Bye bye Ted

glasgowtolondon · May 2016

kvruns said:

STARMOON44 said:

Ummm since when is it hunting to respond to your comments in the same thread? I'm not like finding you on Food & Cakes to post Hillary gifs. Also congrats on being the bigger person? I did not realize debating with someone about a subject that interests you would be a problem.

Can I request that this becomes a thing please? From now on whenever someone disagrees with you, just post HRC on a cake.

themosthappy91 · May 2016

madamerwin said:

STARMOON44 said:

MCmeow said:

STARMOON44 said:

MCmeow said:

There are at least 40% Independents in this country, most of them can't stand HRC. (there's a reason they're independent). This is a year where people are sick of the establishment. At the contested convention, if they hand her the nomination, there is a big likelihood Trump will be president. Also there's the risk that the FBI are going to leak info during the general if she is not indicted (I know it seems like a conspiracy theory and I wonder myself if they'll ever get on with it) It's a no win situation if they are the nominees, not only because they are separating the parties farther but we will have more war more incarceration and no progress on green energy, among who knows what else. Can we just fast forward 4 years? =\

"Hand her" the nomination she has earned by winning more votes? Sure, pretend a convention with a clear winner is contested if it makes you feel better.

I I don't think there's any chance of a dominant third party candidate this year. Bernie tried that and failed, and Trump is a classic third party candidate running from the inside strategically. I'm sure Jill Stein will pick up some of Bernie's voters, but I don't think she will do as well as Ralph Nader even.

--Box-?

I know how what I said can be controversial. But yeah, there are over 40% independents and that number grows every year. http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

But after the voter suppression in multiple states (there are lawsuits in AZ, NY, MA, maybe some others) and super delegates giving Clinton a head start, obviously people feel that way. My mayor Bill De blasio almost supported Bernie but was pressured not to, another anonymous super delegate came out and said they were pressured because of the resources of the DNC. NYC has 3mil independent voters and we have the strictest voting laws in the country. So that's the sentiment we have. Hopefully we can someday get to a place where there are open primaries everywhere. Anyway as I said in another post, I'm very opinionated in politics so I'll stay out of it from now on.

P.S: I don't think it's ok for a republican to run as a democratic candidate. Being for war, for fracking, pro-privatized prisons, pro-death sentence is not the Democratic Party.

Hahahahah. You're delusional. Hillary has been a Democrat her entire career. You may not like it, but it is reality. Bernie has not. That's the fight you are picking?

cry me a river about people who didn't want to join a party not being able to participate. And boo hoo poor disenfranchised Mayor DeBlasio who is a grown ass man and a powerful politician who does what he wants.

Just to play devil's advocate here... Hillary Clinton has indeed identified as a Democrat for most (all?) of her career, but what is means to be a democrat has changed drastically in the last 60 or so years. While she most definitely identifies as a democrat, I think it's fair to argue that she is pretty centrist in reality, though the battle with Bernie is forcing her to take more liberal stances. Bernie may not have identified as a democrat for his entire career, but his stances on most issues fall more in line was what has historically been considered Democratic (Party).

This just isn't true. If anything, the Democratic party of today is more conservative than the Democratic party of the 1960s and 1970s- obviously you have to take into account there have been huge CULTURAL shifts during that time period which have impacted both parties, but in general the Dems have been pretty solidly "just left of center" for the past two decades- which is where Hillary is now.

I voted for and heartily support Bernie, but it drives me nuts when some of his supporters act like he had the election stolen from him, or that somehow Hillary winning pretty handily is not reflective of the will of the party.

Did the party establishment help Hillary? Certainly- it always plays a role in primaries, as it should because that's pretty much the whole reason parties exist. That's why people bother to affiliate with parties, despite the fact that being outside of the "establishment" has gained you major political points with the public for the past ten years at least.

MCmeow · May 2016

STARMOON44 said:
Ummm since when is it hunting to respond to your comments in the same thread? I'm not like finding you on Food & Cakes to post Hillary gifs. Also congrats on being the bigger person? I did not realize debating with someone about a subject that interests you would be a problem.

I dont believe that politicians are being threatened. I don't watch CNN. I am not confused. But go ahead and assume I don't know suffering.

If your point is that Hillary is a centrist and the party has moved to the right, I actually fully agree with that. It's the suggestion that she isn't a democrat that I find irrational. You don't get to determine that just because you don't like where the party has gone she's really not a member. And a majority of people disagree. It's just a silly inflammatory way to raise a valid point.

I recall a time where you acted similarly on a different thread. Not talking about this one, a few months back. I didn't want this to become a debate which is why I didn't want to respond because I know how set in their ways Hillary supporters are. It's not a debate when both sides are not willing to change their minds. I can't stand her because of what she he done to minorities (aka my people) and so much else but I'm not gonna try to change people's mind about her. I don't want to be seen as someone who picks fights here in this forum because I like this forum. Maybe it was my mistake for saying "hand" her the election. But when one side resorts to calling the other "delusional" without facts to back it up, it's no longer a debate. You like Hillary, I hate Hillary, end of story. Let's have a truce.
I want to be a part of this convo without causing issues so back to Ted Cruz, the zodiac killer.

madamerwin · May 2016

themosthappy91 said:

madamerwin said:

STARMOON44 said:

MCmeow said:

STARMOON44 said:

MCmeow said:

There are at least 40% Independents in this country, most of them can't stand HRC. (there's a reason they're independent). This is a year where people are sick of the establishment. At the contested convention, if they hand her the nomination, there is a big likelihood Trump will be president. Also there's the risk that the FBI are going to leak info during the general if she is not indicted (I know it seems like a conspiracy theory and I wonder myself if they'll ever get on with it) It's a no win situation if they are the nominees, not only because they are separating the parties farther but we will have more war more incarceration and no progress on green energy, among who knows what else. Can we just fast forward 4 years? =\

"Hand her" the nomination she has earned by winning more votes? Sure, pretend a convention with a clear winner is contested if it makes you feel better.

I I don't think there's any chance of a dominant third party candidate this year. Bernie tried that and failed, and Trump is a classic third party candidate running from the inside strategically. I'm sure Jill Stein will pick up some of Bernie's voters, but I don't think she will do as well as Ralph Nader even.

--Box-?

I know how what I said can be controversial. But yeah, there are over 40% independents and that number grows every year. http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

But after the voter suppression in multiple states (there are lawsuits in AZ, NY, MA, maybe some others) and super delegates giving Clinton a head start, obviously people feel that way. My mayor Bill De blasio almost supported Bernie but was pressured not to, another anonymous super delegate came out and said they were pressured because of the resources of the DNC. NYC has 3mil independent voters and we have the strictest voting laws in the country. So that's the sentiment we have. Hopefully we can someday get to a place where there are open primaries everywhere. Anyway as I said in another post, I'm very opinionated in politics so I'll stay out of it from now on.

P.S: I don't think it's ok for a republican to run as a democratic candidate. Being for war, for fracking, pro-privatized prisons, pro-death sentence is not the Democratic Party.

Hahahahah. You're delusional. Hillary has been a Democrat her entire career. You may not like it, but it is reality. Bernie has not. That's the fight you are picking?

cry me a river about people who didn't want to join a party not being able to participate. And boo hoo poor disenfranchised Mayor DeBlasio who is a grown ass man and a powerful politician who does what he wants.

Just to play devil's advocate here... Hillary Clinton has indeed identified as a Democrat for most (all?) of her career, but what is means to be a democrat has changed drastically in the last 60 or so years. While she most definitely identifies as a democrat, I think it's fair to argue that she is pretty centrist in reality, though the battle with Bernie is forcing her to take more liberal stances. Bernie may not have identified as a democrat for his entire career, but his stances on most issues fall more in line was what has historically been considered Democratic (Party).

This just isn't true. If anything, the Democratic party of today is more conservative than the Democratic party of the 1960s and 1970s- obviously you have to take into account there have been huge CULTURAL shifts during that time period which have impacted both parties, but in general the Dems have been pretty solidly "just left of center" for the past two decades- which is where Hillary is now.

I voted for and heartily support Bernie, but it drives me nuts when some of his supporters act like he had the election stolen from him, or that somehow Hillary winning pretty handily is not reflective of the will of the party.

Did the party establishment help Hillary? Certainly- it always plays a role in primaries, as it should because that's pretty much the whole reason parties exist. That's why people bother to affiliate with parties, despite the fact that being outside of the "establishment" has gained you major political points with the public for the past ten years at least.

That's exactly my point - the democratic party has become more conservative over the past few decades. I agree with you fully, except that I think Hillary is solidly centrist. Not sure what you are arguing against in my post? I also never said or implied the election was stolen from Bernie...

ETF clarity

kimmiinthemitten · May 2016

@STARMOON44 you love HilRod, it's okay, we all know. And you do defend her to the end. I could say I didn't like her hair in the 90's and you'd say she was trying to differentiate herself from The Rachel. No one's mad at you about it, just own it.

And while she wasn't handed the election, she didn't handily win either. The Super Delegates don't vote until the convention, and have changed their minds in the past (cough cough 2008). Therefore I hate the way the media include their pledges up front. Without them, she's up about 300 delegates, and many of them are from Red States. There's also countless other ways she's benefited, but that's how party politics go.

I disagree with the many people complaining about independents being denied a primary vote; it's a party election, not a general one. However, voter disenfranchisement is very real. I dealt with it a ton in 2004 when Republicans spread propaganda all around the city I was running a campaign in with the wrong election date. It sickens me to think it could be happening within ones own party.

STARMOON44 · May 2016

kimmiinthemitten said:

@STARMOON44 you love HilRod, it's okay, we all know. And you do defend her to the end. I could say I didn't like her hair in the 90's and you'd say she was trying to differentiate herself from The Rachel. No one's mad at you about it, just own it.

And while she wasn't handed the election, she didn't handily win either. The Super Delegates don't vote until the convention, and have changed their minds in the past (cough cough 2008). Therefore I hate the way the media include their pledges up front. Without them, she's up about 300 delegates, and many of them are from Red States. There's also countless other ways she's benefited, but that's how party politics go.

I disagree with the many people complaining about independents being denied a primary vote; it's a party election, not a general one. However, voter disenfranchisement is very real. I dealt with it a ton in 2004 when Republicans spread propaganda all around the city I was running a campaign in with the wrong election date. It sickens me to think it could be happening within ones own party.

Obvi I love her. If you had footage of her eating puppies I'd explain those puppies must have had it coming. But I'm also not going to not say anything when people spout nonsense about her even if they get all OMG I wasn't trying to start a debate about it (which you haven't at all).

STARMOON44 · May 2016

MCmeow said:

STARMOON44 said:
Ummm since when is it hunting to respond to your comments in the same thread? I'm not like finding you on Food & Cakes to post Hillary gifs. Also congrats on being the bigger person? I did not realize debating with someone about a subject that interests you would be a problem.

I dont believe that politicians are being threatened. I don't watch CNN. I am not confused. But go ahead and assume I don't know suffering.

If your point is that Hillary is a centrist and the party has moved to the right, I actually fully agree with that. It's the suggestion that she isn't a democrat that I find irrational. You don't get to determine that just because you don't like where the party has gone she's really not a member. And a majority of people disagree. It's just a silly inflammatory way to raise a valid point.

I recall a time where you acted similarly on a different thread. Not talking about this one, a few months back. I didn't want this to become a debate which is why I didn't want to respond because I know how set in their ways Hillary supporters are. It's not a debate when both sides are not willing to change their minds. I can't stand her because of what she he done to minorities (aka my people) and so much else but I'm not gonna try to change people's mind about her. I don't want to be seen as someone who picks fights here in this forum because I like this forum. Maybe it was my mistake for saying "hand" her the election. But when one side resorts to calling the other "delusional" without facts to back it up, it's no longer a debate. You like Hillary, I hate Hillary, end of story. Let's have a truce.
I want to be a part of this convo without causing issues so back to Ted Cruz, the zodiac killer.

Yeah, so anytime you post made up false shit about hillary, I'm going to respond. That's not "hunting" its participation. I'm not up for a truce.

