Mr. Clinton calls Bernie sexist, claims that Bernie supporters are internet trolls
143 replies, posted
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;49698446]Maybe because she's a money hungry, flip-flopping, terrible politician.[/QUOTE]
No, its clearly because she is a woman. Just because she receives money from wall street doesn't mean she is bought, they really hate her so much and are so afraid of her that they give her money :^)
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49698094]they knows she's absolutely fucked if they're trying this tactic
also, while she tries low blows on Bernie, he responds with this (i have posted this before)
[t]https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/t31.0-8/12418834_961117337276604_738955163890215699_o.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
I don't get why people act like this is such a total zinger and then turn around and discount anyone bringing up Sanders' "Man-and-Woman" essay because "its from decades ago, it's irrelevant, people can change"
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;49698446]Maybe because she's a money hungry, flip-flopping, terrible politician.[/QUOTE]
Listen you can't honestly say she's a terrible politician. Terrible politicians don't become Secretary of State. I think you can make valid criticisms about where he allegiances lie in business, though.
But the point isn't about whether or not Hillary is corrupt or not; the point is that Bernie supporters can be pretty immature sometimes. Name-calling doesn't solve anything. If you want to discuss Clinton's background and personality, etc., do so; but don't just call her "Shillary" because that just makes you look like a 12 year old.
[QUOTE=Bazsil;49698470]I don't get why people act like this is such a total zinger and then turn around and discount anyone bringing up Sanders' "Man-and-Woman" essay because "its from decades ago, it's irrelevant, people can change"[/QUOTE]Because it was blatant, stark satire, which I'm pretty sure you've been told already.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698465]Like I said, I think the sexism thing is just a talking point. I don't really buy it. However, you have to admit that while Bernie Sanders is great (as a Clinton supporter, I like a lot of what Bernie Says), [b]but a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters just fucking suck[/b][/QUOTE]this can be said about literally every candidates supporters,
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698479]Listen you can't honestly say she's a terrible politician. Terrible politicians don't become Secretary of State. I think you can make valid criticisms about where he allegiances lie in business, though.
But the point isn't about whether or not Hillary is corrupt or not; the point is that Bernie supporters can be pretty immature sometimes. Name-calling doesn't solve anything. If you want to discuss Clinton's background and personality, etc., do so; but don't just call her "Shillary" because that just makes you look like a 12 year old.[/QUOTE]
Terrible politicians with the right connections become Secretary of State, unless you're going to suggest Hillary's time as Secretary of State was anything other than terrible.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698479]Listen you can't honestly say she's a terrible politician. [B]Terrible politicians don't become Secretary of State.[/B][/QUOTE]
[img]http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/donald-rumsfeld-documentary.jpg[/img]
I'd like to disagree. Of course, he's the Sec. of Defense but my logic still stands. If he became Secretary of Defense when he said back in the 90's invading Iraq would turn into a quagmire, then 11 years later helped convince the nation of Saddam's wrong doings, I don't hold Hillary Clinton, the woman who was staunchly against gay marriage until it was "progressive liberalism" to address gay issues, in higher regard.
[editline]8th February 2016[/editline]
Also why can't I say she's a terrible politician? She fucking is a terrible politician.
An amazing tactic. It's interesting to see her campaign say this more and more as we roll forward.
There is no real, liberal reason to prefer Hillary over Bernie. I cannot find an actual, substantive reason to prefer her. The only reason to vote for Hillary is if you don't think we should have healthcare for all, don't think college should be available to eceryone, don't want the big banks broken up and to have important legislation reinstated, and want to continue an aggressive, violent foreign policy. But if those are your positions, why aren't you voting Republican?
Good politician, terrible person.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;49698512]Terrible politicians with the right connections become Secretary of State, unless you're going to suggest Hillary's time as Secretary of State was anything other than terrible.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;49698525][img]http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/donald-rumsfeld-documentary.jpg[/img]
I'd like to disagree. Of course, he's the Sec. of Defense but my logic still stands. If he became Secretary of Defense when he said back in the 90's invading Iraq would turn into a quagmire, then 11 years later helped convince the nation of Saddam's wrong doings, I don't hold Hillary Clinton, the woman who was staunchly against gay marriage until it was "progressive liberalism" to address gay issues, in higher regard.
