Support NeoGAF

[Torokil]

If Trump wins, and I don't think he will, but if he does, all those people who said "fuck it, they're both bad, I'll vote for Johnson/Stein" are going to get a four to eight year lesson in how fucking stupid they were.

Just like 2000. Sigh...

More democrats voted for W. than Nader. And more democrats are gonna vote for Trump than Gary Johnson or Stein.

It's time to stop blaming Nader and place the entirety of the blame on Gore for being a shitty candidate who picked a disastrous VP (who was seriously flirting with Trump last month, and endorsed McCain over Obama in 2008).

 

[EmpressInYellow]

What's the term for the Hillary supporter equivalent of mansplaining? Because there's a ton of it in every one of these threads, as if people who don't support her don't realize that Trump is bad.

There isn't one, because that would be silly. "Condescension" works just fine, though.

And people are allowed to disagree with other people's reasoning. If they realize Trump is bad but don't support Clinton, they're effectively saying they don't care which of the two wins. If that's their position, fine - it's one I disagree with, but at least it's a position.

"I would prefer Clinton over Trump but I won't vote for her" is...something else altogether.

 

[fart town usa]

More democrats voted for W. than Nader. And more democrats are gonna vote for Trump than Gary Johnson or Stein.

It's time to stop blaming Nader and place the entirety of the blame on Gore for being a shitty candidate who picked a disastrous VP (who was seriously flirting with Trump last month, and endorsed McCain over Obama in 2008).

Seriously! Lieberman was/is awful, lol.

 

[ZackieChan]

Seriously! Lieberman was/is awful, lol.

Sometimes I forget that he exists, then I get full of loathing again when I hear his name.

He also tried to take away our violent video games, if anyone remembers!

 

[fart town usa]

There isn't one, because that would be silly. "Condescension" works just fine, though.

And people are allowed to disagree with other people's reasoning. If they realize Trump is bad but don't support Clinton, they're effectively saying they don't care which of the two wins. If that's their position, fine - it's one I disagree with, but at least it's a position.

"I would prefer Clinton over Trump but I won't vote for her" is...something else altogether.

It's "Hillbully/Hillbullies"

 

[And_Gignac]

He continues to be an extremely admirable politician.

 

[fart town usa]

Sometimes I forget that he exists, then I get full of loathing again when I hear his name.

He also tried to take away our violent video games, if anyone remembers!

He's an "independent" now.

 

[commedieu]

There was a black mirror episode about this.

 

[Aaronology]

Holy crap dude. Sorry I couldn't remember her lines verbatim from a town hall filmed months ago. Also, a town hall IS a friggin interview so stop splitting hairs.

Hillary makes it clear she's winning with a majority of the votes and doesn't need his supporters or a change in her platform.

Again, she never says this. The entire point of Clinton's comparison between her actions in 2008 and Sanders's in 2016 was to show how important it is for the loser to work with the victor to retain as much support as possible for the GE. She clearly acknowledges they are important in this exchange with Maddow! Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Which obviously wasn't/isn't the case and Sanders is still at work trying to get people on her side. Everything I've said still stands. Split all the hairs you want.

Not splitting hairs. You are simply incorrect.

Back to the matter at hand, point being is that this all stemmed from the argument that Sanders somehow sabatoged her campaign and the supposed lasting effect of him campaigning against her. It's nonsense and a deflection of anything critical tossed at Hillary because her strongest of supporters refuse to come to terms with the issues people have with her.

Edit-

Ha. Thanks for cherry picking that post of mine. You know I had a comment on Tim Kaine and his late entry to the pro-choice party. It's cool though.

Sabotage is a very specific word with a very specific meaning. I absolutely believe Sanders lost focus during the primary and over relied on negativity and smears against Clinton, but I do not believe he ever attempted to "sabotage" or actively harm her chances in the GE in any way. I have not argued this. I have not seen this argued on GAF. If it has been, please cite the post(s). Otherwise this will be yet another thing you've said I'll be tossing in the "disregard" garbage bin.

 

[Psychoward]

What's the term for the Hillary supporter equivalent of mansplaining? Because there's a ton of it in every one of these threads, as if people who don't support her don't realize that Trump is bad.

What's the term for people refusing to vote for the vastly better candidate in an election where those two are the only viable options?

 

[Mechazawa]

Another "stop giving a shit about 3rd parties only during the presidential season" that'll go largely ignored in two years.

 

[ZackieChan]

What's the term for people refusing to vote for the vastly better candidate in an election where those two are the only viable options?

What's the term for people who vote for someone that they don't want to be president? And the term for continually refusing to vote for "non-viable" candidates, as if not voting for them was somehow going to make third parties viable?

 

[EmpressInYellow]

What's the term for people who vote for someone that they don't want to be president? And the term for continually refusing to vote for "non-viable" candidates, as if not voting for them was somehow going to make third parties viable?

Voting for third party candidates ALSO isn't going to make third parties viable.

Abolishing "First Past the Post" is the only thing that's realistically going to make third parties viable, and that's going to be a hell of a lot harder than voting in a presidential election.

And I mean...there are two outcomes in this election: Trump or Clinton. It's going to be one of those two. Pretending or hoping otherwise doesn't actually change that outcome.

 

[Intheflorsh]

What's the term for the Hillary supporter equivalent of mansplaining?

"Explaining".

 

[Psychoward]

What's the term for people who vote for someone that they don't want to be president? And the term for continually refusing to vote for "non-viable" candidates, as if not voting for them was somehow going to make third parties viable?

For your first point, one of them is going to be president. I'm not fully happy with Hillary but you've already admitted she's the better candidate. You can stick your fingers in your ears and be an idealist bystander if you like but that doesn't bring about any actual change.

For your second point, it requires more than simply voting for a candidate (once every 4 years in the green party's case) to make third parties viable in America.

If Ross Perot couldn't come close to doing it and he won more votes than Johnson is expected to get, what makes you think Johnson or Stein could do it now? Magic?

 

[fart town usa]

Again, she never says this. The entire point of Clinton's comparison between her actions in 2008 and Sanders's in 2016 was to show how important it is for the loser to work with the victor to retain as much support as possible for the GE. She clearly acknowledges they are important in this exchange with Maddow! Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?



Not splitting hairs. You are simply incorrect.

Sabotage is a very specific word with a very specific meaning. I absolutely believe Sanders lost focus during the primary and over relied on negativity and smears against Clinton, but I do not believe he ever attempted to "sabotage" or actively harm her chances in the GE in any way. I have not argued this. I have not seen this argued on GAF. If it has been, please cite the post(s). Otherwise this will be yet another thing you've said I'll be tossing in the "disregard" garbage bin.

Wow. What I said she said, is exactly what she was implying, that was her entire point. I'm not going through gaf to track down these posts because you yourself are making this argument regarding Sanders.

Sanders was out by the DNC conference and fully backed her and is continuing to do so.

Also, go for it, toss my comments into the disregard pile. That's the the same mindset that is causing Hillary to slip in the polls. Don't be mad at me, be mad at the impenetrable bubble that has been fashioned for those who gatekeep Hillary and the democratic party as a whole. It's also what has led to the democrats alienating their base and depressing the vote.

But yes, my experience in the military (8 years active duty), my undergrad studies (poli-sci/international relations), grad studies (MPA), and direct engagement in working on campaigns for democrats running for office are all moot because my issues don't warrant as being issues to you and my "receipts" are continually glossed over as being wrong or that I'm too dumb to comprehend what I'm reading or watching.

The pretentiousness is staggering

Edit-

I listed some of my background because my military experience shaped my views on foreign policy and my studies obviously expanded on it as well as how I view things domestically.



There are very real issues people find with Hillary and we aren't grapsing at straws as is often accused of us.

 

[Aaronology]

I've been over this many times. I'm not doing it again. Look it up for yourself, it's not hard to find. It's common knowledge..

If you can not be assed to expand on the things you post, perhaps you should not complain about people being dismissive of criticisms in the same thread.

You can promote and actively back progressive and liberal causes at the local and state level.

Which will mean nothing if those causes are challenged up onto a conservative USSC just to be struck down.

The scotus element isn't enough for me to back a hawk and a corporatist who will further normalize practices that I find to be just as dangerous as Trumps.

Which practices are you referring to here? Just as dangerous as Trump in what way? Elaborate, fart town.

It's clear you fashion yourself as a gatekeeper 'round these parts.

🤔

 

[Triteon]

My problem with the whole "its too dangerous now for a protest vote", Is that its always too dangerous for a protest vote.

Would it be cool to vote green if Cruz got the nod instead of Trump?

 

[benjipwns]

Well, he only got like 120 people in a hall today. Bernie's star has faded and his our revolution pac failed. Toss him into the bin of other leftist no hopers like McGovern or Kucinich.

On to the next one!

Hey, that car on campus four years ago that still had a Kucinich 2004 sticker on it wasn't giving up hope yet!

Tbh I agree. When you get people to vote who didn't care to before, it's not going to be those who are satisfied with the political system. Those people are not going to vote for one of the established parties.

We've had just that case last week in Germany. 10% more people voted (compared to the last election in that state), those votes pretty much went straight to the right-populist "AfD".

Not just Germany, it's happening all over Yurop and U.S. politicos seem to be oblivious to it. The Swedish Democrats, The Finns, Greet Wilders' party polling at top of the Dutch polls for most of the last two years while Labour gets wiped out and the mainstream center-right VVD gets knocked for a loop. A lot of those voters weren't people who came from other parties necessarily, they were brought into the system by something opposed by like all the parties. Even some other parties have had their cordon sanitaire dropped that stood for 20 years.

Even though Spain's elections haven't gone in a populist-authoritarian-right direction totally, you're similar a similar thing there. And in Greece. Just in different directions.

What's the term for people refusing to vote for the vastly better candidate in an election where those two are the only viable options?

There's only one viable option in the end, everyone else loses no matter what share they get.

And I mean...there are two outcomes in this election: Trump or Clinton. It's going to be one of those two. Pretending or hoping otherwise doesn't actually change that outcome.

Voting can be added to that list.

 

[Psychoward]

There's only one viable option in the end, everyone else loses no matter what share they get.

I just meant there's only two candidates with a shot of winning i.e. viable candidates.

 

[benjipwns]

I just meant there's only two candidates with a shot of winning i.e. viable candidates.

But is there really? I figure there's only one. And has been since November 2012.

 

[Psychoward]

But is there really? I figure there's only one. And has been since November 2012.

It's not likely but it is certainly possible. I'd rather not be complacent.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Clinton does not deserve my vote, so she will not get it. I'll vote with my conscience, not some misguided fear of an obese windbag billionaire charlatan. Americans should never be guided by fear.

Dude, you guys voted in Bush twice. And Repubs near succeeded in repealing ACA and gay marriage. Americans should be guided by fear at this point.

 

[benjipwns]

It's not likely but it is certainly possible. I'd rather not be complacent.

But that's just some kind of superstitious ritual. Trump winning is more likely than you and I combined having any measurable say in the outcome.

 

[Aaronology]

Wow. What I said she said, is exactly what she was implying, that was her entire point.

Hillary Clinton at no point declared that the votes of Bernie Sanders supporters were unneeded or unimportant in the general election. You are factually wrong. The interview you posted as "evidence" shows her saying almost literally the opposite, and making a case for why Sanders should fight to get his base behind the Democratic ticket.

If this is an indicator of your ability to parse news regarding HRC then it isn't surprising we continue having these type of encounters in these threads.

I'm not going through gaf to track down these posts because you yourself are making this argument regarding Sanders.

Where? Show me.

Also, go for it, toss my comments into the disregard pile. That's the the same mindset that is causing Hillary to slip in the polls. Don't be mad at me, be mad at the impenetrable bubble that has been fashioned for those who gatekeep Hillary and the democratic party as a whole. It's also what has led to the democrats alienating their base and depressing the vote.

