Yeah it was damn foolish for party officials to not feed the assembled crowd and to expose them to the temptations of liquor. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That was an obvious set up for Bernie supporters. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Get real PJ...if Bernie's supporters can't handle their liquor that's no ones problem but theirs. Morelli made those excuses on the "Hardball With Chris Matthews" yesterday.
Didn't some of those Bernie Bro's bust a guy in the nose at a Trump rally? Oh well, I'd expect nothing less of Progressive "Democratic" Socialists. "Socialists" are Authoritarians. In the past, they were Royalty or Popes. All throughout history those in power, used their power to force innocent people to behave in ways they deemed "Good for Society" (which, incidentally, often aligned with their own needs). Burn the Heretic Witches. Hang the Traitors. In our modern world, Socialists are Statists of course. Which is why they're called "Democratic" Socialists and not Free-Market Voluntarists. That aside, the Democratic convention should make for interesting viewing pleasure.
Because when you condemn something, and then basically come out and try to justify it, it is belittling. It wasn't? Are you suggesting that the Democrats had something to do with the violence against his campaign office? Or Clinton? Because his response to Lange receiving death threats, threats against her children and grandchildren, having her personal address and phone numbers, and that of her work's published on social media by his supporters, was to complain that his campaign office was shot at... Now, we know who is threatening Lange, as your Jezebel link so aptly demonstrates, and they were his supporters. The manner in which he commented on his campaign office being shot at was to insinuate that his own party did it, when there is no proof that they were involved. And frankly, his tone was dismissive.. As though being threatened with death and harm to one's children and grandchildren by his own supporters, could be dismissed in that way. He dropped the ball. That "But" was his attempt to not only dismiss the threats against Lange and others, but to also blame them as well. He virtually endorsed the reason behind the threats. And you think this is him condemning the violence and the threats? Yes, actually, he is. Because for one thing, it has nothing to do with what is currently happening to Lange and others in Nevada and secondly, there was not really any reason to mention it in response to what Lange is going through. No one attempted to give a giant "but" after his campaign office was shot at. No one attempted to justify and endorse the reasons behind the shooting at his campaign office. Do you think they should have kept quiet about it and said nothing? Sweep it under the rug? His supporters certainly did not think it should be kept quiet, especially after they then spray painted the messages in front of the Nevada Democratic Party headquarters... I don't think I even read or quoted CNN so your point is..? The quote in full: Lange — who said she was forced to take a security detail to even go to the bathroom during the convention — said police and Caesars Entertainment hotel officials told her that the convention had to be immediately adjourned due to ongoing security details. Casino spokeswoman Jennifer Forkis said the event ran over its allotted time by about four hours, meaning security hired for the event would soon leave their shifts. "Without adequate security personnel, and in consultation with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and event organizers, a decision was made that it was in the best interest of everyone in attendance to end the event," Forkis said in a statement. Secondly, an ongoing debate has emerged post-convention over questions of violence and allegations of chair-throwing from Sanders supporters. There’s no clear evidence of a chair being thrown, but the post-adjournment attitude was tense with Sanders delegates screaming obscenities and pushing back barriers between the crowd and the main stage. But did you also note that the Sander's campaign's claims were not supported? So much so that they found that the Sander's claims were false..?
They actually did address it: Tensions were already mounting in the weeks before the convention, with a small group of Sanders supporters filing a lawsuit against the state party (which was dismissed by a Las Vegas judge) and creating a petition demanding the convention rules be changed. The fight over rules had been going on since April, according to an email chain posted by Nevada political journalist Jon Ralston, between Sanders superdelegate Erin Bilbray and party chairwoman Roberta Lange. Supporters of Sanders believed that the convention rules, which have been largely the same since 2008, gave an unfair amount of power to Lange, the convention chair. The rules specifically lay out that all convention votes must be done by voice vote, and that only the convention chair can declare the winner or call for a more specific method of voting among the thousands of delegates. The rules, which can be read here, also state that any amendment attempts must be approved by two-thirds of the convention delegates — which would be difficult given the nearly even number of Clinton and Sanders backers present. Sanders backers say the continuing nature of the presidential primary necessitated more rule changes. The Sanders campaign did not respond to a request for comment. In a previous statement, the campaign detailed several allegations of misconduct from the state party, which we considered as part of this fact-check. "At that convention the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place," the campaign said in that statement. However, there were no last minute rule changes sprung on convention-goers — the rules had been publicly available weeks in advance, largely unchanged for three presidential cycles, and given to both campaigns. The first major fight happened in the morning, with the convention being gaveled in nearly 40 minutes after the scheduled 9 a.m. start time. In a voice vote, Lange approved adoption of a preliminary credentials report showing more Clinton than Sanders delegates. Immediate howls of protests from the Sanders contingent emerged, many of whom rushed the dais and started screaming insults and obscenities directly at Lange. Although several videos from the event appear to have louder "nays" than "yeas," both preliminary and final delegate counts showed that Clinton supporters outnumbered Sanders supporters in the room. And trying to determine the outcome of a voice vote from a video of around 3,000 delegates is somewhat arbitrary to begin with. The only person with authority to call for a different voting mechanism is the convention chair: Lange. Regardless, upset Sanders supporters rushed the main stage, hurling obscenities at Lange and other members of the party’s executive board and booing over remarks from California Sen. Barbara Boxer delivered on behalf of the Clinton campaign. The Sanders campaign later alleged that Lange refused to accept petitions to change the rules, which is inaccurate. In an interview, Lange said the board received a handful of petitions to change the convention rules but not all of them met the requirement to have signatures by 20 percent of convention goers. Lange said the proper procedure for an amendment to the rules would have been during a short period for public comment before the temporary rules were adopted as permanent. None of the three Sanders supporters who spoke, including Nevada superdelegate Erin Bilbray, made any motion to amend the rules during that time, so they were approved as written. Volunteers circulating the petitions changing the rules abandoned their efforts after the permanent rules were adopted, saying they missed their chance to introduce them. Either way, any rule change would require a two-thirds majority vote which would be highly unlikely given the Clinton campaign's public opposition to any rules changes. Soooo, Sander's isn't running for the Democratic nomination and he doesn't have a campaign going? They weren't his supporters and delegates? With a giant "but" and then endorsed the reasons behind their violent rhetoric and threats. He can't have it both ways. When one hand condemns violence and the other hand says that it understands the reason for the violent reaction, that kind of cancels out the condemnation for violence and the threatening rhetoric (which he never even actually addressed)..
