Support NeoGAF

[TheLostBigBoss]

 

[Jeffolation]

Funny that a decent amount might stem from the same "anti-establishment" reasoning. There are a bunch of people at work that like both Sanders and Trump (and previously Carson but nobody talks about him anymore) because they are the ones "fighting the establishment."

Agreed. I think from both sides that sentiment is just some pie in the sky reasoning. If I was an American wanting to keep things from falling further apart though the obvious choice is Hillary because of those supreme court nominations. I don't see President Sanders getting anything done with congress the way it is. Frankly I don't see Sanders clearing the general with the the baggage he's carrying: self described socialist, his raising taxes on the middle class statement that will be used as a soundbite till election day. Regardless of what he meant or how it might be a good thing it's something that will play endlessly in attack ads against the man in the general. And his comments on religion? Personally I have no issue with that but again that's prime fodder for attack ads in the general.

I like Bernie and as someone who has watched MSNBC for years I always enjoyed him popping up and speaking his mind on economic issues. Ideology wise I really like his economic content. This election though, I simply can't see him as a viable candidate in the general, I worry about how he would fare against someone like Trump or Cruz in a debate. Hillary really proved herself to me after that 11 hour Benghazi endurance trial. She ain't perfect, too hawkish and close to big money. But what seems to be imperative in this election is to keep a wingnut republican (everyone of these clowns running) from taking Office and nominating another two Scalias and dismantling everything Obama put in place to keep the country together. The behaviour of some of his supporters has soured me on his campaign further. It's a shame because I harbour no ill will against the man himself, I just feel he's run an uneven campaign and while he may have pushed Hillary further to the left on some issues (good), ultimately, in my view, the sooner he drops out and Hillary can start prepping for the general the better.

I apologise for the rant, just something I've wanted to express for a while now.

 

[Trojita]

"No control" of his campaign staff, is a good narrative isn't it?

One guy who got fired(the only one actually apart of his campaign staff), a few supporters did some dumbass shit, and online warriors were being racist and sexist means he can't control his campaign staff?

Bernie also can't wring his hands of stuff campaign people say easily because he isn't going with Super-PAC's. Using SuperPAC's can partition stuff out and any possible blame can be directed at them. Hillary has a degree of deflection if a SuperPAC person does dumbshit.

 

[hipsterpants]

You've chosen to support a politician based on the behavior of some of their supporters and not the politician's past record or current campaining? Incredible

No, I obviously make my political decisions based on real things. I think Hillary is the most qualified for the job and the most electable. I'm also not as leftist as I was years ago and realize that even with a Bernie presidency barely any of the things he says would actually happen in the current political climate. But when your first real introduction to a candidate is a bunch of obnoxious bernieposting it make you wonder if this is really the right candidate for you.

And ffs the Killary thing was just a joke lol. I wasn't implying that Bernie has ever brought that up.

 

[RustyNails]

"No control" of his campaign staff, is a good narrative isn't it?

One guy who got fired(the only one actually apart of his campaign staff), a few supporters did some dumbass shit, and online warriors were being racist and sexist means he can't control his campaign staff?

Um...yes? I mean you listed the reasons yourself!

 

[Fat4all]

 

[AlimNassor]

I posted this on /r/Sanders for Presidentand got banned. Posted on /r/Politics and got downvoted to hell and back. Any criticism of Sanders get you downvoted now.

 

[Slayven]

I posted this on /r/Sanders for Presidentand got banned. Posted on /r/Politics and got downvoted to hell and back. Any criticism of Sanders get you downvoted now.

Pretty much like twitter, except they just swarm you.

 

[Armaros]

I posted this on /r/Sanders for Presidentand got banned. Posted on /r/Politics and got downvoted to hell and back. Any criticism of Sanders get you downvoted now.

It's almost like we found one of the main sources of what the article was talking about.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

A guy beloved by Reddit having a disproportionate number of mysoginists in his fanbase? I for one am shocked.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Why's that?

This has been happening for months

 

[Nickle]

I posted this on /r/Sanders for Presidentand got banned. Posted on /r/Politics and got downvoted to hell and back. Any criticism of Sanders get you downvoted now.

Reddit is a huge Sanders circlejerk, everything he does or anything bad Hillary does gets voted to the front page. The Sanders subreddit is actually pretty reasonable, but the other subs are full of the annoying Bernie supporters.

