Here.
Our were you looking for a cite to prove the prediction that she will use it? Because you know that’s not possible, right?
It never said what you quoted it as saying, did it? Even paraphrasing. You’re claiming honesty, now be honest.
Really? You interpret my post as a literal quote from her commercial? How desperate are you?
Millions of voters? That’s nonsense. There are only two groups in this country that can count their supporters in the millions: the Democrats and the Republicans. Bernie Sanders needs the Democrats a lot more than the Democrats need Bernie Sanders. The only reason Sanders is a factor in this election is because he is standing on the shoulders of the Democratic Party. Without that base, Sanders would be just another obscure third party candidate to be dismissed. The moment Sanders breaks from the Democrats is the moment he stops mattering.
Yes, millions. Seventeen million voted for Barack Obama against her. Party affiliation is irrelevant. This time the demand for change is much, much stronger. Unless she rigs it, Bernie Sanders will be the nominee no matter how much you want to dismiss him.
I don’t see what you are deriving this from…
Follow the money…Hillary has all the money…
She won’t go negative she’ll tell every major Dem donor that she has their money and they will do the dirty work for her…
That’s OK, I do. Wait and see. The DNC can’t hide Hillary forever. At some point she’ll have to come face to face with the Senator. And when that happens, it will all come crashing down around her. He’s going to pulverize her.
I said the same thing about Obama in 2007 and a whole bunch of skeptics here didn’t believe me then either. But I was right.
Barack Obama is a Democrat. You may think party affiliation is irrelevant but you can’t get elected to the Presidency without belonging to one of the two major parties. If you don’t believe me, go ask a Libertarian.
Bernie Sanders isn’t a Democrat. And for that reason and many more, he’s attracting Libertarians, Independents and even Republicans. But whatever you say. We’ll see.
Sanders is trying to have it both ways. If it works, maybe others will try it. Or the parties will just change their rules to make sure it never happens again.
Except she didn’t say that, did she? She asked, “who do you want answering that phone?”
You seem to be doing a poor job of reading the actual text of the commercial, or you’re reading into it stuff that just plain isn’t there, except in your imagination.
Well, if you start by including stuff in a commercial that isn’t actually there, I can understand how you could reach that conclusion.
Typical weaseling dishonest Hillary, not to have said what **TriPolar **knows she said! The gall of that woman!
:rolleyes:
If you’re not literally quoting, you should be honest about the fact that this is, IYHO, the implication of the ad.
Given the narrator’s discussion of how dangerous the world is, and the choice between a candidate with national security experience and one that doesn’t, the more obvious implication would seem to be that a vote for Obama is a vote for someone picking up that phone who wouldn’t have any national security experience.
You should ask yourself that.
I think I’d need to see some polling data to support this notion, before giving it the least bit of credence.
Bernie is a Democratic sheepdog.
Anyone who believes Bernie is some ‘out there’ Socialist’ sticking his thumb in the Dem party’s eye for honest reasons is a fool.
Good old Bernie has always known which side his bread is buttered on in Washington.
He’ll do what the DNC tells him to and when the DNC tells him to drop out and throw his support to whoever the candidate is who the DNC calculates has the best chance of winning.
"This is What Happens When We Follow the Democrat Sheepdog. And What Can Happen If We Don’t
"Last month I called Bernie Sanders’ Democratic party primary run “sheepdogging” my term for a move the national Democratic party seems to execute every presidential primary season when there’s no incumbent White House Democrat. The job of the sheepdog candidate is to herd leftist voters and activists back into the Democratic party one more time by giving perhaps sincere but limited and ineffectual voice to some of their issues.
Of course every sheepdog candidate since Jesse Jackson in '84 and 88 always folds his tent at the end of primary season to support the main corporate stooge Democrat for the November election. The hopeful word is always that the defeated sheepdog remains firmly committed to pushing the Democratic nominee leftward, both on the campaign trail and even more hopefully in the White House. But this never happens either. Losing Democratic nominees Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry adopted none of the positions of their sheepdog primary opponents on peace or climate change or mass transit or housing or racial and economic justice, and Democratic winners Clinton and Obama ignored them in the White House as well.
Even though the sheepdog candidates are never able push their opponents leftward, they appear to do the corporate-run Democratic party a priceless favor. Their doomed campaigns ending in endorsement of the party’s nominees serve to firmly attach the leftish brands of the losing sheepdogs to the Democratic party, burnishing its populist, peace and leftish credentials for Democrats."
I apologize to anyone who believe I was actually quoting Hillary Clinton. I used quotes to emphasize my interpretation of her intent, therefore it is my fault for any misinterpretation of my remarks.
Now I will continue to point out the lack of substance in the Hillary proponents comments. You have nothing, she’s dropping in the polls for the second time in a row in her presidential candidate career. I don’t have to grasp at straws, day by day she makes my argument for me. Good luck to you and your fantasies, Og help this country if she wins in the end.
I really don't it would be very wise for Clinton to go negative against any candidate when this just came out on the news ! I personally thought is was a bad move running again when she was still under investigation over her emails. And made me feel that she think she is above the law and doesn't have to answer to it. I don't think she is fit to be president , I don't think is capable of giving orders to take out a terrorist , it looks like she was going vomit when she saw Bin Laden taken out.
Apology accepted. Thanks.
No, the question is, when will she go negative against Bernie Sanders? That’s not only in the thread title, it’s what we’ve been debating.
You have nothing. Other than apparently a sad attempt at a goalpost move.
Oh my Og! Hillary didn’t follow government policies!!
Yeah, no question, it’s all over. :rolleyes: