|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Surfitall wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Surfitall wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | I saw this elsewhere and while I don't agree 100% with the vitriolic language, it does sum up my thoughts on Bernie pretty well. And I bring it up because we do need to be aware of who we may well end up with if we are successful in getting Trump out. That said, I'm voting for Bernie as many times as they will let me if he is the nominee.
It's because between March and July of 2016 he would not concede a race he had clearly, mathematically lost. Instead, he kept it going |
Like you, I saw this elsewhere, and here is why this argument doesn’t work for me:
Sanders admitted that after the April 26 primaries that he was mathematically eliminated (the Democratic Party practice of allowing formally unpledged superdelegates to vote for a nominee makes such determinations inexact) and was only staying in the race to influence the party platform, |
(trimmed down for space and pertinence)
Whether or not it works for you:
Bernie Sanders Refuses to Concede Nomination to Hillary Clinton (June 12,2016)
Senator Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that he would “take our campaign for transforming the Democratic Party into the convention,” refusing to concede the presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton though not explicitly saying he would challenge her for it.
Mrs. Clinton earned enough delegates to clinch the nomination last week, but Mr. Sanders has declined to end his campaign. He has contended that he could persuade enough superdelegates, the party leaders who have overwhelmingly backed Mrs. Clinton, to switch their support to him by arguing that he would be the stronger candidate against Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
And as for how long it took him to endorse Clinton, it wasn't until July |
Trimmed down for space and pertinence? You are trimming out a very pertinent section:
This is typical behavior for eliminated candidates:
In the 2016 Republican primary John Kasich was eliminated in March and Ted Cruz was eliminated on April 19, but both stayed in the race in the hopes of making it to a brokered convention until after Trump clinched the nomination on May 3. In both cases they stayed in the race to deny Trump the nomination rather than affect the platform.
In the 2012 Republican primary both Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich stayed in the race well after they were mathematically eliminated. Paul was more like Sanders in that the impetus for staying in was to affect the platform, but Gingrich was merely attempting to deny Romney the nomination.
In the 2008 Democratic primary, Clinton herself was eliminated from winning a majority of pledged delegates sometime in April. However, she stayed in the race through June, endorsing Obama after he clinched the nomination on the last day of the primary season.
So, Sanders behaved exactly as many other eliminated primary challengers, including Clinton herself. Blaming a loss on normal behavior is disingenuous and, in this case, hypocritical. |
Yes, pertinent to your claim that he conceded on April 26th and was merely going through the motions "to influence party platforms". That was not an accurate description. He continued to contest the results and leveled the charges of "fixing" after that date.
What others have done in other elections doesn't change anything in regards to that point and in fact is irrelevant to when he conceded and when he finally endorsed. That is the pertinence I was speaking of.
But if we want to get into what others may have done in other elections. Has any candidate stated that he wouldn't accept the results of an upcoming election if he didn't like them?
Sanders Claims 2016 Primary Was Rigged, Won’t Commit to Supporting Winner
NBC’s Kasie Hunt asked Bernie Sanders if he would commit to supporting the Democratic nominee before the convention if it’s clear it won’t be him. Sanders would not make any such commitment. Instead, he said, “some people say that maybe if the system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination.”
While Sanders is coyly hiding behind the “some people say” formulation, he is threatening to repeat the tactics he used in 2016, when he called the process “rigged” and withheld his support long after the outcome was decided.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dominator
Star Player
Joined: 19 Nov 2005
Posts: 8678
Location: Irvine
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I recall someone else constantly complaining that the general election would be rigged. That person also uses the phrase "some people say" a lot. Hmm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67631
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: |
I may be in a minority but I think Trump is a danger so obvious even the uneducated will see the harm. The best laid plans of mice and men. |
Unfortunately, the reality of what is actually going on demonstrates that is not the case. |
DMR You know I live in Pollyanna land and I understand the realities. Will see is a bit extreme, may see is more germane. In reality Trumps removal is in the hands of voters. I have to stay with non racists will outnumber racists in the next election. I live with the hope that election winners will be the one who gets the most votes. Will it happen? Not likely.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: |
It's not about comparisons. You can always find a way to rationalize away behavior when you do resort to "what about" points of debate.
The point is, Bernie put his personal disappointment at not getting the nomination ahead of what was for the greater good. And he weaponized that disappointment by encouraging anti-Democrat dissent amongst his supporters. |
Let's be fair, even HRC believed she would trounce Trump. She in no way asked for Bernie supporters to support her. Nor did the DNC.
The DNC legit worked against one of their candidates because they thought HRC was a slam dunk without his support. Zero blame can be placed on Bernie supporters for HRC loss. |
Yeah no. The majority of people in the DNC supported Hillary because she was both clearly the more qualified candidate and she was an actual democrat. Bernie’s campaign fostered such an insane amount of hate and used all the old GOP canards, helped by their army of Russian troops and bots, and the GOP, and ran an endless campaign of “whatever doesn’t go our way is cheating” as she stomped him by a larger margin than she beat trump by, to the point where Bernie people didn’t show up, voted third party, or in some cases voted for Trump in spite.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29285
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
True or false? Pete can/will unite the middle left.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Speaking of Pete, his campaign manager was accused of running a burner Twitter account of a Nigerian man who tweeted in favor of Buttigieg's campaign. Apparently the dude is real and got chased off of Twitter today. Guess which campaign's supporters helped the conspiracy theory spread around social media?
Slate
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Baron Von Humongous wrote: | Speaking of Pete, his campaign manager was accused of running a burner Twitter account of a Nigerian man who tweeted in favor of Buttigieg's campaign. Apparently the dude is real and got chased off of Twitter today. Guess which campaign's supporters helped the conspiracy theory spread around social media?
Slate |
| Quote: | By Steve Hartman CBS News March 29, 2018, 6:56 PM
How a suspicious Facebook message from Liberia sparked an unlikely partnership
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-a-suspicious-facebook-message-from-liberia-sparked-an-unlikely-partnership/
MONROVIA, LIBERIA -- No one likes internet scammers, but in Ogden, Utah, we found a guy with a most profound distaste. Just wait until you hear how 33-year-old Ben Taylor responded to one random Facebook message: "My name is Joel from Liberia, West Africa. I need some assistance from you. Business or financial assistance dat (sic) will help empower me."
Ben insincerely responded, "How can I help?"
"I just wanted to go down this rabbit hole and see what were the tricks that they use to get people," Ben said.
But there's no way he would have guessed what happened next. The journey began when Joel, in Africa, proposed a business partnership. He asked Ben to mail used electronics to an address in New Jersey.
"I looked it up on Google Earth," Ben said. "There were broken down cars all over the place."
Ben wasn't falling for that. Instead, he proposed a different partnership. He lied to Joel, and told him he owned a photography business and could use some pretty pictures.
"So how about a sunset? How about a nice Liberian sunset?" Ben asked.
We asked Ben if he planned on paying for any photos once he got them.
"I said, 'Yeah, if it's good. If I like it, sure,'" Ben replied. "I figured the more time of theirs that I can waste, the less time that they'd have to spend ripping me or other people off."
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ContagiousInspiration wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | Speaking of Pete, his campaign manager was accused of running a burner Twitter account of a Nigerian man who tweeted in favor of Buttigieg's campaign. Apparently the dude is real and got chased off of Twitter today. Guess which campaign's supporters helped the conspiracy theory spread around social media?
Slate |
| Quote: | By Steve Hartman CBS News March 29, 2018, 6:56 PM
How a suspicious Facebook message from Liberia sparked an unlikely partnership
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-a-suspicious-facebook-message-from-liberia-sparked-an-unlikely-partnership/
MONROVIA, LIBERIA -- No one likes internet scammers, but in Ogden, Utah, we found a guy with a most profound distaste. Just wait until you hear how 33-year-old Ben Taylor responded to one random Facebook message: "My name is Joel from Liberia, West Africa. I need some assistance from you. Business or financial assistance dat (sic) will help empower me."
Ben insincerely responded, "How can I help?"