But yes, my experience in the military (8 years active duty), my undergrad studies (poli-sci/international relations), grad studies (MPA), and direct engagement in working on campaigns for democrats running for office are all moot because my issues don't warrant as being issues to you and my "receipts" are continually glossed over as being wrong or that I'm too dumb to comprehend what I'm reading or watching.

The pretentiousness is staggering.

So far you have posted a video refuting the very thing you're claiming and you've refused to elaborate on other comments you've made. I am not glossing anything you've said over, fart town. On the contrary I've been asking you repeatedly to show your work and to expand on vague and/or inaccurate remarks. Fact checking isn't pretentiousness.

 

[fart town usa]

If you can not be assed to expand on the things you post, perhaps you should not complain about people being dismissive of criticisms in the same thread.



Which will mean nothing if those causes are challenged up onto a conservative USSC just to be struck down.



Which practices are you referring to here? Just as dangerous as Trump in what way? Elaborate, fart town.



🤔

I like how you emphasise elaborate as if I haven't in the past.

I'm not going into it as I already have, look it up and have a field day quoting the posts.

As it stands now, you've made it incredibly clear that you have no idea whatsoever what neo-liberalism is and what their policies involve, as well as their effect on the country. You also seemingly have no grasp whatsoever on the ramifications of America's actions abroad and of the people, still alive, who have committed some of the worst crimes against humanity post-WW2 and act as council for Hillary. I also get the impression that you don't comprehend the danger involved in Hillary going out of her way to help distance the GOP from candidate Trump when in reality the GOP needs to very much be held accountable for Trump if we as a nation hope to move past the far-Right rather than normalize it. This is something her own campaign warned her about.

I've made it clear that I understand that my views on this election may be off putting or seem irrational considering that Trump has a very real chance of winning. That doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. Seriously, all you do is shut down debate because your litmus test of what passes as being credible critique of Hillary is something that apparently knows no bounds.

I've conceded that Hillary has indeed done some great things and I've never brought up email or Benghazi stuff because those don't bother me or matter when it comes to my issues with her.

I'm not the one willfully ignoring everything about her, you are. Because to be fine with her foreign policy history and who she seeks for council is definitely not what progressives or liberals stand for. Because you know what we're supposed to stand for right? I mean, you made it pretty clear a page back or so and I've brought up her actions regarding foreign policy in the past and I'm pretty sure you didn't agree with my stance.

Point being, I don't have to prove these things to you because they're a matter of public record. Look it up for yourself.

 

[EmpressInYellow]

I'm not the one willfully ignoring everything about her, you are. Because to be fine with her foreign policy history and who she seeks for council is definitely not what progressives or liberals stand for. Because you know what we're supposed to stand for right? I mean, you made it pretty clear a page back or so and I've brought up her actions regarding foreign policy in the past and I'm pretty sure you didn't agree with my stance.
.

Yet again, you act like her being endorsed by right-wing foreign policy wonks means she AGREES with those right-wing foreign policy wonks instead of them simply realizing that Trump is an unmitigated disaster.

Her statements about Kissinger are, admittedly, not a good look, but what have you got beyond that?

EDIT: And regardless, it's gonna be either her or Trump in charge of foreign policy. Pick your poison. I'd rather have someone who at least, to steal an old turn of phrase, knows Shia from Shinola.

 

[benjipwns]

And regardless, it's gonna be either her or Trump in charge of foreign policy. Pick your poison.

Why are you letting him get to decide?

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

There was a black mirror episode about this.

You're exactly right.

 

[fart town usa]

Yet again, you act like her being endorsed by right-wing foreign policy wonks means she AGREES with those right-wing foreign policy wonks instead of them simply realizing that Trump is an unmitigated disaster.

Her statements about Kissinger are, admittedly, not a good look, but what have you got beyond that?

EDIT: And regardless, it's gonna be either her or Trump in charge of foreign policy. Pick your poison. I'd rather have someone who at least, to steal an old turn of phrase, knows Shia from Shinola.

Holy shit. "Pick your poison." These people make Trump look like a decent human being.

This isn't a recent revelation. This is not something unique to 2016, her relation to Kissinger that is.

Kissinger is but one spectrum of foreign policy. There's also the neo-con pundits that have flocked to Hillary; Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. she has a track record of conforming to neo-conservative foreign policy. This should be a cause for concern for most democrats.

Seriously, there is more to politics than headlines and party platforms.

Edit-

It's cognitive dissonance at this point due to the boogeyman element of Trump.

I'll be back election night. This is too much.

 

[EmpressInYellow]

Kissinger is but one spectrum of foreign policy. There's also the neo-con pundits that have flocked to Hillary; Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. she has a track record of conforming to neo-conservative foreign policy. This should be a cause for concern for most democrats..

Yes, which I specifically addressed and you apparently ignored.

I mean, are you seriously arguing that Bill fucking Kristol is a big Hillary Clinton fan? That's your argument?

Those people are supporting Clinton because Trump does stuff like ask three times in ONE BRIEFING why the U.S. can't use nuclear weapons. It's a choice between someone they disagree with but who will act within accepted norms and someone who literally has no idea what he's doing.

 

[commedieu]

Holy shit. "Pick your poison." These people make Trump look like a decent human being.

This isn't a recent revelation. This is not something unique to 2016, her relation to Kissinger that is.

Kissinger is but one spectrum of foreign policy. There's also the neo-con pundits that have flocked to Hillary; Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. she has a track record of conforming to neo-conservative foreign policy. This should be a cause for concern for most democrats.

Seriously, there is more to politics than headlines and party platforms.

Edit-

It's cognitive dissonance at this point due to the boogeyman element of Trump.

I'll be back election night. This is too much.

 

[benjipwns]

who will act within accepted norms

That's his problem though. The fact that Bill Kristol and Henry Kissinger are still people within "accepted norms." And that Hillary should be expected to act within these "accepted norms."

He's not saying Trump is better and that he supports Trump. But that's why he doesn't support Hillary. Because he finds these norms to be entirely and completely unfucking acceptable.

Rail on with the false choice all you want but realize that some people see through it AND recognize their impotence at the ballot box.

 

[jack_package_200]

I'll be back election night. This is too much.

If you make intellectually disingenuous claims and shit on people's very real fears for the immediate future under a fascist, you should expect to be called out on it.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. You are not a progressive.

 

[Aaronology]

I like how you emphasis elaborate as if I haven't in the past.

I'm not going into it as I already have, look it up and have a field day quoting the posts.

I'd rather move beyond this point. The next time you want to criticize GAF for being dismissive remember the thread in which your reply to someone asking you to explain yourself boiled down to, "I did in the past, do a search for it!"

As it stands now, you've made it incredibly clear that you have no idea whatsoever what neo-liberalism is and what their policies involve, as well as their effect on the country.

I've said nothing on the subject, so I find it odd you're able to be so declarative about what you think I do or don't know. 🤔

You also seemingly have no grasp whatsoever on the ramifications of America's actions abroad and of the people, still alive, who have committed some of the worst crimes against humanity post-WW2 and act as council for Hillary.

Sure, ok. Who are these people, fart town, and precisely how do they act as advisors to HRC? Inform me.

I also get the impression that you don't comprehend the danger involved in Hillary going out of her way to help distance the GOP from candidate Trump when in reality the GOP needs to very much be held accountable for Trump if we as a nation hope to move past the far-Right rather than normalize it. This is something her own campaign warned her about.

The decision to leave a door open for disgruntled Republicans unhappy with Trump is one that has been in place since the DNC. You saw it in every major speech, from Barack's to Michelle's to Bernie's. And it's a tactic that I believe is sound and will see results this November. That said, Hillary Clinton is just now coming off of a news cycle that was dominated by her decision to label half of Trump's supporters "deplorable." Clinton very obviously has no problem calling people out, thus I find your criticism of her in this regard oddly timed and erroneous.

</snip>

Point being, I don't have to prove these things to you because they're a matter of public record. Look it up for yourself.

