Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[wareyin]

You just moved the goal posts he never said "all lives matter". That is *********** ridiculous and another bald faced falsehood.

Stop posting utter falsehoods.

I'm done correcting these gross misrepresentations.

By "correcting", you mean waving your hands around and hoping people won't notice? You're posting utter falsehoods about Clinton calling inner city kids super predators, yet your quote doesn't even have the phrase "inner city" or "inner city kids" in it. Still, you blatantly misrepresent one sentence from 20 years ago to call Clinton racist, while Sanders was dismissing black people in August of last year.

 

[wareyin]

Someone used a Basketball game parallel: Hilary has built such a huge lead in the first half that all she needs to do is keep within a few points of Bernie to win.

Sanders supporters are crowing that he won Utah, Idaho, and Dems abroad, yet all 3 of those wins combined only made up 21 of the 325 pledged delegates he was behind by. When you're losing by over 300, crowing about wins of 5 delegate margins is a little silly.

 

[luchog]

By "correcting", you mean waving your hands around and hoping people won't notice? You're posting utter falsehoods about Clinton calling inner city kids super predators, yet your quote doesn't even have the phrase "inner city" or "inner city kids" in it.

Except that "superpredator" is and always has been a racist dogwhistle invoking an image of extreme violence from black, inner-city youth. The "superpredator" phenomenon originated as a piece of racist junk science that was used to inflate fears about black youth gangs running wild and committing increasing brutal and frequent acts of violence. There is no way Clinton could have been unaware of the nature of the term, since she specifically uses the gang and kid references from the junk science paper. At best, it was a huge gaffe that she should have owned up to and apologized for long ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/u...recalls-superpredator-threat-of-90s.html?_r=0

http://fair.org/extra/superscapegoating/

Still, you blatantly misrepresent one sentence from 20 years ago to call Clinton racist, while Sanders was dismissing black people in August of last year.

Speaking about blatantly misrepresenting someone; but that's already been addressed.

 

[Manopolus]

Sanders supporters are crowing that he won Utah, Idaho, and Dems abroad, yet all 3 of those wins combined only made up 21 of the 325 pledged delegates he was behind by. When you're losing by over 300, crowing about wins of 5 delegate margins is a little silly.

That's quite all right. We'll win Saturday by more, since the largest state isn't polling heavily towards Clinton in that batch.

 

[wareyin]

Except that "superpredator" is and always has been a racist dogwhistle invoking an image of extreme violence from black, inner-city youth. The "superpredator" phenomenon originated as a piece of racist junk science that was used to inflate fears about black youth gangs running wild and committing increasing brutal and frequent acts of violence. There is no way Clinton could have been unaware of the nature of the term, since she specifically uses the gang and kid references from the junk science paper. At best, it was a huge gaffe that she should have owned up to and apologized for long ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/u...recalls-superpredator-threat-of-90s.html?_r=0

http://fair.org/extra/superscapegoating/

Should Sanders have similarly owned up to his similar gaffe? Or is this another case of standards only Clinton should follow?

Speaking about blatantly misrepresenting someone; but that's already been addressed.

We keep addressing it, yet 16.5 keeps on perpetuating that myth, doesn't he?

 

[wareyin]

That's quite all right. We'll win Saturday by more, since the largest state isn't polling heavily towards Clinton in that batch.

Yes, going by the polls, Sanders will win several more small delegate states, perhaps enough to bring himself to 250 or less delegates down, before Clinton again dominates in the big delegate count states like NY and PA.

 

[d4m10n]

That's quite all right. We'll win Saturday by more, since the largest state isn't polling heavily towards Clinton in that batch.

Polling is predictive now? Cool.

 

[Ammonitida]

wow, the amount of wrong in that sentence is amazing.

The "blm activist" you are talking about is Ta-Nehishi Coates.

lets see what he said about Bernie:

"I will be voting for Sen. Sanders," said Ta-Nehisi Coates.

Say, lets see what Ta-Nehishi Coates says about Hillary, shall we?



/Man, you serve up 16.5 a soft ball and he slams it right out of the god damn park!

The fact is, Bernie rejected his "slavery reparations" idea, to which Coates had mean things to say. Why not quote that part?

 

[wareyin]

Polling is predictive now? Cool.

