Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign megathread v2 (pg 77 - declares victory in Iowa)

[GoTfan]

Can we please stop talking about how this will benefit candidates? This is kind of a health emergency.

[GoTfan]

Bernie supporters have made 1.2M odd phone calls in the last 9 days which is an incredible number.

Also he has the least amount of maxed out donors. He has 1M individual donors & 2.5M+ donations & has the war chest of any candidate. He is also the most likely to over perform polls as he has polling great among less likely voters.

I am sure he will come back strong & can win this & be FDR II.

Wow, all that time and money wasted.

In six years, all these twenty-somethings will be thirty-somethings trying to scrub their social media of their embarrassing Bernie-supporter past and pretending they were never a part of this whole cultish mania.

All those millions of minutes wasted calling random voters to read off a talking points sheet.  All that money that could have gone towards a useful purpose instead going to Tad Devine's $800,000/mo salary, whatever David Sirota is grifting away, dramatically overpaying for ad spots because the campaign is horribly mismanaged, and of course blanketing the internet with more fundraising ads.  And that's just his campaign money.  All the money you gave to the Sanders Institute or Our Revolution or any of the PACs in the "Democratic Socialist" cottage industry?  That just went to line your heroes' pockets.

You guys need to learn that your big numbers aren't impressing anyone.  Yes, Bernie is more than capable of grifting money from young idealists by promising them the moon.  And he's the first candidate to get lucky and hire Revolution Messaging, who knew how to fully leverage social media and the internet for fundraising, giving him a multiplier effect.  Beto did the same thing.

He also locks people in by creating a toxic, cult-like culture where supporting him becomes your identity and the Democratic Party is part of a global conspiracy of corporate oligarchs to force you to pay back your student loans, flexing its enormous muscles through such sinister activities as having Donna Brazile voluntarily leak a debate question to the Clinton campaign.  That cult mentality is really what's raking him in the cash as these young kids have to keep donating more and more to affirm their identities.

All of that is completely orthogonal to his alleged goal of becoming president.  It just happens to be the same metric that his competitors are also running on.

"Yes he raises money but that doesn't count because I don't like him."

[GoTfan]

This is a dumb proposal, but let's please remember that a top tax bracket of 97.5% doesn't mean that those people will be paying 97.5% of what they earn in taxes.

I'd argue it's the right way to go. Bernie's not dumb enough to think this will actually get anywhere. If you start out from an extreme position, you're more likely to get more of what you want in the final arrangement. See: Republicans on Obamacare.

[GoTfan]

John King is CNN's map guy, so the context isn't as strange as you would think. Atlas of all places should get this. How much discussion have we had on this exact topic?

But at least this dope got a few thousand likes out if suggesting that he's a barely closeted white supremacist. Twitter makes idiots of us all.

If he said this about any other candidate, every single Atlas Dem would by calling him a racist pig and demanding he be fired.

[GoTfan]

I see the anti-Bernie grifters on Atlas are at it again. Remember kids, it's okay to stand up for Tulsi if you're an establishment darling like Beto or Pete.

Pete and Beto are disqualified in my view also. I know you thought you had a gotcha but no. Hillary didn't even say Tulsi's name and she has you all in a tailspin. Some of you all are so clouded by your hatred of Hillary Clinton that you can't see the facts smacking you in the face.

Good. That's all I needed to hear.

Even then, your gotcha's about as good as mine was. The Russians aren't exactly chomping at the bit to support Warren or Harris or Klobuchar or even Williamson. Hillary Clinton isn't stupid. Your idol knew what she was doing here and who she was talking about.

You should know by my posts that I'm not a Gabbard person. If the HIGOP was a functioning party, she and her father would be key figures in it. I even said I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary's theory turned out to be true. Then again, considering you're trying to pretend Hillary wasn't taking shots at Tulsi, you're being deliberately obtuse to try and land a punch.

