Bernie!

[sr71plt]

I felt certain you'd be pleased. A relief from all the bitching you do here. (No, I didn't click on it.)

 

[BotanyBoy]

I felt certain you'd be pleased. A relief from all the bitching you do here. (No, I didn't click on it.)

Oh to no end!

Don't get too excited...and I didn't think you would, you have terrible taste in most things.

But I wanted to give you the chance, I'm always the hopeful optimist.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm always the hopeful optimist.

I laughed at that supposition. Thanks.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I laughed at that supposition. Thanks.

If I wasn't then why would I go through the trouble?

 

[JackLuis]

http://assets.amuniversal.com/1bbc4fb0ee110133574e005056a9545d.gif

Helping Hillary!

 

[Sean Renaud]

Your assuming Bernie can keep his followers from burning the platform on the way out which they seem bound and determined to do.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Your assuming Bernie can keep his followers from burning the platform on the way out which they seem bound and determined to do.

I wonder how many are going to go vote for Trump just for that reason.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I wonder how many are going to go vote for Trump just for that reason.

I believe most people will not vote for a candidate this year. They will decide which one is worse and vote against him or her or maybe both.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I believe most people will not vote for a candidate this year. They will decide which one is worse and vote against him or her or maybe both.

A vote for one is a vote against the other.....did you think of that all on your own?

Same difference man. When you cast a vote for someone you're still casting a vote FOR them, your sentiment about it means fuck all.

Still, how many Sanders fans will be voting FOR Trump as a fuck you to (R)odham?

I bet it's more than most people would like to think.

 

[JackLuis]

I believe most people will not vote for a candidate this year. They will decide which one is worse and vote against him or her or maybe both.

A recent poll (I cited some where on the board) said that 40-47% of voters were anti-voters. So you are somewhat correct Box. An election of the least horrid is not what I want but it's what we have.

 

[Boxlicker101]

A vote for one is a vote against the other.....did you think of that all on your own?

Same difference man. When you cast a vote for someone you're still casting a vote FOR them, your sentiment about it means fuck all.

Still, how many Sanders fans will be voting FOR Trump as a fuck you to (R)odham?

I bet it's more than most people would like to think.

If I write in "None of the above" that would be a vote against all candidates. Or, if I vote for a third party candidate, that would be a vote against both Silly Hilly and the Donald. The latter is what I expect to do in Nov. but I am not sure yet. Most third parties are just as bad as the major ones.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If I write in "None of the above" that would be a vote against all candidates. Or, if I vote for a third party candidate, that would be a vote against both Silly Hilly and the Donald. The latter is what I expect to do in Nov. but I am not sure yet. Most third parties are just as bad as the major ones.

None of the above is a waste of effort.

Not participating isn't a vote against, that's like calling bald a hair color or atheism a religion. There is no voting against one without voting for another.

Third party is a vote against the other two, but effectively it's just not participating.

 

[Sean Renaud]

None of the above is a waste of effort.

Not participating isn't a vote against, that's like calling bald a hair color or atheism a religion. There is no voting against one without voting for another.

Third party is a vote against the other two, but effectively it's just not participating.

I would argue that both of those are valid choices depending on the scenario. If I'm describing a human being bald is the descriptor I would put in the slot for hair. Tattoo would also qualify. If you need to know my religion because you want to bury me properly knowing that I'm not a Viking matters. (Though you can totally put me on a boat and burn it. Just be certain I'm dead.

Not participating for 90% of people is a half vote for the other guy. The reality is that as much as people scream independent very few people are actually 50/50 on issues or have a voting record that would suggest they are.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I would argue that both of those are valid choices depending on the scenario.

They are valid options but even in those scenarios they describe an absence of what you're describing/classifying, not a variety of.

You could use the word "none" in place of either and it would convey the same factually accurate meaning.

Not participating for 90% of people is a half vote for the other guy. The reality is that as much as people scream independent very few people are actually 50/50 on issues or have a voting record that would suggest they are.

I agree, and on an emotional level you're absolutely right on your first point.

But effectively it's still nothing and thus irrelevant.

The only REAL 'fuck you' you get as an American voter is to vote for the other half.

The ONLY way I can stick it to Clinton is to vote for Trump. Which in CA is beyond pointless so I'm just not going to waste my time on this election either. Who am I kidding my Zip says I vote for (D) so I'm likely just done participating at all. My vote couldn't be more worthless.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I will accept that they describe an absence of something. I've long wondered what habitual hair dyers should put. I had an ex that people used to joke had no clue what her real hair color was. The most common was a deep burgundy that looked purple in the right light but you sure as fuck wouldn't have found her looking for the blonde.

