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.
Sorry, I know you hate people who put content in the subject, and I know we're looking for insightful commentary here, but... that's just all I've got at this point.
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.
I've got some cousins who are pretty hard core Sanders supporters who believe all the nut job stuff going around in the supporters' circle for Sanders. For example, did you know that Sanders apparently won California and possibly almost every other state yet was denied victory by cheating conspirators aligned with Clinton who simply threw out votes for Sanders? Yeah, me either. But my cousins buy this one hook, line and sinker. Another thing going around among his supporters is the idea that nothing will ever change if they vote for Clinton or Trump so to make a point a large number of them are threatening to sit out the election. Of course if this happens, it may just simply make Trump the president as despite some vocal anti-Trump stands by various people, the reality is that Republican voters are going to suck it up and vote for him in the fall no matter what. If enough Sanders supporters refuse to vote, it could be very bad for Clinton. We'll see if this endorsement does anything to stop his supporters from sitting out the November election.
Clinton is the most owned presidential candidate in history.
She is not only owned by wall street firms and big corporations, she is owned by foreign powers who "donated" money to the Clinton "Foundation". And the funniest part is, she may even be owned by Vladimir Putin!
Right now Putin and Trump are in a love-fest because Trump (having fascistic tendencies) expressed admiration for Putin. But if sometime before the election Putin does a U-turn and starts bashing Trump and says nice things about Clinton, you know something really strange is going on. Like, Russian intelligence got a full dump of the Clinton email server and found some pretty seedy stuff and want her to become president so they can blackmail her into signing treaties favorable to Russia.
This is like the Bush v. Gore but I am not sure which is the lesser of two evils now :(
The DNC just lost the election IMHO.
The electoral map disagree with you. Hillary needs to flip two states, probably Florida and Ohio, to win the election. Trump will have to flip over quite a few more states to come in striking distance of winning the election.
Why bother reporting this? It's not even news. We've known all along that he'd get pressured into it.
I'm sure he just loves endorsing the one who pulled so many dirty tricks against his campaign...
I'm not voting for her or Trump. I'd rather write in my dog.
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.
Uh, no.
Dems controlled House & Senate for first two years, the Dems had to pass PPACA (Obamacare) before Scott Brown was sworn in, taking Ted Kennedy's vacated senate seat.
Then Republicans took the House and Dems controlled the Senate for 4 more years, until the republicans took control of the Senate for the last two years of Obama's second term.
I call BS on that. In every meaningful way, on domestic policy Hillary has been among the furthest left leaning people in DC for decades. IF that's not far enough on the spectrum for your taste, that's as bad as the tea party extremists who say their way or the highway. She has fought for a progressive agenda from her first days out of college, with an incrementalist approach that has meant walking the nation further to the left year by year instead of failing by trying to force a nearly ideologically split nation beyond it's comfort. She's made missteps, but when you've been on the national stage for that long that's bound to happen, and she has grown every step of the way. The byproduct of that is that she's evolved to be the best candidate available for the seat of the president.
Or Jill Stein depending on how you think things should go.
The most accurate polling analysis in the two most recent presidential cycles has been done by http://projects.fivethirtyeigh... They carefully look at all polls on a state by state basis and then build a national electoral model based on that data. It's updated every few days as new polls come out. Right now, Hillary is winning the electoral college by 338 to 199 with 1 vote for Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. Of course things can change, but that's a pretty big lead for this point in the race.
And note that Bernie did not walk away empty handed. He has already moved Hillary to his positions on free college and universal health care.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
The Corporate Overlords want Clinton.
Also the people, since, you know, she got more votes.
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.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
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.
If you support Hillary, you're supporting Hillary. It's obvious. If you give your approval to candidates like that, you're going to get candidates like that.
Both sides have a job to do this fall, which is to rise up and say that we will not just accept the most corrupt and reprehensible people imaginable for leadership in high offices, because that's what the party tells us to accept.
The question is whether a voter has principles, or whether they don't. It's simple.
What happened to "she's not fit" for the office? In the time since he said that about her, she's been shown to have been either wildly incompetent or ever more deceitful in her relationship with both her job and her supporters. What's she got on you, Bernie?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Yes, they took their time so much they were voting on Christmas Eve.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
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.
No, he just knew the context of the statement, something most people quoting Pelosi ignore.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Did you know there are polls that show Johnson leading Trump in at least one state?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Just exactly how much legislation do you think they should have crammed in to those weeks?
A whole lot if they'd been united and competent.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Screw you, you stinking SJW fascist! Why don't you go play Pokemon Go with Hitler?
You are welcome on my lawn.
The congress has been the only thing standing in the way of letting Obama ruin us further and fundamentally change everything that made the US great to begin with.
Yet it was the Republican Party that made Obama one of the most powerful presidents in U.S. history by not doing their jobs and abandoning the power of the purse.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/barack-obama-gop-most-powerful-213814
Hell, look how much a challenge a self proclaimed Socialist did in the primaries??!?!?
You do realize that "Socialist" is an empty label that doesn't mean anything?
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
How did republicans obstruct Obama for 8 years?
Filibuster in the Senate. Foot dragging on judicial nominations. Passing legislation that appeals to the base but has poison pills that won't attract Democratic votes. Etc., etc., etc.
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!
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.
