Community >> View Thread

Author
Comicguy1


Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 1,260


Neither of the three candidates appealed to me, but I think that Bernie was the best of the three. I'm kind of wishing that he was the one sitting in the office right now. At least he didn't take any corporate money for the donations, and he is certainly the most trustworthy and genuine of the three (And unlike Hillary, he at least seems to have SOMEWHAT of an understanding of gun laws!). There was talk about the DNC being rigged in Hillary's favor. I think that we would be in a MUCH better place right now.


Posted with Google Chrome 48.0.2564.116 on Windows 10
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 15,542


The DNC does appear to have been for Clinton but I think this is played up a bit much. She still did win most of the primaries. One can make a case for the issue with super delegates but that is not something that can be manipulated easily. Clinton would have always had an intrinsic advantage with that one.

I liked Sanders more than either of the others. I am not sure he would have won either though. It is hard to say exactly how things would have gone but I doubt too many American's want to vote for somebody who states they are a socialist.

He definitely seems like a kinder and more grounded guy than Trump. He had his own issues though.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
Mikel Midnight


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 1,411



    Quote:
    He definitely seems like a kinder and more grounded guy than Trump. He had his own issues though.


He's also be facing both houses of Congress united against him, and he does not have a history of wheeling and dealing and getting major legislation done.



Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 15,542


Sure, but I would say Trump has struggled at that despite having unified government behind him. I imagine that if the vote to get Sander's elected was there it would have more than likely flipped one of the houses of Congress.

Maybe not, but it seems likely. Although the House in particular has done a great job in securing their seats against more democratic elections.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
Comicguy1


Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 1,260


She said that Bernie favored the gun manufacturers over the Sandy Hook families who lost their children. I think that did it for him.


Posted with Google Chrome 48.0.2564.116 on Windows 10
Thurisaz


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,653


Gridlock for the most part. The right would still have control of Congress so none of his signature issues (universal education, etc.) would have a chance of passing.

The environmental policy would be in better shape as he never would pull out of the Paris deal or appointed a nutjob as head of the EPA.

None of Obama's executive orders would have been rescinded.

The stock market likely wouldn't have gone on the same surge as the speculators favor Trump's deregulation stances.






[URL=http://s1362.photobucket.com/user/wulabo/media/Doom_zps60271c02.jpg.html][IMG]http://i1362.photobucket.com/albums/r693/wulabo/Doom_zps60271c02.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.132 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,888



    Quote:
    The DNC does appear to have been for Clinton but I think this is played up a bit much. She still did win most of the primaries. One can make a case for the issue with super delegates but that is not something that can be manipulated easily. Clinton would have always had an intrinsic advantage with that one.


Not played up at all. There was direct collusion with the woman in charge of the DNC. So bad in fact she had to be removed. Actually recorded discussions on how could the DNC help Bernie be defeated.

Not only this...the replacement woman in charge immediately colluded AGAIN with the Clinton campaign...providing the questions to their head to head discussions planned many days in advance. Giving Hillary complete knowledge of what would be asked well ahead of time.

The Republican party is corrupt as heck...but the fact that this seems to be continually swept under the carpet or minimalized by the left just boggles the mind.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 15,542



    Quote:

      Quote:
      The DNC does appear to have been for Clinton but I think this is played up a bit much. She still did win most of the primaries. One can make a case for the issue with super delegates but that is not something that can be manipulated easily. Clinton would have always had an intrinsic advantage with that one.



    Quote:
    Not played up at all. There was direct collusion with the woman in charge of the DNC. So bad in fact she had to be removed. Actually recorded discussions on how could the DNC help Bernie be defeated.


This is the best summary on it I can find...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16599036/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-sanders

I am unaware of everything in the case. However, the fact is that Bernie still lost. One can say the DNC help had a fair bit to do with that, but at the same time I am not sure that most of the Democratic voters just do what the DNC say either.


    Quote:
    Not only this...the replacement woman in charge immediately colluded AGAIN with the Clinton campaign...providing the questions to their head to head discussions planned many days in advance. Giving Hillary complete knowledge of what would be asked well ahead of time.


I do not view this one as all that scandalous. Trump did. I am not alright with it, but it is hardly the first time. Most debates are frankly a joke in our political system.

Anyone worth their salt knows the questions going to be asked a mile away for the most part. Particularly with the presidential debates. I find that debates are really a very poor format for determining what a candidate knows or does not know. It is typically more a contrast of styles or appearances more than anything else.


    Quote:
    The Republican party is corrupt as heck...but the fact that this seems to be continually swept under the carpet or minimalized by the left just boggles the mind.


Does it matter much at the moment? The various scandals of the Trump transition team, campaign and administration are more paramount to government function, ethics and power in the US than worrying about a lost candidate.

The DNC should do soul searching and strive to be more fair in the future. However, from what I have heard the fundraising thing was given to both candidates. Clinton got some additional things. That is not ok, but even if those did not happen, it is unlikely to have affected the result.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 15,542


I disagree with you strongly there. There are moments that can hurt but Clinton already had major name recognition in democratic circles that gave her a huge edge. Sanders brought more energy into the campaign but it was always going to be a major uphill climb for him.

Particularly with superdelegates. Many of the states that Sanders won were also cacus states. Which are hardly democratic processes in and of themselves.

I vastly preferred Sanders over Clinton, but at the same time I do not think one moment did him in. He was always fighting uphill and never had support of the general establishment. Clinton still won more primaries and more supderdelegates.

Many primary voters are tuned in, but I doubt that one statement from one candidate is going to do them in at that point. At least it did not seem that way to me.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,888



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        The DNC does appear to have been for Clinton but I think this is played up a bit much. She still did win most of the primaries. One can make a case for the issue with super delegates but that is not something that can be manipulated easily. Clinton would have always had an intrinsic advantage with that one.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Not played up at all. There was direct collusion with the woman in charge of the DNC. So bad in fact she had to be removed. Actually recorded discussions on how could the DNC help Bernie be defeated.



    Quote:
    This is the best summary on it I can find...



    Quote:
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16599036/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-sanders



    Quote:
    I am unaware of everything in the case. However, the fact is that Bernie still lost. One can say the DNC help had a fair bit to do with that, but at the same time I am not sure that most of the Democratic voters just do what the DNC say either.


So tampering is ok if its for Hillary. If underhanded techniques give you more votes...one can just say it didn't matter really. I guess we can apply the same logic to the Russian leaks and any votes Trump may have gained right?


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Not only this...the replacement woman in charge immediately colluded AGAIN with the Clinton campaign...providing the questions to their head to head discussions planned many days in advance. Giving Hillary complete knowledge of what would be asked well ahead of time.



    Quote:
    I do not view this one as all that scandalous. Trump did. I am not alright with it, but it is hardly the first time. Most debates are frankly a joke in our political system.


And this is the problem...neither side see's a problem when its THEM doing it.


    Quote:
    Anyone worth their salt knows the questions going to be asked a mile away for the most part. Particularly with the presidential debates. I find that debates are really a very poor format for determining what a candidate knows or does not know. It is typically more a contrast of styles or appearances more than anything else.


I find this...disturbing. It's like saying giving all the test questions a week ahead for some students and not others is OK...it wont affect their grades after all right?


    Quote:

      Quote:
      The Republican party is corrupt as heck...but the fact that this seems to be continually swept under the carpet or minimalized by the left just boggles the mind.



    Quote:
    Does it matter much at the moment? The various scandals of the Trump transition team, campaign and administration are more paramount to government function, ethics and power in the US than worrying about a lost candidate.


I am not worrying about a lost candidate...we are both responding to the posed question. Though I find it odd that many on the LEFT cant see what happened as a real issue and one that should be addressed so they don't fail to the orange baboon next time around.


    Quote:
    The DNC should do soul searching and strive to be more fair in the future. However, from what I have heard the fundraising thing was given to both candidates. Clinton got some additional things. That is not ok, but even if those did not happen, it is unlikely to have affected the result.


Go back and read where 99% of the campaign funds went..."some additional things"...lol


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,888



    Quote:
    I disagree with you strongly there. There are moments that can hurt but Clinton already had major name recognition in democratic circles that gave her a huge edge. Sanders brought more energy into the campaign but it was always going to be a major uphill climb for him.



    Quote:
    Particularly with superdelegates. Many of the states that Sanders won were also cacus states. Which are hardly democratic processes in and of themselves.



    Quote:
    I vastly preferred Sanders over Clinton, but at the same time I do not think one moment did him in. He was always fighting uphill and never had support of the general establishment. Clinton still won more primaries and more supderdelegates.



    Quote:
    Many primary voters are tuned in, but I doubt that one statement from one candidate is going to do them in at that point. At least it did not seem that way to me.


She didn't "win" more super delegates....they were given to her from the start.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 15,542


Superdelegates decide who they will vote for. That may be hard for you to understand but it is the way it is. She had major inroads with them because of her name, campaigning and so on. The Clinton's have/had major power in Democratic circles.

You acting like they do not have a choice does not mean they do not. Given their nature they were already more than likely to support Clinton from the outset.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 15,542


I removed my initial reply. Your reply is fairly nasty in tone and twists a fair bit of what I say into what you want it to say. Ironically, what you have accused me of in the past.

I never said that it was ok. What the DNC did was unethical. That said, I do not think that it would have made a difference for Sanders. He still lost many primary states. The idea that he would have faired better in some may be true but it is a leap to assume it would have flipped things in my view.

