Forum Thread

Sanders "Scorched Earth" Stance Will Only Help Trump


Reply to ThreadDisplaying 31 - 45 of 47 Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt, T.J. and Jared . My point is quite different. If Hillary would not have had any opposition then she would loose, because opposition creates "action" and "thinking" as well finding "counter" punches. You guys should know what happened with the Trump "show"; he had hardly any opposition and could say what he wanted, that is how he won. Thus due to Bernie's work, I hope that "she" will copy a few things from him, like first of all get the "election" system revised without or limited contributions (no-super PAC's etc.) Also get rid of the delegate system but just count pure "votes". Also Hillary should look into "healthcare" other than just put an "Band-Aid" on the thing and get the doctors and pharma cost under control. Anyway there are a few other things she should look into. The problem with her is that she is already in bed with the "rich" so I guess the income "gap" will only widen, and likely because she uses the super PAC"s will not change such in a hurry.

    But yeah as was said before we are stuck with these two candidates; so I'll may vote for the least worse of the two.

    I hope that all of you agree that neither candidate Hillary or Trump gets me exited.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    pr Wrote: Come on Jared, you can do better than that old conservative Republican mantra of "Love it or leave it"! a matter of fact, Dutch is from Holland, not Denmark and Denmark has constantly been rated as one of the best (if not the best) countries in world when it comes to quality of life. Income is NO indication of happiness, freedom or quality of life.

    You know that Holland isn't a country, right?

    As I have said a thousand times, most European countries have a population the size of a large American city. Comparing any European country to the US is idiotic. There are many states in the United States that have a higher quality of life rating than European countries, but that's a fact people who bash all of America all the time refuse to accept.

    Well, the typical American has no idea Holland isn't a country, much less what NL stands for or where the Nederland is but they do understand Dutch and Holland as one country, as most Americans don't really understand they live in the United States of America, not America!

    I can't speak for Dutch but I've spent most of today with several Dutch - Canadians and they all say they are from Holland, not the Netherlands so for what it's worth - who really cares?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    P.R. absolutely correct As a matter of fact it was always Holland. The Netherlands was introduced much later. There are two provinces called North Holland and South Holland; Amsterdam is located in N-H, Rotterdam in S-H. But yeah who cares; a fat hamburger here is more important.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Let's get back to the actual topic instead of having a discussion about what people from the Netherlands call their country...

    Sanders and his supporters seem to be living in an alternate universe now.

    The Senator was on "Meet the Press" this past Sunday and did a complete about face when it comes to the Super Delegates. He has been railing against them for the entire primary season, but he told moderator Chuck Todd on Sunday that these Super Delegates should now think hard about supporting him even if the people in the Super Delegates' state overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton. Chuck Todd called him out on his hypocrisy and Sanders had a rather difficult time explaining his contradictory stances.

    So this is the type of candidate Sanders has become. He's against Super Delegates until they are his last bastion of hope in winning the nomination. Now he's for them.

    I know there's a lot of Sanders supporters on this website. Do any of you have a problem with him doing a complete about face? Isn't his whole appeal the fact that he's supposedly "anti-establishment" politics? How can he be anti-establishment if he is begging the establishment to hand him the nomination, even if he doesn't win the majority of primary votes?


    I encourage you to watch the full interview below before responding...

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote: Let's get back to the actual topic instead of having a discussion about what people from the Netherlands call their country...

    Sanders and his supporters seem to be living in an alternate universe now.

    The Senator was on "Meet the Press" this past Sunday and did a complete about face when it comes to the Super Delegates. He has been railing against them for the entire primary season, but he told moderator Chuck Todd on Sunday that these Super Delegates should now think hard about supporting him even if the people in the Super Delegates' state overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton. Chuck Todd called him out on his hypocrisy and Sanders had a rather difficult time explaining his contradictory stances.

    So this is the type of candidate Sanders has become. He's against Super Delegates until they are his last bastion of hope in winning the nomination. Now he's for them.

    I know there's a lot of Sanders supporters on this website. Do any of you have a problem with him doing a complete about face? Isn't his whole appeal the fact that he's supposedly "anti-establishment" politics? How can he be anti-establishment if he is begging the establishment to hand him the nomination, even if he doesn't win the majority of primary votes?


    I encourage you to watch the full interview below before responding...

    Jared, Ok what would you do if that is the last straw to save your life? Lets be honest" delegates" or "super delegates" or "super duper royal delegates" the whole thing is nuts; so you have no choice; either use it or abuse it.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: Jared, Ok what would you do if that is the last straw to save your life? Lets be honest" delegates" or "super delegates" or "super duper royal delegates" the whole thing is nuts; so you have no choice; either use it or abuse it.

    Isn't that a little ironic though? I thought the whole point of Bernie's campaign was to "fight the machine." Now he's doing an about face and telling the machine to support him because people are still coming to his rallies.

    Our system is unique, but is it really less democratic than many European parliamentary democracies? Their process is so convoluted that it's quite difficult to tell what the hell is going on. Here is how Germany selects their parliament:

    "Germans elect their Members of Parliament with two votes in mixed-member proportional elections. One vote is for a direct candidate who is in a plurality voting system competition in every election district. The second vote (considered as more important) is for electoral lists for every state of Germany lined up and ordered by the parties to gain proportional representation. The Bundestag is then filled with candidates that won their electoral districts by first vote and candidates of the electoral lists according to share in second votes. Common practice is that direct candidates are also (well) placed on the electoral lists as a backup."

    Does that sound more or less democratic than what happens here in the states?


    All electoral processes are flawed, but that doesn't mean they are corrupt. Bernie Sanders has won millions of fewer votes than Hillary Clinton in this primary. That's just a fact. He is now just sounding like an angry old man who refuses to accept he lost fair and square.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "More than 500,000 and as many as 1,000,000 will lose snap benefits as waivers expire"

    "One of the harshest pieces of the 1996 welfare law, this provision limits such individuals to three months of SNAP benefits in any 36-month period when they aren’t employed or in a work or training program for at least 20 hours a week. Even SNAP recipients whose state operates few or no employment programs and fails to offer them a spot in a work or training will have their benefits cut off after three months" Source:

    Hillary will Explain ?


  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: "More than 500,000 and as many as 1,000,000 will lose snap benefits as waivers expire"

    "One of the harshest pieces of the 1996 welfare law, this provision limits such individuals to three months of SNAP benefits in any 36-month period when they aren’t employed or in a work or training program for at least 20 hours a week. Even SNAP recipients whose state operates few or no employment programs and fails to offer them a spot in a work or training will have their benefits cut off after three months" Source:

    What is your source? Source: is not a source.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote:Hillary will Explain ?

    What does Secretary Clinton have to do with the 1996 Welfare Reform Act anyway? Her husband was President and he had to work with a Republican dominated Congress.

    Since when did people start blaming the spouses of politicians for things? Would you blame Laura Bush for the Iraq War or Nancy Reagan for Iran-Contra?

    Why do you blame Secretary Clinton for things done during her husbands Presidency?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    And, now Jared will 'splain to all us dummys why all of a sudden Hillary and DWS aren't supporting pay day lending (that money loaning practice that only charges up to 300% interest to help out the poor eat and pay their bills)? Could Bernie have anything to do with it? Do they dislike Bernie making them look bad?

    Bernie's job, and he has been doing it well, is to expose the Democratic party's leadership for the hypocrites they truly are. The sure do wish that Lefty, pesky, pinky, socialist would just disappear so no one will hold them accountable for their back room actions!

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote: Jared, Ok what would you do if that is the last straw to save your life? Lets be honest" delegates" or "super delegates" or "super duper royal delegates" the whole thing is nuts; so you have no choice; either use it or abuse it.

    Isn't that a little ironic though? I thought the whole point of Bernie's campaign was to "fight the machine." Now he's doing an about face and telling the machine to support him because people are still coming to his rallies.

