q (and does au mean australia ? and so devoted to American politics?)
don't you get all the news where you live? some of your talking points are just rehashed lies.
the reagan funeral thing was already addressed; she was being mournful and trying to be respectful; the actual gathering of first ladies and children did get to her, especially with constantly flying everywhere. She had a brain fart; she admitted it and apologized. Duh!
just tell me this, how does St Bernard PAY for everything he's promising? (let alone with such a poor, poor history of his own accomplishments and flip-flops) he's only yelling to a younger millennial voter turnout that are just starting to think about growing up. I'm practically one myself but I think I've already learned that dreams need to be worked; not just dreamed about to come close to coming true.
as for your other examples of flip-flops, don't you see that evolving opinions and intelligent thoughts do just that? maybe that's why we don't burn "witches" anymore, or why we don't have slavery in America, or Women getting the vote, or a million other examples?
There can't be more of a flip flop to be an "independent socialist" for 24 years, and then become a Democrat to run for President. That's pandering, a plot to get results, and just wrong.
i applaud your interest wherever you live, and hope you vote and not just be stirring the pot of lies and deception.
Text of St Bernard's frivolous complaint. A former Federal Election Commission (FEC) general counsel has discredited the complaint, as well as several other election attorneys.
I personally think he should be more concerned with the red flags raised by the FEC due to the numerous illegal contributions made to this own campaign. This was not the first time the FEC has put Team Bernie on notice although it's been under-reported.
I'm a diehard Bernie-bro.
I understand people voting for Clinton, but I can't imagine anyone being enthusiastic about it. The hubris of her accepting $650,000 from Goldman Sachs 2 years before she was about to run for President of the United States is off the charts. It's almost as if she was saying "Look what I can do and STILL get elected!".
Obviously I would want Clinton over Trump, and it looks like that will be the choice. I might just have to vote for Dr. Jill Stein. I'm in a state where the Democrat always wins, so it won't matter much.
I'm curious to hear what Bernie's supporters think about his tactic to smear Clinton with patently false campaign finance allegations on the eve of the NY primary?
They won't respond.
Okay, off to vote for the next nominee of the Democratic Party and the next president of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton!
May the best woman win!
lowbwy wrote: "The hubris of her accepting $650,000 from Goldman Sachs 2 years before she was about to run for President of the United States is off the charts."
Nice work if you can get it!
"You all know--and don't give a damn about--her laundry list of sins, including the ones against your own gay community. I truly, truly do not understand it and never will."
"I'm not sure which laundry list you're referring to South Florida. The time where she said that marriage was a sacred bond between a man and a woman? The time she quickly said "no" and smirked in response to a question about whether she supported gay marriage? The time she complimented the Reagans for their role in starting a national conversation about HIV and AIDS?"
Nobody wants to answer. It never happened.
Yes, these two borstal and qolbinau.
^ Do you think that if she were elected she would outlaw same-sex marriage? Clearly not, so her past remarks in that regard have limited relevance. Nobody's proposing we canonize her. It's not about hurt feelings. Elections are about the future. If I think of my own life, do I demonize the people who have "evolved" on the issue or do I celebrate and encourage them? Do I ridicule them for "flip-flopping"? Nonsense. What can she do for me now?
Neither Clinton nor Sanders have exactly been the fiercest or most outspoken ally of LGBT people. Comparing them on that point just comes down to an ideological pissing match of who has been most pure for longest.
I have voted in four Presidential Elections (2000, 2004, 2008, 2012), but this morning was the first time I have ever voted in a Primary. It gave me so much joy and happiness to vote for Hillary Clinton before work today. I love her and I sincerely hope that she is our next President. Fingers crossed that the NY results tonight will be in Hillary's favor. I'm glad I did my part!
And yet they still can't answer the question, weak Kad.
What question?
South Florida said: "And yet they still can't answer the question, weak Kad."
What question? This?:
""You all know--and don't give a damn about--her laundry list of sins, including the ones against your own gay community. I truly, truly do not understand it and never will."
That's not a question. It's a statement. No question was asked.
Why are gay guys supporting Clinton? She has had to come around on this issue more than any other. It's in the public record. On top of that why do you forgive her for everything she stands for with the wealthy elites? Don't you see we're changing now and you're becoming fossils?
South Florida said: "Why are gay guys supporting Clinton? She has had to come around on this issue more than any other. It's in the public record. On top of that why do you forgive her for everything she stands for with the wealthy elites? Don't you see we're changing now and you're becoming fossils?"
