Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of the Bernie supporters I know, gladly went over to Hillary without a hitch. No nastiness. We want the same things. Is it a required personality trait/flaw of republicans to project their own characteristic weaknesses onto their opponents?
There are more than two candidates. The lessor of two evils is still evil.
I don't think that Clinton is "evil." I don't even think that Trump is "evil," just unhinged, uninformed, and thus dangerous. What other candidates are you talking about? Gary Johnson? Seems like a super-nice guy, but his brain is fried. Jill Stein? What I wouldn't give to have a real Green Party in this nation, but she's not it. The only candidate who was trustworthy, in my opinion, was Bernie Sanders. He was mayor of Burlington, VT eons ago, when I lived there. Bernie has always been Bernie; the guy simply isn't buyable. He's a decent human being, super-smart, and was the only candidate who actually did represent the interests of the middle and working classes in this nation, and passionately so. But he wouldn't have won the election, anyway. If he had won the primary, the right-wing spin machine would have gone into vicious overdrive with "Socialist!" and "Communist!" and scared the bejesus out of people. Never mind that Bernie's been around for a long time, has always been vociferous about what the working people of this nation need and want, has been admirably instrumental and honest in his political maneuvers, and hardly a "Communist." Unfortunately, the truth isn't always what the people want to hear. Substance isn't sexy. The media has also been very successful in the driver's seat of a fear-baiting machine: just look at all the looney stuff being posted about Clinton being a pedophile, laughing at child rapists, having a secret affair with Vince Foster, ad nauseum, all dragged in from Infowars or Breitbart or even deeper in the alt-right net. Clinton's got her problems, for sure, but at least she has governmental service under her belt, understands geopolitical challenges, has spent years in public service, and is mentally stable. Can't have everything we want in a candidate, it seems, but if this is the only viable candidate, I'm voting for her. As is Sanders. It's called compromise, which is how a grown-up democracy works.
Here on this forum we Bernie Sanders supporters remember how nasty you Clinton supporters were back during the primary days. Some of you posted profusely defaming Bernie, just as you do now about Trump and his supporters, trying to solicit our votes.
I don't recall you getting your feeling hurt I do recall Trump calling Bernie CRAZY BERNIE on a regular basis.
Most of the Bernie supporters I know, gladly went over to Hillary without a hitch. No nastiness. We want the same things. Is it a required personality trait/flaw of republicans to project their own characteristic weaknesses onto their opponents?
yes see it all the time with Nutty Don- porn star, taker, and bankruptcy queen.
I don't think that Clinton is "evil." I don't even think that Trump is "evil," just unhinged, uninformed, and thus dangerous. What other candidates are you talking about? Gary Johnson? Seems like a super-nice guy, but his brain is fried. Jill Stein? What I wouldn't give to have a real Green Party in this nation, but she's not it. The only candidate who was trustworthy, in my opinion, was Bernie Sanders. He was mayor of Burlington, VT eons ago, when I lived there. Bernie has always been Bernie; the guy simply isn't buyable. He's a decent human being, super-smart, and was the only candidate who actually did represent the interests of the middle and working classes in this nation, and passionately so. But he wouldn't have won the election, anyway. If he had won the primary, the right-wing spin machine would have gone into vicious overdrive with "Socialist!" and "Communist!" and scared the bejesus out of people. Never mind that Bernie's been around for a long time, has always been vociferous about what the working people of this nation need and want, has been admirably instrumental and honest in his political maneuvers, and hardly a "Communist." Unfortunately, the truth isn't always what the people want to hear. Substance isn't sexy. The media has also been very successful in the driver's seat of a fear-baiting machine: just look at all the looney stuff being posted about Clinton being a pedophile, laughing at child rapists, having a secret affair with Vince Foster, ad nauseum, all dragged in from Infowars or Breitbart or even deeper in the alt-right net. Clinton's got her problems, for sure, but at least she has governmental service under her belt, understands geopolitical challenges, has spent years in public service, and is mentally stable. Can't have everything we want in a candidate, it seems, but if this is the only viable candidate, I'm voting for her. As is Sanders. It's called compromise, which is how a grown-up democracy works.
As fine an example of talking out of both sides of the mouth as ever there was one.
Bernie got everything he was after in the platform. He will continue to change the Democratic Party from Clinton's Republican light.
The only difference between Clinton and most mainstream Rs is her stand on choice.
I'm sure all the Bernie supporters who will be voting 3rd party will love the Republicans placed on the Supreme Court.
BTW, in my state, the Greens are also Republican light. They get their funding from Republicans.
It only matters if it comes to pass. Hillary has made clear she has no interest in his values.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.