Sanders Meets With Obama, Says He Looks Forward To Working With Hillary

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Born To Slay said:

And didn't that end up hurting Gaga? The media was all over how terrible her fans were back in 2011.

Well this is an actually serious issue which will be monumentally more impactful than your choice in pop stars  

I was being cynical, clearly  There are some tensions that need to dissipate. Give them time.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, PartySick said:

#GirlIGuessImWithHer is trending on Facebook  "hashtag used by Bernie supporters to show their reluctant support of Hillary Clinton" 

I saw that and laughed. That's how it typically goes when your choice of candidate loses. They'll come around  

[Redstreak 6,653]

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

You sound like those people who say they don't like Gaga cause her supporters are annoying,

Ironic considering "Bernie Bros" was literally Clinton's biggest attempt to delegitimize Sanders.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

9 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

Ironic considering "Bernie Bro's" was literally Clinton's biggest attempt to delegitimize Sanders.

How so? She's also mentioned PUMAs before. The Bernie bros are their equivalent. Why would she imply that it delegitimizes him when that would backfire on her? That was a serious call to rally them.

[Born To Slay 10,996]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Well this is an actually serious issue which will be monumentally more impactful than your choice in pop stars  

I was being cynical, clearly  There are some tensions that need to dissipate. Give them time.

so, I saw in another thread you said that you don't mind blue state voters backing Stein but on another occasion you criticized me for considering backing her. What changed?

Im in NY, a very blue state, would it be okay to vote for Stein in your opinion?

[edgy 6,918]

I find it tragic when we have to resort to reluctantly supporting a candidate just so they block an even worse candidate from claiming the presidency.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

so, I saw in another thread you said that you don't mind blue state voters backing Stein but on another occasion you criticized me for considering backing her. What changed?

Im in NY, a very blue state, would it be okay to vote for Stein in your opinion?

Huh? What? 

My response was regarding not voting for someone because of their supporters. That's a very shallow way to view a candidacy. You vote for their policies, plans, and demeanor. Those impact you exponentially more than people who you'll never likely meet.

Vote for whomever you want. Just do it for the right reasons given complete context, and for the right outcomes that would provide you with the most return of investment.

If you live in a purple state, I'd say it's far more beneficial to vote for the real contender (Hillary) because you want the person who ****s you over the least to win and your vote matters significantly.

If you live in a red/blue state (that is in not likely to flip), your vote has less impact so you can vote more with your conscience with regards to what benefits you the most in the long run because you would not have indirectly contributed to the wrong person winning (Trump).

So by all means vote for Stein if you live in a very blue or very red state. Anyone telling you otherwise is a fool.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

8 minutes ago, edgy said:

I find it tragic when we have to resort to reluctantly supporting a candidate just so they block an even worse candidate from claiming the presidency.

It's not tragic. It's reality. No candidate is universally loved. Nobody is perfect. That's how it was, is, and always shall be as long as we're not a homogeneous society.

There will always be people who dislike candidates for one reason or another.

In that case you vote for the one that is least likely to impact your life negatively.

[wahkeenasitka 1,995]

Vote Green Party. F*ck This Sh*t. 

[Whispering 18,865]

3 hours ago, Born To Slay said:

Don't these comments hurt Clinton and not help her? They def make me more reluctant to back Clinton.

Nah, 99.999999999 per cent of voters aren't getting their election information on some pop girl forum. Lol

Seriously though, deciding on who to cast your vote for is not Stan wars. No one us going to know who you choose. One adult walks into a private booth, cast one vote, and one adult walks out. The decision is a personal and private one that should be made by a mature look at the choices. 

[Whispering 18,865]

3 hours ago, edgy said:

I find it tragic when we have to resort to reluctantly supporting a candidate just so they block an even worse candidate from claiming the presidency.

That's how it works out sometimes. I would have voted for Bernie, to not vote for Trump. I don't think Bernie would really be a good president, but he is better than Trump. 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

It really sounded to me that it might be a Hillary/Bernie campaign, but to be honest there is someone that is one of his surrogates that I fell in love with the other night. Her name is Nina Turner. She had so much energy and I just fell in love with her. I want her for VP and then 2024 is hers. I really think she could inject a level of positivity and energy that the Clinton campaign lacks plus she has all the values that Bernie supporters are looking for.

I love her I don't even care that she supports Bernie. She won me over big time.

Watch this woman speak. She is sophisticated, intelligent and energetic. 

 

https://www.facebook.com/NinaTurner.OH/

 

 

[edgy 6,918]

6 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

It's not tragic. It's reality. No candidate is universally loved. Nobody is perfect. That's how it was, is, and always shall be as long as we're not a homogeneous society.

There will always be people who dislike candidates. 

In that case you vote for the one that is least likely to impact your life negatively.

Just because it's reality doesn't mean that I can't find our current system of politics tragic.

Of course there will be people who dislike candidates, but I'm finding this election cycle to feature the top two front-runners to have more negative qualities than positive.

If you truly believe that a situation where voters are selecting a candidate that would be the least likely to negatively impact their life (rather than one where voters select a candidate for truly positive reasons) isn't tragic, you need to reevaluate the entire purpose of a having a government by the people, for the people.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, edgy said:

Just because it's reality doesn't mean that I can't find our current system of politics tragic.

Of course there will be people who dislike candidates, but I'm finding this election cycle to feature the top two front-runners to have more negative qualities than positive.

If you truly believe that a situation where voters are selecting a candidate that would be the least likely to negatively impact their life (rather than one where voters select a candidate for truly positive reasons) isn't tragic, you need to reevaluate the entire purpose of a having a government by the people, for the people.

Because people are homogeneous? The point of government is to allow the majority of opinion to have control. In democracies, minorities retain their voice.

In all situations, it's clear that there is no homogeneity in beliefs. That the candidate that aligns with your party is not your choice is circumstance. More people that generally align with your views chose someone you didn't.

 It doesn't mean that you can't support that person and continue to work with that party. 

Politics demand a certain degree of maturity. Knowing that sometimes you have to support less savory people for the long run is a fact of life.

[Goosey 3,017]

59 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Looks like he's dropping out after the DC primary.

Welp there it is  

If he's meeting with the Bama, maybe it means he'll get a big Barack endorsement.