 

[Clefargle]

Covered in boils? Did I read that right? Lol

 

[injurai]

This has been happening for months

Too little?

 

[Messofanego]

A guy beloved by Reddit having a disproportionate number of mysoginists in his fanbase? I for one am shocked.

Obligatory

 

[Four_Chamber]

I posted this on /r/Sanders for Presidentand got banned. Posted on /r/Politics and got downvoted to hell and back. Any criticism of Sanders get you downvoted now.

The DMR poll isn't even on the first page of r/politics

It's become a huge circlejerk- I honestly worry for some people that have become so invested in their political candidate in a primary. I friggin loved Obama but don't think I would have done anything drastic had he lost to Hillary.

GAF offers a far more reasonable political climate.

 

[Bronx-Man]

I posted this on /r/Sanders for Presidentand got banned. Posted on /r/Politics and got downvoted to hell and back. Any criticism of Sanders get you downvoted now.

Preserve the circle jerk at all costs

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Obligatory

too perfect and on point

 

[excelsiorlef]

Too little?

Too late.

 

[injurai]

Too late.

and why too little?
edit: doesn't matter, it was posed to slayven's opinion, and really is a meaningless line of questioning anyways

 

[Mango Positive]

Compare him to Ron Paul!

Attack his annoying supporters!

So obvious, but it'll probably work. We just love rich people, don't we? I can't wait to be one!

 

[Team Alucard]

The DMR poll isn't even on the first page of r/politics

It's become a huge circlejerk- I honestly worry for some people that have become so invested in their political candidate in a primary. I friggin loved Obama but don't think I would have done anything drastic had he lost to Hillary.

GAF offers a far more reasonable political climate.

If you think the BernieBros are bad you should have seen some of Hillarys supporters in 2008 when Obama started to pull away.

From Hillaryis44, the Rev Wright smears, and her surrogates starting the birther conspiracy, it makes the Sanders stuff look tame in comparison. Hell, Bill himself said some pretty horrendous and racist shit back then.

 

[excelsiorlef]

and why too little?
edit: doesn't matter, it was posed to slayven's opinion, and really is a meaningless line of questioning anyways

He's talking about it now after months of ignoring it.

 

[Inuhanyou]

The DMR poll isn't even on the first page of r/politics

It's become a huge circlejerk- I honestly worry for some people that have become so invested in their political candidate in a primary. I friggin loved Obama but don't think I would have done anything drastic had he lost to Hillary.

GAF offers a far more reasonable political climate.

The majority of GAF are a circle jerk for Hillary who shout down anyone who is a Bernie supporter as sexist or racist or "not realistic" and use that as an excuse to dismiss the candidate, even though they don't use any real rebuttals.

All i hear about in return is electibility and "ability to get things done", even though these things are in doubt, especially the second one which is impossible to begin with in a Paul Ryan congress regardless who is President.

Some of us Bernie Sanders supporters can be at times reactionary, very paranoid and distrustful of the media as well as people who we see as perpetuating the corrupt system but i can tell you that all of these people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2jmLsHorwg

are campaigning on Bernie's overall message. They want an end to corporate favored politics, and someone who will look out for the little guy. They aren't sexist or racists in any sense because of the minority, i myself am not as level headed as these folks who are really trying their hardest more because of Bernie's positivity. I myself have fallen into negativity against the system itself like many others and become bitter and reactionary.

But again, i stress that's nothing to hold against a majority of his supporters

 

[ampere]

It's good for his campaign to address this and express concern, but I'm not sure what they can do. I'd think that the type of person Bernie would appeal to wouldn't be keen to harass others online, but perhaps there is something I'm not seeing that draws them to him?

 

[Armaros]

He's talking about it now after months of ignoring it.

The big issue is that those groups (minorities and women) brought up their issues months ago, were mostly brushed aside so the campaign could talk more about Wall Street and then the supporters started their attacks.

Talking about how harassment is bad and not indicative of the campaign barely a week before the first primary isn't going to turn any heads back your way.

 

[excelsiorlef]

The big issue is that those groups (minorities and women) brought up their issues months ago, were mostly brushed aside so the campaign could talk more about Wall Street and then the supporters started their attacks.

Talking about how harassment is bad and not indicative of the campaign barely a week before the first primary isn't going to turn any heads back your way.

