It's not like everything was majorly explicit and everyone in the DNC was against Sanders, but multiple communication officials of the committee were brainstorming ways to smear Bernie's campaign as a mess due to a server glitch. And then in regards to questioning Bernie's religious views, it involved the chief executive and chief financial officer of the committee, so these are important members of the DNC brainstorming ways to knock Bernie down a peg. In regards to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she dismissed Bernie in an e-mail by saying he isn't going to be president, after an aid of hers (IIRC) told her about Bernie wanting Debbie to resign (this was before Hillary was the presumptive nominee, as well, IIRC). Most of these obviously point to a concerted effort by top-officials of the DNC to smear Bernie, and continue treating him unfairly. I can't really comment on British politics, but the point is, the DNC claimed they were neutral and actively attempted to trash Bernie.
I guess some just can't bring themselves to vote for a candidate/party that tried to undermine a candidate they potentially put so much faith, money, and time into. What's worse is that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was appointed as the honorary chair of Clinton's campaign immediately after her resignation. Like, talk about a slap in the face.
Not all Stein supporters believe she has no chance of winning, tbh.
You gotta walk the walk, not just talk the talk. And Hillary ain't walking the walk. And plus, there's Hillary's probable 2020 reelection campaign, if she wins this year.
I didn't say they couldn't support him, but I don't see how you can't call it hypocrisy for them to blatantly do a 180 in their view of him just because he won and start lying through their teeth about him.
Btw I know DWS, I've talked to her a few times during Jewish events in South Florida, and that woman is a ****.
Because it's called party unification. It's called getting in line for the greater good. The Republicans saw who their voters wanted in and they respected it, while the Democrats told their voters to basically piss off. That's why I have such respect for Sanders now because of what he did. He KNEW he got screwed yet he placed the party above himself. On the other side, Ted Cruz looked like a pissy ***** doing what he did. Also I just noticed I said "place the party about himself", as if I'm in Communist Russia.
Last edited by MS Warehouse on Jul 29th, 2016 at 10:24 PM
Registered: Jul 2014
Location: Off learning Ground Realities
In a similar way to the way the Democrats did. But the republicans did anything they could to make sure he isn't elected, openly.
Again, I never said what they did was right. I simply said it was not unexpected, and wouldn't have changed the results of the election any more than hundreds of other factors that came into it.
You, however, have yet to explain why this whole fiasco is a reason to not vote for Hillary over Trump if that was your original plan, which is where this conversation began.
__________________ "i admire u choose cersei as ur avi sel. at least u know that ur one sick *****, i can respect that" - Inturpid.
Personally, I feel like Hillary is going to dominate Trump in the debates. When Trump can't flail around and act like a buffoon in the debates he had with the Republicans, and shit is actually about policies and specifics, he's going to get demolished.
No, they didn't..Like, at all. Please show me any evidence of this.
The results are irrelevant, it's the aura of objectivity from the "unified" and "optimistic" Democrats that goes out the window in favor of hypocrisy. And I don't think bernie would have won either but it may have been a LOT closer if all things were equal.
Hilary doesn't have very concrete policies either but some are better than the virtually nonexistent ones Trump has. Like I said, if Trump overperforms (in his case, ties Hilary), I think the election is his. If he gets hammered, nobody's voting for him.
Registered: Jul 2014
Location: Off learning Ground Realities
I'd agree with that, if not for the reason so many people voted Bernie to begin with. They want progress, they want change, they want money away from the 1%. Voting Stein will do none of those things, voting Hillary will.
And do you genuinely believe people think Stein can get 50% of the votes, or more electoral votes than Clinton and Trump combined? Or am I misunderstanding you
That's a failed and flawed analogy. In this case, Clinton is talking the talk and walking the walk. What I was saying however is that she's doing it regardless of her own opinion. That's kinda what being a good politician is all about, Joker, listening to your voters.
And a re-election of an incumbent would actually have a stronger chance of winning without money involved so much in politics, imho.
__________________ "i admire u choose cersei as ur avi sel. at least u know that ur one sick *****, i can respect that" - Inturpid.
Registered: Jul 2014
Location: Off learning Ground Realities
Before I reply to the first point further, can I just clarify you're asking me to provide examples of the Republican Party trying to sway public opinion against Trump?
As for the second point, as I've said, I agree with that.
__________________ "i admire u choose cersei as ur avi sel. at least u know that ur one sick *****, i can respect that" - Inturpid.
Regardless, she completely outstrips Trump when it comes to "presidential" qualities (tact, poise, sounding... well, competent), and that's what the debates are really going to exemplify, which IMO will hurt Trump and make him look even more clueless than usual. With policy ideas and specifics in regards to how they will be implemented, Clinton outstrips Trump again. Basically, I can't see Trump doing remotely well in that type of formal debate environment.
Swaying the public opinion through the public channels is standard. Going behind everyone's back is not. I thought it was rather simple.
I don't think Hilary is a master of tact at any level, since she keeps being baited by Trump at every turn and responding to him. As far as policy is concerned, I hope she can elaborate rather than regal us with cliches and sentimentalities. Out of the two she's obviously more prepared, which makes me wonder if Trump is saving something for the debates. He can't possibly think he can continue not studying up on policy and just bullshit his way through the debates, can he? I mean if anyone is crazy enough to do it it's him but I have to believe a guy who went from a few million dollars to a billion has a little more intelligence and foresight than that.
They do. Whatever support Trump currently has evaporates the minute he dicks up in the debates.
They don't trust the Democratic Party nor Hillary Clinton now, which is the problem, so they don't put stock in what they say they're going to do.
I don't know if they genuinely believe they can, but in Stein's campaign, their strategy is to capitalize on Bernie supporters and millennials, which will carry them to the majority. Crazy, I know, but that's what they're crossing their fingers for.
Yet Hillary is still taking Super PAC money to fund her campaign, a major problem for Bernie supporters. And I appreciate that Hillary is moving in the right direction by saying she wants to overturn Citizen's United, but the fact remains that many voters despise the fact she still takes millions from donors.
"Look it up". Anything tangible here? I didn't think so. And to say Obama hasn't lied under oath is both idiotic and presumptuous. You don't know someone lied under oath until they get caught lying under oath, in which case they most likely get impeached.
And plus, there's Hillary's probable 2020 reelection campaign, if she wins this year.
Jul 29th, 2016 10:20 PM
Thanks Scribble!
