Bill Clinton Makes Fun Of Bernie Sanders Supporters
Source: Huffington Post
Former President Bill Clinton joked on Friday that those who supported Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) thought the country could be fixed by shooting people on Wall Street.
Clinton told an MSNBC reporter after the event that the comment was a joke, a total joke. When the journalist asked him whether or not the comment was too dismissive towards Sanders supporters, the former president said the remark was meant to point out thats the unilateral explanation for everything thats wrong with America.
He added that we all need to lighten up, have a sense of humor.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-clinton-bernie-sanders_us_57128873e4b06f35cb6fc7ec
Yeah Bill, that'll help bring us all together in November.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Will never vote for his wife.
Thanks Bill - the democrats just lost another vote for all current and future Establishment candidates.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)including gubernatorial elections. He has really sullied whatever respect I had for him.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)monmouth4
(9,705 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)HOWEVER,
I welcome his contempt!!!!!!!!
Lucy Parsons, American Hero
http://sfbayview.com/2011/02/lucy-parsons-%E2%80%98shoot-them-or-stab-them%E2%80%99/
forest444
(5,902 posts)But I certainly like the idea of looking this particular bastard right in the eye and saying: "Book this clown!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027587144
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)fasttense
(17,301 posts)"Never be deceived that the rich will permit you to vote away their wealth. Another popular quote.
Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #3)
JohnnyRingo This message was self-deleted by its author.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Once a LIAR always a LIAR.
gregcrawford
(2,382 posts)I'm sure you meant to write, "implying." To imply is to suggest; to infer is to deduce. The two words are not synonyms.
There will be a quiz in the morning.
rury
(1,021 posts)him, Hillary and Chelsea so rich. And he was dissing Sanders supporters.
beastie boy
(9,347 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Or perhaps bernie. Link?
beastie boy
(9,347 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 17, 2016, 12:29 AM - Edit history (1)
I am not even talking about Jane. I am talking about all those Sanders supporters telling tasteless Clinton jokes on a regular basis.
EvieM
(6 posts)beastie boy
(9,347 posts)As for the rest of us, I am not sure you want to drag so many people into this thread. Think it over.
Desert805
(392 posts)and Ad Rock have endorsed? Honest question, because I'm a huge fan.
Maybe no one?
4 and 3 and 2 and 1... RIP MCA
beastie boy
(9,347 posts)I don't see them getting involved in politics except as a joke. Sort of like Andy Kaufman was involved in wrestling.
Desert805
(392 posts)Very, actually.
Have a good night.
beastie boy
(9,347 posts)But even he is not likely to reincarnate as a politician.
Cheers
Desert805
(392 posts).
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)Try sticking to the issues if you can, and leave the snark behind.
beastie boy
(9,347 posts)By all means, let me know what you prefer to be used instead. Geniuses? Saints? Totally impartial not political hacks?
And what could be more on subject than "Reciprocity is a bitch"?... Ummm, my apologies in advance to reciprocity...
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)beastie boy
(9,347 posts)Please accept the below with my sincere apologies:
66. No it does not.
I am not even talking about Jane. I am talking about all those Sander's supporters telling tasteless Clinton jokes on a regular basis.
Just edited the above referred to post to reflect your concerns.
I hope this satisfies your objection.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)karynnj
(59,503 posts)Spouse doing so.
Not to mention, he is a former President, who should have more dignity.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)beastie boy
(9,347 posts)It's not like you ever noticed all the foul Clinton jokes before.
And they didn't come from the right...
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)beastie boy
(9,347 posts)For someone who has nothing to say, you sure post a lot.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)beastie boy
(9,347 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)karynnj
(59,503 posts)There are many posts that question her actions, policy, character, etc -- but I really seem to have missed any jokes.
