Do you actually contribute anything of substance here? So far in this thread you've made baseless and false claims, posted an article you snatched from google, and misrepresented the content of that article, all while refusing to engage substantively with any posters who have responded to you or with any of our other posts on this subject.
I could talk policy ALL DAY LONG but I'm not going to do it with someone who is engaging in bad faith, which you appear to be.
Not a single one of you is capable of anything but a bad faith argument when it comes to Bernie.
This is why Democrats will continue to lose. Largely affluent liberals are a menace. At least republicans are honest. Liberals act like they actually give a shit about people and then continue to vote for oligarchs. Have fun with that.
And now you come with the ad hominem attacks and pretending people on this board are a monolith?
Cool. If you have something meaningful to say go ahead and say it. Otherwise it's just straight up trolling.
Do you actually contribute anything of substance here? So far in this thread you've made baseless and false claims, posted an article you snatched from google, and misrepresented the content of that article, all while refusing to engage substantively with any posters who have responded to you or with any of our other posts on this subject.
I could talk policy ALL DAY LONG but I'm not going to do it with someone who is engaging in bad faith, which you appear to be.
Not a single one of you is capable of anything but a bad faith argument when it comes to Bernie.
This is why Democrats will continue to lose. Largely affluent liberals are a menace. At least republicans are honest. Liberals act like they actually give a shit about people and then continue to vote for oligarchs. Have fun with that.
This is just intellectually dishonest. I will vote for Bernie if he’s the nominee. No other option. I WANT to like Bernie. His bullshit and his rabid stans are what keep me from doing so.
Not a single one of you is capable of anything but a bad faith argument when it comes to Bernie.
This is why Democrats will continue to lose. Largely affluent liberals are a menace. At least republicans are honest. Liberals act like they actually give a shit about people and then continue to vote for oligarchs. Have fun with that.
And now you come with the ad hominem attacks and pretending people on this board are a monolith?
Cool. If you have something meaningful to say go ahead and say it. Otherwise it's just straight up trolling.
God, how do you survive talking to people on the right? Maybe you do deserve fascism.
And now you come with the ad hominem attacks and pretending people on this board are a monolith?
Cool. If you have something meaningful to say go ahead and say it. Otherwise it's just straight up trolling.
God, how do you survive talking to people on the right? Maybe you do deserve fascism.
I do it literally every day. Quite successfully, actually. And I also engage successfully with people who support Bernie Sanders, despite my issues with him as a person and candidate. It's actually possible to disagree with one another and engage in substantive and intellectually interesting conversation. The problem here is that you're not willing (able?) to provide that, so there isn't anything interesting to discuss.
Do you actually contribute anything of substance here? So far in this thread you've made baseless and false claims, posted an article you snatched from google, and misrepresented the content of that article, all while refusing to engage substantively with any posters who have responded to you or with any of our other posts on this subject.
I could talk policy ALL DAY LONG but I'm not going to do it with someone who is engaging in bad faith, which you appear to be.
Not a single one of you is capable of anything but a bad faith argument when it comes to Bernie.
This is why Democrats will continue to lose. Largely affluent liberals are a menace. At least republicans are honest. Liberals act like they actually give a shit about people and then continue to vote for oligarchs. Have fun with that.
LOL. So I'm a menace and worse than a Republican because I'm an affluent liberal who thinks the government should tax the rich (including me), means test student loan forgiveness (which means my loans won't be forgiven), so there's more money for child care (which again, won't help me at all but is amazing for many people)?
How far up the Intercept's ass do you have to be to think that the better, more honest, and progressive choice is to vote for someone who has changing explanations of whether he'd tax me (so maybe I'd benefit), has said he'd forgive all student loans (so I'd definitely benefit), and hasn't proposed any plan for childcare (neutral for me, bad for everyone else)?
In all these years I haven’t read a single smart argument for Bernie. The arguments are all emotional and often vitriolic. It would be lovely if someone could come here and lay out the case for Bernie and why his plans make more sense than someone else’s. But I haven’t seen this. It’s been 5 years.
Can someone help me understand? Bernie is surging in the polls, and Elizabeth has been dropping. This election season has been going on for quite some time, but only now is this conversation being revealed. How does that square?
This is weird logic. By this logic there would be no surprises or new information revealed ever during the course of a campaign and we all know that isn’t true.
