|
Post by D33P on Mar 27, 2016 11:56:34 GMT -5
Adding onto my previous post:
|
|
|
Post by D33P on Mar 28, 2016 20:35:53 GMT -5
Hillary's campaign adds onto its patheticness by refusing to debate Bernie because he needs to change his "tone":
|
|
|
Post by D33P on Mar 29, 2016 23:20:44 GMT -5
A day after the Hillary campaign refused to debate Bernie because of his "tone", and the subsequent social media roasting by Bernie ( this tweet) and his supporters, Hillary caved and agreed to debate Bernie in NY before the primary. berniesanders.com/press-release/17381/
|
|
|
Post by D33P on Apr 4, 2016 21:57:06 GMT -5
Bernie literally predicted what was found in the Panama Papers back in 2011 when the US passed a trade agreement with Panama that Bernie said would make Panama an even worse tax haven than it already was. Wondering what the intelligent, looking out for the little guy Hillary Clinton did? She supported the trade agreement.
|
|
|
Post by D33P on Apr 7, 2016 1:50:22 GMT -5
If you've been seeing the Daily News interview with Bernie Sanders and heard it called awful, heres why the interviewer and his questions were awful (2 videos):
|
|
|
Post by D33P on Apr 7, 2016 23:32:48 GMT -5
Hillary fans are all in a tizzle about how Bernie called her unqualified for completely legitimate reasons. Turns out he wasn't the first one to talk about qualifications.
|
|
|
Post by D33P on Apr 7, 2016 23:48:28 GMT -5
Here's an ad by the Bernie campaign that doesn't leave it up to interpretation as to whether Hillary is bought out.
|
|
|
Post by Durf on Apr 14, 2016 1:57:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Durf on Apr 20, 2016 11:33:55 GMT -5
How to debate a Hillary supporter:
Reminds me of when I was called a sexist for calling Vogue out... Then the "leaders" are somehow exempt from criticism... oi. I just hope it goes better for someone like Bernie than it did for me.
|
|
|
Post by aP|Nelg on Apr 27, 2016 16:41:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Durf on May 2, 2016 17:30:03 GMT -5
Obama roasts Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton at 2016 WH Correspondents Dinner
|
|
|
Post by Durf on May 2, 2016 18:47:28 GMT -5
If Bernie Sanders ran as a third party in the general elections; John (from TYTtoesn't think Bernie would win. However I feel this is misrepresenting his chances of winning the general elections. Their reasoning is that the political system in place makes it almost impossible for a third party candidate to win the general elections. However, that is running off the assuming that everyone is playing by the rules of this political system.
The existing political system basically consists of a group of players playing a game; social survival of the fittest (the most addicting game of the last century). This is the same game depicted in many of the older movies and television shows in the 80s and 90s. Social statuses were clearly defined and what was valued or expected of people was shown as a set of ideals; instructions. Monkey see monkey do. Playing this game increases social status, regardless of the legitimacy of that status; fake it 'til you make it.
Some of the best players of this game have been politicians, and because other players of the same social game have recognized their player level, they are granted more rights and privileges than others; an in-game hierarchy that makes it easy for sheeple (low level players; people dependent on this social game) to know how to treat other people based on what they deserve because of their player level. Politicians like Hillary Clinton has played the game so well for many years; she has raised her HP (Hillary Points: a unit of measurement for how skilled a player of this game is, relative to Hillary Clinton). Trump also plays this game, but hasn't done the political thing yet. Trump's HP for politics is low, but for sociability and name recognition is well above Hillary's. Hillary might consider Trump a rookie, but Trump, I would say, is probably at a higher level in the game in general. Hillary however, has enough HP that other successful players (her in game clan), have helped her level boost for the elections. Both exhibit one major problem: a dependency on this game. There is no life for them without it.
Bernie Sanders is slightly different. I would go as far to say that Bernie Sanders has more capability than Hillary and Trump combined. My reasons for saying might sound naive, but hear me out: Bernie started with a low HP level in this campaign; name recognition and the in game clans just wasn't an option for Bernie. Yet, Bernie Sanders is in the elections. Specifically I think his choice to run as the Democratic candidate is playing by the existing system's rules, only to beat it at it's own game, just to change the rules, and thus the game. Not only is he playing by the system's rules, he is doing quite well in them, but he's also withstanding the attacks from other players of the game and they can't figure out why. It's because he has one thing these other players don't; legitimacy. So not only is he playing by the establishment's rules, withstanding attacks from other player's, he is also successfully showing the weakness of the game being played itself; changing the rules. To put it simply, even if the existing political system will make it hard for Bernie to win by the rules of that system, Trump and Hillary are out of their league when it comes to general capability. One fact remains certain, more people feel the legitimacy in Bernie Sanders and value it far more than any in-game player level. #FeelTheBern
By definition, "political revolution" would indicate that the rules of the existing system might as well be discarded. The expected outcome of the general elections, if Bernie ran as a third party, has a bias from the existing political system. Logically speaking, Bernie's chances of losing a general election depend solely on the existing political system's rules of engagement. By definition, to the existing political system and anything/anyone else, if Bernie Sanders wins the general elections as a third party, then a political revolution has occurred. GG establishment, you set yourself up.
To think, voters actually have that kind of power; should Bernie Sanders run as a third party, voters actually have the power to realize the political revolution. The call has been made. Are citizens going to assume a duty? Or play a role as a sheep in the existing political game..?
|
|
Blaze
FTL
Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else.
Posts: 120
|
Post by Blaze on May 3, 2016 20:33:26 GMT -5
Trump=Republican Nominee
gG
|
|
|
Post by D33P on May 12, 2016 22:21:48 GMT -5
Hillary supporters love to argue that liberal policies don't get passed because the country is just too conservative. The evidence begs to differ.
|
|
|
Post by D33P on May 14, 2016 15:26:08 GMT -5
The exit polls conducted after the West Virginia primary last Tuesday showed something staggering, although maybe not too unexpected. Among Bernie voters in the primary, asked who they would vote for if Bernie is not the nominee, 44% said Trump, 23% said Hillary, and 32% said neither. That means 77% of those Bernie supporters would not vote for the nominee if that nominee is Hillary. That is crushing in terms of her chances at the presidency, given how poorly she does among independents and Republicans. The national numbers might not be this bad (yet), but this should be an indication that the Democratic party would be in big trouble if they nominate Hillary over Bernie. www.salon.com/2016/05/13/bernie_supporters_wont_vote_hillary_a_chilling_new_development_in_the_clinton_campaign_partner/
|
|