Clinton to take on Citizens United ruling, hopes to pass Constitutional amendment to end it - Polidicks

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50724100]Like this doesn't seem like a radical opinion, it's one I share, but why does it generate such hostility to think a politician will act as a politician?[/QUOTE] Because for the first time in a long time there was a good, honest candidate running against her who got attention just because he had real values. And then she slayed him. That's part of the reason. A lot of Americans want a leader, not a politician who slimes their way to the top and maintains status quo.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50724090]Hillary has loads of flaws. She has a long history of flaws. I'm not denying that. It's just weird to say "well she's lied before" and then point at one of her single most consistent platform policies. It doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE] How is she consistent on Citizens United? She wants to overturn the ruling, but is using Super PAC money to finance her election. Once the general starts, she'll need even more. So she's just going to do the right thing when she's in office? [editline]16th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50724116]They why the fuck go to such an extreme as to push for a constitutional amendment and not just some regular law? Amendments are pretty big fucking deal and really incredibly to push through.[/QUOTE] You don't think she wants to win over as many Sanders supporters at the convention as possible? The amendment was a big campaign promise of his. You think that she's telling the truth because "it's a really big promise"?

[QUOTE=rilez;50724128] You don't think she wants to win over as many Sanders supporters at the convention as possible? The amendment was a big campaign promise of his. You think that she's telling the truth because "it's a really big promise"?[/QUOTE] ~70% of Bernie supporters are swinging to Clinton already, the rest are in the wind over Trump or third party candidates or simply not voting.

that's a pretty interesting source you've got there [editline]17th July 2016[/editline] did you sample from your circle of friends?

[QUOTE=Laferio;50724160]that's a pretty interesting source you've got there [editline]17th July 2016[/editline] did you sample from your circle of friends?[/QUOTE] Literally Nationwide Polls.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50724154]~70% of Bernie supporters are swinging to Clinton already, the rest are in the wind over Trump or third party candidates or simply not voting.[/QUOTE] Okay, so assuming your made up percentages are correct, 30% of Bernie supporters could potentially swing their vote. Sanders received over 12 million votes in the primary. Which, according to your number, means approximately 3.5 million people could be convinced to vote for Clinton. That's a lot of votes. For comparison sake, Obama won ~5 million more votes than Romney in 2012. For a candidate with record low unfavorable ratings, I would want as many votes as possible. Those votes might swing a close election. This is an easy opportunity for her to make a few promises, to pick up some votes going into the general. If you really honestly don't believe a politician's primary goal is to get as many votes as possible, then I don't know what to tell you.

[QUOTE=rilez;50724195]Okay, so assuming your made up percentages are correct, 30% of Bernie supporters could potentially swing their vote. Sanders received over 12 million votes in the primary. Which, according to your number, means approximately 3.5 million people could be convinced to vote for Clinton. That's a lot of votes. For comparison sake, Obama won ~5 million more votes than Romney in 2012. For a candidate with record low unfavorable ratings, I would want as many votes as possible. Those votes might swing a close election. This is an easy opportunity for her to make a few promises, to pick up some votes going into the general. If you really honestly don't believe a politician's primary goal is to get as many votes as possible, then I don't know what to tell you.[/QUOTE] She's extremely comfortable in the polls right now, but her mantra is "always act like your two points behind" Also something Donald Trump doesn't think so.

[QUOTE=rilez;50724128]How is she consistent on Citizens United? She wants to overturn the ruling, but is using Super PAC money to finance her election. Once the general starts, she'll need even more. So she's just going to do the right thing when she's in office?[/QUOTE] Quite possibly, yes. At least assuming she's operating on consequentialist ethics, where the ends absolutely can and do justify the means. Since virtue ethics went out of style two thousand years ago and deontology is more of a conservative thing, it's a fair assumption. Consider the hypothetical candidate who is 100% in favor of destroying Citizens United. If they do NOT use Super PACs, they are at a substantial disadvantage in the election. To achieve their goal, the optimal move is to utilize Super PACs until elected, outside a few edge cases where the PR benefit of avoiding them outweighs the substantial fundraising hit. Once elected, they can eliminate it for future elections - succeeding in their goals. Now, it is also the case that a hypothetical candidate who is 100% in favor of protecting Citizens United could benefit from taking a public position against it, and then do nothing against it when elected, as long as that is a popular position and they aren't worried about it biting them when they come up for re-election. However, Hillary seems extremely likely to be already planning for re-election, and given how big of an issue this is, voters are unlikely to forget about it if she betrays the position. Therefore, this announcement does favor the she's-actually-against-CU probability over the she's-just-faking-it probability, and the more she repeats this, particularly with concrete promises, the stronger the evidence becomes.

[QUOTE=rilez;50724195]Okay, so assuming your made up percentages are correct, 30% of Bernie supporters could potentially swing their vote. Sanders received over 12 million votes in the primary. Which, according to your number, means approximately 3.5 million people could be convinced to vote for Clinton. That's a lot of votes. For comparison sake, Obama won ~5 million more votes than Romney in 2012. For a candidate with record low unfavorable ratings, I would want as many votes as possible. Those votes might swing a close election. This is an easy opportunity for her to make a few promises, to pick up some votes going into the general. If you really honestly don't believe a politician's primary goal is to get as many votes as possible, then I don't know what to tell you.[/QUOTE] But this [I]isn't[/I] a close election. Polls are suggesting that Hillary is dominating over Trump. This isn't a 2000 in the slightest. In 2000, one of the narrowest popular vote margins in history, the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections#United_States_presidential_election.2C_2000"]polls[/URL] were showing around 45%-55%. This election it's something like 75%-25% using 538's even more accurate polling numbers. I mean, shit, even in 2008 it was averaging 55%-45% and Obama won with almost 60% of the popular vote. It's not close [I]at all[/I]. Hillary has to try hard to lose the race - even harder than Trump already is.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50724255]This election it's something like 75%-25% using 538's even more accurate polling numbers..[/QUOTE] Uh, 538 is currently polling less than a 4% margin of victory. About equal to 2012. That is why I used 2012 as a point of reference. There's no reason for her to relax going into the convention.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50724255]But this [I]isn't[/I] a close election. Polls are suggesting that Hillary is dominating over Trump. This isn't a 2000 in the slightest. In 2000, one of the narrowest popular vote margins in history, the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections#United_States_presidential_election.2C_2000"]polls[/URL] were showing around 45%-55%. This election it's something like 75%-25% using 538's even more accurate polling numbers. I mean, shit, even in 2008 it was averaging 55%-45% and Obama won with almost 60% of the popular vote. It's not close [I]at all[/I]. Hillary has to try hard to lose the race - even harder than Trump already is.[/QUOTE] And Donald is apparently not even trying.

[QUOTE=rilez;50724300]Uh, 538 is currently polling less than a 4% margin of victory. About equal to 2012. That is why I used 2012 as a point of reference. There's no reason for her to relax going into the convention.[/QUOTE] Ah, sorry, you're right, I misread the 538 predictions. 4% is much tighter than I thought it was, and much worse than the ~7.25% of 2008 with Obama. I'm sure she's pandering for votes in many ways, but I have next to no reason to believe that she won't actually step forward in doing this. She said she was "open" to the same thing two years ago, before the campaigns even began, so it doesn't strike me as a huge surprise.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50724322]Ah, sorry, you're right, I misread the 538 predictions. 4% is much tighter than I thought it was, and much worse than the ~7.25% of 2008 with Obama. I'm sure she's pandering for votes in many ways, but I have next to no reason to believe that she won't actually step forward in doing this. She said she was "open" to the same thing two years ago, before the campaigns even began, so it doesn't strike me as a huge surprise.[/QUOTE] You are more optimistic than me. Don't get me wrong. I want her to stay true to her word. In my view, this is the one of the most important problems facing our government. Unfortunately, I just don't trust her. She's used the system to her benefit. If she's elected and proves me wrong, I'll eat crow.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50724041]This is bullshit. The public doesn't have short term memories. Why? Because all politicians refuse to let the people forget about the errors and mistakes of their opponents. She cannot just say she'll go after this and NOT expect Trump or whomever runs against her in 2020 to not bring this up.[/QUOTE]So? Like I said, if she "tries" and "fails" and then shrugs her shoulders and goes "hey I tried!" nobody can honestly claim that she didn't do what she said she was going to do. (I believe Berlusconi was famous for this, I might be wrong though) All there has to be is an attempt and a failure and she will simultaneously shut up her detractors for five minutes, lived up to a campaign promise, and put in some good will with on the fence voters. [QUOTE=.Isak.;50724048]The public definitely does have short-term memory loss, because they've already forgotten that Hillary was the more liberal candidate than Obama in 2008 and that she shared 93% of her Senate votes with Sanders.[/QUOTE]Huh? No I believe that's often brought up, and I said plainly that this is the one way how things remain in public consciousness. Hillary supporters are doing a lot of comparing to Bernie recently now that he's dropped out, gotta get those Bernie supporters "back on the team" now that you're done calling them pot-smoking retards. [QUOTE]The mass amnesia that made America suddenly hate Clinton following the engineered-to-hurt-poll-numbers Benghazi investigations is hilarious.[/QUOTE]Oh you mean the "sudden" hate Republicans, centrists, and some independents have had since the Benghazi fiasco happened? Yeah, so very sudden. No, you're only aware of it because your Democrat peers have suddenly been paying attention to it. This isn't new at all. [QUOTE]The entire "Hillary Clinton is a corporate slave who shot people in Benghazi" shit has been around for about a year.[/QUOTE]Uh. Really? It's only been around for a year? Holy Hanna it's ironic that you were just talking about short memory because [url=http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/08/hillary-clintons-record-of-failure-as-secretary-of-state/]criticism[/url] of her handling of [url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/clinton-denies-delay-in-benghazi-response-despite-accounts.html]Benghazi[/url] has been around [url=http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/16/what-really-happened-in-benghazi.html]for years.[/url] Oh, and even back then people were [url=http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/31/new-york-times-benghazi-article-shameless-bid-to-send-hillary-to-white-house-in.html]alleging conspiracy[/url] regarding the Clinton family. Even further back, Hillary Clinton has had a reputation and Meryl Streep (longtime Hillary supporter in all her endeavors) has had to [url=http://www.tvguide.com/news/meryl-streep-manchurian-36158/]specifically[/url] [url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2004/jul/21/news]deny[/url] that her slimy, awful character in the Manchurian Candidate was based on the woman. I mean there's shilling for Clinton but come on, denying that people have hated both her and her husband for decades now is fucking ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Saxon;50723988]She's going to have to run again in 4 years if she wins, not keeping this would backfire pretty tremendously.[/QUOTE] not keeping a single promise worked pretty well for obama though

[QUOTE=butre;50724430]not keeping a single promise worked pretty well for obama though[/QUOTE] You must be posting from that other universe I keep hearing about because he kept the majority of them

[QUOTE=sb27;50723863]Yeah. That's some real damn optimism there. Hillary just can't do anything right for some of you can she.[/QUOTE] You act as though lacking immediate trust for a proven liar somehow makes him stupid. If anything I'm more interested as to how you so passionately believe in anything she says about campaign finance reform when she is notorious for being funded by private parties with an interest in keeping Citizens United in place.

I'll believe it when you actually do it, you lying sack of corporatist corrupt bullshit.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50724428]So? Like I said, if she "tries" and "fails" and then shrugs her shoulders and goes "hey I tried!" nobody can honestly claim that she didn't do what she said she was going to do. (I believe Berlusconi was famous for this, I might be wrong though) All there has to be is an attempt and a failure and she will simultaneously shut up her detractors for five minutes, lived up to a campaign promise, and put in some good will with on the fence voters. Huh? No I believe that's often brought up, and I said plainly that this is the one way how things remain in public consciousness. Hillary supporters are doing a lot of comparing to Bernie recently now that he's dropped out, gotta get those Bernie supporters "back on the team" now that you're done calling them pot-smoking retards. Oh you mean the "sudden" hate Republicans, centrists, and some independents have had since the Benghazi fiasco happened? Yeah, so very sudden. No, you're only aware of it because your Democrat peers have suddenly been paying attention to it. This isn't new at all. Uh. Really? It's only been around for a year? Holy Hanna it's ironic that you were just talking about short memory because [url=http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/08/hillary-clintons-record-of-failure-as-secretary-of-state/]criticism[/url] of her handling of [url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/clinton-denies-delay-in-benghazi-response-despite-accounts.html]Benghazi[/url] has been around [url=http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/16/what-really-happened-in-benghazi.html]for years.[/url] Oh, and even back then people were [url=http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/31/new-york-times-benghazi-article-shameless-bid-to-send-hillary-to-white-house-in.html]alleging conspiracy[/url] regarding the Clinton family. Even further back, Hillary Clinton has had a reputation and Meryl Streep (longtime Hillary supporter in all her endeavors) has had to [url=http://www.tvguide.com/news/meryl-streep-manchurian-36158/]specifically[/url] [url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2004/jul/21/news]deny[/url] that her slimy, awful character in the Manchurian Candidate was based on the woman. I mean there's shilling for Clinton but come on, denying that people have hated both her and her husband for decades now is fucking ridiculous.[/QUOTE] People have hated the Clintons for decades - but previously those people were typically right-wing. The left-wing distaste for Clinton is incredibly new - the fact that Hillary's fielding attacks from her left and her right is unusual, especially over the same exact topics, when she was a pretty solidly liberal senator not that long ago. It's also undeniable that she consistently held decent-to-high favorable ratings throughout her career, and that she only crossed from mostly favorable to mostly unfavorable a year ago. I must've phrased something wrong, or you interpreted it wrong - the conspiracies have existed for decades, but they're new to the [i]left[/i] rather than the right, and they've only hit Hillary hard in the last year or two. My entire point was that these rabid criticisms of Hillary [I]are[/I] new to the left, and you're criticizing me for saying... they're new to the left and they'd existed in the right before? That was my point. Stop seeking ways to poke holes in my posts unless you actually understand what I'm saying. And as a reminder, as I've said about 100 times on this forum, I am and have been a Bernie supporter first and foremost. I'm not "Team Hillary" pulling Bernie supporters over, I'm "Team Bernie" who's trusting Bernie's judgment in endorsing Hillary and trying to convince people the blatantly correct [i]fact[/i] that Hillary is the best realistic currently-running representative for 95% of Bernie's policy issues. I'm not even a registered Democrat, and I don't identify as one.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50724541]People have hated the Clintons for decades - but previously those people were typically right-wing. The left-wing distaste for Clinton is incredibly new - the fact that Hillary's fielding attacks from her left and her right is unusual, especially over the same exact topics, when she was a pretty solidly liberal senator not that long ago.[/QUOTE]No, I recall people, Democrats, saying she was corrupt and evil back in 2008 and the only reason why I remember this is I wasn't sure I believed much of it then. [QUOTE]It's also undeniable that she consistently held decent-to-high favorable ratings throughout her career, and that she only crossed from mostly favorable to mostly unfavorable a year ago. I must've phrased something wrong, or you interpreted it wrong - the conspiracies have existed for decades, but they're new to the [i]left[/i] rather than the right, and they've only hit Hillary hard in the last year or two. My entire point was that these rabid criticisms of Hillary [I]are[/I] new to the left, and you're criticizing me for saying... they're new to the left and they'd existed in the right before? That was my point. Stop seeking ways to poke holes in my posts unless you actually understand what I'm saying.[/QUOTE]You did phrase something wrong because I interpreted it as [U]all[/U] criticism regarding Clinton's handling of Benghazi and being owned by corporate interests is a relatively new phenomena. I only poke holes in your post if I see that something doesn't add up, the way you've worded it and the way I read it might not have matched up with your intent. Even so I seem to have accidentally uncovered your original point anyway, so perhaps next time we can avoid such misunderstandings. [QUOTE]And as a reminder, as I've said about 100 times on this forum, I am and have been a Bernie supporter first and foremost.[/QUOTE]Fair enough, but, [QUOTE]I'm not "Team Hillary" pulling Bernie supporters over,[/QUOTE]I'm not going to dig up your old posts in other threads because I consider that in poor form, but when you were trying to convince me that voting third party was flat-out wrong you were doing just that. This was well before the race between Bernie and Hillary was over, you said plainly that he didn't have what it took to win and I found such a statement incredulous because of the absurd amount of drama regarding the DNC and "missing" ballots and other similar controversies. Rather than arguing with you (too hard) over it I decided to write you off as some Hillarite who drank the kool-aid; if you're a Bernie supporter you've done a piss-poor job of demonstrating any recognizable support. [QUOTE]I'm "Team Bernie" who's trusting Bernie's judgment in endorsing Hillary and trying to convince people the blatantly correct [i]fact[/i] that Hillary is the best realistic currently-running representative for 95% of Bernie's policy issues. I'm not even a registered Democrat, and I don't identify as one.[/QUOTE]Just to reiterate: this all happened [U]well[/U] before Bernie firmly lost, I don't mean to say you're full of shit but I do think you're mixing up how you felt then and how you feel now. I can understand you supporting Bernie's endorsement and voting based off of that, but I can't recall you ever saying Bernie was your original choice.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50724712]No, I recall people, Democrats, saying she was corrupt and evil back in 2008 and the only reason why I remember this is I wasn't sure I believed much of it then. You did phrase something wrong because I interpreted it as [U]all[/U] criticism regarding Clinton's handling of Benghazi and being owned by corporate interests is a relatively new phenomena. I only poke holes in your post if I see that something doesn't add up, the way you've worded it and the way I read it might not have matched up with your intent. Even so I seem to have accidentally uncovered your original point anyway, so perhaps next time we can avoid such misunderstandings. Fair enough, but, I'm not going to dig up your old posts in other threads because I consider that in poor form, but when you were trying to convince me that voting third party was flat-out wrong you were doing just that. This was well before the race between Bernie and Hillary was over, you said plainly that he didn't have what it took to win and I found such a statement incredulous because of the absurd amount of drama regarding the DNC and "missing" ballots and other similar controversies. Rather than arguing with you (too hard) over it I decided to write you off as some Hillarite who drank the kool-aid; if you're a Bernie supporter you've done a piss-poor job of demonstrating any recognizable support. Just to reiterate: this all happened [U]well[/U] before Bernie firmly lost, I don't mean to say you're full of shit but I do think you're mixing up how you felt then and how you feel now. I can understand you supporting Bernie's endorsement and voting based off of that, but I can't recall you ever saying Bernie was your original choice.[/QUOTE] There's always been criticisms of Hillary, and her favorable ratings did dip to 48% in 2008, but immediately bounced back to 66% during her time as Secretary of State. People hate her in election years, but two thirds of Americans like her when she's not running for president. It's reactionary. Throughout her career, she's largely been rated favorably by well over half of Americans. She has consistently had higher favorable ratings than Obama throughout his presidency - where Obama spent all of 2014 with higher unfavorable ratings than favorable, Hillary's never spent more than a few months with lower than 50% favorable ratings. Historically, people dislike her for a minute and don't mind her the next. There's nothing "wrong" with voting third party. Ineffective? Yes. Pointless? Yes. Wrong? Nah. I've explained my reasoning behind it many times before - I'm not trying to devalue your right to vote for whichever party you prefer, I'm just trying to explain why we have an unavoidable de facto two-party system and why voting third-party or "out of the system" won't do [I]anything[/I] to solve it, while acting within the party (like Bernie is) could possibly lead to changes. I had full support for Bernie until such a point as it was mathematically impossible for him to win. I've [I]repeatedly[/I] explained that I campaigned for him in real life, to the point that I was involved in a successful campaign to petition the state democratic party to open a polling location at my college. I'm still distantly involved with some down-ballot campaigning, but that's more difficult now that I'm halfway across the country from my campaigning group. Once it was obvious he was going to lose, I then compromised and started more openly supporting the candidate who I knew he'd endorse down the line and who shared the majority of his policies and views. He lost. He endorsed her. What a shocker. Now I'm doing what I can to support his down-ballot "berniecrat" efforts on my own time, and trying to make functionally braindead people who get their political opinions exclusively from reddit understand [I]why[/I] Bernie chose to endorse Hillary and work with the DNC rather than shit all over the entire election and give Trump a blowjob, plus [I]how[/I] his efforts are fundamentally influencing the DNC and pushing it left. Hillary probably wouldn't have felt any need to even mention Citizens United until Bernie brought it up - and now she's pledging a constitutional amendment over it. Even if she's opposed it all along, which she has, Bernie's influence has made it a major talking point this election.

