Support NeoGAF

[eBay Huckster]

A friend of mine posted a huuuge essay about how much Hillary sucks in response to an image I made about Bernie's flip-flops. It had about two dozen "reasons" why the author (a supposed lifelong Democrat who voted Clinton twice, Kerry and Obama twice - hm, wonder where Gore was?) couldn't bring himself to support Hillary.

Yeah, I didn't even bother reading it at first, but this was literally the same essay.

You got those debunking posts lying around anywhere?

 

[Macho Madness]

Post the image first

 

[B-Dubs]

Reads almost like a post-mortem of the campaign, Bernie's campaign advisors lamenting not going negative earlier.

https://t.co/vp7J76oJpe

I'm not sure going negative would have helped, if anything he'd never have gotten quite as big if he had. People were looking for the next Obama, as if the fact we got one isn't a miracle, and going negative would have driven those people off. He'd have kept the "not Clinton" group, but I think young voters would have split more evenly had he gone negative way earlier.

The article also has some selective editing of timing.

 

[Armaros]

I'm not sure going negative would have helped, if anything he'd never have gotten quite as big if he had. People were looking for the next Obama, as if the fact we got one isn't a miracle, and going negative would have driven those people off. He'd have kept the "not Clinton" group, but I think young voters would have split more evenly had he gone negative way earlier.

The article also has some selective editing of timing.

Also the press went hard on the fact checking and vetting with the latest spike in negativity from his campaign. He got some hard pushback for his oil money/greenpeace paper attacks.

I imagine a similar spike earlier in the campaign would have caused them to react similarly.

 

[Macho Madness]

The article leaves out some stuff that isn't as flattering to the Sanders campaign but it's still an interesting look into a campaign that was pretty much fluked into. Sounds like his biggest mistake (besides Weaver and Devine) was not taking it seriously when he started rising in the polls in the fall. When it became clear that he was the only non-Hillary choice.

 

[Iolo]

Reads almost like a post-mortem of the campaign, Bernie's campaign advisors lamenting not going negative earlier.

https://t.co/vp7J76oJpe

Despite reading like a post-mortem, it's a very favorably framed article for Bernie, told from his campaign's perspective, with the single Hillary supporter quoted dumping on her, and not invoking any of his weaknesses or the fact that Clinton has barely touched him. Also unmentioned is that if he had gone negative from the beginning, his favorability numbers would likely have started going down much earlier.

I've noticed most news articles talk about how Clinton may have difficulty bringing Sanders supporters into the fold, while not discussing how Bernie's character attacks may be having the same effect. That is changing a bit as he's gone more negative.

 

[B-Dubs]

Also the press went hard on the fact checking and vetting with the latest spike in negativity from his campaign. He got some hard pushback for his oil money/greenpeace paper attacks.

I imagine a similar spike earlier in the campaign would have caused them to react similarly.

That's because covering a negative campaign is like being a gossip columnist and no one wants to be a gossip columnist.

 

[royalan]

Bernie doubled down on the fact that he's an Independent on "This Week" yesterday. Awesome. Gonna get them Supers any day now brah. Any day now.

I love that Hillary has been hitting him on this lately. It's like the "one issue candidate" attack. He can whine all he wants, but it's effective because it's true

 

[Jack Remington]

Man, if you want to respond to Bernie Bros on r/politics, you need to come in with a lot of karma points to spare. I was around +100 last night, and I'm at -21 now, meaning I can only post once every 10 minutes.

I have a couple "the server wasn't illegal" (literally just that, no attacks or anything) posts sitting around -10 each, but the real kicker is a post I made simply insinuating that Bernie supporters might not really care about the minute details of classification authority on principle, but might be more interested due to the fact that it concerns the woman running against their preferred candidate. That one is around -30 and still dropping.

I can't wait for their tears of unfathomable sorrow once this primary is officially over.

 

[Neodiablo22]

Trump has the best supporters

"I want people to hear, to feel comfortable with, the term 'white nationalist,'" said Johnson, a Los Angeles lawyer and persimmon farmer.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Yeah, I didn't even bother reading it at first, but this was literally the same essay.

You got those debunking posts lying around anywhere?

