Well the echo-chamber grown story that Sanders isn't denouncing these doxxers hard enough (which, sure) so therefore CLEARLY the most liberal senator in the country endorses sexist harassment and all the supporters who share his views do too going on in here sure is gross and disappointing.
Yeah that's what this is, we just can't see the truth about a man whose campaign lies to his supporters and refuses to denounce what they are doing to the Nevada chair of the party he's vying for the nomination of. I mean he totally didn't run away from that question today during a presser. Nope he's bravely standing on the sidelines while his supporters harass a woman over his own campaigns lies.
But we're the ones in an echo chamber. Right.
I feel like you miiiiiight not be arguing in good faith.
From the guy who claimed the story was created in an echo chamber? That's fucking rich man.
And if you all thing this is vitriolic than I dunno where you work carebear land?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
yo, does anyone have a source on that claim that Sanders supporters got them to strip campaign finance from the party platform in Nevada?
my google-fu is, apparently, not up to snuff
It was brought up in this postmortem (it happened late in the convention, when many had left):
At this point, the Platform Committee motions to pass the Platform. The second is once again a longtime Sanders supporter who points out the work that had been done on the Platform and urges support. Now it’s time for 3 statements for and 3 against. On the Sanders side, it quickly devolves into discussions about this line. It doesn’t go far enough in calling for the abolition of Super Delegates. It is pointed out that there is a motion to vote and that these statements are supposed to be about arguing for or against the Platform in its entirety. It is past the point where a change can be made.
Erin Bilbray, a prominent local Democratic politician and a Sanders Super Delegate, takes the microphone ostensibly to speak against the Platform but makes a call for a vote on abolishing Super Delegates. It’s Out of Order. So we go back to the Pro side but Bilbray keeps interrupting. Then Dan Rolle, a fringe candidate running for a House Seat, gets the microphone and calls for a vote to abolish Super Delegates and fire Chair Roberta Lange. Out of Order. More chaos. Enough is enough. They call the vote. Again, it’s a voice vote.
At this point, it’s 10 pm or later. Many Clinton supporters have left, particularly compared to the Sanders supporters. The Nays carry it so the Platform is not approved. The Platform committee starts going through the Platform section by section — Military and Veterans Issues, Healthcare, Education, on and on and on. Each section is motioned for a vote, seconded and voted upon. Thankfully, the Sanders people don’t protest too loudly until we get to the Government Ethics section that contains this line. As well as other bullet points about Citizens United, campaign finance and many of the most important issues to the Sanders supporters. They scream it down. Platform committee removes the entire section from the Platform — because it didn’t pass — and we move on. Now, I wish they had gone line by line in that section and had us vote up or down. And I know that the Sanders supporters probably thought that by voting it down they would be able to change it but their vote was to NOT APPROVE that section of the Platform. So it wasn’t approved and it was removed. Once again, they were frustrated and angry because of how misinformed they were.
yo, does anyone have a source on that claim that Sanders supporters got them to strip campaign finance from the party platform in Nevada?
my google-fu is, apparently, not up to snuff
It was brought up in this postmortem (it happened late in the convention, when many had left):
At this point, the Platform Committee motions to pass the Platform. The second is once again a longtime Sanders supporter who points out the work that had been done on the Platform and urges support. Now it’s time for 3 statements for and 3 against. On the Sanders side, it quickly devolves into discussions about this line. It doesn’t go far enough in calling for the abolition of Super Delegates. It is pointed out that there is a motion to vote and that these statements are supposed to be about arguing for or against the Platform in its entirety. It is past the point where a change can be made.
Erin Bilbray, a prominent local Democratic politician and a Sanders Super Delegate, takes the microphone ostensibly to speak against the Platform but makes a call for a vote on abolishing Super Delegates. It’s Out of Order. So we go back to the Pro side but Bilbray keeps interrupting. Then Dan Rolle, a fringe candidate running for a House Seat, gets the microphone and calls for a vote to abolish Super Delegates and fire Chair Roberta Lange. Out of Order. More chaos. Enough is enough. They call the vote. Again, it’s a voice vote.
At this point, it’s 10 pm or later. Many Clinton supporters have left, particularly compared to the Sanders supporters. The Nays carry it so the Platform is not approved. The Platform committee starts going through the Platform section by section — Military and Veterans Issues, Healthcare, Education, on and on and on. Each section is motioned for a vote, seconded and voted upon. Thankfully, the Sanders people don’t protest too loudly until we get to the Government Ethics section that contains this line. As well as other bullet points about Citizens United, campaign finance and many of the most important issues to the Sanders supporters. They scream it down. Platform committee removes the entire section from the Platform — because it didn’t pass — and we move on. Now, I wish they had gone line by line in that section and had us vote up or down. And I know that the Sanders supporters probably thought that by voting it down they would be able to change it but their vote was to NOT APPROVE that section of the Platform. So it wasn’t approved and it was removed. Once again, they were frustrated and angry because of how misinformed they were.
awesome, thanks
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Well the echo-chamber grown story that Sanders isn't denouncing these doxxers hard enough (which, sure) so therefore CLEARLY the most liberal senator in the country endorses sexist harassment and all the supporters who share his views do too going on in here sure is gross and disappointing.
