EXCUSE ME?!..The OFFICIAL Bernie Sanders For President 2016 Thread

[abandonconflict]

I want to vote FOR someone, as opposed to against someone. 'Cuz Chump!!!!' Isn't a sufficient argument for my vote.

There is a candidate who espouses many of my positions about how this country should be governed. He deserves the support of everyone who would benefit from his policies, which not coincidentally would be the vast majority of us.

An investigation of the reasons why he isn't likely to get it is to stare into the very heart of darkness that is the shell game of American politics.

It's been insinuated that a vote for Bernie would be wasted because of voting irregularities and outright fraud. I find this line of thinking paranoid... or, in light of all that's already gone before, is it really?

I think "voting for the lesser evil" is more forgivable than "at least Trump is honest". Both pander, but one specifically panders to bigots, which is why bigots like him.

 

[ttystikk]

I think "voting for the lesser evil" is more forgivable than "at least Trump is honest". Both pander, but one specifically panders to bigots, which is why bigots like him.

I think I'm seeing early signs of the rats leaving the sinking Chump, which means that Mr Sanders' leverage over the party may be waning.

 

[Fogdog]

Who said anything about her laughing? See, we can be friendly about our disagreement over Clinton, i don't have a problem with her supporters like I do with Trump's. However, you should argue more honestly instead of the RobRoyesque distortions. I never mentioned her laughing, yet your counterargument hinges on the meme about her laughing. The problem with partisanship is that you don't take the time to explicate an argument for its nuance, you just treat everyone like a republican. Could it be that the left actually hates her? You should be more open minded. Don't just blindly defend her because you hate Trump.

She said, in court, that the 12 year old girl made up the rape story because she enjoyed fantasizing about older men. It is classic victim blaming, which she knew about, because she handled the shorts with her own experts, exploiting the mistake that the prosecution made with key evidence.

If you had defended her by saying she did her job, I might not have had a retort aside from my enduring disdain, yet instead you used a distortion in order to attempt to discredit the accusation that a self proclaimed feminist engaged in classic victim blaming against a 12 year old who was raped, resulting in a rapist receiving a two month sentence. That is abhorrent. I despise Hillary Clinton. Don't even get me started on her warmongering.

The subject of her defense of the child rapist is abhorrent and no matter what casts her as a heartless if not soulless lawyer. Which she probably is. I don't know how much you've read on this. I've pulled up a few sources. The best one being: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/

From that site, Hillary did not want to work the case but after asking the judge for release, the judge kept her on the case. So first off, this is a situation where attorney Hillary took on a nasty case but was duty bound to represent the client and nobody else. So, give me your enduring disdain but there it is. Lawyers represent their clients. Wow, who would have guessed that she would do her best?

The rapist knew the girl and told Hillary that she had made up stories before. Hillary, representing him, made a motion for psychiatric examination and filed the statement regarding the child's behavior including that bit about fantasizing based upon what the rapist told her. refer to page 34: https://www.scribd.com/doc/229667084/State-of-Arkansas-V-Thomas-Alfred-Taylor#fullscreen . From what I can tell, Clinton did not fabricate this story, it probably was fabricated by the rapist but there is nothing much to go on either way.

There is some stuff about evidence being insufficient and then the case was pled down to a lesser charge. This is some nasty shit and I don't know what I would have done in similar circumstances. On the other hand isn't this story exactly the perfect tawdry material for smearing somebody who can't deny the facts? What I find remarkable is that this is the worst they can find. Public defenders get into all sorts of nasty cases. Was this the worst example?

Turning the table around, you are right, Hillary used a strategy of classic victim blaming. The prosecution's job is to intercept that obvious move. The evidence -- the girl's panties -- was mangled and the prosecution didn't perform well at all. Hillary performed her duty as she was required and the prosecution acted like the three stooges. What exactly do you suppose Hillary should have done?

I don't like Hillary. On the other hand, I don't see how this is a stain on Hillary's character other than that she chose to be a lawyer. She did what lawyers do. She did not make up lies or fabrications, maybe others did but that was not her call to make.

Now, if the subject of support for the Iraq war comes up, then yes, she's in the wrong there. From other actions and policies she's supported, it's clear that Clinton is an interventionist when it comes to foreign policy, which I really don't like.

That said, she's going to be POTUS next year. Considering the GOP alternative, that's not a bad thing. What gives me hope is summarized by something Jon Stewart said, "she is a bright woman without the courage of her convictions." A politician who can bend to the will of the electorate can be a good thing. .

 

[Fogdog]

I think I'm seeing early signs of the rats leaving the sinking Chump, which means that Mr Sanders' leverage over the party may be waning.

Those cowardly rats. They need to hang in there for at least the summer to ensure Republicans lose Congress as well.

 

[Fogdog]

The courts are part of the problem; they've supported police trampling of our civil rights for over a generation now.

Just one generation? Tell that to an African American or union leaders in just about any period of that struggle.

 

[ttystikk]

Just one generation? Tell that to an African American or union leaders in just about any period of that struggle.

Over one. So maybe all of them. I didn't set a limit, did I?

So how do We the People wrest the power over our own governance back from the oligarchs and those in their thrall?

 

[Fogdog]

Over one. So maybe all of them. I didn't set a limit, did I?

So how do We the People wrest the power over our own governance back from the oligarchs and those in their thrall?

Just replying back with "its better than it was a hundred years ago" is weak isn't it? I think I'll punt on this one. I sat on jury duty and was appalled.

 

[ttystikk]

Just replying back with "its better than it was a hundred years ago" is weak isn't it? I think I'll punt on this one. I sat on jury duty and was appalled.

Right? In looking for answers, I wonder if the problems are insurmountable. What if the consensus preference is for corruption, since everyone thinks they're on the take?

 

[Fogdog]

Right? In looking for answers, I wonder if the problems are insurmountable. What if the consensus preference is for corruption, since everyone thinks they're on the take?

They aren't insurmountable. I'm just not smart enough.

 

[abandonconflict]

The subject of her defense of the child rapist is abhorrent and no matter what casts her as a heartless if not soulless lawyer. Which she probably is. I don't know how much you've read on this. I've pulled up a few sources. The best one being: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/

From that site, Hillary did not want to work the case but after asking the judge for release, the judge kept her on the case. So first off, this is a situation where attorney Hillary took on a nasty case but was duty bound to represent the client and nobody else. So, give me your enduring disdain but there it is. Lawyers represent their clients. Wow, who would have guessed that she would do her best?

The rapist knew the girl and told Hillary that she had made up stories before. Hillary, representing him, made a motion for psychiatric examination and filed the statement regarding the child's behavior including that bit about fantasizing based upon what the rapist told her. refer to page 34: https://www.scribd.com/doc/229667084/State-of-Arkansas-V-Thomas-Alfred-Taylor#fullscreen . From what I can tell, Clinton did not fabricate this story, it probably was fabricated by the rapist but there is nothing much to go on either way.

There is some stuff about evidence being insufficient and then the case was pled down to a lesser charge. This is some nasty shit and I don't know what I would have done in similar circumstances. On the other hand isn't this story exactly the perfect tawdry material for smearing somebody who can't deny the facts? What I find remarkable is that this is the worst they can find. Public defenders get into all sorts of nasty cases. Was this the worst example?

Turning the table around, you are right, Hillary used a strategy of classic victim blaming. The prosecution's job is to intercept that obvious move. The evidence -- the girl's panties -- was mangled and the prosecution didn't perform well at all. Hillary performed her duty as she was required and the prosecution acted like the three stooges. What exactly do you suppose Hillary should have done?

I don't like Hillary. On the other hand, I don't see how this is a stain on Hillary's character other than that she chose to be a lawyer. She did what lawyers do. She did not make up lies or fabrications, maybe others did but that was not her call to make.

Now, if the subject of support for the Iraq war comes up, then yes, she's in the wrong there. From other actions and policies she's supported, it's clear that Clinton is an interventionist when it comes to foreign policy, which I really don't like.

That said, she's going to be POTUS next year. Considering the GOP alternative, that's not a bad thing. What gives me hope is summarized by something Jon Stewart said, "she is a bright woman without the courage of her convictions." A politician who can bend to the will of the electorate can be a good thing. .

If she had a conscience she would have failed to defend the guy. Simple as that. She gets my enduring disdain, not the people who are genuinely afraid of Trump. She deserves it. The system is oppressive and she IS THAT SYSTEM.

The problem with choosing the lesser evil in this case is that no matter who wins, the Trump supporters will still be there. They will be there because of a status quo, not because of Trump. They're there because of her just as much as they are because of him because they're both really just status quo. voting for the lesser evil is status quo. Your opinion is status quo. I don't blame you.

So why vote for status quo? That may sound like a vague appeal but what I mean is, I am genuinely opposed to the democratic party and I'm sick of seeing the populace shunted into them by fear of the GOP. It's time to oppose this shit, no matter how scared we are of the other bad guy.

You say that she will be president and that it is unavoidable, does that mean embrace it? Defend it? Like it? Stop voicing genuine opposition to it? Delay the revolution against it because of the minority of bigots who threaten to have a voice? My guess is that this election will have record low voter turnout.

 

[londonfog]

Who said anything about her laughing? See, we can be friendly about our disagreement over Clinton, i don't have a problem with her supporters like I do with Trump's. However, you should argue more honestly instead of the RobRoyesque distortions. I never mentioned her laughing, yet your counterargument hinges on the meme about her laughing. The problem with partisanship is that you don't take the time to explicate an argument for its nuance, you just treat everyone like a republican. Could it be that the left actually hates her? You should be more open minded. Don't just blindly defend her because you hate Trump.

She said, in court, that the 12 year old girl made up the rape story because she enjoyed fantasizing about older men. It is classic victim blaming, which she knew about, because she handled the shorts with her own experts, exploiting the mistake that the prosecution made with key evidence.

If you had defended her by saying she did her job, I might not have had a retort aside from my enduring disdain, yet instead you used a distortion in order to attempt to discredit the accusation that a self proclaimed feminist engaged in classic victim blaming against a 12 year old who was raped, resulting in a rapist receiving a two month sentence. That is abhorrent. I despise Hillary Clinton. Don't even get me started on her warmongering.

yes I did assume you were talking about the meme. You do realize she was assigned to this case right. She did not ask for it. She actually asked to be relieved. The judge refused. Once assigned she did her job. Can't hate her for that. I do blame our fucked up legal system that botched the case.

 

[londonfog]

If she had a conscience she would have failed to defend the guy. Simple as that. She gets my enduring disdain, not the people who are genuinely afraid of Trump. She deserves it. The system is oppressive and she IS THAT SYSTEM.

The problem with choosing the lesser evil in this case is that no matter who wins, the Trump supporters will still be there. They will be there because of a status quo, not because of Trump. They're there because of her just as much as they are because of him because they're both really just status quo. voting for the lesser evil is status quo. Your opinion is status quo. I don't blame you.

So why vote for status quo? That may sound like a vague appeal but what I mean is, I am genuinely opposed to the democratic party and I'm sick of seeing the populace shunted into them by fear of the GOP. It's time to oppose this shit, no matter how scared we are of the other bad guy.

You say that she will be president and that it is unavoidable, does that mean embrace it? Defend it? Like it? Stop voicing genuine opposition to it? Delay the revolution against it because of the minority of bigots who threaten to have a voice? My guess is that this election will have record low voter turnout.

What in the FUCK . I guess taking an oath means absolutely nothing to you

 

[londonfog]

And if he didn't, you'd be here complaining about how much Sanders hates women

NOPE.
I would see a man that stood by what he believed.

 

[Padawanbater2]

NOPE.
I would see a man that stood by what he believed.

Bullshit, that's exactly what you're doing with minorities. If he voted against Bill Clinton's crime bill that Hillary Clinton wholeheartedly endorsed, you would be bitching he's against women and asking why he hasn't apologized to them yet. You're sitting here defending Clinton for "doing her job" working the case AC cited, but criticize Sanders for the exact same thing when he voted in favor of the crime bill to support the violence against women act. With you, he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't and it's been completely transparent this entire primary. You hold Clinton and Sanders to different standards because you support Clinton.

You do all of us on the left in the politics section a disservice by confirming some of the bullshit claims made by conservatives over the years

 

[abandonconflict]

yes I did assume you were talking about the meme. You do realize she was assigned to this case right. She did not ask for it. She actually asked to be relieved. The judge refused. Once assigned she did her job. Can't hate her for that. I do blame our fucked up legal system that botched the case.

What in the FUCK . I guess taking an oath means absolutely nothing to you

She didn't just defend the guy though. She demonized a 12 year old rape victim, classic victim blaming, resulting in a rapist receiving a 2 month sentence. So when you frame the question as an oath meaning absolutely nothing to me, my answer is yes, it does. She made an oath to defend a system and the oppression against female rape victims is systematic. She is the very epitome of systematic oppression. I mean come on, she even sat on Wal-Mart's executive board and is basically owned by Wall Street.

Let's get this discussion in context, she is a systematic oppressor, that's what she is. I could never support someone like that.

 

[londonfog]

Bullshit, that's exactly what you're doing with minorities. If he voted against Bill Clinton's crime bill that Hillary Clinton wholeheartedly endorsed, you would be bitching he's against women and asking why he hasn't apologized to them yet. You're sitting here defending Clinton for "doing her job" working the case AC cited, but criticize Sanders for the exact same thing when he voted in favor of the crime bill to support the violence against women act. With you, he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't and it's been completely transparent this entire primary. You hold Clinton and Sanders to different standards because you support Clinton.