It is a stupid comment to make, especially given that he seems to think it is a good idea to play defense on behalf the bankers. Maybe he thinks this is 1995 where he and his corrupt wife can taunt the left and there will be no consequences. The fact is that Sanders and his supporters are so large now because of the impact of policies HE supported, because of his instrumental role in pulling his party to the right and because of how corrupt he and his wife are (as well as their friends, like DWS, that control their party). I can see why he takes the criticism of his banker friends to heart. Why working people provide cover to these people is beyond me.
beastie boy
(9,347 posts)or even articulating his plan to break up the banks, the only surprising thing is that Bernie is not being universally laughed at (OK, I'll give some credit to SNL). Those who talk revolution and have no clue what comes the day after deserve all the ridicule they get. And I wouldn't be too concerned with the consequences you keep threatening me with. Half of you, including Bernie, are not Democrats and cannot be counted on to vote for Democrats in any event, and the other half are apathetic non-voters only good for making fashion statements with your Che Guevara accessories. At least this is is the caricature of Bernie's supporters equivalent to those you make of Bill and Hillary with your one-sided rhetoric.
kaleckim
(651 posts)For you to pretend that you are the adult in the room is nauseating. Let's be clear, the people that are talking about revolution are responding to the horrible policies your corrupt candidate has supported. She and her corrupt husband rose up with Walmart money and have gotten three billion dollars from corporate interests since entering politics. Their policies have led to de-industrialization, an explosion in inequality, crumbling infrastructure, an explosion in private debt (including student debt), among other things. People like Clinton and the Republicans have been running the country for decades now, she and her husband were instrumental in pulling their party to the right as well. The revolution you are talking about has arisen in response to the horrible impact of the policies they've supported. I won't even get into her stupid, destructive foreign policy decisions. You aren't the ones to be lecturing others about policy, given the record of the policies you fools have supported.
To claim that Sanders doesn't know what he is talking about is absurd. He gave one interview in which he gave decent, but not great answers (the person interviewing him said factually incorrect things) on a couple questions, and despite the fact that his entire campaign has been based on the actual, real impact of policies, and despite the fact that every single interview he gives with a corporate "journalist" involves him challenging conventional wisdom (which requires knowing what you are talking about), you want to pretend he is devoid of substance. What utter drivel.
"fashion statements with your Che Guevara accessories"
How pathetic, old man. I wear a Che shirt because I want to avoid ecological collapse, because I want something done about trade policies which have destroyed the country, because I don't want a corrupt hawk as president, or because I want investments in infrastructure? Please don't make some argument about being the adult in the room and being the pragmatic one when you say such immature and absurd things.
"Half of you, including Bernie, are not Democrats and cannot be counted on to vote for Democrats in any event"
This is stupid and suicidal. Sanders' policy positions are popular, he is more trusted and liked and does better versus the top Republicans (and with independents) for good reason. It makes no logical sense to dismiss that huge chunk of the population. Again, you seem to think this is 1995 and that the people you are talking about are some small group of Lenin quoting leftists. Wake the hell up, the country has changed, and you clearly don't fully appreciate how much. If enough of the people you are mocking with your stupid red-baiting generalizations don't vote for Clinton, she is toast.
beastie boy
(9,347 posts)and you are the one who nauseates the majority with your selective outrage over Hillary's record and selective disregard for Bernie's. I have yet to see evidence that Bernie knows the logistical details of what he is talking about, and there is plenty of evidence he will not be able to push any of his ideas through Congress. He has virtually no allies on either side of the isle. Endorsements (or lack thereof) from his colleagues speak volumes to this fact.
We all can list the things that outrage us. Few can produce a record of doing something about it. And I am sorry to say (no, actually I am not) that Hillary's record of DOING something on the issues you so masterfully listed beats Bernie's record. Where Bernie beats Hillary is in the talking department, which doesn't impress me as it does you.
What is stupid and suicidal is Bernie's steadfast refusal to support Democrats downticket. He is about to lose the nomination, and he made few allies when he had the chance. He showed no foresight in trying to build a movement, and he is about to become irrelevant again. He has no political allies, and none of his devoted flag waving cheering groupies show any inclination to build a political network on which a movement can be based. I might take you more seriously if I see evidence of this happening.
And speaking of pathetic... do you really own a Che shirt??? How iconic of you! A professional revolutionary from the last century who failed at everything except being a professional revolutionary and is now a merchandising brand... And you have the cojones to insinuate you are the adult in this exchange?
One more thing... will you quit telling me to wake the hell up? It wreaks teabagger. I've heard this crap so many times in the past eight years, I have developed an allergic reaction to it.
kaleckim
(651 posts)Okay, provide the list. What has she done, what policies has she stood for since she and her husband entered politics, that you can point to as being huge successes? I can give you a list of horrible, destructive decisions she's made. Also, who is the "we" you keep on talking about? He is basically tied with her now nationally, in some polls ahead, polls better versus top Republicans, is more trusted and liked. In fact, if she gets the nomination and runs against someone other than Trump, she will be the candidate with the worst net favorables since polling began in 1984. Maybe step out of your little bubble.
