In other words, he wants campaign contributions to be properly regulated to end politics being controlled by the wealthy few. I think that is something that Hillary Clinton agrees with, correct me if I am wrong. Didn't she fight something about people united at the Supreme Court? There's a lot of support from both sides of the aisle for this so I can see her doing this and if she does, I hope Sanders supports her.
Bernie Sanders Campaign files procedural papers to continue lawsuit against DNC
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
In other words, he wants campaign contributions to be properly regulated to end politics being controlled by the wealthy few. I think that is something that Hillary Clinton agrees with, correct me if I am wrong. Didn't she fight something about people united at the Supreme Court? There's a lot of support from both sides of the aisle for this so I can see her doing this and if she does, I hope Sanders supports her.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Ten days after notification, or ten days after the first infraction?
Just like with the recent Bill Clinton quote, no one likes context
ftfy
User 463088
Banned
Well, I mean, he hasn't done a lot to dispel the fiction that he's not a sore loser. He rarely (if ever) even mentions the states that are voting in his election evening speeches. Hillary always takes the time to thank not only her supporters but to congratulate Bernie on a "spirited" campaign. If he knows he's going to lose (i.e. SC) he runs away to a more favorable state. Hillary stayed in NH until the bitter, bitter end. She knew she was going to lose, but she still took the time to thank her supporters.
Bernie's campaign has also done a great job making him appear to be a sore loser. They've said "Hillary's out of southern states" even though she's won states that are far outside the south. They've gone on and on about "virtual tie" in Iowa even though Hillary won both pledged delegates and state level delegate equivalents.
Then there's the rather vocal (probably a minority) group of Bernie supporters who, literally, spin every single Hillary win as somehow fraud, cheating, unintelligent people or some combination of the above.
From people who already had contempt for Bernie prior to being able to point at a reason to explain why exactly it is that they feel that way.
You forgot the crazy super delegate plan
Several Bernie supporters in this thread have voiced distaste at how he's been acting lately. That's not really true.
Yeah, I don't blame him for running indie in Vermont against Democrats. It's kinda absurd to worry about that in a state that has no chance of flipping red in the senate. Now if he ran indie in the presidential election...
HUELEN10
Member
Are people seriously forgetting that he has every right to sue and was technically slighted? He's technically the correct, the best kind of correct. Does petty or unseemly in this regard even matter at this point? I mean, every single one of the big 3 is guilty of it, and it happens on a near-daily basis!
Medicare for all will be a sticking point. I very much doubt we'll see it on the 2016 Democratic platform.
User 463088
Banned
True. Or when asked if he would stump for Hillary he responded that it depends on what the Establishment would do for them....
boiled goose
good with gravy
Non of this explains how bernie is a sore loser. It's basically pointing to rationalizing by his campaign or his supporters.... which is necessary to running a campaign.
Spin is part of campaigns.
Bernie only ran as a progressive challenge to Clinton because no one else did.
The sore loser narrative really reaks of projection..
OriginalThinking
Member
I think the distinction they're making is that just because you *can* do something, it doesn't mean you *should*. I could be wrong.
Wafflecakes
Member
The only correct thing is that he broke the rules and is bitching about being punished.
The political equivalent of a teen girl throwing a tantrum after her parents take her phone away.
jack_package_200
Banned
As someone who was very pro Bernie, all of this.
I see so much of that specifically on facebook where people keep posting #feelthebern, bernie memes, and conspiracies to eachother that my home page is just a fucking echo chamber.
Big Baybee
Member
Seriously, why do Sanders supporters give him a pass on this situation? His campaigned fucked up, got caught trying to steal some info, and was punished for it. Doesn't matter if he just took advantage of some IT fuckup. Stop this petty shit and move on.
boiled goose
good with gravy
The reason is because the situation is not quite as simple as that...
Frozenprince
Banned
And yet the fact that for most people it will appear that way is the problem.
It DOESN'T MATTER if it's actually petty or not. It comes off that way, that's the issue.
He has callously ignored optics this entire election and it's killed him.
It's pretty simple. His campaign did wrong. Then the DNC did wrong. Sanders undid his campaign's wrong. Then the DNC undid their wrong. Both of those wrongs didn't really add up to anything.
At this point, I guarantee that the superdelegates won't support Bernie no matter *how* many pledged delegates he has - even if he were somehow magically able to come back and take the lead, they'd vote for Hillary anyway. And why should they support him? He's a bitter old man who spends half his time shitting on the party that he's seeking the nomination for - a party he only joined because an independent run from him would get him maybe a few percent of the vote if he were lucky. The sooner he gets out of the race and slinks back to Vermont, the better, and his vocal Reddit followers/former Ron Paul supporters can go right with him.
