Clinton not sure Sanders is a Democrat

[Chromatislaps 34,854]

2 hours ago, MJHolland said:

Well he is in fact not a Democrat, he's an independent because he's too damn left wing even for Democrats lol 

if he were a politician in West Europe, he would be considered a left wing democrat...where as Hillary would be considered a mid/right wing democrat

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, Aura Veil said:

I'd rather have a Democrat nominee with Bernie's track record in politics a Democrat nominee with Hillary's track record in politics. I've citied issues that are important to me, and she has been on the opposition. In my view, I don't see her being a good representative for the Democratic party, and I don't feel it's appropriate to put more value in her seniority than in her policies that I've disclosed. 

Well that's your opinion. How is this relevant to the OP though? You can't mock people for defending her track record when you aren't even discussing the intended argument.

[Himeros26 1,688]

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Well no offense but when all you do is mock Hillary and comment about negative things while failing to post actual defense of the candidate you're preferring such as Sanders, you are going to be considered a blind "supporter". 

It's not an unbased assumption. I know you from several threads.

In any case we shouldn't discuss this here.

Girl I will continue to mock her and ha hair plugs if I please. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 55,282]

13 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

It's funny how you use marriage equality to talk about Hillary then a completely different topic to talk about Sanders. Both Hillary and Sanders were against LGBT marriage until recently. The only reason Sanders voted against some legislation was because he thought it should be left to the states (in his hilariously one-track socialist mind) as opposed to it being out of empathy for LGBT people. Hillary delivered an important speech to the UN about LGBT rights. Has Bernie done anything of relevance in that regard?

Her stances on foreign policy are hardly unique to her and her alone. Attempting to inject logic into a discussion about Middle Eastern politics is a lesson in failure. It doesn't exist. I should know. I'm from there. Trying to make the fact that "overthrowing Assaad" is an inherently bad thing is also ****ing stupid. You talk about Middle Eastern politics as if you've lived it. Divisions between Sunni and Shiite people have existed far longer than we have. Considering Lebanon is the "Western allies", your entire stance about this is hilariously subjective. Are you seriously implying such decisions are BAD? Bahahahaha

First of all, I'd say it's an entirely different thing to say that marriage equality is a 'state issue' as a opposed to openly saying, for decades, that "marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman'. Bernie was setting a political precedent while Hillary was making a social/religious one. Bernie also defended the rights of gay people to serve in the military until the 1990s. 

Regarding the Middle East: I'm saying that I don't think that U.S. military intervention (from my understanding) has ever really done anything positive for the Middle East and has actually done more damage. Not to mention that these interventionist 'conflicts' are almost always entered under false pretenses. I'm not saying that she's created Sunni and Shiite people (you are very tactful about what you selectively misread). I'm saying that she's all for allowing people in the Middle East to be divided so the U.S. can continue to attempt to exercise control and actively *benefit* from that conflict. I think the U.S.'s 'diplomatic' role in the Middle East is far from appropriate and is based heavily on convenience. And it's also a pretty weak argument to say that 'well, who cares if she does it? Other people do it, too!'. Well, maybe I don't want to vote for someone as president who supports the destabilization of a region that has lead to the international terrorist threat of ISIS. Maybe I don't want to support someone who, instead of allowing for the establishment of democracy in overthrown Middle Eastern countries, puts in place a U.S. puppet government. Call me crazy, but I don't think that benefits anyone (except for greedy plutocrats who want to have control over natural resources). 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

3 minutes ago, zebulonpyke said:

 

Also: if you look at Hillary's record and Bernie's record, there are almost NO similarities. Hillary supported NAFTA and the TPP, Bernie does not. Hillary supported the Iraq war, Bernie did not. Hillary supported the Wall Street bailout, Bernie did not. Hillary opposed marriage equality until 2013, Bernie has supported the LGBTQIA+ community since the 1980s. In 1963, Bernie was marching on Washington with MLK while Hillary was supporting Barry Goldwater, a conservative segregationist. There are fundamental differences between Bernie and Hillary's policies and who they are as politicians.  The only reason the current incarnation of Hillary exists was because she saw the rise of certain grassroots ideologies and realized that she has to adopt this platform in order to try and gain the support of people who might like Bernie, but recognize Hillary Clinton as being 'more qualified'. 

Also, if you want to get into the myth of Hillary's reputation as a 'do-er' and a 'realist', explain to me how Bernie Sanders has managed to pass more legislation as a Senator. Also, explain how Bernie proposes pipe dreams when almost every other industrialized nation in the world has: universal health care, many have access to state-funded higher education and paid family leave. Also, consider that, in 2008, when the global economy crashed, other countries decided to bailout their working people instead of the economic elite and their countries are thriving (Iceland is a great example). 

How refreshing to see a post with some logical direction. Thank you!

