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..
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.
oh, no. They cared when racist, sexist, cis, straight Saint Bernie said he was over identity identity politics because they're not REAL issues. His issues were the real ones, and PeoPle WeRe BeInG diVisIvE by virtue of caring about issues that affected them.
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.
His campaign spent an incredible amount of time decrying the primary rules. How super delegates were unfair or how closed primaries were unfair. There was talk of trying to “flip” super delegates in order to get him the nomination, all the while Hillary was clearly winning.
As far as all sides being nasty. Sure there was nastiness everywhere, but to try make it an “all sides” thing when it was CLEAR AS DAY that the vitriol was on a whole different level and still is, is pretty ridiculous.
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."
Post by seeyalater52 on Jan 14, 2020 15:03:10 GMT -5
Also those same primary rules have been in place for decades. Bernie Sanders has been around for decades and active in politics. He only started vocal opposition to these rules during his own presidential run. If his primary goal is not self-interested political gain why did he wait until it benefited him to make these sorts of statements and advocate for reforms (leaving aside how inappropriate it is for him to have a say in this as someone who is not a Democrat.)
He has no issues with using the primary structure to crowd out actual Democrats from the political process thereby robbing Dems in his state of the ability to be represented in Congress by a member of their chosen political party, but he wants to throw stones at how other states conduct their primaries?
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.
I think it's clear he's saying he doesn't think it's the right way to do things. In fact, his representatives on the Unity Commission attempted to have the superdelegates eliminated, and succeeded in reducing their role. So he's consistent on that.
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?
Are you asking me for negative proof? Or are you asking me to show you where he made this claim?
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.
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.
His campaign spent an incredible amount of time decrying the primaries rules. How super delegates were unfair or how closed primaries were unfair. There was talk of trying to “flip” super delegates in order to get him the nomination, all the while Hillary was clearly winning.
As far as all sides being nasty. Sure there was nastiness everywhere, but to try make it an “all sides” thing when it was CLEAR AS DAY that the vitriol was on a whole different level and still is, is pretty ridiculous.
I recall what happened in 2015-16 very clearly on social media. Bernie and his supporters came out of the gate in attack mode. I still remember the very first anti HRC/Pro Bernie meme. It was a picture of Bernie’s face on a semi coming after the HRC campaign. It was super aggressive at the time (things only got worse from there).
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.
I think it's clear he's saying he doesn't think it's the right way to do things. In fact, his representatives on the Unity Commission attempted to have the superdelegates eliminated, and succeeded in reducing their role. So he's consistent on that.
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?
Are you asking me for negative proof? Or are you asking me to show you where he made this claim?
See my last post. He doesn't get to have an opinion about how political parties he isn't a part of conduct their primaries and conventions. And he doesn't get to decide he doesn't like the system when it doesn't benefit him, while playing games when it suits his personal aims.
Or, more accurately, he can do whatever he wants but I will maintain that it's absurd and childish and wrong and think that it is transparent as all hell.
As far as all sides being nasty. Sure there was nastiness everywhere, but to try make it an “all sides” thing when it was CLEAR AS DAY that the vitriol was on a whole different level and still is, is pretty ridiculous.
By what standard are you measuring this? I think if you were on the "other side" you would feel differently. Just as I'm guessing if they were on the "other side" they'd feel differently.
Also those same primary rules have been in place for decades. Bernie Sanders has been around for decades and active in politics. He only started vocal opposition to these rules during his own presidential run. If his primary goal is not self-interested political gain why did he wait until it benefited him to make these sorts of statements and advocate for reforms (leaving aside how inappropriate it is for him to have a say in this as someone who is not a Democrat.)
He has no issues with using the primary structure to crowd out actual Democrats from the political process thereby robbing Dems in his state of the ability to be represented in Congress by a member of their chosen political party, but he wants to throw stones at how other states conduct their primaries?
GET OUT OF HERE.
I'm being polite here, this is really hostile. Also, I think the "not a Democrat" argument is getting really stale, especially now that Biden has stated he would consider a Republican as a running mate.
His campaign spent an incredible amount of time decrying the primaries rules. How super delegates were unfair or how closed primaries were unfair. There was talk of trying to “flip” super delegates in order to get him the nomination, all the while Hillary was clearly winning.
