Sanders: Clinton Will Have To Win Over My Supporters Herself

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

45 minutes ago, Bebe said:

Great, but you know what? It's never going to be a great time to fight against establishment politics. There clearly is never going to be a nice, friendly centrist republican nominee that Democrats will be happy with winning. It's never going to be risk free and easy.

The issue here is that Trump is the ultimate abominable amalgamation of all the bad things the GOP stands for. Why NOW? Why not before? Why not after when there divides aren't too great? Your impatience for change clouds your judgment. There will be a time, just like there have been times. The American population wasn't as driven before. Now they are thanks to Bernie....hell...even Trump. Perhaps when the next cycle rolls around, you'll have the numbers and influence. to get rid of this bipartisan situation. Foster your base before you try to revolutionize the world. Now is not the time.

45 minutes ago, Bebe said:

If the Democratic party loses then the fault is with them for not appealing to the voters. Simple.

If people want real change then they need to stop voting down party lines even though their candidate doesn't represent them and the issues they hold dear. If the DNC loses then the need to start re-prioritising what issues they stand for and they need to take a larger look at the people they represent and their needs.
 

This is fallacious and a form of misrepresentation. You are saying that the Democratic party needs to fully appeal to all sides without compromise. I don't get what issues you think they aren't representing. Bernie represents an extremist stance, not a moderate one. That's inspirational to many, but the DNC is not there to serve YOU only. 

That's what you are not mentioning. You want a candidate who only supports you. Well that's great. You also forget that you are just one fragment of society, and yes, even Sanders' leadership would eventually lead to splits and divisions as disagreements rise on how to implement THOSE policies. That's just how people work. That's where interest groups come from.

45 minutes ago, Bebe said:

Do we want decades upon decades of political corruption? With Koch and others paying big money to ensure environmental policies are not supported, with Wall Street paying big money to ensure that they can run amuck without regulation, with private prison lobbyists paying big money to ensure they can continue to incarcerate Americans for profit, with the NRA paying big money to ensure that there are no serious gun regulations? Do we want decades of aggressive foreign policy? 
 

Corruption this corruption that. Everything is corrupted. Nothing is pure because any organization, group, corporation, or interest group is run by human beings who are fallible. The only thing you can do is limit it. This idealism you speak of does not exist. History shows that. You need to take that into consideration.

These sets of points you bring are disappointing. They are nothing less than basic talking points from GOP people. You're also mixing up Republican and Democrat interests as if they are the same.

People with money will always try to curry favor. You want something that will never happen. In any case, it's up to the people in charge to decide how much that favor is worth. In Hillary's case, it's clear that it's less about working for them and more about being less harsh on them. She's the better liberal choice when it comes between Sanders and Clinton. That's clear just by his stances, even ignoring hers. They'll donate to her, irrespective of what she thinks, to avoid getting Sanders who is far more harsh and uncompromising in his dealings. And yes, I think the best way to get rid of big banks is to work with them, not destroy them. There are millions of jobs at risk here. You can't just wave a magic wand and dismantle it.

In any case, considering that both Democrat nominees have pledged to combat all the above, I don't get why you're bringing it up anyway. It doesn't matter that you don't trust either of them. Those are their stances. Take it or leave it.

45 minutes ago, Bebe said:

4 years of a conservative sounds awful but 20+ years of continuing corruption, banks to big to fail, lack of environmental action and perpetual war sounds pretty horrific too....
 

Please.......don't ... don't ever make this correlation. Honestly this sentence alone is incredibly frustrating.

The Democratic party has worked relentlessly to push for progress and fight the corruption sown by the Republican party through years of ****ups. Bill Clinton managed to turn around a weakened economy and brought back a golden age. Obama worked relentlessly to turn over the ****ups of George Bush despite an uncooperative Senate.

You are making this assumption that the Democrats have not been fighting for exactly what you espouse. The Senate being ruled by the Republican majority and the Supreme Court being biased towards their interest has worked against almost any form of progress presented this last decade. 

I don't even get what you're trying to say. You're mixing up random talking points to justify a position.

45 minutes ago, Bebe said:

I mean, I'd prefer that people vote Hillary in the general election. But  I don't think it's so crazy, ignorant or stupid for people to decide that they are not going to vote for either major party candidate. They just want the issues they hold dear to be represented and in this current political climate they are not.

I don't think it's crazy or inherently ignorant. I think it ignores the reality of the situation and is willfully ignorant.

You stop your house from falling apart from the foundations before you build a second floor.

Maybe you can afford to sleep on the ruins to get that change. Many people can't, and frankly I believe it's selfish to put your needs above everyone else's in vain hope that something MIGHT change.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

It isn't surprising the Bernie is only looking out for Bernie. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

21 minutes ago, just4fun said:

Are you f**king kidding me. Every independent who wanted to vote in a closed primary state had more than enough time to change their party affiliation. But it's easier to say the system is rigged rather than send a f**king letter in the mail. Lazy ass, last minute mother f**kers complaining about everything. 

I was angry like this earlier today.

I've decided to transcend my rage and attempt intellectual discourse, despite it being a very hard thing to do on Political Daily.

Be calm and point out people's logical flaws. Fight them with facts.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

I was angry like this earlier today.

I've decided to transcend my rage and attempt intellectual discourse.

Be calm and point out people's flaws. Fight them with facts.

Sorry. You're right. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, just4fun said:

Sorry. You're right. 

All good it too me three warning points and a Heineken to transcend  

[Bebe 17,289]

51 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

The issue here that Trump is just the excess of all the bad things the GOP stands for. Why NOW? Why not before? Why not after when there divides aren't too great? Your impatience for change clouds your judgment. There will be a time, just like there have been times. The American population wasn't as driven before. Now they are thanks to Bernie....hell...even Trump. Perhaps when the next cycle rolls around, you'll have the numbers and influence. to get rid of this bipartisan situation. Foster your base before you try to revolutionize the world. Now is not the time.

This is fallacious and a form of misrepresentation. You are saying that the Democratic party needs to fully appeal to all sides without compromise. I don't get what issues you think they aren't representing. Bernie represents an extremist stance, not a moderate one. That's inspirational to many, but the DNC is not there to serve YOU only. 

That's what you are not mentioning. You want a candidate who only supports you. Well that's great. You also forget that you are just one fragment of society, and yes, even Sanders' leadership would eventually lead to splits and divisions as disagreements rise on how to implement THOSE policies. That's just how people work. That's where interest groups come from.

Corruption this corruption that. Everything is corrupted. Nothing is pure because any organization, group, corporation, or interest group is run by human beings who are fallible. The only thing you can do is limit it. This idealism you speak of does not exist. History shows that. You need to take that into consideration and stop thinking that someone will wave a magic wand and make your dreams come true.

These sets of points you bring are disappointing. They are nothing less than basic talking points from GOP people. You're also mixing up Republican and Democrat interests as if they are the same.

People with money will always try to curry favor. You want something that will never happen. In any case, it's up to the people in charge to decide how much that favor is worth. In Hillary's case, it's clear that it's less about working for them and more about being less harsh on them. She's the better liberal choice when it comes between Sanders and Clinton. That's clear just by his stances, even ignoring hers. They'll donate to her, irrespective of what she thinks, to avoid getting Sanders who is far more harsh and uncompromising in his dealings. And yes, I think the best way to get rid of big banks is to work with them, not destroy them. There are millions of jobs at risk here. You can't just wave a magic wand and dismantle it.

In any case, considering that both Democrat nominees have pledged to combat all the above, I don't get why you're bringing it up anyway. It doesn't matter that you don't trust either of them. Those are their stances. Take it or leave it.

Please.......don't ... don't ever make this correlation. Honestly this sentence alone is incredibly frustrating.

The Democratic party has worked relentlessly to push for progress and fight the corruption sown by the Republican party through years of ****ups. Bill Clinton managed to turn around a weakened economy and brought back a golden age. Obama worked relentlessly to turn over the ****ups of George Bush despite an uncooperative Senate.

You are making this assumption that the Democrats have not been fighting for exactly what you espouse. The Senate being ruled by the Republican majority and the Supreme Court being biased towards their interest has worked against almost any form of progress presented this last decade. 

I don't even get what you're trying to say. You're mixing up random talking points to justify a position.

I don't think it's crazy or inherently ignorant. I think it ignores the reality of the situation and is willfully ignorant.

You stop your house from falling apart from the foundations before you build a second floor.

First of all comments like:

"This is fallacious and a form of misrepresentation. You are saying that the Democratic party needs to fully appeal to all sides without compromise. I don't get what issues you think they aren't representing. Bernie represents an extremist stance, not a moderate one. That's inspirational to many, but the DNC is not there to serve YOU only."

Are a complete misrepresentation of everything I have said. The DNC needs votes, if they don't win it's because they haven't properly represented their voter base. That's the most obvious thing in the world and it's the same for the Republican Party. I'm actually TALKING about compromise from Hillary and how she should compromise on some issues if she wants the support of Bernie supporters rather than blackmailing them to vote for a candidate that doesn't represent any of the issues they care about.

I've already explained numerous times the issues that Hillary and the DNC establishment are not representing! It should be pretty obvious by now.

You are the one that doesn't want compromise! Your position is "**** the Bernie supporters and whatever they want. They lost now suck it up and vote for this establishment candidate that you so strongly disagree with"!

Also Bernie is far more progressive than Hillary that's for sure, but when 4% of all American's trust Congress and when 75% of Americans believe politicians are corrupt then I don't know if we can really call his ideas extreme? I doubt you would call France extremist when they have free college and proper universal healthcare. You are calling a large proportion of the democratic base EXTREMIST, but it's their support Hillary needs to win over.


"Corruption this corruption that. Everything is corrupted. Nothing is pure because any organization, group, corporation, or interest group is run by human beings who are fallible. The only thing you can do is limit it. This idealism you speak of does not exist. History shows that. You need to take that into consideration and stop thinking that someone will wave a magic wand and make your dreams come true."

How truly ignorant. The idea is to limit corruption? By fixing the corrupt campaign finance system...

We need to pass legislation to require wealthy individuals and corporations who make large campaign contributions to disclose where their money is going.  More importantly, we need to move toward the public funding of elections. Real campaign finance reform must happen as soon as possible. That is why we must overturn, through a constitutional amendment, the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision as well as the Buckley v. Valeo decision.

If you cannot see how deeply corrupt the political system is right now then you are beyond reason.... This goes beyond "Oh well humans naturally get corrupt! We can't be perfect". The point is to fix the systemic corruption within the political system.

"And yes, I think the best way to get rid of big banks is to work with them, not destroy them. There are millions of jobs at risk here. You can't just wave a magic wand and dismantle it."

 That's not the Sanders plan. How absolutely crazy that you think, tighter regulation and breaking them up = destroying and dismantling the banks. If you think that Charles Koch and the Big banks prefer Hillary because they think she will be tough on them then I mean.....

 

"Please.......don't ... don't ever make this correlation. Honestly this sentence alone is incredibly frustrating.

The Democratic party has worked relentlessly to push for progress and fight the corruption sown by the Republican party through years of ****ups. Bill Clinton managed to turn around a weakened economy and brought back a golden age. Obama worked relentlessly to turn over the ****ups of George Bush despite an uncooperative Senate.

You are making this assumption that the Democrats have not been fighting for exactly what you espouse. The Senate being ruled by the Republican majority and the Supreme Court being biased towards their interest has worked against almost any form of progress presented this last decade. 

I don't even get what you're trying to say. You're mixing up random talking points to justify a position."

I'm not making any sort of assumption and you are once again misrepresenting what I have written. Do you think that the senate republican majority is not a part of this corrupt establishment politics? Yes... 20 + years without any sort of reform isn't going to make the-paid-for-by-Koch and Wall Street payrolled senate any more likely to fight against the interests of those giving the paychecks. 

Also lets see:
corruption: Hmm no effort from either party to support campaign finance reform, both Obama and Hillary took huge paychecks for supporting the interests of Wall Stree... 

banks to big to fail: Hmm same position the U.S was in before the financial crisis. Still a lack of regulation, big banks still gambling with people's money. Hillary's solution isn't breaking up Too Big to Fail banks or reinstating Glass-Steagall. It’s structural change that Wall Street fears, not a watered-down Dodd-Frank.

lack of environmental action: Many of Clinton’s largest fundraisers are lobbyists for oil and gas corporations. Some of her largest contribution bundlers are lobbyists representing Chevron, Cheniere Energy, and TransCanada — all companies that use fracking. Clinton's position on fracking has been pretty washy when compared to Bernie's "No, I do not support fracking".

perpetual war: Hmm Henry Kissinger served as an advisor to Obama... He is also very close to Hillary. I'm not a fan of such a huge conservative and the man who not only served Nixon but met regularly with President George W. Bush and Vice President **** Cheney to offer advice on the Iraq War being an advisor to democratic nominees. Hillary said she has relied on his counsel and called him a friend. Not a great sign for people who want change.

The problem I have with your positions is they completely ignore all the systemic corruption or at the very least completely undermine the influence big money has on the political system. You think Bernie supporters are naive but boy....
 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

4 minutes ago, Bebe said:

*snip*

I'll read this tomorrow since I'm half-asleep now and you seem like you went out of your way to provide a response so I don't want to half-ass it, but can you at least quote the individual sections so I know what you're referring to? It helps disseminate stances better, I find.

[Whispering 18,865]

Oh Lord, at someone quoting that full time obsessive nutcase over at Huffington Post BLOG.  

People do know that isn't some big official place for respected journalism, right? 

HA Goodman is to Hillary as PawsDown is to Gaga. 

[Bebe 17,289]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

I'll read this tomorrow since I'm half-asleep now and you seem like you went out of your way to provide a response so I don't want to half-ass it, but can you at least quote the individual sections so I know what you're referring to?

Most of it is quotes by you

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Bebe said:

Most of it is quotes by you

Oh ok. Well I'll reply tomorrow if you care for an answer.

[Bebe 17,289]

Side note: I find it amusing and fitting that  Vice President **** Cheney's name is censored. I wasn't really calling him a d*ck but I suppose it fits anyway.

[Melech 9,900]

Sanders supporters should get off that sinking ship.  I supported sanders at first but his stances on Israel and science issues, two things that are important to me, suck as hell. At this point I'm glad Hillary probably will take the nomination. 

[The Surrealist 27,470]

How sad for America that between five possible presidents four would start a war and the only one who wouldn't doesn't get enough voters and then gets bashed by GagaDaily members for not telling his supporters to vote for Clinton. 

What a toxic community. Not only for Gaga but also for everybody. 

[lego 44,165]

7 minutes ago, Simon said:

Sanders supporters should get off that sinking ship.  I supported sanders at first but his stances on Israel and science issues, two things that are important to me, suck as hell. At this point I'm glad Hillary probably will take the nomination. 

 

Ikr? How does he dare to say  it's important to treat Palestinians with dignity and respect. What a cruel man. 

  

He's not even that harsh on Israel, as he could be, but of course any sort of criticism is out of the question.

 

 

[RAMROD 117,132]

15 minutes ago, Simon said:

Sanders supporters should get off that sinking ship.  I supported sanders at first but his stances on Israel and science issues, two things that are important to me, suck as hell. At this point I'm glad Hillary probably will take the nomination. 

Never, bish! Deep down you are a warmonger more than you think you know.  Sanders is the sanest out of the five, like it or not.