So you're saying Clinton changed on LGBT causes, and that should make us distrust her?
But also, we as a country are changing, so everyone should change to your point of view?
South Florida said: "Why are gay guys supporting Clinton? She has had to come around on this issue more than any other. It's in the public record. On top of that why do you forgive her for everything she stands for with the wealthy elites? Don't you see we're changing now and you're becoming fossils?"
She has never been anti-LGBT. The country as a whole has only recently become in favor of gay marriage- Sanders didn't publicly come around until less than a decade ago, and he's the paragon of progressivism. Clinton has long been an advocate of those with HIV/AIDS. DADT was imperfect but progressive for the time. DOMA sucked! But Sanders watered down his own nay vote by defending his decision as a matter of state's rights. And Hillary was not a legislator during the votes on those bills.
And you know what? She, like a lot of the women idolized by gay men, has had to ****ing go through hell thanks to narrow-minded assholes who wanted her to know her place and has come out on top.
I don't even know what you're trying to say with the last two sentences.
Steve C. said: "q (and does au mean australia ? and so devoted to American politics?)
don't you get all the news where you live? some of your talking points are just rehashed lies.
the reagan funeral thing was already addressed; she was being mournful and trying to be respectful; the actual gathering of first ladies and children did get to her, especially with constantly flying everywhere. She had a brain fart; she admitted it and apologized. Duh!
just tell me this, how does St Bernard PAY for everything he's promising? (let alone with such a poor, poor history of his own accomplishments and flip-flops) he's only yelling to a younger millennial voter turnout that are just starting to think about growing up. I'm practically one myself but I think I've already learned that dreams need to be worked; not just dreamed about to come close to coming true.
as for your other examples of flip-flops, don't you see that evolving opinions and intelligent thoughts do just that? maybe that's why we don't burn "witches" anymore, or why we don't have slavery in America, or Women getting the vote, or a million other examples?
There can't be more of a flip flop to be an "independent socialist" for 24 years, and then become a Democrat to run for President. That's pandering, a plot to get results, and just wrong.
i applaud your interest wherever you live, and hope you vote and not just be stirring the pot of lies and deception.
"
Sorry but NOTHING (I said about Hillary) was a lie, they are all factual observations. You can debate about whether those points have any significance or matter (as some have), which is completely fine. But everything I said was factually correct. This is a really annoying part of politics I think, people shouting things like "you're lying", "you're sexist" etc. that have no basis. If you think anything I posted was incorrect why don't you actually show me which parts are incorrect? They are all factual observations, so I doubt you can.
The time where she said that marriage was a sacred bond between a man and a woman?
This is true, on a televised interview (yes, she has come around now).
The time she quickly said "no" and smirked in response to a question about whether she supported gay marriage?
This is true, on a televised interview (yes, she has come around now).
The time she complimented the Reagans for their role in starting a national conversation about HIV and AIDS?
This is true, it was on twitter I believe (yes, she has apologised since)
The time she supported the Iraq War?
This is true (yes, she regrets now)
The time she said she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire which was then proven to be false?
This is true (the televised pictures clearly showed her recollection was inaccurate, she has since said she misspoke)
The times she flip-flopped on immigration (deportation), on trade (TPP), gay marriage, minimum wage?
All true - her policies are more left now than they have been
That she is both advocating to reform the campaign finance system while at the same time exploiting it?
This is true - the way she is currently using the campaign finance system would not be possible under the reform that she is advocating for.
That somehow she describes herself as both a 'moderate' and a 'progressive' depending on who she is talking to?
This is true, on televised interviews.
---
Regarding my nationality, yes I am Australian. But I am interested for two reasons. One, I live in a country with a very high minimum wage, with accessible higher education, with strict gun control (though I realise Bernie is not too progressive in that respect), with a public healthcare system, with paid parental/sick leave. It's not a perfect country, but knowing first hand what it is like to live in a country with these benefits, I want to see them implemented for everyone! Two, obviously American politics affects the world at a global scale. For example, the 2008 crash affected the Australian economy too. The TPP was an agreement made with Australia. The Iraq invasion affected Australia, who sent troops - and the repercussion is still haunting us today with the threat of terror attacks from ISIS.
"There can't be more of a flip flop to be an "independent socialist" for 24 years, and then become a Democrat to run for President. That's pandering, a plot to get results, and just wrong."