Only if you fudge the inflation numbers (which this Administration has been doing). Run the numbers with the same CPI calculations as used back in the 70s and 80s and you'll find inflation is running about 7-8%, and that puts the economy still in a recession.
But hey, it's OK we're still running a real deficit of $1.4 trillion, annually, so it's all good!
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
She also has a much more sense of entitlement and a feeling that the rules don't apply to her.
For some reason, the FBI agrees. Rules don't apply to her, but those exact same rules do apply to everyone else and would end lesser peoples careers. I guess she should feel entitled?
That's cute. You think all Hillary's votes are actual people and that no voter fraud happened. Yes, I am sure the woman who had half as many people at her rallies "legitimately" won.
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.
Not sure how you get beyond 100% unqualified.
Hillary is corrupt, and a criminal, and a terrible choice. Trump has proposed arming middle eastern despots with nuclear weapons, and is pro-nuclear proliferation. That is how you go beyond 100%.
I'm going to guess this is a move to be on a short list for VP. Bernie might not even be on the list, but mending fences may give him some influence in the VP process. Perhaps Bernie did this to get Al Franken on Hillary's short veep list?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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
More importantly, you can override a filibuster. A supermajority can rule without compromise or deals with the minority.
Pretty sure you're the one who just whooshed.
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
The Democrats had to negotiate with senators in their own party.
as I recall - it only takes 51 votes to pass legislation in the Senate.
If no one launches a filibuster.
It is his radical policies that were blocked.
Like appointing Merritt Garland to the Supreme Court.
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
It that the only source of opposition? Absolutely not.
But Trump, one of the most prominent birthers, just won the Republican Primary on a platform of keeping out Mexicans and Muslims.
To think that race didn't play a major part in a lot of anti-Obama sentiment is to be in massive denial of the current state of the political right.
I stole this Sig
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.
"(I won't: I've already chosen third party)" .. Then you have chosen to support Crooked Hillary. Plain and simple. This is only a 2 person race.
Unless he lives in a swing state (most people don't) then a vote for either Hillary or Donald is "wasted". In the short run, it is a race between 2 people. In the long run, it is about ideas, and a vote for a third party is more likely to bring new ideas into the Overton Window.
Nah.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/1...
You are welcome on my lawn.
"Just like those people who vote for a third party as some kind of protest vote. All you're accomplishing is basically handing a vote to the candidate you like the least."
You're confused, and just plain wrong, which is typical of ACs. It's when you don't vote for the person you like most, that you're throwing away a vote.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
Trump won on a platform of keeping out illegal immigrants, not Mexicans in general. Also, neither Mexican nor Muslim is a race. I don't say this to excuse his bigotry, because it is bad, but if you keep using the term incorrectly, it loses its meaning.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
In our version of Fascism, the labor movement has been declawed and decimated.
Corporations have taken control of government through the economic strong-arm method of campaign donations and lobbying.
Would you argue that we don't have a rabid nationalist bend? How about all of the military service hero worship? The you're either with us or against us mentality? The Patriot Act?...
There are many ways to arrive at Fascism.
Only I can judge you.
When Obama took over the White House, we were running a deficit FOUR TIMES what we're running now.
If you found a drug that could cure 3/4 of cancers, you would call that a success, wouldn't you? You still wouldn't celebrate the remaining 1/4 of cancer cases, but you would doubtless say we were moving in the right direction, and you'd almost certainly win a Nobel.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This is certainly a good election to vote Libertarian as well. They are polling in the double digits. Personally, I feel that seeing a third party rise to be a major party is more important than choosing between two obvious tyrants.
And this time, the Libertarians have 2 popular two-term governors on the ticket. Both with more experience actually governing than either Trump or Hillary. And both are far more likely to leave you the hell alone.
If you support Hillary, you're supporting Hillary. It's obvious. If you give your approval to candidates like that, you're going to get candidates like that.
Both sides have a job to do this fall, which is to rise up and say that we will not just accept the most corrupt and reprehensible people imaginable for leadership in high offices
So Hillary is one of "the most corrupt and reprehensible people imaginable"? Citation needed.
She has been under investigation almost continuously for more than 20 years by both legal authorities and very rich political opponents. During that time, the only thing which has been proven is that she sucks at email security. If she had done anything serious, SOMEONE would have sold out and given proof.
I hear this sort of thing alot. People claim "I don't listen to the media! I'm too smart!" and then repeat Fox News talking points as if they were true. I don't know why people do this, but they do.
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.
She has been under continuous investigation for over 20 years, by both legal authorities and by many billionaire political opponents (Scaife, Murdoch, the Kochs, and more). These investigators have pumped insane amounts of money, people, and political pressure into finding some way to indict her or her husband. And so far, they have proven that Bill gets blowjobs from other women, and that Hillary has no clue how to do secure email. Wow!
So sure, I realize that many people think that "she is a total and complete crook". Many people also believe that vaccines cause autism, that GMOs are unhealthy, and that the earth is only 6000 years old. People are gullible. Sounds like you are too. Unless you have some amazing proof that nobody else does?
It turns out that many people like facts rather than bombastic hearsay. And many people seem quite happy with Hillary. Coincidence?
No, Obama and Hillary took what Bush started and destabilized the Muslim world to the point that it's causing a refugee crisis which has the potential to take down Europe. Not to mention using drones more than Bush, and locking up more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined.
But you're right, it has to be racism...
You're an easily led buffoon.