HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Politics & Government » Hillary Clinton (Group) » The First Female Nominee ...

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 11:08 AM

The First Female Nominee should not have to share...

the same stage with the a man who doesn't concede and endorse her before the convention.

I'm seeing a lot of "suggestions" that Bernie's complacency to the threat that Trump poses should be accommodated. Hell no.

Hillary won and if Bernie won't acknowledge that before the convention, he can speak in the parking lot to his protestors. The last night of the convention is not about him or his "revolution".

/rant over

21 replies, 1634 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply The First Female Nominee should not have to share... (Original post)
SaschaHM Jun 2016 OP
Freddie Jun 2016 #1
yallerdawg Jun 2016 #2
SirBrockington Jun 2016 #14
BootinUp Jun 2016 #3
DawgHouse Jun 2016 #4
Ellen Forradalom Jun 2016 #11
Maru Kitteh Jun 2016 #5
BlueMTexpat Jun 2016 #6
MarianJack Jun 2016 #7
procon Jun 2016 #8
splat Jun 2016 #9
Walk away Jun 2016 #10
question everything Jun 2016 #12
teamster633 Jun 2016 #16
DemonGoddess Jun 2016 #13
SirBrockington Jun 2016 #15
splat Jun 2016 #17
SunSeeker Jun 2016 #18
sheshe2 Jun 2016 #19
Cha Jun 2016 #20
NEDem Jun 2016 #21

Response to SaschaHM (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 11:12 AM

1. He can speak to his farting protestors outside!

There's a vast sea of parking lots outside the Wells Fargo Center.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 11:14 AM

2. To my knowledge...

he still hasn't recognized her historic achievement. Not even that concession?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 01:24 PM

14. He could at the very least concede without endorsing

That is what they do every year in the general. Romney didn't want to, McCain didn't want to... but the same night... they did. And these are Republicans.... along with sixteen other Republicans that dropped out in the primaries this year. He lost. Blaming it or using some excuse of "system rigged"? really? This is relatively unheard of in the history of politics from the class president in high school, state reps, on up the the President of the United States. And to this point someone the media hasn't made him a pariah yet, but have indulge or justified the unjustifiable because its just "Bernie being Bernie" . Would it be nice to endorse? sure. But to not even acknowledge at all? Unbelievable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 11:19 AM

3. I must differ.

He should not be in the parking lot. Across the street would be much better, lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 11:21 AM

4. Typical. The female has to be considerate of the male "feels".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DawgHouse (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 12:12 PM

11. Always

Even a Presidential nominee has to perform emotional labor.

Ignore him and leave him fuming is usually the best response to petulant men. Looks like Hill knows this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 11:23 AM

5. I couldn't possibly agree more.

Let him scream at the pigeons in the park, shake his fist at the sun, wail into the wind. After 35 years in elected office pretending to be 'an outsider" it's what he's most comfortable doing anyways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 11:27 AM

6. +1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 11:39 AM

7. As my father would say,...

..."piss on him!"

PEACE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 11:52 AM

8. It's called the Nominating Convention for a reason.

He's nothing but a sour grapes spoiler now. He lost and he's waging a personal vendetta against Hillary. He's so bitter that he's going to try something at the convention, he has an feud against the Democratic Party and he seems intent on retaliation. He's angry that the voters selected Hillary and by slow walking his concession and endorsement, it looks like he's trying to weaken her chance of winning over Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 11:59 AM

9. I am old enough to remember 1960 -- Adlai and Symington, JFK and LBJ nominations

Wikipedia tells me there were many nominees:

John F. Kennedy 806 52.89%
Lyndon Johnson 409 26.84%
Stuart Symington 86 5.64%
Adlai Stevenson 79.5 5.25%
Robert B. Meyner 43 2.82%
Hubert Humphrey 41 2.76%
George A. Smathers 30 1.97%
Ross Barnett 23 1.51%
Herschel Loveless 2 0.13%
Pat Brown 1 0%
Orval Faubus 1 0%
Albert Rosellini

There were nominations and seconds and then delegates paraded the aisles with bobbing signs.
When all were done, there was voting, yielding, the great state of...

Will this happen this time with Bernie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 12:01 PM

10. Hillary is going to do whatever she thinks she needs to do to win...

the Senate back and a good chunk of the House. She is a real Democrat so down ballot is her mission (just one of the 1000 reasons she is a better candidate than Bernie could ever be).

But make no mistake about it. Bernie lost and I doubt he will walk away with any real power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 12:32 PM

12. It has nothing to do with gender. The party should not cave in for his blackmail

He puts demands and is not even willing to endorse her?

And he is not even a Democrat. He wants to change the rules to make it easier to someone like him to win next time around. I think we should change the rules so that someone like him cannot run again... unless he is proven Democrat: campaigned and got elected as a Democrat, campaign for other Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Reply #12)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 01:44 PM

16. That is the only rule change that matters: only vetted Democrats allowed to run for president...

...maybe even for senator, under our banner. I'm not opposed to getting rid of caucuses, but that isn't a high priority. I would enjoy watching the pissing contest that would result between Iowa and NH if that did come to pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 12:48 PM

13. No bowing down to the loser

Nope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 01:29 PM

15. I blame DWS incompetence

for even allowing a person with no skin in the game to run as a Democrat. A flow DEMOCRAT who worked their way through the party would have had influential people in their ear, persons they worked with throughout through the machinations to reach such a position to have the confidence of the party...such is the case with any group, bet it President of a Fraternal organization etc. etc. You let a person in who spent their time being outside of the party, what difference does it make to them if the whole thing blows up or not. He could have run green party from the start, with no media coverage, continued his lack of name recognition, and been on the radar as much as every other green party or libertarian or the "rent is too damn high" guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SirBrockington (Reply #15)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 02:10 PM

17. He was supposed to debate her from the left, give her a sparring partner

Debating just Martin O'Malley would not make for riveting TV. She would also be able to move leftward and bring the voters with her once Bernie staked out the extremes, her left shift looking moderate by contrast. This is classic political theory as taught at Wellesley in the late '60s.

He wasn't supposed to pose a real threat, or divide the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 02:11 PM

18. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 04:05 PM

19. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 06:02 PM

20. Hell NO.. no giving in to BS' pouting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SaschaHM (Original post)

Sat Jun 18, 2016, 09:44 PM

21. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread