Bernie Sanders endorses Hillary Clinton

[Better Day 5,766]

At least it shows a united party... Unlike British political parties 

[AgusPop 4,162]

Bravo Bernie

This is called an act of greatness for his Country

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

55 minutes ago, Goosey said:

Many Bernie supporters are still refusing to vote for Clinton. In fact, such anti-Hillary statements have been voted to the top of r/SandersForPresident. This shows the majority of ardent Sanders supporters will not support Clinton.

 

 

 

 

‘Secretary Clinton Is A Different Person Than Donald Trump,’ Says Bernie Sanders In Ringing Endorsement

PORTSMOUTH, NH—Putting aside the policy disagreements and occasional acrimony that marked the pair’s heated, months-long presidential primary election contest, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders offered a ringing endorsement of Hillary Clinton today by stating that she is a different person than Donald Trump. “Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are separate people,” said Sanders. “Donald Trump is one person and Hillary Clinton is another person. They are not the same person.” 

x

Gotta love "progressive" reddit  

Anyway Yay  Knew this was coming and hopefully his coming statements demonstrate to his supporters (the ones ya know that aren't so brainwashed by #NeverHillary to see reason  ) the importance of not electing Trump.

[Goosey 3,017]

10 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Gotta love "progressive" reddit  

They are progressive. They support Sanders because he wanted a 'political revolution'. Voting for Hillary is the exact opposite of 'political revolution'.

 

[Vernier 3,786]

It's nice and all, but she didn't really need his endorsement

The Bern victims are split into three. The ones who like Bernie, but will vote for Hilary as the "lesser of two evils" because they know Hilary at her worst is better than Trump, the #NeverHilary camp who will vote for Stein or not vote at all, and the last "special" and utterly braindead camp, the #NeverHilary camp who will vote Trump.

The first camp didn't need Bernie to endorse her to decide to vote for her, they were already going to do it anyways, once it was obvious Bernie doesn't have a chance. The last two groups are beyond saving and can probably never be convinced to vote her, regardless of Bernie's endorsement. I doubt his endorsement will bring her votes she wasn't already going to get.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

10 minutes ago, Goosey said:

They are progressive. They support Sanders because he wanted a 'political revolution'. Voting for Hillary is the exact opposite of 'political revolution'.

 

I was making a joke because Reddit loves to be progressive and backwards at the same time   

It's a bunch of young men who have unpacked all of the nonsense about "democracy" and "truth" and "religion" that society has taught us and learned about things like "logic" and "fallacies" and to some extent "history" but for a good majority of people, that's all the BS there is in the world  Then they go and see things like Feminism and Patriarchy as obviously part of this bs despite being farther left than most progressives themselves   But yes, they'll vote Bernie (or Jill whatever  ) because they want a political revolution... Meanwhile, the feminists who've been campaigning for "revolution" are seen as hysterical feminazis who are waging war on video games and men taking up space on public transit and "reducing the burden of proof" on college campuses. I just think its humorous how forward and backwards some people can be

Obviously there was no way for you to get all that from a simple "progressives" air quote type of comment, but I'm bored and it was supposed to be an Easter Egg for myself  

[SKANK 14,288]

8 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Gotta love "progressive" reddit  

Anyway Yay  Knew this was coming and hopefully his coming statements demonstrate to his supporters (the ones ya know that aren't so brainwashed by #NeverHillary to see reason  ) the importance of not electing Trump.

 

 

It's interesting that you think the people who are brainwashed are the ones who are rejecting the notion that a person is obligated to vote for the lesser of two evils rather than vote for a candidate that more accurately reflects their political and moral ideals.

[AgusPop 4,162]

7 minutes ago, Vernier said:

It's nice and all, but she didn't really need his endorsement

The Bern victims are split into three. The ones who like Bernie, but will vote for Hilary as the "lesser of two evils" because they know Hilary at her worst is better than Trump, the #NeverHilary camp who will vote for Stein or not vote at all, and the last "special" and utterly braindead camp, the #NeverHilary camp who will vote Trump.