Not to mention the obvious fact that opportunities to go up to bat for Bernie are pretty thin on FP where he doesn't see too much criticism where as we have 9 Hillary threads a week posting the latest headlines from pol and r/s4p.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50724820]Not to mention the obvious fact that opportunities to go up to bat for Bernie are pretty thin on FP where he doesn't see too much criticism where as we have 9 Hillary threads a week posting the latest headlines from pol and r/s4p.[/QUOTE] Ever think that maybe, just maybe, if Bernie had won there would be 9 Bernie threads and no one would talk about Clinton anymore? Winning the nomination is pretty newsworthy.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50723846]Vast majority of campaign promises in US are kept statistically[/QUOTE] What, the ones where the president vows to never raid the soda machine with plug nickels? Or is it all those 'lower taxes for the middle class' promises that are kept on a technical level by reducing them by one or two cents only for Congress to jack them right back up again? I've seen a lot of blustering from our presidents that should effect change in my daily life. I've seen none of that change. Here's a big one: Obama promised us a good healthcare solution. What we got was little more than federally supplied health insurance that we're forced, by law, to buy if we don't have it through our employer or an approved third party company.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50724840]Ever think that maybe, just maybe, if Bernie had won there would be 9 Bernie threads and no one would talk about Clinton anymore? Winning the nomination is pretty newsworthy.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about the whole election cycle, atleast as far back as last October. It's a counter to JumpinJackFlash's point about not showing enough support for Bernie. It's that there genuinely hasn't been many opportunities or necessity to support him because he generally has a good reputation in SH and those that do disagree with his policies are few and far between. It leads to these scenarios where someone like me has far more posts arguing in favor of Clinton than Sanders when in reality I voted for Sanders during my states primary and see Clinton as the only viable pick to Trump and not actually a preferred candidate. [editline]17th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;50724952]What, the ones where the president vows to never raid the soda machine with plug nickels? Or is it all those 'lower taxes for the middle class' promises that are kept on a technical level by reducing them by one or two cents only for Congress to jack them right back up again? I've seen a lot of blustering from our presidents that should effect change in my daily life. I've seen none of that change. Here's a big one: Obama promised us a good healthcare solution. What we got was little more than federally supplied health insurance that we're forced, by law, to buy if we don't have it through our employer or an approved third party company.[/QUOTE] At least we know Trump will be able to deliver on his promises, especially healthcare, right :v:?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50724820]Not to mention the obvious fact that opportunities to go up to bat for Bernie are pretty thin on FP where he doesn't see too much criticism where as we have 9 Hillary threads a week posting the latest headlines from pol and r/s4p.[/QUOTE] Hm.. You're telling me that people seem to unanimously hate one candidate instead of the other? Wonder why that could be, it's almost as if one of the candidates is a bad person?

[QUOTE=rilez;50724350]You are more optimistic than me. Don't get me wrong. I want her to stay true to her word. In my view, this is the one of the most important problems facing our government. Unfortunately, I just don't trust her. She's used the system to her benefit. If she's elected and proves me wrong, I'll eat crow.[/QUOTE] A mod :toxx:? Please, if you do lose, just eat a duck or something. Preferably a mallard, because they're bastards. And i do hope that hrc does keep to her word about this. Less ways of what is basically bribery please.

[QUOTE=srobins;50725044]Hm.. You're telling me that people seem to unanimously hate one candidate instead of the other? Wonder why that could be, it's almost as if one of the candidates is a bad person?[/QUOTE] I don't really care about the 'why' I'm just trying to explain why someone who is (was) more supportive of Bernie in more actual, tangible ways (like campaigning or voting for him) might appear to be a Hillary supporter.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50724778]There's always been criticisms of Hillary, and her favorable ratings did dip to 48% in 2008, but immediately bounced back to 66% during her time as Secretary of State. People hate her in election years, but two thirds of Americans like her when she's not running for president. It's reactionary.[/QUOTE]I think this goes back to the short-term memory problem, that aside the people who universally hate her tend to focus on corruption. [QUOTE]Throughout her career, she's largely been rated favorably by well over half of Americans. She has consistently had higher favorable ratings than Obama throughout his presidency - where Obama spent all of 2014 with higher unfavorable ratings than favorable, Hillary's never spent more than a few months with lower than 50% favorable ratings. Historically, people dislike her for a minute and don't mind her the next.[/QUOTE]Ratings only poll a section of the population, it's just a microcosm that may or may not reflect the [I]actual[/I] feelings of society at large. Really it's the "what kind of person actually answers a phone survey" question, there will always be people who don't and a concern is are those people an important demographic missed simply because of the sampling method. I don't pay much attention to polls for that very reason, I'm not going to claim that she is or isn't popular or base any argument on her apparent popularity. Instead I'll focus on things I do know: some people don't like her, some people hate her, some people adore her, and some people simply don't care. [QUOTE]There's nothing "wrong" with voting third party. Ineffective? Yes. Pointless? Yes. Wrong? Nah. I've explained my reasoning behind it many times before - I'm not trying to devalue your right to vote for whichever party you prefer, I'm just trying to explain why we have an unavoidable de facto two-party system and why voting third-party or "out of the system" won't do [I]anything[/I] to solve it, while acting within the party (like Bernie is) could possibly lead to changes.[/QUOTE]I absolutely don't care what your intentions were, I was just trying to provide context. Please, don't focus on the inconsequential shit, I'd rather not discuss that thread here. [QUOTE]I had full support for Bernie until such a point as it was mathematically impossible for him to win.[/QUOTE]Fair enough, that makes sense. [QUOTE]I've [I]repeatedly[/I] explained that I campaigned for him in real life, to the point that I was involved in a successful campaign to petition the state democratic party to open a polling location at my college. I'm still distantly involved with some down-ballot campaigning, but that's more difficult now that I'm halfway across the country from my campaigning group. Once it was obvious he was going to lose, I then compromised and started more openly supporting the candidate who I knew he'd endorse down the line and who shared the majority of his policies and views.[/QUOTE]Isak, I don't know you. I'm not going to say that you did or didn't do these things, I'm not even going to question how much love you have for Bernie. I'm just letting you know that you really haven't shown it to the degree that I associate you mentally with being a Berniebot. I really don't care much about your political affiliations to be quite honest, just about your actions that I've personally seen; everything else is conjecture I have no idea about or desire to comment on. You don't need to prove anything to me, I wouldn't lose respect for you if you supposedly "jumped ship" and "changed teams" because I've done that before: I was a McCain supporter and then I switched to Obama. Then the next election I voted for Johnson.

this country can't really be dumb enough to elect trump right? this country can't be big enough idiots to elect hillary, right?