Sanders trailed Hillary by 41pts in May. Now within 7.

[Jack V Savage]

Shill;

an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.

So far as I know...she hasn't said much about lobbyists (not nearly to the extent Bernie is focusing on them) Which is pretty much just accepting their part in America's downward slide into corruption and middle class ruin.

In my head by not shitting on lobbyists at every turn, you are basically promoting them.

And so far as I know Hillary is still taking donations from privatized prisons...yes?

I have no idea. I don't get the sense that you're understanding what I'm saying. There's not much difference in substance between Clinton and Sanders, but there's a difference in style--in how they're covered by the media, how they present themselves as people, etc. I realize that superficial differences matter a lot to some people.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So many lies in one post. You should be ashamed of yourself for being a racist, anti-Semite, and just being an overall liar and coward. You are a truly dispicable human being.

I never said any of this bullshit and my comments are right above you for everybody to read.

I take issue with your insidious trolling, your lack of reading comprehension, and your lack of decency.

Right. Don't act like you care about any of those things. You have too much history here.

 

[speakhandsforme]

You wouldn't know it from listening to their hardcore supporters, but there really isn't much of a difference between them in terms of policy.

This isn't true no matter how many times you say it. You can argue that, functionally, their theoretical presidencies would have similar outcomes. But there is a lot of evidence as to the starkness of contrast in their respective policies.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Meh. You can't deny that you just follow me around and try to harass me. And never engage in issue-based discussion. It doesn't bother me at all. I welcome the hatred of your type (glennrod, second sight, SPF50, etc.).

You started this conversation you retarded hack.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This isn't true no matter how many times you say it. You can argue that, functionally, their theoretical presidencies would have similar outcomes. But there is a lot of evidence as to the starkness of contrast in their respective policies.

Nah, it's totally true.

Here's a site that compares them on a lot of superficial issues but also on ideology as reflected by policy:

http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/35-40/Bernie-Sanders-vs-Hillary-Clinton

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Right. Don't act like you care about any of those things. You have too much history here.

Source or dubs.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Less debates help Bernie and other candidates more than it helps Clinton.

Congrats if you were able to type that with a straight face. The concept of it being in the best interests of front runners, of well-known, name-recognized, establishment-backed candidates to engage in as few debates as possible with their rivals is Politics 101. And in the case of a communicator as horrendous as Hillary it's absolutely mandatory.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You started this conversation you retarded hack.

I started a discussion on issues. You then pulled your usual flaming shit.

Source or dubs.

Um, OK:

Anung Un Rama


Anung Un Rama's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Pandemonium
Posts: 38,716

 

[BVG]

Nah, it's totally true.

Here's a site that compares them on a lot of superficial issues but also on ideology as reflected by policy:

http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/35-40/Bernie-Sanders-vs-Hillary-Clinton

Well just quickly glancing at that page I can tell you I dislike the fact that Hillary has raised an enormous amount of money from lobbyists...

This is a HUGE factor in the reduction of the working middle class in america...

Support & expand free trade Sanders: Strongly Disagrees Clinton: Agrees

That list also doesn't encompass lobbying government, going after corporations for hiding their wealth over seas...or privatized prisons being a bad thing.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

And is that happening? Because we've had a single president in history who isn't a white male, all of sudden you guys are acting like the system is suddenly broken. It's pathetic that in 2015, people with your mindset are still out there dragging the nation down.

I never said that you lying hack.
I responded to another poster's suggestion that woman and minorities should be given an arbitrary shot at being POTUS.

I said I don't care about the gender, race, or creed of the POTUS, so long as he/she is who is best for the job.

The fact that you would argue against such a sentiment shows that you are the racist AGAIN.

I take issue with your expressed position that only white males are truly qualified to be president. I think Carson and Palin are terrible candidates, but unlike you, I base that on their qualifications, values, and expressed positions. You won't find me ever saying anything like what you did.

And I think we all take issue with your gross and irresponsible misrepresentation of what I said.
By your own standards if you disagree with what I said then your dismissal of Carson, Palmer, and Sanders makes you a racist, misogynist, and an anti-Semite.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well just quickly glancing at that page I can tell you I dislike the fact that Hillary has raised an enormous amount of money from lobbyists...

