Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

acbytesla said:
Who's trying to trash Sanders?
Click to expand...

If you don't automatically agree that he is the wisest, smartest, bestest, most competentest candidate ever (who will surely convince those silly super delegates any day now to swing to his side), then you are trashing him.
 
wareyin said:
Are you certain that Sanders supporters are supposed to feel "embarrassed" because of one single position that he holds?
Click to expand...

Did you read the post I quoted, that I was responding to? Because it SAID:

"Mad props to Bernie for being the most anti-science candidate in the race, with respect to GMOs...

http://www.skepticink.com/background...limate-change/

How embarrassing for the skeptics who supported him."
Click to expand...

Is there another interpretation of that beyond "Sanders' supporters should feel embarrassed by this position of Sanders'?

Still, if pointing out a flawed understanding by Sanders amounts to "trashing" him, this may explain why Sanders supporters seem to think he was "attacked" (see Trakar at the top of the page for an example).
Click to expand...

I'm not Trakar and I didn't say anything about "attack". I pointed out that it seems pretty sad that Clinton supporters seem to feel the need to keep on punching away at Sanders even now. Why is that? Do they have nothing good to say about Clinton, so they can only say bad things about Sanders? Do they need to keep everyone remembering Sanders so they can blame him for Clinton's loss to Trump? It seems to me to be contradictory that so many Clinton supporters here on this site have been insisting for months and months that Sanders is over and has no hope and Clinton in inevitable and inexorable but at the same time they keep on pointing out negative things about Sanders. Which is it? Is Sanders done or not? Is he a threat to Clinton or isn't he? If he's no threat, why keep pointing out flaws in his positions?
 
wareyin said:
If you don't automatically agree that he is the wisest, smartest, bestest, most competentest candidate ever (who will surely convince those silly super delegates any day now to swing to his side), then you are trashing him.
Click to expand...

I could reply in kind that to certain Clinton supporters the mere fact of Sanders' existence, and that he got support, is enraging and they've been frothing at the mouth this entire time. Which is quite understandable. What's confusing is that they still are. Sanders is out of the running now. So why keep it up? My theory is that they lack confidence in Clinton.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Good heavens! Well, let's all support Hillary instead. Sure, she was all about invading Iraq, but she apparently has the correct approved position on labelling potato chips so that's just fine.

I wonder exactly when Clinton's more irritating supporters will finally feel confident enough in their candidate to stop trying to trash Sanders?
Click to expand...

Ummm, you do know your choices are Trump or Clinton, right? Sanders is, for all intents and purposes, out of the running.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Did you read the post I quoted, that I was responding to? Because it SAID:



Is there another interpretation of that beyond "Sanders' supporters should feel embarrassed by this position of Sanders'?
Click to expand...

You do realize that there is nothing in there that states that single position is the only reason to feel embarrassed, right? That bit was something you added in, then complained about.



TragicMonkey said:
I'm not Trakar and I didn't say anything about "attack". I pointed out that it seems pretty sad that Clinton supporters seem to feel the need to keep on punching away at Sanders even now. Why is that? Do they have nothing good to say about Clinton, so they can only say bad things about Sanders? Do they need to keep everyone remembering Sanders so they can blame him for Clinton's loss to Trump? It seems to me to be contradictory that so many Clinton supporters here on this site have been insisting for months and months that Sanders is over and has no hope and Clinton in inevitable and inexorable but at the same time they keep on pointing out negative things about Sanders. Which is it? Is Sanders done or not? Is he a threat to Clinton or isn't he? If he's no threat, why keep pointing out flaws in his positions?
Click to expand...

You seem confused. I pointed out Trakar as an example of another poster espousing your position, that pointing out any flaw in Sanders is an attack, or "trashing" Sanders. I never claimed that you were Trakar.

Also, why do you expect Clinton supporters to post positive claims about Clinton in a "Bullish on Bernie" thread? Wouldn't that be off-topic? I think it's better to stick to Sanders, the topic of this thread. Of course, talking about any of the many flaws Sanders has as a candidate does not mean that the one pointing them out views Sanders as a threat. Why would that be the only reason to point out a flaw?
 
wareyin said:
If you don't automatically agree that he is the wisest, smartest, bestest, most competentest candidate ever (who will surely convince those silly super delegates any day now to swing to his side), then you are trashing him.
Click to expand...


What is this? A religion and I'm an apostate, if I don't start praying to the God Bernie?
 
TragicMonkey said:
The person who posted the "embarrassing" position Sanders holds. Does that not meet the definition of "trashing"? Was it some sort of compliment, or a neutral statement?
Click to expand...

Hey, there will always be people who go over the top. More than a few of Bernie's Bros have gone too far. But overall, these things are irrelevant.
 
Green party's Jill Stein invites Bernie Sanders to take over ticket

Bernie Sanders has been invited to continue his underdog bid for the White House by the Green party’s probable presidential candidate, who has offered to step aside to let him run.

Jill Stein, who is expected to be endorsed at the party’s August convention in Houston, told Guardian US that “overwhelming” numbers of Sanders supporters are flocking to the Greens rather than Hillary Clinton.

“If he continues to declare his full faith in the Democratic party, it will leave many of his supporters very disappointed,” she said.

Stein said the Democratic establishment had conducted “psychological warfare” against Sanders and “sabotaged” his attempts to gain the party’s presidential nomination. Many of his young, progressive supporters are now moving over to the Green party rather than fall in behind Clinton, Stein added.

Read more:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/08/jill-stein-bernie-sanders-green-party (July 8, 2016)
Click to expand...


"The last time the Green Party made an impact was the 2000 election, when candidate Ralph Nader pulled in 2.7 percent of the popular vote and became a punching bag for Democratic politicians, who believed Nader caused Al Gore to ultimately lose the controversial election. But Ross Perot remains one of the most successful third-party candidates in U.S. history, winning almost 19 percent of the popular vote when he ran as an independent in the 1992 presidential election."

Reference:
Will Bernie Sanders Take Over The Green Party? (July 9, 2016)
 
Slings and Arrows said:
"The last time the Green Party made an impact was the 2000 election, when candidate Ralph Nader pulled in 2.7 percent of the popular vote and became a punching bag for Democratic politicians, who believed Nader caused Al Gore to ultimately lose the controversial election. But Ross Perot remains one of the most successful third-party candidates in U.S. history, winning almost 19 percent of the popular vote when he ran as an independent in the 1992 presidential election."

Reference:
Will Bernie Sanders Take Over The Green Party? (July 9, 2016)
Click to expand...

And Bernie knows all this and that is why he wouldn't do it. He remembers that that election resulted in George W. Bush becoming President. And unlike Nader, Bernie is a United State's Senator. A Senator that caucuses with the Democrats.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Gotcha. You be sure to come back and tell us all about it often, okay? Be content sitting there at home and having no voice in things.
Click to expand...

Skeptic Ginger said:
I repeat, Clinton is as close as you are going to get.

Feel free to throw your vote away on someone who has no chance in hell of winning.
Click to expand...

I don't think either of you understand how alienated voters function in the voting system, or that absenteeism is a rational choice, and that this has been studied for decades.

Hm, I don't think I said that condescendingly enough.

Meh? I'm still supporting burrowing into the party with my personal quirky ideals and getting things back on track. Slowly, slowly catchee monkey. If the only candidate I can vote for has to pass a series of my own litmus tests on a series of issues, it may well be that I better run for the job, myself. No one's going to tick all the boxes. You play the hand you're dealt.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy theory forum is that way ->.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
I don't think either of you understand how alienated voters function in the voting system, or that absenteeism is a rational choice, and that this has been studied for decades.

Hm, I don't think I said that condescendingly enough.
Click to expand...

It's pretty hard to sell apathy with a condescending tone. You wind up being a hipster, which is all that a lot of this "I'm sitting it out" is all about.


Conspiracy theory forum is that way ->.
Click to expand...

You think history is a conspiracy theory?
How did the Tea Party change the direction of the GOP? TV ads and Youtube whining? Or by moving into a rotting structure that their minority position and fervor could control somewhat?
How did the corporatist Democrats usurp the progressives in their party.
Labour under Tony Blair and the "Conservative Lite" program?

