Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/041a6ff8811c49ea88a0bf21b656ead1/some-gop-voters-grudging-acceptance-trump
- Trump is an opportunist.
There are people who are disturbed by Trump, for a lot of reasons, not all the same. But one thing Hillary fans should realize is that Hillary has first of all blocked a pretty good young crop of next gen Democrats from coming to the fore this cycle. Another thing they should realize is that Trump may have gotten in this race for two reasons:
1. The presence of Jeb Bush.
2. The presence of Hillary Clinton.
The anti-establishment revolt was already boiling last winter and spring. Jeb and Hillary getting in had all sorts of dynastic implications, it was just gas on the fire.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I had to look this up.jabarony said:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
cobalt_27
Footballguy
"'Are you a liar?' is the home run of all campaign questions. Just say 'No' and touch all the bases." ???
Seriously, she's going to get crushed by Trump. It's not even close. She is good at using her husband's name to curry inside favors and financial benefits--oh and parlayed her name to a Senate victory in NY--but, this whole campaigning thing, driving home a coherent, consistent message, shrill screaming, inappropriate laughter, being unable to look a reporter straight in the eye and say she doesn't lie...she is good at breaking rules to "misplace" files and emails that would implicate her dirty/illegal practices, but dumb enough to get caught at it...and this is supposed to be the more "electable" candidate?
Thanks for nothing DNC and to you Hillary supporters here on this board and elsewhere who have deliberately ignored how two-faced, disingenuous, and obviously bad she is as a candidate. Thanks for giving Trump the presidency on a silver platter. This is on you.
Last edited by a moderator:
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
POTUS lines from Bovada:
- Hillary Clinton -150
- Donald Trump +200
- Marco Rubio +500
- Bernie Sanders +1000
- Michael Bloomberg +2500
- Ted Cruz +10000
- John Kasich +10000
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
- Judge Sullivan, in ordering discovery to get underway in one of the 50 FOIA suits currently vs Hillary and State.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I stink at this kind of line, I just understand normal betting lines for sports. - How has this changed since this summer and what does -150 vs +200 really mean? - Thanks.
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
I think money on Bernie is the best bet. He's polling against Trump better than the crook and if the e-mail thing blows up he's a shoe for the D spot.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Time is almost up, though. By a month from now, something like 60% of all the delegates will have been awarded.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
What happens if she wins the D nomination and then gets arrested this summer?
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
G
Guest
Guest
I'm starting to get optimistic on Hillary getting prosecuted. If you're reading tea leaves, things are reaching a head. If you buy the utter bulk#### that she's innocent of serious wrongdoing and no overtly duplicitous acts were taken, then it may seem ready to blow over...
...but it if you're paying attention at all to the fact that she's guilty as all sin as were her staff of copying information from secure environments to insecure, then you can see that that's going to come out in the wash and there will be nothing Lynch or Obama will be able to do to make it smell any better than it is.
...but it if you're paying attention at all to the fact that she's guilty as all sin as were her staff of copying information from secure environments to insecure, then you can see that that's going to come out in the wash and there will be nothing Lynch or Obama will be able to do to make it smell any better than it is.
If by better you mean getting us into war, increasing healthcare costs, and letting the banks and Wall St run over us then you are correct.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
I admittedly don't know much about how all this works but I would think she has to hold a pretty high level of security clearance (TSSCI with Poly or do they go even higher?). If she has classified information on a personal email server, she doesn't need to be arrested or proven guilty in court from a clearance standpoint. Those should be suspended immediately. Or they are for regular people often for much less than what she's done.
Elected officials do not hold security clearances. There are background checks, but they are granted access based upon their elected position. There isn't any authority within the government which could declare an elected official they are unworthy of a clearance and say deny a president access to top secret information. The President gets access because he is the President and has a need to know.
timschochet
Footballguy
On TV last night they were talking about how a lot of the Trump voters aren't concerned about his electability because they've convinced themselves that Hillary is about to be arrested. The commentator was saying "It's like they live in their own little world completely separated from reality!"
Anybody who has read this thread could have told him that.
Anybody who has read this thread could have told him that.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
You would think they would have to pass at least a basic clearance (really more) to be eligible to run for that office.
The only requirement for President is 35 years old and a natural born citizen. If a person wins the office in a Constitutionally certified manner, there is no legal way to declare that person unfit for office outside of impeachment.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Now I feel like I need to go back and find that post about how Hillary's qualifications for the presidency compare favorably with Eisenhower's.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
So the emails contained passages with similar wording as items marked classified. Not entire documents. Shame that no one around here ever suggested that was likely the case.
I believe the exact phrase was that she is more qualified than any candidate in our lifetime.
G
Guest
Guest
Is suggests the worst case. Far be it from innocuous information later being marked classified (retroactive "Overclassification"). Instead, it seems that passages were copied directly from secure channels into insecure. Federal orange jump suit kind of stuff.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I always thought Trump should have made more of that line - but I guess it's not necessary now.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Can't wait for the spin from the usual suspects. Let's see if I can guess their responses to this:
Tim - If you think she's bad, just look at the other guy. So you need to give her a pass.
TGunz - It's not true because she and the WH told me it wasn't. Doesn't matter if you have actual evidence.
Squiz - Look! Squirrel!
BFS - Well, the above said squirrels had 6 nuts each, and those six nuts were split in half and divide among the 12 other squirrels. So, you see, that his how this shows that it's no big deal.
Aerial Assault - dldlsafdiolefmlsfsfslfihereislsfs
Last edited by a moderator:
Willie Neslon
Footballguy
They got her
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
This might be true, but there are simpler explanations. Again the orange jump suit stuff for Hillary would be dependent on whether she instructed the breach OR she should have recognized the breach. Nothing in that article suggest that a conclusion on either is appropriate.
G
Guest
Guest
I'm not saying this will lead to indictment, but it's moving closer that way than it seemed a month ago. There's going to be leverage now when investigators talk to aides. If you don't think this going to test the aides' willingness to outright purjrure themselves a la Scooter Libby, then you're not paying attention. There's going to be serious pressure and threats of prison time held over heads before Hillary squirms out of this. And I believe that her doing so will require outright lying by several under oath, because she's guilty of what's she's accused of doing.
Last edited:
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Sounds like a bunch of BS. What show were you watching that they were saying this?
G
Guest
Guest
I'm making summary conclusions based on a limited view, but I believe that the most likely scenario is that Hillary ordered the whole thing: from ordering a private server to circumvent FOIA to instructing to cut corners to make it easier to operate with her home brew. And because as the truth, she has a gauntlet to run as the lies have to become more direct and under oath by all parties involved.
And expect one or more bombshells in the last release on the 29th. No way there isn't something that's the worst of it all in that... Otherwise the stalling makes no sense.
This is guilt people acting guilty.
Last edited:
RBM
Footballguy
Any experience person with classified information absolutely should recognize such a breech of top secret information and has a legal duty to immediately report the breech. It is not rocket science to understand what type of information is top secret. To claim ignorance is not a great defense.
G
Guest
Guest
I mean really, if she didn't order all of this illegal activity, does anyone want to tell me with a straight face that she made an altruistic decision not to roll over on an aide by now? Hillary Clinton protecting a lowly aide when her coronation is on the line? Please!!!
timschochet
Footballguy
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/16/why-a-vote-for-bernie-sanders-is-a-vote-for-donald-trump.html
Dear Bernie Voter,
Unlike many Clinton supporters, I am not writing to you because I think you’re naïve, or misguided, or sexist, or dumb, or any of the other patronizing and condescending crap that Hillary voters often say. In fact, I probably agree with you on most issues. I am writing to you because I am sincerely worried that you will hand this election to the Republicans, and I want to do my best to convince you not to do so.
The point of primary elections is not to select a president; it’s to select a candidate. For that reason, “electability” is not just one among many issues: It is the central issue. Yet despite having absorbed several dozen pro-Bernie articles and videos, I have yet to hear a plausible path to victory for Bernie Sanders.
et’s tease apart two very different arguments.
First, let’s concede that Bernie is more progressive on just about every substantive issue: the economy, health care, foreign policy, the Iraq War, campaign finance, environmentalism, corporatization—even LGBT equality, if you want to hold Hillary’s past against her. I have no idea why the Clinton campaign is pretending she is more progressive than a democratic socialist, but let’s agree that she isn’t. Let’s even concede that she is beholden to Wall Street, a Washington politician (with all the ethical problems that entails), and, basically, part of a broken system.
But let’s separate all of that out from the questions of who can win in November, and what’s at stake.
