""Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a 'penchant for violence.' That is nonsense," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement Tuesday. "Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. 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."" (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478417091/sanders-doubles-down-on-nevada-convention-controversy)
What's the problem, exactly?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,072
""Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a 'penchant for violence.' That is nonsense," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement Tuesday. "Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. 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."" (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478417091/sanders-doubles-down-on-nevada-convention-controversy)
What's the problem, exactly?
The problem seems to be that some people were outraged at the NV convention (and rightfully so I'd say) and all of the sudden that makes us a violent bunch of hooligans. But compared to many Trump supporters? Sheesh. It's a classic smear campaign against Bernie and his supporters.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
""Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a 'penchant for violence.' That is nonsense," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement Tuesday. "Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. 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."" (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478417091/sanders-doubles-down-on-nevada-convention-controversy)
What's the problem, exactly?
My problem is the statement on his website as I've said 9x. It was conditional. There are no conditions. No BUT that is appropriate.
And Brian, I've said nothing about you, one of his supporters, rather his fringe maniacs and Bernie's lack of coherent leadership. I thought I've been crystal clear on this.
Okay, sure. As I said, I don't think there was any intention behind what Bernie said. I didn't see it as a BUT. I just saw it as a vocalization of facts.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,072
""Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a 'penchant for violence.' That is nonsense," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement Tuesday. "Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. 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."" (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478417091/sanders-doubles-down-on-nevada-convention-controversy)
What's the problem, exactly?
My problem is the statement on his website as I've said 9x. It was conditional. There are no conditions. No BUT that is appropriate.
And Brian, I've said nothing about you, one of his supporters, rather his fringe maniacs and Bernie's lack of coherent leadership. I thought I've been crystal clear on this.
Yeah, sorry. I meant "us" as in Sanders supporters in general. Fringe are exactly that, fringe (and I'm OK that we have them or it would all be vanilla.) But me? Jeez, I don't even have a fringe coat any more, haha!
How do you see Sanders as having a "lack of coherent leadership"?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
""Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a 'penchant for violence.' That is nonsense," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement Tuesday. "Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. 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."" (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478417091/sanders-doubles-down-on-nevada-convention-controversy)
What's the problem, exactly?
There are 2 movements in the US right now. One, is Bernie Sanders with his millions of supporters. The other is the establishment aka status quo. Status quo is Wall Street, Citizens United, pro-Israel, pro-war, pro-corporatism of the U.S., the top 1% owning the majority of wealth, etc. etc. Hillary is the establishment candidate accepting as much money as possible from the big banks and corps. She doesn't have much of a following at her rallies.
6 Corporations own the mainstream media and because Sanders stands against big corporations (because he doesn't believe they should have as much power as they do - and currently the media is using their power to not report facts but to lie and slander), they have been refusing to cover any news about him, like he was invisible. :cuckoo: Only when he became a big threat have they started covering him but not positively. The lies are getting worse and worse -some believe what the media tells them..(mrussell) And then there's those of us who are seeing what a crock of shit the media is and is doing to attempt to get Sanders to drop out... When the race is still tight.
If you watched that video I posted, you can see for yourself what happened at the NV convention (not caucus like I mistakenly called it). The media accused Bernie supporters of violence, chair throwing and the like and blame Sanders. This is an entire crock of shit. The election officials openly cheated, delegates in the house erupted in direct opposition with their voices. Take note that this is during a voice vote!! There was no violence, and no chairs thrown. No incriminating videos to be had with loads of people present and phones in hands. And tight security standing there. That's what happened.
If people want to debate Sanders response, whatever. But there was no violence to debate. None of what the media is reporting as to violence by Sanders supporters is true. Watch the video.
""Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a 'penchant for violence.' That is nonsense," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement Tuesday. "Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. 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."" (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478417091/sanders-doubles-down-on-nevada-convention-controversy)
What's the problem, exactly?
My problem is the statement on his website as I've said 9x. It was conditional. There are no conditions. No BUT that is appropriate.
And Brian, I've said nothing about you, one of his supporters, rather his fringe maniacs and Bernie's lack of coherent leadership. I thought I've been crystal clear on this.
You have been crystal clear on being a Bernie attacker since Day 1 of this thread. Nothing new there.
Senator Barbara Boxer is claiming that "violent" Bernie Sanders supporters made her fear for her safety at the Nevada Democratic Conventions. Cell phone footage reveals something different. (She blows kisses to the crowd as you can hear people boo her and say "Shame on you!")
Post edited by Free on
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,072
""Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a 'penchant for violence.' That is nonsense," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement Tuesday. "Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. 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."" (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478417091/sanders-doubles-down-on-nevada-convention-controversy)
What's the problem, exactly?
There are 2 movements in the US right now. One, is Bernie Sanders with his millions of supporters. The other is the establishment aka status quo. Status quo is Wall Street, Citizens United, pro-Israel, pro-war, pro-corporatism of the U.S., the top 1% owning the majority of wealth, etc. etc. Hillary is the establishment candidate accepting as much money as possible from the big banks and corps. She doesn't have much of a following at her rallies.
6 Corporations own the mainstream media and because Sanders stands against big corporations (because he doesn't believe they should have as much power as they do - and currently the media is using their power to not report facts but to lie and slander), they have been refusing to cover any news about him, like he was invisible. :cuckoo: Only when he became a big threat have they started covering him but not positively. The lies are getting worse and worse -some believe what the media tells them..(mrussell) And then there's those of us who are seeing what a crock of shit the media is and is doing to attempt to get Sanders to drop out... When the race is still tight.
If you watched that video I posted, you can see for yourself what happened at the NV convention (not caucus like I mistakenly called it). The media accused supporters of violence, chair throwing and the like and blame Sanders. This is an entire crock of shit. The election officials openly cheated, delegates in the house erupted in direct opposition with their voices. There was no violence, and no chairs thrown. No videos with loads of people present w/ phones in hands. That's what happened.
If people want to debate Sanders response, whatever. But there was no violence to debate. None of what the media is reporting as to violence by Sanders supporters is true. Watch the video.
This is an excellent summation of the democratic race, Free. And I don't mean to personally bash anyone here by saying this but so far I have not seen one solid argument against anything you have said here. It's pretty easy to see all of the above is true and valid.
I spoke with a woman today who considers herself a conservative and she basically said this:
"The choices are Trump, a man with no political experience who really is not at all fit to be a president, Clinton who I don't trust as far as I can throw her, and Sanders who, though I don't agree with many of the things he proposes, is at least someone who appears quite intelligent, is someone who seems very trustworthy and who would at least be someone I (if I were in position to do so) with whom I would be able to sit down and have a reasonable discussion."
Although I personally do like much of what Sanders proposes, I otherwise couldn't agree more with what she said. I don't see why, if narrowed to the three choices before us, anyone would consider anyone other than Bernie . Logically, any other choice makes no sense to me.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
""Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a 'penchant for violence.' That is nonsense," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement Tuesday. "Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. 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."" (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478417091/sanders-doubles-down-on-nevada-convention-controversy)
What's the problem, exactly?
My problem is the statement on his website as I've said 9x. It was conditional. There are no conditions. No BUT that is appropriate.
And Brian, I've said nothing about you, one of his supporters, rather his fringe maniacs and Bernie's lack of coherent leadership. I thought I've been crystal clear on this.
You have been crystal clear on being a Bernie attacker since Day 1 of this thread. Nothing new there.
I've seen him more as a critic - and a civil, reasonable one at that. Attacker? Nah, simply another perspective, just like anyone else's.
""Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a 'penchant for violence.' That is nonsense," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement Tuesday. "Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. 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."" (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478417091/sanders-doubles-down-on-nevada-convention-controversy)
What's the problem, exactly?
There are 2 movements in the US right now. One, is Bernie Sanders with his millions of supporters. The other is the establishment aka status quo. Status quo is Wall Street, Citizens United, pro-Israel, pro-war, pro-corporatism of the U.S., the top 1% owning the majority of wealth, etc. etc. Hillary is the establishment candidate accepting as much money as possible from the big banks and corps. She doesn't have much of a following at her rallies.
