Now Trump says Comey should have never "exonerated" Clinton. The circle is complete, Trump went from saying she was guilty to firing Comey because of how he handled the Clinton investigation, to saying Comey didn't have the support of the FBI, to saying he wanted to fire Comey all along, to saying he's firing Comey because of the Russia investigation, to saying she was guilty and Comey shouldn't have found her innocent.
President Donald Trump has offered additional insight into his thinking about former FBI Director James Comey. Trump said in excerpts of an NBC News interview released Friday that Comey "should have never exonerated" Hillary Clinton.
Back on topic, this is about as good a summary of the main threat that Comey's firing represents as you can do in four minutes. Concise, clear, to the point. And I'm not a big Bernie guy by any means.
People say that Trump winning the election showed how broken the American political system is, I disagree. The fact that Bernie Sanders isnt the president shows how broken it is. He should have beat Hilary for the democratic nomination, he would have then beat Trump easily. Democrats nominated Clinton over sanders because of her name, then Americans voted for trump over Clinton because of her name. This guy is leading the charge to stop trump at every turn. He would have or at least tried to address so many issues that have plagued that country for decades. This is what an elected leader is supposed to look like, someone who looks out for the best interest of his constituents and won't back down when something needs to be faught.
The Following User Says Thank You to iggy_oi For This Useful Post:
People say that Trump winning the election showed how broken the American political system is, I disagree. The fact that Bernie Sanders isnt the president shows how broken it is. He should have beat Hilary for the democratic nomination, he would have then beat Trump easily. Democrats nominated Clinton over sanders because of her name, then Americans voted for trump over Clinton because of her name. This guy is leading the charge to stop trump at every turn. He would have or at least tried to address so many issues that have plagued that country for decades. This is what an elected leader is supposed to look like, someone who looks out for the best interest of his constituents and won't back down when something needs to be faught.
Just heard a good line on CNN.
"Trump demands loyalty from his underlings, but it's not a 2 way street" /paraphrasing.
Which begs the question, how much pride and self esteem can you have to be a Trump sycophant?
People say that Trump winning the election showed how broken the American political system is, I disagree. The fact that Bernie Sanders isnt the president shows how broken it is. He should have beat Hilary for the democratic nomination, he would have then beat Trump easily. Democrats nominated Clinton over sanders because of her name, then Americans voted for trump over Clinton because of her name. This guy is leading the charge to stop trump at every turn. He would have or at least tried to address so many issues that have plagued that country for decades. This is what an elected leader is supposed to look like, someone who looks out for the best interest of his constituents and won't back down when something needs to be faught.
Sanders got way less votes than Clinton everywhere. He had less support from Clintonwith Independents and Democrats. He had less overall support than Trump
Literally nothing about your post is true
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
The Dems and the GOP are private organizations and the nomination process is open to the 'establishment ' of the private organization influencing the process.
This ain't Trump level paranoia...this is how it gets done.
The Dems anointed Hillary...they put forth a qualified establishment candidate in a anti-establishment election cycle. She had an (undeserved) narrative attached. Bernie had neither of those things. But that is ancient history.
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Fozzie_DeBear For This Useful Post:
Sanders got way less votes than Clinton everywhere. He had less support from Clintonwith Independents and Democrats. He had less overall support than Trump
Literally nothing about your post is true
I'm not insinuating shenanigans or anything like that. Just my opinion that he was the better choice and would have likely beat trump when it got down to the final 2 candidates. In my opinion Clinton just had him outgunned with her campaign funding and name selling power, not because she was the better choice. Basically the same way trump got the nomination over any other republican candidate.
Last edited by iggy_oi; 05-13-2017 at 12:53 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to iggy_oi For This Useful Post:
Clinton won the nomination regardless of feet on the scale. I'm not sure why this needs to be rehashed
There's no re-hashing of anything. Clinton had the nomination won before the contest began. That is the point. The Democrats are almost as corrupt as the Republicans when it comes to running their party. Let's not make it seem like the process was fair, equitable, and run on the up-and-up. In a battle of ideas Sanders mopped the floor with Clinton. In a battle for the hearts and minds of people, Sanders again kicked Clinton's ass. What made Clinton the candidate of choice was a backroom deal cut in 2008. Clinton could have shot a guy in the middle of 5th Avenue, and it wouldn't have made a difference to the DNC. The Clinton coronation took place before the first primary. That's just bad politics and even worse governance. And yes, it still matters because we have a WWE character acting as President.
The is the best thing I've ever heard from Newt Gingrich
Quote:
The president, said Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, “resembles a quarterback who doesn’t call a huddle and gets ahead of his offensive line so nobody can block him and defend him because nobody knows what the play is.”
