Trump cuts Food Stamps

Padawanbater2 said:
He lost an unfair, unequal primary. Hillary Clinton had total control over the DNC.
Click to expand...
He could have run third party. I mean if he was the most popular messiah in the history of religion as you claim, he would have received 900 million votes. It's not like he didn't have the opportunity.

The fact that he didn't, that really supports my argument even more because all he really wanted to do and all really accomplished was to fracture the party at the worst possible time, handing Trump the keys. He even did the double talk about "if I ever tell you to do something, don't listen" so that he could preach all that nonsense and then disown it once the damage was done, giving him the opportunity to do it again. It wasn't the first time either, he helped Dubya get elected the same way by fucking Kerry over.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
He lost an unfair, unequal primary. Hillary Clinton had total control over the DNC. That's something you completely leave out of the analysis when stating Sanders lost.

Sanders lost, but he more than likely wouldn't have lost if Clinton didn't rig the Democratic primary to ensure she would win it. If he won the rigged Democratic primary, he would have easily beat Trump in the general election. So the fact that we have Trump now, as president, is a direct result of Clinton rigging the primary, and all of you who supported her.

So in the end, you only have yourselves to blame
Click to expand...
The primary was rigged for bernie by russia
 
abandonconflict said:
He could have run third party. I mean if he was the most popular messiah in the history of religion as you claim, he would have received 900 million votes. It's not like he didn't have the opportunity.
Click to expand...
This is not a legitimate criticism of Sanders campaign. You know as well as I do, as well as Sanders or anyone else interested in American politics knows, in order to be elected to an executive office in America, you have to run within the two party system. Saying he should have just run as an independent to avoid all the political bullshit that comes with it is a cop out to acknowledging that fact. Had Sanders run as an Independent, he would have lost the election and been blamed for splitting the Democratic vote, exactly as he's still being blamed for it now, without running as an Independent. He knew this, you and I both know this. It's wholeheartedly disingenuous of you to even suggest it, and you and I both know it.
abandonconflict said:
The fact that he didn't, that really supports my argument even more because all he really wanted to do and all really accomplished was to fracture the party at the worst possible time, handing Trump the keys.
Click to expand...
Lol
 
Padawanbater2 said:
This is not a legitimate criticism of Sanders campaign. You know as well as I do, as well as Sanders or anyone else interested in American politics knows, in order to be elected to an executive office in America, you have to run within the two party system.
Click to expand...
That's not true at all. First off, one of the most common veins in US politics is the deeply unpopular dichotomy. It is one of the most widely shared views within both parties and clearly outside of the dichotomy as well. That is why so many people don't even vote.

Secondly, some of the most popular presidents in the history of the republic were third party candidates, elected in landslides. Two of them adorn Mount Rushmore and it could be argued that all four of the faces sculpted on that monument were actually outliers of the dichotomy. If anyone knows that, it is a career politician like Sanders who has never held any other job, except for when he wrote rape fantasy fiction.
 
abandonconflict said:
That's not true at all. First off, one of the most common veins in US politics is the deeply unpopular dichotomy. It is one of the most widely shared views within both parties and clearly outside of the dichotomy as well. That is why so many people don't even vote.
Click to expand...
"That's not true because most people hate both parties", yet members of congress are re elected more than 90% of the time..

Dumb. Stop being it.
abandonconflict said:
Secondly, some of the most popular presidents in the history of the republic were third party candidates, elected in landslides.
Click to expand...
Right, George Washington wasn't affiliated at all!

We're talking about modern American politics, not ancient history. The political atmosphere George Washington faced is not the same as politicians face today. Again, stop being dumb. You and I both know you're smarter than resorting to these kinds of arguments to try to make a point..
 
Padawanbater2 said:
"That's not true because most people hate both parties", yet members of congress are re elected more than 90% of the time..
Click to expand...
We're talking about presidents, but even by your own example, you are wrong because one of the most popular members of the senate, your very messiah, is in fact "independent". So, since he's doing so well as an "independent" in the senate and two of Rushmore's faces were third party, the historical precedent certainly supports the notion that Sanders would have fared better as a third party candidate than what we clearly saw, he flopped as a Democrat.
Padawanbater2 said:
Right, George Washington wasn't affiliated at all!

We're talking about modern American politics, not ancient history. The political atmosphere George Washington faced is not the same as politicians face today.
Click to expand...
I said "it could be argued". The fact is, at least two of the most popular presidents in history, were not stuck in the dichotomy. For the other two, it could be argued. Half of Mount Rushmore is enough to make the point. This is not ancient history, this is valid historical precedent. These people shaped our republic. They framed our constitution and laws. They are invoked at nearly every turn to make arguments, shape policy and explain context for just about everything that happens in gov't. They accomplished this BECAUSE they were not constrained by the two party dichotomy. It doesn't matter WHY they were not.

You talk about political atmosphere as if you do not want to see it changed, as if change was not the very platform that shapers and movers represent. Very telling indeed that you would top it off with insults to my intelligence. You, like your hero Bernie Sanders, can only speak as though you're making arguments in the hopes that they will fall upon ignorant and stupid ears.
 
abandonconflict said:
We're talking about presidents, but even by your own example, you are wrong because one of the most popular members of the senate, your very messiah, is in fact "independent". So, since he's doing so well as an "independent" in the senate and two of Rushmore's faces were third party, the historical precedent certainly supports the notion that Sanders would have fared better as a third party candidate than what we clearly saw, he flopped as a Democrat.
Click to expand...
Sanders is popular because of the political positions he supports, not because he's an Independent..

He's an Independent because the Democratic party sucks corporate dick, and he doesn't
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Sanders is popular because of the political positions he supports, not because he's an Independent..

He's an Independent because the Democratic party sucks corporate dick, and he doesn't
Click to expand...
Yet he ran for president as a democrat, ya dingus.

If you're going to repeat insults incessantly, maybe you should actually learn to read. It wouldn't hurt you to argue consistently either. :roll:
 
Padawanbater2 said:
It's obvious that it does

In your world, he stifled your queen, that's why Sanders is your enemy, despite all of his policies you support..
Click to expand...
No, it is obvious that it upsets you. That's why you were so compelled to reply to me and let me derail a thread just to mock you about how bernouts are clowns. You're left with nothing but to call me a Clinton supporter, which everyone knows I'm not, just because you lost another exchange. Sanders is not my enemy, he has provided me with so much to laugh about, except for the fact that he did so much to get Trump elected.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
It's obvious that it does

In your world, he stifled your queen, that's why Sanders is your enemy, despite all of his policies you support..
Click to expand...
If Bernie was so popular, the most popular politician in the US, why wouldn't that personal popularity apply to him if he ran third party? Jill Stein invited Bernie to run as a Green Party candidate.

The reason he gives for changing his affiliation from Independent to Democrat is that his campaign needed access to Democratic Party infrastructure because they couldn't afford to build it themselves. He took full advantage of that access and let Clinton pay the bills too. Nobody other than nobodies like you say Clinton took unfair advantage of her position as benefactor either.
 
abandonconflict said:
No, it is obvious that it upsets you. That's why you were so compelled to reply to me and let me derail a thread just to mock you about how bernouts are clowns. You're left with nothing but to call me a Clinton supporter, which everyone knows I'm not, just because you lost another exchange. Sanders is not my enemy, he has provided me with so much to laugh about, except for the fact that he did so much to get Trump elected.
Click to expand...

you're still ALLOWED to run more than one person per party..:wall:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top