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. (4 Viewers)

pantagrapher is absolutely right. Barring some miracle, our next President is going to be Donald Trump of Hillary Clinton. Unless you prefer Donald Trump, you should vote for Hillary. If you stay at home that's equal to a vote for Trump. If you vote for a 3rd party or write in somebody, that's a vote for Trump. 
And a vote for Hillary is a vote for Citigroup, JP Morgan and a for more bad ideas some Clinton will.have to apologize for when they try to continue the dynasty.

 
And you keep voting for the bought and paid for. 
I'd love to revisit this when you cast your congressional votes, etc. I'm curious how you manage to vote only for candidates unsullied by big money. Has anyone you've voted for ever won?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd love to revisit this when you cast your congressional votes, etc. I'm curious how you manage to vote only for candidates unsullied by big money. Has anyone you've voted for ever won?
On the state level the money issue is much different. And yes I have voted for winners I regret several of them.in hindsight. But we aren't talking about my local city councilman taking a few grand in donations from real estate developers. We are talking about a president taking tens of millions of dollars from.the people that nearly destroyed the world's economy with that same candidate now claiming everything is great and no more regulations are needed.

We are talking about a candidate who rooted on mass incarceration, rooted on dismantling the social.safety net, rooted on full deregulation of Wall Street. So much to "evolve* on so little time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And a vote for Hillary is a vote for Citigroup, JP Morgan and a for more bad ideas some Clinton will.have to apologize for when they try to continue the dynasty.
And for a progressive SC justice or 2, and for the Iran deal, and for protecting ACA, and for doing something about climate change, the infrastructure, education- and for preventing the disaster of a Trump presidency. How can you ignore this stuff? 

 
And a vote for Hillary is a vote for Citigroup, JP Morgan and a for more bad ideas some Clinton will.have to apologize for when they try to continue the dynasty.
And for a progressive SC justice or 2, and for the Iran deal, and for protecting ACA, and for doing something about climate change, the infrastructure, education- and for preventing the disaster of a Trump presidency. How can you ignore this stuff? 
He's not ignoring it.  Just like i'm not ignoring it.  You're fine with addressing symptoms of a problem.  We'd rather address the problem.  Don't know why you keep asking this.  You've been provided the answer many times.

 
Why are the Hillary voters so freakin nasty here?  You point out any issue with their obviously flawed candidate and you're immediately attacked with personal insults.  They don't even do that in the Trump thread.  

 
On the state level the money issue is much different. And yes I have voted for winners I regret several of them.in hindsight. But we aren't talking about my local city councilman taking a few grand in donations from real estate developers. We are talking about a president taking tens of millions of dollars from.the people that nearly destroyed the world's economy with that same candidate now claiming everything is great and no more regulations are needed.
Let's call it the Hillary Rule. Anyone else you vote for can take money from the same people.

 
And for a progressive SC justice or 2, and for the Iran deal, and for protecting ACA, and for doing something about climate change, the infrastructure, education- and for preventing the disaster of a Trump presidency. How can you ignore this stuff? 
Asked and answered.

 
Michigan is it. It's the last stand - if the 66-33 polls for Clinton hold true then the deficit is truly dire.

If you have any time at all today, even just 30 minutes, consider giving it to the campaign and help get out the vote in Michigan.

Click this link. Watch the video. GET OUT THE VOTE!
I'm bumping this every page I am available for today.

 
Let's call it the Hillary Rule. Anyone else you vote for can take money from the same people.
No the Hiary rule is anything she said or did more than 24 hours ago is out of bounds. She can't be held to account for anything as she is evolving. Oh look I think I just saw her evolve again isn't it cute?

 
pantagrapher is absolutely right. Barring some miracle, our next President is going to be Donald Trump of Hillary Clinton. Unless you prefer Donald Trump, you should vote for Hillary. If you stay at home that's equal to a vote for Trump. If you vote for a 3rd party or write in somebody, that's a vote for Trump. 
Or in other words, a replay of the 2000 election where the Ralph Nader voters (particularly in Florida) or the Democrats that sat out ended up handing the election to Bush.

 
Or in other words, a replay of the 2000 election where the Ralph Nader voters (particularly in Florida) or the Democrats that sat out ended up handing the election to Bush.
Nader didn't cost Gore. Gore ran a crap campaign. I voted for Gore but I wasn't enthusiastic about it. And i like his policies he jist ran that ceappy a cpaign. Oh and turnout was higher than it was in 96.

 
Nader didn't cost Gore. Gore ran a crap campaign. I voted for Gore but I wasn't enthusiastic about it. And i like his policies he jist ran that ceappy a cpaign. Oh and turnout was higher than it was in 96.
Nader received 97,421 votes in Florida.

Gore lost Florida by 537.

The fact that Gore was a lousy candidate doesn't change the fact that Nader put W in office.

 
Nader didn't cost Gore. Gore ran a crap campaign. I voted for Gore but I wasn't enthusiastic about it. And i like his policies he jist ran that ceappy a cpaign. Oh and turnout was higher than it was in 96.
It did in Florida and that decided the election. Yes, Gore ran a poor campaign but the Nader voters in Florida ended up being the difference (with the help of some judicial activism by SCOTUS).

 
He's not ignoring it.  Just like i'm not ignoring it.  You're fine with addressing symptoms of a problem.  We'd rather address the problem.  Don't know why you keep asking this.  You've been provided the answer many times.
Except it's not all symptoms of a single problem. It's lots of problems. Hillary is going to help solve some of them. Trump makes all of them worse. I get that you and NC are not going to change your minds but honestly it's very frustrating to me because I feel like you guys want most of the same things I do (not free trade I get that) and you're just not seeing the big picture. 

 
Nader received 97,421 votes in Florida.

Gore lost Florida by 537.

The fact that Gore was a lousy candidate doesn't change the fact that Nader put W in office.
When they throw their votes away they need to believe: 1. Not they're problem if Trump wins. and 2. If he does, it's the D candidate's fault for being a lousy candidate.

Jamelle Bouie (I think) rightly called this out as liberal entitlement voting. These people would like to have a democrat in office, but if the democrat loses, they'll continue to live relatively comfortable lives insulated from the consequences of a Trump presidency. So they can afford the luxury of casting their vote as an display of activism.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Except it's not all symptoms of a single problem. It's lots of problems. Hillary is going to help solve some of them. Trump makes all of them worse. I get that you and NC are not going to change your minds but honestly it's very frustrating to me because I feel like you guys want most of the same things I do (not free trade I get that) and you're just not seeing the big picture. 
Tim the problem is I see the big picture all too clearly. 

 
What are your racial blindspots is really a befuddling question... in the context it was asked,featuring a quote about "we are all a little racist" to which point neither candidate really addressed it.

So they hammer Bernie today on saying "ghetto" and "white people don't know what it's like to be poor" which as soundbytes are awful but in the context of what he's saying make sense.  

I guess I'm just left scratching my head at the constant coddling and pandering demanded by the black community in context of these issues.

I'm wondering what would a perfect 10 have been for Bernie there?  What answer would have satisfied?   

Particularly in light of many segments of the black community seeking equity while they make no bones about being biased against Jews and Homosexuals.  

They justifiably want inclusion, which I support, I have supported the black lives matter movement as a very important dialogue to have on these forums.  

But the same community is not as inclusive with Jews and Gays, also minorities, which I do not support , and as a body, they get a pass on and rarely questioned about.   As I said in the debate thread last night, that is the elephant in the room being ignored in this election cycle.  When A guy is polling between 40 and 50 points in the democratic polls as a whole and is losing 90-10 despite his track record of civil rights work and inspite of Hillary's less than sterling record on black issues, you start to wonder.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Except it's not all symptoms of a single problem. It's lots of problems. Hillary is going to help solve some of them. Trump makes all of them worse. I get that you and NC are not going to change your minds but honestly it's very frustrating to me because I feel like you guys want most of the same things I do (not free trade I get that) and you're just not seeing the big picture. 
If you really saw the big picture - you would be supporting Bernie...

Clinton is many things - but she is not a leader.  She is a divider.  What we need now, more than anytime in recent memory, is a leader - someone who can focus on a number of domestic issues that have been ignored while we play in the world's sandbox.  Bernie is that leader - the one who can set an agenda that focuses on critical needs.  

 
Why are the Hillary voters so freakin nasty here?  You point out any issue with their obviously flawed candidate and you're immediately attacked with personal insults.  They don't even do that in the Trump thread. 
They do, but they are just dumb so its less frustrating / insulting. These guys at least seem a little smarter. So it hurts a little more.

;)

 
What are your racial blindspots is really a befuddling question... in the context it was asked,featuring a quote about "we are all a little racist" to which point neither candidate really addressed it.

