Bernie or Busters are flocking Philly to protest DNC, city projecting 35-50k protesto
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
BlastProcessing
Member
@VABVOX 10m10 minutes ago
It was actually awkward at the protests this morning.
More reporters than protesters.
More food trucks than protesters.
#DemsInPhilly
More food trucks than protesters.
More food trucks than protesters.
More food trucks than protesters.
It was actually awkward at the protests this morning.
More reporters than protesters.
More food trucks than protesters.
#DemsInPhilly
More food trucks than protesters.
More food trucks than protesters.
More food trucks than protesters.
Already Torn
Banned
I know, I know, it's not worth it. But how does the email leak make Hillary look bad?
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
QuantumZebra
Member
Because she was behind all of it!
The Clintons are controlling the puppet DNC from the shadows!!
That the DNC was secretly bending the game in her favor and she still struggled in some states showcasing a weak candidate.
jack_package_200
Banned
How did they bend the game? Voters voted for her.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
It came out that the DNC leadership was actively working against Sanders and trying to get Hillary elected, and I think it's weird that people here are being so dismissive of that. Bernie's supporters have every right to be pissed. I get that Hillary is the only choice to vote for in this election, but her supporters need to start being a bit more honest about the fact that the complaints about her corruption aren't just talk. She's not the heroine they're projecting onto her.
Dangansona
Member
That's my question, but people are finding a way.
Thats also what I was saying.
QuantumZebra
Member
Seriously? She clowned Bernie, it wasn't even as close as her and Obama in 2008.
Neither is Bernie the hero his nutball fans are claiming him to be. He's a dick that doesn't like yielding or compromising at all in his ideology, and reeks of the "liberal snobbiness" that you hear a lot of Republicans complain about.
Hillary is nowhere near what the toxic criticism leveled at her has painted her as. She is a career politician who is highly intelligent and knows how to work with people across the aisle to get things done.
You people need to stop engaging TI everytime he talks about Hillary or the DNC. It's literally all the same talking points of "corruption, rigging, untrusthworthy" from the GOP.
I was under the assumption the supposed fart-in thing was its own separate thing for Thursday, going off the info in the OP. The "protest" going on today is its own thing.
What makes you think this lady organizing the fart-in has any sway over Sanders supporters? Nobody follows her, not even Sanders supporters. It's disingenuous to suggest she and her fart-in are representative.
Sanders himself obviously never supported it and as far as I know he hasn't even called for DNC protests more broadly since they settled on the party platform.
Already Torn
Banned
But surely that's on the DNC leadership? Why are we talking about Hillary?
QuantumZebra
Member
Because everyone knows the Clintons control everything everyone in the government does.
Already Torn
Banned
The reach of the Clintons knows no limits. They even managed to get WikiLeaks to suppress the emails in which the DNC conspired with the Clinton campaign!
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Show me an email where the DNC puts a plan in motion to hurt Sanders.
In fact we have an email saying that the chair has been advised not to take action, and so one plan was squelched
Isn't this the dude from the New Radicals? "You only get what you give..."
Bounceounce
Member
Nah she's just a shill.
BronsonLee
Member
I was gonna go and take pictures with my phone but I decided to do literally anything else instead
Gooby Plz?
What is this? CNN was just live with the protesters and said that there were about 1,000 people there.
jack_package_200
Banned
.The non-Bernie protests seem to have decent numbers of attendees:
https://twitter.com/HelenGymAtLarge/status/757249373361373184
What is a "Bernie or Bust" person? I've seen this phrase thrown around to mean so many different things.
gutter_trash
Banned
it's anti-fracking protest mostly
BinaryPork2737
Unconfirmed Member
Typically, it either means someone that will only vote for Sanders and no one else, or someone that will only vote for the Democratic candidate if it's Sanders (as in, they'll vote for Trump, Stein, Johnson, etc. instead). The meaning itself varies among those who unironically take it up as a sort of slogan.
the one on CNN had a ton of Bernie signs...
You truly are an engaging one in these discussions.
Guessing it's the one I just posted about, which is definitely a pro Bernie rally. I think it's the Black Men for Bernie rally, to be specific. A lot of the anti fracking people are wandering over there now.
shadowsdarknes
Member
Sarcasm is hard to tell on the internet.
I mean I'm just going off the tweet so that might be the case but at the same time these are still two different protests. The one talked about in the OP and most posts here is the one for BoB where people are trying to gather in protest of Hillary's nomination and has only a handful of protesters while there's another one elsewhere I guess concerning climate change where people could still be holding Bern signs but not in leagues with the BoBers.
BronsonLee
Member
Sweet, they're rallying for a candidate at the same spot where I saw two shirtless dudes throwing hands while fighting back and forth on top of a domino piece
BlastProcessing
Member
That is the Clean Energy March. It seems to be a successful protest mostly focused on fracking and the TPP.
The Bernie or Bust march this morning was a dud.
GillianSeed79
Member
The narrative that all Bernie supporters are diet racist over privileged white kids is infuriating, especially considering how Hillary supporters view African Americans more negatively. But keep telling yourself that all Bernie supporters are "Bernie Bros" racists if that makes you feel better.
The narrative that all Bernie supporters are diet racist over privileged white kids is infuriating, especially considering how Hillary supporters view African Americans more negatively. But keep telling yourself that all Bernie supporters are "Bernie Bros" racists if that makes you feel better.
I generally don't put a lot of stock in polls like that one, the word choice and tone of voice of the person asking the question can change the answer a lot for one.
And I also don't claim to know a lot about the demographic composition of sanders supporters.
