It doesn't help that when the above gets pointed out, Sanders goes on the attack and claims the critics are "shills" working for the "Billionaire Class". Considering that the people pointing out the problems have been pushing progressive policies for the last few years at a minimum really destroy's the credibility of Sanders' policy campaign.
Sanders hasn't attacked anybody. He does point out that the very wealthy have a very disproportionate influence on our government. That's not an attack it's reality.
Your last sentence doesn't make a lick of sense to me. The progressive policies of Democrats are milquetoast bullshit and have been for some 30 years. Gay marriage given to us like some kind of trophy while wealth inequality (and the power and agency that comes with it) reaches Great Depression levels and worse.
Go ahead and find a source for Bernie calling anybody a shill. I don't think I've once heard or read him use the word. If he ever did though, I guarantee it would be appropriate.
Hillary's political history is a nightmare. Google is your friend.
The best skeleton they've got on Bernie is a silly essay written 40 years ago in which he used the word rape in an off color joke in another age and an utterly alien social context to the one in 2015. That's weak.
Hillary though, you could write a book or two.
Bernie's plans probably need refinement, but he's got them. The refinement can come.
Hillary's plans include her promise to tell Wall St to knock it off. Possibly a finger will be shaken.
Hillary's political history is a nightmare. Google is your friend.
But with the number of times you've said something along those lines and your claims turned out to be nonsense, I'd say your friendship with the goog is distant and chilly at best.
The best skeleton they've got on Bernie is a silly essay written 40 years ago in which he used the word rape in an off color joke in another age and an utterly alien social context to the one in 2015. That's weak.
And also the pork barreling, stances on gun control ranging from pissweak to openly hostile, voting to fund wars, the fact that it took him being roasted by BLM to even start forming any sort of policy about racial inequality, his stance against same-sex marriage in Vermont, his ignorance of LGBT issues in the past(before you even try it - he opposed DOMA purely on the grounds of State's Rights), taking cash from Union-breaking corporations, attempting to block funding to foreign aid if said foreign aid had anything to do with gun control, just to name a few.
He's got plenty of Skeletons, the key to finding them is actually looking, rather than closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and screaming LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU SANDERS FOR PRESIDENT OR I'LL VOTE TRUMP I'M WARNING YOU LA LA LA.
The old essay really is a weak one, though - while nasty, it was the 1970s, we had very different ideas about sexual assault back then. I'd imagine he's changed his mind on the topic since.
So, is this how it goes? Muppet shows up, makes the same bland, blind attacks on Hillary and the same absurd claims crooked slightly so(From "Hillary is Literally Trump!" to "Hillary is literally Ted Cruz!" as if that's not the same damned thing), gets worked like a heavy bag, radio silence for a few days, 20 goto 10.
Can we just not and say we did until one of us has something new to say?
Like "Don't ask don't tell" was originally a pro gay rights rule, sometimes in hindsight things don't look as good as they did when they were enacted. One's positions at a specific time have to be placed in a historical context or they will always been judged harshly, TDR would be a huge racist today, but back in 1905 he considered progressive on race. Both Hillary and Sanders have had positions that they wouldn't be so happy with now. Both have had long political careers.
In short - They're both people with a 20+ year involvement in politics. Now think back to yourself, maybe ten years ago, half that time. Do you agree with everything you said a decade ago?
In short - They're both people with a 20+ year involvement in politics. Now think back to yourself, maybe ten years ago, half that time. Do you agree with everything you said a decade ago?
I don't agree with things I said a year ago, let alone ten.
Yeah, no. Burnie Bros are real. Ask just about any PoC or woman who doesn't support Burnie, maybe, instead of a white guy using his poorly managed, low-quality outlet to stump for his favorite candidate.
Especially when the same campaign you're trying to support has not only acknowledged their existence, but spoken out against them, and apologized to the Clinton campaign more than once about them.
When the guy you're cheering for is saying "This is a problem" while you're trying to say "It doesn't exist!" then maybe you should examine your beliefs, and who you support - After all, Burnie stands against sexism, racism, and all that other nasty shit. If you're a Burnie supporter - Stop defending it. Stop pretending it doesn't exist.
You want to really support Burnie and what he stands for? Grow a spine, and call it out. Stand up to it. Push back against the bastards, don't try and throw the drapes closed and tell people pay no attention to the bigot behind the curtain. Just because they like the same candidate, doesn't mean you can't call them out for shitty behavior.
Yes, I am being harder on you than usual here, since you didn't say much - but I'm afraid my fuse is pretty fucking short these days, when it comes to defending bigots and similar shitbags.
On the one hand I'm glad he's speaking out against the harassment, on the other I dislike giving them publicity. But I know it's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. There's nothing he can do that will sit right with me.
On the one hand I'm glad he's speaking out against the harassment, on the other I dislike giving them publicity. But I know it's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. There's nothing he can do that will sit right with me.
As a political strategy, considering the base he's aiming for, it's a smart move. There's already attention and publicity on the shittier parts of his fanbase, which isn't in his control. By condemning them, he's not only reaffirming what his campaign stands for, he's also getting out ahead of the publicity he doesn't control.
It looks like he's telling the harassers, sealions and dudebros to get the fuck out, appearing like he's willing to lose support to stick to his principles - while the harassers, sealions and dudebros are rarely self-aware enough to actually realize he's talking about them. Case in point - the Sanders For president subreddit(called out more than once as a central hub for the "BurnieBro" phenomenon) has already come to the consensus that it's just a media ploy to make people think Burnie is sexist.
Nobody ever won an election by appealing solely to the dedicated progressive vote - which is another reason it was a smart move, because while the aforementioned sorts don't realize he's talking about them, his condemnation of them will draw in more moderates by showing he's willing to deal with the assholes, even if it "hurts" his support base. As well as giving another nudge to his reputation as the candidate that listens to the people - just like he listened to the BLM protesters after they called him out and tried to solve the problems with his platform they raised, now he's listening to the people criticizing his supporters, and trying to solve the problem.
He'd probably lose some supporters either way. He just made it a positive by losing some of the assholes instead of those who would be put off by dudebro sexism.
He'd probably lose some supporters either way. He just made it a positive by losing some of the assholes instead of those who would be put off by dudebro sexism.
Definitely - if he does something, he'll lose some people. If he does nothing, he'll lose more as the shitbags drive more people away. It's a good move, but good damage mitigation is still damage mitigation.
Yeah, remember when the Republicans got caught using stock images for their "Republicans are people too" campaign? Meaning they couldn't even find pictures of actual republicans as examples.
So journalistic integrity only applies when it fits your narrative. Otherwise the reporter is mistaken? Glenn Greenwald is kind of a hack I guess.
Sure, there are people who fit the description of a Bernie Bro. Absolutely.
However, it's not some kind of movement, it's not representative of Bernie supporters, and it's certainly not something Hillary's supporters haven't got within their own ranks at least as much. In my own experience, I see far more virulent hate, condescension, and shaming from Hillary supporters than I do Bernie supporters. (And far more high profile. Insert clips from Albright and Steinem here.)
What Greenwald is saying is that there's no evidence of a population of uniquely abusive people among Bernie supporters, and as such there's no justification for tying Bernie to such a thing. And he's absolutely right.
And that's why the flogging of the "Bernie Bro" as some sort of political argument against Bernie's candidacy is a cheap tactic, not social activism, not honest, and has no validity whatsoever.
Hateful is hateful. Selective offense is a smear campaign.
However, it's not some kind of movement, it's not representative of Bernie supporters, and it's certainly not something Hillary's supporters haven't got within their own ranks at least as much. In my own experience, I see far more virulent hate, condescension, and shaming from Hillary supporters than I do Bernie supporters. (And far more high profile. Insert clips from Albright and Steinem here.)
Albright and Steinem weren't harassing individuals. Come back with a list of activists verbally assaulted by Clinton supporters to rival Churba's Bernie Bro links.
Comments
It doesn't help that when the above gets pointed out, Sanders goes on the attack and claims the critics are "shills" working for the "Billionaire Class". Considering that the people pointing out the problems have been pushing progressive policies for the last few years at a minimum really destroy's the credibility of Sanders' policy campaign.
Your last sentence doesn't make a lick of sense to me. The progressive policies of Democrats are milquetoast bullshit and have been for some 30 years. Gay marriage given to us like some kind of trophy while wealth inequality (and the power and agency that comes with it) reaches Great Depression levels and worse.
