SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[The Romulan Republic]

Nazi unfurls banner, shouts anti-Semitic slogans at Sanders rally. Trump supporters also crashed the same rally.

Hopefully this will serve as a reminder to everyone, no matter how heated the primary becomes, of who the real enemy is:

https://buzzfeednews.com/article/rubycr ... -nazi-flag

PHOENIX — A man waving a Nazi flag and shouting “Heil Hitler” was kicked out of a rally for Bernie Sanders on Thursday, a shocking incident targeting the man running to be the first Jewish president.

The flag, styled professionally in the actual designs of Nazi Germany, hung prominently over a banister at the 7,000-person Arizona Veterans Memorial Coliseum at the start of Sanders’ speech. The person stationed himself in the upper deck of the arena, behind where Sanders was speaking.

The man was shouting anti-Jewish slurs at Sanders and performing the Nazi salute, said Ron Mack, 40, an attendee at the rally who was sitting nearby. “He never put his arm down,” Mack said. “Everybody was in disbelief.”

Security removed the man from the event several seconds after he unfurled the flag. Mack, who spoke to BuzzFeed News the day after the rally, followed him outside to make sure he was removed, and the man shouted racial slurs at him, an incident that was captured on video.

On Friday morning, taking questions at the Phoenix airport, Sanders told reporters that he was “shocked” to learn about the flag from his staff.

“I speak not only as a Jewish American — I think I can speak for the families of some 400,000 American troops who died fighting Nazism, fighting fascism — that it is horrific," he said. “It is beyond disgusting to see that, in the United States of America, there are people who would show the emblem of Hitler and Nazism.”

Sanders said that he has seen plenty of protesters at his events over the years — many of them Trump supporters — “but this was something different,” he said, describing the swastika as “unspeakable” and the “most detestable symbol in modern history.”

On Friday afternoon, in a tweet, Biden wrote of the display at the Friday rally, "I don't care who you're supporting, attacks like this against a man who could be the first Jewish president are disgusting and beyond the pale."

The Anti-Defamation League identified the man as Robert Sterkeson, a white supremacist who has "harassed a range of Jewish and Muslim organizations and events," often posting the stunts on YouTube.

Sanders appeared to hear the commotion, turning to his right to look to the stands, but the flag had already been taken down. Aides told him about the incident after the rally.

Multiple protesters caused disruptions at the rally, including one who unfurled a “TRUMP” banner.

Video and pictures of the incident spread on Instagram and Twitter.

A man brought a literal Nazi flag to the rally of a Jewish Socialist candidate for President

He was escorted out by security forces
Siddak Ahuja
@SiddakAhuja
A man brought a literal Nazi flag to the rally of a Jewish Socialist candidate for President He was escorted out by security forces

04:25 AM - 06 Mar 2020
Reply Retweet Favorite
@sluggahjells They did. I was there. Here’s a picture I found.
lexi
@lexi4bernie
@sluggahjells They did. I was there. Here’s a picture I found.

03:39 AM - 06 Mar 2020
Reply Retweet Favorite
The incident comes at a time of increasing concern about the rise of white nationalism in the country and a rise in anti-Semitic incidents, including deadly synagogue shootings. For Sanders and his team, it also comes weeks after prominent media figures described his rise in terms the candidate and his supporters have found to be anti-Semitic.

Last month on MSNBC, Chris Matthews compared Sanders to the German occupation of France in World War II, and left the channel this week after a string of missteps. Last week, in graphics on a segment put together by CNN’s Michael Smerconish, the host asked: “Can Either Coronavirus or Bernie Sanders Be Stopped?”

At the urging of his advisers, Sanders has spoken more openly this year about his background as the son of a struggling working-class Jewish family in Brooklyn much more explicitly than when he ran for the Democratic nomination four years ago. Earlier Thursday, his campaign released its latest video highlighting that. “I would be very proud to be the first Jewish president,” Sanders tweeted. He has spoken about how his Jewish heritage affects him “profoundly” and of visiting Poland, where much of his father’s family was murdered in the Holocaust.

Sanders’ father came to the US from Poland at the age of 17 to “to escape widespread anti-Semitism,” as Sanders put it during his campaign launch speech in March. The Vermont senator, born in 1941, has described growing up with an acute awareness that his father’s immediate family “was wiped out by Hitler and Nazi barbarism” during the Holocaust.

Over the last month, as he’s traveled across the county, Sanders has been preoccupied with and deeply angered by the media comparisons to the Nazi army and coronavirus, raising the issue publicly with reporters and privately with his advisers.

Before taking off for Arizona for his first rally since a disappointing finish on Super Tuesday, Sanders spoke to reporters at the airport in his hometown of Burlington, Vermont, describing the comparisons by the “corporate media” as “unprincipled” and “terrible.”

“You’re talking about a candidate who had to listen to somebody say that our supporters are brown shirts — that’s Nazi supporters. What a disgrace,” he told reporters. “A candidate who described a victory that we had as Nazis invading France.”

“You had on one of the TV stations the question, which is what the media is preoccupied with, ’How do we stop Bernie Sanders! We gotta stop the coronavirus and we gotta stop Bernie Sanders,” he said, feigning panic and alarm. “What a terrible thing.”

Sanders, who now faces a two-person race against Joe Biden after a stunningly fast turn of events in the Democratic primary over the last two weeks, has spent the days since his losses in 10 states in Super Tuesday airing grievances about the corporate media, appealing to reporters to cover the race as a debate of ideas.

“That’s the frame,” he said of the “Stop Sanders” coverage Thursday morning. “Not, my god, ‘You have a candidate who’s trying to bring working people [into] the political process.’”

Neither Sanders nor Biden is traveling with the protection of the US Secret Service — a somewhat atypical setup at this point in the primary for two major political figures. (During his first presidential run four year ago, Sanders received Secret Service protection at the start of voting in the Democratic primary, around the time of the Iowa caucus in February.)

Sanders said on Friday that he isn’t sure when or if his campaign will receive USSS protection, but that he did not feel “unsafe” at the Phoenix rally.

In response to a question about their plans for the Sanders and Biden campaigns, a Secret Service spokesperson pointed to a Thursday statement that from communications director Cathy Milhoan who called the idea that the agency is "unprepared for candidate protection" is "categorically false."

The statement outlines the process by which candidates receive protection, beginning with their formal request. "To date, the Department has not received a request for protection," the statement concludes.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, Sanders said he believed his staff had been in contact with the Department of Homeland Security about receiving protection.

On Wednesday, the day after protesters rushed the stage at Biden’s Super Tuesday event in Los Angeles, House Homeland Security Committee Chair Rep. Bennie Thompson asked the Department of Homeland Security to add both candidates to the USSS roster. “I think it’s an unfortunate sign of the times in 2020 — a white supremacist showing up at a public event with a swastika,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, head of the Anti-Defamation League. “They need to make sure they have adequate security at their campaign events.”

“I don't agree with all Bernie's ideas, for sure, but he's the highest-profile Jewish candidate running for the presidency and it's, albeit unsurprising, it's alarming to see the anti-Semitism being directed at him," he said.

For once, this is enough to get the Centrists to actually condemn an attack against Sanders, even if in muted or equivocating terms. Although one does need to ask if the comments by people like Chris Matthews, comparing Sanders to Nazis, contributed to this.

It also begs the question as to how weak the security is at Sanders' events. To be blunt, if they can sneak a banner in, they can sneak a gun in. I'd agree that Sanders should get Secret Service protection, and should have a long time ago... if not for the fact that I'm betting Trump has made it his creature like the rest of the executive branch, and I bet you any Secret Service agent guarding Sanders will effectively be a spy for the Trump campaign, passing along everything he hears to the Donald.

Honestly, I think the entire Democratic field would do better to rely on private security hired by the DNC this time around.

[The Romulan Republic]

Medicare for all would likely increase wages and jobs:

https://newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-med ... ws-1490800

A new analysis of the economic impact of a Medicare for All health care reform, like the signature policy proposal of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, suggests that such a plan would not only increase wages for workers but also create additional jobs.

Sanders, a progressive senator from Vermont who is currently a close second to former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic frontrunner, has long advocated for a universal or single-payer health care system. Critics argue that such a policy would lead to mass job loss and be an economic drain on the country, but the new analysis published Thursday by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) suggests the opposite would happen.