Um, OK. That's fine. You can like or dislike whatever you want for whatever reason you want. I'm just saying that in terms of policy and ideology, there's very little difference between the two of them. Look at their voting records, too. Primary election politics is about exaggerating the fuck out of minute differences, but regular people should see through that bullshit.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I started a discussion on issues. You then pulled your usual flaming shit.



Um, OK:

Anung Un Rama


Anung Un Rama's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Pandemonium
Posts: 38,716

So nothing. Gotcha.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I have no idea. I don't get the sense that you're understanding what I'm saying. There's not much difference in substance between Clinton and Sanders, but there's a difference in style--in how they're covered by the media, how they present themselves as people, etc. I realize that superficial differences matter a lot to some people.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/30/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-iowa-poll

 

[Jack V Savage]

I never said that you lying hack.
I responded to another poster's suggestion that woman and minorities should be given an arbitrary shot at being POTUS.

This is what I responded to:

"How about taking the office of POTUS more seriously than suggesting rotating non-whites and woman out of some ridiculous sense of fairness."

The clear implication there is that that's what been happening, right? Because we've had a single non-white president. Have some damned integrity and own up to your comment. Even if you didn't mean it, say you didn't mean it. Or if you want to defend it, defend it. That's how this whole back-and-forth works. But to just lash out angrily at anyone who calls you on what you're saying isn't honorable and it isn't fun.

And I think we all take issue with your gross and irresponsible misrepresentation of what I said.
By your own standards if you disagree with what I said then your dismissal of Carson, Palmer, and Sanders makes you a racist, misogynist, and an anti-Semite.

Show that you actually understand what I said and explain the logical connection between my point and your silly claim.

So nothing. Gotcha.

What do you want me to do? Go through all your posts and show what a hateful, dishonest person you are? It's in this thread, and almost all of the threads you post in.

 

[Jack V Savage]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/30/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-iowa-poll

So a bunch of personal stuff, some inaccuracy, some stuff where their views differed previously and then converged, and some issues that aren't even on the table anymore. So, yeah, like I said, standard primary campaign bullshit.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Yes, yes. We've heard it all before. No one can possible just think that you are a poor thinker and a lout. Everyone who claims to is just pretending. Again, look objectively at the people agreeing with you here. The worst and dumbest posters in the group, without exception.

Scoreboard motherfucker.

What is Hillary Clinton's Relationship to the Establishment

 

[BVG]

Um, OK. That's fine. You can like or dislike whatever you want for whatever reason you want. I'm just saying that in terms of policy and ideology, there's very little difference between the two of them. Look at their voting records, too. Primary election politics is about exaggerating the fuck out of minute differences, but regular people should see through that bullshit.

Free trade isn't a small foot note.

It's the begging of the downward slide of manufacturing being removed from america.

https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/2061.24.80.0/economy/the-death-of-american-manufacturing

Outsourcing

Manufacturing loss is occurring because of globalization and outsourcing. Globalization is the increased mobility of goods, services, labor, technology and capital throughout the world; outsourcing is the performance of a production activity in another country that was previously done by a domestic firm or plant.

That's a HUGE deal fella. The free trade agreement is directly responsible for the downward spiral of the shrinking middle class.

Corporations lobbying government officials is a HUGE deal as to why now the majority of the United States wealth is owned by the 1 percent.

Privatized prisons where a corporation gets more money by throwing people in jail, and having quotas? No wonder shit is boiled over in Baltimore. And in St Louis didn't the chief of police all but admit in email to the mayor that he surpassed his quota of arrests that month, and the data shows that most of those arrests were targeted against blacks?

Please tell me you don't think that was just a "one off"? lol.

Like where do you think that's gonna go? Privatized prisons where they have quotas and target minorities...yeah, that's going to end well.

These are huge key points as to what the fuck is breaking America. And Hillary is either glossing over this shit or ignoring it all together.

And let's not ignore how much money she's gotten in "contributions" so far...That alone should be a flag as to the amount of dirt on that politicians hands.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Scoreboard motherfucker.

Scoreboard what? You misrepresented the argument and made a poll that got a lot of votes. What does that mean other than that you're not an honest person?

 

[speakhandsforme]

Nah, it's totally true.

Here's a site that compares them on a lot of superficial issues but also on ideology as reflected by policy:

http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/compare/35-40/Bernie-Sanders-vs-Hillary-Clinton

Looks like an aggregate score of -8.5 for Sanders and -6.25 for Hillary. I realize that the score is thrown off because Hillary scores as a war hawk in the foreign policy metric, but still.

Clinton's remote silence on or, at best, inaction on topics on which Sanders has been fervently clear shows the gap between them.

*Clinton voted for a physically closed border; Bernie didn't
*Clinton voted for the PATRIOT Act (twice); Bernie was one of only 66 reps to vote against it in 2001
*Clinton has only offered vague generalities in regard to campaign finance reform; Sanders has taken an initiative and hard line, spearheading a constitutional amendment towards overturning CU and has refused corporate campaign donations (guess who hasn't)
*Clinton publicly opposed gay marriage throughout the 90's and into the 2008; Sanders has defended gay marriage going back to the 1970's
*Clinton has recently remained noncommittal on the TPP, but has praised the agreement as the "gold standard" of free and open trade in 2012; Sanders has vocally opposed
*Clinton has voted for military intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria and was rated by Time as one of the most right-leaning Democrats in Congress on the issue of war; Bernie opposed the Iraq war and advocated for deescalation in Afghanistan in Congress


Beyond appearances or rhetoric, that seems pretty substantive on its own to me.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

What do you want me to do? Go through all your posts and show what a hateful, dishonest person you are? It's in this thread, and almost all of the threads you post in.

Protocol would expect a person to have the evidence on hand prior to making such an inflammatory accusation. Decency would dictate that you produce it or apologize.
Which is going to be Jack?

 

[ultramanhyata]

So a bunch of personal stuff, some inaccuracy, some stuff where their views differed previously and then converged, and some issues that aren't even on the table anymore. So, yeah, like I said, standard primary campaign bullshit.

Fun house mirrors for the win. :icon_lol:

JVS: Shillin' for the Hill. 2016 :icon_lol:

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Scoreboard what? You misrepresented the argument and made a poll that got a lot of votes. What does that mean other than that you're not an honest person?

Fuck you, you got owned by your own shilling for the Clinton campaign.
Its black and white and everybody sees thru your bullshit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Free trade isn't a small foot note.

The gap between their current positions on free trade is nothing, though. And given how liberalized trade already is, further deals are really small potatoes.

Looks like an aggregate score of -8.5 for Sanders and -6.25 for Hillary. I realize that the score is thrown off because Hillary scores as a war hawk in the foreign policy metric, but still.

"But still" doesn't work here. My point is made.

Clinton's remote silence on or, at best, inaction on topics on which Sanders has been fervently clear shows the gap between them.

*Clinton voted for a physically closed border; Bernie didn't

And Bernie is currently more anti-immigration, no? That's something his supporters like about him, though again, there isn't much of a gap there.

*Clinton voted for the PATRIOT Act (twice); Bernie was one of only 66 reps to vote against it in 2001
*Clinton has only offered vague generalities in regard to campaign finance reform; Sanders has taken an initiative and hard line, spearheading a constitutional amendment towards overturning CU and has refused corporate campaign donations (guess who hasn't)

Clinton also supports the implausible Constitutional Amendment solution and has pledged to make it a litmus test for SCOTUS nominations. So what policy difference are you even talking about there? Further, both of them are just pandering. It's not a big deal.

And the 2001 Patriot Act isn't an issue in 2016.

*Clinton publicly opposed gay marriage throughout the 90's and into the 2008; Sanders has defended gay marriage going back to the 1970's

And this matters how, exactly? Do you think Clinton is going to push for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn it?

*Clinton has recently remained noncommittal on the TPP, but has praised the agreement as the "gold standard" of free and open trade in 2012; Sanders has vocally opposed

So we have "undecided" vs. "opposes" on an unsettled deal that isn't very significant anyway. Again, this is primary campaign bullshit (exaggerating tiny differences to make a contrast). I don't blame Sanders and Clinton for talking about that, but that's just marketing.