MCmeow · May 2016

STARMOON44 said:

MCmeow said:

STARMOON44 said:
Ummm since when is it hunting to respond to your comments in the same thread? I'm not like finding you on Food & Cakes to post Hillary gifs. Also congrats on being the bigger person? I did not realize debating with someone about a subject that interests you would be a problem.

I dont believe that politicians are being threatened. I don't watch CNN. I am not confused. But go ahead and assume I don't know suffering.

If your point is that Hillary is a centrist and the party has moved to the right, I actually fully agree with that. It's the suggestion that she isn't a democrat that I find irrational. You don't get to determine that just because you don't like where the party has gone she's really not a member. And a majority of people disagree. It's just a silly inflammatory way to raise a valid point.

I recall a time where you acted similarly on a different thread. Not talking about this one, a few months back. I didn't want this to become a debate which is why I didn't want to respond because I know how set in their ways Hillary supporters are. It's not a debate when both sides are not willing to change their minds. I can't stand her because of what she he done to minorities (aka my people) and so much else but I'm not gonna try to change people's mind about her. I don't want to be seen as someone who picks fights here in this forum because I like this forum. Maybe it was my mistake for saying "hand" her the election. But when one side resorts to calling the other "delusional" without facts to back it up, it's no longer a debate. You like Hillary, I hate Hillary, end of story. Let's have a truce.
I want to be a part of this convo without causing issues so back to Ted Cruz, the zodiac killer.

Yeah, so anytime you post made up false shit about hillary, I'm going to respond. That's not "hunting" its participation. I'm not up for a truce.

Ok then no truce? What is your end goal here exactly? I'm personally sick of debating Hillary supporters because most are the same, they hate facts and when we say anything negative about Hillary they assume we're spouting Republican conspiracy theories. No truce then? Fine, what did I make up about Hillary? What exactly? I have yet to meet a Hillary supporter that can give factual evidence in supporting her anyway.
I remember you bringing up strawman arguments like "you're saying those Black people had no reason in supporting her" or whatever, when my post had nothing to do with the response. I'm up for a debate when the other side is willing to be mature and listen, and I will also listen. I used to be willing to support her until this election came along. Do you want a debate? Because I'm up for a real debate.

Is it true or false that she voted yes on the Iraq war and called it a "business opportunity" disregarding the fact that innocent civilians and soldiers will die?

https://youtu.be/sQq3hs_lXpY

Is it true or false that she once opposed the bankruptcy bill and once she received wall street money she flip flopped?

https://youtu.be/12mJ-U76nfg

Is it true or false that she called young black men "super predators that should be brought to heel" (In these cases promoting privatized prisons and life sentences for nonviolent crimes)?

https://youtu.be/j0uCrA7ePno

Is it true or false that she dismissed and laughed at a Frackivist when they asked her join in the effort to stop fracking?

https://youtu.be/tjaqqbbs4zA

Is it true or false that she accused Bernie of not donating money to down ticket Democrats (Who actually gave money to three progressive Democrats so far), while she herself kept 99% of the fundraiser money?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670

Is it true or false that she used the families of Sandy Hook for political gain while benefiting from the gun manufacturers herself and selling weapons to Saudi Arabia?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/15/1515736/--Secretary-Clinton-approved-millions-in-gun-sales-for-Sandy-Hook-gun-maker-Remington
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/cp/docs/DoD_Sales_of_Significant_Military_Equipment_to_Foreign_Entities_FY11 .pdf

If it true or false that she defended the Honduran Coup who assasinated indigenious activists and made Honduras incredibly violent?
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled

Is it true or false that she wanted to lock people up if they burned the flag?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005#cite_note-1

Is it true or false that she sold fracking around the world?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/10/how-hillary-clintons-state-department-sold-fracking-to-the-world

Even as a NY senator (The general public here do not like her) she only passed three bills.... to rename things, that's it.
https://www.congress.gov/member/hillary-clinton/C001041?q={"bill-status":"law","sponsorship":"sponsored"}

You say you're gonna respond whenever I say false things about her. What is false about what I say? Once again, I don't care that you support her, go ahead, I offered a truce because I don't expect to change your mind. I'm the kind of person who admits they are wrong, I don't give a damn about having an ego, especially online because that's pathetic, so if you find factual evidence disproving any of these from real sources...

I can list more if you want. Hell, here's a database of all the controversial things she has done (There's about 3000 lines there), have fun: https://ghostbin.com/paste/fumkt

I actually like this forum, I may be pretty new here compared to may others but I don't want bad energy going around due to politics.

monkeysip · May 2016

My contribution to this discussion:

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5020756/uploads/editor/0q/od022q3s3yel.jpg

photokitty · May 2016

So 40% of voters are independents and it's a travesty that the democrat party and some of it's leaders are perceived as having shifted to the right, making them more centric? I don't get the argument. Are the independents you speak of moderate (and may prefer a more moderate candidate) or actually members of smaller parties that don't vote in primaries or caucus?

My aunt is life long, bleeding heart liberal, NUN. You can bet your sweet ass she's pro life, but that doesn't mean you get to kick her out of the party bc she doesn't tick all your boxes.

I'm not a die hard Hilary supporter, but I did vote for her and hope to again in November. What scares me (besides fracking, and it really fucking does!) is all my friends on FB who are Bernie supports posting #NeverHilary. I'm legit worried we'll end up with a supreme court that will, in my opinion, screw an entire generation if Trump is elected. It will be a court to empower corporations. Never mind all the damage it could do to social justice issues. Hell, even the republicans all seem to be slowing falling in line behind trump. If pettiness causes the democrats to lose, it will be a catastrophic loss for all.

But let's argue if it's a problem if some shifts to just left of center, instead being left of the person who can see the people still left of some moving target you call center. SMH

spockforprez · May 2016

monkeysip said:

My contribution to this discussion:

DYING!!!!!

spockforprez · May 2016

Image: https://scontent.forf1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13179374_1159346437429238_2042027412169415543_n.jpg?oh=735e375be7aa43c079d9059b45fb4e74&oe=57E1512C

MCmeow · May 2016

If I have offended anyone here due to anything I've said I apologize. I didn't want this to escalate, I actually wanted to de-escalate it (I can't resist when someone says I'm not being factual though). You guys are pretty cool, and Starmoon, I'm sure you're a good person and outside of politics we can agree on many things. And Horse in suit 2016!

STARMOON44 · May 2016

MCmeow said:

If I have offended anyone here due to anything I've said I apologize. I didn't want this to escalate, I actually wanted to de-escalate it (I can't resist when someone says I'm not being factual though). You guys are pretty cool, and Starmoon, I'm sure you're a good person and outside of politics we can agree on many things. And Horse in suit 2016!

Agreed on that. And I won't debate you about Hillary voting for the Iraq war or her positions on fracking- you don't like her because of her policies? I'm completely fine with that. It's just the allegations that the candidate who is winning the primary is somehow actually not winning that I refuse to let stand.

MCmeow · May 2016

STARMOON44 said:

MCmeow said:

If I have offended anyone here due to anything I've said I apologize. I didn't want this to escalate, I actually wanted to de-escalate it (I can't resist when someone says I'm not being factual though). You guys are pretty cool, and Starmoon, I'm sure you're a good person and outside of politics we can agree on many things. And Horse in suit 2016!

Agreed on that. And I won't debate you about Hillary voting for the Iraq war or her positions on fracking- you don't like her because of her policies? I'm completely fine with that. It's just the allegations that the candidate who is winning the primary is somehow actually not winning that I refuse to let stand.

Got it. If that was the issue I already said I shouldn't have worded it as "hand" but explained there are many reasons why people feel that way. She has many advantages since she is the establishment candidate. But democrat or republican: People shouldn't have their party affiliations switched, poll sites shouldn't shut down so close to election time, super delegates should not exist, big money needs to be taken out of politics, strict voter ID laws need to end. These difficulties in voting are what make people frustrated in the election. Whether she wins or loses there needs to be major reforms. I know I'll still fight for it, and hopefully other progressives continue to fight for it as well. So now we know where we stand. Have a nice day today! The rain is never ending here, ugh

kimmiinthemitten · May 2016

themosthappy91 · May 2016

madamerwin said:

themosthappy91 said:

madamerwin said:

STARMOON44 said:

MCmeow said:

STARMOON44 said:

MCmeow said:

There are at least 40% Independents in this country, most of them can't stand HRC. (there's a reason they're independent). This is a year where people are sick of the establishment. At the contested convention, if they hand her the nomination, there is a big likelihood Trump will be president. Also there's the risk that the FBI are going to leak info during the general if she is not indicted (I know it seems like a conspiracy theory and I wonder myself if they'll ever get on with it) It's a no win situation if they are the nominees, not only because they are separating the parties farther but we will have more war more incarceration and no progress on green energy, among who knows what else. Can we just fast forward 4 years? =\

"Hand her" the nomination she has earned by winning more votes? Sure, pretend a convention with a clear winner is contested if it makes you feel better.

I I don't think there's any chance of a dominant third party candidate this year. Bernie tried that and failed, and Trump is a classic third party candidate running from the inside strategically. I'm sure Jill Stein will pick up some of Bernie's voters, but I don't think she will do as well as Ralph Nader even.

--Box-?

I know how what I said can be controversial. But yeah, there are over 40% independents and that number grows every year. http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

But after the voter suppression in multiple states (there are lawsuits in AZ, NY, MA, maybe some others) and super delegates giving Clinton a head start, obviously people feel that way. My mayor Bill De blasio almost supported Bernie but was pressured not to, another anonymous super delegate came out and said they were pressured because of the resources of the DNC. NYC has 3mil independent voters and we have the strictest voting laws in the country. So that's the sentiment we have. Hopefully we can someday get to a place where there are open primaries everywhere. Anyway as I said in another post, I'm very opinionated in politics so I'll stay out of it from now on.

P.S: I don't think it's ok for a republican to run as a democratic candidate. Being for war, for fracking, pro-privatized prisons, pro-death sentence is not the Democratic Party.

Hahahahah. You're delusional. Hillary has been a Democrat her entire career. You may not like it, but it is reality. Bernie has not. That's the fight you are picking?

cry me a river about people who didn't want to join a party not being able to participate. And boo hoo poor disenfranchised Mayor DeBlasio who is a grown ass man and a powerful politician who does what he wants.

Just to play devil's advocate here... Hillary Clinton has indeed identified as a Democrat for most (all?) of her career, but what is means to be a democrat has changed drastically in the last 60 or so years. While she most definitely identifies as a democrat, I think it's fair to argue that she is pretty centrist in reality, though the battle with Bernie is forcing her to take more liberal stances. Bernie may not have identified as a democrat for his entire career, but his stances on most issues fall more in line was what has historically been considered Democratic (Party).

This just isn't true. If anything, the Democratic party of today is more conservative than the Democratic party of the 1960s and 1970s- obviously you have to take into account there have been huge CULTURAL shifts during that time period which have impacted both parties, but in general the Dems have been pretty solidly "just left of center" for the past two decades- which is where Hillary is now.

I voted for and heartily support Bernie, but it drives me nuts when some of his supporters act like he had the election stolen from him, or that somehow Hillary winning pretty handily is not reflective of the will of the party.

Did the party establishment help Hillary? Certainly- it always plays a role in primaries, as it should because that's pretty much the whole reason parties exist. That's why people bother to affiliate with parties, despite the fact that being outside of the "establishment" has gained you major political points with the public for the past ten years at least.

That's exactly my point - the democratic party has become more conservative over the past few decades. I agree with you fully, except that I think Hillary is solidly centrist. Not sure what you are arguing against in my post? I also never said or implied the election was stolen from Bernie...

ETF clarity

OH I see what you're saying now- you and I were using "historically" to refer to basically different eras- I thought you were saying Bernie's stances align more with the Democraric party of the last 30 years versus the 60s and 70s. My bad, carry on- oh and I definitely wasn't referring to you, or really any one in particular, with the "stealing election" vent, that's was just me generally ranting

.

madamerwin · May 2016

themosthappy91 said:

madamerwin said:

themosthappy91 said:

madamerwin said:

STARMOON44 said:

MCmeow said:

STARMOON44 said:

MCmeow said:

There are at least 40% Independents in this country, most of them can't stand HRC. (there's a reason they're independent). This is a year where people are sick of the establishment. At the contested convention, if they hand her the nomination, there is a big likelihood Trump will be president. Also there's the risk that the FBI are going to leak info during the general if she is not indicted (I know it seems like a conspiracy theory and I wonder myself if they'll ever get on with it) It's a no win situation if they are the nominees, not only because they are separating the parties farther but we will have more war more incarceration and no progress on green energy, among who knows what else. Can we just fast forward 4 years? =\

"Hand her" the nomination she has earned by winning more votes? Sure, pretend a convention with a clear winner is contested if it makes you feel better.

I I don't think there's any chance of a dominant third party candidate this year. Bernie tried that and failed, and Trump is a classic third party candidate running from the inside strategically. I'm sure Jill Stein will pick up some of Bernie's voters, but I don't think she will do as well as Ralph Nader even.

--Box-?

I know how what I said can be controversial. But yeah, there are over 40% independents and that number grows every year. http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

But after the voter suppression in multiple states (there are lawsuits in AZ, NY, MA, maybe some others) and super delegates giving Clinton a head start, obviously people feel that way. My mayor Bill De blasio almost supported Bernie but was pressured not to, another anonymous super delegate came out and said they were pressured because of the resources of the DNC. NYC has 3mil independent voters and we have the strictest voting laws in the country. So that's the sentiment we have. Hopefully we can someday get to a place where there are open primaries everywhere. Anyway as I said in another post, I'm very opinionated in politics so I'll stay out of it from now on.

P.S: I don't think it's ok for a republican to run as a democratic candidate. Being for war, for fracking, pro-privatized prisons, pro-death sentence is not the Democratic Party.

Hahahahah. You're delusional. Hillary has been a Democrat her entire career. You may not like it, but it is reality. Bernie has not. That's the fight you are picking?

cry me a river about people who didn't want to join a party not being able to participate. And boo hoo poor disenfranchised Mayor DeBlasio who is a grown ass man and a powerful politician who does what he wants.

Just to play devil's advocate here... Hillary Clinton has indeed identified as a Democrat for most (all?) of her career, but what is means to be a democrat has changed drastically in the last 60 or so years. While she most definitely identifies as a democrat, I think it's fair to argue that she is pretty centrist in reality, though the battle with Bernie is forcing her to take more liberal stances. Bernie may not have identified as a democrat for his entire career, but his stances on most issues fall more in line was what has historically been considered Democratic (Party).

This just isn't true. If anything, the Democratic party of today is more conservative than the Democratic party of the 1960s and 1970s- obviously you have to take into account there have been huge CULTURAL shifts during that time period which have impacted both parties, but in general the Dems have been pretty solidly "just left of center" for the past two decades- which is where Hillary is now.

I voted for and heartily support Bernie, but it drives me nuts when some of his supporters act like he had the election stolen from him, or that somehow Hillary winning pretty handily is not reflective of the will of the party.

Did the party establishment help Hillary? Certainly- it always plays a role in primaries, as it should because that's pretty much the whole reason parties exist. That's why people bother to affiliate with parties, despite the fact that being outside of the "establishment" has gained you major political points with the public for the past ten years at least.

That's exactly my point - the democratic party has become more conservative over the past few decades. I agree with you fully, except that I think Hillary is solidly centrist. Not sure what you are arguing against in my post? I also never said or implied the election was stolen from Bernie...

ETF clarity

OH I see what you're saying now- you and I were using "historically" to refer to basically different eras- I thought you were saying Bernie's stances align more with the Democraric party of the last 30 years versus the 60s and 70s. My bad, carry on- oh and I definitely wasn't referring to you, or really any one in particular, with the "stealing election" vent, that's was just me generally ranting .

Yeah I was being vague, but by historically I meant the Democratic party of the 50's and 60's. And I agree with you that claiming she "stole the election" is kind of silly. Although I will say, I think superdelegates are bullshit.

Bye bye Ted

Re: Bye bye Ted

Choose Another Board

Search Boards