Implosions

Degeneratefk

Lets pretend for 5 minutes that none of this happened. No emails from inside the DNC tried to slow a Sanders namination. Would the outcome have been different?

Free

unsung said:

tonifig8 said:

Free said:

What's funny about all this is that Clinton continues to deny that the DNC was and continues to be rigged, while at the same time she says her "good friend" Debbie Wasserman Schultz will continue as her honorary campaign manager. She's fooling no one here and she looks like a jackass.

She doesn't really want more votes does she. Completely out of touch.

At this point she knows a larger percentage of us will never vote for her. Now it's time to flex some muscle and bring some of her soldiers home. there is a new battle on the horizon and I'm sure we'll see more of it within hours.

The age of information. Interesting times.

A true Sanders supporters would never vote for Clinton, then again he ended up endorsing her though.

In 08 and 12 when I supported Ron Paul I voted 3rd party after he dropped out, and he didn't endorse the nominee of the party that just worked to get him out.

What I am finding on here, is that some people think that if your a Bernie supporter, you're going to do what he wants his supporters to do. But the thing about Bernie supporters is that we don't follow blindly. We're not going to vote establishment when we are so very anti-establishment. He may go back on his word but it doesn't mean we will. Fear will not play a factor in who I vote for.

Boxes&Books

unsung said:

tonifig8 said:

Free said:

What's funny about all this is that Clinton continues to deny that the DNC was and continues to be rigged, while at the same time she says her "good friend" Debbie Wasserman Schultz will continue as her honorary campaign manager. She's fooling no one here and she looks like a jackass.

She doesn't really want more votes does she. Completely out of touch.

At this point she knows a larger percentage of us will never vote for her. Now it's time to flex some muscle and bring some of her soldiers home. there is a new battle on the horizon and I'm sure we'll see more of it within hours.

The age of information. Interesting times.

A true Sanders supporters would never vote for Clinton, then again he ended up endorsing her though.

In 08 and 12 when I supported Ron Paul I voted 3rd party after he dropped out, and he didn't endorse the nominee of the party that just worked to get him out.

Sanders needs to get some Ted Cruz balls. At first I understood his sacrifice, I didn't agree but I understood. To see him on TV as recently as yesterday and to hear him say we need to do everything we can to elect Clinton broke my heart. I donated a lot of money and time to fight against the establishment, and now he's basically turning his back on us. I get that he's been in politics for decades and that he too is a politician, I'm not blind to that, but I thought he and the movement was about a greater cause- it's about "US", not her or him.
F' you Sanders for saying that! Rant over

Anyhow- welcome back ...

Tristelune

unsung said:

Tristelune said:

unsung said:

The GOP has been trumped. I love seeing them squirm.

The Dems are actively working to alter results. I love that emails are showing the truth.

The Libertarians nominated a CFR Globalist as VP. Nothing to love here.

The LA Times calls for a coup if Trump wins. Nary a peep.

Hillary proves over and over that she is the most evil person alive.


Still going to vote? Voting validates all of the above. Good Luck.

No offense but you're wrong, it's non voting that validates all of the above even if it comes down to choose the least dangerous candidacy.

A. I don't get offended, because I don't use feelings when making decisions like these.

B. I'm not wrong. Your participation in this system reinforces their entire charade. It is fixed to benefit the few. Clearly Sanders people can see that with this email release. Their entire system depends on division and distraction.

C. I long for the day of a complete collapse of this political system. The system has become so power based and corrupt.

D. I don't know how anyone can trust an election result after this.

C. Collapsus of this political system is not a good idea unless there's a solid replacement solution. (Which is needed btw)

D. I don't know how anyone can trust an election result since the Florida mess that got G.W Bush elected in 2000.

Degeneratefk

tonifig8 said:

unsung said:

tonifig8 said:

Free said:

What's funny about all this is that Clinton continues to deny that the DNC was and continues to be rigged, while at the same time she says her "good friend" Debbie Wasserman Schultz will continue as her honorary campaign manager. She's fooling no one here and she looks like a jackass.

She doesn't really want more votes does she. Completely out of touch.

At this point she knows a larger percentage of us will never vote for her. Now it's time to flex some muscle and bring some of her soldiers home. there is a new battle on the horizon and I'm sure we'll see more of it within hours.

The age of information. Interesting times.

A true Sanders supporters would never vote for Clinton, then again he ended up endorsing her though.

In 08 and 12 when I supported Ron Paul I voted 3rd party after he dropped out, and he didn't endorse the nominee of the party that just worked to get him out.

Sanders needs to get some Ted Cruz balls. At first I understood his sacrifice, I didn't agree but I understood. To see him on TV as recently as yesterday and to hear him say we need to do everything we can to elect Clinton broke my heart. I donated a lot of money and time to fight against the establishment, and now he's basically turning his back on us. I get that he's been in politics for decades and that he too is a politician, I'm not blind to that, but I thought he and the movement was about a greater cause- it's about "US", not her or him.
F' you Sanders for saying that! Rant over

Anyhow- welcome back ...

I don't understand how sanders gets the anti establishment label when he's been in the establishment for so long.

polaris_x

Degeneratefk said:

Lets pretend for 5 minutes that none of this happened. No emails from inside the DNC tried to slow a Sanders namination. Would the outcome have been different?

yes and no ... if you add other caveats to your IF - such as a more objective media outlet ... no voter suppression ... etc ... then I would say the outcome could very well be different ...

but either way - turning a blind eye to methods that are anti-democratic regardless of whether the outcome would have changed is really a self-rationalization of a personal bias ...

polaris_x

Degeneratefk said:

tonifig8 said:

unsung said:

tonifig8 said:

Free said:

What's funny about all this is that Clinton continues to deny that the DNC was and continues to be rigged, while at the same time she says her "good friend" Debbie Wasserman Schultz will continue as her honorary campaign manager. She's fooling no one here and she looks like a jackass.

She doesn't really want more votes does she. Completely out of touch.

At this point she knows a larger percentage of us will never vote for her. Now it's time to flex some muscle and bring some of her soldiers home. there is a new battle on the horizon and I'm sure we'll see more of it within hours.

The age of information. Interesting times.

A true Sanders supporters would never vote for Clinton, then again he ended up endorsing her though.

In 08 and 12 when I supported Ron Paul I voted 3rd party after he dropped out, and he didn't endorse the nominee of the party that just worked to get him out.

Sanders needs to get some Ted Cruz balls. At first I understood his sacrifice, I didn't agree but I understood. To see him on TV as recently as yesterday and to hear him say we need to do everything we can to elect Clinton broke my heart. I donated a lot of money and time to fight against the establishment, and now he's basically turning his back on us. I get that he's been in politics for decades and that he too is a politician, I'm not blind to that, but I thought he and the movement was about a greater cause- it's about "US", not her or him.
F' you Sanders for saying that! Rant over

Anyhow- welcome back ...

I don't understand how sanders gets the anti establishment label when he's been in the establishment for so long.

definitely agree 100%

Dirtie_Frank

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

Lets pretend for 5 minutes that none of this happened. No emails from inside the DNC tried to slow a Sanders namination. Would the outcome have been different?

yes and no ... if you add other caveats to your IF - such as a more objective media outlet ... no voter suppression ... etc ... then I would say the outcome could very well be different ...

but either way - turning a blind eye to methods that are anti-democratic regardless of whether the outcome would have changed is really a self-rationalization of a personal bias ...

Exactly. Have you seen what some of these emails talked about? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Degeneratefk

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

Lets pretend for 5 minutes that none of this happened. No emails from inside the DNC tried to slow a Sanders namination. Would the outcome have been different?

yes and no ... if you add other caveats to your IF - such as a more objective media outlet ... no voter suppression ... etc ... then I would say the outcome could very well be different ...

but either way - turning a blind eye to methods that are anti-democratic regardless of whether the outcome would have changed is really a self-rationalization of a personal bias ...

Yes and no? You can't change the media. Fox is always going to be right and CNN is always going to be left. Always. So I ask again, does it really matter that there were a few emails stating that some people in the DNC preferred Clinton to sanders. No, it wouldn't have mattered. I say partly because sanders ran as an anti establishment candidate, when he is in fact part of the establishment.

rgambs

It really seems to me that the anti-Clinton faction is a group of single issue voters.

Do they not care about anything beyond establishment vs anti-establishment?

