• Bernie Sanders Trounces Hillary In First Super Tuesday Results!
    212 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Blackavar;49850088] This isn't to say it will be [i]easy[/i]. The media will claim Bernie should drop out now, but we must keep fighting.[/QUOTE] Most of them have some money in the game so its best we just learn to ignore them.
[QUOTE=cody8295;49847922]Hillary clinton is a republican dressed up as democrat, and I'm not gonna vote for her lying ass no matter what happens. As for the pessimistic [t]https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/12804885_10153892924843503_1130255419919827759_n.jpg?oh=bf11fdc503817372ec3b9f38165123e2&oe=57626BF8[/t][/QUOTE] Lol no Obama slightly edged out Clinton on Super Tuesday 2008. [url]http://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/obama-claims-delegate-lead-008358[/url] "With the delegate count still under way, NBC News said Obama appears to have won around 840 delegates in yesterday’s contests, while Clinton earned about 830 — “give or take a few,” Tim Russert, the network’s Washington bureau chief, said on the “Today” show." (The actual scores if anyone actually wants to calculate them) [url]http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/dates/#val=20080205[/url] Bernie Sanders could still win the primary, but the Obama comparisons people keep trying to make don't really hold up at all.
[QUOTE=Altimor;49849523]America will become a corporate cyberpunk dystopia and we'll all have neon mohawks and piercings and communicate on underground networks. It's gonna be sick.[/QUOTE] Nah, it'll be cybepunk when theres no "Trump vs Hillary" and its just straight up Americorp's pick vs Free Market Coalition's pick and the candidates wear outfits with as much branding as a nascar driver. People say Trump is "corporate Incarnate" but Trump is barely a businessman anymore anyway, he's a public figure. He had his hayday of business stuff but he hasn't been active in it in decades. Hillary is really more dangerous cause she's just a literal puppet for the Democratic party, its just this time its not Puppet vs Puppet, its Puppet Hillary vs Trump who is technically an independant though if trump is elected i will be shocked if he's able to get most of anything he spouts passed the House and the Senate and the Supreme court. If anything, for at least a couple years. He'll pull the Republican congressmen and be like "look nerds, you do what I want and I won't veto your bills." but they'll still have to deal with all the democrats that Obama has been placing for the last 8 years.
I hope to god that bloomberg will use his wildcard and enter the race as candidate number three. Hilary has no backbone and Trump will be the end of the nation.
Even if things seem bleak, Bernie supporters need to keep giving him that support instead of just giving up because it looks like Hillary's going to come out on top. Media's trying to make it look like his campaign is failing horribly so that Clinton gets better coverage.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49848014]Thats kinda gross. Good foreign policy but the Libertarian economics will get people killed.[/QUOTE] Libertarian economic policy will get people killed? Please explain how we go from less government intervention in the economy to manslaughter.
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;49849832]Very first line said I'm voting for Bernie. In the event he doesn't get the nomination, I have no clue what I'm doing. Both Trump and Hillary are repulsive to me but I won't lie when I say I have a hate boner for Clinton. That being said, they're both equally shitty candidates in my opinion. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I really don't give a shit about who to vote for if I cant vote Bernie in the general election. I mean, it's not like my choices will include a candidate I actually like.[/QUOTE] I'm voting for Trump. Not because I think he'll do anything good for the country, but because I know he's just in this for himself and his own personal enrichment, and I think there's a good chance he'll be so fucking incompetent at doing this job he'll make Bush's eight years look like the work of an excusable amateur by comparison and will do so much damage to the country our political system and economy will be in shambles by the end of his term. Whether that could be four years or eight years, who knows, but we'll deal with that if/when the time comes. Nothing makes progress possible quite like a catastrophe. When you force people to their knees and put them into a position where they're desperate, change is going to occur-- one way or another. If it doesn't come from the government figuring out it needs to get its shit together and it deciding to begin actually looking out for us, then we'll just look out for ourselves. You look at the attitude of people in general since the recession hit us, it's clear that a large portion of them are fed up with the way things are going and are hurting badly. This election proves it: yeah, we've got our age-old, run-of-the-mill establishment candidates