Bernie

[BIGBULL29]

Teddy Crouger Cruz went to a church where a preacher preached that a Holocaust against gays would be a good idea.

How can he even be a candidate (he won't be elected, but still?)?

I despise Republicans. They are the sickest group of people known to mankind.

 

[BIGBULL29]

Republicans want to tell people what to do with their bodies and who they can sleep with (something so personal); but yet, they don't want "big government" promoting healthy foods, environmental protection, etc - for the benefit of us all.

The party is hopelessly sad. They can't even put a puzzle together without throwing a tantrum and running down some minority group as a scapegoat (gays, Mexicans, etc).

 

[StormfrontFL]

Yeah see thats the thing. And thats why bernie will undoubtedly lose. Republicans will say that the only reason black people aren't for bernie is because they want a handout...and bernie supporters won't stand up against that. Meaning the black community will immediately be alienated. And then they'll start on mexicans...then women and so on and so forth. Making sure that certain demographics won't vote for him. Sadly that'll be on bernie supporters for not catching on. Hell the more i hear from bernie supports the less likely it is i think he'll win.


I agree, bernie is a realist it's just that america isn't. Bernie sanders and elizabeth warren are only two people up against a clone army. It's just not going to work. Just like occupy wallstreet didn't work. Not because they weren't right but because support waned when it was needed the most. Instead of there being a concentrated effort people are attempting to isolate specific groups. People who could potentially be allies. And at the same time agreeing with a mindset that will only end up with republicans in office anyway.



So i'm guessing that equates to...i'm better than bernie sanders supporters? That you lift more weights? That you're more manly than bernie sanders supporters? Cause if so then that is yet another example of whats wrong with politics right now. Your manhood or status has nothing to do with it.

While Bernie may be sane and working to be inclusive many of his followers aren't. From what I've seen so far Clinton supporters will support whomever the candidate is, even if it's not Hillary. Sanders supporters can't be counted on to be there. If Sanders isn't the nominee how many of them have vowed to either not vote or resort to a write in? With them it's either play by their rules or they won't play. Isn't the more important issue to keep the GOP from gaining more power? Get a Democrat in and then work on making the Congress shift to the left.

 

[BIGBULL29]

While Bernie may be sane and working to be inclusive many of his followers aren't. From what I've seen so far Clinton supporters will support whomever the candidate is, even if it's not Hillary. Sanders supporters can't be counted on to be there. If Sanders isn't the nominee how many of them have vowed to either not vote or resort to a write in? With them it's either play by their rules or they won't play. Isn't the more important issue to keep the GOP from gaining more power? Get a Democrat in and then work on making the Congress shift to the left.

I see your point.

Let's get that Congress as far left as we can get it. We have no other choice.

 

[StormfrontFL]

I see your point.

Let's get that Congress as far left as we can get it. We have no other choice.

Exactly. It doesn't matter if Hillary or Bernie gains the White House if the Congress remains in conservative hands.

 

[deleted15807]

I despise Republicans. They are the sickest group of people known to mankind.

They peddle hate and humans respond very well to hate, not so much to love, understanding and tolerance.

 

[Perados]

I'm curious. Do you honestly think (and this is only to bring attention to how modified this "debate" has gotten.) hillary would go to war with another country over oil? Do you honestly think she would then go el cheapo on soldiers armor? Do you think she would let veterans benefits just drop? Shut down the government over something trivial and proven wrong?

There are large differences between all those people you mentioned and right now not only are those differences being ignored but they're being made to be equal.

I agree with you that the conversation needs to be calmed down but is hillary exactly like the bushes and reagans? Or has you're perception been skewed for a very very specific reason. Think about it. Answer that one question.








Is hillary really as bad as those others?


Keep in mind. I don't think she's an angel but is she really as bad as those guys? If not ask yourself. Why is it that people want you to think she is? What will they get out of that?

I was in no way referring to foreign policy. I was talking about the economy and in this case I think she will be in no way different to the guys I mentioned.

Will she run a war for oil? Probably not, but we don't know what the future bring... If she REALLY believes that her presidency depends on it, I would say she will.

Will she cut veteran benefits? No, I don't think she will.

Will she go cheap on soldiers armor? As long as no one notice, yes.


Will she shut down the government? No president alone did it, but the parties (I think just the republicans) at the congress...


So no, I hadn't put all the people equal, but only their economy policy and some styles of their way they do politics

 

[tripod]

Hillary Clinton has zero credibility of giving a rat's ass about people in poverty. During her husband's administration (they are ideologically exactly the same) the prison industrial complex was born and the "war on drugs" was waged with a zealous rage. African American's suffered and continue to suffer greatly under the war on drugs... there is no greater threat to black culture than the War on Drugs. The war on drugs has and still is targeted directly at the black communities... the Clinton era was disastrous towards African Americans.

