Can we not start slinging around derogatory terms like "Bernie Bros" over here? It's this kind of condescension and toxicity that made me want to avoid political discussion over on the "other forum."
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC
- Thread starter Deleted member 1759
- Start date
- Status
Can we not start slinging around derogatory terms like "Bernie Bros" over here? It's this kind of condescension and toxicity that made me want to avoid political discussion over on the "other forum."
I would actually prefer he if elaborates on his own comment, lmcfigs, and answers my question himself, as it is relevant to me. I feel that a legit discussion over questionable practices in the DNC is being overshadowed by assertions, based on nothing, that Bernie Sanders was somehow robbed of the nomination. It's possible to both acknowledge that the DNC had practices that skirted ethical lines while also not regressing back into the very, very tired territory of painting the primary as illegitimate and "rigged".
Co-signed. It's unnecessarily inflammatory and just doesn't contribute to the atmosphere I think a lot of us want to see prosper on this forum.
Except that if you read the article, it points out that even Brazile, as interim chair, was not told of the economic straits the DNC was in. No one was told except the Clinton campaign. It's also worth pointing out that Sanders was never offered the same agreement Clinton was, which is what Brazile was mad about. They both signed fundraising agreements, but Clinton required a) full control of the DNC machine and b) the ability to basically take the money from the DNC as she wished as her requirements.
Imagine if Bernie were allowed to fundraise for the DNC, and then take 99% of the money he raised for the DNC into his own campaign, while claiming it was for downballot races.
From 18 months ago
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670
Agreement signed
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559
Connections and allies are one thing. Cutting a deal that says "we pay your monthly debt payments and in exchange have full control over who you hire and editorial control over official statements" is quite another.
Thankfully things are changing. The left is more unified now than ever and the centrist establishment is delusional if they think people are just going to shut up and vote for another empty suit centrist in 2020.
This is a highly inaccurate assessment of What Happened. The very opening of the book makes it clear that it isn't a work meant to point fingers and that she accepts her failures, that the buck stopped with her, that she let everyone down, and that she'll have to live with her mistakes and the consequences of them "for the rest of my life."
Have you read it?
Last edited:
I've read enough of the excerpts to have read the blame shifting and finger pointing.
This post really sums up the worthlessness of these conversations. "I'm confident I'm right and I didn't want any information to get in the way of that."
The DNC didn't really support him even after he got elected, running from him in the 2010 midterms. Also, he spent that 20 million on Clinton's 2008 campaign debt as well.
All good :)
+1. We can have a rational discussion about the failings of the DNC without pointing fingers and playing the blame game.
You're trying to argue that context doesn't matter.
I mean, I'm only going to go so far defending the DNC. I admitted the DNC was flawed. I'm not sure what you're trying to get me to see here.
Did Bernie Sanders dispute the agreement he was offered? Is this the stated reason he did no fundraising for the party?
I for one became an expert on the book after reading the back cover, it was very insightful
I mean, how would you know? You haven't read the book.
More seriously, no excerpt is meaningful without context. If she spends much of the book criticizing herself and some parts criticizing others, it's easy to pull an excerpt of just the part where she criticizes others and call it "finger-pointing." That doesn't make it reasonable or correct!
Basically. How much it influenced the result doesn't matter. Leveraging the debt of a should-be neutral political institution, bailing them out and making them into an extension of your campaign is clearly unethical and a threat to democracy. As I said before, I can't imagine in a scenario where after the election, Bernie managed to load the DNC with his clown car of weirdo friends, and they began to operate in similar manners stacking the deck in the set up of the primary in ways they thought would help Bernie win in 2020, that people who aren't fans of him and don't want the party to move in his direction, would not be angry. It doesn't have to directly effect the results for people to think it's unethical and wrong.
In a time where the idea of voting for the opposition in a general is basically unthinkable, and for the vast majority not at all an option; primaries are the only place for some people to express their political voice. We should be giving reasons for people to believe in and engage in the process, yet it's understandable that given where we are and the often flimsy defenses of interparty political behavior why they are dissuaded or think getting involved won't matter because the powers at be will do what they can to select who they want anyway. Even if that isn't directly what happened, they are doing literally nothing to give people confidence in this process whatso ever and the general public's low favorability ratings for the democratic party in general is low as it is for a reason.
The key details of the story are old, just portrayed in a different light:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfdYmrWqFmI
Hillary puts it as the DNC was in shambles, and that they needed to rebuild the entire data operation, which was essentially killed off by Obama letting the organization languish in debt.
I'm interested in seeing a lot more discussion about the details of Brazille's story, and pushback or explanations from neutral parties.
Clinton could have agreed to the fundraising agreement as written, like they expected Sanders to, and not demanded full control of the DNC in response, as well as the ability to siphon any and all money from the DNC to her own campaign. (The irony is that had Sanders raised money for the DNC per the agreement, he would have been raising money for Clinton's campaign during the primary.) I mean, I don't blame Clinton at all, she's a politician, and she will do whatever she thinks will get her to win. But this is really, really shady shit.
Clinton, Obama and the establishment was 100% in the right to keep the nomination within the party to a card carrying member of the Democratic Party.
Like Bernie or hate him. It doesn't matter, he wasn't even a Democrat to begin with.
IMO, the DNC should change the rules so that ONLY Democrats can run for the nomination. None of this "Independent" outsider candidates.
Like Bernie or hate him. It doesn't matter, he wasn't even a Democrat to begin with.
IMO, the DNC should change the rules so that ONLY Democrats can run for the nomination. None of this "Independent" outsider candidates.
I don't think that's fair. Sanders caucused with Democrats in the Senate. He is a reliable Democratic vote every time it matters, and is only independent because that's how it works in his home state.
in other countries, party leadership campaigns are way more restrictive and exclusive to party members. The US primary system is way too open IMO
I actually think this is kind of misreading. Clinton didn't demand DNC control in exchange for fundraising, she demanded DNC control because she was FUNDING THE DNC. If she hadn't done that the party would literally have gone bankrupt during the middle of a presidential election.
If I was bankrolling a political party to the time of $3 million a month I might reasonably want some control over it too. It shouldn't have been secret but it doesn't strike me as crazy. The DNC could have rejected the deal and just gone out of business instead.
Which, again, goes back to Obama. Why in God's name did he leave the party in such an unsustainable and unmanageable position? It's kind of unbelievable.
How is BernieBros condescending or derogatory, at all? It's a no different term than Reaganite.
He may be a reliable vote but during the primaries he made everything Us vs. Them, the guy's biggest funding day was when he played victim after his campaign stole data
I mean it's obviously meant as an insult.
Unless I use it, then its ironic.
They're still both name calling, which is maybe something we should avoid.
I mean its not even the most condescending terms thrown around during that time (shill, vagina voter, black nationalist, low information voter)
But I do agree that name calling from any side or use of slurs is not helpful.
I don't. The Mueller investigation and the Tax bill are much more important.
it intentionally invokes a white college aged male, even if you don't use it with its original intent. it's always been derogatory to its intended targets, and worse, it perpetuates the false premise that there aren't female and PoC voices on the left
Reaganite is a condescending term, as it associates people with a terrible parasitic person who is the originator to the sociopathic mantras of the modern GOP, and that's just for starters.
Bro is a diss, it's always been a diss. Brocialist, brogrammer, berniebro, they're all intended to convey that the person you're talking about is a white male who wants to promote and celebrate whiteness and maleness.
They're also all terms that exist because these white males exist and do this stuff.
They're also all terms that exist because these white males exist and do this stuff.
On the left? I think you mean, "...female and PoC voices amongst Sander supporters."
Because I don't like it when people suggest that I'm a white person. It also erases the many women, PoC, and LGBTQ members on the left.
no because people tend to blanket label socialists as "berniebros" even when the cult of personality around bernie sanders the politician doesn't exist for the individuals they're addressing. as a social movement, people latched on to sanders because he *promised them he would fight for policies*. they aren't just massive fans of his oration or think he's cute or inspiring or whatever.
Don't you know that people who supported Clinton aren't actually left? Get with it, Aaronology.
I think some of us all need to not be so averse to admitting the implications of the Donna Brazzile Book stuff when even Elizabeth Warren is outright saying she thinks the primary was "rigged in Hillary's favor".
