President Trump

User avatar
Gerry M.
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:51 am
Location: Tyngsboro, MA
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by Gerry M. »

First off let me say that even though Hillary is a tough pill to swallow, there is no way Trump can win the general election.

Trump's latest gaffe has left me speechless and I still have not overcome the shock of what came out of his mouth. It had nothing to do with his viewpoints towards Hillary or every minority group in the country. On a basic question on the economy he said that if we suffered an economic crisis he would seriously seek to negotiate a discounted payback of our national debt. He considered this part of his "swashbuckling" style of how he managed his corporate debt.

My God, stop and think about what he just said. This is the kind of shoot from the hip shit that his followers love him for that will screw us all. We are the cornerstone for the entire world economy. Can you imagine the ramificati0ons of what would happen if this ever played out? Can you imagine what would happen if the US government ever approached creditors with an offer to try a renegotiate debt to take a discounted payoff? WTF??????

While with my dual US/Irish citizenship and keeping my Irish passport current just in case, it wll be of little help if this whack job is left to run amoock. They'll be no place to hide on the planet
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by DavidG »

Jim you keep talking about phonies yet you seem to use the term only for the candidates you dislike. Sanders is a bigger phony than Clinton, by a mile. He outright lies or refuses to answer to cover up his past and his present, and so far mostly gets away with it. At least we know the lies Hillary told.

Trump is either the biggest phony of them all (playing Reality TV Donald) or, if he really believes the crap he spews, the most unstable. I fear the latter.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JimHow »

That's right, David, it's my opinion that Hillary is a phony.
It's your opinion that Bernie is a phony.
I hate most politicians because I believe most of them are bought and sold phonies.
For me, watching Hillary's career, I've seen her repeatedly taking cowardly positions when the political winds dictated accordingly: DOMA, Iraq war, bankruptcy reform, Wall Street, etc.
To me she just reeks -- epitomizes -- the corruption of our bought and sold political system.
I think her support of the crime that was the Iraq war alone disqualifies her from political office.
Just my opinion. But what do I know, I'm just a country lawyer from Maine.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JimHow »

Should/can Hillary remain in the race if she is indicted?
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by DavidG »

Well we agree that most politicians are worthy of disdain because they are bought and paid for phonies. I'll put Hillary in that group but I don't think she's any worse than the rest of them.

Do you think that every politician that George W and gang conned into believing that a war was needed to rid Iraq of WMDs is a phony? Or let me qualify that: phonier than the typical politician? I don't believe that those votes were all about "optics" and future political talking points. I may be more politically naive than a simple country lawyer, one-time mayor of Lewiston and target of Hillary's sexual advances :o , but I think those votes were about the safety of our country.

The origin of Bernie's phoniness is even more worrisome than that of the bought and paid for crowd. He's a zealot. I'll give him credit for believing in his own shtick. But he's aware that if the public knew what he'd actually do to implement his revolution he'd be about as popular as Fidel or Mao. So he ducks and weaves and obfuscates. And what's he hiding in his FEC financial reports? Is it possible that he's received some contributions substantially north of $27? Or more illegal contributions than his opposition? If Clinton' FEC reports were as late and disorganized as Sanders' the opposition would be howling that she should be jailed for breaking campaign financing laws. Speaking of which...

A Hillary indictment is the fever dream of the anti-Clinton crowd. If she's indicted it wouldn't be the first or last time I would be wrong, but I would be well and truly shocked.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JimHow »

but I think those votes were about the safety of our country.
OMG you're kidding, Dave, right?
Fascinating how France and most of the rest of the world saw through the obscenity that was the Iraq invasion immediately while it was happening, but the U.S. Congress marched in lockstep out of fear of being called unpatriotic, losing the next election, voting against the PATRIOT Act, etc. A shameful era in U.S. history, and Hillary was right in the middle it. Over 3,000 U.S. lives lost, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives lost, trillions in debt incurred…. All in search of non-existent WMDs…. And we wonder why the rest of the world hates us. What an obscenity. And Hillary is an even bigger hawk than The Donald!

I like Bernie. I think he's energized a lot of younger people, and he has brought issues to the table that others like Hillary have shied away from out of political expedience. And as I said above, I don't think he has run a nasty campaign at all. If anything, he should have hit her a lot harder. And this arrogant NYT Tims/Debbie Wasserman view that Bernie needs to withdraw because he can't win. Um, just like Hillary did when she fought to the bitter end against Obama. Riiiight….
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JimHow »

Bernie Sanders back in 2002, when it was unpopular to be against the Iraq invasion:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/video/fla ... s-iraq-war
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by DavidG »

Yeah, I think you're right about the votes on the Iraq war...

And I don't think Bernie's been dirty in his criticism of Hillary. He's got every right to push on. But I do think he hides his plans and talks in platitudes.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: President Trump

Post by Blanquito »

DavidG wrote:Well we agree that most politicians are worthy of disdain because they are bought and paid for phonies. I'll put Hillary in that group but I don't think she's any worse than the rest of them.

Do you think that every politician that George W and gang conned into believing that a war was needed to rid Iraq of WMDs is a phony? Or let me qualify that: phonier than the typical politician? I don't believe that those votes were all about "optics" and future political talking points. I may be more politically naive than a simple country lawyer, one-time mayor of Lewiston and target of Hillary's sexual advances :o , but I think those votes were about the safety of our country.

The origin of Bernie's phoniness is even more worrisome than that of the bought and paid for crowd. He's a zealot. I'll give him credit for believing in his own shtick. But he's aware that if the public knew what he'd actually do to implement his revolution he'd be about as popular as Fidel or Mao. So he ducks and weaves and obfuscates. And what's he hiding in his FEC financial reports? Is it possible that he's received some contributions substantially north of $27? Or more illegal contributions than his opposition? If Clinton' FEC reports were as late and disorganized as Sanders' the opposition would be howling that she should be jailed for breaking campaign financing laws. Speaking of which...

A Hillary indictment is the fever dream of the anti-Clinton crowd. If she's indicted it wouldn't be the first or last time I would be wrong, but I would be well and truly shocked.
+1.

I don't see how they can indict Hillary given (a) how common this email practice seems to have been (making this potentially Pandora's box for DC), and (b) it sounds like the email traffic labeled "classified" wouldn't meet the public sniff test of "endangering national security", so the optics would seem overly political. But the point is, none of us really know. Yet the Right Wing has already convicted her.

There's a fundamental reality at play here-- if you watch Fox and Friends regularly, you are convinced Hillary is evil. But then to that crowd, Obama is evil, Bill Clinton is evil, Jimmy Carter maybe wasn't evil but he tried to destroy America, JFK was a crook, FDR was a communist. Liberals and Democrats may disagree with Republican presidents, but there's no systematic effort at character assassination- Reagan was supported, George the First was supported, George the Second was broadly supported (even though he lost the election) until he provided unworthy. Yet it is the Republican Party that has moved further and further to the Right, while the Dems have become ever more moderate (partially explaining the Bernie backlash).

At this point, I consider it self evident that there is no Democrat the Republican establishment will ever accept, be willing to work with (because then you're a RHINO), consider anything but "evil". Given this, I can't take seriously yet another breathless round of "scandalous" allegations against the Dems, as there's pretty much a permanent scandal industry aimed at any Democratic leader. But somehow this stuff after all this time is still catnip to many rank and file Republican. A real scandal like Monica Lewinsky or the botched Iraq invasion is obvious to all observers, but the rest is just BS designed to drive up negatives, distract and delay, etc, and it's destroying our political system.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: President Trump

Post by Blanquito »

I want to like Bernie, I just can't take him seriously. He's a good campaigner but everything David says is true. His economic plan is as filled with fiction as any supply' side tax cut propaganda (like that his planned increases in government spending will lead to 4% growth in GDP, just because).
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: President Trump

Post by Blanquito »

Hillary has millions more votes than Sanders, something like 3 million, yet in 2008 Hillary actually received more votes in the primary than Obama. And she never called him unfit to be president (not sure about her surrogates), like Bernie did several times about Hillary but only after it was clear he had very little shot of winning. He has toned down the personal attacks of late, to his credit. He is welcome to keep running of course, observers are welcome to judge him on his tactics, and we at BWE are welcome to form opinions about it all!
User avatar
JScott
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:37 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JScott »

David, I understand your frustration with Bernie, but I don't think I'd call him a phony either. I think he sincerely believes what he says. He's just detached from reality. Which isn't better.

