It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Some Democrats Are Mad About Hillary Clinton’s New Book

page: 5
38
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude



If you are going to continually claim intellectual superiority


I never said anything of the sort. I simply said a vote for him was a stupid thing to do, as is the excuse of not having any other choice.


Anyone with any logical thinking would blame Bernie and his followers for Trump being elected.

Not only did he split the party, he refused to endorse Hillary (after he lost) -- with any real effort to get his fans to vote for her.

Hillary is absolutely right.



except for ......

[JULY 12, 2016]
Bernie Sanders Endorses Hillary Clinton, Hoping to Unify Democrats





posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Actually, as a Bernie Sanders supporter, I think David Brock and his CTR/ShareBlue trolls who were constantly stalking, brigading, astroturfing, harassing and mocking Bernie supporters on every social media platform and in every comment section to articles in the media, did more to divide the Dem voters than anyone else. (Well, except for Hillary Clinton herself, of course, who I personally believe is not only a full blown psychopath but most likely also quite insane. I consider her delusional new book proof of that.)

I encountered so many Berners online and IRL who told me that they had been contemplating voting for HRC after DNC rigged the primary and stole the nomination from Bernie, but the CTR trolls and their constant harassment became the straw that broke the camel's back. They refused to vote for HRC, some didn't vote at all, some wrote Bernie in, some voted Trump and quite a few went will Jill Stein, as I did. Voting for HRC was simply never an option for me, this shameless thief should of course not be rewarded for the theft of the nomination.

I am not happy that Trump won. I am, however, happy that HIllary Clinton lost. It was a well deserved and just loss that David Brock and his insufferable trolls played a big, big part in.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ReadingOne

Star x5.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude



If you are going to continually claim intellectual superiority


I never said anything of the sort. I simply said a vote for him was a stupid thing to do, as is the excuse of not having any other choice.


Anyone with any logical thinking would blame Bernie and his followers for Trump being elected.

Not only did he split the party, he refused to endorse Hillary (after he lost) -- with any real effort to get his fans to vote for her.

Hillary is absolutely right.



Bernie should have ran as an independent, which he is, and finally put a strain, if not break, on the two-party system.

Sadly, it appears that there are some that only wish to vote for those that have an R or D next to their name.

Bernie could have finally presented an option that showed them the fallacy in their thinking. I would suggest that Ron Paul could of had a similar opportunity.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude



If you are going to continually claim intellectual superiority


I never said anything of the sort. I simply said a vote for him was a stupid thing to do, as is the excuse of not having any other choice.


Anyone with any logical thinking would blame Bernie and his followers for Trump being elected.

Not only did he split the party, he refused to endorse Hillary (after he lost) -- with any real effort to get his fans to vote for her.

Hillary is absolutely right.



Bernie should have ran as an independent, which he is, and finally put a strain, if not break, on the two-party system.


I can agree with this. I despise our two-party system. Too bad he sold out.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude



If you are going to continually claim intellectual superiority


I never said anything of the sort. I simply said a vote for him was a stupid thing to do, as is the excuse of not having any other choice.


Anyone with any logical thinking would blame Bernie and his followers for Trump being elected.

Not only did he split the party, he refused to endorse Hillary (after he lost) -- with any real effort to get his fans to vote for her.

Hillary is absolutely right.



Bernie should have ran as an independent, which he is, and finally put a strain, if not break, on the two-party system.


I can agree with this. I despise our two-party system. Too bad he sold out.


Yes, he did. He tried to play the game by their rules and we wonder why he lost.

He should have changed the game in order to get those idiots that think you have to be a R or D to win to wake the hell up.

That is how we get people like Hillary. That is how we get people like Trump.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

There are certainly a lot of dedicated partisans, but there are also a lot of people who normally vote D or R because, like this last election, they were the only ones with a chance come election day. Many of us would be happy to see a viable alternative candidate. I hope for one every election cycle.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: introvert

There are certainly a lot of dedicated partisans, but there are also a lot of people who normally vote D or R because, like this last election, they were the only ones with a chance come election day. Many of us would be happy to see a viable alternative candidate. I hope for one every election cycle.


So it seems politics is more of a gamble, rather than a decision based on principle and ideas.

It's all a game of chance.

I think I'll vote on principle and ideas and stick to poker when it comes to chance. It's more profitable.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You can look at it like that, or you can look at it like people who are pragmatic won't waste their vote on a candidate that's polling at 2%.

That said, I think they should do away with polling, so people don't even get these preconceived notions of who has the better chances.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785



You can look at it like that, or you can look at it like people who are pragmatic won't waste their vote on a candidate that's polling at 2%.


Voting is an expression of an idea or set of principles. To vote for someone that exemplifies those ideals is never a waste, regardless of the candidate's chance or the notion it's a waste.

To look at is as a matter of percentage to actually win shows that it's about the game...the gamble, and not the ideas involved.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Do they get to decide what they want to express with their vote or is that up to you? If they decided voting for Sanders or whoever was a waste and were more interested in keeping one of the 2 leading candidates out of office, that's their choice of how they wanted to exercise their freedom to vote. That's the nature of freedom. It's not subject to your approval. You need to get that idea out of your head.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785



Do they get to decide what they want to express with their vote or is that up to you? If they decided voting for Sanders or whoever was a waste and were more interested in keeping one of the 2 leading candidates out of office, that's their choice of how they wanted to exercise their freedom to vote. That's the nature of freedom. It's not subject to your approval. You need to get that idea out of your head.


You're right. That is their freedom, but I am not the one saying a vote for Trump was a waste. I'm only saying it was stupid, which is an expression of my own opinion.