like Clinton, Cruz, and Rubio running, but meanwhile, [i]Donald Trump[/i] of all people is dominating the Republicans, and a self-professed Democratic Socialist meanwhile is still holding his own very well against Clinton (despite her being a status quo Democrat representing American political dynasticism and embodying your average bought-out leadership figure). The question is, are they hurting badly enough to nominate and elect the right person who will deliver what's needed to the country? I'm not sure at this point. We'll find out. As I've said before, in any case, we'll get whoever we [i]deserve[/i]. That might be somebody who completely fucks us over, that might be somebody who doesn't really do anything. Then again, it might be somebody who does great things for us. At the end of the day, we're the ones who vote, and we get who we vote for. We have nobody to blame but ourselves if things turn out badly/the same as usual. [editline]2nd March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Lobotmik;49850808]Libertarian economic policy will get people killed? Please explain how we go from less government intervention in the economy to manslaughter.[/QUOTE] Government exists in part to provide oversight on behalf of the public and to ensure private sector accountability. When has removing that oversight and accountability enforcement from the private sector ever led to good things happening in American history-- whether we're talking in relation to the environment, the manufacturing sector, banking and the financial industry, the pharmaceutical and healthcare insurance industries, etc.? How could any sensible human being possibly conclude that the dissolution of agencies and services pertaining to... you know, public health, environmental protection and sustainability, food and drug oversight, etc.... would [i]not[/i] lead to people dying? It has before, which Libertarians would know if they understood history at all. This is exactly the reason we created things in the first place like the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act]Pure Food and Drug Act[/url], the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration#History]Food and Drug Administration[/url], the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Meat_Inspection_Act]Meat Inspection Act[/url], etc. Because, guess what, at one point in time, people [i]were[/i] dying because there wasn't enough government intervention and oversight to protect ordinary Americans from slimy capitalist practices: dangerous drugs and fake cures being sold off to people, unsanitary food production practices that were making people sick, unsanitary tenement conditions where owners would try and cram as many people into their buildings as they could (which created breeding grounds for diseases), etc. This circlejerk we've been having for a few years now over Libertarianism needs to end already. It's another unworkable utopian ideology in a long line of other unworkable utopian ideologies, and it's dangerous because it feeds off the myths of noble free enterprise/free market capitalism that a lot of people are apparently [i]still[/i] gullible enough to buy into.
[QUOTE=Medevila;49851176]Nate Silver may be delusional (read: his mathematical models weren't very good) but it's pretty fair to say that the Sanders campaign didn't meet its own expectations last night, and Hillary solidified her lead- Bernie's path to the nomination did nothing but narrow Tuesday[/QUOTE] I think this only comes from not enough people knowing Bernie, there are a lot of people who I will mention Bernie to and most still don't know who he is. When you take someone who really has never been in the public spotlight with radical socialist ideas challenging a centrist former first lady and secretary of state it's very impressive. I don't think there's any reason to say Bernie is losing traction or that there's any reason to switch sides. More people need to know how shaky Clinton is on her beliefs and how quick she is to change her opinion to please her current audience. The media is obviously going to go against Bernie considering the huge hand the established parties have already in news and his supporters shouldn't change sides due to a small shortcoming on Super Tuesday that was predicted due to her hold on the African-American vote as well as her previous wins last election in a few of the states. I'm still going to push for Bernie, I refuse to elect someone so quick to lie and cheat her way through so many facets of life and who is so willing to accept money from large corporations and firms so they can have influence over her policy...
[QUOTE=Medevila;49851176]Nate Silver may be delusional (read: his mathematical models weren't very good) but it's pretty fair to say that the Sanders campaign didn't meet its own expectations last night, and Hillary solidified her lead- Bernie's path to the nomination did nothing but narrow Tuesday[/QUOTE] Nate Silver has correctly predicted the last two elections based on his math models. I wouldn't say hes delusional. 538 is a reputable source for politics predicting.
Southern states arent that indicative of whos the nominee. Northern states will save bernie
[QUOTE=cody8295;49851893]Southern states arent that indicative of whos the nominee. Northern states will save bernie[/QUOTE] The north have two of the top 5 delegate giving states, New York and Pennsylvania. Clinton is polling far ahead of Sanders in both. Even if he gains the other northern states, he won't get far. Even Mass., a state that's in his backyard, was a tie more or less.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49851905]The north have two of the top 5 delegate giving states, New York and Pennsylvania. Clinton is polling far ahead of Sanders in both. Even if he gains the other northern states, he won't get far. Even Mass., a state that's in his backyard, was a tie more or less.[/QUOTE] He probably would have won mass had bill not cheated and broken election rules. He lost by what, 2 percent? Pretty good if you ask me. I think he'll come out with the nomination
[QUOTE=cody8295;49852042]He probably would have won mass had bill not cheated and broken election rules. He lost by what, 2 percent? Pretty good if you ask me. I think he'll come out with the nomination[/QUOTE] I don't think Bill really made that huge an impact. Even if Sanders won Mass, it would have only been by a few points, still a tie.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49852086]I don't think Bill really made that huge an impact. Even if Sanders won Mass, it would have only been by a few points, still a tie.[/QUOTE] He still broke the law and should be held accountable. I think the dnc should schedule a revote for fairer numbers amd delegate allocation
[QUOTE=Govna;49850882] Government exists in part to provide oversight on behalf of the public and to ensure private sector accountability. When has removing that oversight and accountability enforcement from the private sector ever led to good things happening in American history-- whether we're talking in relation to the environment, the manufacturing sector, banking and the financial industry, the pharmaceutical and healthcare insurance industries, etc.? How could any sensible human being possibly conclude that the dissolution of agencies and services pertaining to... you know, public health, environmental protection and sustainability, food and drug oversight, etc.... would [I]not[/I] lead to people dying? It has before, which Libertarians would know if they understood history at all. This is exactly the reason we created things in the first place like the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act"]Pure Food and Drug Act[/URL], the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration#History"]Food and Drug Administration[/URL], the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Meat_Inspection_Act"]Meat Inspection Act[/URL], etc. Because, guess what, at one point in time, people [I]were[/I] dying because there wasn't enough government intervention and oversight to protect ordinary Americans from slimy capitalist practices: dangerous drugs and fake cures being sold off to people, unsanitary food production practices that were making people sick, unsanitary tenement conditions where owners would try and cram as many people into their buildings as they could (which created breeding grounds for diseases), etc. This circlejerk we've been having for a few years now over Libertarianism needs to end already. It's another unworkable utopian ideology in a long line of other unworkable utopian ideologies, and it's dangerous because it feeds off the myths of noble free enterprise/free market capitalism that a lot of people are apparently [I]still[/I] gullible enough to buy into.[/QUOTE] All of that follows under what some libertarians like to call "common sense regulation" in what is obviously required to be there to prevent such abuse of the market. The LP represents all libertarians like the Republican Party represents all Republicans and the Democrats represent all Democrats. The FDA which you say keeps harmful elements is not infallible; the same FDA approved GMO salmon just last year when the American public opinion concerning GMO is quickly changing and becoming aware of the big corporations work concerning such products. Obama nominated to the FDA a man who was paid off by big pharma and with his consultant firm helped big pharma evade FDA laws. [URL]http://www.mintpressnews.com/obamas-new-appointee-to-head-the-fda-is-a-big-pharma-mega-lobbyist/210458/[/URL] Big Pharma makes payments to FDA to fast track drugs, something which years before approved a prescription drug that actually increased cancer risk in patients. [URL]http://fortune.com/2015/10/20/pharma-fda-vouchers-resale/[/URL] Repeatedly approved a drug that was not proven to extend life; [URL]http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/fda-repeatedly-approved-cancer-drug-afinitor-without-proof-it-extended-life-b99628814z1-361607291.html[/URL] Actos, a drug that was made as a alternative to another drug that increased heart attack risk is also banned in foreign countries yet not in the U.S; [URL]http://www.drugwatch.com/actos/recall.php[/URL] People like you want to be coddled by the federal government which is notoriously prone to being bought out. Instead of looking to your local communities, reaching out and establishing councils in your townships or counties to get these products banned from local markets you wait and hope that the invisible hand of the federal government does it for you. The FDA does have a place, as does the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act but with how easily prone to being paid by big pharma to give favors the health of the consumer is at risk.
