Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "Bernie Sanders"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@miscaccount9438 I must say that I find it highly amusing that you consider simply asking what you are doing to organize "a personal attack." I guess maybe "I try to get people to think differently" is your admission that you think commenting online is the same as organizing.
So, let's think of the consequences of "refusing to be a part of evil," as though that's not a personal attack on anyone who votes for the major-party nominee, especially when those people live in swing states. In 2000 and 2016, we got Presidents who were put there despite pluralities supporting other candidates in no small part because of third party candidates. It was very obvious in 2000, because Nader got over 150 times the margin of "victory" in Florida. In 2016, the exit polling shows that third party voters preferences would have definitely made the difference to swing Wisconsin and Michigan to Trump, and possibly Pennsylvania as well. That got us the Iraq War and over a million dead because of a pandemic.
But, wait! There's more. Between the two of them, they put five Justices on the Supreme Court, who provided the deciding margin in the Citizens United case (gutting campaign finance laws), Shelby (gutting the Voting Rights Act), and Dobbs (overturning Roe). So, you can pretend that you're above it all, but I will look at the real-world consequences and remember every time my adenoids are so swollen that I can barely breathe or I get really bad headaches.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@GLORYNEVADASMITH So, they are part of the conspiracy, too? The theory has been quite obvious for a while: peak at the right time. Harris made her move at the first debate, and look at where she is. Any candidate who made their move early is already crumbling, and even the MSM has begun to realize that he is peaking at the right time.
So, let me get this straight, you have no ability to do anything like talking to other people in order to try to help a once in a lifetime candidate win, but you have all of this energy and ability to organize a flash mob if he doesn't? [In Dr. Evil voice]: Riiight.
Well, since you want to talk about skills, here is mine: I am very good at finding the logical inconsistencies and contradictions in just about every argument. So, f you want to come at me with excuses, make sure that they are at least something where the most basic debater or lawyer wouldn't be able to do a flow sheet and see the obvious problems.
2
-
2
-
@marci.abraham Well, I would suggest that seeing what it is based on and the actual evidence is vital. When Bernie supporters insist that the field is so big not because a) a lot of people who probably should have run the last time who were afraid of the Clinton machine and b) people who thought, "if Trump could win, so can I," it greatly affects our credibility. Running 15 candidates mist likely means over 20% of the vote goes into the ether, thus making it easier for viable candidates to get delegates.
Saying "it is impossible for Bernie to win the nomination on the first ballot, so go protest" dampens enthusiasm, which is why it so angers me when I hear "the DNC won't let Bernie win." If they deny him the nomination no matter what, why are we giving up our weeknights and Saturdays to go do the work to get him to 1990? If people want to help Bernie, then they should help. If they think that this conspiracy is real, then provide better evidence than something that disregards the threshold for winning pledged delegates. If others see that such despair is counterproductive, even if the person I am talking to doesn't, then I would argue that it was beneficial to draw out the hypothesis and test it.
2