And he's still to directly address this in his campaign. This kind of thing has been going on for a while now. The increasingly bitter battle to secure the Democratic presidential nomination has led to allegations that“superdelegates” who will play a pivotal role at the party convention are being harassed by supporters of Bernie Sanders. There have been complaints of threatening phone calls, angry emails and intimidation via social media from some of the 842 independent delegates whose support could be crucial in getting Mr Sanders or Hillary Clinton across the 2,383 threshold to be the party’s candidates. Unlike the delegates chosen directly by state caucuses and primaries, the superdelegates – who range from party apparatchiks to members of Congress and former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter – are free to vote as they see fit. But some supporters of the Vermont senator, fearing that the superdelegates will thwart Mr Sanders’ drive for the nomination at the convention in Philadelphia, are ratcheting up their campaign. There is no evidence to suggest that the Sanders official campaign is involved in the alleged intimidation, but some left wing activists involved in heaping pressure on superdelegates make no apology for their tactics. “Allowing the political elite, who have a lot riding on the outcome of this primary, to anoint their preferred presidential candidate runs counter to a core set of American values. This practice is patronizing and corrupt—and has very little popular support,” said Spencer Thayer, a self-declared socialist, who has compiled a list of superdelegates. He denied that the purpose of the list was to intimidate them. “The real issue is that superdelegates are not used to being held accountable. But the internet has changed power relationships and given voters the tools they need to demand a more representative democracy. Unsurprisingly, those in power tend to interpret challenges to their authority as harassment. I'm not sympathetic to that point of view.” However those on the receiving end of the onslaught have a less benign perspective. “It has been very hard on me,” said Nancy Schumacher, a member of the Democratic National Committee from Minnesota. “It started the day after the caucus and it continues every day. They were even sending nasty emails on Easter Sunday. I have had calls at my home, I have had a call at work. “I am a volunteer, I am not paid for any of this, I am doing it all on my own dime. There is so much hatred towards Hillary. I have been involved in politics for 25 years and I have never seen so much hate.” Isabel Framer, a superdelegate from Ohio, was subjected to scores of messages telling her to back the Vermont senator. “It was over the top. The calls were coming in non-stop and they were coming from unidentified numbers. One person left a message saying I should vote according to the will of the people and it was crap that I got to vote how I wanted.” Working in the criminal justice system Ms Framer, who is also the secretary of the Democratic National Committee’s Hispanic caucus, is not easily shocked. “These are really threatening and intimidating. It’s very upsetting. “We have new people who are very excited about supporting a political candidate and they may be new to civic engagement. When they get people making threats on Twitter and Facebook it is a really bad experience,” she said. “I think I am top of the hit list because of my name,” said Maggie Allen, a member of the Democratic National Committee and a high school principal. “In the beginning I was getting some hate-filled, vitriolic name calling emails. There were also some drunken late night calls. I have switched my phone off.” Notice how they are all women? The calls to these women have become slightly more civil now... But this has been happening for a while. To wit Lange is just another victim in the long list of victims of harassment and threats by his supporters. Tell me, is this what he meant by changing the system? Threats and intimidation is the new "in" word for democracy for his supporters? And he is still to address this sort of behaviour properly. But he won't. As I said, he is now approaching this along the lines of if he cannot win it, then no one else should. He feels entitled and he demands that this feeling of entitlement means that he should win and his supporters do as well. So it is hardly surprising that he will not speak out against his 'bernie bro's' or his supporters who resort to this sort of behaviour. And the misogyny and sexism has been pretty confronting in his campaign. No wonder he didn't even bother to address that from his supporters.. After all, he doesn't want to offend that portion of his base.
Bernie is making a stink about the alleged shooting at his campaign office which reported around the first of the year and trying to draw some equivalence between that incident and the violence and death threats his supporters were involved with at the Nevada Democratic Party convention. The truth is, there may never have been a shooting at Bernie's office. Normally, when shots are fired at a target, they leave a bullet slug at the scene. In this case, no bullet slug was found. So if a bullet was fired as Sanders has alleged, where is the bullet? Two, even if there was bullet fired at Bernie's campaign office, there is no evidence it was deliberate or who did it or why. Unfortunately, people have been known to indiscriminately fire weapons in rural areas as well as big cities. Gangs and drug dealers are well known for indiscriminate shootings. And then there are the holiday shootings where people with guns welcome in the holiday by indescriminately shooting their guns. The bottom line here is there is no equivalence between what Sanders supporters did and this "incident" at his campaign office. http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/police-probe-possible-shooting-at-sanders-office
Entitlement.. Tapper observed that the Sanders campaign’s goal was to “secure a majority of the pledged delegates.” “Should we assume that means that you believe the candidate who has the majority of pledged delegates by the end of this process should be the nominee?” the CNN host wondered. “I understand that it’s an uphill fight to go from 46 percent where we are today to 50 percent in the nine remaining contests, I got that,” Sanders admitted, adding that super delegates should take an “objective look at which candidate is stronger.” Tapper, however, explained that Clinton “has more votes than you and she has more pledged delegates than you.” “The question is just a simple, yes or no,” Tapper said. “Should the person with the most pledged delegates be the Democratic nominee?” “I’m not a fan of super delegates, but their job is to take an objective look at reality,” Sanders opined. “So, we’ll see what happens.” “We are where we are right now!” the candidate continued, raising his voice. “And where we are is we are fighting to win the pledged delegates. So before I can answer your question, let’s see what’s going to happen.” The dodging! The video and his political spinning trying to avoid answering the question is cringe-worthy.. The answer should be yes, Bernie. If one person has the most votes, they should win.
only entitlement is hillary clinton and her supporters. you all are still pissed she had to run a primary campaign. the lengths you all go to smear bernie sanders is sicking. in a fair non partisan election person with more votes should win. trying to pretend that this was just shows dishonesty. the simple fact is with out the super delgates and DWS trying to supress and deligitimize any and all none pro clinton voices hillary probably would have lost the election. so fuck this bullshit and this pro hillary clinton double standard to protect her sub par candidacy. this is why you all are going to hand over the country to republican thugs for years because you all can't stand to see a differing viewpoint. so when trumps president i hope you and joe and tiassia will at least have the honesty to blame your selfs and sense of entitlement though i doubt you will consider the bull shit and lies i've seen from the 3 of you recently.
this is libel. this un true he has repudiatated them repeatedly. i demand you retract this dishonest statement. this is how clinton won. with her surrogates using slander and libel.hope your happy bringing fascism to america.
Good lord. Relevance? Your point? What is it with the Hillary crowd and this strange spla spittle, this bizarre abandonment of reason and sense, this willing credulity in the face of US media manipulation? Aren't you guys billing yourselves as the adults in the room? Look, Clinton is winning. You guys don't have to act like this. Your candidate is going to get the nomination, according to your very own claims. Then your goal is to win the election, and your candidate is facing real trouble. If your goal were to elect Trump, you could hardly do better than to fulfill every wingnut stereotype of feckless Democratic "liberals" and their supposed media hold.
Sicking? Why is it that when his words or that of his campaign staff are reported on, his supporters view it as being slanderous attacks against him? And this belief that any opposition to his actual arguments, or commentary on his words and action count as a smear reeks of this bizarre belief in a conspiracy against him. To wit, these things would not need to be reported on if they were not said or done in the first place. Which begs the question, why did Sanders twist himself into a pretzel to avoid answering the question? And yet, even if the super delegates were abolished, Clinton would still be in front by a fairly healthy margin. Or did that fact escape you? Perhaps you could calm down. If you cannot discuss this without resorting to this kind of rhetoric, perhaps you should refrain from participating in such discussions.. Secondly, it isn't about a different viewpoint. It is about a candidate who is willing to burn down the house if he does not win. Do you think this is a good thing? Do you think calling delegates and threatening them before they vote is democratic? Do you think forcing people to vote a certain way or face harassment and abuse is democratic? Because this is what is currently happening. Sure, Sanders can beat Trump, but if the road getting there is one paved with this kind of behaviour, then really, you'll just be getting a left version of Trump in the White House. Sure, he's your guy, but when anyone has to resort to this kind of behaviour, then it is safe to say that he is no better than the other guy. Thirdly, a democratic election should be about the votes. If you cannot respect the votes of millions of Americans because they voted for Clinton and you feel that those votes should be discarded or disregarded because you believe that only Sanders can beat Trump, then it is safe to say that this is not respecting the democratic process. And this is even with super delegate votes removed entirely. Clinton would still beat Sanders. Which is probably why he refused to answer the question. Yourselves, pjdude.. Yourselves.. Dude, if you cannot respect that people have different opinions than you do politically, then perhaps the politics sub-forum is not the best thing for you. There is nothing wrong with discussing clear issues in his campaign. And these are clear issues that even his own staffers and supporters are pointing out. Most of what I have been linking have been from people directly involved in his campaign in various capacity. You are acting as though I am about to burn an effigy of the man. Calm down. Sheesh.. A little thing about libel.. It is not libel if it is true. Are you suggesting that these things were not said by Sanders and his campaign? Because it's all on film and recorded and directly quoted. Where did he repudiate Jeff Weaver? Do you have links to these repudiations for the sexist remarks Jeff Weaver made, on radio and on tv no less...? Do you have anything to support your contention that he has "repudiated them repeatedly"? Where does he repudiate the sexism of his supporters? He did not even see fit to repudiate the misogyny and sexism on Lange, who has been called a "bitch" and "cunt". If Sanders and his campaign do not wish to have their sexist comments talked about and if they do not actually come out and speak out against the rabid misogyny and sexism of his supporters, not to mention the threats and harassment of his supporters to anyone they feel do not do as they want them to do, then that would be fascism. One of the facets of fascism and one that many have commented about in regards to the Trump campaign is this sort of behaviour. This level of intolerance for any differing point of view or even commentary and the call to action to combat it.. The irony is that you do not seem to recognise this. To wit, it's not Clinton's supporters calling up women and screaming out words like "bitch" and "cunt" because a vote did not go their way and it isn't Clinton's supporters who are calling delegates ahead of primaries and votes, to harass and try to coerce them into voting a certain way to the point where some of these women had to turn turn their phones off. So once again, why would Sanders refuse to answer such a simple question? When you spend so much time demanding the system is broken and when it becomes clear that even if one changes the system to suit your demands and you would still lose, then it's clear that one's up the nasty creek without a paddle and demanding that the system be changed constantly so that you can win is not democratic. It's just foolish. Well firstly, I am not a Hillary supporter. I was a Bernie fan up to a few months ago, when the sexism surrounding his campaign turned me right off. Right now, from my perspective over the pond, whoever wins will be pretty much the same.. Secondly, if you are going to comment on the 'spla spittle', perhaps you should have a chat with your Bernie Bro pjdude there. Thirdly, when accusations of Bernie's own words becoming "media manipulation", then really, we have delved into the realm of the ridiculous. Fourthly, the adults in the room are the ones who aren't turning a blind eye to misogyny and sexism, nor are we making excuses for it. Acting like what? Commenting on real problems in society that results in this kind of reaction when losing? Do you believe that no comment should be made on the rampant sexism of the Bernie Bro's? Should it be swept under the rug and we can all pretend it doesn't exist, except for the poor women being hounded by these people and called "cunts" "bitches", etc? This is a real problem in the election cycle itself, be it on the Republican side or on the Democrat's side. And it needs to be dealt with and addressed, not ignored or not discussed or mentioned because we don't want to hurt people's feelings because they are losing. Well, firstly, she isn't my candidate. Secondly, perhaps you feel Sanders could do better because he is able to get down to Trump's level when it comes to wooing back his supporters. Thirdly, the people causing the huge ruckus here is Sanders with his claims that the election was stolen from him, demanding laws and the process be changed because it hasn't worked well for him thus far and then refusing to acknowledge that even if these changes were brought to pass, he would still be behind. To wit, he is now running a campaign that is directly helping Trump.. Which makes your whine that much more ironic. It isn't Clinton setting the house on fire. It's Sanders. And that is why Trump is rubbing his hands with glee. And that is why Trump is so sure he can pull Sander's supporters to his side. Birds of a feather tend to flock together. What's that disgusting saying? Ah yes, 'Bro's before Hoe's'.. Sander's campaign is the embodiment of that sentiment and his 'Bro's' are literally living up to that sexist saying and he's not doing a single thing about it.