*Clinton has voted for military intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria and was rated by Time as one of the most right-leaning Democrats in Congress on the issue of war; Bernie opposed the Iraq war and advocated for deescalation in Afghanistan in Congress

This is a real difference, I guess, but there's still a smaller gap between Clinton and Sanders then between either of them and their general election opponent (whoever it is).

Beyond appearances or rhetoric, that seems pretty substantive on its own to me.

I don't really see how. They're not exactly the same, but there isn't a large difference between them (certainly nothing to justify the Sanders' fan narrative of Bernie as being some kind of bold savior and Clinton being the devil in a pantsuit).

Fun house mirrors for the win. :icon_lol:

JVS: Shillin' for the Hill. 2016 :icon_lol:

Am I misremembering or did you used to at least try to make real posts once in a while? You seem like a 12-year-old who views politics as a sport.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Dude, you're ruining the thread. You can PM me your meltdown.

 

[speakhandsforme]

"But still" doesn't work here. My point is made.

Umm, okay. Remove the "just still" and the previous sentence.

On a scale of 1-10, Hillary is 23% more conservative as per your source.

Clinton also supports the implausible Constitutional Amendment solution and has pledged to make it a litmus test for SCOTUS nominations. So what policy difference are you even talking about there? Further, both of them are just pandering. It's not a big deal.

I think it's a big deal.

And the 2001 Patriot Act isn't an issue in 2016.

Well, then how about her voting to renew the bill? Exactly how much can you want to bottleneck the criteria? Because disqualifying clear acts by a Congressman which allude to her policy approach seems pretty relevant.

And this matters how, exactly? Do you think Clinton is going to push for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn it?

Sure, that's how it's relevant. It's not that it speaks to her political inconsistency or proclivity for choosing the path of least resistance.

So we have "undecided" vs. "opposes" on an unsettled deal that isn't very significant anyway. Again, this is primary campaign bullshit (exaggerating tiny differences to make a contrast). I don't blame Sanders and Clinton for talking about that, but that's just marketing.

We have transparency versus murkiness. That's the main element at play.

This is a real difference, I guess, but there's still a smaller gap between Clinton and Sanders then between either of them and their general election opponent (whoever it is).

Well, yeah. I would argue that there is likely more space between Sanders and Clinton than between Clinton the the Republican nominee.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

This is what I responded to:

"How about taking the office of POTUS more seriously than suggesting rotating non-whites and woman out of some ridiculous sense of fairness."

The clear implication there is that that's what been happening, right? Because we've had a single non-white president.

Again, another egregious attempt to take my comments out of context.
That comment was in reply to another post, which you have deliberately ignored to fit your libelous agenda. Not only that, but you continue to omit my follow us sentence:

I'm more comfortable with the best candidate for America holding that office regardless of race, gender, or creed.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Am I misremembering or did you used to at least try to make real posts once in a while? You seem like a 12-year-old who views politics as a sport.

You're the one playing political games with the word "differences". People who play games are entitled to nothing more from the serious participants than laughter and ridicule.

This shtick you have going where you are the only person on the planet who views Hillary objectively, everyone else having somehow been "duped" by superficialities or the propaganda of a "conniving" mainstream media, was already old a couple months ago.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

WSJ Attemp to Take Down Bernie Sanders Backfired
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/32863-the-wall-street-journal-s-attempt-to-take-down-bernie-sanders-backfired

It was provocatively titled "Price Tag of Bernie Sanders's Proposals: $18 Trillion."

The article starts off by dismissing Sanders's campaign as a long-shot - and then goes on to call his proposals "the largest peacetime expansion of government in modern American history."

"In all" Meckler writes, "he backs at least $18 trillion in new spending over a decade... a sum that alarms conservatives and gives even many Democrats pause."

That estimate may give conservatives and corporate democrats pause, but the whole article should give any reader who can do simple arithmetic pause.

One red flag is that the click-bait headline makes it seem like the piece is talking about a one- or maybe two-term estimate of what Bernie's budgets might look like.