Ironically, we are also discussing this. A topic that matters for internal DNC strife and so on but apparently are cool with giving Trump a pass on breaking the ethical rules of government and various other things. I mean Clinton and the DNC had a deal. That is the same as Russia being involved in our election and trying to sway it.

You made that claim, not me. You made it mockingly, but it worth pointing out that logically it does not hold up. Unless you hold that an American political party shooting itself in the foot is the same as a foreign power getting involved in a US election. Trump is the only guy that believes they were not and has done nothing about it. Nadda. I am skeptical that Trump colluded (although people around him tried at the least).

I guess one can make a case that if we are to be consistent than we have to look at every violation equally. What the DNC did was wrong. I am not sure that I would ever agree that it was to the same level as what Trump is doing from a place of actual power. You can think otherwise, but that is not seeing the forest through the trees.

I am also not sure why you love to give a pass to everybody that voted for Trump and their reasons and then bash liberals for nominating the worst candidate ever. You never hold the people voting for him accountable...

https://www.thenation.com/article/economic-anxiety-didnt-make-people-vote-trump-racism-did/

Clinton was a factor. And the baggage with her. But people picked Trump for reasons that it is not at all clear they would have jumped to Sanders for. Just look at how Trump is governing. There are reasons there are accusations of racism and various very bad things happening. I am sure those that hate political correct culture love seeing minorities and those that are different than the majority bashed and persecuted.

I am not one of them. If that is who you are saying those with left leaning ideologies should go to win back the soul of America than America was lost a while ago. Sounds nihilistic but true.

I know the topic is Clinton, but I just could not resist bringing this up. Despite the various Trump controversies I have noticed a trend of posts that are going after Clinton. And various posters are so predictable on attacking one thing but not the other it gets old.

In conclusion, hate Clinton all you want. She is done and out of it. That is fine and dandy. Not sure if you want her thrown in jail or what for this action. It was unethical for sure. Folks should get in big trouble. But at the same time, I never see you get fired up over the reverse cases. Other than blaming liberals. Apparently, in your eyes, conservatives are a lost cause and cannot be convinced of much or that liberals should just give in and become conservatives. Not sure which sometimes.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
Comicguy1


Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 1,260


The Wikileaks Emails pretty much confirmed it. News outlets were reporting it after the election.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmzfpRDzpSQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24WlEtHgYQc


Posted with Google Chrome 48.0.2564.116 on Windows 10
Comicguy1


Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 1,260


He did have a point about Hillary taking all of that money from Wall Street and Goldman Sachs and special interest. He definitely could have gotten her there.


Posted with Google Chrome 48.0.2564.116 on Windows 10
Comicguy1


Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 1,260


Even Elizabeth Warren said that she believed that it was rigged. Of course, it would have been better if she had told us BEFORE!


Posted with Google Chrome 48.0.2564.116 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,888


Not nearly as nasty or condescending as you usually get.
I didn't twist your words at all...lets see I said:

So tampering is ok if its for Hillary?...that's kind of a question
OK...it wont affect their grades after all right? another question
And then comments about how it sounded to me.

That's not twisting your words in the least. Consider them follow up questions or explaining how I felt about the way what you said sounded. It allows you ample space to clarify...instead you took it as another chance to lecture.

You state it would not make a difference to Sanders and ignore or minimize such impacts as Her starting with all the super delegates and stating having the questions ahead of time made little or no impact.

As for giving trump a break I do hardly anything of the sort. But I am not the one stating that...hey what Trump did had no impact like you are stating what Hillary did made no impact. It's a huge distinction and one that sure makes it easier to be give Hillary a pass because ,....mehhh...it didn't do anything.

I don't reply in every post defending Trump like you seem to post in every one attacking him. I also don't attack Hillary in every post or defend her like you do in every post. You like to claim I am always giving Trump a pass...when I think its clear you always give Hillary the pass.

As for yourcomment:
you hold that an American political party shooting itself in the foot is the same as a foreign power getting involved in a US election.

I look at it like this:
Foreign powers are always going to try and muck with others governmental elections and yes they should be rebuffed when they do...but its going to happen...we do it to others.
I am stating its just as bad if not worse if our own internal political parties are subverting the US elections. The DNC did not shoot themselves in the foot...they were trying to RIG the election. They actively worked to control ~50% of the votes for the presidency (their party). These are BOTH heinous crimes...and those involved should both be locked up in jail for trying to subvert our system of government...for Trump you can add in collusion with a foreign power as well if this is found out to be true.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,888



    Quote:
    Superdelegates decide who they will vote for. That may be hard for you to understand but it is the way it is. She had major inroads with them because of her name, campaigning and so on. The Clinton's have/had major power in Democratic circles.


And here is your lecturing rude comments again...sorry its so hard for me to understand that you are fine with this kind of corruption in a supposedly democratic party.


