Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[Trakar]

Do you find it acceptable to shut down election rallies of candidates you disagree with?

I consider the non-violent protest of hate speech at political public rallies to be one of the greatest benefits which lie at the root why there is a first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Tony Stark]

X feels they shouldn't tolerate Y. Y feels they shouldn't tolerate Z. It's obviously a path to madness. And it's ineffective.

So black people (and whites who weren't racist) during the Jim Crow era should have just tolerated the racists? Just hope that things would get better? And that would have led to a better outcome than what actually happened (the federal government making the confederate states end Jim Crow laws)?

Gays (and straight people who weren't homophobes) should have just tolerated homophobia? Hope it goes away on its own? And that would have led to a better outcome than what actually happened (the federal government forcing states to end laws against sodomy and same sex marriage and the majority of the public on their side)?

 

[varwoche]

See, now, here's the problem. If you think violence or threats of violence are just fine and dandy to shut down bigoted speech, then it means you don't support free speech, or democracy. You claim Trump is bigoted scum, and therefore we shouldn't tolerate him, but one person's bigoted scum is another person's hero. For example, I think most pro-Palestinian protesters that I see on college campuses are bigoted scum. I think hatred of Israel is almost entirely driven by antisemitism. But I don't think that gives me the right to shut down their speech. For starters, I could be wrong about my beliefs. More importantly though (because I'm not wrong), is that everybody's bigoted to varying degrees, so if you start down the slippery slope of making bigotry intolerable, in the end, nobody will be tolerated.

Well said.

I have special disdain for anyone who tries to shut down speech, even speech that is bigoted, hateful and retarded, e.g. the words of Donald Trump.

 

[Trakar]

Suppose Hillary has the support of 55% of the Democratic voters, and Sanders has the support of 45%. Further suppose that Sanders supporters tend to be more fanatical, and (say) one-third of them would not support Hillary, while Clinton supporters tend to be more pragmatic, and only about 1/10th of them would shun Bernie if he were the nominee.

Then you have a situation where 94.5% of the Democrats would support Bernie in the general, and only 85% would support Hillary. This scenario is not hard to imagine; indeed, I have seen many Sanders supporters who claim they will not vote for Clinton in the general, while I have not yet seen a Clinton supporter who said they'd never vote for Bernie in November.

This is the exact type of argument I have frequently made regarding issues of electability.

 

[Dog Town]

Suppose Hillary has the support of 55% of the Democratic voters, and Sanders has the support of 45%. Further suppose that Sanders supporters tend to be more fanatical, and (say) one-third of them would not support Hillary, while Clinton supporters tend to be more pragmatic, and only about 1/10th of them would shun Bernie if he were the nominee.

Then you have a situation where 94.5% of the Democrats would support Bernie in the general, and only 85% would support Hillary. This scenario is not hard to imagine; indeed, I have seen many Sanders supporters who claim they will not vote for Clinton in the general, while I have not yet seen a Clinton supporter who said they'd never vote for Bernie in November.

Was just about to answer wareyin, but I saw your answer first. All of which would have been, part of my answer. Now for the rest. Add to this the long standing HATRED of HRC by the Right. While at the moment Trump has annoyed some of the Right. Put him against HRC in the general, and they will support him in even larger numbers. Bernie has no such long built in hatred. Hence Bern having a better chance.

That is the difference between primaries, and the general.

Simple really!

 

[varwoche]

So black people (and whites who weren't racist) during the Jim Crow era should have just tolerated the racists? Just hope that things would get better? And that would have led to a better outcome than what actually happened (the federal government making the confederate states end Jim Crow laws)?

Gays (and straight people who weren't homophobes) should have just tolerated homophobia? Hope it goes away on its own? And that would have led to a better outcome than what actually happened (the federal government forcing states to end laws against sodomy and same sex marriage and the majority of the public on their side)?

False dilemma fallacy.

Contemplate the (presumed) fact that you can't show me one single instance where MLK tried to shout down opponents. That might help you see things more clearly.

 

[sunmaster14]

False dilemma fallacy.

Contemplate the (presumed) fact that you can't show me one single instance where MLK tried to shout down opponents. That might help you see things more clearly.

Aside from the fact that MLK preached non-violence, and it turned out to be a successful strategy (as it was for Mahatma Gandhi), his supporters were met by violence from the other side. It is perfectly reasonable to meet violence with violence (and sometimes it's necessary), but it is unreasonable to meet non-violence with violence.

 

[Tony Stark]

See, now, here's the problem. If you think violence or threats of violence are just fine and dandy to shut down bigoted speech, then it means you don't support free speech, or democracy. You claim Trump is bigoted scum, and therefore we shouldn't tolerate him, but one person's bigoted scum is another person's hero. For example, I think most pro-Palestinian protesters that I see on college campuses are bigoted scum. I think hatred of Israel is almost entirely driven by antisemitism. But I don't think that gives me the right to shut down their speech. For starters, I could be wrong about my beliefs. More importantly though (because I'm not wrong), is that everybody's bigoted to varying degrees, so if you start down the slippery slope of making bigotry intolerable, in the end, nobody will be tolerated.

I didn't say anything about violence. Trump protestors should be non violent and almost all have been. Most of the violence has come from Trump supporters. And he encourages it.

Anyway, people have exactly as much right to protest Trump rallies to show how much they don't tolerate that low life piece of trash as he does to have rallies.

 

[Tony Stark]

The Republicans were made up of former Whigs and former members of the Free Soil Democratic Party (a third party), so a third party was instrumental in forming the Republicans. An analogy would be the Democratic Party falling apart and being replaced by a new party created by a coalition of left-wing Democrats (e.g. Bernie Sanders) and the Green Party (e.g. Jill Stein).

In which case that new party would become one of the two major parties that could win a Presidential election.

 

[sunmaster14]

I didn't say anything about violence. Trump protestors should be non violent and almost all have been. Most of the violence has come from Trump supporters. And he encourages it.

Anyway, people have exactly as much right to protest Trump rallies to show how much they don't tolerate that low life piece of trash as he does to have rallies.

They actually do not have the right to disrupt his rallies. Do you agree?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The Highest turnout Hillary has won so far was Louisiana where turnout hit 81.1%. Sanders has won in every other primary contest where turnout has been above 85% as compared to the primaries in 2008.

They need to change the rules so that turnout counts for more than votes.

 

[Tony Stark]

They actually do not have the right to disrupt his rallies. Do you agree?

As long as they are not being violent, they have exactly as much right to protest his rallies as he does to have them. And things weren't out of control anyway. The CPD says they could have handled it. Trump is a liar. He probably canceled it so he could play the victim.

If he doesn't want protesters, maybe he should have thought about that about that before saying all the disgusting **** he has. I hope craploads of protesters show up at all his rallies. If he has one near me, I will be one of them.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Care to more specifically define "everyone" and provide compelling supportive evidence for your assertion?

At least 3 people have stated it on this board, and be honest here, do you really believe that if Sanders is elected that the Republicans are not going to try and link him to Communism? If you do, then you are seriously delusional, the Republicans are going to throw every smear they can at him, and there is no way they are going to leave that one alone considering the depths of fear in the US towards Socialism and Communism. Heck they call Obama a communist with nearly no connection, they will try and crucify Bernie over it and you know it.

 

[Trakar]

At least 3 people have stated it on this board, and be honest here, do you really believe that if Sanders is elected that the Republicans are not going to try and link him to Communism? If you do, then you are seriously delusional, the Republicans are going to throw every smear they can at him, and there is no way they are going to leave that one alone considering the depths of fear in the US towards Socialism and Communism. Heck they call Obama a communist with nearly no connection, they will try and crucify Bernie over it and you know it.

This is precisely the point, the GOP has used the communist smear against all of their opponents for more than the last 50 years. It is no more meaningful, or accurate when applied to Hillary, Obama, or Sanders. Repeating this pattern is expected not something new or significant.

 

[PhantomWolf]

This is precisely the point, the GOP has used the communist smear against all of their opponents for more than the last 50 years. It is no more meaningful, or accurate when applied to Hillary, Obama, or Sanders. Repeating this pattern is expected not something new or significant.

The difference this time is that they have the candidate themselves saying it's true. They have connections and speeches where he is seen to be praising communist dictators. With the others they only had the ability to cast rumours. In Bernie they have a real self confessed socialist to target. That is what is new.

 

[luchog]

Heck they call Obama a communist with nearly no connection

And look how effective that is.

No one cares about the "communist" thing anymore, except a few of the old-guard Republicans and some nutcase fringes. They might as well call him an anarchist or papist for all the good that will do. This isn't the 1950s anymore. It's not even the 1980s. It has no more impact.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You guys are in lala land. Calling Obama a socialist and calling Sanders a Castro loving commie are night and day different.

 

[BenBurch]

How did Lincoln become president, then? At that time, the Republicans were a "third party".

The Whigs collapsed. They were the "Third Party".

 

[BenBurch]

You guys are in lala land. Calling Obama a socialist and calling Sanders a Castro loving commie are night and day different.

And proves that you AND your candidate are Red Baiting. Which in my opinion is a dastardly thing to attempt, and what's more, it isn't working.

 

[Manopolus]

If Clinton will depress voter turnout more than Sanders, why is Clinton getting more votes than Sanders?

eta: Have you seen the polling for the March 15th primaries? Clinton is trouncing Sanders in every state that is voting. I realize that the Michigan polls were way off, but I doubt that the rest will be similarly flawed.

The problem is that half the damn polls still overwhelmingly rely on home phones. Young people don't have home phones. The polls are therefore meaningless. None of the contests coming up are going to be anywhere near what the polls say. The South was a gimme for Clinton. Everywhere else is not.

Seriously, after Michigan you still think the polls have meaning? They don't.

Shall we visit the discussion again AFTER March 15? I expect this comment to be quite plainly reflected in the results... and I said the same damn things about Michigan. It's the same everywhere else. Bernie didn't win The South partially because he never campaigned there -- and the reason he didn't is because he didn't have much support there to begin with. If you think he didn't know what he was doing... umm... well, you're wrong.

It's sort of like what I heard Robert Reich say in a live feed the other day -- political pollsters are there to make astrologers look good. Nothing they're saying has any bearing on the actual election, particularly in a population that is skeptical of the current press. In the past, perhaps reporting about polls created a self-fulfilling prophecy, but they never really had much meaning to begin with. It's about who shows up, which is information that polling can't provide. Less than 10% of registered party members tend to show up even in a good year.

I think people are starting to realize/point out that it's the wrong damn conversation to be having to begin with... so the usual bandwagonning is losing its power to affect the results. In a "political revolution" such as the one that Sanders is trying to create, turnout favors the outsider (same is true of Trump, BTW). I expect that trend to continue in the general, BTW... which means that we're in a lot of trouble if we go with Hillary.