Part the First Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Some do, but clearly not enough. Indeed, that question is close to the heart of Democratic strife. In denouncing the Establishment, Team Sanders and the Movement have also denounced millions of votes cast for candidates who were or became part of "the Establishment". To wit there is a large contingent of young voters in the Sanders movement, and every generation tires of hearing about history, but sometimes it's relevant. I've mentioned before that we're seeing a young generation of voters in the Trump movement whose entire lives have occurred in the context of right-wing screeds against government. What of the younger voters in the Sanders movement? It's hard to say, because the point isn't to blame them; plenty of older people who ought to know better―Tim Robbins and Margot Kidder come to mind, you know, just for instance―are ignoring the history younger voters might not be aware of. And one of the hardest things about that problem is that legitimate questions get wrecked. Take the "superpredators" controversy, for instance. Yeah, it was a really harsh line. But it didn't occur in a vacuum, nor under circumstances like we've seen in recent years; the liberal voice finding empowerment seems nearly anxious to forget the disempowered decades. There are a lot of questions about the '94 crime bill requiring answers, but those answers are harder to find when the historical context is so grotesquely skewed. I mean, where does Rush Limbaugh come into all of this? Because we know he does at some point. Still, though, let's try Chauncey DeVega↱, first, a bit over a month ago: From the lofty perch of hindsight, complicated public policy challenges are all too often made to look simple and easy. Bill Clinton's confused and angry response to being questioned about his role in the mass incarceration of black Americans (and what scholars such as Michelle Alexander have described as the "new Jim Crow") is a reflection of the messy politics that birthed the 1994 crime bill (The Violent Crime Control Act). In all, if the Clintons are lost in the morass of a political swamp where they are struggling how to best explain their role in the mass incarceration of black Americans, such a predicament is at least partially a reflection of the contradictions and complexities that occur whenever questions of race, class, justice and crime intersect along the color line in the United States. ‡ The 1994 Violent Crime Control Act was born out of a moment, the mid- to late-1980s and the early 1990s, when violent crime was a national emergency. During this time period, there was panic and hysteria, and we must remember the way it was framed―the talk of the denizens of crime-infested inner city neighborhoods who would often sleep in bathtubs to avoid bullets. Crack cocaine was a monster that broke homes and families, made gangs rich, lured black boys and girls into crime, and created a generation of "crack babies"―black children who were destined to be learning disabled, physically handicapped, and as they matured, would soon be trapped in an endless cycle of "ghetto culture" of poverty, crime and drugs. The "super-predators" Hillary referred to were black street pirates without a moral code or any sense of restraint. It was rumored that some of them even smoked "illies" (marijuana laced with embalming fluid, PCP, and/or cocaine) that made the user even more crazy and dangerous. Hillary Clinton wanted to bring these black "thugs" to "heel." Donald Trump ran ads in newspapers demanding that the four black and one Hispanic teenager who were arrested for allegedly raping a 28-year-old old white woman in New York City's Central Park "be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes. They must serve as examples so that others will think long and hard before committing a crime or an act of violence." Popular culture is central to public memory. The moment that produced Bill Clinton's 1994 crime bill also inspired drug and gang themed movies such as "Boyz n the Hood," "Colors," "New Jack City" and "Deep Cover." ‡ The most extreme critics of Bill and Hillary Clinton and the 1994 crime bill depict the two as waging a war on black folks, unleashing a racist carceral society that placed many thousands of non-violent black offenders in prison and jail. In this narrative, if the punishing and punitive state is one of the primary features of a racist and classist America, then the Clintons ought to be public enemy No. 1 for black people. It is true that the Violent Crime Control Act (and a 1996 "welfare reform" bill that actually increased extreme poverty) was certainly part of an intentional move by Bill Clinton and other "New Democrats" to mine white racial resentment and overt bigotry against black people for electoral gain in a political landscape where "Reagan Democrats" were coveted, and the Republican Party had hammered "liberals" for being "soft" on crime (and thus by implication too "close" to people of color). Allowing for that fact, we must still be cautious, as an extremely narrow focus on those dynamics risks neglecting an important question. What was the role of black elites and the black mass public in the passing of the 1994 crime bill? A flattened and distorted version of what has been demonized as "black respectability politics," where the fallen Bill Cosby and his speech on "pound cakes," "sagging pants" and black wayward youth, has made this type of intervention unpopular. Nevertheless, it remains a question and complication that should be explored. As political scientist Michael Fortner argues in his new book, what he terms as "the black silent majority," has long-supported a "get tough" approach to crime and law enforcement. This is practical self-interest: if violent and other types of street crime are often more common in poor, low-income, and working class communities―and America is a race and class segregated society―then black and brown folks who live in those spaces are more likely to be victims of crime. Amie Parnes↱ reported last month expectations in the black community for a President Hillary Clinton: The effort hit a major speed bump last week when Bill Clinton got into a public argument with protesters in the Empire State over the 1994 crime bill he signed into law. As protesters chanted "black youth are not superpredators," he defended the legislation, arguing the protesters were "defending the people who killed the lives you say matter." Bill Clinton a day later said he regretted the comments, but Sanders has sought to make them an issue. Independent observers say the remarks hurt Hillary Clinton, but that reservoirs of goodwill for the Clinton years will help the former first couple weather them. "That comment will make it harder to woo younger African-Americans to her side," said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. "But I think older African-Americans remember how bad things were at the time." None of this actually settles the issue, but it does remind that we're assessing a prior period according to our own contemporary mores. The Southern Strategy flew high in the eighties. Tough-on-crime was a marketplace demand; many intrusive and controversial anti-terror policies germinated in the laboratory of the War Against Drugs. And it seems to me that by the time Snowden started releasing the stolen files, Americans had already forgotten the George W. Bush presidency and domestic surveillance controversies; how many people who were outraged