You do all of us on the left in the politics section a disservice by confirming some of the bullshit claims made by conservatives over the years

How the hell you going to tell me what I believe GTFO.
Bernie could have abstained from voting and stated the reason why. I would have respected him for that. Clinton could not get out of representing this creep. How the fuck are they the same.
Stop trying to put Bernie on this motherfucking pedestal. He has shit stains in his draws when he does not wipe properly

 

[Fogdog]

If she had a conscience she would have failed to defend the guy. Simple as that. She gets my enduring disdain, not the people who are genuinely afraid of Trump. She deserves it. The system is oppressive and she IS THAT SYSTEM.

The problem with choosing the lesser evil in this case is that no matter who wins, the Trump supporters will still be there. They will be there because of a status quo, not because of Trump. They're there because of her just as much as they are because of him because they're both really just status quo. voting for the lesser evil is status quo. Your opinion is status quo. I don't blame you.

So why vote for status quo? That may sound like a vague appeal but what I mean is, I am genuinely opposed to the democratic party and I'm sick of seeing the populace shunted into them by fear of the GOP. It's time to oppose this shit, no matter how scared we are of the other bad guy.

You say that she will be president and that it is unavoidable, does that mean embrace it? Defend it? Like it? Stop voicing genuine opposition to it? Delay the revolution against it because of the minority of bigots who threaten to have a voice? My guess is that this election will have record low voter turnout.

Not embrace, not defend, not like and not accept. I just recognize that it is going to happen and am thinking, what next? Not the same as defeat. I'm not giving up, I'm just aware of what is about to happen and thinking over what to do next. Is this any different than what others are going to do, say, on the morning of November 9?

I just don't think its such a big disaster either. With a few caveats.

I don't hear anything actionable out of what you say that I'm willing to do. No way I'll support violent revolution, just not an option to consider.

That said, I'm not convinced the status quo is maintained simply by putting Hillary in office and avoiding Trump. There is a lot more in play than just the one office. That said, to avoid status quo, I am counting on the bloc that Sanders has recruited and hiis/their ideas be incorporated into the system. Without that, I have nothing. I admit it. Which is why I supported Sanders and not Hillary.

Look at who supports Trump. In ten years half will be in nursing homes pooping onto pampers. The millennials who move in to replace them are different. So, no status quo. Each generation refreshes this country. Change might not be fast enough to satisfy you or me. I don't know about you but nobody cares if I'm not satisfied other than my wife and that's because well, we do our best for each other..

 

[abandonconflict]

Not embrace, not defend, not like and not accept. I just recognize that it is going to happen and am thinking, what next? Not the same as defeat. I'm not giving up, I'm just aware of what is about to happen and thinking over what to do next. Is this any different than what others are going to do, say, on the morning of November 9?

I just don't think its such a big disaster either. With a few caveats.

I don't hear anything actionable out of what you say that I'm willing to do. No way I'll support violent revolution, just not an option to consider.

Nothing actionable? Revolution not an option? Inequality, systematic oppression and imperialism are but symptoms of a wider ailment that threatens the planet. The crisis is capitalism. This aspect of our civilization is what makes it an extinction event. The hard pill to swallow, which liberal normie babyboomers absolutely refuse to consider is that it is THE ONLY OPTION!

That said, I'm not convinced the status quo is maintained simply by putting Hillary in office and avoiding Trump. There is a lot more in play than just the one office. That said, to avoid status quo, I am counting on the bloc that Sanders has recruited and hiis/their ideas be incorporated into the system. Without that, I have nothing. I admit it. Which is why I supported Sanders and not Hillary.

Look at who supports Trump. In ten years half will be in nursing homes pooping onto pampers. The millennials who move in to replace them are different. So, no status quo. Each generation refreshes this country. Change might not be fast enough to satisfy you or me. I don't know about you but nobody cares if I'm not satisfied other than my wife and that's because well, we do our best for each other..

You know who needs to die off? Anyone standing in the way. That's not a threat, it is the nature of things. Making an ecological difference starts with alleviating social inequality. It's not the Trump supporters putting social movements in the grave. It's the Democratic party. That's who props up the status quo. That's who keeps capitalism from failing. That's who prevents revolutions and maintains and defends the privatization of the earth.

Yeah I sound crazy. I'm just a few steps ahead.

 

[abandonconflict]

With that being said, she is probably the best (least evil) systematic oppressor and imperialist of the lot.

 

[Padawanbater2]

How the hell you going to tell me what I believe GTFO.
Bernie could have abstained from voting and stated the reason why. I would have respected him for that. Clinton could not get out of representing this creep. How the fuck are they the same.
Stop trying to put Bernie on this motherfucking pedestal. He has shit stains in his draws when he does not wipe properly

Yeah, if he abstained, you would be sitting here crying about how he hates women

Clinton endorsed the same crime bill you're condemning Sanders for voting for but she gets a free pass for it because you support her, funny that, the only thing you seem to be consistent at is being inconsistent..