Exactly

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Bernie Bros, or as I like to refer to them as Brogressives are very similar in nature to the Ron Paulbots we got in 2008. They latched on to the "outsider" of the campaign (and conveniently enough the guy who supports legal weed) and the loudest of them tend to be the ones who are terribly racist and sexist ("Hilliary Clinton is a bitch/cunt" or "if Bernie loses I'm voting for Trump" "Black Lives Matter ruined FEELTHEBERNS Speech!" etc.) and are generally the type of people who Bernie would vehemently disagree with on most everything. I wouldn't even call a lot of the "Bernie Bros" liberal at all. They are only liberal when it comes to legal weed and free college, but only for white people.

That isn't to say that all Bernie supporters are like that, but the loudest, the biggest bullies are. There is a huge difference between the "Bernie Bro" and the normal "I like Bernie and not a fan of Hillary due to [insert legitimate issues here]" type of person.

 

[injurai]

He's talking about it now after months of ignoring it.

Regardless, I never understood people that craft their political alignment and opinions off of non-endorsed constituent behavior. I hate to have such a patronizing view of people, and in general people seem to rather form an opinion on their own. If someone is into Sander's politics they can see past the annoying supporters. So I wonder why is this viewed as too little? This sort of framing is something I only see from people that went straight to supporting Hillary based on the issues, so why the dualism?

 

[User1608]

From posters who know Bernie staff, the word is that Bernie himself is a great and awesome guy but has no control over his campaign staff. So far they broke into DNC records, broke into a hugely influential union's location in Nevada and have been harassing women and Clinton supporters online.

I remember reading about that. Definitely disappointing.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Regardless, I never understood people that craft their political alignment and opinions off of non-endorsed constituent behavior. I hate to have such a patronizing view of people, and in general people seem to rather form an opinion on their own. If someone is into Sander's politics they can see past the annoying supporters. So I wonder why is this viewed as too little? This sort of framing is something I only see from people that went straight to supporting Hillary based on the issues, so why the dualism?

It's optics man. Sanders has bern dogged for months about not really talking about and thus appealing to women and minorities so then combine that with the fact that only now is he speaking out against harassment of those same groups. It doesn't paint a good picture.

 

[Arkeband]

A lot of people like Bernie Sanders and his message but when even political commentators (YT personalities among others) call Hillary Clinton a corporate tool, it's just not a good look.

wait, what?

Of all things to hold against Hillary, her corporate ties are one of the most worrying aspects of her future presidency. If you haven't noticed, we basically live in an oligarchy. The reason Bernie (and even Trump in a sense) is appealing to a large portion of America is because people recognize this and see it as the number one issue undermining democracy.

It should be a legitimate concern for Hillary supporters when she assumes office. Goldman Sachs isn't quite as cute to have as a corporate sponsor as solar and wind were Obama's.

This has basically no relevance to the article, which is Jezebel's obligatory last chance to get in a few digs at the small minority of Bernie supporters who deserve to be called out for being dickheads. Calling Hillary corporate is not sexist or racist.

 

[ActStriker]

I am shocked at this news.

Shocked I say

 

[Lime]

I've not heard this word, "Berniebro". Sorry OP.

Also: Jezebel.

EDIT: Also also, People on the internet being shitty is not all that uncommon, last I checked. Trump supporters are even MORE shitty even in person.

What is wrong with Jezebel?

 

[Volimar]

I mean it's not like anyone here posting in this very thread said that a vote for Hillary was a vote for fascism or anything.

 

[Suikoguy]

wait, what?

Of all things to hold against Hillary, her corporate ties are one of the most worrying aspects of her future presidency. If you haven't noticed, we basically live in an oligarchy. The reason Bernie (and even Trump in a sense) is appealing to a large portion of America is because people recognize this and see it as the number one issue undermining democracy.

It should be a legitimate concern for Hillary supporters when she assumes office. Goldman Sachs isn't quite as cute to have as a corporate sponsor as solar and wind were Obama's.

The speaking fees are the only legitimate attack I've seen in that respect, and even then it's a bit tenuous as the speeches by most accounts were pretty innocuous.

The "donations" from wall street otherwise are from wall street employees who have a donation cap. As of now there is not much in the way of superpac money. Of course, not all of it may be public, which is fucking infuriating.

 

[Chariot]

I have heard people complaining about obnoxious Bernie supporters but I've never seen it myself. They are old Ron Paul supporters from Reddit? Jesus. I can only imagine.

I'm an old socialist so I'm de facto Bernie. I think it's crazy that he is polling so high in this country.

I've never admonished any of my friends for being a Hilary person. She's corporate, but she is safe in keeping the ship sailing slightly left. Rather her than any of these absolute sociopaths on the GOP ticket.

There are a few on GAF. Doesn't help that Hillary got also zealous supporters here. Bernie and Hillary threads are always such fubwhen extremists from both sides sling mud at each other.

I am both annoyed by people threathning to aid Trump if Bernie loses and those kind of Hillary supporters who rather see Bernie lose than Hillary win. These weird tear licking guys who revel in the thought of going to reddit should Bernie lose.

 

[Polari]

Seems like a bit of a cheap shot. Every candidate has their share of overly rabid supporters (including Hillary).

Basically though if you're a fanboy for any politician you're probably an idiot. Voting is always a case of picking the best from a bad bunch.

 

[foxtrot3d]

I posted this on /r/Sanders for Presidentand got banned. Posted on /r/Politics and got downvoted to hell and back. Any criticism of Sanders get you downvoted now.

Yup, sounds like Reddit. The email scandal article was on the front page yesterday and the top voted comment with 2x gold was some vitriolic sexist Clinton hate that obviously didn't take time to fully read the article.

 

[injurai]

It's optics man. Sanders has bern dogged for months about not really talking about and thus appealing to women and minorities so then combine that with the fact that only now is he speaking out against harassment of those same groups. It doesn't paint a good picture.

Yeah, some people take this as a sign of him not caring, or even an endorsement. I haven't talked to a single women my age that prefered HRC over Sanders. So I know many aren't waiting for some public statement apologizing on behalf of other people. They seem more than capable of deciding based on the issues. Just like you, I know you look at the issues. Yet you still seem to argue that other people hold out for empty apologies.

They are stepping in because the harassment is problematic, but doing so earlier wouldn't have won them much more. Nor should it be the campaign's responsibility to police independent actors. Their focus should be facing outward against the issues and other campaigns. I just don't buy the argument that they needed to do this sooner. All it is in a checkbox for some people's list, specifically people who already sided away from Bernie entirely regardless of whether this sort of action be taken.

 

[googleplex]

There is a fine like between passion and out of control zealotry. I've seen some seriously over the top Bearnie supporters here on Gaf

 

[CyclopsRock]

A left wing candidate with high-horse, pious, moralising supporters? Someone should study this, it could be a first.

 

[Trojita]

There is a fine like between passion and out of control zealotry. I've seen some seriously over the top Bearnie supporters here on Gaf

I've seen zealotry on both sides of GAF.

 

[Taelus]

The speaking fees are the only legitimate attack I've seen in that respect, and even then it's a bit tenuous as the speeches by most accounts were pretty innocuous.

The "donations" from wall street otherwise are from wall street employees who have a donation cap. As of now there is not much in the way of superpac money. Of course, not all of it may be public, which is fucking infuriating.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/01/29/pro-clinton-super-pac-announces-large-fundraising-haul/

http://freebeacon.com/politics/all-hillary-clinton-wall-street-fundraisers/

 

[Trojita]

The speaking fees are the only legitimate attack I've seen in that respect, and even then it's a bit tenuous as the speeches by most accounts were pretty innocuous.

The "donations" from wall street otherwise are from wall street employees who have a donation cap. As of now there is not much in the way of superpac money. Of course, not all of it may be public, which is fucking infuriating.

I mean, this just literally happened this week

Despite being dogged with questions about her ties to Wall Street, Hillary Clinton will take a detour from the campaign trail in Iowa to do a finance industry fundraiser on Wednesday.

Clinton will appear in Philadelphia at a “gala” fundraiser hosted by executives at Franklin Square Capital Partners, a $17 billion investment fund. Rocker Bon Jovi will reportedly play an acoustic set for “friends” who pledge $1,000 and hosts who bundle up to $27,000. (Giancarlo Stefanoni, a Clinton campaign staffer, confirmed that as of Tuesday afternoon, the event is still on.)

The Philadelphia Inquirer notes that “Franklin Square employs Ivy League-educated money managers and salespeople with experience at big Wall Street firms — plus four personal trainers and a dietitian to keep staff happy and productive amid the gym, yoga and nap rooms, Sol LeWitt art installations, and fancy cafeteria.”

Clinton was then scheduled to head to New York City on Thursday, where she was to speak at a lunchtime “Conversations With Hillary” fundraiser, now set for next month. This one is co-hosted by Matt Mallow, a senior managing director and general counsel at BlackRock, the world’s largest asset management firm. As we’ve reported before, having a conversation with Hillary is not cheap.

