Hillary is presumptive democratic nominee (2 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
I didn't have to.

Hiliar has no core beliefs. If there's a sentiment to undo marriage, she'd get behind it if it polls well. Evolve? :lol:
 
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07...super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/

Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media

This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization — incredibly — conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that its nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward, and undemocratic sputter.
 
It is curious why the AP would make this announcement the day before the final primaries.

Why not let the people vote?
 
Denny Crane said:
It is curious why the AP would make this announcement the day before the final primaries.

Why not let the people vote?
Click to expand...

Because the whole theme to me has been from day 1.
Fall in line.
Vote for Hillary.
Fall in line.
Not a damn chance.
 
http://freebeacon.com/politics/here...estions-the-media-just-asked-hillary-clinton/

Hillary Clinton finally succumbed to pressure and gave the press a chance to ask her questions on the campaign trail, leaving her vulnerable to questions on the State Department’s report on how she broke rules with her private email server or maybe a question about how her brother-in-law was arrested for a DUI just thirty minutes away from where she held her campaign event.

The press, however, didn’t ask about either of those things. One third of the questions were focused on whether Clinton truly grasped the fact that she is poised to make history as the first woman to win a major party’s nomination.

Here are the questions that Clinton was forced to respond to during her press conference:

Question #1: “No matter what happens tomorrow, the convention in Philadelphia will be contested, Bernie Sanders said. Is there anything to do to change that at this point?”

Question #2: “Secretary Clinton, is it setting in that you might be making some serious history here tomorrow?”

Question #3: “Irrespective to this primary, do you support getting rid of superdelegates?” (Note: Clinton said that “superdelegates have always followed the will of the voters” and that she expects them “to do so this time,” which is what Bernie Sanders has been arguing for the whole time.)

Question #4: “Do you think [Bernie Sanders] should concede as you did in 2008?”

Question #5: “Secretary, last night when you took stage in Sacramento, there was a woman standing next to me who was absolutely sobbing. She said, ‘you know, it’s time, it’s past time’.

You see the women, you see people here. And people just come up to you and they get tears in their eyes. Do you feel the weight of what this means for people?”

Question #6: “Do you expect the president’s endorsement as soon as this week?”

(gimme a break. First chance the press gets to ask Hiliar questions THIS YEAR, and these are the best they can do?)
 
SlyPokerDog said:
I'll admit it, I was originally for civil unions. Now I'm fine with anyone getting married who wants to get married.
Click to expand...

I'm so much more advanced than you. I think even people who don't want to get married must get married. Marriage for all!

barfo
 
Mediocre Man said:
There has probably been a lot of woman in politics that have been on top at a major party. Hillary is not the first, nor will she be the last
Click to expand...
Hillary is the first woman in the USA to be at the top of a major party ticket for President. But you already knew that I assume.
 
Good. For a second i thought what if she agreed to be bernies vp? Then republicans would have no chance to fix this country. Now the victory is inevitable.
 
crandc said:
I did not vote for Barack Obama in 2008 because he opposed marriage equality.

But consider, in 2004 the Republicans put anti-equality measures on as many state ballots as they could to turn out right wing voters and every anti-equality measure passed.

In 1996 68% of the population opposed marriage equality.
In 2004 55% opposed. Most gay people thought it was something we'd not see in our lifetimes.
By 2012 equality had majority support and the majority has grown as people realize nothing has happened, except that gay people got married.

So Sanders, Clinton, Obama evolved along with the entire country.
How many of you changed your views in the past decade? Be honest.
Click to expand...
My views changed. I remember wanting obama before his first term because i was still a product of liberal public school. It was later that year i taught myself to think critically by reading and disecting what i read. I had never read for pleashre before. I read 1984 and atlas shrugged and the bible and my views changed to a conservative leaning libertarian.

Do i hate gays or gay marriage because of that? No. I realized i didnt think government had any place governing social issues. I felt if we simply followed the constitution originally we would realize that equality was already there it just wasnt being applied. We need less legislature, not more. But that doesnt satisfy liberals, because they need handouts, wheter it be monitarily or just a social "win"
 
crandc said:
How many of you changed your views in the past decade? Be honest.
Click to expand...

Nope, my view is still the same. Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman. Just as it say in Matthew, and all other major religions.
The Constitution does not give the Federal Government a stand on marriage for good reason, it shouldn't be in the business of marriage.
I think the SC misstepped getting into the business of defining word marriage. Rather silly actually, there are definitions of the word already, several from 5000 to 2000 years old. Now the SC comes with another, entirely different? Not a prophet among them either.
 