I get WHY some people are so turned off by it, because you think by admitting to that phrase that you are therefor admitting to all the more ridiculous shit that the Bernie-or-Bust crew claimed and still claims such as:
- Dems purging so many Bernie votes that Bernie secretly got more votes
- That without the Superdelegates Hillary would have had less delegates than Bernie
- DNC/Hillary secretly killing Seth Rich
- That Hillary is secretly controlling the entire Democratic Party
- All the dumb shit wikileaks claims
- All the other dumb shit fake progressives like to claim.
But maybe we should instead try to retake the narrative by saying that it was "rigged" and then being specific to DEFINE what "rigged" actually means. Explain that it specifically means:
- The DNC was so desperate for money that they were taking money directly from Hillary's campaign before she was definitively the nominee in exchange for allowing her to set some rules
- Way too many superdelegates endorsed Hillary early on when they should have at least waited until 2016.
- Media Outlets didn't necessarily LOVE hillary (hell they LOVED to attack her and bring up nothing burger scandals about her), but they definitely didn't take any of her primary challengers seriously at first
- That regardless of why the DNC was deciding to not hold as many debates and to not hold them at more viewable times, they should have been open to listen to those who wanted the debates to be a more prominent aspect of the Democratic Primaries
- That many people who were otherwise considering running in the 2016 primaries probably chose not to run at least partly because they didn't think they could beat Hillary (that DOESN'T mean they were pressured by Hillary/DNC people to not run) and many of these same people would instead choose to later endorse Hillary
- That in spite of the above comment of the "would-have-been" 2016 candidates, Hillary's influence within the democratic party in 2017 is HIGHLY exaggerated and in truth if anyone still has a lot of influence in the DNC it's Barack Obama
I get WHY some people are so turned off by it, because you think by admitting to that phrase that you are therefor admitting to all the more ridiculous shit that the Bernie-or-Bust crew claimed and still claims such as:
- Dems purging so many Bernie votes that Bernie secretly got more votes
- That without the Superdelegates Hillary would have had less delegates than Bernie
- DNC/Hillary secretly killing Seth Rich
- That Hillary is secretly controlling the entire Democratic Party
- All the dumb shit wikileaks claims
- All the other dumb shit fake progressives like to claim.
But maybe we should instead try to retake the narrative by saying that it was "rigged" and then being specific to DEFINE what "rigged" actually means. Explain that it specifically means:
- The DNC was so desperate for money that they were taking money directly from Hillary's campaign before she was definitively the nominee in exchange for allowing her to set some rules
- Way too many superdelegates endorsed Hillary early on when they should have at least waited until 2016.
- Media Outlets didn't necessarily LOVE hillary (hell they LOVED to attack her and bring up nothing burger scandals about her), but they definitely didn't take any of her primary challengers seriously at first
- That regardless of why the DNC was deciding to not hold as many debates and to not hold them at more viewable times, they should have been open to listen to those who wanted the debates to be a more prominent aspect of the Democratic Primaries
- That many people who were otherwise considering running in the 2016 primaries probably chose not to run at least partly because they didn't think they could beat Hillary (that DOESN'T mean they were pressured by Hillary/DNC people to not run) and many of these same people would instead choose to later endorse Hillary
- That in spite of the above comment of the "would-have-been" 2016 candidates, Hillary's influence within the democratic party in 2017 is HIGHLY exaggerated and in truth if anyone still has a lot of influence in the DNC it's Barack Obama
This is actually confusing to me. How does recognizing the presence of white males among Bernie's supporters necessarily imply the absence of any other supporters?
So while attention is turned on the Mueller investigation, the poor tax bill and Republican infighting, the former DNC chair literally hands Trump a talking point and ability to change the narrative back to "crooked Hillary" and highlight the discourse in the Democratic party.
We are getting another term of Trump because of this nonsense.
We are getting another term of Trump because of this nonsense.
The Mueller investigation is going to have absolutely zero impact on the lives of everyday Americans. Tax bill is important though!
not by the standards of any other country on the face of the earth, no. if "berniebro" can be claimed to not be a slur, then certainly calling "clintonites" centrist or third-way isn't either. but i digress, this is off topic
- Status