The way to effect change is from within the parties. It is far more efficient than trying to start a grassroots movement that leads to a new party, particularly in a two-party system like the US, but also in a one party system like the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China.
 
wareyin said:
You do realize that there is nothing in there that states that single position is the only reason to feel embarrassed, right? That bit was something you added in, then complained about.
Click to expand...

It was literally the only thing mentioned in the post I responded to. I quoted it twice.

I really don't understand why I'm not allowed to respond to just one post, but for some reason I'm expected to incorporate, in my response to one post, all my possible responses to all other posts that have gone before, including defending other people's posts!

I chalk it up to the underlying insecurity of Clinton supporters that they feel a deepseated need to divide the world into "us versus them", and attack blindly anyone who doesn't kowtow to their cult of Clinton.

You seem confused. I pointed out Trakar as an example of another poster espousing your position, that pointing out any flaw in Sanders is an attack, or "trashing" Sanders.
Click to expand...

That is not "my position". I was speaking of "embarrassment" of the GMO stuff. You know, in that one post, the one post I was responding to and talking about. You're the one conflating posters and posts and "positions" here.

Also, why do you expect Clinton supporters to post positive claims about Clinton in a "Bullish on Bernie" thread? Wouldn't that be off-topic? I think it's better to stick to Sanders, the topic of this thread. Of course, talking about any of the many flaws Sanders has as a candidate does not mean that the one pointing them out views Sanders as a threat. Why would that be the only reason to point out a flaw?
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I guess I don't understand how some people like to spend their time. Beat that dead horse! Teach it a lesson for defying Clinton! Smack it, smack it, smack it!
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Ummm, you do know your choices are Trump or Clinton, right? Sanders is, for all intents and purposes, out of the running.
Click to expand...

I agree. That's why I don't understand why this thread is still going. He's given up, his supporters have given up, yet his detractors keep going. I just wondered why, although now I believe I've figured it out: some of Clinton's supporters derive satisfaction from beating a dead horse. Personally, I think it's because they fear Trump will win, and they experience mental relief from that by continuing to maul Sanders' corpse. And no doubt that if Trump does win, they'll blame Sanders for it.
 
TragicMonkey said:
It was literally the only thing mentioned in the post I responded to. I quoted it twice.

I really don't understand why I'm not allowed to respond to just one post, but for some reason I'm expected to incorporate, in my response to one post, all my possible responses to all other posts that have gone before, including defending other people's posts!

I chalk it up to the underlying insecurity of Clinton supporters that they feel a deepseated need to divide the world into "us versus them", and attack blindly anyone who doesn't kowtow to their cult of Clinton.
Click to expand...

Speaking of "us versus them", why do you insist on making this Clinton supporters vs Sanders supporters? I mean, if you are only going to respond to that one post, it has nothing to do with Clinton supporters.



TragicMonkey said:
That is not "my position". I was speaking of "embarrassment" of the GMO stuff. You know, in that one post, the one post I was responding to and talking about. You're the one conflating posters and posts and "positions" here.
Click to expand...

Your "position" was that any criticism of the God king Sanders was "trashing", was it not?



TragicMonkey said:
Fair enough, I guess I don't understand how some people like to spend their time. Beat that dead horse! Teach it a lesson for defying Clinton! Smack it, smack it, smack it!
Click to expand...

Has Sanders suspended his campaign? Are there still people supporting him? Doesn't really sound like that horse is dead, does it?
 
TragicMonkey said:
No, it was not.
Click to expand...

Ah, perhaps I misunderstood. See, statements such as the following sure appear to take that position:

TragicMonkey said:
The person who posted the "embarrassing" position Sanders holds. Does that not meet the definition of "trashing"? Was it some sort of compliment, or a neutral statement?
Click to expand...

Any statement about Sanders is either a compliment, neutral, or "trashing" him, to a Sanders supporter.
 
wareyin said:
Ah, perhaps I misunderstood. See, statements such as the following sure appear to take that position:



Any statement about Sanders is either a compliment, neutral, or "trashing" him, to a Sanders supporter.
Click to expand...

How do you interpret the statement "how embarrassing"? If it's not a compliment, it's not an insult, it's not neutral...what is it? A flirtation? What else is there? I'm interested in what options there are besides positive, negative, and neutral.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom