Hillary must pick Bernie for VP: She may even need him more than he needs her [W:33]

[Excon]

Re: Stupid **** by Abbazorkzog.

Your second post (upon me asking you to elaborate):



Which is ironic because your first post was an opinion as well.

:lamo

Reported.

(Why do you do this in every single thread?)

And you failed to refute what was said or support what you claimed.

You still have the option of supporting your absurd claims, but instead you seem intent on irrational complaining.
That is called deflection.

If you can't support your claims or are unwilling to debate them, you shouldn't be making them in the first place.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Re: Stupid **** by Abbazorkzog.

And you failed to refute what was said or support what you claimed.

You still have the option of supporting your absurd claims, but instead you seem intent on irrational complaining.
That is called deflection.

If you can't support your claims or are unwilling to debate them, you shouldn't be making them in the first place.

I went ahead and made a separate thread

This thread is not even about Trump. Do you see 'Trump' anywhere in the thread title?

Reported.

 

[Excon]

Re: Stupid **** by Abbazorkzog.

Reported.

Trump is part of your presentation.
What you said in regards to him is open for discussion by it.

Your words.

"...the threat here is that Donald J. Trump could still become President of the United States."​

You then continue with false claims about Trump.

"Trump is running in an attempt to prove that Dictatorship is the only truly effective form of government, and he intends to do just that."

and


" ... but the man is obviously mentally-unstable, narcissist, self-serving, authoritarian, racist, bigoted and unpredictable."​

As it was part of your presentation and an impetus for unifying, your claims in regards to Trump must be supported in order for your desire to unify to have any validity. Otherwise all you are attempting to is scaremongering folks to accomplish what you desire.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Re: Stupid **** by Abbazorkzog.

Trump is part of your presentation.
What you said in regards to him is open for discussion by it.

Your words.

"...the threat here is that Donald J. Trump could still become President of the United States."​

Wrong.

Donald Trump is a threat.

Period.

 

[Excon]

Re: Stupid **** by Abbazorkzog.

Wrong.

Donald Trump is a threat.

Period.

Period? Hilarious.
First sentence.

"could have"​

That is an opinion.
An opinion of a British research organization. Truly funny.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Re: Stupid **** by Abbazorkzog.

Period? Hilarious.
First sentence.

"could have"​

That is an opinion.
An opinion of a British research organization. Truly funny.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I and many others reading this thread will be taking the Economist Intelligence Unit's research and data-based view-point (not opinion) over your own today...

 

[Excon]

Re: Stupid **** by Abbazorkzog.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I and many others reading this thread will be taking the Economist Intelligence Unit's research and data-based view-point (not opinion) over your own today...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but ...
1. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

2. Appeal to the masses is also a logical fallacy.

3. Still doesn't change the fact that it is opinion.

4. Nor does it absolve you from supporting the comments you made about Trump.

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: Stupid **** by Abbazorkzog.

Moderator's Warning:

Donald Trump is mentioned 15 times within the first two posts. If the desire was to not have people responding to points about Donald Trump, then perhaps there shouldn't have been such continual discussion of Donald Trump in the OP. Simply because a people focus on a portion of the OP that was perhaps not intended does not make conversation "off topic". Now I suggest to everyone discuss the topic. If you don't think someone's responses are about the topic then my best advise would be to IGNORE THOSE POSTS and continue to simply discuss what you think the topic is. The continual back and forth between two posters arguing about whether something is or isn't the topic is actually the most off topic discussion going on right now

 

[Redress]

Re: Hillary must pick Bernie for VP: She may even need him more than he needs her - S

Hillary must pick Bernie for VP: She may even need him more than he needs her

Actually, she should pick a democrat, not some one who decided he was use the party while trashing it.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Re: Hillary must pick Bernie for VP: She may even need him more than he needs her - S

Actually, she should pick a democrat, not some one who decided he was use the party while trashing it.

The will of the People is superior to the will of the Party.
The Party must serve the People, not the other way around.
It will not be doing so if it further divides, and thus splits the front, along with it.