Blanquito, Hillary's camp has been trying to press the "everybody else did it too" narrative, but that is simply false. No one else set up a private, secret insecure server against the explicit instructions of the NSA. Among the emails you are saying wouldn't pass the sniff test are satellite photos of a North Korean nuclear facility, transcripts from wiretaps of Yemeni intelligence agents' cellphone calls, the itinerary of the late U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens in the days before his murder, and true names of American undercover intelligence agents. These are just the ones we know of. In addition, there are at least 22 that the State Department has marked as beyond top secret and so sensitive they cannot release. Those all seem pretty obviously classified. She is guilty based on the facts already in evidence. That doesn't mean they will pursue it. I know you support her, but this is not a witch hunt.

You say correctly there is no Democrat a Republican will accept, but I think it's equally true there is no Republican a Democrat will accept. I think you're looking back at treatment of prior Republican administrations with rose colored glasses. W and Palin were and are despised by the Dems. They were vilified on a daily basis, likenesses burned in effigy, etc. Have you forgotten the rage over the hanging chads? So was Reagan. I could probably dig up a thousand links of examples. To claim that they were embraced by the Left with open arms is simply untrue. They were fought at every step, just like Obama. FOX News is ridiculously partisan, but so is MSNBC. Both parties despise each other equally, and treat each other accordingly. There are no saints here.

I also think it is clearly untrue that both parties are being dragged to the Right. Both parties are further Left than ever. Government has been expanding continuously for 30 years. The two Bush presidents enacted two of the biggest new social programs in the country's history. Gay marriage would have been unthinkable ten years back. Tax cutting, military expanding, saber rattling JFK would be a reactionary by today's standards. And that, in part, is what explains Bernie's support, though it is mostly anti-establishment, like Trump.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by DavidG »

Scott: I agree that Sanders believes in his shtick. He's a true believer, apparently unable to assimilate or accommodate any alternative point of view. That may all be real or partially phony. He's even more unfit to lead if his unwillingness to compromise is all real. Sanders' true phoniness rests in his obfuscating about his past voting record, his finances, his actual plans (where he actually has any) to implement the reforms he advocates. He's selling a dream but he isn't willing to spell out what it would really mean. Maybe he is too detached from reality to even be aware. Here's another thing that bothers me about Sanders: his refusal to condemn misogynistic statements and threats of convention violence made by his acolytes.

As to the email fiasco, I have no doubt that an equally long list of just-as-serious "offenses" could be generated about any member of the administration, any member of Congress on either side of the aisle, any government worker or any candidate, and it could be done with one tenth of the resource spent on compiling the list of Hillary problems. Find me someone who complies with all of the rules and I'll show you someone who does nothing. Sometimes I think that the only thing for which Federal employees can not be held accountable for is accomplishing nothing.
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by stefan »

>>
the only thing for which Federal employees can not be held accountable for is accomplishing nothing
>>

Isn't this how they move up?
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by DavidG »

JScott wrote:against the explicit instructions of the NSA.
Well it's probably a good thing that the server was a secret when she was actually using it. Wouldn't want to publicly advertise it to every teenage, Russian and N. Korean hacker out there.

Is anyone claiming that Clinton actually broke a law with her server, and if so, what statute? And if so, is it a clear violation or would it have to be based upon some tortured interpretation of the law? Anyone in similar circumstances ever been brought up on charges?

Or is it only that she didn't follow all of the instructions from the NSA? And how many pages of instructions does the NSA have? How much of it was new? Usually when an employee runs afoul of company policy, they are warned not to do it again. Unless the non-compliance resulted in a disastrous outcome. Can anyone draw any straight lines between he email server and a bad outcome? Self-aggrandizing claims from a self-proclaimed internet hack/hacker certainly don't qualify. I'll admit to being far from objective, but I can't comprehend how a disinterested party could find that use of the server represented criminal activity.
User avatar
JScott
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:37 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JScott »

Stefan, LMAO.


David, don't disagree with your Bernie criticisms at all. Funny, though, insert Trump instead of Bernie and re-read what you wrote.