&#129300;

 

[EmpressInYellow]

That's his problem though. The fact that Bill Kristol and Henry Kissinger are still people within "accepted norms." And that Hillary should be expected to act within these "accepted norms."

By "accepted norms", I mean things like "not using nuclear weapons" or "not encouraging nuclear proliferation" or "not overtly plundering invaded countries of their natural resources like it's the 1600s".

 

[benjipwns]

Well, yeah, but I'm not imaging that's his alternative foreign policy in mind.

 

[HStallion]

That's his problem though. The fact that Bill Kristol and Henry Kissinger are still people within "accepted norms." And that Hillary should be expected to act within these "accepted norms."

He's not saying Trump is better and that he supports Trump. But that's why he doesn't support Hillary. Because he finds these norms to be entirely and completely unfucking acceptable.

Rail on with the false choice all you want but realize that some people see through it AND recognize their impotence at the ballot box.

Maybe those people should come out of the woodwork more than every 4 years for a single election. They are impotent because they act impotent and think the president is the end all and be all. I don't mean to put words in their mouth and maybe they have done more than that but sometimes I wonder what these people expect to happen when they don't seem to do much until the Presidential election rolls around.

 

[EmpressInYellow]

Well, yeah, but I'm not imaging that's his alternative foreign policy in mind.

Yes - but my point is that the foreign policy people he objects to so strongly (with good reason!) are not supporting Clinton because they agree with her. They are supporting her because Trump has the potential to be catastrophic. Not catastrophic as in "will undermine the goals of the neo-conservative movement"; catastrophic as in "may contribute to massive global and economic instability while undermining the U.S.'s alliances and standing in the international community".

 

[benjipwns]

Maybe those people should come out of the woodwork more than every 4 years for a single election. They are impotent because they act impotent and think the president is the end all and be all. I don't mean to put words in their mouth and maybe they have done more than that but sometimes I wonder what these people expect to happen when they don't seem to do much until the Presidential election rolls around.

I don't know how or why you would make that assumption about any individual. Presidential elections get infinitely more attention than everything else combined. Just look at the number of threads here compared to 2014. Someone who despises current foreign policy wouldn't be posting in a ten post thread about the Senate race in Kentucky or something, especially if they don't live in Kentucky.

And it's much harder to have a national "narrative/argument" because those races are decided and impacted by so many non-national events and issues.

And in regards to foreign policy, the Presidency also stands alone as unique in the creation of foreign policy.

Yes - but my point is that the foreign policy people he objects to so strongly (with good reason!) are not supporting Clinton because they agree with her. They are supporting her because Trump has the potential to be catastrophic. Not catastrophic as in "will undermine the goals of the neo-conservative movement"; catastrophic as in "may contribute to massive global and economic instability while undermining the U.S.'s alliances and standing in the international community".

I wouldn't be so hasty. Bill Kristol is a idiotic monster. I wouldn't immediately dismiss an argument that he's worse than Trump.

 

[Chinese Cartoons]

America does not deserve Bernie enjoy one of the two mental cases.

 

[Mental Atrophy]

If Trump wins, and I don't think he will, but if he does, all those people who said "fuck it, they're both bad, I'll vote for Johnson/Stein" are going to get a four to eight year lesson in how fucking stupid they were.

Just like 2000. Sigh...

Another perspective: Democrats and Republicans are going to get a four to eight year lesson for choosing such terrible candidates. They want you to blame their constituents to absolve themselves of culpability. Ya'll made your own duck soup.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Another perspective: Democrats and Republicans are going to get a four to eight year lesson for choosing such terrible candidates. They want you to blame their constituents to absolve themselves of culpability.

Yeah, I tend to agree. You're a politician. It's your job to get people to vote for you. You don't get to complain if they don't vote for you; it means you didn't do your job very well. If Clinton loses to Trump because 1,100 Floridian millennials thought she was too much of a warhawk... that's on Clinton. Trump loses to Clinton because 2,500 soccer moms in Colorado wanted a more grown-up candidate... that's on Trump. Putting it the other way round and blame the voters and you've got your democracy all back to front.

 

[shinra-bansho]

The degree of false equivalence is frankly ridiculous. Both terrible candidates. As if it's even comparable.

Donald Trump is an incoherent bigot leading a campaign built on bigotry literally run by a white nationalists and misogynists, with a running mate who wants to take Federal funds away from HIV treatment and put it into "conversion therapy" for the gays.

Hillary Clinton is by no means perfect. She may not yell against banks and hate trade as much as Saint Bernard. She may be more hawkish than Birdie.

But she is competent and sane. She has legislative and executive experience. She's been an advocate for healthcare, women and particularly children for decades. She will appoint liberal justices to replace Scalia and eventually Ginsburg, so that minorities aren't even further disenfranchised and marginalised. She believes in science. She can do the job.

And Bernie Sanders will vote for her, because he's not a fool.

You live in a two party system. Because things naturally coalesce in the choosing of one person to lead 300 million.
If you end up with President Donald Trump because you tick DR Who or Governor Pothead, despite a clearly better alternative being offered, then you deserve him and all the shit that comes with him. And you should be fully cognizant you helped him get there.

Vote for whoever the hell you want, vote for Donald Trump even if you're so inclined to align with his deplorables. But don't think that freedom to choose makes you immune to critique about what you do with that responsibility.

 

[Diablos]

Wow, Bernie, I wish you would've been more clear about this during the primary, stopping short of endorsing Hillary at that point obviously, educating your ridiculously engaged voter base at that time of the significance of what a protest vote can do to ultimately sink anything remotely progressive by indirectly aiding Donald Trump...

Instead, there were days where his quotes read like something from a Republican surrogate given how hard he was hitting Hillary. It's funny what happens to your ego when you come back down to earth.

 

[Zok310]

No idea how you lose ground to a guy like Trump. If Hillary loses to him it won't be Bernie or his die hard supports fault that's for sure.
What els can he do, he already endorsed her and he has come out against 3rd party candidates.
Ball is in Hillary court, 10 bux says she screws it up.
Can't wait to see the look on people's face when Trump snatches the presidency by a hair.

 

[Diablos]

No idea how you lose ground to a guy like Trump. If Hillary loses to him it won't be Bernie or his die hard supports fault that's for sure.
What els can he do, he already endorsed her and he has come out against 3rd party candidates.
Ball is in Hillary court, 10 bux says she screws it up.
Can't wait to see the look on people's face when Trump snatches the presidency by a hair.

I agree with what you're saying, she is the nominee. She has to win. But the primary was way too long, Bernie dragged it out for often petty reasons, and I think it did more damage than usual because it took him FOREVER to drop out. It left lingering issues with supporters unwilling to back Clinton due to the bitter nature of the primary, that once again went on for far too long.

If Hillary loses she certainly deserves blame, but I would have to say Sanders' antics during the primary contributed a great deal to the amount of people voting against her as a protest

 

[Y2Kev]

So Fart town, I'm actually interested in who you are voting for. Obviously you do not want to listen to Bernie Sanders and vote for Hillary Clinton because you have issues with her (that is ok, I do too). Are you voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson?

 

[Azerare]

I agree with what you're saying, she is the nominee. She has to win. But the primary was way too long, Bernie dragged it out for often petty reasons, and I think it did more damage than usual because it took him FOREVER to drop out. It left lingering issues with supporters unwilling to back Clinton due to the bitter nature of the primary, that once again went on for far too long.

If Hillary loses she certainly deserves blame, but I would have to say Sanders' antics during the primary contributed a great deal to the amount of people voting against her as a protest

Hillary possibly losing because Bernie didn't "lose the nice way" narrative again? Bernie killed his own campaign by being vague on how he would approach getting any of his policies pushed. It doesn't matter as Hillary laid out a more concise and coherent plan.

If Trump manages to snatch a W from her then we have to look back and see what she did to lose footing to someone like Trump.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

You're a U.S. Senator? I withdraw my statement then.

You're adorable when you have no leg to stand on.

Who elects said senators that will decide to vote in favor of Justices I speak of? It's the people that perform that act you call so unimportant.