Josh Bivens, EPI's director who conducted the study, wrote in the report that Medicare for All "would be unambiguously positive" for the labor market in the U.S., leading to a "boost in wages and salaries" as well as an "increase in job quality, while producing "a net increase in jobs."

Although the analysis notes that policymakers should not "ignore the distress caused by job transitions" due to such a health care reform, Bivens wrote that job losses during a transitional period would be "relatively small."

Bernie Sanders with Medicare for all
Senator Bernie Sanders (i-Vernont) speaks while introducing health care legislation titled the "Medicare for All Act of 2019," during a news conference on Capitol Hill on April 9, 2019 in Washington, D.C.

Study: Big Pharma Companies Earn More Profits Than Most Other Industries
"Despite the fact that M4A [Medicare for All] could deliver these large benefits to efficient labor market functioning, the policy often comes under fire from critics making highly exaggerated claims about the potential job loss that could occur under such a reform," Bivens noted.

"The grain of truth in some of the claims is that, like any productivity improvement, the adoption of a reform like M4A would require the redeployment of workers from one sector (the health insurance and medical billing complex) to other sectors (mostly the delivery of health care)," he wrote. "But there is little in the M4A-induced redeployment of workers that would greatly stress the American labor market over and above the uncertainty and churn that characterizes this labor market every year."

Wendell Potter, a former health insurance vice president who left the industry and now advocates for health care reform, told Newsweek that the analysis undermines a key argument the private insurance industry uses to push back against Medicare for all.

"It's a dark day for my old pals in the insurance industry because one of their few arguments for keeping the current system placing profits over care, is gone," Potter said. "On top of the obvious medical benefits, America's jobs outlook will improve under Medicare for All. The data proves it."

Critics of Medicare for All, which was also endorsed by Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a former Democratic presidential candidate who suspended her presidential campaign on Thursday, have also repeatedly questioned how such a plan would be paid for. They've argued that it would be far too expensive and become a major drain on the federal budget.

But a study by researchers at Yale University, the University of Florida and the University of Maryland published in mid-February found that universal health care would actually save about $450 billion per year in health care costs. Additionally, it projected that a Medicare for All system would prevent at least 60,000 unnecessary deaths every year, as tens of millions of uninsured Americans would receive full health coverage under the system.

"Our study is actually conservative because it doesn't factor in the lives saved among underinsured Americans—which includes anyone who nominally has insurance but has postponed or foregone care because they couldn't afford the copays and deductibles," Alison Galvani, an author of that study, who is a researcher at the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis at the Yale School of Public Health, told Newsweek last month.

Most Democratic voters appear to support a transition away from private insurance toward a universal health care system, according to exit polls conducted in the 18 states to have held primaries and caucuses so far in this election cycle. A plurality of Democratic voters in all the states to have voted thus far have backed the idea of government insurance, while majorities of voters backed the policy idea in 16 states.

Biden supports more modest health care reform. The former vice president has advocated for expanding the Affordable Care Act (ACA), known commonly as Obamacare, by making a Medicare buy-in option available to some Americans. His plan would allow private insurance to continue to compete alongside the government-run system.

Meanwhile, Trump vows to cut "entitlements":

https://msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/de ... s-n1151436

"I'm not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I'm not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid," Donald Trump declared in 2015. "Every other Republican's going to cut, and even if they wouldn't, they don't know what to do because they don't know where the money is. I do. I do."

As regular readers may recall, this became a staple of his entire national candidacy: no matter what, Americans could count on him to champion these social-insurance programs. Ahead of the 2016 race, Trump wanted everyone to know that entitlement cuts, as far as he's concerned, are off the table.

The Republican has apparently changed his mind, as we were reminded last night during a presidential town-hall forum in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

When Fox News host Martha MacCallum suggested that if "you don't cut something in entitlements, you will never really deal with the debt," Trump jumped in right away. "Oh, we'll be cutting," he said to an audience in Scranton. "We're also going to have growth like you've never seen before."

For now, let's put aside Trump's promise to generate unprecedented economic growth. He made similar promises four years ago, but he's failed spectacularly to meet his own goals.

Instead, it was the "we'll be cutting" part of his answer that's likely to cause the president some trouble.

Trump also addressed this in late January, when CNBC's Joe Kernen sat down with the president and asked whether entitlement cuts would ever be on the Republican's plate. "At some point they will be," Trump replied, adding, "[A]t the right time, we will take a look at that."

When Kernen followed up, asking about Trump's willingness to "do some of the things that you said you wouldn't do in the past," the president added, "We're going to look."

As of last night, however, Trump doesn't just intend to look; he also intends to cut.

What's more, as we've discussed, there's a larger context to this that includes Larry Kudlow, the director of the Trump White House's National Economic Council, arguing in the not-too-distant past that the president's team is prepared to look at entitlement "reforms" -- which is a common euphemism for cuts.

As CNBC reported a year and a half ago, Kudlow added that the Trump White House was determined to reduce federal spending, and "part of the Republican plan to curb spending is tackling entitlements."

No matter who wins the Democratic presidential nomination, Trump and his team have made this a key 2020 issue, on which Republicans will be on the unpopular side.

Josh Schwerin, the communications director for Priorities USA, a leading super PAC affiliated with Democratic politics, noted overnight that focusing on the president's entitlement cuts "is consistently the top testing hit on Trump." Last night, the Republican made this line of attack even more potent.

Update: According to the White House, the president's comments were intended to refer to cutting deficits, not cutting entitlements. In context, I'm not entirely sure whether that explanation makes sense, but that's apparently the new Team Trump line.

I'd like to think this would sway some senior voters, but I suspect that for most of them, fear of black and brown people will outweigh fear of losing their social security and medicare.

[Jub]

When you draw a line between yourself and the rest of your party you're not that far from running as a 3rd party candidate.

So now Bernie is running as a third party candidate, even when he's running as a Democrat and has just pledged to support Biden if he comes to the convention with a plurality, even if he doesn't have a majority.

There's no point trying to argue with this level of dishonesty. Its simply part of an alternative world, where Bernie is a third party white supremacist misogynist Nazi/Commie candidate who never won a single state. It certainly has nothing to do with the actual behaviour of Sanders and his supporters. Sanders is "divisive" and the enemy, simply for existing, and all of his supporters are fair game too.

But remember, we're the divisive ones!

Calm down chuckles, that's not what I said. Now, because you can't read anything without adding some crazy subtext between each word, I'll even be nice and clarify things for you.

By tying himself to this unwavering level of ideological purity and refusing to play ball with the Democratic establishment Col Sanders has alienated himself from a lot of the political machine which is working for Biden. Hence, regardless of what anybody says, he's running as the next best thing to a 3rd party candidate against the party pick in Biden. If he'd been more willing to work with people who weren't 100% 'pure' he might not have alienated so many potential allies.

That clear enough for you Mr. Chicken Little?

[FaxModem1]

It also begs the question as to how weak the security is at Sanders' events. To be blunt, if they can sneak a banner in, they can sneak a gun in. I'd agree that Sanders should get Secret Service protection, and should have a long time ago... if not for the fact that I'm betting Trump has made it his creature like the rest of the executive branch, and I bet you any Secret Service agent guarding Sanders will effectively be a spy for the Trump campaign, passing along everything he hears to the Donald.

Honestly, I think the entire Democratic field would do better to rely on private security hired by the DNC this time around.

Just going to point out that guns set off metal detectors. Cloth flags don't.

[The Romulan Republic]

When you draw a line between yourself and the rest of your party you're not that far from running as a 3rd party candidate.

So now Bernie is running as a third party candidate, even when he's running as a Democrat and has just pledged to support Biden if he comes to the convention with a plurality, even if he doesn't have a majority.

There's no point trying to argue with this level of dishonesty. Its simply part of an alternative world, where Bernie is a third party white supremacist misogynist Nazi/Commie candidate who never won a single state. It certainly has nothing to do with the actual behaviour of Sanders and his supporters. Sanders is "divisive" and the enemy, simply for existing, and all of his supporters are fair game too.

But remember, we're the divisive ones!

Calm down chuckles, that's not what I said. Now, because you can't read anything without adding some crazy subtext between each word, I'll even be nice and clarify things for you.

By tying himself to this unwavering level of ideological purity and refusing to play ball with the Democratic establishment Col Sanders has alienated himself from a lot of the political machine which is working for Biden. Hence, regardless of what anybody says, he's running as the next best thing to a 3rd party candidate against the party pick in Biden. If he'd been more willing to work with people who weren't 100% 'pure' he might not have alienated so many potential allies.

That clear enough for you Mr. Chicken Little?

You said Sanders is "not far from running as a third party candidate". Your words. Which is objectively ridiculous, like much of what's been said about Sanders in this thread since Super Tuesday.

It also begs the question as to how weak the security is at Sanders' events. To be blunt, if they can sneak a banner in, they can sneak a gun in. I'd agree that Sanders should get Secret Service protection, and should have a long time ago... if not for the fact that I'm betting Trump has made it his creature like the rest of the executive branch, and I bet you any Secret Service agent guarding Sanders will effectively be a spy for the Trump campaign, passing along everything he hears to the Donald.

Honestly, I think the entire Democratic field would do better to rely on private security hired by the DNC this time around.

Just going to point out that guns set off metal detectors. Cloth flags don't.

Granted, although there are certain venues (like shaking hands in public) where its probably not going to be possible to set up metal detectors. There's also nothing stopping a fascist, if they can get in, from trying to storm the stage.

[Jub]

You said Sanders is "not far from running as a third party candidate". Your words. Which is objectively ridiculous, like much of what's been said about Sanders in this thread since Super Tuesday.

It's almost like you're just too dense to get context and would rather yell at people for reevaluating things with the benefit of hindsight than engage in actual discussion.

[The Romulan Republic]

You said Sanders is "not far from running as a third party candidate". Your words. Which is objectively ridiculous, like much of what's been said about Sanders in this thread since Super Tuesday.

It's almost like you're just too dense to get context and would rather yell at people for reevaluating things with the benefit of hindsight than engage in actual discussion.

Can we NOT turn the US election thread into "let's all bash TRR" circlejerk number 12,952?

Here's what we should do: I lay off the attacks, everybody else lays off the attacks, and which actually have a civil, fact-based discussion about the merits of the individual candidates.

I'm game if you are.

[Jub]

Can we NOT turn the US election thread into "let's all bash TRR" circlejerk number 12,952?

Here's what we should do: I lay off the attacks, everybody else lays off the attacks, and which actually have a civil, fact-based discussion about the merits of the individual candidates.

I'm game if you are.

Then try rebutting my points:

By tying himself to this unwavering level of ideological purity and refusing to play ball with the Democratic establishment Col Sanders has alienated himself from a lot of the political machine which is working for Biden. Hence, regardless of what anybody says, he's running as the next best thing to a 3rd party candidate against the party pick in Biden. If he'd been more willing to work with people who weren't 100% 'pure' he might not have alienated so many potential allies.

Does this make sense to you as a valid criticism of Bernie's campaign thus far?

[TimothyC]

I mean, anyone who reads your posts can tell you're a Republican.

I've been Republican aligned for a very long time. I've never said otherwise. I've voted for McCain (twice), Romney (twice-ish, one was split giving one vote to Romney and one to Gingrich), & Kasich, but never Trump (Johnson instead).

Obvious troll is obvious.

Not really trolling with the fall-in-line part. Honest statement. Whomever ends up in the lead is going to need the entire party behind them if they want to win in November. The republicans at least understand that their party is a big tent and everyone needs to be on the same page or they loose.

Sen. Santa was a troll, yeah, but a minor one. Shouldn't have done that.

But this is a good example of exactly the response not to have if you actually want to see a united Democratic Party.

On one level, I kind-of want it to be Sanders to present an absolute choice. If it is? I'll look at polls, and make a call in November. Likely a third-party vote again.

[Coop D'etat]

The Bernie Bro myth has been overplayed. I've seen Biden supporters go apeshit if you point out his flaws (one guy told me to eat glass). So cut it out with this "only bernie supporters are sexist". It's absolute horseshit

I see this a lot from Sanders supporters about how they are percieved.

1) you guys aren't in charge of your own reputation, your reputation is what other people think of you based on their own experiences. Whining that its overblown isn't at all convincing.

2) the relative behaviour of Sander's internet fans is being noticed not so much by the people within the Democratic party's internal debate but by people outside it noting the difference in the quality of interaction between the groups.

But you know, I'm sure denying you have a problem will work out great for you guys. Keep it up.

[The Romulan Republic]

I mean, anyone who reads your posts can tell you're a Republican.

I've been Republican aligned for a very long time. I've never said otherwise. I've voted for McCain (twice), Romney (twice-ish, one was split giving one vote to Romney and one to Gingrich), & Kasich, but never Trump (Johnson instead).

Obvious troll is obvious.

Not really trolling with the fall-in-line part. Honest statement. Whomever ends up in the lead is going to need the entire party behind them if they want to win in November. The republicans at least understand that their party is a big tent and everyone needs to be on the same page or they loose.

Sen. Santa was a troll, yeah, but a minor one. Shouldn't have done that.

But this is a good example of exactly the response not to have if you actually want to see a united Democratic Party.

On one level, I kind-of want it to be Sanders to present an absolute choice. If it is? I'll look at polls, and make a call in November. Likely a third-party vote again.

I apologize, then, for being overly-harsh in my prior response.

I agree that unity behind the nominee is vital, and I fully intend to back Biden to the full extent of my limited means if he's the nominee. However, I will reiterate that while it is indeed essential for Democrats to unite in November, the responsibility for that should not be entirely on Sanders and his supporters. The Centrists also need to show the willingness to respect their fellow Democrats, and extend an olive branch.

I will add that while I respect the right of every person to vote their own conscience, my personal feeling is that a third party vote, especially right now, is an abdication of responsibility. Whatever Sanders' or Biden's faults, he is no an existential threat to the planet. Trump is. Unless you are in a very safe state (like, polling average has it consistently blue or red by double-digits before election day and throughout early voting), in which case vote for whom you please (I, being a Colorado voter, don't have that luxury).

I will agree with you on one point, at least: Sanders presents the clearest contrast with Trump. And I think that that's one of the strongest reasons to nominate him. He may put some people off, but at the end of the day, I think being able to draw that sharp distinction has its advantages.

Trump is an utterly loathsome, evil man, but he presents a very sharp break from the pre-2016 status quo, and that excites people. It mobilizes people. And I'm not convinced that the best way to beat Trump is a tepid campaign with a platform that largely amounts to "let's go back to the way things were".

Ah, well, at least we dodged Bloomberg. If nothing else, I'd hope Sanders and Biden supporters can find common ground in appreciating the fact that the two worst Democratic options (Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Bloomberg) are already out of the picture.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Bernie Bro myth has been overplayed. I've seen Biden supporters go apeshit if you point out his flaws (one guy told me to eat glass). So cut it out with this "only bernie supporters are sexist". It's absolute horseshit

I see this a lot from Sanders supporters about how they are percieved.

1) you guys aren't in charge of your own reputation, your reputation is what other people think of you based on their own experiences. Whining that its overblown isn't at all convincing.

2) the relative behaviour of Sander's internet fans is being noticed not so much by the people within the Democratic party's internal debate but by people outside it noting the difference in the quality of interaction between the groups.

But you know, I'm sure denying you have a problem will work out great for you guys. Keep it up.

No one has denied that there are Sanders supporters who have behaved deplorably. Sanders himself has repeatedly called them out. He has always focussed his criticisms on his opponents' policies, or sometimes their electability or who their donors are (which are standard campaign criticisms that pretty much every campaign engages in), but he has never trashed their personal character or suggested that they support dictatorship or bigotry, even when he had grounds to do so. What more can he do?

What we do not agree to, and should not agree to, is that the trolls are an accurate representation of Sanders, his entire campaign and message, and everyone who supports him.

This, naturally, is all ignored so you can once again portray a few trolls as representative of Sanders, his entire campaign, and anyone who supports him. Which, of course, is another example of how divisive we are.

Here, let me sum up the current state of the Democratic Party:

Sanders: "I do not support trolling of other candidates or their supporters. Let's have an election focussed on the issues."

Other Democrats: "You're all misogynist racist trolls! Also, Sanders is a communist! How dare you be so divisive!"

For all the talk about unity, it seems like its mainly Sanders' opponents who are inexplicable desperate to force things into a repeat of 2016.

[The Romulan Republic]

Like, seriously, you want a nice, civil, non-divisive primary? Great.

All you have to do is stop screaming "BERNIE BROS!!!" at the top of your lungs every five minutes, along with trotting out every other old anti-Sanders smear from 2016.

[Coop D'etat]

Way to completely miss my point man.

A lot of the people complaining about first hand problems with the toxic Bernie stan culture aren't the other Democrats participating in the primary process. The reputation doesn't just come from your inter party slapfight.

Telling you twits to work on your reputations isn't a calculated effort to bring your movement down. Its actual advice. It might have escaped your notice, but I'm not involved in your power struggle for the Democratic party. I'm a foriegner who doesn't care one way or the other who wins. I'm telling you about this because me and other people like me have noticed the jackassery coming out of your camp and would like you to tone it down.

[The Romulan Republic]

Way to completely miss my point man.

A lot of the people complaining about first hand problems with the toxic Bernie stan culture aren't the other Democrats participating in the primary process. The reputation doesn't just come from your inter party slapfight.

Telling you twits to work on your reputations isn't a calculated effort to bring your movement down. Its actual advice. It might have escaped your notice, but I'm not involved in your power struggle for the Democratic party. I'm a foriegner who doesn't care one way or the other who wins. I'm telling you about this because me and other people like me have noticed the jackassery coming out of your camp and would like you to tone it down.

Well, frankly, you should care who wins this election, because they'll go on to be the one to challenge Trump, and on climate change alone, Trump is an existential threat to the entire planet.

But I actually agree that we need to put out the intra-party dumpster fire, and I regret the part that I've played in it. Tempers do understandably run high during a campaign, and probably none of us have behaved in the most mature and respectful fashion at all times, but at the end of the day, we all need to be on the same side against the real threat here, which is the white supremacist climate denier movement lead by the likes of Trump and Putin.

The problem, though, is that all of the responsibility for the tone of the campaign is being put on Sanders and his supporters, despite the fact that its other candidates or their supporters, for example, comparing us to Nazis or the coronavirus. Or the constant red-baiting against Sanders, which arguably has quite a bit of anti-Semitic subtext as well (the Nazis, for example, were notoriously fond of propagating conspiracy theories about "Jewish Bolshevism").

Sanders has come out and criticized the trolls, repeatedly. I've backed off on going after Warren, for all the difference that one person on a web forum is likely to make. What I don't see is anyone on the other side willing to meet Sanders and his supporters half-way. Which is where my frustration is coming from here.

[The Romulan Republic]

First, to be clear: the following is not directed at anyone on this board (where the criticisms of Sanders have been more to do with "Bernie Bros", electability, etc. rather than the supposedly radical nature of his policies). It is a comment on the larger discussion occurring in US media and politics reg. Bernie Sanders.

But the more I think about it, the more I feel that there is something really deeply troubling about the constant allegations of communist sympathies against Sanders. I can't be the only one who feels that the constant Red-baiting of Bernie Sanders (who is a democratic socialist, not a communist), and the accusations that he is sympathetic to or conspiring with foreign communist regimes, has a definite anti-Semitic subtext. Allegations of "Jewish Bolshevism" are a very old Anti-Semitic trope, one used by the Nazis, among others, to try to justify their crimes. So its rather disconcerting to see even supposedly "moderate" figures using false allegations of communist loyalties against the first serious Jewish candidate for the Presidency, especially after a Sanders rally was crashed by a literal Nazi.

Bottom line, I think there is some deep anti-Semitic subtext here which has been largely ignored.

[Jub]

It's more likely that Sanders has no allies in the media and thusly gets shit on from all sides without anybody backing him up to reshape the narrative. If you'd answered my post I touched on how this might be due to how staunchly ideological he is even when some compromise would be a practical choice.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's more likely that Sanders has no allies in the media and thusly gets shit on from all sides without anybody backing him up to reshape the narrative. If you'd answered my post I touched on how this might be due to how staunchly ideological he is even when some compromise would be a practical choice.

There's a place for compromise (I'd like to see him adopt Warren's plan to abolish the fillibuster, for example). But at the same time, sticking to his values rather than being just another flip-flopping politician is kind of his whole brand.

Regardless, people should at least be willing to back him up when he's being targeted by anti-Semitic narratives. That's something that should be called out regardless of your politics or whether you're well-liked. Nazis are hostis humani generis.


Edit: Actually, probably the best example of Bernie moderating or broadening his views is immigration. There was a time when Bernie was strongly opposed to illegal immigration as a threat to American jobs (although he always drew a distinction between refugees and "economic" immigrants). However, in recent years he's become much more pro-immigrant in his policies, which is probably reflected in his surge of support among Latino voters that helped push him to victory in Nevada and California, and keep Texas relatively close.

[Jub]

There's a place for compromise (I'd like to see him adopt Warren's plan to abolish the fillibuster, for example). But at the same time, sticking to his values rather than being just another flip-flopping politician is kind of his whole brand.

Regardless, people should at least be willing to back him up when he's being targeted by anti-Semitic narratives. That's something that should be called out regardless of your politics or whether you're well-liked. Nazis are hostis humani generis.

By compromise I mean he needs to show a willingness to actually work with the rest of the party rather than keeping within his small group of ideological purists. Bernie's a good zealot but he's showing a lack of skill when it comes to politically horsetrading to get things done. That doesn't bode well for him carrying out his grand plans if he were to become president.

You read a lot into things. Just because you hear a sound doesn't mean it's a dog whistle.

[The Romulan Republic]

There's a place for compromise (I'd like to see him adopt Warren's plan to abolish the fillibuster, for example). But at the same time, sticking to his values rather than being just another flip-flopping politician is kind of his whole brand.

Regardless, people should at least be willing to back him up when he's being targeted by anti-Semitic narratives. That's something that should be called out regardless of your politics or whether you're well-liked. Nazis are hostis humani generis.

By compromise I mean he needs to show a willingness to actually work with the rest of the party rather than keeping within his small group of ideological purists. Bernie's a good zealot but he's showing a lack of skill when it comes to politically horsetrading to get things done. That doesn't bode well for him carrying out his grand plans if he were to become president.

Though he has this reputation, Sanders was actually quite adept at making deals in the Senate, where he was known as "the amendment king", and passed a major bipartisan Veterans bill with John McCain.

I have no doubt he can work with Centrist Democrats- if they're willing to work with him.

You read a lot into things. Just because you hear a sound doesn't mean it's a dog whistle.

Falsely accusing a Jewish candidate of being a communist definitely has anti-Semitic subtext, and that should be called out, regardless of one's feelings on Bernie Sanders. Agree or disagree?

[Jub]

Though he has this reputation, Sanders was actually quite adept at making deals in the Senate, where he was known as "the amendment king", and passed a major bipartisan Veterans bill with John McCain.

I have no doubt he can work with Centrist Democrats- if they're willing to work with him.

Then why do you think it isn't currently working?

Falsely accusing a Jewish candidate of being a communist definitely has anti-Semitic subtext, and that should be called out, regardless of one's feelings on Bernie Sanders. Agree or disagree?

So we're calling people out for subtext now? I disagree with doing a mass callout unless it's for something overt and even then reality rarely agrees.

[loomer]

Accusing Jewish people of being cryptocommunists does have a long history of anti-semitic propaganda behind it, though?

[Jub]

Accusing Jewish people of being cryptocommunists does have a long history of anti-semitic propaganda behind it, though?

Counterpoint, anybody pushing a socialist agenda in the US tends to get called a communist; do you have proof that there's more to this than that?

[loomer]

Accusing Jewish people of being cryptocommunists does have a long history of anti-semitic propaganda behind it, though?

Counterpoint, anybody pushing a socialist agenda in the US tends to get called a communist; do you have proof that there's more to this than that?

To be clear, are you asking me to prove that the Judeo-Bolshevism conspiracy theory is a thing, or just that it's been relevant to people calling Sanders a communist as a smear?

[Jub]

To be clear, are you asking me to prove that the Judeo-Bolshevism conspiracy theory is a thing, or just that it's been relevant to people calling Sanders a communist as a smear?

Specifically that calling Sanders a communist an only be due to racial stereotypes and not because of his policies.