Bernie Sanders

brianlux said:

tonifig8 said:

mrussel1 said:

I'm saying nothing material happened that affected the outcome in any state.

- Closed primaries is known information
- Registration deadlines are posted
- My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you.
- Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit.
- Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out?
- Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.

Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.

so Harry R. Is full of shit, right?

Sanders did as he has always done, he sacrificed himself for the people. He could have remained and ran as an independent - since technically he is an independent, guaranteeing Clintons loss.

Now your response to some of the points are lacking details in reality and priciples your party stands on. The emails are proof- they proved some tactics that were used- and those tactics were in favor of Clinton, even though DWS said it was going to be a fair process. She lost her position as a result and will probably lose her race.

I changed party affiliation before the deadline in CA, and my name wasn't on the official list. I had to spend hours reaching out to govt/state employees to figure shit out. End of the day my shit was tossed in the trash. Now, is that my fault? Do I have the resources to lawyer up and figure out why my one ballot was tossed? There are many real life examples of this- the sanders camp was sending out emails changing the details because the rules kept changing on them. They were running against Clinton and the whole establishment - DWS didn't lose her job because she was the head of the party, she lost it because she fucked with the process. Using little tactics that resulted favorably for Clinton. You're in denial, just look at the polls- look at her trustworthiness rating. It's the American people speaking their minds- or are you the only one who's right here?

I think there was 48% delegates at the convention- they were enough to make their voices heard every single day at the convention- imagine if these tactics weren't used- the outcome could have been different. It wasn't fair and Harry R even said it.

All those small tactics were enough to change the course. Keep telling yourself it was a fair process when she loses don't blame the Bernie bros blame her, yourself, and the establishment.

Lastly, When more leaks drop make sure you come here to post.

I don't think you will get anyone to understand that it wasn't a fair process who doesn't already understand that. It's called denial.

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

tonifig8 said:

mrussel1 said:

I'm saying nothing material happened that affected the outcome in any state.

- Closed primaries is known information
- Registration deadlines are posted
- My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you.
- Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit.
- Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out?
- Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.

Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.

so Harry R. Is full of shit, right?

Sanders did as he has always done, he sacrificed himself for the people. He could have remained and ran as an independent - since technically he is an independent, guaranteeing Clintons loss.

Now your response to some of the points are lacking details in reality and priciples your party stands on. The emails are proof- they proved some tactics that were used- and those tactics were in favor of Clinton, even though DWS said it was going to be a fair process. She lost her position as a result and will probably lose her race.

I changed party affiliation before the deadline in CA, and my name wasn't on the official list. I had to spend hours reaching out to govt/state employees to figure shit out. End of the day my shit was tossed in the trash. Now, is that my fault? Do I have the resources to lawyer up and figure out why my one ballot was tossed? There are many real life examples of this- the sanders camp was sending out emails changing the details because the rules kept changing on them. They were running against Clinton and the whole establishment - DWS didn't lose her job because she was the head of the party, she lost it because she fucked with the process. Using little tactics that resulted favorably for Clinton. You're in denial, just look at the polls- look at her trustworthiness rating. It's the American people speaking their minds- or are you the only one who's right here?

I think there was 48% delegates at the convention- they were enough to make their voices heard every single day at the convention- imagine if these tactics weren't used- the outcome could have been different. It wasn't fair and Harry R even said it.

All those small tactics were enough to change the course. Keep telling yourself it was a fair process when she loses don't blame the Bernie bros blame her, yourself, and the establishment.

Lastly, When more leaks drop make sure you come here to post.

I don't think you will get anyone to understand that it wasn't a fair process who doesn't already understand that. It's called denial.

No, it's called pragmatic reasoning. It's not a zero sum game. I'm not arguing that the DNC was impartial. I'm arguing that any thumb on the sales was minor at best and maybe dumb (like the suggestions in the email). I won't blast HRC, Robbie Mook or her campaign for what a couple of staffers at the DNC are emailing to each other. Sorry about that. I'm sure you've all written some jacked up things in emails that you prefer never be public.

And BTW - maybe I'm the fucking establishment? Maybe I'm glad Bernie lost because I disagree with several points in his agenda. And maybe HRC wins and we continue down the path of having a country that's better than it was 10 years ago, 50 years ago and 150 years ago. I'd be cool with all that.

Oh, to have such optimistic hope. Who wouldn't be cool with that? I don't see it.

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

tonifig8 said:

mrussel1 said:

I'm saying nothing material happened that affected the outcome in any state.

- Closed primaries is known information
- Registration deadlines are posted
- My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you.
- Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit.
- Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out?
- Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.

Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.

so Harry R. Is full of shit, right?

Sanders did as he has always done, he sacrificed himself for the people. He could have remained and ran as an independent - since technically he is an independent, guaranteeing Clintons loss.