Here was the essay: https://theindependentthinker2016.w...05/i-used-to-be-in-love-with-hillary-clinton/

My debunk:

Going through this point by point:

TPP - Half-truth; in her capacity as Sec of State she did push the deal to other countries (as it was being written), and when the finalized deal came out (after she was done being SoS) she took a stand against it. Interesting also that this guy has no problem with Obama yet of Hillary and Obama only one of them publicly supports the deal.

"Hillary Receives Money from the For-Profit Prison Industry" - His first sentence is "This is beyond wrong," and he couldn't be more right. Because Hillary vowed last year to stop taking donations from for-profit prisons/lobbyists and to return all previous donations to charity. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/23/3715544/clinton-private-prisons/ And here's a link indicating she's keeping true to her word. http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...rivate-prison-lobbyist-cash-to-charity-218524 Now it does mention that she is still taking donations from a FORMER lobbyist, which I believe to be the key word here. She isn't actively courting or even accepting those donations.

Cut Funding to Low Income Families - The author says he won't hold Bill Clinton's welfare reform bill against her, but then cites a specific example from the welfare reform bill (Aid to Families with Dependent Children which was replaced by TANF). Interesting tactic I guess. Not really much else to say here because that was the only specific allegation.

Walmart board - It's true that she was on the Walmart board for six years. You know what else is true? That in her time there she "was a thorn in the side of the company’s founder, Sam Walton, on the matter of promoting women, few of whom were in the ranks of managers or executives at the time. She also strongly advocated for more environmentally sound corporate practices" and that in 2005 she returned a $5,000 donation from them citing their current business practices. http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Corporations.htm Also neat that he sneaks in that "Republican lawyer" jab considering she was a Democrat as of 1968. She must have been a really impressive lawyer if she was working for Walmart at age 20.

Monsanto - anti-GMO, anti-science nonsense. http://atheistpapers.com/2014/08/04...ad-science-try-talking-to-the-anti-gmo-crowd/

Climate change - "Hillary doesn't have a plan on climate change" https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/ Is that right?

Sold arms to countries that donated - Already talked about - there's no real proof of there being a quid pro quo here. Yes, she traded arms to countries that also donated to her charity. She also traded arms to countries that didn't - more went to the Middle Eastern countries that are like, you know, in the Middle East where everyone is at war constantly and would likely need more arms. "Secretly" is pushing it considering that this is all in the public record.

Getting money out of politics - There's no specific allegation here. Oops!

The DNC - So why did Hillary propose like four debate times to Bernie this week after he hounded her for not agreeing to more debates, and he rejected all of them? One of them was before the NCAA game, but there were still three more dates!

Podesta Group and Child Labor - Not something Hillary actually did, you might as well blame Obama for Bill Ayers' terrorist actions. And I hope this guy doesn't buy Apple products.

Wall Street - I would also like Hillary to release her transcripts, I'm doubtful that there's a smoking gun in there though.

Racist comments - She's made some stupid, ignorant comments in her past. So has everyone including Bernie ("white people don't know what it's like to be poor").

DOMA - Hope he holds Obama to the same standard. (protip: he doesn't)

"Which Hillary Clinton will we get?" - More empty rhetoric, nothing specific to talk about.

The Iraq War - A black mark on her record, to be sure. And one that she's apologized for and admitted was a mistake in her 2014 book (ergo she wasn't really prompted by anything).

Libya/Syria - Where does Hillary support ground troops in these places? What is this about "sending American citizens off to die"?

Underhanded campaign tactics - Political campaigning is dirty as hell, but I'm glad he's willing to overlook the stupid shit Obama's camp put out about her in 08 and the stupid shit Bernie's camp is putting out now. Obama seemed to forgive her for this considering he made her the 3rd most powerful person in the world after he was elected.

A pattern of silencing victims - This is the point where the author crosses wholly into conspiracy theory nonsense. Great. Where's the evidence?

I have a daughter - Good for you.

She would lose - Uh no she wouldn't. He cites one poll but the aggregates show she would beat Trump and Cruz easily. So unless you're counting on Kasich being the GOP nominee (which is mathematically impossible for him even if he won every single delegate from here out)

As you can see this article doesn't really do it for me. The most valid takeaways are that she's a little too cozy with corporations and supported the Iraqi War. Boy was that a lot of bullshit to sift through to get there!