The first camp didn't need Bernie to endorse her to decide to vote for her, they were already going to do it anyways, once it was obvious Bernie doesn't have a chance. The last two groups are beyond saving and can probably never be convinced to vote her, regardless of Bernie's endorsement. I doubt his endorsement will bring her votes she wasn't already going to get.

but There is a fourth group of "undecided" and now because of this, those people can join the first group

[Goosey 3,017]

Just now, ItsTommyBitch said:

I was making a joke because Reddit loves to be progressive and backwards at the same time   

It's a bunch of young men who have unpacked all of the nonsense about "democracy" and "truth" and "religion" that society has taught us and learned about things like "logic" and "fallacies" and to some extent "history" but for a good majority of people, that's all the BS there is in the world  Then they go and see things like Feminism and Patriarchy as obviously part of this bs despite being farther left than most progressives themselves   But yes, they'll vote Bernie (or Jill whatever  ) because they want a political revolution... Meanwhile, the feminists who've been campaigning for "revolution" are seen as hysterical feminazis who are waging war on video games and men taking up space on public transit and "reducing the burden of proof" on college campuses. I just think its humorous how forward and backwards some people can be

Obviously there was no way for you to get all that from a simple "progressives" air quote type of comment, but I'm bored and it was supposed to be an Easter Egg for myself  

A stereotype.. maybe true of the front page and larger subs, but Reddit consists of anyone... there's a popular sub for Donald (173,242 subscribers), Bernie (229,408 subscribers) and even Clinton, although she's far less favored (only 19,732 subscribers). Subs for Nazis and Communists. Subs for everything.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, PartySick said:

Humanity is riddled with high horses  some people just don't realize that they can easily get their faces kicked in by said horses

Just because you lost does not mean you can go around fantasizing about me getting kicked in the face by a horse. Looks like your reaction does describe how screwed humanity is, no wonder you were voting for a loser.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Goosey said:

They are progressive. They support Sanders because he wanted a 'political revolution'. Voting for Hillary is the exact opposite of 'political revolution'.

 

A political revolution is not progressive, Donald Trump wants one too. In his agenda. Hillary is a democrat and always has been. DEAL. #WithHer

[Goosey 3,017]

3 minutes ago, BoysBoysBoys652 said:

A political revolution is not progressive, Donald Trump wants one too. In his agenda. Hillary is a democrat and always has been. DEAL. #WithHer

That depends on your definition of 'progressive'. To many people progress would mean building a border wall. Is TPP progressive? 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

3 minutes ago, SKANK said:

It's interesting that you think the people who are brainwashed are the ones who are rejecting the notion that a person is obligated to vote for the lesser of two evils rather than vote for a candidate that more accurately reflects their political and moral ideals.

I don't think they are obligated to vote for the lesser of two evils at all, or even that those who vote for a third candidate are "responsible" for Donald possibly winning or whatever. People can vote however they wish. I just think a lot of people have been "brainwashed" by so much Anti-Hillary rhetoric and propaganda that some of them actually DO believe in some of the things she has to say or that she is for but can't see it through all of the fog so they will essentially vote for anything else. Like, people are going to vote for Donald even though he actively opposes what Bernie stood for because its #NeverHillary. I think that's so ridiculous  

For anyone that honestly believes Jill Stein is the second coming of Bernie and that she reflects their political and moral views more than the other candidates, feel free to vote for her   There's a lot of fair, valid criticism to throw at Jill Stein and the Green Party though; they aren't saints either and I think people should be well aware of who they are voting for no matter what the odds are. Some people who think Hillary is literally the anti-christ aren't looking at Jill Stein or the Green Party critically and I think its a shame. There's no "perfect" candidate really.

1 minute ago, Goosey said:

A stereotype.. maybe true of the front page and larger subs, but Reddit consists of anyone... there's a popular sub for Donald (173,242 subscribers), Bernie (229,408 subscribers) and even Clinton, although she's far less favored (only 19,732 subscribers). Subs for Nazis and Communists. Subs for everything.

I just think its sad that it tends to apply to so many self-professed intellectuals  Reddit (or rather parts of it) has a certain reputation (which ofc, has to be a stereotype) and that's what I was addressing with "progressive" reddit. There are progressives on reddit and then there are people who I believe take two steps forward and three steps back but still call themselves full fledged progressives, even radicals, leftists, marxists, socialists, anarchists, etc. I find it kind of ironic because the reach of Feminism and Patriarchy is very very far left but often entirely ignored or discredited even though in some senses its essential to consistency for some ideologies  As in, going against it as an ideology is at least partially and at most entirely contradictory to some of those far left labels I specified. Obviously reddit isn't all a hive mind, even if maybe some large subreddits tend to be, I was choosing to specifically talk about this "group"... Like when people think Tumblr they think "SJW, social justice warriors, feminism, race, genders, blah" even though that's not even a majority of what Tumblr is made up of. There are a lot of different communities on Tumblr Does that make sense  

[SKANK 14,288]

1 hour ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I don't think they are obligated to vote for the lesser of two evils at all, or even that those who vote for a third candidate are "responsible" for Donald possibly winning or whatever. People can vote however they wish. I just think a lot of people have been "brainwashed" by so much Anti-Hillary rhetoric and propaganda that some of them actually DO believe in some of the things she has to say or that she is for but can't see it through all of the fog so they will essentially vote for anything else. Like, people are going to vote for Donald even though he actively opposes what Bernie stood for because its #NeverHillary. I think that's so ridiculous  

For anyone that honestly believes Jill Stein is the second coming of Bernie and that she reflects their political and moral views more than the other candidates, feel free to vote for her   There's a lot of fair, valid criticism to throw at Jill Stein and the Green Party though; they aren't saints either and I think people should be well aware of who they are voting for no matter what the odds are. Some people who think Hillary is literally the anti-christ aren't looking at Jill Stein or the Green Party critically and I think its a shame. There's no "perfect" candidate really.

 

Total mischaracterization.

Sanders supporters who are planing to vote for Trump over Hillary are not endorsing Trump's political positions, they are voting for an outsider candidate in hopes of hastening a political revolution, a political revolution which will not come if Hillary is elected. That is the argument I have seen put forward by people like Susan Sarandon and the majority of #NeverHillary voters. There are certainly some bad eggs, but I think it's ridiculous to call Sanders supports who refuse to vote for Hillary brainwashed, and say their motivations are rooted in spite.

As for Jill Stein, I haven't seen anyone call her perfect or suggest she be canonized. On the contrary I've seen a lot of her supporters criticizes and mock her wacky stances on vaccines and GMOs.

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 hours ago, SKANK said:

 

 

It's interesting that you think the people who are brainwashed are the ones who are rejecting the notion that a person is obligated to vote for the lesser of two evils rather than vote for a candidate that more accurately reflects their political and moral ideals.

As opposed to reflecting 91% of their political ideals and 100% of their moral ideals if people were actually less hypocritical about how they'd react if they were in the same position. 

Also you're making the implication that people's vote should only be based on what they believe in, failing to acknowledge that people should also vote based on what they DON'T believe in.

Hillary and Trump are the only two contending candidates. That reality is set. You deal with it or you don't.

Not supporting Hillary is one less vote for her. One less vote for Hillary puts her one vote closer to Trump. The closer Hilary is the less likely she will win. A Trump presidency would effectively undermine almost EVERYTHING they worked for and would essentially inhibit any progress for decades. 

So no. Your logic fails you. Everything you are saying fails you, because you frame your opinion on people's voting responsibility solely on what they believe in when ... honey.. the world doesn't care what one person believes.

The only thing that matters is who ultimately wins.

You do what you can to make the situation more in your favor, like Bernie holding out til the Democratic platform nudged as far as he could go, before doing the RIGHT thing and endorsing someone who by all means will guarantee that his revolution will not die out and taper off.

You don't build momentum by letting the enemy win. You do so by putting your cards all where you can win, even when the results aren't 100% in your favor.

That's something Bernie understands as his recent actions have demonstrated. That's something Hillary understands as her entire career has demonstrated. That's something you will never understand because you refuse to.

I congratulate you on living a comfortable enough life that you think risking a Trump presidency is better than "denigrating" your morals. Too bad there are hundreds of millions out there who don't share that comfort.

The irony of course, is that the very same people like yourself who claim to have upper morals and want to vote for the greater good completely ignore to take the needs of others where it matters most.