Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[BobTheCoward]

Presumably you hold Hillary's claims that she is the subject of a vast right wing conspiracy to the same standard?

Lolz

I don't think about Hillary Clinton. I'm not a Democrat.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... As long as it benefits you and helps maintain the status quo, nothing to worry about, eh?

No.

As long as it was likely a clerical error not a plot and it can be easily rectified.

The anti-Sanders CT is greatly exaggerated and this is an example of it.

 

[Dog Town]

The anti-Sanders CT is greatly exaggerated and this is an example of it.

Denial, is not just...

 

[Foolmewunz]

Denial, is not just...

Are you electioneering or have you crossed into CT territory, too? If the former,.... Cool. Bernie's a Poopie Head. (Not that I mean or believe that, but that's the way it's played, isn't it?)

If you're crossing over into CT territory please apply some super devious mustache twirling logic.
1. DC is the last primary. It will all be over by then.
2, DC is likely going to go 75% Hillary, anyway.
3. What kind of an incompetent evil she-lord is the The Hill? Wouldn't she have been wiser to have Darth Voter have his evil minions getting Bernie bumped off the CA ballot or NY ballot... states where he has the potential to take hundreds of delegates, not just a dozen?
4. This will be fixed and so announced in an article that Politico might see fit to cover on page thirty-eight in a two inch box.

This is a non-story.

 

[Belz...]

The absence of ANY evidence makes your case as strong as alien abductees where there is also a massive amount of similar claims without any evidence.

Not that I agree with luchog here, but how many "mistakes" would you consider one too many to be believable?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Not that I agree with luchog here, but how many "mistakes" would you consider one too many to be believable?

I don't think it's a count. I think it's a question of whether these lie outside the norms. Because only one side is making a habit of reporting on these little blips, is that really an indication that no such mishaps have occurred to the other candidate? Without any statistics on the total of such incidents it's very hard to do anything other than what we normally do, which is to examine the claims and see how they stand up, individually. The latest two "conspiracies" just don't stand up to scrutiny. (This weak theory and the theory that the DNC screwed Bernie over in AZ.)

 

[Childlike Empress]

Good article by Robert Parry about the clip "The Cost of War" feat. Tulsi Gabbard which helped win Hawaii, and Bernie Sanders as Commander-in-Chief. The ad:

 

[BobTheCoward]

Not that I agree with luchog here, but how many "mistakes" would you consider one too many to be believable?

There are significantly more claims of miracles and ghosts. I'm still an athiest and skeptic.

 

[Belz...]

There are significantly more claims of miracles and ghosts. I'm still an athiest and skeptic.

Not sure that answers my question. Let's imagine a hypothetical, then: what if they had "forgotten" to register in every single state? Wouldn't you find that a tad suspicious?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Not sure that answers my question. Let's imagine a hypothetical, then: what if they had "forgotten" to register in every single state? Wouldn't you find that a tad suspicious?

And in every incident you could not find a single bit of evidence that it was done on purpose? I would not have an opinion on the cause of it.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Not sure that answers my question. Let's imagine a hypothetical, then: what if they had "forgotten" to register in every single state? Wouldn't you find that a tad suspicious?

I answered your hypothetical. I'll assume you didn't see it. If there were always such errors in all 50+ constituencies, then it wouldn't be quite so "suspicious". If there were errors at the rate of 1 per year and suddenly Bernie's registration package was late in nineteen? Yeah, that sounds suspicious.

If you've got fifteen or sixteen others, then let's examine them.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Not sure that answers my question. Let's imagine a hypothetical, then: what if they had "forgotten" to register in every single state? Wouldn't you find that a tad suspicious?

Sure, with no other information, that would seem suspicious, as it appears, prima facie, to be unlikely.

But then, with no other evidence, it would simply be an anomaly.

All luchog (or anyone) has to do, is provide some actual evidence of either wrongdoing, or at least evidence that these (which we have heard of 1 or 2) really are highly uncommon errors.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Sure, with no other information, that would seem suspicious, as it appears, prima facie, to be unlikely.