If you vote on a broad range of issues, the choice of Trump or Clinton is obvious, even if it uncomfortable.

brianlux

rgambs said:

It really seems to me that the anti-Clinton faction is a group of single issue voters.

Do they not care about anything beyond establishment vs anti-establishment?

If you vote on a broad range of issues, the choice of Trump or Clinton is obvious, even if it uncomfortable.

I'm probably what some would assume to be anti-establishment. Not so. I'm reestablishment. Reestablish some common sense in people (I think we had more of that several decades ago) and particularly reestablish some stability in our environment.

Single issue voter? I guess you could call me that. The single issue I care about is bringing stability to the environment. If we don't do that, we die and all else is moot.

But of course there are other issues of social relevance I care about as well. I think your summation is too narrow.

Degeneratefk

brianlux said:

rgambs said:

It really seems to me that the anti-Clinton faction is a group of single issue voters.

Do they not care about anything beyond establishment vs anti-establishment?

If you vote on a broad range of issues, the choice of Trump or Clinton is obvious, even if it uncomfortable.

I'm probably what some would assume to be anti-establishment. Not so. I'm reestablishment. Reestablish some common sense in people (I think we had more of that several decades ago) and particularly reestablish some stability in our environment.

Single issue voter? I guess you could call me that. The single issue I care about is bringing stability to the environment. If we don't do that, we die and all else is moot.

But of course there are other issues of social relevance I care about as well. I think your summation is too narrow.

There's more stability in the environment now than there ever has been. I'm not sure what more you want to see done.

jerparker20

riotgrl said:

I read an article this morning talking about wasted 3rd party votes. While I disagree with that the article did make a good point about creating viable 3rd parties at the local and state level. That is what will give the country a real shot at creating competition for a 3rd party at the presidential level.

https://paulalanrichardson.com/2016/07/21/think-really-hard-before-voting-for-a-3rd-party-candidate-really/

This.

Honest question for those set on voting third party: If, and it's an impossible if, Stein or Johnson are elected how are they going to get any legislation passed through Congress? How are they going to make any meaningful legislative changes?

Neither will have any support in either chamber and more than likely a lot of animosity from both parties directed their way. Now if a viable third party can begin to make headway at the local/state level the tide may begin to turn. The problem is that more often than not; those running as a third party candidate at the local level tend to be from the far fringes and not taken seriously. Remember the vast majority of Americans sit somewhere in the middle, we just often get stuck choosing the lesser of two evils.

lukin2006

polaris_x said:

like i've been saying ... revolution ...

Where to start such a revolution???since most of the world is fucked up

brianlux

Degeneratefk said:

brianlux said:

rgambs said:

It really seems to me that the anti-Clinton faction is a group of single issue voters.

Do they not care about anything beyond establishment vs anti-establishment?

If you vote on a broad range of issues, the choice of Trump or Clinton is obvious, even if it uncomfortable.

I'm probably what some would assume to be anti-establishment. Not so. I'm reestablishment. Reestablish some common sense in people (I think we had more of that several decades ago) and particularly reestablish some stability in our environment.

Single issue voter? I guess you could call me that. The single issue I care about is bringing stability to the environment. If we don't do that, we die and all else is moot.

But of course there are other issues of social relevance I care about as well. I think your summation is too narrow.

There's more stability in the environment now than there ever has been. I'm not sure what more you want to see done.

Anthropogenic Global warming, anthropogenically induced species die off a thousand times the pre-human rate, loss of habitat, oceans polluted and dying, fresh water aquifers disappearing, radiation at an all-time high, coral reefs dying. Nothing to worry about there?

I'm out a here folks. This string of 100 degree F. is burning my brain. Going to go chill at 8,000 feet. Lucky to be able to do so. So many other problems not so easy to escape.

unsung

Tristelune said:

unsung said:

Tristelune said:

unsung said:

The GOP has been trumped. I love seeing them squirm.

The Dems are actively working to alter results. I love that emails are showing the truth.

The Libertarians nominated a CFR Globalist as VP. Nothing to love here.

The LA Times calls for a coup if Trump wins. Nary a peep.

Hillary proves over and over that she is the most evil person alive.


Still going to vote? Voting validates all of the above. Good Luck.