From that perspective, the problem isn’t that Clinton isn’t liberal enough; the problem, according to the best data we have, is that she may be too liberal. Every time a Sanders supporter criticizes Clinton for not being progressive enough, to me, that’s a good thing, because she’s still left of center. Let’s look at the numbers.
First, I know, there are head-to-head polls right now that show Sanders doing even better than Clinton against Rubio, Cruz, and Trump. But the reason these polls are meaningless is that most people still have no clear idea of who Bernie Sanders is or what he stands for. This may sound ridiculous to those of us who follow politics closely, but it’s the sad reality of American democracy.
Meanwhile, everyone has an idea of what Hillary Clinton stands for. We’ve been barraged with anti-Hillary messaging for most of the past 25 years. Her negatives are “baked in.”
But when voters are asked about Bernie’s positions, rather than his name, the numbers are brutal. In a Gallup Poll taken last June, fully 50 percent said they would not vote for a socialist. Some 40 percent said they’d never vote for an atheist, which Bernie also basically is. Most of those are probably Republican voters anyway, but many are the swing voters in the seven states that will likely determine this election. (This is not like Obama in 2004: Only 7 percent of Americans said they would not vote for an African American to be president.)
This view tracks with age, as Nate Silver pointed out recently. Only 30 percent of voters 18-29 view the term “socialism” unfavorably, compared with 60 percent of those 45-64. (Silver noted that younger voters are also less averse to the term “libertarianism.”) Just as older Clinton supporters seem out of touch with how younger voters see the world, so younger Sanders supporters seem out of touch with older ones for whom “socialist” is toxic. (And it doesn’t matter that Bernie is a “democratic socialist.” As my colleague Michael Tomasky pointed out, Republican attack ads will not parse the difference.)
But there’s much more.
According to polls, most Democratic and Republican voters agree on the top four issues in the campaign: national security, the economy, unemployment/jobs, and Obamacare. Bernie is an electoral disaster on all four.
First, even Bernie’s supporters concede that he’s inexperienced on foreign policy, especially in contrast to a former secretary of state. He’s also more dovish than Clinton, and the average American (not you or me, but the swing voters who will determine this election) already thinks that President Obama has been too “weak” and “soft” on our enemies. The last thing they’ll do is vote for someone even softer.
On the second and third issues, i.e., Bernie’s core, his promise to raise taxes on both the upper and the middle classes is the opposite of what nearly all voters want. Fifty-two percent of Americans say taxes are too high, 42 percent say they’re about right. Only 3 percent agree with Sanders that taxes are too low. (Three percent had no opinion.) He loses on this issue 94 to 3!)
In fact, you’d have to go back to Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964 to find a winning candidate who said he’d raise taxes not just on “the rich” but on pretty much everyone. A trillion dollars in new spending? This is way out of the mainstream and there is no plausible strategy for how to change that. People are not going to just “wake up” and agree with socialist political positions. They sure haven’t so far.
Finally, on question of health care, 53 percent of Americans still disapprove of Obamacare, yet Sanders wants to go even farther in the direction of big government, to a single-payer system that would require new taxes on the middle class, truly socialized medicine with fewer choices for those who can afford to make them, not to mention “death panels” and, somehow, the end of private health insurance.
Maybe these positions are good things to progressives, but they aren’t to most Americans. They’re the left-wing equivalents of Trump’s Mexican wall or Cruz’s call to abolish the IRS: They play well to the base, but alienate the middle.
Try this: Imagine yourself as someone who sometimes votes Republican, sometimes Democrat. You’re white, middle-class, basically fiscally conservative, moderate on social issues, and concerned about terrorism. You’ve got a family, and you live in the suburbs of North Carolina or Ohio. Are you really going to vote for a 74-year-old cantankerous socialist calling for revolution and a trillion dollars of big government?
Sure, Bernie will (hopefully) bring out younger voters. But those will be outweighed by mainstream Democrats, let alone swing-state swing-voters. And, large rallies notwithstanding, it hasn’t happened yet; in New Hampshire, overall turnout on the Democratic side was 233,993, down from 282,000 in 2008. It would take a statistical miracle for these new voters to swing the election. It’s magical thinking.
Obama’s approval rating is 47 percent not because he is not liberal enough (as we on the left think) but because his policies are more liberal than the mainstream. In this light, Bernie reminds me of Michael Dukakis, who lost 40 states to 10 in 1988. I was in high school at the time, and I remember how we all thought Dukakis was great, and how polls had him beating George H.W. Bush. Then came the Republican attack machine, painting Dukakis (in racist ways) as a soft-on-crime liberal. The election was a disaster.
Show me why this won’t happen to Sanders, please.
Now, some of my pro-Bernie friends say that even if Bernie isn’t ultimately electable, they can’t vote for Clinton in the primary because she’s so awful on, well, insert your key issues here. That is, of course, a coherent position to take. If Clinton’s negatives, or Bernie’s positives, are so high as to be worth losing the general election, then of course it makes sense to vote your values.
But let’s remember what’s at stake. We’ve all seen those simplistic ads making Clinton look more like the GOP than like Bernie. But as Sanders himself said, both he and Clinton are 100 times better than any Republican candidate. Specifically, a Republican president would mean:
- Further tax breaks for the 1 percent including income tax breaks, capital gains tax breaks (Rubio wants to eliminate the capital gains tax entirely), and estate tax breaks. More cuts to the social safety net to pay for them.
- New conservative Supreme Court justices that will overturn Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage, plus Obama’s executive orders on LGBT people, and allow new restrictions on contraception.
No action on climate change—indeed, denial that it even exists—and the undoing of the Obama administration’s executive actions on it, and undermining international efforts. Plus potentially eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency entirely (!) and rolling back regulations on logging, mining, and drilling.
- No acknowledgement that white privilege exists, that black lives matter (in the way BLM means it), or that racism persists in housing, voting, and employment. On the contrary, more voter suppression and racist gerrymandering and housing policies.
- Warmongering in the Middle East, either overt or covert Islamophobia at home, the growth of the surveillance state, and the return of torture.
- Stripping 18 million people of health insurance by repealing Obamacare, or at the very least restricting its implementation, with no alternative plan in sight.
- Not only no campaign finance reform and money in politics, but even more “freedom” for corporations and 1 percenters to buy our government.
Is it still worth it? I’m not asking you rhetorically; maybe you think it is. Maybe you think we need a political revolution, even though only around 25 percent of Americans agree with you, and this is the only way forward. Maybe you’re “tired of the status quo.”
To me, though, I couldn’t look someone struggling with poverty, perhaps in a community of color, perhaps in an urban context blighted by a century of the new Jim Crow, and say that I helped bring this about. I couldn’t explain my vote to a civilian family we bombed in Iraq or Syria, or to my children who will have to deal with a changed climate. Hell, I couldn’t explain it to my own husband, who will be legally un-wedded from me within half a decade if a Republican president delivers on his campaign promises.
Show me a Sanders path to victory, or admit that you’re making that choice, and putting the Republican Party in charge of all three branches of government.
Finally, and at the risk of alienating you a little, I think that preferring my moral/political purity over these life-or-death questions is a privileged position to take. I think one reason Bernie’s supporters tend toward the white, young, and privileged is that we don’t have as much skin in the game as others who would be affected by a Republican victory. Moral purity is a luxury not.
It’s not compromising, selling out, or picking the lesser of two evils to choose a candidate that can appeal to the broad middle of America—it’s democracy.
ADVERTISEMENT
Dear Bernie Voter,
Unlike many Clinton supporters, I am not writing to you because I think you’re naïve, or misguided, or sexist, or dumb, or any of the other patronizing and condescending crap that Hillary voters often say. In fact, I probably agree with you on most issues. I am writing to you because I am sincerely worried that you will hand this election to the Republicans, and I want to do my best to convince you not to do so.
The point of primary elections is not to select a president; it’s to select a candidate. For that reason, “electability” is not just one among many issues: It is the central issue. Yet despite having absorbed several dozen pro-Bernie articles and videos, I have yet to hear a plausible path to victory for Bernie Sanders.
et’s tease apart two very different arguments.
First, let’s concede that Bernie is more progressive on just about every substantive issue: the economy, health care, foreign policy, the Iraq War, campaign finance, environmentalism, corporatization—even LGBT equality, if you want to hold Hillary’s past against her. I have no idea why the Clinton campaign is pretending she is more progressive than a democratic socialist, but let’s agree that she isn’t. Let’s even concede that she is beholden to Wall Street, a Washington politician (with all the ethical problems that entails), and, basically, part of a broken system.
But let’s separate all of that out from the questions of who can win in November, and what’s at stake.
From that perspective, the problem isn’t that Clinton isn’t liberal enough; the problem, according to the best data we have, is that she may be too liberal. Every time a Sanders supporter criticizes Clinton for not being progressive enough, to me, that’s a good thing, because she’s still left of center. Let’s look at the numbers.
First, I know, there are head-to-head polls right now that show Sanders doing even better than Clinton against Rubio, Cruz, and Trump. But the reason these polls are meaningless is that most people still have no clear idea of who Bernie Sanders is or what he stands for. This may sound ridiculous to those of us who follow politics closely, but it’s the sad reality of American democracy.
Meanwhile, everyone has an idea of what Hillary Clinton stands for. We’ve been barraged with anti-Hillary messaging for most of the past 25 years. Her negatives are “baked in.”
But when voters are asked about Bernie’s positions, rather than his name, the numbers are brutal. In a Gallup Poll taken last June, fully 50 percent said they would not vote for a socialist. Some 40 percent said they’d never vote for an atheist, which Bernie also basically is. Most of those are probably Republican voters anyway, but many are the swing voters in the seven states that will likely determine this election. (This is not like Obama in 2004: Only 7 percent of Americans said they would not vote for an African American to be president.)
This view tracks with age, as Nate Silver pointed out recently. Only 30 percent of voters 18-29 view the term “socialism” unfavorably, compared with 60 percent of those 45-64. (Silver noted that younger voters are also less averse to the term “libertarianism.”) Just as older Clinton supporters seem out of touch with how younger voters see the world, so younger Sanders supporters seem out of touch with older ones for whom “socialist” is toxic. (And it doesn’t matter that Bernie is a “democratic socialist.” As my colleague Michael Tomasky pointed out, Republican attack ads will not parse the difference.)
But there’s much more.
According to polls, most Democratic and Republican voters agree on the top four issues in the campaign: national security, the economy, unemployment/jobs, and Obamacare. Bernie is an electoral disaster on all four.
First, even Bernie’s supporters concede that he’s inexperienced on foreign policy, especially in contrast to a former secretary of state. He’s also more dovish than Clinton, and the average American (not you or me, but the swing voters who will determine this election) already thinks that President Obama has been too “weak” and “soft” on our enemies. The last thing they’ll do is vote for someone even softer.
On the second and third issues, i.e., Bernie’s core, his promise to raise taxes on both the upper and the middle classes is the opposite of what nearly all voters want. Fifty-two percent of Americans say taxes are too high, 42 percent say they’re about right. Only 3 percent agree with Sanders that taxes are too low. (Three percent had no opinion.) He loses on this issue 94 to 3!)
In fact, you’d have to go back to Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964 to find a winning candidate who said he’d raise taxes not just on “the rich” but on pretty much everyone. A trillion dollars in new spending? This is way out of the mainstream and there is no plausible strategy for how to change that. People are not going to just “wake up” and agree with socialist political positions. They sure haven’t so far.
Finally, on question of health care, 53 percent of Americans still disapprove of Obamacare, yet Sanders wants to go even farther in the direction of big government, to a single-payer system that would require new taxes on the middle class, truly socialized medicine with fewer choices for those who can afford to make them, not to mention “death panels” and, somehow, the end of private health insurance.
Maybe these positions are good things to progressives, but they aren’t to most Americans. They’re the left-wing equivalents of Trump’s Mexican wall or Cruz’s call to abolish the IRS: They play well to the base, but alienate the middle.
Try this: Imagine yourself as someone who sometimes votes Republican, sometimes Democrat. You’re white, middle-class, basically fiscally conservative, moderate on social issues, and concerned about terrorism. You’ve got a family, and you live in the suburbs of North Carolina or Ohio. Are you really going to vote for a 74-year-old cantankerous socialist calling for revolution and a trillion dollars of big government?
Sure, Bernie will (hopefully) bring out younger voters. But those will be outweighed by mainstream Democrats, let alone swing-state swing-voters. And, large rallies notwithstanding, it hasn’t happened yet; in New Hampshire, overall turnout on the Democratic side was 233,993, down from 282,000 in 2008. It would take a statistical miracle for these new voters to swing the election. It’s magical thinking.
Obama’s approval rating is 47 percent not because he is not liberal enough (as we on the left think) but because his policies are more liberal than the mainstream. In this light, Bernie reminds me of Michael Dukakis, who lost 40 states to 10 in 1988. I was in high school at the time, and I remember how we all thought Dukakis was great, and how polls had him beating George H.W. Bush. Then came the Republican attack machine, painting Dukakis (in racist ways) as a soft-on-crime liberal. The election was a disaster.