6 Corporations own the mainstream media and because Sanders stands against big corporations (because he doesn't believe they should have as much power as they do - and currently the media is using their power to not report facts but to lie and slander), they have been refusing to cover any news about him, like he was invisible. :cuckoo: Only when he became a big threat have they started covering him but not positively. The lies are getting worse and worse -some believe what the media tells them..(mrussell) And then there's those of us who are seeing what a crock of shit the media is and is doing to attempt to get Sanders to drop out... When the race is still tight.
If you watched that video I posted, you can see for yourself what happened at the NV convention (not caucus like I mistakenly called it). The media accused supporters of violence, chair throwing and the like and blame Sanders. This is an entire crock of shit. The election officials openly cheated, delegates in the house erupted in direct opposition with their voices. There was no violence, and no chairs thrown. No videos with loads of people present w/ phones in hands. That's what happened.
If people want to debate Sanders response, whatever. But there was no violence to debate. None of what the media is reporting as to violence by Sanders supporters is true. Watch the video.
This is an excellent summation of the democratic race, Free. And I don't mean to personally bash anyone here by saying this but so far I have not seen one solid argument against anything you have said here. It's pretty easy to see all of the above is true and valid.
I spoke with a woman today who considers herself a conservative and she basically said this:
"The choices are Trump, a man with no political experience who really is not at all fit to be a president, Clinton who I don't trust as far as I can throw her, and Sanders who, though I don't agree with many of the things he proposes, is at least someone who appears quite intelligent, is someone who seems very trustworthy and who would at least be someone I (if I were in position to do so) with whom I would be able to sit down and have a reasonable discussion."
Although I personally do like much of what Sanders proposes, I otherwise couldn't agree more with what she said. I don't see why, if narrowed to the three choices before us, anyone would consider anyone other than Bernie . Logically, any other choice makes no sense to me.
I would agree w/ that woman too, she sounds very level headed and not deterred by anyone's talking points. It's about who's the most trustworthy and best to run this country.
Like the editorial by Kos, this brings up excellent arguments. Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes once said about FDR, "He has a second rate intellect and a first rate temperament."
Well I think Bernie is the opposite. I think he is a smart man but he does not have the temperament to be president.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,072
Like the editorial by Kos, this brings up excellent arguments. Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes once said about FDR, "He has a second rate intellect and a first rate temperament."
Well I think Bernie is the opposite. I think he is a smart man but he does not have the temperament to be president.
In what way do you see Sanders as not having the "right temperament" to be president and what is does the right temperament look like?
Also, you said you see Sanders as having a "lack of coherent leadership"? Still not sure what you mean by that either.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Like the editorial by Kos, this brings up excellent arguments. Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes once said about FDR, "He has a second rate intellect and a first rate temperament."
Well I think Bernie is the opposite. I think he is a smart man but he does not have the temperament to be president.
In what way do you see Sanders as not having the "right temperament" to be president and what is does the right temperament look like?
Also, you said you see Sanders as having a "lack of coherent leadership"? Still not sure what you mean by that either.
Yeah, I don't see it, and I can't see how that isn't holding Sanders to a much higher standard than the other candidates.
When John McCain was campaigning against Obama, and some of the more zealous supporters would boo or be downright hateful in town halls, etc., McCain was quick to shut it down and tell them to show respect. Sanders followed Dr. Song on stage, after he called her a corporate whore, and didn't say a thing until the pressure the next day. His statement on NV was couched with excuses, as Kos and others have pointed out. He has lost control of the most zealous of his supporters. HRC doesn't have this issue. Obama doesn't. Kerry didn't. Gore didn't. No other Democrats do. It's a Sanders problem. Those 9 things I detailed are real. And they show lack of leadership. If you don't agree, fine, I don't expect you to do so. But I've been pretty clear on why I believe it so.
