Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread v4

[Jack V Savage]

Why are you talking to me about ongoing rage when replying to a post I just made about letting go of anger?

Also 1 is possible and to rule that out is illogical. I rule out Bernie actually saying it, and meaning it, due to his long history since the 1980's of saying that he believes women can be president and his encouraging Warren herself to run for president.

2 and 3 are not the same......

One is not possible because Bernie would also have to be lying to support her lie. 2 and 3 are the same.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You blame Bernie to this day for Hillary losing so perhaps hysterically demanding would be a more accurate characterization

What post are you referring to?

 

[franklinstower]

One is not possible because Bernie would also have to be lying to support her lie. 2 and 3 are the same.

2 and 3 are not the same Jack. Use your imagination. I left 3 open ended because sometimes in the midst of conversations interruptions and unintended chaos can enter in while things are being said that can be taken in wildly inaccurate ways, content can be lost and people can accidentally be having different conversations and not realize it.

2-- would be Bernie saying something about the difficulty of a woman beating Trump for (whatever hypothetical reason) and Warren misconstruing what was said.

I cant follow your first point and still cant see how my call to not be angry in the original post elicited a response by you telling people not to be angry.....

 

[xcvbn]

What post are you referring to?

Probably the same one where you still blame Ralph Nader for 2000

 

[sickc0d3r]

what irks the hell out of me is that many of lib friends on line seem to be okay with this. they are trying to brush this under the carpet, "it doesn't matter what was said, or maybe said, we weren't there. the point is, we must defeat Trump!!"

this was a grotesque, shady as hell, smear job against Bernie.

I think it’s a minor deal, personally. I mean, they’re opponents. If using something Bernie probably said but didn’t mean in the way she interpreted it to her advantage is grotesque, what’s saying Ted Cruz’s dad killed JFK? You’re leaving no room for a proper “annoying politician shit” scale here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Probably the same one where you still blame Ralph Nader for 2000

OK, so you're making it up.

It's always interesting to see how you guys would rather lie than have rational discussions. I think it indicates that on some level you know your views are irrational.

 

[Trotsky]

Obviously everything you're saying here is lies (thanks @Trotsky), but this is a new lie. The point I made was that Clinton was advocating for increased financial regs, higher taxes on capital, a stronger safety net, etc., and thus could not be described as having "pro-establishment" policies relative to people like Cruz or Trump. I'm offering an account bet here if you're going to continue to try misrepresent me on this one.

This has nothing to do with me. Leave me out of your childish shit.

 

[xcvbn]

I think it’s a minor deal, personally. I mean, they’re opponents. If using something Bernie probably said but didn’t mean in the way she interpreted it to her advantage is grotesque, what’s saying Ted Cruz’s dad killed JFK? You’re leaving no room for a proper “annoying politician shit” scale here.

Yeah to me this is to be expected. I was just a bit caught off guard that it came from Warren. Disappointed to be honest because I think she gets it domestically(foreign policy she is a disaster).

The only real goal with Warren and establishment media pushing this is to hit at the real weakness of Bernie’s campaign, which also happens to be its greatest strength- the movement.

The goal is to knock the campaign off its message of healthcare, working class politics and have us all react to absurd smears and lies. It’s a real weakness because by refusing to address the absurdities it can be used against, but by indulging it will also be used and even more so.

The best strategy is to simply stay on message and ignore the noise.

Ultimately the goal was to bring Bernie’s campaign crashing down with hers but the reality is that Bernie won’t budge in the polls and Warren may have just ended her campaign sooner.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Don't be deceived... Establishment liberals (like @Jack V Savage ) who use the term "Berniebot" are directly disparaging Sanders and his policies.

But the term gives them cover and allows them to say, "Oh no! I have no issue Bernie! He's just fine and dandy! But I do think the members of his base are deluded, contemptible idiots."

At least when Hillary Clinton called Trump's base "deplorables" she had the courage and honesty to admit that their King was, likewise, deplorable.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This has nothing to do with me. Leave me out of your childish shit.

This kind of thing directly flows from your propaganda campaign.

Don't be deceived... Establishment liberals (like @Jack V Savage ) who use the term "Berniebot" are directly disparaging Sanders and his policies.

But the term gives them cover and allows them to say, "Oh no! I have no issue Bernie! He's just fine and dandy! But I do think the members of his base are deluded, contemptible idiots."

At least when Hillary Clinton called Trump's base "deplorables" she had the courage and honesty to admit that their King was, likewise, deplorable.

There's a good chance I'll be voting for Bernie for president at least once, which you are aware of. I do think he can do something about the poor behavior of his superfans, but it's a relatively minor quibble.

 

[xcvbn]

This kind of thing directly flows from your propaganda campaign.

lmfao @Trotsky

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[sickc0d3r]

Yeah to me this is to be expected. I was just a bit caught off guard that it came from Warren. Disappointed to be honest because I think she gets it domestically(foreign policy she is a disaster).

The only real goal with Warren and establishment media pushing this is to hit at the real weakness of Bernie’s campaign, which also happens to be its greatest strength- the movement.

The goal is to knock the campaign off its message of healthcare, working class politics and have us all react to absurd smears and lies. It’s a real weakness because by refusing to address the absurdities it can be used against, but by indulging it will also be used and even more so.

The best strategy is to simply stay on message and ignore the noise.

Ultimately the goal was to bring Bernie’s campaign crashing down with hers but the reality is that Bernie won’t budge in the polls and Warren may have just ended her campaign sooner.

Right, especially since she's made a lot of mistakes in her campaign and now she's scrambling. I also doubt anyone who's honestly offended by something so benign would then consider abstaining or voting third party if it's Bernie versus Trump. He'd be their anti-christ.

 

[Trotsky]

This kind of thing directly flows from your propaganda campaign.

You're weird.

You flipped out and called me detached from reality over an objective statement about the widely reported foreign policy optics of the 2016 general: that Trump's isolationist rhetoric reversed the narrative on the dove/hawk topic and that therefore uninformed voters could reasonably have saw Clinton as the bigger ideological hawk. And a statement that was made within a criticism of anyone who said Clinton would have been worse than Trump, no less. I provided evidence of the phenomenon, but you still insisted I was being crazy because I couldn't produce video of a debate that I referenced.

Pointing out that that was a comically unreasonable and hysterical reflexive defense of Clinton was not part of a propaganda campaign. It was an obvious observation and a rare instance of treating you fairly instead of with kid's gloves. That no one sided with you should have given you cause to reflect.

Since then, I have avoided you and have not said a single thing about you or weighed in or taken sides in your annoying war on "Berniebots," or "true progressives," or the "moron left," or whatever childish term you're using now. Because this shit annoys me. But that you wish to keep relitigating what was easily the most shameful and widely cringed-at meltdown in your recent post history shows that you're driven more by ego than rationality.

Stop tagging me. Not interested in your drama.

 

[ultramanhyata]

There's a good chance I'll be voting for Bernie for president at least once, which you are aware of.

Sure. I guess you consider him an acceptable do-nothing place holder. Since you've already made it clear that you consider every one of his central policy proposals to be politically unattainable pipe dreams.

 

[Trotsky]

lmfao @Trotsky

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This goes for all of you. Leave me out of it.

If you have to reference Jack's meltdown with me, you have my permission to name me without tags.

@Anung Un Rama

 

[glenwo2]

So this is where we are at.

Warren chose to snake Bernie. People now see Warren is disgusting. The infighting is starting to become immense. Even on this forum, the three musketeers have turned on each other. Jack and Fawlty have decided to eat Trotsky.

This is going to get even more hilarious, demented as we get closer to election day and this is all helping the big man in the White House as we speak.

WINNING.

 

[Aldo4Ever]

One is not possible because Bernie would also have to be lying to support her lie.

What? No one is denying that Warren and Sanders met in 2018. Warren claims that Sanders told her a woman couldn't win in 2020. Sanders denies that he said this. One possibility is that Warren simply fabricated the alleged statement.

 

[ultramanhyata]

If using something Bernie probably said but didn’t mean in the way she interpreted it to her advantage is grotesque, what’s saying Ted Cruz’s dad killed JFK?

I would much rather have someone make an outlandish, unsubstantiated claim about me than put words in my mouth and state I said something to them once in private that I not only didn't say but that was in direct opposition to my entire moral being.

The latter is far, far more egregious.

Consider the difference:

"John Smith may be a phile. Look into it and make up your own mind."

"John Smith once told me in the locker room at the gym that he has sexually violated boys as young as six."

If you're "John Smith", which is worse?

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're weird.

You flipped out and called me detached from reality over an objective statement about the widely reported foreign policy optics of the 2016 general: that Trump's isolationist rhetoric reversed the narrative on the dove/hawk topic and that therefore uninformed voters could reasonably have saw Clinton as the bigger ideological hawk. And a statement that was made within a criticism of anyone who said Clinton would have been worse than Trump, no less. I provided evidence of the phenomenon, but you still insisted I was being crazy because I couldn't produce video of a debate that I referenced.

Pointing out that that was a comically unreasonable and hysterical reflexive defense of Clinton was not part of a propaganda campaign. It was an obvious observation and a rare instance of treating you fairly instead of with kid's gloves. That no one sided with you should have given you cause to reflect.

Since then, I have avoided you and have not said a single thing about you or weighed in or taken sides in your annoying war on "Berniebots," or "true progressives," or the "moron left," or whatever childish term you're using now. Because this shit annoys me. But that you wish to keep relitigating what was easily the most shameful and widely cringed-at meltdown in your recent post history shows that you're driven more by ego than rationality.

Stop tagging me. Not interested in your drama.

There's no meltdown, and you're lying about the point of conflict, which was your decision to lie about my positions in 2015 and 2016 and smear me personally rather than try to deal rationally with disagreement. When other hysterical, dishonest Berniebots repeat your smearing, the issue comes back up. And your attempts to frame not liking having my views lied about as some kind of failing say more about your character than I can.

 

[franklinstower]

This has nothing to do with me. Leave me out of your childish shit.

Hey man. I know this is sensetive but I feel I must point something out to you.

Jack is being childish and THIS time its aimed at you and so you are rightly annoyed. However Ive watched you pile on the support for Jack countless times when he was pulling the same stuff with other posters who were not up to the task of defending themselves against the masterfull emotionally driven intellectual assaults and smears Jack dishes out.

I realize some of these times Jack would be technically right on the arguments but still emotional and slandering anyway and hiding that behind a wall of text.

I was always surprised at you because you seemed better than that but weren't acting it. I hope you can learn more from this than "those idiots deserved it but I don't".