What do you mean?

SHILLARY KILLTON PAID TO KEEP HIM QUIET!!!

I think I'd have a lot more respect for Bernie supporters if more of them recognized that it's possible for someone to acknowledge basic realities like "Hillary has more votes" without being a brainwashed plant paid by the Clintons.

(facepalm)

Hillary Clinton owns the media, controls the banks, and killed Our Lord.

Hillary Clinton was the inspiration for the title character in "Goldfinger" by Ian Fleming.

Hillary is owned by the banks, adored by the media, and wants to be our Lord.

Jim Yong Kim beat her in 2012, remember.

I see.

Hillary Clinton raped and killed a girl in 1990.

Well, Bill raped a girl in 1969, 1972, 1974, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1991, 1992, and 1993. Not sure if Hillary had any of them killed, but I wouldn't put it past her.

EH don't forget the consensual* relationship in 1995 between Bill Clinton and Lewinsky; something that would get a manager fired at most companies.


*Honest question: can anything in that sort of power dynamic really be considered consensual? Even though she considered it a consensual relationship, the difference in power levels between the two was astronomical.

I'm not sure why any of this is a response to my original post.

Hillbo Haggins isn't my first choice by a mile, but I can be realistic and compromise when it comes down to it (kinda the point of a democracy, after all). Besides, if Democrats can stick together through both presidential and congressional elections, it'll be that much more fun to watch the Republican party fragment into The Gotmines and The Fuckyous when they lose both.

I admit I'm voting mostly out of spite again, but it's enough to get me to the polls.

As someone who doesn't want Trump in the white house, I wish the DNC would nominate someone who had a better chance of beating him than Clinton does.

I have it on good authority that Trump's whole presidential run is a marketing stunt so there's nothing to worry about.

But I still say that there are hard limits on Trump's ability to draw voters. He does okay with white guys, and white women might throw him some support, but everyone else is as opposed to him as is humanly possible. That's not a demographic map that one can win the presidency on.

Hillary's got pretty big negatives but so does every Democrat after the Republicans start with the negative campaigning.

No, Nader absolutely did cause Gore to lose the election, and I can't believe the concept of "splitting the ticket" is that hard to understand. Your entire argument hinges on the premise that it's Gore's fault for not having such an enormous blowout victory over Bush that it compensated for all the votes Nader and his idiot followers peeled off. You're basically saying "Well if he was halfway competent, he should've survived our sabotage attempt!"

Modern America is so polarized that elections are won on razor-thin margins. It doesn't matter who's running, which side they're on, or how competent the candidate is. If a third-party throws their hat into the ring, that side will lose. Period. If Bernie ran in 2012, Romney would've won. If Bernie refuses to concede, Donald Trump will be our next President. And if that does happen, I guarantee you the Bernie bros that voted against Hillary will blame her for losing.

Those who forget about history are doomed to be Sanders supporters.

If Gore won his home state, the state Clinton won two times before, Gore WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT with or without Florida.

Nader didn't "steal" enough votes from Gore to make a difference in Tennessee.

Gore should have won Tennessee, he didn't, and that's on Gore.

>>>Nader didn't cause Al Gore to lose the election. Al Gore caused Al Gore to lose the election.
.
I think it was Jeb Bush. But, whatever. The point is, Bernie could give it to Trump.

I'll say it again, Bernie could bring a real left into American Politics, which could transform the political culture. The real left is invisible in America, and that leaves the right free to portray the center as the extreme left. I want to believe that he'll be smart, and create a legacy for himself other than a Nader Presidency.

Did I say Nader, I meant Trump. Pardon me, I'm barely awake.

John - please define "left". Define "right". Define "center".

I'm sure a dictionary could help you out just as easily, EH.

http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=35528

My problem with Bernie has always been that on the actual policy matters is that he doesn't seem to have much of a grasp other than generalities and ideals.

He's as much a demogague as Trump

Agreed -- he lost me ages ago on matters of policy and his complete lack of realizable plans. If you need a new car and you've got only 00 in the bank, you plan according to what you can afford; you don't aim for "a new Prius with all the optional features!" and see how far that gets you.