"I just wanted to go down this rabbit hole and see what were the tricks that they use to get people," Ben said.
But there's no way he would have guessed what happened next. The journey began when Joel, in Africa, proposed a business partnership. He asked Ben to mail used electronics to an address in New Jersey.
"I looked it up on Google Earth," Ben said. "There were broken down cars all over the place."
Ben wasn't falling for that. Instead, he proposed a different partnership. He lied to Joel, and told him he owned a photography business and could use some pretty pictures.
"So how about a sunset? How about a nice Liberian sunset?" Ben asked.
We asked Ben if he planned on paying for any photos once he got them.
"I said, 'Yeah, if it's good. If I like it, sure,'" Ben replied. "I figured the more time of theirs that I can waste, the less time that they'd have to spend ripping me or other people off."
|
|
It's different than scammers fishing for one gullible person. Maybe I'm more exposed to it because of social media but it seems that conspiracy theories and their devout adherents have become more prevalent over the past decade. I guess a loss of faith in legacy media (rightfully so in some cases like the Iraq War) combined with algorithmically targeted and personally curated information bubbles is leaving people vulnerable to grifters and credulous moronic "though leaders" who amplify misinformation that feeds into a confirmation bias loop.
We all are steeped in it to some degree, but the conspiracy theory about Lis Smith had flimsy data but sufficiently "fit a pattern" so left leaning, Bernie Sanders supporting "journalists" amplified it giddily throughout the day to the point that some random Nigerian dude who likes Pete for some reason was Twitter mobbed and doxxed. It's stupid and I guess no big deal in the "real world," but to the nice Nigerian Pete supporter it felt real enough to shut down his Twitter account. A not insignificant number of people are primed to lap up misinformation and are looking for conspiracies against what or who they like or don't like. Concerning? Idk, maybe not.
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Surfitall
Star Player
Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3829
Location: South Orange County
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Surfitall wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Surfitall wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | I saw this elsewhere and while I don't agree 100% with the vitriolic language, it does sum up my thoughts on Bernie pretty well. And I bring it up because we do need to be aware of who we may well end up with if we are successful in getting Trump out. That said, I'm voting for Bernie as many times as they will let me if he is the nominee.
It's because between March and July of 2016 he would not concede a race he had clearly, mathematically lost. Instead, he kept it going |
Like you, I saw this elsewhere, and here is why this argument doesn’t work for me:
Sanders admitted that after the April 26 primaries that he was mathematically eliminated (the Democratic Party practice of allowing formally unpledged superdelegates to vote for a nominee makes such determinations inexact) and was only staying in the race to influence the party platform, |
(trimmed down for space and pertinence)
Whether or not it works for you:
Bernie Sanders Refuses to Concede Nomination to Hillary Clinton (June 12,2016)
Senator Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that he would “take our campaign for transforming the Democratic Party into the convention,” refusing to concede the presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton though not explicitly saying he would challenge her for it.
Mrs. Clinton earned enough delegates to clinch the nomination last week, but Mr. Sanders has declined to end his campaign. He has contended that he could persuade enough superdelegates, the party leaders who have overwhelmingly backed Mrs. Clinton, to switch their support to him by arguing that he would be the stronger candidate against Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
And as for how long it took him to endorse Clinton, it wasn't until July |
Trimmed down for space and pertinence? You are trimming out a very pertinent section:
This is typical behavior for eliminated candidates:
In the 2016 Republican primary John Kasich was eliminated in March and Ted Cruz was eliminated on April 19, but both stayed in the race in the hopes of making it to a brokered convention until after Trump clinched the nomination on May 3. In both cases they stayed in the race to deny Trump the nomination rather than affect the platform.
In the 2012 Republican primary both Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich stayed in the race well after they were mathematically eliminated. Paul was more like Sanders in that the impetus for staying in was to affect the platform, but Gingrich was merely attempting to deny Romney the nomination.
In the 2008 Democratic primary, Clinton herself was eliminated from winning a majority of pledged delegates sometime in April. However, she stayed in the race through June, endorsing Obama after he clinched the nomination on the last day of the primary season.
