[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Fugus]

Counterpoint. If Bernie isn't running a divisive campaign or encouraging animosity, why do people that are strife incarnate find themselves being drawn to his side?

Are they strife incarnate because they complain about something and then when it doesn't get fixed they complain about it some more? Or are you making the claim they complain about everything?

I ask this because I have met more than a few people who tried to say someone else did nothing but complain about everything but then when you got around them it ended up being a case of them complaining about one singular issue to one of the people who could do something about it and then when they ignored it and it didn't get fixed, the person did the only thing they could do, kept bringing up to their attention.


You can't really call those types out for calling shit out when it is the same shit each time and those who can fix it refuse to do so because at that point, there really isn't much else the person can do.

Too many people trying to use the logic "Not my problem" when many of the times it might not be your problem but it is your fault or that of your predecessor and you are the one with the power to fix it.

[Bollocks]

I am mostly imitating the reports of how horrible violent and terrible Bernie supporters must of been after the Nevada Democratic Party meeting.

I think there is a difference when one person does it, than say 1000. Still I hate generalizations.

[Matchles]

Man I know folks like Matches really love Hillary, but this the second case of assault that I know of with a Hillary Supporter attacking a Sanders supporter. Why are HRC people so aggressive and violent?

Good to see I'm remembered even when I'm not around. You do realize her actions are assault too? If he did hit her (nothing in the the video), he was also in the wrong. But who goes up to a person 30-40 years their elder and sticks their finger in their face and yells "don't ever fucking touch me." I'm not excusing anything done by anyone. There is no place for violence. But Cenk is a fucking idiot for trying to place the act of that guy on the Clinton campaign. But if that is how you want it. Check this out.

http://thedailybanter.com/2016/05/sa...clinton-rally/

Clinton tries to have a rally and is met with this. Sanders supporters yelling "fuck you" over and over to Clinton supporters leaving a rally, including children.

I get that supporting Sanders gives you some feeling of moral superiority over everyone else. But it is ridiculous how fucking blind you are to the same kind of vitriol on your side.

- - - Updated - - -

I am mostly imitating the reports of how horrible violent and terrible Bernie supporters must of been after the Nevada Democratic Party meeting.

They made fucking death threats! And vandalized two DNC HQs in Nevada. There was a report that someone threw a chair, which is unsubstantiated but that is by FAR the least worrisome act of the three. How you continue to excuse it is beyond me.

[Forogil]

Are they strife incarnate because they complain about something and then when it doesn't get fixed they complain about it some more? Or are you making the claim they complain about everything?

I ask this because I have met more than a few people who tried to say someone else did nothing but complain about everything but then when you got around them it ended up being a case of them complaining about one singular issue to one of the people who could do something about it and then when they ignored it and it didn't get fixed, the person did the only thing they could do, kept bringing up to their attention.

You are missing one major possibility: the majority didn't want that change - and those complainers are unable to grasp that. The inability to accept that others have a different opinion is causing the strife.

It doesn't matter if it is the voting procedure or whether to fix pot-holes, or something else; there are people who keep complaining based on the same underlying issue - and when you listen to the others you realize that the majority are fed up with the complainers, and don't want to change that issue. Sometimes they are too polite to say so, or just unable to enforce it.

Looking at the recent TYT-video the obvious question is: there is some form of security in the room, and they have cut off her from using the microphone (I assume there are good reasons for that), but the security is just giving her a blank stare - instead of escorting her out. Why is that the case?

[Kontinuum]

Well, we have some bad news for the Trump campaign. Sanders supporters aren't just rallying around Clinton; they're doing it rather quickly. And it's a big reason Clinton just extended her lead over Trump into the double digits, 51 percent to 39 percent.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that Sanders backers, who polls have shown were reluctant to jump over to Clinton and even flirted with supporting Trump, are coming home faster than we might have expected.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ton/?tid=sm_fb

[Fugus]

You are missing one major possibility: the majority didn't want that change - and those complainers are unable to grasp that. The inability to accept that others have a different opinion is causing the strife.

It doesn't matter if it is the voting procedure or whether to fix pot-holes, or something else; there are people who keep complaining based on the same underlying issue - and when you listen to the others you realize that the majority are fed up with the complainers, and don't want to change that issue. Sometimes they are too polite to say so, or just unable to enforce it.

Looking at the recent TYT-video the obvious question is: there is some form of security in the room, and they have cut off her from using the microphone (I assume there are good reasons for that), but the security is just giving her a blank stare - instead of escorting her out. Why is that the case?

No, I didn't miss that major possibility, it is just a possibility we have never been able to actually test out as one side keeps ensuring the public never has enough information to make that vote. Whether you are incapable or just unwilling to grasp that fact, I am not sure of. Much of the strife comes from one side making sure that that vote never becomes possible.

If it was a straight up-and-up between Sanders and Clinton where the DNC and the media tried actually being impartial about it, then that vote might have happened. But we had the media and DNC trying to ensure that didn't happen while we have apologists for them on here trying to claim they didn't do it.

And sorry, but not sure what video you are referring to. Have been busy recently since summer vacation started and not really managed to keep too up to date on stuff between family, doctors, lawyers, and the VA.

The fact remains though, that the media and the DNC tried to sideline Sanders since the start of the primary with measurable differences in coverage, the manipulation of public perception by abusing the super delegates and a whole host of other things.

If it was a straight up-and-up between them on the issues and he lost, you could make that claim. But your claim is based on events that have yet to happen thus far.

[Forogil]

No, I didn't miss that major possibility, it is just a possibility we have never been able to actually test out as one side keeps ensuring the public never has enough information to make that vote.

You are dismissing it. The point was that the others have a different opinion, and the strife occur become some are unable to come to terms with the fact that others don't lack information, but they simply have a different opinion.

It seems clear the majority of the people at that meeting have had enough of that complainer; and just want to go on with the meeting. If people sit back while her microphone is turned off it seems clear they are not interested in what she has to say. Whether they are discussing filling a pot-hole, or who to send to DNC is beside the point (and whether they are supposed to discuss one or the other as well) - people are not interested in listening to her, and based on previous experience with such complainers it seems highly likely that they have no interest in listening to any more of her. It doesn't matter if she is right or not - the majority of the ones at that meeting are not interested in hearing her talk anymore.

And sorry, but not sure what video you are referring to. Have been busy recently since summer vacation started and not really managed to keep too up to date on stuff between family, doctors, lawyers, and the VA.

The video that appears twice on this page, and you are in a sub-thread discussing it.

[Fugus]

You are dismissing it. The point was that the others have a different opinion, and the strife occur become some are unable to come to terms with the fact that others don't lack information, but they simply have a different opinion.

It seems clear the majority of the people at that meeting have had enough of that complainer; and just want to go on with the meeting. If people sit back while her microphone is turned off it seems clear they are not interested in what she has to say. Whether they are discussing filling a pot-hole, or who to send to DNC is beside the point (and whether they are supposed to discuss one or the other as well) - people are not interested in listening to her, and based on previous experience with such complainers it seems highly likely that they have no interest in listening to any more of her. It doesn't matter if she is right or not - the majority of the ones at that meeting are not interested in hearing her talk anymore.

No, I am not dismissing it. I understand perfectly that others may not have the same opinions on the subject matter. I am just not dismissing the fact that the powers that be made sure that many of the voters lacked the information as well which you are dismissing.

It may seem clear to you what the majority of the people are thinking since it matches your preconceived bias so you don't bother looking further into it. If you had, you would have noticed. You would have noticed the differences in coverage from the beginning of the primaries till the point Sanders was already near hopelessly behind, you would have noticed the Super Delegates being used to manipulate public perception making Clinton look more electable than she is while making him look less and discouraging more from even seeing what he was about.

As I said, if it had been an up-and-up election between the two of them on the issues with the media and the DNC remaining neutral in the event, you would have had a leg to stand on, but with how it happened, you don't.

The video that appears twice on this page, and you are in a sub-thread discussing it.

I haven't watched that video yet and if you noticed, this thread has been active for a long time and I stopped getting caught up on it a while ago since summer hit and my time got more limited and I honestly got tired of dealing with the Clinton circle jerk on here watching many of her supporters trying to downplay or deny the events that happened at the start of the election with Matches going as far as pretending that politicians and the media have no clue what psychology or the bandwagon effect was trying to claim them using the super delegates as they had didn't not effect voters.

Even now my attention is split between this and real life and after today I will be busy again dealing with real life and probably only catching this thread every few pages again.

[hrugner]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ton/?tid=sm_fb

Yes, the same sites that pretended like Sanders campaign was dead in the water before it started are also pushing the idea that Sanders supporters are moving toward Clinton rather than away. After watching the DNC platform negotiations I doubt there will be any Sanders supporters left for her campaign. Certainly anyone who thought she was being honest about changing her support of the TPP will be disappointed enough not to bother with her.

[Forogil]

No, I am not dismissing it. I understand perfectly that others may not have the same opinions on the subject matter. I am just not dismissing the fact that the powers that be made sure that many of the voters lacked the information as well which you are dismissing.

No, this was specifically about people being seen as strife incarnate - and you claimed it was some issue wasn't addressed, and I maintain that it isn't because others don't want to fix it - they are aware of the complaint, but think it is ok. When people keep complaining in that case they are rightly seen as strife incarnate.

[Budong]

Not sure why this thread even exists anymore to be honest.

It's like maintaining a Walter Mondale thread, ship has sailed my friends.

[Fugus]

No, this was specifically about people being seen as strife incarnate - and you claimed it was some issue wasn't addressed, and I maintain that it isn't because others don't want to fix it - they are aware of the complaint, but think it is ok. When people keep complaining in that case they are rightly seen as strife incarnate.

You maintain that it isn't because others don't want to fix it. That much I agree with. The part you are missing that those who don't want to fix it may not be in the majority as you are claiming, they are just the ones in power and attempting to control the narrative. THEY are the ones who think it is alright even though it may very well not be.

As for the people who vote for them, that is the part I am getting at where the voter are not given equal access to the information to vote on that issue.

In that condition, it isn't the people complaining who are strife incarnate, it is the ones refuse to allow the issue to come to a proper vote whom are the ones causing the strife.

Like I said, if Clinton and Sanders were allowed a proper up and up primary based on the issues without the DNC and Media pulling their crap, that might have happened and you would have a leg to stand on, but that didn't happen.

Now on that note, I am gone for a while. Was browsing this off and on while my nephew was trying to Naruto me to death asking me to watch him play now taking him to the park where I won't even be able to read like I was.

You are calling those complaining as strife incarnate when it very well might be the obstructionist refusing to allow for a proper vote causing the strife and the complaining is just a response to strife they are causing.

[Dextroden]

Not sure why this thread even exists anymore to be honest.

It's like maintaining a Walter Mondale thread, ship has sailed my friends.

It's like the bus from Speed. It can't stop til the Sander's side claims victory.

It's truly a never ending source of entertainment.

[Forogil]

You maintain that it isn't because others don't want to fix it. That much I agree with. The part you are missing that those who don't want to fix it may not be in the majority as you are claiming, they are just the ones in power and attempting to control the narrative. THEY are the ones who think it is alright even though it may very well not be.

They are clearly in majority at the meeting-video that was linked, and thus the one causing strife was clearly not.
Since neither primaries nor presidential collections are purely based on the popular vote it doesn't even matter who is in majority in general (even if that is also clear).

Thus someone is just causing strife - for no good reason; if the chair removes your mic-access and the rest just sit there, it is a clear message that you have the majority against you - and you are just causing problem for no good reason.

[Deleted]

Sanders would have represented the regular people, being that that's where the vast majority of his campaign donations came from. Looking at Hillary's donors, it's pretty clear who she represents. Why do CEOs donate to Hillary? Most likely because she'll implement policies that benefit those CEOs. Will those policies will then benefit the regular people, as well? I'd be surprised.

Republican CEOs saying Hillary has their best interests in mind while they shower her with money. Yeah, this'll be a super progressive presidency if it comes to pass.

[Fugus]

They are clearly in majority at the meeting-video that was linked, and thus the one causing strife was clearly not.
Since neither primaries nor presidential collections are purely based on the popular vote it doesn't even matter who is in majority in general (even if that is also clear).

Thus someone is just causing strife - for no good reason; if the chair removes your mic-access and the rest just sit there, it is a clear message that you have the majority against you - and you are just causing problem for no good reason.

Ah, I see where our disconnect is.

You are talking just about that video in a vacuum, ignoring all external factors and what happened prior to it. I am talking about what happened from the start of the primaries till about June 3 to June 6th when schools let out and I haven't been able to keep track of it much anymore.

Now, as of what happened during that video, I personally do not know as I haven't watched the video. As for what happened prior to it, that is what I have been talking about which you have been dismissive of.

As far as the video goes, I haven't seen it and can't comment on it in that regard and in it, the Sanders supporters MAY be the ones causing strife while talking the videoed event in a vacuum. When taking into account what happened prior to the event though, it calls even that into question as I don't know if they caused whatever you are talking about due to the events prior to it which you are dismissive of or if they are doing it just to cause issues which may also be the case.

Now, outside of the video (which again, I haven't seen) and when looking at the entirety of the primary from the start till near the point where Sanders was near hopelessly behind, THAT is the period I was talking about and during that period, much of this strife was caused by the DNC and media refusing to allow a proper vote on the issues and much of the complaining from Sanders supporters were reactions to them.

May try to watch the video later, but already have kids asking to use the PC again before they are put to bed. Probably won't have much time to check much of anything till school is back in but will try when I get the chance.

[Deleted]

Apparently Hillary is still a bit worried about those 45% of Sanders' supporters who aren't going to vote for her, but the way she's going after them is about as manufactured and fake as you might imagine from Clinton. She held a "Youtube creator town hall". I mean, come on. Is there anyone out there who's not seeing through this pandering?



The thumbs up/down are going pretty much as you'd expect, 45% still aren't on board.

Here's the TYT analysis on this stunt:

[hachidori]

Sanders would have represented the regular people, being that that's where the vast majority of his campaign donations came from. Looking at Hillary's donors, it's pretty clear who she represents. Why do CEOs donate to Hillary? Most likely because she'll implement policies that benefit those CEOs. Will those policies will then benefit the regular people, as well? I'd be surprised.

Republican CEOs saying Hillary has their best interests in mind while they shower her with money. Yeah, this'll be a super progressive presidency if it comes to pass.

Hillary supports those people, and now Bernie supports Hillary.

Use your head folks. Sanders wasn't some kind of social justice messiah, he's just an old Marxist crony.

[Furious Spoon]

Use your head folks. Sanders wasn't some kind of social justice messiah, he's just an old Marxist crony.

Sanders has been going on about the same things for the past few decades, even when no one was looking. So either that man is authentic, or he was hoping to pull a con decades in the making. The latter seems a lot more unlikely.

[hachidori]

Sanders has been going on about the same things for the past few decades, even when no one was looking. So either that man is authentic, or he was hoping to pull a con decades in the making. The latter seems a lot more unlikely.

The con he's playing at has existed since the '60s. I think the more likely answer is "both."