Bernie Sanders for President

mrussel1

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

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?!

Thanks for acknowledging my post and concern. Now as far as distracting from the core issue, I'm not sure that's true. There's plenty of articles and like I said, Politifact did a full assessment and declared the accusations of Bernie's campaign as "false".

For me, it's just not material. All of this was over two delegates. That's it. They had no chance to change the rules which have been in place for several election cycles. You need a super majority to make the changes and they didn't have the numbers to do so.

benjs

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

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?!

Thanks for acknowledging my post and concern. Now as far as distracting from the core issue, I'm not sure that's true. There's plenty of articles and like I said, Politifact did a full assessment and declared the accusations of Bernie's campaign as "false".

For me, it's just not material. All of this was over two delegates. That's it. They had no chance to change the rules which have been in place for several election cycles. You need a super majority to make the changes and they didn't have the numbers to do so.

I'm sorry, but I find it absolutely pathetic that we're debating Sanders' moral status because he only condemned (and not "strongly condemned") violence. Does anyone actually blatantly need it to be spelled out to them that such a message could possibly mean condoning or being apathetic to violence?

Mob mentality (which clearly took over) is well-documented to bring out traits in people they would not normally possess. Also, to be more accurate, I'd say the accusations of Bernie's campaign were mis or under-informed, and given the false premise that they had - their reactions were more or less understandable (albeit absolutely not right). If I thought that my democratic rights were being undermined - I would certainly raise a stink. On a topic people are so passionate about, it is completely feasible that this would lead to mob mentality no matter where on the political spectrum you live. It does not say a damn thing about Sanders.

Free

R

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

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?!

Thanks for acknowledging my post and concern. Now as far as distracting from the core issue, I'm not sure that's true. There's plenty of articles and like I said, Politifact did a full assessment and declared the accusations of Bernie's campaign as "false".

For me, it's just not material. All of this was over two delegates. That's it. They had no chance to change the rules which have been in place for several election cycles. You need a super majority to make the changes and they didn't have the numbers to do so.

I'm sorry, but I find it absolutely pathetic that we're debating Sanders' moral status because he only condemned (and not "strongly condemned") violence. Does anyone actually blatantly need it to be spelled out to them that such a message could possibly mean condoning or being apathetic to violence?

Mob mentality (which clearly took over) is well-documented to bring out traits in people they would not normally possess. Also, to be more accurate, I'd say the accusations of Bernie's campaign were mis or under-informed, and given the false premise that they had - their reactions were more or less understandable (albeit absolutely not right). If I thought that my democratic rights were being undermined - I would certainly raise a stink. On a topic people are so passionate about, it is completely feasible that this would lead to mob mentality no matter where on the political spectrum you live. It does not say a damn thing about Sanders.

Sanders is a scapegoat here. The election process in MANY primaries here are showing to be unprepared, unorganized, election officials messing with results or dismissing voters, and similar.

This has nothing to do with Sanders and EVERYTHING to do with a corrupt electoral process in this country infringing on voters rights.

jeffbr

It seemed like Trump took shit for the violence committed by his supporters. I don't think it is unreasonable to hold Sanders to the same standard, calling for him to control his people. Feel the Bern seems to be taking on new meaning these days.

I'd like to see Bernie, Donald, and Justin Trudeau (who apparently throws elbows at female MPs now) get in a cage and duke it out. Let that aggression loose. Put it on pay-per-view. Let's make politics a blood sport and use those pay-per-views to bring down the debt.

EarlWelsh

Trump himself spoke of personally carrying out violence toward protesters. He did this several times. You can't compare them.

PJ_Soul

jeffbr said:

It seemed like Trump took shit for the violence committed by his supporters. I don't think it is unreasonable to hold Sanders to the same standard, calling for him to control his people. Feel the Bern seems to be taking on new meaning these days.

I'd like to see Bernie, Donald, and Justin Trudeau (who apparently throws elbows at female MPs now) get in a cage and duke it out. Let that aggression loose. Put it on pay-per-view. Let's make politics a blood sport and use those pay-per-views to bring down the debt.

Apples and oranges. Trump incited his supporters to violence and said he'd pay for their legal defense. I mean, wtf. That makes Trump actually RESPONSIBLE (at least in part) for the violence. The same absolutely cannot be said of Bernie.

mrussel1

Trump is more responsible, there's no doubt. But Bernie cannot wink at his protesters and say they are just doing it because his office was vandalized or whatever. That's implied in his message.

jeffbr

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

It seemed like Trump took shit for the violence committed by his supporters. I don't think it is unreasonable to hold Sanders to the same standard, calling for him to control his people. Feel the Bern seems to be taking on new meaning these days.

I'd like to see Bernie, Donald, and Justin Trudeau (who apparently throws elbows at female MPs now) get in a cage and duke it out. Let that aggression loose. Put it on pay-per-view. Let's make politics a blood sport and use those pay-per-views to bring down the debt.

Apples and oranges. Trump incited his supporters to violence and said he'd pay for their legal defense. I mean, wtf. That makes Trump actually RESPONSIBLE (at least in part) for the violence. The same absolutely cannot be said of Bernie.

I agree with you that my post had some apples and oranges going on, but I still think Sanders hasn't done enough to corral his people. Trump definitely did and does incite his people. Sanders just ignores and/or attempts to justify the actions of his people, but I agree that he doesn't typically incite them. Either way, I still think he's complicit and has a responsibility to demonstrate a little leadership.

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

Trump is more responsible, there's no doubt. But Bernie cannot wink at his protesters and say they are just doing it because his office was vandalized or whatever. That's implied in his message.

I didn't actually get that from his statement. I guess I can see how you are reading that from it, but I have no reason to think that Bernie actually implied that on purpose.

EarlWelsh

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

It seemed like Trump took shit for the violence committed by his supporters. I don't think it is unreasonable to hold Sanders to the same standard, calling for him to control his people. Feel the Bern seems to be taking on new meaning these days.

I'd like to see Bernie, Donald, and Justin Trudeau (who apparently throws elbows at female MPs now) get in a cage and duke it out. Let that aggression loose. Put it on pay-per-view. Let's make politics a blood sport and use those pay-per-views to bring down the debt.

Apples and oranges. Trump incited his supporters to violence and said he'd pay for their legal defense. I mean, wtf. That makes Trump actually RESPONSIBLE (at least in part) for the violence. The same absolutely cannot be said of Bernie.

I agree with you that my post had some apples and oranges going on, but I still think Sanders hasn't done enough to corral his people. Trump definitely did and does incite his people. Sanders just ignores and/or attempts to justify the actions of his people, but I agree that he doesn't typically incite them. Either way, I still think he's complicit and has a responsibility to demonstrate a little leadership.

Simply not true. He has always condemned violence.

PJ_Soul

EarlWelsh said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

It seemed like Trump took shit for the violence committed by his supporters. I don't think it is unreasonable to hold Sanders to the same standard, calling for him to control his people. Feel the Bern seems to be taking on new meaning these days.

I'd like to see Bernie, Donald, and Justin Trudeau (who apparently throws elbows at female MPs now) get in a cage and duke it out. Let that aggression loose. Put it on pay-per-view. Let's make politics a blood sport and use those pay-per-views to bring down the debt.

Apples and oranges. Trump incited his supporters to violence and said he'd pay for their legal defense. I mean, wtf. That makes Trump actually RESPONSIBLE (at least in part) for the violence. The same absolutely cannot be said of Bernie.

I agree with you that my post had some apples and oranges going on, but I still think Sanders hasn't done enough to corral his people. Trump definitely did and does incite his people. Sanders just ignores and/or attempts to justify the actions of his people, but I agree that he doesn't typically incite them. Either way, I still think he's complicit and has a responsibility to demonstrate a little leadership.

Simply not true. He has always condemned violence.

Agreed.

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

Trump is more responsible, there's no doubt. But Bernie cannot wink at his protesters and say they are just doing it because his office was vandalized or whatever. That's implied in his message.

I didn't actually get that from his statement. I guess I can see how you are reading that from it, but I have no reason to think that Bernie actually implied that on purpose.

Fair enough. If that wasn't the intent, I don't know why they decided to include the " 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". It just feels like a justification.

Doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things I suppose. The actual race is still where it was a week ago. I'm just not sure why they are fighting for the small number of delegates that are not pledged, in a just a few states. I don't get the strategy.

jeffbr

EarlWelsh said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

It seemed like Trump took shit for the violence committed by his supporters. I don't think it is unreasonable to hold Sanders to the same standard, calling for him to control his people. Feel the Bern seems to be taking on new meaning these days.

