Remember that one time people thought that the Chapo boys said the N-word, but it turned out to be black guy that was on the podcast?
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC
- Thread starter Deleted member 1759
- Start date
- Status
Still not seeing the shadiness.
Clearly the Clinton campaign had a control freak mentality and wanted to be in charge of everything in the general election. At the time the deal was made, Sanders was like at 18%, O'Malley at like 10%, and no one else even registered, with Clinton between 55 and 60% in the polls. They started thinking ahead. No one expected the Sanders surge to 40% when the deal was made.
Also, Sanders certainly could have obtained at least a comparable level of control over strategy and finances if he'd won the nomination.
Clearly the Clinton campaign had a control freak mentality and wanted to be in charge of everything in the general election. At the time the deal was made, Sanders was like at 18%, O'Malley at like 10%, and no one else even registered, with Clinton between 55 and 60% in the polls. They started thinking ahead. No one expected the Sanders surge to 40% when the deal was made.
Also, Sanders certainly could have obtained at least a comparable level of control over strategy and finances if he'd won the nomination.
How is taking control of party finances before you are nominated not shady? That's the very definition of shady right there.
Why is Hillary entitled to that control prior to actually winning the nomination?
Yes, who indeed would possibly make the argument that we should drop social justice? I must be crazy, nobody would do such a thing, definitely not literally this morning in the PoliERA thread
You were feigning ignorance and pretending that "Bernie bros" isn't used as a bludgeon to erace PoC and females on the left, and then when I pushed you on this you immediately broke down and failed to provide even a single example lol. It's hard to take you seriously when you say "Chapo" is an example of leftists who want to undermine social justice and then don't even cite a single example. Very cowardly to generalize millions of voters like you did and then claim people are trying to play games with you when they ask for proof. There are plenty of racists on the left just as there are on the center. That's not really what "bernie bros" is about though and you are conveniently sidestepping this issue by pretending that because there are some racists on the left then the "bernie bro" slur is justified.
This is such a passive aggressive post I don't even know where to start. You're actually beelining for two words I didn't use enough to your liking instead of addressing my post in any meaningful way. Do you actually have anything to add to the discussion?
So, what you are stating is that you agree with the assertion that there are Sanders supporters who de-prioritize social issues.
Where is the disagreement stemming from here?
I'm really at a lost here because every link you posted is about Julian Assange himself. I don't give a damn about him... I just want the leaks.
What the hell does leaked Podesta emails have to do with how l or anyone feels about Assange? Don't read the leaks, which the Wikileaks organization is batting a solid .1000 with, because Assange is a douche?
Come on, bro. That makes no sense.
All I'm getting from this exchange is that using the term Bernie Bro means more to some people than acknowledging feelings of erasure
You really are NOT helping when you refuse to acknowledge the not-conspiratorial kind of "rigging" that went on, and I say this as someone who is proud to have worked for the democratic campaign last year.
Last edited:
I think Bernie definitely didn't do enough outreach to minorities; I'm commenting on him and other leftists "outright rejecting" social justice issues because that's the part I have a problem with. I think Bernie did not spend enough time talking about certain types of issues. And if that's what he meant by downplaying, then sure I agree. But he didn't trivialize those issues, or said they weren't important, or that they were unnecessary, and he certainly didn't ignore them outright - so I couldn't agree wholeheartedly with what was being said.
I took umbrage over your mis-characterization of Pigeon's post, highlighting a specific part that you disagreed with and framing his entire message around it. You're welcome to point out how I'm being passive aggressive; I'd like to engage in a discussion that is, above all else, honest. Because otherwise we're wasting our time.
Yes, this whole thread of thought it hypothetical. Sanders had some controversy in his past, of defending Communist dictatorial regimes, that could have been used to attack him in the general election. He had made some bad votes as a legislator. Would he have enervated black and Latino older voters? There are a lot of questions there.
What I don't think you can dispute is that Hillary Clinton, manufactured by the right or not, was dogged by questions about ethics, by scandals, and her husband as well. I also don't think that you can dispute that swing voters (even Democratic voters) widely did not find her authentic, did not trust her, and did not find her charismatic.
Running a candidate like that was our path to defeat. Trump had sky-high negatives. Basically any Dem with a pulse should have beaten him. Someone like Bernie, who had his pulse on the disenfranchised middle- and working-class in a way that Hillary wouldn't, would have beaten Trump in critical states. Hillary lost MI, OH, PA, WI, IA. For a Democratic candidate to lose all of those states was a goddamn embarrassment.