As far as all sides being nasty. Sure there was nastiness everywhere, but to try make it an “all sides” thing when it was CLEAR AS DAY that the vitriol was on a whole different level and still is, is pretty ridiculous.
I recall what happened in 2015-16 very clearly on social media. Bernie and his supporters came out of the gate in attack mode. I still remember the very first anti HRC/Pro Bernie meme. It was a picture of Bernie’s face on a semi coming after the HRC campaign. It was super aggressive at the time (things only got worse from there).
But, this is your perception. Other people had different experiences than this. Were your groups shut down with child porn for example? That's as disgusting as it gets.
As far as all sides being nasty. Sure there was nastiness everywhere, but to try make it an “all sides” thing when it was CLEAR AS DAY that the vitriol was on a whole different level and still is, is pretty ridiculous.
By what standard are you measuring this? I think if you were on the "other side" you would feel differently. Just as I'm guessing if they were on the "other side" they'd feel differently.
Also those same primary rules have been in place for decades. Bernie Sanders has been around for decades and active in politics. He only started vocal opposition to these rules during his own presidential run. If his primary goal is not self-interested political gain why did he wait until it benefited him to make these sorts of statements and advocate for reforms (leaving aside how inappropriate it is for him to have a say in this as someone who is not a Democrat.)
He has no issues with using the primary structure to crowd out actual Democrats from the political process thereby robbing Dems in his state of the ability to be represented in Congress by a member of their chosen political party, but he wants to throw stones at how other states conduct their primaries?
GET OUT OF HERE.
I'm being polite here, this is really hostile. Also, I think the "not a Democrat" argument is getting really stale, especially now that Biden has stated he would consider a Republican as a running mate.
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.
I think it's clear he's saying he doesn't think it's the right way to do things. In fact, his representatives on the Unity Commission attempted to have the superdelegates eliminated, and succeeded in reducing their role. So he's consistent on that.
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?
Are you asking me for negative proof? Or are you asking me to show you where he made this claim?
Well, it seems like he’s a fairly respected source, so I guess I’m curious how you know something he reported is a lie...but yes I’m also curious about him saying it as well.
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."
He has tread closely to that story of the election being rigged - Bernie, his staff, and his supporters. If you undermine the legitimacy of another candidate during the primary and the nomination they secure, you therefore continue to assume that the process is illigitimate.
"As the Sanders campaign presses forward, it must carefully consider whether the senator’s ambition for a political revolution is a goal best achieved by actively stoking the anger of his supporters—and, in a sense, encouraging them to tear it all down. That consideration, in turn, will need to be weighed against whether or not to suggest that Clinton and her team are engaged in illegitimate tactics—an argument that will make it far more difficult for the party to eventually unify and take on Trump.
...It’s true that the odds have always been against Sanders. But there is a difference between a candidate who amasses a competitive advantage playing by the rules and a candidate who actively breaks the rules. Part of what could make the rift between Clinton and Sanders supporters so hard to repair is that the two camps don’t necessarily agree on what side of that distinction each candidate is on, or whether or not there is even a meaningful distinction to be made. Many Sanders supporters believe that elements of the political landscape, such as the campaign-finance system, are fundamentally corrupt. So, in their eyes, even playing by the rules could signal corruption—for example, by relying on money from super PACs. The Clinton wing of the party, on the other hand, adopts a far more pragmatic approach, arguing that it’s necessary to play by the current rules to win the presidency and ultimately enact reform. But the more that Clinton is seen as a corrupt figure—as opposed to a politician simply advocating for a different, more incrementalist model of political change—the harder it will be for her to successfully extend an olive branch to disaffected Democrats and angry Sanders supporters."
This is exactly what happened. Bernie and his staff keep illegitimizing the process so much that they don't trust anyone who does win within the process and the divide is too much for the Bernie supporters to bridge when Bernie is not the nominee and they drop out of the fight until Bernie comes back again. Basically Democrats are left with having to win and get their person elected without any chance of bringing Bernie supporters into the fight against Trump. The question is not if Democrats will get behind Bernie if he is the nominee, the question is why are Bernie supporters so unique and disenfranchised that they are allowing themselves the privilege to step out of the fight against Trump when their nominee isn't the front runner. It is is a privilege to be a Bernie support and above the process... that is no better than the privilege of being an affluent, liberal Democrat who keeps having to throw more support and money at a nominee because others feel the fight isn't legit and can bow out.