If I had to guess, this isn’t some calculated campaign move, I suspect it’s staff who are pissed at Bernard’s recent antics and decided to say fuck it. Now that Warren has confirmed (again only because Bernie’s move was to deny deny deny) she’s using it to her advantage as much as possible which is basically her only move. Going negative is dangerous territory and hurts women more than men so no clue how this shakes out but being wide-eyed about it is obnoxious unless this is your first election.
I just think this kind of divisiveness is a bad idea. We saw where it led in 2016, all of this kind of finger pointing and attacking. We need to focus on coming together to beat Trump.
This is weird logic. By this logic there would be no surprises or new information revealed ever during the course of a campaign and we all know that isn’t true.
If I had to guess, this isn’t some calculated campaign move, I suspect it’s staff who are pissed at Bernard’s recent antics and decided to say fuck it. Now that Warren has confirmed (again only because Bernie’s move was to deny deny deny) she’s using it to her advantage as much as possible which is basically her only move. Going negative is dangerous territory and hurts women more than men so no clue how this shakes out but being wide-eyed about it is obnoxious unless this is your first election.
I just think this kind of divisiveness is a bad idea. We saw where it led in 2016, all of this kind of finger pointing and attacking. We need to focus on coming together to beat Trump.
It's fine if that is your opinion, but what you said initially isn't the same thing as what you're saying here.
You know what, I’m tired of hearing that this is being divisive by warren. How convenient that people all of a sudden care about divisiveness.. It would have been really nice had people believed in that last time when Bernie was peddling the “rigged” claims, and his surrogates were threatening chaos at the convention.
It would have been nice had Bernie, being the leader he claimed to be, called on his supporters to stop the disgusting behavior towards anyone not “falling in line”.
But he gets challenged this time, not nearly as much as he should, and everyone is all of a sudden “oh no! Let’s not be divisive!”
I am not a Warren fan, but I 100% believe Bernie said this. Absolutely. His ego is just beyond anything at this point. The cult of personality that follows him is almost as scary as the one that follows 45*.
I’m in NH and still not sure who I’ll be voting for. It sure as shit won’t be Sanders.
With that said, I have not had a *single* campaign call or canvasser at my door (registered D). In NH. A month out from primary.
I’ve had warren, Bernie, and Klobuchar! I know the Pete folks have been around too because they hosted a debate watch party at my friend’s house.
You know what, I’m tired of hearing that this is being divisive by warren. How convenient that people all of a sudden care about divisiveness.. It would have been really nice had people believed in that last time when Bernie was peddling the “rigged” claims, and his surrogates were threatening chaos at the convention.
It would have been nice had Bernie, being the leader he claimed to be, called on his supporters to stop the disgusting behavior towards anyone not “falling in line”.
But he gets challenged this time, not nearly as much as he should, and everyone is all of a sudden “oh no! Let’s not be divisive!”
Give me a fucking break.
Exactly. It’s not divisive for Bernard to say this to Warren’s face, only divisive if Warren says it happened. So fucking ridiculous.
You know what, I’m tired of hearing that this is being divisive by warren. How convenient that people all of a sudden care about divisiveness.. It would have been really nice had people believed in that last time when Bernie was peddling the “rigged” claims, and his surrogates were threatening chaos at the convention.
It would have been nice had Bernie, being the leader he claimed to be, called on his supporters to stop the disgusting behavior towards anyone not “falling in line”.
But he gets challenged this time, not nearly as much as he should, and everyone is all of a sudden “oh no! Let’s not be divisive!”
Give me a fucking break.
This isn't accurate. I'm pretty sure Bernie didn't peddle that the primaries were rigged. His supporters did, but he himself did not. He would say the economy is rigged as part of his campaigning.
Also, it's not as if the divisiveness in 2016 was one-sided. I'm not going to deny Bernie supporters were harsh, but they also had tons of vitriol hurled at them from Clinton supporters as well as the media. And had their groups taken down the night before an important primary when Hillary supporters posted child porn on them.
A tweet (so hiding) but sharing because of how it conveys my anger & frustration so Spot Freakin’ On & might fill others with comfort that we’re not the only ones who understand:
Do you really think this kind of sexist language is ok, especially given the context?
Also, no chairs were thrown at the Nevada state convention. That was a lie invented by Jon Ralston and this person on Twitter is perpetuating that lie. That's also not ok.
The point of a primary is to be divisive. If you're not being divisive you're not campaigning in a primary.
