Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Black Lives Matter Disrupt Sanders

PetersSmith
Posts: 5,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 4:27:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
So this may be a little bit of old news, but I don't think it was brought to attention in the forums. Twice last year Bernie Sanders was "interrupted" by the activist movement Black Lives Matter. One was where he was trying to give a speech in Seattle, where two BLM protesters approached the podium and demanded Sanders give them the microphone. What did Sanders do? He politely told them they can speak after he was done. What did the activists do? Take the mic from him and spew their rhetoric to the audiance, at one point saying they were standing in front of "white racists". What did Sanders do then? He stood there and did nothing while his supporters booed them. Another time his speech was interrupted by BLM during an interview with O'Malley. The same thing happened. Sanders "let them" take over and they practically insulted the man who spent 50 years fighting for civil rights. What do you guys thin of this? Is this a sign that Sanders is weak and would never be able to go up against people like Putin? Is Sanders just trying to be reasonable and passivity was the best option here? Is BLM becoming a "dangerous" activist movement ()? http://www.theguardian.com... () http://www.nbcnews.com... ().

Anyway, what do you guys think about Sander's response and BLM in general?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 5:14:42 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 4:27:27 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
So this may be a little bit of old news, but I don't think it was brought to attention in the forums. Twice last year Bernie Sanders was "interrupted" by the activist movement Black Lives Matter. One was where he was trying to give a speech in Seattle, where two BLM protesters approached the podium and demanded Sanders give them the microphone. What did Sanders do? He politely told them they can speak after he was done. What did the activists do? Take the mic from him and spew their rhetoric to the audiance, at one point saying they were standing in front of "white racists". What did Sanders do then? He stood there and did nothing while his supporters booed them. Another time his speech was interrupted by BLM during an interview with O'Malley. The same thing happened. Sanders "let them" take over and they practically insulted the man who spent 50 years fighting for civil rights. What do you guys thin of this? Is this a sign that Sanders is weak and would never be able to go up against people like Putin? Is Sanders just trying to be reasonable and passivity was the best option here? Is BLM becoming a "dangerous" activist movement ()? http://www.theguardian.com... () http://www.nbcnews.com... ().

Anyway, what do you guys think about Sander's response and BLM in general?

I think black lives matter as an organization is genuinly trying to create racial equality and eliminate racism in society. However many of the activities it undertakes can have the opposite effect and show the organization in a bad light. Rioting and aggressive protests generally create public resentment and actually increase racial divisions. Sanders actions in the two incidents were generally weak. However in fairness there was little he could do. If he had fought over the microphone or spoke aggressively towards them he would have possibly looked racist or prejudice, which would have been a disaster when you consider his target voters. Why black lives matter targeted Sanders is an absolute mystery. I don't see what grudge they hold against him, it just shows the absurd nature of some of the organizations members.

Sanders would be a very weak leader in terms of foreign policy. His pacifist policies and reductions in military spending would allow enemies of America to operate without fear of American military intervention. Putin and Xi Jinping would easily dominate Sanders diplomatically. He would not be able to stand up for America on the world stage. Terrorist groups, dictatorships and other unfavorable regimes would also be delighted to see Sanders become the next president.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 5:21:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
It's strange as fvck, that of all the people they could've done this to, they go to the guy with the best civil rights record.

As for whether or not he should've done anything, it was a damned if you do, dammed if you don't. He's no Trump, kicking them out or doing anything else probably would've hurt his campaign.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 5:57:50 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 4:27:27 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
So this may be a little bit of old news, but I don't think it was brought to attention in the forums. Twice last year Bernie Sanders was "interrupted" by the activist movement Black Lives Matter. One was where he was trying to give a speech in Seattle, where two BLM protesters approached the podium and demanded Sanders give them the microphone. What did Sanders do? He politely told them they can speak after he was done. What did the activists do? Take the mic from him and spew their rhetoric to the audiance, at one point saying they were standing in front of "white racists". What did Sanders do then? He stood there and did nothing while his supporters booed them. Another time his speech was interrupted by BLM during an interview with O'Malley. The same thing happened. Sanders "let them" take over and they practically insulted the man who spent 50 years fighting for civil rights. What do you guys thin of this? Is this a sign that Sanders is weak and would never be able to go up against people like Putin? Is Sanders just trying to be reasonable and passivity was the best option here? Is BLM becoming a "dangerous" activist movement ()? http://www.theguardian.com... () http://www.nbcnews.com... ().

