clinton vs. sanders your vote?- Page 122

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 10:18am

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 10:47am

More bad judgement.

How Hillary Helped Ruin Haiti

Much of the blame for Haiti’s chaotic political scene can be pinned on Hillary Clinton’s State Department, whose handpicked president has only made things worse.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/13/how-hillary-helped-ruin-haiti.html?via=FB_Page&source=HuffPoFacebook

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 11:35am

More bad judgment.

 

NBC: Sanders Under Fire for Supporter's '"Corporate Democratic Whores' Remarks

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/sanders-under-fire-supporters-whores-remarks-n555846

 

 

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 12:15pm

Well it wasn't Sanders that said that (like it wasn't Hillary's CP joke right PJ??). And I'm sure you know he's already denounced the remark right?

 

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 1:01pm

He may have denounced it but supporters like you and Borstal have been using language like that all along. It wasn't an isolated incident. It's a symptom of a negative campaign--and something even more troubling. Bernie's penchant for painting an us-vs.-them portrait of mainstream Democrats versus followers of his revolution has created a "Bernie-or-bust" atmosphere that could easily result in a lack of turnout and Republican congressional victories all over the country. This would be tragic for the progressive cause.

Updated On: 4/14/16 at 01:01 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 2:23pm

The piece I posted about the Sanders insistence on exploiting a perceived binary world -- either or, us vs. them -- as noted by Pal Joey, means many of Sanders followers find no candidate the legitimate and only viable option to supporting him. Sarandon's remarks, taken as a rare slice of what the media dubs "the far left," only revealed how widespread this mindset has become.  And how dangerous, if you consider the possibility of 8 years of a Republican presidency (see 1968, yet again).   Yet a sidebar question: how many of the 27,000 in Washington Square last night are registered Democrats?  That's another issue.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 2:58pm

 

There were NOT 27,000 people in Washington Square Park. That's just nonsense.

 

[DAME]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 3:00pm

It sure is a lot of crap.  

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 3:10pm

Obama got 24,000 in 2008. The real estimates are 6,500 inside the park and another 5,000 spilling outside, less than half of what Obama got.

Which makes a lot more sense.

 

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 3:14pm

That's the NYPD estimate, by the way.

27,000 is a magic-unicorn number pulled out the a hat by the Sanders campaign.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 3:22pm

Bernie supporters online are saying it was actually 50,000. lol

[madbrian]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 3:24pm

Yeah, the 27k was from the Sanders campaign, and was picked up by the media as gospel.  To be sure, the crowd didn't look anywhere near what Obama had in 2008, after which he was trounced by HRC by 17 points.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 3:26pm

PalJoey said: "He may have denounced it but supporters like you and Borstal have been using language like that all along. It wasn't an isolated incident. It's a symptom of a negative campaign--and something even more troubling. Bernie's penchant for painting an us-vs.-them portrait of mainstream Democrats versus followers of his revolution has created a "Bernie-or-bust" atmosphere that could easily result in a lack of turnout and Republican congressional victories all over the country. This would be tragic for the progressive cause."

And that is A LIE. I have never used a derogatory term against Clinton. I've never said anything misogynistic about her. Not once. I've also avoided making blanket statements about Clinton supporters here...even when I was being egged on by trolls.

You and your fellow Clinton supporters have not done the same. I've been called a misogynist, stupid, ignorant of politics etc. 

But hey if I was a Clinton supporter I guess I would resort to the same tactics to avoid talking about her disastrous record.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 5:44pm

Well, then I applaud you for your restraint. Your incorrect assumptions about her record and the insulting tone of your fellow Sanders supporters must have made it seem like you all considered her subhuman. Honestly, it's wearying to see so many falsehoods heaped up her and presented as if they were facts.

Meanwhile, a Superior Court judge in Connecticut finally took a step at ruling against Bernie's horrific law defending the gun manufacturers, the law all Sanders supporters choose to ignore.

 

WASHINGTON POST: Connecticut judge won’t dismiss Sandy Hook lawsuit against gun manufacturers

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/14/connecticut-judge-wont-dismiss-sandy-hook-lawsuit-against-gun-manufacturers/

[HorseTears]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 6:14pm

Hillary, Bernie and the DNC join forces to jointly sue the State of Arizona over its disastrous primary election (Washington Post). 

 

Now, this is the kind of cooperation I love to see and gives me some small glimmer of hope that when this hard fought primary is over, both sides will again join forces to defeat the Republican nominee.  

[HorseTears]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 6:26pm

BTW, let's just all acknowledge that, during a heated campaign, surrogates continue to say idiotic, hyperbolic and unfortunate  things on both sides.  Sometimes they're saying them with the prior knowledge, if not explicit endorsement, of the campaigns and other times they're going completely rogue and blindsiding the candidates they're supposed to be supporting.  Rosario Dawson & co seem a bit unhinged, but, I'm not sure that - despite what, I'll take to be a sincere apology - Hillary supporter Tom Watson is any different:

 

"After Blasting Bernie Event as a ‘Hate Rally’ With ‘Armbands,’ Clinton Supporter Scrubs Twitter, Apologizes (Mediaite) 

 

A Hillary Clinton supporter — who started a project last year to combat media bias against the former secretary of state — was roundly criticized for tweeting about Bernie Sanders supporters in a way that apparently likened them to fascists.