Yet Bill Clinton somehow got the reputation as being the "First black president"... for what? No ethnic group suffered greater under his 8 years than black folk but... they somehow are drawn to him and now they are drawn to his wife as well. It makes zero sense.

I've seen no logical argument in favor for black folk supporting Hillary Clinton, let alone any evidence that the Clinton years were of any benefit to the African American population. The best and most logical arguments are like Michelle Alexander's...

Why Hillary Clinton doesn't deserve the black vote

"The love affair between black folks and the Clintons has been going on for a long time. It began back in 1992, when Bill Clinton was running for president. He threw on some shades and played the saxophone on The Arsenio Hall Show. It seems silly in retrospect, but many of us fell for that. At a time when a popular slogan was “It’s a black thing, you wouldn’t understand,” Bill Clinton seemed to get us. When Toni Morrison dubbed him our first black president, we nodded our heads. We had our boy in the White House. Or at least we thought we did.

Black voters have been remarkably loyal to the Clintons for more than 25 years. It’s true that we eventually lined up behind Barack Obama in 2008, but it’s a measure of the Clinton allure that Hillary led Obama among black voters until he started winning caucuses and primaries. Now Hillary is running again. This time she’s facing a democratic socialist who promises a political revolution that will bring universal healthcare, a living wage, an end to rampant Wall Street greed, and the dismantling of the vast prison state—many of the same goals that Martin Luther King Jr. championed at the end of his life. Even so, black folks are sticking with the Clinton brand.

What have the Clintons done to earn such devotion? Did they take extreme political risks to defend the rights of African Americans? Did they courageously stand up to right-wing demagoguery about black communities? Did they help usher in a new era of hope and prosperity for neighborhoods devastated by deindustrialization, globalization, and the disappearance of work?

No. Quite the opposite.

Bill Clinton presided over the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history. Clinton did not declare the War on Crime or the War on Drugs—those wars were declared before Reagan was elected and long before crack hit the streets—but he escalated it beyond what many conservatives had imagined possible. He supported the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity for crack versus powder cocaine, which produced staggering racial injustice in sentencing and boosted funding for drug-law enforcement.

Clinton championed the idea of a federal “three strikes” law in his 1994 State of the Union address and, months later, signed a $30 billion crime bill that created dozens of new federal capital crimes, mandated life sentences for some three-time offenders, and authorized more than $16 billion for state prison grants and the expansion of police forces. The legislation was hailed by mainstream-media outlets as a victory for the Democrats, who “were able to wrest the crime issue from the Republicans and make it their own.”

When Clinton left office in 2001, the United States had the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Human Rights Watch reported that in seven states, African Americans constituted 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders sent to prison, even though they were no more likely than whites to use or sell illegal drugs. Prison admissions for drug offenses reached a level in 2000 for African Americans more than 26 times the level in 1983. All of the presidents since 1980 have contributed to mass incarceration, but as Equal Justice Initiative founder Bryan Stevenson recently observed, “President Clinton’s tenure was the worst.”

Some might argue that it’s unfair to judge Hillary Clinton for the policies her husband championed years ago. But Hillary wasn’t picking out china while she was first lady. She bravely broke the mold and redefined that job in ways no woman ever had before. She not only campaigned for Bill; she also wielded power and significant influence once he was elected, lobbying for legislation and other measures. That record, and her statements from that era, should be scrutinized. In her support for the 1994 crime bill, for example, she used racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals. “They are not just gangs of kids anymore,” she said. “They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”

BRING THEM TO HEEL? THIS IS THE FUCKING CANDIDATE BLACK PEOPLE ARE SUPPORTING?

Fucking incredible.

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

I'm curious. Do you honestly think (and this is only to bring attention to how modified this "debate" has gotten.) hillary would go to war with another country over oil? Do you honestly think she would then go el cheapo on soldiers armor? Do you think she would let veterans benefits just drop? Shut down the government over something trivial and proven wrong?

There are large differences between all those people you mentioned and right now not only are those differences being ignored but they're being made to be equal.

I agree with you that the conversation needs to be calmed down but is hillary exactly like the bushes and reagans? Or has you're perception been skewed for a very very specific reason. Think about it. Answer that one question.

Is hillary really as bad as those others?


Keep in mind. I don't think she's an angel but is she really as bad as those guys? If not ask yourself. Why is it that people want you to think she is? What will they get out of that?

Personally, I know that she's not as evil as the candidates on the Republican side... but she does Not represent me the way she claims to. She's a panderer, a liar, and will do the Bare Minimum to keep her base happy. She's bought and paid for just like everyone else. She's not on My side... she's not on the side of the American People... she's on the side with the most $$$.

I know you were asking Perados... but I just can't stand Hillary. If she's our first woman president I'll be VERY disappointed. I'd absolutely prefer a Non-P.O.S like Elizabeth Warren.

 

[185248]

I think Bernie is an old candidate with young or fresh ideas, which I have to say is better than younger candidates with old and stagnant ideas. This impressed me, he didn't think twice. Trump would have dropped to the floor or run away. Bustle

 

[temptotalk]

Personally, I know that she's not as evil as the candidates on the Republican side... but she does Not represent me the way she claims to. She's a panderer, a liar, and will do the Bare Minimum to keep her base happy. She's bought and paid for just like everyone else. She's not on My side... she's not on the side of the American People... she's on the side with the most $$$.

I know you were asking Perados... but I just can't stand Hillary. If she's our first woman president I'll be VERY disappointed. I'd absolutely prefer a Non-P.O.S like Elizabeth Warren.

Well to be honest i was making an overall point of whats happening to the very battleground in politics but i think my time in pointing things out is about done anyway.

I think Bernie is an old candidate with young or fresh ideas, which I have to say is better than younger candidates with old and stagnant ideas. This impressed me, he didn't think twice. Trump would have dropped to the floor or run away. Bustle

I do too. And no, trump would have made fun of them. Then when questioned, claim not to have done so. Something mimicking some of the posters here.

 

[b.c.]

If you are a true Communist then what are you doing here? There are several Communist countries that would be glad to have you.
Oh, and true communism could never work here(and barely works elsewhere)

Exactly. Bernie isn't good enough ("he loves liberals") neither Obama, Clinton, etc. etc.

He's a communist living in N.C. who doesn't support S*****, (excepting maybe Assad or Putin), yet comes here to tell us how America sucks, how great Cuba is, and to blow smoke up our bums because he's READ UP on a little sumptin' sumptin' and therefore presumes to tell US who we are and what little WE know.

Can't believe I've actually entertained this ********** for as long as I HAVE. Imo this guy has absolutely NO credibility at this point.

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

Well to be honest i was making an overall point of whats happening to the very battleground in politics but i think my time in pointing things out is about done anyway..[/QUOTE]

I would appreciate it if you maybe clarified.. if I misunderstood I want to know what I missed.

Your thoughts and additions to the conversation have been appreciated... no need to stop now if you ask me.

 

[b.c.]

From the info that filters down through the media, yes Bernie could be seen as telling the people what they wish to hear. If that is something bad, trying to right the wrong decisions that seems to have plagued US politics for the past twenty years or more, maybe trying to change that view seems a little ideological.

But, it has to start from some place, cause it's quite obvious that the current way of doing things are not leading things down the right path.

Because someone places a fork in the road does not brand them idealists, maybe realist could be used.

The US and the world need to deal with issues that have been left largely ignored and dealt with ad hoc over years. Someone who mentions trying to do something about this is not an idealistic individual in my book.

No, nothing wrong with being an idealist, to a POINT. Ideas (and one's perception of the ideal) are great, and no doubt presidential hopefuls with any vision HAVE them.

The problem occurs when one is so steadfast in one's OWN ideas and principles that they become INCAPABLE of give and take, compromise, and putting the more immediate needs of the people (most if not ALL the people) ABOVE that.

It is where the more pragmatic are capable of looking at realities, the political landscape, the "cards one is dealt" (if you will), and by" hook or crook," "wheel or deal," manage to get as CLOSELY as they can, a desired OUTCOME.

In the case of Obama, according to one online source, of the promises HE made, 45% were kept, and 25% a compromise. 22% "broken". That works out to his delivering (in whole or in part) on 70%.

Compromise is the nature of our government, and why it is set up that way. And I'd suspect that WHATEVER their "ideas," Clinton, Sanders, and even Trump would have to do likewise.

 

[temptotalk]

Not to be a dick because i think i shall be reforming that part of me but.....

Bernie Sanders Dines With Al Sharpton In Harlem

........thats not gonna end well for good old bernie. I can hear the loss of votes all the way from over here. lol

 

[StormfrontFL]

Personally, I know that she's not as evil as the candidates on the Republican side... but she does Not represent me the way she claims to. She's a panderer, a liar, and will do the Bare Minimum to keep her base happy. She's bought and paid for just like everyone else. She's not on My side... she's not on the side of the American People... she's on the side with the most $$$.

I know you were asking Perados... but I just can't stand Hillary. If she's our first woman president I'll be VERY disappointed. I'd absolutely prefer a Non-P.O.S like Elizabeth Warren.

Yes, I'm pretty sure we'd all prefer Warren but since she's not running(this election cycle) would you rather have a Democrat or a Republican in office. If a Republican do you realize the next Democrat will then have to repeat what has come before just to put us back to where we are now? The Republicans in charge of all levels of government would surely try to undo all the progress we have made so far.

 

[temptotalk]

Not to be a dick because i think i shall be reforming that part of me but.....

Bernie Sanders Dines With Al Sharpton In Harlem

........thats not gonna end well for good old bernie. I can hear the loss of votes all the way from over here. lol

Oh that comment section! Yup, i think democrats just put the last nail in their own coffin with this one. Bernie especially. Divide and conquer works every time. Alright, i'm out.

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

Yes, I'm pretty sure we'd all prefer Warren but since she's not running(this election cycle) would you rather have a Democrat or a Republican in office. If a Republican do you realize the next Democrat will then have to repeat what has come before just to put us back to where we are now? The Republicans in charge of all levels of government would surely try to undo all the progress we have made so far.

If you've been reading this thread... you know where I stand on that.

 

[b.c.]

Yeah see thats the thing. And thats why bernie will undoubtedly lose. Republicans will say that the only reason black people aren't for bernie is because they want a handout...and bernie supporters won't stand up against that. Meaning the black community will immediately be alienated. And then they'll start on mexicans...then women and so on and so forth. Making sure that certain demographics won't vote for him. Sadly that'll be on bernie supporters for not catching on. Hell the more i hear from bernie supports the less likely it is i think he'll win.

Well such is the fallacy behind the notion of not having to address minority interests, though as I recall, Tripod called it "pandering" (yet another revelation about him, I think).

It isn't "PANDERING" to recognize the interests and concerns of the PEOPLE who you are asking to vote for YOU.

Instead, it is laying out a platform comprehensive enough to incorporate all of your desired base of support. Sanders did so sufficiently enough for me (after BLM literally got in his face about it), but I'm pleased that he did because it'd be FOOLISH for anyone to take the minority vote for granted and ASSUME who they'll (we'll) vote for.

For one, it's already been shown (in various polls) that Trump, in spite of all his hateful, despicable diatribe, will probably get a greater percentage of the black vote than ANY of his party rivals, besides which Trump is no REAL Republican ANYWAY. He's just an egotistical blowhard snake-oil salesman saying whatever he needs to say and having the time of his life watching all the buffoons eat it UP. Hell, he hasn't voted in a GOP primary in eight years, I think I recall reading somewhere??

So to assume one doesn't have to address (excuse me... "pander to") minority interests would, IMHO, be a miscalculation. They may not go out to vote the GOP. But they may not go out to vote at ALL. And we've SEEN the results of that in the last two congressional elections.

I agree, bernie is a realist it's just that america isn't. Bernie sanders and elizabeth warren are only two people up against a clone army. It's just not going to work. Just like occupy wallstreet didn't work. Not because they weren't right but because support waned when it was needed the most. Instead of there being a concentrated effort people are attempting to isolate specific groups. People who could potentially be allies. And at the same time agreeing with a mindset that will only end up with republicans in office anyway.

Actually Elizabeth Warren would've been my first choice for president, above Sanders or Clinton. She chose not to run. Many of Bernie's ideas are good, and I agree with much of what he's had to say. I've said that time and time again.

I've also said, time and time again that who I'll end up voting for (specifically, Clinton OR Sanders, for a****oles who'd think otherwise) will depend on who I think will do best against any GOP rival. And my decision on that is still and WILL be in flux, based upon what has yet to transpire, and probably right up to my pulling that lever.

My ONLY concern about Sanders is whether his vision is too extreme for voters in a general election. Like Sargon observed, a DAMNED good idea is still worthless, if you can't win. As to whether or not I think he can... again, "the jury is still out."

 

[StormfrontFL]

If you've been reading this thread... you know where I stand on that.

This is why I consider you smarter than most. I'm sure you've heard or seen other Sanders supporters who've stated that unless he's the nominee they won't vote.
I like Sanders but if he's not the nominee I won't cut off my nose to spite my face.
I will vote for whomever is the nominee because anything is better than the alternative or sitting back and complaining when I did nothing to prevent the Republicans for winning