Yeah that's what this is, we just can't see the truth about a man whose campaign lies to his supporters and refuses to denounce what they are doing to the Nevada chair of the party he's vying for the nomination of. I mean he totally didn't run away from that question today during a presser. Nope he's bravely standing on the sidelines while his supporters harass a woman over his own campaigns lies.
But we're the ones in an echo chamber. Right.
I feel like you miiiiiight not be arguing in good faith.
From the guy who claimed the story was created in an echo chamber? That's fucking rich man.
And if you all thing this is vitriolic than I dunno where you work carebear land?
preacher I'm gonna remember how you've been acting over the last few pages
and when Hillary wins, and continues/expands the drone war in the middle east, I'm going to "just ask some questions" about YOUR character the first time some kids get blown up
Well the echo-chamber grown story that Sanders isn't denouncing these doxxers hard enough (which, sure) so therefore CLEARLY the most liberal senator in the country endorses sexist harassment and all the supporters who share his views do too going on in here sure is gross and disappointing.
Yeah that's what this is, we just can't see the truth about a man whose campaign lies to his supporters and refuses to denounce what they are doing to the Nevada chair of the party he's vying for the nomination of. I mean he totally didn't run away from that question today during a presser. Nope he's bravely standing on the sidelines while his supporters harass a woman over his own campaigns lies.
But we're the ones in an echo chamber. Right.
I feel like you miiiiiight not be arguing in good faith.
From the guy who claimed the story was created in an echo chamber? That's fucking rich man.
And if you all thing this is vitriolic than I dunno where you work carebear land?
preacher I'm gonna remember how you've been acting over the last few pages
and when Hillary wins, and continues/expands the drone war in the middle east, I'm going to "just ask some questions" about YOUR character the first time some kids get blown up
Well hopefully people wouldn't say that reports of drone strikes are a product of echo chambers
+2
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Is that to win outright or block Clinton from the magic number? Because he's been saying for a while now his path to the nomination would require taking super delegates in a contested convention.
Is that to win outright or block Clinton from the magic number? Because he's been saying for a while now his path to the nomination would require taking super delegates in a contested convention.
going by the percents, should be to claim majority of pledged delegates, which is the only number that matters. nobody has any shot of getting to actual majority just on pledged delegates in any vaguely contested democratic primary due to proportional allocation.
Is that to win outright or block Clinton from the magic number? Because he's been saying for a while now his path to the nomination would require taking super delegates in a contested convention.
It'd be to win the pledged delegates.
Because there's 0 chance that the super delegates will suddenly decide to ignore the popular vote and award the nomination to the guy who has routinely called them corrupt.
Is that to win outright or block Clinton from the magic number? Because he's been saying for a while now his path to the nomination would require taking super delegates in a contested convention.
Blocking her from winning with pledged delegates is meaningless - if she leads the pledged delegate count, the supers WILL back her, just as they would back Sanders if he was leading.
Well the echo-chamber grown story that Sanders isn't denouncing these doxxers hard enough (which, sure) so therefore CLEARLY the most liberal senator in the country endorses sexist harassment and all the supporters who share his views do too going on in here sure is gross and disappointing.
Yeah that's what this is, we just can't see the truth about a man whose campaign lies to his supporters and refuses to denounce what they are doing to the Nevada chair of the party he's vying for the nomination of. I mean he totally didn't run away from that question today during a presser. Nope he's bravely standing on the sidelines while his supporters harass a woman over his own campaigns lies.
But we're the ones in an echo chamber. Right.
I feel like you miiiiiight not be arguing in good faith.
From the guy who claimed the story was created in an echo chamber? That's fucking rich man.
And if you all thing this is vitriolic than I dunno where you work carebear land?
While I tend to agree with the bulk of your claims, you should consider the possibility that, in the effort to convert Sanders supporters to the Clinton camp for the General, you are not helping by being such a shitheel about it.
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
It's not as if reasonable Sanders supporters are going to turn around and vote for Trump if (more likely when) Hilllary gets the party nom.
Clearly I'm not petulant or immature enough to throw a tantrum and vote for a compete piece of shit like Trump instead of checking the box next to Hillarys name. If I could, anyway. Australians generally don't get to vote in US elections (notwithstanding Rupert Murdoch's machinations).
