Channeling Joe, now, apparently - that Dem Party koolaid is powerful stuff. Making up what, exactly: Clinton's political history? That you and the rest of the Clinton wagon are blaming Sanders for the current state and trend of the masterfully competent Clinton's campaign - (which is going pretty much as predicted, btw)? I think all that stuff is kind of, you know, fact. And if it doesn't worry the hayriders, I guess that's not too surprising - but it doesn't bode well. The people's choice? You may not have been paying attention, but the rest of us have been. And if this garbage scene actually does end up in a Trump presidency, the DNC and the wagonload will have had months of fair warning. Clinton's nomination is what they call in tennis an unforced error. There's no good reason for it. It certainly isn't Sanders's doing.
Guccifer 2.0 = Russian government. Again, there is nothing, absolutely nothing here that would form the basis for a fraud lawsuit even if all of the plaintiffs assertions were true. And then there is the problem with the veracity of the allegations, and that's a very big problem for the plaintiffs. As I said before, I expect it will be summarily thrown out of court. It's difficult to see how Bernie's supporters were injured. Bernie's supporters aren't entitled to get everything they want for the Democratic Party, and they have no evidence to back up their assertions. Nor to these Bernie supporters seem to understand that they are not Bernie. They seem to think that they are Bernie Sanders and they have the same rights and privileges as Bernie Sanders. If anyone has been damaged, assuming all the allegations were true which they obviously aren't, it's Bernie, not his devotees. When Bernie's devotees gave money to Bernie, they didn't purchase ownership rights. They had no reason to expect any return other than Bernie's gratitude. This is a stupid case. Instead of trying to get Trump elected as they are, they should perhaps try to get a life...just saying. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Just because your candidate lost the election, it doesn't mean you were defrauded.
The truth is powerful stuff, that's why you are always trying to replace it with made up shit. Who exactly is blaming Sanders? Are you saying Clinton supporters are blaming Bernie for Clinton's 7 point lead in the polling? Are you saying you predicted Clinton's 7 point lead in the polling? If you are, you are lying. Where are your "facts"? You never have them. You are well known for making shit up time and time again and on many issues. I think the real and more important question here is have you been paying attention? Did you not notice Clinton's consistent lead in the polling? Is it? Just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean it's a "forced error". What is aggravating is how a minority subgroup of Bernie's devotees are now doing things, like this lawsuit, to unfairly smear the Democratic Party and benefit Republicans. As you should know, Bernie has said repeatedly he will do anything to prevent a Trump presidency. So it's more than a little hypocritical for some of Bernie's supporters take actions which hurt Democrats and benefit Trump, like this lawsuit. The unfortunate fact for you is that Democrats are ahead despite Bernie's losses and the shenanigans of his devotees. Clinton is leading Trump in the polling. So it's more than a little dishonest for you to state Clinton is losing when in fact she is winning. No one is blaming Bernie for anything other than what he has done. He has refused to concede when he has lost the popular vote and has no chance of winning. He has failed to rebuke his devotees for actions which clearly hurt the Democratic Party and favor Republicans. Bernie's devotees need to stop with the temper tantrums and grow up.
