• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary is Sick of Bernie's Lies

Fletch said:
Actually, there is. Two main things come to mind: first, the corruption aspect you mentioned. The second is honesty. I don't agree with Bernie on much but the guy is certainly not corrupt and might be the most honest guy running. Policy wise you might be right, but I would much rather have Bernie as president than Hillary.
Click to expand...

Anyone who openly flaunts his socialist views must be honest. I am surprised a self proclaimed Libertarian would ever consider voting for him.
 
iguanaman said:
Except Bernie isn't admitting that he has taken money from big oil also. Bernie is desperate and I'm afraid his team has made him cocky too. It's a bad combination. The sooner he drops out the better.
Click to expand...

MorrisDay said:
Bernie drops out, Hillary cackles like a mad hyena before being indicted, who's left?
Click to expand...

iguanaman said:
Hillary is our next President. There will be no indictment. You are grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

I am afraid you are right, and I find it unbelievable this country cannot elect an honest trustworthy leader whom the people can respect.
 
TheGoverness said:
Bernie attended Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee biannual functions which was organized and run by the DSCC. Sanders participates in*DSCC fundraising events because he himself wants to strengthen the Democratic Party. *

That is not how Sanders is running his presidential campaign, though. Hillary*Clinton is following more of the DSCC model of fundraising for her campaign*by focusing on elite donors.
The DSCC and the DNC are all about the big money elite fundraising. *In a sane world as grassroots American Democrats they would be the ones that would be under scrutiny, not Sanders.
Click to expand...

Bernie didn't just attend, he HOSTED fund raisers catering to the corporate elite.
 
DamnYankee said:
There's not a dime's worth of difference between Comrade BS and the Queen of Corruption.
Click to expand...
well Bernie probably has better legs and his voice isn't quite as annoying but true
 
TurtleDude said:
Bernie's a W surrogate? or is Cankles a W surrogate?
Click to expand...

2237ad11-5b75-46b5-ab17-8cc96ced7df7.jpg

bush-clinton-320.jpg

240907HillaryBush.jpg

George+W+Bush+Hillary+Clinton+Former+President+WioZls0FVZbl.jpg

141207194232-george-w-bush-and-hillary-clinton-horizontal-gallery.jpg


Is that democracy, or is that oligarchy? (I'll give you 3 guesses as to whom that quote can be attributed to).
 
MorrisDay said:
Anyone who openly flaunts his socialist views must be honest. I am surprised a self proclaimed Libertarian would ever consider voting for him.
Click to expand...

I know of several self-proclaimed libertarians who have voted for Sanders (including my wife and I). Presidents aren't handed dictatorial powers. He would be battling Congress his entire term in office, so his more socialist policies would be kept in check. But he would also be a thorn in the side of the oligarchy libertarians oppose so much. The positives of Bernie from a libertarian perspective outweigh the negatives.
 
iguanaman said:
Now you are being coy. Are you denying that the Sanders campaign has been claiming Hillary has accepted money from big oil while omitting the fact that he has also? BOTH candidates have taken money from oil company executives but only one has stated they won't be influenced by that money and that is Hillary.
Click to expand...

Of course, legally campaigns cannot receive money directly from the fossil fuel industry. Instead they receive them from Super PACs. Sanders has refused to take money from Super PACs, which is how these questionable industries get their money out there. Clinton has no problem taking money from Super PACs which definitely makes one wonder how much the average voter can trust her.
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
Actually, there is. Two main things come to mind: first, the corruption aspect you mentioned. The second is honesty. I don't agree with Bernie on much but the guy is certainly not corrupt and might be the most honest guy running. Policy wise you might be right, but I would much rather have Bernie as president than Hillary.
Click to expand...

Comrade BS certainly appears honest, but I have my doubts about any politician. But, yes, he is more honest than The Queen of Corruption by a long shot. I don't believe anything she says, and it looks like a lot of her fellow leftists agree. lol
 
Geoist said:
Of course, legally campaigns cannot receive money directly from the fossil fuel industry. Instead they receive them from Super PACs. Sanders has refused to take money from Super PACs, which is how these questionable industries get their money out there. Clinton has no problem taking money from Super PACs which definitely makes one wonder how much the average voter can trust her.
Click to expand...

Yea how dare she run for President without one hand tied behind her back. You don't think her opponent in the general will allow Super Pacs to run ads against her?
 
TheGoverness said:
Definitely, otherwise they wouldn't have given her the money, especially considering the fact that Hillary even stated that she was 'against the oil companies'. If that was truly the case, and Hillary wasn't lying, the oil companies wouldn't have bothered to give her money.
Click to expand...

