Regarding Bernie: I felt he was waiting until after the FBI ruling on Clinton and her emails before he formally bowed out as had she been indicted he -I believe- would have been the nominee.
However, I did note in his endorsement delivery he spent a good deal of time saying how well his campaign did, with Hillary standing there trying to look OK with it.
Still a disappointment to me, however not a surprise. Was also disappointed with Elizabeth Warren's endorsement. Is it Trump fear, or just the usual game of politics, or maybe both.
In the end I think we all know that going into a both one day and voting for someone is not going to make much of a, if any, difference. It will have to come from us and I'm hoping that Bernie inspired enough of the young people in this country to keep pressing forward.
Well if he joined the Green party lady and get above 5% ( I think ) then the three parties would get debate tv time, would be interesting indeed, then again Hillary is so yukky to the general public at present, she may still go down.
Regarding Bernie: I felt he was waiting until after the FBI ruling on Clinton and her emails before he formally bowed out as had she been indicted he -I believe- would have been the nominee.
I believe he didn't officially bow out. He acknowledged that she won the popular vote and offered his endorsement, but he didn't officially bow out, which protects his delegates. If he officially bowed out, he forfeits his delegates to her. It worked for FDR - although he had the popular vote. It's a smart tactical move, but probably an unnecessary one.
I believe he didn't officially bow out. He acknowledged that she won the popular vote and offered his endorsement, but he didn't officially bow out, which protects his delegates. If he officially bowed out, he forfeits his delegates to her. It worked for FDR - although he had the popular vote. It's a smart tactical move, but probably an unnecessary one.
Good point, thanks for bringing it to our attention.
I don't know why, but I still think Hillary is going down . . . maybe it's just wishful thinking.
I realize putting someone different (Bernie) in office probably can't change the system, BUT. . . if Hillary goes down because everything about her is made public, this holds the possibility of waking up more folks, and then if an honest person gets to be President who reveals to us case by case what is going on, ALONG with what's about to happen in the economy . . we might have a chance of real change.
Last edited by Aragorn, 17th July 2016 at 17:58.
Reason: corrected your text formatting tags ;)
Trump will wait until she's officially made the nominee, and then he's going to unload the cannons on her. There is so much gold on YouTube already showing how despicable the woman is, all he'd have to do is put those clips straight on TV. Others are doing his work for him.
Well if he joined the Green party lady and get above 5% ( I think ) then the three parties would get debate tv time, would be interesting indeed, then again Hillary is so yukky to the general public at present, she may still go down.
15% and in select polls. Though I understand why someone would like the Green party, the Libertarian Party is the only third party on all 50 state ballots. Libertarians are not crazy about Gary Johnson because they consider him too far left. (I have a hard time with the left-right thing), so you may agree with him more than you think. Probably doesn't matter unless you get a phone call from a school or you fill an online poll that is not just thrown out by the media, but getting someone other than Trump/Clinton on stage would be good for the US and the world and it would expose all those that just picked their team years ago and can't be reasoned with.
If Gary Johnson was to win, Libertarians believe the President has too much power, so you would not have to worry about a mass increase of the pseudo-Fascist Government and Gary Johnson loved to Veto a bill that was not Constitutional. Who knows, he might have a live shot vetoing the bill while toking a J. My understanding is the only real hope would be if a third party gets a certain percentage then that party gets some "free" money for the next election or something like that. The rules have changed since last time I cared.
Last edited by aKnightThatSaysNi, 20th July 2016 at 14:03.
Reason: bring me a shrubbery!
I'm with you, aKnightThatSaysNi. The right/left thing has become ridiculous. I've been talking for a while about fixing the FEC and the rules regarding other parties. I speak to the air...
Got a feeling, A wee Jill availanche, Like, where they gonna go, the Bern supporters that is.
If a lot of Clinton's voters went to support a 3rd party it would just give Trump the presidency. That's what happens every time a strong 3rd party candidate enters the race, and it's why the 2 party system is so hard to get rid of. Ross Perot sucked a lot of votes away from the Republicans back in the 90's in the same way. Of course even countries with lots of political parties, like Israel, are still totally manipulated. So the problem runs a lot deeper than how many parties you put on the ticket I think.
If a lot of Clinton's voters went to support a 3rd party it would just give Trump the presidency. That's what happens every time a strong 3rd party candidate enters the race, and it's why the 2 party system is so hard to get rid of. Ross Perot sucked a lot of votes away from the Republicans back in the 90's in the same way. Of course even countries with lots of political parties, like Israel, are still totally manipulated. So the problem runs a lot deeper than how many parties you put on the ticket I think.
I saw something Jill supposedly said in an article referring to global warming. I am anti-pollution to the extreme but, CO2 is not on my list. Suspicious Observers have busted that meme years ago. So have lots of currently unemployed and tenure revoked professors and scientists. Climate change is an ongoing Earth phenomenon and geologic history has ample proof of it. All CO2 boogie-man science is for the sole reason of pushing a carbon tax that will be placed on the shoulders of populations. Clean air is particulate free air. Coal plants produce lots of bad particulate matter and sulfur gases that can be scrubbed if coal must be used. I question the need for coal on any large scale basis. There are extant technologies, that properly employed, can keep coal usage at a minimum. And, there are the technologies that people get killed over as well. Jill might have a better vision in some ways but, if she is still shilling for the global warming/CO2 crowd she is not with the program either.
We need a new system but, it starts with an aware and invested population. There is serious work to be done on every level and the mirror is stop number one. I wonder if there is a pokeman to claim there.
"To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -- Voltaire
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."-- Eleanor Roosevelt
"Misery loves company. Wisdom has to look for it." -- Anonymous
Here is a video that catches Bernie's wife, Jane, whispering the following to him, "They don't know your name is being put in nomination". Or so, those who can make out what she is saying state. Here is the 6-7 second clip.
I'm not seeing the words match with her mouth and the body language doesn't fit either. I wonder what the several minutes surrounding this clip look like.
Reply With Quote
Originally posted by BabaRa
Bookmarks