King Kreole

natural blondie like goku
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
16,149
Reputation
4,543
Daps
44,159
And you go overboard on Warren being a victim of some sort.
How is anything posted on thecoli a disservice to Bernie Sanders or hurting Elizabeth Warren?
When did I say Warren is a victim? I've said the Bernie camp and his supporters have been the instigators and aggressors in any burgeoning Warren-Bernie fight, and that trying to paint it as a both-sides thing is disingenuous. The negative energy is primarily coming from one side so far, and it started ramping up when Liz started overtaking Bernie in the polls. I'm not even shytting on Bernie's camp for going on the attack, I've said multiple times that fighting for your candidate can be a good thing. My problem is when the attacks aren't grounded in reality and give way to paranoid thinking. Being petty is a pathetic look for a campaign looking to make large scale, transformative changes to our society.

I don't give a shyt what some rando on the coli posts, it has no impact on the actual race, I'm saying it's indicative of the broader community of support around Bernie doing dumbass shyt, and that's a disservice to the candidate and the campaign. Same way the community of Hillary stans in '16 were doing dumbass, petty shyt that turned off progressives. Your supporters acting badly was a legitimate critique back then and it's a legitimate critique now.
 

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
31,498
Reputation
3,248
Daps
71,701
Reppin
New York
When did I say Warren is a victim? I've said the Bernie camp and his supporters have been the instigators and aggressors in any burgeoning Warren-Bernie fight, and that trying to paint it as a both-sides thing is disingenuous. The negative energy is primarily coming from one side so far, and it started ramping up when Liz started overtaking Bernie in the polls. I'm not even shytting on Bernie's camp for going on the attack, I've said multiple times that fighting for your candidate can be a good thing. My problem is when the attacks aren't grounded in reality and give way to paranoid thinking. Being petty is a pathetic look for a campaign looking to make large scale, transformative changes to our society.

I don't give a shyt what some rando on the coli posts, it has no impact on the actual race, I'm saying it's indicative of the broader community of support around Bernie doing dumbass shyt, and that's a disservice to the candidate and the campaign. Same way the community of Hillary stans in '16 were doing dumbass, petty shyt that turned off progressives. Your supporters acting badly was a legitimate critique back then and it's a legitimate critique now.
If you are pointing out every instance she is attacked what's that make her? The victim of said attacks, right?
And like I said previously, the vast majority of voters are not paying attention to who is shytting on who and when. Who cares? It isn't a legitimate critique because it doesn't move the needle.
 

storyteller

Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
16,939
Reputation
5,332
Daps
64,515
Reppin
NYC
yeah, can we stop this "both camps need to stop attacking each other" thing when it's pretty clearly one camp that's going after the other? Bernie's camp has been subtweeting the shyt out of Warren ever since she started ascending. The same has not been true the other way around. I don't even think it's a bad thing for a camp to fight for their candidate or highlight perceived differences, I just want the record to show it's Bernie's team that's taken the aggressive stance here.

Is that second tweet even about Warren? It looks a lot more applicable to Biden considering Warren refused corporate money (plus that Ragnarok Lobster cat purely looks to turn people against Bernie).

The first one is quoting this article which I wouldn't categorize as an attack. Here's the piece
Last time he ran for president, Bernie Sanders found himself odd man out in a race against Hillary Clinton, whose establishment bona fides and years of White House experience propelled her, in the end, to the nomination. But this cycle's primary map is unfolding along more nuanced lines, with two very progressive candidates, among 21 others, on offer. And it is becoming one of the key questions in the race: What is the difference between Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)?

In a sense, Sanders's speech Wednesday in defense of democratic socialism seemed to answer that question at a moment when it feels most urgent. Warren has been gaining in polls lately, sealing her spot as a top-tier candidate in the crowded field and even running ahead of Sanders in a pair of new national polls. Though her campaign stumbled through a rocky start, she has steadily earned a reputation as a dogged performer and a candidate with a plan - or with several plans, routinely offering up detailed policy proposals for solving problems from student debt to unaffordable child care. She also supports Medicare-for-all and has forsworn big campaign donors.

With all of those policy positions, there's little for a progressive stalwart to object to in Warren. But there's still a distinction to be drawn between her approach and Sanders's, and much of it comes down to the matter of regulation vs. revolution.

For Warren, the solution to our economic ills already exists in well-regulated capitalism. "I believe in markets," she said in a recent podcast interview. "I believe in the benefits that come from markets, that two people coming together, or two companies, or a company and a person coming together to exchange goods and services, yay." Warren believes today's socioeconomic ills are the result of high concentrations of power and wealth that can be resolved with certain regulatory tools and interventions. If corporate chief executives and financiers behave badly, she says, we should jail them - no special rules for the rich. If companies grow so large that they exert undue control over our markets and our lives, the government should break them up. If companies ignore consumers and employees to benefit shareholders, eliminate their incentives with regulatory curbs.

But for Sanders, those solutions come up short. For a number of reasons - alienation and disengagement among the electorate, and the extraordinary power of big business and finance over government - he doesn't believe that even the cleverest, most uniformly applied regulations will solve what he views as a political and economic crisis. Instead, he aims to transfer power over several key segments of life to the people - by creating a set of universal economic rights that not only entitle citizens to particular benefits (such as medical care, education and child care) but also give those citizens a say in how those sectors are governed: in short, democratic socialism. And that means building a movement, not just a presidential campaign.

When I spoke to Sanders earlier this week, I asked him why he's making democratic socialism a mainstay of his campaign when the term seems to scare away so many of his like-minded progressives. "A lot of people in this country have given up on the political process because they hear a lot of politicians saying good things," Sanders told me, "but somehow or another that change never happens. You know, in my sleep I could write a speech which says got to do this, got to do that - but how do you really do that? You need a political revolution where millions of people are prepared to stand up to the power structure of America."

For Sanders, the programs he's advancing - Medicare-for-all, free public college tuition, universal child care and pre-K - aren't just meant to help struggling Americans; they're designed to bring millions of disaffected citizens back to politics and mobilize them to protect what Sanders calls their "economic rights."

Sanders continued: "The powers of the corporate elite are such that we cannot . . . bring about the real profound changes I want to see - unless there is the involvement of millions and millions of people in the political process." And that means building a distinct, mobilized political movement with its own identity and independent energy.

None of that will be easy, especially when Sanders is no longer in a two-person race and others are borrowing his policy ideas, if not his overall goals. But for those who see our political moment as a crisis greater in breadth and content than a few unenforced or misbegotten laws, Sanders's wide-ranging, historical approach may have greater appeal on its second try than its first.
 

dtownreppin214

l'immortale
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
56,156
Reputation
10,697
Daps
193,317
Reppin
Shags & Leathers
what do you mean by surrogates. like people that are employed by her campaign?

i haven't seen any from her campaign but they don't have to because there are people from the thirdway world, wall street world, UAE lobbyist that are boosting her and slighting bernie every day
Surrogates - people hired by the campaign or media members/activists who have endorsed her in good faith. I told you the Jennifer Rubins don't count; we already know what they're up to. Post a few examples for us...
 

King Kreole

natural blondie like goku
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
16,149
Reputation
4,543
Daps
44,159
If you are pointing out every instance she is attacked what's that make her? The victim of said attacks, right?
And like I said previously, the vast majority of voters are not paying attention to who is shytting on who and when. Who cares? It isn't a legitimate critique because it doesn't move the needle.
There's a difference between being the target of attacks and being a victim. Bernie gets attacked constantly by centrists and right-wing shytheads, but he's not a victim. The degree to which the inside-baseball, online world of politics has an impact on the actual voting population is questionable, but I tend to air on your side of the debate and think the impact is smaller than pundits/twitter inflate it to be. The way in which I do think it is important and legitimate is looking at how the candidate will staff and run their administration. If you fill your campaign staff and leadership with a bunch of fringe paranoiacs with petty grudges, and a significant amount of your political support base is composed of the antagonistic and chaotic, it portends badly for how your administration will unfold. I mean, one needs to look no further than the current administration. We called it out when Hillary's team was doing it in 2016, it's hypocritical to now say it's an illegitimate issue.
 