[editline]8th February 2016[/editline]
Also why can't I say she's a terrible politician? She fucking is a terrible politician.[/QUOTE]
Maybe we've got a different definition of a politician. I think a good politician is someone who can successfully advance their careers in politics. I think a good policy-maker is someone who benefits the American public.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698600]Maybe we've got a different definition of a politician. I think a good politician is someone who can successfully advance their careers in politics. I think a good policy-maker is someone who benefits the American public.[/QUOTE]
Politician vs. statesman
[QUOTE=Bazsil;49698470]I don't get why people act like this is such a total zinger and then turn around and discount anyone bringing up Sanders' "Man-and-Woman" essay because "its from decades ago, it's irrelevant, people can change"[/QUOTE]
People discount that essay because it was an essay, nothing more
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49698604]Politician vs. statesman[/QUOTE]
Either way, I'm voting for Clinton (if she wins the nomination) because I think she's a good politician.
Everybody raises some pretty good criticisms of her credibility, etc. and her connections with business and wall street. However, I'm pretty cynical about the whole thing, so I favor someone like that because I think someone who is politically manipulative would be better since their job is to be politically manipulative.
I've never understood why Americans will always want the least experienced person for the most important job in the USA
Obama would make a great secretary of state imo
[QUOTE=proch;49698623]Obama would make a great secretary of state imo[/QUOTE]
I personally don't think so; I think he needed to be tougher on Russia YEARS ago. It was only after direct provocation over Ukraine that we sanctioned Russia, but they've had hostile rhetoric and policy against the United States since 2004, or even earlier.
But don't you guys get it? All of the corruption, all of the opportunistic flip flopping, the concerns regarding workers rights, technological literacy and privacy, and the continued formation of the American Dynasties and Oligarchy doesn't matter right now because we've got to address that some idiots online and elsewhere sometimes say mean things about HRC.
This of course is ignoring the fact that people were calling Sanders a ghoul and such on this forum in the Iowa Caucus thread and others have called him a cuck for the way he handled interruptions from BLM activists.
We always talk about prioritization of issues because no one candidate is going to perfectly represent your ideals or interests. If the alleged behavior of alleged Sanders supporters is more important to you than the actual principles and positions of the candidates before you then you're probably an idiot. Why are people even giving this a moment's thought when there are actual issues with actual outcomes at stake?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698426]Come on guys; you can't deny this. I mean, sure you can say that about really any political candidate, but some people here on facepunch are pretty crazy. They call her "shillary", "cunton/clitton", calling her things like a "psychopathic bitch". I think the sexism thing is just a talking point, but you can't deny that some bernie supporters have been pretty fucking vicious online. Comparably, I haven't seen anybody saying nearly as vicious things about bernie sanders, just that they don't believe he'd be a good leader.[/QUOTE]
Because there's not really as much negative to say about devolving into "socialism is bad"
Which is why they've kind of had to shift the focus to Bernie's followers instead, smearing him through his followers being so called vicious sexist trolls, rather than smearing Bernie himself
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698619]Everybody raises some pretty good criticisms of her credibility, etc. and her connections with business and wall street.[/QUOTE]
Do you want a country that serves the citizens or a government that serves private interests? Do you want a politician that does whats popular at the time or do you want a politician that will stand for what they believe in?
[QUOTE=elowin;49698662]Because there's not really as much negative to say about devolving into "socialism is bad"
Which is why they've kind of had to shift the focus to Bernie's followers instead, smearing him through his followers being so called vicious sexist trolls, rather than smearing Bernie himself[/QUOTE]
Well there's plenty of rhetoric against Bernie Sanders. The most common complaint is that he's flip flopped on the gun lobby because he was allegedly elected by the NRA (though I've heard that the importance of the NRA in his first election was overstated, from other sources).
The other criticism is the more conservative one that Bernie Sanders would not have a viable plan to pay for all the stuff he wants as president. I personally don't care much about this criticism because I don't think that Bernie Sanders has any chance of actually getting any of the stuff he wants through congress (especially any of the stuff attacking the financial industry), so I'm not really worried about him paying for it.
The most important complaint I have about Sanders is that he's got a fairly weak and under-developed foreign policy. His official policy is that we ought to emphasize diplomacy over military action and that we ought to draw down US forces abroad in conflict-free areas (perhaps closing some old eastern european or even Japanese military bases). I heartily disagree; I think Sanders' real goal is to dismantle the "military-industrial complex", which is a noble goal, but I don't think it should be done at the cost of American military supremacy abroad. I also think that global relations are not as cool as typical American rhetoric would like to make them seem; I think we're only at the beginning of a very large cold war with Russia (particularly Putin), and we need strong foreign policy, and a strong military policy towards Russian expansionism in eastern Europe. Militarily, what we've done so far borders on appeasement.
