All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[shooshoomanjoe]

The LIE that Bernie Supporters voted Trump in 2016 or that Sanders "HURT" Clinton will not die until Bernie wins the Primary and the general.

But lets say you're candidate loses and some supporters chose Trump in 2020. WHOSE voters would actually chose Trump over the Democrat?

According to Emerson...



But yeah Bernie hurt the Democrats...

Sanders is winning in MANY of the Polls. South Carolina only matters for the Primary, trust me I've lived there before. We always lose the General, and as a black man (again), we live in other places than South Carolina. I'm from Philly and there's a ton of us there.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...mary-6276.html

Bernie tops the Iowan poll.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...on/4426492002/

You have a lot of misplaced anger.

[The Overlord]

I agree, her career politician line also would break some irony meters. I got a chuckle out of that.

The sexist Bernie Bros thing is a generalization. I don't have a problem with generalizations if they fit and for too many Bernie supporters the vitriol ramps up quick.

And what proof do you have that would justify applying this generalization to the vast majority of Bernie supporters? Really any movement can have a few obnoxious fans in it, but is a generalization to apply that to the majority within that movement.

[Tazirai]

That's fine and Trump can win and he still wont meet your needs as a black man.

If the GOP gave a **** about minorities people's votes then there would be an argument for some choice.

At the end of the day no one is coming to anyones house and putting a gun to your head for any vote.

But, this bs about "everyone being the same" or "centrists are just as bad" **** is ridiculous and silly.

The far left cannot win period alone.

And centrists cannot win without progressives. Argue piss and moan internally all you want too about 2016 and who's salty about who in the primary.

But if you give a **** about actual issues. Incremental progress or not. It ain't happening with trump and Mitch that's for damn sure.

Trump will not meet my needs, correct.

The GOP don't give a ****, and neither do most white Democratic centrists, if they did why do they always tag Right on things for Minoroties and denounce groups like Black Lives Matter. Dems just don't put kids in cages.

You are correct, I vote for the candidate who bests meets my needs.

Centrists aren't as bad, Centrists are worse in man cases, because the Democrats go so far to the Right on so many issues it's Sickening. You don't like Trumps agenda? Stop giving him money, and you want to impeach him? There's tons of laws he broke, you chose a phonecall? Democrats don't FIGHT! No one talks about Flint, they didn't go to Standing Rock except Bernie and Tulsi, Warren claims Native American heritage, where was she? Where was Biden? Where was Obama? Obama deported more people than Trump.

The Far left in every other country is the center. You guys love saying Far left this or that and have no evidence to back your claims, yet somehow the Far Right wins all the time?

You're right Centrists can't win. You know how they can? Support the things we care about. The Far left is moderate, Name ONE Far-left issue.

I don't have time for Incremental, Babies do, not adults with families. Democrats bend over backwards to appeal to the right wing and the far right, and do nothing to help their base or the left, and when they lose, they blame the base? How does that work? Please tell me.

[Superbat]

The Republicans in the Senate are shitting all over the law and human decency, blatantly disregarding facts in order to protect the Pussy-Grabber in Chief and their hold on the reins of power, and we’re still arguing over how bad Bernie was treated in 2016.

But Bernie Bros aren’t an obsessed cult happy to watch the world burn because their guy didn’t win four years ago, or anything...

Since your last post: Sanders has been called a liar, a story was posted where the Democratic nominee of 2016 insulted Sanders are refused to commit to endorsing him if he were become the nominee, Bernie supporters have been reduced to "bros" - a clear erasure of the most diverse base, we have been called more racist than Trump supporters, and Bernie has been called sexist and is now accused of going to lie about Klobuchar.

Then you come in and call us a cult. You don't have anything to say about any insult directed at us or our candidate but you add to those insults.

How stupid was I to think that the calls to not go negative were in good faith. It's just a way to shame Sanders supporters into not defending themselves or their candidate.

[Theleviathan]

And what proof do you have that would justify applying this generalization to the vast majority of Bernie supporters? Really any movement can have a few obnoxious fans in it, but is a generalization to apply that to the majority within that movement.

I disagree generalizations have to have a "majority". It just has to be common enough to be problematic or noticable.

For example, I don't think the majority of Notre Dame football fans are insufferable. But are enough of them so that the generalization fits? Yup. Fill anything you like into that analogy and I think it works.