So, Sanders behaved exactly as many other eliminated primary challengers, including Clinton herself. Blaming a loss on normal behavior is disingenuous and, in this case, hypocritical. |
Yes, pertinent to your claim that he conceded on April 26th and was merely going through the motions "to influence party platforms". That was not an accurate description. He continued to contest the results and leveled the charges of "fixing" after that date.
What others have done in other elections doesn't change anything in regards to that point and in fact is irrelevant to when he conceded and when he finally endorsed. That is the pertinence I was speaking of.
But if we want to get into what others may have done in other elections. Has any candidate stated that he wouldn't accept the results of an upcoming election if he didn't like them?
Sanders Claims 2016 Primary Was Rigged, Won’t Commit to Supporting Winner
NBC’s Kasie Hunt asked Bernie Sanders if he would commit to supporting the Democratic nominee before the convention if it’s clear it won’t be him. Sanders would not make any such commitment. Instead, he said, “some people say that maybe if the system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination.”
While Sanders is coyly hiding behind the “some people say” formulation, he is threatening to repeat the tactics he used in 2016, when he called the process “rigged” and withheld his support long after the outcome was decided. |
Instead of reading into what he isn’t saying by his “coy” response and clickbait headline, why not simply look at what he said just two weeks ago where he directly addressed question:
Sanders tells a crowd in Indianola, Iowa, that if he isn’t the nominee, “we will support the winner and I know that every other candidate will do the same.” Sanders says the Democratic primary field is, in his words, “united in our understanding that we must defeat Donald Trump.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
We're gonna get President Bloomberg. Watch out.
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | ContagiousInspiration wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | Speaking of Pete, his campaign manager was accused of running a burner Twitter account of a Nigerian man who tweeted in favor of Buttigieg's campaign. Apparently the dude is real and got chased off of Twitter today. Guess which campaign's supporters helped the conspiracy theory spread around social media?
Slate |
| Quote: | By Steve Hartman CBS News March 29, 2018, 6:56 PM
How a suspicious Facebook message from Liberia sparked an unlikely partnership
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-a-suspicious-facebook-message-from-liberia-sparked-an-unlikely-partnership/
MONROVIA, LIBERIA -- No one likes internet scammers, but in Ogden, Utah, we found a guy with a most profound distaste. Just wait until you hear how 33-year-old Ben Taylor responded to one random Facebook message: "My name is Joel from Liberia, West Africa. I need some assistance from you. Business or financial assistance dat (sic) will help empower me."
Ben insincerely responded, "How can I help?"
"I just wanted to go down this rabbit hole and see what were the tricks that they use to get people," Ben said.
But there's no way he would have guessed what happened next. The journey began when Joel, in Africa, proposed a business partnership. He asked Ben to mail used electronics to an address in New Jersey.
"I looked it up on Google Earth," Ben said. "There were broken down cars all over the place."
Ben wasn't falling for that. Instead, he proposed a different partnership. He lied to Joel, and told him he owned a photography business and could use some pretty pictures.
"So how about a sunset? How about a nice Liberian sunset?" Ben asked.
We asked Ben if he planned on paying for any photos once he got them.
"I said, 'Yeah, if it's good. If I like it, sure,'" Ben replied. "I figured the more time of theirs that I can waste, the less time that they'd have to spend ripping me or other people off."
|
|
It's different than scammers fishing for one gullible person. Maybe I'm more exposed to it because of social media but it seems that conspiracy theories and their devout adherents have become more prevalent over the past decade. I guess a loss of faith in legacy media (rightfully so in some cases like the Iraq War) combined with algorithmically targeted and personally curated information bubbles is leaving people vulnerable to grifters and credulous moronic "though leaders" who amplify misinformation that feeds into a confirmation bias loop.
We all are steeped in it to some degree, but the conspiracy theory about Lis Smith had flimsy data but sufficiently "fit a pattern" so left leaning, Bernie Sanders supporting "journalists" amplified it giddily throughout the day to the point that some random Nigerian dude who likes Pete for some reason was Twitter mobbed and doxxed. It's stupid and I guess no big deal in the "real world," but to the nice Nigerian Pete supporter it felt real enough to shut down his Twitter account. A not insignificant number of people are primed to lap up misinformation and are looking for conspiracies against what or who they like or don't like. Concerning? Idk, maybe not. |
Foreign Interference in US Elections /cough
Without thinking about that part.. It is highly possible Mr. Worldly Pete.. funny WP is my nickname for now Witty Pete.. (bleep) has comebacks for days.. that just stick and stink on the recipient.. he doesn't start the (bleep) though.. Anyhow.. Yes.. it is possible one of his too big of brain for their own good teammates thought up this international campaign.. hopefully not |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unleasHell
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Apr 2001
Posts: 11591
Location: Stay Thirsty my Friends
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok Demo fans who do you think has the best chance to:
1) Win the Democratic ticket?
2) Beat Trump in the general election?
(because they might be two different people)
_________________
“Always remember... Rumors are carried by haters, spread by fools, and accepted by idiots.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | We're gonna get President Bloomberg. Watch out. |
That guy is gonna get tossed out like some cheap rag weed when (bleep) gets serious
Wait until a debate after these old school sexual harassers and bigoted racist talk comes out.. One of the women will be asking him as will Bernie... he can't bully them
Bloomy can talk (bleep) to Trump though and we need him for that..
Witty Pete is dangerous for Trump.. Kid is too sharp to play games and Trump will like a real douche if all he can attack is his gayness.. I haven't fully investigated his racial issues.. but I do know after Trump was elected he immediately got together with the Latino groups and protected his undocumented community by giving them special id cards so they could get their medication and mail and foods and suchThe police firing was above board and legit from all I read..
Bernie can win the presidency but can he get nominated
Biden can be too easily made fun of while Bernie has actually gone out since 2016 and spread his message and physically gone and met union members and miners and laborers all over
Hillary as VP with bloomberg shows me how afraid corporate Dems are of Bernie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25086
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| unleasHell wrote: | Ok Demo fans who do you think has the best chance to:
1) Win the Democratic ticket?
2) Beat Trump in the general election?
(because they might be two different people) |
1. Bernie
2. Biden
Just cause it’s not gonna be a fair election (however u define fair) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Surfitall
Star Player
Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3829
Location: South Orange County
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cornel West spoke on behalf of Sanders in NH.
“A neo-fascist believes that the rule of big military and big money, dividing people up by their color, by their class, by their sexual orientation, by their religion or non-religion to ensure we’re at each other’s throats rather than confronting the elites at the top? My brother Bernie Sanders says no!”
“And I thank God my dear brother, Bernie Sanders, has got the integrity, the courage, the vision, to bring is together and say, not a milquetoast neoliberal running against the gangster. We got to have moral and spiritual power behind our movement.”
Here is a link to a video of West’s speech.
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1229428540027875329?s=21 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ContagiousInspiration wrote: | | Baron Von Humongous wrote: | | We're gonna get President Bloomberg. Watch out. |
That guy is gonna get tossed out like some cheap rag weed when (bleep) gets serious
Wait until a debate after these old school sexual harassers and bigoted racist talk comes out.. One of the women will be asking him as will Bernie... he can't bully them
Bloomy can talk (bleep) to Trump though and we need him for that..
Witty Pete is dangerous for Trump.. Kid is too sharp to play games and Trump will like a real douche if all he can attack is his gayness.. I haven't fully investigated his racial issues.. but I do know after Trump was elected he immediately got together with the Latino groups and protected his undocumented community by giving them special id cards so they could get their medication and mail and foods and suchThe police firing was above board and legit from all I read..
Bernie can win the presidency but can he get nominated
Biden can be too easily made fun of while Bernie has actually gone out since 2016 and spread his message and physically gone and met union members and miners and laborers all over
Hillary as VP with bloomberg shows me how afraid corporate Dems are of Bernie |
See, this makes no sense because there is no world in which Hillary Clinton would ever be Mike Bloomberg's VP. The source for that rumor comes from tabloid rag The Daily Mail, which was citing the Drudge Report, in which an anonymous source close to Bloomberg's campaign said she was under consideration. What about that sounds like anything that's not complete (bleep) to drive clicks based on the Clinton name?
