Slashdot Mirror
Bernie Sanders Endorses Hillary Clinton (cnn.com)
It's official. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Tuesday endorsed former presidential rival Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee ahead of the party's July convention. Sanders said Clinton will make an outstanding president and that he is proud to stand with her. "Hillary Clinton understands that if someone in America works 40 hours a week, that person should not be living in poverty," Sanders added. CNN reports: "I have come here to make it as clear as possible why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president," Sanders said at a joint rally here. "Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nomination and I congratulate her for that." The 74-year-old self-described democratic socialist, who has been a thorn in Clinton's side over the last year, pledged his support to his former rival: "I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States." Clinton, speaking after Sanders, declared: "We are joining forces to defeat Donald Trump!" "I can't help but say how much more enjoyable this election is going to be when we are on the same side," she said. "You know what? We are stronger together!" Full remarks of Sanders can be found on this blog post.
Sure - but all this "principled opposition" that Sanders supposedly brought turned out to be no so principled as we thought.
Clinton and Trump both epitomize everything that is horrible and deporable about American politics. People like to pretend that they wouldn't vote for someone just for wearing a (D) or (R), but this election is the test. Will you vote for one of the worst two candidates ever, just because of their party affiliation?
If so, you can't complain about your choices ever again, because you put your stamp of approval on this.
Trump is of course utterly unacceptable, and the Democratic Party has shown itself to be controlled by an unaccountable politburo that fixed the nomination. I wont be a part of either of these criminals' rise to power.
Im moving on from Feeling the Bern to Feeling the Johnson.
The Corporate Overlords want Clinton.
Also the people, since, you know, she got more votes.
no, its those who keep thinking we are stopping him because of his color and not his horrible horrible policy is flat out racebaiting scumbaggary
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Disagree - don't want Trump, but Hillary with a strong republican congress might repeat the Bill Clinton era. Hillary with a strong democrat congress is going to railroad a lot of garbage through... the best years have traditionally been with opposing parties in the legislative and executive branches.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Democrats controlled the senate with a supermajority for about 17 weeks, from the delayed confirmation of Al Franken to the death of Ted Kennedy.
Just exactly how much legislation do you think they should have crammed in to those weeks? The fact that they only got one piece of major legislation through is to me testament to the fact that they were taking their time to do things right instead of pushing through more pre-written, unread garbage.
HAHAHAHAHA...oh, you're serious. You've actually forgotten "You'll need to pass it to know what is in it?"
"the same way they obstructed Obama for the last eight years." .. In what way was Obama obstructed? What did he want that the R's blocked? They rolled over every single time. Have you not been paying attention? This is why Trump is so popular.
Actually, I rather doubt the "people" want Clinton. Democrats barely want her, and everyone else is pretty much given that she is a total and complete crook. Enough Democrats will hold their noses and vote for her, that she will likely win. There are very few people who actually "want" her, but that is all they have for the D. The fact that Trump, who has negatives almost equal to Hillary won the GOP sweepstakes is also very interesting, especially when you look at Bernie's campaign successes.
The fact that Bernie called Clinton "unqualified" throughout his campaign, and is now supporting her is a testament to the Party politics that both D and R people have expressed in the election this year. That alone helps two people, Trump (outsider) and Gary Johnson, the Libertarian.
My guess is, when push comes to shove, nobody gets close to 50 % of the popular vote. If Gary Johnson gets closer to 20%, there will be a HUGE uproar as neither Trump or Clinton will get 40%. My biggest hope is that Johnson gets very close to 30%, and wrecks the idea that the president (Clinton / Trump) has any sort of mandate to do anything.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Horrible policy? He's the first president since WWII that hasn't taken the nation into a recession. Instead, he took the nation out of one and there has been steady, if slow, growth every quarter since.
You may not like Obama's policies. There are a lot of Obama's policies I don't like, but considering we were being told there would be dozens of 9/11-level attacks on the country if Obama became president, and that he'd cause a huge depression, and that he'd take away all of our guns, and that he'd put people in FEMA camps for being white, he's done pretty well. Most people agree, according to his approval polls. Although, of course, it could just be people realizing that no matter what they think of Obama, he's going to be better than the next president, whoever that might be.
You are welcome on my lawn.
He has already moved Hillary to his positions on free college and universal health care.
Considering how many times she's changed her position on just about everything, he's only succeeded in getting her to talk about supporting those positions until she decides not to in a few months. I didn't agree with him on some of his positions, but I knew where he stood on them. Sanders had the integrity that suggested he would hold to his word. The only integrity Hillary would know is an LLC by that name that's contributed to her campaign.