I'd like to see Bernie, Donald, and Justin Trudeau (who apparently throws elbows at female MPs now) get in a cage and duke it out. Let that aggression loose. Put it on pay-per-view. Let's make politics a blood sport and use those pay-per-views to bring down the debt.

Apples and oranges. Trump incited his supporters to violence and said he'd pay for their legal defense. I mean, wtf. That makes Trump actually RESPONSIBLE (at least in part) for the violence. The same absolutely cannot be said of Bernie.

I agree with you that my post had some apples and oranges going on, but I still think Sanders hasn't done enough to corral his people. Trump definitely did and does incite his people. Sanders just ignores and/or attempts to justify the actions of his people, but I agree that he doesn't typically incite them. Either way, I still think he's complicit and has a responsibility to demonstrate a little leadership.

Simply not true. He has always condemned violence.

Conditionally. He doesn't like it, BUT BUT BUT.

Free

You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.

But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!

PJ_Soul

Free said:

You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.

But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!

I totally agree with you on this. As usual, Americans are being distracted from what really matters.

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.

But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!

I totally agree with you on this. As usual, Americans are being distracted from what really matters.

Free said:

You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.

But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!

Negative. You are misunderstanding the words corrupt and suppression. Were you suppressed from voting in the general election? Do you think your vote wasn't tallied? Were you strong armed into who to vote for? Were you told that if you don't vote for X that you wouldn't have a job?

You mistakenly believe that party rules are somehow governed by the Constitution or they are part of your inalienable rights. They are not. They are created by the party, ratified by the party, according to the party rules. There was no miscarriage of justice in Nevada. There was no law to miscarry. BrianLux said what happened was 'akin to criminal'. Not even close. There were only convention rules, created by the party, for the party.

PJ_Soul

I thought Free was talking more generally than that.... a LOT of things fall under "a huge suppression of democratic rights". The ridiculous election process and voting reforms are just two of many problems.

EarlWelsh

jeffbr said:

EarlWelsh said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

It seemed like Trump took shit for the violence committed by his supporters. I don't think it is unreasonable to hold Sanders to the same standard, calling for him to control his people. Feel the Bern seems to be taking on new meaning these days.

I'd like to see Bernie, Donald, and Justin Trudeau (who apparently throws elbows at female MPs now) get in a cage and duke it out. Let that aggression loose. Put it on pay-per-view. Let's make politics a blood sport and use those pay-per-views to bring down the debt.

Apples and oranges. Trump incited his supporters to violence and said he'd pay for their legal defense. I mean, wtf. That makes Trump actually RESPONSIBLE (at least in part) for the violence. The same absolutely cannot be said of Bernie.

I agree with you that my post had some apples and oranges going on, but I still think Sanders hasn't done enough to corral his people. Trump definitely did and does incite his people. Sanders just ignores and/or attempts to justify the actions of his people, but I agree that he doesn't typically incite them. Either way, I still think he's complicit and has a responsibility to demonstrate a little leadership.

Simply not true. He has always condemned violence.

Conditionally. He doesn't like it, BUT BUT BUT.

Because it's almost always an unfortunate reaction to some other fucking bullshit that, nonetheless, needs to be addressed.

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

I thought Free was talking more generally than that.... a LOT of things fall under "a huge suppression of democratic rights". The ridiculous election process and voting reforms are just two of many problems.

Secretaries of State in a few states (they generally control the election process) have already declared that they would make reforms and improvements to increase ballot access, purge rolls earlier, etc. Reforms are necessary. But there's a big leap from ineffective or incompetent all the way to suppression and corrupt. Some people need to gain some perspective.

Free

PJ_Soul said:

I thought Free was talking more generally than that.... a LOT of things fall under "a huge suppression of democratic rights". The ridiculous election process and voting reforms are just two of many problems.

PJ_Soul said:

I thought Free was talking more generally than that.... a LOT of things fall under "a huge suppression of democratic rights". The ridiculous election process and voting reforms are just two of many problems.

Exactly. I find it psychologically interesting that people in other countries can see our problems more clearly than the people who reside in our country. Being distracted by details is exactly our problem.