Now your response to some of the points are lacking details in reality and priciples your party stands on. The emails are proof- they proved some tactics that were used- and those tactics were in favor of Clinton, even though DWS said it was going to be a fair process. She lost her position as a result and will probably lose her race.

I changed party affiliation before the deadline in CA, and my name wasn't on the official list. I had to spend hours reaching out to govt/state employees to figure shit out. End of the day my shit was tossed in the trash. Now, is that my fault? Do I have the resources to lawyer up and figure out why my one ballot was tossed? There are many real life examples of this- the sanders camp was sending out emails changing the details because the rules kept changing on them. They were running against Clinton and the whole establishment - DWS didn't lose her job because she was the head of the party, she lost it because she fucked with the process. Using little tactics that resulted favorably for Clinton. You're in denial, just look at the polls- look at her trustworthiness rating. It's the American people speaking their minds- or are you the only one who's right here?

I think there was 48% delegates at the convention- they were enough to make their voices heard every single day at the convention- imagine if these tactics weren't used- the outcome could have been different. It wasn't fair and Harry R even said it.

All those small tactics were enough to change the course. Keep telling yourself it was a fair process when she loses don't blame the Bernie bros blame her, yourself, and the establishment.

Lastly, When more leaks drop make sure you come here to post.

I don't think you will get anyone to understand that it wasn't a fair process who doesn't already understand that. It's called denial.

No, it's called pragmatic reasoning. It's not a zero sum game. I'm not arguing that the DNC was impartial. I'm arguing that any thumb on the sales was minor at best and maybe dumb (like the suggestions in the email). I won't blast HRC, Robbie Mook or her campaign for what a couple of staffers at the DNC are emailing to each other. Sorry about that. I'm sure you've all written some jacked up things in emails that you prefer never be public.

And BTW - maybe I'm the fucking establishment? Maybe I'm glad Bernie lost because I disagree with several points in his agenda. And maybe HRC wins and we continue down the path of having a country that's better than it was 10 years ago, 50 years ago and 150 years ago. I'd be cool with all that.

Oh, to have such optimistic hope. Who wouldn't be cool with that? I don't see it.

Morning in America, Brian. I am actually optimistic.

What about my second question above?

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

tonifig8 said:

mrussel1 said:

I'm saying nothing material happened that affected the outcome in any state.

- Closed primaries is known information
- Registration deadlines are posted
- My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you.
- Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit.
- Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out?
- Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.

Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.

so Harry R. Is full of shit, right?

Sanders did as he has always done, he sacrificed himself for the people. He could have remained and ran as an independent - since technically he is an independent, guaranteeing Clintons loss.

Now your response to some of the points are lacking details in reality and priciples your party stands on. The emails are proof- they proved some tactics that were used- and those tactics were in favor of Clinton, even though DWS said it was going to be a fair process. She lost her position as a result and will probably lose her race.

I changed party affiliation before the deadline in CA, and my name wasn't on the official list. I had to spend hours reaching out to govt/state employees to figure shit out. End of the day my shit was tossed in the trash. Now, is that my fault? Do I have the resources to lawyer up and figure out why my one ballot was tossed? There are many real life examples of this- the sanders camp was sending out emails changing the details because the rules kept changing on them. They were running against Clinton and the whole establishment - DWS didn't lose her job because she was the head of the party, she lost it because she fucked with the process. Using little tactics that resulted favorably for Clinton. You're in denial, just look at the polls- look at her trustworthiness rating. It's the American people speaking their minds- or are you the only one who's right here?

I think there was 48% delegates at the convention- they were enough to make their voices heard every single day at the convention- imagine if these tactics weren't used- the outcome could have been different. It wasn't fair and Harry R even said it.

All those small tactics were enough to change the course. Keep telling yourself it was a fair process when she loses don't blame the Bernie bros blame her, yourself, and the establishment.

Lastly, When more leaks drop make sure you come here to post.

I don't think you will get anyone to understand that it wasn't a fair process who doesn't already understand that. It's called denial.

No, it's called pragmatic reasoning. It's not a zero sum game. I'm not arguing that the DNC was impartial. I'm arguing that any thumb on the sales was minor at best and maybe dumb (like the suggestions in the email). I won't blast HRC, Robbie Mook or her campaign for what a couple of staffers at the DNC are emailing to each other. Sorry about that. I'm sure you've all written some jacked up things in emails that you prefer never be public.

And BTW - maybe I'm the fucking establishment? Maybe I'm glad Bernie lost because I disagree with several points in his agenda. And maybe HRC wins and we continue down the path of having a country that's better than it was 10 years ago, 50 years ago and 150 years ago. I'd be cool with all that.

Oh, to have such optimistic hope. Who wouldn't be cool with that? I don't see it.

Morning in America, Brian. I am actually optimistic.

What about my second question above?

I responded before your edit.

