Senator Warren Shut Down for Reading Coretta Scott King Letter

[Tribble]

I don't hate Sanders, I hate the halo his dumbass supporters put on his head when he's just as much a self serving politician as the rest. That and the fact that he had one issue and his dumbass supporters attacked the DNC for not supporting the guy that didn't spend years campaigning for, or raising money for, Democrats. And I don't give a shit what Clinton supporters said in 2008, I wasn't one, and despite it Obama kicked the shit out of McCain.

The way you've spoken of him made it seem you hated him, but I'll accept that was not your intent. However, it is hypocritical to shit on Bernie's supporters while ignoring Clinton's supporters doing the same (and worse) back in 2008. Both candidates had some raging assholes among their supporters, but only attacking one for their asshole followers is... dishonest.

I'd still like some proof that Bernie's supporters played a major role in Clinton's loss, though. She was widely despised before anybody outside Vermont knew who the fuck Bernie Sanders was.

I criticized Clinton and her supporters in 2008. I can't say that Sanders write-ins cost Clinton the election, but there was plenty of 2000esque "They're both the same" bullshit going on on the left in the lead-up to the election. I resent Sanders joining the Democratic Party at what was practically the last minute to run for the nomination on a "Noun, verb, and WALL STREET!!!" platform and just like Clinton in 2008 waiting to concede until long after he had no chance of getting the nomination. But if he'd won the primary I'd have dodged the falling pigshit from the sky and cast my ballot for him and never said otherwise.

The fact that Sanders ran at all was a clear sign the Democrats have some major problems IMO, because it was obvious that no one else was planning to run against the Chosen One. I don't see how things would have been better if the Chosen One had been coronated without opposition or a primary as planned. That's the exact kind of thing people hated about Clinton, and if anything IMO her campaign would have been even worse given her sense of entitlement.

[Flagg]

The way you've spoken of him made it seem you hated him, but I'll accept that was not your intent. However, it is hypocritical to shit on Bernie's supporters while ignoring Clinton's supporters doing the same (and worse) back in 2008. Both candidates had some raging assholes among their supporters, but only attacking one for their asshole followers is... dishonest.

I'd still like some proof that Bernie's supporters played a major role in Clinton's loss, though. She was widely despised before anybody outside Vermont knew who the fuck Bernie Sanders was.

I criticized Clinton and her supporters in 2008. I can't say that Sanders write-ins cost Clinton the election, but there was plenty of 2000esque "They're both the same" bullshit going on on the left in the lead-up to the election. I resent Sanders joining the Democratic Party at what was practically the last minute to run for the nomination on a "Noun, verb, and WALL STREET!!!" platform and just like Clinton in 2008 waiting to concede until long after he had no chance of getting the nomination. But if he'd won the primary I'd have dodged the falling pigshit from the sky and cast my ballot for him and never said otherwise.

The fact that Sanders ran at all was a clear sign the Democrats have some major problems IMO, because it was obvious that no one else was planning to run against the Chosen One. I don't see how things would have been better if the Chosen One had been coronated without opposition or a primary as planned. That's the exact kind of thing people hated about Clinton, and if anything IMO her campaign would have been even worse given her sense of entitlement.

Because the fact that she was the most qualified candidate in living memory had nothing at all to do with her lack of challengers, it was because her secret team of assassins (who killed Vince Foster) deemed her "chosen"? Aside from your projection, your smug doucheness is showing.

Oh and for making me defend the bitch.

[Tribble]

I criticized Clinton and her supporters in 2008. I can't say that Sanders write-ins cost Clinton the election, but there was plenty of 2000esque "They're both the same" bullshit going on on the left in the lead-up to the election. I resent Sanders joining the Democratic Party at what was practically the last minute to run for the nomination on a "Noun, verb, and WALL STREET!!!" platform and just like Clinton in 2008 waiting to concede until long after he had no chance of getting the nomination. But if he'd won the primary I'd have dodged the falling pigshit from the sky and cast my ballot for him and never said otherwise.

The fact that Sanders ran at all was a clear sign the Democrats have some major problems IMO, because it was obvious that no one else was planning to run against the Chosen One. I don't see how things would have been better if the Chosen One had been coronated without opposition or a primary as planned. That's the exact kind of thing people hated about Clinton, and if anything IMO her campaign would have been even worse given her sense of entitlement.

Because the fact that she was the most qualified candidate in living memory had nothing at all to do with her lack of challengers, it was because her secret team of assassins (who killed Vince Foster) deemed her "chosen"? Aside from your projection, your smug doucheness is showing.

Oh and for making me defend the bitch.

You have absolutely no idea what the purpose of a leadership contest such as a primary is, do you?

I agree that under ordinary circumstances Sanders should not have run... were it not for the fact that no one else was running. It's not just about selecting the leader. A primary's other main purpose is to be a trial run for the main campaign. By having people run against each other within their own party it exposes issues that are most important to supporters and potential flaws in the campaign that could sink the winning candidate in the main election. If there is no primary, then these things may get overlooked until its too late to realistically change course (or rather, change course without it looking like the last ditch effort to appeal to voters that it is).

Take the TPP as an example. It's pretty clear that the vast majority of the US electorate were opposed to it. Clinton was 100% in favour of it, and was doing her best to get it pushed through as fast as possible. Yet she changed her mind during her primary against Sanders. Why? Because she realised during the campaign that the TPP was too politically toxic amongst her supporters to continue supporting. If the Primary had not been held, would she have made the same move? If she did, when would she do it? Would she wait until it became clear that it was one of the main things that was getting Trump massive support? If she made a pivot like that during the main campaign, how many people would have believed her? IMO it would have been far less than the primary, as she wouldn't have had the time to prove to supporters that she had really changed her mind. Nor would it have looked as sincere. Changing your mind during a primary is a lot more acceptable - after all the whole point of it is to vet ideas for your party. During the main campaign? Not so much. And if she didn't pivot and continued to support the TPP, would that have helped her win the election? I think not.

You claim that you don't like Clinton , yet almost everything you say suggests otherwise. And your attitude towards the primaries, in that its ok for a leader to get chosen without any real competition, is exactly the kind of thing that will guarantee another Democrat loss next time.

And btw, I can think of of other candidates who should have at least made an attempt. Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren might have been a strong contenders, for instance.

[Flagg]

The fact that Sanders ran at all was a clear sign the Democrats have some major problems IMO, because it was obvious that no one else was planning to run against the Chosen One. I don't see how things would have been better if the Chosen One had been coronated without opposition or a primary as planned. That's the exact kind of thing people hated about Clinton, and if anything IMO her campaign would have been even worse given her sense of entitlement.

Because the fact that she was the most qualified candidate in living memory had nothing at all to do with her lack of challengers, it was because her secret team of assassins (who killed Vince Foster) deemed her "chosen"? Aside from your projection, your smug doucheness is showing.

Oh and for making me defend the bitch.

You have absolutely no idea what the purpose of a leadership contest such as a primary is, do you?

I agree that under ordinary circumstances Sanders should not have run... were it not for the fact that no one else was running. It's not just about selecting the leader. A primary's other main purpose is to be a trial run for the main campaign. By having people run against each other within their own party it exposes issues that are most important to supporters and potential flaws in the campaign that could sink the winning candidate in the main election. If there is no primary, then these things may get overlooked until its too late to realistically change course (or rather, change course without it looking like the last ditch effort to appeal to voters that it is).

Take the TPP as an example. It's pretty clear that the vast majority of the US electorate were opposed to it. Clinton was 100% in favour of it, and was doing her best to get it pushed through as fast as possible. Yet she changed her mind during her primary against Sanders. Why? Because she realised during the campaign that the TPP was too politically toxic amongst her supporters to continue supporting. If the Primary had not been held, would she have made the same move? If she did, when would she do it? Would she wait until it became clear that it was one of the main things that was getting Trump massive support? If she made a pivot like that during the main campaign, how many people would have believed her? IMO it would have been far less than the primary, as she wouldn't have had the time to prove to supporters that she had really changed her mind. And if she didn't pivot and continued to support the TPP, would that have helped her win the election? I think not.