I think that the American natural gas industry could play a big role in weaking Russian control over western and Eastern europe, but Bernie Sanders would probably downplay the role of non-renewable energy in American foreign policy, focusing on the environmental concerns (which are not invalid concerns, of course)
[editline]8th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49698709]Do you want a country that serves the citizens or a government that serves private interests? Do you want a politician that does whats popular at the time or do you want a politician that will stand for what they believe in?[/QUOTE]
I want someone who will keep the United States safe and as the world leader in global security; I think Bernie Sanders would trade off some of that role to other NATO members, which I think is dangerous since other NATO members aren't pulling their weight in defense spending.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698725]
I want someone who will keep the United States safe and as the world leader in global security; I think Bernie Sanders would trade off some of that role to other NATO members, which I think is dangerous since other NATO members aren't pulling their weight in defense spending.[/QUOTE]
Do you think other NATO members would continue to not spend money on defense if the US started to cut back on its defense spending thus eliminating the guarantee that the US would just defend them if problems arise?
Take with grain of salt because Reddit
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/IP5XfGc.png[/IMG]
[editline]8th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698619]Either way, I'm voting for Clinton (if she wins the nomination) because I think she's a good politician.
Everybody raises some pretty good criticisms of her credibility, etc. and her connections with business and wall street. However, I'm pretty cynical about the whole thing, so I favor someone like that because I think someone who is politically manipulative would be better since their job is to be politically manipulative.
I've never understood why Americans will always want the least experienced person for the most important job in the USA[/QUOTE]You're apathetic towards corrupt politicians, fucking great. No wonder this fucked up country doesn't change.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698725]Well there's plenty of rhetoric against Bernie Sanders. The most common complaint is that he's flip flopped on the gun lobby because he was allegedly elected by the NRA (though I've heard that the importance of the NRA in his first election was overstated, from other sources).
The other criticism is the more conservative one that Bernie Sanders would not have a viable plan to pay for all the stuff he wants as president. I personally don't care much about this criticism because I don't think that Bernie Sanders has any chance of actually getting any of the stuff he wants through congress (especially any of the stuff attacking the financial industry), so I'm not really worried about him paying for it.
The most important complaint I have about Sanders is that he's got a fairly weak and under-developed foreign policy. His official policy is that we ought to emphasize diplomacy over military action and that we ought to draw down US forces abroad in conflict-free areas (perhaps closing some old eastern european or even Japanese military bases). I heartily disagree; I think Sanders' real goal is to dismantle the "military-industrial complex", which is a noble goal, but I don't think it should be done at the cost of American military supremacy abroad. I also think that global relations are not as cool as typical American rhetoric would like to make them seem; I think we're only at the beginning of a very large cold war with Russia (particularly Putin), and we need strong foreign policy, and a strong military policy towards Russian expansionism in eastern Europe. Militarily, what we've done so far borders on appeasement.
I think that the American natural gas industry could play a big role in weaking Russian control over western and Eastern europe, but Bernie Sanders would probably downplay the role of non-renewable energy in American foreign policy, focusing on the environmental concerns (which are not invalid concerns, of course)
[editline]8th February 2016[/editline]
I want someone who will keep the United States safe and as the world leader in global security; I think Bernie Sanders would trade off some of that role to other NATO members, which I think is dangerous since other NATO members aren't pulling their weight in defense spending.[/QUOTE]
Other than the gun lobby thing which honestly, I've not even heard about before, those aren't really smears, just criticisms on policy.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698465]Like I said, I think the sexism thing is just a talking point. I don't really buy it. However, you have to admit that while Bernie Sanders is great (as a Clinton supporter, I like a lot of what Bernie Says), but a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters just fucking suck[/QUOTE]
Excuse me. We just had a series of public figures who support Hillary use methods of attack that I've only seen done to Gamergators. I might feel a little sorry and then I remember all of the horrible shit we've said about Trump or Cruz.
Stop. We only started taking 'Bernie supporters are toxic' after a halfassed article said it and now we have this shit happening. There is no way to compare normal people saying childish insults to a media campaign that even refuses to critically look at what these people are saying.
Here's a fantastic takedown of the "Bernie Bro" fake narrative by Glenn Greenwald (guy who broke the Snowden story): [url]https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the-bernie-bros-narrative-a-cheap-false-campaign-tactic-masquerading-as-journalism-and-social-activism/[/url]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698465]Like I said, I think the sexism thing is just a talking point. I don't really buy it. However, you have to admit that while Bernie Sanders is great (as a Clinton supporter, I like a lot of what Bernie Says), but a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters just fucking suck[/QUOTE]
Can confirm. I love Bernie but a few fellow supporters I've met are fuckin weird, like the kind of guys who have liberal values but are still sexist as fuck
Like there's this one guy in my dorm who's always playing League in the common room and yells a lot when he loses, and a few times he's been on funnyjunk.com and he shows fellow, more normal Bernie supporters his ~hilarious~ anti-feminism posts, which are all just out-of-context hillary quotes, and he mutters about what a "stupid fuckin' bitch" she is. We always just chuckle awkwardly and try to change the subject
This guy also freaked out during the first debate when bernie asked for donations. He just screamed "WOW, WHAT A JEW" and we were like what the fuck dude, he needs donations because he doesn't have superPACs. And the guy didn't even fucking know that
[QUOTE=Durandal;49698756]Do you think other NATO members would continue to not spend money on defense if the US started to cut back on its defense spending thus eliminating the guarantee that the US would just defend them if problems arise?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I do. First of all, the US would still be spending a massive amount on defense, to the point where US contractors would feel it, but Slovakia wouldn't.
Second, I don't think that matters; I think the more important aspect is that the United States SHOULD be the leader in global security, not a coalition of members.
This tactic isn't going to last forever lmao
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698619]Either way, I'm voting for Clinton (if she wins the nomination) because I think she's a good politician.
Everybody raises some pretty good criticisms of her credibility, etc. and her connections with business and wall street. However, I'm pretty cynical about the whole thing, so I favor someone like that because I think someone who is politically manipulative would be better since their job is to be politically manipulative.
I've never understood why Americans will always want the least experienced person for the most important job in the USA[/QUOTE]
That's the thing I like most about her. Sure she might be twisted and she might have flippy-floppy opinions based on public and party opinion, but as long as she serves the interests of the public and her party, does her personal connection with those beliefs really matter?
[QUOTE=Killer900;49698759]Take with grain of salt because Reddit
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/IP5XfGc.png[/IMG]
[editline]8th February 2016[/editline]
You're apathetic towards corrupt politicians, fucking great. No wonder this fucked up country doesn't change.[/QUOTE]
fake or not, this does not surprise me
[QUOTE=elowin;49698786]Other than the gun lobby thing which honestly, I've not even heard about before, those aren't really smears, just criticisms on policy.[/QUOTE]
Uh, yeah. That's what I'm saying.
[QUOTE=Killer900;49698759]Take with grain of salt because Reddit
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/IP5XfGc.png[/IMG]
[editline]8th February 2016[/editline]
You're apathetic towards corrupt politicians, fucking great. No wonder this fucked up country doesn't change.[/QUOTE]
I'm not apathetic; I just think that some politicians are better leaders than others. That's their job, to lead. I think you're confusing apathy with me simply being a bit more conservative than a lot of leftists on facepunch.
[QUOTE=Swilly;49698805]Excuse me. We just had a series of public figures who support Hillary use methods of attack that I've only seen done to Gamergators. I might feel a little sorry and then I remember all of the horrible shit we've said about Trump or Cruz.[/quote]
Not sure I understand what you mean with the methods of attack thing, but I don't think anybody in this campaign has said or done anything atypical of any other election we've had in the last decade.
[quote]Stop. We only started taking 'Bernie supporters are toxic' after a halfassed article said it and now we have this shit happening. There is no way to compare normal people saying childish insults to a media campaign that even refuses to critically look at what these people are saying.[/QUOTE]
Well you can't get the media to look at your views critically if you present them in a childish way (which you admit is childish). If you want someone to take you seriously, you have to stop slinging profanity and names at Clinton. If you want to draw Clinton supporters to Sanders, then the Sanders campaign has to be able to communicate between generations, since Sanders has youth support while Clinton has older folks support, and older folks aren't going to be convinced by calling her "Shillary".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.