Sanders supporters shower Clinton motorcade with money

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, Florin said:

Well. I dont know the details here. But as I said on this topic I am more against Bernie than pro Hillary.

The details here are that Democrats are against Citizens United. They would love to see campaigning reform so that they don't have to raise a billion dollars to compete in the General Election and hundreds of millions for downticket candidates. Hollywood gets involved to try and counteract the Koch brothers and others like them who are funding the Republicans. 

For Obama and for Hillary...or Bernie, they have to raise money for a general election from the wealthy and they have to use their influence to help raise money for downticket candidates. At this point, you have to fight fire with fire. 

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, LebaneseDude said:

What a useless post MJ. If her boos were louder, it's because younger people are less likely to contain themselves from acting stupid.

She won't lose, but I still wish you a good day.

I watched every second of the debate live and the boos weren't louder for either candidate. The applause and boos were equal. Hillary had several moments where the audience was going nuts and you could barely hear her. 

The only difference is the Bernie Bros started a silly chant like they were at a football game....but, that's to be expected. The reception at the end was just as loud and long for Hillary, just without the Frat boy chant.  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

12 minutes ago, Whispering said:

At this point, you have to fight fire with fire. 

Something many on the Democratic side view as corruption or something.

Democrats fight fire with fire, and then are called out for doing so as if the Republicans would stop. Then the Republicans fan those flames and the baby voters eat it up.

It's interesting how Hillary has taken the brunt of the Republican shaming, and how easily fooled many young voters are by it.

If you want change in the world, first and foremost you become practical. Considering Bernie knows this full well and is hypocritically using the Democratic party, one would think his supporters would understand it.

Of course they are far more willing to justify their own candidate other than the evil Queen Hillary who eats their souls and dines on their children.

[MJHolland 12,725]

1 hour ago, LebaneseDude said:

Do you not even know how media functions? Nobody cares about women's rights in Mozambique. They care about Bill Clinton's preferred sex position with Monica.

Right. It's never the fault of the establishment politician. It's always the fault of the media. Right.

Classic apologists argument.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

6 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Right. It's never the fault of the establishment politician. It's always the fault of the media. Right.

Classic apologists argument.

You're the one who made it about the media though? 

 

1 hour ago, MJHolland said:

I find it really convenient that all of her "accomplishments" happened behind closed doors that the media never reported on....

You're trying to justify her as a failure by using the lack of media coverage. There are plenty of media resources to see Hillary's accomplishments. Go ahead and google it  

They're just not highlighted on TV unless they're controversial, like almost any other political event.

Considering she worked as Secretary of State, it's clear that a significant part (if not most) of her job involved her in the international sphere, which often goes overlooked in 'Murica unless it's Israel or Europe.

Oh and what the hell does "establishment" have to do with anything. Media are equal opportunists, seeking the most controversial thing to talk about on a day to day basis. Just look at all the coverage Trump is getting for saying stupid ****. Are those accomplishments now?  

[MJHolland 12,725]

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

You're the one who made it about the media though? 

 

You're trying to justify her as a failure by using the lack of media coverage. There are plenty of media resources to see Hillary's accomplishments. Go ahead and google it  

They're just not highlighted on TV unless they're controversial, like almost any other political event.

Considering she worked as Secretary of State, it's clear that a significant part (if not most) of her job involved her in the international sphere, which often goes overlooked in 'Murica unless it's Israel or Europe.

When Obama took office in 2008, the world was at a very pivotal point in which we needed to guide the world with exceptional foreign policy, and the Clinton-Obama foreign policy was absolutely disastrous in that time, even just based on how many power vacuums they created by pulling out of wars to rally their political base.

Every deal Clinton made when SoS unraveled within months, including her keystone achievement (according to her) of the Israel-Palestine ceasefire. Literally within months. How impressive. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

17 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

When Obama took office in 2008, the world was at a very pivotal point in which we needed to guide the world with exceptional foreign policy, and the Clinton-Obama foreign policy was absolutely disastrous in that time, even just based on how many power vacuums they created by pulling out of wars to rally their political base.

Every deal Clinton made when SoS unraveled within months, including her keystone achievement (according to her) of the Israel-Palestine ceasefire. Literally within months. How impressive. 

It's interesting how you revise intentions and history to suit your purpose.

Obama's foreign policy was largesly successful in areas other than the MENA region. 

Those in the MENA region, such as their part in the Arab spring, had disastrous results but that was not because they failed, but because the local population failed to take their own fate into their hands. There was already dissent in all those countries and the West fanned that dissent to help the overturn totalitarian regimes that oppressed their populace in an attempt to replace them with democracies with more liberal ideologies (you know...human rights and all those small things you deem irrelevant). 

The West doing nothing is complacency. The West doing something is interference.

They never win according to nay-sayers or isolationists, including yourself apparently.

-----

"Every" deal? Almost all her accomplishments still stand. The ones that are in question are those in the Middle East. Refer to the above for an explanation on how much strife there is in the Middle East.

Considering you have never stepped foot in the Middle East, I'd refrain from making comments about time-frames. Months in the Middle East is a very long time, considering conflicts happen on a DAILY basis. 

To put a note on it, in my 18 years growing in Lebanon, there were THREE wars, THREE presidential vacuums. SIX (or was it SEVEN?) Parliamentary election failures, TEN political assassinations, DOZENS of shootings, TENS of incursions etc... all in a country with a population of 4 million. A year without SOME major strife that threatened stability or outright warfare was a blessing for us. The only reason we still stand is that Lebanese people are both too stubborn and too lazy to break down. We party on  

Furthermore, peace treaties are achievements in themselves. Them breaking down, is once again, only due to the local populace failing to honor that treaty. 

You keep blaming them for actually trying. You really underestimate the difficulty of the global international political sphere, and the insistence of human beings to **** themselves over.

[MJHolland 12,725]

16 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

It's interesting how you revise intentions and history to suit your purpose.

Obama's foreign policy was largesly successful in areas other than the MENA region. 

Those in the MENA region, such as their part in the Arab spring, had disastrous results but that was not because they failed, but because the local population failed to take their own fate into their hands. There was already dissent in all those countries and the West fanned that dissent to help the overturn totalitarian regimes that oppressed their populace in an attempt to replace them with democracies with more liberal ideologies (you know...human rights and all those small things you deem irrelevant). 

The West doing nothing is complacency. The West doing something is interference.

They never win according to nay-sayers or isolationists, including yourself apparently.

-----

"Every" deal? Almost all her accomplishments still stand. The ones that are in question are those in the Middle East. Refer to the above for an explanation on how much strife there is in the Middle East.

Considering you have never stepped foot in the Middle East, I'd refrain from making comments about time-frames. Months in the Middle East is a very long time, considering conflicts happen on a DAILY basis. 

To put a note on it, in my 18 years growing in Lebanon, there were THREE wars, THREE presidential vacuums. SIX (or was it SEVEN?) Parliamentary election failures, TEN political assassinations, DOZENS of shootings, TENS of incursions etc... all in a country with a population of 4 million. A year without SOME major strife that threatened stability or outright warfare was a blessing for us. The only reason we still stand is that Lebanese people are both too stubborn and too lazy to break down. We party on  

Furthermore, peace treaties are achievements in themselves. Them breaking down, is once again, only due to the local populace failing to honor that treaty. 

You keep blaming them for actually trying. You really underestimate the difficulty of the global international political sphere, and the insistence of human beings to **** themselves over.

Any SoS can make deals with the Brits and Swedes. I don't care. Even Kerry can do that. Every deal that she made that mattered failed. If you want to prove me wrong, name one. Until then, have a blessed day.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, MJHolland said:

Any SoS can make deals with the Brits and Swedes. I don't care. Even Kerry can do that. Every deal that she made that mattered failed. If you want to prove me wrong, name one. Until then, have a blessed day.