Yes but this was a pragmatic decision because Bernie would have never been elected otherwise. His actual values and policy positions have not changed as much as Hillary Clinton's over the years. So you ask why it matters - of course it's great to evolve. But the point is that isn't it also even better to have a candidate who is more likely to get it right the first time? Who knows what issue Hillary Clinton may face in the future, make the wrong decision and then 'evolve' in time. Based on his record, it seems likely this will happen.
RE: How will Bernie pay for everything. He has released a plan on this - increased taxes for everyone, but particularly for wealthy people (the difference between Hillary and Bernie's tax rates for wealthy people are ASTRONOMICAL). He claims that net income won't change much for the middle class because they won't have private health insurance. Of course, it will only be possible if health care can reduce in cost. This doesn't seem to be an unrealistic expectation.
Again, I want to reiterate that it is extremely offensive and simply WRONG to claim I am a 'stirring pot of lies and deception'. I don't want to start sounding condescending but can you please actually look at the points I raise and think carefully about whether they are true or not? And if not actually point out specifically? As I have said, EVERYTHING I said about HRC was true. It's quite frustrating.
"I'm curious to hear what Bernie's supporters think about his tactic to smear Clinton with patently false campaign finance allegations on the eve of the NY primary?"
Of course this is wrong. I don't fully understand the details of Bernie's claim, and the HRC campaign (IIRC) never responded to those details without just saying it was blatantly wrong as far as I'm aware. So it's hard to discuss this point.
However, I will say that regardless of whether it was 'illegal' or not. Clearly this kind of financing is not 'morally right'. I get the impression the behaviour that was described would not be legal under campaign finance reform.
Yes, it's "pragmatic" for Sanders to have run Democrat. But he has openly derided the party for decades. He even once said it would be hypocritical to run as a Democrat. It's all well-documented.
He rejected the Democratic Party until it came time he needed their infrastructure for a presidential campaign.
He continues to withhold support for downticket elections (aside from 3 people)- the very elections that need to be won by the left in order to enact legislation at national, state, and local levels.
I can't speak about him "getting it right"- his Congressional record isn't marked by very many major legislation or risky moves. He has managed to be in national office for the better part of three decades and has made few waves or drawn much attention to himself. Odd behavior for the leader of a revolution.
Clinton is sometimes inelegant, but hey- Sanders has his fair share of weird ****, too. Like his "rape essay." Or the bill he cosponsored that got toxic waste from Maine and Vermont dumped in the poor Latino community of Sierra Blanca. His praise for Castro and the Sandinistas.
Sanders is showing up to the national stage for the first real time after decades of sitting on the back bench. His suit is clean only from not being used.
Is that it Kad? Is it the gay icon thing? Is she like Cher, Bette Davis, Judy Garland , Liza? Is that what this is all about?
I don't want to start sounding condescending but can you please actually look at the points I raise and think carefully about whether they are true or not? And if not actually point out specifically?
If you're so confident in your facts, please refrain from coloring them with personal bias like claiming she "smirked" or "answered quickly" - I mean, she answered quickly because it was something she already had a view on, she wasn't considering it for the first time, and her uncomfortable reaction was likely due to the college setting with the heckling students.
On the other side of the aisle, good news, America...
You are not the father.... of Ted Cruz's babies.
Jay Lerner-Z said: "I don't want to start sounding condescending but can you please actually look at the points I raise and think carefully about whether they are true or not? And if not actually point out specifically?
If you're so confident in your facts, please refrain from coloring them with personal bias like claiming she "smirked" or "answered quickly" - I mean, she answered quickly because it was something she already had a view on, she wasn't considering it for the first time, and her uncomfortable reaction was likely due to the college setting with the heckling students.
"
I agree that this extra 'color' is more arguable. I don't want to lose focus of the big picture (lots of policy changes), but I will say that I doubt the HRC of 2016 would answer a question like that in the same way. When asked difficult questions in debates (e.g., the question about death penalty) she is far more tactful and sensitive.
Of course, you could ask why then does it matter. For me, I think that again there has to be a point where in terms of evolution enough is enough. Should the next difficult social issue arise, next Iraq-war type vote etc. etc. arise, I'd want to be confident the right policy and position is advocated for the first time.
South Florida wrote: "Is that it Kad? Is it the gay icon thing? Is she like Cher, Bette Davis, Judy Garland , Liza? Is that what this is all about?"
Are you suggesting that Hillary's appeal is limited to gay male voters? And why are you a self-described straight married guy constantly questioning what's in the hearts and minds of the gay guys on here? Str8 dude-to-str8 dude, I don't recall that being consistent with the Bro Code. Perhaps you fellows down in Florida are an edition ahead of the rest of us.
Videos