Go ahead and find a source for Bernie calling anybody a shill. I don't think I've once heard or read him use the word. If he ever did though, I guarantee it would be appropriate.
Hillary's political history is a nightmare. Google is your friend.
The best skeleton they've got on Bernie is a silly essay written 40 years ago in which he used the word rape in an off color joke in another age and an utterly alien social context to the one in 2015. That's weak.
Hillary though, you could write a book or two.
Bernie's plans probably need refinement, but he's got them. The refinement can come.
Hillary's plans include her promise to tell Wall St to knock it off. Possibly a finger will be shaken.
He's got plenty of Skeletons, the key to finding them is actually looking, rather than closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and screaming LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU SANDERS FOR PRESIDENT OR I'LL VOTE TRUMP I'M WARNING YOU LA LA LA.
The old essay really is a weak one, though - while nasty, it was the 1970s, we had very different ideas about sexual assault back then. I'd imagine he's changed his mind on the topic since.
Also:
Especially when the same campaign you're trying to support has not only acknowledged their existence, but spoken out against them, and apologized to the Clinton campaign more than once about them.
When the guy you're cheering for is saying "This is a problem" while you're trying to say "It doesn't exist!" then maybe you should examine your beliefs, and who you support - After all, Burnie stands against sexism, racism, and all that other nasty shit. If you're a Burnie supporter - Stop defending it. Stop pretending it doesn't exist.
You want to really support Burnie and what he stands for? Grow a spine, and call it out. Stand up to it. Push back against the bastards, don't try and throw the drapes closed and tell people pay no attention to the bigot behind the curtain. Just because they like the same candidate, doesn't mean you can't call them out for shitty behavior.
Yes, I am being harder on you than usual here, since you didn't say much - but I'm afraid my fuse is pretty fucking short these days, when it comes to defending bigots and similar shitbags.
Arthur Chu in The Guardian.
Emily Kahn, Mashable.
Evan Santoro, Buzzfeed News
Robinson Meyer, in The Atlantic.
Joanna Rothkopf, Jezebel/The Slot.
Peter Daou, Blue Nation Review
BBC
Jake Flanagin, Quartz
Amanda Taub, Vox
Parker Malloy gives her personal account here
Damn, Christie tore into Rubio in a way that could actually cause a shakeup with the remaining candidates.
It looks like he's telling the harassers, sealions and dudebros to get the fuck out, appearing like he's willing to lose support to stick to his principles - while the harassers, sealions and dudebros are rarely self-aware enough to actually realize he's talking about them. Case in point - the Sanders For president subreddit(called out more than once as a central hub for the "BurnieBro" phenomenon) has already come to the consensus that it's just a media ploy to make people think Burnie is sexist.
Nobody ever won an election by appealing solely to the dedicated progressive vote - which is another reason it was a smart move, because while the aforementioned sorts don't realize he's talking about them, his condemnation of them will draw in more moderates by showing he's willing to deal with the assholes, even if it "hurts" his support base. As well as giving another nudge to his reputation as the candidate that listens to the people - just like he listened to the BLM protesters after they called him out and tried to solve the problems with his platform they raised, now he's listening to the people criticizing his supporters, and trying to solve the problem.
http://mobile.vnews.com/news/20920395-108/sanders-scored-over-use-of-photos#
According to the article, this might be part of a pattern of unauthorized photo use.
It also provided us with this gem:
Sure, there are people who fit the description of a Bernie Bro. Absolutely.
However, it's not some kind of movement, it's not representative of Bernie supporters, and it's certainly not something Hillary's supporters haven't got within their own ranks at least as much. In my own experience, I see far more virulent hate, condescension, and shaming from Hillary supporters than I do Bernie supporters. (And far more high profile. Insert clips from Albright and Steinem here.)
What Greenwald is saying is that there's no evidence of a population of uniquely abusive people among Bernie supporters, and as such there's no justification for tying Bernie to such a thing. And he's absolutely right.
And that's why the flogging of the "Bernie Bro" as some sort of political argument against Bernie's candidacy is a cheap tactic, not social activism, not honest, and has no validity whatsoever.
Hateful is hateful. Selective offense is a smear campaign.