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.
Because he claims that he's something else and not an "establishment politician." His history and his words disprove that claim and proves him to be less than truthful.
So in order to remain "pure", he shouldn't do what he can to maximize his chances for winning?
You make no sense, frankly.
It's pretty hard to win a football game if you run out on the field with a ping-pong paddle and ping-pong ball.
So in order to remain "pure", he shouldn't do what he can to maximize his chances for winning?
You make no sense, frankly.
It's pretty hard to win a football game if you run out on the field with a ping-pong paddle and ping-pong ball.
Except that's kind of what he's doing, because now he's claiming that the superdelegate process isn't fair so he wants it changed. Well, if he wants to run as a Democrat, then that's the process and he shouldn't be complaining that people aren't playing football with ping pong balls.
And the reason I think it's an issue is that he keeps talking about being ideologically pure. Except of course when it comes to getting himself elected.
It's the same way Republicans are hypocrites about family values when they go and cheat on their spouses. He's attacking Hillary Clinton for not being ideologically pure enough based on his description of what a progressive is, but he doesn't have clean hands here because when it is in his benefit, he puts political expediency about principles. I'm not saying that's so awful but it's hypocritical for him and his supporters to attack Hillary for doing exactly what he's doing himself.
Because he claims that he's something else and not an "establishment politician." His history and his words disprove that claim and proves him to be less than truthful.
Although I do not blame him for running as a Democrat, I do believe his record proves he has changed his views to get more votes and his accusations against Hillary are misleading. I realize every politician does that, but he seems to be getting away with it.
"But Sanders has been in the House or Senate for more than 25 years, and during all that time, any politician's voting record is bound to have some inconsistencies. Sanders is no exception. At times he's voted in favor of bills on national security, criminal justice, and immigration that he says he now opposes, attacking Clinton for casting the same votes that he did."
[URL="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-voting-history"]Bernie Sanders Seems to Have Forgotten a Few of His Votes[/URL]
Although I do not blame him for running as a Democrat, I do believe his record proves he has changed his views to get more votes and his accusations against Hillary are misleading. I realize every politician does that, but he seems to be getting away with it.
"But Sanders has been in the House or Senate for more than 25 years, and during all that time, any politician's voting record is bound to have some inconsistencies. Sanders is no exception. At times he's voted in favor of bills on national security, criminal justice, and immigration that he says he now opposes, attacking Clinton for casting the same votes that he did."
So it's ok when Bernie votes the same way as Hillary on something and then criticizes her for it? Why the double standard?
Can one defend many years later every single vote over 25 years? No, but we already had this thread with links (and I believe this same article) as to why Sanders voted as he did.
Bernie never called blacks "super predators" (and if you want to vote for someone that did, have at it) and how does the article end?
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, resorted to dog whistle politics and dehumanizing language. Bernie was right then and he's right now."
Can one defend many years later every single vote over 25 years? No, but we already had this thread with links (and I believe this same article) as to why Sanders voted as he did.
Bernie never called blacks "super predators" (and if you want to vote for someone that did, have at it) and how does the article end?
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, resorted to dog whistle politics and dehumanizing language. Bernie was right then and he's right now."
I voted for Hillary so I didn't have to vote for someone who "called blacks 'super predators'".
Quote:
This is the evidence upon which Ben Jealous bases his claim that Hillary was “pushing” the Superpredator theory, which is pretty thin even on its face. She referenced it once, twenty years ago. If you look at the context of that quote, however, it becomes clear that Hillary wasn’t iising the term as a broad slur against young black youths, but as a specific reference to those involved in gang murders, and she wasn’t using it to advocate for mass incarceration, she was promoting something called “community policing”
Exactly. Hillary ran for Senate in a state she had not been a resident. What does a hick from Arkansas know about NY issues??? This was as sick as Nelson Rockefeller sending his kid Jay to be Governor of West Virginia to get him some political experience.
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.
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.