Anyway, what do you guys think about Sander's response and BLM in general?

People will see what they want in this. I love Berny, so my basis will show, but I think his reaction was the actions of someone who has confidence, not a coward. Trump beating his chest like an ape shows me 'wrakness' that can be exploited. It's much easier to wait for the bully to spew his bluster than get into the no win argument. Sanders is wise enough to let this sort of thing roll off his back.

Short (on phone) he is the 'bigger man'
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 6:09:39 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
You know... I don't think I can make this point strogly enough, and sure as he11 can't while using my phone, but you don't walk into a meeting with a world leader and get what you want by being louder than them. That is the sure sign of a fool.

I worked for a very great CEO for about 10 years. He ran hot with his staff, it was hard to keep up with, and hard to keep your sh1t up to his standards. He, however was never a bully, and to be with him in a high level meeting is to get a glimps of what 'statsmen' means. He spent most of the time listening, and in the end could knock out objections, counter interests, and impediment. It's not about how loud you can be.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 6:48:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 5:21:52 PM, Torton wrote:
It's strange as fvck, that of all the people they could've done this to, they go to the guy with the best civil rights record.


That's exactly why they did so. He's the most likely to listen. And, he did listen (not so much many of his supporters, but that's a different story). So it seems like they accomplished their goals.

As for whether or not he should've done anything, it was a damned if you do, dammed if you don't. He's no Trump, kicking them out or doing anything else probably would've hurt his campaign.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
imabench
Posts: 21,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 6:51:20 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 5:21:52 PM, Torton wrote:
It's strange as fvck, that of all the people they could've done this to, they go to the guy with the best civil rights record.

I dunno about 'best' but they certainly did pick a wrong candidate to attack. Trump or Cruz would have certainly more understandable targets than Bernie.

As for whether or not he should've done anything, it was a damned if you do, dammed if you don't. He's no Trump, kicking them out or doing anything else probably would've hurt his campaign.

He probably could have let them talk/rant for 10 minutes and then try to shoo them off the stage. Surely security could have come up with a quick gameplan to do exactly that in the time that the BLM people were on the stage
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 6:52:06 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 5:14:42 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/23/2016 4:27:27 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
So this may be a little bit of old news, but I don't think it was brought to attention in the forums. Twice last year Bernie Sanders was "interrupted" by the activist movement Black Lives Matter. One was where he was trying to give a speech in Seattle, where two BLM protesters approached the podium and demanded Sanders give them the microphone. What did Sanders do? He politely told them they can speak after he was done. What did the activists do? Take the mic from him and spew their rhetoric to the audiance, at one point saying they were standing in front of "white racists". What did Sanders do then? He stood there and did nothing while his supporters booed them. Another time his speech was interrupted by BLM during an interview with O'Malley. The same thing happened. Sanders "let them" take over and they practically insulted the man who spent 50 years fighting for civil rights. What do you guys thin of this? Is this a sign that Sanders is weak and would never be able to go up against people like Putin? Is Sanders just trying to be reasonable and passivity was the best option here? Is BLM becoming a "dangerous" activist movement ()? http://www.theguardian.com... () http://www.nbcnews.com... ().

Anyway, what do you guys think about Sander's response and BLM in general?