by what the Snowden dump informed them legitimately had no idea any of this was ever going on before? Intrusive domestic surveillance has been around at least since the Cold War; rumors of massive listening and data gathering operations have spun and fermented and even found verification over the decades. But it's true, by the time we got to Snowden, people seem to have forgotten what happened under George W. Bush. Asking them to think back twenty-two years to the crime bill? Or thirty years to a time when the proposition that Miranda rights were themselves a grave injustice wasn't simply a viable marketplace argument but also enough in many cases to defeat your soft-on-crime liberal-commie opponent? A question that arose amid the noise about Bernie Sanders and superdelegates: Why didn't he join the Democratic Party earlier and work to change Party rules? I note it for context. Where was this revolution twenty years ago? Twenty-five? Thirty? Thirty-five? It wasn't there. Sanders-movement rhetoric about corruption and the Establishment tacitly presumes it was; the difference between corruption and "taking a hard vote" is in no small part invested in whether alternate routes are available. The basic proposition is that Democratic politicians deliberately betrayed a majority of American voters for decades because they wanted to. Strangely, millions of people kept voting for them, anyway. The Sanders movement would indict these voters, but only tacitly; the Bern hasn't the courage to face this point directly. ―End Part I―
Part the Second Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If the question can be why didn't Sanders join the Democratic Party earlier, so also can it be to wonder why the revolution didn't assert itself earlier. The answer lies in history. The movement just wasn't there. We didn't have a majority; we weren't going to win a majority. One cannot stress enough just how different it was then compared to now. #BlackLivesMatter? Massive protests against police violence? These ideas found far different regard, then. The discourse was far different, then. Rush Limbaugh, for instance, is nearly emblematic. In the Reagan and Poppy Bush years, "honorable men doing honorable work" still prevailed; you just didn't talk about elected leaders in certain contexts unless you were absolutely certain. When Bill Clinton was elected, Rush Limbaugh led the charge to a new standard in which you even attacked the president's children. George W. Bush took office and the honorable work standard found new support among conservatives, to the point that truth itself became anathema if it spoke ill of the president. And then Barack Obama was elected, and the right wing is even louder and nastier than it was during Clinton's years. But the discourse didn't simply return to the honorable work standard during W's presidency; liberals certainly threw down, and the result is that while harsh and even incendiary rhetoric is becoming more and more controversial, it also enjoys a certain de facto degree of legitimacy for thriving in the marketplace. Back then you didn't go after the cops this way. You didn't go after politicians this way. It was untoward, uncouth, a straight run to defeat. And we can pretend all we want that if only the Democrats had thrown down in the eighties and nineties they would have ignited the movement―revolution? presumed majority?―that for whatever reason chose to not assert itself in the marketplace, but we can never actually know the answer to that question since those people didn't show up, and the evidence suggests the reason they didn't show up was that they didn't exist. Or else ... what? They corruptly and maliciously chose to celebrate and elevate injustice despite the clear will of a majority of voters? That a majority of voters happened to both be liberal and consciously betray society, you know, just because? I mean, I comprehend that much of our society really does hate women and dark skin that much, but no, that doesn't explain it all. After all, the common liberal sin of racism seems to be privilege-guilt reaction formation: We frequently treat the people we purport to help rather quite terribly by paying too much attention and behaving with an overdose of deliberate focus and demonstrative compassion; ours is a pity only serving to remind us of our superior privilege in judging and pitying others. It's one of the reasons male feminists are so bad at feminism; or white liberals so embarrassingly terrible at discussing racial and ethnic relations. But the bottom line is that we wouldn't tank justice just to get the women and blacks; that's what conservatives do. And it's true; white players in Democratic establishment power politics have taken some incredibly hard―a phrase here meaning, "unbelievably stupid"―votes over the years, but the problem isn't malice. The problem is that the marketplace simply did not suit―a phrase here meaning, "rejected"―what "progressives" now refer to as "social justice". If the base for such a movement existed then, why didn't Sen. Sanders throw down at the time? Is it perhaps because he knew better? Just like millions of Democratic voters over the course of decades. You know, who apparently support corruption? The younger Sanders voters especially―as the older ones ought to know better, already―need to take note: Invalidating the experiences and decisions of so many people you damn well need to make your revolution happen is not a good way to appeal for their support and solidarity. The thing about history, again: We were supposed to have learned that last century. And if Robbins or Kidder, or even Mr. Sanders himself, were actually paying attention, then they also know damn well that in addition to the question of smashing the glass ceiling, Democrats are actually within reach of a certain existential threshold. For decades American liberals have struggled to hold the line, taking what scraps they could win when things went badly enough that people broke leftward, or the courts did their jobs. This is actually as close to the turning point as we have been in my political lifetime, which includes thirty-six of my forty-three years. If Hillary Clinton manages eight solid years, Democrats will have pulled off ... well, something. It will be a harvest of sorts, and, the point is to bring in a good crop. It's actually kind of surprising; this rising potential is in fact what fills the abhorred vacuum as conservative political dominance of the nation wanes. As Jon Ralston↱ put it: Sometimes the Establishment is, you know, the good guys, especially when, you know, they win a lot of seats. That's what parties are supposed to do, not be outlets for malcontents who have empty social lives or rabble rousers without a cause. Like I said, we can pretend all we want about what if the Democrats had thrown down thirty years ago. The flip side of the Mysterious Revolutionary Majority is what we expect would have happened if Democrats got stomped even worse than they did. The lesson of '48, as I recall, is that the petite bourgeoisie will break toward the bourgeoisie; later analyses argue persuasively they constitute essential support for fascism when it arises. It is easy enough to wonder, watching the Trump phenomenon, but generally Americans at the time would have stopped short of totalitarianism; it was even part of the generational mythography, owing to the Cold War. More realistically, though, it still isn't a promising landscape to suggest that Democrats should have thrown down and lost; imagine a Supreme Court with Scalia and Bork, and thus no Kennedy. In the simmering debate that sent the Democratic Party into a flat spin by the end of the eighties, Jesse Jackson won the argument on points but Bill Clinton and the DLC won on votes. To argue that this outcome was somehow a wilful betrayal of a mysterious revolutionary majority would be laughable, except for the fact we are expected to take it seriously in the question of who should receive the Democratic presidential nomination. This outcome was a market adaptation. It came about because that's what voters wanted. When we target the Establishment we tend to separate the government by, for, and of the People from the People. This is, of course, nearly inevitable to a certain extent, but the American discourse is not one accustomed to collective introspection. We might, to the one, place undue value on the question of which presidential candidate we would rather have a beer with, but at the same time we tend to expect officeholders to conduct themselves in particular ways; there is a conflict between pretentious symbiotic omni syndrome and the otherness we actually expect. There even comes a point at which we don't really want our president to be "like us"; we're chaotic, overwhelmed, underinformed slobs compared to these expectations of our politicians. But the Establishment, regardless of whether or not it ossifies as many establishment structures do and people reasonably fear, still represents the center of the bell curve as a representation of political marketplace demand; this is how "centrism" brings us torture, or revives disputes over who gets to give women permission to access health care. Any number of stupid compromises politicians have wrought over the years are derived from market demand. Perhaps younger voters don't know the history; older voters in the Sanders camp forget the history because the record is inconvenient to their narrative. There are, of course, any other number of factors at play, but the end result includes the effect of separating what We the People have done from the People. Yes, the politicians are at least ritually corrupt; the People have generally allowed and in some cases even encouraged these outcomes. Yes, politicians have coddled the corporations, but anyone telling us voters didn't play along with that is either lying or insufficiently informed. And, yes, the infrastructure is falling apart, but there is an old slogan reflecting on the day that the schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber. Yes, voters built this. There were years in which election chatter was about running the government like a business, or that the budget should be like a household budget. To wit, corruption isn't specifically the reason everything is falling apart, just part of the problem. The actual reason is voters; first voters told the politicians to spend less money on stuff like that, then they told politicians to spend that money by giving it to the private sector to do public work for profit, then they told politicians to spend more on the military, then they complained about the government spending too much money and not getting enough in return, then they did the whole thing all over again. And again. And again. If the problem is the Establishment, remember that a parliament of whores is playing to the marketplace. Naturally, any politician surviving all that must necessarily be corrupt for having done everything they could to accommodate voter demand. ―End Part II―
Part the Third Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There is a story about the Russian Revolution, that as the time drew nigh Trotsky and Lenin found themselves discussing how to go forward; they needed to mobilize the workers. Trotsky, I believe it was, asked, "Do we know any workers?" Lenin replied that he knew one, a watchman who, with his wife, participated in a Bible study group alongside other workers. It is one thing to say the Russian Revolution failed. It is another to point out that it failed rather quite quickly. And we are, as leftists or simply people participating in civilized society, expected to learn certain lessons from history. One of these lessons is that top-down revolutions always roll rightward. But another asserts itself more clearly: They got that far into their revolutionary calculation without actually having any substantial associations with, or even clues about, the people they would rely upon while purporting to help. Compared to the seemingly obvious point about kingpins in People's revolutions, this might seem a bit obscure. But it would also seem rather quite foolish for Americans to suddenly pretend unfamiliarity with traditional complaints about liberal elitism; not knowing any workers while trying to foment a workers' revolution seems very nearly an archetypal example at the heart of the Red Menace myth that compels so many Americans to loathe liberalism. One of the challenging aspects about analyzing the younger Sanders voters really is the the older generation. It's not that younger voters specifically and absolutely don't know history, but there are advocates of my generation whose arguments in support of the Sanders movement necessarily presume that the political climate and voter marketplace were the same thirty years ago as they were six months ago, or six days ago. This requisite vagary is not simply historical; it is also analytical. If one asks how we intend to accomplish a Sanders policy goal, we are told to look at Scandanavia. If one points out historical voter reactions to exceptionally liberal or leftist platforms, we are reminded that Bernie Sanders isn't that far to the left. And no, he's not so liberal if we're comparing ourselves Scandanavia. You know, say, three countries with a combined population of around twenty million (e.g., Florida), the largest jurisdiction attending just under ten million (e.g., Michigan)? We might, then, remind that Mr. Sanders aims to run for president in the U.S. Scandanavia is largely irrelevant to questions of Kansas, Florida, and Texas. The historical experiences of other societies are not wholly irrelevant, but in the end those other societies are not replacements, and should not be held as rhetorical surrogates, for actual voters in the society one seeks to represent. Lenin and Trotsky apparently didn't know the people they wanted to help. La révolution de Bern, as near as we can tell, wants to replace the people they want to help with Norwegians. These outcomes are farcical, providing concrete examples of what happens when history is absent from the political discourse. It is one thing to devise an engaging platform; it is another to explain it. Still, that isn't even what is afoot. To wit, Bill Schneider↱ for Reuters: For all the talk of ideological polarization, 2016 doesn't fit the trend. Trump was not the first choice of conservatives, and Hillary Clinton was not the first choice of liberals. What would true ideological polarization look like? Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) facing off against Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). What Nixon meant by moving to the center is finding issues that a broad majority of voters can agree on. Trump believes he can do it by building a movement of angry voters. There are certainly plenty of angry voters in both parties this year. Sanders has won nearly 9.5 million votes in the Democratic primaries by rallying voters angry at Wall Street and the Democratic Party establishment. Sanders appeals to economic populism: resentment of “the 1 percent.” Trump appeals to cultural populism: resentment of immigrants, foreigners, Muslims, Latinos, blacks and women. It seems quite plainly evident that when we talk of voter and societal frustration, there are different phenomena taking place on left and right. Strangely, though, Sen. Sanders and his supporters deliberately play into the commonality. The fundamental division 'twixt the two paradigms of frustration orbits an axis of justice; liberals are frustrated at compromises delaying and stifling justice, while conservatives are angry that justice is not stifled. These are very different pathologies. Donald Trump has every reason to want the commonality; the liberal contribution to the whole exerts legitimization. The liberal appeal to commonality of factions seems more mysterious, and quite frankly the most prominent aspects of common cause are, in fact, the disgraceful ones. This is not helpful to anyone. There are reasons why the Communist Party generally stays out of American politics. To the one, the Establishment literally chased them out. To the other, though, they aren't anxious to take part in the cycle of compromise and disappointment and delay. This is understandable. But at the end of the day a gay Communist isn't going to refuse marriage rights just because they arrived through the Corrupt System. And on Election Day many still turn out to vote in order to have a say in their communities. But they're not going to Congress to take the hard votes delaying justice for stupid reasons. The question of whether to hold out or join the society's liberal party came to a head a century ago; principle favors Pankhurst, practical reality sides with Lenin but only generally―there are times when reality sides with Pankhurst; this is not one of those cycles. Many liberals chose a more participatory path, and for the last, say, forty-eight years have tried to work within the system; the idea is to cooperate and not scare the traditional powers, to compromise and make small progress, and work toward inevitability; success reaps a tremendous toll from the People, but failure is a greater harvest of misery that pales in comparison to a lack of anyone trying. The problem with smashing the state is that for most Americans the point is to not destroy everything along the way. It may be a century and a half behind us, but we are not anxious to do the Civil War thing again. Indeed, we are alive in a time such as to hear the dying roar of supremacist domination. The reason conservatives are rumbling toward uprising is that if they can't run the society, nobody should. To the one, nature abhors a vacuum, so it seems perfectly normal and predictable that other voices should join the cacophony. And, to the other, this is an unsettled, potentially transformational phase; people are supposed to make a lot of noise. This has gone about as badly as it can. If it was just one thing or the other, that would be ... er ... okay, I need a new phrase for the tail end. Still, though, it's been one thing after another on top of yet another. I would reiterate two points about myself: First, at the outset I would have been happy with either Clinton or Sanders; second, I wasn't hopping on the first revolutionary bandwagon to come along just because it was there―it seemed wise enough to wait and see what Sanders brought, and that pretense of wisdom has an appearance of validation and justification, though that might simply be coincidence. ―End Part III―
Part the Fourth Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Still, though: • The platform that emerged was problematic at a practical level; I still can't figure out how I would sell it in the general. • The Sanders movement has at no time, and in no dimension, been helpful toward this aspect. → It was easy enough for a long period in Sanders' campaign effort to not hold the Bernie Bros and other seasonal madness against the candidate. But this didn't make things any easier; when the answers to people's inquiries are furious screaming in order to dodge the questions, querients are not reassured. When their own histories and experiences are invalidated for the sake of feelgood zealotry and furious screaming in order to dodge questions, any subsequent appeal for their support and solidarity becomes much more difficult. When they denounce millions of voters as corrupt for the simple fact that an inevitable Establishment exists, they simply chase these people away. We might wonder about cognitive disability; the movement still hasn't figured this part out. By the time we get around to trying to blame other people―attributing Team Sanders to Team Clinton in order to dodge the question by self-righteously denouncing it―things are ridiculous. By the time we get to supporters staging riots at Democratic conventions, it is clear that this movement is all about itself. At no point has the movement been able to undertake a constructive role in the discourse; the sad thing is that what happened in Nevada is exactly what a lot of Sanders critics have been tiptoeing around―it's a goddamn stereotype pushed by the right wing suddenly brought to life. • Bernie Sanders entered this race on a populist platform relying in no small part on his reputation as an honest, nice guy outside the typical mudslinging of politics. He has burned that credibility. To the one, the idea that Bernie Sanders is just another politician is hardly disqualifying; that neither Mr. Sanders nor his supporters seem capable of coming to terms with the point is, at the very least, worrisome. • The Southern Decision needed no justification; Mr. Sanders' dedication to delegitimizing the black vote in the South, however, is unacceptable. Not only does the Southern Excuse reek of racism, which so many liberal columnists struggled to↑ maneuver around↑ on Bernie's behalf, it also showed just how awry the campaign's priorities are. The racist stench is itself unacceptable; the fact that it arises in a clumsy effort to justify what needed no justification is a damaging indictment of Bernie Sanders' political skills and presidential demeanor. • Eleven months into the campaign, with astounding potential and momentum in the nomination contest, the candidate cannot answer straightforward questions about his own platform because he has not yet studied those issues. • Following the Southern Excuse and the NYDN disaster, the Sanders campaign has projected a much darker tone, aiming to damage Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, and leading to the Nevada debacle. • Harassing and threatening and accusing the people Sanders would need to win the presidency is not the way to win their support; indeed, the senior U.S. Senator from Vermont is doing more to harm the prospects of the American left than anything else. There is the point that if this what happens when the liberal bloc asserts itself in the Democratic Party, the Establishment will be more wary next time. But there is also the growing possibility that this is part of the point. Tweedledee and Tweedledum, indeed; it seems arguable at this point that Bernie is just fine with empowering Republicans if it makes his personality cult seem that much more important. There are reasons I didn't jump on the first available bandwagon↗. The striking aspect is not some notion of realizing the concerns, but the manner and degree of fulfillment. Staying off the bandwagon was not, in the beginning, any context of opposition. Early murmur and buzz disdaining the Bernie Bros and other fervent supporters did not require any context of opposition. Even the staunch refusal of the Bernie Sanders supporters in my association to start making sense required no specific context of opposition on my part. But all that, and then what? He hasn't studied the implications of his own policies? And he's so terrible a politician as to offer a worse than useless Southern Excuse that wasn't necessary in the first place? This endeavor has turned into a sick stereotype. We can say what we want about whether Hillary Clinton is a centrist or corrupt or whatever, but insofar as that might mean we don't get the big banks broken up the way Bernie would, well, neither would we get that from Bernie. And who knows, we might not get anything else, either; I still haven't heard how 5.3% growth works―all I've heard is that Sanders' paid consultant is a Clinton toadie, which might possibly be the best dumb excuse ever. And the thought of a fight over human rights can be whatever it is to any voter; it doesn't have to be a reason to vote for Clinton. But we don't know what Bernie Sanders' human rights pitch is. He's too busy complaining about the advantages women have and telling them to stop moaning about stuff. It's one thing to try to ride #BlackLivesMatter, but quite another to argue the delegitimization of black voters. And while it's annoying to hear the rhetoric denigrating generaitons of Democratic voters, the bigger problem is that the threat is clear: Bernie Sanders and his campaign are willing to try to incite riots. This is a right-wing stereotype of liberalism come to life. The hardest thing to believe is that Mr. Sanders is somehow unaware of this. Tweedledee and Tweedledum. That part, at least, makes sense. Here's my problem with Bernie Sanders. With few exceptions, I agree with his positions on issues. But I don't like him or his political temperament. He'd be an awful president. I followed him carefully when I was editor of the Burlington Free Press in Vermont. Sanders was the state's sole congressman, lived in Burlington, and would periodically visit with the newspaper's editors and publisher. Considering that the Free Press' editorial positions were very liberal, reflecting the nature of a very liberal Vermont community, one might think that meetings with Sanders were cordial, even celebratory. They weren't. Sanders was always full of himself: pious, self-righteous and utterly humorless. Burdened by the cross of his socialist crusade, he was a scold whose counter-culture moralizing appealed to the state's liberal sensibilities as well as its conservatives, who embraced his gun ownership stance, his defense of individual rights, an antipathy toward big corporations and, generally speaking, his stick-it-to-them approach to politics. ‡ After discussing his favorite issues―corporations, government reform, health care and the like, I asked about his unwillingness to endorse his fellow progressives. He said it wasn't his role. I suggested voters might expect him to weigh in. He disagreed, clearly annoyed at the persistent questioning. Finally I suggested that he had a larger moral responsibility to the progressive movement. At which point he jumped out of his seat, told me to go f*** myself and stormed out of the edit board meeting. OK, maybe my persistence bordered on hectoring. But I felt he ought to provide an honest answer. My suspicion was that he resented others for assuming his mantle of progressive leadership and wouldn't acknowledge them. He returned to the meeting about five minutes after the outburst and we continued to discuss issues of the day. The candidate you see on television working crowds, shaking hands and even smiling has undergone a presidential campaign conversion. And there is no doubt that Sanders is a smart, deft politician riding a popular, populist wave. But what is real? (Hirten↱) Right now the question is not Bernie Sanders' legacy. Rather, we can certainly consider the context of his legacy but there is a more important aspect to consider: This farce is emblematic of why the Establishment looks the way it does. If Bernie decides to "bern" it all, we'll see another generation of Democratic voters far too wary of breaking too far left. It's a convenient catbird seat: Wreck it all and then complain about the mess. I could have sworn that was the Republicans' job. Over the last several weeks I've had a series of conversations with multiple highly knowledgable, highly placed people. Perhaps it's coming from Weaver too. The two guys have been together for decades. But the 'burn it down' attitude, the upping the ante, everything we saw in that statement released today by the campaign seems to be coming from Sanders himself. Right from the top. (Marshall↱) ―Fin―
Notes for Posts #215 — 218 DeVega, Chauncey. "Racist then, racist now: The real story of Bill Clinton’s crime bill". Salon. 16 April 2016. Salon.com. 23 May 2016. http://bit.ly/23EWPRE Hirten, Mickey. "The trouble with Bernie". Lansing City Pulse. 7 October 2015. LansingCityPulse.com. 23 May 2016. http://bit.ly/25dFOPn Marshall, John. "It Comes From the Very Top". Talking Points Memo. 18 May 2016. TalkingPointsMemo.com. 23 May 2016. http://bit.ly/1TuMmS8 Parnes, Amie. "Black leaders expect Clinton to deliver". The Hill. 12 April 2016. TheHill.com. 23 May 2016. http://bit.ly/1VTCh1z Ralston, Jon. "The sour grapes revolution that rocked the Paris Hotel". Ralston Reports. 16 May 2016. RalstonReports.com. 23 May 2016. http://bit.ly/22fPPpN Schneider, Bill. "Yes, the nation is polarized. So why aren’t the most extreme candidates winning?". Reuters. 17 May 2016. Reuters.com. 23 May 2016. http://reut.rs/2094dyH
well its nice to know are trio of 3 for clinton are going to stop lying any time. good job repeating your fucking lies tiassa. and no i'm not going to post any evidence on them because you already have shown to ignore when you repeated libel against a clinton supporter who proved sander economic plan was legit you still refuse to admit it not a paid sander person. seriously you've gone down the rabbit hole so far you can even see just how stupid of an argument your making is. your argument is litteraly claiming a reporter knows more about a mains political activity than the person himself. its amazing how this election turn you and bells so dishonest. and your right in this election that we won't get leftist electorate but is because of clinton and people like you and bells deligitmizing that view point. while some, not all like you and bells are trying to paint, who have been admonished unlike you've claimed, bernie supporters have acted inapropriately you need to acknowledge that the hillary side bears quite a bit of blame for the animosity. Clinton herserlf deligitimized, along with you tiassa, young voters basicly saying they were voting for sander because they were ignorant and idealistic and therefore shouldn't get a voice. do you really think clintons media supporters actively mocking left wing viewpoints is going to help engender left wing voter? oh and you would know all about that 3.5% growth if instead on lying your ass off you just read the paper. but your more interested in lying thaning looking and facts. well i'm probably done discussing the elction until november because while lying once ass off is expected of the right wing its said to see so many so called liberals engaging in it simply because they don't don't the man and his supporters.