In any case, you can't quote a few divergent stances and use that as a generalization. They have similar stances on most things, and differ only on a select few that you are nitpicking. They differ in economy , and that's what you've posted really, and that's what I've repeatedly said. On everything else, they're the same. They differ on foreign policy, but here's the thing. That was her job, and you can't just paint her decisions are her decisions alone. She was Secretary of State, and so her vote is also the vote of the entire US population, not just as a Senator. So you can't use that argument either. The Iraq war was a bad (horrible) idea in retrospect, but most Americans supported it, and Hillary is representing them. 

Speaking of, you can't compare their careers as Senators fairly. Sanders has been in the Senate 3x longer than she has. She was a Secretary of State, and she has an impressive list of accomplishments in that regard. 

Furthermore, you discuss universal healthcare as if she opposes it. She's with it. Why are you talking about this?

Regarding everything else, the socialist policies adopted in Europe (which I assume you are referring to) have proven to be a failure, as most of the advanced European countries are falling under the weight of their own promises. There are many sources on the Internet. Here's one random one I found:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/15/bernie-sanders-scandinavia-not-socialist-utopia/lUk9N7dZotJRbvn8PosoIN/story.html

 

[MJHolland 12,725]

4 minutes ago, Derpplause said:

if he were a politician in West Europe, he would be considered a left wing democrat...where as Hillary would be considered a mid/right wing democrat

Well he isn't, and here he is so far left he falls off the freaking scale of democrats lol 

 

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Well that's your opinion. How is this relevant to the OP though? You can't mock people for defending her track record when you aren't even discussing the intended argument.

Yes you can. Every day of the goddam week. Her tenure of secretary of state were the most embracing years for American foreign policy in a lifetime.

[Whispering 18,865]

6 minutes ago, Aura Veil said:

At some point, you have to understand that if you are spending most of your defending your candidate's record, then maybe it's the candidate who is the problem. This exchange will be forgotten in a day. And I also acknowledge that you are a Clinton supporter. I respect that. But I can't comprehend how her supporters spend most of their time defend her policies, and at the end of the day, they expect people to conform to her.  

She is not the Supreme Democrat, and  I'm insulted when people throw away their standards simply because they are too stubborn to listen.

You have people in here defending her record because people like you are attacking her for her record. I have no idea what you are even trying to say with this first paragraph. It's an attempt to twist a conversation into something it is not and I'm not falling for it. 

Hillary is a Democrat. No one said anything about being a "Supreme Democrat". You can't dispute the facts, so you have resorted to trying to put words in my mouth or twist the conversation to something that had nothing to do with the discussion. I'm insulted that you would think that I would fall for your passive aggressive deflections and insinuate I don't have standards because I won't fall a bunch of unrealistic promises. 

[Aura Veil 2,395]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

Well that's your opinion. How is this relevant to the OP though? You can't mock people for defending her track record when you aren't even discussing the intended argument.

Sis, take advice from your candidate and watch that tone. I've laid out my opinions of Hillary, and others may choose to agree or disagree. I don't mock anyone who truly defends their candidate. I find it EXTREMELY RUDE AS HELL TO CALL TO BE CALLIN' MY FELLOW BERNIE SUPPORTERS "BERNIE BOTS." And your post history is nothing short of condescending.

Again, I have issues that matter to me, and she has been on the opposition to those issues. I'd rather have somone be the Democratic nominee who was a Democrat for five months, with a strong progressive and consistent track record, than somone who has been a die-hard Democrat who has an inconsistent track record. If you aren't able to have a mature discussion, then there is no discussion to be had.

[Redstreak 6,653]

Who cares what Sanders calls himself? His ideals are still more progressive than Hillary's and that's all that matters

[Redstreak 6,653]

33 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

What kind of generalization?

I had more respect for you.

This rhetoric shocks you?  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

16 minutes ago, zebulonpyke said:

First of all, I'd say it's an entirely different thing to say that marriage equality is a 'state issue' as a opposed to openly saying, for decades, that "marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman'. Bernie was setting a political precedent while Hillary was making a social/religious one. Bernie also defended the rights of gay people to serve in the military until the 1990s. 

Regarding the Middle East: I'm saying that I don't think that U.S. military intervention (from my understanding) has ever really done anything positive for the Middle East and has actually done more damage. Not to mention that these interventionist 'conflicts' are almost always entered under false pretenses. I'm not saying that she's created Sunni and Shiite people (you are very tactful about what you selectively misread). I'm saying that she's all for allowing people in the Middle East to be divided so the U.S. can continue to attempt to exercise control and actively *benefit* from that conflict. I think the U.S.'s 'diplomatic' role in the Middle East is far from appropriate and is based heavily on convenience. And it's also a pretty weak argument to say that 'well, who cares if she does it? Other people do it, too!'. Well, maybe I don't want to vote for someone as president who supports the destabilization of a region that has lead to the international terrorist threat of ISIS. Maybe I don't want to support someone who, instead of allowing for the establishment of democracy in overthrown Middle Eastern countries, puts in place a U.S. puppet government. Call me crazy, but I don't think that benefits anyone (except for greedy plutocrats who want to have control over natural resources). 

