Politics & Stuff

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

Democratic Party circling the wagons now

Obama Privately Tells Donors That Time Is Coming to Unite Behind Hillary Clinton

 

Sanders would be doing everyone a disservice to carry this out till June. Concede now, and lets work together to begin tearing down Trump.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

20 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Its also true with countless examples. Just look at our current president, a constitutional law professor who also very recently "Grew" into supporting same sex marriage. It is the job of leaders not only to govern, but grow with those who elect them in a democracy. They paid her, and her husband, to give speeches we know nothing about until a transcript is released. It is not completely uncommon though. I even remember former President Ford being on the speech circuit in the 90's. Companies do it for the stockholders to show power.

If the public came out against the corporations she would most definitely follow. I truly believe that given what I know about her.

Haven't really answered my question there. And I don't just mean speeches, I mean 'donations' to her campaign and her foundation. They make those donations because they expect her to make decisions that will make/save them more money than they have invested in her. And those decisions will inevitable conflict with the best interest and the general consensus of the public. It's that simple.

If your point is that everyone else is corrupt, then you'll find no objections here. The system is broken and corrupt and allows legal bribing worth trillions each year and almost everyone in it is corrupt and represents only the interests of the bribers. And Hilary Clinton is one of the, if not THE, most corrupt and bribed politician.

 

 

Now let me dispel the notion that Hilary reflects the opinions of her voters:

- Fracking: She's said she won't ban it despite 75% of democrats opposing it.

- Super PACs: She's taken in hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations despite 84% of democrats opposing it.

- Wall Street: 87% of democrats think that her Wall Street buddies should be in jail for their criminal roles in the 2008 melt down. She invites them to her parties and takes their money.

- NSA Spying: She's for it and defended her decision to vote for it. 64% of democrats oppose it.

- Assad: She wants to overthrow him. 68% of democrats don't.

- Netanyahu: She went out of her way and wrote and Op-ed on how she will do whatever it takes to please him, despite the fact that just 17% of democrats view him favorably (46% view him unforably).

Then there are the issues she flip-flops so much on, which probably means that she'll likely go with the interest of her donors than the public like Guantanamo Bay, ground troops against ISIS, TTP...etc.

So, NO, she does NOT represent her voters on A LOT of issues...

[Fulham Broadway 17,338]

Shes always lied, like her 'read my lips' husband.

I remember this when she said she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire. Total bullshit. If its between her and sack of shit Trump, we're going to hell in a handcart.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

31 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

Haven't really answered my question there. And I don't just mean speeches, I mean 'donations' to her campaign and her foundation. They make those donations because they expect her to make decisions that will make/save them more money than they have invested in her. And those decisions will inevitable conflict with the best interest and the general consensus of the public. It's that simple.

If your point is that everyone else is corrupt, then you'll find no objections here. The system is broken and corrupt and allows legal bribing worth trillions each year and almost everyone in it is corrupt and represents only the interests of the bribers. And Hilary Clinton is one of the, if not THE, most corrupt and bribed politician.

 

 

Now let me dispel the notion that Hilary reflects the opinions of her voters:

- Fracking: She's said she won't ban it despite 75% of democrats opposing it.

- Super PACs: She's taken in hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations despite 84% of democrats opposing it.

- Wall Street: 87% of democrats think that her Wall Street buddies should be in jail for their criminal roles in the 2008 melt down. She invites them to her parties and takes their money.

- NSA Spying: She's for it and defended her decision to vote for it. 64% of democrats oppose it.

- Assad: She wants to overthrow him. 68% of democrats don't.

- Netanyahu: She went out of her way and wrote and Op-ed on how she will do whatever it takes to please him, despite the fact that just 17% of democrats view him favorably (46% view him unforably).

Then there are the issues she flip-flops so much on, which probably means that she'll likely go with the interest of her donors than the public like Guantanamo Bay, ground troops against ISIS, TTP...etc.

So, NO, she does NOT represent her voters on A LOT of issues...

 

They can make donations for any number of reasons. The idea that Bernie is pushing, that corporations are outright buying her is simply hyperbolic in nature. He is damaging the party with that kind of speech. 

