Would Bernie supporters still be as terrible if it was Warren vs Sanders?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Bernie's opponent wasn't so terrible, there wouldn't be as much criticism of his opponent. Also, Hillary tends to run negative campaigns. If was Bernie vs. O'Malley, it would be a much more positive election.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Bernie's opponent wasn't so terrible, there wouldn't be as much criticism of his opponent. Also, Hillary tends to run negative campaigns. If was Bernie vs. O'Malley, it would be a much more positive election.

Maybe, but I don't mean the campaigns/elections themselves. I mean the supporters.

I was mostly talking about the supporters. Anyone who thinks that Bernie is running a particularly negative campaign is seriously deluded.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Bernie's opponent wasn't so terrible, there wouldn't be as much criticism of his opponent. Also, Hillary tends to run negative campaigns. If was Bernie vs. O'Malley, it would be a much more positive election.

Maybe, but I don't mean the campaigns/elections themselves. I mean the supporters.

I was mostly talking about the supporters. Anyone who thinks that Bernie is running a particularly negative campaign is seriously deluded.

You don't really have much room to talk here considering you think Hillary is running a negative campaign. Someone who has lived through 2008 and watched the 2016 Republican clownshow has no excuse for such a ridiculous opinion.

So because Hillary ran a negative campaign 8 years ago, that excuses the fact that she's running a negative campaign now? As for the 2016 Republican contest, do you want to compare it to the Spanish Inquisition, too?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I was mostly talking about the supporters. Anyone who thinks that Bernie is running a particularly negative campaign is seriously deluded.

I don't think his campaign itself is all that negative at all, that is, compared to others and certainly compared to what it could be. One of my major disagreements is his constant talk about the speeches. It's a dog whistle for her being super corrupt, and fine, if he wants to call her corrupt, then he should do it and provide more accurate proof. Those speeches are not proof of anything and frankly, I seriously doubt she was trading favors for speeches. Those companies/banks throw around money like it's nothing, so for a high profile speaker like her to stand there praising them for an hour or two is probably worth it to them. In that regard, I think she doesn't want to release the transcripts because she was probably singing them lots of praise. It doesn't mean anything, but it would look bad.

He's going after her character, and not anything meaningful, and insinuating a candidate is corrupt like this hurts a lot more than most attacks. If he had actual evidence here, that's one thing, but beating her over mostly harmless speeches is bs.

Bernie hacks =/= All Bernie supporters

Hillary hacks =/= All Hillary supporters

Well, I did go out of my way to state that not all of them are like this. I don't tend to generalize like that.

I do understand my poll questions suggested otherwise but I edited my main post immediately after making the thread to clarify this.

Like tmc, I haven't met any really obnoxious Sanders supporter, but maybe pointing out Clinton's many faults makes us all obnoxious.  

Obviously this is anecdotal, but I bumped into a ridiculously ignorant Sanders supporter while waiting for my friend at his school. Apparently the only reason Hillary won anywhere was massive voter fraud. First time I've ever heard that level of ignorance from someone in-person, even when compared to the rather dumb stuff I've heard the past couple months from people I actually know / am friends with. On top of that, reddit, a place I used to love is now a cesspool of anti-Hillary / pro-Bernie ignorance and delusion. Obviously that place was never a bastion of substantive discussion, but it's gotten extremely toxic since Sanders came into vogue. There is no better example imo than reddit, but there are more.

The problem with what Sanders is doing is that he's painting her as a corrupt plutocrat who will immediately screw over everyone when she gets elected. I really don't think she's any worse than most other politicians in that regard. There are good reasons to think that she will try to do what she has promised if elected, but it is impossible to talk to people about her when they have been conditioned to believe she will screw them over after getting elected, because it gives them a way to deny any argument against their views as they resort to these accusations and future predictions that really cannot be disproved (and not because there is damning evidence, either). Bernie's campaign and the media have been exceptionally efficient in her character assassination.

If Bernie wanted to paint the Clintons as corrupt, he could go after specific things, like the $10 million the Saudis gave to the Clinton Foundation before they got $29 billion in arm sales approved by Hillary that are currently being used to kill Shia civilians in Yemen. Or the Russian uranium deal with Bill Clinton. Or Marc Rich's pardon. Or Sidney Blumenthal's business interests in Libya, or so on. But no, Bernie is running a campaign based on the issues.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Bernie wanted to paint the Clintons as corrupt, he could go after specific things, like the $10 million the Saudis gave to the Clinton Foundation before they got $29 billion in arm sales approved by Hillary that are currently being used to kill Shia civilians in Yemen. Or the Russian uranium deal with Bill Clinton. Or Marc Rich's pardon. Or Sidney Blumenthal's business interests in Libya, or so on. But no, Bernie is running a campaign based on the issues.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that Bernie isn't trying to paint her as corrupt? His campaign is in a large part based around special interests corrupting our government, and by constantly beating Hillary up over high-priced speeches to Wall St organizations, and saying things such as "that must have been one HELL of a speech!" (paraphrased), he is insinuating that she is corrupt because it wasn't about speeches, or there were favors involved. This is undeniable, and his supporters seem to get it just fine. Bernie's campaign overall is majority-positive, but the speeches crap is an extraordinarily accurate depiction of something you would find in a negative campaign.

Which brings me to this: The speeches are completely irrelevant. So what if some companies/banks paid her lots of money to say things that please them? She has a right to accept money for talking about whatever the banks wanted her to talk about. That doesn't make her corrupt at all, but when she doesn't want to release the transcripts (for good reason), it gives Bernie the perfect situation where he can paint her as corrupt by implying very shady things were going on and not just speeches. This is the kind of pathetic, annoying garbage that I hate about people who actually do run negative campaigns. They try to tear down a person's credibility and character with things unrelated or even consequential towards the matter at hand. So while I respect and admire a lot of things about Bernie's campaign, this trash is certainly not one of them.

If the speeches were fine, she should release the transcripts to show that there were no Romney 47% type comments or worse. Anti-corruption laws prohibited Bernie having any paid speech like that during his time in Congress. Why shouldn't that apply to someone everyone knew was the frontrunner for President? Anyways, Bernie isn't hammering the issue as hard as he can. He mostly just talks about the issues. We all know that it's Hillary who is running the more negative and less issue centered campaign. And Hillary already had 67% of Americans said she isn't honest and trustworthy before she didn't release the transcripts. I doubt Bernie has that much interest in trying to have that break 70%.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the speeches were fine, she should release the transcripts to show that there were no Romney 47% type comments or worse. Anti-corruption laws prohibited Bernie having any paid speech like that during his time in Congress. Why shouldn't that apply to someone everyone knew was the frontrunner for President? Anyways, Bernie isn't hammering the issue as hard as he can. He mostly just talks about the issues. We all know that it's Hillary who is running the more negative and less issue centered campaign. And Hillary already had 67% of Americans said she isn't honest and trustworthy before she didn't release the transcripts. I doubt Bernie has that much interest in trying to have that break 70%.

The most probable reason she isn't releasing them is that releasing a bunch of speech transcripts where she spends hours telling banks how great they are would be an epic PR blunder in an election/era defined by special interests corrupting government. I stated this in various ways in my posts.

Once again, it doesn't make her corrupt. Personally, I don't even care if she actually cares about Americans, as long as she does (or tries to do) the things she campaigned on. I think she will, if for no other reason than to leave this Earth with a better legacy.

Her wars, fracking, and Wall Street stooges will not leave the Earth with a better legacy. Her pals Henry Kissinger, Robert Rubin, and the like need to be rotting away in prison.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obviously this is anecdotal, but I bumped into a ridiculously ignorant Sanders supporter while waiting for my friend at his school. Apparently the only reason Hillary won anywhere was massive voter fraud. First time I've ever heard that level of ignorance from someone in-person, even when compared to the rather dumb stuff I've heard the past couple months from people I actually know / am friends with. On top of that, reddit, a place I used to love is now a cesspool of anti-Hillary / pro-Bernie ignorance and delusion. Obviously that place was never a bastion of substantive discussion, but it's gotten extremely toxic since Sanders came into vogue. There is no better example imo than reddit, but there are more.

The problem with what Sanders is doing is that he's painting her as a corrupt plutocrat who will immediately screw over everyone when she gets elected. I really don't think she's any worse than most other politicians in that regard. There are good reasons to think that she will try to do what she has promised if elected, but it is impossible to talk to people about her when they have been conditioned to believe she will screw them over after getting elected, because it gives them a way to deny any argument against their views as they resort to these accusations and future predictions that really cannot be disproved (and not because there is damning evidence, either). Bernie's campaign and the media have been exceptionally efficient in her character assassination.

anecdotal bits are interesting.  

I try to avoid political discussion with the ignorant and I haven't visited reddit, but I have no trouble imagining rabid, unwashed Sanders supporters.  Would his supporters be as obnoxious with Warren as with Clinton?  We can't say for sure, but I don't think so.

I agree that she's not a plutocrat, but we might argue over how corrupt she can be.  She will not necessarily go out of her way to wreak havoc.  Sanders has used emotionally-motivated rhetoric, such as when he said she was "unqualified" to be president.  No matter how much I mistrust her, I would concede that her resume is superior to anyone running against her from any party this year.  A well-polished candidate has a built-in advantage, and I think that Sanders is figuring that out, but it doesn't excuse some of his excesses.  Still, from what I can tell most of the "character assassination" is the normal sort we see every season.  I don't hold it against him when he reminds us that she is prone to political expediency.  That's one of the least provocative charges he could legitimately lay against her.

Bernie was saying she was unqualified in response to her basically saying the same. Of course based upon a resume, James Buchanan might have been our most qualified President, and yet he's generally considered one of the very worst Presidents, unlike his successor with a much shorter resume.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Seems that we're on the same team at the moment:  I agree with your comments about experience.  Obviously many voters are willing to overlook Clinton's blind ambition, especially loyal Democrats who can discount me in November.

As opposed to every other presidential candidate who ran because they just loved their country so much.

Strange how male presidential candidates are NOT described as having "blind ambition."  

They all are except Bernie. He wouldn't have run if someone with somewhat similar views, such as Warren, had run.