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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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."
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
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.
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
It is his radical policies that were blocked.
Like appointing Merritt Garland to the Supreme Court.
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.
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.
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?