You claim that you don't like Clinton , yet almost everything you say suggests otherwise. And your attitude towards the primaries, in that its ok for a leader to get chosen without any real competition, is exactly the kind of thing that will guarantee another Democrat loss next time.

And btw, I can think of of other candidates who should have at least made an attempt. Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren might have been a strong contenders, for instance.

I know what primaries are for. Do I like the fact that Democrats who should have run against her shrugged their shoulders and just decided it was "her turn"? No. But I have no control over who runs in the Democratic primaries.

I'd have been a strident supporter of Warrens.

But we basically had 2 options: A former Senator and Secretary of State who also viewed the presidency from the inside who was a long time democrat and raised a lot of money for the party, or an independent who caucused with, but otherwise had no use for the Democratic Party except to try and use their liberal base to propel himself into the presidency and was a one issue candidate.

One of the main criticisms was the DNC being in full support of Clinton, but why the hell wouldn't they be? She raised them a lot of money over the years, and in America, money is speech, unfortunately. As for the TPP shit, and really everything of that nature: She's a politician, and a pretty craven one at that, what of it? I mean how many positions did Obama take on gay marriage until Biden shoved him down the acceptance slide?

And my problem was never that there was a primary, it was that even after Sanders couldn't possibly win, he did the same shit Clinton did in 2008, except many of the same people that cried foul on her in 2008 didn't care when the guy they wanted did it in 2016.

[Tribble]

I know what primaries are for. Do I like the fact that Democrats who should have run against her shrugged their shoulders and just decided it was "her turn"? No. But I have no control over who runs in the Democratic primaries.

I'd have been a strident supporter of Warrens.

But we basically had 2 options: A former Senator and Secretary of State who also viewed the presidency from the inside who was a long time democrat and raised a lot of money for the party, or an independent who caucused with, but otherwise had no use for the Democratic Party except to try and use their liberal base to propel himself into the presidency and was a one issue candidate.

That's incorrect, at least if I am understanding you properly. Under your ideal scenario Sanders would not have run... which meant Democrat voters would not have had an option at all because Clinton would have been nominated by default. There would have been no primary. Do you really think that would have improved her relationship with her support base, or helped her win the election?

One of the main criticisms was the DNC being in full support of Clinton, but why the hell wouldn't they be? She raised them a lot of money over the years, and in America, money is speech, unfortunately.

I'm not surprised either, that doesn't I approve of it.

As for the TPP shit, and really everything of that nature: She's a politician, and a pretty craven one at that, what of it? I mean how many positions did Obama take on gay marriage until Biden shoved him down the acceptance slide?

This issue was a particularly important one during the election as it was one of the main things Trump successfully ran on. If Clinton had simply ignored the ongoing resentment of the TPP and/or flip flopped last minute, IMO Trump would have won an actual majority of voters nationwide. That's why she changed her mind during the Primary. That's a major reason why you have primaries, to give candidates the chance to gauge supporters opinions, vet different points of view and change course when necessary before the big event.

And my problem was never that there was a primary, it was that even after Sanders couldn't possibly win, he did the same shit Clinton did in 2008, except many of the same people that cried foul on her in 2008 didn't care when the guy they wanted did it in 2016.

That's at odds with the tone of your previous post, where you called me a douche for even suggesting that the lack of regular contenders demonstrated a major problem with the Democrat Party, and that an automatic nomination would have only increased Clinton's sense of entitlement and would have been a bad thing for Democrats overall. Make up your mind.

I concede that Sanders should have dropped out once it became clear that he could not win, but I disagree with the notion that he shouldn't have run at all.

[FireNexus]

If Sanders hadn't run, the "not Clinton" support that Sanders people kid themselves by pretending wasn't his primary base would have coalesced around O'Malley. There were other choices besides Sanders. Sanders had money by the time Iowa came around, though, and could earn off the fact that the Dem establishment wasn't in favor of him. So between him and O'Malley to be the Clinton Alternative, he won and became the second place horse.

Love that bit of revisionist history where there weren't five candidates, though.

[Flagg]

If Sanders hadn't run, the "not Clinton" support that Sanders people kid themselves by pretending wasn't his primary base would have coalesced around O'Malley. There were other choices besides Sanders. Sanders had money by the time Iowa came around, though, and could earn off the fact that the Dem establishment wasn't in favor of him. So between him and O'Malley to be the Clinton Alternative, he won and became the second place horse.

Love that bit of revisionist history where there weren't five candidates, though.

Yeah, but we have to play pretend or we're dishonest, bad people.

[Tribble]

My apologies then. There was so little attention focused on the other candidates up here that I literally was not aware that Clinton and Sanders were the only ones.

At least with the Republicans you had personalities like Cruz, Rubio, with some household names like Bush.

[Flagg]

My apologies then. There was so little attention focused on the other candidates up here that I literally was not aware that Clinton and Sanders were the only ones.

At least with the Republicans you had personalities like Cruz, Rubio, with some household names like Bush.

Yeah, the Democrats don't literally say balldropping insane shit every day so they don't get much coverage. Plus tbf, most dropped out before debates.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm pretty sure there are always more than two candidates in a primary, it's just that the race tends to narrow down to like 2-3 people within a short amount of time.

I still don't understand the line of argument that a candidate putting up a fight in a primary campaign somehow "weakens" the eventual winner's campaign in the election proper. It doesn't really make any intuitive sense to me why this would be the case, and I've never seen any evidence that a contentious primary ends up costing any votes in the general. After all, the Republican primary this year was FAR nastier than anything that happened on the Democrats side, and it didn't seem to have any tangible effect on Trump's campaign. And the problems with Hillary's campaign (such as not making campaign stops in certain key swing states on the assumption that the Obama coalition would hold together without any special effort) that we know about also had absolutely nothing to do with Bernie's primary campaign.

It just sounds like a pathetic attempt to find a scapegoat rather than actually critically examine the situation on its merits.

I think that the idea gained some traction after the 2012 Republican primary made the Republicans look like a bunch of bozos, because it was effectively a series of freaks and morons parading around in the public eye before the party finally sighed and grudgingly nominated a normal 'suit' as their candidate.

Of course, the Republicans already had a profoundly uphill battle to fight just by virtue of running against an incumbent Obama, but watching their nomination process get dragged out for months and months with some blatantly worthless candidates (e.g. Perry and Cain) in the limelight may have created the perception that their victory was impeded by the contentious primary. Or by Romney having to try to tack right for the primary and then back towards the center for the general- something which, notably, Trumpolini really didn't do, instead basically just doubling down on all the crap he'd done as a primary candidate.

Thing is, it didn't matter, because Obama did a good job campaigning and was a charismatic candidate whose support base turned out for him.

I know, right. But man, that e-mail scandal must have totally been what tanked HRC. Obama getting slandered constantly by Republicans for being a Muslim, HUSSEIN OBAMA, "NO EXPERIENCE!," and birthers up until (and even after) election day: totally tanked him, right? Republicans fight dirty. Fuck, CLINTON fought dirty during the 2008 primary.

Obama won because he's a supremely confident, knowledgeable, and charismatic candidate (READ: he's electable). Meanwhile, HRC is polarizing even in her own party. Hell, I can't stand the woman professionally. And a part of that, because she's been around so long and been involved in everything, was her outright bullshit concerning the GTA Hot Coffee "controversy." I have a reason to dislike Clinton because of fucking. video. games.

That's the thing about HRC: it's not hard to find a reason to dislike her, no matter what your beliefs or interests are.