Man, what an awful awful presidential primary for both parties. We truly have made it so difficult for a normal person with great ideas that span the ideological boundaries to even want to run that we get left with Trump/Cruz/Clinton/Sanders.... Soon to be Trump/Clinton.
The primary process is killing our chance of ever electing a great president.
I'm no fan of Sanders. As I said I do think he is using his power to get people to hate and get them energized that way. I don't like it. I also think his policy ideas are mostly terrible with some good sprinkled in and some necessary there too. But until recently I respected him some for having principles and sticking to them. But now even he comes across as the politician he always was, making excuses when poor behavior benefits him. Heck, they all 3 have some very solid ideas, even trump, but they all 3 are far more bad than good. And it's sad that this is who we are looking to to lead the future? Really? Ouch.
Man, what an awful awful presidential primary for both parties. We truly have made it so difficult for a normal person with great ideas that span the ideological boundaries to even want to run that we get left with Trump/Cruz/Clinton/Sanders.... Soon to be Trump/Clinton.
The primary process is killing our chance of ever electing a great president.
I'm no fan of Sanders. As I said I do think he is using his power to get people to hate and get them energized that way. I don't like it. I also think his policy ideas are mostly terrible with some good sprinkled in and some necessary there too. But until recently I respected him some for having principles and sticking to them. But now even he comes across as the politician he always was, making excuses when poor behavior benefits him. Heck, they all 3 have some very solid ideas, even trump, but they all 3 are far more bad than good. And it's sad that this is who we are looking to to lead the future? Really? Ouch.
Your third paragraph - clearly you don't read other posts or videos proving the opposite of what you say.
When John McCain was campaigning against Obama, and some of the more zealous supporters would boo or be downright hateful in town halls, etc., McCain was quick to shut it down and tell them to show respect. Sanders followed Dr. Song on stage, after he called her a corporate whore, and didn't say a thing until the pressure the next day. His statement on NV was couched with excuses, as Kos and others have pointed out. He has lost control of the most zealous of his supporters. HRC doesn't have this issue. Obama doesn't. Kerry didn't. Gore didn't. No other Democrats do. It's a Sanders problem. Those 9 things I detailed are real. And they show lack of leadership. If you don't agree, fine, I don't expect you to do so. But I've been pretty clear on why I believe it so.
If you think you're going to convince anyone to change their mind on what they think? With no sources behind them? Think again.
Not to mention you're really reaching here. But what's new.
When John McCain was campaigning against Obama, and some of the more zealous supporters would boo or be downright hateful in town halls, etc., McCain was quick to shut it down and tell them to show respect. Sanders followed Dr. Song on stage, after he called her a corporate whore, and didn't say a thing until the pressure the next day. His statement on NV was couched with excuses, as Kos and others have pointed out. He has lost control of the most zealous of his supporters. HRC doesn't have this issue. Obama doesn't. Kerry didn't. Gore didn't. No other Democrats do. It's a Sanders problem. Those 9 things I detailed are real. And they show lack of leadership. If you don't agree, fine, I don't expect you to do so. But I've been pretty clear on why I believe it so.
If you think you're going to convince anyone to change their mind on what they think? With no sources behind them? Think again.
Not to mention you're really reaching here. But what's new.
I already gave you the Song source. The fact that you deny these incidents happened shows how insulated you are in your bubble. Now if you want to say, "well these disparate incidents don't show the pattern that Russell is concluding", that's a rational statement. People can disagree without being disagreeable. However, you deny their very existence which is just Bizzarro world.
Man, what an awful awful presidential primary for both parties. We truly have made it so difficult for a normal person with great ideas that span the ideological boundaries to even want to run that we get left with Trump/Cruz/Clinton/Sanders.... Soon to be Trump/Clinton.
The primary process is killing our chance of ever electing a great president.
I'm no fan of Sanders. As I said I do think he is using his power to get people to hate and get them energized that way. I don't like it. I also think his policy ideas are mostly terrible with some good sprinkled in and some necessary there too. But until recently I respected him some for having principles and sticking to them. But now even he comes across as the politician he always was, making excuses when poor behavior benefits him. Heck, they all 3 have some very solid ideas, even trump, but they all 3 are far more bad than good. And it's sad that this is who we are looking to to lead the future? Really? Ouch.
Your third paragraph - clearly you don't read other posts or videos proving the opposite of what you say.
Sure I do. I see you making excuses for him all the time and deflecting. I just don't buy your bullshit.
hippiemom = goodness
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,072
Man, what an awful awful presidential primary for both parties. We truly have made it so difficult for a normal person with great ideas that span the ideological boundaries to even want to run that we get left with Trump/Cruz/Clinton/Sanders.... Soon to be Trump/Clinton.
The primary process is killing our chance of ever electing a great president.
I'm no fan of Sanders. As I said I do think he is using his power to get people to hate and get them energized that way. I don't like it. I also think his policy ideas are mostly terrible with some good sprinkled in and some necessary there too. But until recently I respected him some for having principles and sticking to them. But now even he comes across as the politician he always was, making excuses when poor behavior benefits him. Heck, they all 3 have some very solid ideas, even trump, but they all 3 are far more bad than good. And it's sad that this is who we are looking to to lead the future? Really? Ouch.
Really? Look, I know you say what you mean Cincy, but I just don't see how you can come to that conclusion. It fits no Bernie supporters I know. None.
When John McCain was campaigning against Obama, and some of the more zealous supporters would boo or be downright hateful in town halls, etc., McCain was quick to shut it down and tell them to show respect. Sanders followed Dr. Song on stage, after he called her a corporate whore, and didn't say a thing until the pressure the next day. His statement on NV was couched with excuses, as Kos and others have pointed out. He has lost control of the most zealous of his supporters. HRC doesn't have this issue. Obama doesn't. Kerry didn't. Gore didn't. No other Democrats do. It's a Sanders problem. Those 9 things I detailed are real. And they show lack of leadership. If you don't agree, fine, I don't expect you to do so. But I've been pretty clear on why I believe it so.
This is an excellent example of a misunderstanding of leadership vs control. Bernie want to lead us to be a democracy. Hillary wants to keep us under the thumb of Corporate America. You don't seem to want a democratic leader but rather someone who is controlling. That is not a democracy. Anti-Bernie people are trying to make it look like Sander's supporters are rife with violent hooligans. Sure , there are always the fringe, but focusing on a few who might be on the fringe and exaggerating their influence is all part of the control game. If Hillary wins, enjoys the authoritarian corporate military complex you so desire.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Man, what an awful awful presidential primary for both parties. We truly have made it so difficult for a normal person with great ideas that span the ideological boundaries to even want to run that we get left with Trump/Cruz/Clinton/Sanders.... Soon to be Trump/Clinton.
The primary process is killing our chance of ever electing a great president.
I'm no fan of Sanders. As I said I do think he is using his power to get people to hate and get them energized that way. I don't like it. I also think his policy ideas are mostly terrible with some good sprinkled in and some necessary there too. But until recently I respected him some for having principles and sticking to them. But now even he comes across as the politician he always was, making excuses when poor behavior benefits him. Heck, they all 3 have some very solid ideas, even trump, but they all 3 are far more bad than good. And it's sad that this is who we are looking to to lead the future? Really? Ouch.
Really? Look, I know you say what you mean Cincy, but I just don't see how you can come to that conclusion. It fits no Bernie supporters I know. None.
When John McCain was campaigning against Obama, and some of the more zealous supporters would boo or be downright hateful in town halls, etc., McCain was quick to shut it down and tell them to show respect. Sanders followed Dr. Song on stage, after he called her a corporate whore, and didn't say a thing until the pressure the next day. His statement on NV was couched with excuses, as Kos and others have pointed out. He has lost control of the most zealous of his supporters. HRC doesn't have this issue. Obama doesn't. Kerry didn't. Gore didn't. No other Democrats do. It's a Sanders problem. Those 9 things I detailed are real. And they show lack of leadership. If you don't agree, fine, I don't expect you to do so. But I've been pretty clear on why I believe it so.
This is an excellent example of a misunderstanding of leadership vs control. Bernie want to lead us to be a democracy. Hillary wants to keep us under the thumb of Corporate America. You don't seem to want a democratic leader but rather someone who is controlling. That is not a democracy. Anti-Bernie people are trying to make it look like Sander's supporters are rife with violent hooligans. Sure , there are always the fringe, but focusing on a few who might be on the fringe and exaggerating their influence is all part of the control game. If Hillary wins, enjoys the authoritarian corporate military complex you so desire.
No, I have no misunderstanding of the difference. I have run organizations upwards of 3k people and as small as 10 people and I'm accountable for every one of them but cannot control every action. And accountability doesn't mean that I'm responsible for every action they take, rather making it clear which actions are acceptable and which are not. Bernie has not drawn that line clearly. He fuzzes it with his hedging statements and tacit 'understanding' of the fringe.
This is by far the largest and most diverse organization for which Bernie has ever been responsible. Mayor of Burlington does not compare. Nor does Senator which has a small staff. We saw what happened when he ran the Veterans Committee and that disaster with Shinseki. Now we are seeing this. He has a leadership problem.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,072
I'm still sticking with Bernie, someone I can at least trust to be honest, rather than a business man who has no business running for president or Mrs. Corporate America who want you under her thumb.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,072
I'm still sticking with Bernie, someone I can at least trust to be honest, rather than a business man who has no business running for president or Mrs. Corporate America who want you under her thumb.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
When John McCain was campaigning against Obama, and some of the more zealous supporters would boo or be downright hateful in town halls, etc., McCain was quick to shut it down and tell them to show respect. Sanders followed Dr. Song on stage, after he called her a corporate whore, and didn't say a thing until the pressure the next day. His statement on NV was couched with excuses, as Kos and others have pointed out. He has lost control of the most zealous of his supporters. HRC doesn't have this issue. Obama doesn't. Kerry didn't. Gore didn't. No other Democrats do. It's a Sanders problem. Those 9 things I detailed are real. And they show lack of leadership. If you don't agree, fine, I don't expect you to do so. But I've been pretty clear on why I believe it so.
This is an example addressing your problem with him not shutting down his supporters.
And to be fair, Sanders wasn't present when Dr. Song was speaking and didn't know of the remark (which, should be noted, doesn't mention HRC by name) until later.
When John McCain was campaigning against Obama, and some of the more zealous supporters would boo or be downright hateful in town halls, etc., McCain was quick to shut it down and tell them to show respect. Sanders followed Dr. Song on stage, after he called her a corporate whore, and didn't say a thing until the pressure the next day. His statement on NV was couched with excuses, as Kos and others have pointed out. He has lost control of the most zealous of his supporters. HRC doesn't have this issue. Obama doesn't. Kerry didn't. Gore didn't. No other Democrats do. It's a Sanders problem. Those 9 things I detailed are real. And they show lack of leadership. If you don't agree, fine, I don't expect you to do so. But I've been pretty clear on why I believe it so.
This is an example addressing your problem with him not shutting down his supporters.
And to be fair, Sanders wasn't present when Dr. Song was speaking and didn't know of the remark (which, should be noted, doesn't mention HRC by name) until later.
I can't get the link to work, but yes this is what I would expect all the time. Not sure when this happened since I can't link.
I'm still sticking with Bernie, someone I can at least trust to be honest, rather than a business man who has no business running for president or Mrs. Corporate America who want you under her thumb.
I don't know how you can say she wants you under her thumb. I would love some of those examples. But I had no illusions of changing your mind.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,072
Comments
""Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a 'penchant for violence.' That is nonsense," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement Tuesday. "Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. 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."" (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478417091/sanders-doubles-down-on-nevada-convention-controversy)
What's the problem, exactly?
And Brian, I've said nothing about you, one of his supporters, rather his fringe maniacs and Bernie's lack of coherent leadership. I thought I've been crystal clear on this.
How do you see Sanders as having a "lack of coherent leadership"?
6 Corporations own the mainstream media and because Sanders stands against big corporations (because he doesn't believe they should have as much power as they do - and currently the media is using their power to not report facts but to lie and slander), they have been refusing to cover any news about him, like he was invisible. :cuckoo: Only when he became a big threat have they started covering him but not positively. The lies are getting worse and worse -some believe what the media tells them..(mrussell) And then there's those of us who are seeing what a crock of shit the media is and is doing to attempt to get Sanders to drop out... When the race is still tight.
If you watched that video I posted, you can see for yourself what happened at the NV convention (not caucus like I mistakenly called it). The media accused Bernie supporters of violence, chair throwing and the like and blame Sanders. This is an entire crock of shit. The election officials openly cheated, delegates in the house erupted in direct opposition with their voices. Take note that this is during a voice vote!! There was no violence, and no chairs thrown. No incriminating videos to be had with loads of people present and phones in hands. And tight security standing there. That's what happened.
If people want to debate Sanders response, whatever. But there was no violence to debate. None of what the media is reporting as to violence by Sanders supporters is true. Watch the video.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153646033364205&id=210277954204&_rdr
Senator Barbara Boxer is claiming that "violent" Bernie Sanders supporters made her fear for her safety at the Nevada Democratic Conventions. Cell phone footage reveals something different. (She blows kisses to the crowd as you can hear people boo her and say "Shame on you!")
I spoke with a woman today who considers herself a conservative and she basically said this:
"The choices are Trump, a man with no political experience who really is not at all fit to be a president, Clinton who I don't trust as far as I can throw her, and Sanders who, though I don't agree with many of the things he proposes, is at least someone who appears quite intelligent, is someone who seems very trustworthy and who would at least be someone I (if I were in position to do so) with whom I would be able to sit down and have a reasonable discussion."
Although I personally do like much of what Sanders proposes, I otherwise couldn't agree more with what she said. I don't see why, if narrowed to the three choices before us, anyone would consider anyone other than Bernie . Logically, any other choice makes no sense to me.
According to whom?
Well I think Bernie is the opposite. I think he is a smart man but he does not have the temperament to be president.
Also, you said you see Sanders as having a "lack of coherent leadership"? Still not sure what you mean by that either.
When John McCain was campaigning against Obama, and some of the more zealous supporters would boo or be downright hateful in town halls, etc., McCain was quick to shut it down and tell them to show respect. Sanders followed Dr. Song on stage, after he called her a corporate whore, and didn't say a thing until the pressure the next day. His statement on NV was couched with excuses, as Kos and others have pointed out. He has lost control of the most zealous of his supporters. HRC doesn't have this issue. Obama doesn't. Kerry didn't. Gore didn't. No other Democrats do. It's a Sanders problem. Those 9 things I detailed are real. And they show lack of leadership. If you don't agree, fine, I don't expect you to do so. But I've been pretty clear on why I believe it so.
The primary process is killing our chance of ever electing a great president.
I'm no fan of Sanders. As I said I do think he is using his power to get people to hate and get them energized that way. I don't like it. I also think his policy ideas are mostly terrible with some good sprinkled in and some necessary there too. But until recently I respected him some for having principles and sticking to them. But now even he comes across as the politician he always was, making excuses when poor behavior benefits him. Heck, they all 3 have some very solid ideas, even trump, but they all 3 are far more bad than good. And it's sad that this is who we are looking to to lead the future? Really? Ouch.
Not to mention you're really reaching here. But what's new.
This is by far the largest and most diverse organization for which Bernie has ever been responsible. Mayor of Burlington does not compare. Nor does Senator which has a small staff. We saw what happened when he ran the Veterans Committee and that disaster with Shinseki. Now we are seeing this. He has a leadership problem.
This is an example addressing your problem with him not shutting down his supporters.
And to be fair, Sanders wasn't present when Dr. Song was speaking and didn't know of the remark (which, should be noted, doesn't mention HRC by name) until later.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/270437-sanders-shuts-down-supporters-who-boo-clinton