What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being. (3 Viewers)

NCCommish said:
Multiple independent studies have concluded fraud was rampant in this cycle on the Democratic side. The person most hurt by it was Bernie. This isn't me saying it, it's people like Stanford University saying it.
Click to expand...
Stanford students with a non-peer reviewed paper do not speak for Stanford University as a whole I don't believe..

 
NCCommish said:
Just like I won't hate on Bernie I won't hate on the roughly 85% of Bernie voters polling suggests will vote Hillary. It will probably be in the 90s when all is said and done. Everyone must make that call for themselves and everyone will have their reason. That's cool. But for me i just can't. She is the epitome of everything I hate about the current corrupted system. So everyday I get more sure of a vote for Johnson. I just feel like while I disagree on a lot with him he is still an honest guy. He is trying to do what he thinks is best for the country not his wallet.

And in the end that means a lot to me. More than it used to. I used to be all about my side. Then over the last ten years or so I have realized it isn't my side. Someone else bought it out from under me. It doesn't represent me. It doesn't care about me. So while I'll fight to get it back I won't support someone just because there is a D behind their name. They have to earn my vote now. They earn it with integrity. They earn it with honesty. They earn it by supporting the 99% over the donor class. Hillary fails all those tests for me.
Click to expand...
So now Bernie supports the donor class over the 99% eh?  

 
tommyGunZ said:
So now Bernie supports the donor class over the 99% eh?  
Click to expand...
No, he doesn't support Trump. And to get what he wanted in the platform committee he had to make a deal. But you should go read his endorsement. It firmly places Hillary's feet in the fire and I bet he holds them there.

So all you Hillary types who seem so peacock pleased with yourselves today might want to figure out he is playing a different game than she is. As he made clear to Congressional Democrats and as his endorsement speech also made clear. He is pushing this party to the left. Hell Obama just said now he thinks we should have a public option. Gee I wish he was president when we held the Congress and a 60 vote Senate. Oh wait he was he just didn't have any balls.

 
NCCommish said:
Just like I won't hate on Bernie I won't hate on the roughly 85% of Bernie voters polling suggests will vote Hillary. It will probably be in the 90s when all is said and done. Everyone must make that call for themselves and everyone will have their reason. That's cool. But for me i just can't. She is the epitome of everything I hate about the current corrupted system. So everyday I get more sure of a vote for Johnson. I just feel like while I disagree on a lot with him he is still an honest guy. He is trying to do what he thinks is best for the country not his wallet.

And in the end that means a lot to me. More than it used to. I used to be all about my side. Then over the last ten years or so I have realized it isn't my side. Someone else bought it out from under me. It doesn't represent me. It doesn't care about me. So while I'll fight to get it back I won't support someone just because there is a D behind their name. They have to earn my vote now. They earn it with integrity. They earn it with honesty. They earn it by supporting the 99% over the donor class. Hillary fails all those tests for me.
Click to expand...
I've made this point before, and maybe you meant something different, but there is zero chance that Clinton is doing what she thinks is best "for her wallet."  What would be best for her wallet would have been for her and Bill to retire from public service completely and dedicate their lives to giving paid speeches and peddling influence above the board and unrestricted by the constraints that come with government jobs and non-profit laws.

Maybe you said wallet when you really meant "campaign war chest," in which case I'd disagree, but it would be at least be a valid criticism. Claiming that her policy decisions or positions on the issues are guided by what's best for her bank account, not so much.  If that was her intent she's smart enough to know she could make MUCH more money with MUCH less hassle by not campaigning or serving at all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
I've made this point before, and maybe you meant something different, but there is zero chance that Clinton is doing what she thinks is best "for her wallet."  What would be best for her wallet would have been for her and Bill to retire from public service completely and dedicate their lives to giving paid speeches and peddling influence above the board and unrestricted by the constraints that come with government jobs and non-profit laws.

Maybe you said wallet when you really meant "campaign chest," in which case I'd disagree, but it would be at least be a valid criticism. Claiming that her policy decisions or positions on the issues are guided by what's best for her bank account, not so much.
Click to expand...
The Clinton's are about the Clinton's. Always have been always will be. And nothing ensures the dollars rolling in like another Clinton in the White House. Heck Hillary being SoS let Bill put millions in his pocket. Like the for profit school that paid him 14 million in two years after Hillary started pimping them. They have just scratched the surface of the opportunity.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I've made this point before, and maybe you meant something different, but there is zero chance that Clinton is doing what she thinks is best "for her wallet."  What would be best for her wallet would have been for her and Bill to retire from public service completely and dedicate their lives to giving paid speeches and peddling influence above the board and unrestricted by the constraints that come with government jobs and non-profit laws.

