Funny how people that just got involved in politics a few years ago are trying to redefine every political term into something based on Bernie.
Establishment means opposing Bernie?
Sure dot gif
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
Funny how people that just got involved in politics a few years ago are trying to redefine every political term into something based on Bernie.
Establishment means opposing Bernie?
Sure dot gif
Democrats' worship of the Clintons is becoming just as toxic as Republicans' worship of Reagan.
As opposed to worshiping Bernie?
And Democrats have spent lots of time attacking and criticizing the Clintons when warranted.
Could you say the same of Bernie supporters?
I think Bernie has a good option select for the socialism attacks. His "America has socialism for billionaires so why not for the rest of us" line is good
In what world do democrats worship Clinton in any way shape or form like republicans worship Reagan? What reality is this?
And no I don't worship Clinton either. There's plenty to criticize about her and her campaign, but it does show she's so toxic I can't post a specific gif related to a specific question of an attitude on how to respond to something and it's taken as some sort of whole sale endorsement of literally everything about her rather than just that exact action.
Any other explanation of trying to redefine basic words to fit around one candidate?
This is how in we got in 2016, so called progressives attacking Planned Parenthood.
Some of those folks are still on this very forum.
We're just had a debate where several candidates tried to push the Bernie Bro narrative. It's such a lazy dismissal of legitimate grievances against the DNC and CNN/MSNBC/WaPo.
So you are dodging my question.
With such a tired changing of the subject to the media and the DNC and about Bernie Bros. (Funny how his supporters are using that term more then his detractors in this thread)
I asked, could you ask the same of Bernie supporters when Bernie has messed up? Or are you claiming Bernie has literally never made a single mistake ever.
They really didn't get to talk about it. Every time someone brings up Bernie's problematic followers we get the same type of response "he disavowed them, what else can he do?", without acknowledging the rhetoric that causes them to act that way in the first place. (aka, everyone is corrupt except for me). Pete started to bring this up but bernie successfully deflected it by blaming it on russian bots and refusing to acknowledge that there's a problem.
I don't think Bernie's rhetoric is enabling these so called Bernie bro's
This conversation is really tired y'all
Sooo how are they going to implement the early votes in the process exactly ? Just attribute the 1st choices to the 1st alignment and the 2nd choices to the 2nd alignment (or 3rd choice if 2nd is not viable) ?
Will they display the 1st round totals (including early votes) during the caucus or will they add early votes after both rounds? In this case the blind factor would prevent people from uniting behind a non-Bernie candidate...
Either I'm a dumb European or it's going to be a disaster.
Will they display the 1st round totals (including early votes) during the caucus or will they add early votes after both rounds? In this case the blind factor would prevent people from uniting behind a non-Bernie candidate...
Either I'm a dumb European or it's going to be a disaster.
Question.
Are the Bernie supporters here who say "Bernie or I'm not voting" or "if Bernie isn't the nominee than the Democrats are warned" Russian influenced or bots?
How can we, 4 years later, still be making this mistake? That Bernie supporters will not be voting if Bernie isn't the candidate. JFC.
Are the Bernie supporters here who say "Bernie or I'm not voting" or "if Bernie isn't the nominee than the Democrats are warned" Russian influenced or bots?
How can we, 4 years later, still be making this mistake? That Bernie supporters will not be voting if Bernie isn't the candidate. JFC.
Because it is crap.Everyone has toxic followers, browse ant comment section of a newspaper, or most political websites. Extremely toxic anti bernie vitriol everywhere. It exists in every base, Bernie's people somply don't complain about it with nearly as much frequency. Take for example Vandalism, it happened frequently to Bernie offices in 2016? we just didn't blame Clinton.
Are people here actually saying "Bernie or I'm not voting?" Honest question since maybe I've missed it.
I've definitely said I'm not voting for fucking Bloomberg, but that's quite a different thing.
Theres a couple of people that might refuse to vote for the candidate if its not Bernie. This is probably why voting for Bernie is ultimately the better choice, otherwise, the turnout might not be enough to defeat Trump. Considering Trump won by 70k last time and a number of Bernie supporters stayed home, the US cant afford to lose a single vote.
It happened in the debate threads and in this very thread ealier this week. There are still people in here who are "bernie or bust". I mean, they're free to do whatever they want, it's their vote but how can some people be so fucking stupid and short sighted?
Kinda agree, I hope Bernie gets it so we don't have to see stupidity unfold again and allow Trump to win.
Yeah go back a few pages. Lots of "Bernie or we will destroy the party" talk.
Threats are a bad way to get support, Bernie folks.
the words aren't being redefined?
the "establishment", as the term is used, refers to "the people or institutions that hold or are perceived to hold the power within the democratic party". this means, for example:
- prominent political media networks (e.g. msnbc)
- prominent political figures that appear in said media (e.g. the eight million clinton staffers and "former republicans" that now comprise 95% of msnbc)
- prominent political action groups (e.g. planned parenthood, large labor unions, etc)
- prominent political... uh... policy makers? (e.g. center for american progress, third way)
- prominent political... politicians? (e.g. the members of the dnc, superdelegates, etc)
I don't see how this definition of "the establishment", especially in the context of a democratic primary (where it is logical to assume that the term is being used to refer to "the political powers within the democratic party"), is some kind of weird definition that sanders supporters made up. I'm curious to see what you seem to think the "correct" definition is, if I'm honest.
in fact, it literally just happened last night
we just don't complain to the refs about it and try to get stories pushed
Did i make a mistake with any of my propositions? I dont really see any factual mistakes
You assume that if Bernie is the nominee every voter will come out but if he isn't his supporters won't.
WTF, no he didn't.
Literally started by saying "Theres a couple of people that might refuse to vote for the candidate if its not Bernie".
The worst case scenario (other than Bernie or Pete being the nominee) is if the democrats go to a brokered convention while Bernie is in the lead, delegate-wise. If he's not given the nomination simply for having more delegates than anyone else, then many, many (the majority?) of his supporters will cut of their noses to spite their faces. They will consider the nomination stolen from him.
Remember, the second round voting is when Bloomberg starts cutting checks to everyone, and superdelegates will start having their past favors called in by the backroom powerbrokers. I'm positive that Perez has told Obama not to endorse or campaign too much, as he'll be on tap to play powerbroker/unifier/kingmaker during this process.
I think it's an entirely different thing to say "Bernie or Bust" in February versus November if he's not the candidate.
When candidates start dropping or if Bernie wins the nomination, I except disappointed Warren or Centrist voters to also express feelings that they won't vote for Bernie. I also think that even the vast majority of them will end up voting for Bernie after months of Bernie vs Trump debates and after that presidential race heats up.
Nobody wants four more years of Trump.
When candidates start dropping or if Bernie wins the nomination, I except disappointed Warren or Centrist voters to also express feelings that they won't vote for Bernie. I also think that even the vast majority of them will end up voting for Bernie after months of Bernie vs Trump debates and after that presidential race heats up.
Nobody wants four more years of Trump.
So fascinating seeing the exact same people who spent 4 years losing their minds over the Trumper insistence that Russian interference was a hoax, now saying exactly the same thing when it's reported that Russia is helping meddling on Bernie's behalf.
Confirmation bias is what is going to doom this world.
Confirmation bias is what is going to doom this world.
I mean, there is at least one poll that shows that bernie supporters are the least likely to support someone else as the nominee, I think that its at least worth mentioning
If people feel they have been cheated that will sour some people on the process
Ohh the Obama angle is going to be interesting, I personally hope he weighs in as his opinion matters and people trust him. At the least to get people to come out to vote, whoever it may be for.
Sorry, I'm just not seeing these Bernie or Bust people here that we're talking about.
I have no doubt they exist in the wider public/internet, but I'm really not seeing one person here say they would *only* vote for Bernie.
If there are those here that feel that way feel free to speak up, as I could totally be wrong here. But If someone here feels that way I'd feel better if they came out and say it rather than painting with broad strokes and definites.
And no, I wouldn't vote for Bloomberg and criticism of the DNC or Democratic party does not count as "I would only ever vote for Bernie."
You do at least realize the context is totally different? The news story is literally that they're interfering to prop up Bernie for the MAIN PURPOSE of getting Trump re-elected since they think (correct or incorrectly) he'd be the easiest candidate to beat. Sanders also immediately came out and denounced Putin instead of begging him to interfere in our process every chance he gets. I'm just not sure how these are equivalent.