 

Not disagreeing with those numbers you posted, but apparently they agree with her a lot more than are Bernie since she has completely crushed him and O'malley in support from both in Washington, and outside of it. She is speaking enough to the party to where she is seen as the best option.  The question then becomes do Democrats simply not like what they see from the other candidates, or do when they become more educated on the issues they default to Hillary. The Wall Street one is a big issue. If anybody should be locked up its the government for that monstrous Reinvestment Act that tricked poor people into thinking they could take out loans they would never be able to pay back. Wall Street was just stupid enough to try to get rich off of stupid government planning.

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

21 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Shes always lied, like her 'read my lips' husband.

I remember this when she said she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire. Total bullshit. If its between her and sack of shit Trump, we're going to hell in a handcart.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

 

That is a pretty terrible lie to make, but I don't think that automatically makes her a bad president candidate. Hell Slick Willy was a big liar, and he gave us one of the best economies in recent history. I'd have those days back in a second.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

32 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

They can make donations for any number of reasons. The idea that Bernie is pushing, that corporations are outright buying her is simply hyperbolic in nature. He is damaging the party with that kind of speech. 

 

Not disagreeing with those numbers you posted, but apparently they agree with her a lot more than are Bernie since she has completely crushed him and O'malley in support from both in Washington, and outside of it. She is speaking enough to the party to where she is seen as the best option.  The question then becomes do Democrats simply not like what they see from the other candidates, or do when they become more educated on the issues they default to Hillary. The Wall Street one is a big issue. If anybody should be locked up its the government for that monstrous Reinvestment Act that tricked poor people into thinking they could take out loans they would never be able to pay back. Wall Street was just stupid enough to try to get rich off of stupid government planning.

Those reasons being? I personally can't think of any legitimate reasons other than getting benefits in return. 

Whichever way you look at it, it is undeniable legalized bribing. It's not a matter of perspective. Giving money to people in power for benefits you would not get otherwise is the very definition of bribing. 

Read an article a while back on how the positions of candidates poll against each other on each of the major issue and Sanders beats her on almost everything. And even her own supporters say he is more trustworthy than her. What the actual voting goes down to, like all modern democracies, misinformation and lack of awareness, name recognition and branding, and perceived ideas drawn by the mainstream media.

If you consider that few had ever heard of Sanders before his nomination, the fact that he has no Super PAC, that he identifies as a socialist, and that he's running against almost all the powerful lobbies that basically control Washington while she has the entire establishment on her side along with the mainstream media running story after story against Bernie, it's actually quite embarrassing for her that he's even managed to get this close to her and actually win states.

It says sooo much about the state of the establishment and the two parties and the disenfranchised public and particularly youth that Bernie has done so well. Same goes for Trump. 

[iseah100 5,612]

So is Bernie legit?

I'm yet to see one lie come out of that man's mouth. 

Bernie is the savior this country needs.

Democratic Party circling the wagons now

Obama Privately Tells Donors That Time Is Coming to Unite Behind Hillary Clinton

 

Sanders would be doing everyone a disservice to carry this out till June. Concede now, and lets work together to begin tearing down Trump.

why in the world would he do that? He needs 60% of the remaining delegates to get the nomination. And he will never endorse Hillary, he's not a democrat.

 

They can make donations for any number of reasons. The idea that Bernie is pushing, that corporations are outright buying her is simply hyperbolic in nature. He is damaging the party with that kind of speech. 

 

Not disagreeing with those numbers you posted, but apparently they agree with her a lot more than are Bernie since she has completely crushed him and O'malley in support from both in Washington, and outside of it. She is speaking enough to the party to where she is seen as the best option.  The question then becomes do Democrats simply not like what they see from the other candidates, or do when they become more educated on the issues they default to Hillary. The Wall Street one is a big issue. If anybody should be locked up its the government for that monstrous Reinvestment Act that tricked poor people into thinking they could take out loans they would never be able to pay back. Wall Street was just stupid enough to try to get rich off of stupid government planning.

Lol. Why do you think they are donating so much to her? The oil companies? To get benefits from her. Scratch my back I'll scratch yours. You think they are paying her 200k for a speech and she's going up there demanding deregulation of Wall Street? Hell no. She's not eveolving for the sake of her constituents, she's changing her stances to cater to what the people want. She's covering her true views with a blanket of what the public's desires are and isn't gonna act on any of it. Bernie has been working for civil rights since the 60's. He's the real liberal. Hillary is a Republicrat.