But then, with no other evidence, it would simply be an anomaly.

All luchog (or anyone) has to do, is provide some actual evidence of either wrongdoing, or at least evidence that these (which we have heard of 1 or 2) really are highly uncommon errors.

I have a feeling that you're asking this of the same people who thought the explanation for exploiting the open back door in the voter database (Bern Boyz - Iowa - 2016) was just reasonable. "No wrongdoing there; everybody does it." That, of course, was after a week of denial that anything wrong was done at all.

 

[Belz...]

I answered your hypothetical. I'll assume you didn't see it.

I saw it and read it. Maybe you didn't see that I was originally asking Bob, not you, which is why I amended my question when his answer was unsatisfactory. His more recent answer is, so I'm ok with it.

 

[luchog]

I don't think it's a count. I think it's a question of whether these lie outside the norms.

And if there is a consistent pattern of benefit.

Because only one side is making a habit of reporting on these little blips, is that really an indication that no such mishaps have occurred to the other candidate?

Because they're mainly affecting one side rather than the other?

It's not any single incident or quality that makes them look suspicious, it's the overall pattern.

The whole "evil mastermind Clinton" thing is one of the most laughable straw men in this entire thread, and evidence of the Clinton supporters general unwillingness to debate honestly. No one has claimed that Clinton has masterminded any of this. What does appear to be happening is a whole lot of Clinton supporters potentially trying to sabotage Sanders on their own in small, deniable ways. Some of them are probably just incompetence, certainly early on and given the unexpected numbers of voters that could easily be the case. But when the same types of issues keep recurring in a particular pattern, that starts to look less like incompetence and more like plausible deniability.

 

[luchog]

I have a feeling that you're asking this of the same people who thought the explanation for exploiting the open back door in the voter database (Bern Boyz - Iowa - 2016) was just reasonable. "No wrongdoing there; everybody does it." That, of course, was after a week of denial that anything wrong was done at all.

Yawn, yet more straw men. Care to point out examples of this? Because as I recall, the response was "yes it was wrong, and the campaign was right to fire the guy; but the DNC's actions prior to the breech and reaction afterwards were themselves unwarranted and wrong".

 

[wareyin]

And if there is a consistent pattern of benefit.




Because they're mainly affecting one side rather than the other?

It's not any single incident or quality that makes them look suspicious, it's the overall pattern.

The whole "evil mastermind Clinton" thing is one of the most laughable straw men in this entire thread, and evidence of the Clinton supporters general unwillingness to debate honestly. No one has claimed that Clinton has masterminded any of this. What does appear to be happening is a whole lot of Clinton supporters potentially trying to sabotage Sanders on their own in small, deniable ways. Some of them are probably just incompetence, certainly early on and given the unexpected numbers of voters that could easily be the case. But when the same types of issues keep recurring in a particular pattern, that starts to look less like incompetence and more like plausible deniability.

Evidence of any of the highlighted? I am only aware of this one instance, which doesn't make a pattern, nor does it mean it was done by "a whole lot" of Clinton supporters, or even one Clinton supporter.

 

[Belz...]

Evidence of any of the highlighted?

Seconded. At least, some demonstration of said pattern.

 

[wareyin]

Well, the great DC ballot scandal has fallen apart upon review: "No, Bernie Sanders was not kicked off the D.C. ballot". It appears the same procedure was followed as the previous 4 elections, but this time an activist has challenged the procedure. However, Clinton's name is not yet on the ballot, either, as "The elections board won’t certify the ballot for the June 14 ballot contest for about another month."

 

[angrysoba]

Well, the great DC ballot scandal has fallen apart upon review: "No, Bernie Sanders was not kicked off the D.C. ballot". It appears the same procedure was followed as the previous 4 elections, but this time an activist has challenged the procedure. However, Clinton's name is not yet on the ballot, either, as "The elections board won’t certify the ballot for the June 14 ballot contest for about another month."

I need a conspiracy damn you!