Are the Sanders Supporters Going to Show CONVICTION ? Or.....

[protectionist]

Are the Sanders Supporters Going to Show CONVICTION ? Or are they going to toss all their anti-Wall St "convictions" away, and support Hillary Clinton, if she becomes the nominee ? Looking at Hillary's top donors, it is a Who's Who of big Wall St. venture capitalists, banks, hedge funds, etc.

If the Sanders people go over to Hillary, they have been hot air all along. Actually, left as they may be, with their anti-corporate stance, they really should be Trump supporters, with trump breaking records on the least amount of big corporate influence in a presidential campaign. sanders supporters feel free to comment (but only if you know how deep Hillary is with the big money guys$$$$$.

2 Items for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

 

[Capstone]

Democrats will vote Democrat.

 

[Obiwan]

As long as you keep feeding them with food stamps and welfare, Democrats are pretty predictable....

 

[Capstone]

As long as you keep feeding them with food stamps and welfare, Democrats are pretty predictable....

View attachment 72723

As an Independent, I suppose it falls on me to point out that a number of studies have shown that red states rely more heavily on federal aid than blue states. For instance, here's a summary of one study that had the top 7 most dependent states as red ones.

I also recall an article that named the state with the highest percentage of its population on food stamps as Mississippi, where more than 21% of its people were on food stamps at the time.

 

[EverCurious]

Almost half of my group of rabid Sander's socialist friends have informed me that if Sander's doesn't make the nomination (or run as an independent,) they intend to swap parties and vote for Trump if he makes the nomination. However, many of them have also told me there is no way in hell they would vote for any other Republican that [was] on the roster, nor for Clinton. I've also had some tell me that they intend to write-in Sander's regardless of what happens.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Almost half of my group of rabid Sander's socialist friends have informed me that if Sander's doesn't make the nomination (or run as an independent,) they intend to swap parties and vote for Trump if he makes the nomination. However, many of them have also told me there is no way in hell they would vote for any other Republican that [was] on the roster, nor for Clinton. I've also had some tell me that they intend to write-in Sander's regardless of what happens.

This is great news.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Kind of like the Unskewed polls in 2012. LOL

 

[protectionist]

As an Independent, I suppose it falls on me to point out that a number of studies have shown that red states rely more heavily on federal aid than blue states. For instance, here's a summary of one study that had the top 7 most dependent states as red ones.

I also recall an article that named the state with the highest percentage of its population on food stamps as Mississippi, where more than 21% of its people were on food stamps at the time.

Interesting thoughts, but veering off topic.

PS - maybe with all that welfare burden sagging on them, that's one of the reasons WHY they are so red state.

 

[Capstone]

As an Independent, I suppose it falls on me to point out that a number of studies have shown that red states rely more heavily on federal aid than blue states. For instance, here's a summary of one study that had the top 7 most dependent states as red ones.

I also recall an article that named the state with the highest percentage of its population on food stamps as Mississippi, where more than 21% of its people were on food stamps at the time.

Interesting thoughts, but veering off topic.

PS - maybe with all that welfare burden sagging on them, that's one of the reasons WHY they are so red state.

Just shooting down some erroneous partisan propaganda. I'd have done exactly the same thing had some false stereotype been thrown at the righties.

 

[Capstone]

...PS - maybe with all that welfare burden sagging on them, that's one of the reasons WHY they are so red state.

Speaking of stereotypes though, there are some that hold their water pretty well - E.G. why the poor and lower middle class in a number of southern states tend to vote Republican. Don't make me say it.

[COUGH]Bible Belt [/COUGH]

 

[protectionist]

Speaking of stereotypes though, there are some that hold their water pretty well - E.G. why the poor and lower middle class in a number of southern states tend to vote Republican. Don't make me say it.

[COUGH]Bible Belt [/COUGH]

I like my reason (Post # 8) better.

 

[Arianrhod]

Will RWNJs continue to prognosticate about other people's voting habits in the absence of anything remotely resembling proof?

 

[Capstone]

I like my reason (Post # 8) better.

And I like the Audi R8. Nevertheless, the reality of my 'family car' situation is represented by a far more humble name, namely Honda.

While it's true that a fairly significant portion of public assistance beneficiaries in the Bible Belt don't vote, it's equally true that a good many do, and maybe more importantly, that a high percentage of voters at or just above the poverty line vote Republican. There's little doubt that such voters are influenced more heavily by their 'Christian values' than their own self-interests. That's a reality the GOP side of our national duopoly has taken full advantage of over the years, primarily by way of stupid wedge issues (such as gay marriage, abortion, ETC.).

That's not to say 'low-inormation' voters on the Democratic side haven't been similarly manipulated via appeal to their collective moral compass on those very same issues, mind you!

The sad truth is: our political system is a house divided against itself...by design. And we, the occupants, have been too easily led to bicker with each other, as opposed to uniting against the architect and his shoddy builders.

 

[protectionist]

Will RWNJs continue to prognosticate about other people's voting habits in the absence of anything remotely resembling proof?

A liberal's definition of "proof" - studies conducted by liberals to show "proof" that favors liberal "ideology" (with no mention of studies that show the opposite)

 

[protectionist]

And I like the Audi R8. Nevertheless, the reality of my 'family car' situation is represented by a far more humble name, namely Honda.

While it's true that a fairly significant portion of public assistance beneficiaries in the Bible Belt don't vote, it's equally true that a good many do, and maybe more importantly, that a high percentage of voters at or just above the poverty line vote Republican. There's little doubt that such voters are influenced more heavily by their 'Christian values' than their own self-interests. That's a reality the GOP side of our national duopoly has taken full advantage of over the years, primarily by way of stupid wedge issues (such as gay marriage, abortion, ETC.).

That's not to say 'low-inormation' voters on the Democratic side haven't been similarly manipulated via appeal to their collective moral compass on those very same issues, mind you!

The sad truth is: our political system is a house divided against itself...by design. And we, the occupants, have been too easily led to bicker with each other, as opposed to uniting against the architect and his shoddy builders.

"little doubt" ? Upon what do you base THAT statement ?

If we the occupants were united properly, mass deportation of illegal aliens and strict border security would have been enacted long before Donald trump started talking about it. This would be the case rather than the long lst of Harms of Immigration that Americans (of all political persuasions) have been suffering for decades.

 

[Arianrhod]

Will RWNJs continue to prognosticate about other people's voting habits in the absence of anything remotely resembling proof?

A liberal's definition of "proof" - studies conducted by liberals to show "proof" that favors liberal "ideology" (with no mention of studies that show the opposite)

Look, if you can't prove that you have some psychic ability to guess who people will vote for, there's no shame in admitting it.

 

[protectionist]

Look, if you can't prove that you have some psychic ability to guess who people will vote for, there's no shame in admitting it.

I don't need "psychic ability" I'm not a liberal. I've got common sense, and do my own surveys by talking to people and obtaining REAL facts. Best "studies" ever devised. The statistics (polls) of your eyes and ears (which don't lie).

 

[Arianrhod]

Look, if you can't prove that you have some psychic ability to guess who people will vote for, there's no shame in admitting it.

I don't need "psychic ability"...

Well, you haven't presented any facts, so you may as well just keep Making Shit Up and trying to pretty it up with arcana.

 

[protectionist]

Well, you haven't presented any facts, so you may as well just keep Making Shit Up and trying to pretty it up with arcana.

The forum is PACKED with my "facts" Read Baby! Read!

And it's no surprise that a liberal is incapable of understanding the meaning of the word "facts" even when it put right in front of him. Liberals define "facts" as (just as I said) >> "studies conducted by liberals to show "proof" that favors liberal "ideology" (with no mention of studies that show the opposite)" And they regard studies (as eyes & ears) as not valid, because it doesn't fit THEIR definition.

Some people have to be told twice. Problem with liberals is, they are programmed to be resistant to deprogramming. It would be funny if it weren't so pitiful.

I live in a southern state. I previously lived in another southern state, and have visited 3 others. In all 5 of these, I've talked to hundreds of people. That's as good a study, survey, poll or whatever else you want to call it as any.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Are the Sanders Supporters Going to Show CONVICTION ? Or are they going to toss all their anti-Wall St "convictions" away, and support Hillary Clinton, if she becomes the nominee ? Looking at Hillary's top donors, it is a Who's Who of big Wall St. venture capitalists, banks, hedge funds, etc.

If the Sanders people go over to Hillary, they have been hot air all along. Actually, left as they may be, with their anti-corporate stance, they really should be Trump supporters, with trump breaking records on the least amount of big corporate influence in a presidential campaign. sanders supporters feel free to comment (but only if you know how deep Hillary is with the big money guys$$$$$.

2 Items for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

95% will vote for Hillary and 5% will go Green.

The same with Trump and the 5% will go Libertarian or some other Conservative Third Party Candidate...