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
31,025
Reputation
5,000
Daps
69,904
There's a difference between being the target of attacks and being a victim. Bernie gets attacked constantly by centrists and right-wing shytheads, but he's not a victim. The degree to which the inside-baseball, online world of politics has an impact on the actual voting population is questionable, but I tend to air on your side of the debate and think the impact is smaller than pundits/twitter inflate it to be. The way in which I do think it is important and legitimate is looking at how the candidate will staff and run their administration. If you fill your campaign staff and leadership with a bunch of fringe paranoiacs with petty grudges, and a significant amount of your political support base is composed of the antagonistic and chaotic, it portends badly for how your administration will unfold. I mean, one needs to look no further than the current administration. We called it out when Hillary's team was doing it in 2016, it's hypocritical to now say it's an illegitimate issue.
This is true and I think hiring people like Bri was a mistake just because of 2016. However, I think you read too much into it because of that history. You basically act as if they’re not allowed to say anything that May in anyway prop up their candidate. You can find controversy if you’re looking for it. And quite frankly, the extent to which the Warren campaign has benefitted from the media framing her success as an indictment on Sanders dwarfs anything team Bernie has said towards Warren. If they are defensive it is because the entire mainstream media has tried to champion Warren as the progressive with ideas and Sanders as second-rate old news as a means of getting him out of the paint. It reached a point where Matt Taibbi dedicated an entire Rollingstone article to debunking it. So if you’re not actively fighting against that and keeping the progressive side together then no one will or should take any of your critiques serious because you have no problem when much louder voices do it to Warren’s benefit. Why are you so obsessed with pointing out stuff that no one cares about and that has no traction? I am aware of this entirely because of you guys. I'm serious. I am attending Warren debate watch parties in New York next week and this isn’t a thing.
 

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
31,498
Reputation
3,248
Daps
71,701
Reppin
New York
There's a difference between being the target of attacks and being a victim. Bernie gets attacked constantly by centrists and right-wing shytheads, but he's not a victim. The degree to which the inside-baseball, online world of politics has an impact on the actual voting population is questionable, but I tend to air on your side of the debate and think the impact is smaller than pundits/twitter inflate it to be. The way in which I do think it is important and legitimate is looking at how the candidate will staff and run their administration. If you fill your campaign staff and leadership with a bunch of fringe paranoiacs with petty grudges, and a significant amount of your political support base is composed of the antagonistic and chaotic, it portends badly for how your administration will unfold. I mean, one needs to look no further than the current administration. We called it out when Hillary's team was doing it in 2016, it's hypocritical to now say it's an illegitimate issue.
We? Wasn't me.
And I really don't think it is a 'significant amount of his political support' doing any of this either. A small minority at the most.
Also, it comes off hypocritical to say you don't mind the attacks but then characterize them in the worst possible way as fringe paranoia and petty grudges. I'm not paying close attention to what was said but I'm sure it was more substantial than that.
 

Berniewood Hogan

IT'S BERNIE SANDERS WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
17,983
Reputation
6,870
Daps
88,333
Reppin
nWg
Let's be real. Twitter chatty pattying isn't going to stop. We could go find a million examples of any candidate's supporters being shyt heads. It proves nothing except that Twitter is bad.

The issue is the party establishment and their tendrils throughout the media suddenly gushing over Warren, who is supposedly just as genuine a commie as Bernie.

"Wow! She has detailed plans for her proletarian revolt! So much better than mean old Bernie, who drinks the blood of Christian children."

Like we ain't supposed to see this obvious attempt to split the Left and tee up Biden.

:mjlol:


And for any genuine Warren supporters, picture the debates with Trump. Trump has proven he'll savage a woman onstage and Repub voters love it.

And she DID pretend to be an Indian.:mjpls:

And she was a Republican until she was almost 50 years old.:mjpls:

But most of all, Trump shows no fear of her while he and the other rich scum are terrified of the movement Bernie is leading, which has already succeeded in hauling the party left.