I think black lives matter as an organization is genuinly trying to create racial equality and eliminate racism in society. However many of the activities it undertakes can have the opposite effect and show the organization in a bad light. Rioting and aggressive protests generally create public resentment and actually increase racial divisions. Sanders actions in the two incidents were generally weak. However in fairness there was little he could do. If he had fought over the microphone or spoke aggressively towards them he would have possibly looked racist or prejudice, which would have been a disaster when you consider his target voters. Why black lives matter targeted Sanders is an absolute mystery. I don't see what grudge they hold against him, it just shows the absurd nature of some of the organizations members.

Sanders would be a very weak leader in terms of foreign policy. His pacifist policies and reductions in military spending would allow enemies of America to operate without fear of American military intervention. Putin and Xi Jinping would easily dominate Sanders diplomatically. He would not be able to stand up for America on the world stage. Terrorist groups, dictatorships and other unfavorable regimes would also be delighted to see Sanders become the next president.

I am subject to believe that they are huge supporters of Clinton.
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 6:59:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 6:09:39 PM, TBR wrote:
You know... I don't think I can make this point strogly enough, and sure as he11 can't while using my phone, but you don't walk into a meeting with a world leader and get what you want by being louder than them. That is the sure sign of a fool.

I worked for a very great CEO for about 10 years. He ran hot with his staff, it was hard to keep up with, and hard to keep your sh1t up to his standards. He, however was never a bully, and to be with him in a high level meeting is to get a glimps of what 'statsmen' means. He spent most of the time listening, and in the end could knock out objections, counter interests, and impediment. It's not about how loud you can be.

Where you aiming this at someone particularly, or just making a statement?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 7:25:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 6:59:22 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/23/2016 6:09:39 PM, TBR wrote:
You know... I don't think I can make this point strogly enough, and sure as he11 can't while using my phone, but you don't walk into a meeting with a world leader and get what you want by being louder than them. That is the sure sign of a fool.

I worked for a very great CEO for about 10 years. He ran hot with his staff, it was hard to keep up with, and hard to keep your sh1t up to his standards. He, however was never a bully, and to be with him in a high level meeting is to get a glimps of what 'statsmen' means. He spent most of the time listening, and in the end could knock out objections, counter interests, and impediment. It's not about how loud you can be.

Where you aiming this at someone particularly, or just making a statement?

I am only guessing at your question, but the contrast was Sanders with more bombastic people. That would be the field, but would have Trump and Cruz at the top of my mind.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 7:30:55 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 6:51:20 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/23/2016 5:21:52 PM, Torton wrote:
It's strange as fvck, that of all the people they could've done this to, they go to the guy with the best civil rights record.

I dunno about 'best' but they certainly did pick a wrong candidate to attack. Trump or Cruz would have certainly more understandable targets than Bernie.
I'm curious as to who you think has a better one. And I specifically mean in this election cycle, not of all time.
As for whether or not he should've done anything, it was a damned if you do, dammed if you don't. He's no Trump, kicking them out or doing anything else probably would've hurt his campaign.

He probably could have let them talk/rant for 10 minutes and then try to shoo them off the stage. Surely security could have come up with a quick gameplan to do exactly that in the time that the BLM people were on the stage
imabench
Posts: 21,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 7:34:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 7:30:55 PM, Torton wrote:
At 2/23/2016 6:51:20 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/23/2016 5:21:52 PM, Torton wrote:
It's strange as fvck, that of all the people they could've done this to, they go to the guy with the best civil rights record.

I dunno about 'best' but they certainly did pick a wrong candidate to attack. Trump or Cruz would have certainly more understandable targets than Bernie.

I'm curious as to who you think has a better one. And I specifically mean in this election cycle, not of all time.

I dont know who has a better one, I just know so little about Bernie's civil rights record and everyone elses that im skeptical to accept him as having the best one

As for whether or not he should've done anything, it was a damned if you do, dammed if you don't. He's no Trump, kicking them out or doing anything else probably would've hurt his campaign.