[Tazirai]

I don't want to nitpick your posts, because there is a ton of wildly false stuff. I'll just point out one of them, because I think it is highly indicative:

Justice Democrats did not win 42% of their elections. I don't even know where 42% comes from. Of the 79 endorsed Justice Democrats in 2018, 26 of them managed to win their primary. Not a general election, just the primary. that's 32%, meaning 68% couldn't even make it far enough to square off with a Republican. Of those 26 only 7 managed to win their seat. So that's a 73% failure rate.

Of the seven who actually won, exactly zero of them flipped a Republican seat to a Democratic seat. Meaning, they won where basically anyone wearing a Not-Republican sticker would win.

And that is what you just touted inaccurately. Perhaps, just perhaps, we wait to tout success until it actually looks like success.

https://www.theincorruptibles.us/pro...nt-is-winning/

Progressive Victories Lay the Groundwork for a 2020 Groundswell

It is a nitpick but I can hold firm.
That's why I added for a two-year-old movement. The Progressive movement in America is a new thing and scares people like Centrists who are basically the new Right Wingers in America because the Overton Window has shifted so far to the right.
When you fight Big Money and especially when your own party DESPISES you, they told us no Progressive or Justice Democrat would win, and they did. You are also discounting members of the Progressive movement who were incumbents like Ro Khama and Raul Grahalva. They count into the 42% .

So yes we are having GREAT Success because we are changing the conversation and the dialogue now sits firmly with the people, not the Centrists.

[Tazirai]

You have a lot of misplaced anger.

Not misplaced, People who claim Democrat need to stop lying.
Tell me where am I wrong?

Am I too aggressive? I hear that Progressives need to be tone policed because we aren't #civility #unity #resistance

[Theleviathan]

So yes we are having GREAT Success because we are changing the conversation and the dialogue now sits firmly with the people, not the Centrists.

I don't want to discredit this part. I think changing the conversation is valuable and I encourage more progressives to become politically active and shift the conversation.

What I wouldn't do is celebrate election victories in the context of this discussion, especially not against centrists or moderates. Like it or not, it was moderates and centrists who wrested the House from the Republicans. What victories there are for you to cite are a foundation to build on, but not a resume to crow about against a centrist. I don't know how to put it in a way that doesn't seem harsh, but it's like celebrating that you didn't strike-out to the guy who hit four home runs and is the only reason you're even in the game.

[Tazirai]

Since your last post: Sanders has been called a liar, a story was posted where the Democratic nominee of 2016 insulted Sanders are refused to commit to endorsing him if he were become the nominee, Bernie supporters have been reduced to "bros" - a clear erasure of the most diverse base, we have been called more racist than Trump supporters, and Bernie has been called sexist and is now accused of going to lie about Klobuchar.

Then you come in and call us a cult. You don't have anything to say about any insult directed at us or our candidate but you add to those insults.

How stupid was I to think that the calls to not go negative were in good faith. It's just a way to shame Sanders supporters into not defending themselves or their candidate.

Exactly. But you have to realize that it's nothing new for That side of the party.
You have to remember the Establishment of the Clinton Machine did this in 2008, since reliving 2016 is banned in this thread.


Remember this goody?
Obama slams smear photo

obamamuslim.jpg

Clinton did this...

Clinton aides claim Obama photo wasn't intended as a smear


OH! And remember this goody, because running against Clinton AUTOMATICALLY makes you a sexist...

From Obama Boys to Bernie Bros: The Creation of Twitter’s Worst Attack Line

The Clinton camp responded in the way only those who are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory could. They went on the attack and they tried a lot of different angles. Things got pretty nasty in 2008, I would argue even more so than 2016. Which is probably why only 12% of Sanders voters ended up supporting Trump in the general versus as many as 24% of Clinton voters who backed McCain. The 2008 primary was a mud-slinging affair.

The Clinton camp went scorched Earth as Obama took the lead. They did their best to highlight his “inexperience” AKA his opposition to the war in Iraq. They tried to attack Obama as too radical, Clinton even went as far as likening herself to LBJ who she claimed “actually delivered” civil rights reform. A statement that inspired many a criticism of her minimization of MLK in an attempt to paint herself as the rightful champion of the civil rights movement going forward.

There are dozens of like moments one could draw on to show how nasty it got in 2008. Whether it was Hillary offhandedly saying “white, hard-working Americans” support her over Obama; or Bill Clinton joking to Ted Kennedy that Obama was “the type of guy who would be getting them coffee a few years ago.” There are plenty of Clinton 08 attacks to point out. There is even a case to be made the Clinton camp started birtherism in the run up to the South Carolina primary.

