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

[Rookie Yinzer]

I really don't care. People were expecting Hillary Clinton to be shown love at a Bernie Sanders rally by a Bernie Sanders surrogate? These people hate the Democratic Party and think Obama is the worse of the two presidents of the 2010's. It is what it is.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Boooooooooooo Hillary was asked about Sanders in an interview and gave an honest response Boooooooooooo

Funny thing is you guys have been bashing Hillary as a liar for years and now you're like Boooooo why didn't she lie and say she loved Sanders Booooooo she should have lied

Hillary is completely, 100% right of course.  See this thread
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=354294.0

but self-reflection is hard and bashing Clinton is super easy.  And the entire point of Sanders campaign is to appeal to people who want the easiest answer to every problem.

This is what a healthy campaign looks like, by the way.  Leading the crowd in booing the party's previous nominee, descending into screeching madness at the sight of normal DNC bureaucrats being on the rules committee, launching accusations of a "rigged election" because they removed the donor requirement for the debate.

Oh come on MacArthur can you not be so obtuse that you can’t see how despite being an honest opinion that Hillary saying “nobody likes Sanders” is rude, uncalled for, and rightly annoy his supporters? Like I said earlier you guys (especially you in particular) love to give Sanders supporters crap for how they have to rally behind the democrat nominee but ever since Bernie gained momentum you guys haven’t been living by that code. Take the Politico article, yeah it’s clickbait about nobodies b*tching about Bernie but why is low level nobodies in the DNC letting Politico know they don’t like Sanders? Keep your mouth shut if you care about unity so much

[Hindsight was 2020]

I really don't care. People were expecting Hillary Clinton to be shown love at a Bernie Sanders rally by a Bernie Sanders surrogate? These people hate the Democratic Party and think Obama is the worse of the two presidents of the 2010's. It is what it is.

That’s not true and completely unfair. I’m sick of this “Bernie supporters like Trump” talking point because it’s unbelievably offensive. Are there idiots like Matt Tabibi or Glenn Greenwald who are like that? Yeah but that’s like 2% of his base and other Bernie supporters like me call them out on that garbage all the time

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Hillary's statements reflect incredibly poorly on her as an individual, and hopefully everybody in Democratic politics has had their opinion of her lowered in the last month. But Hillary's not running for President.

Tlaib's comments are outrageous because it suggests that members of the Sanders movement are going to be much more interested in antagonizing and scoring points against allies they have disagreements rather than reconciling and finding consensus. Is Tlaib going to sit on stage and ask strangers to boo Joe Manchin and 15 other Senators who demure M4A or a GND, or is she going to work with these people to get three quarters of a loaf?

Neither side looks good in this disgraceful episode but you can't look at this and say it bodes well for Democratic politics under a Sanders administration.

The Democratic Party is going to be fractured regardless of who's nominated or elected president.  It's just catching up with the GOP now.

Any Sanders supporters who actually care about putting together a coalition of people who will pass anything in Sanders's agenda instead of simply letting others know their ideological purity should be aghast at this. It's true that Hillary is in the wrong for baiting a reaction like this out of the Sanders camp, but maybe the Sanders camp could just... not take the bait?

Biden and Buttigieg are running depressing campaigns but they aren't asking their supporters to boo people whose support and capital they are going to need to enact their agendas.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Boooooooooooo Hillary was asked about Sanders in an interview and gave an honest response Boooooooooooo

Funny thing is you guys have been bashing Hillary as a liar for years and now you're like Boooooo why didn't she lie and say she loved Sanders Booooooo she should have lied

Hillary is completely, 100% right of course.  See this thread
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=354294.0

but self-reflection is hard and bashing Clinton is super easy.  And the entire point of Sanders campaign is to appeal to people who want the easiest answer to every problem.

This is what a healthy campaign looks like, by the way.  Leading the crowd in booing the party's previous nominee, descending into screeching madness at the sight of normal DNC bureaucrats being on the rules committee, launching accusations of a "rigged election" because they removed the donor requirement for the debate.

Oh come on MacArthur can you not be so obtuse that you can’t see how despite being an honest opinion that Hillary saying “nobody likes Sanders” is rude, uncalled for, and rightly annoy his supporters? Like I said earlier you guys (especially you in particular) love to give Sanders supporters crap for how they have to rally behind the democrat nominee but ever since Bernie gained momentum you guys haven’t been living by that code. Take the Politico article, yeah it’s clickbait about nobodies b*tching about Bernie but why is low level nobodies in the DNC letting Politico know they don’t like Sanders? Keep your mouth shut if you care about unity so much

If Hillary was saying this stuff in the general election, I would be 100% opposed to it.  Don't attack the f***ing nominee in the general.

This is the primary, the attack is true, she's totally justified in saying it, and it's fair game.  I'm not opposed to people clashing and fighting in the primary

What I'm opposed to is scorched earth attacks of the type Sanders launched against Clinton, especially late in the 2016 primaries when he was already mathematically eliminated and had no chance of victory.  Going out in late April and saying Clinton is unqualified to be president. Going out in June and saying, actually, the e-mail story is a big deal.  Having his surrogates go out in July and August and say, WikiLeaks is telling the truth, the DNC did rig the election against our campaign.  Standing on the debate stage and telling everyone that Clinton is corrupt, a puppet for her donors, and will do whatever her billionaire masters tell her to do.  This is the kind of stuff that kneecapped Clinton against Trump by riling up the Sanders supporters against her.

I am also opposed to attacks that are just flat out lies, or such overdramatic, misleading hyperbole that they may as well be lies.  Something like "Joe Biden has been working tirelessly his entire career to destroy social security" or "Joe Biden doesn't want poor people to have health care" or "Joe Biden's plan would kill the equivalent of 13 9/11s worth of people" or "Joe Biden is corrupt", which the campaign had to apologize for just hours after saying it.  Unlike what Clinton said, these statements are not true, and Sanders is playing dirty by using them.And these are just the things officially endorsed by the campaign.  Far more dirty, lying attacks have been launched by surrogates and media partners of the Sanders campaign, often using talking points that Sanders later mirrors as a dogwhistle to his supporters to validate the attacks.

As for the Politico article, apparently it was said on a group text that may have had dozens of people on it.  The guy didn't go bragging about it to Politico.  Some sneaky mofo was following the conversation and saw an opportunity to sell a story and leaked the conversation.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Why don't you all settle down now and stop arguing so much in the Bernie thread? There are many other candidates running, and their megathreads are being neglected (some more than others). You will hurt all the other little threads' feelings by continuing to focus so much only on the Bernie thread and neglecting all of them. So go take a 10 minute break and then post in the threads about some other candidates for a while. The Bernie megathread is not the only thread, others need your care and attention too.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Boooooooooooo Hillary was asked about Sanders in an interview and gave an honest response Boooooooooooo

Funny thing is you guys have been bashing Hillary as a liar for years and now you're like Boooooo why didn't she lie and say she loved Sanders Booooooo she should have lied

Hillary is completely, 100% right of course.  See this thread
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=354294.0

but self-reflection is hard and bashing Clinton is super easy.  And the entire point of Sanders campaign is to appeal to people who want the easiest answer to every problem.

This is what a healthy campaign looks like, by the way.  Leading the crowd in booing the party's previous nominee, descending into screeching madness at the sight of normal DNC bureaucrats being on the rules committee, launching accusations of a "rigged election" because they removed the donor requirement for the debate.

It is more about timing. She's had 4 years to complain. Why now?
And it was not just an innocent answer. No one said she should "love Bernie". She could pass. She could get non-answer. And this came one week after "no one likes Bernie" stuff.

Hillary is crooked, but she ain't stupid. She KNEW what reactions it would cause. That's why she said it. To promote the documentary or whatever.

I'm fine with that because I'd like to see Democratic Party burn down, but why you defends it is beyond me. Whatever.


Ironically, this is what she said in the same interview >>>

And she warned against party disunity when facing off against an incumbent President Trump in 2020.

“That cannot happen again,” she said. “I don’t care who the nominee is. I don’t care. As long as it’s somebody who can win, and as long as it’s somebody who understands politics is the art of addition, not subtraction.”

[ON Progressive]

Gotta beat the perpetually outraged to the punch by posting this first, in the hopes we avoid a bunch of concern-trolling, faux outrage and silly posturing.

BOOOOOOO

https://twitter.com/chrisjollyhale/status/1223442238509850624

Lmao resistance/lib twitter is in an uproar over this. It's ok for Hilary to dish it out, but the minute she takes some its a war crime (something Hilary would know about, surely).

Resistance/Lib Twitter is basically just Extremely Online WOWs, the vast majority of whom probably voted Mitt Romney honestly. It doesn't take much to get them in an uproar!

[Mehmentum]

What I'm opposed to is scorched earth attacks of the type Sanders launched against Clinton, especially late in the 2016 primaries when he was already mathematically eliminated and had no chance of victory.

Pretty hypocritical of Clinton to be upset about that, considering she did the exact same thing to Obama in 2008.  The 2016 primary season was positively cordial compared to how nasty 2008 got.

Standing on the debate stage and telling everyone that Clinton is corrupt, a puppet for her donors, and will do whatever her billionaire masters tell her to do.

Wtf, he never said that.

am also opposed to attacks that are just flat out lies, or such overdramatic, misleading hyperbole that they may as well be lies.  Something like "Joe Biden has been working tirelessly his entire career to destroy social security" or "Joe Biden doesn't want poor people to have health care" or "Joe Biden's plan would kill the equivalent of 13 9/11s worth of people"

Can you actually point towards an instance of the Sanders campaign making these arguments in that way, or are you just mad about anonymous Bernie Bros on the internet?

Seems to me, the only time the Sanders campaign stepped over the line was with the accusation that Biden was corrupt, which they almost immediately (and correctly) backtracked on.
 

[James Monroe]

More proof the Bernie camp wants nothing more than for the Democratic Party to vanish off the face of the Earth. They have the urge to tell a block of voters who have been loyal to the cause for decades now to bend their knees to bash one of the most beloved females in American history. Just think about the egregious misogyny being displayed here. There is a level of hostility towards the candidate lost through Russian instigation, whose been the smear of right-wing hit jobs since her husband presidency. Look back at Al Gore welcoming after losing the election unfairly to Bush, he was consider a staunch climate defender that we needed to hear. With Hillary the usual suspects have been doing everything in their reign to make sure that b**h, excuse my language, women will never be heard from again.


Bernie is never going to be the nominee because of this treatment. He's at fault more for Hillary derangement syndrome than Trump could ever dream of.

[GeneralMacArthur]

All of those Sanders things have been discussed on this very forum.  Here, for example, is David Sirota (who runs the @BernieSanders twitter account and writes Bernie's speeches) comparing Biden's plan to 42 9/11s:



As for 2016, here is Sanders, on the debate stage, saying Clinton is corrupt and won't actually pass financial legislation because she is a puppet for her donors:

The first difference is, I don’t take money from big banks, I don’t get personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs… Can you really reform Wall Street when they are spending millions and millions of dollars on campaign contributions and when they are providing speaker fees to individuals?… It’s easy to say, well, I’m going to do this and do that, but I have doubts when people receive huge amounts of money from Wall Street.

he said this pretty much every debate.  "Clinton is corrupt" was the M4A of 2016, something that got brought up in every debate so much we all got tired of the talking points.  And before you try to pull the Trump defense of "he didn't literally say that in the exact words you described it", I'm not the only one who was upset about this.  Here's a contemporary article from the Boston Globe:

Make no mistake, these are legitimate attacks on Clinton, but they do contradict Sanders’ pledge to avoid personal attacks and character assassination. Sanders cannot regularly suggest that Clinton is bought and sold by corporate, moneyed interests and then say he’s running a campaign on the issues. He’s openly attacking her integrity. In a recent TV interview, Sanders even went after what he called the “corporate media” for not covering the issues he cares about, because, he said, mainstream journalists are taking cues from their corporate paymasters. In Sanders’ world, everyone but him and his supporters are tainted.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/04/01/dark-turn-for-sanders-campaign/iQXKhLKcLadSzNhbxo2WOI/story.html?event=event25?event=event25

The 2008 vs 2016 debate has been had on this forum as well.  No point re-igniting it.  You guys have your talking points and cling to them like Linus to his blanket.  Last time I tried to engage this talking point, Atlas ignored what I was saying and mocked me for being 27 and therefore too young to remember 2008.

[Mehmentum]

As for 2016, here is Sanders, on the debate stage, saying Clinton is corrupt and won't actually pass financial legislation because she is a puppet for her donors:

The first difference is, I don’t take money from big banks, I don’t get personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs… Can you really reform Wall Street when they are spending millions and millions of dollars on campaign contributions and when they are providing speaker fees to individuals?… It’s easy to say, well, I’m going to do this and do that, but I have doubts when people receive huge amounts of money from Wall Street.

and before you try to pull the Trump defense of "he didn't literally say that in the exact words you described it", I'm not the only one who was upset about this.  Here's a contemporary article from the Boston Globe:

Make no mistake, these are legitimate attacks on Clinton, but they do contradict Sanders’ pledge to avoid personal attacks and character assassination. Sanders cannot regularly suggest that Clinton is bought and sold by corporate, moneyed interests and then say he’s running a campaign on the issues. He’s openly attacking her integrity. In a recent TV interview, Sanders even went after what he called the “corporate media” for not covering the issues he cares about, because, he said, mainstream journalists are taking cues from their corporate paymasters. In Sanders’ world, everyone but him and his supporters are tainted.

So, to be clear, do you agree with the article you quoted that those were legitimate attacks on Clinton?  Because those attacks literally are true- she did take money from cooperate interests, and that should be a concern.  That is a legitimate, and yes, fair, criticism than you can lob at a candidate, and if it isn't, that suggest something deeply dysfunctional with our political system.

So yes, I would agree with you that:

This is the primary, the attack is true, she'she's totally justified in saying it, and it's fair game.  I'm not opposed to people clashing and fighting in the primary

[GeneralMacArthur]

So, to be clear, do you agree with the article you quoted that those were legitimate attacks on Clinton?  Because those attacks literally are true- she did take money from cooperate interests, and that should be a concern.  That is a legitimate criticism than you can lob at a candidate, and if it isn't, that suggest something deeply dysfunctional with our political system.

Attacking someone for who their donors are is, unfortunately, a classic political attack.  It's just guilt-by-association.  Hillary took money from Wall Street so she's more Wall-Street-friendly than me, whatever.  That's legitimate criticism.  You can also say that Hillary surrounds herself with too many Wall Street buddies and other elite NYC types, and that colors her perception of the world, that they have her ear in a way that other people don't, things like that.

Sanders crosses the line when he says that, because Hillary took those donations, she's corrupt, she's bought-and-paid for and a puppet for those donors, and she's not actually going to do the things she says she's going to do.

[Lourdes]

[GeneralMacArthur]

Another article in the NYTimes today calling out Bernie's campaign for uniquely emboldening awfulness.  It's pretty much on the money in its description of the Bernie Bro mindset.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/opinion/sanders-bernie-bros.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

I eagerly await the six posts accusing me of being "obsessed with Sanders" for reading the New York Times.

Does this mean Sanders himself supports this kind of behavior? No, and occasionally he tries to disavow it. But not very hard: Last year, he hired as a top aide and speechwriter David Sirota, accurately described by The Atlantic as “his Twitter attack dog.”

Nor does it mean that anything like a majority of Sanders’s supporters support the nastiness carried out in his name. Yet no other Democratic candidate has so many venomous followers — no Biden Brothers or Warren Sisters to return fire with fire. The only real analog in U.S. politics today to the Bernie nasties are the Trump nasties. They resemble each other in ways neither side cares to admit.

As they see it, ordinary civility isn’t a virtue. It’s a ruse by which those with power manipulate and marginalize those without. Democrats like Joe Biden who play by the rules of civility and bipartisanship aren’t just falling prey to the insidious manipulation. They are perpetrating and legitimizing it. No wonder nearly half of Sanders’s supporters won’t commit to or are unsure about voting for the Democratic nominee in the event it isn’t Bernie, according to a recent poll. Why bother voting for Oligarchy Lite?

If there is a silver lining here, it’s that the world has long experience with this brand of zealotry. Bernie Sanders may not be one of his own awful Bros, and may condemn their worst excesses. But there’s no reason to think they’ll lose their influence should he win the White House — just as Trump’s presidency has emboldened and empowered many of his own worst followers.

Is this the Democratic Party the Democrats want? They will cast their first votes for president on Monday evening at the party caucuses in Iowa. Now is the moment for second thoughts.

[Mehmentum]

So, to be clear, do you agree with the article you quoted that those were legitimate attacks on Clinton?  Because those attacks literally are true- she did take money from cooperate interests, and that should be a concern.  That is a legitimate criticism than you can lob at a candidate, and if it isn't, that suggest something deeply dysfunctional with our political system.

Attacking someone for who their donors are is, unfortunately, a classic political attack.  It's just guilt-by-association. Hillary took money from Wall Street so she's more Wall-Street-friendly than me, whatever.  That's legitimate criticism.  You can also say that Hillary surrounds herself with too many Wall Street buddies and other elite NYC types, and that colors her perception of the world, that they have her ear in a way that other people don't, things like that.

Sanders crosses the line when he says that, because Hillary took those donations, she's corrupt, she's bought-and-paid for and a puppet for those donors, and she's not actually going to do the things she says she's going to do.

Here's the thing with that first attack.  It doesn't directly accuse your opponent of corruption, but it sure as hell implies it.   You can't say 'she's to cozy with Wall street types, her connections to elites color her worldview, the amount of money she receives from special interest could be a sign that she'll be more friendly towards them in office' without implying corruption.

And this it exactly what you seem to be upset with Sanders for.  Not for accusing her of corruption, but making valid arguments that raise questions about whether she's corrupt.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Hillary's statements reflect incredibly poorly on her as an individual, and hopefully everybody in Democratic politics has had their opinion of her lowered in the last month. But Hillary's not running for President.

Tlaib's comments are outrageous because it suggests that members of the Sanders movement are going to be much more interested in antagonizing and scoring points against allies they have disagreements rather than reconciling and finding consensus. Is Tlaib going to sit on stage and ask strangers to boo Joe Manchin and 15 other Senators who demure M4A or a GND, or is she going to work with these people to get three quarters of a loaf?

Neither side looks good in this disgraceful episode but you can't look at this and say it bodes well for Democratic politics under a Sanders administration.

The Democratic Party is going to be fractured regardless of who's nominated or elected president.  It's just catching up with the GOP now.

Any Sanders supporters who actually care about putting together a coalition of people who will pass anything in Sanders's agenda instead of simply letting others know their ideological purity should be aghast at this. It's true that Hillary is in the wrong for baiting a reaction like this out of the Sanders camp, but maybe the Sanders camp could just... not take the bait?

Biden and Buttigieg are running depressing campaigns but they aren't asking their supporters to boo people whose support and capital they are going to need to enact their agendas.

I don't disagree, and I've never been a huge fan of Tlaib even though I would align more with her lane of the party than Clinton's or Biden's.  Hillary kind of invited this, though, and Sanders himself responds better to these attacks than most of his surrogates do.

[James Monroe]

Hillary's statements reflect incredibly poorly on her as an individual, and hopefully everybody in Democratic politics has had their opinion of her lowered in the last month. But Hillary's not running for President.

Tlaib's comments are outrageous because it suggests that members of the Sanders movement are going to be much more interested in antagonizing and scoring points against allies they have disagreements rather than reconciling and finding consensus. Is Tlaib going to sit on stage and ask strangers to boo Joe Manchin and 15 other Senators who demure M4A or a GND, or is she going to work with these people to get three quarters of a loaf?

Neither side looks good in this disgraceful episode but you can't look at this and say it bodes well for Democratic politics under a Sanders administration.

The Democratic Party is going to be fractured regardless of who's nominated or elected president.  It's just catching up with the GOP now.

Any Sanders supporters who actually care about putting together a coalition of people who will pass anything in Sanders's agenda instead of simply letting others know their ideological purity should be aghast at this. It's true that Hillary is in the wrong for baiting a reaction like this out of the Sanders camp, but maybe the Sanders camp could just... not take the bait?

Biden and Buttigieg are running depressing campaigns but they aren't asking their supporters to boo people whose support and capital they are going to need to enact their agendas.

I don't disagree, and I've never been a huge fan of Tlaib even though I would align more with her lane of the party than Clinton's or Biden's.  Hillary kind of invited this, though, and Sanders himself responds better to these attacks than most of his surrogates do.

Bernie doesn't stand up to his surrogates vicious smears against the party. His silence encourages more toxic behavior out of his camp. Say what you will about Hillary Clinton she's a private citizen who has a platform, there's nothing that should stop her from speaking out. I have good faith in her to support whoever is the candidate in November because she's a team player.

[Farmlands]

I really don't care. People were expecting Hillary Clinton to be shown love at a Bernie Sanders rally by a Bernie Sanders surrogate? These people hate the Democratic Party and think Obama is the worse of the two presidents of the 2010's. It is what it is.

That’s not true and completely unfair. I’m sick of this “Bernie supporters like Trump” talking point because it’s unbelievably offensive. Are there idiots like Matt Tabibi or Glenn Greenwald who are like that? Yeah but that’s like 2% of his base and other Bernie supporters like me call them out on that garbage all the time

I just want to add I completely agree with this. Let's not get blinded by candidate loyalty, to the point of accusing others' supporters of liking Trump, because that's just an offensive denial of reality. Swing by the impeachment thread and you'll see all democrats, including Hindsight is 2020 and MacArthur, vigorously opposed to yesterday's injustice.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Hillary's statements reflect incredibly poorly on her as an individual, and hopefully everybody in Democratic politics has had their opinion of her lowered in the last month. But Hillary's not running for President.

Tlaib's comments are outrageous because it suggests that members of the Sanders movement are going to be much more interested in antagonizing and scoring points against allies they have disagreements rather than reconciling and finding consensus. Is Tlaib going to sit on stage and ask strangers to boo Joe Manchin and 15 other Senators who demure M4A or a GND, or is she going to work with these people to get three quarters of a loaf?

Neither side looks good in this disgraceful episode but you can't look at this and say it bodes well for Democratic politics under a Sanders administration.

The Democratic Party is going to be fractured regardless of who's nominated or elected president.  It's just catching up with the GOP now.

Any Sanders supporters who actually care about putting together a coalition of people who will pass anything in Sanders's agenda instead of simply letting others know their ideological purity should be aghast at this. It's true that Hillary is in the wrong for baiting a reaction like this out of the Sanders camp, but maybe the Sanders camp could just... not take the bait?

Biden and Buttigieg are running depressing campaigns but they aren't asking their supporters to boo people whose support and capital they are going to need to enact their agendas.

I don't disagree, and I've never been a huge fan of Tlaib even though I would align more with her lane of the party than Clinton's or Biden's.  Hillary kind of invited this, though, and Sanders himself responds better to these attacks than most of his surrogates do.

When Hillary announces her 2020 bid for President, I'll make sure to bring this incident up as disqualifying.

I agree that Sanders is personally much better at handling these things, but it really says something about his movement that elements of a grievance campaign arise organically almost daily. I don't worry about Sanders himself but many of the people he surrounds himself with are absolute garbage and strike me as being much more interested in picking fights than enacting an agenda.

Tlaib in particular is an absolute buffoon and will hopefully lose her primary this year. I think there's a lot of room between AOC and Ilhan/Tlaib but even AOC is prone to some strategic or rhetoric blunders. Notably the member of the squad who never puts her foot in her mouth isn't associating with Bernie.

In general the degree of professionalism and discipline the Warren campaign shows is much better than the Sanders wreck, although they're certainly prone to make mistakes in other ways. I have more confidence that if Warren wins she wouldn't dunk on potential allies in an attempt to please the Chapo crowd (although the attempted own of Roberts earlier this week was cringeworthy).

[John Dule]

I for one am amazed that Sanders would dare to imply that Hillary Clinton is "corrupt." I mean yeah, you can easily Google her major donors and see that they're all financial institutions, and yeah, you can cherrypick a few hundred thousand dollars here and there that she received from speeches at Goldman Sachs. But that doesn't prove anything. Massive corporations give to politicians all the time without expecting anything in return whatsoever. I'm sure her speeches were so good that they were actually worth $750,000. I mean, have you ever heard a Hillary Clinton speech? Such a master of oratory should be able to demand whatever fees she wishes.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Me reading the last 1.5 pages of "discussion"

[Adam Griffin]

Resistance/Lib Twitter is basically just Extremely Online WOWs, the vast majority of whom probably voted Mitt Romney honestly. It doesn't take much to get them in an uproar!

[Florida Man for Crime]

Another article opinion piece by the former WSJ editorial page deputy editor in the NYTimes today calling out Bernie's campaign

FTFY

Mr. Stephens came to The Times after a long career with The Wall Street Journal, where he was most recently deputy editorial page editor and, for 11 years, a foreign affairs columnist.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Tlaib isn't running for president either.

Don't be fatuous. She was serving as a surrogate for the Bernie Sanders campaign at a Bernie Sanders for President event. She was acting as an arm of the Bernie Sanders campaign. You're better than this.

At least she's making these comments in an attempt to build something other than Hulu subscriptions.

Not really.

It's downright grotesque that Hillary Clinton is so interested in poking the Sanders beehive when her most widely publicized response to her association with Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein remains, as with so many other things, "What Happened?"

If this comment is directed at me as clearly as the first paragraph is, then you're barking up the wrong tree. No serious poster in this thread is defending Hillary Clinton and I've made my thoughts clear.

I'm not saying the Sanders camp is morally in the wrong for attacking Clinton (Clinton obviously attacked first). I'm saying it's part of a longstanding pattern that suggests people in this campaign aren't interested in building a movement large enough to tackle the problems they claim they are interested in solving. This is something you yourself have said here multiple times. The only difference here is that this incident taps into a deep, salient feeling of disrespect from and antipathy towards Hillary Clinton - that salience is enough to dupe otherwise intelligent people into sympathizing with this absolute travesty.

Even Tlaib herself knows this was much more damaging than it was productive.

https://twitter.com/RashidaTlaib/status/1223614639197560836