Last edited:
MarAzul said:
Nope, my view is still the same. Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman. Just as it say in Matthew, and all other major religions.
The Constitution does not give the Federal Government a stand on marriage for good reason, it shouldn't be in the business of marriage.
I think the SC misstepped getting into the business of defining word marriage.
Click to expand...
I agree. I dont thin the state should issue a marriage license at all. That would solve the whole debate. Marriage is a religious tradition and the state has no business granting them or telling religious institutions they have to grant them.
 
rasheedfan2005 said:
I agree. I dont thin the state should issue a marriage license at all. That would solve the whole debate. Marriage is a religious tradition and the state has no business granting them or telling religious institutions they have to grant them.
Click to expand...

So if you don't believe in god you can't get married? Everlasting life in heaven isn't enough? You now want marriage all to yourself?
 
crandc said:
Calm down. The media called it for her and she said people still need to vote. She didn't lie, no matter how much you want to say so.
California could go either way - Clinton supporters could stay home thinking it's in the bag, Sanders supporters could stay home thinking what's the use. We'll see.

New Jersey, not as big as California, but still pretty big, is looking solidly Clinton.

I respect that Sanders wants to stay in the race until it's over. People have the right to vote for him if they chose. My quibble is with those who say that even when the race is over he should not respect the vote. Or those who say they'll vote Trump out of spite. Talk about privilege!
Click to expand...

First of all I don't need to calm down. I'm already calm. 2ND there is not one Bernie supporter who will vote for Trump. If you believe that... Well you are a Clinton supporter... They seem pretty ok living in the dark about her shit. Clinton supporters claim to be liberal but look the other way when we talk about all the funny money she takes. And she is a damn liar. She did announce that she won. She did it on CNN:

"I will be the nominee for my party, Chris. That’s already done. There’s no way I won’t be.”

Basically telling cali voters their votes don't matter. So when you say she said:

"she said people still need to vote"

Yeah I'm gonna need a link because I never heard that ever. Bottom line: I'm not voting for her. Even if she taps that ex Republican Elizabeth Warren. I'm not voting for ANYONE who wants to:

Means test SS, be against single payer, prop up this bullshit campaign financing, EXPANDS FRACKING..... 《=== really not sure how ANY Liberal can reconcile this one... And that's just off the top. I haven't even mentioned our future war with Iran or the no fly zone she wants to create in Syria to get rid of Assad WHO HAS RUSSIAN SUPPORT...

:mrt: the fool who votes for the chickenhawk warmonger...

If Trump wins.... Fuck it... I'm voting FOR a candidate not against one.

Jill Stein 2016.
 
Not to mention how she called us bernie supporters low info voters. In a response to how bernie is killing her with young white women, she said those ladies are only voting for him because the young men are.

That's a sexist comment if I've ever heard one.

We are NOT low info voters Hill...

The reason why we aren't supporting her is because we HAVE info.
 
Denny Crane said:
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07...super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/

Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media

This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization — incredibly — conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that its nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward, and undemocratic sputter.
Click to expand...

I'm fucking DONE with the DNC.
 
dviss1 said:
Not to mention how she called us bernie supporters low info voters. In a response to how bernie is killing her with young white women, she said those ladies are only voting for him because the young men are.

That's a sexist comment if I've ever heard one.

We are NOT low info voters Hill...

The reason why we aren't supporting her is because we HAVE info.
Click to expand...

Here's some more info: It was Gloria Steinem that said that, about where the boys are, not Hillary.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Here's some more info: It was Gloria Steinem that said that, about where the boys are, not Hillary.

barfo
Click to expand...

I must be mistaken. She didn't refute it tho..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cryptkeeper
If the GOP looses in 2016...
2 3
Replies
79
Views
4K
BLAZER PROPHET
B
SlyPokerDog
Bernie Sanders fans plan 'worlds largest fart-in' at DNC in protest of Hillary Clinton
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
dviss1
dviss1
SlyPokerDog
Dick Cheney to Hillary Clinton: Run!
Replies
3
Views
572
MARIS61
MARIS61
truebluefan
Elizabeth Warren Endorses Hillary Clinton on Rachel Maddow Show
Replies
0
Views
213
truebluefan
truebluefan
truebluefan
Clinton Calls Out Trump's 'Lies' After Orlando Attack
Replies
0
Views
172
truebluefan
truebluefan

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top