"do you really own a Che shirt??? "
No, I was responding to your dumb, 1950's era red baiting (were you a teenager then?). Re-read my post and show that you have at least basic reading comprehension skills.
"I have yet to see evidence that Bernie knows the logistical details of what he is talking about"
Then you aren't paying attention. You are just repeating talking points. Is breaking the banks up impossible? Nope. Are there no economic reasons for doing so? Of course there is, which is why the Fed, the Treasury and 170 some odd economists have all said there are sound economic reasons for doing so. Some at the Minneapolis Fed not only call to break up the banks, they think banks will be run as public utilities in the future. Those discussions are where Sanders has shown he knows what he is talking about. The actual mechanism about how that would occur is relatively unimportant. So, what exactly are you talking about? One freaking interview, and what he said was freaking factual! Same goes with his universal health care plan and his plan to pay for universal college education. He has explained the plans in detail in countless interviews and has released plans you can read (but haven't, you are speaking out of ignorance and just repeating baseless propaganda).
I wonder though, Clinton wants to improve the ACA. Okay, can you find the interview where she spelled that out in detail? Better yet, the type of detail you comically demand of Sanders? She wants to bring jobs back. Okay, where is the interview where she talks in detail about what she would do about the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, the bilateral trade deals, or the trade model she supports? Many of the things we did to actually develop are now impossible because of those deals. So, where does she spell those details out? Has she given detailed responses on her disastrous policies in Iraq, Syria, Libya, the Ukraine, Honduras, or Haiti? Of course not, and I am sure you don't know what policies she supported in those countries (all of them horrible policies which have had horrible consequences). Has she given a detailed, thoughtful response as to why she opposes a financial transactions tax or re-instating something like Glass-Steagall (which her husband, Rubin and his Wall Street friends called outdated in the 1990's)?
"will you quit telling me to wake the hell up?"
No, you need to wake up. You seem to think that the people that are calling for a political revolution are all Che shirt wearing leftists, running around quoting Das Capital. The truth is that people are responding to policies that Clinton and her husband have supported. This is not debatable and you seem to think that you can mock those people (which are a majority of the population, polling makes this clear) and there will be no consequences. It is clear that many of Clinton's supporters do not fully appreciate how radically things have changed and they have no understanding as to why. Instead of really focusing on the trade model she supports, her outright corruption, her hawkish foreign policy and the like, they want to red bait, mock people with drivel about Che shirts and avoid a real and honest conversation about why people have become radicalized. Don't wake up, go on with your mindset, and watch what happens. I am not threatening you either, what I am saying is entirely accurate. Deal with it or don't.
beastie boy
(9,347 posts)But just in case you can't:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-debate-hillary-clintons-greatest-accomplishment-213157
http://correctrecord.org/the-points/attack-right-wing-ignores-hillary-clintons-achievements-as-senator/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/17/1422403/-Hillary-Clinton-s-Record-of-Accomplishments
Just a few top google search results. And Bernie's? Compare for yourself:
http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2016/03/04/a-list-of-bernie-sanders-accomplishments/
No comparison, I am afraid...
And still no evidence of Bernie being aware of the logistical details for accomplishing what he says he will. "Breaking banks is not impossible" doesn't cut it, I am afraid.
And I will not be baited into discussing your picks from Hillary's record. You either consider it in its entirety, or you don't. And then you compare it to Bernie's record in its entirety. Or, if you don't want to embarrass Bernie, you don't.
But I am so relieved to learn you don't actually own a Che shirt! I have much newfound respect for you now.
As far as waking up.... zzzzzzzzzzzz. I told you I am allergic to this teabagging rhetoric.
kaleckim
(651 posts)My head hurts. Actually, if you read the links, Sanders HAS accomplished more. My god, did you read what your links showed?
From your first link, her "accomplishments" include a speech in China, her role in killing bin Laden (which was what exactly?), and her activities at the State Department regarding climate change (funny that they didn't mention her role in spreading fracking worldwide). How about comparing that to her Iraq War vote (she supported the war years after it started, just thought that Bush's post war planning was bad), Syria and Libya? Disasters, which Obama even now admits. The other thing they mentioned was the sanctions against Iran. Can you explain how that constitutes an accomplishment?
