[that G.U.Y.]

Originally posted by midnightdawn

Hillary messes up everything she touches.

Wrong!

[Lebanese Dude]

Originally posted by bleuwaffle

You're kidding right? California hadn't even voted then.
And yes, it is unethical for "neutral party leaders" to want to use his faith against him with the hopes of directing voters to their preferred candidate.

The revisionist history.

Hillary was already far in the lead at this point, by 3.75 million votes and 300 delegates.

That doesn't even include the superdelegate lead.

She'd have had to lose by more than 40 points in California in order for Sanders to have a shot.

That wasn't going to happen

The game was over as soon as Sanders ignored the southern states and appealing the minorities. Clinton took the lead and never looked back.

[Lebanese Dude]

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf

Are you even following this?

Who the **** cares what that Russian-controlled cyber terrorist has to say at this point?

Wikileaks has lost all credibility. There is literally no functional gain leaking the DNC. It's targeting a private organization not a governmental one.

Assange is doing this out of spite on a power trip and even his previous supporters agree. Frankly that rapist can go **** himself.

[bleuwaffle]

Originally posted by Troye

Please gag me. It was a bipartisan effort that voted for Iraq; not just Hillary.

Or did the fact that it was a Bush initiative effort escape you? Or it just because it's convenient to have a double standard that holds Hillary to a higher level because she's a woman?

I don't get any of the opposition's thinking like this. Apparently women are to be held responsible for decisions that men would get away with.

nnnn

It's not out of line to use her voting record against her considering she's the only candidate running rn who supported it at the time.

Originally posted by Lebanese Dude

The revisionist history.

Hillary was already far in the lead at this point, by 3.75 million votes and 300 delegates.

That doesn't even include the superdelegate lead.

She'd have had to lose by more than 40 points in California in order for Sanders to have a shot.

That wasn't going to happen

The game was over as soon as Sanders ignored the southern states and appealing the minorities. Clinton took the lead and never looked back.

@ you ignoring the part where the DNC had obvious favoritism.

[6_INCH_HEELS]

Bernie supporters still bitching? Good. Fume. He was never a Democrat in the first place. Now y'all want to be pissed at how the party treated him. Oh well. Maybe he'll run as an Independent next time.

[bleuwaffle]

Originally posted by 6_INCH_HEELS

Bernie supporters still bitching? Good. Fume. He was never a Democrat in the first place. Now y'all want to be pissed at how the party treated him. Oh well. Maybe he'll run as an Independent next time.

My bad, am I supposed to fall in line?

[BlueTimberwolf]

Originally posted by Lebanese Dude

Who the **** cares what that Russian-controlled cyber terrorist has to say at this point?

Wikileaks has lost all credibility. There is literally no functional gain leaking the DNC. It's targeting a private organization not a governmental one.

Assange is doing this out of spite. Frankly he can go **** himself.

What? They are not Russia controlled. They are doing their jobs and what their funders (their readers) ask them to do. The DNC is not just some private organization. They are the ruling party of the United States and Wikileaks exposed them for conspiring to rig an election. That's the whole point of them.

[Troye]

Originally posted by bleuwaffle

nnnn

It's not out of line to use her voting record against her considering she's the only candidate running rn who supported it at the time.

And what of it? It was last decade ago and the fiasco as a result of it was because of Bush flat out war mongering / lying to the public.

War is a very small fraction of what Hillary is planning to do (and I'm not saying she's advocating it; as she's more self aware on foreign affairs by far compared to Bernie or Trump). As opposed to someone like Trump who'd start a war over his ego being bruised and having no political experience to guide his presidency.

[Buyonce1814]

If Trump wins

[bleuwaffle]

Originally posted by Troye

And what of it? It was last decade ago and the fiasco as a result of it was because of Bush flat out war mongering / lying to the public.

War is a very small fraction of what Hillary is planning to do. As opposed to someone like Trump who'd start a war over his ego being bruised and having no political experience to guide his presidency.

ahhhh, so disastrous votes have expiration dates now?

Bush was awful, yes. But this election is about her, not him. It comes with the territory of running for office.

[6_INCH_HEELS]

Originally posted by bleuwaffle

My bad, am I supposed to fall in line?

It actually doesn't matter what YOU do. Hil is becoming POTUS and that's the end of that.

[Icarus]

Originally posted by bleuwaffle

My bad, am I supposed to fall in line?

You're supposed to realise that if you actually care about the issues that Bernie preaches, then stopping Hillary isn't in your best interest

[Lebanese Dude]

Originally posted by bleuwaffle

ahhhh, so disastrous votes have expiration dates now?

Bush was awful, yes. But this election is about her, not him. It comes with the territory of running for office.

Wonderful but the vote itself wasn't the reason the war went horribly.

You're making the implication that the legislative is responsible for the executive. That's a dangerous road to go down on.

[bleuwaffle]

Originally posted by 6_INCH_HEELS

It actually doesn't matter what YOU do. Hil is becoming POTUS and that's the end of that.

Well if you're so certain then there's no reason to bitch, right?

[Lebanese Dude]

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf

What? They are not Russia controlled. They are doing their jobs and what their funders (their readers) ask them to do. The DNC is not just some private organization. They are the ruling party of the United States and Wikileaks exposed them for conspiring to rig an election. That's the whole point of them.

....

The DNC is a private organization. What are you smoking?

[Troye]

Originally posted by bleuwaffle

ahhhh, so disastrous votes have expiration dates now?

Bush was awful, yes. But this election is about her, not him. It comes with the territory of running for office.

Did I say that? You trying to hold her responsible for a vote that happened purely on a Republican's lying word is the problem. If she had all the facts we have now, it probably would have been different but I digress since hindsight is always 20/20.

I don't see how she voted a decade ago would actually play any role on her current bid for Presidency. People do change their stances on issues and considering the current state of affairs at home and abroad, I honestly doubt Hillary is going to repeat the same thing without more caution this time (even if it's a direct result of the email 'scandal').

[L.B GAGA]

Originally posted by Buyonce1814

If Trump wins

Well, sorry to burst your bubble but his winning. I so hate that fact

[Lebanese Dude]

Rep. Richard Hanna Becomes First GOP Member Of US House To Switch To Supporting Hillary Clinton

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...te-clinton-gop

[6_INCH_HEELS]

Originally posted by bleuwaffle

Well if you're so certain then there's no reason to bitch, right?

No, there is no reason for you to continue bitching about Bernie losing, but you'll continue on anyway. Whatever floats your boat. I understand Bernie supporters being upset, however if they cared they would have actually went to the polls instead of crusading against "the establishment" all over social media.

Anyway, anyone with common sense can see that Trump isn't becoming POTUS and if for some strange reason he pulls a miracle and does, impeachment is almost inevitable.

[bleuwaffle]

Originally posted by Troye;35513292[B

]Did I say that? You trying to hold her responsible for a vote that happened purely on a Republican's lying word is the problem. If she had all the facts we have now, it probably would have been different but I digress since hindsight is always 20/20.[/B]

I don't see how she voted a decade ago would actually play any role on her current bid for Presidency. People do change their stances on issues and considering the current state of affairs at home and abroad, I honestly doubt Hillary is going to repeat the same thing without more caution this time (even if it's a direct result of the email 'scandal').

See that excuse would work if it was a unanimous yes, but there were plenty of nays as well.