Tom Watson deleted the offending tweet and apologized unreservedly, calling the remarks “stupid and insensitive” and “intemperate and sloppy.” He told one person on Twitter: “My regret is real.”



CONT. AT MEDIAITE "

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 6:42pm

I wonder if they're going to continue throwing only softball questions to Bernie tonight instead of calling him out on the truly nasty path his campaign had decided to go down. 

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 11:20pm

Hillary wants guns and violence where it belongs:  Abroad.

(And I defy anyone to refute Sanders incredible comments on Israel tonight.  The brightest part of a sloppy debate showing from the both of them)

Updated On: 4/14/16 at 11:20 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 11:32pm

She had a persuasive night, by any definition. This election is a job audition, not a test for ideological purity.  Tonight she basically said, eloquently, "hire me," and the obvious reasons for responding pragmatically with "I will" were presented with clarity, nuance, integrity.  But if we must nitpick, the moment that she owned the earned votes, and her resulting presidential gravitas: when she fairly challenged Sanders to cite a single action that proved her abject loyalty to Wall Street, and he could only regurgitate recycled snippets of his stump speech. If the central thesis in his ad hominem attack cannot be translated, grounded in provable , illustrative action taken by Clinton, his argument implodes. 

Updated On: 4/14/16 at 11:32 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 11:42pm

 

I do not for the life of me understand Bernie's obsession with guns, It obliterates the rest of his progressive message.

He's like a Jewish Charlton Heston about guns.

 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/14/16 at 11:45pm

His chuckling during the gun talk and her "it's not funny" (or however she phrased it) will be a TV ad by tomorrow. I don't think she won the night, and I don't think he did either. This debate almost seemed like a waste of time with the two of them having the same conversation we've heard them having for months now. It was almost like getting excited for a new episode of your favorite show only to find out it was a rerun. 

[Luscious]

Posted: 4/15/16 at 12:46am

I've been wavering, but Hillary won me over tonight. And just in time, since I live in NY and will be voting on Tuesday. I liked and agreed with a lot of what he had to say, but I didn’t care for his demeanor. He came off like a cantankerous old coot. Not very presidential. And while he may have planted the seeds, I don’t think that he’s sparked the political “revolution” that he proclaims to have. Bottom-line, experience, plans and pragmatism matter. I just don’t think he’ll be able to get as much done as Hills will. Maybe he can be her running mate.

[javero]

Posted: 4/15/16 at 5:30am

I was bored out of my mind while watching last night's debate.  It did little to alter my view of Hillary as a slightly agitated policy wonk with a full command of the issues and a pragmatic approach to achieving resolution by working within the system to the extent practical.  She wears wonk with a pragmatic bodice well btw.  But Bernie...o' Bernie.  The chuckling and smirks did you no favors.

The thing that I've always found off-putting about Bernie is his under-reported opportunistic streak coupled with a slight detachment from reality.  This is a man who went from signing up with VT's Liberty Union (LU) party at the start of his political career which resulted in no success.  From there he ditched the LU party to run for Mayor of Burlington taking out Democratic and LU rivals alike.  The pattern continued from there to the US House of Representatives and eventually to the US Senate where he caucuses with Democrats whenever expedient.

Bernie has never held membership in a Congressional committee that oversees either appropriations (aka federal budget), armed services, banking, homeland security, or foreign relations.  I see scant experience in herding cats on his congressional resume.  He's railed against the system from the periphery throughout most of his tenure.  To me, that's the hallmark of a polemicist rather than a Great Conciliator.  Gridlock has become synonymous with the Congress.  I've never been convinced that Bernie could break the logjam on the most contentious issues that the next Chief Executive and Congress will face.

Updated On: 4/15/16 at 05:30 AM

[madbrian]

Posted: 4/15/16 at 8:41am

While I don't think either of them had a particularly great night, he needed a big win and he didn't get it, so I guess you could call it a victory for her.  But, as much as the media is playing up the supposed nastiness, it's nothing compared to the GOP side, and no bridges are being burned here.  In the next two weeks, NY, CT, PA and MD all vote, and unless the polls are way off, she will substantially build her lead.  At that point, there will be no point in his continuing.  It's important to remember that in 2008, she trailed Obama but won in NY and PA, but she still stepped aside graciously.  Her lead over Sanders will be far greater than Obama's lead over her, and Bernie needs to put his ego aside and support her the way she supported Obama.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 4/15/16 at 10:31am

She was her usual, pandering self and he was snide and off-putting.  She killed it on women's health and he scored with his comments on Israel (which I don't think Americans give a crap about, even as it comes out of their paycheck).  The audience was obnoxious.  Heaven help us.

 

"This election is a job audition, not a test for ideological purity."

This comment I find particularly depressing.  Morality does matter.

Updated On: 4/15/16 at 10:31 AM