No offense but you're wrong, it's non voting that validates all of the above even if it comes down to choose the least dangerous candidacy.

A. I don't get offended, because I don't use feelings when making decisions like these.

B. I'm not wrong. Your participation in this system reinforces their entire charade. It is fixed to benefit the few. Clearly Sanders people can see that with this email release. Their entire system depends on division and distraction.

C. I long for the day of a complete collapse of this political system. The system has become so power based and corrupt.

D. I don't know how anyone can trust an election result after this.

C. Collapsus of this political system is not a good idea unless there's a solid replacement solution. (Which is needed btw)

D. I don't know how anyone can trust an election result since the Florida mess that got G.W Bush elected in 2000.

C. But there already is, govern yourselves. Why do people feel the need to continue to elect others to rule over them.

Free

Degeneratefk said:

tonifig8 said:

unsung said:

tonifig8 said:

Free said:

What's funny about all this is that Clinton continues to deny that the DNC was and continues to be rigged, while at the same time she says her "good friend" Debbie Wasserman Schultz will continue as her honorary campaign manager. She's fooling no one here and she looks like a jackass.

She doesn't really want more votes does she. Completely out of touch.

At this point she knows a larger percentage of us will never vote for her. Now it's time to flex some muscle and bring some of her soldiers home. there is a new battle on the horizon and I'm sure we'll see more of it within hours.

The age of information. Interesting times.

A true Sanders supporters would never vote for Clinton, then again he ended up endorsing her though.

In 08 and 12 when I supported Ron Paul I voted 3rd party after he dropped out, and he didn't endorse the nominee of the party that just worked to get him out.

Sanders needs to get some Ted Cruz balls. At first I understood his sacrifice, I didn't agree but I understood. To see him on TV as recently as yesterday and to hear him say we need to do everything we can to elect Clinton broke my heart. I donated a lot of money and time to fight against the establishment, and now he's basically turning his back on us. I get that he's been in politics for decades and that he too is a politician, I'm not blind to that, but I thought he and the movement was about a greater cause- it's about "US", not her or him.
F' you Sanders for saying that! Rant over

Anyhow- welcome back ...

I don't understand how sanders gets the anti establishment label when he's been in the establishment for so long.

People really tend to forget that Sanders is a socialist working inside a capitalist system. Really guys? Do you not listen to one word that he Has been talking about all this time? Blind eye....

Free

jerparker20 said:

riotgrl said:

I read an article this morning talking about wasted 3rd party votes. While I disagree with that the article did make a good point about creating viable 3rd parties at the local and state level. That is what will give the country a real shot at creating competition for a 3rd party at the presidential level.

https://paulalanrichardson.com/2016/07/21/think-really-hard-before-voting-for-a-3rd-party-candidate-really/

This.

Honest question for those set on voting third party: If, and it's an impossible if, Stein or Johnson are elected how are they going to get any legislation passed through Congress? How are they going to make any meaningful legislative changes?

Neither will have any support in either chamber and more than likely a lot of animosity from both parties directed their way. Now if a viable third party can begin to make headway at the local/state level the tide may begin to turn. The problem is that more often than not; those running as a third party candidate at the local level tend to be from the far fringes and not taken seriously. Remember the vast majority of Americans sit somewhere in the middle, we just often get stuck choosing the lesser of two evils.

The entire point of Sanders platform is to get everyone out and be leaders. And they are, progressives are going out and being leaders in their communities and getting things done. The revolution has started on a community level.

Gern Blansten

unsung said:

I guess where is Bernie? Why doesn't he rescind his endorsement of her with these revelations?

Bernie is solid for Hillary. It wasn't something she had anything to do with so why would he change his mind? He was saying all along that something funny was going on.

benjs

rgambs said:

It really seems to me that the anti-Clinton faction is a group of single issue voters.

Do they not care about anything beyond establishment vs anti-establishment?

If you vote on a broad range of issues, the choice of Trump or Clinton is obvious, even if it uncomfortable.

People also talk about anti-establishment as though it itself isn't a spectrum, as though a person can so simply label someone as anti-establishment and understand precisely where they stand on each and every topic, and as though two people who are anti-establishment (as people allude to the fact that Sanders and Trump are), are more or less equivalent candidates with equivalent positions.