But now Machiavellian "corporate Dems" are conspiring to steal the election from Bernie by teaming up with the shadowy Clinton cabal. It could be that, I guess. It could also be Mike Bloomberg is a Republican who likes his tax cuts and wants to beat Trump for the presidency as a wing-dang-doodle measuring contest. Bloomberg doesn't need a cabal of "corporate Dems" - his billions alone are more than sufficient.
Bloomberg's the only one willing to hit Trump. I don't know if a purely reactive, negative campaign will do well in the general, but with House Dems pushing policy messaging again, people may want a counter-bully to Trump while the folks running in state and local elections push healthcare. Idk what electable is anymore and probably never did.
_________________
Under New Management |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25086
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bloomberg the only one willing to hit trump? Not sure about that
His ads which are all over tv and radio in NY/NJ is portraying him working for racial justice, improving healthcare and the best one, portraying him working closely with Obama like he was the Vp for 8yrs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oliver is great as always, but he makes a few core mistakes there.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: |
Oliver is great as always, but he makes a few core mistakes there. |
I missed them. What were these core mistakes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Surfitall wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Surfitall wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Surfitall wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | I saw this elsewhere and while I don't agree 100% with the vitriolic language, it does sum up my thoughts on Bernie pretty well. And I bring it up because we do need to be aware of who we may well end up with if we are successful in getting Trump out. That said, I'm voting for Bernie as many times as they will let me if he is the nominee.
It's because between March and July of 2016 he would not concede a race he had clearly, mathematically lost. Instead, he kept it going |
Like you, I saw this elsewhere, and here is why this argument doesn’t work for me:
Sanders admitted that after the April 26 primaries that he was mathematically eliminated (the Democratic Party practice of allowing formally unpledged superdelegates to vote for a nominee makes such determinations inexact) and was only staying in the race to influence the party platform, |
(trimmed down for space and pertinence)
Whether or not it works for you:
Bernie Sanders Refuses to Concede Nomination to Hillary Clinton (June 12,2016)
Senator Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that he would “take our campaign for transforming the Democratic Party into the convention,” refusing to concede the presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton though not explicitly saying he would challenge her for it.
Mrs. Clinton earned enough delegates to clinch the nomination last week, but Mr. Sanders has declined to end his campaign. He has contended that he could persuade enough superdelegates, the party leaders who have overwhelmingly backed Mrs. Clinton, to switch their support to him by arguing that he would be the stronger candidate against Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
And as for how long it took him to endorse Clinton, it wasn't until July |
Trimmed down for space and pertinence? You are trimming out a very pertinent section:
This is typical behavior for eliminated candidates:
In the 2016 Republican primary John Kasich was eliminated in March and Ted Cruz was eliminated on April 19, but both stayed in the race in the hopes of making it to a brokered convention until after Trump clinched the nomination on May 3. In both cases they stayed in the race to deny Trump the nomination rather than affect the platform.
In the 2012 Republican primary both Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich stayed in the race well after they were mathematically eliminated. Paul was more like Sanders in that the impetus for staying in was to affect the platform, but Gingrich was merely attempting to deny Romney the nomination.
In the 2008 Democratic primary, Clinton herself was eliminated from winning a majority of pledged delegates sometime in April. However, she stayed in the race through June, endorsing Obama after he clinched the nomination on the last day of the primary season.
So, Sanders behaved exactly as many other eliminated primary challengers, including Clinton herself. Blaming a loss on normal behavior is disingenuous and, in this case, hypocritical. |
Yes, pertinent to your claim that he conceded on April 26th and was merely going through the motions "to influence party platforms". That was not an accurate description. He continued to contest the results and leveled the charges of "fixing" after that date.
What others have done in other elections doesn't change anything in regards to that point and in fact is irrelevant to when he conceded and when he finally endorsed. That is the pertinence I was speaking of.
But if we want to get into what others may have done in other elections. Has any candidate stated that he wouldn't accept the results of an upcoming election if he didn't like them?
Sanders Claims 2016 Primary Was Rigged, Won’t Commit to Supporting Winner
NBC’s Kasie Hunt asked Bernie Sanders if he would commit to supporting the Democratic nominee before the convention if it’s clear it won’t be him. Sanders would not make any such commitment. Instead, he said, “some people say that maybe if the system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination.”
While Sanders is coyly hiding behind the “some people say” formulation, he is threatening to repeat the tactics he used in 2016, when he called the process “rigged” and withheld his support long after the outcome was decided. |
Instead of reading into what he isn’t saying by his “coy” response and clickbait headline, why not simply look at what he said just two weeks ago where he directly addressed question:
Sanders tells a crowd in Indianola, Iowa, that if he isn’t the nominee, “we will support the winner and I know that every other candidate will do the same.” Sanders says the Democratic primary field is, in his words, “united in our understanding that we must defeat Donald Trump.” |
"Clickbait" 
Instead of moving the goal posts (as you frequently do) and avoiding the original point, why don't you just acknowledge that Bernie didn't just simply concede in the fashion you claimed.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Surfitall
Star Player
Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3829
Location: South Orange County
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Excellent. Thanks for posting. I wish people on the right would see and internalize how much the British love the NHS and watch Canadians naming the creator of the universal healthcare system as the greatest Canadian of all time. (And then watching Canadians celebrate when he is announced!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: |
Oliver is great as always, but he makes a few core mistakes there. |
I missed them. What were these core mistakes? |
The usual ones. He acknowledges that the political and logistical hurdles are enormous, but waves that off with no explanation of how to do it. It sounds good, but again, the if and the how are as important as the what.
He also states that the public option just leaves the current situation as is and doesn’t fix anything. That’s wrong on three levels. The option can change things by initial competition, by accompanying regulation, and by long term bridging to a single payer system or hybrid.
Either way, public and private hybrids are often the best result.
A great example is the Netherlands. The government funds a portion of healthcare via taxes and employer contributions, citizens have the obligation to pay a portion (with subsidies based on income available), and the government regulates the entire system and requires flat billing regardless of age or health situation (children up to 18 are covered free). But service is delivered via private insurances that compete to deliver the statutory levels of care. It is one of the highest rated systems in the world for standards and efficacy of care, and is way more cost effective than ours. Average insurances premiums run 133 bucks a month, before income subsidies. Outcomes tend to be better than straight government run single payer. You could implement this type of a program rather quickly and effectively, without the need to dismantle and restart everything.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Surfitall
Star Player
Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3829
Location: South Orange County
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: |
Oliver is great as always, but he makes a few core mistakes there. |
I missed them. What were these core mistakes? |
The usual ones. He acknowledges that the political and logistical hurdles are enormous, but waves that off with no explanation of how to do it. It sounds good, but again, the if and the how are as important as the what.
He also states that the public option just leaves the current situation as is and doesn’t fix anything. That’s wrong on three levels. The option can change things by initial competition, by accompanying regulation, and by long term bridging to a single payer system or hybrid.
Either way, public and private hybrids are often the best result.
A great example is the Netherlands. The government funds a portion of healthcare via taxes and employer contributions, citizens have the obligation to pay a portion (with subsidies based on income available), and the government regulates the entire system and requires flat billing regardless of age or health situation (children up to 18 are covered free). But service is delivered via private insurances that compete to deliver the statutory levels of care. It is one of the highest rated systems in the world for standards and efficacy of care, and is way more cost effective than ours. Average insurances premiums run 133 bucks a month, before income subsidies. Outcomes tend to be better than straight government run single payer. You could implement this type of a program rather quickly and effectively, without the need to dismantle and restart everything. |
Omar...why do you post comments like, “...but he makes a few core mistakes.”, without posting what you think the mistakes are? Why wait for someone to ask?
