Elections Obama campaign guru: Trump would love to run against Bernie

[VivaRevolution]

Obama is not an idiot. He is not going to put himself on the wrong side of history in November if Sanders is the nominee. I offered two specific opinions above: 1) Obama will not mobilize his political machine on behalf of Sanders 2) Obama will not publicly (personally) oppose the candidacy.

Were Obama, a former democratic president of the United States, asked by the Sanders campaign to give a speech stating the importance of defeating Trump and therefore voting Sanders anything less than a "yes" from Obama would qualify as opposing the candidacy.

Here's what's going on among Obama and his operatives relative to the Sanders' candidacy. I know you race into threads to shout and point "Squirrel!" or say "Bernie-Bot conspiracy theory!" whenever this reality is addressed. But these are the facts.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/obamaworld-hates-bernie-sandersand-has-no-idea-how-to-stop-him

Here is the problem. Bernie is a threat to Obama's legacy.

 

[VivaRevolution]

It describes him as an "Obama campaign guru," which is included as a comment on his credibility (given the wins) rather than to suggest that he's speaking for Obama. And the comment is on electability, which isn't a matter of opinion.

And what about all the losing that was done after?

Is that the credibility they are going for?

 

[Happy Man]

These are Cucks right here. Know the difference.

​

Well cuckery abounds in many ways. But it’s true, Bernie got outright owned by these nasty bitches.

I think trump would actually fought. And started riots by doing so. He only cucks to the nefarious Saudi/isreali alliance. Like all other presidents.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I wonder if Obama posts on Sherdog. What would his SN be?

Let's be real. Obama See's the UFC like McCain. Human cock fighting for people who didn't attend "University".

 

[Stoic1]

Go have your patriotism checked.

#NOTaSaudiFirster

 

[Jack V Savage]

Obama is not an idiot. He is not going to put himself on the wrong side of history in November if Sanders is the nominee. I offered two specific opinions above: 1) Obama will not mobilize his political machine on behalf of Sanders 2) Obama will not publicly (personally) oppose the candidacy.

Were Obama, a former democratic president of the United States, asked by the Sanders campaign to give a speech stating the importance of defeating Trump and therefore voting Sanders anything less than a "yes" from Obama would qualify as opposing the candidacy.

Ah, so your claim is, by design, untestable, and thus isn't properly speaking a statement of belief (if you have a belief about something, it should in some way limit your expectations).

Good piece from Carl Sagan on that:

http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/dragon_in_my_garage.html

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle — but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative — merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

And avoiding that stuff is why we have the bet thread.

Here's what's going on among Obama and his operatives relative to the Sanders' candidacy. I know you race into threads to shout and point "Squirrel!" or say "Bernie-Bot conspiracy theory!" whenever this reality is addressed. But these are the facts.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/obamaworld-hates-bernie-sandersand-has-no-idea-how-to-stop-him

It wouldn't be an ultraman post without an out-of-left field assertion/attack.

I don't think you read that story, either (very early on the writer notes that Obama has hampered any meaningful Never Bernie movement--could one interpret that as a refutation of your premise? Yes, but surely you will not because your point isn't based on rational belief as much as a need to feel persecuted by the evil liberals).

 

[VivaRevolution]

Translation: I show my patriotism by supporting American blood and treasure being spent for foreign nations.

 

[Jack V Savage]

And what about all the losing that was done after?

Is that the credibility they are going for?

I don't know what campaigns the guy worked on. If his overall record, properly interpreted, isn't good, that would affect his credibility.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Here is the problem. Bernie is a threat to Obama's legacy.

This goes without saying.

The Clinton loss in 2016 was the first knock down. But Obama got back to his feet and is still throwing punches, though on wobbly legs. A Sanders win in 2020 would be the second knock down, the ref would wave the bout off and Obama's legacy would be forever damaged and diminished.

Barack understands this to the marrow of his bones. His contempt for Bernie and determination to see him beaten in this primary are red hot.

 

[nostradumbass]

That means the former president should let the people decide the nominee without trying to influence the outcome.

He isn't just any private citizen sharing his opinion.

Your link isn't about Obama, it's about his campaign manager from 8 years ago. He's not allowed to discuss politics anymore either? What the hell, man? How long is the list of people you think shouldn't be allowed to discuss the upcoming election if a professional political advisor isn't allowed either? This isn't the soviet union, North Korea, or Venezuela, no matter how much Bernie wants it to be. People can still give their opinions on things, and you can show why what they said isn't true if that's the case, but what you can't do is just demand everyone shut up who doesn't support your guy.

 

[Stoic1]

Translation: I show my patriotism by supporting American blood and treasure being spent for foreign nations.

Re-interpretation: DOW at record highs. My treasure is doing just fine. And according to the statistics - so is everyone else's.

 

[BoxingFan653]

LMAO this guys going to save the country but has an anxiety attack and cancels an event over this

 

[ultramanhyata]

Ah, so your claim is, by design, untestable, and thus isn't properly speaking a statement of belief (if you have a belief about something, it should in some way limit your expectations).

Good piece from Carl Sagan on that:

http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/dragon_in_my_garage.html

Translation: "Squirrel!"

I don't think you read that story, either (very early on the writer notes that Obama has hampered any meaningful Never Bernie movement--could one interpret that as a refutation of your premise? Yes, but surely you will not because your point isn't based on rational belief as much as a need to feel persecuted by the evil liberals).

Translation: "Bernie-Bot conspiracy theorist!"

I know you race into threads to shout and point "Squirrel!" or say "Bernie-Bot conspiracy theory!" whenever this reality is addressed. But these are the facts.

<Lmaoo>

 

[Jack V Savage]

This goes without saying.

The Clinton loss in 2016 was the first knock down. But Obama got back to his feet and is still throwing punches, though on wobbly legs. A Sanders win in 2020 would be the second knock down, the ref would wave the bout off and Obama's legacy would be forever damaged and diminished.

Barack understands this to the marrow of his bones. His contempt for Bernie and determination to see him beaten in this primary are red hot.

Yes, when historians evaluate presidents, the only factors they consider are who won subsequent elections. If it was someone from a different party or someone from the same party, that means the president was bad. People might not like it, but that's reality. The only thing that historians talk about when they discuss FDR is how Eisenhower winning proved that FDR was bad. And then when JFK won, that only confirmed it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Translation: "Squirrel!"

Translation: "Bernie-Bot conspiracy theorist!"

<Lmaoo>

Typically intelligent, reasonable post from a Berniebot.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Re-interpretation: DOW at record highs. My treasure is doing just fine. And according to the statistics - so is everyone else's.

Wow, having a bunch of treasure is a shit rational for being a traitor.

 

[Stoic1]

Viva,

All memes aside I do not think Bernie is good for the country. Our economy would tank from lack of confidence.

I just came from 3 years in Vermont. That state is dying. A direct reflection on his style of "socialism". It is anti-business. And I believe most of his policies are anti-business.

Don't get me wrong, I do praise him for a lot of his initiatives and concerns - ie big banks. Unfortunately it is coupled with a package that would cripple our economy. He is also weak. I think he would not be taken seriously by other countries.

 

[Stoic1]

Wow, having a bunch of treasure is a shit rational for being a traitor.

Careful now.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Careful now.

I'm not careful with this. I don't apologize for it. I launch this attack at anyone and everyone I think it applies to because I actually believe it to be true.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Don't get me wrong, I do praise him for a lot of his initiatives and concerns - ie big banks. Unfortunately it is coupled with a package that would cripple our economy. He is also weak. I think he would not be taken seriously by other countries.

Yeah, we need to keep Trump in office so other countries will take us seriously.