He probably could have let them talk/rant for 10 minutes and then try to shoo them off the stage. Surely security could have come up with a quick gameplan to do exactly that in the time that the BLM people were on the stage
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 7:36:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 6:52:06 PM, liltankjj wrote:

I am subject to believe that they are huge supporters of Clinton.

No surprise since Clinton has 90 percent of the black vote, just for being closer to Obama than Colonel Sanders. Manipulating the Black vote is as easy as ABC.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 7:47:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 7:43:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Great article for Blacks that read history.

http://www.thenation.com...

I already read it, but just rereading it again and I agree 100%.

http://www.politico.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 7:50:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 7:47:27 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/23/2016 7:43:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Great article for Blacks that read history.

http://www.thenation.com...

I already read it, but just rereading it again and I agree 100%.

http://www.politico.com...

It's very rare to find a Politician that would sacrifice everything to eliminate racism.
TheFlex
Posts: 1,745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 7:57:59 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Sanders lost a lot of respect from me that day. I can't respect the kind of leader who just lets two people walk up, hijack your rally, then berate your audience.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 8:19:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 7:47:27 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/23/2016 7:43:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Great article for Blacks that read history.

http://www.thenation.com...

I already read it, but just rereading it again and I agree 100%.

http://www.politico.com...

https://www.youtube.com...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 8:20:51 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 7:57:59 PM, TheFlex wrote:
Sanders lost a lot of respect from me that day. I can't respect the kind of leader who just lets two people walk up, hijack your rally, then berate your audience.

Do you know what would have happened if he acted like Trump?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 8:24:09 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 8:20:51 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/23/2016 7:57:59 PM, TheFlex wrote:
Sanders lost a lot of respect from me that day. I can't respect the kind of leader who just lets two people walk up, hijack your rally, then berate your audience.

Do you know what would have happened if he acted like Trump?

Trump would have asked the crowd what they wanted. Then it would be over.
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 8:38:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 7:25:57 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/23/2016 6:59:22 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/23/2016 6:09:39 PM, TBR wrote:
You know... I don't think I can make this point strogly enough, and sure as he11 can't while using my phone, but you don't walk into a meeting with a world leader and get what you want by being louder than them. That is the sure sign of a fool.

I worked for a very great CEO for about 10 years. He ran hot with his staff, it was hard to keep up with, and hard to keep your sh1t up to his standards. He, however was never a bully, and to be with him in a high level meeting is to get a glimps of what 'statsmen' means. He spent most of the time listening, and in the end could knock out objections, counter interests, and impediment. It's not about how loud you can be.

Where you aiming this at someone particularly, or just making a statement?

I am only guessing at your question, but the contrast was Sanders with more bombastic people. That would be the field, but would have Trump and Cruz at the top of my mind.

I see. I don't believe Cruz would be that way but then again it's not like I know him personally. I also don't believe Trump got where he is in business with that attitude. I do, however, believe that he is an attention grabber. This is why he is so loud mouthed now. I am interested in why you feel Cruz would be in your thoughts on this?
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 8:41:24 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 7:36:08 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/23/2016 6:52:06 PM, liltankjj wrote:

I am subject to believe that they are huge supporters of Clinton.

No surprise since Clinton has 90 percent of the black vote, just for being closer to Obama than Colonel Sanders. Manipulating the Black vote is as easy as ABC.



I would say manipulating the vote of Americans as a whole is that easy. What's with the Colonel Sanders reference. Do you really believe they are related?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 8:42:26 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 8:38:57 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/23/2016 7:25:57 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/23/2016 6:59:22 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/23/2016 6:09:39 PM, TBR wrote:
You know... I don't think I can make this point strogly enough, and sure as he11 can't while using my phone, but you don't walk into a meeting with a world leader and get what you want by being louder than them. That is the sure sign of a fool.

I worked for a very great CEO for about 10 years. He ran hot with his staff, it was hard to keep up with, and hard to keep your sh1t up to his standards. He, however was never a bully, and to be with him in a high level meeting is to get a glimps of what 'statsmen' means. He spent most of the time listening, and in the end could knock out objections, counter interests, and impediment. It's not about how loud you can be.