[QUOTE=cody8295;49852042]He probably would have won mass had bill not cheated and broken election rules. He lost by what, 2 percent? Pretty good if you ask me. I think he'll come out with the nomination[/QUOTE] I love the part where Bill showed up to several polling places with a megaphone and made speeches about why people should vote for his wife, and that's okay. But then a small number of people holding Bernie signs was asked to leave because "you can't campaign here". Funny thing is not only was Bill breaking the law, he had a [I]police escort[/I]. The police literally lead him around town to break the law, out of context that sounds like :bullshit: The bias within the election staff is frightening, they're supposed to be impartial, yet they remove a small group of demonstrates and ignore the guy with a megaphone.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49850001]What Hilary says she believes doesn't necessarily reflect what she actually believes. Hell.. I don't even know what she believes.[/QUOTE] She believes in things when they are politically expedient. When gay marriage reached 51% support, she flipped. When the Iraq War ended up becoming unpopular, she flipped. It's not that difficult to discern where she stands on the issues and unless you are going to assume that literally everything she says is a lie and she will enter office as some sort of anarcho-captalist super-libertarian I see now reason to refute what InvaderNouga said; she is much, much closer ideologically to Sanders than Trump. The logic that you would vote for Sanders then just throw your hands up in confusion, or worse, vote Trump over Clinton, just doesn't make sense. [editline]2nd March 2016[/editline] Honestly I'm really just hoping all the "If Sanders doesn't get the nomination I'm voting Trump because fuck that bitch" people are just talking big on the internet and don't actually go vote. Atleast Trump supporters are genuine.
If Sanders loses, I'm voting for Hillary simply because [B]fuck Trump.[/B]
[QUOTE=Swilly;49852727]If Sanders loses, I'm voting for Hillary simply because [B]fuck Trump.[/B][/QUOTE] Now convince your fellow Bernie supporters to do the same please [editline]2nd March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=cody8295;49852100]He still broke the law and should be held accountable. I think the dnc should schedule a revote for fairer numbers amd delegate allocation[/QUOTE] Okay But it won't give Sanders a landslide victory in his next-door-neighbor state.
No, at this point, Clintons campaign should be suspended. Same with cruz after his fake letter stunt. This election cycle is dirtier than usual
[QUOTE=da space core;49853034]No, at this point, Clintons campaign should be suspended. Same with cruz after his fake letter stunt. This election cycle is dirtier than usual[/QUOTE] God ain't this the truth. As much as I wish Trump's campaign would hit a snag, at least he's largely played fair. Said some stupid shit, yes. But he hasn't broken any rules or laws AFAIK. I'm seriously wondering at this point how much bullshit Hillary will get away with.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49852355]All of that follows under what some libertarians like to call "common sense regulation" in what is obviously required to be there to prevent such abuse of the market. The LP represents all libertarians like the Republican Party represents all Republicans and the Democrats represent all Democrats. The FDA which you say keeps harmful elements is not infallible; the same FDA approved GMO salmon just last year when the American public opinion concerning GMO is quickly changing and becoming aware of the big corporations work concerning such products. Obama nominated to the FDA a man who was paid off by big pharma and with his consultant firm helped big pharma evade FDA laws. [url]http://www.mintpressnews.com/obamas-new-appointee-to-head-the-fda-is-a-big-pharma-mega-lobbyist/210458/[/url] Big Pharma makes payments to FDA to fast track drugs, something which years before approved a prescription drug that actually increased cancer risk in patients. [url]http://fortune.com/2015/10/20/pharma-fda-vouchers-resale/[/url] Repeatedly approved a drug that was not proven to extend life; [url]http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/fda-repeatedly-approved-cancer-drug-afinitor-without-proof-it-extended-life-b99628814z1-361607291.html[/url] Actos, a drug that was made as a alternative to another drug that increased heart attack risk is also banned in foreign countries yet not in the U.S; [url]http://www.drugwatch.com/actos/recall.php[/url][/QUOTE] ...all of which are issues with big pharma, not the FDA itself. As you said, the FDA has a place, and it needs to be maintained. Not only should it be maintained, but it should be expanded as well. Beyond that, more oversight is what's necessary and more public accountability. Why do we need "less government" here exactly? The issue is not with the reach of the government in this situation, it's that the government isn't being held accountable, and neither are the corporations that are behind it pulling strings at our expense. How is Libertarianism going to magically fix this situation exactly lol? At the end of the day, it comes down to us to keep them in check and defend our interests. This is true. But we're not doing that; we're not doing it now without the Libertarian model of things, and that's probably not going to change with the Libertarian model either assuming it were feasible to adopt (and it's not). If you were to ask five different Libertarians what "common sense regulation" means, you'd get five different answers. Same thing with taxes; some believe taxes are completely unconstitutional and infringe on our liberty. Same thing with gun control; some thing we should have the current system with its background checks, others think that kind of record keeping and tracking is tyrannical and we should all be allowed to pack firearms like it's the Wild West all over again should we choose to. The biggest issue with Libertarianism is that it's just not a cohesive ideology that puts everybody on the same page for... well, anything. At it's core, it's about "do whatever you want, so long as you don't infringe on anybody's rights". And while that sounds nice, it also means nothing (like a lot of other ideologies that say things that sound nice but don't actually have any depth to them upon sharper scrutiny). "Personal liberty" and "individual autonomy" are punchlines in a country of around 320 million people. They require a government that does either next to nothing or nothing at all, and while that might sound attractive when coupled with the former two concepts, it's also completely fucking retarded because it contradicts both modern human history and social science which say "this shit does not work". We tried this before (see: the Articles of Confederation), other societies and groups of individuals have experimented with it... it does not work. It hasn't worked before, it's sure as hell not going to work now with how massive of a country we are (in terms of everything-- our population is massive, our economy, our expenditures, government involvement with everything from infrastructure and education to scientific advancement, etc.). [QUOTE=LtKyle2;49852355]People like you want to be coddled by the federal government which is notoriously prone to being bought out. Instead of looking to your local communities, reaching out and establishing councils in your townships or counties to get these products banned from local markets you wait and hope that the invisible hand of the federal government does it for you. The FDA does have a place, as does the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act but without how easily prone to being paid by big pharma to give favors the health of the consumer is at risk.[/QUOTE] Ahahaha, "coddled". First off, you're hilariously naive if you think my local community is going to do anything about any of this. Or any small rural community for that matter. We do three things: we beat our Bibles, cling to our guns, watch our kids play sports at school, hunt and kill things when we're bored, farm, and drink ourselves stupid when we're otherwise bored but can't hunt and kill things (so like most small American communities). Second, we revolve around a handful of families who have lived here forever and have evolved into the Little Big [del]Men[/del] Families of our town: they run things, everybody knows it, everybody thinks they're pieces of shit (not all of them are that bad, but there's plenty who could and should be ousted). Individuals back here aren't bought out by big companies generally (unless we're talking agriculture); they're bought out by the little big families. They get together, appoint each other to sit on what boards they can, so-and-so's husband meanwhile works at the power plant as its superintendent while she's the main school councilwoman, his brother (her brother-in-law) owns one of the biggest businesses in town, etc. If you think corruption is just going to be phased out by looking to go local, you've got another thing coming to you. Corruption gets worse on the local level, speaking from experience; at the national level, it's just that the stakes get bigger and there's more money/influence involved. But sorry, we're a superpower. We've got a massive population (again, somewhere along the lines of 320 million people). We've got a massive economy, and this is how things have been for years. We operate at a national level, we require the federal government, we will always require the federal government in its current state at some form or another to oversee us, and that's how simple it is. The issue is not with the institution itself, it's with the individuals in the institution. This is yet another infuriatingly stupid thing about Libertarianism: it doesn't recognize this. It wants to tear down the whole institution and marginalize it when it's not the problem-- the individuals that are running it are what need to be gotten rid of. By force, if necessary. It's a dramatic overreaction that would secure our nation's decline and mean devolution in the long run; we've gotten to where we are by coming together and establishing a power structure of government to reflect this unity... and we will lose it all if we start pulling apart. How much have you done to personally ensure this stuff happens by the way? I'm guessing nothing at all, same as with establishing local councils and reachout programs you've spoken about needing to start. You've done nothing at all, but damn it if that will stop you from lecturing about theory. No, the institution is not infallible, but damn is it nice to have around and to enjoy all the things that it has done for us, and will likely continue to do for us. For what problems there are, yeah, they need to be solved. Are you doing anything to solve them? [editline]2 March 2016[/editline] Neither have I on that last part. I went to Occupy Boston back in 2011 just before it was shut down for drugs when I was a teenager (I was 19, taking a trip there at the time and ended up staying for two weeks living with them up until Halloween). I've seen what these kinds of Libertarianesque (in the sense they're a clusterfuck revolving around letting people "be themselves", "speak their minds", and sloganize "working together to achieve goals") "councils" do: nothing. Occupy was basically the left-wing version running around this idea of local organization and oversight, and we had a council established. It was always all talk, no action. Lots of armchair generalship going around, but nobody was digging trenches and preparing to fight it out in them. There were some reasonable ideas, an absolutely justified amount of anger, but that's not enough. Nobody was actually doing anything. "Well we need to do this, and we need to organize this, and we need to fight against this." ...yeah, no fucking shit. You have a gift for stating the obvious. We know what's needed. Why is nothing happening then? Could it be because this kind of loose-leafed tribalistic behavior doesn't work, and people need actual centralized leadership (not omnipotent in power, but not anywhere near impotent either) and to be included in a formalized entity of political action-- preferably that's large in size (because the bigger you are, the more noise you can make and damage you can do, and that's what makes you powerful in the first place)? Actually yes, that's exactly the answer.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49852355]The FDA which you say keeps harmful elements is not infallible; the same FDA approved GMO salmon just last year when the American public opinion concerning GMO is quickly changing and becoming aware of the big corporations work concerning such products.[/QUOTE] you do realise there's literally nothing wrong with gmos right large and powerful vested interests are the ones pushing to have gmos labelled, not to mention there's a big organic food lobby
[QUOTE=Govna;49853146](Long post.)[/QUOTE] Now that I know you live in bible territory, safe to say your community sounds like it just doesn't give a shit and all I'm going to say about that is "oh well". You guys get what you deserve. Concerning Occupy [Location] and the activists running around chanting and protesting for change, those people will never truly accomplish anything in regards to actually changing something. That's true, and you're right that right now I haven't done anything. I'm still working to save money for my future, I plan to attend my local county college in said future and enroll in some of the public service classes. Right now in life I'm at a fork in the career road, currently applying for a apprenticeship in the union. If that doesn't work out I'll just go through the state apprenticeship at a accredited vocational school and continue working for a private contractor. Once I've settled down career wise and have no worry, I can start said college courses and perhaps get into local politics in the future. I can do more good that way instead of gathering with a bunch of other loonies on some march or protest which will do nothing in our present day. You want to change a system then you do from within it. A lot of Libertarians really do have no idea what they're talking about; thanks for pointing out the obvious, it seems we're both good at that. My ideology? We are a union of states bound by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Nothing more. There is nothing about guaranteeing healthcare as a human right in our country nor education. Everyone is capable of pursuing such privileges on their own, and if the people of one state wish to make such things publicly accessible then by all means do so but that does not mean you should force what you want on the people of another state. Using President Coolidge again for a quick history lesson; [quote]Although later seen as a reactionary move, the action was widely popular in the wake of the lawlessness brought on by the strike, and overall as governor, Coolidge pursued a fairly progressive agenda. He supported a cost-of-living pay increase for public employees, limited the workweek for women and children to 48 hours, and placed limits on outdoor advertising, measures largely welcomed by reformers in both parties. His most important feat, restructuring and consolidating the state government, married progressivism's efficiency to conservatism's taste for small government. [/quote] [url]http://millercenter.org/president/biography/coolidge-life-before-the-presidency[/url] He accomplished that at the state level, without the need of the federal government to intervene for such things. I'm not going to say something like "Let people live as they want!" because like you so obviously stated, it's vague and means nothing in the grand scheme of everything. I'm going to say "let the states decide how they wish to manage their local economy. If you live in a state that is completely opposite of what you believe, then that would your problem. I'm done with this conversation. If you plan to vote Trump as the nuke it button, go right ahead. Maybe it will work out for the best.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49852946]Now convince your fellow Bernie supporters to do the same please[/QUOTE] Why should we vote for candidates that we do not agree with? [QUOTE=da space core;49853034]No, at this point, Clintons campaign should be suspended. Same with cruz after his fake letter stunt. This election cycle is dirtier than usual[/QUOTE] But she won't, why? Because we have a two-tiered justice system.
[QUOTE=Reshy;49853545]Why should we vote for candidates that we do not agree with? But she won't, why? Because we have a two-tiered justice system.[/QUOTE] If you agree with Bernie, then you [I]don't agree with Trump.[/I] No, you may not agree with Hillary either, but she's much closer to Bernie in terms of ideology than Trump.
lol Sanders could be dead and most of Facepunch would still convince themselves he could win. People are in denial that Sanders is losing.
[QUOTE=Britain;49853902]lol Sanders could be dead and most of Facepunch would still convince themselves he could win. People are in denial that Sanders is losing.[/QUOTE] He's behind by less than 200 delegates
[QUOTE=cody8295;49853927]He's behind by less than 200 delegates[/QUOTE] Last I saw he was behind by over 600, but that's counting super delegates. It's so fucking sketchy how Clinton has almost ALL the Super Delegates so far
[QUOTE=TheTalon;49853960]Last I saw he was behind by over 600, but that's counting super delegates. It's so fucking sketchy how Clinton has almost ALL the Super Delegates so far[/QUOTE] Super delegates will switch when bernie wins more and more states
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.