I'm not saying Democrat cronies are on near the "total shit-heel" level of Republicans, but HRC has serious issues as a candidate on a national level. She still definately electable, but only because she can get a (D) next to her name. If demographics keep shifting the way they are and the Republicans continue to try and FIGHT changing demographics rather than open their doors wider, then the democrats could put an empty suit in front of a podium and win elections outside of those demographic areas Republicans consider acceptable.

I still think that an ignored portion of the "high" (comparatively) voter turn-out for Republicans this year was "Holy shit, take your guns Hillary could be in the white house. VOTE YOU IDIOTS." Meanwhile, Democrats turned out to vote like it was 2012.

This. Basically where I was going is that while there may have been some "Hillary or Bust" voters who simply could not stomach any other Democratic candidate, there weren't nearly enough to offset the fact that Obama was a strong candidate. Had Obama been a weak candidate, the "Hillary or Bust" voters might hypothetically have become a decisive factor... but in that case, the blame wouldn't lie with Hillary Clinton. It'd lie with Obama for failing to rally enough "yay Obama" voters to cancel out the "Hillary or Bust" voters.

Just as Clinton appears to have, apparently allegedly, failed to rally enough "yay Hillary" voters to cancel out any hypothetical "Sanders or Bust" voters.

I mean seriously, politicians in a democracy have ONE JOB, or more accurately one job skill that is relevant to their ability to keep their job. Namely, convince people to vote for them. A politician who can't do that is by definition not a good politician, and not someone your party should nominate. Not even if they might hypothetically be someone who you might want to put in office if you were Q.

I never made the claim that the primary did. But I do recall a "Bernie or Bust" movement that even the idiots on this board who thought Sanders walked on water condemned.

Thing is, this board's N&P political consensus is probably representative of the 5-10% leftmost share of the American population. If even people here thought "Bernie or Bust" was stupid, the odds are that it was not a popular enough movement among the American 'far left' to be a demographically strong force.

It's like, were there six guys who sat the election out because they couldn't vote for Bernie? Maybe. Were there people who voted for Jill Stein because they couldn't vote Bernie? Probably. But shit like that happens in literally every election cycle, in this cycle Trump probably lost significant votes to Johnson; it's normal. Hell, if you'd given every Stein vote to Clinton and every Johnson vote to Trump, Trump would have won bigger than he did in real life.

But a good candidate is one who can mobilize people who agree with their ideology and have active, positive desire to vote for them. Enough to offset those who agree with the ideology but dislike them personally enough to not vote for them. Clinton fails this test, for a mix of reasons, some of which are her fault and some of which aren't.

The way you've spoken of him made it seem you hated him, but I'll accept that was not your intent.

Eh, it's Flagg, I kind of give him a pass on excessively shitting on people as long as he's being consistent about who he shits on and why he does it. [shrug]

However, it is hypocritical to shit on Bernie's supporters while ignoring Clinton's supporters doing the same (and worse) back in 2008. Both candidates had some raging assholes among their supporters, but only attacking one for their asshole followers is... dishonest.

Agreed

[Tribble]

My apologies then. There was so little attention focused on the other candidates up here that I literally was not aware that Clinton and Sanders were the only ones.

At least with the Republicans you had personalities like Cruz, Rubio, with some household names like Bush.

Yeah, the Democrats don't literally say balldropping insane shit every day so they don't get much coverage. Plus tbf, most dropped out before debates.

While it's obvious that people like Warren and Biden would have made for some strong competition, I wonder how O'Malley would have done against Clinton had Sanders not joined in. Do you think he would have stayed on for awhile? Could he potentially have done better than Sanders? Or do you think he have would have curb-stomped even harder than Sanders? Given what I quickly read over on wiki, I would have preferred O'Malley over Sanders had his campaign actually amounted to anything, but IMO the ladder was the most likely scenario. At least Sanders actually forced a meaningful campaign, though I agree he should have stopped once it was clear it was literally impossible for him to win.

Oh and btw, overhauling the Super-delegate system would be one of the first things I would do. Kinda hard to have a meaningful competition when a large swath of super delegates immediately back one candidate. IMO at the very least they should have to wait until the primary vote is completed before weighing in.