    Our system is unique, but is it really less democratic than many European parliamentary democracies? Their process is so convoluted that it's quite difficult to tell what the hell is going on. Here is how Germany selects their parliament:

    "Germans elect their Members of Parliament with two votes in mixed-member proportional elections. One vote is for a direct candidate who is in a plurality voting system competition in every election district. The second vote (considered as more important) is for electoral lists for every state of Germany lined up and ordered by the parties to gain proportional representation. The Bundestag is then filled with candidates that won their electoral districts by first vote and candidates of the electoral lists according to share in second votes. Common practice is that direct candidates are also (well) placed on the electoral lists as a backup."

    Does that sound more or less democratic than what happens here in the states?


    All electoral processes are flawed, but that doesn't mean they are corrupt. Bernie Sanders has won millions of fewer votes than Hillary Clinton in this primary. That's just a fact. He is now just sounding like an angry old man who refuses to accept he lost fair and square.

    Jared, how many times I have to tell you that just about everything here is corrupt; our lawyers know all about it.

    Pointing fingers at Germany, does not help much here, unless you want Hitler back in the form of Trump. Wake up and try to change this country with all its wrongdoing, then you can point at others. How about our "nation" building since WWII; a total disaster and still we continue as usual, ask Clinton.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "I agreed that he should sign it and worked hard to round up votes for its passage,” she recounted in her 2003 memoir Living History. Later, as senator, she continued to applaud it, referring in one 2002 interview to people who had left welfare as “no longer deadbeats—they’re actually out there being productive.” Even as recently as her 2008 run for president, she defended the welfare-to-work legislation as “enormously successful,” while lamenting that “people who are more vulnerable” would suffer more during the recession."

    Hillary has always been part of the Clinton team. Her hesitancy about the minimum wage displays her concern and knowledge of the poor. She had nothing to loose by supporting the $15/hour minimum wage, except the support of Wall Street.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Bernie has made it clear time and again that this election involves more than just winning or losing because his main goal is to continue the 99% Movement and create a place for all those Americans that are fed up with Establishment Parties which only serve the Robber Barons, global corporations and the MIC and as a result America is no longer a Republic but a fascist, corrupt lawless oligarchic, plutocracy and there is no doubt from listening to Hillary's speeches that she will continue to support the same unfair, warmongering policies and domestic policies that have been so disastrous for the American people and other nations of the earth.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    If the Democratic Establishment at the Democratic Convention ignores Bernie and his supporters and refuses to include their ideas and demands in the Democratic Platform then the Democratic Establishment doesn't deserve their support and they should instead create a new political party that will represent the best interests of the American people and will get us out of all these insane destructive endless costing trillions wars.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: Jared, how many times I have to tell you that just about everything here is corrupt; our lawyers know all about it.

    You can tell me it a million times, but that doesn't make it true. Corruption has a specific definition. Saying that "just about everything here is corrupt" is not a factual statement. I tend to deal with facts and not how I feel at a given moment in time.

    Dutch Wrote: Pointing fingers at Germany, does not help much here, unless you want Hitler back in the form of Trump. Wake up and try to change this country with all its wrongdoing, then you can point at others. How about our "nation" building since WWII; a total disaster and still we continue as usual, ask Clinton.

    You obviously missed my point entirely.

    I was not pointing any fingers at Germany; I was showing how convoluted and complicated many democracies are. You were ranting about how messed up our system here is and I only responded that every system is a mess.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Connie Wrote: If the Democratic Establishment at the Democratic Convention ignores Bernie and his supporters and refuses to include their ideas and demands in the Democratic Platform then the Democratic Establishment doesn't deserve their support and they should instead create a new political party that will represent the best interests of the American people and will get us out of all these insane destructive endless costing trillions wars.

    Winners get to make demands. Losers do not.

    Would you be singing the same tune if the roles were reversed and Bernie had a nearly insurmountable lead over Hillary and she was threatening to wreak havoc at the convention because she believed in her heart of hearts that her views were the "right" ones?


    Good luck with creating a new political party that will have any staying power. How would they ever accomplish anything without convincing a majority of Americans to join their team? We are not a European style parliamentary here.

    Multiple parties creating coalitions just doesn't happen. The only thing that has ever happened when a major party splits is the ushering in of an era of dominance for the party that stuck together. Ask the Whigs and Know Nothings how things worked out for them when they formed their own parties...