United States of Corporate America

LSD-25

LSD-25

Well-Known Member
It leads to other perverted things too like pedophilia ... Id like to check your browser history Uncle Fuck...
 
LSD-25

LSD-25

Well-Known Member
yeah right ever watched "to catch a predator" with cris hayes.. most of those dudes are homosexual..
 
LSD-25

LSD-25

Well-Known Member
I fact I could have swore on the show one night they said the guys screen name was unclebuck.. makes me wonder..
 
LSD-25

LSD-25

Well-Known Member
I believe the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman.. 2 perverted drug addicts should NOT get the benefits of two NORMAL people trying to raise children, in a safe place, free of scum bags, perverts and pedophiles..
 
MisterBouncyBounce

MisterBouncyBounce

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
Why did Sanders 'back up'? What 'deal'?

Please explain.
Click to expand...
Comparatively speaking, he ran a very radical campaign, he garnered a lot of support and coalesced a base behind him. but as the writing became clear and he had to decide how far he was willing to go, how much was he willing to break with the status quo and the DNC proper, he pulled back closer to the party and establishment politics and chose to support the "more of the same" candidate and the DNC leadership.

Hillary comes from and represents the same old guard. surely electing her, while being historic as the first women, would not be "revolutionary", she's part of the democrats we know well.

But he had a lot of political currency he built up from the campaign. I seriously doubt he gave that up for nothing. he had to get something in return for not running independently and throwing his support behind Hillary and for not making a stink about what the DNC did to sandbag him. why wouldn't he with the leverage he had.

so with a seemingly likely probability that Clinton was going to be President, he could either go back to the Senate with President Clinton maybe having a score to settle with him, or he could go back with the President owing him a debt of gratitude.

He chose the conservative way. he took the "cash" if you will and played ball. He did what they wanted him to do. He had to get paid for it somehow.

The changes he was calling for were very significant, the were very left of today's center.
So he was calling for real change. But regardless how it can be analyzed, like say, he didn't want to split the vote or what have you, in the end he said to the people vote for the status quo. That is the antithesis of someone calling for a "revolution", calling for very divergent policies.

If he was someone who could truly be convicted by his beliefs, then he would never have compromised and would have ran as an indy with the intention of building something transformative beyond this election. Like a Ralph Nader would have done.

I'm sorry, I like the guy a lot too, I wish he was President. But he clearely showed he would not put himself on the line for what he says he believes.
 
Corso312

Corso312

Well-Known Member
MisterBouncyBounce said:
Comparatively speaking, he ran a very radical campaign, he garnered a lot of support and coalesced a base behind him. but as the writing became clear and he had to decide how far he was willing to go, how much was he willing to break with the status quo and the DNC proper, he pulled back closer to the party and establishment politics and chose to support the "more of the same" candidate and the DNC leadership.

Hillary comes from and represents the same old guard. surely electing her, while being historic as the first women, would not be "revolutionary", she's part of the democrats we know well.

But he had a lot of political currency he built up from the campaign. I seriously doubt he gave that up for nothing. he had to get something in return for not running independently and throwing his support behind Hillary and for not making a stink about what the DNC did to sandbag him. why wouldn't he with the leverage he had.

so with a seemingly likely probability that Clinton was going to be President, he could either go back to the Senate with President Clinton maybe having a score to settle with him, or he could go back with the President owing him a debt of gratitude.

He chose the conservative way. he took the "cash" if you will and played ball. He did what they wanted him to do. He had to get paid for it somehow.

The changes he was calling for were very significant, the were very left of today's center.
So he was calling for real change. But regardless how it can be analyzed, like say, he didn't want to split the vote or what have you, in the end he said to the people vote for the status quo. That is the antithesis of someone calling for a "revolution", calling for very divergent policies.

If he was someone who could truly be convicted by his beliefs, then he would never have compromised and would have ran as an indy with the intention of building something transformative beyond this election. Like a Ralph Nader would have done.

I'm sorry, I like the guy a lot too, I wish he was President. But he clearely showed he would not put himself on the line for what he says he believes.
Click to expand...


Agreed and well said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top