Sure. Gore didn't start any wars from 2000-2008 when he wasn't president, therefore he wouldn't have started any if he was... Makes sense. Also, is it fair to say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if he was president? And even it did, I'm sure he would have shown as much restraint in using military force as his democratic predecessors (i.e. some). And even if he didn't maybe he wouldn't have invaded the wrong country.
I think it is very possible that had we elected Gore, some different terrible shit would have happened, and there'd be people saying, "who is the lesser of 2 evils now" (having no idea what would have happened under Bush).
Or just bet on the candidate with CIA ties. It's been sure money since '80.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
but considering we were being told there would be dozens of 9/11-level attacks on the country if Obama became president,
and i would argue that DID happen. dallas, orlando, ft hood. boston, san bernadino sure number of casulaties dont match but i just pulled 6 terroristic acts out of my ass that took place under obama. i would guess you are using 9/11 level to refer to total deaths but id argue its the fear instilled that counts not the numbers
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Sure. Gore didn't start any wars from 2000-2008 when he wasn't president, therefore he wouldn't have started any if he was... Makes sense. Also, is it fair to say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if he was president? And even it did, I'm sure he would have shown as much restraint in using military force as his democratic predecessors
Let's assume that under Gore 9/11 still would have happened. The biggest problem in Bush's response was the horrible incompetence he showed. Part of that was his advisors fault (both their poor ideas and their arrogance), and after four years, with more experience, Bush did improve, but Gore already had quite a bit of experience in 2001, and it's unlikely he would have tried to colonize two countries as a result.
I'll give you an example that clearly shows Bush's incompetence. After 9/11, basically every country in the world supported America, and there was a lot of good will. Within a month, Bush had turned that around and nearly every country in the world was protesting the actions of America, even some of our strong allies. He failed to build on the good will, and turned it into opposition.
For a comparison, consider the actions of Bush Senior in Iraq.......the middle east was horribly divided, yet with careful diplomacy he managed to get every country in the region to accept if not actively aid in the Iraq invasion. The exact opposite of his son.
Now, arguably Gore might not have been as good as Bush Senior, but if you look at presidential skill as a bell curve, then Bush Junior was clearly two standard deviations below the average, and it's unlikely that Gore would have also been that bad.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
the same way they obstructed Obama for the last eight years.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just cried a little bit as you forgot the years they ran Congress...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Clinton is still on precarious legal ground,
She can still be charged with failing to safeguard classified information,
She can be charged 18 U.S. Code 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally,
The FBI still has an RICO investigation going on The Clinton Foundation and
There's at least two instances of perjury.
What could Putin add that was any more damning; Clinton supporters just don't care, they either think Hillary can do no wrong or they're in the #anybodybutTrump camp.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Our country's two-party system gave us the following two choices to be the next President of the United States: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
Does anybody else see a problem here?
But credit where credit due: the 350 or so million dumbed-down 'Murikuns will get one of them come November 8. And they will have earned the right.
What happened to "she's not fit" for the office?
She was cleared from indictment in the emails case. Note that this endorsement came shortly after that announcement.
That was Sanders' last chance for the nomination. At this point, an endorsement is just saying "I like her better than Trump" which is not an unreasonable position for Sanders to hold, and is not inconsistent with "She's not fit."
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
As I'd expected, my respect for Scott Adams is further diminished...but to a vastly greater degree than I could've imagined.
He first tries to nitpick away Trump's history of bigotry (arguing that most of it isn't technically *racist* therefore it's nothing to worry about) and then he goes into straight-up apologism on the topic of the subset of Trump's rhetoric which is unmistakably racist (and therefore not OK, unlike other forms of bigotry apparently?). He even praises Trump for using racist rhetoric, painting it as a clever tactic to be admired. Wow. Finally he plays the "colorblind" card, blames Trump's opposition for "talking about race" and trivializes dog-whistle racism in case my eyes weren't at full roll before. Does this stuff work on white American baby boomers? It doesn't work on me for sure.
He says that Trump isn't a loose cannon in business even though he's famous for "altering the deal" with construction contractors and other smaller companies. He makes the same mistake that Trump himself does, mistaking an overwhelming advantage in economic power for "deal-making skills."
Then I start reading his defense of Trump's proposed ban on Muslim travel and I feel like stopping, but I push on through this nonsense. This is boilerplate Islamophobic spiel that no intelligent person would take seriously. Fuck you and your Islamphobia, Scott Adams.
Then his apologism for Trump's mysogyny and homophobia ties it all together into a grand finale: He deflects by repeating Trump's Islamophobic and anti-Mexican bigoted arguments, argues that he can't be mysogynistic because he wants women to own guns (like everyone else), but also because he hires women in his companies and insults others equally (Also like everyone else! Is doing the same for women that he does for others noteworthy or not?), and finally he implies that hiring women is at least partially fashion-driven.
As a footnote he says that he's voting for Hillary because he's worried about his safety if he votes for Trump (uh, what?) and then notes that as a 1%er life is super-good for him right now and he's worried Trump could raise taxes on him while he's pretty sure Hillary couldn't.
Fuck Scott Adams. I had no idea he was this much of an awful human being until now. So thanks for linking that article. I'm still a "rabid anti-Trumper" but now I hate Scott Adams too.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It took them so long to pass Obamacare because the legislation was so far left that even the moderate members of their own party wouldn't vote for it, and they spent weeks negotiating and offering concessions to each one of those members to assure they'd have the votes to pass it. If the Republicans had passed legislation in a similar fashion, the Left would be screaming about how corrupt and an affront to democracy the whole process was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Senate
Maybe you don't remember what happened after 9/11. The economy crashed. Two wars were started. Air travel was halted.
None of the events in the past eight years even come close to that sort of effect on us as a nation. I mean, we're talking about jetliners being flown in skyscrapers and the Pentagon, for chrissake. Are you so mental over a black president that you don't see the vast difference?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Hillary has obviously always wanted universal health care
Then she shouldn't have worked so hard to impeach Nixon.
I /hate/ this argument.
The election is not a game where you root for one of two sides and you "lose" if the other side wins. It is one of the few opportunities where "The People" get to give their say on which sort of government they want. By voting for a candidate, you say, "this person represents my interests best, he is the one I want to lead the government for the next 2 (representatives)/ 4 (president) / six (senator) years.
Even if the person you support does not win, your are still expressing your opinion on which things you want the government to support. The other candidates /will/ take notice of these opinions if it threatens their own chance of victory. If a significant percentage of people vote for the third-party candidate who promised to ban H1Bs, you can be that the major candidates will take that up as their rallying cry too (especially the one most threatened by that third-party candidate). It might not happen overnight, or even during the next election cycle, but if enough votes are at risk, the other candidates will modify their own platforms rather than lose the election.
Yes, it's probably true that ultimately only a Democrat or a Republican will get into office; historically and mathematically, the odds are in their favor. However, that's no reason to throw away one of your few opportunities to control your own government. Vote for the candidate who best reflects your own beliefs - whether he (or she) is a member of the two major parties or represents a third party. Yes, by doing so the "wrong guy" might get into office this year but honestly, that isn't as horrible as is often suggested (if the Republicans win this election, they aren't going to ship all homosexuals off to Gitmo, nuke Iran and forcibly return women to the kitchens; similarly, if the Democrats win, they aren't going to take away our guns, make us all take gay lovers and declare universal socialism).
The only ones who benefit from the idea that "voting for a third party is a waste" are the major political parties, who would prefer to maintain the status quo.
It's also important to remember that change takes time, especially since our political system is designed to be inefficient (and we should be grateful for that; you should be scared whenever government makes fast and sweeping changes. It will either be poorly thought out policy that will have a lot of negative repercussions or policy designed to benefit a very few). Just because "your side" doesn't "win" this round doesn't mean you should give up on them and vote for a candidate who doesn't represent you as well. If you - and enough other people - believe in something, your voice will eventually be heard.
So if the other guy stands for what you believe in better than the Democrats or Republicans, vote third party, even if you feel that by doing so you might be helping Clinton or Trump lose because they don't have your vote. It's the only real way you have to get the politicians to notice you.
Or, he's level-headed and pragmatic enough to understand that for whatever Clinton's faults; genuine, imagined, or made up from whole cloth by the republicans:
1) Trump would be incomparably and catastrophically worse.
2) He's not going to be the Democratic party nominee.
3) We live in the real world, and not some Fantasyland where a third-party or write-in candidacy would be viable.
Clinton wasn't my first choice either. But I'm not going to sit at home pouting in November, content to let the country burn, because the majority of the Democratic party didn't also want Sanders to be the candidate. Apparently, Sanders agrees with that sentiment.
Imagine all the people...
Inside the Democratic Party? He's barely a member himself. He only registered as a democrat in 2015 so he could run on the ticket. The 30 years before that he was an independent.
And I highly doubt he's going to try and fracture the Democrats by forming a new party. I mean, that's turned out SO WELL for the GOP and the TEA partiers.
I've little doubt that once Hilary gets into power, she'll simply ignore him. Hell, now that she has his endorsement, and the primaries are all but over, it's the traditional time to flip your party the bird and move yourself on over to the moderate center to appeal to the swing voters.
What I want to know is what does a political mover and shaker do once they reach the top? When there's no longer anyone you have to kiss up to.