And if you don’t vote for Clinton, Trump or Cruze will choose 4 SCOTUS justices, and Hillary, a candidate who is largely in agreement with your positions, will lose. But I guess that makes it worth it.
Honestly, the shrill anti-Hillary tone you’re taking here makes you sound like the unthinking partisan. The Bern-Party or bust. Hisss. Hisss.
I’m partisan… for Republicans?
No, I didn’t, but nice attempt to twist my words.
I’m curious, just how old were you when the runup to the Iraq War happened? 9/11 had everything to do with Iraq. The false conclusion that Saddam was harboring/funding al Qaeda was one of the primary supporting arguments for the war. Posited by…Hillary? No, mostly by Cheney and W. (Personally, I think W saw it as one of those epic struggles that could etch his name in history. Well, in a way he was right, but not the way he wanted.)
Come on, argue that those same people (you know, like Congress) would have voted for the war before 9/11 happened. Go ahead. I can always use some chuckles.
Not going to rehash the same old argument that I’ve seen from at least half a dozen people here. Believe it or not, “Hillary warmonger bad” is not a new topic of conversation, nor was it last night. I know from experience exactly how this goes.
Conspiracy theories do not become you. You VERY clearly have a black-and-white view, much like many Bernie supporters I’ve seen. Describing grey realities is a waste of time; it just gets contorted in translation.
I said, “The Bern-Party or bust.”
You appear to have an unwavering dedication to Bernie as a concept, and are willing to not accept 90% of what he’d give you in the form of Clinton, you’d rather have nothing. In fact, worse than nothing. You’d prefer to have Cruz choose the next 4 SCOTUS members, so that girls growing up 25 years from now can’t get abortions, birth control, HPV vaccines, sex education, are paid less than their male counterparts. Because that’s what Cruz will give us.
A world where we’re actively promoting coal and creating laws to weaken solar, where voter suppression is stronger and civil rights are weaker. A world where we’re bombing Iran and paying billions for invisible jets that don’t really work that well. A world with fewer consumer protections. With fewer regulations of any kind. Food, water, drugs, no controls, and no DOE so that the populace gets stupider and stupider, making it all the more difficult to get out of that hole. Not to mention religious conscience laws that allow the many to trample on the few and laugh about it.
I’d say that advocating for that instead of getting 90% of what you’d get with Bernie (in the form of Clinton), sounds pretty close to being partisan. And Bernie is the party.
Mind you, I supported Bernie. But he’s not going to win. And the rational, adult thing to do, is to focus on how to best improve the world. And the answer to that question isn’t pushing Trump or Cruz into the Oval Office.
Well said.
Bullshit. Clinton will not give us, does not even want to give us, 90% of what Bernie wants to. She really is not a left-progressive. She really is a third-way neoliberal. And America does not need one bit more of third-way neoliberalism.
New York Times just reported ‘massive Bernie campaign layoffs.’
Looks like the fork has been Berned.
Back to the matter at hand - Tuesday’s primaries.
Based on the list I posted early in this thread, and the district results from TheGreenPapers, and assuming that Trump got the most votes in each district, here is how I see the 54 district delegates going:
Trump - 37
Cruz - 4
Undecided - 11
Unknown - 2
Just to clarify: these are based on how the delegates stand now. They can still change their minds prior to voting at the convention.
No, that’s not accurate.
First off, it’s a nuanced question. What would Bernie actually accomplish if president? Not much, because the GOP is obstructing Obama like he’s the second-coming of the snake from Genesis, what do you think they’ll do to Bernie?
He’d accomplish very little as president. So on that level, Clinton is probably gonna give at least 90% of what he would do.
On what they *want *to do, they agree on most issues, although Bernie is more strident on them. Socially they’re practically identical.
Environmentally they’re very close. I mean Bernie wants to eliminate fracking totally, and Clinton wants to allow it with EPA oversight and local sign-off… that’s pretty close. They both don’t want willy-nilly fracking. I’d say Clinton’s position is more reasonable, but I see the merits of the other side. Does this make them diametrically opposed? I’d say no, it makes them two dots on the same side of the numberline.
If one wants the minimum wage to be $12 and the other wants $15, I’d say they’re essentially in agreement, it’s just a matter of intensity. Do you count that as a glaring difference?
With such facile arguments, I can only assume you were about 12 yrs old when 9/11 happened. That’s the only way I can imagine that it would be so baked into your head that every frantic fear and lashing out that happened was reasonable even with 15 years of hindsight available to you.
What does hindsight have to do with the atmosphere in which Congress voted for Iraq? Whatever I think of the past, it does not change the fact of what was.
But please, belittle me some more.
What it seems the “old guard” Democrats seem to not be grasping is that the up-and-coming group of potential voters don’t like being dismissed as self-absorbed, petulant millenials whenever they feel like they want to take a position on something. In the age of the internet, they can find and hold whatever position they want and find plenty of support. Being told that their support of Bernie is essentially childish does not, in any way, make them more likely to side with you.
I, personally, am a Bernie supporter, and a delegate for Bernie to our state convention. I dislike the politics-as-usual, and dislike even more being told to shut up and sit in the corner because the adults are talking.
Well the Bernie-or-Bust movement DOES seem self-absorbed and petulant (as much so as the PUMA movement in 2008 was).
The simple definition of *petulant *is: having or showing the attitude of people who become angry and annoyed when they do not get what they want
Not getting the guy you want and voting against someone who is mostly in agreement with him, while hoping that Cruz or Trump will wreck the country so that out of the ashes, a new, more progressive America will rise, is pretty much that.
Predicted results from page 1:
Clinton Sanders
Connecticut 28.71 26.29
Delaware 11.91 9.09
Maryland 61.93 33.07
Pennsylvania 110.80 78.20
Rhode Island 11.79 12.21
Total 225.14 158.86
Net 66.28 -66.28
Actual results:
Clinton Sanders
Connecticut 28 27
Delaware 12 9
Maryland 61 34
Pennsylvania 106 83
Rhode Island 11 13
Total 218 166
Net 52 -52
Missed about 7 out of 384. Not bad.
I will add that I just used the polling average from 538’s polls-plus model. Any credit for accuracy belongs to Nate Silver, et al and not to me.
Then maybe those voters should stop *acting *self-absorbed and petulant? Just a thought.
Getting over their butthurt is no one else’s responsibility but their own.
I don’t think she’s good in every way. I think she’s better than Trump in every way.
Bernie himself used to say things like “Yes, we do agree on a number of issues, and by the way, on her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and President than the Republican candidate on his best day.”
Something happened later.
Yes, them just shutting the fuck up and voting for Hillary is their responsibility. Come on, you fucking moron children, and be responsible!