[quickpassnmove 924]

Because inadequate numbers of young people show up to nominate and vote, the U.S. remains stuck in the 20th century. There are good people in politics despite convenient cynicism expressed by some here.

 

One way we're NOT stuck in the 20th century: neo-liberal economic policies since Thatcher and Reagan are decimating the low-skill and middle-skill workers' means to earn a living (and forget about a savings account). That trend WILL continue regardless of the crap that comes from the mouths of Trump, Kasich, Cruz, Clinton.  But the same would not necessarily be true IF Bernie won and the people became more engaged in the political process. All the whiteys favoring Trump aren't going to get more than nickels, dimes and more soundbites reflecting their anger while the neo-liberal status quo continues. Attitudes will change.  Unfortunately, it takes the poorly educated and indoctrinated fools a long time to change one way of thinking in their brains and culture.

 

The cynicism, passivity, and lack of priority among young people on voting will continue to preclude genuine change via the electoral process. 

Either rejuvenated organized labor and civil disobedience, or market implosion and technology are more likely agents of change in the U.S.

The will and minds of Americans have been weakened, misdirected and misinformed (since the 70s); the investor class is in another atmosphere.

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

7 hours ago, CHOULO19 said:

Those reasons being? I personally can't think of any legitimate reasons other than getting benefits in return. 

Whichever way you look at it, it is undeniable legalized bribing. It's not a matter of perspective. Giving money to people in power for benefits you would not get otherwise is the very definition of bribing. 

Read an article a while back on how the positions of candidates poll against each other on each of the major issue and Sanders beats her on almost everything. And even her own supporters say he is more trustworthy than her. What the actual voting goes down to, like all modern democracies, misinformation and lack of awareness, name recognition and branding, and perceived ideas drawn by the mainstream media.

If you consider that few had ever heard of Sanders before his nomination, the fact that he has no Super PAC, that he identifies as a socialist, and that he's running against almost all the powerful lobbies that basically control Washington while she has the entire establishment on her side along with the mainstream media running story after story against Bernie, it's actually quite embarrassing for her that he's even managed to get this close to her and actually win states.

It says sooo much about the state of the establishment and the two parties and the disenfranchised public and particularly youth that Bernie has done so well. Same goes for Trump. 

 

A reason I can think of is prestige. Those corporations, full of their ivy league kids, are very prestige based. They like bragging about who they know, and showing off their connections. Hillary could have just been easily called up for them as any other public speaker.

 

The fact that Sanders has been a public servant for decades, yet is relatively unknown by people voting in the party he wishes to represent, is more of an indictment on him than the system he is up against. He has made a nice little comfortable place to stake out a living, in a relatively homogenous area where he never really had such a spotlight placed on him the way Hillary has. 

6 hours ago, iseah100 said:

Bernie is the savior this country needs.

 

why in the world would he do that? He needs 60% of the remaining delegates to get the nomination. And he will never endorse Hillary, he's not a democrat.

 

Lol. Why do you think they are donating so much to her? The oil companies? To get benefits from her. Scratch my back I'll scratch yours. You think they are paying her 200k for a speech and she's going up there demanding deregulation of Wall Street? Hell no. She's not eveolving for the sake of her constituents, she's changing her stances to cater to what the people want. She's covering her true views with a blanket of what the public's desires are and isn't gonna act on any of it. Bernie has been working for civil rights since the 60's. He's the real liberal. Hillary is a Republicrat.

 

The savior you seek is within yourself, and no politician will ever be able to give you what you are able to achieve for yourself. Thats my advice to you in your young age.

 

Bernie knows the game, and he will most certainly endorse Hillary Clinton when he calls his campaign off, and rightfully so as they agree on the vast majority of the issues this country faces going forward. 

 

Here is Hillary on the issues:

Hillary's Record

 

She is a true blue democrat, and has a history of championing the causes of liberalism and the Democratic party in this nation. She is a fantastic choice for president. Also looking at her record she is a big supporter of civil rights, and always has been as long as she was on the record. She became a liberal in college, and even met MLK JR. The vast majority of the civil rights movement has endorsed her, including Civil rights legend in Atlanta Senator John Lewis. 

 

 

 

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

6 hours ago, quickpassnmove said:

Because inadequate numbers of young people show up to nominate and vote, the U.S. remains stuck in the 20th century. There are good people in politics despite convenient cynicism expressed by some here.

