Support NeoGAF

[Your Entertainer]

If you want a more thorough, critical look at the Clintons' activities in Haiti, read this detailed Politico longform article on it.

They are involved with a lot of charity work there. What you can probably say about their involvement is that they are well-intentioned but were not so well-prepared to deal with the idiosyncrasies of Haiti.


You certainly weren't very subtle about your sexism.

I legitimately can't tell if this is trolling or serious.

In case you are serious - those were her words, in an undeniably horrible deflection when pinned on her undeniable ties to campaign finance. This was called out by the other candidates later on. You are doing exactly what I said - pinning legitimate criticism as sexism baselessly.

 

[Wafflecakes]

Clinton has more media supporters? What's laughable about that? You're off your rocker.

And it absolutely is a very convenient way to distract from her prior efforts on the US penal state, as Coates pointed out in the Atlantic article himself.

Lol. You cherrypicking your own post now.

You also said Hillary has more and louder supporters (lol) who are more active inside and outside the media (lol).




...and I know this may come as a shock to you, but it is ok to criticize the opposition without it being an attempt to "distract" from your record.

May as well claim Bernie's criticism of Hillary's Wall Street track record is just a "distraction" froim the fact that there is a 0% chance that any of his proposals will ever become law.

 

[LaserBuddha]

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

I've seen dozens of people on this forum say the same thing, invoking specifically the whole BLM thing early in the race. Some people don't know how to handle the responsibility of voting.

 

[Your Entertainer]

Lol, you are not even trying to look at this objectively.

All poor Bernie's supporters are doing is calling Hillary the establishment candidate who gets money from wall street eh? LOLOLOLOLOL

The victim complex is strong with this post.

You literally have retort when calmly asked to back up your positions - you're used to sitting in an echo chamber and can't back the ideas you've come to hold up as your reality.

There is no victim complex - I was responding to your post - and that's what I assumed you meant when you spoke of equivalence. Way to completely mischaracterize and twist everything I've posted.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

The biggest problem the US faces is the influence of money in politics.
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who actually wants to do something against that, while all the other may talk the talk but certainly don't walk the walk.

He would even be my prefered candidate if all his other positions where shit, because once corruption is out of the system, democracy in the US has a future. But right now the democracy in the US is pretty much a joke.

And the media is playing along. If the media outlets would do their job they would call out every politician who took money from corporations and interest groups and later voted in their favor. Happens all the time. Is obvious corruption. Is rarely called out.


But I don't think Sanders has a chance. So I just hope his message has some impact at least. His aggressive supporters online hurt him, though. They make him seem like and extremist.

 

[Your Entertainer]

Lol. You cherrypicking your own post now.

You also said Hillary has more and louder supporters (lol) who are more active inside and outside the media (lol).

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit - as the establishment candidate, she has supporters who can reach more people (louder) both in the "media" and outside (podcasts, bloggers, etc).

 

[dramatis]

I legitimately can't tell if this is trolling or serious.

In case you are serious - those were her words, in an undeniably horrible deflection when pinned on her undeniable ties to campaign finance. This was called out by the other candidates later on. You are doing exactly what I said - pinning legitimate criticism as sexism baselessly.

Is it? I hear a guy who highlighted the words "first woman president" as a negative. You could have said, "She's deflecting" but instead you made fun of her statements about a first woman president.

From your standpoint it sounds like legitimate criticism. From my standpoint I see a guy who is irritated by a woman saying she is a woman.

 

[aeolist]

I absolutely don't think they're both equivalent and I don't see any benefit to trying to argue between them. Weaponizing sexism and marginalizing female Sanders supports when faced with a few, loud assholes is shameful and the basis for the entire bullshit BernieBros narrative. Certainly worse than pointing out that Hillary is the establishment candidate and receives more money from Wall St - if that's what you're referring to.I don't want to retype everything from my larger post above.

making arguments based on political positions and funding isn't what's happening here

people are complaining about the dogpiling, condescension, mansplaining, and outright sexist harassment that does happen to clinton supporters. it should be incredibly obvious that ~*NOT ALL*~ sanders supporters are white misogynist neckbeards who spend 100% of their time sea lioning women on the internet, so let's move past that and recognize the actual problem of people who are doing these things. sanders has.

just as i think there are plenty of reasons to support bernie over hillary, i recognize that lots of people (especially women and people of color) have very good and valid reasons to support hillary over bernie. they're not shills, they're not dishonest, and they're not voting for her just because she's a woman. get the fuck over it.

 

[Wafflecakes]

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit - as the establishment candidate, she has supporters who can reach more people (louder) both in the "media" and outside (podcasts, bloggers, etc).

Ah personal insults now.

I see Bernie fans resorting to the tried and true when their nonsense fails.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

I'm genuinely puzzled by how Bernie and his campaign get all this flak for this shit but not any of these others, despite their absolutely being shitty supporters in their camps too.

I'm not saying it should be ignored or accepted but why is all of this focus on him about it and nobody else?

There only thing that comes close to it, as far as I've seen, is the reports about the Trump rallies with those dudes yelling sig heil etc.

 

[Your Entertainer]

Is it? I hear a guy who highlighted the words "first woman president" as a negative. You could have said, "She's deflecting" but instead you made fun of her statements about a first woman president.

From your standpoint it sounds like legitimate criticism. From my standpoint I see a guy who is irritated by a woman saying she is a woman.

When used in a rambling, incoherent response as to her ties to massive Wall Street funding, saying "First Woman President" is absolutely a negative thing to say, and absolutely fair to make fun of. You know nothing about me but didn't hesitate to dishonestly paint me as sexist, which is alarming.

 

[Your Entertainer]

Ah personal insults now.

I see Bernie fans resorting to the tried and true when their nonsense fails.

As if you didn't bust them out first? Jesus christ. More substantive than your "lolol" or whatever. What's more of an insult is dishonestly twisting and misinterpreting what others say in your responses. You cherry picked one sentence of a post, calling it delusional, until called out on it.

 

[Wafflecakes]

When used in a rambling, incoherent response as to her ties to massive Wall Street funding, saying "First Woman President" is absolutely a negative thing to say, and absolutely fair to make fun of. You know nothing about me but didn't hesitate to dishonestly paint me as sexist, which is alarming.

*Mocks someone for wanting a female President*

"HOW DARE YOU CALL ME SEXIST! It is all about CONTEXT!"

 

[LaserBuddha]

Ah personal insults now.

I see Bernie fans resorting to the tried and true when their nonsense fails.

This console warz-esque post is exactly the kind of post we don't need on this forum. I don't care what candidate you're rooting for when you say it. Just complete garbage.

 

[Mecha]

The biggest problem the US faces is the influence of money in politics.
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who actually wants to do something against that, while all the other may talk the talk but certainly don't walk the walk.

He would even be my prefered candidate if all his other positions where shit, because once corruption is out of the system, democracy in the US has a future. But right now the democracy in the US is pretty much a joke.

And the media is playing along. If the media outlets would do their job they would call out every politician who took money from corporations and interest groups and later voted in their favor. Happens all the time. Is obvious corruption. Is rarely called out.


But I don't think Sanders has a chance. So I just hope his message has some impact at least. His aggressive supporters online hurt him, though. They make him seem like and extremist.

Even if Bernie got into office and seriously tried to get money out of politics I doubt politicians and special interest groups/the rich would let him do it.

 

[aeolist]

I'm genuinely puzzled by how Bernie and his campaign get all this flak for this shit but not any of these others, despite their absolutely being shitty supporters in their camps too.

I'm not saying it should be ignored or accepted but why is all of this focus on him about it and nobody else?

There only thing that comes close to it, as far as I've seen, is the reports about the Trump rallies with those dudes yelling sig heil etc.

it seems like it's a bigger problem with sanders supporters. it really reminds me of the cultish off-putting fervor around ron paul in 2008 (GOOGLE RON PAUL, RON PAUL REVOLUTION!)

 

[Your Entertainer]

*Mocks someone for wanting a female President*

"HOW DARE YOU CALL ME SEXIST! It is all about CONTEXT!"

That's not what happened at all... Again an example of your completely dishonest posting style and inability to back things you say. You completely ignored any inconvenient explanation.

And now conveniently changing the subject when called out on being the first one to throw insults.

 

[LaserBuddha]

it seems like it's a bigger problem with sanders supporters. it really reminds me of the cultish off-putting fervor around ron paul in 2008 (GOOGLE RON PAUL, RON PAUL REVOLUTION!)

"Seems like" is doing a lot of work here. If a story about some awful supporters that indicates no numbers or percentages leads you to believe in some size of problem, then you're a hand puppet of the media. Clinton and Bernie have millions and millions of supporters. Redditors should never influence wombat you think of people in general.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Here is another perspective on the situation.

The “Bernie Bros” Narrative: a Cheap Campaign Tactic Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism by Glenn Greenwald.

Glenn Greenwald was at the front lines of complaining about BernieBros getting permabanned from Twitter after... they harassed Brianna Wu (who was in the process of being doxxed and has been harassed for a year and a half) because Brianna thought it would be cool to have a woman president.

 

[Your Entertainer]

making arguments based on political positions and funding isn't what's happening here

people are complaining about the dogpiling, condescension, mansplaining, and outright sexist harassment that does happen to clinton supporters. it should be incredibly obvious that ~*NOT ALL*~ sanders supporters are white misogynist neckbeards who spend 100% of their time sea lioning women on the internet, so let's move past that and recognize the actual problem of people who are doing these things. sanders has.

just as i think there are plenty of reasons to support bernie over hillary, i recognize that lots of people (especially women and people of color) have very good and valid reasons to support hillary over bernie. they're not shills, they're not dishonest, and they're not voting for her just because she's a woman. get the fuck over it.

It does happen - but to paint it as a widespread driving force behind Sanders support is wrong. There are legitimate reasons to vote for Hillary - like I said, I like her - but there are certainly legitimate reasons to vote for Bernie. I would hope we can move past the BernieBros narrative too that is unironically being posted by people with wide reach.

 

[aeolist]

"Seems like" is doing a lot of work here. If a story about some awful supporters that indicates no numbers or percentages leads you to believe in some size of problem, then you're a hand puppet of the media. Clinton and Bernie have millions and millions of supporters. Redditors should never influence wombat you think of people in general.

do you also think we shouldn't be able to generally criticize trump's awful following because we don't have any statistically valid studies on the subject from major peer reviewed journals?

 

[BUNTING1243]

I've seem a lot of Bernie supporter attacks against Hilarly regress into misogyny. It's a bummer, every campaign has its crazy supporters, but the internet and the nature of his campaign definitely gives them a bigger voice than they would have otherwise

Also a lot of their narrative around why people aren't supporting Bernie is infuriatingly deluded.

 

[aeolist]

It does happen - but to paint it as a widespread driving force behind Sanders support is wrong. There are legitimate reasons to vote for Hillary - like I said, I like her - but there are certainly legitimate reasons to vote for Bernie. I would hope we can move past the BernieBros narrative too that is unironically being posted by people with wide reach.

i think we move past it when the campaign itself addresses the issue in a meaningful way, which it looks like they're starting to do

in the meantime i can't fault people for having a negative impression of bernie sanders if they're not closely following the campaign and the most visible thing to them is the awful behavior of his supporters on social media, and if someone brings that up i'm certainly not going to berate them over it. that's just counter-productive.

 

[LaserBuddha]

do you also think we shouldn't be able to generally criticize trump's awful following because we don't have any statistically valid studies on the subject from major peer reviewed journals?

I can generalize Trump supporters based on the disgusting principals they must have to even like the man. And there have been analyses of why people support him that have been threads on GAF. Go right ahead and criticize his supporters for assaulting people and the hundreds of other horrible things they've done. He directly encourages it.

Having absolutely zero indication of numbers is a giant fucking leap away from having "Statistically valid studies". The only basis for this sweeping characterization of Sanders supporters is the desire to believe it. You point to discussion on Reddit as if there is such a thing as a bunch of reasonable, respectful fans on any candidate with high visibility on Reddit. You reach into a shithole and say "look I found shit, explain this Bernie." Anyone who analyzes the populace based on the most vocal people on the Internet is a straight up fool.

Today on Sunday Morning I saw a snippet of Clinton on the campaign trail saying "first woman president!" And then on a tv interview clip saying "you can't be MORE of an outsider than being the first woman president!". Then in this thread someone jokes that she is campaigning on the notion of being the first woman president and that is viewed as clear evidence they are sexist. Personally I think it's valid to campaign on that notion because I think it's historically and politically important to have a woman president, but it goes to show how bullshit political discussion can be.

 

[King Gilga]

Yeah, as a non US onlooker the Bernie fanboys are incredibly obnoxious and loud.

It'd put me off him as well.

 

[rjinaz]

I've seem a lot of Bernie supporter attacks against Hilarly regress into misogyny. It's a bummer, every campaign has its crazy supporters, but the internet and the nature of his campaign definitely gives them a bigger voice than they would have otherwise

Also a lot of their narrative around why people aren't supporting Bernie is infuriatingly deluded.

Yep. Bernie is attracting a lot of people that quite frankly don't really even believe in his stances, or at least not many of them. They are just clinging on to one or two aspects that they deem as the most important to them like anti-establishment, or less money in politics particularly. That's why they can flip from Bernie to Trump "just like that" because it's not about the politics for them. They are just latching on to a movement and being vocal about it. Mostly they just want the government flipped upside down and if they can get free college out of it as well, cool.

That's not to say the things some Bernie supporters are doing is excusable. It is not. Get the frak out of here with that racist and sexist crap. We don't want it. They make the Bernie supporters that like Bernie's actual policies look bad. If you are not going to vote for Hillary in the general then you are not a Bernie supporter, sorry. I'm pretty confident Bernie would tell you the same if you asked him. The Republicans will absolutely destroy any chance of things moving a more progressive direction. Period. This whole "now or never" way of thinking is extremely short sided.

Life will continue on the same as it always has and progress will be made as long as we keep getting Democrats elected. Ten years ago a lot of people wouldn't have believed gay marriage would have occurred nationally, ever. Yet here we are.

 

[Lime]

By the way, I think Coates already did address what Greenwald is trying to argue in that Intercept article. Which means that Greenwald makes the same mistake that Coates already was criticizing in the article.

Glenn Greenwald was at the front lines of complaining about BernieBros getting permabanned from Twitter after... they harassed Brianna Wu (who was in the process of being doxxed and has been harassed for a year and a half) because Brianna thought it would be cool to have a woman president.

Damn that's sad to hear - he's been pretty supportive of social justice issues at other times.

 

[LaserBuddha]

As far as I'm concerned you are voting for the makeup of the SCOTUS in this election. If you will abstain because you didn't get your preferred nominee, or vote for a Hitler-esque monster because he's supposedly anti-establishment, you don't give a fuck about what happens to this country.

 

[injurai]

Also a lot of their narrative around why people aren't supporting Bernie is infuriatingly deluded.

A non-negligible amount of them for sure. There is this common narrative which reinforces that it's the Bernie supporters that have soured and failed his campaign. Treating constituents as people who are incapable of cutting through the odd voices and forming their alignment based on the platform. Then when you press them on this patronizing behavior they shift to blaming Sanders' campaign for ignoring women and minorities. Then when you point out that they haven't, they shift to pointing out that the campaign hasn't addressed the egregious behavior of some supporters. Supporters that are not sanctioned, endorsed nor representative of his campaign. Then they act as if people are would otherwise support Sanders had he only displayed responsibility for these other people. Which is right back to the patronizing view that people aren't able to decide who their candidate is based on the issues. Which is odd because they also tend to be people that are seemingly convicted in their candidate choice based on the issues. How large is this portion of people? I have no clue, but they routinely make a splash in every Sander's campaign. They inevitably make claims about Sander's not being able to get things done in our congress which is just absurd. Once again patronizing the supports over "delusions" that Sanders will pull off everything that he advocate for.

 

[HylianTom]

As far as I'm concerned you are voting for the makeup of the SCOTUS in this election. If you will abstain because you didn't get Your preferred nominee, or vote for a hitler-esque because he's supposedly anti-establishment, you don't give a fuck about what happens to this country.

Voting for whomever the Democrats nominate ensures that Bernie's movement remains alive and viable for the future. He might not win in 2016, but we might get a leader just like him in 2020 or 2024, and having a conservative court in place to strike-down Bernie 2.0's achievements would be crippling for the movement.

 

[lednerg]

Glenn Greenwald was at the front lines of complaining about BernieBros getting permabanned from Twitter after... they harassed Brianna Wu (who was in the process of being doxxed and has been harassed for a year and a half) because Brianna thought it would be cool to have a woman president.

Is there an article about this? Not saying you're lying, but Google isn't finding anything when I put those two names in. I am seeing stuff about him calling "SJW" a slur, so this is surprising.