I also agree that none would be accurate. I also wish they would sometimes since bald is so rare that people often use bld for bald AND blonde when you have one of those stupid forms that only lets you use 3 letters.

As for my point on not voting that's why I called it a half vote. You know where you'd stand if I put a gun to your head and said pull a lever. Every lever pull your guy loses is one step closer to defeat.

Unless you're in one of the many states where you might as well vote for King Sombra.

 

[urguyscott]

Neither Sanders or Clinton look upon themselves as Democrats. Sanders is a Socialist/Communists and Clinton is a Progressive/Fascists and have stated so. Sanders believes that Lenin type of government where the people work for the state and the state controls everything has never worked. Even in the most communists of states the leaders are rich royals living like kings. Just look at North Korea. Sanders believes in a two class system.

This is basically the same with Clinton who is a puppet of Soros (Kerry in a college speech just this week stated that he believes in the ways of a one government no borders, etc.) This is where the elite rich like the present king of Russia, the leaders of China, Obama, Clinton, the world bankers, etc. rule over the majority. To have slaves, you need open borders to bring them in and take the place of the middle class. Destroy the unions (which in this country was done a long time ago) and get the people to depend on the one per cent royal class as in the middle ages.

When they say tax "the rich" remember they are the rich. Any tax given to a corporation is passed on to the people. The CEO's are taxed heavy because they rule the politicians.

Sanders and Clinton and yes Obama use their black shirts under vaious names the way Hitler and Lenin used their thugs to scare and control the people by riots (sorry the political correct word is protesters) and Trump does the same thing. As a matter of fact he has come out this week and saying much the same as Clinton who he has always been close to and will change a lot of what he has used to get him where he is now.

As far as a fair election, how many of you have actually voted for any candidate running for president this year? Not many. Only a few small states and the media and the states that have, many have been accused of voter ballot stuffing. Surprise.
Clinton has the nomination because she has so many unlawful (ok, they make the laws and decide which can be used and which can be broken look at how Obama has ruled) and with her "stuffed" convention delegates who do not represent any of you his it all tied up.

Regardless of how you feel about Sanders or his politics he never had a fair chance. It was fixed from the beginning. The same with the so called Republican candidates. They are a bunch of copper head politicians who sold their party out. Trump was suppose to be just in to mess up the over numbered field of candidates (who if the NRC and the leaders of the Republican Party really wanted to run would have had a candidate ready like the Communists or Progressives have.) So he got backing from cross over votes and fools and now the country has what amounts to the Three Stooges running for the highest office.

Admit it there are more people on this site better qualified and more honest to run for office than these three.

So whatever your feelings here about Sanders he is just a foot note in history if he is lucky enough to have an honest history book written.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Of course Clinton thinks she's a Democrat and identifies as such. Really making that claim shows just how insane you are.

 

[sr71plt]

Of course Clinton thinks she's a Democrat and identifies as such. Really making that claim shows just how insane you are.

Yep. To claim she looks on herself as a fascist is just idiotic. I agree that Sanders is only giving lip service to being a Democrat, though. Watch to see what he does after not winning the nomination. (He still has himself listed as an Independent on the Congress roles.)

 

[Sean Renaud]

Oh I think only the most insane and/or uniformed think of Bernie as a Democrat. I didn't know until you pointed it out that he never bothered to change his alignment. I've always thought that Bernie is to Democrats what Ron Paul (and to some extent his son) are to Republicans. They aren't REALLY part of the team but they like to chat.

IF someone was debating that Hillary would be a Republican if her answer to "are women people" wasn't yes I'd agree.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

So are any of you Californians seeing a big push by Bernie?

 

[urguyscott]

Of course Clinton thinks she's a Democrat and identifies as such. Really making that claim shows just how insane you are.

When she was still in Washington a reporter asked her what she was as she was walking by, along with other questions, and she smiled and said that she was a "Progressive". She did not say Democrat. And she has said it also while on the campaign trail. She thinks of herself as a Progressive. She like Sanders (who left the Democratic Party remember) both use the Democratic Party as a springboard, not as a party.

Now being "insane" is being a follower of one of the Three Stooges, Clinton, Sanders, and Trump. You would think out of the millions of people in this country, who have the legal right to hold a public office, including yourself, are better qualified and a hell of a lot more educated and honest and loyal to their country would be given the chance to run for office.

