^^Sanders has a moral obligation to condemn any violence or harassment done on his campaign's behalf. I don't mean to imply they sanctioned it, but he needs to condone it and state unequivocally that it is counter to his principles. In his statement released on the subject, he condoned it but pivoted immediately to some incident that happened months ago, and in which there is no evidence that it was related to his campaign, him personally or that DNC was behind it. It's a total red herring. What do those incidents have to do with what happened to the Nevada official?
Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
People looking for trouble found trouble. I don't want to defend the clown, but the left have got to get there shit together. 4 or 5 Midwest states may decide this election, and antics of violence that the left has instigated will swing critical votes to Trump.
So when peaceful protesters get attacked it is the fault of the peaceful protesters??? Okay.
It is common sense that should be applied to multiple situations. If you go confront a large group in a disrespectful manner, be it Trump supporters, Eagles fans, Hells Angels, Pirates, etc, you are taking on a risk of getting pepper sprayed or your butt kicked.
Peaceful protest is one of the most fundamental rights of Americans (or is supposed to be). This is FAR from the first time that I have seen people say the kind of thing you are saying, and every time I am just a bit more dismayed by how Americans seem to have turned their backs on this crucial right that plays a huge role in ensuring the rights and freedoms that Americans claim to cherish. But I'm starting to think that is more just a catch phrase than something they actually value.
I'm not saying they don't have the right. I'm saying they are taking a known risk.
If someone parked a car outside of a Sanders rally with Trump stickers on it, there is a known risk that the odds that the car could be keyed or have a window smashed out are dramatically higher then if parked outside a 7/11.
No, I realize that you know they have the right to do it, but I'm talking about the attitude towards it (not you in particular). I.e. if a peaceful protestor gets attacked it's their fault for being there rather than the fault of the attacker, or at the very least they are not deserving of defense (akin to blaming rape victims when they wear short skirts, frankly). If peaceful protestors interrupt traffic or cause any inconvenience to anyone at any time they are the "enemy". This seems to be a very common attitude among Americans lately, and it is a dangerous trend IMO.
It reminds me of George Carlin's sentiments on religion, where he says that religion only has a problem with murder if it's murdering someone who worships a different invisible man than the one you worship. It is human nature that the rules or values we see as rigid become incredibly flexible as the rules or values err on sides opposite of our own, and this is no different. It's not an American problem - it's a humanitarian epidemic. Our minds, our hunger, our greed, do not permit us to be truly idealistic. The violence always seems to be the fault of "the other side".
On the topic of violence with Sanders supporters specifically, if Sanders isn't condoning or inciting the violence, and his supporters are doing it of their own volition, I still fail to see how this reflects poorly on Sanders. If it's simply an attempt to say that Sanders supporters are barbaric and inhumane people and that these would be the citizens whose voices would be heard were Sanders elected - I would say that this is a fallacious attack, and is in stark contrast to the fact that when people talk about Trump inciting violence at his rallies (which he has, blatantly) - it's dismissed with a simple "yeah, but that's Trump" as though he's some loony with no power - and not the frontrunner for the Republican nominee.
Am I the only one who finds this all mind-boggling?
How sweet of mrussell above to quote Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, leader of the DNC who wants nothing more than Sanders to drop out and will stop at nothing - much like Clinton - including flat out lies like what she says here.
^^Sanders has a moral obligation to condemn any violence or harassment done on his campaign's behalf. I don't mean to imply they sanctioned it, but he needs to condone it and state unequivocally that it is counter to his principles. In his statement released on the subject, he condoned it but pivoted immediately to some incident that happened months ago, and in which there is no evidence that it was related to his campaign, him personally or that DNC was behind it. It's a total red herring. What do those incidents have to do with what happened to the Nevada official?
Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
Source? Besides being from Wasserman Shultz, and the 2nd paragraph from Sanders?
^^Sanders has a moral obligation to condemn any violence or harassment done on his campaign's behalf. I don't mean to imply they sanctioned it, but he needs to condone it and state unequivocally that it is counter to his principles. In his statement released on the subject, he condoned it but pivoted immediately to some incident that happened months ago, and in which there is no evidence that it was related to his campaign, him personally or that DNC was behind it. It's a total red herring. What do those incidents have to do with what happened to the Nevada official?
Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
Source? Besides being from Wasserman Shultz, and the 2nd paragraph from Sanders?
The one you attributed to me above is Benjs, not me.. And directly above is taken from Sanders statement posted on his site. Is that adequately sourced for you or biased against Sanders?
I read about the violence by Bernie supporters though I did not see any videos.
I don't doubt that some supporters may have gotten violent. And if they did I don't know why that would suddenly speak for the whole campaign. Bernie's had thousands of people attending his rallies and shit and this is what? the second report of some of his supporters doing something less than okay, the first report of violence? If there needs to be a reaction to it, I'd expect a reaction more along the lines of "that's not bad, considering." Even if we're talking about a dozen people in NV compared to tens or hundreds of thousands over the US - come on.
I posted a first hand account in the form of video of what happened. Thanks for being realistic.
When will the public wake up and shut off the media when there's Proof that they're not only lying but doing it to solely enforce Sanders to quit the race? What more lies will they come up with? Photos don't lie. Sanders rallies bring out thousands of people. The media can only do so much to make it sound like he's doing poorly. When he's not, considering his support.
This race is still neck to neck, and there will be a contested convention.
I know you did. I should've said I didn't "watch" any videos. Don't feel like putting the sound on (it's a process rn cuz my speakers aint working)
People looking for trouble found trouble. I don't want to defend the clown, but the left have got to get there shit together. 4 or 5 Midwest states may decide this election, and antics of violence that the left has instigated will swing critical votes to Trump.
So when peaceful protesters get attacked it is the fault of the peaceful protesters??? Okay.
It is common sense that should be applied to multiple situations. If you go confront a large group in a disrespectful manner, be it Trump supporters, Eagles fans, Hells Angels, Pirates, etc, you are taking on a risk of getting pepper sprayed or your butt kicked.
Peaceful protest is one of the most fundamental rights of Americans (or is supposed to be). This is FAR from the first time that I have seen people say the kind of thing you are saying, and every time I am just a bit more dismayed by how Americans seem to have turned their backs on this crucial right that plays a huge role in ensuring the rights and freedoms that Americans claim to cherish. But I'm starting to think that is more just a catch phrase than something they actually value.
I'm not saying they don't have the right. I'm saying they are taking a known risk.
If someone parked a car outside of a Sanders rally with Trump stickers on it, there is a known risk that the odds that the car could be keyed or have a window smashed out are dramatically higher then if parked outside a 7/11.
No, I realize that you know they have the right to do it, but I'm talking about the attitude towards it (not you in particular). I.e. if a peaceful protestor gets attacked it's their fault for being there rather than the fault of the attacker, or at the very least they are not deserving of defense (akin to blaming rape victims when they wear short skirts, frankly). If peaceful protestors interrupt traffic or cause any inconvenience to anyone at any time they are the "enemy". This seems to be a very common attitude among Americans lately, and it is a dangerous trend IMO.
100%
If you're going to protest then you should expect to get abused. if you are in a large group of supporters then you have the right to abuse protestors because they have it coming since they showed up.
^^Sanders has a moral obligation to condemn any violence or harassment done on his campaign's behalf. I don't mean to imply they sanctioned it, but he needs to condone it and state unequivocally that it is counter to his principles. In his statement released on the subject, he condoned it but pivoted immediately to some incident that happened months ago, and in which there is no evidence that it was related to his campaign, him personally or that DNC was behind it. It's a total red herring. What do those incidents have to do with what happened to the Nevada official?
Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
To be fair though, He did condone is and state unequivocally that is is counter to his campaign's mission. Like right there. In the first sentence. I don't see what's wrong with him pointing out that violence was done to his campaign staff during the campaign though. Like why is not okay for him to point that out? It seems to me to be speaking to a culture of violence in politics in NV.
^^Sanders has a moral obligation to condemn any violence or harassment done on his campaign's behalf. I don't mean to imply they sanctioned it, but he needs to condone it and state unequivocally that it is counter to his principles. In his statement released on the subject, he condoned it but pivoted immediately to some incident that happened months ago, and in which there is no evidence that it was related to his campaign, him personally or that DNC was behind it. It's a total red herring. What do those incidents have to do with what happened to the Nevada official?
Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
I don't see it as a red herring, I see it as a reminder of what violence ACTUALLY looks like, not what anti-Sanders sources want you to think it looks like.
^^Sanders has a moral obligation to condemn any violence or harassment done on his campaign's behalf. I don't mean to imply they sanctioned it, but he needs to condone it and state unequivocally that it is counter to his principles. In his statement released on the subject, he condoned it but pivoted immediately to some incident that happened months ago, and in which there is no evidence that it was related to his campaign, him personally or that DNC was behind it. It's a total red herring. What do those incidents have to do with what happened to the Nevada official?
Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
To be fair though, He did condone is and state unequivocally that is is counter to his campaign's mission. Like right there. In the first sentence. I don't see what's wrong with him pointing out that violence was done to his campaign staff during the campaign though. Like why is not okay for him to point that out? It seems to me to be speaking to a culture of violence in politics in NV.
No, there should not be a sentence that says ... "BUT..." after the condemnation. There is no 'but'. There's no justification yet Sanders seems to try to justify the actions of the individuals. What if I said, "yes my brother robbed a bank and that was wrong..BUT remember that he was mugged three months ago". Does that fly? Does he think Lange shot up his campaign hq? Does he think she broke into some apartments of his staff? How does whatever happened to his campaign three months ago remotely justify the actions towards Lange?
^^Sanders has a moral obligation to condemn any violence or harassment done on his campaign's behalf. I don't mean to imply they sanctioned it, but he needs to condone it and state unequivocally that it is counter to his principles. In his statement released on the subject, he condoned it but pivoted immediately to some incident that happened months ago, and in which there is no evidence that it was related to his campaign, him personally or that DNC was behind it. It's a total red herring. What do those incidents have to do with what happened to the Nevada official?
Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
I don't see it as a red herring, I see it as a reminder of what violence ACTUALLY looks like, not what anti-Sanders sources want you to think it looks like.
Same argument... you justify threats and obscenities by saying "look how bad it could have been". Well I guess that's true. Then again, it could have been Rwanda in the 90's, so I guess a break in isn't so bad, is it?
^^Sanders has a moral obligation to condemn any violence or harassment done on his campaign's behalf. I don't mean to imply they sanctioned it, but he needs to condone it and state unequivocally that it is counter to his principles. In his statement released on the subject, he condoned it but pivoted immediately to some incident that happened months ago, and in which there is no evidence that it was related to his campaign, him personally or that DNC was behind it. It's a total red herring. What do those incidents have to do with what happened to the Nevada official?
Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
To be fair though, He did condone is and state unequivocally that is is counter to his campaign's mission. Like right there. In the first sentence. I don't see what's wrong with him pointing out that violence was done to his campaign staff during the campaign though. Like why is not okay for him to point that out? It seems to me to be speaking to a culture of violence in politics in NV.
No, there should not be a sentence that says ... "BUT..." after the condemnation. There is no 'but'. There's no justification yet Sanders seems to try to justify the actions of the individuals. What if I said, "yes my brother robbed a bank and that was wrong..BUT remember that he was mugged three months ago". Does that fly? Does he think Lange shot up his campaign hq? Does he think she broke into some apartments of his staff? How does whatever happened to his campaign three months ago remotely justify the actions towards Lange?
^^Sanders has a moral obligation to condemn any violence or harassment done on his campaign's behalf. I don't mean to imply they sanctioned it, but he needs to condone it and state unequivocally that it is counter to his principles. In his statement released on the subject, he condoned it but pivoted immediately to some incident that happened months ago, and in which there is no evidence that it was related to his campaign, him personally or that DNC was behind it. It's a total red herring. What do those incidents have to do with what happened to the Nevada official?
Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
Source? Besides being from Wasserman Shultz, and the 2nd paragraph from Sanders?
The one you attributed to me above is Benjs, not me.. And directly above is taken from Sanders statement posted on his site. Is that adequately sourced for you or biased against Sanders?
The sanders crowd bitch more about biased media than any republicans do.
^^Sanders has a moral obligation to condemn any violence or harassment done on his campaign's behalf. I don't mean to imply they sanctioned it, but he needs to condone it and state unequivocally that it is counter to his principles. In his statement released on the subject, he condoned it but pivoted immediately to some incident that happened months ago, and in which there is no evidence that it was related to his campaign, him personally or that DNC was behind it. It's a total red herring. What do those incidents have to do with what happened to the Nevada official?
Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
To be fair though, He did condone is and state unequivocally that is is counter to his campaign's mission. Like right there. In the first sentence. I don't see what's wrong with him pointing out that violence was done to his campaign staff during the campaign though. Like why is not okay for him to point that out? It seems to me to be speaking to a culture of violence in politics in NV.
No, there should not be a sentence that says ... "BUT..." after the condemnation. There is no 'but'. There's no justification yet Sanders seems to try to justify the actions of the individuals. What if I said, "yes my brother robbed a bank and that was wrong..BUT remember that he was mugged three months ago". Does that fly? Does he think Lange shot up his campaign hq? Does he think she broke into some apartments of his staff? How does whatever happened to his campaign three months ago remotely justify the actions towards Lange?
Give it up man. Your credibility, and any support of Hillary Clinton right now, is at its worse credibility.
Try and structure a proper sentence first, and second pay attention to the words I'm writing. No one is defending Clinton because there is nothing to defend. This has nothing to do with her. I'm accusing Sanders of being a weak leader with a poor moral compass regarding this situation. And I'm accusing his small band of supporters of being nothing more than leftist thugs who resorted sexist and violent threats because their petulance wasn't rewarded with TWO FUCKING EXTRA DELEGATES. I find it ironic that this board is quick to point the finger at Trump supporters who harass dissent at meetings and town halls (and right to point the finger) but can't fucking see the same thing happening on their side.
^^Sanders has a moral obligation to condemn any violence or harassment done on his campaign's behalf. I don't mean to imply they sanctioned it, but he needs to condone it and state unequivocally that it is counter to his principles. In his statement released on the subject, he condoned it but pivoted immediately to some incident that happened months ago, and in which there is no evidence that it was related to his campaign, him personally or that DNC was behind it. It's a total red herring. What do those incidents have to do with what happened to the Nevada official?
Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
Source? Besides being from Wasserman Shultz, and the 2nd paragraph from Sanders?
The one you attributed to me above is Benjs, not me.. And directly above is taken from Sanders statement posted on his site. Is that adequately sourced for you or biased against Sanders?
The sanders crowd bitch more about biased media than any republicans do.
It's quite sad how they have co-opted the Right Wing talking points... lamestream media, Clinton News Network, media bias, Vince Foster, etc. Now Democrats have to deal with insanity from both sides. But the kids will tucker themselves out soon enough.
What's hilarious is you two backing up a vehicle that's been proven outright to lie to the public.
Keep on with your fight against Sanders, Russell... Yawn.
I don't need to fight Sanders. He lost. Sorry buddy, you've got to pay for your substandard education after all. I recommend Comp101 and Macroeconomics to start. Remember what I said to you all those months ago... #feelthemath. I hope you believe in that mathematical sorcery after all.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,072
^^Sanders has a moral obligation to condemn any violence or harassment done on his campaign's behalf. I don't mean to imply they sanctioned it, but he needs to condone it and state unequivocally that it is counter to his principles. In his statement released on the subject, he condoned it but pivoted immediately to some incident that happened months ago, and in which there is no evidence that it was related to his campaign, him personally or that DNC was behind it. It's a total red herring. What do those incidents have to do with what happened to the Nevada official?
Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
To be fair though, He did condone is and state unequivocally that is is counter to his campaign's mission. Like right there. In the first sentence. I don't see what's wrong with him pointing out that violence was done to his campaign staff during the campaign though. Like why is not okay for him to point that out? It seems to me to be speaking to a culture of violence in politics in NV.