After the bullshit in Nevada and how the Sanders campaign blatantly lied in their response about it while ignoring the death threats their supporters are issuing I'd question someone still supporting him at this point.
Oh cool. That's really super rad.
I'm sorry when his campaign lies to their delegates, lies about why those delegates were disqualified, and then doesn't say anything about the death threats his supporters are making toward a DNC chair that's crap and if you support that well you either aren't paying attention or your willing to ignore some shitty behavior in a lost cause campaign. Bernie can't win, but his group sure as hell wants to damage the democratic brand.
Cool cool cool.
If you would, please point out where the political ideology I hold states that I support the actions being undertaken by those idiots.
Obviously I am disappointed that the Sanders campaign is not doing more to distance itself from and rebuke those shitstains, but that doesn't change what I believe in.
Apparently that is cause to question my morals and ethics?
Awesome.
I didn't realize that Bernie Sanders was an ideology. I thought he was a man.
Please point out where I stated that my political ideology is Bernie Sanders, instead of democratic socialism.
I support Sanders because his policies align most closely with my ideology out of all the candidates, not because I like his supporters more than other candidates supporters.
Which is apparently enough to call my principles into question?
That is what I was responding to.
Show me where this thing you're "reacting to" happened.
For months I'd thought and written that Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver was the key driver of toxicity in the the Democratic primary race. Weaver has been highly visible on television, far more than campaign managers tend to be. He's also been the one constantly upping the tension, pressing the acrimony and unrealism of the campaign as Sanders actual chances of winning dwindled.
But now I realize I had that wrong.
Actually, I didn't realize it. People who know told me.
Over the last several weeks I've had a series of conversations with multiple highly knowledgable, highly placed people. Perhaps it's coming from Weaver too. The two guys have been together for decades. But the 'burn it down' attitude, the upping the ante, everything we saw in that statement released today by the campaign seems to be coming from Sanders himself. Right from the top.
This should have been obvious to me. The tone and tenor of a campaign always come from the top. It wasn't obvious to me until now.
This might be because he's temperamentally like that. There's some evidence for that. It may also be that, like many other presidential contenders, once you get close it is simply impossible to let go. I don't know which it is. That would only be my speculation. But this is coming from Bernie Sanders. It's not Weaver. It's not driven by people around him. It's right from him. And what I understand from knowledgable sources is that in the last few weeks anyone who was trying to rein it in has basically stopped trying and just decided to let Bernie be Bernie.
Sanders speech tonight was right in line with his statement out this afternoon. He identified the Democratic party as an essentially corrupt, moribund institution which is now on notice that it must let 'the people' in. What about the coalitions Barack Obama built in 2008 and 2012, the biggest and most diverse presidential coalitions ever constructed?
Sanders narrative today has essentially been that he is political legitimacy. The Democratic party needs to realize that. This, as I said earlier, is the problem with lying to your supporters. Sanders is telling his supporters that he can still win, which he can't. He's suggesting that the win is being stolen by a corrupt establishment, an impression which will be validated when his phony prediction turns out not to be true. Lying like this sets you up for stuff like happened over the weekend in Nevada.
Back in the main room again and it is now after 10pm. We still are supposed to vote on the PLEOs and at-large Delegates. And the Platform. Oh God, the Platform. The Platform that was available online and was crafted by a committee split evenly between Sanders and Clinton supporters. Somehow during the day, one line in the section on Government Ethics got changed. (Edit — a writer, Breadlord, who was a Sanders delegate, has helped with this. This line was added through committee)They put the section on the screen with the bullet point they had changed highlighted. The line was “We support future reforms to the Presidential Primary process, including super-delegates, while ensuring Nevada remains an early state and First in the West.” (Thanks again to Breadlord for the exact wording)
At this point, the Platform Committee motions to pass the Platform. The second is once again a longtime Sanders supporter who points out the work that had been done on the Platform and urges support. Now it’s time for 3 statements for and 3 against. On the Sanders side, it quickly devolves into discussions about this line. It doesn’t go far enough in calling for the abolition of Super Delegates. It is pointed out that there is a motion to vote and that these statements are supposed to be about arguing for or against the Platform in its entirety. It is past the point where a change can be made.
Erin Bilbray, a prominent local Democratic politician and a Sanders Super Delegate, takes the microphone ostensibly to speak against the Platform but makes a call for a vote on abolishing Super Delegates. It’s Out of Order. So we go back to the Pro side but Bilbray keeps interrupting. Then Dan Rolle, a fringe candidate running for a House Seat, gets the microphone and calls for a vote to abolish Super Delegates and fire Chair Roberta Lange. Out of Order. More chaos. Enough is enough. They call the vote. Again, it’s a voice vote.