 

[water_wendi]

i swore to not vote for a Republican in any race ever again and was astonished and scared at the prospect months ago that some Bernie supporters wouldnt vote for Hillary if she beat him out for the nomination. i was like how could anyone even fathom doing that? And then i read the reactions from the Hillary supporters on GAF and now i think ill just abstain from the Presidential vote altogether.

 

[2 Slice Toaster]

Of course none of this is coming from Hilary supporters. No one is excited about her all but certain victory. She's a warm, safe blanket from Trump's craziness. We know who she is. She'll keep things going exactly as they are now, which in the end is what everyone wants.

 

[LaserBuddha]

i swore to not vote for a Republican in any race ever again and was astonished and scared at the prospect months ago that some Bernie supporters wouldnt vote for Hillary if she beat him out for the nomination. i was like how could anyone even fathom doing that? And then i read the reactions from the Hillary supporters on GAF and now i think ill just abstain from the Presidential vote altogether.

None of these people matter at all. Not a single one. There has never been and never will be a candidate for President who doesn't count tons of asshats among their supporters across the nation. Just flash forward to after the election to remember what really matters.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Is there an article about this? Not saying you're lying, but Google isn't finding anything when I put those two names in. I am seeing stuff about him calling "SJW" a slur, so this is surprising.

These tweets were right after @swarthyvillian (one of Bernie's most visibly obnoxious supporters on Twitter) was banned for harassing Brianna Wu:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/690569877749374976
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/690570222038810624

People spend years building Twitter platform ->Twitter suspends them w/no explanation -> User & media request for reason -> Twitter: go away

Implicit Twitter message: your time & energy'd be better devoted to a different platform than ours. We use arbitrary power, offer no reason

 

[Shai-Tan]

seems like you read too much into that. i follow that dude on twitter and all he ever posts about is islamophobia, civil liberties, and american imperialism edit: and Palestinian occupation

 

[King Tubby]

Not at all true. Bernie's campaign has been actively fueling the paranoia/conspiracy narrative since the server hacking incident.

What are you talking about, one unnamed adviser who pointed out how the staffer found responsible for the breach was recommended to the campaign by the DNC?

As far as I can tell, Sanders has defended Hillary Clinton against some of the bullshit attacks she's gotten. The only real negative attacks I've seen from Sanders himself towards Clinton has been that she's in the "pocket" of Wall Street, accepting their donations and can't be trusted to keep a watchful eye over them. Don't see how that's an inappropriate tactic for the campaign to use, regardless of some Sanders supporters going fucking nuts with it.

Is it? I hear a guy who highlighted the words "first woman president" as a negative. You could have said, "She's deflecting" but instead you made fun of her statements about a first woman president.

From your standpoint it sounds like legitimate criticism. From my standpoint I see a guy who is irritated by a woman saying she is a woman.

*Mocks someone for wanting a female President*

"HOW DARE YOU CALL ME SEXIST! It is all about CONTEXT!"

You both didn't actually point out anything sexist Your Entertainer said. It seems fairly obvious their point was that Hillary was using the prospect of becoming the first woman president to deflect legitimate criticism, not that being the first woman president was a bad thing. Why the hell do you even think 9/11 is in those quotes?

do you also think we shouldn't be able to generally criticize trump's awful following because we don't have any statistically valid studies on the subject from major peer reviewed journals?

Trump has personally called for a ban on Muslims from entering the United States of America. This isn't comparable.

 

[royalan]

What are you talking about, one unnamed adviser who pointed out how the staffer found responsible for the breach was recommended to the campaign by the DNC?

Unnamed adviser? How about Sanders' campaign manager directly implying that the DNC's reaction to their campaign staffers literally stealing data from Hillary was a conspiracy to undermine Bernie's campaign?

And we don't even have to stick to the server hacking incident. Bernie's campaign has been stoking the fires of conspiracy as recently as last week whining about Microsoft creating the software to tabulate the votes for the caucuses:

"You'd have to ask yourself why they'd want to give something like that away for free," Pete D'Alessandro, who's heading Sanders' Iowa campaign, said in an interview with MSNBC.

Hilarious.

To be fair, keeping your base riled up over perceived boogiemen waiting behind every corner to sabotage Bernie IS a legit tactic, but let's not pretend like Bernie isn't using it. Bernie's campaign sees that conspiracy/persecution complex lurking within his base, and they're actively poking that hive to try use it to their advantage.

 

[injurai]

To be fair, keeping your base riled up over perceived boogiemen waiting behind every corner to sabotage Bernie IS a legit tactic, but let's not pretend like Bernie isn't using it. Bernie's campaign sees that conspiracy/persecution complex lurking within his base, and they're actively poking that hive to try use it to their advantage.

You think the campaign has any desire to pander to a subgroup constituency that they've already won over? Talk about conspiracies.

 

[royalan]

You think the campaign has any desire to pander to a subgroup constituency that they've already won over? Talk about conspiracies.

Why wouldn't they? That subgroup is their most vocal. It's not about winning them over, it's about keeping them fired up.

 

[King Tubby]

Unnamed adviser? How about Sanders' campaign manager directly implying that the DNC's reaction to their campaign staffers literally stealing data from Hillary was a conspiracy to undermine Bernie's campaign?

The campaign manager said nothing about a conspiracy, rather that the Sanders campaign was being treated unfairly by the DNC.

Alleging that the party establishment is acting more favorably towards the establishment candidate does not rise to alleging a nefarious conspiracy.

And we don't even have to stick to the server hacking incident. Bernie's campaign has been stoking the fires of conspiracy as recently as last week whining about Microsoft creating the software to tabulate the votes for the caucuses:

Wait, you mean the Sanders campaign has concerns about direct corporate involvement in an election? I am shocked. Shocked.

To be fair, keeping your base riled up over perceived boogiemen waiting behind every corner to sabotage Bernie IS a legit tactic, but let's not pretend like Bernie isn't using it. Bernie's campaign sees that conspiracy/persecution complex lurking within his base, and they're actively poking that hive to try use it to their advantage.

I think Bernie's campaign does feel unfairly maligned, not that they are using it as a tactic to get their supporters to zerg their enemies. I don't think they are up to as much conspiracy theorizing as you suggest.

 

[bishoptl]

As if Bernie could police the entire internet and quiet all of the fanatics...I don't understand why the OP is seemingly blaming him or thinks that it will hurt his polling or standings. Do you think Trump's fanatics hurt his polling?

Yes. Significantly among Latinos and blacks, if you're counting.

When it comes to the internet and politics just expect there to be ridiculous fanaticism on both sides of the religious spectrum. And I'm sure Hillary would have more fanaticism if she were touted as being far right or far left.

I expect fanaticism from the conservative spectrum because it's been established that they don't give a shit about minority issues. It's the fanaticism and racist vitriol directed by so-called progressive allies that's enlightening as all get-out, since we're supposed to be on the same side.

Malcolm X nailed it:
"Speaking as a black man from America, which is a racist society. No matter how much you hear it talk about democracy it's as racist as South Africa or as racist as Portugal or as racist as any other racialist society on this earth. The only difference between it and South Africa: South Africa preaches separation and practices separation. America preaches integration and practices segregation. This is the only difference. They don't practice what they preach. Or as South Africa preaches and practices the same thing. I have more respect for a man who let me know where he stands, even if he's wrong, then one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil."

 

[royalan]

The campaign manager said nothing about a conspiracy, rather that the Sanders campaign was being treated unfairly by the DNC.

You and I are going to have to disagree on what "treated unfairly" means in a case of one campaign blatantly stealing data from another. The point is Bernie's campaign spent most of their energy using that incident to call out DWS, Hillary, and the DNC as a whole to deflect from their wrongdoing, which ultimately stoked those conspiracy fires. Hell, they raised money off it!

Wait, you mean the Sanders campaign has concerns about direct corporate involvement in an election? I am shocked. Shocked.

And clearly other candidates share those same concerns as Hillary Clinton will also use her own reporting system to double check the results. But nobody else has gone as far as Bernie has and questioned MS integrity for wanting to get involved in the first place (btw, tech companies partnering with government to improve is nothing new).

 

[injurai]

Why wouldn't they? That subgroup is their most vocal. It's not about winning them over, it's about keeping them fired up.

No, those comments are made to place doubt in the minds of people who are leaning towards Hillary or still on the fence. It's to reemphasize that Bernie's campaign is about empowering the small donor and acting as the people's campaign. Not towing the line for super pacs and big pocket interests is a fundamental pillar of Sander's campaign. The point is all these established powers are able to throw Hilliary over the top as she will be the one that represents them.

They have nothing to gain by doubling down on a group that has already aligned with them. Nevermind those comments were flippant and made by individuals, but they were playing the what I just explained. Not pandering to some hornet's nest of fervent fans.

I'm continually surprised when people that do support Hillary act as though she doesn't have powers on high that make similar estranged comments. Like Debbie Wasserman Schultz who has a clear HRC bias. Who has routinely tried to stack the odds against Sanders, by minimizing the amount of debates. Something that he has been criticizing for over 6 months now. But too little too late from her. She calls young women complacent in voting for abortion rights. Discrediting an entire demographic because of her perception of their political strategies and alignments. Yet what allies of Sanders say, is somehow unique in its degree of conspiracy taking.

 

[Salvadora]

r/politics is unreadable these days thanks to the BernieBro brigade.

 

[atr0cious]

Unnamed adviser? How about Sanders' campaign manager directly implying that the DNC's reaction to their campaign staffers literally stealing data from Hillary was a conspiracy to undermine Bernie's campaign?

And we don't even have to stick to the server hacking incident. Bernie's campaign has been stoking the fires of conspiracy as recently as last week whining about Microsoft creating the software to tabulate the votes for the caucuses:



Hilarious.

To be fair, keeping your base riled up over perceived boogiemen waiting behind every corner to sabotage Bernie IS a legit tactic, but let's not pretend like Bernie isn't using it. Bernie's campaign sees that conspiracy/persecution complex lurking within his base, and they're actively poking that hive to try use it to their advantage.

Yes please talk about this. Bernie is directly pulling from Trump's playbook and it's frightening but not surprising who he's attracting.

 

[royalan]

They have nothing to gain by doubling down on a group that has already aligned with them. Nevermind those comments were flippant and made by individuals, but they were playing the what I just explained. Not pandering to some hornet's nest of fervent fans.

They have everything to gain by doubling down on that group -- that group represents a significant portion of the energy surrounding Bernie's campaign.

I'm continually surprised when people that do support Hillary act as though she doesn't have powers on high that make similar estranged comments. Like Debbie Wasserman Schultz who has a clear HRC bias. Who has routinely tried to stack the odds against Sanders, by minimizing the amount of debates. Something that he has been criticizing for over 6 months now. But too little too late from her. She calls young women complacent in voting for abortion rights. Discrediting an entire demographic because of her perception of their political strategies and alignments. Yet what allies of Sanders say, is somehow unique in its degree of conspiracy taking.

It's not that we act like those powers don't exist; it's that we learned in 2008 that those powers don't actually mean shit and, if a strong enough candidate rose to oppose her, those powers would flee her in a heartbeat. Despite what gets said, "The Establishment" holds no allegiance to Hillary, and we've already seen this play out.

Also, we need to get on the same page with the debate thing. It gets said that the lack of debates was done intentionally to help Hillary, but she's performed well in all of them (most would say won) and has actually called for more. It's either helping or hurting her. Which is it?

 

[lednerg]

... It's either helping or hurting her. Which is it?

It's hurting the other candidates since they haven't been getting national exposure.

 

[noshten]

You and I are going to have to disagree on what "treated unfairly" means in a case of one campaign blatantly stealing data from another. The point is Bernie's campaign spent most of their energy using that incident to call out BWS, Hillary, and the DNC as a whole to deflect from their wrongdoing, which ultimately stoked those conspiracy fires. Hell, they raised money off it!

The DNC stopped Sander's campaign's access for two days thus breaking contract and are legally viable. Those two days the Sander's campaign was incapable of campaigning. Considering there are contractual obligations the whole episode was a truly incredible show of complete failure by the DNC.
From the fact that there were similar problems to the firewall which the Sanders campaign reported and thus had completed their contractual obligations.
If Clinton's campaign needs to be angry at anyone it's the DNC for their overzealous efforts which helped Bernie, and the vendor who has systematically failed at keeping both campaign's data safe.

 

[Wall]

The most important thing for the Democrats is to take back the House and Senate, as well as retake state governments. To do that, voters who lean left need to organize among themselves, and Democrats need to expand the base of voters that reliably vote for the party. In that context, this all is just sad.