Sanders is destroying Hilary on Twitter now.
He said she is not a progressive, she is a moderate. That she voted for the war.
"Most progressives that I know don't raise millions of dollars from Wall Street."
"Most progressives that I know were opposed to the Keystone pipeline from day one. Honestly, it wasn’t that complicated."
"Most progressives I know were against the war in Iraq. One of the worst foreign policy blunders in the history of the United States."
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/694970390456696832?lang=en
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You see though, If I had said these things, you would have disagreed and called me being bias, but now Sanders is saying the same thing I have been saying this whole time and you have no problem with it.
Sanders has just said what I have been saying this whole time.
Everyone here has insisted on the opposite.
Now that Sanders has said it, you agree?
On top of that, his supporters are now calling her a liar, as I have been.
You see, the facts didn't change, just your opinion of what was said because of who
Originally posted by Lestov16
But you have not said these things. You have talking about her emails and Benghazi. It's okay though. You haven't said these things because it requires a left wing point if view, which you clearly don't have, as you are a Republican.
I talk about the emails a lot because it's always coming up.
I have repeatedly talked about her flip flops on the war, on the tpp, on her wall street funding yet she is supposedly against them and her son is a hedge fund manager.
You know I have so don't lie and say I have not brought this stuff up.
It's the primary thing I talk about is her flip flops and flat out lies.
Like the "Isis is using trump to recruit."
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
"Most progressives that I know don't raise millions of dollars from Wall Street."
That is rich from someone with two Super PACs who claims not to take money from independent-expenditure committees.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
"Most progressives that I know were opposed to the Keystone pipeline from day one. Honestly, it wasn’t that complicated."
Most progressives Sanders knows are not the Secretary of State and cannot take a position on a policy issue before that administration she serves.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
"Most progressives I know were against the war in Iraq. One of the worst foreign policy blunders in the history of the United States."
Clinton voted to allow the United States to secure the United Nations inspectors in their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
"Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
. . . My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose—all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."
That Bush used that authorization to launch a pre-emptive war in Iraq is not what she voted for.
The first argument is weak, Sanders does not want Super PACs, that he can't legally stop people from making them is a different issue. It's definitely neither comparable to raising considerable amounts of money from Wall Street or using Super PACs which are really just wings of the campaign as most of the other candidates do.
The other two are very good points though. Clinton wasn't just a free politician at the time, she was part of an administration, and can't just go rogue to the detriment of the government. And the Iraq war vote has more nuance to it, although she herself seems to regret it now.
At any rate, at worst she "flipped" on some issues, she didn't "flip flop".
Originally posted by Lestov16
Pretty much the reason myself and other democrats prefer him to Clinton. She has flip flopped on several social issues on which Sanders has remained consistent, in particular for me, her advocation of the war in Iraq and one time anti-gay marriage stance.
Sanders opposed marriage equality in his own state as recently as 2006, stating he was “comfortable” with civil unions, not full marriage equality, which he described as "too divisive."
If he was honest about his evolution on the issue, he could brag about coming out in favor of marriage equality before both Obama and Clinton, but instead he wants to trout out this ridiculous and easily falsifiable lie.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The first argument is weak, Sanders does not want Super PACs, that he can't legally stop people from making them is a different issue. It's definitely neither comparable to raising considerable amounts of money from Wall Street or using Super PACs which are really just wings of the campaign as most of the other candidates do.
It is just as disingenuous for Sanders to suggest that Clinton is beholden to Wall Street donors when 93% of her donations come from individuals in denominations under $100.
During his campaign, Obama received more donations from Wall Street than Clinton has, and it did not prevent him from proposing Dodd-Frank and achieving Wall Street reform.
It is an ugly, dishonest, dog whistle attack from someone who claims to run a positive campaign.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is just as disingenuous for Sanders to suggest that Clinton is beholden to Wall Street donors when 93% of her donations come from individuals in denominations under $100.During his campaign, Obama received more donations from Wall Street than Clinton has, and it did not prevent him from proposing Dodd-Frank and achieving Wall Street reform.
It is an ugly, dishonest, dog whistle attack from someone who claims to run a positive campaign.
I disagree, the undue influence of large donors is a very real worry that many voters have had for years.
Additionally the actually sneaky wording is the "93% of donations". While that is true, the money is actually the other way around. More than 80% of Clinton's money comes from bigger donations 200$ and more.
There is a very real, and very large difference between how Bernie Sanders' and Hillary Clinton's campaigns are financed.
Originally posted by Adam_PoESource? Never heard of this.
Sanders opposed marriage equality in his own state as recently as 2006, stating he was “comfortable” with civil unions, not full marriage equality, which he described as "too divisive."If he was honest about his evolution on the issue, he could brag about coming out in favor of marriage equality before both Obama and Clinton, but instead he wants to trout out this ridiculous and easily falsifiable lie.
Originally posted by |King Joker|
Source? Never heard of this.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Sanders is destroying Hilary on Twitter now.He said she is not a progressive, she is a moderate. That she voted for the war.
"Most progressives that I know don't raise millions of dollars from Wall Street."
"Most progressives that I know were opposed to the Keystone pipeline from day one. Honestly, it wasn’t that complicated."
Eh, she can easily shoot back on gun control where she's more progressive than him, or her loooong civil rights voting record.
End of the day, in her time in the senate, 80% of Democratic senators were less liberal than her.
She doesn't have much to worry about on that ground- and it's also a situation where, long-run, she's going to be going for the middle, so being viewed as more centrist than she actually is is possibly usable.
So, they're reasonable attacks, but I don't think he can corner Hillary on this line.