[The Romulan Republic]

I like O'Malley very much, but I think he wouldn't have done any better than Bernie, and probably not as well. I don't think he would have fired up the anti-establishment and progressive groups as much as Bernie did, and I don't think he would have broken Clinton's strangle-hold on the Centre establishment wing.

He might have done better reaching out to black voters than Bernie, given Maryland's demographics and his history their- or maybe not. As I recall, he got some flak for law enforcement issues in Baltimore from Black Lives Matter, and it would probably have become a bigger issue if his campaign had gone far enough to warrant the attention.

I respect him, and I'd like to see him run again, but I think that 2016 was going to be a bad year for anyone who wasn't Clinton, or able to rally all the anti-Clinton people behind them.

[FireNexus]

My apologies then. There was so little attention focused on the other candidates up here that I literally was not aware that Clinton and Sanders were the only ones.

At least with the Republicans you had personalities like Cruz, Rubio, with some household names like Bush.

Yeah, the Democrats don't literally say balldropping insane shit every day so they don't get much coverage. Plus tbf, most dropped out before debates.

All were in the first debate, O'Malley was in the second and maybe (but I can't recall) the third.

[FireNexus]

I like O'Malley very much, but I think he wouldn't have done any better than Bernie, and probably not as well. I don't think he would have fired up the anti-establishment and progressive groups as much as Bernie did, and I don't think he would have broken Clinton's strangle-hold on the Centre establishment wing.

He might have done better reaching out to black voters than Bernie, given Maryland's demographics and his history their- or maybe not. As I recall, he got some flak for law enforcement issues in Baltimore from Black Lives Matter, and it would probably have become a bigger issue if his campaign had gone far enough to warrant the attention.

I respect him, and I'd like to see him run again, but I think that 2016 was going to be a bad year for anyone who wasn't Clinton, or able to rally all the anti-Clinton people behind them.

Bernie was unimpeachable to the anti-establishment crowd because he'd never sullied himself by actually managing to accomplishing anything at any kind of scale. Sans Bernie, the bulk of those people would have gone somewhere (because they were more "not Clinton" than "pro Bernie" at first, and almost always the kind of people who showed up to vote in primaries) and O'Malley was the only legitimate game in town.

He may not have done "as well" as Bernie, but Bernie didn't do all that well. He just fluffed his numbers by staying in after he was more or less mathematically eliminated. O'Malley wouldn't have, but he'd also have reached "significant support without a chance in hell of winning" in a no Bernue world.

[Flagg]

My apologies then. There was so little attention focused on the other candidates up here that I literally was not aware that Clinton and Sanders were the only ones.

At least with the Republicans you had personalities like Cruz, Rubio, with some household names like Bush.

Yeah, the Democrats don't literally say balldropping insane shit every day so they don't get much coverage. Plus tbf, most dropped out before debates.

All were in the first debate, O'Malley was in the second and maybe (but I can't recall) the third.

Yeah, you're right. The Republican dumpsterfires were all the news so it's easy to forget the sane affairs.

[Flagg]

However, it is hypocritical to shit on Bernie's supporters while ignoring Clinton's supporters doing the same (and worse) back in 2008. Both candidates had some raging assholes among their supporters, but only attacking one for their asshole followers is... dishonest.

Agreed

I agree too, and I wasn't particularly kind to Clinton supporters in 2008 since after Edwards dropped out (talk about dodging a bullet, Christ! ) I backed Obama because he was farther left than Clinton and I didn't believe we'd withdraw from Iraq under Clinton. And when it was apparent that Clinton couldn't win and she stayed in, I was saying she should concede. Yeah, with Sanders I was harsher, but that was because I think he was a political whore and didn't (and still don't) think he could have won. So this "hypocrisy" stuff, if directed at me, is coming from either assuming I'm a Clinton shill, or outright lying (and no, I don't think it's lying).

[Ziggy Stardust]

I never made the claim that the primary did. But I do recall a "Bernie or Bust" movement that even the idiots on this board who thought Sanders walked on water condemned.

Sorry, my mistake then. I definitely remember people on this board making that argument, though, though somehow Bernie continuing to campaign was somehow hurting Clinton (though the details of what this meant were never explained). I just sort of assumed it was you given your continued criticism of Bernie supporters, but mea culpa on that one.

[Tribble]

I never made the claim that the primary did. But I do recall a "Bernie or Bust" movement that even the idiots on this board who thought Sanders walked on water condemned.

Sorry, my mistake then. I definitely remember people on this board making that argument, though, though somehow Bernie continuing to campaign was somehow hurting Clinton (though the details of what this meant were never explained). I just sort of assumed it was you given your continued criticism of Bernie supporters, but mea culpa on that one.

IIRC Flagg ramped up the criticism once it was clear that Sanders mathematically couldn't win yet carried on his campaign anyways.

[FireNexus]

I never made the claim that the primary did. But I do recall a "Bernie or Bust" movement that even the idiots on this board who thought Sanders walked on water condemned.

Sorry, my mistake then. I definitely remember people on this board making that argument, though, though somehow Bernie continuing to campaign was somehow hurting Clinton (though the details of what this meant were never explained). I just sort of assumed it was you given your continued criticism of Bernie supporters, but mea culpa on that one.

I made that argument. If the election had not come down to so few votes, I wouldn't stand by it today. But because it did, even though there were very many factors that could have made a difference, I do resent Sanders for continuing to campaign. It would be impossible to prove that it hurt, but it certainly didn't help anyone.

But my anti-Sanders views are mostly because I think he was a shitty candidate, and I am very frustrated at the argument that the Clinton coronation did anything but help him. It sucked all the excess oxygen out of the room, which was the only reason an anaerobe like him was able to grow so strong.

[FireNexus]

I never made the claim that the primary did. But I do recall a "Bernie or Bust" movement that even the idiots on this board who thought Sanders walked on water condemned.

Sorry, my mistake then. I definitely remember people on this board making that argument, though, though somehow Bernie continuing to campaign was somehow hurting Clinton (though the details of what this meant were never explained). I just sort of assumed it was you given your continued criticism of Bernie supporters, but mea culpa on that one.

IIRC Flagg ramped up the criticism once it was clear that Sanders mathematically couldn't win yet carried on his campaign anyways.

He did. As did I. Sanders was a shit candidate who was never going to win, and the argument that he was the best possible was always spurious. But after he kept campaigning despite having no path, and ramped up the anti-Clinton rhetoric for no gain, he became an asshole. And his supporters were downright infuriating from the start, but they were fucking insufferable after Super Tuesday.

[Flagg]

I never made the claim that the primary did. But I do recall a "Bernie or Bust" movement that even the idiots on this board who thought Sanders walked on water condemned.

Sorry, my mistake then. I definitely remember people on this board making that argument, though, though somehow Bernie continuing to campaign was somehow hurting Clinton (though the details of what this meant were never explained). I just sort of assumed it was you given your continued criticism of Bernie supporters, but mea culpa on that one.

I made that argument. If the election had not come down to so few votes, I wouldn't stand by it today. But because it did, even though there were very many factors that could have made a difference, I do resent Sanders for continuing to campaign. It would be impossible to prove that it hurt, but it certainly didn't help anyone.

But my anti-Sanders views are mostly because I think he was a shitty candidate, and I am very frustrated at the argument that the Clinton coronation did anything but help him. It sucked all the excess oxygen out of the room, which was the only reason an anaerobe like him was able to grow so strong.

No, prince Crazy Hair is a Saint, Hillary is the devil, and if you say otherwise you're a blind Clinton supporter and blah blah blah, fuck reality, board warnings for all but the mental midget who calls everyone who disagrees with him a liar, this has been a Miss Manners test, this is only a test, handguns can be removed from temples.