Hillary Clinton is not my idol. I’m not being obtuse. Hillary Clinton did not say her name and the response from Gabbard and the people defending her has been unhinged. And acting like she’s above reproach because she’s in the army is a very interesting response from the leftists who despise the military any other day. LOL. Glad we agree that there could be some semblance to truth to what Secretary Clinton said. Most of Atlas is pretending that she’s spouting stuff she pulled out of her ass because they have rage boners for her. What she’s talking about is well documented and not far fetched at all.

Look buddy, it'd be one thing if Clinton had produced evidence. I'll wait for a couple of months.

[GoTfan]

Look buddy, it'd be one thing if Clinton had produced evidence. I'll wait for a couple of months.

Saint Bernie has accused Democratic leadership of being in the pocket of Wall Street.
Has he any evidence for that?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-speeches-wikileaks.html

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/22/dnc-chair-candidate-tom-perezs-bank-friendly-record-could-kneecap-the-democratic-party/

There was also the case in New York where not long after saying the DNC should stay out of primaries, he endorsed Cuomo in the primary.

[GoTfan]

Look buddy, it'd be one thing if Clinton had produced evidence. I'll wait for a couple of months.

Saint Bernie has accused Democratic leadership of being in the pocket of Wall Street.
Has he any evidence for that?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-speeches-wikileaks.html

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/22/dnc-chair-candidate-tom-perezs-bank-friendly-record-could-kneecap-the-democratic-party/

There was also the case in New York where not long after saying the DNC should stay out of primaries, he endorsed Cuomo in the primary.

You guys pick on the loosest straws imaginable.  Being "at ease" with Wall Street, or "friendly" with banks (according to The Intercept, so this probably means Tom Perez used a bank once) does NOT mean that one is corrupt and in the pocket of big banks.

Y'all have thrown around the accusation of corruption so much that it's become totally meaningless.

And the New York Times article?

[GoTfan]

Look buddy, it'd be one thing if Clinton had produced evidence. I'll wait for a couple of months.

Saint Bernie has accused Democratic leadership of being in the pocket of Wall Street.
Has he any evidence for that?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-speeches-wikileaks.html

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/22/dnc-chair-candidate-tom-perezs-bank-friendly-record-could-kneecap-the-democratic-party/

There was also the case in New York where not long after saying the DNC should stay out of primaries, he endorsed Cuomo in the primary.

You guys pick on the loosest straws imaginable.  Being "at ease" with Wall Street, or "friendly" with banks (according to The Intercept, so this probably means Tom Perez used a bank once) does NOT mean that one is corrupt and in the pocket of big banks.

Y'all have thrown around the accusation of corruption so much that it's become totally meaningless.

And the New York Times article?

According to your own standard these things aren't hard evidence. You can't demand from the others a hand-written confession while you slander people with nothing more than innuendo and conjecture.

Stop dodging.

[GoTfan]

Yall foolish if you think bernies done multiple polls have shown him massively on the rise since the latest debate closing back in on second place

Polls only matter when Sanders is not doing well, as we all know.

[GoTfan]

Manchin is a clown but this does speak to the difficulties of Bernie passing many of the things he touts. Not only will GOP obstruct but pricks like Manchin, Carper, Coons, and Sinema will too.

The fact that Sanders opposes the abolition of filibuster is concrete evidence of how unserious he is about passing his agenda through congress.

Or perhaps he's afraid of the next time Republicans hold a trifecta and pass whatever they want?

[GoTfan]

Manchin is a clown but this does speak to the difficulties of Bernie passing many of the things he touts. Not only will GOP obstruct but pricks like Manchin, Carper, Coons, and Sinema will too.

The fact that Sanders opposes the abolition of filibuster is concrete evidence of how unserious he is about passing his agenda through congress.

Or perhaps he's afraid of the next time Republicans hold a trifecta and pass whatever they want?

That is guaranteed to happen, no matter how Democrats behave.
They left the filibuster intact for SCOTUS justices as a gesture of good will and Moscow Mitch abolished it the moment he had the chance to confirm a Republican nominee.  

Scenario: Democrats abolish the filibuster. 8 years later, Republicans win a trifecta and use it to repeal Obamacare and openly consider repealing Medicare. They use it to pass the largest tax cut for the wealthy in history. And there's not a damn thing Democrats can do about it.

Still think it's a good idea?

Of course, you'll just collectively blame progressives for it, but still.

[GoTfan]

Manchin is a clown but this does speak to the difficulties of Bernie passing many of the things he touts. Not only will GOP obstruct but pricks like Manchin, Carper, Coons, and Sinema will too.

The fact that Sanders opposes the abolition of filibuster is concrete evidence of how unserious he is about passing his agenda through congress.

Or perhaps he's afraid of the next time Republicans hold a trifecta and pass whatever they want?

That is guaranteed to happen, no matter how Democrats behave.
They left the filibuster intact for SCOTUS justices as a gesture of good will and Moscow Mitch abolished it the moment he had the chance to confirm a Republican nominee.  

Scenario: Democrats abolish the filibuster. 8 years later, Republicans win a trifecta and use it to repeal Obamacare and openly consider repealing Medicare. They use it to pass the largest tax cut for the wealthy in history. And there's not a damn thing Democrats can do about it.

Still think it's a good idea?

Of course, you'll just collectively blame progressives for it, but still.

That's how democracy works: the majority has the right to enact its legislative agenda and the voters will approve or disapprove it in the next election.
No other western democracy besides the US has something like the filibuster, and yet, most of them are doing quite well. 

So you just completely change legislation every couple of years? Go into a cycle of repeal after repeal after repeal?

[GoTfan]

I argued that decade old tweets from teenagers don't matter, not that homophobia doesn't matter.

James Gunn wants to have a word with you.

He was rehired. Next customer, please.

[GoTfan]

I argued that decade old tweets from teenagers don't matter, not that homophobia doesn't matter.

James Gunn wants to have a word with you.

He was rehired. Next customer, please.

Yeah, and in the meantime his movie was delayed for two years.
You're welcome.

Why do I bother trying to argue with you?

[GoTfan]

He's such an asshole.

Also, it's impossible to take anything away from "Sanders gets the most applause at event" stories.  His supporters specifically pack these events and artificially create these scenes because they know it plays well in the media.  No other candidate does this, just Sanders.

He's an asshole because he refuses to engage in a fundamentally dishonest debate?

[GoTfan]

A very interesting read from Business Insider

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bernie-sanders-internet-as-utility-plan-explainer-2019-12?r=US&IR=T

It's a very interesting plan, to say the least. Generally it uses a combination of anti-trust laws and FCC regulation combined with public funds.

[GoTfan]

A very interesting read from Business Insider

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bernie-sanders-internet-as-utility-plan-explainer-2019-12?r=US&IR=T

It's a very interesting plan, to say the least. Generally it uses a combination of anti-trust laws and FCC regulation combined with public funds.

We should just do universal fiber.

Google Fiber was killed because of sabotage from the existing ISPs.  Not only did they attack Fiber with every weapon available, they also had their technicians physically sabotage Fiber, doing things like "accidentally" cutting lines, causing outages, etc.

Universal 1GB/s internet could be revolutionary.  Right now streaming is the most difficult thing for an ISP to handle, but after Netflix disrupted the industry by making streaming a requirement, the ISPs had to adapt.  Maybe with 1GB/s internet widely available, someone will come along with the next brilliant new service to take advantage of it, that would never have been discovered without the feasibility provided by fiber.

We have the technology, we have the test cases, we know how to make it work if the government puts its muscle behind it.  Let's keep America the most technologically advanced nation in the world.

That's another good point, but from what I see, the idea behind Sanders' plan to essentially to make the internet a public utility.

[GoTfan]

When establishment Democrats attack them unprovoked, can you really blame them?

The actual Democratic establishment has, to my great irritation, bent over backwards for him and kissed the ring.  They gave him every concession he wanted at the convention and let him write the platform.  They gave his people power in the DNC.  They held a "unity commission" with f***ing Nomiki Konst.  Tom Perez spent months traveling around the country with Sanders on a "unity tour".  They changed all the primary rules to meet his demands - part of the reason we have so many losers on stage this cycle is because of rules that were changed for the Sanders campaign.  And the DNC and actual Democratic establishment are scared to death to criticize him since they've seen how powerful the "rigging" accusation is and how willing Sanders is to torch the party.

Most of the time when Sanders acolytes complain about the "establishment" criticizing him they're complaining about individual Democrats who have some connection to the party or a think tank, or even no connection but just part of the mainstream media or Congress.

I guess they won't be happy until nobody has any anti-Bernie opinions.

Please do explain why then when Keith Ellison was set to be DNC chair, Obama basically had Tom Perez jump in at the last second? How was that anything but an attempt to maintain control over the party and push a Sanders supporter out of a leadership position?

[GoTfan]

When establishment Democrats attack them unprovoked, can you really blame them?

The actual Democratic establishment has, to my great irritation, bent over backwards for him and kissed the ring.  They gave him every concession he wanted at the convention and let him write the platform.  They gave his people power in the DNC.  They held a "unity commission" with f***ing Nomiki Konst.  Tom Perez spent months traveling around the country with Sanders on a "unity tour".  They changed all the primary rules to meet his demands - part of the reason we have so many losers on stage this cycle is because of rules that were changed for the Sanders campaign.  And the DNC and actual Democratic establishment are scared to death to criticize him since they've seen how powerful the "rigging" accusation is and how willing Sanders is to torch the party.

Most of the time when Sanders acolytes complain about the "establishment" criticizing him they're complaining about individual Democrats who have some connection to the party or a think tank, or even no connection but just part of the mainstream media or Congress.

I guess they won't be happy until nobody has any anti-Bernie opinions.

Please do explain why then when Keith Ellison was set to be DNC chair, Obama basically had Tom Perez jump in at the last second? How was that anything but an attempt to maintain control over the party and push a Sanders supporter out of a leadership position?

Keith Ellison was not "set to be DNC Chair" and pushed out of a position, he ran for the position and lost in close race against Tom Perez. Afterwards, he was named Deputy Chair which he later resigned for other reasons.

You didn't answer my question and this essentially proves my point. He was the frontrunner for a leadership position and then Perez, at Obama's request, jumps in at the last second. Please do explain to me how this was anything but an attempt to prevent a Sanders supporter from getting that position.

[GoTfan]

When establishment Democrats attack them unprovoked, can you really blame them?

The actual Democratic establishment has, to my great irritation, bent over backwards for him and kissed the ring.  They gave him every concession he wanted at the convention and let him write the platform.  They gave his people power in the DNC.  They held a "unity commission" with f***ing Nomiki Konst.  Tom Perez spent months traveling around the country with Sanders on a "unity tour".  They changed all the primary rules to meet his demands - part of the reason we have so many losers on stage this cycle is because of rules that were changed for the Sanders campaign.  And the DNC and actual Democratic establishment are scared to death to criticize him since they've seen how powerful the "rigging" accusation is and how willing Sanders is to torch the party.

Most of the time when Sanders acolytes complain about the "establishment" criticizing him they're complaining about individual Democrats who have some connection to the party or a think tank, or even no connection but just part of the mainstream media or Congress.

I guess they won't be happy until nobody has any anti-Bernie opinions.

Please do explain why then when Keith Ellison was set to be DNC chair, Obama basically had Tom Perez jump in at the last second? How was that anything but an attempt to maintain control over the party and push a Sanders supporter out of a leadership position?

Man, in 2022 y'all are gonna be saying Bernie Sanders was "set to be the nominee" before the establishment asked Biden to jump in.

Also thank God Obama asked Perez to run given how Ellison's career has gone since.

You're not actually addressing what I said.

[GoTfan]

When establishment Democrats attack them unprovoked, can you really blame them?