Friend's debunk:

The thing that made me REALLY flip my shit about that blog wasn't even directly about Hillster,
"Indira Gandhi lead India fifty years ago.
Why has America been so slow to give equality to women?"

Right, because India is a paragon of women's rights.

Also, annoys me whenever people say the TPP will lose millions of jobs. FTAs usually create about as many jobs as they lose (though often in different sectors, so I'd be way more for TPP if more compensation were given to negatively impacted workers).

Private Prisons- Old news, mostly debunked

CDF- Half truth at best. I'd like to see citations on this one with a full explanation of the situation. She wouldn't have sparkling endorsements about her work there if she had gutted it for no reason. This seems like a classic Rove "Hit them where they are strong" attack.

Walmart- Yeah, disappointing, but when you are a token member, no one cares about what you say anyway. https://www.reddit.com/.../what_frequently_asked.../d15tscx Furthermore the line, " if it weren’t for the fact that Hillary had a previous history as a union busting Republican lawyer" is a complete ??????? to me.

Monsanto- I have not been able to verify that individual's connection to Monsanto, but Tad Devine (sp) was a Lawyer for Monsanto, showing a CLEAR connection between sanders and Monsanto (Well, actually Devine worked for a law firm that worked for monsanto, so it is not a clear connection.... but I suspect that the link that is being made between Hillary and Monsanto are about the same as Sanders and Monsanto. Its a non-issue

Climate Change/Big Oil- 3 Pinocchio's, somewhere between mostly false and pants-on-fire

Arms- Bryn asked for evidence.

Lobbyists- I'm all for reducing the role of money in politics. Clinton does too, lots of people do. You can't just show the quid, you gotta show the pro quo too.

DNC- I watched the debates, all of them. Its not clear that more debates are better for democracy, in 2008 there were more debates, but there was yuuuuge debate fatigue by the end. Also, how the heck can you draw a line between Fox News and Clinton. Well, and the DNC and the news. And please give proof that pro-hillary pundits are being directly paid by her.

Podesta- Again, same sort of links between Devine and Monsanto.

Wall-Street- Wow, according to this post, Clinton got paid $150,000,000 from wall-street. Like, what? I'm a Clinton supporter and I don't give a crap about the transcripts. Condi Rice got payed like $100,000 or something huge to speak at UMN, so if she was running for president, would she be in the pocket of Big Minnesota? Speaking is what people DO after they leave a position of power, and they often get loads of money off of it. This is totally normal behavior. This is not bribery.

Repeatedly Racist? The super-predators comment was taken out of context. She also didn't say "Black men in hoodies are scary" that is a misleading paraphrasing of what she actually said. To paraphrase what she said in a different way, "Lots of well-meaning white people still have subconsciously racist reactions." Which... is true?

DOMA- Certainly she was slow to come out in favor of gay marriage, but hell if marriage is the only issue when it comes to equality. She used her position of Sec. of State to push for gay rights internationally, and as she did so, she accused states in the US of having anti-gay laws. It makes me mad that people take such a reductionist view of gay rights: putting so much emphasis on gay marriage obscures other hugely important civil rights.

Which Hillary? We will get the Hillary who builds a cabinet of diverse experts and takes action based on empirical evidence rather than rhetoric. I trust Hillary because she trusts experts. She doesn't throw out entire fields of science.

Iraq War- She didn't vote for the Iraq War. She voted for military authorization that was later used to invade Iraq. She said when she voted for the authorization to use force that she did not support an invasion.

Honduras- Uh, idk much about Honduras, all I know is some guy named Tad Devine helped get some person elected who tried to get around constitutional term limits and was then exiled. I think a U.S. Secretary of State pressured both sides to be peaceful.

Syria- Wait, so innocent people haven't been dying there yet? So innocent civilians haven't been targeted by barrel bombs? So chemical weapons haven't been used there by the government against their own people? So ISIS don't real?

Underhanded Campaign- DAE clinton started birther movement? Politics are messy business. Sanders side lately was caught lying about oil/gas money, Sanders side stole data, Sanders side alleged endorsements that they did not have, Sanders accused Hillary of cheating in Iowa. I'm not sure which side is more negative, but I do know which side promised that they would not run a negative campaign.

Silencing Victims- This one makes me a bit uneasy, but please cite

I'm tired now.

 

[Boney]

Man, if you want to respond to Bernie Bros on r/politics, you need to come in with a lot of karma points to spare. I was around +100 last night, and I'm at -21 now, meaning I can only post once every 10 minutes.

I have a couple "the server wasn't illegal" (literally just that, no attacks or anything) posts sitting around -10 each, but the real kicker is a post I made simply insinuating that Bernie supporters might not really care about the minute details of classification authority on principle, but might be more interested due to the fact that it concerns the woman running against their preferred candidate. That one is around -30 and still dropping.

I can't wait for their tears of unfathomable sorrow once this primary is officially over.

That's a horribly inmature and petty thing to say. How are you even surprised people are offended by that comment?

 

[thepotatoman]

Man, if you want to respond to Bernie Bros on r/politics, you need to come in with a lot of karma points to spare. I was around +100 last night, and I'm at -21 now, meaning I can only post once every 10 minutes.

I have a couple "the server wasn't illegal" (literally just that, no attacks or anything) posts sitting around -10 each, but the real kicker is a post I made simply insinuating that Bernie supporters might not really care about the minute details of classification authority on principle, but might be more interested due to the fact that it concerns the woman running against their preferred candidate. That one is around -30 and still dropping.

I can't wait for their tears of unfathomable sorrow once this primary is officially over.

If you just post an opinion, people are going to vote based on if they agree with the opinion.

If you know you're in the minority opinion, you can still often net a positive karma rating if you argue it in a way that's respectful towards those that disagree, and knowledgable about why they disagree.

I actually really like arguing the unpopular position at reddit. It's a good exercise of diplomacy with instant feedback on how well you're doing.

 

[Jack Remington]

That's a horribly inmature and petty thing to say. How are you even surprised people are offended by that comment?

Are you kidding me?

You're honestly really going to argue that people care about Email-gate on principle???

Where's the mass outrage about Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and John Kerry's retroactively classified emails? Why aren't Bernie Bros marching in the street calling for the heads of the people in the Bush administration who lost millions of emails that they were hosting on their own server?

 

[RustyNails]

Only good reddit is r/FitGirls. I dont know why you guys even bother engaging with people.

 

[Slayven]

Only good reddit is r/FitGirls. I dont know why you guys even bother engaging with people.

Reminds me of a guy I follow on twitter he spends half the day fighting with Sanders fans, the other half talking about comics.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Are you kidding me?

You're honestly really going to argue that people care about Email-gate on principle???

Where's the mass outrage about Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and John Kerry's retroactively classified emails? Why aren't Bernie Bros marching in the street calling for the heads of the people in the Bush administration who lost millions of emails that they were hosting on their own server?

Because they were only 4 years old when Bush was president.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Isn't that a huge backfire on the people that brought the case? I thought this was something that was already in use in some places but they wanted SCOTUS to signal this to be an option to be used everywhere.

They wanted it mandated which would give white older people and rural powers far more than they have before.

The decision shows the court isn't really wanting to mandate a system but it upholds one person one vote and equal protection challenges (not one voting eleigable person one vote) to unfair districts.

It's a winnfor the left and was unanimous with Roberts and Kennedy siging with the left.

Thomas and alito concure in judgement that the court can't force the plaintiffs goals (voter eligible population) but seem more open to letting States choose to do it with Thomas saying one person one vote is bunk.

I'd wait for a scotusblog right up but this is good.

 

[Boney]

Wanted to share a Samders interview with the entire Journal Sentinel editorial board, as it's less of the standard consumer media and not necessarily biases like more independent left wing channels in case anybody is interested.

http://youtu.be/_P25iloc14o

Are you kidding me?

You're honestly really going to argue that people care about Email-gate on principle???

Where's the mass outrage about Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and John Kerry's retroactively classified emails? Why aren't Bernie Bros marching in the street calling for the heads of the people in the Bush administration who lost millions of emails that they were hosting on their own server?

Millions were outraged at all the functionaries of the Bush administration. The trust in that government was on a embarrasing levels and the disapproval rating was just as abysmal. Of course this has the be brought up on a specific context, there's a difference on corruption charges being brought up on people who are already very unfavorably seen and Hillary who's had a relatively good reputation for the Democratic Party, people are gonna be more upset a big scandal pops out. As for how bad is it? It's pretty much standard politics for me in terms of hidden communication, but a liability for her in terms of the security protocols she used. Do I care it came into light that she lied about Benghazi? Not really, but it's easy to understand how it affects her public image.

What I find petty is that not only you're trying to deligitimize their positions, but that you're scapegoating it to sexist charges of motivation for doing it.

Also, Bernie Bros is such a condescending way of treating the opposition and I'm surprised it's openly supported on his forum.

 

[Macho Madness]

I hate the term Bernie Bro and refuse to use it. It does no good but alienate his supporters.

 

[Cybit]

Are you kidding me?

You're honestly really going to argue that people care about Email-gate on principle???

Where's the mass outrage about Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and John Kerry's retroactively classified emails? Why aren't Bernie Bros marching in the street calling for the heads of the people in the Bush administration who lost millions of emails that they were hosting on their own server?

Sadly, over-classification is an issue when it comes to DoD / etc stuff. I wouldn't be surprised to see blank pages where the only words on it are related to its classification.

The biggest issue for the entire e-mail thing for me is that it could be seen as a way to get around FOIA requests. That part is a legitimate issue. (Also, the entire laziness that led to the server being used and ignoring of security protocol is pretty appalling too, but these aren't exactly tech savvy folks in the Clinton camp. I believe Bill still doesn't use email. It's a lot of "I wanna use my blackberry easily, make it so, and I don't care if I'm allowed to or not)

They wanted it mandated which would give white older people and rural powers far more than they have before.

The decision shows the court isn't really wanting to mandate a system but it upholds one person one vote and equal protection challenges (not one voting eleigable person one vote) to unfair districts.

It's a winnfor the left and was unanimous with Roberts and Kennedy siging with the left.

Thomas and alito concure in judgement that the court can't force the plaintiffs goals (voter eligible population) but seem more open to letting States choose to do it with Thomas saying one person one vote is bunk.

I'd wait for a scotusblog right up but this is good.

Yeah, waiting for the SCOTUSBlog write up.

 

[ivysaur12]

The Evenwel decision gets me rock hard.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Also, Bernie Bros is such a condescending way of treating the opposition and I'm surprised it's openly supported on his forum.

fwiw I try not to use the term, but this guy almost weirdly fits the stereotype right up to the racism-from-ignorance (to give one example, he's defended the Chief Wahoo logo to the faces of several natives)

 

[Cybit]

Ooo

SCOTUSBlog write up!

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/opinion-analysis-leaving-a-constitutional-ideal-still-undefined/

 

[Macho Madness]

Ooo

SCOTUSBlog write up!

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/opinion-analysis-leaving-a-constitutional-ideal-still-undefined/

So they essentially refused to set precedent. Unfortunately, that will probably come when a local government decides voting population is good enough and gets sued. Hopefully the court makes the right decision then.

 

[B-Dubs]

So they essentially refused to set precedent. Unfortunately, that will probably come when a local government decides voting population is good enough and gets sued. Hopefully the court makes the right decision then.

That was likely due to the fact the court is sitting at only 8 right now. As was pointed out in the post, had they gone any tougher and looked to set precedent then the majority might not have held together. If they had a 9th justice willing to rule with them, the liberal wing would have likely gone a lot further in their ruling. Basically, expect to see this sort of thing until Congress fills that seat.

 

[Macho Madness]

Bernie needs 57% of remaining pledged delegates to win pledged Dem delegate count.

Want 57% to be 56%? Gotta win Wisconsin by 48 points.

https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/717045058051174400

 

[AndyD]

So they essentially refused to set precedent. Unfortunately, that will probably come when a local government decides voting population is good enough and gets sued. Hopefully the court makes the right decision then.

I wonder if an in-between plan would be looked upon favoringly or not? Something like citizenship population, or voting+eligible+dependents? I think they tried to leave the door open for the possibility of alternate arrangements that exclude say the undocumented while including everyone else. Of course the devil is always in the details, but I feel from the text they were reluctant to say whole population or else.

 

[Cybit]

So they essentially refused to set precedent. Unfortunately, that will probably come when a local government decides voting population is good enough and gets sued. Hopefully the court makes the right decision then.

I think B-Dubs is right about the court sitting at 8 / wanting that majority. I wonder that had they set precedent, it could empower a future more-conservative version of SCOTUS to reverse it the other way, since SCOTUS would have been giving themselves that authority. I'm fine with them leaving it as is and letting the states not have to go one way or the other.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So they essentially refused to set precedent. Unfortunately, that will probably come when a local government decides voting population is good enough and gets sued. Hopefully the court makes the right decision then.

I think precedent on equal protection challenges have show the court isn't going to be to friendly to trying to hurt minorities and the youth. I think this decision was unwilling to say that in order to get Roberts and Kennedy

Ginsberg's seems to like whole population with her explaining they rejected votinging population with the 14ths adoption

 

[Iolo]

Millions were outraged at all the functionaries of the Bush administration. The trust in that government was on a embarrasing levels and the disapproval rating was just as abysmal. Of course this has the be brought up on a specific context, there's a difference on corruption charges being brought up on people who are already very unfavorably seen and Hillary who's had a relatively good reputation for the Democratic Party, people are gonna be more upset a big scandal pops out. As for how bad is it? It's pretty much standard politics for me in terms of hidden communication, but a liability for her in terms of the security protocols she used. Do I care it came into light that she lied about Benghazi? Not really, but it's easy to understand how it affects her public image.

whoa whoa whoa what

Are you a Benghazi truther?

 

[Jack Remington]

When did I imply sexism?

 

[And_Gignac]

https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/717045058051174400

He will win by 24 tho. 56.5% here we gooo.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

When did I imply sexism?

You acknowledged that she was a woman? I dunno. I'm just as confused by that as you are. I don't think what you said was controversial there. I mean, all you were claiming was "maybe you guys are more concerned about this thing than you normally would be because it benefits you to be concerned about it." I kind of figured everyone accepts that that happens from time to time.

I mean, I give a shit about the #CubanMistressCrisis because I hate Ted Cruz. I know that I'm being motivated by a hypocritical outrage against something I don't really care about. Everyone does it. I'm not sure why it would be a controversial thing to claim.

 

[Ophelion]

What I find petty is that not only you're trying to deligitimize their positions, but that you're scapegoating it to sexist charges of motivation for doing it.

Also, Bernie Bros is such a condescending way of treating the opposition and I'm surprised it's openly supported on his forum.

I don't see how it's petty to try and delegitimize a position you believe to be illegitimate. People are then in turn allowed to defend the legitimacy of their position and maybe everybody learns something. That's how debate and discourse is supposed to work. No single person's position is a sacred cow. If you can't defend that thing, it's going to get slaughtered. Welcome to politics. Of course, on reddit especially, people just down vote instead, so it's kind of a waste of time in this particular case, but still.

Also, I'm curious about why you're claiming his allegations are implying sexism on the part of the redditors? Is it because he described Hillary Clinton as "the woman he [Bernie] is against"? Because that seems like a fairly innocent turn of phrase in and of itself. He makes no mention of them being sexist for caring about the subject only due to Hillary's involvement. I think at worst, the implication is they are biased, which is debatable (again, not that it will be debated over there.)

Bernie Bros is an exercise in stupid name calling though, you're right about that. I've probably been guilty of it at some point this primary season myself, but it's dumb and we shouldn't indulge in it.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Oh yeah. Agreed on the anti-Bernie Bro arguments. Doesn't accomplish anything other than irritate people. Even if it's intended to act as a way to distinguish between reasonable Bernie fans and insane ones, all it does is bug people and make serious conversation that much more difficult. Doing something that pisses another person off isn't a good way to have a discussion.

 

[SenorArdilla]

Our congressmen and congresswomen sing songs and read children's books.

 

[dramatis]

Trump supporters of the 'intelligent' kind take themselves pretty seriously lol

Trump is running an anti-fragile — in the Nassim Nicholas Taleb sense of the term — campaign. This is something that neither the GOP nor the Democrats seem to understand. The more you attack him, the stronger he gets. The usual picayune nonsense that normally derails campaigns does not and will not work on Trump's.

Look at the events of Chicago. The professional left thought that political violence would surely bring down his campaign. What did Trump do? He did not apologize, and instead went on the offensive. And what was the result with his supporters? On March 15, he made anime real. He swept all states, including Illinois, save one where he lost to a popular sitting governor by a few points.

I like that Trump is confrontational. His success depends on it, I would say. It would be impossible to advocate what he is advocating for and be sheepish and apologetic.

 

[Suikoguy]

There is one good use of Bernie Bro, and that's Adam's.

 

[Ophelion]

There is one good use of Bernie Bro, and that's Adam's.

Conceded. Used as a term of endearment for a boyfriend, it finds a valid use.

 

[Jack Remington]

I don't know. I think using the Bernie Bro term to describe people who engage in mass downvoting of factually correct comments like "The server wasn't illegal" is pretty valid.

 

[eBay Huckster]

i'll refer to this guy as "that one dude who literally never fact checks anything negative he posts about Clinton and ballwashes Sanders at every turn" from now on

 

[eBay Huckster]

speaking of fact checking, and therefore actually being right more often than you're wrong

ARG (who the latter doesn't apply to) has Clinton +1 and Trump +10 in WI

 

[Ophelion]

i'll refer to this guy as "that one dude who literally never fact checks anything negative he posts about Clinton and ballwashes Sanders at every turn" from now on

Or a TODWLNFCANHPACABSAET for short.

 

[Iolo]

ARG is such a mess.

 

[ivysaur12]

ARG is such a mess.

Sad!

 

[Macho Madness]

lmao arg what

 

[Aaron Strife]

i'll refer to this guy as "that one dude who literally never fact checks anything negative he posts about Clinton and ballwashes Sanders at every turn" from now on

Did you send/post the fact checks on that one essay?

I mean there's some legitimate gripes against Hillary, like I said the Iraqi War vote was a huge blunder and I think she's a little too tight with corporations. It's not like these aren't valid issues, they're also just the ones that have been discussed a million times. So when you sneak them into articles raving about Monsanto and Vince Foster then you're not really making a solid case.

The problem is that people see Hillary as especially corrupt or dishonest when none of the politicians she's compared to (Bill Clinton, Obama, Sanders) are really any better.

 

[dramatis]

I don't particularly care if the term Bernie Bro is used or not. What I am absolutely irritated by is how insulted people act over the term and half of this 'affronted behavior' couldn't be mustered for sexist words and deeds. I couldn't make a thread about Hillary Clinton and women without it being shat on from the first reply, and people want to spend more time and attention being pissy about the Bernie Bro term?

In terms of how 'insulting' a term is, 'Bernie Bro' doesn't even make the list.

 

[Jack Remington]

I mean, I give a shit about the #CubanMistressCrisis because I hate Ted Cruz. I know that I'm being motivated by a hypocritical outrage against something I don't really care about. Everyone does it. I'm not sure why it would be a controversial thing to claim.

Okay, this is a good topic for discussion, actually.

Do you actually feel outrage about the fact that Cruz had a mistress? Like are you morally outraged because adultery makes you angry on principle? Or do you just get a kick out of the fact that this guy who presents himself as a pious goody-two-shoes might be exposed as a hypocrite?

If adultery is something that deeply offends you in and of itself, then that's valid. But I would expect you to have the same reaction no matter who the person under discussion was. If I found posts of yours supporting Bill Clinton for instance, a politician who is indisputably a serial adulterer, I would call you out on that. I would likely accuse you of pretending to care deeply about adultery for partisan reasons.

On the topic of the emails, to me it comes back to the concept of malum in se vs malum prohibitum. Is something wrong in and of itself, or is it wrong because it's technically illegal? Someone who writes an email discussing some diplomatic gossip at a state dinner technically disclosed information that was "born classified." But I have a hard time believing that most people would care deeply about this on moral grounds.

So when I see someone calling Hillary Clinton's use of a private server "treason", or arguing that Hillary should get 30,000 separate charges for "destroying government records" for each one of the personal emails she deleted, but that person clearly can't be bothered to care about the fact that the Bush administration maintained a private server and deleted millions of emails, yeah, I'm going to call bullshit. I know people tend to react angrily to having their motives questioned, but sometimes people really do need to take a step back and examine their motives. I've had to do this plenty of times. That's life.