That's just my opinion of course. We'll run someone far better in 2020. We have to.
This is anecdotal support. I could show you all sorts of vile things posted by Hillary supporters in 2016, including some posters here. Polls pegged Bernie supporters as least racist. I am sure there were some bad apples but I did not experience the "Bernie Bro" phenomenon online myself (edit- not in any widespread way!). It's a clear attempt to discredit the man's movement and to silence his diverse supporters.
Your argument consistently is relying on polls and polls should not have influenced this decision. She could have funded them and not taken control until after the primaries (assuming it played out the way it did), you certainly can grant that much at least?
That agreement was very shady and definitely shouldn't have happened, but the actual election results weren't rigged.
Delegate count wasn't very close, even without the supers (Obama/Clinton was closer) and Bernie would had to win like 80% of California (and other states) to move ahead.
DWS was a complete disaster and never should have been in that role.
Delegate count wasn't very close, even without the supers (Obama/Clinton was closer) and Bernie would had to win like 80% of California (and other states) to move ahead.
DWS was a complete disaster and never should have been in that role.
I don't know who you're talking about because I didn't say anything about "dropping civil rights" there.
Just a question though for people who argue this point- What do you think more people in America, including POC: (A) Poverty, or (B) Racism?
I know there's intersectionality and all that. But the amount of time you spend speaking about one or the other is zero sum.
Bernie actively went out of his way to throw minorities under the bus because the white moderate vote is the only vote that mattered to him. That's why, in an election like this, he focused mostly on health care and his buzzwords and not, you know, Trump's bigotry, which would have solidified the minority vote.
That's not even going into his spiel about the favorite right-wing dog whistle "identity politics" that he did after the election, which was nothing but a thinly veiled way of admitting that the only vote he gave a shit about was the white moderate vote.
Sure, just "downplaying" it and fixing it with "sleight of hand." You know, the way Bill Clinton did.
Believe me, when people talk about how they care about social justice but just don't think the Democrats should ever talk about it, the message is clearly received.
There's quite a few. There's Briahna Joy, Joe Prince, Ricky Rawls, Leslie Lee, Katie Halper, Britney Sneers, and many more.
Reminder that everyone here needs to keep the discussion germane to the original topic. Discussion about "Bernie Bros", "real progressives", and "identity politics" is off-topic, and just leads to bitter, irresolvable, toxic arguments.
Uhhh, I'm pretty sure on balance, Bill Clinton improved Civil Rights in comparison to the alternative to him. And black people voted for him in droves.
Edit: Oh, I didn't know this was a different thread. Quote drew me here from the general politics thread.
You said "Many" of the people who complained about Hillary. Not "A few names". "Many". Do you have polling statistics to back this up?
IIRC wasn't there a thread RIGHT after the election all about how we need to reach out a hand to these economically anxious people instead of focusing on social justice issues because being "SJW's" just drive those people away?
Then we got numerous polls and studies showing us that it was actually mostly about racism...
Generalizations are always bad. We shouldn't be calling people "Berniebros" because there is a negative connotation, but leftists can acknowledge that those people DO exist, just like there are some people (not all) who supported Hillary that are "centrists, neoliberals, moderates, etc."
There are people on the far-left that de-prioritize social justice issues.
There are people on the left/center-left that de-prioritize far-left goals and minimize working class economic issues.
C'mon people, in a large enough group someone's going to be an asshole. Stop trying to defend the assholes or pretend they don't exist because they're on your "side"
Then we got numerous polls and studies showing us that it was actually mostly about racism...
Generalizations are always bad. We shouldn't be calling people "Berniebros" because there is a negative connotation, but leftists can acknowledge that those people DO exist, just like there are some people (not all) who supported Hillary that are "centrists, neoliberals, moderates, etc."
There are people on the far-left that de-prioritize social justice issues.
There are people on the left/center-left that de-prioritize far-left goals and minimize working class economic issues.
C'mon people, in a large enough group someone's going to be an asshole. Stop trying to defend the assholes or pretend they don't exist because they're on your "side"
And yet he still couldn't motivate people to get out and vote for him.
I wouldn't go THAT far as to say that he "threw minorities under the bus". But I would say he NEGLECTED minority votes and social justice votes during the primary and that cost him the primary.