Historically, the Democratic Party gets waxed if it rolls hard left; Party leaders are reluctant to risk such outcomes again. That's the part Sanders backers are ignoring. I don't know how many people around here remember the phrase Blue Dog, but here's a notion: If Democrats can't win in a particular area because certain parts of the platform are too liberal, the Party will take what votes it can get in Congress. Blue Dog Democrats hold all of fourteen seats in the House of Representatives, but Democrats still need them. They are a Democratic bloc that considers itself fundamentally "centrist" while embracing fiscal and social conservatism. If they run on the Sanders platform, they'll all lose; that would be fourteen more seats Democrats need to recover. And that's the thing; nobody, not even the Sanders supporters, can explain how things should have been. Still: Those fourteen Blue Dogs in Congress? They're all corrupt. And the voters who back them. Just like voters who have stood in with the Democratic Party for decades. Corrupt. The lot of them. The Sanders movement says so. Because apparently all Democrats ever had to do was throw down exactly the kind of liberal platform that historically gets them waxed on election day and the movement would have just magically appeared. When treated that way, people aren't anxious to put up with it again. That Bernie Sanders brought a right-wing stereotype of leftism to the Democratic contest did nothing to reinforce the confidence of large-tent Democrats who still believe, according to the numbers they see, that the Party still requires the kind of coalitions that make it harder to pass genuinely liberal legislation. And here's a weird thing about leadership; along the way, some Sanders supporters eventually picked up the line trying to drive a wedge between President Obama and the LGBTQ+ community. The thing is that those Sanders supporters probably should have remembered what we said to Republicans who tried that line before. Because we recognized Obama's language in 2008. The funny thing is that for all the talk of dog whistles and codespeak, Sen. Obama's difficult answer in the 2008 campaign was, in fact, exactly the right thing to say. And the later bit about evolving perspective. Because while we were all snarling over Amendment XIV and seething about Article IV, apparently none of us were watching Amendment X. Because when a federal court handed down an Amendment X decision in favor of marriage equality, a lot of us were stunned at the plot twist, and it was the last piece of the puzzle the constitutional law scholar in the White House needed. And then he rolled. Publicly, quietly, and with spectacular effect. Republicans threw a tantrum like we hadn't yet seen; the Supreme Court managed to conduct itseslf such as to raise questions about how Congressional Republicans achieved standing. The president, on some level, knew what he was doing. According to his duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, President Obama now had exactly what he needed to not only abandon DoMA, but openly fight to defeat it. In the end, we should note that even red-state Democrats will now stand for marriage equality, transgender rights, and queer equality in general. They needed a pathway. When you're facing an electorate that sees liberal conspiracies in everything they don't like, being able to say you're backing marriage equality because it is your job, according to the Constitution, to do so really, really helps. It doesn't win the fanatics, but it plays well in the swing and crossover blocs where people who generally don't like to be seen as bigoted will still vote for bigots owing to other concerns. In May I happened to note↗, in a gay rights discussion, a period before the Lawrence (and, it should be more accurately noted, some period after), and certain middle-bloc voters in the Gay Fray: These were neighbors who ostensibly conceded gay rights, but prescribed that society needed to "slow down" because the transformation was "happening too fast" and that "made people uncomfortable". In other words: Sure, equal rights, but that scares supremacists, so we need you to wait until they're comfortable. The line never really made sense, but that's the thing. Barack Obama provided these people, too, a transitional course. It's not what we normally think of when we talk about presidential leadership, but it seems Obama was, regardless of his posturing, a step at least ahead of me and miles ahead of where we thought he was. It's one of my favorite bits about American racism: The black guy knew exactly what he was doing, and this pisses off white supremacists like nothing else. But in terms of more realistic considerations, who really thought we were winning DoMA repeal through congressional elections and legislation? It's easy enough to believe a black American Christian needed time to evolve and figure out gay rights and marriage equality. And it's easy enough to witness the show Barack Obama put on. And it's rather quite easy for those paying attention to be at least a little amaazed at the extraordinary prowess by which he demonstrated the transformation, and, thereby, gave Democrats and voters all over the country exactly what they needed, even in traditional Blue Dog territory, to dig in and fight. That manner of leadership is something Bernie Sanders lacks, which in turn means whatever it means in general. In the practical terms of our present consideration, the lack of a meaningful platform expression really hurts. Comparatively: When the message was, simply, "Go out and fight for gay rights", most of these politicians had no idea how to do that. The mean age of the 102nd Congress, for instance, when Bill Clinton was sworn in, was over fifty-seven years old, putting the average birth of a member of that Congress in 1935. These were overwhelmingly white, male, heterosexual Christians. And they were largely capitalistic, as most Americans are. If votes are currency, their job is to get elected. Telling Congress to stand for gay rights? It only took us about eighteen years after the '92 threshold election to win our social revolution, and there are two points to consider about that number. First is that eighteen years is how long it took to (A) win in the courts and (B) find a way for politicians to safely get on board; and then there is the fact that eighteen years is actually really, really fast. If we want to track ballot measures, this part has been going on for about forty-two years. And once someone could show them how to do it, Democrats started rolling. Bernie Sanders wants to bring us this, that, and the other? Okay, sounds nice, but how are we going to do it? Build a movement? What, are they going to think up the policy for him? And is it even possible to make this plank work? What's that? He hasn't studied the legal implications? The practical problem is that we might as well be telling the 102nd to go out and support gay rights. Having nary a clue about one's own platform is not leadership; it's a conservative stereotype of the left that many have worked strenuously against for years. And that's the first way the damage hits. Bernie Sanders raised the movement higher than I've witnessed in my lifetime, but in the end the lack of a functional platform is not only disappointing, but one of the things Democrats fear of their left wing. Policy incoherence, historically speaking, is a death knell for Democrats, though it's hard to measure that danger in times when the market seems to demand a measure of incoherence. But the next socialist or other leftist who runs for president is going to have to answer for the Bernie Sanders debacle. (Every next-gen common identity candidate has to answer for the sins and failures of their predecessors.) The next one up will have to assure Party officials and mainline Democratic voters alike that this isn't going to be another Bernie Sanders debacle. And voters in general are going to remember the angry, unreasonable politician and his rabidly illogical movement. American leftism has never really been welcome in these United States; it is unclear when, if ever, our apparently silent, suffering majority emerged into existence. What silent, suffering majority? Well, that's the second problem. Let's try an abortion analogy: Imagine I somehow become president. And I get a Democratic Congress. At some point, Congress sends me an abortion rights bill. Am I getting second trimester out of this? Improved access for D&X? Federal contribution to anti-terror security needs? Let's be ambitious: How about health insurance coverage for termination services? Would I sign it? Why wouldn't I? Does it meet my personal standard for how the law should work? Absolutely not. Should I veto the bill because it isn't unrestricted access with health insurance coverage? If I sign the bill, am I betraying women? Am I corrupt for selling out? Shall we ask the women? In the Sanders context, I am corrupt. I sold out. I took something less than everything I ever wanted. Congressional Democrats threw down, delivered me a bill with everything we could get, and I signed it, but because it isn't everything I ever wanted, I am corrupt. And that's the second big hit. Just how often do Democrats really want to give space to people who spend their whole time denigrating Democrats? Or who knows, maybe the next one can work around the problem by actually having a platform.
Bernie knows what Hillary did with her private server; influence peddling and exposing national secrets, was unlawful. He is remaining in the running because the Democrats will need a new person if justice is served, with the most logical replacement the person who was chosen second by the people; Bernie. If Hillary is able to cheat justice, through political tricks, threats, brides and other forms of corruption, this will show how corrupt the rigged system is, and will validate what Bernie has been saying all along. Bernie will get a second wind no matter what happens. His second wind and may well split the Democratic vote, if Hillary escapes justice, between those who accept corruption, and those who have a sense of right, wrong and fair. If Hillary accepts her fate, but is pardoned by Obama, after the election, Bernie might be able to unite the party on a positive note.
Harem Scare 'Em Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ah! the Golden Age! It makes for a nice faery tale, Wellwisher― ―and is there an actual harem involved, or is it one bride per groom? Remember that while I will say it explicitly, most people on some level tacitly recognize the con job of trying to pretend a longstanding problem is new. It's easy enough to suggest the wise are cynical about integrity in politics, but that's also general enough to be useless. The truth of the matter is that most people are more subtle than either you or those elements of the Sanders movement who share your sentiments are able to acknowledge. People are generally disappointed with the state of things, and experience teaches many to recognize that Throw the Bums Out years have strong potential to only make things worse―e.g., 1990, 1994, 2010―so the question comes down to that whiff of a con job. Or, as I tend to put it: If it is time to address this problem, let us address it, but do not pretend that it is somehow new. If we start from a dishonest pretense, we cannot achieve an honest result, and thus we start 'round the ouroboros again.
