Bernie Continues To Go Negative On Hillary

[JevyDuty 2,961]

7 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Enjoy Bernie now, this is nothing to what Trump will say and do very soon.

You Clintonites better prepare yourselves. 

It's one thing to be attacked from an enemy than be attacked from a friend. When a friend trashes you, it will be taken personal ex: As a Democrat, you're saying I'm a bad Democrat. That's below the belt. It's an attack at the core. 

Trump is going to be attaking from a different angle. That's a whole other story. Besides, ya'll act like she can't take his attacks. The point is, Why should she? She won already and should be focusing on Trump but instead Bernie is trying to burn down her campaign not caring that he's helping Trump by his continued attacks. 

[brendablethyn 536]

6 minutes ago, Larry Hill said:

It's one thing to be attacked from an enemy than be attacked from a friend. When a friend trashes you, it will be taken personal ex: As a Democrat, you're saying I'm a bad Democrat. That's below the belt. It's an attack at the core. 

Hillary got really nasty towards Obama in '08, she would say things like "Shame on you Barack Obama".

[Katharine Hepburn 4,607]

It's improbable for her to loose unless she loses her super delegates (which is very unlikely) or she looses the rest of the states (also very unlikely as she'll win nearly all of New Jersey and DC).

[FATCAT 60,888]

24 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

How is it not negative to release an ad saying that Clinton is insulting California?  

The entire point of this ad is to criticize Hillary's response and try to build on it.

Please tell me how it's not negative, even if it may or may not be correct?

 

25 minutes ago, Larry Hill said:

Bernie's camp admitted it themselves. They are aiming to hurt her. Not elevate the issues or focus on his moribund campaign. Instead, his focus is on tearing her down. If that's not "going negative" then what is? He's coming across like a sore losers to his nonfans and even some his voters.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/05/19/1528529/-Sanders-Camp-will-Burn-It-Down-to-hurt-Hillary

There's a big difference between going negative, and commenting on your opponent. He's run no negative ads against her, nothing close to "going negative". You guys are just trying to make headlines, apply at buzzfeed.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, brendablethyn said:

Hillary got really nasty towards Obama in '08, she would say things like "Shame on you Barack Obama".

But she stopped after the last primary and conceded gracefully.

Then she did this

 

Will Bernie do the same?

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

 

There's a big difference between going negative, and commenting on your opponent. He's run no negative ads against her, nothing close to "going negative". You guys are just trying to make headlines, apply at buzzfeed.

You're kidding? He's implying that it's insulting to OTHERS that Hillary refused. He is not commenting on his opponent when he says that. He's creating perceptions without justifiable proof.

Also he said this:

"She is not prepared to have a discussion with me about how she will help the Californians address the major crises that we face"

When he very well knows why she refused and it's because she's done with him. He's framing it in a different context to suit his purposes. Why is he saying she's not prepared?

That's going negative. This is a negative ad. Look at the title of the ad. It says "Clinton Insults".

---

But feel free to believe what you want.

[FATCAT 60,888]

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

You're kidding? He's implying that it's insulting to OTHERS that Hillary refused. He is not commenting on his opponent.

You do realize that his words, regarding clintons words, make it a comment. And guess what? She's his opponent.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

3 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

You do realize that his words, regarding clintons words, make it a comment. And guess what? She's his opponent.

Title of the video: Clinton Insults California by Reneging on Debate

-----

How is this not negative?  

FATCAT you're being ridiculous at this point. 

[FATCAT 60,888]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Title of the video: Clinton Insults California by Reneging on Debate

-----

How is this not negative?  

FATCAT you're being ridiculous at this point.

 

He's just the messenger, LebaneseDude. Clinton insulted California, not him.

Also, why can't you receive PM's? I was about to send you a funny SNL skit I found, but it said you couldn't receive them

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, FATCAT said:

He's just the messenger, LebaneseDude. Clinton insulted California, not him.

Also, why can't you receive PM's? I was about to send you a funny SNL skit I found, but it said you couldn't receive them

 

Did he make a poll asking Californians if they were insulted? If he didn't, he's creating it from nowhere.

Even if he wasn't the one who said it, running with it is still going negative.

Here's another negative ad for comparison:

----

Try sending it now.

[Didymus 34,380]

Why did she cancel though?

I feel like if Hillary said Bernie insulted the LGBT community for cancelling that irrelevant AIDS thing, Hillary supporters would be saying it was legit and justified, so.. I don't see anything wrong with this.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Didymus said:

Why did she cancel though?

I feel like if Hillary said Bernie insulted the LGBT community for cancelling that irrelevant AIDS thing, Hillary supporters would be saying it was legit and justified, so.. I don't see anything wrong with this.

She never accepted to cancel.  

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

She never accepted to cancel.

Seeing conflicted reports about that. Some sources say she said she would consider it, recent ones say they actually did agree to have the debate.

Anyway, doesn't matter. I just don't think what Bernie said was that bad. It was negative but transparent. It's obvious there's a double standard (if Hillary had said this, you would've defended it) but that's ok, it's expected just like this transparent negativity is expected.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Seeing conflicted reports about that. Some sources say she said she would consider it, recent ones say they actually did agree to have the debate.

Anyway, doesn't matter. I just don't think what Bernie said was that bad. It was negative but transparent. It's obvious there's a double standard (if Hillary had said this, you would've defended it) but that's ok, it's expected just like this transparent negativity is expected.

Well I would perhaps justify her usage of it if I found it rational, but no I wouldn't defend the notion that it was not negative. That would be clear.  

But no she never accepted.

"Hillary Clinton will not debate Bernie Sanders in California, her top campaign spokeswoman said Monday. Declining to participate in the Fox News debate — which Sanders had agreed to — is another clear sign that Clinton and her top aides are fully focused on the general election against Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee."

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

1 hour ago, Larry Hill said:

It's one thing to be attacked from an enemy than be attacked from a friend. When a friend trashes you, it will be taken personal ex: As a Democrat, you're saying I'm a bad Democrat. That's below the belt. It's an attack at the core. 

Trump is going to be attaking from a different angle. That's a whole other story. Besides, ya'll act like she can't take his attacks. The point is, Why should she? She won already and should be focusing on Trump but instead Bernie is trying to burn down her campaign not caring that he's helping Trump by his continued attacks. 

Bernie is an Independent  

And Hillary said in the past she's not sure he's a real Democrat lol. 

I think many of us saw this coming. 

None of this will matter as I'm sure Bernie will endorse her as he doesn't want Trump to win either.