The Netherlands is a very interesting example of another possible approach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Surfitall
Star Player
Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3829
Location: South Orange County
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Surfitall wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Surfitall wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Surfitall wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | I saw this elsewhere and while I don't agree 100% with the vitriolic language, it does sum up my thoughts on Bernie pretty well. And I bring it up because we do need to be aware of who we may well end up with if we are successful in getting Trump out. That said, I'm voting for Bernie as many times as they will let me if he is the nominee.
It's because between March and July of 2016 he would not concede a race he had clearly, mathematically lost. Instead, he kept it going |
Like you, I saw this elsewhere, and here is why this argument doesn’t work for me:
Sanders admitted that after the April 26 primaries that he was mathematically eliminated (the Democratic Party practice of allowing formally unpledged superdelegates to vote for a nominee makes such determinations inexact) and was only staying in the race to influence the party platform, |
(trimmed down for space and pertinence)
Whether or not it works for you:
Bernie Sanders Refuses to Concede Nomination to Hillary Clinton (June 12,2016)
Senator Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that he would “take our campaign for transforming the Democratic Party into the convention,” refusing to concede the presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton though not explicitly saying he would challenge her for it.
Mrs. Clinton earned enough delegates to clinch the nomination last week, but Mr. Sanders has declined to end his campaign. He has contended that he could persuade enough superdelegates, the party leaders who have overwhelmingly backed Mrs. Clinton, to switch their support to him by arguing that he would be the stronger candidate against Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
And as for how long it took him to endorse Clinton, it wasn't until July |
Trimmed down for space and pertinence? You are trimming out a very pertinent section:
This is typical behavior for eliminated candidates:
In the 2016 Republican primary John Kasich was eliminated in March and Ted Cruz was eliminated on April 19, but both stayed in the race in the hopes of making it to a brokered convention until after Trump clinched the nomination on May 3. In both cases they stayed in the race to deny Trump the nomination rather than affect the platform.
In the 2012 Republican primary both Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich stayed in the race well after they were mathematically eliminated. Paul was more like Sanders in that the impetus for staying in was to affect the platform, but Gingrich was merely attempting to deny Romney the nomination.
In the 2008 Democratic primary, Clinton herself was eliminated from winning a majority of pledged delegates sometime in April. However, she stayed in the race through June, endorsing Obama after he clinched the nomination on the last day of the primary season.
So, Sanders behaved exactly as many other eliminated primary challengers, including Clinton herself. Blaming a loss on normal behavior is disingenuous and, in this case, hypocritical. |
Yes, pertinent to your claim that he conceded on April 26th and was merely going through the motions "to influence party platforms". That was not an accurate description. He continued to contest the results and leveled the charges of "fixing" after that date.
What others have done in other elections doesn't change anything in regards to that point and in fact is irrelevant to when he conceded and when he finally endorsed. That is the pertinence I was speaking of.
But if we want to get into what others may have done in other elections. Has any candidate stated that he wouldn't accept the results of an upcoming election if he didn't like them?
Sanders Claims 2016 Primary Was Rigged, Won’t Commit to Supporting Winner
NBC’s Kasie Hunt asked Bernie Sanders if he would commit to supporting the Democratic nominee before the convention if it’s clear it won’t be him. Sanders would not make any such commitment. Instead, he said, “some people say that maybe if the system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination.”
While Sanders is coyly hiding behind the “some people say” formulation, he is threatening to repeat the tactics he used in 2016, when he called the process “rigged” and withheld his support long after the outcome was decided. |
Instead of reading into what he isn’t saying by his “coy” response and clickbait headline, why not simply look at what he said just two weeks ago where he directly addressed question:
Sanders tells a crowd in Indianola, Iowa, that if he isn’t the nominee, “we will support the winner and I know that every other candidate will do the same.” Sanders says the Democratic primary field is, in his words, “united in our understanding that we must defeat Donald Trump.” |
"Clickbait"
Instead of moving the goal posts (as you frequently do) and avoiding the original point, why don't you just acknowledge that Bernie didn't just simply concede in the fashion you claimed. |
How did I move the goalposts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