Maybe you said wallet when you really meant "campaign war chest," in which case I'd disagree, but it would be at least be a valid criticism. Claiming that her policy decisions or positions on the issues are guided by what's best for her bank account, not so much.  If that was her intent she's smart enough to know she could make MUCH more money with MUCH less hassle by not campaigning or serving at all.
Click to expand...
So you thinking they would be getting top dollar for speeches without the influence?   That may be a tad bit naive. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish said:
The Clinton's are about the Clinton's. Always have been always will be. And nothing ensures the dollars rolling in like another Clinton in the White House. Heck Hillary being SoS let Bill put millions in his pocket. Like the for profit school that paid him 14 million in two years after Hillary started pimping them. They have just scratched the surface of the opportunity.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no. This is nonsense.  Former presidents can basically print their own money if that's what they want to do so.

 
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
So you thinking they would be getting top dollar for speeches without the influence?   They may be a tad bit naive. 
Click to expand...
George W Bush has no particular influence going forward and has made it clear he has no intentions of returning to the public sector and he makes almost as much per speech as the Clintons. Hell, Sarah Palin has zero influence, never held national office and doesn't have the option of returning to public service even if she wanted to and she pulls six figures per speaking engagement.  Who's being naive, Kay?

 
TobiasFunke said:
Yeah, no. This is nonsense.  Former presidents can basically print their own money if that's what they want to do so.
Click to expand...
If you believe the people who have already put 100 million dollars in their pockets based on their power and influence, which they haven't been afraid to use, can't make even more with Hillary as President then you are truly naive at best and deliberately obtuse at worst.

 
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
Printing money...............















https://www.google.com/search?q=jimmy+carter+net+worth&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Click to expand...
That's his choice. He could make a lot more if he wanted. I didn't say they were all printing money, I said they all could be if they wanted so the argument that she makes her policy decisions and positions on the issues based on "her wallet" is nonsense. Nobody goes into public service to enrich themselves, and certainly not someone would can make tens of millions doing nothing with no hassle if they so choose.

Is it too much to ask to expect a little intellectual consistency and integrity from the Clinton haters?

 
NCCommish said:
If you believe the people who have already put 100 million dollars in their pockets based on their power and influence, which they haven't been afraid to use, can't make even more with Hillary as President then you are truly naive at best and deliberately obtuse at worst.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about whether she acts to enrich other people.  You suggested that Clinton does what's best for her wallet instead of what's best for the country when you contrasted her with your perceptions of Johnson, did you not?  Maybe you phrased it poorly or I misread it? 

I don't think she makes policy decisions or decides on her platform based largely on what will enrich her donors either, but there's no reason to rehash the arguments about that since they've been done a million times across several threads. I was just challenging your suggestion that she makes those decisions to benefit her own personal wealth.  That is absurd. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
That's his choice. He could make a lot more if he wanted. I didn't say they were all printing money, I said they all could be if they wanted so the argument that she makes her policy decisions and positions on the issues based on "her wallet" is nonsense. Nobody goes into public service to enrich themselves, and certainly not someone would can make tens of millions doing nothing with no hassle if they so choose.

Is it too much to ask to expect a little intellectual consistency and integrity from the Clinton haters?
Click to expand...
Sorry are you going to argue that money doesn't influence politics in a Sanders thread?

Talk about inconsistency, please tell me you're against overturning Citizens U because obviously here we have two vessels of purity who PROVE that money in pocket does NOT equal corruption.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Sorry are you going to argue that money doesn't influence politics in a Sanders thread?

Talk about inconsistency, please tell me you're against overturning Citizens U because obviously here we have two vessels of purity who PROVE that money in pocket does NOT equal corruption.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not arguing that at all.  My argument- or more accurately my disagreement with someone else's claim- is simple and I've repeated it a bunch of times. You've inserted yourself into the middle of it without reading back, I think.

 
NCCommish said:
She is done leading the charge for much of anything and has been since she was elected. Well except stuff for her donors and lip service. Oh and that consistently hawkish thing? Yeah that is a serious problem. I go with Ike on that one. We have pounded enough plowshares into swords time to turn it around. And she will not do that. She is going to get us into another ground war in the Middle East I fear. And that is not something that is for the betterment of this country,
Click to expand...
I just think its pretty hypocritical to give Bernie a pass for being pragmatic and kill Hillary for it.   :shrug:

 
TobiasFunke said:
I wasn't talking about whether she acts to enrich other people.  You suggested that Clinton does what's best for her wallet instead of what's best for the country when you contrasted her with your perceptions of Johnson, did you not?  Maybe you phrased it poorly or I misread it? 

I don't think she makes policy decisions or decides on her platform based largely on what will enrich her donors either, but there's no reason to rehash the arguments about that since they've been done a million times across several threads. I was just challenging your suggestion that she makes those decisions to benefit her own personal wealth.  That is absurd. 
Click to expand...
No I said what I exactly what I meant and I believe she will prove it beyond a reasonable doubt once she enters office. Again. And I also believe her supporters will continue to refuse to see it. Again. Even when she shoves it right in their face. She is going to kick progressives right in the balls starting the day she gets to sit in the big chair and every day there after. Until it's time to get your vote again. Because what you going to vote for the scary Republican? Don't make her laugh. Seriously don't. She isn't really good at expressing actual non-scripted emotion.

 
dparker713 said:
I just think its pretty hypocritical to give Bernie a pass for being pragmatic and kill Hillary for it.   :shrug:
Click to expand...
Why don't you go back and reread what I said and try again? Spoiler alert small ball right wing proposals aren't pragmatic they are small ball right wing proposals.

 
NCCommish said:
No I said what I exactly what I meant and I believe she will prove it beyond a reasonable doubt once she enters office. Again. And I also believe her supporters will continue to refuse to see it. Again. Even when she shoves it right in their face. She is going to kick progressives right in the balls starting the day she gets to sit in the big chair and every day there after. Until it's time to get your vote again. Because what you going to vote for the scary Republican? Don't make her laugh. Seriously don't. She isn't really good at expressing actual non-scripted emotion.
Click to expand...
Yeah, sorry, this is just silly.  You can criticize her for making decisions that enrich other people if you want, and we can and have argued about that ad nauseum.  But she doesn't need to run for president to enrich herself and frankly could get a LOT richer by continuing to collect speaking fees and/or joining a lobbying firm, and that comes without the exhaustion and hassle of a campaign and the stress of actually doing the job.  Come on, this is just common sense.  Like I said W makes tens of millions on speaking fees alone and nobody thinks he's going back into public service.

 
By the way shouldn't you guys be running victory laps in your own thread? Why would you even care what's happening here? You got what you wanted. A former Goldwater girl is now the Democratic nominee and she still sounds a lot like a Goldwater girl while doing it. She will get to line Bill's pockets and the foundations. She will pass TPP, she will escalate military intervention and she will ignore progressives. This should be your big day. Why waste it on a dead ender like me?

 
NCCommish said:
By the way shouldn't you guys be running victory laps in your own thread? Why would you even care what's happening here? You got what you wanted. A former Goldwater girl is now the Democratic nominee and she still sounds a lot like a Goldwater girl while doing it. She will get to line Bill's pockets and the foundations. She will pass TPP, she will escalate military intervention and she will ignore progressives. This should be your big day. Why waste it on a dead ender like me?
Click to expand...
Setting aside the "Goldwater girl" nonsense, I'm just here engaging in debate and trying to win support for the most important election fight of our lives- destroying Donald Trump so thoroughly that nobody is tempted to engage in his brand of divisive, bigoted, hate-mongering, authoritarian, lowest-common-denominator campaign for the rest of our lives. The more people that join that fight, the better.

I was also here because I was pointing out how much Sanders achieved, more than any losing candidate in memory IMO.  In fact if I got to pick the president I'd pick him, not Clinton. But any Sanders vs. Clinton fight is small potatoes compared to Trump vs. our founding principles and basic human decency.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Is it too much to ask to expect a little intellectual consistency and integrity from the Clinton haters?
Click to expand...
Such as the Clinton supporters who believe:

1 - That the Clintons, who have likely received more money (both via campaign contributions and personal money) than any public servant ever, aren't susceptible to being bought, and

2 - That Citizens United needs to go because some politicians can be bought.