Your second link doesn't have accomplishments, they talk about her "fighting" for this or that, introducing or writing legislation. Please, post a couple highlights to prove me wrong.
Your third link talks about her academic accomplishments, that fact that she traveled to 79 countries (wow), the fact that she was first lady of Arkansas, committees that she served on, they talk about how she is an author and credit HER for getting money for 9/11 victims. My god, please, go to the Google some more.
If you want to play this silly game though (by the way, him voting against Iraq, NAFTA and countless other things are accomplishments):
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/
From 1995 to 2007, Sanders passed 17 amendments by a recorded roll call vote more than any other member in the House.
Ohio Democrat James Traficant came in second with 16 roll call amendments, but he served five less years than Sanders after being indicted on several corruption charges in 2002 and then expelled from Congress..."There are so few members with large numbers of substantive and successful amendments," he said. "Sanders and Traficant were exceptions to that rule." In comparison, Hillary Clinton passed zero roll call amendments during her tenure as a senator from New York from 2001-09.
...A campaign ad for Sander said, "Bernie Sanders passed more roll call amendments in a Republican Congress than any other member."
Thats a very specific way of slicing and dicing Sanders effectiveness as a lawmaker, but its accurate. From 1995 to 2007, when Republicans controlled Congress, Sanders passed the most roll call amendments (17) out of anyone in the House of Representatives.
We rate his claim True.
beastie boy
(9,347 posts)This is a totally idiotic game you are playing, and I am getting tired of it. YOU asked about Hillary's accomplishments (Remember? No?) and you are now calling it a silly game?
You are looking at Hillary's accomplishments and you are telling me they are not superior to Bernies? And you are questioning Hilary's role in killing Bin Laden? Seriously?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation_Room#/media/File:Obama_and_Biden_await_updates_on_bin_Laden_annotated.svg
How ridiculous do you intend to get?
Amendments? Do you expect him to govern by amendments? How does he intend to do this? And if you consider him doing his job an accomplishment, would you consider his votes against gun control an accomplishment too?
Listen, you started this insanity. I told you that if you want to compare Bernie to Hillary, you have to compare their records in their entirety. You baited me into bringing their records up. I did. For what? So you can pick and choose what you are comparing to what?
It is clear to me that Hillary's record is far superior to Bernie's. It is equally clear to me that you, in your supreme belligerence, will never admit to it. Giving you yet another opportunity to hurl insults is not my idea of fun.
Go pay with yourself, I am out of here.
kaleckim
(651 posts)"And still no evidence of Bernie being aware of the logistical details for accomplishing what he says he will. "Breaking banks is not impossible" doesn't cut it, I am afraid."
The logistics are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, you child. Once again, can the banks be broken up? Yes. Are there economic reasons to do so? Yes. He has led this discussion, and has explained why they should be broken up, why we need a financial transactions tax, why we should separate depository banking and investment banking, etc. You want to pretend (which is all it is) that he lacks substance because you claim he doesn't understand the mechanism as to how to do that. First off, not true, read the damn interview you only want to focus on. Secondly, even if it were true, it would only be important if breaking them up wasn't possible or good for the the economy. Since they can be and it would be, you're asking for specifics you don't from Clinton and for what ends? What matters is whether they can or should be broken up. Beyond that, if they are broken up, HE wouldn't be doing it any damn way. You are welcome to respond to my questions about her lack of details (you are avoiding that because you can't, and neither can she, respond to those specifics).
Clinton's top donors over the course of her career are banks (fact), she has been given tens of millions either directly, through her foundation and to her and Bill's campaigns, and she has long supported policies that benefit the banks. Why that is irrelevant is beyond me, maybe you can explain it. Go ahead, explain it.
beastie boy
(9,347 posts)kaleckim
(651 posts)So, I am arguing that the debate over whether we can break up the banks is complex and the heart of this debate, as is the argument over whether or not there are sound economic reasons for doing so. Sanders has not only been heavily involved in this debate, he has led it. Without him, we wouldn't be having it. To say he lacks substance is absurd on its face, a clear example of attacking a perceived strength of his. You are arguing that it is more important to explain the details on how it would occur (which, by the way, he was far more accurate on during that interview than the right wing Daily News was, and said essentially the same exact thing that Clinton did when asked. Prove otherwise). Explain the logic.
I realize that team Clinton says this stuff, and your job is to repeat their talking points, but I want you to flesh out the logic. First explain how what he said was inaccurate or that different from what Clinton said when asked. Then explain why that is more important than whether or not we could or should break them up. It is a nonsense attack, and you are incapable of doing anything more than repeating the talking points fed to you.
beastie boy
(9,347 posts)Bernie is totally non-committal, and some would argue (and did) that he has no clue how he would break up the banks if he were POTUS.
This is the logistics part. The part you say is irrelevant.
Sounds exactly like the SNL skit. Just a reminder: it was meant to be funny.
I ask for an explanation and you simply repeat the talking point. I have to ask, what would you say if someone didn't zap these talking points into your head?
beastie boy
(9,347 posts)Unless you are desperate to ignore the explanation of why logistics matter, I suggest you end this nonsense.
you didn't. You seem to confuse a claim with an actual argument. I can claim that Hillary Clinton makes better foreign policy decisions than Sanders, which is a joke, but I can claim that. Proving that with an argument and facts is another thing. You are incapable of doing that, you just keep on repeating your silly claim, which is shockingly one of the Clinton's brain dead memes she and her camp are pushing. I'm sure you were unaware and started repeating this brain dead talking point by chance. Great minds think alike and all.
peace13
(11,076 posts)* is that you?
gordianot
(15,238 posts)He does it just because he can. I hope he gets a dog everyone needs a friend especially with his sense of humor.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)It is painfully obvious that he can't run with the dogs anymore.
It is sad, like a fighter past his time trying to regain some former glory, and getting the living crap beat out of him.
The photos of him with the megaphone blocking a New Hampshire voting station are embarrassing.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)Good luck controlling him if s/he wins! I really think he has some serious mental issues. If he keeps talking we may actually learn something that they don't want us to know! Even with that, I wish he would just stop talking. It is too disturbing to see what he has become....or maybe always was!
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)I don't want to shoot them. I would like some real investigations and perhaps some charges and jail time along with restitution.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)Me anymore. He is a brilliant man, but he gives me the creeps these days.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)I always wonder if it was his heart or some delayed progression of 3D stage syphilis.
BunkieBandit
(82 posts)when he was humble from humble upbringing. Now the money, that's what ate up his soul. Is that all they wanna be prez for? The after money?
sarge43
(28,941 posts)Where have we heard that one before?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Contrary1
(12,629 posts)Some say you should quit talking. I think you should talk even more. Say whatever comes to mind. Feel free to bring your bullhorn.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)So now the 99% who want social and econmic justice are the new super predators.
peace13
(11,076 posts)americannightmare
(322 posts)and Dems will still vote for them come November - but not this one! Talk about screwing the pooch...
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)You demonize and vilify to extremes, but no one gets to call you on it?
You all would lockup Hillary and throw away the key without a trial - her "guilt" has been established by you without a single legal charge - but no, no, no - punching back is so unfair.
.99center
(1,237 posts)We've been to hard on wall street. It was all just one big accident with no one to blame beside those dead beats that didn't pay their mortgages. Someone need's to get control of Elizabeth Warren before she starts murdering bankers.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)It's not so hard if you lighten up and stop taking it so seriously!
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)Shh!
ish of the hammer
(444 posts)them.
MFM008
(19,814 posts)I had a post hidden that was an obvious joke.
Wow, just wow.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Loudestlib
(980 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But you appear to have schooled him quite ably!
JohnnyRingo
(18,628 posts)A few threads up someone said Clinton was literally accusing Bernie people of being murderers.
I know they're only saying that out of partisan hatred, but it comes off as being somewhat obtuse.
murielm99
(30,741 posts)Look at their fearless leader's affect. Grumpy, grumbly, etc., etc.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)in the fall.
Why waste time pandering to your enemies?
Zorro
(15,740 posts)because she lacks the uncompromising "purity" they demand. No different than Republican teaholes.
yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)Loudestlib
(980 posts)Staying classy aren't you?
Welcome to ignore.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)becasue he just pissed off more Sanders supporters that will not show on election day.
