June 7 Primaries - "Clinton has applied Bern cream" edition - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;50477002]IF Bernie loses AND IF Bernie shuts up AND IF Obama endorses Clinton I shall sacrifice my account. I bet that Trump will offer a position to Bernie sooner or later GIVEN the previous conditions are met. (There are precedents of Trump doing this) ELSE Fuck off America.[/QUOTE] Haha what? Bernie's campaign is kill. It's all ogre now. Might as well shut down your account now.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50478509]I can't see Trump beating Clinton. Now that we're heading into the general election, we'll see just how much of a minority Trump's vocal supporters are.[/QUOTE] The GOP infrastructure is so weak and financially poor in blue states like California and New York that Trump doesn't even have an ounce of chance to turn them into red states.

[QUOTE=Chaitin;50479253]The GOP infrastructure is so weak and financially poor in blue states like California and New York that Trump doesn't even have an ounce of chance to turn them into red states.[/QUOTE] Trump cannot self fund the RNC ruled (then told his supporters it was his choice), He is broke because the Big GOP Donors Jumped ship and focused on the senate races. Including the Koch Brothers

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50478509]I can't see Trump beating Clinton. Now that we're heading into the general election, we'll see just how much of a minority Trump's vocal supporters are.[/QUOTE] Hillary just hinted at a female VP. Trump is going to win the election if that happens.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50479285]Hillary just hinted at a female VP. Trump is going to win the election if that happens.[/QUOTE] Not If the female VP is Progressive, *wink* *wink*

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50479318]Not If the female VP is Progressive, *wink* *wink*[/QUOTE] If Hillary picks Elizabeth Warren, I'd vote for her and pray for another stroke. That's a terrible thing to say, but that's pretty much the only way I'd see myself voting for her.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50479285]Hillary just hinted at a female VP. Trump is going to win the election if that happens.[/QUOTE] Why would a female VP suddenly win Trump the election? Because it isn't a man in that spot?

[QUOTE=Kybalt;50479365]If Hillary picks Elizabeth Warren, I'd vote for her and pray for another stroke. That's a terrible thing to say, but that's pretty much the only way I'd see myself voting for her.[/QUOTE] isn't there other woman vp choices that are progressive?

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50479370]Why would a female VP suddenly win Trump the election? Because it isn't a man in that spot?[/QUOTE] Hillary has gotten less of the white male vote then previous candidates. Blame it on racism/sexism/whatever, they're the majority (afaik).

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50479397]isn't there other woman vp choices that are progressive?[/QUOTE] I really doubt Hillary will pick a women as her VP.

Lesbian power couple yo. My team did it in a mock campaign back in college. We won in a landslide. Ah, the liberal arts... Don't knock it till you try it is all I'm saying

[QUOTE=Kybalt;50479365]If Hillary picks Elizabeth Warren, I'd vote for her and pray for another stroke. That's a terrible thing to say, but that's pretty much the only way I'd see myself voting for her.[/QUOTE] This is just as stupid as when I heard people say they want McCain to win so he can die of old age or a heart attack and then we'd have the first woman president McCain lost but he's alive too [editline]8th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ZachPL;50479508]I really doubt Hillary will pick a women as her VP.[/QUOTE] It sounds like Bill might as well be VP, she's already announced he's doing the work for her iirc Economy and something else

[QUOTE=Kybalt;50479405]Hillary has gotten less of the white male vote then previous candidates. Blame it on racism/sexism/whatever, they're the majority (afaik).[/QUOTE] Same thing was said about Obama but look at us 8 years later.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50478989]How do they specifically target Sanders supporters? As far as I can tell there were general fuckups in the organisation of the primaries. However none of these fuckups were intentional and none had an ability to specifically target Sanders supporters. I am happy to be proved wrong though since I've mostly rolled by eyes as all of these complaints have come through because of how insanely conspiratorial Sanders supporters often are.[/QUOTE] There is of course no evidence of deliberate suppression of Sanders' voters but that's largely irrelevant because they don't need to target them. A populist like Bernie requires high enthusiasm and high voter turnout (especially among millennials who normally have the lowest turnout) in order to beat a frontrunner like Clinton. The less people voting, the better Hillary does which is why she dominated closed primaries. Any "general fuckups" are going to invariably hurt Sanders more than Hillary. Again, there is no concrete evidence of an intentional conspiracy but there were quite a few suspicious fuckups. In the long run would Sanders still have lost anyways? Probably. But there should be an investigation to determine whether there really was any malicious wrongdoing.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50479683]Same thing was said about Obama but look at us 8 years later.[/QUOTE] Not similar, and the racism stuff talked about was him being shot for being black

[QUOTE=Kybalt;50479365]If Hillary picks Elizabeth Warren, I'd vote for her and pray for another stroke. That's a terrible thing to say, but that's pretty much the only way I'd see myself voting for her.[/QUOTE] If Hillary picks Warren I might actually be optimistic about this election for a change.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;50479715]There is of course no evidence of deliberate suppression of Sanders' voters but that's largely irrelevant because they don't need to target them. A populist like Bernie requires high enthusiasm and high voter turnout (especially among millennials who normally have the lowest turnout) in order to beat a frontrunner like Clinton. The less people voting, the better Hillary does which is why she dominated closed primaries. Any "general fuckups" are going to invariably hurt Sanders more than Hillary. Again, there is no concrete evidence of an intentional conspiracy but there were quite a few suspicious fuckups. In the long run would Sanders still have lost anyways? Probably. But there should be an investigation to determine whether there really was any malicious wrongdoing.[/QUOTE] She won more open primaries as well.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;50475484]The face of someone who will sell america out to big corporations i'm glad im moving to canada honestly[/QUOTE] i dont think you realize exactly how retarded you sound when you say this hillary clinton and barack obama have the same views, hillary clinton is not a corporate shill. shes going to raise the corporate tax rate just like bernie would, and shes going to raise taxes on the rich just like bernie would. your zealous support of bernie has blinded you to the fact that clinton is just as much of a socialist

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50479370]Why would a female VP suddenly win Trump the election? Because it isn't a man in that spot?[/QUOTE] not that she would loose the election, but it wouldn't make her that much more palatable.

[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50480184]i dont think you realize exactly how retarded you sound when you say this hillary clinton and barack obama have the same views, hillary clinton is not a corporate shill. shes going to raise the corporate tax rate just like bernie would, and shes going to raise taxes on the rich just like bernie would. your zealous support of bernie has blinded you to the fact that clinton is just as much of a socialist[/QUOTE] If Hillary wasn't a corporate shill then why did she have large-donations-only speeches that she parked sonic devices around so that none of the media could hear what she was saying?

[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50480184]i dont think you realize exactly how retarded you sound when you say this hillary clinton and barack obama have the same views, hillary clinton is not a corporate shill. shes going to raise the corporate tax rate just like bernie would, and shes going to raise taxes on the rich just like bernie would. your zealous support of bernie has blinded you to the fact that clinton is just as much of a socialist[/QUOTE] you honestly don't even know what the word socialist even means so no one should listen to your high brow analysis of the situation

[QUOTE=mr kjerr;50480184]i dont think you realize exactly how retarded you sound when you say this hillary clinton and barack obama have the same views, hillary clinton is not a corporate shill. shes going to raise the corporate tax rate just like bernie would, and shes going to raise taxes on the rich just like bernie would. your zealous support of bernie has blinded you to the fact that clinton is just as much of a socialist[/QUOTE] And if you haven't noticed, she has consistently lied about her platform when she didn't even share Bernie's platform before he came to popularity and she completely did a 180 on her stances in order to get votes. She also has a consistent track record of lying about how she has "always been for campaign finance reform", even though she is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speaking fees to big corporations like Goldman-Sachs. Along with this, she is also anti-consumer when she supports the TPP (then conveniently began to oppose it after a debate with Sanders). Clinton is a lying, corporate shill and I will only vote for her if I absolutely MUST in order to prevent a Trump presidency. [editline]8th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=phygon;50480249]If Hillary wasn't a corporate shill then why did she have large-donations-only speeches that she parked sonic devices around so that none of the media could hear what she was saying?[/QUOTE] This too.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50479318]Not If the female VP is Progressive, *wink* *wink*[/QUOTE] Not happening. And Hillary won't go for a female pick, she has to choose a Latino if she wants to get the most mileage from the decision.

Clinton was ostensibly for TPP/free trade in general but wasn't hawking it as much as people believe she was. I think Isak made a pretty good post about it before. Also the majority of her positions she held for years, decades even, before this election. It's inaccurate to say that she "took" all of Sanders positions and I don't see the conspiracy that she gets into office and becomes a conservative Republican as holding much water.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50480325]Clinton was ostensibly for TPP/free trade in general but wasn't hawking it as much as people believe she was. I think Isak made a pretty good post about it before. Also the majority of her positions she held for years, decades even, before this election. It's inaccurate to say that she "took" all of Sanders positions and I don't see the conspiracy that she gets into office and becomes a conservative Republican as holding much water.[/QUOTE] The whole thing about her position on it not being subject to a FOIA request really makes me question your view on this so strongly.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50481014]The whole thing about her position on it not being subject to a FOIA request really makes me question your view on this so strongly.[/QUOTE] I have neither the time nor the interest in going up to bat for Clinton regarding her stance on free trade so I'll walk that one back and maintain the main thrust of my post: that she held most of Sanders positions (excepting TPP, campaign finance reform) well before this election and it's inaccurate to say otherwise, and I find it incredibly unlikely that she will start fighting for more gun rights, banning abortion and fighting climate change legislation if she got in the office.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50481079]I have neither the time nor the interest in going up to bat for Clinton regarding her stance on free trade so I'll walk that one back and maintain the main thrust of my post: that she held most of Sanders positions (excepting TPP, campaign finance reform) well before this election and it's inaccurate to say otherwise, and I find it incredibly unlikely that she will start fighting for more gun rights, banning abortion and fighting climate change legislation if she got in the office.[/QUOTE] Oh on all that, I agree. I just have a very uncomfortable suspicion of what her stances will be on the TPP and reform, TPP especially so.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50481079]I have neither the time nor the interest in going up to bat for Clinton regarding her stance on free trade so I'll walk that one back and maintain the main thrust of my post: that she held most of Sanders positions (excepting TPP, campaign finance reform) well before this election and it's inaccurate to say otherwise, and I find it incredibly unlikely that she will start fighting for more gun rights, banning abortion and fighting climate change legislation if she got in the office.[/QUOTE] its in degrees though. Sanders calls for a no-bullshit straight up single payer system, clinton says that we should work our way to one over time. the ACA proved without a shadow of a doubt that any healthcare reform will be nuked by the republicans and anything short of single payer will not work. Sanders says we should fully impliment dod frank now and restore older banking protections, clinton says the current implementation plan is on track (even though its been almost 10 years since the bill was passed and banks STILL fail the checks). Sanders says that too big to fail shouldn't exist, clinton says that too big to fail is somehow not too big and dod-frank will prevent failure ya she holds left positions but she's always added an * to everything. like on the TPP, i am almost certain if the senate doesn't ratify it before january, she will call for implimenting it and fixing it later. Obama has even started walking back his statements on it. In his recent speech, he said that maybe the benefits have been oversold in the past

[QUOTE=Kybalt;50479405]Hillary has gotten less of the white male vote then previous candidates. Blame it on racism/sexism/whatever, they're the majority (afaik).[/QUOTE] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_gender_gap_in_the_United_States#History]Most voters are women[/url]

[QUOTE=Sableye;50481378] ya she holds left positions but she's always added an * to everything. like on the TPP, i am almost certain if the senate doesn't ratify it before january, she will call for implimenting it and fixing it later. Obama has even started walking back his statements on it. In his recent speech, he said that maybe the benefits have been oversold in the past[/QUOTE] No, she is not going to implement the TPP in her fucking first year. Obama walked back after it was found out the effect on the U.S. Economy was negligible at best.