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.
I agree with Bernie with every thing he said in that article except the part about Elizabeth Warren. She is a hypocritical Lefty Loon that is so out of touch with the mainstream it is shocking that so many people don't see her for what she is.
the problem sanders had was that the super delegates were in clintons pocket even before the primary campaign started, thus he was down some 400 delegates to begin with. add to that clinton having the big edge in caucus states, and bernie just had no chance. the fix was in for clinton.
as for trump and sanders getting together, not a bad idea. it might have helped trump to get democrats on his side in congress, depending on where trump used sanders.
I agree with you that super delegates were a big problem for Sanders, but actually, it was in caucus states that he had his strongest showings. I think super delegates from both parties should be required to support the candidate chosen by their constituencies, but I guess that sort of goes against the entire reason for their existence. In this case, it backfired. The super delegates made a "safe" choice by going with Clinton. A mistake, really, for I believe that Sanders could have beaten Trump.
As for Sanders allying himself with Trump, I can't really see it. They said similar things about trade deals and Wall Street, but that's about it. And frankly, Trump's cabinet posts so far make me really question his sincerity about the Wall Street part. In the end, I think he threw his support behind Clinton because he believed her to be the less potentially damaging of the two.
Problem with Bernie is that he is just another puppet for the glottalization elite who want to ruin our country.
If he was elected, we would see a flood of more illegal immigration and more free befits for them.
I agree with you that super delegates were a big problem for Sanders, but actually, it was in caucus states that he had his strongest showings. I think super delegates from both parties should be required to support the candidate chosen by their constituencies, but I guess that sort of goes against the entire reason for their existence. In this case, it backfired. The super delegates made a "safe" choice by going with Clinton. A mistake, really, for I believe that Sanders could have beaten Trump.
As for Sanders allying himself with Trump, I can't really see it. They said similar things about trade deals and Wall Street, but that's about it. And frankly, Trump's cabinet posts so far make me really question his sincerity about the Wall Street part. In the end, I think he threw his support behind Clinton because he believed her to be the less potentially damaging of the two.
So Bernie threw his support behind a candidate funded by big money and you believe they are for the American people. Ok then <sarcasm> lol
I did not say that. I said I *think* he considered her the lesser of two evils.
So Hillary (with big money behind her) vs "Trump, who big money hates"... and you think Hillary is the lesser of the two evils? Ok then lol I'll spell it out for you. I thought you Bernie supporters were against big money?
After Hillary and Bernie's private meeting, Bernie dropped out, he then came out in support of Hillary who is supported by big money. Bernie, calling himself a revolutionary, Bernie told you to support Hillary, the big money oligarch's candidate of choice, and without thinking or questioning the obvious, you did as you were told.
Man, you got to look past the words and look at the actions. You got to look past the man and look at his actions. If you don't, you're just a follower doing what you are told.
I agree with you that super delegates were a big problem for Sanders, but actually, it was in caucus states that he had his strongest showings. I think super delegates from both parties should be required to support the candidate chosen by their constituencies, but I guess that sort of goes against the entire reason for their existence. In this case, it backfired. The super delegates made a "safe" choice by going with Clinton. A mistake, really, for I believe that Sanders could have beaten Trump.
As for Sanders allying himself with Trump, I can't really see it. They said similar things about trade deals and Wall Street, but that's about it. And frankly, Trump's cabinet posts so far make me really question his sincerity about the Wall Street part. In the end, I think he threw his support behind Clinton because he believed her to be the less potentially damaging of the two.
as i recall the republicans dont have super delegates.
as for trump, i never heard him say anything negative about big money wall street. i think it was the media suggesting that since he was basically financing his own campaign, and not seeking money from large donors, he wasnt indebted to wall street.
as i recall the republicans dont have super delegates.
as for trump, i never heard him say anything negative about big money wall street. i think it was the media suggesting that since he was basically financing his own campaign, and not seeking money from large donors, he wasnt indebted to wall street.
Yep, it's amazing that people won't think. Rich people view their contributions as investments. They contribute (invest) into the coffers of the candidate they believe will put forth policies they will benefit from.
Bernie or Trump didn't except big money. Every day Americans contributed to their campaigns because they believed these candidates would put forth policies that would benefit them yep, people contributed with the same mindset as big money.
Hillary took from big money, you're pittance of a contribution meant nothing and of course she would have done everything to please big money so they'll contribute the next election cycle?
Yep, it's amazing that people won't think. Rich people view their contributions as investments. They contribute (invest) into the coffers of the candidate they believe will put forth policies they will benefit from.
Bernie or Trump didn't except big money. Every day Americans contributed to their campaigns because they believed these candidates would put forth policies that would benefit them yep, people contributed with the same mindset as big money.
Hillary took from big money, you're pittance of a contribution meant nothing and of course she would have done everything to please big money so they'll contribute the next election cycle?
^^^ such a simple common sense concept that it's a head scratcher that people don't understand.
So Hillary (with big money behind her) vs "Trump, who big money hates"... and you think Hillary is the lesser of the two evils? Ok then lol I'll spell it out for you. I thought you Bernie supporters were against big money?
After Hillary and Bernie's private meeting, Bernie dropped out, he then came out in support of Hillary who is supported by big money. Bernie, calling himself a revolutionary, Bernie told you to support Hillary, the big money oligarch's candidate of choice, and without thinking or questioning the obvious, you did as you were told.
Man, you got to look past the words and look at the actions. You got to look past the man and look at his actions. If you don't, you're just a follower doing what you are told.
You need to re-read what I wrote.
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.
I'll spell it out for you. I thought you Bernie supporters were against big money? 