This is just another example of the Clinton campaign not being able to talk about real issues but instead use Karl Rove style attacks.
Karl Rove must be working for Hillary now because the strategy is so much Karl Roves style it resembles the Bush/Cheney campaign of 2004.
Zorro
(15,740 posts)zalinda
(5,621 posts)we are not interested in electing corporate Democrats in November.
Z
Zorro
(15,740 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)Hillary Clinton is no Democrat.She is a corporatist.
List 5 reasons why you believe Hillary is a Progressive.
You cant/wont.... but instead will just ignore
Your statement came from somewhere other than thin air....
Zorro
(15,740 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)
Elected New York DEMOCRATIC Senator. Selected Secretary of State for a DEMOCRATIC administration. Wife of a two term DEMOCRATIC president. But not a DEMOCRAT, because an anonymous Berniac sanctimoniously declares so.
I'd say she's much more of a DEMOCRAT than you are.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)So he's the "real" D in the race? The guy who said he would be a hypocrite if he ever ran as a Democrat?
INdemo
(6,994 posts)Democrat. She is as Corporatist.
Hillary Clinton has received more Corporate funding than any Prediddntial Candidate in history...that includes Republican candidates.
Bernie Sanders has always Caucused with Democrats in Congress. You were so eager to trash a real Democrat, you forgot that part.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)stopbush
(24,396 posts)value in this election. Hubris personified.
Do you guys ever listen to yourselves? You're basically saying that unless the Ds nominate your candidate you won't vote for the D candidate. It's the equivalent of saying "if you want Sanders supporters to vote for Hillary in November, you have to nominate Sanders as the D candidate at the convention."
As far as talking about real issues, Sanders had an epic fail in that interview with the NYDN. He couldn't even discuss what are supposed to be his core issues. Sound bites and applause lines is all he has. One might as well elect a myna bird. The saint has no halo.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)IOW: They don't CARE if they're pissed off and don't show because they believe Sanders supporters are an insignificant minority.
kaleckim
(651 posts)without the left. You people are already on thin ice, don't delude yourself into thinking you can win the election without the people supporting Sanders now. If they don't vote for your corrupt candidate of choice, she'll lose badly. I hope you realize that supporters of Clinton, because she is the favorite, will play a large role in her determining whether or not she will win. Alienate enough people on the left and you'll harm Clinton. As I said above, the days where you people could mock the left and pay no consequences are over. I hope you realize and fully appreciate how much has changed in the last decade or so. Maybe the rise of Sanders should tip you off...
zentrum
(9,865 posts)
help pay off student debt, help families be able to get the health care they need and still can't afford, help low-wage workers scramble between their two and three jobs.
Spoken as a true multi-millionaire. It's a form of "Let them eat Cake".
JoFerret
(10,704 posts)when they try to shut down fundraisers for down-ticket Dems.
But of course - many of them are not Dems so why should they care about electing a filibuster-proof Congress?
Wish they would wake up on that point at least. If Bernie wer to be president he would need that Congress to achieve anything.
But then i begin to think that Bernie is not actually interested in progress.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)kaleckim
(651 posts)LOL! Yep, universal health care and college education, a far less hawkish foreign policy, investments in infrastructure, real action on the environment (not half measures and words in a speech). People like Clinton have been in charge of her party for decades now and corrupt politicians like her and those to her right have been running the country. On economic issues, infrastructure and the environment, can you post some facts proving that there has been progress? Where is this progress? Is infrastructure in better shape now than when, say, Reagan took over? Have the trade policies been a net benefit, is inequality more or less, private debt? Where is the evidence that what she has supported has led to progress? Even on issues where we have made progress, like marriage equality, she played zero role (supported it decades after Sanders and most in her party). Whatever progress was made was the result of the work of activists, she supported them when it was safe to do so.
elleng
(130,908 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and are now proud members of the 1% club as a result, it only makes sense that he'd try to protect their peers and his tarnished legacy.
And nobody has made the case that Wall Street represents "everything that is wrong with America", and that's just a dishonest or stupidity-spawned dig on Bernie's primary focus on econ equality issues, which would appear to be stupendously stupid or dishonest coming from the guy who what, energetically exploited the notion that in electoral politics that "It's the economy stupid".
Just go away, and stay away, eh Billybob
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Not shoot them. But we would like to see a few of them in front of a Judge.
You saying we want to shoot them is just you running your mouth and trying to make Bernie look bad because he's standing up for justice.
You see your dream of having sex in the WH again looking dimmer, but that's no reason for you to be smearing Bernie and his supporters.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)These are the kind of jokes shared by the rich and famous.
Release the Goldman Sachs transcripts, Hillary!
avebury
(10,952 posts)she will need the Bernie Sanders' supporters votes in November. The last thing he should be doing is pissing off people to the point that they stay home in November.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)He simply doesn't give a shit whether she will need his supporters a few months from now if she wins. Neither does her supporters. It will come as no surprise when the unity rally falls flat if she is the nominee.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)Of course since he's your candidate you saw no problem with it
Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)If you ever bother to read anything about what she has been saying you will find she has been totally discredited. Think before you post something.....
Some parts of the media have not taken kindly to the attack. At the Democratic debate on Thursday, April 14, moderator Wolf Blitzer questioned if this was really a fair attack. The Washington Post gave Clinton's claim "Three Pinocchios." (The Sanders campaign pointed me to the Washington Post's "fact check" when I asked them about the issue.)
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Before 9/11 changed everything, I'll bet.
Omaha Steve
(99,632 posts)Remember that one?
Eight years and she evolved on guns too.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)dogman
(6,073 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)both laughed - and it was ugly
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Mr. $400Million Dollar Man knows hypocrisy, that's for damn sure.
ananda
(28,860 posts)Resorting to bad behavior and all.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)The rich are back in the 1800's with their humor.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)potone
(1,701 posts)Either something really is wrong with him, or he unconsciously wants Hillary to lose. He is far too skilled a politician to make a blunder like that. Hillary needs to get him to stay off the campaign trail.
Chakab
(1,727 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 17, 2016, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)
comported himself like a savvy politician for a long time. I can't count the number of times that he's put his foot in his mouth over the past decade.
potone
(1,701 posts)What is the "pump head" theory?
Frank Cannon
(7,570 posts)There's a theory, fairly well supported, that the heart bypass machine used in the surgery can cause brain damage.
https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/health-science/featured-articles/articles/bill-clintons-madness/
potone
(1,701 posts)Of course I knew about the surgery, but not about the possibility of brain damage from the machine. I hope this isn't true, but it would account for some of his stranger statements.
Chakab
(1,727 posts)constantly and throws temper tantrums when he's challenged about his record. These reactions haven't been limited to provocation from BLM and Sanders supporters. I remember that he also reacted poorly to aggressive questions from Chris Wallace during Fox interview a few years ago.
potone
(1,701 posts)I thought that Wallace deserved what he got. He is used to attacking Democrats without them fighting back. I was pleased that Clinton did so. But that does not explain his current behavior. Something does seem to be wrong.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Bill is off his hinges. Maybe his heart surgery really changed him.
If she didn't have the name recognition or money, she wouldn't be in the race. Most Americans don't trust her.
peace13
(11,076 posts)But I agree with you! I've seen it with family. It is sad but it happens. She needs to get him off the street or suffer the fallout from hateful comments such as the above!
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)Have-more humor... to denigrate the working class.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)He is not A-game Bill Clinton lately, or perhaps anymore.
elmac
(4,642 posts)but if he said Bernie supporters kissed wall street people's asses like the Clintons I would be pissed.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)is to the Hague for trial.
peace13
(11,076 posts)...we are sick, sick people! That she can coldly sit there and say that...despicable. I guess that's why Congress didn't give a crap about Sandy Hook. Those numbers just weren't high enough. What would it take?
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They_Live
(3,233 posts)Yallow
(1,926 posts)The sheriffs that evicted all them folks who were foreclosed upon didn't have a sense of humor.
The people that lost their houses need to lighten up?
I gotta go eat or I could go on for an hour or two.
Bill.....
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)You know how you try to forget bad memories like him saying a then-candidate Obama would've been getting his bags back in the day?
President Clinton needs to stop campaigning and focus on allocating that Clinton Foundation money to actually help people.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)n/t
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)a loose cannon.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)clg311
(119 posts)Shoot em all!
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Please go back to Arkansas and stay there...with your mouth shut...
Bernie supporters are one helluva lot smarter than you...we understand how you f*cked over Americans...
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Thank Bill!
blackspade
(10,056 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Go move some money around at the "foundation" and leave the rest of us alone.
No More Clintons EVER.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Democat
(11,617 posts)Let the trolls fight it out where they belong.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)children to death means so much to me that I'm absolutely heartbroken.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)he played the race care against Obama and claimed he didn't. And I watched the live feed on TV when it was happening. I really, really want Bernie to defeat Hillary, but...
I will keep my eyes on the prize...the Whitehouse! In the end...I'll be voting blue no matter who.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)Bill, you're not funny. Stop trying please.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)democrank
(11,094 posts).
Vinca
(50,273 posts)Hillary requires our votes to win if she's the nominee. Isn't that just hysterical? Lighten up, Bill. Have a sense of humor. How funny would President Trump be?
MrTriumph
(1,720 posts)Hey, Bill, this is just a joke.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)You want to give those votes back?
Dem_in_Nebr.
(301 posts)hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)MH1
(17,600 posts)(This is PURE SPECULATION, I am not asserting it, just think the episode is out of character enough to warrant speculation)
By that I mean, Bill doesn't really want Hillary to be President, so he's letting out little zingers like this to help derail her, while looking like it was an innocent mistake.
Now, why would Bill maybe not want Hillary to be President? I bet most of the gals here could have some ideas as to why. And some of the guys, too.
Again, this is just pure speculation. Why is the master politician screwing up so badly on his wife's campaign? Doesn't make sense, unless it's senility.
Please note my avatar before jumping my case, folks. I am voting for the D candidate in November. The primary I'll keep to myself for now, maybe forever. There is good and bad on both sides.
CrispyQ
(36,464 posts)like they have in the past.
They are taking a big risk. The right will come out to vote against HRC in droves.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
CrispyQ
(36,464 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)We all need to lighten up. I know you won't mind when I make a joke about Monica Lewinski.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Gross!
rury
(1,021 posts)He's a one percenter and he showed during the 2008 campaign that he's AT LEAST racially suggestive with his remarks about the South Carolina primary, Barack Obama bein the guy who would have been "getting coffee for us a few years ago" and the Obama campaign as a "fairy tale."
Go away Bill and take Hillary with you.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)You are an ethical midget compared to Sanders.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)When she said "...gun control was no laughing matter, Senator Sanders..."
Fuck you, Bill!
Mary Mac
(323 posts)Im willing to overlook both. Bill is becoming Billy Carter like and seems to be aiming for First Bubba. Trouble is there is no precedent for First Gent.
madokie
(51,076 posts)bill clinton and the cash cow he rode in on
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)and pointing his goddamned finger in our faces. Get ready for a lot more of the same--as everyone here knows, his wife is also a very accomplished liar.
Demonaut
(8,916 posts)immediately
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:54 AM - Edit history (2)
With dems like this who needs republicans?
OH I know, I need to lighten up & saying your competitors or their supporters' solution is to shoot people is healthy humor . Is it a regional type of humor?
Talking falsely about people wanting to murder doesn't even make me smile .
Trump like, now that I try to think who would say this kind of thing
Very offensive
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Of course, he makes it easy...
kaleckim
(651 posts)that cheated on his wife left and right (I'm sure his behavior towards women would never be considered sexist, now would it), yet comes out now and accuses people to his left of sexism
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)I voted for your "copresidency" twice-NEVER AGAIN! I'm one of those taking back the big tent, come what may.
johnnyrocket
(1,773 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)His mental health has been a concern for quite a while now. Why is killing the first answer these folks come up with. It does make me wonder about poor Vince!
Response to left-of-center2012 (Original post)
WhiteTara This message was self-deleted by its author.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)Doubling down with a stupid explanation and saying that we all need to Lighten up, ignores his own rage when far milder comments were made about his wife.
He should have just said something to the effect that sometimes things are said in the heat of a campaign and he should have held himself to a higher standard of civility .... he is a former President.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)If I recall correctly, it is your wife that gets off on murder. Not Sander's supporters.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)I can't even tell you how much I loathe this man. And to think we will have to look at him potentially for the next 8 years. Go bilk your billionaire donors and leave us alone.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)"Why can't they just vote for us then go back to watching the Kardashians and let us do what we want?"