EXCUSE ME?!..The OFFICIAL Bernie Sanders For President 2016 Thread

S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I can agree most with your last line.

Don't you think Sanders would be muzzled and silenced as VP? I get what you are saying; that a Clinton/Sanders ticket would be practically invincible compared to whomever Trump chooses to run with. Still, I like the odds and I'd roll the dice with a different Democratic Party selection for VP and Sanders free to act for or against Hillary in the Senate.
Click to expand...
Nope.

The fact of matter is..last 4 presidency's have taken VP into a new role of trusted advisor.

It would be fitting.

I know you don't really like Bernie..thank you for allowing him no real role of for/against Clinton and given permission for him to just toddle off somewhere back to the senate.

That's real white of you.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
Nope.

The fact of matter is..last 4 presidency's have taken VP into a new role of trusted advisor.

It would be fitting.

I know you don't really like Bernie..thank you for allowing him no real role of for/against Clinton and given permission for him to just toddle off somewhere back to the senate.

That's real white of you.
Click to expand...
It would be a formidable pair to send against Trump, so I'm not exactly displeased by the idea.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
Nope.

The fact of matter is..last 4 presidency's have taken VP into a new role of trusted advisor.

It would be fitting.

I know you don't really like Bernie..thank you for allowing him no real role of for/against Clinton and given permission for him to just toddle off somewhere back to the senate.

That's real white of you.
Click to expand...
It's just that Clinton is such a control freak that I think she would not want to have a person with the kind of political capital and voice that Bernie has. I do think that if Bernie and Hillary did set out as a team it would mean that Hillary is not so much concerned about taking power as using it for positive change. So it would be a good sign as well

I'm pulling for Sanders to be in the best position possible to affect the kind of change that he promoted during his campaign.
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
It's just that Clinton is such a control freak that I think she would not want to have a person with the kind of political capital and voice that Bernie has. I do think that if Bernie and Hillary did set out as a team it would mean that Hillary is not so much concerned about taking power as using it for positive change. So it would be a good sign as well

I'm pulling for Sanders to be in the best position possible to effect the kind of change that he promoted during his campaign.
Click to expand...
That would have been as the 'President', but the money that buys has chosen otherwise.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
That would have been as the 'President', but the money that buys has chosen otherwise.
Click to expand...
No doubt the money is betting on Hillary. The thing is, we don't really know what a Hillary presidency will look like, we can only guess. I'm pretty sure that if you don't think this but I can't get a fix on anything Hillary believes in. I know you think she's some sort of Wall Street drone but that's not my read. I think she's one of the least well known people to become president in the last 40 years. Even Obama had a more consistent track record.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
No doubt the money is betting on Hillary. The thing is, we don't really know what a Hillary presidency will look like, we can only guess. I'm pretty sure that if you don't think this but I can't get a fix on anything Hillary believes in. I know you think she's some sort of Wall Street drone but that's not my read. I think she's one of the least well known people to become president in the last 40 years. Even Obama had a more consistent track record.

This can be good or it can be really bad. I just know that Trump would be bad.
Click to expand...
An FBI investigation that showed she broke the law.

A nomination process so rigged it was rightly called a national exercise in massive voter fraud.

The national media complicit to the point of ending the practice of taking exit polls because they were being used as evidence of said voter fraud.

With qualifications like those, I'm thinking we should be amazed if she does anything effective for the other 99% at all. We'll get bones at best, not a seat at the table and certainly not the driver's seat.

I'm sorry but that's not good enough for me and it damn well shouldn't be for you either!
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
An FBI investigation that showed she broke the law.

A nomination process so rigged it was rightly called a national exercise in massive voter fraud.

The national media complicit to the point of ending the practice of taking exit polls because they were being used as evidence of said voter fraud.

With qualifications like those, I'm thinking we should be amazed if she does anything effective for the other 99% at all. We'll get bones at best, not a seat at the table and certainly not the driver's seat.
Click to expand...
honestly, I don't know what the future holds. You can beat me with my own statements later on if she turns out to be some modern day Stalin and I'd just have to take it. How much is there out there about what she has really done? I'm not talking about the right wing media shit, just what she has actually done? There is not much in the way of pure facts. So, I say she's pretty much an unknown.

The nomination process was played out according to rules written about 30 years ago. Decrying a win by playing by the rules "rigging the election" is only done by the losers. Obama won with those same rules in place. I'm sorry you feel that way but the time to change the rules is before the election and not after.

Bernie is working to change those rules going forward, if that makes you feel any better, which I'm sure it does not.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
honestly, I don't know what the future holds. You can beat me with my own statements later on if she turns out to be some modern day Stalin and I'd just have to take it. How much is there out there about what she has really done? I'm not talking about the right wing media shit, just what she has actually done? There is not much in the way of pure facts. So, I say she's pretty much an unknown.

The nomination process was played out according to rules written about 30 years ago. Decrying a win by playing by the rules "rigging the election" is only done by the losers. Obama won with those same rules in place. I'm sorry you feel that way but the time to change the rules is before the election and not after.

Bernie is working to change those rules going forward, if that makes you feel any better, which I'm sure it does not.
Click to expand...
Voter fraud means the rules were broken.

It's clear the fix was in, and I'm aware that the point is officially moot.