I’ve been told so many times in the past 24 hours that I’m being divisive because I have brought up this and other questionable things Bernie has said or done. Meanwhile Bernie’s whole strategy is to tear down Joe Biden. His staffers’ Twitter timelines are just nothing but anti Biden stuff. But the second someone suggests that St. Heart Attack might not be perfect, OH NO DIVISIVE.
The point of a primary is to be divisive. If you're not being divisive you're not campaigning in a primary.
I’ve been told so many times in the past 24 hours that I’m being divisive because I have brought up this and other questionable things Bernie has said or done. Meanwhile Bernie’s whole strategy is to tear down Joe Biden. His staffers’ Twitter timelines are just nothing but anti Biden stuff. But the second someone suggests that St. Heart Attack might not be perfect, OH NO DIVISIVE.
What the fuck are we even doing here if we aren't making the case for our candidate and against the ones we don't care for? It's the POINT OF THE PRIMARY. It pisses me off that we are all supposed to smile and nod in the face of this idiocy and not voice an opinion. Just because I think a candidate is trash doesn't mean I won't vote for them over Donald Trump.
The calls for unity are grating. It actually DOES matter to me who wins the primary. It's not all samesies in the Dem camp.
You know what, I’m tired of hearing that this is being divisive by warren. How convenient that people all of a sudden care about divisiveness.. It would have been really nice had people believed in that last time when Bernie was peddling the “rigged” claims, and his surrogates were threatening chaos at the convention.
It would have been nice had Bernie, being the leader he claimed to be, called on his supporters to stop the disgusting behavior towards anyone not “falling in line”.
But he gets challenged this time, not nearly as much as he should, and everyone is all of a sudden “oh no! Let’s not be divisive!”
Give me a fucking break.
This isn't accurate. I'm pretty sure Bernie didn't peddle that the primaries were rigged. His supporters did, but he himself did not. He would say the economy is rigged as part of his campaigning.
Also, it's not as if the divisiveness in 2016 was one-sided. I'm not going to deny Bernie supporters were harsh, but they also had tons of vitriol hurled at them from Clinton supporters as well as the media. And had their groups taken down the night before an important primary when Hillary supporters posted child porn on them.
A tweet (so hiding) but sharing because of how it conveys my anger & frustration so Spot Freakin’ On & might fill others with comfort that we’re not the only ones who understand:
Do you really think this kind of sexist language is ok, especially given the context?
Also, no chairs were thrown at the Nevada state convention. That was a lie invented by Jon Ralston and this person on Twitter is perpetuating that lie. That's also not ok.
Bernie said it wasn’t rigged but then went on to essentially say it was rigged just without using the word. But he can’t be bothered to care about how disenfranchising caucuses are.
"What has upset me, and what I think is -- I wouldn't use the word rigged, because we knew what the words were -- but what is really dumb is that you have closed primaries, like in New York state, where three million people who are Democrats or Republicans could not participate, where you have situation where over 400 superdelegates came on board Clinton's campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast.
"That's not rigged. I think it's just a dumb process which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign."
I’ve been told so many times in the past 24 hours that I’m being divisive because I have brought up this and other questionable things Bernie has said or done. Meanwhile Bernie’s whole strategy is to tear down Joe Biden. His staffers’ Twitter timelines are just nothing but anti Biden stuff. But the second someone suggests that St. Heart Attack might not be perfect, OH NO DIVISIVE.
What the fuck are we even doing here if we aren't making the case for our candidate and against the ones we don't care for? It's the POINT OF THE PRIMARY. It pisses me off that we are all supposed to smile and nod in the face of this idiocy and not voice an opinion. Just because I think a candidate is trash doesn't mean I won't vote for them over Donald Trump.
The calls for unity are grating. It actually DOES matter to me who wins the primary. It's not all samesies in the Dem camp.
It’s particularly grating to me because it’s people who are basically in one breath calling Biden a Republican and then in the next telling me I’m hurting the Democrats’ chances by criticizing Bernie. Ridiculous.
I am not a Warren fan, but I 100% believe Bernie said this. Absolutely. His ego is just beyond anything at this point. The cult of personality that follows him is almost as scary as the one that follows 45*.
I’m in NH and still not sure who I’ll be voting for. It sure as shit won’t be Sanders.
With that said, I have not had a *single* campaign call or canvasser at my door (registered D). In NH. A month out from primary.
I’ve had warren, Bernie, and Klobuchar! I know the Pete folks have been around too because they hosted a debate watch party at my friend’s house.
Wow! I see Bernie and Pete signs, but no contact other than Steyer’s junk mail (because sending me a flyer every 3 days is a great way to showcase your environment-friendly platform). When I canvassed for Kamala, we left lit at the door. I’ve not had a single person knock the door.
Bernie said it wasn’t rigged but then went on to essentially say it was rigged just without using the word. But he can’t be bothered to care about how disenfranchising caucuses are.
"What has upset me, and what I think is -- I wouldn't use the word rigged, because we knew what the words were -- but what is really dumb is that you have closed primaries, like in New York state, where three million people who are Democrats or Republicans could not participate, where you have situation where over 400 superdelegates came on board Clinton's campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast.
"That's not rigged. I think it's just a dumb process which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign."
Bernie said it wasn’t rigged but then went on to essentially say it was rigged just without using the word. But he can’t be bothered to care about how disenfranchising caucuses are.
"What has upset me, and what I think is -- I wouldn't use the word rigged, because we knew what the words were -- but what is really dumb is that you have closed primaries, like in New York state, where three million people who are Democrats or Republicans could not participate, where you have situation where over 400 superdelegates came on board Clinton's campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast.
"That's not rigged. I think it's just a dumb process which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign."
Yeah, he's saying those words and then going on to criticize and downplay the legitimacy of the Democratic Party's delegate rules and individual states' primaries. How would you characterize statements like this? If Bernie is saying he doesn't think the primaries are rigged and instead calling them "dumb" (which what the fuck kind of disrespectful language is that anyways?) and saying that how they do them is unfair what do YOU think the message is? The clear subtext is that it is rigged or inherently unfair in some way. Which is a pretty big accusation for someone who isn't even in the party to make, frankly.
Bernie said it wasn’t rigged but then went on to essentially say it was rigged just without using the word. But he can’t be bothered to care about how disenfranchising caucuses are.
"What has upset me, and what I think is -- I wouldn't use the word rigged, because we knew what the words were -- but what is really dumb is that you have closed primaries, like in New York state, where three million people who are Democrats or Republicans could not participate, where you have situation where over 400 superdelegates came on board Clinton's campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast.
"That's not rigged. I think it's just a dumb process which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign."
Yeah, he's saying those words and then going on to criticize and downplay the legitimacy of the Democratic Party's delegate rules and individual states' primaries. How would you characterize statements like this? If Bernie is saying he doesn't think the primaries are rigged and instead calling them "dumb" (which what the fuck kind of disrespectful language is that anyways?) and saying that how they do them is unfair what do YOU think the message is? The clear subtext is that it is rigged or inherently unfair in some way. Which is a pretty big accusation for someone who isn't even in the party to make, frankly.
Exactly! Which is why I said he said it’s not rigged and then went on to say that it is without using that word.
And none of these rules were enacted to keep HIM specifically. They’ve been in place. And the DNC can’t control which states have closed or open primaries. Funny how someone building a grassroots movement didn’t start by building up state organizations to tackle those issues. (I have mixed feelings on closed primaries and can be persuaded both ways, but that is not the DNC disadvantaging his campaign.)
He also complained about superdelegates nonstop. You know why superdelegates supported Clinton? Because she spent years establishing relationships. Bernie is a notorious curmudgeon who wouldn’t even join the party while he was in Congress and then is SHOCKED that none of his colleagues wanted to support him.
Do you actually contribute anything of substance here? So far in this thread you've made baseless and false claims, posted an article you snatched from google, and misrepresented the content of that article, all while refusing to engage substantively with any posters who have responded to you or with any of our other posts on this subject.
I could talk policy ALL DAY LONG but I'm not going to do it with someone who is engaging in bad faith, which you appear to be.
Liberals act like they actually give a shit about people and then continue to vote for oligarchs. Have fun with that.
kind of like Bernie supporters being totally cool with Bernie's longstanding racism.
Bernie said it wasn’t rigged but then went on to essentially say it was rigged just without using the word. But he can’t be bothered to care about how disenfranchising caucuses are.
"What has upset me, and what I think is -- I wouldn't use the word rigged, because we knew what the words were -- but what is really dumb is that you have closed primaries, like in New York state, where three million people who are Democrats or Republicans could not participate, where you have situation where over 400 superdelegates came on board Clinton's campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast.
"That's not rigged. I think it's just a dumb process which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign."
I’m curious about Jon Ralston lying because that’s kind of a random assertion. Who says he’s lying? Did he admit to lying? Is there proof something didn’t happen?