[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Dextroden]

Sanders is no different than the politicians he mocks. I don't call it corruption but he and many of his supporters do. But to your point, it would be quite hypocritical for him to call for the supers to follow the pledged delegate and vote leader this entire primary and then try to sway the supers to support him over the candidate that won both the pledged delegate and total vote at the convention.

It's just at this point of hearing cheating, I'm genuinely curious if he becomes scum if he takes advantage of the tactics and knowledge used by the party.

[Matchles]

Firstly Nevada had temporary convention rules put in place prior to the final vote count, despite there being a loud opposition to the rules being allowed. So please try and not say such ignorant statements. Then lets not forget the news cycle afterwards of how violent the Sanders supports were despite no arrest or video evidence of any violence taking place.

The temporary rules were created by a team evenly split between Clinton and Sanders supporters. And the video you are seeing is entirely from the Sanders side of the room. You take two friends, go outside and have them stand 50 feet away. You talk normally and have them yell and see what sounds louder on your phone. And Nevada police is investigating the death threats to the Nevada chair and the vandalism to the DNC offices so the lack of arrests so far is no indication there wasn't a problem.

You can falsely claim i'm moving goal post, but replying to your comments isn't moving a goal post. If anything your doing a little projection right now accusing me of moving goal post when you are straw-manning an argument trying to convalude the fact majority of Americans feel the system is corrupt and doesn't represent them by the fact people believe in angels as if the two are equivalent because they are not.

Here is my exact statement you responded to with your "evidence" of corruption.

He is doing his damnedest to disenchant an entire generation of liberal voters. By pushing the falsehood that the entire system is rigged, when he fails they won't even try in the future because the election was "stolen" rather than the belief by the majority of Democrats that Sanders simply isn't the stronger candidate.

You responded to that with a poll that states people think Congress is corrupt. First, you don't prove something exists by showing evidence people BELIEVE something exists. See my angels example. And sorry, the two are exactly the same. Belief in corruption doesn't prove there is corruption. Second, corrupt members of a body does not mean the system is corrupt. Just because you may cheat while playing golf by subtracting a couple strokes or kicking the ball onto the fairway, doesn't mean the game of golf is rigged. Lastly, your poll has nothing to do with the election system. My comments clearly were with regard to the primary system. The belief of corruption or actual corruption elsewhere in politics does not mean the system of electing members is corrupt.

Also the system was rigged against him from the start he has been written of as a fringe candidate from the start getting less air time then some GOP candidates that won far less contest. It's odd that Sanders never had a chance despite winning 21 primaries/caucuses more than all other GOP candidates there were supposedly in contention against Trump. You can write me off as a some crazed 9/11 truth-er but Nevada, New York, Arizona, Colorado, California all seem to have controversy that has worked against Bernie and help the establishment candidate. Once or twice is a coincidence, after that it becomes more than just a conspiracy.

That's politics. You think Trump wasn't written off as a fringe candidate? You think Obama wasn't attacked as being unprepared or out of touch? That is what an opponent does. That would be like me complaining that it is unfair for Sanders to say Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street. You don't bitch about the system that everyone is subjected to, you offer counterpoints. Want to know why Sanders doesn't get more air time? He has given the same stump speech since he declared his candidacy. Granted that makes him relatively gaffe proof because he doesn't stray outside his tested message. But, the media isn't interested in carrying the same speech every night. It isn't some grand conspiracy against Sanders. It is because he isn't appealing to the media. If you aren't getting coverage, you shake things up.

Elections are a messy thing. Hell in the Oregon primary for about 30 minutes it looked like Sanders carried a county 98%-2%. What happened? The person entering the numbers mistakenly left off the first two numbers on Clinton's vote total. Why didn't we hear about it? Because it was a mistake, like probably everything else that happened. All those states came out like the polls suggested, suggesting that they had little to no impact on the outcome. Care to explain how the voter purges in New York hurt Sanders? Where the purge occurred and the surrounding neighborhoods (that were unaffected) were ALL carried by Clinton by 10-30 points. It is far more likely that those purged were Clinton voters. Care to explain how the GOP run election board in Arizona helped Clinton? Stories even said that the areas hit the hardest were minority neighborhoods... the voters that tend to support Clinton. Yeah it sucks when someone is denied the right to vote. But you need to remember that this process is being run by tens of thousands of people and people tend to make mistakes.

- - - Updated - - -

It's just at this point of hearing cheating, I'm genuinely curious if he becomes scum if he takes advantage of the tactics and knowledge used by the party.

I really hope someone gets into his ear and tells him to stop listening to Jeff Weaver and Tad Devine. I know many on here won't believe me, but I really respect Sanders (at least the pre-"all Democrats are corrupt" Sanders). He is getting bad advice by turning away from his message and attacking Clinton and the Democrats directly. If he goes along with this plan to sway the super delegates despite losing the pledged delegates, it has a real chance of destroying any inroads he made into changing the party.

[Shadowferal]

Nate went into this election cycle with the belief that there was no such thing as a true independent voter and is just bending over backward trying to justify that belief despite the fact that accepting that there are independents much more easily explains Sanders, Trump and changes in unfavorability than denying their existence and treating unfavorability as a symptom of Sanders or Sanders as a symptom of unfavorability. People were leaving both parties for years before this election, he just didn't think it was real.

Nate's been just as embarrassed as every other pundit making predictions that have been amazingly wrong.

Last winter the Clinton campaign started using a tactic rarely seen outside of a general election - slandering the entire base of a political opponent.

It’s become such an all-purpose, handy pro-Clinton smear that even consummate, actual “bros” for whom the term was originally coined — straight guys who act with entitlement and aggression, such as Paul Krugman — are now reflexively (and unironically) applying it to anyone who speaks ill of Hillary Clinton, even when they know nothing else about the people they’re smearing, including their gender, age, or sexual orientation. Thus, a male policy analyst who criticized Sanders’ health care plan “is getting the Bernie Bro treatment,” sneered Krugman. Unfortunately for the New York Times Bro, that analyst, Charles Gaba, said in response that he’s “really not comfortable with [Krugman’s] referring to die-hard Bernie Sanders supporters as ‘Bernie Bros'” because it “implies that only college-age men support Sen. Sanders, which obviously isn’t the case.”

...A USA Today/Rock the Vote poll from two weeks ago found Sanders nationally “with a 19-point lead over front-runner Hillary Clinton, 50 percent to 31 percent, among Democratic and independent women ages 18 to 34.” One has to be willing to belittle the views and erase the existence of a huge number of American women to wield this “Bernie Bro” smear.

BernieBros was always a myth, but that never stopped the Clinton campaign.
Quite the opposite.
Instead of moderating the misogynistic slandering of Bernie supporters, Hillary fans have reacted by doubling down and calling Bernie supporters racists as well.
And unlike Trump, who is willing to acknowledge that some Mexicans might not be rapists, Hillary supporters have no problem making blanket statements that all Bernie supporters, every single one of them, are racist and sexist. But it's only Bernie supporters that are the problem, not Hillary supporters. Riiiiight.

What makes this unusual is that this tactic is rarely applied outside of a general election. Oh sure, it's not unusual for things to get nasty between candidates during primaries. That's par for the course. Welcome to politics. The difference is that you always want to get your opponents voters' support after the primaries are over. That's why slandering those voters, all of them, is a stupid, self-defeating, long-term strategy.
-----------------

[Gray_Matter]

Firstly Nevada had temporary convention rules put in place prior to the final vote count, despite there being a loud opposition to the rules being allowed. So please try and not say such ignorant statements.

Ok, let me put it to you this way. Voice votes were part of the rules, not so? The same rules that allowed Bernie to gain 2 delegates at the county level. Bernie supporters were happy when the rules allowed them to gain 2 extra delegates early on but upset when those same rules switch the count back to the original levels.

You can't have it both ways. While I think voice votes are absurd, I also think that the delegate system that allowed Bernie to pick up 2 delegates at the county level is also absurd. Both rules were known before.

- - - Updated - - -

Instead of moderating the misogynistic slandering of Bernie supporters, Hillary fans have reacted by doubling down and calling Bernie supporters racists as well.
And unlike Trump, who is willing to acknowledge that some Mexicans might not be rapists, Hillary supporters have no problem making blanket statements that all Bernie supporters, every single one of them, are racist and sexist. But it's only Bernie supporters that are the problem, not Hillary supporters. Riiiiight.

Of course there are no Bernie fans calling Clinton supporters Hillery Ho's and Vagina voters. It's easy to tarnish a whole side with one brush and generalize but that doesn't make it true.

[Matchles]

Nate's been just as embarrassed as every other pundit making predictions that have been amazingly wrong.

Last winter the Clinton campaign started using a tactic rarely seen outside of a general election - slandering the entire base of a political opponent.

It’s become such an all-purpose, handy pro-Clinton smear that even consummate, actual “bros” for whom the term was originally coined — straight guys who act with entitlement and aggression, such as Paul Krugman — are now reflexively (and unironically) applying it to anyone who speaks ill of Hillary Clinton, even when they know nothing else about the people they’re smearing, including their gender, age, or sexual orientation. Thus, a male policy analyst who criticized Sanders’ health care plan “is getting the Bernie Bro treatment,” sneered Krugman. Unfortunately for the New York Times Bro, that analyst, Charles Gaba, said in response that he’s “really not comfortable with [Krugman’s] referring to die-hard Bernie Sanders supporters as ‘Bernie Bros'” because it “implies that only college-age men support Sen. Sanders, which obviously isn’t the case.”

...A USA Today/Rock the Vote poll from two weeks ago found Sanders nationally “with a 19-point lead over front-runner Hillary Clinton, 50 percent to 31 percent, among Democratic and independent women ages 18 to 34.” One has to be willing to belittle the views and erase the existence of a huge number of American women to wield this “Bernie Bro” smear.

BernieBros was always a myth, but that never stopped the Clinton campaign.
Quite the opposite.
Instead of moderating the misogynistic slandering of Bernie supporters, Hillary fans have reacted by doubling down and calling Bernie supporters racists as well.
And unlike Trump, who is willing to acknowledge that some Mexicans might not be rapists, Hillary supporters have no problem making blanket statements that all Bernie supporters, every single one of them, are racist and sexist. But it's only Bernie supporters that are the problem, not Hillary supporters. Riiiiight.

What makes this unusual is that this tactic is rarely applied outside of a general election. Oh sure, it's not unusual for things to get nasty between candidates during primaries. That's par for the course. Welcome to politics. The difference is that you always want to get your opponents voters' support after the primaries are over. That's why slandering those voters, all of them, is a stupid, self-defeating, long-term strategy.
-----------------

As a response should I just link the entire message thread from the Daily Kos article you ripped this from? Or just say what the hell does any of that have to do with Nate Silver? Or who gives a shit how many points Sanders leads among 18-34 year olds? The most unreliable voting bloc in the country. And I'm fairly sure that the only people to use the term "Bernie Bros." in the past 4 months are Sanders supporters that still have their panties in knots about it. The newest Bernie Bros. article the author could find to rehash was from February. And this was written yesterday? This guy is a joke.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course there are no Bernie fans calling Clinton supporters Hillery Ho's and Vagina voters. It's easy to tarnish a whole side with one brush and generalize but that doesn't make it true.

Shills... Clinton voters are all shills. No one can possibly voice support for her without being paid.

[Nadiru]

Would you be talking about this voice vote for wither the temporary convention rules be passed?? Because I dunno about you but I'm hearing the Nays win.

You mean the guy holding the phone camera in the middle of the "Nay" crowd picked up "Nay" more clearly than the "Aye" crowd across the stadium? Well gee willikers, there's no contesting that then: The Nays clearly won.

[hrugner]

And I'm fairly sure that the only people to use the term "Bernie Bros." in the past 4 months are Sanders supporters that still have their panties in knots about it. The newest Bernie Bros. article the author could find to rehash was from February. And this was written yesterday? This guy is a joke.

quick copy paste and google: Time 4 days, American Prospect 4 days, RT(Russia today, interesting) 2, WNYC 2, Salon 5 days. I don't know man, seems like some people are still trying to drive this one home. Not particularly good people or anything, but some people at least.

[Gray_Matter]

Would you be talking about this voice vote for wither the temporary convention rules be passed?? Because I dunno about you but I'm hearing the Nays win.

https://youtu.be/Ka6SnkbuUPI?t=76


Lets say I give you the benefit of doubt that the yeas and nays are very close. Well then the rules state the following:



Here again, she didn't do a vote by standing division. She just dismissed the delegates, and unilaterally determined the temporary rules that gave her all the power to determine who wins or losing passed.

That's exactly the point. Voice votes are completely subjective which is why I said they were absurd. There is a reason why the person calling the voice vote will say something like "It is the opinion of the chair that the nays are in the majority". They decide unilaterally. Then again, so is the concept of overruling what the people chose at the county level. Politician A could plant a few hundred delegates in politician B's side and have them not pitch at the county conference. Easy win. Caucuses, voice votes, etc are all things that were employed in the past to tweak things in favour of people in the know. They are antiquated. Which goes back to my point. People were happy when the rules overturned 2 delegates in Bernie's favour but suddenly got upset when those same rules were used against him.

- - - Updated - - -

I've looked a multiple videos to see if the yeas won. It has yet to surface. I guess none of the yeas had any cell phones handy.

How likely is it that 65+ year old people are going to be filming videos and putting them on youtube? It's a question of demographics. Bernie's supporters are more likely to be part of social networking.

I am not saying that either was louder. I am just saying that it's a subjective rule so it's totally up to the chair to decide which is louder. You can't decide from the videos because all of them are from inside Bernie's group. It's impossible to tell.

[Hooked]

If Bernie has any character he wont bow down to Hillary ever. Hillary is worse than trump, period.

[Gray_Matter]

If Bernie has any character he wont bow down to Hillary ever. Hillary is worse than trump, period.

Of course you would say that as a Trump supporter.

How can you justify that comment to someone who is a Mexican American with undocumented family members or a LGBT person with Trumps list of SCOTUS proposals? What about woman's rights? Trump's SCOTUS proposals alone should be enough to scare the living daylights out of liberals. They have a chance to get a progressive leaning majority in SCOTUS for the first time in 45+ odd years. Tell me again how Trump is better for any of those people.

[Hooked]

Of course you would say that as a Trump supporter.

How can you justify that comment to someone who is a Mexican American with undocumented family members or a LGBT person with Trumps list of SCOTUS proposals? What about woman's rights? Trump's SCOTUS proposals alone should be enough to scare the living daylights out of liberals. They have a chance to get a progressive leaning majority in SCOTUS for the first time in 45+ odd years. Tell me again how Trump is better for any of those people.

I don't care, that's how. Yeah heaven forbid we care about our borders, but send our children off to fight wars for our country.

[I Push Buttons]

If Bernie has any character he wont bow down to Hillary ever. Hillary is worse than trump, period.

Yes, spearing a person who holds lite version of your values in order to elect someone who represents the antithesis of your values is an obvious sign of good character...

[Hooked]

Yes, spearing a person who holds lite version of your values in order to elect someone who represents the antithesis of your values is an obvious sign of good character...

Well Bernie is fighting against the machine right? Light values include no values that share a common bond between sanders and Clinton.

[I Push Buttons]

Well Bernie is fighting against the machine right?

And how exactly is Trump anti-establishment? The one argument he made to that end this entire time has been "I am not taking their money so I am not beholden to them" and that practice has since ended.

Trump is as much Republican business as usual as any of them. His plan, like the rest of them, cut taxes, don't cut spending, run a huge deficit, blame Democrats when the economy takes a shit.

[Shadowferal]

And how exactly is Trump anti-establishment? The one argument he made to that end this entire time has been "I am not taking their money so I am not beholden to them" and that practice has since ended.

That ended only recently.

Trump is as much Republican business as usual as any of them. His plan, like the rest of them, cut taxes, don't cut spending, run a huge deficit, blame Democrats when the economy takes a shit.

Could just as well replace "Trump" and insert "Clinton" in the above sentence. Except one is for the TPP and the other isn't.

[I Push Buttons]

That ended only recently.

Could just as well replace "Trump" and insert "Clinton" in the above sentence. Except one is for the TPP and the other isn't.

Only Clinton is a typical tax and spend democrat... Her tax plan, which is the most likely to actually come to fruition since it changes very little from how things are now (and Republicans love not changing things), leaves everything the same and taxes the rich ever so slightly more with a new wealthy tax bracket. Her plan is basically keep everything the same as at has been, with slightly increased revenue coupled with ever increasing belt tightening to reduce deficit spending.

While Sanders wants to tax the wealthy into oblivion and use that money on all kinds of new spending including, including at the very least single payer (medicare for all)...

And Trump doesn't want to tax anyone... He has put forward a plan for a hugely increased standard deduction that eliminates over 75 million households (the figure on his site, no clue if accurate) from paying any taxes at all... Lowering the corporate tax rate to 15% but removing all loopholes (only good thing he proposes since many of the largest corporations pay nothing current even though the rate is upwards of 40%), and lower tax rates for everyone else that isn't a business or below the standard deduction threshold. But at the same time isn't going to cut spending to anything either, he seems to think the economy will explode instantly from his changes and increase revenue that way, but that isn't how it works. He also claims he is going to "negotiate a better deal on the debt because we're America and we can do that..." Yeah no.

[Shadowferal]

Well, I concede that if it's Trump vs Clinton I might sit this election out.

Trump leave neocons in dust

Neoconservatism was at its height during the presidency of George W. Bush, helping to shape the rationale for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
But now the ideology is under attack, with Trump systematically rejecting each of its core principles.
Whereas neoconservatism advocates spreading American ideals through the use of military force, Trump has made the case for nationalism and a smaller U.S. military footprint.

In what Trump calls an "America First" approach, he proposes rejecting alliances that don't work, trade deals that don’t deliver, and military interventionism that costs too much.

Leading neoconservative figures like Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan have assailed Trump’s foreign policy views. Kagan even called Trump a “fascist” in a recent Washington Post op-ed.

Other neoconservatives say Trump’s foreign policy stances, such as his opposition to the Iraq war and the U.S. intervention in Libya, are inconsistent and represent “completely mindless” boasting.

Despite the opposition he faces in some corners of the GOP, polls indicate that Trump’s message is in line with the public mood.

A recent Pew poll found that nearly six in 10 Americans said the U.S. should "deal with its own problems and let other countries deal with their own problems as best they can," a more isolationist approach at odds with neoconservative thought.

Experts say the isolationist sentiment is prevalent in the Democratic Party as well.

“The [Bernie] Sanders supporters charge Hillary Clinton with never seeing a quagmire she did not wish to enter, and basically with not just complicity, but a leading role in contriving some of the worst disasters of American foreign policy in this century,” said Amb. Chas Freeman, a senior fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, and a former Nixon and George H.W. Bush official.

"This is the principle reason that Hillary Clinton is having so much trouble putting Bernie Sanders away," said Mearsheimer, who supports the Vermont senator. "Sanders is capitalizing on all that disenchantment in the public, and Hillary Clinton represents the old order."

Some neoconservatives are even throwing in their lot with likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, most prominently Kagan and Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

------------

When the likes of Bill Kristol is on your side, in this case Hillary's, then I have to give the opposition more positive scrutiny.

[derpkitteh]

Well, I concede that if it's Trump vs Clinton I might sit this election out.

Trump leave neocons in dust

Neoconservatism was at its height during the presidency of George W. Bush, helping to shape the rationale for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
But now the ideology is under attack, with Trump systematically rejecting each of its core principles.
Whereas neoconservatism advocates spreading American ideals through the use of military force, Trump has made the case for nationalism and a smaller U.S. military footprint.

In what Trump calls an "America First" approach, he proposes rejecting alliances that don't work, trade deals that don’t deliver, and military interventionism that costs too much.

Leading neoconservative figures like Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan have assailed Trump’s foreign policy views. Kagan even called Trump a “fascist” in a recent Washington Post op-ed.

Other neoconservatives say Trump’s foreign policy stances, such as his opposition to the Iraq war and the U.S. intervention in Libya, are inconsistent and represent “completely mindless” boasting.

Despite the opposition he faces in some corners of the GOP, polls indicate that Trump’s message is in line with the public mood.

A recent Pew poll found that nearly six in 10 Americans said the U.S. should "deal with its own problems and let other countries deal with their own problems as best they can," a more isolationist approach at odds with neoconservative thought.

Experts say the isolationist sentiment is prevalent in the Democratic Party as well.

“The [Bernie] Sanders supporters charge Hillary Clinton with never seeing a quagmire she did not wish to enter, and basically with not just complicity, but a leading role in contriving some of the worst disasters of American foreign policy in this century,” said Amb. Chas Freeman, a senior fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, and a former Nixon and George H.W. Bush official.

"This is the principle reason that Hillary Clinton is having so much trouble putting Bernie Sanders away," said Mearsheimer, who supports the Vermont senator. "Sanders is capitalizing on all that disenchantment in the public, and Hillary Clinton represents the old order."

Some neoconservatives are even throwing in their lot with likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, most prominently Kagan and Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

------------

When the likes of Bill Kristol is on your side, in this case Hillary's, then I have to give the opposition more positive scrutiny.

if he sticks to rejecting neocon bullshit, i'd be quite glad to vote for him.

if it were up to me, i'd make it law that all neocons are executed in the streets by crucifixion. the ideals behind it are the scourge of humanity since the beginning of our species.

[Wulfey]

I can't believe I have to Necro this thread from page 3. What happened to Bernie? Anyways, I found a bingo chart that will allow us to automate this thread even after Berners stop posting. Just roll up 3 from the following chart and call them a post. (I didn't come up with this chart but I like it)



https://twitter.com/nwfisch/status/730207221808779265

[Deleted]

What happened to Bernie?

He's waiting for the coward and liar Hillary to honor her word and have a debate before California. Meanwhile, he's holding rallies over there. I'd be extremely surprised if Hillary did actually do what she said she would, and have a debate. I mean, she so very rarely sticks to her word. This would just be her latest outright lie.

Oh, and also, Bernie endorsed the opponent of another proven liar and Hillary's former campaign co-chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.