Would this trigger /pol/?
It would trigger me and I would lose all respect for Bernie if he did something like this. I would instantly become a FORMER bernie supporter.
>>73479934
No, it's funny to look at the delusions of sandbags, even when they've known they're done for they still cling on to hopelessness.
>>73479990
I already am a former Bernie supporter.
>>73479934
Well, they're on the same page on taxing the rich, it seems.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-idUSKCN0XZ0I3
>>73479990
Would you still support him if he went with shillary?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/06/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-vice-president/
>>73480177
Yep.
>>73479934
They would still lose to Hillary.
>>73480258
Jesus, berniefags would do everything for "free college"
>>73480301
Because I don't see Hillary as the evil boogeyman that some of my more retarded fellow Berners do. They voted together the vast majority of the time in Congress anyways.
>>73480405
It's more about what she did as Secretary of State, which is more indicative of how'd she'd act as President anyway.
Pro-business, giving favors in exchange for foundation donations, anti-transparency, a war monger, and in favor of sponsoring coups in foreign countries. She's basically a Regan era republican if you look at her actions as SoS.
>>73480590
So her foreign policy is shit. Everyone knows that already. You think Trump's foreign policy would be any different from that of any other Republican? If so, then I've got news for you - You're being taken for a ride. Trump will never get into office without falling in line with the GOP foreign policy establishment. That means he'll be doing all the same shit as Clinton, except he'll be even worse. You may fall for that, but I don't.
>>73480788
I'm not saying I think Trump is a good alternative. I'm just saying the whole "Clinton is evil" thing isn't bogus.
>>73480968
>"Clinton is evil" thing isn't bogus
Clinton is not any more evil than any other modern politician, so I'm not sure what the point is. We had our chance to nominate someone with a better approach, and it didn't work out. Not much more to do than hold our breath and vote for the person who at least knows what the President does, how the system works, and won't support the fucktarded legislation coming out of the Republican House. With any luck, we'll manage to secure a Democratic Senate as well so we can get a SCOTUS appointment in.
>>73481157
The point is I'd never vote for her.
And the whole "she knows how the system works" doesn't impress me. The system is broken.
>>73481233
>"she knows how the system works" doesn't impress me
>The system is broken
What I meant is that she knows what the role of a President is, she knows what the SCOTUS actually does (more than I can say about her opponent, Trump,) and she has a former President by her side to support her. Clinton is the only logical choice when the options are her and Trump.
You're welcome to throw a temper tantrum and knock the game board over if you want, but you should know that you're being extremely childish. "I'd never vote for her" Give me a break. Welcome to the real world instead of fantasy land. Sometimes you don't get what you want.
>>73480405
>They voted together the vast majority of the time in Congress anyways.
that's a negative for Bernie, not a positive for Clinton...
>>73481423
The options aren't her and Trump though. There are plenty of other candidates running. I'm not convinced by your attempts to shame me into voting for a terrible person who would cause suffering all over the world.
>>73479934
It's literally impossible, and it would be incredibly stupid.
>>73481621
>There are plenty of other candidates running
You mean Libertardian Johnson and "I run every year and never get anywhere" Jill Stein? If we couldn't get a progressive nominated to represent the Democratic party, then you can't get Stein in the white house either. There is a zero percent chance of that happening. The only thing it accomplishes is taking away a vote from the person who has the chance to stop Trump.
>>73479934
No. I wouldn't mind. I'd still prefer Trump/ Webb though.
>>73481813
> he only thing it accomplishes is taking away a vote from the person who has the chance to stop Trump.
Both Trump and Clinton have over 50% disapproval ratings. If everyone who hated them voted third party, neither would win.
>>73482032
I'm not interested in voting based on "I don't like her personally" like some people are. When you look objectively at the whole package, it's clear to me that her Presidency would not be bad enough to justify risking a Trump presidency by supporting someone else. The problem is people like you who vote primarily based on gut feelings about a candidate personally instead of their policies and experience. Clinton is really not that different from Obama, except for her hawkish tendencies. Hell, even Obama harmed countless innocent people with his drone strikes and tearing down Libya.
Trump's Veep will be Mexican American lol
>>73482295
Do you hate guns or something?
Clinton getting a SCOTUS nomination will make American citizens less free. End of story.
>>73483221
>Clinton getting a SCOTUS nomination will make American citizens less free
Nonsense. A Clinton SCOTUS nomination is a necessity if we ever want to have any chance of fixing our corrupt campaign finance system. And SCOTUS is not going to take away your guns, you fucking pathetic piece of shit.
Guns over a functioning democracy.. How stupid can you possibly get?
>>73483562
There's no such thing as a functioning democracy without guns, you little hippie bitch.
>>73483686
Way to ignore everything else in my post. The SCOTUS is not going to take away your guns. On the other hand, SCOTUS has been actively tearing down 100 years of campaign finance reform efforts over the past 5 or 6 years. Which one is the more pressing matter, the one that isn't happening or the one that is? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
>>73479990
wtf i hate bernie now
i am now a #cruzmissile