There's no re-hashing of anything. Clinton had the nomination won before the contest began. That is the point. The Democrats are almost as corrupt as the Republicans when it comes to running their party. Let's not make it seem like the process was fair, equitable, and run on the up-and-up. In a battle of ideas Sanders mopped the floor with Clinton. In a battle for the hearts and minds of people, Sanders again kicked Clinton's ass. What made Clinton the candidate of choice was a backroom deal cut in 2008. Clinton could have shot a guy in the middle of 5th Avenue, and it wouldn't have made a difference to the DNC. The Clinton coronation took place before the first primary. That's just bad politics and even worse governance. And yes, it still matters because we have a WWE character acting as President.
Also think that Bernie was a bit too far left to win the presidency, actually, there is no way he could have won, for that reason alone. The voters wanted to repeal and replace ACA, not have universal healthcare, amongst other things. Pretty sure the DNC knew that. Not saying hills wasn't a foregone conclusion since the beginning, just saying.
For one thing he would have had to spend all his time explaining what "democratic socialism" means and why it wasn't the same thing as communism.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Hillary won the nomination because the Democratic base is minorities and women, and she won them handily. The only thing that was even slightly rigged ironically were the caucuses, which Bernie dominated. Take Washington State, he won the caucus by a mile, but they do a non-binding open primary as well and she beat him there. So yeah, without caucuses Bernie likely would have lost even worse than he did. Open primaries are dumb because all they do is encourage the other side to sabotage the opposition's primary process. Imagine Trump having the nomination locked up, and he can tell his supporters to go into the remaining open primaries and just vote for the most chaotic result to screw the Dems. Not even Canada has an open process to choosing party leaders.
Also, he would not have won the general either. The fundamental equation doesn't change: the electoral college still determines the winner. I think at best he flips Michigan and Wisconsin back to the Dems, but that's still not enough to prevent Trump from winning. Ohio was a big loss for the Dems so he does nothing there, and likely he does nothing for Pennsylvania since Pennsyltucky is why Trump won the state and Bernie changes nothing there. He would have done much worse in Florida (the socialist thing doesn't play down there), and would have been a non-factor in North Carolina. So I can buy the argument he would have done "better", but he still would have lost. Remember Trump was promising a lot of what Bernie was (as we know, a lie), but with all the added racist stuff that won him Pennsylvania and Ohio.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Hillary won the nomination because the Democratic base is minorities and women, and she won them handily. The only thing that was even slightly rigged ironically were the caucuses, which Bernie dominated. Take Washington State, he won the caucus by a mile, but they do a non-binding open primary as well and she beat him there. So yeah, without caucuses Bernie likely would have lost even worse than he did. Open primaries are dumb because all they do is encourage the other side to sabotage the opposition's primary process. Imagine Trump having the nomination locked up, and he can tell his supporters to go into the remaining open primaries and just vote for the most chaotic result to screw the Dems. Not even Canada has an open process to choosing party leaders.
Hilary won the nomination because she was guaranteed the support of the super delegates long before the first primary was held. With this guarantee, there was no true open race, nor was there opportunity for the system to work as it is supposed to work - through a free exchange of ideas and people throwing their support behind the candidate that best represents their ideals. Sanders was never given the chance to try and build the momentum like Obama did to unseat Hillary for the 2008 nomination. The DNC was not going to allow that again. Period. I think there is a great deal of confusion about the differences between the Republican and Democratic primary processes and the importance of the super delegate on the Democratic side.
Quote:
Also, he would not have won the general either. The fundamental equation doesn't change: the electoral college still determines the winner. I think at best he flips Michigan and Wisconsin back to the Dems, but that's still not enough to prevent Trump from winning. Ohio was a big loss for the Dems so he does nothing there, and likely he does nothing for Pennsylvania since Pennsyltucky is why Trump won the state and Bernie changes nothing there. He would have done much worse in Florida (the socialist thing doesn't play down there), and would have been a non-factor in North Carolina. So I can buy the argument he would have done "better", but he still would have lost. Remember Trump was promising a lot of what Bernie was (as we know, a lie), but with all the added racist stuff that won him Pennsylvania and Ohio.
You have no way of declaratively saying this. Your logic is also grossly flawed. You have no idea the blow the Democratic enthusiasm factor took with the division of the party. The late Comey disclosure also hurt the enthusiasm factor and caused an unexpected swing in voters, especially in three key states. What you're also missing is that Clinton avoided the three swing states that decided the election, something Sanders would have been unlikely to do (those were his type of voters). Trump won three swing states by the narrowest of margins, and now he was some unbeatable juggernaut? Get a grip. The Trump victory was a fluke. Less than 78,000 votes across three states as the margin of victory. The enthusiasm factor itself is more than enough to erase margins.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
The supers would have flipped if Sanders had the popular vote.
Sanders lost by more than most candidates did even when super delegates were excluded. He just stayed in the race past Super Tuesday unlike previous candidates in his situation.