But if you add the margin of error to sanders numbers and subtract the margin of error from clintons numbers then it's pretty much a statistical tie in those graphs. To me even if the polling was 100% scientific those Bernie and Hillary supporter numbers are a statistical tie.
As a minority who supports Bernie, I'm really tired of some of these Hillary supporters on GAF making these claims. It's been going on for months and I wish mods would do something about it.
That's not how statistics work
Its within the stated margin of error of the poll.
Aaronology
Member
The narrative that GAF has had a narrative that "all Bernie supporters are diet racists" is silly. Stop.
That poll shows a quarter of Bernie's supporters do, in fact, hold racist views. You don't help your argument, and bringing up Hillary Clinton is irrelevant. No one who followed 08's primary would be under any illusions that racism hasn't significant pockets in the Democratic Party. You aren't presenting shocking information here. The problem in this primary was that Bernie's racist gallery had reason to be far more vocal than Clinton's, especially online, and he spectacularly failed to bring any of that under control.
The whole GAF anti-Bernie attitude is disgusting. The few times that I've tried to engage in dialogue on GAF in political threads, I get run out by the Hill-Shills on GAF. They're childish and rude. If you haven't drank the Hillary Kool-Aid, you may as well not even try to have a conversation about politics on GAF. If these attitudes are representative of the democratic party, I do not want to be associated with it. I'm tempted to vote for Trump just to watch this dumpster fire of a political party burn, especially after all of the corruption that has been exposed.
I actually think the discussion of DNC "bias" is potentially interesting, although it seems too fraught to have productive discussions about.
I think we'd all generally agree that the DNC should generally not play favorites among the candidates who want to run for the Democratic nomination.
However, I would argue that this is more or less what happened. I don't think the DNC was particularly biased against Bernie Sanders -- I think that he got as much or more support as any candidate who entered the party from outside, declared that the party was corrupt, and spent most of their time refusing to coordinate or help the party and attacking it as being rigged against him.
One aspect of this is that I think people are using the word "fair" in very strange ways. To be frank, Hillary Clinton has done much more work and preparation for her presidential campaign than Bernie Sanders did. It's unclear to me why it would be "fair" for them be have roughly equal chances to win the nomination when she put in much more effort. That strikes me as demanding special treatment! I would make the argument that Hillary's overwhelming structural advantage reflected Hillary's overwhelming investment in winning, an investment Bernie Sanders never made to the same degree.
Doesn't it seem fair that the candidate that works harder and spends more time preparing should have a better chance of winning? Isn't that how we want life to work?
The other aspect of this issue is less about Clinton and more about the party. Again, Bernie spent a lot of time attacking the DNC and the Democratic Party. It is actually very strange to me that people make the argument that it is "unfair" for the DNC to want to give less support to a candidate who explicitly attacks them. I'm unclear on why it is "fair" to argue that somebody's choices should not have consequences. The argument that people's right to fair treatment is sacrosanct regardless of their antisocial behavior comes up a lot and I don't think much of it.
If you go to a barn raising and start telling everybody that they're terrible at raising barns and need to put it in a different location, you can probably expect that you will not get much support and after a while people will start giving you less attention. That's not because they're being "unfair" towards your desires. It's because people working together on a collective good are going to be more supportive of people who contribute towards that collective good. That's how society functions.
I think we'd all generally agree that the DNC should generally not play favorites among the candidates who want to run for the Democratic nomination.
However, I would argue that this is more or less what happened. I don't think the DNC was particularly biased against Bernie Sanders -- I think that he got as much or more support as any candidate who entered the party from outside, declared that the party was corrupt, and spent most of their time refusing to coordinate or help the party and attacking it as being rigged against him.
One aspect of this is that I think people are using the word "fair" in very strange ways. To be frank, Hillary Clinton has done much more work and preparation for her presidential campaign than Bernie Sanders did. It's unclear to me why it would be "fair" for them be have roughly equal chances to win the nomination when she put in much more effort. That strikes me as demanding special treatment! I would make the argument that Hillary's overwhelming structural advantage reflected Hillary's overwhelming investment in winning, an investment Bernie Sanders never made to the same degree.
Doesn't it seem fair that the candidate that works harder and spends more time preparing should have a better chance of winning? Isn't that how we want life to work?
The other aspect of this issue is less about Clinton and more about the party. Again, Bernie spent a lot of time attacking the DNC and the Democratic Party. It is actually very strange to me that people make the argument that it is "unfair" for the DNC to want to give less support to a candidate who explicitly attacks them. I'm unclear on why it is "fair" to argue that somebody's choices should not have consequences. The argument that people's right to fair treatment is sacrosanct regardless of their antisocial behavior comes up a lot and I don't think much of it.
If you go to a barn raising and start telling everybody that they're terrible at raising barns and need to put it in a different location, you can probably expect that you will not get much support and after a while people will start giving you less attention. That's not because they're being "unfair" towards your desires. It's because people working together on a collective good are going to be more supportive of people who contribute towards that collective good. That's how society functions.
Melkezadek
Member
You're tempted to vote for Trump because some posters on GAF made you feel bad?
I think your attitude is even more disgusting.
Acerac
Banned
I truly don't understand it.
I've got to stop reading politics threads on GAF, it gives me such a poor view of Hilary supporters.
BinaryPork2737
Unconfirmed Member
Going out on a limb here, but referring to them as "Hill-Shills" who "drank the Hillary Kool-Aid" probably isn't helping to create rational, non-insulting dialogue.
I personally disagree with your reasoning for voting for Trump, too, what with all of the terrible xenophobic, anti-LGBT policies his ticket is promoting, but hey, I guess you just don't want to talk to another liberal "hill-shill," even if they voted for Sanders before.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll