Bernie Sanders to vote for Hillary

[11Bravo]

Does it surprise you as well, that many of the republicans that Trump bashed over the head has stated that they would be voting for him too?

I think a LOT of people will be holding their nose and voting for Hillary. Not because they support her but more because a Trump victory would be about the worst thing that could happen to America, politically.

I disagree. I think Hillary would be the absolute worst. No doubt the Donald is bad, but ol Hilbag is one war monger we don't need. Trump would be a peace through strength guy, while Hillary continues to be a "gut the military, kill your country's leader, drone civilians, then run away" type of person.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Actually it's not; if it were a right wing country, Bernie and his ideas wouldn't poll nearly as well with independents and indeed significantly better than Hillary and Trump among the general populace.

Keep thinking we are not a right wing country. Feel secure in that.

The sad truth, though, is that WE ARE.

The problem is the campaign finance system which skews policy ever rightward, because the wealthy who preside over it have that self-serving bias, and naturally demand a system of taxes and legislation that favours them, even if it comes at the expense of everyone else.

Sounds to me as though you are saying, "We are not a right-wing country...and besides, the reason we are is because of the rich people.

You cannot have it both ways.

And the right hilariously called Obama a literal communist and socialist, so what the hell does their evidently wildly incorrect opinion matter? Hillary could only be considered left vis a vis a lunatic fringe on the right; the same lunatic fringe that would dub Obama as an honest to god Marxist.

Hillary could only be considered right-wing by someone with a problem being logical.

She is at the left side of our spectrum.

Look, let's be clear about this: Clinton is corrupt, and she's objectively right wing; I don't need the Republicans to tell me she's an inconsistent fraud, because her voting record and statements, donors, controversies and positions do all that talking for them. If you legitimately believe she's progressive, then the accusation that the conservatives are setting my clock becomes utterly ironic, as they're in fact setting yours; because you think that her relative leftism to their lunatic fringe qualifies her as one. If I vote for her, it will be in _spite_ of her, not because of her; solely because the alternative is so much worse. This is not good vs evil, this is bad vs worse, end of story.

Do whatever you want as far as voting is concerned. That is your right.

But if you are going to post in this forum with some of the nonsense you are spewing...I am going to challenge it. That is my right.

Okay?

First off, no, three 'almost certain' appointments is almost certainly an exaggeration, though yes, there will probably be appointments.

You really are in denial. Almost every objective observer of the situation is predicting THREE new justices. But whether it is TWO...or even ONE...my comment holds.

Second, there is nothing satisfying about electing a demonstrable Wall Street stooge, whether or not she appoints less objectionable Justices than Trump would. Again there is no reason to be happy or enthusiastic about supporting a lesser evil; it is a miserable affair done with utmost reluctance in the sorry acknowledgement that it's the least bad of two terrible options. That's not a cause for mirth.

Like I said...vote for whomever you want for whatever reasons you want. But if you are going to post in this forum with crap about Hillary Clinton being evil...I am going to challenge.

Understand?

Third, people don't really buy the idea of 'liberal' as a pejorative. Hell, 'socialist' is on its way out too. More dangerous in my view than failed right-wing attempts to poison the word is the far more successful campaign to associate it with people like Clinton who are not at all liberal.

You are living in a dream world. Enjoy it. Apparently it is all you have.

 

[Surrealistik]

Keep thinking we are not a right wing country. Feel secure in that.

The sad truth, though, is that WE ARE.

According to what? Top level policy? All the opinion polls tell a completely different story, so you'll need to source your arguments; the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion; show me some evidence and I might be willing to listen.

Sounds to me as though you are saying, "We are not a right-wing country...and besides, the reason we are is because of the rich people.

You cannot have it both ways.

Actually it sounds to me like the politicians are paid to ignore their constituents in favour of the rich which is demonstrably true: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Hillary could only be considered right-wing by someone with a problem being logical.

She is at the left side of our spectrum.

Even from an American perspective she's at best left of centre; objectively, i.e. from a global perspective, she is indeed right wing.

Do whatever you want as far as voting is concerned. That is your right.

But if you are going to post in this forum with some of the nonsense you are spewing...I am going to challenge it. That is my right.

Okay?

...Like I said...vote for whomever you want for whatever reasons you want. But if you are going to post in this forum with crap about Hillary Clinton being evil...I am going to challenge.

Understand?

Yes, you've made it abundantly clear that you're a Hillary shill.

You really are in denial. Almost every objective observer of the situation is predicting THREE new justices. But whether it is TWO...or even ONE...my comment holds.

Three justices are 'almost certain', emphasis on the 'almost certain', according to whom?

You are living in a dream world. Enjoy it. Apparently it is all you have.

Says the person who legitimately believes Clinton is an upstanding politician with his best interests in mind who is legitimately progressive. I suppose however, as one immersed in partisan delusion fulltime you're quite clearly an expert on the matter.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I see the "moderate" in your profile is Ironic.

I did not state my own policy preferences, I am just pointing that there is a huge difference between the parties, but not a big difference between candidates within the parties as to what policies they actually pursue.

 

[Frank Apisa]

According to what? Top level policy? All the opinion polls tell a completely different story, so you'll need to source your arguments; the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion; show me some evidence and I might be willing to listen.

You want "evidence." Go search it out. You do not really want evidence...you want to quibble.

Actually it sounds to me like the politicians are paid to ignore their constituents in favour of the rich which is demonstrably true: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Like I said, you seem to be saying, "We are not a right-wing country...and the reason we are, is that the rich are making us a right-wing country."

Although from your spelling...perhaps "we" is the wrong pronoun.

Even from an American perspective she's at best left of centre; objectively, i.e. from a global perspective, she is indeed right wing.

From a global perspective...our left-wing is, at best, moderate; our moderates are considered right-wing; our right-wing is considered off the charts.

Yes, you've made it abundantly clear that you're a Hillary shill.

If that is the way you see it...that is your right.

But if you spew your garbage here in DP...I intend to challenge it.

Three justices are 'almost certain', emphasis on the 'almost certain', according to whom?

Play that game if you want...but THREE seems to be the number most expect. But even if just TWO or ONE...the point made stands.

Says the person who legitimately believes Clinton is an upstanding politician with his best interests in mind who is legitimately progressive. I suppose however, as one immersed in partisan delusion fulltime you're quite clearly an expert on the matter.

SAYS ME!

If you want to think of me with all those pejoratives...that is your right.

Knock yourself out.

 

[Van Basten]

Bernie is not an idiot and he cares about the future.

He made the right choice.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Bernie is not an idiot and he cares about the future.

He made the right choice.

Amen, Van...AMEN!

 

[Howler63]

Try "Christmas goose" next time. At least that part of what you have to say will make sense.

Who the hell eats goose for Christmas?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Who the hell eats goose for Christmas?

Look it up.

 

[Howler63]

Look it up.

No need. Irrelevant.

 

[Frank Apisa]

No need. Irrelevant.

IF it is...one has to wonder why you asked.

 

[Surrealistik]

You want "evidence." Go search it out. You do not really want evidence...you want to quibble.

Actually, yes I would indeed like to see countervailing evidence that contradicts pretty much all the polling and data I've seen thus far.

Like I said, you seem to be saying, "We are not a right-wing country...and the reason we are, is that the rich are making us a right-wing country."

Although from your spelling...perhaps "we" is the wrong pronoun.

There is an obvious difference between a top down dictation in policy and political alignment, and the majority of the country's population being systemically biased towards the right.

From a global perspective...our left-wing is, at best, moderate; our moderates are considered right-wing; our right-wing is considered off the charts.

Yes, precisely; Clinton is objectively not progressive.

Play that game if you want...but THREE seems to be the number most expect. But even if just TWO or ONE...the point made stands.

Who is this nebulous 'most'?

 

[Howler63]

IF it is...one has to wonder why you asked.

Have you started in on the scotch already?

 

[AGENT J]

on multiple occasion i recall Sanders saying something like on Hillary's worst day she is 100 times better than trump, so this has ZERO shock value and was expected.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Actually, yes I would indeed like to see countervailing evidence that contradicts pretty much all the polling and data I've seen thus far.

I'll take your word that you actually want that.

So...go look for it.