As far as all sides being nasty. Sure there was nastiness everywhere, but to try make it an “all sides” thing when it was CLEAR AS DAY that the vitriol was on a whole different level and still is, is pretty ridiculous.
By what standard are you measuring this? I think if you were on the "other side" you would feel differently. Just as I'm guessing if they were on the "other side" they'd feel differently.
Also those same primary rules have been in place for decades. Bernie Sanders has been around for decades and active in politics. He only started vocal opposition to these rules during his own presidential run. If his primary goal is not self-interested political gain why did he wait until it benefited him to make these sorts of statements and advocate for reforms (leaving aside how inappropriate it is for him to have a say in this as someone who is not a Democrat.)
He has no issues with using the primary structure to crowd out actual Democrats from the political process thereby robbing Dems in his state of the ability to be represented in Congress by a member of their chosen political party, but he wants to throw stones at how other states conduct their primaries?
GET OUT OF HERE.
I'm being polite here, this is really hostile. Also, I think the "not a Democrat" argument is getting really stale, especially now that Biden has stated he would consider a Republican as a running mate.
I have just as much of a problem with this as I do with Bernie Sanders running as a Democrat. They're both acting like fools, which exempts neither of them from criticism.
None of this is directed at you, but yes my feelings about this topic are indeed hostile. My literal life and civil rights depends on the results of these elections. You're the one choosing to represent this viewpoint here, but notice that I did not direct the post you quoted directly to you in any way.
ETA: If you were reacting to "GET OUT OF HERE" that was directed at Shouty Bernard and no one else.
I recall what happened in 2015-16 very clearly on social media. Bernie and his supporters came out of the gate in attack mode. I still remember the very first anti HRC/Pro Bernie meme. It was a picture of Bernie’s face on a semi coming after the HRC campaign. It was super aggressive at the time (things only got worse from there).
But, this is your perception. Other people had different experiences than this. Were your groups shut down with child porn for example? That's as disgusting as it gets.
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.
I think you MEANT to say neoliberal corporate shills.
I like Bernie's general ideas. A lot. I'm glad he's brought many of them to the forefront of the Democratic debate. If he is the nominee I will be standing in line when polls open in my (swing) state to vote for him. But I absolutely do not trust that he get absolutely any policy passed or work across the aisle, considering he has no record of passing substantial legislation in congress, he is not a member of the Democratic party and therefore has fewer ties with party leaders and other members than he otherwise would, and he has trouble forming actual POLICY proposals from the ideas which are, again, pretty good.
Omg Biden was asked if he’d consider an R as a running mate, he said yes but he couldn’t think of one. Right? That’s what we are referring to?
Does anyone REALLY think Joe Biden is going to choose an R?
There are plenty of things to dislike about Joe Biden but this is such a dumb attack. I don’t want to vote for him unless he’s the D nominee but the sheer idea of Bernie or Bernie fans deciding who is a Democrat makes my entire face twitch with irritation.
By what standard are you measuring this? I think if you were on the "other side" you would feel differently. Just as I'm guessing if they were on the "other side" they'd feel differently.
I'm being polite here, this is really hostile. Also, I think the "not a Democrat" argument is getting really stale, especially now that Biden has stated he would consider a Republican as a running mate.
I think it's clear he's saying he doesn't think it's the right way to do things. In fact, his representatives on the Unity Commission attempted to have the superdelegates eliminated, and succeeded in reducing their role. So he's consistent on that.
Are you asking me for negative proof? Or are you asking me to show you where he made this claim?
Well, it seems like he’s a fairly respected source, so I guess I’m curious how you know something he reported is a lie...but yes I’m also curious about him saying it as well.
Here's where he said it. The article he wrote about it has since been deleted.
But you understand I can't prove a negative, right? But it's been debunked.
By what standard are you measuring this? I think if you were on the "other side" you would feel differently. Just as I'm guessing if they were on the "other side" they'd feel differently.
I'm being polite here, this is really hostile. Also, I think the "not a Democrat" argument is getting really stale, especially now that Biden has stated he would consider a Republican as a running mate.
I have just as much of a problem with this as I do with Bernie Sanders running as a Democrat. They're both acting like fools, which exempts neither of them from criticism.
None of this is directed at you, but yes my feelings about this topic are indeed hostile. My literal life and civil rights depends on the results of these elections. You're the one choosing to represent this viewpoint here, but notice that I did not direct the post you quoted directly to you in any way.
ETA: If you were reacting to "GET OUT OF HERE" that was directed at Shouty Bernard and no one else.
But, this is your perception. Other people had different experiences than this. Were your groups shut down with child porn for example? That's as disgusting as it gets.
What is this child porn thing?
I mentioned it upthread. The night before an important primary in 2016, Hillary supporters shut down several of the big Bernie groups on Facebook by posting child porn in them.
I mentioned it upthread. The night before an important primary in 2016, Hillary supporters shut down several of the big Bernie groups on Facebook by posting child porn in them.
... you realize that was probably a Russian led attack disguised as HRC supporters, right?
I mentioned it upthread. The night before an important primary in 2016, Hillary supporters shut down several of the big Bernie groups on Facebook by posting child porn in them.
... you realize that was probably a Russian led attack disguised as HRC supporters, right?
He literally said other people say it. I get, as the article points out, this is coy. But since we're using "literally" here.
But that has been the point all along. It's coy to the point of being a meaningless distinction. And it's a subtext his supporters are taking and running with, which is done on purpose so it amounts to the very same thing.
Also those same primary rules have been in place for decades. Bernie Sanders has been around for decades and active in politics. He only started vocal opposition to these rules during his own presidential run. If his primary goal is not self-interested political gain why did he wait until it benefited him to make these sorts of statements and advocate for reforms (leaving aside how inappropriate it is for him to have a say in this as someone who is not a Democrat.)
He has no issues with using the primary structure to crowd out actual Democrats from the political process thereby robbing Dems in his state of the ability to be represented in Congress by a member of their chosen political party, but he wants to throw stones at how other states conduct their primaries?
GET OUT OF HERE.
This is a huge part of my problem with him. I think there are some good arguments to be made for open primaries. If I remember correctly, New York’s requirement is particularly egregious because you have to be registered with a particular party quite far in advance - that doesn’t seem like a good approach to bringing in new people. BUT it’s been that way for a long time! It’s not like the DNC saw Bernie entering the race and said QUICK, NEW YORK, CHANGE YOUR RULES! If Bernie truly wanted to bring more people into the Democratic Party and get more people civically engaged - which is an admirable goal! - then he should’ve started working on that long before his own campaign, which he started 24 years into his congressional career.
Also those same primary rules have been in place for decades. Bernie Sanders has been around for decades and active in politics. He only started vocal opposition to these rules during his own presidential run. If his primary goal is not self-interested political gain why did he wait until it benefited him to make these sorts of statements and advocate for reforms (leaving aside how inappropriate it is for him to have a say in this as someone who is not a Democrat.)
He has no issues with using the primary structure to crowd out actual Democrats from the political process thereby robbing Dems in his state of the ability to be represented in Congress by a member of their chosen political party, but he wants to throw stones at how other states conduct their primaries?
GET OUT OF HERE.
This is a huge part of my problem with him. I think there are some good arguments to be made for open primaries. If I remember correctly, New York’s requirement is particularly egregious because you have to be registered with a particular party quite far in advance - that doesn’t seem like a good approach to bringing in new people. BUT it’s been that way for a long time! It’s not like the DNC saw Bernie entering the race and said QUICK, NEW YORK, CHANGE YOUR RULES! If Bernie truly wanted to bring more people into the Democratic Party and get more people civically engaged - which is an admirable goal! - then he should’ve started working on that long before his own campaign, which he started 24 years into his congressional career.
Hypothetically I also support open primaries, but if someone chooses to die on this hill while ignoring caucuses well.... yeah. I don't have anything nice to say about that. So yes, I agree with all of this.