Show me why this won’t happen to Sanders, please.
Now, some of my pro-Bernie friends say that even if Bernie isn’t ultimately electable, they can’t vote for Clinton in the primary because she’s so awful on, well, insert your key issues here. That is, of course, a coherent position to take. If Clinton’s negatives, or Bernie’s positives, are so high as to be worth losing the general election, then of course it makes sense to vote your values.
But let’s remember what’s at stake. We’ve all seen those simplistic ads making Clinton look more like the GOP than like Bernie. But as Sanders himself said, both he and Clinton are 100 times better than any Republican candidate. Specifically, a Republican president would mean:
- Further tax breaks for the 1 percent including income tax breaks, capital gains tax breaks (Rubio wants to eliminate the capital gains tax entirely), and estate tax breaks. More cuts to the social safety net to pay for them.
- New conservative Supreme Court justices that will overturn Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage, plus Obama’s executive orders on LGBT people, and allow new restrictions on contraception.
No action on climate change—indeed, denial that it even exists—and the undoing of the Obama administration’s executive actions on it, and undermining international efforts. Plus potentially eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency entirely (!) and rolling back regulations on logging, mining, and drilling.
- No acknowledgement that white privilege exists, that black lives matter (in the way BLM means it), or that racism persists in housing, voting, and employment. On the contrary, more voter suppression and racist gerrymandering and housing policies.
- Warmongering in the Middle East, either overt or covert Islamophobia at home, the growth of the surveillance state, and the return of torture.
- Stripping 18 million people of health insurance by repealing Obamacare, or at the very least restricting its implementation, with no alternative plan in sight.
- Not only no campaign finance reform and money in politics, but even more “freedom” for corporations and 1 percenters to buy our government.
Is it still worth it? I’m not asking you rhetorically; maybe you think it is. Maybe you think we need a political revolution, even though only around 25 percent of Americans agree with you, and this is the only way forward. Maybe you’re “tired of the status quo.”
To me, though, I couldn’t look someone struggling with poverty, perhaps in a community of color, perhaps in an urban context blighted by a century of the new Jim Crow, and say that I helped bring this about. I couldn’t explain my vote to a civilian family we bombed in Iraq or Syria, or to my children who will have to deal with a changed climate. Hell, I couldn’t explain it to my own husband, who will be legally un-wedded from me within half a decade if a Republican president delivers on his campaign promises.
Show me a Sanders path to victory, or admit that you’re making that choice, and putting the Republican Party in charge of all three branches of government.
Finally, and at the risk of alienating you a little, I think that preferring my moral/political purity over these life-or-death questions is a privileged position to take. I think one reason Bernie’s supporters tend toward the white, young, and privileged is that we don’t have as much skin in the game as others who would be affected by a Republican victory. Moral purity is a luxury not.
It’s not compromising, selling out, or picking the lesser of two evils to choose a candidate that can appeal to the broad middle of America—it’s democracy.
ADVERTISEMENT
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s not compromising, selling out, or picking the lesser of two evils to choose a candidate that can appeal to the broad middle of America—it’s democracy.
Wow, I couldn't have put it better. The above article is much more accurate, IMO, than the one posted earlier today in the Bernie thread. There is no guarantee that Hillary Clinton will beat Donald Trump. But at least she has a decent chance. Bernie Sanders does not.
Wow, I couldn't have put it better. The above article is much more accurate, IMO, than the one posted earlier today in the Bernie thread. There is no guarantee that Hillary Clinton will beat Donald Trump. But at least she has a decent chance. Bernie Sanders does not.
timschochet
Footballguy
And I firmly believe that in the end Hillary WILL beat Donald Trump, and quite decisively.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
If any of the information in Hillary's emails was obviously classified (such as Jon keeps asserting) then it wouldn't really matter how it got there. It wouldn't help her that someone else did it. Whether you believe her or not, her only play is that there is nothing that should have been automatically recognized as classified. As long as "reasonable people can disagree" on the nature of the content I think she correctly believes she is in the clear legally. Problem is her "lawyer" approach of telling the finely parsed truth but certainly not the whole truth doesn't play well politically.
- Status
Similar threads