"But he just goes into his stump speech!":sadcam:

Yeah. Which is the same stump speech as every other serious candidate because Bernie MADE his issues the ones everybody must address.:blessed:
 

King Kreole

natural blondie like goku
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
16,149
Reputation
4,543
Daps
44,159
This is true and I think hiring people like Bri was a mistake just because of 2016. However, I think you read too much into it because of that history. You basically act as if they’re not allowed to say anything that May in anyway prop up their candidate. You can find controversy if you’re looking for it. And quite frankly, the extent to which the Warren campaign has benefitted from the media framing her success as an indictment on Sanders dwarfs anything team Bernie has said towards Warren. If they are defensive it is because the entire mainstream media has tried to champion Warren as the progressive with ideas and Sanders as second-rate old news as a means of getting him out of the paint. It reached a point where Matt Taibbi dedicated an entire Rollingstone article to debunking it. So if you’re not actively fighting against that and keeping the progressive side together then no one will or should take any of your critiques serious because you have no problem when much louder voices do it to Warren’s benefit. Why are you so obsessed with pointing out stuff that no one cares about and that has no traction? I am aware of this entirely because of you guys. I'm serious. I am attending Warren debate watch parties in New York next week and this isn’t a thing.
I want Bernie's camp to be fighting as hard as they can to support their candidate and promoting his great ideas. The progressive movement is bigger than getting into squabbles with Neera Tanden or Nate Silver. It's an injustice to Bernie's campaign when that happens, because it promotes the idea that this is just a grievance vehicle for the DC operative progressives who have been slighted by the DC centrist machine. Faiz going after Neera and promoting "unskew the polls" nonsense, Sirota going after Silver, Nina chastising black women for not biting on Bernie's MLK line, it all makes me wonder where the priorities of Bernie's campaign leadership are, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Bernie has to be careful because as the candidate with the "fringe left" flank in this race, there are a lot of ways I can see this campaign slipping into some truly dumbass behavior. Focus on hammering home the transformative vision and putting out great policies, the progressive revolution will not take place on twitter. You say this is stuff no one cares about, well according to their strategy, his campaign leadership team doesn't seem to agree with you. If you truly believe that, you should be disappointed with them.
 

King Kreole

natural blondie like goku
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
16,149
Reputation
4,543
Daps
44,159
We? Wasn't me.
And I really don't think it is a 'significant amount of his political support' doing any of this either. A small minority at the most.
Also, it comes off hypocritical to say you don't mind the attacks but then characterize them in the worst possible way as fringe paranoia and petty grudges. I'm not paying close attention to what was said but I'm sure it was more substantial than that.
Look, if you don't think the actions of a campaign's staff, leadership, and base of support are a legitimate area of insight into a candidacy, then we'll have to agree to disagree. I've laid out why I think it is. And as I said before, I don't mind a campaign fighting for their candidate as long as the "attacks" are valid. My problem isn't that Bernie's team are going on the offensive, it's that their attacks are offensively stupid.

As for whether or not it's a significant amount of his political support engaging in this thinking, I think Bernie has captured the segment of the left that is outside of the mainstream. More than any other candidate, his base of support consists of the disgruntled and antagonistic. That has the potential to be both a good thing and a bad thing. When his campaign leadership feeds into the stupider, more paranoid sentiments of these people (the polls are skewed, Liz is a crypto-imperialist neoliberal shill, Bernie is beyond criticism, etc) it breeds an atmosphere that can degenerate pretty quickly. It would be tragic if the movement Bernie's building devolves into the Jacobin-left type behavior and thinking as the race goes on. There is so much more at stake here than petty grudges. The actions of his campaign make me wonder if winning or embarrassing centrists is their primary goal.
 

JoogJoint

In my own league.
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
14,265
Reputation
1,641
Daps
40,408
Reppin
Outer Space
Notice how this is just a circlejerk of you guys and Napoleon doing this. I could post a bunch of random Warren people online shytting on Sanders. But the clear dishonesty in here makes it pointless and none of us give enough of a fukk or have enough of a beef with either candidate to do it. You know what type of weirdly obsessive stan you have to be to base your critiques of the subtweets of nobodies? You guys learned nothing from 2016. And unsurprisingly people who were pro-Hillary in 2016 are biggest advocates of this shyt. We are all over all of you. fukk.

Exactly, it's going both ways. I've seen it on Facebook and other boards where both sides are attacking each other. I'm looking at it from an objective POV because I'm not on anybody's team 100% right now.
 
  • Dap
Reactions: No1
Top