The actual Democratic establishment has, to my great irritation, bent over backwards for him and kissed the ring.  They gave him every concession he wanted at the convention and let him write the platform.  They gave his people power in the DNC.  They held a "unity commission" with f***ing Nomiki Konst.  Tom Perez spent months traveling around the country with Sanders on a "unity tour".  They changed all the primary rules to meet his demands - part of the reason we have so many losers on stage this cycle is because of rules that were changed for the Sanders campaign.  And the DNC and actual Democratic establishment are scared to death to criticize him since they've seen how powerful the "rigging" accusation is and how willing Sanders is to torch the party.

Most of the time when Sanders acolytes complain about the "establishment" criticizing him they're complaining about individual Democrats who have some connection to the party or a think tank, or even no connection but just part of the mainstream media or Congress.

I guess they won't be happy until nobody has any anti-Bernie opinions.

Please do explain why then when Keith Ellison was set to be DNC chair, Obama basically had Tom Perez jump in at the last second? How was that anything but an attempt to maintain control over the party and push a Sanders supporter out of a leadership position?

Keith Ellison was not "set to be DNC Chair" and pushed out of a position, he ran for the position and lost in close race against Tom Perez. Afterwards, he was named Deputy Chair which he later resigned for other reasons.

You didn't answer my question and this essentially proves my point. He was the frontrunner for a leadership position and then Perez, at Obama's request, jumps in at the last second. Please do explain to me how this was anything but an attempt to prevent a Sanders supporter from getting that position.

Where is the point? You could also argue Hillary was the frontrunner for 2016 if Bernie had actually won the nomination? Until progressives asked him to jump in? What's wrong with President Obama making a suggestion for DNC Chair? It's not that Ellison was cheated in the race. And if he won, Obama would have congretulated him and moved on.

He didn't 'suggest' him for anything. Ellison was the frontrunner in the race, so he got Perez to jump to stop that from happening.

You're not actually refuting anything I'm saying

[GoTfan]

When establishment Democrats attack them unprovoked, can you really blame them?

The actual Democratic establishment has, to my great irritation, bent over backwards for him and kissed the ring.  They gave him every concession he wanted at the convention and let him write the platform.  They gave his people power in the DNC.  They held a "unity commission" with f***ing Nomiki Konst.  Tom Perez spent months traveling around the country with Sanders on a "unity tour".  They changed all the primary rules to meet his demands - part of the reason we have so many losers on stage this cycle is because of rules that were changed for the Sanders campaign.  And the DNC and actual Democratic establishment are scared to death to criticize him since they've seen how powerful the "rigging" accusation is and how willing Sanders is to torch the party.

Most of the time when Sanders acolytes complain about the "establishment" criticizing him they're complaining about individual Democrats who have some connection to the party or a think tank, or even no connection but just part of the mainstream media or Congress.

I guess they won't be happy until nobody has any anti-Bernie opinions.

Please do explain why then when Keith Ellison was set to be DNC chair, Obama basically had Tom Perez jump in at the last second? How was that anything but an attempt to maintain control over the party and push a Sanders supporter out of a leadership position?

Keith Ellison was not "set to be DNC Chair" and pushed out of a position, he ran for the position and lost in close race against Tom Perez. Afterwards, he was named Deputy Chair which he later resigned for other reasons.

You didn't answer my question and this essentially proves my point. He was the frontrunner for a leadership position and then Perez, at Obama's request, jumps in at the last second. Please do explain to me how this was anything but an attempt to prevent a Sanders supporter from getting that position.

Where is the point? You could also argue Hillary was the frontrunner for 2016 if Bernie had actually won the nomination? Until progressives asked him to jump in? What's wrong with President Obama making a suggestion for DNC Chair? It's not that Ellison was cheated in the race. And if he won, Obama would have congretulated him and moved on.

He didn't 'suggest' him for anything. Ellison was the frontrunner in the race, so he got Perez to jump to stop that from happening.

You're not actually refuting anything I'm saying

Frontrunner doesn't mean he - or anyone - is entitled to something? I don't see what was wrong on Obama's part, given that he felt Perez would do a better job. It was a fair and close election and in retrospect the right decision.

From what I remember, the evidence seemd to support Obama basically ordering him to run specifically to stop Ellison.

Again, you're not actually addressing the second point.

[GoTfan]

This is such a silly complaint, man.

There's nothing wrong with Obama going out and asking someone to run for a position if he feels that person would do a better job.  If Ellison was such a great candidate he wouldn't have gotten his ass whooped by a "last-minute entrant" (by the way, that "last-minute" was two months before the race, and Perez/Obama probably waited until after the 2016 election to decide).

That isn't an establishment conspiracy to stop Bernie Sanders.  And it's certainly not something that justifies Bernie leading his supporters to boo the "Democratic establishment" over Republicans and Trump.

By the way, wasn't one of Bernie's chief complaints in 2016 that the DNC wasn't impartial, and he wanted it to be impartial?  Why is it a big conspiracy that Ellison didn't become chair, if the point was for the DNC to be impartial?  Could it be that Bernie actually wanted Ellison to make the DNC an arm of the Sanders campaign?

You're assuming either of them acted in good faith, which is a bad start. Perez was apparently extremely reluctant to run in the first place, and was basically shoved in by Obama, or at least that's what every single media outlet said, and then we were told there was no difference in their positions. Why would Perez be forced to run if he and Ellison had fundamentally similar ideas?

Answer: It was a concerted effort to halt a progressive from attaining a leadership position.

[GoTfan]

Answer: It was a concerted effort to halt a progressive from attaining a leadership position.

Tom Perez was considered something of a progressive hero too, up until the moment he dared to challenge Ellison.
Supporting Sanders and his minions isn't the be-all end-all of progressivism.

Then why does he challenge Ellison at Obama's request?

[GoTfan]

This is such a silly complaint, man.

There's nothing wrong with Obama going out and asking someone to run for a position if he feels that person would do a better job.  If Ellison was such a great candidate he wouldn't have gotten his ass whooped by a "last-minute entrant" (by the way, that "last-minute" was two months before the race, and Perez/Obama probably waited until after the 2016 election to decide).

That isn't an establishment conspiracy to stop Bernie Sanders.  And it's certainly not something that justifies Bernie leading his supporters to boo the "Democratic establishment" over Republicans and Trump.

By the way, wasn't one of Bernie's chief complaints in 2016 that the DNC wasn't impartial, and he wanted it to be impartial?  Why is it a big conspiracy that Ellison didn't become chair, if the point was for the DNC to be impartial?  Could it be that Bernie actually wanted Ellison to make the DNC an arm of the Sanders campaign?

You're assuming either of them acted in good faith, which is a bad start. Perez was apparently extremely reluctant to run in the first place, and was basically shoved in by Obama, or at least that's what every single media outlet said, and then we were told there was no difference in their positions. Why would Perez be forced to run if he and Ellison had fundamentally similar ideas?

Answer: It was a concerted effort to halt a progressive from attaining a leadership position.

Maybe Obama, having worked with Perez for several years, thought he would be a more effective leader than the easily-demonized, obviously biased Ellison?

I also don't see what's wrong with trying to stop a Bernie ally from taking over the DNC.  Bernie's obviously playing a partisan game and declared war on the DNC, why isn't the DNC allowed to push back?  Perez easily defeated Ellison so obviously Ellison wasn't a very appealing candidate in the first place.

You're acting like this was all some big conspiracy to stop Sanders from gaining power when there's really no conspiracy to it.  There are a lot of reasons why Obama and the majority of DNC members preferred Perez to Ellison.  Ellison being a pawn of Sanders was one of those reasons.  It probably wasn't the most important reason.

Perez isn't obviously biased? he said the DNC shuld stay out of primaries. He then went and endorsed a primary candidate in his capacity as DNC chair.

It was a deliberate attempt to prevent progressives from gaining a leadership position and a chance for Obama to maintain his grip on the party.