 

One way we're NOT stuck in the 20th century: neo-liberal economic policies since Thatcher and Reagan are decimating the low-skill and middle-skill workers' means to earn a living (and forget about a savings account). That trend WILL continue regardless of the crap that comes from the mouths of Trump, Kasich, Cruz, Clinton.  But the same would not necessarily be true IF Bernie won and the people became more engaged in the political process. All the whiteys favoring Trump aren't going to get more than nickels, dimes and more soundbites reflecting their anger while the neo-liberal status quo continues. Attitudes will change.  Unfortunately, it takes the poorly educated and indoctrinated fools a long time to change one way of thinking in their brains and culture.

 

The cynicism, passivity, and lack of priority among young people on voting will continue to prelude genuine change via the electoral process. 

Either rejuvenated organized labor and civil disobedience, or market implosion and technology are more likely agents of change in the U.S.

The will and minds of Americans have been weakened, misdirected and misinformed (since the 70s); the investor class is in another atmosphere.

 

I think when the GE comes around young people will be energized to vote for her. Breaking the highest glass ceiling in this nation in terms of women, and the star power she has on her side(Katy Perry, America Ferrera, and Michelle Kwan to name a few) will play a big role in getting the young voters out.

[quickpassnmove 924]

1 hour ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

 

I think when the GE comes around young people will be energized to vote for her. Breaking the highest glass ceiling in this nation in terms of women, and the star power she has on her side(Katy Perry, America Ferrera, and Michelle Kwan to name a few) will play a big role in getting the young voters out.

It's hard to see how much of an advancement equal pay, equal rights or any number of socio-economic issues actually make compared to the bigger picture of dependency upon oligarchical middle men or the investor class that is taking all the power from common people regardless of race, sex, etc.

Clinton can rally some people, but for WHAT? 

The person that is going to create more impetus on the Left Wing is going to be a total asshole from the Right, not Hillary.  Or, as I may have said in this forum before: we wait for Chinese workers to start a revolution because Americans are too deluded, cynical, scared and passive.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

5 hours ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

A reason I can think of is prestige. Those corporations, full of their ivy league kids, are very prestige based. They like bragging about who they know, and showing off their connections. Hillary could have just been easily called up for them as any other public speaker.

3 billion dollars, man. Three BILLION dollars! Here, watch this:

 

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

6 hours ago, quickpassnmove said:

It's hard to see how much of an advancement equal pay, equal rights or any number of socio-economic issues actually make compared to the bigger picture of dependency upon oligarchical middle men or the investor class that is taking all the power from common people regardless of race, sex, etc.

Clinton can rally some people, but for WHAT? 

The person that is going to create more impetus on the Left Wing is going to be a total asshole from the Right, not Hillary.  Or, as I may have said in this forum before: we wait for Chinese workers to start a revolution because Americans are too deluded, cynical, scared and passive.

 

Its a bigger picture only to what one would hold as their most important position. For a lot of people with women in their life, especially young ones, having Hillary in office next year itself is a big rally point. It will be an amazing thing for them to see, and would go a lot further in pushing the ideas that they can do anything.

 

Also I don't think a revolution by the Chinese workers would be too good on Sanders, who has played on 19th century fears of Chinese workers in actual debates.

2 hours ago, CHOULO19 said:

3 billion dollars, man. Three BILLION dollars! Here, watch this:

 

 

I find the young turks enjoyable sometimes, but that video was like 15 minutes of straight up innuendo. There is no proof of them being bought off with this money. They are hurting the democrat party by playing up to right wing talking points, the same people who sat back with a smile as a dementia struck Reagan went to Japan talking about cowboys and whatnot in 90 for the big bucks. They give money to their foundation and to hear them speech because they are(were) popular young and had good charities.

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

Study: Bernie Sanders's tax hikes are bigger than Donald Trump's tax cuts

The kicker is in the details:

 

Nobody would vote for this in a general election. His tax increases are simply horrific for the middle class. You can try to sell it on free college and free healthcare, but the average middle class family already struggling with bills aren't signing up for a hit that much bigger than Hillarys plan. 

 

She is the only option going forward.

 

[CHOULO19 24,332]

LMAO Hillary just decided to out flank Donald Trump from the right on Palestine. She actually blasted him for being too dovish!  But yeah, sure, 'progressive'....