Or even more extreme - that just getting his proposals off the ground would take $18 trillion.

But the reality is that we're only looking at $1.8 trillion a year under Bernie's sweeping proposals.

But that's just a little editorial sleight of hand to drive traffic to their site right?

Well, not quite.

You see, the Wall Street Journal piece cited research by Gerald Friedman - a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

And there was just one small problem with their interpretation of his research. They blatantly omitted his conclusion.

But in the age of the information, major newspapers are rightfully under more scrutiny than ever.

Professor Friedman saw the Wall Street Journal's piece and responded in the Huffington Post with "An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal on Its Bernie Sanders Hit Piece."

He writes that the Journal wasn't completely wrong: the program would involve spending 15 trillion dollars over a decade. But they left out the key detail: that it would actually save the country a total $5 trillion over those 10 years.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Umm, okay. Remove the "just still" and the previous sentence.

On a scale of 1-10, Hillary is 23% more conservative as per your source.

That's not how that works. And I grabbed the first source from Google to make a point that I think is obvious. Look at their voting records. Clinton and Sanders voted together 93% of the time. However you approach the issue, the conclusion will be the same.

And what I meant was that you but-stilled away the whole point.

Well, then how about her voting to renew the bill? Exactly how much can you want to bottleneck the criteria? Because disqualifying clear acts by a Congressman which allude to her policy approach seems pretty relevant.

What I want to know is what decisions would they make differently in office. Their platforms are very similar. They oppose and support the same things, mostly. They'd have the same opposition and the same support. Probably very similar cabinets. I think this is a crazy argument to be having. I understand that the primary campaign is all about drawing distinctions, and that's fine. But from a bigger-picture, non-political perspective, they are very similar in terms of policy.

Sure, that's how it's relevant. It's not that it speaks to her political inconsistency or proclivity for choosing the path of least resistance.

Or her ability to learn and change. But again, that's a personal thing. I said from the start that someone might prefer one image or personality to another but that they're very similar on policy. Same goes for your next point. If you like Sanders, great. I'm just saying that there isn't much difference. It's really similar to the whole Ron Paul thing.

Well, yeah. I would argue that there is likely more space between Sanders and Clinton than between Clinton the the Republican nominee.

Likely? Come on. On an ideological scale, it's like a 7.5 compared to 8.0 in the primary and the winner compared to a 1.0 in the general.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Hillary Clinton Super-Pac Attack on Sanders Backfires
http://twitchy.com/2015/09/17/oops-david-brock-and-the-huffpo-accidentally-helped-bernie-sanders-raise-1-2-million-in-2-days/

Bernie Sanders raised 1.2M in 2 Days after this Super-Pac attack.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're the one playing political games with the word "differences". People who play games are entitled to nothing more from the serious participants than laughter and ridicule.

I'm playing no games. You're just not smart enough to understand the point (no offense). You're so caught up in the "game" aspect (of supporting your "team") that you can't step back and see the reality.

This shtick you have going where you are the only person on the planet who views Hillary objectively, everyone else having somehow been "duped" by superficialities or the propaganda of a "conniving" mainstream media, was already old a couple months ago.

Um, Clinton is leading the race by a big margin. Like a 7-1 favorite in the primary. And most of her voters would vote for Sanders in the general (and vice versa). I think *you're* being duped, but the media isn't generally as influential as you think.

 

[theBLADE1]

Sanders 2016!!!!!! Also Bernie is on Colbert tonight.... just saying.

 

[BVG]

I take it you are voting for Clinton then, Savage?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Sanders 2016!!!!!! Also Bernie is on Colbert tonight.... just saying.

Cannot wait!

 

[Jack V Savage]

I take it you are voting for Clinton then, Savage?

Not in the primary, but I expect to vote for her in the general.

 

[theBLADE1]

Not in the primary, but I expect to vote for her in the general.

So if Bernie is in the general do you vote for him?

 

[Diamond Jim]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ntial-race-four-eight-and-12-years-ago-today/

Interesting look at who was leading in the polls on Aug 31st during past election cycles.

2004 Lieberman +10
2008 Hillary +16, Giuliani +11.7
2012 Perry +7.2