Wafflecakes
Member
...bu bu bu the evil establishment conspiracy!!!!
Seriously though. This whole matter should have been forgotten months ago.
boiled goose
good with gravy
That's fair! Clearly suing is making him look bad to HillGAF. Though to me it seems like people looking for an excuse to dislike him...
Saying bad optics is fair.
Saying sore loser fuck you wah! Is pathetic.
User 463088
Banned
Well, no. I'm not saying his supporters are to blame, although, like it or not, supporters DO become part of the campaign by proxy. To pretend that people don't judge a campaign in part by what some supporters do is simply not true. The criticisms that I leveled against Bernie are things that he, or his campaign, could and should have some control over.
Number one, you give a concession speech. It's just good politics and good optics. Ya, you win some you lose some, sure. But, when there is one state voting, and the candidate pretty much just pretends it didn't exist...that doesn't look good. He had people on the ground who worked their asses off for him. People on Reddit took the time to make calls for him. The very least he could do would be to thank them for their support during his election stump speech, congratulate Hillary, and then go back to yelling at millionaires, billionaires and Wall Street.
Yes, obviously, his campaign is trying to rationalize why they're still running. Losing campaigns do that. Hillary did it in 2008. It's normal. However, your campaign doesn't just get to throw reality out the window because the facts no longer support your narrative.
It's perfectly normal for the campaign to spin their loses as no big deal. Devine wants that coin to keep coming in. How else could his consulting firm make $800,000 a month? However, when you're doing that, you have to be careful to not look like a sore loser. That's a line Bernie and his people have not been able to walk very well.
Someone in his campaign did wrong, and was fired and dealt with accordingly. Who has been fired or held respond for any subsequent wrong doing at the DNC? Surely you can see the ramifications of wrong doing or corruption at the DNC poses a much bigger issue and implication?
There are several (perhaps former)Bernie supporters in this thread that are calling him a sore loser as well.
What the DNC did wrong was a minor kneejerk reaction. If they had waited ten days they could have done it, but it would have no point as the point of it was to stop the databreach. There's no corruption there.
Why bother refiling it? What real damage was done?
Was the knee jerk reaction illegal and/or wrong or not? If the answer to that is yes, there's either negligence, incompetence, malice, or corruption involved, and someone should answer for it. Fact of the matter is, Bernie has a case and every reason to pursue it.
Wow, you guys. This thread is a perfect example of why so many liberals are upset with the Democratic Party.
Bernie being a sore loser, being petulant, being an independent up until recently, or anything else people have complained about has not caused nearly as much damage as the Democratic Party giving lip service to liberal issues while getting cozy with the rich.
Health care? Even the version of the ACA with a public option got nixed fast. And to say it's because of Republicans is missing the story. Every Republican in the House and Senate voted against the version of the ACA that did pass and it still passed. That proves the Democrats didn't need to please any Republicans to get it passed. Yet they STILL voted in a bill that made health insurance companies even stronger. Even with the GOP too few in number to stop the Democrats, the Democrats still didn't pass single payor. So it rings hollow when the Democrats say Bernie's plan can't pass. They had a supermajority and chose not to even push it. Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. Lives could be saved if we didn't put profit before health. But nope. Let's get hung up on a Bernie Staffer copying tables while a firewall is down and a lawsuit he filed, resulting in zero deaths. Great sense of priorities.
Wall Street? The media and everyone else is asking the wrong question about Hillary's speeches. It's about whether she openly promised Wall Street anything. It's not about if any of the money they donated to her were direct transactions serving as bribes. It's about the longstanding relationship that Hillary has with the people running Wall Street, and how we can possibly expect her to make unbiased decisions on whether or not they should be investigated and prosecuted. She points out how Obama got more Wall Street donations than anyone else and still passed reforms. Bernie points out that no Wall Street executives were prosecuted. And the response from Hillary (or anyone) on that point? None. No response. What difference does it make to pass new laws if you don't enforce them? Prosecution of white collar crime hit a twenty-year low during Obama' administration, with Eric Holder as AG. This coincided with the rise of non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements. People lost their homes over this. We could be backing the candidate who doesn't have relationships with the white collar criminals that would divide loyalty to friends from loyalty to his job. But nope. Let's get hung up on a Bernie Staffer copying tables while a firewall is down and a lawsuit he filed, resulting in zero homes lost. Great sense of priorities.
I won't say this is the only reason, but I think it's one of the reasons why a lot of liberals don't have loyalty to the Democrat Party and don't turn out in mid-terms. The Democrats operate on "Don't let this crazy Republican be President" to get votes. Naturally, they don't get so many votes when the Presidential Office isn't up for grabs. If you want to win elections, you need mid-term votes. And if you want mid-term votes, give people something to vote for, not just someone to vote against.
Get your priorities right. It's about the people, not your party.
Bernie being a sore loser, being petulant, being an independent up until recently, or anything else people have complained about has not caused nearly as much damage as the Democratic Party giving lip service to liberal issues while getting cozy with the rich.
Health care? Even the version of the ACA with a public option got nixed fast. And to say it's because of Republicans is missing the story. Every Republican in the House and Senate voted against the version of the ACA that did pass and it still passed. That proves the Democrats didn't need to please any Republicans to get it passed. Yet they STILL voted in a bill that made health insurance companies even stronger. Even with the GOP too few in number to stop the Democrats, the Democrats still didn't pass single payor. So it rings hollow when the Democrats say Bernie's plan can't pass. They had a supermajority and chose not to even push it. Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. Lives could be saved if we didn't put profit before health. But nope. Let's get hung up on a Bernie Staffer copying tables while a firewall is down and a lawsuit he filed, resulting in zero deaths. Great sense of priorities.
Wall Street? The media and everyone else is asking the wrong question about Hillary's speeches. It's about whether she openly promised Wall Street anything. It's not about if any of the money they donated to her were direct transactions serving as bribes. It's about the longstanding relationship that Hillary has with the people running Wall Street, and how we can possibly expect her to make unbiased decisions on whether or not they should be investigated and prosecuted. She points out how Obama got more Wall Street donations than anyone else and still passed reforms. Bernie points out that no Wall Street executives were prosecuted. And the response from Hillary (or anyone) on that point? None. No response. What difference does it make to pass new laws if you don't enforce them? Prosecution of white collar crime hit a twenty-year low during Obama' administration, with Eric Holder as AG. This coincided with the rise of non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements. People lost their homes over this. We could be backing the candidate who doesn't have relationships with the white collar criminals that would divide loyalty to friends from loyalty to his job. But nope. Let's get hung up on a Bernie Staffer copying tables while a firewall is down and a lawsuit he filed, resulting in zero homes lost. Great sense of priorities.
I won't say this is the only reason, but I think it's one of the reasons why a lot of liberals don't have loyalty to the Democrat Party and don't turn out in mid-terms. The Democrats operate on "Don't let this crazy Republican be President" to get votes. Naturally, they don't get so many votes when the Presidential Office isn't up for grabs. If you want to win elections, you need mid-term votes. And if you want mid-term votes, give people something to vote for, not just someone to vote against.
Get your priorities right. It's about the people, not your party.
Wafflecakes
Member
Restricting a thief from your servers for 24 hours is worse than being the actual thief?
*surejangif*
They would have to prove through an investigation that they retained stolen data.
If you actually believe they revoked access to stop the data breach, you don't understand what the issue was. The data breach was only possible during maintenance. When they were revoked access it was not maintenance time anymore. During their maintenance everyone had full view access, including Hillary's camp.
It was a known bug by the vendor, who knows why they let it persist.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Uh.. they cut off access after they stole Hillary's data. His access was restored less than 24 hours after it was cut off. They also very likely used the data they stole to their advantage.
So I ask you this.. what the fuck are you talking about?
I would characterize the actions taken by the DNC as an overzealous error and a mistake rather than wrong doing or corruption (not sure where you are getting the corruption from instance). Personally, I don't think a person should lose their job over that, especially since it was soon corrected and the DNC's actions were in response to an act of wrong doing by the Bernie campaign when the DNC really didn't have any other leverage to sanction him.
Do you have reading comprehension issues? Where did I say anything about one being worse than the other? Someone answered for and was fired for one of these wrong doings, who's to blame for and what or who is the reason for the other? That's something I'm certainly curious about.
Frozenprince
Banned
See this shit right here.
Calling people shills.
That's why Bernie be losing. Because of bad optics and vitriolic supporters.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Guess I disagree with the no corruption statement haha.
Given what actually happened, why it happened, the context of the race, the punishment, to me the DNc having an agenda is clear as day.
Wafflecakes
Member
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Dude is finished. How embarrassing.
If it was about corruption Bernie would've been permanently banned from the servers. What does kicking him off for 24 hours even do?
A Link to the Past
Banned
Investigating the situation, and once the investigation had finished, give the campaign his access back.
Bernie's campaign staff does something that's clearly reprehensible. DNC takes precautionary measures for < 24 hours to ensure that everything's sorted technically and with Bernie's corrupt staff.
idk, seems reasonable to me.
Wafflecakes
Member
Maybe checking to see if it was corruption?
I meant was does it do negatively to Bernie's campaign that points to corruption on the DNC side trying to rig the election.
Hillary doesn't seem to lack vitriolic supporters either
- Status