pathetic little tramp posted:

You mean making an informed decision from a reasonable set of circumstances? Yeah... that uh.. bitch?

Nanomashoes posted:

It still buys you a place at the table.

Brodeurs Nanny posted:

Why are people like this. Why

quote:

Hillary Clinton had a tense confrontation with a young Somali-American woman in Minnesota Tuesday over her checkered past on racial issues.

The woman greeted Clinton and then brought up the “super-predator” remarks she made in the 1990s in support of a tough federal crime bill that Black Lives Matter protesters have deemed overly harsh on minorities.

A protester interrupted a private fundraiser to confront Clinton about the same comment last week.

This time, the conversation was more in the open.

“Well first of all, that comment was made one time,” Clinton said. “I’ve always been in favor of young people [getting more] opportunities.”

Clinton touted a speech she gave early in the campaign that included speaking out against racial profiling, but the young woman was unimpressed, asking how blacks could be sure Clinton would be “accountable to black communities now.”

“I think, you know, you can look at my history,” Clinton said. “I always have been.”

“I don’t think that’s true,” the young women said. “[I’ve looked] at your history and that’s not what happened.”

“I’m happy to give you more information, and the reason so many black and [inaudible] people across the country support me is because they know me. They know what I’ve done, and they know that I mean what I say, and I will have a very comprehensive agenda to deal with a lot of the problems,” Clinton said.

She added she was proud to have support in the Somali-American community, but the young woman appeared to dismiss Clinton touting having the endorsement of a Somali-American councilman, flustering Clinton.

“You know what, dear?” Clinton asked. “You have a different opinion. He is a Somali elected to the City Council. I’m really proud of that.”

The woman said something unclear, to which Clinton responded, “Why don’t you go run for something then?”

“I’m working for a Somali-American,” she replied as she turned to leave.

“Well, good, good luck to you,” Clinton said, laughing.

Venom Snake posted:

She obviously likes Bernie but thinks Hillary is the better candidate for the general. This isn't an awful view by any standard.

f#a# posted:

According to polls it's wrong, but to each their own.

Yoshifan823 posted:

Yeah, but in the general you should vote for what would do the most good. And unless Trump and Clinton both die the day of the election, voting third party or voting green or not voting isn't doing anyone any good.

Pick posted:

Obamacare is now keeping a good number of my chronically ill friends alive, and I'll vote for anyone who keeps it safe and by extension keeps them safe. Sorry if that's not ideologically pure enough for someone whose friends aren't suffering.

waffle posted:

None of the Republican candidates have even bothered talking about Bernie yet while they're nonstop attacking Hillary, though

Tatum Girlparts posted:

why why why are people allowed to view a political race differently than me, can someone not stop these maniacs???

f#a# posted:

According to polls it's wrong, but to each their own.

Crain posted:

I'm still like 99% sure that someone's going to get shot at a polling place over a political argument.

Nanomashoes posted:

And it will be Donald Drumpf that does the shooting. His numbers will go up.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

That doesn't mean that Hillary won by "buying" the election. In fact, it disproves that notion.

TwinsensRevenge posted:

the losing candidate raising tons of money doesn't disprove anything if the winning candidate raised almost $100 million more

waffle posted:

None of the Republican candidates have even bothered talking about Bernie yet while they're nonstop attacking Hillary, though

zen death robot posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-s7eG2ckN4

Joementum posted:

So when will we get results? It's not going to matter to me either way, and I won't be able to understand your response because I'm clearly illiterate, but I'm curious.

Venom Snake posted:

General election polls this far out mean nothing. it's been said so often i'm suprised theres a person left on SA who believes it

f#a# posted:

Full results won't be until tomorrow morning, but coverage should be in full swing by 7pm EST.
Alternatively, read the OP.

Zen Dudeism posted:

Hillary, addressing the concerns of a Somali-American this morning over coffee: http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-confronted-voter-thinks-record-shows-she-doesnt-care-african-americans/

f#a# posted:

According to polls it's wrong, but to each their own.

Nanomashoes posted:

Bernie's raising more money than hillary, to the point where the DNC got rid of fundraising rules to allow her to get more cash.

TwinsensRevenge posted:

the losing candidate raising tons of money doesn't disprove anything if the winning candidate raised almost $100 million more

Cnut the Great posted:

If your goal is to honestly express your views democratically through the voting system, it's doing plenty of good to vote third party. It's dumb to blame third party voters for not voting for the Democrat. By the same logic, the third party voters could blame the Democratic voters for not all voting for their candidate.

Voting third party actually can influence the kind of candidates the Democrats put up in the future. It's not uncommon for the major parties to gradually assimilate some of the platforms of the lesser parties in order to sway protest voters from past election cycles back to their side. Losing past elections to the Republicans due to third party voters is what motivates them to court these voters.

It definitely sucks when the Republicans win, but, you know, that's a thing that's going to happen periodically. For all we know, it might happen even more often if everyone always snapped in line and always voted for the Democrat, because then the party would have one less reason to ever adapt to electoral feedback, leading to a weaker, less responsive party in the long-term. It's not accelerationism, it's just the way our lovely system works.

I'm a Bernie supporter and I plan on voting for Hillary in the general if it comes down to it (yes, I know it will come down to it, but I have an obligation to pretend it won't). But that's because Hillary's going to be the candidate who most closely represents my views. If she wasn't, I'd totally vote for someone else, and I wouldn't feel bad about it at all. I didn't create the goddamn system.

Cnut the Great posted:

Joementum posted:

So when will we get results? It's not going to matter to me either way, and I won't be able to understand your response because I'm clearly illiterate, but I'm curious.

Venom Snake posted:

What

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

The losing candidate also raised huge sums of money, and is outright claiming to be raising more money than their opponent.