... They all mattered. If you think deals with Brits and Swedes go easily you must really be delusional  

Even then those are accomplishments. She did her job. 

It seems that the only ones that matter to you, are the ones that failed in the long run. Isn't that convenient?

I've already named many in previous posts. I'm not about to reiterate myself in some vain attempt to convince you.

 

[MonsterMarty 96]

2 hours ago, MJHolland said:

Now, I find it bizarrely hypocritical that Hillary talks about nominating a supreme court justice to the supreme court to reverse the Citizens United case, yet she uses the current ruling to fund her own campaign. She says she truly believes the law should be the other way around because it corrupts politicians, yet she uses it to her own advantage.

Actions speak so, so much louder than words. If Hillary was sincere in her platform, she wouldn't be taking money from super PACs. Period.

Absolutely right. Hillary should decimate her chances by not taking Super PAC money to prove a point by electing Ted Cruz to the White House.

You play by the status quo if it gets you to the finish line, then she's in a position to try do something about CU. That's politics. Period.

[MJHolland 12,725]

27 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

... They all mattered. If you think deals with Brits and Swedes go easily you must really be delusional  

Even then those are accomplishments. She did her job. 

It seems that the only ones that matter to you, are the ones that failed in the long run. Isn't that convenient?

I've already named many in previous posts. I'm not about to reiterate myself in some vain attempt to convince you.

 

Those deals are easy buddy. The US has been the most powerful nation on earth of at least the past 100 years. It is easy to get along with rational countries and our allies in Europe because they don't want to feel the wrath of a trade embargo from the States. 

It's only impressive when you can negotiate with countries that are irrational actors that don't respond to global power and dominance, such as Iran, Iraq, and Palestine. I only care about a SoS's track record with those countries. Any dip can get along with Europe and or allies, as proof by our current SoS who I have reasons to believe is actually the three small boys operating one large suit standing on each others shoulders.

7 minutes ago, MonsterMarty said:

Absolutely right. Hillary should decimate her chances by not taking Super PAC money to prove a point by electing Ted Cruz to the White House.

You play by the status quo if it gets you to the finish line, then she's in a position to try do something about CU. That's politics. Period.

Idk if you've heard, but her running mate (who's name is Bernie Sanders) isn't playing by the status quo and is actually popular enough to fund his campaign just as well as Clinton is without taking money from special interests. Donald Trump is doing the same. 

So of the 3 most viable candidates for president (Trump, Sanders, and Clinton), Hillary Clinton is the ONLY candidate taking money from super PAC's. All 3 of them want to overturn Citizens United, including Trump.

Hillary Clinton is 100% talk and no action. If you don't think her track record matters on this issue (or a lack of a track record), then you're obviously delusional. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

11 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Those deals are easy buddy. The US has been the most powerful nation on earth of at least the past 100 years. It is easy to get along with rational countries and our allies in Europe because they don't want to feel the wrath of a trade embargo from the States. 

It's only impressive when you can negotiate with countries that are irrational actors that don't respond to global power and dominance, such as Iran, Iraq, and Palestine. I only care about a SoS's track record with those countries. Any dip can get along with Europe and or allies, as proof by our current SoS who I have reasons to believe is actually the three small boys operating one large suit standing on each others shoulders.

Selective much? If you think the USA employs trade embargo threats every time there's a diplomacy action with an ally then you clearly don't understand how it works. Attempting to employ diplomacy with allies is often as fickle as those with your enemies. You can't impose power on allies for one.

Furthermore, it's quite interesting that you are making the implication that ANYONE in the Middle Eastern region has been amenable to Western interference. Those that have been are also irrelevant apparently, as if dealings with Saudi Arabia, Israel, or even Lebanon is a joke. You're really downplaying this man. Stop  

11 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Idk if you've heard, but her running mate (who's name is Bernie Sanders) isn't playing by the status quo and is actually popular enough to fund his campaign just as well as Clinton is without taking money from special interests. Donald Trump is doing the same. 

