Trump says Bernie should drop out and form an independent party. He's right!

Wordslinger wrote:That's okay by me because such events would bring on the real revolution we progressives crave!

boards of FL wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:That's okay by me because such events would bring on the real revolution we progressives crave!

This is extremely dangerous.

Many voted like you in the 2000 election (Nader), and those type of voters are responsible for the 4,000+ Americans who died in Iraq, the 32,223 Americans who were wounded in Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq, and all of the fallout that occurred afterwards.  All of the above is on those Nader voters.

But, hey, at least they didn't have to vote for Gore!  What a great trade off that was!  Our perennial surplus turned into the worst budget deficit in US history.   We ended up in the worst economy since the great depression.  We took our focus off of terrorism and redirected it towards a massive missile defense shield for the MIC which may very well have allowed 9/11.  Investment into stem cell research was set back years.

But, hey, at least they didn't have to vote for Gore!


In other news, have you heard about the latest fad in weight-loss?  You simply over-consume fatty foods dipped in butter until you have a life-threatening heart attack.  Nothing wakes you up to the importance of a healthy lifestyle like a heart attack.  Am I right?

Wordslinger wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:That's okay by me because such events would bring on the real revolution we progressives crave!

This is extremely dangerous.

Many voted like you in the 2000 election (Nader), and those type of voters are responsible for the 4,000+ Americans who died in Iraq, the 32,223 Americans who were wounded in Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq, and all of the fallout that occurred afterwards.  All of the above is on those Nader voters.

But, hey, at least they didn't have to vote for Gore!  What a great trade off that was!  Our perennial surplus turned into the worst budget deficit in US history.   We ended up in the worst economy since the great depression.  We took our focus off of terrorism and redirected it towards a massive missile defense shield for the MIC which may very well have allowed 9/11.  Investment into stem cell research was set back years.

But, hey, at least they didn't have to vote for Gore!


In other news, have you heard about the latest fad in weight-loss?  You simply over-consume fatty foods dipped in butter until you have a life-threatening heart attack.  Nothing wakes you up to the importance of a healthy lifestyle like a heart attack.  Am I right?

All your points are rational.  But I'm not going to compromise and vote for a war-hawk puppet of Wall Street and the 1%.  And I'm not alone.

Hillary better mend her ways and fast, or it's Trump time.  

Wordslinger wrote:But I'm not going to compromise and vote for a war-hawk puppet of Wall Street and the 1%.

Salinsky wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:But I'm not going to compromise and vote for a war-hawk puppet of Wall Street and the 1%.

This is not reality.

Your characterizations of Hillary Clinton are misinformed by decades of constant, withering public dissection and crude demagoguery by the rightwing noise machines.

It is pathetic that Sanders supporters have adopted this loathsome playbook.

In reality, Hillary is seeking to consolidate and advance the gains made by President Obama.

She will govern slightly to the left of his Presidency when it comes to economic policy.

Her weakness has been her foreign policy decisions, but she claims to have learned from her mistakes, and I believe she will be cautious and judicious going forward.

She is strong on civil rights, equality for all, infrastructure, criminal justice reform, gun violence prevention, immigration, LGBT issues, voting rights, health care, climate change and a host of other issues.

Compare and contrast with the vile rhetoric spewing from the right.

You would enable that by supporting a third party run by Sanders.

Why are ideological purists always so eager to burn the mission down?

Salinsky wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:But I'm not going to compromise and vote for a war-hawk puppet of Wall Street and the 1%.

This is not reality.

Your characterizations of Hillary Clinton are misinformed by decades of constant, withering public dissection and crude demagoguery by the rightwing noise machines.

It is pathetic that Sanders supporters have adopted this loathsome playbook.

In reality, Hillary is seeking to consolidate and advance the gains made by President Obama.

She will govern slightly to the left of his Presidency when it comes to economic policy.

Her weakness has been her foreign policy decisions, but she claims to have learned from her mistakes, and I believe she will be cautious and judicious going forward.

She is strong on civil rights, equality for all, infrastructure, criminal justice reform, gun violence prevention, immigration, LGBT issues, voting rights, health care, climate change and a host of other issues.

Compare and contrast with the vile rhetoric spewing from the right.

You would enable that by supporting a third party run by Sanders.

Why are ideological purists always so eager to burn the mission down?

knothead wrote:WS, I appreciate your enthusiasm for a movement . . . . . I must say one thing to you . . . . remember the SCOTUS appointments . . . . . the likelihood of decades long impact on ideology are far greater than placing your chips on a  movement . . .  

Wordslinger wrote:

Does she accept campaign donations from lobbiests representing Wall Street and big banks?  Did she accept big speaking fees from financial institutions who rely upon the current economic structure?

Her foreign policy decisions as Secretary of State and as a Senator weren't faulty, they were terrible.  Re: Gaddafi: "We came, We saw, he died!"

She's into regime change and is definitely a hawk.

She thinks health insurance companies are a good idea.

That's not progressive rhetoric, those are facts.

If we're going to continue going down in flames, might as well be with Trump!

I'm all for Sanders, and I detest today's Washington establishment -- the same establishment your candidate adores.

And finally, I trust her every bit as much as I trust Trump.

Salinsky wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

Does she accept campaign donations from lobbiests representing Wall Street and big banks?  Did she accept big speaking fees from financial institutions who rely upon the current economic structure?

Her foreign policy decisions as Secretary of State and as a Senator weren't faulty, they were terrible.  Re: Gaddafi: "We came, We saw, he died!"

She's into regime change and is definitely a hawk.

She thinks health insurance companies are a good idea.

That's not progressive rhetoric, those are facts.

If we're going to continue going down in flames, might as well be with Trump!

I'm all for Sanders, and I detest today's Washington establishment -- the same establishment your candidate adores.

And finally, I trust her every bit as much as I trust Trump.

That's nice.

Meanwhile, your purity candidate is cutting staffers by the hundreds and has been told to cool his jets or he'll have no chance at a speaking gig in Philly.

Good luck with the Trump campaign.

knothead wrote:My wife has said under no circumstances will she for vote for HRC and I say OK . . . . when I challenge her about the consequences of a Trump presidency she becomes befuddled although she is very well informed . . . . she has allowed her personal feelings to interfere with rational thought . . . . I contributed to Bernie's campaign but it is mathematically impossible to succeed now . . . . . time to unify and keep the right wingers out of the Oval office.

Wordslinger wrote:
Update -- Bernie is going to press for his major policy changes to become part of the democratic platform at the convention.  I'll wait and see what evolves.  Could be I'll vote for Hillary -- but only if I believe that means single payer healthcare is a go, free university education, the end of Citizens United, and real campaign finance reform.  What do you think the chances are the above programs would become a reality with your Wall Street darling?

othershoe1030 wrote:I think an energized Democratic Party with Hillary in the oval office could be a very powerful set up! [/color]

Wordslinger wrote:

Salinsky wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

Does she accept campaign donations from lobbiests representing Wall Street and big banks?  Did she accept big speaking fees from financial institutions who rely upon the current economic structure?

Her foreign policy decisions as Secretary of State and as a Senator weren't faulty, they were terrible.  Re: Gaddafi: "We came, We saw, he died!"

She's into regime change and is definitely a hawk.

She thinks health insurance companies are a good idea.

That's not progressive rhetoric, those are facts.

If we're going to continue going down in flames, might as well be with Trump!

I'm all for Sanders, and I detest today's Washington establishment -- the same establishment your candidate adores.

And finally, I trust her every bit as much as I trust Trump.

That's nice.

Meanwhile, your purity candidate is cutting staffers by the hundreds and has been told to cool his jets or he'll have no chance at a speaking gig in Philly.

Good luck with the Trump campaign.

Update -- Bernie is going to press for his major policy changes to become part of the democratic platform at the convention.  I'll wait and see what evolves.  Could be I'll vote for Hillary -- but only if I believe that means single payer healthcare is a go, free university education, the end of Citizens United, and real campaign finance reform.  What do you think the chances are the above programs would become a reality with your Wall Street darling?

Salinsky wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:But I'm not going to compromise and vote for a war-hawk puppet of Wall Street and the 1%.

This is not reality.

Your characterizations of Hillary Clinton are misinformed by decades of constant, withering public dissection and crude demagoguery by the rightwing noise machines.

It is pathetic that Sanders supporters have adopted this loathsome playbook.

In reality, Hillary is seeking to consolidate and advance the gains made by President Obama.

She will govern slightly to the left of his Presidency when it comes to economic policy.

Her weakness has been her foreign policy decisions, but she claims to have learned from her mistakes, and I believe she will be cautious and judicious going forward.

She is strong on civil rights, equality for all, infrastructure, criminal justice reform, gun violence prevention, immigration, LGBT issues, voting rights, health care, climate change and a host of other issues.

Compare and contrast with the vile rhetoric spewing from the right.

You would enable that by supporting a third party run by Sanders.

Why are ideological purists always so eager to burn the mission down?

Salinsky wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:I think an energized Democratic Party with Hillary in the oval office could be a very powerful set up! [/color]

Now, you're cooking with gas.