This may be hard for the Hillary crowd to fathom, but a lot of Sanders's supporters are not personally identified with Sanders, sharing of all his opinions, or obedient to his commands. When we chose to support Sanders's candidacy during this campaign we did not throw in the towel on reason and history, start calling him the most capable and competent Presidential nominee America has had available in modern times and then apparently believing what we had typed, etc. Whether or not he endorses Clinton is irrelevant to my vote or support for Clinton, for example - but whether or not the Clinton crowd (aka the Democratic Party establishment and core voter) comes around on some of these more serious issues, develops some visible awareness of what they and their candidate have been doing the past few decades, and avoids a couple of the major blunders currently available to them they haven't made yet, while it will not affect my rock solid anti-Trump vote, would influence the quality of the support I can lend. That is if I wish to avoid public hypocrisy, remain in the land of rhetorical alignment with reality and principle, while attempting to win over the undecided, etc. After all, I could very easily be wrong about the consequences of a Trump Presidency, compared with a Clinton one. That's the future, and predicting the future is difficult for me. I would much prefer - and have much more hope for in November - a Dem candidate who looks less like John Kerry than Clinton currently does. The "yes he's a compromising, corrupt, lame-ass, oddly inept douchebag who shares few of your principles and mine, but you cannot vote for W and claim dignity as an American adult" argument, while solid and fact based, lacked a certain appeal. So: Sanders is limited in his personal influence over people like me, and if there are more than a few of us it is possible that continuing to pressure the Democratic Party to clean up its rhetoric and actions, to wake up, by any means necessary, will benefit Clinton more in November than a stereotype-reinforcing abandonment of principle and expedient acquiescence to current DNC allegiances, policies, strategies, and tactics. So what do you think: are there more than a few of us?
So only the ones who are suing the DNC are personally identified with Bernie? So you are the independent Bernie supporter are you? You are just going to do the things Trump wants you do, things which benefit Trump, but you are not going to vote for him. Well, that makes sense. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Every candidate makes blunders. If you keep expecting a saint you will continue to be sorely disappointed. Not even Bernie is a saint. Well when people who you say you oppose are cheering you on, you might want to reconsider. The polls say you represent about 15% of Bernie's supporters. You represent a minority of a minority.
I have no idea whether they are, even. As of the current situation I'm going to do whatever I can to strengthen Clinton's candidacy. As I posted, above. No such poll exists.
You mean none you want to recognize: "However, only 15 percent said they’d vote for Trump. That leaves 30 percent of Sanders voters who say they are undecided, would vote for a third-party candidate or would sit out the election." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-hidden-importance-of-the-bernie-sanders-voter/
I invariably hang up on telephone political pollsters, and send email poll requests to the spam bin. The election is still 4 months away. Deciding now seems silly. Would you decide to turn sharply to the left in precisely 2,345.66 miles at the start of a long journey?
Four months is not that far off, in a few weeks the Republican Party will host its convention. This race has been going on now for about a year. This isn't the UK, this is the US where elections are long and drawn out. I never get polled. So what? Trump liked the polls when he was ahead in them. He liked to boast about his poll numbers, but now that he is lagging in the polls, not so much. During the Republican primaries the polling was correct, Trump led and Trump won the primaries. Now Trump is losing in the polling, and as with Romney before him, suddenly the polling is biased. It's funny how that works.
The one you quoted has no category corresponding to me, or those like me. It's a horserace poll. So what are you talking about? Lessee: You said only 15% of Sanders's supporters - which you characterized as a minority of the entire population, based apparently (hard as this is to believe in adults) on direct extrapolation of the official DNC count of the Democratic primary voters - were "represented" by my opinions regarding Clinton, the DNC, and the Koolaid Campaign, posted here. The only "15%" category in that otherwise unrelated poll you quoted was the one of overt Sanders supporters who said they would vote for Trump. So apparently you think I, and by extension the many others who have been warning you about this candidate of yours, and trying to steer the Democratic Party away from this familiar bog, and banging on about the threat of Trump and the rest of the Republican "faction that cannot be named" for like a year now, somehow "represent" the percentage of overt Bernie supporters who say they would vote for Trump. This world of delusion inhabited by the Clinton crowd, the mental hamstringing associated with support of Clinton, as revealed here in this inability of people with at least ordinary intelligence and literacy and so forth to see, hear, read, and comprehend what's in front of them, is a major hazard for November.
Let's repeat: no poll says I represent 15% of the Sanders supporters. If there are a lot of people I do more or less exemplify, then Sanders is doing the best thing for Clinton by staying in the race and trying to get as much leverage as possible for the Convention. So that's settled, eh? Meanwhile, I'll feel better in November if Trump has managed to implode far enough so not even the Clinton Koolaid crowd can get him elected. Right now, the odds are not nearly high enough on that for comfort - because you guys are lost in the woods, and Trump is alert. If he comes up with a pithy, funny, and accurate term for Clinton's core support, it may stick. Elections can pivot on such matters.
