Well fine, sorry.

Donald's hate largely comes from the media misrepresenting his vague intentions with border security - cracking down on illegal immigration and barring immigration from Syria and Iraq.

this isn't a sellout. Bernie Sanders is a democrat of course it's obvious he's going to support the democratic party.

I feel like I'm explaining simple basics of how politics work to kids

He is a sellout, he called out Clinton constantly for being Wall Street backed and ran as a "revolutionary" candidate. Then after he saw he couldn't run as the democratic nominee, he folded back and went with party line rhetoric.

And guess what, the bloke he copied, Ron Paul, didn't endorse the other candidate after he lost and kept up his revolution.

So Sanders copied someone, and when it was time to show he had the same sort of integrity as that person, he folded. Sounds like a sellout to me, but maybe in Europe they have even less integrity.

bernie didnt sell out - he always wanted to stop trump above all else

ya hillary is everything his platform was against, but endorsing her was the only thing he could do at this point to try to stop trump

he's still trying to further his progressive revolution through downballot candidates so he didnt just completely give up just cus he endorsed clinton

it's called looking at the bigger picture

The bigger picture is that Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. Trumps endorses Hillary in the past and has described himself as a liberal several times, and I doubt he's changed.

Look at Ron Paul, did he endorse Romney to stop Obama, someone who's much worse than Trump? No, he stayed consistent and held his integrity.

Hillary and Trump the same? Come on Smed do you really need a new pair of glasses? When you will stop looking at the persona and the background of the politicians and focus more on their policies which is more important. And why exactly you bring up Ron Paul for? Everyone isn't like Ron Paul. Just because politcian x did this before the elections doesn't directly mean person y is forced to do the same before the elections if he doesn't want to get a called a cow. You're using a fallacy.

Edited 7/13/2016 14:01:25

http://time.com/3962799/donald-trump-hillary-clinton/

Trump was supportive of Hillary and held many of the same views as her. He's in favor of gun control, he's pro-LGBT, and is pretty similar in other domestic regards. He's barely different in immigration, with wanting stuff we already have like border fencing in larger quantities, and more tracking in cities with larger migrant populations.

The bigger differences come in foriegn policy though, which, if Gary Johnson wasn't running would get him my support. He's in favor of coming to terms with other countries usually considered our enemy and wants to disband NATO, which, especially for America, has long outlived it's purpose and poses more danger than it deters.

Bernie Sanders is basically doing the same thing Ron Paul did, by being an old guy having a revolution and recruiting millions of young folk for support. He even stole Ron Paul's logo for f*ck sakes. And if he had went the full path he'd have gotten the respect of many more voters and more folk would probably respect him, myself included, especially if he had joined the Greens and declared open season on the Democratic Party.

this thread is so worthless that i can't find my recycling bin picture of your threads, mgsb, but imagine that here, k?

Oh look I triggered him again.

Some people are easily triggered.

ron paul didnt make it a huge part of his campaign to stop obama... stopping trump was a huge part of bernie's campaign

Edited 7/15/2016 14:51:50

Bernie Sanders isn't running in the same party as Trump, so false analogy.

ron paul didnt make it a huge part of his campaign to stop romney... stopping trump was a huge part of bernie's campaign

Obviously if you're running as democrat then you're going to make it a huge part of your campaign to stop the republican from winning, but to be honest it makes absolutely zero sense to try to stop the republican nominee from winning if you are a republican.

Edited 7/14/2016 16:13:57

When are you guys going to understand? Have you forgotten the election of 2000 already?

Favorability and national polls don't mean anything. A candidate can win less votes and still win the election. Right now only 11 states are swing states and determine the election. All of the other states are meaningless.

A candidate can win less national votes and still win the election. You have to look at the polls state by state. If you look at the swing states then you see that Clinton is leading but is still inside the margin of error.

Additionally, this is an usual election. Because both candidates are so disliked, there will be record low turnout and at that point any number of small variables can change the race drastically. I give Trump a 45% chance of winning, Clinton a 47% chance and a 8% chance that they tie and this gets thrown to the House of Representatives (which is largely Republican and would vote Trump in ). This gives Trump a 53% chance to win.

NOTE: I cannont stand either one of the two main candidates. They make me want to shoot myself in the foot. I will vote for Johnson, not because I agree with him 100%, but to stick it to the two party system which gave us this catastrophe.

Quite the opposite actually. I think that because the candidates are so widely disliked there will be higher turnout to ensure that candidate X doesn't get elected!

When are you guys going to understand? Have you forgotten the election of 2000 already?

Favorability and national polls don't mean anything. A candidate can win less votes and still win the election. Right now only 11 states are swing states and determine the election. All of the other states are meaningless.

Actually, the Popular vote is a very reliable predicter of who will be elected. There have been around 3 or four times when it has been off by a percent or two, but these four times are only around 5% of the dozens of elections that have happened in american history. The other 95% of the time, the popular vote winner has won the presidency.

Wait... it's happened 4 times but that's only 5%? That means there have been 80 elections yet only 44 presidents? And that would mean the first election was in 1692...

And while it happened 4 times, it has only occurred once in past 30 elections...

America helped defeat Spain and France in the Spanish war of succession - confirmed