There is an obvious difference between a top down dictation in policy and political alignment, and the majority of the country's population being systemically biased towards the right.

That is very interesting.

Thank you for sharing it.

Yes, precisely; Clinton is objectively not progressive.

You want progressive...you oughta move to Sweden...if you don't live there already.

In the meantime, if you want to protect and expand much needed safety net programs here in the US...Hillary Clinton is your best bet this election.

Who is this nebulous 'most'?

Them!

 

[Frank Apisa]

Have you started in on the scotch already?

Nope.

 

[Ikari]

Bernie Sanders: I'll probably vote for Clinton - CNNPolitics.com

Ok. I just saw on Facebook my soon to be brother in law going off! He's one of the 'feel the bern' guys. He's devastated that someone against the establishment of money and power, Hillary, would earn the vote of Bernie.

Me personally, I figured all along this dude was not for real and he'd support Hillary in the end. I saw this coming. However, it's trending on Facebook the outrage of the bern crowd.

My question is, is anyone surprised or upset? Or did everyone else know this guy was a wanna-be socialist fraud?

Bernie likely had a more independent platform than Hillary, but end of the day he's a Republocrat and would endorse his side's candidate. There was no doubt of that from the start.

 

[Cardinal]

So why then would he vote for Hillary? ;P

Probably to prevent a repeat of the disaster that just happened to England. That's more than a good enough reason for me.

 

[antiquity]

Sorry I should have clarified. I don't care how trump supporters saw this. Please re-read the OP plus my response above. The confusion lies in his speeches against Hillary and the establishment.

Look what happen in England. That could be the future of American in standing up and smacking down the establishment. If people (voters) want to continue on the path we have been on for a number of years, by all means stick with the establishment candidate. If you think 2% or less GNP is okay vote for the establishment candidate. In fact the GNP the first quarter of 2016 was .08%.

During a Sunday sit-down on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the president admitted that the rich have been doing pretty well during his administration, despite his attempts to combat income inequality.

Stephanopoulos cited a Berkeley study which found that 95 percent of income gains from 2009 to 2012 went to the top one percent, which kind of defeats the purpose of the whole wealth redistribution thing. President Obama conceded the point, but insomuch as he admitted that he has been unable to curb the fattened coffers of the super rich, he implied that it’s not his fault.

Of course its not his fault...nothing is his fault.

Read more at President Obama Admits The Rich Are Getting Richer Under His Watch

If the blacks like having a high unemployment and being replaced with illegals who will work for lower wages, If the minorities like the high poverty rate by all means black should continue voting for democrats.

Too me that doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

[antiquity]

Probably to prevent a repeat of the disaster that just happened to England. That's more than a good enough reason for me.

ROTFLMAO...just did you arrive at that conclusion.

 

[antiquity]

In the meantime, if you want to protect and expand much needed safety net programs here in the US...Hillary Clinton is your best bet this election.

Why is there a need to expand the safety net? Actually government should work to lower it by getting people off generational welfare and out of programs that were not meant for them.

 

[Cardinal]

ROTFLMAO...just did you arrive at that conclusion.

Because those are policies that Trump and his supporters argue for.

 

[antiquity]

Probably to prevent a repeat of the disaster that just happened to England. That's more than a good enough reason for me.

Because those are policies that Trump and his supporters argue for.

First why do you consider the vote in England a disaster? Aren't the will of the people good enough for you?

What policies? You mean like curtailing immigration, reigning in bailouts, fixing the NHS.....you mean things like those?

 

[Cardinal]

First why do you consider the vote in England a disaster? Aren't the will of the people good enough for you?

What policies? You mean like curtailing immigration, reigning in bailouts, fixing the NHS.....you mean things like those?

Any gains they made (keeping out immigrants) will be severely curtailed by loss of unfettered access to the European Union. As others have pointed out they will have to negotiate with the EU on their terms for trade, travel and immigration. Also, if the European Union does disintegrate as a result, that will further bomb the markets, as well as providing an unified front to Russia, a result Putin was striving for all along.

 

[devildavid]

I was a Bernie supporter but expected him to support Hillary once he lost the primaries. Bernie is a pragmatic and reasonable man. I think he will still try to infuence the Democratic platform, but will support Hillary no matter what.