Official Bernie Sanders HQ: Not Me, Us!

FAH1223

FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Hall of Fame
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
74,111
Reputation
8,621
Daps
223,013
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
StatUS said:


Hilarious segment with Hillary supporter blaming Women at the women's March and Bernie for Hillary not winning. Also compares Sanders being a Jew to Hillary being a "black candidate. "
Click to expand...

"I haven't seen it empirically, but nothing will convince me otherwise"

Richard is delusional. He's on FOX News and on Peter Lavelle's Crosstalk on RT a lot.
 
storyteller

storyteller

Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
16,686
Reputation
5,252
Daps
63,707
Reppin
NYC
I spent the last week on vacation and got to avoid the majority of the nonsense besides keeping up with MR and Ben Dixon. Few thoughts:

1. The Joe Rogan stuff was ridiculous, but I did begin to think that the mass reaction was more about defensiveness than anything. You have an entire group of politicians that have told us in order to appeal to more conservative leaning people, we need to compromise our values. Rogan, as a conservative leaning personality with one of the biggest audiences in the country, is proof of the contrary. Sticking to your values and speaking to the principles of them can win over a certain segment of independent types. How big a group? Not sure, but Rogan is a big example and you don't cut your nose off to spite your face by denying the opportunity to have his listeners hear more of the progressive message. Maybe we lose the vast majority of them along the way, but if we reach just a few then that's the difference in the numbers that decided 2016 isn't it?

2. The Bernie attacks in general have been terrible. That "would Bernie stop his car to help you" line is easily the worst to me though. The continuous hunting for an angle is promising though. I would check twitter and see a new line of attack every time which meant that none were sticking as hoped and many backfired. Wherever big oppo research attacks are...it certainly seems like moderates are just grasping at straws.

3. Bernie's momentum and conversations about the strategy of the campaign hold close to my heart because I've been preaching this to everyone posting polls for a while now. It's a theory and unproven but we're seeing positive signs for the strategy deployed by this campaign. That's despite a lot of people trashing the strategic decisions of this campaign based on old-school thinking (ironically, I just attended a presentation about M4A from an ethics to pragmatism approach where a member multiple working groups from the Clinton Administration broke down how new ways of thinking make M4A more viable in this generation compared to prior but that's an extreme simplification of a long section that he spoke on to be fair).

4. A bonus for me if Bernie wins Iowa by a nice margin? TMBS live show in Brooklyn that Friday after. I hope it ends up being a mini celebration.

5. Has anyone signed up for Event Sweepers training with the campaign? I have no idea what I just volunteered for tbh, but I figure a training never hurts.
 
PoorAndDangerous

PoorAndDangerous

Superstar
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
8,956
Reputation
1,041
Daps
33,157
storyteller said:
I spent the last week on vacation and got to avoid the majority of the nonsense besides keeping up with MR and Ben Dixon. Few thoughts:

1. The Joe Rogan stuff was ridiculous, but I did begin to think that the mass reaction was more about defensiveness than anything. You have an entire group of politicians that have told us in order to appeal to more conservative leaning people, we need to compromise our values. Rogan, as a conservative leaning personality with one of the biggest audiences in the country, is proof of the contrary. Sticking to your values and speaking to the principles of them can win over a certain segment of independent types. How big a group? Not sure, but Rogan is a big example and you don't cut your nose off to spite your face by denying the opportunity to have his listeners hear more of the progressive message. Maybe we lose the vast majority of them along the way, but if we reach just a few then that's the difference in the numbers that decided 2016 isn't it?
Click to expand...
Not trying to get onto the Rogan topic again but I don’t know why people think he’s a conservative lol he’s extremely liberal socially and policy wise and has never voted for a republican. He just isn’t afraid to have conservatives on his podcast
 
storyteller

storyteller

Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
16,686
Reputation
5,252
Daps
63,707
Reppin
NYC
PoorAndDangerous said:
Not trying to get onto the Rogan topic again but I don’t know why people think he’s a conservative lol he’s extremely liberal socially and policy wise and has never voted for a republican. He just isn’t afraid to have conservatives on his podcast
Click to expand...

Frequent JRE listener here. He has some problematic views and runs conservative on a few important issues where he has been wrong at a minimum and outright detrimental at others. I still listen to his stuff when I like the guests, but I think it's ridiculous when heads try to sweep that under that under the rug. It is what it is. I respect that he listens, knows how to keep a convo interesting, and can have his mind changed which is better than most.
 
StatUS

StatUS

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
28,386
Reputation
1,874
Daps
62,337
Reppin
Everywhere
storyteller said:
I spent the last week on vacation and got to avoid the majority of the nonsense besides keeping up with MR and Ben Dixon. Few thoughts:

1. The Joe Rogan stuff was ridiculous, but I did begin to think that the mass reaction was more about defensiveness than anything. You have an entire group of politicians that have told us in order to appeal to more conservative leaning people, we need to compromise our values. Rogan, as a conservative leaning personality with one of the biggest audiences in the country, is proof of the contrary. Sticking to your values and speaking to the principles of them can win over a certain segment of independent types. How big a group? Not sure, but Rogan is a big example and you don't cut your nose off to spite your face by denying the opportunity to have his listeners hear more of the progressive message. Maybe we lose the vast majority of them along the way, but if we reach just a few then that's the difference in the numbers that decided 2016 isn't it?

2. The Bernie attacks in general have been terrible. That "would Bernie stop his car to help you" line is easily the worst to me though. The continuous hunting for an angle is promising though. I would check twitter and see a new line of attack every time which meant that none were sticking as hoped and many backfired. Wherever big oppo research attacks are...it certainly seems like moderates are just grasping at straws.

3. Bernie's momentum and conversations about the strategy of the campaign hold close to my heart because I've been preaching this to everyone posting polls for a while now. It's a theory and unproven but we're seeing positive signs for the strategy deployed by this campaign. That's despite a lot of people trashing the strategic decisions of this campaign based on old-school thinking (ironically, I just attended a presentation about M4A from an ethics to pragmatism approach where a member multiple working groups from the Clinton Administration broke down how new ways of thinking make M4A more viable in this generation compared to prior but that's an extreme simplification of a long section that he spoke on to be fair).

4. A bonus for me if Bernie wins Iowa by a nice margin? TMBS live show in Brooklyn that Friday after. I hope it ends up being a mini celebration.

5. Has anyone signed up for Event Sweepers training with the campaign? I have no idea what I just volunteered for tbh, but I figure a training never hurts.
Click to expand...
Ben Dixon has had the best and most realistic coverage of this election so far. He hasn't been an evangelist for Bernie like some others but he knows it's not time to play around anymore.
 
R

rapbeats

Superstar
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
9,363
Reputation
1,890
Daps
12,850
Reppin
NULL
tru_m.a.c said:
Please read this article when you get the chance. I've posted about the caucus process before. It's amazing that not much attention is paid to the process: Iowans Vote First, If They Can Vote at All

“It’s a joke, frankly,” Emmanuel Smith, a 29-year-old disability-rights advocate from Des Moines, told me. “So many populations are potentially disenfranchised, and I don’t find that folksy or charming.”

Unlike primaries, where voters can cast secret ballots at any point during the day and generally have the option to vote early or absentee, the caucus occurs at a set time and place—usually in the evening—and requires participants to be physically present for the vote. And the process can be confusing for voters, with foggy rules, technicalities, and coin tosses. Overall voter turnout in the 2016 Iowa caucus was about 16 percent, compared with 52 percent in the New Hampshire primary election.

Caucuses pose major concerns for voters with disabilities in particular. “The in-person caucuses are still not accessible,” says Jane Hudson, the executive director of Disability Rights Iowa. Often, there aren’t microphones around, so the evening’s proceedings can be difficult for voters to hear. And caucus sites—which can include churches, schools, and union halls—are often packed, with limited seating and not enough handicapped parking.

The satellite caucuses wouldn’t meet many voters’ needs. It seems logistically impossible for every individual who can’t attend in their precinct to set up their own satellite version. Plus, the caucus process is notoriously complicated, and even with months of training, volunteers still run into problems every cycle. A host of new satellite caucuses could compound those issues.

Here's the kicker:
But perhaps a larger reason behind the party’s hesitation is that, if they do implement an absentee-ballot process, the Iowa caucus would look a lot more like a primary, which could upend the state’s first-in-the-nation status. (New Hampshire, by state law, must hold the first primary election, just as Iowa law requires that it must have the first caucus.) “That’s the danger Iowa is facing,” says Steffen Schmidt, a political-science professor at Iowa State University. “If we do [that], do we then have the position of first caucus taken away from us?”

The state’s importance in the country’s political system is a point of pride for many Iowans, bringing copious amounts of money and attention to a small state. Still, critics of the caucus ask: Is the attention worth the disenfranchisement of so many Iowans? “People in the [Iowa Democratic Party] like having Joe Biden in their kitchen, they like the political influence it gives them,” Smith said. “So they’re willing to trade my ability to freely participate in the democratic system in order to preserve that.”
Click to expand...
and reason #4081... why are these things in Iowa as first to begin with when iowa in no way represents most or all of America.

They should be in California. Why? i've stated this before. There may be no other state thats large enough to represent all walks of life in america in one state.

Farmville- Cali got that
Conservative(even though we vote blue)- We got that
Super Haves - We got that
Super Have nots - We got that
Factory workers/Blue collar - We got that
Office Workers/White collar - We got that
a large middle class - we got that.
Foreigners from all over - We got that and a lot from our southern border(if we want to talk border politics).
Tech - We got that
TV Land/hollywood - We got that.


I could go on and on and on. there is no LOGICAL reason for iowa to be first like it is. non at all. It should be cali for the reasons i stated above. not because its where i'm from but because it makes the most sense and it reflects more of america as a whole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top