No, there should not be a sentence that says ... "BUT..." after the condemnation. There is no 'but'. There's no justification yet Sanders seems to try to justify the actions of the individuals. What if I said, "yes my brother robbed a bank and that was wrong..BUT remember that he was mugged three months ago". Does that fly? Does he think Lange shot up his campaign hq? Does he think she broke into some apartments of his staff? How does whatever happened to his campaign three months ago remotely justify the actions towards Lange?
Give it up man. Your credibility, and any support of Hillary Clinton right now, is at its worse credibility.
Try and structure a proper sentence first, and second pay attention to the words I'm writing. No one is defending Clinton because there is nothing to defend. This has nothing to do with her. I'm accusing Sanders of being a weak leader with a poor moral compass regarding this situation. And I'm accusing his small band of supporters of being nothing more than leftist thugs who resorted sexist and violent threats because their petulance wasn't rewarded with TWO FUCKING EXTRA DELEGATES. I find it ironic that this board is quick to point the finger at Trump supporters who harass dissent at meetings and town halls (and right to point the finger) but can't fucking see the same thing happening on their side.
Wow! You and I either saw two different videos (the mainstream and the ones shot by people who were there) or you really don't see that the system is hijacked and arrogated beyond anything that can reasonably be called "democracy" .
But I do agree that I don't see anything about Clinton that needs defending. I don't see how anyone could.
Point three: your comparisons of the Trump disturbances and the Nevada situation just don't make sense. Two totally different sets of circumstances. Sounds a bit reaching to me.
Point four. Once upon a time I didn't know what a college graduate was. Now I are one.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
My point is and continues to be the harassment of Lang after the convention and the vandalizing of the DNC property. I haven't talked about the proceedings themselves other than pointing of the Politifact review.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,072
My point is and continues to be the harassment of Lang after the convention and the vandalizing of the DNC property. I haven't talked about the proceedings themselves other than pointing of the Politifact review.
Um, look Mr., it's Lange.
Edit: Changed my semi-colon to an apostrophe.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
My point is and continues to be the harassment of Lang after the convention and the vandalizing of the DNC property. I haven't talked about the proceedings themselves other than pointing of the Politifact review.
Um, look Mr., it's Lange.
Edit: Changed my semi-colon to an apostrophe.
Can you defend the behavior? That's what I really want to know from Bernie's supporters.
Media, Democratic Establishment Exploit Nevada Uproar to Diss Bernie Sanders
The trouble at Saturday’s Nevada State Democratic Convention has become another excuse for the party establishment and the mainstream media to attack Bernie Sanders and his passionate followers.
In the media’s telling, the dispute over the delegate count has grown into a violent scene. Though we can find no video proof, chairs were reported to have been thrown. That, apparently, was the worst of it. With unabashed hyperbole, The Washington Post now calls it a “donnybrook.”
Certainly, there was much yelling and tension at the long and exhausting event. But when the convention leaders ignored the results of a voice vote, then failed to follow the party’s own convention rules, Sanders’ supporters had every right to protest. That’s called democracy in action.
A sober analysis of the event posted on YouTube by Jordan Liles clearly shows the convention leaders’ role in escalating the trouble. Nevada Democratic Party Chairwoman Roberta Lange’s arbitrary dismissal of the Sanders camp’s complaints could have had no other result than to infuriate all concerned.
There is no excuse for the threats Lange subsequently received. But had she played fair and kept her cool, all this trouble could have been avoided. That’s a narrative you won’t hear from the Democratic establishment or its close friends, the mainstream media.
My point is and continues to be the harassment of Lang after the convention and the vandalizing of the DNC property. I haven't talked about the proceedings themselves other than pointing of the Politifact review.
Um, look Mr., it's Lange.
Edit: Changed my semi-colon to an apostrophe.
Can you defend the behavior? That's what I really want to know from Bernie's supporters.
Of course you do! Because like I said before, that's all you've been doing since day 1: to attack Sanders and his supporters. You have nothing else obviously, and you appear to be unable to see past that hate. Try to enjoy your evening.
My point is and continues to be the harassment of Lang after the convention and the vandalizing of the DNC property. I haven't talked about the proceedings themselves other than pointing of the Politifact review.
Um, look Mr., it's Lange.
Edit: Changed my semi-colon to an apostrophe.
Can you defend the behavior? That's what I really want to know from Bernie's supporters.
Oh hell yeah. If I had been there and Lange pulled that shit I would have yelled the same thing you can hear on the video, "What the fuck was THAT?"
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Are we disconnected here or are you deliberately ignoring what I'm talking about? I'm referring to the threats against her, the obscene and sexist texts and voice mails, the listing of her grandchildren's school as a threat and the vandalism of the party HQ.
Are we disconnected here or are you deliberately ignoring what I'm talking about? I'm referring to the threats against her, the obscene and sexist texts and voice mails, the listing of her grandchildren's school as a threat and the vandalism of the party HQ.
OK, sorry. Missed that. No, I never condone violence toward another person. But look, are those typical Bernie supporters? Of course not.
But you also might want to consider how obscene and akin to criminal Lange's actions were. That's where the focus needs to be with this issue, not the few who make the headlines with their over-the-top violent reactions. And of course you might also consider that some of those threats were planted by people trying to make Bernie supporters look bad because that really does happen too. Sort of like Spy vs Spy.
But see how we get detracted from the core issues? Now isn't that interesting?!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
People looking for trouble found trouble. I don't want to defend the clown, but the left have got to get there shit together. 4 or 5 Midwest states may decide this election, and antics of violence that the left has instigated will swing critical votes to Trump.
So when peaceful protesters get attacked it is the fault of the peaceful protesters??? Okay.
It is common sense that should be applied to multiple situations. If you go confront a large group in a disrespectful manner, be it Trump supporters, Eagles fans, Hells Angels, Pirates, etc, you are taking on a risk of getting pepper sprayed or your butt kicked.
I wore a "I (heart) Ninjas" shirt the first time I boarded a Pirate ship. Lets just say they didn't see the humor in that and that's how I ended up with my eye patch.
I'd be worried about who Bernie would 'install' in the Supreme Court. Might be an overlooked area of concern, but a balanced Supreme Court isn't a terrible thing.
Balance? It's right or wrong. Balance has no place in law.
Comments
Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
I was going to post the video (I still will - here http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/17/politics/bernie-sanders-nevada-democrats/
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
If you're going to protest then you should expect to get abused.
if you are in a large group of supporters then you have the right to abuse protestors because they have it coming since they showed up.
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
It's a terrible condemnation. Oh and btw, the Politifact was there. For those that are interested in what happened, feel free to read their write-up. http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/
Keep on with your fight against Sanders, Russell... Yawn.
#feelthemath. I hope you believe in that mathematical sorcery after all.
But I do agree that I don't see anything about Clinton that needs defending. I don't see how anyone could.
Point three: your comparisons of the Trump disturbances and the Nevada situation just don't make sense. Two totally different sets of circumstances. Sounds a bit reaching to me.
Point four. Once upon a time I didn't know what a college graduate was. Now I are one.
My point is and continues to be the harassment of Lang after the convention and the vandalizing of the DNC property. I haven't talked about the proceedings themselves other than pointing of the Politifact review.
Edit: Changed my semi-colon to an apostrophe.
Media, Democratic Establishment Exploit Nevada Uproar to Diss Bernie Sanders
Ironic how you warn everyone not to trust the media but you continue to copy and paste media for everyone to read.
Are we disconnected here or are you deliberately ignoring what I'm talking about? I'm referring to the threats against her, the obscene and sexist texts and voice mails, the listing of her grandchildren's school as a threat and the vandalism of the party HQ.
If they are, of course she didn't deserve them. She should step down from her position, though, regardless.
But you also might want to consider how obscene and akin to criminal Lange's actions were. That's where the focus needs to be with this issue, not the few who make the headlines with their over-the-top violent reactions. And of course you might also consider that some of those threats were planted by people trying to make Bernie supporters look bad because that really does happen too. Sort of like Spy vs Spy.
But see how we get detracted from the core issues? Now isn't that interesting?!