On 3/20/2016 at 4:32 PM, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Study: Bernie Sanders's tax hikes are bigger than Donald Trump's tax cuts

The kicker is in the details:

 

Nobody would vote for this in a general election. His tax increases are simply horrific for the middle class. You can try to sell it on free college and free healthcare, but the average middle class family already struggling with bills aren't signing up for a hit that much bigger than Hillarys plan. 

 

She is the only option going forward.

 

Now add a third column of what the average family from each income bracket is already spending on health care and education...

Not sure what you are trying to prove when every single poll shows that Bernie would not only win but do WAY better than Hillary against every republican candidate. A LOT of actual progressive would never vote for Hillary Clinton. Some will even vote for whoever is running against her, even if it's Donald Trump. 

[Pizy 18,963]

Bernie would have no chance in a GE against Trump. He'd be slaughtered. 

Hillary will win by a massive margin in the end, I predict.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

2 minutes ago, Pizy said:

Bernie would have no chance in a GE against Trump. He'd be slaughtered. 

Hillary will win by a massive margin in the end, I predict.

That's based on what, though?

At the moment, on average of all the national polls that have been done, Bernie beats Trump by TEN points, which is four more than Hillary would.

And it makes sense, because independents would overwhelmingly vote for Sanders while very few would vote for as establishment candidate like Hillary. 

[Kieran. 6,317]

31 minutes ago, Pizy said:

Bernie would have no chance in a GE against Trump. He'd be slaughtered. 

Hillary will win by a massive margin in the end, I predict.

You're forgetting the independent voter. They support Bernie more than any other candidate. 

[Pizy 18,963]

2 hours ago, CHOULO19 said:

That's based on what, though?

At the moment, on average of all the national polls that have been done, Bernie beats Trump by TEN points, which is four more than Hillary would.

And it makes sense, because independents would overwhelmingly vote for Sanders while very few would vote for as establishment candidate like Hillary. 

I'm just not sure Bernie would get African Americans, Latino's, basically any minority voters, women, older Democratic voters to turn out in significant enough numbers to beat Trump. Hillary has and will continue to dominate Bernie with those demographics.

Plus, once Hillary does win the Dem nomination she'll have the support and endorsements from the likes of Obama, Bill Clinton, hopefully Bernie, and many other influential figures. 

I really like Bernie and respect what he's preaching, but clearly not enough people buy into his "revolution." I think he'd wipe the floor with Trump in the debates and is far, FAR more qualified to be the President but I'm just not sure he unifies and draws huge numbers of voters like Hillary will.

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

3 hours ago, CHOULO19 said:

LMAO Hillary just decided to out flank Donald Trump from the right on Palestine. She actually blasted him for being too dovish!  But yeah, sure, 'progressive'....

Now add a third column of what the average family from each income bracket is already spending on health care and education...

Not sure what you are trying to prove when every single poll shows that Bernie would not only win but do WAY better than Hillary against every republican candidate. A LOT of actual progressive would never vote for Hillary Clinton. Some will even vote for whoever is running against her, even if it's Donald Trump. 

k-12 is already subsidized via Taxes. The only families spending on education are people who choose to send their kids to private school, or people with kids in College who are most likely getting loans.  That is coming out of their current paycheck.

 

Health is an issue that is being worked with via the Affordable care act, which Hillary has promised to improve without jacking up taxes. You can bring up those two, but in a general election people barely making ends meet so far will not accept seeing such tax increases. It would make him unelectable to most people. The polls also said Hillary was a lock in Michigan, and she lost that state. I am telling you Bernie is doing better in those polls because he has not had a rightwing campaign attack him the way Hillary has. You think the average 30-50k a year family in the midwest will see those tax increases and say "I am all in"? That it could stand up against Ads and debates in a general election?

 

Very few Progressives would vote Trump over Hillary, a woman who agrees with Bernie Sanders >90% of the time. From a practical standpoint it would make little sense because Trump is on the complete opposite side of the spectrum. Those type of people do exist though, and they are called bernie bros. They are usually people who already have a certain level of privilege(usually via being white and upper middle class) who really wouldnt be any worse off under Trump. I mean Trump comes for the Muslims and Hispanics, two groups those people are not a part of and wouldnt be directly hurt if such groups were attacked. They are a very small group in all honesty though. The vast majority of Democrats would support who the party nominates over a republican, and the vast majority support Hillary seeing as she's not only crushing with popular vote, but also with delegates and party super delegates.