Here's an article from Salon and it sounds JUST like today...

Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!
Young women are growing increasingly frustrated with the fanatical support of Barack and gleeful bashing of Hillary.



Don't give us the Centrist lie about Bernie and his supporters being sexist and divisive when this is a common Democratic play in the last few years.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

That's what clearing the deck is. The only people with a problem about the process was Bernie supporters. The DNC then bent over backwards to appease them (a huge mistake) and now we'll hear every four years about some thing or another that is "slanted" against them. Tulsi Gabbard is using that argument about why she isn't on the debate stage anymore. So will the next 1% polling schmo who thinks if they cry "The DNC was out to get me!!!" and has vitriolic enough worshippers they'll get a bone thrown their way.

The Democrats gave Bernie infinitely more than he deserved and he still couldn't even finish within 10%. Complaining about it is pathetic. You can worship your idol without telling us he rose on the second day and rolled a big ass boulder out of the way that the DNC put there.

Again more blatant dishonesty from you. The problem Bernie supporters had with the process were deliberate instances where the process was slanted and misused to hurt him and benefit her when they didn't need it. The DNC process did nothing whatsoever to "clear the deck". The viable Democratic candidates chose to abstain because they saw a deliberate desire from the party to have Hillary Clinton be the nominee. That was people seeing something for what it was and deciding to not waste time. That's different than purposfully setting up a contest to favor one contestent. Bernie likely would have lost regardless, but when you cheat like the Astros, you give people reason to feel like they were wronged because they were. Bernie likely would have lost, but he was wronged by the process and that's why he gained symptathy from many people, no just his supporters.

It's stupid to compare Tulsi complaining about preset rules and people bringing up that rules were completely altered and changed at will to hurt Bernie.

The Democrats didn't give Bernie anything. He, correctly, recognized it was best for his goals to run as a Democrat because if he didn't he wouldn't have a chance of winning but would also prevent the party he caucused with from winning. If he took the alternative it would have cost the Democrats in the election. What's pathetic is ignoring that he did them a favor by playing by their rules and not tanking them in a general election. You can't have it both ways and anyone with a brain cell can see through it.

And your silly hyperole and language just makes it look like you are not looking at it clearly and are far too emotional here. You provided no real facts and it's easy to see through your talking points

[BeastieRunner]

Vote to table (kill) amendment to subpoena relevant State Department documents, records, & witnesses passes 53-47.

[The Overlord]

I disagree generalizations have to have a "majority". It just has to be common enough to be problematic or noticable.

For example, I don't think the majority of Notre Dame football fans are insufferable. But are enough of them so that the generalization fits? Yup. Fill anything you like into that analogy and I think it works.

Then how big an of percentage are we talking about? It just like ''Bernie Bros'' is used an excuse to dismiss everything this movement stands for and often it seems like an excuse to dismiss everything this movement stands and not having to actually engage with the ideas it presents. This does not come off as a good faith tactic if there is no evidence to suggest there Bernie's fanbase is somehow uniquely toxic.

And are we going to argue that other political movements do not have a couple of obnoxious fans in it? that would true for almost any movement.

[Tazirai]

Again more blatant dishonesty from you. The problem Bernie supporters had with the process were deliberate instances where the process was slanted and misused to hurt him and benefit her when they didn't need it. The DNC process did nothing whatsoever to "clear the deck". The viable Democratic candidates chose to abstain because they saw a deliberate desire from the party to have Hillary Clinton be the nominee. That was people seeing something for what it was and deciding to not waste time. That's different than purposfully setting up a contest to favor one contestent. Bernie likely would have lost regardless, but when you cheat like the Astros, you give people reason to feel like they were wronged because they were. Bernie likely would have lost, but he was wronged by the process and that's why he gained symptathy from many people, no just his supporters.

It's stupid to compare Tulsi complaining about preset rules and people bringing up that rules were completely altered and changed at will to hurt Bernie.

The Democrats didn't give Bernie anything. He, correctly, recognized it was best for his goals to run as a Democrat because if he didn't he wouldn't have a chance of winning but would also prevent the party he caucused with from winning. If he took the alternative it would have cost the Democrats in the election. What's pathetic is ignoring that he did them a favor by playing by their rules and not tanking them in a general election. You can't have it both ways and anyone with a brain cell can see through it.

And your silly hyperole and language just makes it look like you are not looking at it clearly and are far too emotional here. You provided no real facts and it's easy to see through your talking points

Hey Knight, How's it going. I tried so hard to stay away, but you can only be punched in the face so much before you start countering.
/wave. Great Post by the way.