 
Rich Conway said:
Such as the Clinton supporters who believe:

1 - That the Clintons, who have likely received more money (both via campaign contributions and personal money) than any public servant ever, aren't susceptible to being bought, and

2 - That Citizens United needs to go because some politicians can be bought.
Click to expand...
Sure, if someone made those two arguments you could fairly criticize their consistency and integrity.

 
NCCommish said:
No, he doesn't support Trump. And to get what he wanted in the platform committee he had to make a deal. But you should go read his endorsement. It firmly places Hillary's feet in the fire and I bet he holds them there.

So all you Hillary types who seem so peacock pleased with yourselves today might want to figure out he is playing a different game than she is. As he made clear to Congressional Democrats and as his endorsement speech also made clear. He is pushing this party to the left. Hell Obama just said now he thinks we should have a public option. Gee I wish he was president when we held the Congress and a 60 vote Senate. Oh wait he was he just didn't have any balls.
Click to expand...
He didn't have the votes for a public option.  Just because someone has a D next to their name doesn't mean they'll follow the party.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Setting aside the "Goldwater girl" nonsense, I'm just here engaging in debate and trying to win support for the most important election fight of our lives- destroying Donald Trump so thoroughly that nobody is tempted to engage in his brand of divisive, bigoted, hate-mongering, authoritarian, lowest-common-denominator campaign for the rest of our lives. The more people that join that fight, the better.

I was also here because I was pointing out how much Sanders achieved, more than any losing candidate in memory IMO.  In fact if I got to pick the president I'd pick him, not Clinton. But any Sanders vs. Clinton fight is small potatoes compared to Trump vs. our founding principles and basic human decency.
Click to expand...
Well you picked the wrong guy. I don't know how many times I have to explain I am not voting for her. Not happening, won't do it. The only way I would even consider it is if she picked Bernie as VP. I don't think she can, Wall Street would flip out, and I am not sure he would accept. So outside that tiny window of opportunity she's got nothing I want. Now you guys shouldn't worry. As I said many times this cycle most Bernie supporters will vote for her. Latest poll bears that out putting the number at 85%. I think that's low. My guess is 90+ come election day. And that's their choice. They have every right to make it. I think it's a mistake. But that's my choice and I have every right to make it.

 
NCCommish said:
Why don't you go back and reread what I said and try again? Spoiler alert small ball right wing proposals aren't pragmatic they are small ball right wing proposals.
Click to expand...
Spoiler alert, you claiming some pragmatism is ok if you agree with the outcome and some pragmatism is not ok because you don't agree with the outcome is pretty damn hypocritical.

 
NCCommish said:
Well you picked the wrong guy. I don't know how many times I have to explain I am not voting for her. Not happening, won't do it. The only way I would even consider it is if she picked Bernie as VP. I don't think she can, Wall Street would flip out, and I am not sure he would accept. So outside that tiny window of opportunity she's got nothing I want. Now you guys shouldn't worry. As I said many times this cycle most Bernie supporters will vote for her. Latest poll bears that out putting the number at 85%. I think that's low. My guess is 90+ come election day. And that's their choice. They have every right to make it. I think it's a mistake. But that's my choice and I have every right to make it.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean that I intended to convert you specifically, I understand that your mind is made up and that perhaps you don't share the concerns of other Sanders supporters regarding Court appointments or whatever. That's just why I was in the thread, which was your question. And I engaged you because you offered a criticism of Clinton that I don't think makes any sense, so I said so.

 
dparker713 said:
He didn't have the votes for a public option.  Just because someone has a D next to their name doesn't mean they'll follow the party.
Click to expand...
Funny Tom Harkin disagrees. He said he had the votes but Obama didn't want it. I am thinking he knows more about what could pass than perhaps those of us who weren't in the Senate.

Oh and do you think LBJ had the votes for the Civil Rights Act at the beginning? No he didn't. But he went and got them. He twisted arms and got what he needed. Even though he himself said they had lost the south for at least a generation when they did it. I am not his biggest fan but I can admit the guy got things done. Obama not so much. He put forward a Republican plan ripped straight from the Heritage Foundation and got not one Republican vote. So without one Republican he got a Republican plan into place. I have a feeling he could have gotten a less Republican plan as well.

 
NCCommish said:
Funny Tom Harkin disagrees. He said he had the votes but Obama didn't want it. I am thinking he knows more about what could pass than perhaps those of us who weren't in the Senate.

Oh and do you think LBJ had the votes for the Civil Rights Act at the beginning? No he didn't. But he went and got them. He twisted arms and got what he needed. Even though he himself said they had lost the south for at least a generation when they did it. I am not his biggest fan but I can admit the guy got things done. Obama not so much. He put forward a Republican plan ripped straight from the Heritage Foundation and got not one Republican vote. So without one Republican he got a Republican plan into place. I have a feeling he could have gotten a less Republican plan as well.
Click to expand...
There are two chambers of Congress.  The House only passed the ACA by 219-212.  34 democrats voted against it.  There was already plenty of arm twisting to get those 219 votes.  And LBJ had the specter of an assassinated President's legacy to move the country - Obama had no such atmosphere.  

 
dparker713 said:
Spoiler alert, you claiming some pragmatism is ok if you agree with the outcome and some pragmatism is not ok because you don't agree with the outcome is pretty damn hypocritical.
Click to expand...
No I'm not. I am saying for the ten millionth time Clintons proposals aren't about pragmatism. She isn't getting any Republican votes to name a ####### post office. As hard as it is to believe they actually hate her more than they hate Obama. She isn't getting **** done except for the things the donor classes agree on. Like TPP that will get done. But anything else? No way. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if they try to impeach her day one. She is the ultimate don't rock the boat or stop the check flow candidate. That isn't pragmatic it's safe. For her.

Hard for me to believe guys I think are so smart can't see what's right in front of them in full view.

I guess the Doobie Brothers are right a fool believes what he sees a wise man has the power to reason away what seems to be.

Yeah a little classic rock wisdom for the day. :headbang:

 
You guys have fun this is all pretty repetitive. You won't see what's plain as the nose on your face and I can't not see it. I have to go decide to kill a king or not.

Later.

 
NCCommish said:
No I'm not. I am saying for the ten millionth time Clintons proposals aren't about pragmatism. She isn't getting any Republican votes to name a ####### post office. As hard as it is to believe they actually hate her more than they hate Obama. She isn't getting **** done except for the things the donor classes agree on. Like TPP that will get done. But anything else? No way. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if they try to impeach her day one. She is the ultimate don't rock the boat or stop the check flow candidate. That isn't pragmatic it's safe. For her.

Hard for me to believe guys I think are so smart can't see what's right in front of them in full view.

I guess the Doobie Brothers are right a fool believes what he sees a wise man has the power to reason away what seems to be.

Yeah a little classic rock wisdom for the day. :headbang:
Click to expand...
The HRC sycophants are really hammering you in here for not supporting Hillary.  Holy mackerel.  Well, keep up the good fight and don't buckle. :thumbup:

 
NCCommish said:
No I'm not. I am saying for the ten millionth time Clintons proposals aren't about pragmatism. She isn't getting any Republican votes to name a ####### post office. As hard as it is to believe they actually hate her more than they hate Obama. She isn't getting **** done except for the things the donor classes agree on. Like TPP that will get done. But anything else? No way. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if they try to impeach her day one. She is the ultimate don't rock the boat or stop the check flow candidate. That isn't pragmatic it's safe. For her.

Hard for me to believe guys I think are so smart can't see what's right in front of them in full view.

I guess the Doobie Brothers are right a fool believes what he sees a wise man has the power to reason away what seems to be.

Yeah a little classic rock wisdom for the day. :headbang:
Click to expand...
Repeating something doesn't make it more true.  And the Republican voters might hate her more than Obama, but the Senators she worked with generally had favorable reviews.  

It's hard for me to believe that you can't see the danger someone like Trump can do.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did Barack Obama Destroy Abortion Rights By Lying About Codifying Roe v. Wade? (6/26/22 7:24 PST)
Replies
4
Views
535
squistion
squistion
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
457
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
How Hillary Clinton's Toxic "Rape Narrative" Helped To Destroy Roe Vs Wade (5/9/22 5:07 PST)
Replies
22
Views
812
jm192
jm192

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top