Hillary having the opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman is a social belief, not necessarily a religious one. It was a fair stance for someone, especially one of her age. She's evolved along with the American people. It's hardly fair to single her out. It's also very arguable that Hillary has been defending LGBT people, even as First Lady. It's a controversial topic even among gay veterans of the time, who believed that DADT and DOMA were necessary defensive actions. I can't talk about it because I didn't live there, but I can understand it. She has also been supportive of LGBT rights on a world stage. Do you not understand how big a deal it is to talk in front of ALL the nations of the world about LGBT rights? "Gay rights are human rights. Human rights are gay rights". When I watched this on TV in Lebanon as a kid, I got a tear in my eye even though I was closeted. This is a big impetus for discussion. Her contributions are not trivial.

Regarding the Middle East, it's true that direct intervention has backfired. Still, claiming that a complete withdrawal from Middle Eastern politics is misplaced. Claiming that "the West' can benefit from their division is also not ignorant. I know many people view the world as some idyllic lovely place but this isn't how it is in the real world. The region will ALWAYS be in strife, and attempting to make Sunnis and Shiites love each other will never work. Take it from someone who lived in a country where they both exist. The bad blood runs too deep. The fact is that the West can benefit from this by keeping them down and a non-threat to the West. It's political pragmatism, one that actually ****s over my own country. It's a simple truth that without US military intervention, Lebanese Christians would be under severe threat. So for us, it's not exactly a bad trade. 

I do agree that attempting to spread democracy to countries that are not ready for it is going to inevitably backfire because they simply do not know how to handle it. In truth, it can be said that the USA is merely guiding them, just like France did for us in Lebanon during their occupation. It's just that it's not as easy as people make it out to be, especially in the age of social media and terrorism.

[Aura Veil 2,395]

4 minutes ago, Whispering said:

You have people in here defending her record because people like you are attacking her for her record. I have no idea what you are even trying to say with this first paragraph. It's an attempt to twist a conversation into something it is not and I'm not falling for it. 

Hillary is a Democrat. No one said anything about being a "Supreme Democrat". You can't dispute the facts, so you have resorted to trying to put words in my mouth or twist the conversation to something that had nothing to do with the discussion. I'm insulted that you would think that I would fall for your passive aggressive deflections and insinuate I don't have standards because I won't fall a bunch of unrealistic promises. 

This non-issue isn't that complicated: Bernie may have been a Democrat for 5 months, but his combined career as both an independent and Democrat is something I admire. I don't factor in seniority when it comes who should represent the Democrats. That's all. You are entitled to your opinion. Let some sunlight in.

 

[Whispering 18,865]

27 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

The more I interact with Hillary supporters the more I dislike her. 

Same can be said for Bernie supporters. It just gets too nasty lol. 

Idk if I'll be motivated enough to go vote for her in November. 

Just don't vote. Be one of those Americans who decides not to vote because their "fave" doesn't get the nomination. Just don't complain when two conservative Supreme Court Justices are appointed and decide to take away your rights as a human being living in this country. 

This isn't stan wars. There is more at stake here than who is the bestest pop girl! 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

11 minutes ago, Aura Veil said:

Sis, take advice from your candidate and watch that tone. I've laid out my opinions of Hillary, and others may choose to agree or disagree. I don't mock anyone who truly defends their candidate. I find it EXTREMELY RUDE AS HELL TO CALL TO BE CALLIN' MY FELLOW BERNIE SUPPORTERS "BERNIE BOTS." And your post history is nothing short of condescending.

Again, I have issues that matter to me, and she has been on the opposition to those issues. I'd rather have somone be the Democratic nominee who was a Democrat for five months, with a strong progressive and consistent track record, than somone who has been a die-hard Democrat who has an inconsistent track record. If you aren't able to have a mature discussion, then there is no discussion to be had.

First of all I'm not your sis. Don't be rude to me. I'm not calling you a Bernie bot either. If you take issue with that then deal with it. I'm not here to babysit your feelings. How about you defend your own candidate on the topic at hand rather than resort to this post. 

It's great you dislike her, but you can't claim intellectual superiority in a conversation while talking about a completely tangential topic. It's hilarious how you feel you MUST comment on EVERYTHING about Hillary when the topic is one specific discussion which you've consistently failed to address while using misdirection. Can't you suppress your anti-Hillary bias for a moment?

Even as a Bernie supporter you must agree that he's using the Democratic party as a convenience. That's the topic. Agree/Disagree? Nothing about her entire record needs to be discussed. That's how a mature conversation is handled. 

Anyway it's too late now. Everyone's talking about everything now. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

9 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

Who cares what Sanders calls himself? His ideals are still more progressive than Hillary's and that's all that matters

Arguably too progressive.

It's the difference between guiding people down the stairs (Hillary) and pushing them off the cliff (Sanders). 

So no, degrees of progressiveness do matter in a discussion. Idealism is one thing. Application and pragmatism in what can be done is another.

Stop talking in absolutes.