Bernie Sanders rally in Denver draws 5,000+ people. Biggest of any campaign so far. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48032655]I don't see why you guys think that. The democratic party is strong right now. No camps, no crazies. The entire party is behind her. I don't see why 1.) everyone here hates clinton and 2.) everyone here thinks everyone else hates clinton. Candidates I would take clinton over and why: 1. Jeb Bush - family is corporate slaves 2. Rand Paul - Crazy 3. Rick Santorum - Crazy 4. Marco Rubio - Typical Republican 5. Ben Carson - Crazy and Stupid 6. Chris Christie - Typical Republican 7. Ted Cruz - Crazy 8. Lindsay Graham - Crazy 9. Mike Huckabee - Crazy 10. Rick Perry - Crazy 11. Donald Trump - Stupid and Crazy 12. Scott Walker - Evil, Stupid, and Crazy In fact, there are only 3 real democratic candidates right now: Hillary, Sanders, and O'Malley. None of these people are crazy, and the democratic party is mostly united right now.[/QUOTE] I have no doubt in my mind that Clinton will win. I'm more interested in seeing who her VP will be.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;48032708]I have no doubt in my mind that Clinton will win. I'm more interested in seeing who her VP will be.[/QUOTE] Elizabeth Warren plz

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48032655] I don't see why 1.) everyone here hates clinton and 2.) everyone here thinks everyone else hates clinton.[/QUOTE] Honestly I could ask the same thing about you with the Republican party. You dismiss the entire party because of a handfull of crazies like Santorum, and honestly hes the only real crazy one. The rest are either corporate puppets or just have warped political views, and thats just the few bad apples you brought up. The rest of the party is just as "sane" as the rest of the democrat party is. [editline]23rd June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;48032708]I have no doubt in my mind that Clinton will win. I'm more interested in seeing who her VP will be.[/QUOTE] Thats hilariously optimistic. Even if you ignore the reasons that a lot of people don't Clinton in office, the Obama administration has been viewed as a flop in most Americans' eyes. Most won't want another Democrat in office.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48032655]I don't see why you guys think that. The democratic party is strong right now. No camps, no crazies. The entire party is behind her. I don't see why 1.) everyone here hates clinton and 2.) everyone here thinks everyone else hates clinton. Candidates I would take clinton over and why: 1. Jeb Bush - family is corporate slaves 2. Rand Paul - Crazy 3. Rick Santorum - Crazy 4. Marco Rubio - Typical Republican 5. Ben Carson - Crazy and Stupid 6. Chris Christie - Typical Republican 7. Ted Cruz - Crazy 8. Lindsay Graham - Crazy 9. Mike Huckabee - Crazy 10. Rick Perry - Crazy 11. Donald Trump - Stupid and Crazy 12. Scott Walker - Evil, Stupid, and Crazy In fact, there are only 3 real democratic candidates right now: Hillary, Sanders, and O'Malley. None of these people are crazy, and the democratic party is mostly united right now.[/QUOTE] Would be interesting that the Republicans are so certain that they'll win the White House that they lose due to stumbling all over each other trying to reach it themselves. Pretty sure you're missing a couple candidates, btw. I think there's like 16 or 17 GOP people running now. [editline]23rd June 2015[/editline] Also Chris Christie isn't running.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;48032770]Honestly I could ask the same thing about you with the Republican party. You dismiss the entire party because of a handfull of crazies like Santorum, and honestly hes the only real crazy one. The rest are either corporate puppets or just have warped political views, and thats just the few bad apples you brought up. The rest of the party is just as "sane" as the rest of the democrat party is.[/quote] All of the people I listed are either crazy or stupid. Talk about the rest of the party all you want, but all the candidates thus far are stupid, crazy, or evil. The democratic party? The only person whose political affiliations are in question is Clinton, but she's not stupid, and she's not crazy. [quote]Thats hilariously optimistic. Even if you ignore the reasons that a lot of people don't Clinton in office, the Obama administration has been viewed as a flop in most Americans' eyes. Most won't want another Democrat in office.[/QUOTE] The Obama administration has a 45% approval rating. Sure, that's less than half but it's nowhere near the previous republican administration's approval rating. I think if you take all the sane and intelligent voters in America, and take all the conservative ones from there, they'd look at the republican candidates and go "... fuck. We have no good candidates". Once again, I don't get why Facepunch hates Clinton, and I don't get why facepunch thinks everyone else hates Clinton

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48032790]Would be interesting that the Republicans are so certain that they'll win the White House that they lose due to stumbling all over each other trying to reach it themselves. Pretty sure you're missing a couple candidates, btw. I think there's like 16 or 17 GOP people running now. [editline]23rd June 2015[/editline] Also Chris Christie isn't running.[/QUOTE] I think this goes with the encampment part. I think the republican candidates are less concerned with getting a republican candidate in office as much as getting themselves in office, whereas the democrats want another democrat

Clinton is fairly corrupt. Not [I]extremely[/I] corrupt as you would expect an official in a 3rd world nation, but enough to leave a really bad taste in your mouth after saying her name.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48032874]Clinton is fairly corrupt. Not [I]extremely[/I] corrupt as you would expect an official in a 3rd world nation, but enough to leave a really bad taste in your mouth after saying her name.[/QUOTE] Why do you say she's corrupt?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48032566]I'm afraid Sanders will be the 2016 Ross Perot; taking votes away from the democratic candidate and leading to a republican victory. I'm fine with Clinton, I'm fine with Sanders, but I'm not fine with whatever the Republican party will conjure up.[/QUOTE] But he's running as a Democrat so that can't happen

[QUOTE=JerryK;48030081]they were all high weren't they [editline]22nd June 2015[/editline] they were all high [editline]22nd June 2015[/editline] i find it funny that the right's attacks on sanders consist mostly of making fun of his appearance guess they really just can't find anything intelligent to argue about[/QUOTE] an old white guy running for president? lmao it will never happen

[QUOTE=smurfy;48032908]But he's running as a Democrat so that can't happen[/QUOTE] It's early in the race thus far. He loses the nomination, he can still go third party (I think)

If clinton is the democratic candidate, I will have an extremely hard time voting

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48032944]It's early in the race thus far. He loses the nomination, he can still go third party (I think)[/QUOTE] That would be a great way to give the victory to the Republicans.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48032715]Elizabeth Warren plz[/QUOTE] No, we need her in the senate.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;48033646]No, we need her in the senate.[/QUOTE] She's perfectly allowed to run for president but remain in the senate if she loses. In fact, many candidates often run for both President and Senate and just concede to one or the other when one is lost.

Remember: Bush Sr. thought he had it in the bag when he was running against a lot of opponents while the Republican party was largely together, and he lost.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48032878]Why do you say she's corrupt?[/QUOTE] The Clintons have a history of being controversial, having shady business connections, and so on. They're typical politicians who put on a face and then make shady backroom deals. Here's one example: [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1469280&highlight=[/url]

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;48034593]Remember: Bush Sr. thought he had it in the bag when he was running against a lot of opponents while the Republican party was largely together, and he lost.[/QUOTE] There's a huge difference between 1992 and 2015. Bush Sr. was running off of a disappointing presidency, which was capstoned by him raises taxes after promising not to do so. People wanted something different, which Clinton provided. He presented himself as down to earth and had policies that were just different enough from Bush Sr. but still had wide appeal. Compare this to Bernie Sanders, who is a crusty old man who's policies appeal mainly to millenials in their 20s, who are about as reliable as a dimming lightbulb politically (see: Ron Paul and how well his online support translated into votes). If you think that Sanders will pull a Clinton, boy do you have a surprise coming to you!

Here are my thoughts: Bernie Sanders supporters are the kinds of people more likely to actively support their candidate, because they're the people who keep up with politics much more deeply than the kinds of people that wander into the polls once a year and vote for the main parties. Depending on primary turnout this year, he might actually have a shot. We'll see, but how many people vote in the primaries?

[QUOTE=woolio1;48036074]Here are my thoughts: Bernie Sanders supporters are the kinds of people more likely to actively support their candidate, because they're the people who keep up with politics much more deeply than the kinds of people that wander into the polls once a year and vote for the main parties. Depending on primary turnout this year, he might actually have a shot. We'll see, but how many people vote in the primaries?[/QUOTE] I will, and I am happy that my first vote will go to someone decent. I believe people do not have the right to complain about who the candidates are if they dont go vote themselves

Really, really sucks ass that this is going to boil down to Clinton vs Bush. The American public just doesn't give a fuck. And is too old to possibly give a fuck.

[QUOTE=Ziron;48036059]There's a huge difference between 1992 and 2015. Bush Sr. was running off of a disappointing presidency, which was capstoned by him raises taxes after promising not to do so. People wanted something different, which Clinton provided. He presented himself as down to earth and had policies that were just different enough from Bush Sr. but still had wide appeal. Compare this to Bernie Sanders, who is a crusty old man who's policies appeal mainly to millenials in their 20s, who are about as reliable as a dimming lightbulb politically (see: Ron Paul and how well his online support translated into votes). If you think that Sanders will pull a Clinton, boy do you have a surprise coming to you![/QUOTE] I thought his post was referring to Sanders?

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;48030224]Which is funny, since they worship Ronal Reagan, who was in the early stages of Alzheimer's when he left office.[/QUOTE] Which is funny because most of congress is old [editline]23rd June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;48032944]It's early in the race thus far. He loses the nomination, he can still go third party (I think)[/QUOTE] I would be really shocked if Clinton didn't tap him to be VP or something

[QUOTE=Ziron;48036059]There's a huge difference between 1992 and 2015. Bush Sr. was running off of a disappointing presidency, which was capstoned by him raises taxes after promising not to do so. People wanted something different, which Clinton provided. He presented himself as down to earth and had policies that were just different enough from Bush Sr. but still had wide appeal. Compare this to Bernie Sanders, who is a crusty old man who's policies appeal mainly to millenials in their 20s, who are about as reliable as a dimming lightbulb politically (see: Ron Paul and how well his online support translated into votes). If you think that Sanders will pull a Clinton, boy do you have a surprise coming to you![/QUOTE] The key difference here is that Sanders has more than online support, his campaign speeches have had incredible turnouts as well, which is a hell of a feat considering he was "Bernie who?" not too long ago. And "who's policies appeal mainly to millenials in their 20s, who are about as reliable as a dimming lightbulb politically"? You think old people who fall for the same song and dance every election year are any different?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48036367]I thought his post was referring to Sanders?[/QUOTE] My post was referring to the dems in general. There's only a few dems circling around while it seems every thursday there's a new republican candidate

[QUOTE=Ziron;48036059]There's a huge difference between 1992 and 2015. Bush Sr. was running off of a disappointing presidency, which was capstoned by him raises taxes after promising not to do so. People wanted something different, which Clinton provided. He presented himself as down to earth and had policies that were just different enough from Bush Sr. but still had wide appeal. Compare this to Bernie Sanders, who is a crusty old man who's policies appeal mainly to millenials in their 20s, who are about as reliable as a dimming lightbulb politically (see: Ron Paul and how well his online support translated into votes). If you think that Sanders will pull a Clinton, boy do you have a surprise coming to you![/QUOTE] And Hillary's policies appeal to practically no one, and the general public already knows that she's batshit insane, and is a massive cunt.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;48036806]And Hillary's policies appeal to practically no one, and the general public already knows that she's batshit insane, and is a massive cunt.[/QUOTE] I don't know about batshit insane or a cunt, but I will attest that I've not seen much of what she plans on doing once she's in office, which is yet another advantage Bernie has: He doesn't talk about himself, or other candidates, he talks about the issues that he's going to address if he makes it to office. On top of that, he's [B]CONSISTENT[/B] with the issues he discusses.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;48036806]And Hillary's policies appeal to practically no one, and the general public already knows that she's batshit insane, and is a massive cunt.[/QUOTE] How are Hillary's policies any different from most democrat's?

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;48036833]How are Hillary's policies any different from most democrat's?[/QUOTE] Might be referring to her old days when she campaigned against violent video games. Ah, the 90's...

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;48036833]How are Hillary's policies any different from most democrat's?[/QUOTE] She's borderline Republican. She focuses more on banks and big businesses, which is also where she gets her money. She doesn't give a fuck about the lower and middle classes. Bernie actually cares about the American people, and he's very outspoken about his goals. Hillary just keeps pretending to change her opinions to match the majority.