Clinton’s attacks produce windfall of campaign cash for Sanders

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I remember thinking back to Hillary moving back to New York and all I kept thinking was, "why would new yorkers vote for this woman when she clearly knows next to nothing about your state? And she is likely just using your state to secure a position in the Senate as opposed to trying to bring New York's concerns to the Senate like a New York Senator is supposed to."

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
A big part of it is that the establishment Democrats are still using the old methods of politics. They don't seem to fully embrace the fact that voters today have access to more information than at any point n history. Telling one group one thing while saying another thing to another group simply doesn't work anymore.

I'm pointing that out because Chelsea Clinton recently jumped in and had some incendiary things to say about Bernie's health care proposals. These things turned out to be false. This is a catastrophic blunder for Hillary because she had her famous "Shame on you" rant against then-Senator Obama in 2008 specifically to call out Democrats who attack other Democrats on universal health care!

It's this type of crap that reminds many of us that we simply can't afford to have her as the candidate. Like I've said plenty of times on ATS, the left wing knows her well. She & Bill have been in power since at least the 1970s when Bill was the Governor of Arkansas. But many of us simply reject her and the "lesser of 2 evils" crap she personifies. But the Democratic powerbrokers are her allies, which makes it an uphill battle for anyone opposing her/them.

Damn!!!! I hadn't seen that video in years and to tell the truth, I had forgotten about it.

I'd say she looks & sounds like one angry white woman and seeing how she spelled out exactly why it's wrong to attack each other over universal healthcare, it's fair to say that she knows exactly what she's doing with her recent attacks on Bernie.

How pathetic is that?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
And how awesome would it be if Hillary pulls a repeat of 2008? She's all but guaranteed to win the election, then a nobody comes out of left field and snakes the victory from her.

I would laugh until I broke all my ribs.

Oh, I think Hillary and Bernie will have the last laugh. I think all the politicians will have a nice laugh at our expense.

The fact is, Hillary handed Obama the win, in 2008, when she rolled right on over while the DNC gave him 600,000 votes cast for her. Hillary's a plant. I am sure she made a lot of money under Obama's spending plan. She'll make so much more under Bernie.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

My honest belief is she's simply used to being in power & will do whatever it takes to stay in powerful positions. After Obama won the nomination in 2008, there was a lot of talk that she could be his VP. But the far left like myself were adamantly against it because we believed she would've had him assassinated. Supposedly, he promised her the Secretary of State position in order to stop her & Bill from driving a wedge inside of the party.

a reply to: Flatfish

Exactly. That's exactly why her attacks only create more support for Bernie. She's been around so long that there's probably a similar soundbite about every other attack she does against him. Ironically, there's a picture of her & Bernie from 1993 where she signed it congratulating him on his work on health care. The only reason I'm not linking it is because I'm not sure if it's real (a lot of sites think it's real, but you know how social media can be).

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yea, I was pretty sure that she got the Sec of State position as a peace offering too.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yep. It was also her campaign that started the "It's 3AM in the morning" ads against him, not McCain and Palin. She's also the one who started the attacks about William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, as well as making the "Bobby Kennedy was assassinated" comment as one of the reasons she hadn't dropped out when she was losing the 2008 Democratic Party nomination.

Here's someone's article to show another angle on it.)

a reply to: enlightenedservant

For a while, one may have thought the Clintons lost their First Black President card or, perhaps, they simply misplaced it.

I think the truth is that when they found it was of no use, they threw it away.

This. This is what happened to it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

"I don't feel no ways tired."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yep. And I'll reiterate, I don't mind a regular person changing his/her mind on topics, even that topic (to an extent, grrr). But it's hard to take any "leader" serious when he/she only "stands" for something if it's beneficial or has strong public support. That's the difference between leading others and being led by others.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yea, changing your mind is healthy and shows a willingness to be open minded to newer ideas. However, no one changes their mind as often as Hillary does. She makes it obvious that she is changing here stances for reasons other than her personal feelings on the matters.

I think it would be unfortunate if she were elected President and snaked away the title of "first female President" from someone more honest.

a reply to: FamCore

The media was in Hillary's court since she entered the race. It was noticeable after the first debate. The focus group thought Bernie did the best during the debate, yet the media pushed Clinton.

a reply to: schuyler

Polls so far, show Bernie with higher numbers against every GOP candidate than that of Hillary. It's not really something we can be sure of though until after the Primaries.

Honestly though, there's no way any of those guys can go toe to toe with Bernie in debates and in knowing everything inside and out. Attacks won't stick anywhere except in delusional minds, there's too many people all over social media willing and able to debunk anything that's untrue or wrongly interpreted. Have you ever watched him on the Senate floor?

Winning the nomination, in my opinion, is the bigger of his biggest challenges. Hillary has enough unpledged delegates to win even if she loses the popular vote. Unpledged delegates are under no obligation to give them to the candidate their State votes for. Usually they do, but not always. I really can't think of a good reason why this allowed.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: WeRpeons
...

That picture is very misleading. I know of at least one Republican who was very strong against TPP, NAFTA, and the Patriot Act. But whatever ...

Sorry, I know my post is off topic. I just can't believe that people here would stoop to the misleading types of memes I see on Facebook.

a reply to: whatmakesyouright

it was for illustrative purposes, of course not every single Republican was for TPP/NAFTA/Patriot Act.

As it relates to this thread I was sharing it for the comparisons between Sanders in Clinton, which are accurate

originally posted by: whatmakesyouright

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: WeRpeons
...

That picture is very misleading. I know of at least one Republican who was very strong against TPP, NAFTA, and the Patriot Act. But whatever ...

Sorry, I know my post is off topic. I just can't believe that people here would stoop to the misleading types of memes I see on Facebook.

Which one was it? It may be worth taking a second look at that candidate. You are talking about one of the republican candidates in that picture right?

Actually, now that you mention it, I can't make out who is in the picture. It's too small. I'm only assuming that all the candidates from the Republican party are there. I'm talking about Rand Paul.

On the other hand, Trump has spoken out AGAINST the TPP, and his picture is there, I can easily make that one out. So yeah, the picture is false.