Many others are saying a vote for anyone else other than the two-party candidates was a waste of a vote, thereby diminishing the right of expression, since it did not coincide with their belief in the two-party sham.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

They're not saying voting for someone else is always a waste of a vote, in principle. What they're saying is that on election day, when you know no other candidates have garnered enough support to have a realistic chance at winning, you are effectively throwing away your vote by voting for someone else. Mathematically, in the outcome of the election, you wasted your vote. That's not a matter of opinion, it's strict numbers. Your vote had as much impact on the outcome of the election as someone who stayed home. Now, if for you the value of your vote isn't dependent on who wins, then you didn't waste your vote in your own mind. You voted for what you believe in. That's great, hug a tree and sing some songs, you can feel good about it all you want, you're free to do so. But in determining the outcome of the election, you did indeed waste it. You could have stayed home and supported your principles just as effectively, because you vote had no effect. That's all they're saying. Don't pretend they're saying you shouldn't have principles or something like that, that's false.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   




CHAPPAQUA, NY - Saying it would provide a candid account of her experiences writing an unsuccessful tell-all, sources confirmed Thursday that Hillary Clinton is already working on a follow-up book casting blame for the failures of her previous memoir What Happened.

“From my agent negotiating that underwhelming deal with Simon & Schuster, to the graphic designer’s lackluster cover art, to my so-called supporters who couldn’t be bothered to drop $17.99 for the hardcover copy - everyone had a hand in undermining my last book’s success,” reads a passage from the introduction to Clinton’s What Also Happened, which repeatedly decries her prior book’s “indecipherable” font and dedicates an entire chapter to lashing out at her copy editor for making her look like “an idiot third-grader.”

“I’ll never forget how Amazon buried me and how Barnes & Noble completely sabotaged me by displaying my book way in the back in that no man’s land by the CDs. Frankly, it’s obvious I got screwed on all sides.”

www.zerohedge.com...

Buck



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: flatbush71
...to my so-called supporters who couldn’t be bothered to drop $17.99 for the hardcover copy


This is gold. We know she has such disdain for all those peons. Thanks Podesta.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude



If you are going to continually claim intellectual superiority


I never said anything of the sort. I simply said a vote for him was a stupid thing to do, as is the excuse of not having any other choice.


Anyone with any logical thinking would blame Bernie and his followers for Trump being elected.

Not only did he split the party, he refused to endorse Hillary (after he lost) -- with any real effort to get his fans to vote for her.

Hillary is absolutely right.



Bernie should have ran as an independent, which he is, and finally put a strain, if not break, on the two-party system.

Sadly, it appears that there are some that only wish to vote for those that have an R or D next to their name.

Bernie could have finally presented an option that showed them the fallacy in their thinking. I would suggest that Ron Paul could of had a similar opportunity.


the word disingenuous comes to mind. Sure, I could vote for some third party "likable" guy or girl. But when they only get 2% of the votes, it kind of seems like a joke more than a vote. Someone as yugely intelligent as yourself should know that.
I really wanted Ron Paul to win but I didn't get my wish on that either.

And if you are confused as you seem to be about the "superiority" thing, go back and read some of your posts. The arrogance is palpable.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: introvert

They're not saying voting for someone else is always a waste of a vote, in principle. What they're saying is that on election day, when you know no other candidates have garnered enough support to have a realistic chance at winning, you are effectively throwing away your vote by voting for someone else. Mathematically, in the outcome of the election, you wasted your vote. That's not a matter of opinion, it's strict numbers. Your vote had as much impact on the outcome of the election as someone who stayed home. Now, if for you the value of your vote isn't dependent on who wins, then you didn't waste your vote in your own mind. You voted for what you believe in. That's great, hug a tree and sing some songs, you can feel good about it all you want, you're free to do so. But in determining the outcome of the election, you did indeed waste it. You could have stayed home and supported your principles just as effectively, because you vote had no effect. That's all they're saying. Don't pretend they're saying you shouldn't have principles or something like that, that's false.


And that way of thinking is why we have a two party mess.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude



the word disingenuous comes to mind. Sure, I could vote for some third party "likable" guy or girl. But when they only get 2% of the votes, it kind of seems like a joke more than a vote. Someone as yugely intelligent as yourself should know that. I really wanted Ron Paul to win but I didn't get my wish on that either.


Voting for the 2% candidate is much more logical than actually voting for a candidate that is a joke themselves, but happen to have a better chance.



And if you are confused as you seem to be about the "superiority" thing, go back and read some of your posts. The arrogance is palpable.


I know what I've posted. Arrogance is not the problem. It's your inferiority complex, or perhaps shame, that is the problem.

A vote for Trump was stupid. If that hurts your feelings or seems arrogant, I couldn't care less.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Actually disaffected Sander primary voters did help Trump, is there any doubt they made the difference in the northern blue states that went Trump by a slim margin. Although anecdotal a number posters on Reddit said they switched sides after what Hillary/DNC did to Bernie, there were about 15% that were NEVER going to vote for Hillary they were either going to stay home, vote for Stein, or switch to Trump out of pure spite.

The data is here
Bernie Sanders Voters

They were not bluffing.



Will the DNC learn in time for 2020, only Tulsi Gabbard has a chance.
If they put up some other party hack they are finished again.


edit on 9-9-2017 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

A vote for Trump was stupid.


If you really believe this, you're stupid. You are why the country is so divided. Stop being part of the problem. You don't get to decide how other people think or what's important to them. Get that entitled attitude out of your head. You sound like a spoiled child.
edit on 9 9 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join