Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic nominee - Polidicks

You have a choice between two candidates now. One is a clown and a bully who shames the office of President. The other is a boring but shady establishment Democrat. Donald Trump is not just unfit for office in a 'normal' way in that a Democrat would say George W. Bush was unfit for office. Donald Trump goes far beyond that. Whilst I don't follow the view that he would actually destroy America or is actually a fascist, he will permanently damage the office in a way that Clinton or any other shady establishment politician couldn't even dream of. Is Hillary Clinton a great choice for a Progressive Democrat? No. But that doesn't change the reality of what Donald Trump is. If you vote for Trump (or in general not for Clinton, because you are still effectively helping Trump win) as a Democrat, you are a moron of colossal proportions who ultimately doesn't understand that politics is always a game of compromises. You aren't 'sticking it to the establishment' when you do this. You're sticking it to everyone in America who needs a good President - the poorest in America and the most vulnerable. If you're willing to put your so-called 'principles' ahead of this, then I wish you the best of luck.

You have one crooked politician who takes money from large banks and corporations. And you have one man who is just as tired of all the corruption as you are. He will represent you. The whole Trump campaign is a movement by and for the people.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50470884]You have one crooked politician who takes money from large banks and corporations. And you have one man who is just as tired of all the corruption as you are. He will represent you. The whole Trump campaign is a movement by and for the people.[/QUOTE] You're just making assertions. Provide proof that campaign donations actually effect US politics (hard proof, not just 'money is effective guys, and there's a lot of money!!' proof) and I will change my mind. The Trump campaign is a movement by the 'people' (meaning reactionary bigots and 4chan). That doesn't mean it is right. [editline]7th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Matthew0505;50470887]"If you aren't with us you're against us"[/QUOTE] Well, anyone who voted Ralph Nader in 2000 was in effect against the Democratic Party as they resulted in their defeat in Florida and New Hampshire, assuming (probably correctly) that almost all of the Green Party would have voted Democrat otherwise. Think about it like this: Vote for Hillary and she gets +1 to her tally and Trump gets 0. Vote for Trump and Hillary gets 0 to her tally and Trump gets +1 Vote for Third Party and Hillary gets 0 to her tally and Trump gets 0 to his tally. However, Clinton has been deprived of a vote so is still *in effect* losing votes, assuming you are a normal Democrat supporter. Whilst it the same as voting Trump in effectiveness, and not morally the same, it is still helping Trump when it all comes down to it.

[QUOTE=Ziron;50470667]I'm getting real sick of this "boo hoo poor Bernie was just a victim of the corrupt DNC ;(" bullshit from Sanders supporters, as if Uncle Bernie was just a puppet abused by fate. Face it; he lost fair and square. Voters, particuarly minorites, along with those that know the working of the Democrat part well, rejected him in favor in Clinton. He had plenty of opportunities to convince Democrat voters and the DNC that he was the best candidate, but it turns out both groups did not buy what he was selling. That happens in politics, get over it, and start working on a way to fix it in the future (as in, look at your message and how you present yourself, not going on wild goose hunts for unspecified corruption) It's the same spineless whining that makes up the loser left; it's never our fault that we lost, it's someone elses! We're just victims! Look at your whiny, passive-aggressive, and entitled attitude and you'll see why people aren't sucking off progressive causes like you want, not the MILLIONARES AND BILLIONAIRES scheming to thwart the plans of college students, ivory tower-dwellers, and old revolutionaries that want that one last battle with the man.[/QUOTE] You [I]do[/I] realize that there was a lot of tampering from the DNC when it came to the media consistently showing Clinton having the lead when she really didn't and a lot of voter suppression, right?

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50469312]Bernie is not a good politician. He doesn't know how to smear his opponent and take every opportunity to score points. I don't care if that's not how it should be. I don't care that Bernie is more honest. That doesn't win you elections, and he was a shit politician this primary.[/QUOTE] I would disagree with that. Sanders effectively spent his campaign heavily implying that his opponent was corrupt. Sanders did plenty of smearing, the only difference is that he frames that smearing as an issue at large, not just of his opponent

side effect of controlling the media

[QUOTE=Map in a box;50470950]side effect of controlling the media[/QUOTE] Is this the media which regularly reports on Hillary and the accusations against her including the recent email scandal? And surely you don't mean she actually has all the media (billions of $s worth of it) in her pocket when ratings from lets say making a race seem tighter than it is, would bring in far more money than Hillary has. If you seriously believe Hillary controls the media then let me tell you about a piece of land I have for sale, it's in Brooklyn...

The current education, attitude, and selfishness has tainted this great country once again. Hillary has so much dirt on her, she's done so many vile things, lied to so many people, victims, is a false hope for minorities, and generally spits on the idea of progress and liberty. There has to be smarter people out there who vote, and I don't mean that in a condescending way; I know people are smart enough to see the faults in the choice we have to make. But the real kicker is that they just don't care. I'm with HER. GiveEmHill. It doesn't matter unless my side WINS and I don't care if that means we all lose. I'm taking a break from talking or discussing politics, I'm already very depressed, not even about the candidates themselves, but how people lack basic understand of what makes a good person.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50470809]Trump represents the people.[/QUOTE] Trump represents Trump. [QUOTE=orgornot;50470884]You have one crooked politician who takes money from large banks and corporations. And you have one man who is just as tired of all the corruption as you are. He will represent you. The whole Trump campaign is a movement by and for the people.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't it be nice if Trump were [I]actually[/I] tired of all the corruption and not just running to feed his own ego. I agree that Trump fans have legitimate grievances but they've picked the worst human being on the planet to address them. It's not just that he wants to do crazy shit like indiscriminately bomb the entire Middle East, it's that his tax plan and other policies are literally [I]counter-productive to his own message.[/I]

[media]https://twitter.com/cbellantoni/status/739994014984736768[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/Cold_Stare/status/740025607166164992[/media] 060416 = june 4th 2016

[QUOTE=Wii60;50471524]060416 = june 4th 2016[/QUOTE] Or is it April 6th 2016... :tinfoil:

I want to know what V1 was?

Man, i sure don't envy you guys you get to decide the leader of the free world but the options are a spineless liar and a total fucking retard

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50468388]It's not though, the superdelegates have already sworn themselves to her. Bernie or Bust people like to imagine these superdelegates are sitting around in their headquarters eagerly watching the primary to cast their vote when they've already decided.[/QUOTE] Hillary is a weak candidate and they will realize its sanders or trump. Clinton cant win a general

[QUOTE=Ithon;50471960]I want to know what V1 was?[/QUOTE] V1 was empty without the tweet, V2 was adding the tweet.

[T]http://i.imgur.com/qPSfyV9.png[/T] So the AP is officially an untrustworthy news source. LA times confirmed this btw, ill post link soon

[QUOTE=cody8295;50472314][T]http://i.imgur.com/qPSfyV9.png[/T] So the AP is officially an untrustworthy news source. LA times confirmed this btw, ill post link soon[/QUOTE] That's not when the image was created, it's the file name. Any graphics designer will tell you they probably made a blank template with just the text, then when it was announced added the image and v2 to the file name.

[QUOTE=plunger435;50472328]That's not when the image was created, it's the file name. Any graphics designer will tell you they probably made a blank template with just the text, then when it was announced added the image and v2 to the file name.[/QUOTE] Amy exif dara on the image? I'm at work and cant investigate

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50470549][IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkVPhH1WgAANdOl.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Right because there would be no effect from Bernie not starting the race down 500 delegates 9 months ago, that wouldn't affect anything at all? Do you know how false that claim seems

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50472338]Right because there would be no effect from Bernie not starting the race down 500 delegates 9 months ago, that wouldn't affect anything at all? Do you know how false that claim seems[/QUOTE] Oh, it is misleading. The entire system of superdelegates is undemocratic (I don't see that as a bad thing because I favour abolishing primaries, but that's just me). My main point is that it wasn't close and Sanders supporters should stop pretending it is.

[QUOTE=Jcorp;50468427]Well, that happened sooner than I thought it would.[/QUOTE] Well, this is a calculated time to say it, they're trying to spoil the Tuesday primaries.

Well... that sucks.... but at least I get to keep my account.

[QUOTE=cody8295;50472314][T]http://i.imgur.com/qPSfyV9.png[/T] So the AP is officially an untrustworthy news source. LA times confirmed this btw, ill post link soon[/QUOTE] What is this suppose to imply I don't understand

[QUOTE=cody8295;50472334]Amy exif dara on the image? I'm at work and cant investigate[/QUOTE] None, only some XMP data showing it was made in Photoshop CC 2015 on a Mac [url=https://a.hrc.onl/imageman/2016_Q2-Email/20160605_hfa_graphic/secret-win-V2-060416c_02.png]Here's the image[/url] and [url=http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fa.hrc.onl%2Fimageman%2F2016_Q2-Email%2F20160605_hfa_graphic%2Fsecret-win-V2-060416c_02.png]here it is in a metadata viewer[/url]

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50472362]Oh, it is misleading. The entire system of superdelegates is undemocratic (I don't see that as a bad thing because I favour abolishing primaries, but that's just me). My main point is that it wasn't close and Sanders supporters should stop pretending it is.[/QUOTE] But you have no evidence of that. That chart isn't evidence of it. It's not a valid look at the "What if" because there's too many variables. Media coverage is a massive part of the election cycle. Bernie lost the day he started his campaign in the media's eyes, and they sent that message. You can't ignore that, and you can't ignore how much that would likely change an election.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50472386]But you have no evidence of that. That chart isn't evidence of it. It's not a valid look at the "What if" because there's too many variables. Media coverage is a massive part of the election cycle. Bernie lost the day he started his campaign in the media's eyes, and they sent that message. You can't ignore that, and you can't ignore how much that would likely change an election.[/QUOTE] He essentially tied the first primary and won the second. He had a good launching pad to pull ahead, but he didn't.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;50472403]He essentially tied the first primary and won the second. He had a good launching pad to pull ahead, but he didn't.[/QUOTE] Alright I get it You think the media coverage was irrelavent to the outcomes. You're welcome to think that. You're wrong, it would affect it majorly.

Just look at Trump. No one has gotten near the amount of "he can't win" or negative press that he did, yet he steamrolled ahead. Sanders floundered everywear it mattered and did well where it didn't

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50472386]But you have no evidence of that. That chart isn't evidence of it. It's not a valid look at the "What if" because there's too many variables. Media coverage is a massive part of the election cycle. Bernie lost the day he started his campaign in the media's eyes, and they sent that message. You can't ignore that, and you can't ignore how much that would likely change an election.[/QUOTE] Impact of the media is not as [URL="http://themonkeycage.org/2012/09/mitt-romney-and-that-47/"]big[/URL] as you think. Sanders often raised more money than Clinton and certainly had good name recognition. The candidate with [URL="http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-bernie-sanders"]the most negative coverage[/URL] was Hillary Clinton. You do have a legitimate point about the fact that from the start she was portrayed as the likely winning candidate (and the Vox article mentions this), but you shouldn't overstate this and its impact - front runners have lost in the past many times.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50472411]Alright I get it You think the media coverage was irrelavent to the outcomes. You're welcome to think that. You're wrong, it would affect it majorly.[/QUOTE] No but the degree to which it affects the out come of the primary is debatable.