    Quote:
    You acting like they do not have a choice does not mean they do not. Given their nature they were already more than likely to support Clinton from the outset.


Yes yes this is me acting and there wasn't an overpowering percentage of super delegates given to her straight from the start. Ignore the man behind the curtain right?


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
Trent Trueheart


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 669


If I may interject here, I feel like part of the problem is that you seem to view primaries as a sacred part of the election process. It really isn't. Both parties can choose whoever they want as their nominees.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,888



    Quote:
    If I may interject here, I feel like part of the problem is that you seem to view primaries as a sacred part of the election process. It really isn't. Both parties can choose whoever they want as their nominees.


They are supposed to choose whom their supporters wish though yes?
Technically...one could use the same argument for the Presidential election. The electoral college is supposed to vote the way the voters chose...but by law they can give their votes to any candidate they wish.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
Trent Trueheart


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 669



    Quote:

      Quote:
      If I may interject here, I feel like part of the problem is that you seem to view primaries as a sacred part of the election process. It really isn't. Both parties can choose whoever they want as their nominees.



    Quote:
    They are supposed to choose whom their supporters wish though yes?


They should choose the candidate that has the most support. However, primaries are a tricky thing since the rules vary from state to state. In some states, you can only vote in primary if your a registered voter for that party. Independents aren't allowed to vote in either primary. In other states, independents are allowed to vote in either primary. The reason I mention this is because I believe I saw an article where some left leaning independents voted for Trump in the primary because they felt he was sure to lose. So I wouldn't say that everyone who votes for a candidate in the primaries is a supporter.

Honestly, I think I would feel differently if the person the DNC was working against was a long time Democrat. I can't say I blame those in the DNC who wanted to prevent Sanders from becoming the Democratic nominee. He didn't represent them. It was stupid because she probably would have won anyway based on her name alone.


    Quote:
    Technically...one could use the same argument for the Presidential election. The electoral college is supposed to vote the way the voters chose...but by law they can give their votes to any candidate they wish.


Absolutely. However, I would say voting your conscious is different than choosing someone to represent you.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,888



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        If I may interject here, I feel like part of the problem is that you seem to view primaries as a sacred part of the election process. It really isn't. Both parties can choose whoever they want as their nominees.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        They are supposed to choose whom their supporters wish though yes?



    Quote:
    They should choose the candidate that has the most support. However, primaries are a tricky thing since the rules vary from state to state. In some states, you can only vote in primary if your a registered voter for that party. Independents aren't allowed to vote in either primary. In other states, independents are allowed to vote in either primary. The reason I mention this is because I believe I saw an article where some left leaning independents voted for Trump in the primary because they felt he was sure to lose. So I wouldn't say that everyone who votes for a candidate in the primaries is a supporter.



    Quote:
    Honestly, I think I would feel differently if the person the DNC was working against was a long time Democrat. I can't say I blame those in the DNC who wanted to prevent Sanders from becoming the Democratic nominee. He didn't represent them. It was stupid because she probably would have won anyway based on her name alone.


This feels too much like a "good ol boys" club for me ever be comfortable with what they did.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Technically...one could use the same argument for the Presidential election. The electoral college is supposed to vote the way the voters chose...but by law they can give their votes to any candidate they wish.



    Quote:
    Absolutely. However, I would say voting your conscious is different than choosing someone to represent you.





Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
Trent Trueheart


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 669



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          If I may interject here, I feel like part of the problem is that you seem to view primaries as a sacred part of the election process. It really isn't. Both parties can choose whoever they want as their nominees.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          They are supposed to choose whom their supporters wish though yes?

      Quote:

        Quote:
        They should choose the candidate that has the most support. However, primaries are a tricky thing since the rules vary from state to state. In some states, you can only vote in primary if your a registered voter for that party. Independents aren't allowed to vote in either primary. In other states, independents are allowed to vote in either primary. The reason I mention this is because I believe I saw an article where some left leaning independents voted for Trump in the primary because they felt he was sure to lose. So I wouldn't say that everyone who votes for a candidate in the primaries is a supporter.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Honestly, I think I would feel differently if the person the DNC was working against was a long time Democrat. I can't say I blame those in the DNC who wanted to prevent Sanders from becoming the Democratic nominee. He didn't represent them. It was stupid because she probably would have won anyway based on her name alone.



    Quote:
    This feels too much like a "good ol boys" club for me ever be comfortable with what they did.


Do you think the RNC was working against Trump? If you found out they were, how would you feel?


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Technically...one could use the same argument for the Presidential election. The electoral college is supposed to vote the way the voters chose...but by law they can give their votes to any candidate they wish.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Absolutely. However, I would say voting your conscious is different than choosing someone to represent you.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 58.0 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 1,888


I'd feel the same...though I think they have rules against this as it was brought up when they outright declared they didn't like him but would give him their vote.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software