Where you aiming this at someone particularly, or just making a statement?

I am only guessing at your question, but the contrast was Sanders with more bombastic people. That would be the field, but would have Trump and Cruz at the top of my mind.

I see. I don't believe Cruz would be that way but then again it's not like I know him personally. I also don't believe Trump got where he is in business with that attitude. I do, however, believe that he is an attention grabber. This is why he is so loud mouthed now. I am interested in why you feel Cruz would be in your thoughts on this?

First, just how "successful" do you think Trump is? Second, without attitude, who do you think Cruz would be? What has he passed, what has he proposed that was voted on?
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 8:49:59 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 8:42:26 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/23/2016 8:38:57 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/23/2016 7:25:57 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/23/2016 6:59:22 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/23/2016 6:09:39 PM, TBR wrote:
You know... I don't think I can make this point strogly enough, and sure as he11 can't while using my phone, but you don't walk into a meeting with a world leader and get what you want by being louder than them. That is the sure sign of a fool.

I worked for a very great CEO for about 10 years. He ran hot with his staff, it was hard to keep up with, and hard to keep your sh1t up to his standards. He, however was never a bully, and to be with him in a high level meeting is to get a glimps of what 'statsmen' means. He spent most of the time listening, and in the end could knock out objections, counter interests, and impediment. It's not about how loud you can be.

Where you aiming this at someone particularly, or just making a statement?

I am only guessing at your question, but the contrast was Sanders with more bombastic people. That would be the field, but would have Trump and Cruz at the top of my mind.

I see. I don't believe Cruz would be that way but then again it's not like I know him personally. I also don't believe Trump got where he is in business with that attitude. I do, however, believe that he is an attention grabber. This is why he is so loud mouthed now. I am interested in why you feel Cruz would be in your thoughts on this?

First, just how "successful" do you think Trump is? Second, without attitude, who do you think Cruz would be? What has he passed, what has he proposed that was voted on?

We'll aside from answering my question with a question lol, Trump has done a lot with the loan from his father equalling up to personal success. As for Cruz, He has done the one thing I truly care about. He has held up to his principals. I would believe those principals will continue to be upheld if he is elected. There is a legitimate reason why most of the politicians in the beltway dislike him. But I could ask the same about Senator Sanders. I'm not familiar with his accomplishments. But please do answer my initial question.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 8:51:53 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 6:52:06 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/23/2016 5:14:42 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/23/2016 4:27:27 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
So this may be a little bit of old news, but I don't think it was brought to attention in the forums. Twice last year Bernie Sanders was "interrupted" by the activist movement Black Lives Matter. One was where he was trying to give a speech in Seattle, where two BLM protesters approached the podium and demanded Sanders give them the microphone. What did Sanders do? He politely told them they can speak after he was done. What did the activists do? Take the mic from him and spew their rhetoric to the audiance, at one point saying they were standing in front of "white racists". What did Sanders do then? He stood there and did nothing while his supporters booed them. Another time his speech was interrupted by BLM during an interview with O'Malley. The same thing happened. Sanders "let them" take over and they practically insulted the man who spent 50 years fighting for civil rights. What do you guys thin of this? Is this a sign that Sanders is weak and would never be able to go up against people like Putin? Is Sanders just trying to be reasonable and passivity was the best option here? Is BLM becoming a "dangerous" activist movement ()? http://www.theguardian.com... () http://www.nbcnews.com... ().

Anyway, what do you guys think about Sander's response and BLM in general?

I think black lives matter as an organization is genuinly trying to create racial equality and eliminate racism in society. However many of the activities it undertakes can have the opposite effect and show the organization in a bad light. Rioting and aggressive protests generally create public resentment and actually increase racial divisions. Sanders actions in the two incidents were generally weak. However in fairness there was little he could do. If he had fought over the microphone or spoke aggressively towards them he would have possibly looked racist or prejudice, which would have been a disaster when you consider his target voters. Why black lives matter targeted Sanders is an absolute mystery. I don't see what grudge they hold against him, it just shows the absurd nature of some of the organizations members.

Sanders would be a very weak leader in terms of foreign policy. His pacifist policies and reductions in military spending would allow enemies of America to operate without fear of American military intervention. Putin and Xi Jinping would easily dominate Sanders diplomatically. He would not be able to stand up for America on the world stage. Terrorist groups, dictatorships and other unfavorable regimes would also be delighted to see Sanders become the next president.

I am subject to believe that they are huge supporters of Clinton.

That is the only logical explanation I suppose.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 8:55:16 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 8:41:24 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/23/2016 7:36:08 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/23/2016 6:52:06 PM, liltankjj wrote:

I am subject to believe that they are huge supporters of Clinton.

No surprise since Clinton has 90 percent of the black vote, just for being closer to Obama than Colonel Sanders. Manipulating the Black vote is as easy as ABC.



I would say manipulating the vote of Americans as a whole is that easy. What's with the Colonel Sanders reference. Do you really believe they are related?

There will never exist any candidate that will ever get 90% of the white vote. Ever.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 8:59:12 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 8:49:59 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/23/2016 8:42:26 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/23/2016 8:38:57 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/23/2016 7:25:57 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/23/2016 6:59:22 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/23/2016 6:09:39 PM, TBR wrote:
You know... I don't think I can make this point strogly enough, and sure as he11 can't while using my phone, but you don't walk into a meeting with a world leader and get what you want by being louder than them. That is the sure sign of a fool.

I worked for a very great CEO for about 10 years. He ran hot with his staff, it was hard to keep up with, and hard to keep your sh1t up to his standards. He, however was never a bully, and to be with him in a high level meeting is to get a glimps of what 'statsmen' means. He spent most of the time listening, and in the end could knock out objections, counter interests, and impediment. It's not about how loud you can be.

Where you aiming this at someone particularly, or just making a statement?

I am only guessing at your question, but the contrast was Sanders with more bombastic people. That would be the field, but would have Trump and Cruz at the top of my mind.

I see. I don't believe Cruz would be that way but then again it's not like I know him personally. I also don't believe Trump got where he is in business with that attitude. I do, however, believe that he is an attention grabber. This is why he is so loud mouthed now. I am interested in why you feel Cruz would be in your thoughts on this?

First, just how "successful" do you think Trump is? Second, without attitude, who do you think Cruz would be? What has he passed, what has he proposed that was voted on?

We'll aside from answering my question with a question lol, Trump has done a lot with the loan from his father equalling up to personal success.

Do you think that is all he got. Really? Just a loan?

As for Cruz, He has done the one thing I truly care about. He has held up to his principals. I would believe those principals will continue to be upheld if he is elected. There is a legitimate reason why most of the politicians in the beltway dislike him. But I could ask the same about Senator Sanders. I'm not familiar with his accomplishments. But please do answer my initial question.

OK... The Cruz question? Well, he has accomplished NOTHING other than a failed attempt to move against the ACA with a government shutdown that hurt everyone.
liltankjj
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 8:59:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 8:55:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/23/2016 8:41:24 PM, liltankjj wrote:
At 2/23/2016 7:36:08 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/23/2016 6:52:06 PM, liltankjj wrote:

I am subject to believe that they are huge supporters of Clinton.

No surprise since Clinton has 90 percent of the black vote, just for being closer to Obama than Colonel Sanders. Manipulating the Black vote is as easy as ABC.



I would say manipulating the vote of Americans as a whole is that easy. What's with the Colonel Sanders reference. Do you really believe they are related?

There will never exist any candidate that will ever get 90% of the white vote. Ever.

Though I'm inclined to agree with you, this is due in part to the fact that there is a majority of White people. Here is a question, How do you know someone has 90% of the black vote?