So they hammer Bernie today on saying "ghetto" and "white people don't know what it's like to be poor" which as soundbytes are awful but in the context of what he's saying make sense.  

I guess I'm just left scratching my head at the constant coddling and pandering demanded by the black community in context of these issues.

I'm wondering what would a perfect 10 have been for Bernie there?  What answer would have satisfied?   

Particularly in light of many segments of the black community seeking equity while they make no bones about being biased against Jews and Homosexuals.  

They justifiably want inclusion, which I support, but they are not as inclusive with those two communities, which I do not, and as a body, they get a pass on and rarely questioned about.   As I said in the debate thread last night, that is the elephant in the room being ignored in this election cycle.  When A guy is polling between 40 and 50 points in the democratic polls as a whole and is losing 90-10 despite his track record of civil rights work and inspite of Hillary's less than sterling record on black issues, you start to wonder.  

Overall fine answer, but he could have left out the 'white people don't know what it's like to be poor' and not used the word 'ghetto'.

 
They justifiably want inclusion, which I support, but they are not as inclusive with those two communities, which I do not, and as a body, they get a pass on and rarely questioned about.

 
3 minutes ago, cstu said:

Not a good statement there. Vermont is mostly white, so is he saying his state has no poor? Of course not Bernie was a poor white himself once, but in VT the poor white are tucked away out of view. 

Btw folks Trump is explicitly reaching to the poor whites they are most definitely out there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Except it's not all symptoms of a single problem. It's lots of problems. Hillary is going to help solve some of them. Trump makes all of them worse. I get that you and NC are not going to change your minds but honestly it's very frustrating to me because I feel like you guys want most of the same things I do (not free trade I get that) and you're just not seeing the big picture. 
You are a moderate Republican and supporting the most similar candidate to that.  Many of us are actual liberals.  So, no, we don't have the same views.  Nobody cares about how you think we should advance our beliefs. 

 
Except it's not all symptoms of a single problem. It's lots of problems. Hillary is going to help solve some of them. Trump makes all of them worse. I get that you and NC are not going to change your minds but honestly it's very frustrating to me because I feel like you guys want most of the same things I do (not free trade I get that) and you're just not seeing the big picture. 
Don't tell middle-aged white men how to vote

 
It's kind of hilarious that this passes as the official controversial moment of rudeness or sexism or whatever in the Democratic debate. Personally I think Bernie gets a lot of respect here for not getting run over anymore by Hillary's conscious tactic of talking over people to deflect and suck up time with :grad: & :hophead: .

But I'm trying to think about what it will be like when Trump tells Hillary 'shut up honey I'm talking here....' It will be such a complete travesty.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
When they throw their votes away they need to believe: 1. Not they're problem if Trump wins. and 2. If he does, it's the D candidate's fault for being a lousy candidate.

Jamelle Bouie (I think) rightly called this out as liberal entitlement voting. These people would like to have a democrat in office, but if the democrat loses, they'll continue to live relatively comfortable lives insulated from the consequences of a Trump presidency. So they can afford the luxury of casting their vote as an display of activism.
It's not throwing a vote away, it's voting your ####### conscience, voting for the candidate you think is the best for the job. That's what we're supposed to do, that's the whole ####### point. It's not a game, it's our best chance at getting represented by someone who shares as many of our ideas on good government as possible. If the candidate isn't compelling enough to convince enough people, IN THEIR OWN ####### PARTY, that they're the best person for the job, that they truly would be  the best representative - then that's the CANDIDATE'S problem, not the voters'.

Your adherence to this bizarre backwards thinking is confounding - you enjoy being held hostage by crummy candidates and crummy parties? Get out from under man.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
When they throw their votes away they need to believe: 1. Not they're problem if Trump wins. and 2. If he does, it's the D candidate's fault for being a lousy candidate.

Jamelle Bouie (I think) rightly called this out as liberal entitlement voting. These people would like to have a democrat in office, but if the democrat loses, they'll continue to live relatively comfortable lives insulated from the consequences of a Trump presidency. So they can afford the luxury of casting their vote as an display of activism.


I used to think Trump was "dangerous" in some way. He's so bad now as a candidate. It's a little late in the game, Hillary seems to be pulling away (though KS & NE differ) but the Trump narrative seems to help Sanders IMO, Bernie is not losing to that guy, I don't think anyone in a general election would. Not Kerry, not Biden, not Warren, not Dukakis, not anyone.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll have no problem with voting for Hilary, but this "throwing your vote away" nonsense has to end.  Vote for who you want to.  In most cases, it won't matter because the state won't be particularly tight.  I lived in DC in 2012.  I voted for Jill Stein.  I didn't hurt Obama and I got to vote for the candidate who was closest to my views.  Win/win. 

If we end up with a  tight enough race and a third party candidate viable enough to make a difference on the margins, like Nader.  Then each voter can do that calculus him or herself. 

 
Except it's not all symptoms of a single problem. It's lots of problems. Hillary is going to help solve some of them. Trump makes all of them worse. I get that you and NC are not going to change your minds but honestly it's very frustrating to me because I feel like you guys want most of the same things I do (not free trade I get that) and you're just not seeing the big picture. 
I'm not sure this is true at all.  And I don't think it's us having a problem seeing the big picture.  Where Bernie is going it to the core of 99% of our problems including many of the ones you listed above.

 
It's kind of hilarious that this passes as the official controversial moment of rudeness or sexism or whatever in the Democratic debate. Personally I think Bernie gets a lot of respect here for not getting run over anymore by Hillary's conscious tactic of talking over people to deflect and suck up time with :grad: & :hophead: .

But I'm trying to think about what it will be like when Trump tells Hillary 'shut up honey I'm talking here....' It will be such a complete travesty.
Had he let her interrupt and done nothing, they'd be spinning him as weak and submissive. The media's in the bag for Clinton, we've known this for a while.

Not one fact check by them on what the auto bail out really meant in terms of jobs saved/lost in Michigan that I've seen - you know, what she was pinning her whole competence in economics on last night. I've seen numbers posted (in one of these threads) that indicates that the automotive "bail out" didn't quite save automotive worker jobs - that in fact there's been a sharp decline in those numbers since the "bail out." So who really got bailed out there? Not the workers. She should be getting hammered on that if it's true. Not a peep in the media though - they think she won that point.

 
I used to think Trump was "dangerous" in some way. He's so bad now as a candidate. It's a little late in the game, Hillary seems to be pulling away (though KS & NE differ) but the Trump narrative seems to help Sanders IMO, Bernie is not losing to that guy, I don't think anyone in a general election would. Not Kerry, not Biden, not Warren, not Dukakis, not anyone.
Let's not get crazy

r2191982298.jpg


Dukakis-Tank-Ad-e1384898913712.jpg


 
Last edited by a moderator:
I used to think Trump was "dangerous" in some way. He's so bad now as a candidate. It's a little late in the game, Hillary seems to be pulling away (though KS & NE differ) but the Trump narrative seems to help Sanders IMO, Bernie is not losing to that guy, I don't think anyone in a general election would. Not Kerry, not Biden, not Warren, not Dukakis, not anyone.
Mondale?

I think Mondale might lose ;)

 
It's not throwing a vote away, it's voting your ####### conscience, voting for the candidate you think is the best for the job. That's what we're supposed to do, that's the whole ####### point. It's not a game, it's our best chance at getting represented by someone who shares as many of our ideas on good government as possible. If the candidate isn't compelling enough to convince enough people, IN THEIR OWN ####### PARTY, that they're the best person for the job, that they truly would be  the best representative - then that's the CANDIDATE'S problem, not the voters'.

Your adherence to this bizarre backwards thinking is confounding - you enjoy being held hostage by crummy candidates and crummy parties? Get out from under man.
I asked this question a long time ago in this thread and got no answers: assuming Sanders is out, which third party candidate would you be casting your "vote your conscience" vote for?

 
I asked this question a long time ago in this thread and got no answers: assuming Sanders is out, which third party candidate would you be casting your "vote your conscience" vote for?
I haven't considered it yet as Bernie's hitting all the right notes for me. I'll take a look at the Green and Libertarian candidates, but I'll probably vote for HRC if she's the nominee. I don't believe she's sincere in adopting all these grafts from Bernie's platform, but I'll take a chance they're not all lip service. I know it's a bad idea, I know she's saying anything to get elected, but, as I've said before, there's more of a chance of those ideas taking root in a Clinton "Democrat" Presidency than any other outcome. So I'll hold my nose and vote for her, hoping it'll keep some of Sanders's ideas alive for a future, better candidate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just wonder what Hillary supporters would be saying if Bernie were embroiled in a long running scandal where one of the major players was just given immunity and there was a possibility of a criminal indictment?

Oh and do you know who will have a copy of her speeches to Goldman? Ted Cruz's wife.

What a fun general all the don't throw your vote away types are setting up.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top