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.
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
Updated On: 4/19/16 at 05:19 PM
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