[FireNexus]

Sorry, my mistake then. I definitely remember people on this board making that argument, though, though somehow Bernie continuing to campaign was somehow hurting Clinton (though the details of what this meant were never explained). I just sort of assumed it was you given your continued criticism of Bernie supporters, but mea culpa on that one.

I made that argument. If the election had not come down to so few votes, I wouldn't stand by it today. But because it did, even though there were very many factors that could have made a difference, I do resent Sanders for continuing to campaign. It would be impossible to prove that it hurt, but it certainly didn't help anyone.

But my anti-Sanders views are mostly because I think he was a shitty candidate, and I am very frustrated at the argument that the Clinton coronation did anything but help him. It sucked all the excess oxygen out of the room, which was the only reason an anaerobe like him was able to grow so strong.

No, prince Crazy Hair is a Saint, Hillary is the devil, and if you say otherwise you're a blind Clinton supporter and blah blah blah, fuck reality, board warnings for all but the mental midget who calls everyone who disagrees with him a liar, this has been a Miss Manners test, this is only a test, handguns can be removed from temples.

Dude, you're gonna get banned if you fly in the face of the mods like that. I have no great love for our resident BernieBots, but taking unnecessary potshots at them personally right this minute is maybe not the best idea.

[Flagg]

I made that argument. If the election had not come down to so few votes, I wouldn't stand by it today. But because it did, even though there were very many factors that could have made a difference, I do resent Sanders for continuing to campaign. It would be impossible to prove that it hurt, but it certainly didn't help anyone.

But my anti-Sanders views are mostly because I think he was a shitty candidate, and I am very frustrated at the argument that the Clinton coronation did anything but help him. It sucked all the excess oxygen out of the room, which was the only reason an anaerobe like him was able to grow so strong.

No, prince Crazy Hair is a Saint, Hillary is the devil, and if you say otherwise you're a blind Clinton supporter and blah blah blah, fuck reality, board warnings for all but the mental midget who calls everyone who disagrees with him a liar, this has been a Miss Manners test, this is only a test, handguns can be removed from temples.

Dude, you're gonna get banned if you fly in the face of the mods like that. I have no great love for our resident BernieBots, but taking unnecessary potshots at them personally right this minute is maybe not the best idea.

pfft, this has nothing to do with Sanders, it's about how it's open season on Flagg right or wrong. But I should have thought of that before taking umbrage at being called a liar and then being treated like a 5 year old! Serves me right!

[Tribble]

Dude, it's fine disagreeing with Sanders and such (while I disagree with your overall assessment of him you have valid points), but pissing off the Mods and mocking them for warning you is a guaranteed way to get banned. This is heading towards Hall of Shame / Parting Shots territory...

[FireNexus]

No, prince Crazy Hair is a Saint, Hillary is the devil, and if you say otherwise you're a blind Clinton supporter and blah blah blah, fuck reality, board warnings for all but the mental midget who calls everyone who disagrees with him a liar, this has been a Miss Manners test, this is only a test, handguns can be removed from temples.

Dude, you're gonna get banned if you fly in the face of the mods like that. I have no great love for our resident BernieBots, but taking unnecessary potshots at them personally right this minute is maybe not the best idea.

pfft, this has nothing to do with Sanders, it's about how it's open season on Flagg right or wrong. But I should have thought of that before taking umbrage at being called a liar and then being treated like a 5 year old! Serves me right!

I don't necessarily disagree. But you know the rules, and whether or not the decision is correct, it stands. If you keep mocking the mods and throwing a tantrum, however in the wrong they may have been, you're going to be in the wrong and you're going to get your ass kicked to the curb.

This is selfish of me, because I'd be sad to see you go. But nobody's going to remember how you were persecuted if you get hit with the banhammer. They're going to remember how you went and pissed in the face of the mods for no gain. It would be downright sad for that to happen given how many fucking right some of your complaints actually are.

So back off. Apologize to the mods (if not to the posters in question) for bucking their authority. Live to fight another day. I cannot be the only one here beating back at the rabid Sandersism.

Edit: 1337 postcount was this one. It's a sign from above, Flagg. Take my advice on this one.