At this point, it’s 10 pm or later. Many Clinton supporters have left, particularly compared to the Sanders supporters. The Nays carry it so the Platform is not approved. The Platform committee starts going through the Platform section by section — Military and Veterans Issues, Healthcare, Education, on and on and on. Each section is motioned for a vote, seconded and voted upon. Thankfully, the Sanders people don’t protest too loudly until we get to the Government Ethics section that contains this line. As well as other bullet points about Citizens United, campaign finance and many of the most important issues to the Sanders supporters. They scream it down. Platform committee removes the entire section from the Platform — because it didn’t pass — and we move on. Now, I wish they had gone line by line in that section and had us vote up or down. And I know that the Sanders supporters probably thought that by voting it down they would be able to change it but their vote was to NOT APPROVE that section of the Platform. So it wasn’t approved and it was removed. Once again, they were frustrated and angry because of how misinformed they were.
For months I'd thought and written that Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver was the key driver of toxicity in the the Democratic primary race. Weaver has been highly visible on television, far more than campaign managers tend to be. He's also been the one constantly upping the tension, pressing the acrimony and unrealism of the campaign as Sanders actual chances of winning dwindled.
But now I realize I had that wrong.
Actually, I didn't realize it. People who know told me.
Over the last several weeks I've had a series of conversations with multiple highly knowledgable, highly placed people. Perhaps it's coming from Weaver too. The two guys have been together for decades. But the 'burn it down' attitude, the upping the ante, everything we saw in that statement released today by the campaign seems to be coming from Sanders himself. Right from the top.
This should have been obvious to me. The tone and tenor of a campaign always come from the top. It wasn't obvious to me until now.
This might be because he's temperamentally like that. There's some evidence for that. It may also be that, like many other presidential contenders, once you get close it is simply impossible to let go. I don't know which it is. That would only be my speculation. But this is coming from Bernie Sanders. It's not Weaver. It's not driven by people around him. It's right from him. And what I understand from knowledgable sources is that in the last few weeks anyone who was trying to rein it in has basically stopped trying and just decided to let Bernie be Bernie.
Sanders speech tonight was right in line with his statement out this afternoon. He identified the Democratic party as an essentially corrupt, moribund institution which is now on notice that it must let 'the people' in. What about the coalitions Barack Obama built in 2008 and 2012, the biggest and most diverse presidential coalitions ever constructed?
Sanders narrative today has essentially been that he is political legitimacy. The Democratic party needs to realize that. This, as I said earlier, is the problem with lying to your supporters. Sanders is telling his supporters that he can still win, which he can't. He's suggesting that the win is being stolen by a corrupt establishment, an impression which will be validated when his phony prediction turns out not to be true. Lying like this sets you up for stuff like happened over the weekend in Nevada.
As I said, it all comes from the very top.
My grandmother says her friend said Sanders was kind of an S.O.B. so this checks out.
Garthor on
+2
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
For months I'd thought and written that Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver was the key driver of toxicity in the the Democratic primary race. Weaver has been highly visible on television, far more than campaign managers tend to be. He's also been the one constantly upping the tension, pressing the acrimony and unrealism of the campaign as Sanders actual chances of winning dwindled.
But now I realize I had that wrong.
Actually, I didn't realize it. People who know told me.
Over the last several weeks I've had a series of conversations with multiple highly knowledgable, highly placed people. Perhaps it's coming from Weaver too. The two guys have been together for decades. But the 'burn it down' attitude, the upping the ante, everything we saw in that statement released today by the campaign seems to be coming from Sanders himself. Right from the top.
This should have been obvious to me. The tone and tenor of a campaign always come from the top. It wasn't obvious to me until now.
This might be because he's temperamentally like that. There's some evidence for that. It may also be that, like many other presidential contenders, once you get close it is simply impossible to let go. I don't know which it is. That would only be my speculation. But this is coming from Bernie Sanders. It's not Weaver. It's not driven by people around him. It's right from him. And what I understand from knowledgable sources is that in the last few weeks anyone who was trying to rein it in has basically stopped trying and just decided to let Bernie be Bernie.
Sanders speech tonight was right in line with his statement out this afternoon. He identified the Democratic party as an essentially corrupt, moribund institution which is now on notice that it must let 'the people' in. What about the coalitions Barack Obama built in 2008 and 2012, the biggest and most diverse presidential coalitions ever constructed?
Sanders narrative today has essentially been that he is political legitimacy. The Democratic party needs to realize that. This, as I said earlier, is the problem with lying to your supporters. Sanders is telling his supporters that he can still win, which he can't. He's suggesting that the win is being stolen by a corrupt establishment, an impression which will be validated when his phony prediction turns out not to be true. Lying like this sets you up for stuff like happened over the weekend in Nevada.
As I said, it all comes from the very top.
My grandmother says her friend said Sanders was kind of an S.O.B. so this checks out.
My father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate verified this.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
+10
Options
Tommy2Handswhat is this where am iRegistered Userregular
My dog's friend Tim once said that Bernie killed a man and I'm inclined to believe him
My uncle that works at Nintendo thinks Hillary is a butt
+9
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Lonestar
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
+2
Options
Tommy2Handswhat is this where am iRegistered Userregular
It's not as if reasonable Sanders supporters are going to turn around and vote for Trump if (more likely when) Hilllary gets the party nom.
Clearly I'm not petulant or immature enough to throw a tantrum and vote for a compete piece of shit like Trump instead of checking the box next to Hillarys name. If I could, anyway. Australians generally don't get to vote in US elections (notwithstanding Rupert Murdoch's machinations).
Well the echo-chamber grown story that Sanders isn't denouncing these doxxers hard enough (which, sure) so therefore CLEARLY the most liberal senator in the country endorses sexist harassment and all the supporters who share his views do too going on in here sure is gross and disappointing.
Yeah that's what this is, we just can't see the truth about a man whose campaign lies to his supporters and refuses to denounce what they are doing to the Nevada chair of the party he's vying for the nomination of. I mean he totally didn't run away from that question today during a presser. Nope he's bravely standing on the sidelines while his supporters harass a woman over his own campaigns lies.
But we're the ones in an echo chamber. Right.
I feel like you miiiiiight not be arguing in good faith.
From the guy who claimed the story was created in an echo chamber? That's fucking rich man.
And if you all thing this is vitriolic than I dunno where you work carebear land?
Look pal...
First off you're coming off like a butt with that last line. You're not controversial. This is the internet. I've seen and heard every variety of offensive and intrusive thought possible and that's just from people who are on MY team in multiplayer games. Nothing you're going to be allowed to say on this forum is going to be a drop of piss in the ocean of bigotry and bullying that was my middle school experience anyway so let's just cut the tough guy act before people start sarcastically quoting your John Bender avatar at you.
The reason I say this is a bad faith argument is that I think you should try to approach things in politics with empathy and reason. You don't have to sympathize or even relate to the person on the other end but at the very least it helps you understand their point of view and you could at least better arguments. I don't think anybody here actually thinks Bernie Sanders supports or encourages in any way the personal attacks just because he's not giving them a ton of focus, or at least they shouldn't. Empathize. Put the shoe on the other foot or some metaphor that works better because that's not how shoes or feet work...
I spent all of yesterday horribly ill, the details of which I'll spare you. Needless to say I didn't have a ton of time to hound the Wendell Pierce story, because that's not exactly the kind of pick me up I look for in the brief moments when I'm not being violently sick. A cursory Google search doesn't bring up any stories about Clinton or her camp releasing any statement on the incident. Should anybody think this means Hillary Clinton supports him tossing around two people, grabbing the woman and striking her in the face? Of course not. She probably hasn't even been asked about it. You have to have some bounds of reason. I don't think even Trump would support that, maybe that's giving him too much credit. I mean if nothing else no candidate would support that behavior because obvious morality aside it's a bad look.
The reason Hillary hasn't spent the past day nonstop denouncing that assault is the same reason Sanders hasn't spent the past day denouncing these harassing phone calls. No politician, no person, wants the optics of focusing on the worst actions of their worst advocates. You can't seriously expect Sanders to spend his entire time talking about and enforcing that narrative that all his supporters are represented by the tiny minority of assholes who pull shit like this. If nothing else because it gives those people attention they don't deserve. Sanders actually went to the precaution of mentioning that his supporters should work together respectfully and constructively with other Democrats in a press release sent out ahead of the convention.
So yeah, go ahead and be vitriolic all you want but try to empathize first. I think you'll find that Sanders, Clinton and just about everybody on this forum is on the same side of social justice. I'll reiterate from an earlier post: Not only is focusing on the worst actors in a group a terrible way to inform your opinions and voting but it also strikes me as a terrible way to go through life. If I've learned anything over the past 24 hours of being violently sick it's that spending all your time dealing with bucketfuls of shit is not something I would wish on even my worst enemy.
PwnanObrien on
+9
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
After the bullshit in Nevada and how the Sanders campaign blatantly lied in their response about it while ignoring the death threats their supporters are issuing I'd question someone still supporting him at this point.
Oh cool. That's really super rad.
I'm sorry when his campaign lies to their delegates, lies about why those delegates were disqualified, and then doesn't say anything about the death threats his supporters are making toward a DNC chair that's crap and if you support that well you either aren't paying attention or your willing to ignore some shitty behavior in a lost cause campaign. Bernie can't win, but his group sure as hell wants to damage the democratic brand.
Cool cool cool.
If you would, please point out where the political ideology I hold states that I support the actions being undertaken by those idiots.
Obviously I am disappointed that the Sanders campaign is not doing more to distance itself from and rebuke those shitstains, but that doesn't change what I believe in.
Apparently that is cause to question my morals and ethics?
Awesome.
I didn't realize that Bernie Sanders was an ideology. I thought he was a man.
Please point out where I stated that my political ideology is Bernie Sanders, instead of democratic socialism.
I support Sanders because his policies align most closely with my ideology out of all the candidates, not because I like his supporters more than other candidates supporters.
Which is apparently enough to call my principles into question?
That is what I was responding to.
Show me where this thing you're "reacting to" happened.
Open the quote tree and read Preacher's first two posts.
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
I don't think the DNC should have let him run. I think he has increased Trump's chances and gained quite little in terms of moving Clinton to the left or creating a viable long-term progressive movement. He's been the worst possible foil for Clinton and soured a bunch of young people on her with his stubborn, utterly automatic and epistemically closed approach to this uphill battle.
He's taken donations for weeks that are nothing but vainglory and his legacy is thousands of people that still know little about elections and don't care about anything but electing him.
I'm to his left and I think he's been more annoying and shown less good faith than Jim Webb at this point.
The reason why Hillary hasn't needed to decry the assault is because the person who did it already apologized and admitted it was wrong. All of Sanders's Nevada supporters/delegates who are doing this shit refuse to admit they're wrong and some even argue that they're fully in the right.
I don't think the DNC should have let him run. I think he has increased Trump's chances and gained quite little in terms of moving Clinton to the left or creating a viable long-term progressive movement. He's been the worst possible foil for Clinton and soured a bunch of young people on her with his stubborn, utterly automatic and epistemically closed approach to this uphill battle.
He's taken donations for weeks that are nothing but vainglory and his legacy is thousands of people that still know little about elections and don't care about anything but electing him.
I'm to his left and I think he's been more annoying and shown less good faith than Jim Webb at this point.
"Let"? The DNC can't stop people from running. Nor should they be able to.
Coinage on
+17
Options
PwnanObrienHe's right, life sucks.Registered Userregular
I don't think the DNC should have let him run. I think he has increased Trump's chances and gained quite little in terms of moving Clinton to the left or creating a viable long-term progressive movement. He's been the worst possible foil for Clinton and soured a bunch of young people on her with his stubborn, utterly automatic and epistemically closed approach to this uphill battle.
He's taken donations for weeks that are nothing but vainglory and his legacy is thousands of people that still know little about elections and don't care about anything but electing him.
I'm to his left and I think he's been more annoying and shown less good faith than Jim Webb at this point.
I feel the opposite really. His speech last night was almost entirely shitting on Trump and with no GOP race to oppose them Trump's basically getting double suplexed all over the place by both Democratic candidates. A move he is probably not familiar with because even though Vince McMahon's thirst for celebrity endorsement makes him a Hall of Famer the cross promotional angle with Trump as GM of RAW was ended immediately because stock prices fell 7% the following day when investors thought Trump would actually have control of the company's flagship show.
I don't think the DNC should have let him run. I think he has increased Trump's chances and gained quite little in terms of moving Clinton to the left or creating a viable long-term progressive movement. He's been the worst possible foil for Clinton and soured a bunch of young people on her with his stubborn, utterly automatic and epistemically closed approach to this uphill battle.
He's taken donations for weeks that are nothing but vainglory and his legacy is thousands of people that still know little about elections and don't care about anything but electing him.
I'm to his left and I think he's been more annoying and shown less good faith than Jim Webb at this point.
"Let"? The DNC can't stop people from running. Nor should they be able to.
I may be wrong and @absalon is free to correct me, but I think the sentiment is more like this
Bernie is not a Democrat. He has been listed as an Independent Senator caucusing with the Democrats for years. However, when he signalled his desire to run for President, he signaled this to the DNC. He and the DNC came to an agreement where he would run in the Democratic Party Primary, as a Democrat, and as such have access to certain DNC items. Such as the DNC email list (which is the only way that I think he's been able to send me emails because I do not remember donating to his campaign nor signing up for his campaign emails. Although most of the last year is a blur and I could be wrong).
By all accounts, the DNC did not have to allow Bernie the opportunity to have access to things reserved for Democrats who are running. But there was a compromise that occured behind the scenes and a man who has prided himself as not being of the Party, became of the Party in order to run for President.
I am not saying that the DNC should not have made the deal, they absolutely should have because it's good to have multiple voices in a Primary so that the Party can find it's current voice. But The DNC absolutely did not have to let Bernie run as a Democrat.
