Miley Cyrus: Sanders supporters not voting Clinton "crazy"

[LibraLove 1,282]

7 hours ago, LG said:

Bernie also signed his support for this law back when it was introduced but actively used it as a weapon against Hillary deceiving people into thinking he didn't support it

That's really the only thing you can pick out to argue? Senator Sanders actually clarified during one of the middle debates that he voted for that bill, because it had a very important "rider," and others, slipped on it, like many bills do in Congress. That "rider" was the Violence Against Women Act, which he stated that had he not voted for it, Secretary Clinton (and her campaign/surrogates/media) would be standing on the stage saying "Bernie Sanders hates women" and continuing to perpetuate that he, his campaigning and his supporters are nothing but a bunch of sexist misogynistic "Bernie Bros", which they did any.

He voted for it, because it had several good parts that outweighed the terrible, racist-tinged "3 Strikes Law." What Senator Sanders didn't do was actively go around campaigning for that aspect of the bill like Hillary did and calling young, impoverished African American men (and women) that have to resort to gangs or drugs to make a living in their poor communities "Super Predators" who needed to be "brought to heel" - like a dog on a leash, or worse.

19 minutes ago, ToxicHot said:

Please explain. If they are equal, why is it crazy for Bernie supports to migrate towards Trump's campaign? 

 

(Genuinely curious here. I'm in the same boat. I initially flocked to Trump after Bernie lost because I don't trust Hillary AT ALL. The only thing that's allowing me to consider voting for Hillary is primarily over democratic policies only. That, and progress for LGBTQ issues.)

The thing is, you know what you're getting with Trump - a stereotypical conservative Republican who is a loud mouth, racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, bigoted wolf. With Hillary, she may say she supports all these progressive stances like environmental protections, LGBTQI rights, helping the poor, wall street regulations, positive immigration, opposition to free trade, but her record AND all of the internal emails from her inner circle and the DNC say otherwise - she's just as regressive. (Scroll through this thread and find my really long comments where I list exactly why I won't support her and then you'll know.) She's also going around beating the war drum much harder against Russia than Trump is, and she wants to establish a "no-fly" zone in Syria (which means shooting down any non-American/Ally plane, i.e. Russian, which will lead to an international conflict with one of the top two nuclear armed powers in the world - WW3!!)

She has stated that she is "far removed from the average American" (rich, elitist and out of touch, just like Trump) and stressed the need to have a "public and private position" to her big buddies at Goldman Sachs in one of the leaked emails which contained excerpts from a Wall Street speech. Like Obama said in 2008, "She will say anything and change nothing." She'll be a continuation of the elitist status quo that keeps abusing average Americans and throwing them under the bus. She is nothing but a wolf in sheep's clothing, which I find more frightening than Trump.

If you want to vote for a true Progressive that puts people, planet and peace over profit, so you don't have to compromise your values and morals by voting for a "lesser of two evils" (which is still EVIL), then vote for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party if you can. She is the closest to Senator Sander's platform and is not tainted by outside, dark money, special interests or Super PACs. She's eligible in 47 states + D.C.and could easily carry the Electoral College. Plus, it's "investing" your vote instead of throwing it away on someone you dislike and distrust. She can win, but even if she just gets 5%+ of the popular vote, then the Green Party will be on all state ballots and be eligible for Federal Matching Funds in 2020. That way we can keep the Democrats and Republicans (if they survive) on their toes with an actual Progressive, non-corporate party that serves the interests of the people and not wealthy corporations and billionaire donors.

[Redstreak 6,653]

Are we really still on this topic?

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

She's entirely right sans casual ableism  

[Sylvanas 5,768]

5 hours ago, LibraLove said:

If you want to vote for a true Progressive that puts people, planet and peace over profit, so you don't have to compromise your values and morals by voting for a "lesser of two evils" (which is still EVIL), then vote for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party if you can. 