I won't even harp on the fact that they literally did the same thing last time too right, it was just forgotten to time
You can be critical of it if you think Sanders should do more to denounce it but we're not comparing apples to apples here.
I have no doubt they exist in the wider public/internet, but I'm really not seeing one person here say they would *only* vote for Bernie.
If there are those here that feel that way feel free to speak up, as I could totally be wrong here. But If someone here feels that way I'd feel better if they came out and say it rather than painting with broad strokes and definites.
And no, I wouldn't vote for Bloomberg and criticism of the DNC or Democratic party does not count as "I would only ever vote for Bernie."
You do at least realize the context is totally different? The news story is literally that they're interfering to prop up Bernie for the MAIN PURPOSE of getting Trump re-elected since they think (correct or incorrectly) he'd be the easiest candidate to beat. Sanders also immediately came out and denounced Putin instead of begging him to interfere in our process every chance he gets. I'm just not sure how these are equivalent.
I won't even harp on the fact that they literally did the same thing last time too right, it was just forgotten to time
You can be critical of it if you think Sanders should do more to denounce it but we're not comparing apples to apples here.
it does matter because of state, house, media coverage, mandate and popular vote. Not to mention upsets and chicanery almost guaranteed at the ballot box and electoral register this year. Thinking it doesn't matter is how we keep getting shafted.
your state may vote in total for a Democratic President but we also desperately need seats and senators to try and fix this horror show.
I already said I'll hold my nose and vote for the Dem unless it's Bloomberg.
I think you misunderstood. Bernie didn't do anything wrong here. This doesn't reflect badly on him at all.
I'm referring to the Bernie supporters suddenly revealing themselves to suffer from the identical confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance bias that Trump supporters do. Suddenly it's "lol the media", "this is a hoax to keep Bernie from getting elected", "lol anonymous sources".
It's very convenient to believe media reporting and anonymous sources and intelligence agency reports when they say what you want to be true, and angrily declare it all a hoax and a conspiracy when they say what you don't want to be true (or at least don't want people to believe).
Fair enough, you're right I misunderstood what you were getting at :). Although I'm not seeing any of that here but I could believe this exists.
Unfortunately I've see just as much of it with "lifelong liberals" and Bloomberg too
We should get back to worshipping Obama. At least he can win a general election.
There won't be anything Obama can do if Bernie enters the convention with a significant delegate lead and leaves without the nomination. There isn't a scenario where that happens and it doesn't cause a massive schism.
Are you referring to the Bloomberg office vandalism story? Because the context surrounding the allegations provided for that story very much justify the response.
Bernie supporters were much more on the Hillary is a bad candidate and lost because of it, but Russia shouldn't interfere regardles of their ability to influence the outcome train than freaking out about reds under the bed.
i know- I'm just talking to anyone who thinks that — which in off year elections is disastrous and in presidential ones can lead to unexpected craziness.
Have you read the thread about the news? It's filled with consipracy theories about how it's by Democrats trying to sink Bernie.
I haven't. More concerned with this thread since that's where the current discussion is taking place
the bernie or bust thing A) was hilariously overblown as everyone knows, we don't have to do the clinton mccain thing again we've all heard that many many times no use going through the motions to end up at the same place we always end up at and B) it's especially irrelevant this go around given how many times we've seen polling where every other candidate's support has more favorable views of trump than bernie (and warren she's always down with bernie at the bottom of these polls) or would be more likely to vote for trump than bernie
and yeah we've already seen quite a bit of vitriol coming from warren supporters trying to demonize bernie supporters. it's natural, it'll continue to happen, just gotta unite up by the fall
I've seen far more other Dems say they won't vote for Bernie if he's the nominee because he's a "socialist/communist". Some even have stated they would probably vote for Trump if given the choice between the two. I'm not so sure this problem is specific to his voters. The party is just spread too far apart, progressive on one end, Trump 2.0 on the other.
You can always scroll back to the Iowa conspiracy theories. Those were fun.
I really don't think Bernie or his team understand how his "Dem establishment" stuff reads as "bend the knee" to some older black voters.
I've already heard that interpretation a few times. The most frequent and reliable dem voters are not the people to piss off.
I've already heard that interpretation a few times. The most frequent and reliable dem voters are not the people to piss off.
- Status