I think the DNC really did not think he would get this far or this voting season would be such a circus
+1
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited May 2016
I also don't think they expected Sanders to hang in there and continue harping on Clinton when he can't be the nominee without Clinton getting put in jail or a hospital bed. He should have turned mainly to anti-Trump debunker and agitator several weeks ago if he had half the strategic sense and leftist convictions god gave Wasserman-Schultz.
You can't be the nominee. You never could get enough votes and convince voters you deserved more votes. At least try to undo the hate towards the actual nominee among your people instead and convince them that yes, there actually is a difference between Gore and Bush. You have no worldly reason to continue fighting this way or acting as if you have been mistreated by rules you knew were there. The party wanted Clinton, who has been a democrat for decades and hasn't been representing a safe super-left enclave that has allowed you to be an independent social democrat. You can't act as if they're cheating you or dare talk about the anger among your people when the Gamergate scumeaters infect your crowd and send death threats to women on your side.
Absalon on
+14
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
No I don't think that they expected him to run against the organisation while still benefiting from the organisation. I don't any of us thought that his railing against "the man" was actually him railing against the DNC even while getting the assistance. That would be a ludicrous and selfish thing for him to do. And it didn't fit into the narrative that most of us had of him in our minds, in the beginning. He was the righteous progressive warrior, out to solve the problems of the world, one cranky hair raising tirade after the other.
That was my perspective of him anyways. I think that started to change for me sometime around the email/database breach by his people.
I also don't think they expected Sanders to hang in there and continue harping on Clinton when he can't be the nominee without Clinton getting put in jail or a hospital bed. He should have turned mainly to anti-Trump debunker and agitator several weeks ago if he had half the strategic sense and leftist convictions god gave Wasserman-Schultz.
You can't be the nominee. You never could get enough votes and convince voters you deserved more votes. At least try to undo the hate towards the actual nominee among your people instead and convince them that yes, there actually is a difference between Gore and Bush. You have no worldly reason to continue fighting this way or acting as if you have been mistreated by rules you knew were there. The party wanted Clinton, who has been a democrat for decades and hasn't been representing a safe super-left enclave that has allowed you to be an independent social democrat. You can't act as if they're cheating you or dare talk about the anger among your people when the Gamergate scumeaters infect your crowd and send death threats to women on your side.
I don't often see anyone infer positive things about Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Thanks for the chuckles!
Posts
From the guy who claimed the story was created in an echo chamber? That's fucking rich man.
And if you all thing this is vitriolic than I dunno where you work carebear land?
pleasepaypreacher.net
It was brought up in this postmortem (it happened late in the convention, when many had left):
awesome, thanks
preacher I'm gonna remember how you've been acting over the last few pages
and when Hillary wins, and continues/expands the drone war in the middle east, I'm going to "just ask some questions" about YOUR character the first time some kids get blown up
Well hopefully people wouldn't say that reports of drone strikes are a product of echo chambers
Is that to win outright or block Clinton from the magic number? Because he's been saying for a while now his path to the nomination would require taking super delegates in a contested convention.
going by the percents, should be to claim majority of pledged delegates, which is the only number that matters. nobody has any shot of getting to actual majority just on pledged delegates in any vaguely contested democratic primary due to proportional allocation.
It'd be to win the pledged delegates.
Because there's 0 chance that the super delegates will suddenly decide to ignore the popular vote and award the nomination to the guy who has routinely called them corrupt.
3DS: 2981-5304-3227
Blocking her from winning with pledged delegates is meaningless - if she leads the pledged delegate count, the supers WILL back her, just as they would back Sanders if he was leading.
While I tend to agree with the bulk of your claims, you should consider the possibility that, in the effort to convert Sanders supporters to the Clinton camp for the General, you are not helping by being such a shitheel about it.
Clearly I'm not petulant or immature enough to throw a tantrum and vote for a compete piece of shit like Trump instead of checking the box next to Hillarys name. If I could, anyway. Australians generally don't get to vote in US elections (notwithstanding Rupert Murdoch's machinations).
Six more months of this shit.
Then a year, and then it's time for the 2020 primary campaign! God help us.
At this point it's not about reporting the news, it's about making a buck.
Show me where this thing you're "reacting to" happened.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
https://medium.com/@mamajeanab/the-nevada-state-democratic-convention-c55076db43a#.icywbez1w
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
My grandmother says her friend said Sanders was kind of an S.O.B. so this checks out.
My father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate verified this.
- Miyazaki, 2016
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Yeah but you don't even vote you dirty foreigner
Look pal...
First off you're coming off like a butt with that last line. You're not controversial. This is the internet. I've seen and heard every variety of offensive and intrusive thought possible and that's just from people who are on MY team in multiplayer games. Nothing you're going to be allowed to say on this forum is going to be a drop of piss in the ocean of bigotry and bullying that was my middle school experience anyway so let's just cut the tough guy act before people start sarcastically quoting your John Bender avatar at you.
The reason I say this is a bad faith argument is that I think you should try to approach things in politics with empathy and reason. You don't have to sympathize or even relate to the person on the other end but at the very least it helps you understand their point of view and you could at least better arguments. I don't think anybody here actually thinks Bernie Sanders supports or encourages in any way the personal attacks just because he's not giving them a ton of focus, or at least they shouldn't. Empathize. Put the shoe on the other foot or some metaphor that works better because that's not how shoes or feet work...
I spent all of yesterday horribly ill, the details of which I'll spare you. Needless to say I didn't have a ton of time to hound the Wendell Pierce story, because that's not exactly the kind of pick me up I look for in the brief moments when I'm not being violently sick. A cursory Google search doesn't bring up any stories about Clinton or her camp releasing any statement on the incident. Should anybody think this means Hillary Clinton supports him tossing around two people, grabbing the woman and striking her in the face? Of course not. She probably hasn't even been asked about it. You have to have some bounds of reason. I don't think even Trump would support that, maybe that's giving him too much credit. I mean if nothing else no candidate would support that behavior because obvious morality aside it's a bad look.
The reason Hillary hasn't spent the past day nonstop denouncing that assault is the same reason Sanders hasn't spent the past day denouncing these harassing phone calls. No politician, no person, wants the optics of focusing on the worst actions of their worst advocates. You can't seriously expect Sanders to spend his entire time talking about and enforcing that narrative that all his supporters are represented by the tiny minority of assholes who pull shit like this. If nothing else because it gives those people attention they don't deserve. Sanders actually went to the precaution of mentioning that his supporters should work together respectfully and constructively with other Democrats in a press release sent out ahead of the convention.
So yeah, go ahead and be vitriolic all you want but try to empathize first. I think you'll find that Sanders, Clinton and just about everybody on this forum is on the same side of social justice. I'll reiterate from an earlier post: Not only is focusing on the worst actors in a group a terrible way to inform your opinions and voting but it also strikes me as a terrible way to go through life. If I've learned anything over the past 24 hours of being violently sick it's that spending all your time dealing with bucketfuls of shit is not something I would wish on even my worst enemy.
Open the quote tree and read Preacher's first two posts.
He's taken donations for weeks that are nothing but vainglory and his legacy is thousands of people that still know little about elections and don't care about anything but electing him.
I'm to his left and I think he's been more annoying and shown less good faith than Jim Webb at this point.
I feel the opposite really. His speech last night was almost entirely shitting on Trump and with no GOP race to oppose them Trump's basically getting double suplexed all over the place by both Democratic candidates. A move he is probably not familiar with because even though Vince McMahon's thirst for celebrity endorsement makes him a Hall of Famer the cross promotional angle with Trump as GM of RAW was ended immediately because stock prices fell 7% the following day when investors thought Trump would actually have control of the company's flagship show.
I'm not sure how or why I got off on this tangent but the point remains. Donald Trump is such a bad businessman that the idea of him pretending to run a company made the stock drop.
I may be wrong and @absalon is free to correct me, but I think the sentiment is more like this
Bernie is not a Democrat. He has been listed as an Independent Senator caucusing with the Democrats for years. However, when he signalled his desire to run for President, he signaled this to the DNC. He and the DNC came to an agreement where he would run in the Democratic Party Primary, as a Democrat, and as such have access to certain DNC items. Such as the DNC email list (which is the only way that I think he's been able to send me emails because I do not remember donating to his campaign nor signing up for his campaign emails. Although most of the last year is a blur and I could be wrong).
By all accounts, the DNC did not have to allow Bernie the opportunity to have access to things reserved for Democrats who are running. But there was a compromise that occured behind the scenes and a man who has prided himself as not being of the Party, became of the Party in order to run for President.
I am not saying that the DNC should not have made the deal, they absolutely should have because it's good to have multiple voices in a Primary so that the Party can find it's current voice. But The DNC absolutely did not have to let Bernie run as a Democrat.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
You can't be the nominee. You never could get enough votes and convince voters you deserved more votes. At least try to undo the hate towards the actual nominee among your people instead and convince them that yes, there actually is a difference between Gore and Bush. You have no worldly reason to continue fighting this way or acting as if you have been mistreated by rules you knew were there. The party wanted Clinton, who has been a democrat for decades and hasn't been representing a safe super-left enclave that has allowed you to be an independent social democrat. You can't act as if they're cheating you or dare talk about the anger among your people when the Gamergate scumeaters infect your crowd and send death threats to women on your side.
That was my perspective of him anyways. I think that started to change for me sometime around the email/database breach by his people.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I don't often see anyone infer positive things about Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Thanks for the chuckles!