 

[Redress]

Re: Hillary must pick Bernie for VP: She may even need him more than he needs her - S

The will of the People is superior to the will of the Party.
The Party must serve the People, not the other way around.
It will not be doing so if it further divides, and thus splits the front, along with it.

The party is picking the preferred candidate for the party. They chose Clinton. Sanders use of the party, then contempt with the party over it actually having rules and stuff, is alone enough reason to never give him anything again.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Re: Hillary must pick Bernie for VP: She may even need him more than he needs her - S

The party is picking the preferred candidate for the party. They chose Clinton. Sanders use of the party, then contempt with the party over it actually having rules and stuff, is alone enough reason to never give him anything again.

The flaw and skew in your logic is your supremacy of the Party above all else, even Democracy itself.
Disturbing.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Re: Hillary must pick Bernie for VP: She may even need him more than he needs her - S

Actually, she should pick a democrat, not some one who decided he was use the party while trashing it.

I think she will do exactly that...pick a long-time Democrat.

And I imagine she will hope for the best.

Whatever she does, she will lose some people. And if she loses enough...our next president will be Donald Trump.

I certainly hope that doesn't happen.

 

[Redress]

Re: Hillary must pick Bernie for VP: She may even need him more than he needs her - S

The flaw and skew in your logic is your supremacy of the Party above all else, even Democracy itself.
Disturbing.

The democratic party is only supreme over the democratic party. However, it is the democratic party. Sanders, who was never a democrat until he needed something from democrats, it not supreme over the party, and people who are not democrats do not get to tell democrats what we will do with our party. Democrats need to not allow Sanders to do to us what Trump has done to republicans.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Re: Hillary must pick Bernie for VP: She may even need him more than he needs her - S

The will of the People is superior to the will of the Party.
The Party must serve the People, not the other way around.
It will not be doing so if it further divides, and thus splits the front, along with it.

The Party has to determine what IT considers to be "the will of the People", Abba.

You seem to be saying that because you want things to go one particular way...that IS "the will of the people."

There are others who see things very differently from you on this issue.

I am one.

I consider myself to be part of "the will of the people."

 

[Redress]

Re: Hillary must pick Bernie for VP: She may even need him more than he needs her - S

I think she will do exactly that...pick a long-time Democrat.

And I imagine she will hope for the best.

Whatever she does, she will lose some people. And if she loses enough...our next president will be Donald Trump.

I certainly hope that doesn't happen.

The reality is, Sandernistas are probably not going to vote for a Sanders VP. Young people don't really vote that much unfortunately. In an election that is going to have a whole lot to do with getting the base excited enough to show up(for both candidates), Sanders is, well, not the base. He is an outsider using the party for his own power grab. And his supporters(and himself) are really getting embarrassing to democrats. Sanders would be a weak pick for VP, and a pick of weakness.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Re: Hillary must pick Bernie for VP: She may even need him more than he needs her - S

The democratic party is only supreme over the democratic party. However, it is the democratic party. Sanders, who was never a democrat until he needed something from democrats, it not supreme over the party, and people who are not democrats do not get to tell democrats what we will do with our party. Democrats need to not allow Sanders to do to us what Trump has done to republicans.

Independents constitute 42% of the country.
Out of that, 45% support Bernie Sanders.
You really don't think a majority of Americans should have any say whatsoever in democracy? Just the Democrat minority?
Do you know what happens to militaristic Oligarchies?

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Re: Hillary must pick Bernie for VP: She may even need him more than he needs her - S

The Party has to determine what IT considers to be "the will of the People", Abba.

You seem to be saying that because you want things to go one particular way...that IS "the will of the people."

There are others who see things very differently from you on this issue.

I am one.

I consider myself to be part of "the will of the people."

Independents make up 42% of the American voters.
45% support Bernie Sanders.
Including that and the Democrats who have voted for him in closed primaries, that is a majority.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Re: Hillary must pick Bernie for VP: She may even need him more than he needs her - S

The reality is, Sandernistas are probably not going to vote for a Sanders VP. Young people don't really vote that much unfortunately. In an election that is going to have a whole lot to do with getting the base excited enough to show up(for both candidates), Sanders is, well, not the base. He is an outsider using the party for his own power grab. And his supporters(and himself) are really getting embarrassing to democrats. Sanders would be a weak pick for VP, and a pick of weakness.

:lamo Yeah, unlike the former Secretary of State and Senator from New York that remained consistent on every issue since the 1970's and hasn't deviated or flip-flopped once or sold out to special interests or served the interests of the military-industrial complex inherent and implicit in infinite regime-change wars and taking money from prison-lobbyists waging a culture war against the Black Community and instead fought alongside them for Civil Rights and didn't call them racially-charged veiled-slurs like 'super-predator' and fought for the rights of the LGBTQ community and the victims of financial tyranny imposed by globalist mega corporations.......


....oh wait.

:coffeepap

 

[Frank Apisa]

Re: Hillary must pick Bernie for VP: She may even need him more than he needs her - S

Independents make up 42% of the American voters.
45% support Bernie Sanders.
Including that and the Democrats who have voted for him in closed primaries, that is a majority.

Bernie...AND HIS SUPPORTERS...knew the rules in effect BEFORE he got into the contest.

The rules are clear...and you do not change rules in the middle of a contest.

Some states allow independent voters to vote in their primaries...some do not.

So far...USING THE RULES IN EFFECT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CONTEST...Hillary is knocking the socks off of Bernie Sanders. She has 3 million more votes than he has; almost 300 more earned delegates.

If you are arguing that the independent voters should be counted in primaries...you gotta do that earlier in proceedings.

In any case, independent voters WILL BE COUNTED in November.

The Democratic Party OBVIOUSLY thinks Hillary will be a more formidable candidate than Bernie...and I strongly agree with them.

 

[Redress]

Re: Hillary must pick Bernie for VP: She may even need him more than he needs her - S

Independents constitute 42% of the country.
Out of that, 45% support Bernie Sanders.
You really don't think a majority of Americans should have any say whatsoever in democracy? Just the Democrat minority?
Do you know what happens to militaristic Oligarchies?

Let me slow this waaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy down for you. The democratic party does not control the country, it controls the democratic party. The democratic party does not control republicans, libertarians, socialists, independents, nor is it controlled by those. It controls only itself, but it does get to control itself. Independents do not get to decide what the democratic party stands for, who represents the democratic party, or anything else about the party. Democrats do. Why is this in any way possibly confusing to you?

 

[Redress]

Re: Hillary must pick Bernie for VP: She may even need him more than he needs her - S

:lamo Yeah, unlike the former Secretary of State and Senator from New York that remained consistent on every issue since the 1970's and hasn't deviated or flip-flopped once or sold out to special interests or served the interests of the military-industrial complex inherent and implicit in infinite regime-change wars and taking money from prison-lobbyists waging a culture war against the Black Community and instead fought alongside them for Civil Rights and didn't call them racially-charged veiled-slurs like 'super-predator' and fought for the rights of the LGBTQ community and the victims of financial tyranny imposed by globalist mega corporations.......


....oh wait.

:coffeepap

How about trying to actually address what is said? What a novel idea....

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Re: Hillary must pick Bernie for VP: She may even need him more than he needs her - S

Let me slow this waaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy down for you. The democratic party does not control the country, it controls the democratic party. The democratic party does not control republicans, libertarians, socialists, independents, nor is it controlled by those. It controls only itself, but it does get to control itself. Independents do not get to decide what the democratic party stands for, who represents the democratic party, or anything else about the party. Democrats do. Why is this in any way possibly confusing to you?

No, now. Apparently it is you who does not understand what an oligarchy is. The Democrat Party having an undemocratic advantage in sway over the majority of America is Oligarchy.
The fact that the DNC gets to choose the next President regardless of what the majority of Americans want is Oligarchy.
And you are arguing against giving them any quarter whatsoever.
It is like the majority and democracy are the villains of the Democrat Party in your eyes. I can't believe how backwards your political view-points are in regards to most other Liberals I've met.