don't think it's anyone's place to try to tag her as something. One can be a democrat who is anti-LGBT, pro-abortion, etc... Obviously, one that wants to represent the party needs to share those values that society has evolved to.

So how does that happen? Through personal evolution. I'm not claiming that Hillary does not see the political opportunities in her policies. However, trying to hold someone's past against them is a little harsh. The past is important, but the future more so. 

But Hillary is running on her record. She mentions it constantly in debates and in her stump speeches, that she has a "proven record." As I said in my first post, there's nothing wrong with evolving your views to fit that of your constituency because the cultural/economic/political climate is always changing. However, she isn't saying, "Yes, I change my views on things to fit the people I represent." She says she has a proven record, she champions herself as a progressive, somebody who's been in the fight since the start, somebody with the same ideological persistence that Bernie has.

And that's just not her. Aside from the fact that I find myself aligned with Bernie's worldview, I also don't like the way that Hillary sells herself to the electorate. It's phony to me, particularly her glib rhetoric. She can be a moderate/conservative-leaning Democrat. I would prefer that. What I don't like is that she attempts to portray herself as somebody whose record is similar to Bernie's, that her views have always been as left as Bernie's, and that she's a concrete liberal, when she in no way has been. Bernie? Even if you don't like his policies and see him as uncompromising, there's no questioning his resolve and consistency. You know what you're getting when you vote for him, and as with you, it's not someone you want to vote for – and that's fine. 

It's just that he's not going to put a mask on and change himself in order to get votes, and that's what I foremost admire and like about him. 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

11 hours ago, Florin said:

Bernie has spend on his campaign in the same range as Hillary, so he has the money too.

I hate how Hillary is beeing attacked for everything, while Bernie sits comfortable and pretend that he didnt start those attacks. No one is asking why he didnt want to debate before the states where he was favorite. Why now? Why it is acceptable this behaviour from him? 

The democratic party had the number of debates it was known to have. I could understand another debate and Hillary actually said it is possible for another one, but not at this point. If Bernie continues to get closer to Hillary after New York and Pennsylvania, it is totally understandable. But you cannot want debates only when you know that  it is probable to loose.

 

Actually, it didn't have the debates it was supposed to have. Unless I read wrong, there was supposed to be a debate in April and May. 

Also, Hillary didn't ask to debate Bernie in the states he was leading. If she did, he probably would have said yes.

[Bt1 5,213]

2 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

Actually, it didn't have the debates it was supposed to have. Unless I read wrong, there was supposed to be a debate in April and May. 

Also, Hillary didn't ask to debate Bernie in the states he was leading. If she did, he probably would have said yes.

The original schedule was this. https://medium.com/@DWStweets/announcing-the-democratic-debate-schedule-d8e284513221#.ghmwpxi2b

4 new debates were added in february. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/02/03/its-on-looks-like-were-getting-four-more-democratic-debates/

As you can see, none of them is New York. They agreed on this. Bernie should stick to it and make the Pennsylvania debate happen, not do this crap.

[Born To Slay 10,996]

3 minutes ago, Florin said:

The original schedule was this. https://medium.com/@DWStweets/announcing-the-democratic-debate-schedule-d8e284513221#.ghmwpxi2b

4 new debates were added in february. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/02/03/its-on-looks-like-were-getting-four-more-democratic-debates/

As you can see, none of them is New York. They agreed on this. Bernie should stick to it and make the Pennsylvania debate happen, not do this crap.

I guess you're right. A PA debate would be better anyway. More delegates available that Tuesday and less time to campaign. New York at least he has a few weeks to tour the states and run ads as he said he'd do.