Because if the leader of wikileaks is alt-right, which I clearly gave you enough evidence that he is, then you have to call into question certain things, such as:
- What did Wikileaks leave out on purpose, because wikileaks DOES have a history of removing stuff even though they claim otherwise: https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-russia-bank-2-billion/
- What is the REAL reason wikileaks is conducting these leaks, because clearly they aren't doing it for progressive reasons when their leader is alt-right. More likely they are doing this to trick genuinely frustrated progressives like yourself into never voting for ANY democrat.
- What patently things have wikileaks/Julian said on their twitter accounts that weren't in their documents so that they can claim it wasn't falsehood WITHIN their actual "leaks" but that their followers still ASSUMED were part of their leaks?
And keep in mind that if you look at page 12 of this thread, I make it VERY clear that I think people on my side should admit that "rigging" did happen but that the "rigging" should be clearly defined so that it doesn't include conspiracy crap like Bernie secretly winning more primary votes.
Last edited:
Non sequitur. Bernie Sander's current popularity, which is not in dispute, has no relevance in a discussion vis a vis his chances of winning a primary contest he lost by millions of votes in 2016.
You're welcome to elaborate on your reasons for quoting that link, though.
It means she's running for President in 2020 and wants Bernie's endorsement.
I actually disagree here. The only negative connotations are from people who don't believe the problem even exists. And a lot of the time they're the ones we're describing with the term in the first place.
The fact that people deny the issue doesn't mean it isn't there and that we shouldn't use terms that describe it. If we applied this stuff to say, climate change, we'd be equally in the wrong. We need better reasons to disregard a word that describes a real phenomena.
Hillary was the most popular politician in America a few years ago, funny how times change and she is suddenly the worst person ever to run for President and should go away, maybe Bernie should have found a way to translate that popularity into 3 million votes
I'm not going to acknowledge non-existent "rigging", sorry.
You LITERALLY were arguing that Civil Rights and Social Justice should only be a thing for the courts earlier today:
He motivated lots of people what the fuck are you talking about lol.
I think that's an unfortunate interpretation of his campaign. Free healthcare and college appeal more than just to white people, and it's odd that its the main connection you made. And I recall Bernie talking about Trump's bigotry often (though it's so far out, that I don't exactly remember). It's not exactly hard to find quotes of Bernie calling Trump sexist, bigotted, racist, etc.
It means centrists aren't running the show unopposed anymore and they are going to have to actually make way for leftists.
This is how I know the people who think it's rigged are full of shit.
If you genuinely and sincerely believe that it was, why on earth are you wasting your time trying to primary sitting democrats, or want Bernie to run in 2020?
If they rigged it once surely they could do it again, yet you're all proceeding as if that can't happen
If you genuinely and sincerely believe that it was, why on earth are you wasting your time trying to primary sitting democrats, or want Bernie to run in 2020?
If they rigged it once surely they could do it again, yet you're all proceeding as if that can't happen
That the DNC was in HRC's corner always seemed like a given - they're the DNC, she's a Democrat, Sanders effectively wasn't. They promoted the candidate they wanted to win. I think this is very much political parties behaving as intended, doing what's best for their own prosperity. I guess the question is whether what's best for the DNC or the RNC is best for America, but that's not the question they're asking themselves.
Nowhere near as much as he whined about Hillary on completely baseless terms. "Once or twice" in a campaign like that doesn't count, and in a campaign like this, not having fighting bigotry be a main goddamn issue is a huge red flag.
Especially when you basically directly say, after the election, that the left should focus solely on white moderates or they'll "keep losing". Minorities not getting behind Bernie is perfectly understandable. And statements after the election definitely recontextualize his behaviors in the election itself.
In America, we are stuck in a 2 party system, so you're forced to use that to your advantage. Would you rather Bernie and his supporters run 3rd party and funnel votes away from every Democrat?
No, this is not normal. Quit trying to imply blatant corruption should be normalized or accepted. There's also a difference between "favoring" and literally giving control of your party finances to a candidate before they win. This is definately not normal.
It's one of the few good things to come from the 2016 election. Bernie was able to energize the left and now it has become an actual movement once again.
These aren't terms, they're just blatant name-calling. I know I don't like being called a "neoliberal" by people who don't even know what the fuck it means.
If you want to discuss the underlying issue, do better than using blanket generalizations with negative connotations.
He can be Satan incarnate; l don't give a shit.
Just give me the gov't leaks and transparency. That's what I care about. I don't care about Assange. I think my position is clear.
- Status