When Sanders is doing well, it is

 

[The Big Dog]

The fact is, Bernie rejected his "slavery reparations" idea, to which Coates had mean things to say. Why not quote that part?

Because there was so much wrong with your post.

At the end of the day, Coates is pro-Bernie and anti-Hillary, and isn't that all that matters?

Yes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Except that "superpredator" is and always has been a racist dogwhistle invoking an image of extreme violence from black, inner-city youth. The "superpredator" phenomenon originated as a piece of racist junk science that was used to inflate fears about black youth gangs running wild and committing increasing brutal and frequent acts of violence. There is no way Clinton could have been unaware of the nature of the term, since she specifically uses the gang and kid references from the junk science paper. At best, it was a huge gaffe that she should have owned up to and apologized for long ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/u...recalls-superpredator-threat-of-90s.html?_r=0

http://fair.org/extra/superscapegoating/

Speaking about blatantly misrepresenting someone; but that's already been addressed.

You're bringing up old news, why?

Sanders did not get much of the Hispanic vote in Utah and we already know the bulk of black voters are supporting Clinton.

So what difference does this make?

She's not the dishonest person she's portrayed as. She's still being subject to a double standards and sexist remarks in the news like Mathews complaining about her shouting when Sanders angry shouting is not called out the same way.

She's a candidate, she's a politician (so was Obama), she's not the devil incarnate.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Except for the fact that I am directly repeating the accusations made by BLM.

Rock it, don't run away.

 

[Manopolus]

Should Sanders have similarly owned up to his similar gaffe? Or is this another case of standards only Clinton should follow?



We keep addressing it, yet 16.5 keeps on perpetuating that myth, doesn't he?

Did you even watch that speech? There was no gaffe there. It was just a hit piece with no substance brought to us by the very obviously Clinton-supporting Huffington Post. It was actually quite bizarre what they chose to criticize... because there was nothing there.

Huffington Post is actually the WORST of the offenders when it comes to the press biasing towards Clinton, BTW. I used to have them in my FB feed, but had to reluctantly yank them out when the BS got a little too obvious. What I was seeing there kind of pissed me off.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Except that "superpredator" is and always has been a racist dogwhistle invoking an image of extreme violence from black, inner-city youth. The "superpredator" phenomenon originated as a piece of racist junk science that was used to inflate fears about black youth gangs running wild and committing increasing brutal and frequent acts of violence. There is no way Clinton could have been unaware of the nature of the term, since she specifically uses the gang and kid references from the junk science paper. At best, it was a huge gaffe that she should have owned up to and apologized for long ago.

Today is the first time I've ever heard the term.

But now I understand that racists associate the term with blacks, as we've seen in recent posts.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That's quite all right. We'll win Saturday by more, since the largest state isn't polling heavily towards Clinton in that batch.

Yes, going by the polls, Sanders will win several more small delegate states, perhaps enough to bring himself to 250 or less delegates down, before Clinton again dominates in the big delegate count states like NY and PA.

He'll get steamrolled in NY, more than losing whatever gains he makes this week.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Polling is predictive now? Cool.

Of course. Except when it shows Hillary winning. The Berners are entertainingly naive.

 

[wareyin]

Did you even watch that speech? There was no gaffe there. It was just a hit piece with no substance brought to us by the very obviously Clinton-supporting Huffington Post. It was actually quite bizarre what they chose to criticize... because there was nothing there. I didn't have a problem with a word of it.

That's one vote for holding Clinton to a higher set of standards than Sanders. Any others?

 

[The Big Dog]

You're bringing up old news, why?

Sanders did not get much of the Hispanic vote in Utah and we already know the bulk of black voters are supporting Clinton.

Old news...

Sanders won 13 of Chicago's 14 majority-Latino wards, and also prevailed in the predominantly Latino suburbs of Cicero and Berwyn.

 

[Manopolus]

Polling is predictive now? Cool.

If by "predictive" you mean that when the polls say it's competitive, Bernie wins by up to 80%.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's quite all right. We'll win Saturday by more, since the largest state isn't polling heavily towards Clinton in that batch.

Any evidence or is this more gut reaction/wishful thinking? The only polls are from May with Clinton ahead. No doubt Sanders has a following that doesn't show in those. He had a great turnout in Seattle.

But we have a large Black and Hispanic population. I wouldn't count on Utah/Idaho numbers.