A whole swath of her home state was mysteriously disenfranchised, just one glaring example of many that show that indeed she did not win under similar rules as Mr Obama; her supporters broke them again and again.

Quit with the establishment talking points for a moment and consider what's happened; even the veneer of democratic decorum has been shredded in this race, making it clear the powers that buy simply don't care that they're publicly running roughshod over our country's founding principles and the voter's right to choose.

Things will continue to career ever closer to that same cliff our country went over at the end of the Bush '43 era, when we were saved by Mr Obama's adroit handling of the situation... Well, I lied- WE weren't saved; millions of homeowners lost their homes and savings. The RICH got massive bailouts and the party has continued on Wall St, even while the lights continue to go out for the middle class.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Voter fraud means the rules were broken.

It's clear the fix was in, and I'm aware that the point is officially moot.

A whole swath of her home state was mysteriously disenfranchised, just one glaring example of many that show that indeed she did not win under similar rules as Mr Obama; her supporters broke them again and again.

Quit with the establishment talking points for a moment and consider what's happened; even the veneer of democratic decorum has been shredded in this race, making it clear the powers that buy simply don't care that they're publicly running roughshod over our country's founding principles and the voter's right to choose.

Things will continue to career ever closer to that same cliff our country went over at the end of the Bush '43 era, when we were saved by Mr Obama's adroit handling of the situation... Well, I lied- WE weren't saved; millions of homeowners lost their homes and savings. The RICH got massive bailouts and the party has continued on Wall St, even while the lights continue to go out for the middle class.
Click to expand...
I voted for Bernie. Can you say the same? You were the one who didn't know the deadline to change party status. Do you accept your own actions as part of the mess or do you think you were hoodwinked by rules written 30 years ago?

I don't think Hillary is some pathway to the total control by the Oligarchs. I think she can be a really good if not great president. You will not accept this as a possibility or maybe I'm putting words in your mouth. The next eight years will tell whether or not you or I got it right.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
How do you define 'good' and 'great' in this context just so I know exactly how much shit to give you when the time comes?

What would a good Hillary Clinton term look like? A great one?
Click to expand...
That's a good question. So, five years from now, what would a "good" Hillary presidency look like? What laundry list would you check off as "success", mediocre or failure?

I'm a bit buzzed right now. Trying to write that list for me would be a buzzkill not to mention take a long time because a few tokes and I can hardly type. What do you want to see? I can take a crack at it later but not right now.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
That's a good question. So, five years from now, what would a "good" Hillary presidency look like? What laundry list would you check off as "success", mediocre or failure?

I'm a bit buzzed right now. Trying to write that list for me would be a buzzkill not to mention take a long time because a few tokes and I can hardly type. What do you want to see? I can take a crack at it later but not right now.
Click to expand...
Take your time, bro, no rush, enjoy your buzz :D

Just wondering what a good and great presidency would like like in your opinion. Given the political atmosphere of today I think it would be hard to predict any president have a 'great' administration. Rampant terrorism, reignited racial relations, LGBT rights, with people waking up everywhere due to the internet.. Jesus fuckin' Christ could be president and there would still be haters (to be clear, the idea of Jesus, not the Christian idea of him).. It's tough to imagine with such a big division in the population any president could be considered "great". I think, at best, they'll still be considered divisive. The next president is going to have to make some extremely tough decisions, and I can't help but think that unless something monumentally positive happens (something big like effectively addressing the income inequality issue or ending the war on drugs), it really doesn't matter much what happens, they'll be seen as mediocre at best.

My feelings as I sit here typing this now is that Clinton will be an OK president but she won't actually effectively address any meaningful issues. She'll go down in American history as the first female American president and that'll be what she's remembered for when she's gone. To me, that's extremely lackluster, I wouldn't consider that a "good" presidency, just "not bad", kinda like Obama.
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
There is no hypocrisy, they're two members of the same team with different ideas on how to achieve the same goals
Click to expand...
It would be the equivalent of hillary and obama on the same ticket in 2008. Obama is on board now tho. Ready to sell his soul to the devil for a slice of the world.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I voted for Bernie. Can you say the same? You were the one who didn't know the deadline to change party status. Do you accept your own actions as part of the mess or do you think you were hoodwinked by rules written 30 years ago?

I don't think Hillary is some pathway to the total control by the Oligarchs. I think she can be a really good if not great president. You will not accept this as a possibility or maybe I'm putting words in your mouth. The next eight years will tell whether or not you or I got it right.
Click to expand...
You got me mixed up with someone else; I most certainly did vote for Mr Sanders that Super Tuesday when Colorado was one of the first states to turn for him. I witnessed an historic turnout of the people, and then watched as we and millions of our peers across the country were systematically disenfranchised.

So, I was there. And so was CNN- strangely, although the reporter was there and seeing the unprecedented turnout for a primary, she didn't get much airtime. THAT'S a news story, Mr FogDog- and the only bigger story that night was how and why our story didn't get told in the media where it belongs.

Shillary is and always was the anointed candidate and the machine duly swung into action to elect the chosen one, whether they're the people's choice or not.

Hell, In spite of the people's choice, if necessary. Both parties treat the ever shrinking middle class like a necessary tagalong; useful for rabble rousing and elections and otherwise safe to ignore in favor of other, more monied interests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top