I think HRC has been the victim of 25 years of right wing conspiracy mongering and negative spin. I have no worries about her capacity to be a President and very confident that she will choose an exceptional staff and SCOTUS judges.

And what about what I said about most people being HUGELY disappointed in the choices this time around. Confidence at an all time low. You see that as moving forward? I don't get it.

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

tonifig8 said:

mrussel1 said:

I'm saying nothing material happened that affected the outcome in any state.

- Closed primaries is known information
- Registration deadlines are posted
- My point about minorities is that HRC carried more minorities than Bernie. Ergo, if election issues occur at a minority heavy polling place, then mathematically it is more likely to affect HRC. The statement has nothing to do with you.
- Bill showed up at two events in MA. Could that have influenced certain individuals? Not sure. Would it influence you? He probably broke a state law there, but throw Bernie 2 extra delegates for that and it still is a nit.
- Which emails prove something that actually happened? They appeared to be stupid musings of people. Was he attacked in WV and KY for being an atheist? I don't recall that angle. This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Which 'tactics' discussed played out?
- Uneducated young people is the fault of uneducated young people. It's not like there are no resources available. They don't have to go to the library to figure out what to do like I had to do when I turned 18. Tough shit on that one.

Sorry. End of the day, your candidate lost. And even he knows it.

so Harry R. Is full of shit, right?

Sanders did as he has always done, he sacrificed himself for the people. He could have remained and ran as an independent - since technically he is an independent, guaranteeing Clintons loss.

Now your response to some of the points are lacking details in reality and priciples your party stands on. The emails are proof- they proved some tactics that were used- and those tactics were in favor of Clinton, even though DWS said it was going to be a fair process. She lost her position as a result and will probably lose her race.

I changed party affiliation before the deadline in CA, and my name wasn't on the official list. I had to spend hours reaching out to govt/state employees to figure shit out. End of the day my shit was tossed in the trash. Now, is that my fault? Do I have the resources to lawyer up and figure out why my one ballot was tossed? There are many real life examples of this- the sanders camp was sending out emails changing the details because the rules kept changing on them. They were running against Clinton and the whole establishment - DWS didn't lose her job because she was the head of the party, she lost it because she fucked with the process. Using little tactics that resulted favorably for Clinton. You're in denial, just look at the polls- look at her trustworthiness rating. It's the American people speaking their minds- or are you the only one who's right here?

I think there was 48% delegates at the convention- they were enough to make their voices heard every single day at the convention- imagine if these tactics weren't used- the outcome could have been different. It wasn't fair and Harry R even said it.

All those small tactics were enough to change the course. Keep telling yourself it was a fair process when she loses don't blame the Bernie bros blame her, yourself, and the establishment.

Lastly, When more leaks drop make sure you come here to post.

I don't think you will get anyone to understand that it wasn't a fair process who doesn't already understand that. It's called denial.

No, it's called pragmatic reasoning. It's not a zero sum game. I'm not arguing that the DNC was impartial. I'm arguing that any thumb on the sales was minor at best and maybe dumb (like the suggestions in the email). I won't blast HRC, Robbie Mook or her campaign for what a couple of staffers at the DNC are emailing to each other. Sorry about that. I'm sure you've all written some jacked up things in emails that you prefer never be public.

And BTW - maybe I'm the fucking establishment? Maybe I'm glad Bernie lost because I disagree with several points in his agenda. And maybe HRC wins and we continue down the path of having a country that's better than it was 10 years ago, 50 years ago and 150 years ago. I'd be cool with all that.

Oh, to have such optimistic hope. Who wouldn't be cool with that? I don't see it.

Morning in America, Brian. I am actually optimistic.

What about my second question above?

I responded before your edit.

I think HRC has been the victim of 25 years of right wing conspiracy mongering and negative spin. I have no worries about her capacity to be a President and very confident that she will choose an exceptional staff and SCOTUS judges.

And what about what I said about most people being HUGELY disappointed in the choices this time around. Confidence at an all time low. You see that as moving forward? I don't get it.

Regardless of 'confidence' numbers, I look at unemployment, the stock market, the education levels, healthcare, etc. I focus on the state of the union and results.

Free said:

brianlux said:

All of the tactics that went against Bernie having a chance are either going to be ignored, swept under the carpet, justified or falsified.

...or denied.

pjhawks said:

Free said:

A good read.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/jane-sanders-why-bernie-voters-shouldnt-get-over-it-w431428

Jane Sanders: Why Bernie Voters Shouldn't Get Over It

good read but this line stands out. what i said earlier today.

"He lost this election by more votes than can be explained by the things that people are concerned about — the voting irregularities, or the DNC. If it was closer, we might have done something differently, but there is no choice. It's not like we're stopping because we want to. We're stopping because those are the rules of the game. That's democracy. There is a winner and a loser in every election."