I'm over arguing with you because I'm just bored of it but I saw this and thought of you lol.

[LibraLove 1,282]

1 hour ago, Sylvanas said:

I'm over arguing with you because I'm just bored of it but I saw this and thought of you lol.

I DO NOT VOTE FOR SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE THEY "CAN WIN." This is not a sports game. That's so asinine. You realize that Texas has a very conservative, under educated voting populace. It's Texas for goodness sakes. You neglect to mention the weight of that poll. Do they factor in Independents the most? Probably not. Do they poll 18-35 and weight them accordingly? Probably not. That is the problem with media polls that are conducted today - they don't do any of that in order to manufacture consent. 

What you did was just post a hit piece that attempts to de-legitimize her candidacy because she is a threat to Clinton. If she's so great and has it locked down and in the bag, then there's no need for you or her supporters to shame people for not voting for her. That just screams weak. 

[TrueWillis 45]

8 minutes ago, LibraLove said:

I DO NOT VOTE FOR SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE THEY "CAN WIN." This is not a sports game. That's so asinine. You realize that Texas has a very conservative, under educated voting populace. It's Texas for goodness sakes. You neglect to mention the weight of that poll. Do they factor in Independents the most? Probably not. Do they poll 18-35 and weight them accordingly? Probably not. That is the problem with media polls that are conducted today - they don't do any of that in order to manufacture consent. 

What you did was just post a hit piece that attempts to de-legitimize her candidacy because she is a threat to Clinton. If she's so great and has it locked down and in the bag, then there's no need for you or her supporters to shame people for not voting for her. That just screams weak. 

Girl, no

[LibraLove 1,282]

1 minute ago, TrueWillis said:

Girl, no

Then people need to stop shaming third party voters, more specifically voters voting for Jill Stein if she isn't. Because it really looks like she is with the amount of people threatening "Trump!", trying to guilt them into voting for Hillary and crapping on people for exercising their Constitutionally protected right that is different from what they want or expect. It's a huge disservice to the Founding Fathers and just overall looks really pathetic.

[TrueWillis 45]

Just now, LibraLove said:

Then people need to stop shaming third party voters, more specifically voters voting for Jill Stein if she isn't. Because it really looks like she is with the amount of people threatening "Trump!", trying to guilt them into voting for Hillary and crapping on people for exercising their Constitutionally protected right that is different from what they want or expect. It's a huge disservice to the Founding Fathers and just overall looks really pathetic.

My belief is that most people are voting for 3rd party candidates because they believe it makes them better than the people voting for "the lesser of two evils." Not voting for the person that actually has a chance to win and do the best for your self interests is your choice. It's a dumb choice but it's your choice.

[Sylvanas 5,768]

8 minutes ago, LibraLove said:

Then people need to stop shaming third party voters, more specifically voters voting for Jill Stein if she isn't. Because it really looks like she is with the amount of people threatening "Trump!", trying to guilt them into voting for Hillary and crapping on people for exercising their Constitutionally protected right that is different from what they want or expect. It's a huge disservice to the Founding Fathers and just overall looks really pathetic.

I'm starting to think that you believe in this with your heart. You poor thing.

[Guest]

On 13/10/2016 at 8:01 PM, ToxicHot said:

Please explain. If they are equal, why is it crazy for Bernie supports to migrate towards Trump's campaign? 

 

(Genuinely curious here. I'm in the same boat. I initially flocked to Trump after Bernie lost because I don't trust Hillary AT ALL. The only thing that's allowing me to consider voting for Hillary is primarily over democratic policies only. That, and progress for LGBTQ issues.)

It's not crazy it's what I'm saying, Trump is Clinton but in a more politically incorrect version. I could explain myself and use a hell lot of examples but my posts when it comes to politics always get interpreted wrongly in this forum. Somehow saying you're for Clinton makes you a smart good person and being for Trump makes you dumb, when the reality is if you're for any of them you're crazy.