BlackRock’s ties to Clinton go particularly deep: Cheryl Mills, one of Clinton’s closest advisers at the State Department, sits on BlackRock’s board, and perhaps not surprisingly, Clinton’s plans for the industry align with the company’s financial strategy.

As David Dayen wrote for The Intercept, the company “buys and holds most of its investments, meaning that any policy punishing short-term capital gains and rewarding longer-term strategies would personally benefit the firm. … You could see Clinton’s proposals [to limit high-frequency trading] as clearing much of the competition to BlackRock’s asset management business.”

While Clinton certainly has an interest in raising money for her campaign, the organizers are banking on less government regulations in the future.

One of Franklin Square Capital’s investment funds, the FS Energy & Power Fund, is heavily invested in fossil fuel companies, including offshore oil drilling and fracking. A disclosure posted by the company cautions that “changes to laws and increased regulation or restrictions on the use of hydraulic fracturing may adversely impact” the fund’s performance. As secretary of state, Clinton worked to spread fracking around the world.

I don't know how Hillary thinks this won't affect how people view her. She ended up postponing that second luncheon to February, so maybe she realizes something.

 

[Suikoguy]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/01/29/pro-clinton-super-pac-announces-large-fundraising-haul/

http://freebeacon.com/politics/all-hillary-clinton-wall-street-fundraisers/

I mean, this just literally happened this week

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/26/hillary-clinton-doing-back-to-back-finance-industry-fundraisers-just-before-iowa/



I don't know how Hillary thinks this won't affect how people view her. She ended up postponing that second luncheon to February, so maybe she realizes something.

All the examples are direct per person donations:

"Under new FEC limits, which are adjusted for inflation in odd-numbered years, individuals can give up to $5,400 to candidates—$2,700 for their primary campaigns, and another $2,700 for the general election—and up to $33,400 per year to national party committees in the 2016 cycle. Previously, the limit was $2,600 to candidates and $32,400 to national party committees per year."
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/02/02/fec-raises-contribution-caps-for-2016/

Are we worried that these up to $5,400 donations are going to make Hillary feel like she owes them favors? How does she decide which companies get the favors, based on the companies the employee donations came from?

 

[Shai-Tan]

The speaking fees are the only legitimate attack I've seen in that respect, and even then it's a bit tenuous as the speeches by most accounts were pretty innocuous.

The "donations" from wall street otherwise are from wall street employees who have a donation cap. As of now there is not much in the way of superpac money. Of course, not all of it may be public, which is fucking infuriating.

I have the "pleasure" of following some of the people who are for one or the other candidate on twitter. It seems mainly about political alignment. On a spectrum of views Hillary is closer to neoliberal centrist whereas Bernie is a closer to liberal progressive. so people who support Clinton I see are posting something like this:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/single-payer-trouble

whereas Bernie supporters are posting something like this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/28/hillary-clinton-wall-street-bailout

 

[Trojita]

All the examples are direct per person donations:

"Under new FEC limits, which are adjusted for inflation in odd-numbered years, individuals can give up to $5,400 to candidates—$2,700 for their primary campaigns, and another $2,700 for the general election—and up to $33,400 per year to national party committees in the 2016 cycle. Previously, the limit was $2,600 to candidates and $32,400 to national party committees per year."
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/02/02/fec-raises-contribution-caps-for-2016/

Are we worried that these up to $5,400 donations are going to make Hillary feel like she owes them favors? How does she decide which companies get the favors, based on the companies the employee donations came from?

Why is Franklin Square Capital Partners involved?

 

[Suikoguy]

Why is Franklin Square Capital Partners involved?

I'll agree that costs associated with the hosting of the event should count as part of that per person donation. They are abusing a loophole.

But this is still not in the same league as unlimited donations that can be made to SuperPACs for candidates. Oftentimes anonymously.

Edit: We are getting way off topic though. I'd take a suggestion for a thread to move it into.

 

[Trojita]

I'll agree that costs associated with the hosting of the event should count as part of that per person donation. They are abusing a loophole.

But this is still not in the same league as unlimited donations that can be made to SuperPACs for candidates. Oftentimes anonymously.

Do you think they aren't putting money into a SuperPAC? I mean as an investment firm with 17 billion dollars, I wouldn't be doing that shit for free.