[jetengine]

You guys are literally melting down and all thats happening is "Waaaah Bernie", fucking hell. This kind of **** was why I was hoping he'd just fuckin' retire instead of hanging around like a Christmas Cake in February.

[Tazirai]

Bernie Screwed up here. He should NOT have apologized to Biden at all.
There was no lies told, and if Biden is scared of his corruption then he needs to defend it.
All this doesn't harm the Democrat won't stop Republicans from digging this up.
There's a thing called YOUTUBE and you can see videos of Bidens corruption.

But Bernies biggest problem is that he's too nice.

Bernie is 100% wrong on this. DO NOT APOLOGIZE to them.

All of this is verifiable. You know who else asked Biden about his corruption? Tom Brokaw, should he apologize too Bernie? Don't give them an inch, they are frauds.

Sanders apologizes to Biden for supporter's op-ed



DONT' HURT THE DEMOCRAT!!! DON'T expose the corruption....


Here's the Transcript of Brokaw calling out Biden...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj0bEzW7v1E&t=31s

MEET THE PRESS 9/7/2008 - Joe Biden and Tom Brokaw

MR. BROKAW: That is Senator Barack Obama during the primary campaign. He was campaigning in Iowa at the time. In your hometown newspaper this morning, there's a big headline, "Banking on Biden." "As the senator of Delaware's financial institutions find themselves banking on Biden. To some, Joe Biden's makeover as a blue collar warrior is slightly at odds with the blue blood company that he keeps in the corporate state. Not only is Biden a neighbor to wealthy and powerful company titans and DuPont family members, he's thrown his weight behind issues and legislation that benefitted Delaware's big banking interests." This is what The Wall Street Journal had to say about all of this. "Obama's choice of Biden as his running mate is coming under fire from Republicans who are painting him as an old-style insider. They cite his longstanding ties to trial lawyers and lobbyists and a taste for pork-barrel spending...

"Biden ... had collected $6.5 million in campaign contributions from lobbyists, lawyers and law firms since 1989, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. ...

"Biden's candidacy also is bringing new scrutiny to his family's business dealings, especially those of his son Hunter, who is 38 years old." And that's a reference to your son being hired right out of law school by a big company here in Delaware that is in the credit card business, MBNA. He got about $100,000 a year, as I recall. You received $214,000 in campaign contributions from the company and from its employees. At the same time, you were fighting for a bankruptcy bill that MBNA really wanted to get passed through the Senate, making it much tougher for everyone to file bankruptcy. Senator Obama was opposed to the bill. Among other things you couldn't, in fact, claim that you had a problem because of big medical bills. You voted against an amendment that would call for a warning on predatory lending. You also called for--you opposed efforts to strengthen the protection of people in bankruptcy. This has been an issue that you're heard about before. Your son was working for the company at the same time. In retrospect, wasn't it inappropriate for someone like you in the middle of all this to have your son collecting money from this big credit card company while you were on the floor protecting its interests?

SEN. BIDEN: Absolutely not. My son graduated from Yale Law School. The starting salary in Wall Street is $140,000 a year if you want to lawyer. Options he had. He came home to work for a bank. Surprise, surprise, number one. Number two, this is the second largest employer in the state. All the contributions added up make up less than 2 percent of the contributions I've received. Number three, I blocked the bank--first three bankruptcy bills that the credit card companies wanted. I would not support a bankruptcy bill until they did three things. They put women and children first. Every single social welfare agency relating to alimony and child support supported this bill. Eight-five senators supported this bill. So try as people might to make to this out.

You want to know whether or not I am in the pocket of the corporate lobbyists, which makes it apply--sounds like it's right here. Ask the people in the industry here how happy they are. How happy the DuPont company is with me and the Hercules Corporation that I would not sign on the asbestos bill. How happy they are with me--look, the fact of the matter is, that I have had an entire career that no one has every questioned whether or not anybody has influenced me, number one. No group has ever, ever been involved with more than--contributing more than 2 percent to my campaign. I'm listed as the 98th or 99th of the 100 poorest guy in the Senate in terms of net worth. I have a 35-year career of actually, of being viewed, at least in my state, as being independent. And so you can take individual votes and you can talk about them, but they're totally out of context, Tom.

Advertise
MR. BROKAW: But the fact is, it was not just the Republicans. It's your home town newspaper, consumers groups, a number of other people thought that you went way too far in bankruptcy protection and cracking down on those people who may not get the relief that they need.