So of the 3 most viable candidates for president (Trump, Sanders, and Clinton), Hillary Clinton is the ONLY candidate taking money from super PAC's. All 3 of them want to overturn Citizens United, including Trump.

Hillary Clinton is 100% talk and no action. If you don't think her track record matters on this issue (or a lack of a track record), then you're obviously delusional. 

Another case of selectiveness  

You're ignoring Cruz, who has 40% of his campaign finances from Super PACs, and your very own candidate, Kasich, whom you've previously claimed to be the best one with a whopping 45% of his campaign finances from Super PACs. 

Meanwhile Hillary's ONE and ONLY Super PAC provides 27% of her campaign finances.

Furthermore, Clinton is making more money from campaign donations than any other candidate including Sanders even without Super Pacs. That she has one is icing on the cake. 

Hillary's Super PAC is merely a tool to ensure her presidential race. She'll overturn it after she wins. There's no point in fighting the rules of the game when they are set. Change them after the race is done. Fight fire with fire then bring the extinguisher later.

If you're arguing otherwise, then why are you supporting the Independent Sanders who wants to overturn partisan politics while being a Democrat...or the Trump who changes affiliation every other moment when it suits him. I wouldn't be shocked if he's a stealth-Democrat using the Republicans for shits and giggles. 

Be consistent  

[MJHolland 12,725]

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Selective much? If you think the USA employs trade embargo threats every time there's a diplomacy action with an ally then you clearly don't understand how it works. Attempting to employ diplomacy with allies is often as fickle as those with your enemies. You can't impose power on allies for one.

Furthermore, it's quite interesting that you are making the implication that ANYONE in the Middle Eastern region has been amenable to Western interference. You're really downplaying this man. Stop  

Another case of selectiveness  

You're ignoring Cruz, who has 40% of his campaign finances from Super PACs, and your very own candidate, Kasich, whom you've previously claimed to be the best one with a whopping 45% of his campaign finances from Super PACs. 

Meanwhile Hillary's ONE and ONLY Super PAC provides 27% of her campaign finances.

Furthermore, Clinton is making more money from campaign donations than any other candidate including Sanders even without Super Pacs. That she has one is icing on the cake. 

Hillary's Super PAC is merely a tool to ensure her presidential race. She'll overturn it after she wins. There's no point in fighting the rules of the game when they are set. Change them after the race is done.

If you're arguing otherwise, then why are you supporting the Independent Sanders  

Except this is absolutely 100% false given that Hillary Clinton's two biggest threats, Trump and Sanders, rival her and they haven't taken a cent from PACs. Hillary has proved herself to be yet another all-talk politician who talks about fixing the system just to turn around and use it for her own personal advantage. 

The fact of the matter is, we have no clue what Clinton thinks about PACs because she says one thing and them does another. If if icing on the cake, why does she use her one super PAC at all??? You're logic is so flawed that it makes my head hurt. If you truly believe that she doesn't need it, doesn't it bother you that she still uses it?!

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

3 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Except this is absolutely 100% false given that Hillary Clinton's two biggest threats, Trump and Sanders, rival her and they haven't taken a cent from PACs. Hillary has proved herself to be yet another all-talk politician who talks about fixing the system just to turn around and use it for her own personal advantage. 

The fact of the matter is, we have no clue what Clinton thinks about PACs because she says one thing and them does another. If if icing on the cake, why does she use her one super PAC at all??? You're logic is so flawed that it makes my head hurt. If you truly believe that she doesn't need it, doesn't it bother you that she still uses it?!

Ignore the entirety of my post yet again.

Do you even read them?

Do you know how much presidential campaigns cost? If Bernie, through some miracle blessed from the Pope, wins the nomination, even he is going to need to suck the establishment's D for money to compete with the Republican nominee. This is historical fact.

Also the only "threat" to Hillary is Bernie, and even then that's a stretch  

[Himeros26 1,688]

7 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

There should've played a C2C track to get it that promo. 

Anything goes. Pls.