I believe Obama also took money from the same sources. Did that stop him from asking for a stop to oil company tax breaks? No. Hillary would be no different and has said as much many times.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-blocks-obamas-effort-to-end-tax-breaks-for-big-oil/2012/03/29/gIQAbuTwjS_story.html
 
I have found some interesting trends in this thread:
• Clinton being upset at someone lying...
pot-kettle-2.jpg


• Very few of the claims in this thread actually cite any facts.
• Someone actually said Bernie mistreated Hillary (I'm still laughing).
• Clinton being upset at someone lying (its just worth mentioning again...really).
• Sanders is still the guy that when he makes a speech I don't feel like he should be saying "wink wink, nudge nudge" at the end of it. I don't get that genuine of a feeling from Clinton (or Trump for that matter). But that's just me.
 
Moot said:
She's pissed because Bernie's campaign keeps saying that she took campaign donations from oil and gas companies. What they fail to mention is that Bernie has too.
Click to expand...

Hillary: Hillary Clinton?s Connections to the Oil and Gas Industry - Greenpeace USA

Politifact deserves a 'PANTS ON FIRE!' rating for their assessment of Clinton's oil donations.

vs

Bernie:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nton-sanders-spat-over-big-oil-contributions/

Hillary's $4.5 million total including individuals, groups, lobbyists, superpacs and bundlers vs Bernie's $54,000 from _individuals_ who work in the oil and gas industry.

Nice try Clinton apologist.


Also, citing Bernie's participation in general Democratic fund raising doesn't really succeed at the salient goal of painting him as corrupt or beholden to corporate interests; that's not how it works. When the man is actually _bankrolled_ to any significant degree by corporates or their minions (which he clearly is not), we can talk. So far as attempting to muddy waters goes though, that is a solid and admirable attempt.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Yea how dare she run for President without one hand tied behind her back. You don't think her opponent in the general will allow Super Pacs to run ads against her?
Click to expand...

You can make that argument all you want (you certainly wouldn't be the first). Just don't expect many progressive voters to trust Clinton the same way they trust Sanders.
 
iguanaman said:
I believe Obama also took money from the same sources. Did that stop him from asking for a stop to oil company tax breaks? No. Hillary would be no different and has said as much many times.
Click to expand...

We have seen through TPP Obama's willingness to sell out.
 
iguanaman said:
Because without money there is no campaign. I do not believe that money will effect her decisions when it comes to global warming any more than his donations will effect Sanders. You want to help AGW deniers get into office. Which is worse? Bernie will endorse Hillary, does that make him a sellout too?
Click to expand...

#1: Love the presumption.

#2: Bernie has already proven that you don't need corporate money to run a vibrant and well-funded campaign so long as you have vision; hell the man has lately been out-raising her by significant margins.
 
Geoist said:
We have seen through TPP Obama's willingness to sell out.
Click to expand...

Free trade has been a bi-partisan goal for 40 years and now it is selling out? It's a little late isn't it?
 
iguanaman said:
Free trade has been a bi-partisan goal
Click to expand...

So has war and the de-regulation of the big banks.

Doesn't mean they are progressive goals.
 
Surrealistik said:
#1: Love the presumption.

#2: Bernie has already proven that you don't need corporate money to run a vibrant and well-funded campaign so long as you have vision; hell the man has lately been out-raising her by significant margins.
Click to expand...

He is not getting more private donations than Obama did and he took corporate money too. Bernie is not running a winning campaign either and in the General he would have a significant disadvantage money wise.
 
iguanaman said:
He is not getting more private donations than Obama did and he took corporate money too. Bernie is not running a winning campaign either and in the General he would have a significant disadvantage money wise.
Click to expand...

How is Obama relevant?

Second, his current performance has nothing to do with his money as his campaign is well financed. Furthermore, you don't know whether he would be at a significant disadvantage in the general; the only evidence you actually have available to you is that he'd be at least on roughly even footing in light of his fundraising performance vs Clinton who is very much establishment/corporate sponsored, and has no problem taking their money.
 
Geoist said:
So has war and the de-regulation of the big banks.

Doesn't mean they are progressive goals.
Click to expand...

So progressives want trade barriers? Not really...

Trade-skeptical Democrats should use the debate on Trade Promotion Authority to take a fresh look at President Obama’s far-reaching trade initiatives. As we’ve detailed in a recent Progressive Policy Institute report, open-minded progressives can find many examples of how the Administration is combining smart trade policy and progressive ideals to advance vital goals while strengthening both the United States and the global economy:

Tapping into Global Growth. Assuring that Americans have a fairer slice of the economic pie is easier when the pie is growing.

In the past, America’s middle class fueled growth in the rest of the world. Now, an exploding global middle class—especially in Asia—can return the favor. By 2030, Asia will add 1.2 billion new middle class consumers to the global economy. These global consumers will want to buy what America has to sell—from wholesome food and cutting-edge consumer products to modern financial services and health care.
Click to expand...

How the Obama trade agenda can advance progressive goals | TheHill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom