It is not a hard question to answer without resorting to threats:
Hypothetical Sanders: I believe that both of us believe that either of us would be a far better choice for president than any of the GOP contenders and would support the other wholeheartedly in the general election. I look forward to her support!
Hypothetical interviewer pressing the point: But are there conditions for your support?
Hypothetical Sanders: IF I do not win the nomination, and again I expect to win, then I will support her without conditions. But let me just say this: as I understand it the many people voting for me, the millions of young voters all over this country, the future of the party, are not voting for me so much as they are voting for the ideas that I am articulating, for our shared vision of the future. Secretary Clinton, if she wins, will know that she must further embrace that vision if she wants their enthusiastic support whether i endorse her or not. I would have every expectation that she would do so. I believe I will win the nomination, I believe that Bernie Sanders is best equipped to beat Trump, I believe that the superdelegates will realize that, but at the end of the day whichever one of us wins we will need to come together.
Even if one believes that the thought that I for one see as extremely reasonable is “absurd”, no derisive laughter is not appropriate nor conducive to intelligent discussion and debate.
So, if Trump has no chance whatsoever, Hillary has no need to grub for Bernie supporters votes and can let them vote according to their conscience, since wicked old Donald won’t be the bogeyman needed to scare them into her corral.
Just so we’re clear, if I’d wanted to say that, I would have said that. My keyboard has all the necessary keys, and I’m good at spelling.
So no. I am not saying that. Nor does that summary have anything to do with what Sanders is saying now. If you disagree with my summary of what Sanders said in that Young Turks interview, how about you address why, specifically, you disagree with my summary?
Interestingly the clip which when I linked to it yesterday prominently featured his demands (referenced in the article) now cuts off just before he states them.
Yes I heard the whole bit and it was very clear that those were demands of conditions for his support.
Well it was the the question you were asked. Tom had condescendingly stated that a losing Democratic candidate setting the terms for their support was normative. You were, after claiming that such was “self-evidently correct” asked to provide a “comparative example from recent history to show us” and your answer was … none. Just that this time is different.
And yes, it is, this time a candidate is threatening to withhold support if his demands that the (hypothetically) winning candidate changes her stated policies to his are not met.
Likely of little impact but still reprehensible given the stakes at play.
But the key there was one-on-one. If Bernie supporters vote for Jill Stein en masse and Drumpf has somehow managed to avoid any conservative third party competition, then Drumpf might win, although I still think it would be close.
No, that’s not what he stated. Go back and read what he said: he disagreed with the idea that
Note the word “permitted,” not “normative.” Note that we’re talking not about his support, but his supporters’ support. Those two differences make your paraphrase completely inaccurate.
And it is.
Again, that’s not at all what he said. Read post 36. Watch the interview. He’s not threatening to withhold support at all.
It’s amazing how anti-democratic this whole ‘endorsement’ thing is, given that it’s part of the electoral system of what is supposedly the greatest democracy in the world.
Of course, his supporters may vote for whomever they choose or decline to vote for anyone. You are (probably deliberately) choosing a specific definition of the word “direct” that is not implied by my statement. Every leader “directs” followers to by setting a direction. A leader who lacks authority still “directs” those people.
Which still leaves him to options of honorably indicating his support for his victorious opponent or honorably indicating his continued opposition to said opponent or of dishonorably choosing either path for whatever reason.
Regardless of your views as to what Sanders should or should not do, the claim of the post to which I responded was that he could not do it, (even as he contradicted himself with an example of it actually happening.
If someone makes absurd claims, contradicting himself in his own post, then pointing and laughing is an appropriate response.
I have taken no position on what Sanders should or should not do. The OP was a rant that barely missed being sent to The BBQ Pit. However, once it was accepted as a debate, it behooves the poster to argue his actual position and to not make silly claims on which he contradicts himself.
Tomndebb, you are mischaracterizing your own words and mine from early in the thread. But that is always a tremendously tedious debate to have, so rather than do any further line-by-line parsing, that is all I will say on the topic. Our earlier posts are still there for anyone to read and judge for themselves.
This, from the person using ‘extortion’ to mean ‘not endorsing a candidate whose policies they don’t agree with unless said candidate decides to support policies they do’.