Hey Bernie, go to hell and take all of your Bros with you

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Human_Action

“…and he went to the Clinton campaign.”

Not “I sent him to the Clinton campaign.”

So you’re saying that someone in the Sanders campaign finds out something and went to the competing campaign and he did this without running it by the boss first?

Even if you think that, you’re battling semantics, bully for you.

Sanders obviously knows - either before or afterwards. Yet he still has the same inconsistencies in his story which make no sense whether Sanders knew before or after the aid went to Clinton. Which the Clinton campaign doesn’t remember happening, so… Yeah.

And stick your sanctimonious shit up your ass. If you really cared that the Russians want division you should be a little more critical of the guy who keeps giving them ammunition on a really huge scale instead of some guy on the internet who has the audacity to point that out. Your priorities? They suck.

[k9bfriender]

@Human_Action

“…and he went to the Clinton campaign.”

Not “I sent him to the Clinton campaign.”

Now, maybe the guy didn’t really go the Clintons, we don’t know. But he didn’t say what you attributed to him.

JSLE also did not say what you are attributing to him.

:rolleyes: Keep trying to divide the Democrats, the Russians sure would hate that. Grow up, you’re acting like a teenager after their first breakup.

Nah, I’d say he’s acting as a responsible adult, responding to accusations from someone else who just can’t let it go.

[SteveG1]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Wrong.Now, I understand fully that this kind of bleed happens in every election, but not to this magnitude. More importantly, Bernie himself assisted in this. He didn’t denounce the racist and misogyny of many of his supporters nearly often enough. His attacks on the “establishment” and the supposed “rigging” of the Primary - some of which were not based in reality - contributed to this. Him staying in the race six weeks to two months longer than he should have contributed to this and also gave the Russians that much more time to continue to stir that pot.

And since then? He limped back away from the Democratic party. He refused to endorse Ralph Northam in Virginia when he beat bernie’s chosen candidate Tom Perriello which could have been disastrous. He made the aforementioned vote against Russian sanctions. And now he is pointing fingers at Hillary again.

Bernie could have done a dozen things differently and Hillary would have been able to overcome everything else - the sexism, the media, the Russians, her own mistakes - if only the guy who wound up getting most of what he wanted in the Democratic platform had done maybe one less of the shitty things I outlined.

But he didn’t. So fuck him.

At that time, I was all in for Bernie. I bought into the whole deal. But he didn’t get the nod, so I switched to Clinton. It was either Clinton, who has a clean record despite all the shit that she’s been accused of (with no evidence ever), or a lying stealing con man weasel I knew all about, from my years living in New York.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@k9bfriender

JSLE also did not say what you are attributing to him.

Yeah, I re-read what I posted. I posted “He had an aide” which does not say he told the aide. He even sucks at semantics.

Nah, I’d say he’s acting as a responsible adult, responding to accusations from someone else who just can’t let it go.

Yeah, a responsible adult can look at the evidence, realize they were wrong about something, and atone. This is my atonement.

Others prefer to dogmatically stick to their guns no matter how much evidence their faith in someone might be misplaced. I guess that’s comforting. Not to me.

Fuck Bernie.

[k9bfriender]

@SteveG1

At that time, I was all in for Bernie. I bought into the whole deal. But he didn’t get the nod, so I switched to Clinton. It was either Clinton, who has a clean record despite all the shit that she’s been accused of (with no evidence ever), or a lying stealing con man weasel I knew all about, from my years living in New York.

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Yeah, I re-read what I posted. I posted “He had an aide” which does not say he told the aide. He even sucks at semantics.

Yeah, a responsible adult can look at the evidence, realize they were wrong about something, and atone. This is my atonement.

Others prefer to dogmatically stick to their guns no matter how much evidence their faith in someone might be misplaced. I guess that’s comforting. Not to me.

Fuck Bernie.

I wouldn’t say I was all in for Bernie. I did vote for him in the primary, as I wished to shove the overton window a bit further to the left. I really didn’t think he’d win the primary, especially in Ohio, or I probably would have voted for Clinton. I had to think long and hard about that vote, as I was strongly considering voting R to vote Kasich over Trump (and I usually vote in the R primaires, as local politics always go to the R, so the primary is really the only chance to have a meaningful vote.).

I’d have supported him had he won the nomination, even though I don’t think he would have made as good a president as Clinton, and I really expected his supporters to feel the same way.

Had I known that his supporters would refuse to vote for the democratic nominee, I certainly would have not voted for him, as my vote ended up just giving him more credibility as a general candidate to his supporters.

We can blame it on Russian trolls, and I am sure they didn’t help, but ultimately, it was the voters who made the choices that they did. (Unless it comes out that russia actually directly tampered with vote tallies, which I do not discount, but even if it happened, I doubt we will ever see any evidence.)

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@SteveG1

At that time, I was all in for Bernie. I bought into the whole deal. But he didn’t get the nod, so I switched to Clinton. It was either Clinton, who has a clean record despite all the shit that she’s been accused of (with no evidence ever), or a lying stealing con man weasel I knew all about, from my years living in New York.

Voting for Clinton was the easiest decision I ever had in my life in a voting booth and one of the easiest decisions I ever made including the outside of the booth. It sucks that so many things sabotaged that but it really sucks that people who were supposedly on the same team are culpable.

I actually hold them more responsible than actual Trump voters. Sure there were a lot more Trump voters than liberals who didn’t vote Clinton but at least those voters were voting for what they wanted whereas the minority of idiots tacitly allowed someone whose views were the opposite of what a liberal should want to win.

When a fox is guarding the hen house, don’t blame the fox. The fox is just doing what comes naturally.

Blame the idiot who was supposed to look out for the hens but took a nap instead.

[JackieLikesVariety]

Ear Guy helped Trump.
Ear Guy is still helping Trump.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@JackieLikesVariety

Ear Guy helped Trump.
Ear Guy is still helping Trump.

Only an idiot would be concerned about me calling out someone who is helping Trump on an exponentially larger scale then little old me ever could.

I’m curious about cause and effect though. Have you always been stupid? Or did becoming a Bernie fan make you stupid?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[Not_Carlson]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

**The only person less naive than you **was Bernie because even he was aware that running as an independent was going to relegate him to the dustbin of history. That’s why he ran as a Dem to begin with.

… Hmm. OK…
So, since **Steve **isn’t answering my call, and you seem to have an equal or greater hatred for the senator from Vermont, perhaps you could help me understand.

@Not_Carlson

I’m going to need some help understanding where this level of vitriol comes from.

Besides the notion that he somehow cost Hillary the election, what exactly is it you dislike about Sanders?

[Not_Carlson]

@k9bfriender

You remember 2016, when they did not turn out to support the democratic candidate? How about 2014, when they didn’t’ show up for the midterms, or even 2010, where they left Obama high and dry and allowed congress to be swept out from under them.

They are not reliable voters. They will only vote for a candidate that promises them everything they want, and that’s not practical.

But isn’t that evidence that the Democrats have been failing to motivate their base?

That’s not necessarily evidence supporting those (like me) who claim the Dems haven’t adequately appealed to progressives, but is sure doesn’t seem like evidence that they *have *been appealing to progressives.

[camille]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Now, I understand fully that this kind of bleed happens in every election, but not to this magnitude.

Really? Not to that magnitude, you say? From your own cite:

While much was made of the so-called Bernie-or-bust phenomenon, the number of Sanders supporters who crossed party lines to vote for Trump in 2016 may not be that unusual. A 2010 study in Public Opinion Quarterly found that in the 2008 election 25 percent of those who voted for Clinton in the Democratic primary ended up voting for Republican John McCain, rather than Barack Obama, in the general election.

So, you’re either too stupid to read your own cites thoroughly, or you’re a lying sack of shit. More likely both, but in any case, you have no credibility to make any serious debates worthwhile.

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Bernie could have done a dozen things differently and Hillary would have been able to overcome everything else - the sexism, the media, the Russians, her own mistakes - if only the guy who wound up getting most of what he wanted in the Democratic platform had done maybe one less of the shitty things I outlined.

No. She was a lousy candidate, who ran a lousy campaign. She managed to lose people who voted for Obama twice - those supposedly racist, sexist Trump voters. I know this for a fact, because I canvassed in 3 States for both Obama and then again for Sanders in the primary. I made sure those people were registered as Democrats so they could vote for Sanders in the primary. They weren’t real Democrats you see, they were those elusive independents the DNC is always aiming for. Again, from your own cite:

Another factor, however, was that of those who switched their allegiance from Sanders to Trump less than 10 percent considered themselves strong Democrats, while less than 50 percent even leaned Democrat.

I did GOTV for Obama, to make sure those people were still on board and going to the polls. I didn’t do that for Clinton because by then I was fed up with the party, but from what I heard and saw from my former colleagues, they really messed it up by being arrogant and dismissive - when they even bothered to show up at all. They were so sure they had it in the bag, a lot of them skipped GOTV to get ready for the celebration after the big win. No one is to blame but the Clinton campaign.

For anyone reading along, this is the OP’s second pitting of “Bernie Bros”; I remember the first one back during the primary. Funny how he claims he was a supporter once, yet he hates Bernie and all his supporters this much.

[Captain_Amazing]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Wrong.Now, I understand fully that this kind of bleed happens in every election, but not to this magnitude.

Yes it does. I mean, in 2008, 15% of Clinton primary voters voted for McCain. Even in the 2016 election, 11% of Rubio voters and 34% of Kasich voters voted for Clinton.

In regards to the Sanders supporters who voted for Trump, Brian Schaffner, who’s a professor of Political Science at UMass Amherst who studied the 2016 elections suggests that they tended to be older people who were conservative on racial issues, and who had supported Sanders over Clinton in the primaries because Clinton talked a lot more about race and focused more on minority voters than Sanders did.

[Not_Carlson]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Also: This is The pit. I make my point this way because I am angry. I can definitely point out the dozens of things Bernie has done (or hasn’t) that helped Trump. I haven’t even brought up how he was one of five people in both chambers of congress to vote against the Russian sanctions after being only one of four Senators to vote against the Magnitsky Act. I parroted his lame excuses before for those before, but seeing how he stutters when his name came up from Mueller, it sure makes me wonder why i did.

I did not know that. Thank you for fighting my ignorance.
I thought you were referring to his “no” vote on the recent sanctions proposal, in which the Republicans tied the bill to sanctions on Iran, which Sanders wasconcerned would scuttle the recent nuclear dealand lead to further problems down the road.
I see you are referring to his vote on a 2012 bill. I’ll have to look into it more to further fight my own ignorance.

[Aspenglow]

@Not_Carlson

This is something that Sander’s critics should not forget.
He could have run as an independent in 2016.
Many people encouraged him to run as an independent against Hillary and Trump.
He chose to run as a Democrat and then chose to support Hillary and the Democratic party in the election precisely because he did not want to split the vote.
Once Hillary clinched the nomination, Sanders worked tirelessly to help her secure the vote, in spite of his dissatisfaction with her, because he knew Trump would be a disaster.

As far as I can tell, his only concern is improving the sociopolitical environment of the USA so that it benefits the general population.

I’m not going to re-litigate the 2016 election (well, ok, maybe a little), but I wanted to add a few thoughts.

I like Bernie. I always have. The things to which he aspires make sense to me. But I was not a supporter, because I felt Hillary had the best foreign policy experience – which is at least as important in my opinion than domestic experience.

Bernie and Hillary voted the same 95% of the time while they were both in the Senate. Whether Bernie or Hillary prevailed in the primary, I was comfortable to support either.

I agree with elicudator that Bernie ran to make a point and to pull the party to the left. It also gave Hillary cover to move further left. I thought all that was great. And it’s worth noting that there really was no animosity between Bernie and Hillary – until Bernie learned some things that were internally discussed by the Hillary folks. He learned of them because of the WikiLeaks (Russian) first email dump, and the discord immediately ramped up between the two campaigns.

I can understand why Bernie felt betrayed. But I wonder if he ever gave much thought to how he came by that information. He was as surely manipulated as were many of his supporters.

I didn’t take a step back from Bernie until he started using Trump’s term, “rigged.” Bernie knew full well that the primary wasn’t “rigged,” that the rules of the DNC are there for good reasons, and those reasons were known to him long before he chose to run as a Dem. So his sudden use of this inflammatory term, “rigged,” felt like a deliberate hard smack to Hillary.

But as has been pointed out by Airbeck, Bernie did do the right thing eventually. He did support Hillary fully, and he worked right up to the end to move his supporters to do the same. But their hatred was too great. Every time I asked one why they hated her so much, the answer was vague: “I don’t know. I just don’t like her.” Given their similarities in voting records, that was just weird.

Anyway, as much as I like Bernie, I hope he doesn’t run, and will throw his full, considerable gravitas behind whomever becomes the Democratic nominee.

I must disagree that Hillary was a “lousy candidate who ran a lousy campaign.” I watched most of it first hand. Looked pretty text book to me. Her policy positions were not covered by MSM, having been shoved out of the limelight by the non-stop coverage of the Illegitimate Imbecile, and that was extremely frustrating. She’s not a glam candidate in a glam era, I’ll give you that. But to me, that says more about the electorate than the good qualifications of a candidate. I wish we would get back to making the effort to evaluate candidates on the basis of their accomplishments (real, not perceived), their character, integrity and voting records. I guess that’s hard, though.

[k9bfriender]

@Not_Carlson

But isn’t that evidence that the Democrats have been failing to motivate their base?

That’s not necessarily evidence supporting those (like me) who claim the Dems haven’t adequately appealed to progressives, but is sure doesn’t seem like evidence that they *have *been appealing to progressives.

Are you saying that they have no agency? That they need to be “motivated” to go out and vote?

The democrats were proposing and pushing for things that were wanted by the progressives. The progressives felt that that wasn’t enough, that they somehow needed to be motivated. I don’t get that. If someone is working on your behalf, to get you the things that you say that you want, what else is supposed to be done to “motivate” you to support them.

The conservatives have an advantage there. They motivate out of fear. Fear of terrorism or that guns will be taken away, or that they may be required to treat people that they don’t like equally. That is very motivational. That gets people out to the polls.

The democrats try to motivate by supporting the policies that are asked for by the progressives, but that’s boring, so the people choose not to support the people that are representing them. Then they complain that they weren’t motivated enough to vote.

Seriously, what are democrats supposed to do to appeal to progressives, other than support the policies that progressives are asking for? I just don’t get it.

I suppose they could do the whole appeal to fear thing too, and there certainly are some democrats who go down that path a bit more than I’d like. Is that what we are wanting to do? “If my opponent gets elected, You Child WILL be gunned down in a school shooting.” “If my opponent gets elected, You, or a woman that you know and love, will be forced by the state to be an incubator.” “If my opponent gets elected, then being a homosexual will be illegal.”

That’s the sort of rhetoric that is very pervasive on the right, and while I see it here and there on the left, it is not something that has really taken hold and resonated, fortunately. We can work to change that, we can work to turn the party of progressives from a party of optimism that looks towards a better tomorrow into one that is reactionary and paranoid, if that is what is required to “motivate” them. I don’t want that, personally. I’d rather motivate people based on the better aspects of human nature than the lowest, even though, as is constantly demonstrated by the right, appealing to the lowest aspects of human nature is the easiest.

Democrats need to look at people who actually vote, and represent their interests. If someone doesn’t bother to vote, or won’t vote for the party that most represents their interests because it doesn’t perfectly represent their interests, then that is not a person whose opinion can matter to someone looking to get elected.

[JackieLikesVariety]

Funny how he claims he was a supporter once, yet he hates Bernie and all his supporters this much.

so, that’s enough reading him.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Not_Carlson

… Hmm. OK…
So, since **Steve **isn’t answering my call, and you seem to have an equal or greater hatred for the senator from Vermont, perhaps you could help me understand.

How many times must I say “He is helping Trump” before you figure out that is my problem with him?

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@camille

No. She was a lousy candidate, who ran a lousy campaign. She managed to lose people who voted for Obama twice - those supposedly racist, sexist Trump voters.

Who beat sainted Bernard by three million votes. What does that say about him? (This is where you start throwing out discredited conspiracy theories, by the way, because otherwise you have to admit he was worse and of course, you won’t do that. Even though he got three million less votes than the “lousy candidate.”)

For anyone reading along, this is the OP’s second pitting of “Bernie Bros”; I remember the first one back during the primary. Funny how he claims he was a supporter once, yet he hates Bernie and all his supporters this much.

I only hate the ones who haven’t learned what a charlatan he is. You know, the dumb ones with blinders on. Science is about having new information change one’s views. Dogma is clinging to old views in spite of evidence.

Bernie sucks. And so does anyone who hasn’t figured that out yet.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@JackieLikesVariety

so, that’s enough reading him.

You mean having someone smarter than you read it to you, most likely. That’s okay, I’d get tired of you too.

[elucidator]

Two points to add to our consideration.

…I agree with elicudator that Bernie ran to make a point and to pull the party to the left. It also gave Hillary cover to move further left…

A quibble, minor enough. I don’t think he was trying to pull the party leftward so much as to demonstrate that the party was already there. To demonstrate that it was the Clintonista DNC that was out of step.

IN(h)O, the Clintonista Republican Lite move was largely a matter of campaign contributions. The Pubbies were getting the lyin’s share of corporate contributions (très duh, mais non?). In an age of mass advertising, this was seen as a crippling disadvantage. In order to get a bigger share, Horndog Bill moved to placate and calm the corporadoes. Thus the “Business friendly”, broke-dick-blue-dead-dog, menshevik Clintonista DNC. It was a strategic retreat, fall back and re-group. As bitter as that pill was to swallow, they may have been right. (Pun regretted)

But that was then. There are any number of signs and omens that the old fashioned advertising scheme for campaigning my not work any more. Best possible example, the campaign of Jeb(!), who was declared the front-runner because he had so much of that advertising money. But couldn’t move the needle. Remember how they spent about forty million dollars in tiny little New Hampshire for their Republican primary and got nothing…nothing!…for it, not even a twitch!

The rise of the importance of the small donor is the biggest news ever ignored. Bernie wanted to demonstrate that, bless his pea-pickin’ heart. And I don’t think he was prepared for how well it worked, because nobody was! There was some sober discussion about how that affected Obama’s success, but passed over lightly, for the most part. But it was a big hairy-ass deal with Bernie Bed Hair! Yuge! Did Bernie begin to think he could actually win? The triumph of hope over experience? Dunno, maybe, an entirely human thing to happen.

And there is something very important about the small donation, it is a contribution, it is a commitment, it is participation. It draws converts not from the Republicans, but from the vast ranks of the Apathy Party. Of all my political goals, that is first and foremost. If he intended that, hurray for him. If he was just as surprised as the rest of us, hurray for us! 'Merica, fuck yeah!

The Clintonistas may have been right, maybe their strategic retreat did preserve the Party to fight another day. In the cold and icy light of realpolitik, they definitely had a point. Especially given the Pubbies’ demonstrated eagerness to legislate electoral advantages to themselves by voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc.

Shit happens, but shit changes. The Republicans are still depending on massive donations and massive business-as-usual advertising to make their case. But it could be…just could be, mind you!..that the advantage which used to be definitive is no longer. Bernie didn’t remove all possible doubt, but he sure as shit made a strong case.

Thanks, Bernie Bed Hair! And may the Goddess hold you close to Her bountiful bosom all the days of your live, aperson!

(Also, speaking as a person who does not like Hillary, I thought she personally conducted her argument with Bernie in a civil and respectful manner. She demonstrated that she was willing to listen, to negotiate respectfully. Which was, of course, the smart thing to do. Points given. Still don’t like her, but respectfully.)