Gail Wynand posted:

Honestly I'm devastated. My wife and I used our mortgage to donate to Bernie tonight. We truly went all in. I don't know what to do now.

Zeno-25 posted:

Sanders isn't even really a Democrat, what do people expect from the DNC? He just has a weird cool-grandpa cult of personality thing going on and couldn't give a gently caress less about the Democratic down ticket.

berserker posted:

You say that, but are you actually looking at the policies they support and vote for? Because they are nothing alike if you really look. What you feel and how they act are just not the same thing here.

Condiv posted:

i figure he would be a good spark to getting the dems moving leftward again

berserker posted:

Honestly I have no idea what you are getting at here.

berserker posted:

It's very frustrating. I'm a big Bernie supporter myself, but all I ever see when it comes to criticisms of Clinton with regards to policies vs. Sanders is that "oh well she actually believes X" while for Bernie people will point to specifics with regards to bills he voted on. I just never see people pointing out all of the various bills that Hillary supported and voted on while she was a Senator, or saying "well actually Bernie feels this way..."

There is so much assumption going into the mindset of Hillary but not the other way around, and you know what they say about assuming.

Zeno-25 posted:

I don't disagree, I mean I did vote for him because who knows when the next time I'll be able to cast a vote for a socialist for POTUS will be, and my state was going for Bernie anyway. But tonight Bernie really needs to wrap it up, end things gracefully, and not feed into the delusions of his supporters.

lamentable dustman posted:

He can either give it to the DNC or move it to a PAC to support future senate runs or other candidates or just use a slush fund for no show jobs for friends and faimly.

Zeno-25 posted:

I disliked Hillary a lot more in 2008 than I do now, all things considered. Despite the polls, I don't think a Democratic president is as inevitable as it was back in 2008 with the way the economy was headed. The end of the Bush years were some heady times, you really had to be there.

Skyl3lazer posted:

(Real Post) A democratic ham sandwich would win this election against anyone the Republicans have put forward, but Hillary at this point is running pretty far below a Ham Sandwich's numbers so we'll see. I wouldn't be surprised to see her win with very narrow margins in the general, 'narrow' being a relative term here. Narrower than they would be with a good candidate?

berserker posted:

No I'm saying that this is the system right now and the people who want to succeed have to work within it. We can and should work to change the system but it is literally impossible to do that within this current election season, so the proper thing to do is to do what you can to make sure that Trump or Cruz do not win and then STICK WITH THE PROCESS (this is the key) between presidential elections in order to make the system better.

That is simply how it works if we want to actually make a difference, as of right now, versus just giving up and saying it's all broken.

berserker posted:

Are you talking about voters or candidates? Because I'm talking about candidates.

Epic High Five posted:

Georgia will never go to the Democrats! (went to Clinton in 1992)

Wyoming is a watershed victory! (went to LBJ in 64)

berserker posted:

The alternative is to a) change the system, or b) fail

We cannot change the system right now, it's too late. It can only be done after this election with new ballot measures, SCOTUS appointments, legislation (good luck with that), etc. So your choice would be to fail.

Epic High Five posted:

that must be why Clinton is so unpopular with minorities

berserker posted:

What is reactionary from Clinton vs the GOP candidates? I'm being serious here. I'm not talking about hypotheticals, either. What has she actually DONE that is reactionary?

Schnorkles posted:

Bernie Supporters atm: "A-bloo-bloo but the will of the people not located in the south, certain places in the west, or the Northeast!!!!!"

Obdicut posted:

Why this is stupid as gently caress: She didn't need SuperPAC money this time and sure as poo poo wouldn't need it as an incumbent. She would probably lose the primary, however, if she put up a non-CU judge for SC.

oystertoadfish posted:

A Winner is Jew posted:

Because she hates republicans more?

TyrantWD posted:

Everyone from left wing assholes like Bill Maher to 40% of the Democratic voters are pretty anti-Muslim.

A Winner is Jew posted:

Or do you enjoy the Bush years, or the CU ruling, or the ACA medicare expansion ruling, or all the anti-trans laws, or kids getting lead poisoning, or unrestricted capitalism, or more tax cuts to the rich, or....

Probably Magic posted:

Europe's attitude towards immigrants should frankly go gently caress itself.

A Winner is Jew posted:

hmmm... yes that was totally a unilateral decision and not something he had to compromise on because republicans controlled congress

A Winner is Jew posted:

how would you negotiate with someone when they don't give a if you shoot their hostage?

A Winner is Jew posted:

Clooney is dead on about this though in that holding huge fundraisers where you charge $250k a plate sucks, but you hold them because the people you hold them for want to make them a thing of the past.

A Winner is Jew posted:

Reuters posted:

The Obama administration's opening bid on Thursday in negotiations to avert a year-end fiscal crunch included a demand for new stimulus spending and authority to unilaterally raise the U.S. borrowing ceiling, a Republican congressional aide said.

The proposal, made by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to congressional Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, was seen as offering little the Republicans could agree to and was greeted with laughter, the aide said.

"We can't move any closer to them because they're not even on our planet," the aide said. "It was not a serious proposal."

Obama and congressional Republicans are returning to the bargaining table to prevent across-the board tax increases and deep spending cuts, the so-called fiscal cliff, from taking effect next year.

The president wants Bush-era tax breaks to be extended for all but the wealthiest earners, but Republicans have balked at tax hikes of any kind.


In the maiden bargaining session, Geithner, the president's lead negotiator, proposed raising tax revenues by $1.6 trillion, congressional aides confirmed. That figure is in line with what Obama has said is necessary to achieve long-term deficit reduction of $4 trillion over 10 years.

The administration also sought at least $50 billion in new economic stimulus spending.

Obama's negotiators also sought the ability to raise the nation's borrowing limit unilaterally. Currently, Congress must approve an increase in the debt ceiling, and it was an impasse over that issue that brought the country perilously close to default in 2011.

The administration's proposal would put off across-the-board spending cuts for a year.

In exchange the administration agreed to make $400 billion in spending cuts to entitlement programs, an aide confirmed.

The White House had no comment on the details of the offer.

"The only thing preventing us from reaching a deal that averts the fiscal cliff and avoids a tax hike on 98 percent of Americans is the refusal of congressional Republicans to ask the very wealthiest individuals to pay higher tax rates," a White House official said.

A Winner is Jew posted:

it's almost like republicans didn't just win a massive victory in the mid terms which to anyone watching indicated that the country was heading back to the right...

A Winner is Jew posted:

the bush tax cuts included cuts for the 1% though...

A Winner is Jew posted:

Only idiots saw that

sorry for your loss