Page 4 of 15
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2016 10:30 pm
by Captain
But, in a sign of possible unity, he said that the revelations did not change his endorsement of Clinton and again vowed to help her defeat GOP nominee Donald Trump.
Fuck he's dumb.
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:38 am
by Eraser
Captain Mazda wrote:But, in a sign of possible unity, he said that the revelations did not change his endorsement of Clinton and again vowed to help her defeat GOP nominee Donald Trump.
Fuck he's dumb.
What can he do? Say "don't vote Clinton" and subsequently watch all his supporters vote Trump instead?
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:49 pm
by Captain
Are you kidding? His supporters would vote for him if he ran third-party or joined forces with Jill Stein, even though he is nowhere near as progressive or anti-war as she is.
You don't start a "revolution" and support the establishment candidate after your own party cheated to ensure her nomination.
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:33 pm
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
He can't join Jill (by law) after running for the Democratic nomination but he could run as an independent. However he's missed the deadline to file in a several important states.
He doesn't have to roll over for Hillary though and it's sad that he has imo.
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:44 pm
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
Eraser wrote:
What can he do? Say "don't vote Clinton" and subsequently watch all his supporters vote Trump instead?
He could endorse Stein. Also I doubt too many of his supporters would vote for Trump even if he asked them to.
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:56 pm
by Captain
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:He can't join Jill (by law) after running for the Democratic nomination
I didn't know about that, I just know Jill said she would welcome him to lead as a Green candidate:
"I’ve invited Bernie to sit down and explore collaboration — everything is on the table,” Stein said in an interview with the Guardian. “If he saw that you can’t have a revolutionary campaign in a counter-revolutionary party, he’d be welcomed to the Green party. He could lead the ticket and build a political movement.”
IMO Jill is a better choice but the biggest mistake Bernie made was not telling his supporters to vote Green. It boggles my mind that he throws his support behind the party that cheated him out and the candidate that opposes every single one of his views. That's how you keep the establishment and the corrupt system going, Bernie.
Green Party's Jill Stein Wants To Be 'Plan B' For Bernie Sanders Supporters
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487252170 ... supporters
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:09 pm
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
I guess it's not as cut and dried as I made it out. There is what's known as the sore loser law but apparently it's been construed to not apply to presidential elections. It's varies from state to state though and again he'd also face the problem of having missed the deadline to file in many states.
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 4:18 pm
by Eraser
Captain Mazda wrote:Are you kidding? His supporters would vote for him if he ran third-party or joined forces with Jill Stein, even though he is nowhere near as progressive or anti-war as she is.
You don't start a "revolution" and support the establishment candidate after your own party cheated to ensure her nomination.
Maybe he's afraid that drawing votes away from Hillary Clinton only enforces Trump. Maybe him backing Clinton was purely a tactical endorsement.
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:49 pm
by seremtan
^ almost certainly this. lesser of two evils
ffs mazda why are you so naive?
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:52 pm
by Captain
So, let me say first off, this is a problem that could be fixed with the stroke of a pen, this electoral system that tells you to vote against what you’re afraid of and not for what you believe. And, you know, what we’ve seen over the years, this strategy has a track record: This politics of fear has actually delivered everything we were afraid of. All the reasons you were told you had to vote for the lesser evil—because you didn’t want the massive Wall Street bailouts, the offshoring of our jobs, the meltdown of the climate, the endless expanding wars, the attack on immigrants—all that, we’ve gotten by the droves, because we allowed ourselves to be silenced. You know, silence is not what democracy needs. Right now we have an election where even the supporters of Hillary Clinton, the majority don’t support Hillary, they just oppose Donald Trump. And the majority of Donald Trump supporters don’t support him, they just oppose Hillary. And the majority are clamoring for another independent or several independent candidates and an independent party, and feel that they are being terribly misserved and mistreated by the current politics. So to further silence our voices is exactly the wrong thing to do. And I’ll just point out, Donald Trump himself is lifted up by a movement which is very much the product of the Clintons’ policies. The lesser evil very much makes inevitable the greater evil, because people don’t come out to vote for a politician that’s throwing them under the bus. And so we see houses of—the houses of Congress, we have also seen statehouse after statehouse, flipping from red to blue over the years as the Democratic Party has become a lesser-evil party. And Donald Trump is buoyed up by the policies passed by Bill Clinton, supported by Hillary—that is, deregulation of Wall Street, which led to the disappearance of 9 million jobs, 5 million people thrown out of their homes, and by NAFTA, which exported those jobs. That’s exactly the economic oppression and stress that has led to this right-wing extremism. So you can’t get where you want to go through the lesser evil. At the end of the day, you’ve got to stand up.
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/9/gr ... in_what_we
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:40 pm
by Captain
“I would say all Republican foreign policy professionals are anti-Trump,” leading neoconservative Robert Kagan told a group gathered around him, groupie-style, at a “foreign policy professionals for Hillary” fundraiser I attended last week. “I would say that a majority of people in my circle will vote for Hillary.”
As the co-founder of the neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century, Kagan played a leading role in pushing for America’s unilateral invasion of Iraq, and insisted for years afterwards that it had turned out great.
Despite the catastrophic effects of that war, Kagan insisted at last week’s fundraiser that U.S. foreign policy over the last 25 years has been “an extraordinary success.”
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/rob ... y-clinton/
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:39 pm
by seremtan
*shudder*
i still think shillary would be marginally less delusional than trump
marginally
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 3:43 am
by John^Rocker
Its okay if we stop layering our foreign podnuhs in hershey syrup and letting our dogs lick at them.
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:59 am
by Whiskey 7
Much too long to read the topic and of little interest to me personally so I'll just say, if I were to vote there I'd vote for Hillary Clinton.
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:01 pm
by seremtan
so you'd vote for the blonde bombshill because she's not the blonde clowntard?
or was there another reason?
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:13 pm
by losCHUNK
Pretty much how every election works ?
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 8:29 pm
by seremtan
it's a legit question for anyone anywhere who supports Shillary: "give me a reason why that doesn't reference Trump"
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 8:49 pm
by losCHUNK
Aye, she may only have 1 thing going for her but it's a pretty big thing.
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:06 pm
by seremtan
"...and without referencing her gender."
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:21 pm
by losCHUNK
I'd like to see her birth certificate to confirm that
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:22 pm
by Transient
Well, she's at least competent. Trump can't say that much.
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:39 pm
by losCHUNK
Aye, I mean I'd take a Bush with hindsight involved over Trump

Re: President Clinton
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 2:13 am
by Foo
Transient wrote:Well, she's at least competent. Trump can't say that much.
>was secretary of state
>cannot even into basic op-sec
>actively worked around the provided experts
>resulted in foreign powers having unfettered access to all communications of the secretary of state for her time in that position
Yeah competent.
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:17 am
by Transient
And Trump invites Putin to hack into the DNC and release the info to journalists, affecting a US election.
Just because she's shit with her emails doesn't mean she isn't competent in other ways.
Re: President Clinton
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 7:49 am
by Whiskey 7
Transient wrote:Well, she's at least competent. Trump can't say that much.
I would be worried, even on the other side of this small planet, if Trump had access to the nuke codes (yes, I know it wouldn't/shouldn't be that easy, hopefully)