Regarding the email, I hear you, I've unfortunately grown to have very little faith in almost everyone up there. But I don't buy the "everyone else is just as guilty" theory any more than the "everyone else did it too" theory. If they did, then bring the case. I don't believe for a minute if the shoe was on the other foot the Dems would be moving on. They pressed Iran Contra, there were hearings over Iraq, Scooter Libby, etc etc. Besides, this isn't just Darryl Issa - this is the FBI. I also refuse to accept the only way to get things done is to cheat or break the law. Then either change the law or accept whatever results are possible within it. None of the rest of us get to live by those standards. In fact, these days you and I and those in our professions are assumed guilty until proven innocent. I should clarify that I am a small government guy, though. Most of the time I'd rather have them do nothing than what they do. Gridlock is my second best outcome.
User avatar
JScott
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:37 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JScott »

David, I linked and outlined some of this above. In short, as do all State Dept employees, she completed a two hour course on management of state secrets, etc. and signed off on a directive that states it is her responsibility to know what is classified, regardless of whether it is marked, because it includes conversations as well. None of it is new. The statute for Espionage states that removing any classified material to a non-secure setting is itself a violation, regardless of intent or damages. There is no precedent because, despite the "everyone else did it too" argument, they didn't. More specifically, she and Cheryl Mills repeatedly asked the NSA (in some of the emails she tried to delete and did not disclose as even existing on the server, actually) to set up a private server for her. They were both told repeatedly that was not going to happen because it was insecure. Then she did it on her own any way. Her claims of ignorance ("what, like with a cloth?") are utterly unsupportable. Remember, this is supposed to be the most accomplished and experienced woman ever to run for office.

As I've said repeatedly, I still don't think she will be pursued. Not because she isn't guilty, but because of her position and the circumstances. She will try to claim ignorance, and although as I said it isn't required, I think the prosecution will want strong evidence of mens rea.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by DavidG »

Thanks, Scott. My understanding was that all of the Secy's before Clinton had email on something other than the official secure server, so perhaps that is relatively new? Not that it means that they didn't know the rules - if as you say their requests were denied. I wonder how much attention is paid to those courses. Maybe akin to clicking "Agree" to TOS or signing the papers when you buy a car? Easy to blow off until something goes wrong.

Then there is the whole question of what is really "secure." Are the govt servers a bigger target just because they are the govt servers? With a long line of leakers, traitors and spies, maybe a distributed system would actually be less vulnerable - a la terrorist networks. I know I'm getting far afield of the initial discussion and even the thread drift about the legality of Hillary's use of the server. But when I think of the ridiculous "security" requirements by so-called govt security experts (ever try to get your quality reports from CMS?), I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who fails to take it seriously and who prefers a more efficient, if unapproved workaround.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by DavidG »

And in reply to your comment about Trump/Sanders: absolutely! Two sides of the same coin. Unless Trump really is playing to the cameras as the Reality TV Candidate and will change his tune if elected. I don't think he is that sophisticated, but I could be wrong. Hope I don't have to find out.

Stefan: my point exactly. The key to advancement in govt is to do nothing, offend nobody and accumulate seniority. Rise to (and well beyond!) your level of competence.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JimHow »

As my old friend George once said… "Americans will probably remain ignorant of the big red, white, and blue dick being jammed up their assholes every day…."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQbop-hwS6I
User avatar
JScott
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:37 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JScott »

God I miss that guy.......
User avatar
JScott
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:37 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JScott »

Meanwhile, in other news, all of the emails for the Director of IT at State during Hillary's entire four year term are missing. I'm sure it's coincidence and there was nothing of note in them.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/emails-f ... d=38989504
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by DavidG »

I think we need to bring back Ken Starr to dig into this...
User avatar
JCNorthway
Posts: 1546
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:31 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JCNorthway »

Never seen that Carlin piece, but it's great.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JimHow »

Quinnipiac:

Trump-Clinton dead even in FL, OH, and (gulp) PA…

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

And he hasn't even started on her yet….

We're doomed. I think Hillary is unelectable.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JimHow »

Another rough day for Hillary.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JimHow »

One of the reporters said she looks tired. I agree. And depressed.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JimHow »

The sooner we get this Debbie Wasserman out of there the better off the Democratic Party will be:

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/f ... ce-1m-haul
User avatar
jal
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:30 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by jal »

Best

Jacques
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by Comte Flaneur »

What happens if Hillary gets sucked down in the ‘emailgate’ vortex of her subterfuge and duplicity? Will the Democratic nomination automatically go to Bernie or could someone like Joe Biden step in?

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/05/ ... ail-server
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JimHow »

I've been wondering that myself.
I assume that, if she were to withdraw from the race before the convention, delegates would be allowed to vote for someone else after the first round of voting if Bernie didn't get the votes on the first ballot. (Just like what the anti-Trump cause was hoping for on the Republican side.) This would likely result in a Bernie nomination but there would at least be a theoretical chance of Biden or somebody else coming in. If it happened after Hillary were nominated at the convention, I'm assuming that her VP nominee would take over the top of the ticket and that the VP would have to nominate a new VP, although I don't know what role the party would play in the matter at that point. And then you get into the whole issue of filing deadlines in each state, the printing of ballots, etc.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: President Trump

Post by Blanquito »

JimHow wrote:I think Hillary is unelectable.
JimHow picks Trump to win election, defeating the unelectable HRC! You heard it here first.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JimHow »

Stranger things have happened in world history!
User avatar
JScott
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:37 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JScott »

Conundrum: is she more unelectable than Trump? Where is Aristotle when you need him.......

As I saw in a headline recently, "the evil of two lessers."
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by Comte Flaneur »

JimHow wrote:As my old friend George once said… "Americans will probably remain ignorant of the big red, white, and blue dick being jammed up their assholes every day…."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQbop-hwS6I
I treated myself to the wisdom of Noam Chomsky tonight. I must say there were so many home truths in this excellent documentary. Who is he backing?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3270538/
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: President Trump

Post by Blanquito »

User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JimHow »

Come join the revolution Patrick.

Your old road is
Rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

Gee those are serious allegations made by Clinton forces, surely someone has been arrested by now on terrorism or criminal threatening charges. <rolls eyes>

I can just imagine the excuses and finger pointing we're gonna hear from the Debbie Wasserman/New York Times crowd (it has already started) when their dream of a Hillary coronation comes crashing down in flames in November.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: President Trump

Post by Blanquito »

Lol, Jim!

Are you in favor of an orderly convention?

Bernie is coming off badly IMHO, claiming and implying repeatedly that the nomination process is rigged, and he's only helping Donald Trump in the process (because why would his voters turn out for the other Democrat if their guy tells them they were robbed?).

All these claims despite these facts:
-Clinton has won over 3 million more votes than Sanders
-Sanders' claims that "closed" primaries are "rigged", yet Clinton has won more votes and delegates in "open" primaries than Sanders
-Clinton would take far more of the Super Delegates than Sanders if apportioned based on the popular votes in each state, as Sanders has repeatedly demanded (I am in favor of doing it this way, by the way)
-Sanders cannot possibly win and this has been obvious for a while, not because the process was rigged but because he lost. For example, he will "win" tonight's primaries in all likelihood and gain a whopping 5 delegates on Hillary.

Unfortunately, Sanders misinformation campaign seems to be working. From Krugman:
"a lot of Sanders supporters don’t understand this reality — 29 percent still believe that he’s the likely nominee, and another 11 percent aren’t sure. If news reports say that he “won” tonight, they’ll persist in their illusions — and the narrative that Clinton is somehow stealing the nomination will continue to fester."

I would normally be pro-Sanders or at least much of what he stands for, but winning the White House this November is far more important that continuing to whine and howling at the moon. We have Nader 2.0 in the works here, look how that turned out in 2000.

Bernie, you lost (or will shortly), it is over. Suck it up and play nice.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JimHow »

I see. So if Hillary loses in November it will be Bernie's fault.
And if Paul Krugman says it's so it must be then. <rolls eyes>

Maybe Hillary not doing so well has nothing to do with Bernie.
Maybe it's because she supported the Defense of Marriage Act.
Maybe it's because she supported the "crime bill" <rolls eyes> in the 90s.
Maybe its because she sided with Jamie Dimon and her Wall Street boys in voting for bankruptcy "reform."
Maybe its because she supported the war.
Maybe people are just tired of her and her sexual predator husband.
She supports women's rights... except for the victims of Bill.
Maybe it's because the FBI is investigating her and they are giving immunity to her associates and she could very well be indicted.

But I'm sure it has nothing to do with all that and her finger-to-the-wind brand of politics.
I'm sure she's going to lose because Bernie is making fun of her $225k speeches.

You and Debbie and the NYT editorial staff can go on believing that all you want Patrick!
You're right, Hillary is going to win because of the support of her fellow hack super-delegates.
But I'm telling you right now, there is a real risk Hillary is going down in November... and it ain't because of Bernie.
She can't even beat a cranky 74 year old socialist. Pathetic.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JimHow »

I'm surprised you are so anti-Bernie, Patrick, I would've thought you would be in his corner.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: esl, Google [Bot] and 13 guests