Our primary system and even our election system is corrupt. How many on here have actually had a chance to decide who to vote for in their party from ALL the candidates that have applied? Not many. We allow a few small states and not even their people, but small groups within state and the so called failed media to decide who will be president. I would rather have a National Party Primary where all the people vote at once from all candidates who are running. That no vote be counted till the last person in the Pacific has voted. That the voting be honest and no Acorn or dead or illegal votes be cast, but people show I.D. just as they do for all important legal actions that are carried out each day.

Then the people will decide and not mindless brain washed fools or corrupt money corrupt political gang and the Joseph Gobble want a bees of the Media tell us who will be our countries leader.

To want anything else, to be a blind follower is what really is insane.

 

[sr71plt]

Bullshit. You can be a Democrat and a progressive at the same time. (Compared to Republicans, it's practically a given--which she undoubtedly knew). You can't redefine history. She's been at the center of the working Democratic Party for decades. And now it's paying off in the form of pledged party delegates who can see the difference between someone who has worked for them for decades of elections and someone who still hasn't changed his affiliation from Independent on the official Senate lists.

You must be in panic to be shoveling this shit. Good.

 

[Sean Renaud]

When she was still in Washington a reporter asked her what she was as she was walking by, along with other questions, and she smiled and said that she was a "Progressive". She did not say Democrat. And she has said it also while on the campaign trail. She thinks of herself as a Progressive. She like Sanders (who left the Democratic Party remember) both use the Democratic Party as a springboard, not as a party.

No. A Progressive is a type of Democrat (for the most part) not something separate from the Democrats. The same as Conservative is to Republican. Hillary is a Democrat. This is beyond sane conversation.

Bernie is an independent. There is not a party of any significance that aligns with his views. He does view the Democrats as a springboard. This is a clear and definable difference between them.

Now being "insane" is being a follower of one of the Three Stooges, Clinton, Sanders, and Trump. You would think out of the millions of people in this country, who have the legal right to hold a public office, including yourself, are better qualified and a hell of a lot more educated and honest and loyal to their country would be given the chance to run for office.

Highly unlikely. I'm not nearly as qualified as either Bernie or Hillary. Virtually nobody is remotely as qualified as Hillary is by any rational standard and Bernie has been in politics for decades. SRsplit would would argue he hasn't been effective but he's still been there on the floor seeing the mechanics first hand.

And I can't legally run anyway. Not old enough.

Our primary system and even our election system is corrupt. How many on here have actually had a chance to decide who to vote for in their party from ALL the candidates that have applied? Not many. We allow a few small states and not even their people, but small groups within state and the so called failed media to decide who will be president. I would rather have a National Party Primary where all the people vote at once from all candidates who are running. That no vote be counted till the last person in the Pacific has voted. That the voting be honest and no Acorn or dead or illegal votes be cast, but people show I.D. just as they do for all important legal actions that are carried out each day.

I would love for a national primary day simply so that momentum isn't a thing. But I realize that this would be unfeasible for many people since you'd have to either get it online which Americans don't trust (because stupid) or have multiple national primaries which would be a mess. No ACORN votes just means voter suppression so good on you.

Then the people will decide and not mindless brain washed fools or corrupt money corrupt political gang and the Joseph Gobble want a bees of the Media tell us who will be our countries leader.

I don't know if that is true at all. It would simply create a new mess. But hey I'm not against trying it, just telling you in advance that I'm making an 'I told you so" plaque.

To want anything else, to be a blind follower is what really is insane.

You presume incorrectly that following=blind.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Bullshit. You can be a Democrat and a progressive at the same time. (Compared to Republicans, it's practically a given--which she undoubtedly knew). You can't redefine history. She's been at the center of the working Democratic Party for decades. And now it's paying off in the form of pledged party delegates who can see the difference between someone who has worked for them for decades of elections and someone who still hasn't changed his affiliation from Independent on the official Senate lists.

You must be in panic to be shoveling this shit. Good.

Are you including 1964 when she was a Goldwater Girl?

 

[sr71plt]

Are you including 1964 when she was a Goldwater Girl?

1964 was over five decades ago. How many decades does she have to be a working member of the Democratic Party for you to give her credit for being a working member of the Democratic Party (as, for instance, in contrast to Bernie Sanders who is still registered as an Independent by the Senate).

Are you perhaps missing the point, or just being your usual dopey and grasping at straws self?