Bernie's 2020 Campaign: August 2016 - At least through April, apparently

STANV said:
 I did not see that post. You are overreacting. I meant no offense. Please tell me where your long discussion of Warren is and I will try to respond.

 I am "overreacting" when you attack me like that and say those horrible things? I "meant" no offence?  So, you are telling me how I need to respond to personal attack?   F* you.  Starting to sound sexist, too.  It was on the 2020 thread.  Find it yourself.  

LOST said:
 So if you agree 100% with a Party's policies and programs but their method of picking their candidate is to have the Party Central Committee make the pick you would not vote for that candidate?
If the DNC voted to cancel the caucuses, primaries and National Convention and declared Bernie Sanders the Party's Presidential Candidate, nan would say "Hooray". How would you react?

 LOST, to answer your question, let's put it in its realistic setting.

Since the 2015-16 insurgency of the Democratic Party's sizable left liberal flank (triggered by Sanders), the right liberal-dominated Democratic Party establishment and its left liberal bloc have been engaged in an internecine struggle.

Essentially, this intra-party struggle is over political power within the Democratic Party - on the one hand, how much the conservative controlling bloc's institutional advantages will allow it to select a right liberal presidential candidate and knock down left liberal competitors; more broadly, how much the left liberal bloc's economic populism will penetrate the Democratic Party.

(Each bloc argues its politics will beat Republicans, but that's not the q. we're considering here.)

Now, in 2016, the left liberal bloc candidate got almost half the vote (43%?).  So electorally, the right liberal bloc dominates, but not by a lot.  As I said to another poster, if the U.S. had a parliamentary system, there'd undoubtedly be a 'right liberal' social democrat party (the dominant bloc here) and a 'left liberal' social democrat party; and the two sides would negotiate to power share in binding platform and political appointments.

With that in mind, LOST, the upshot that answers your question: in this situation of a divided citizenry, if either bloc used its establishment power to unilaterally install an undemocratically vetted presidential candidate, it would blow apart party unity, cause the screwed bloc - right liberal or left liberal - to abandon ship, and sink the controlling bloc's chances of winning.

And last, LOST: as nan has argued in a number of posts elsewhere - the present, coordinated attempt by the Democratic Party's right liberal bloc to use its institutional power to install a right liberal presidential candidate is likely to backfire in this election cycle.  And it doesn't matter if it's not an outright coup as you propose - an outright installation - exploiting their institutional power in lesser ways can blow apart unity and sink the Democrats anyway.

LOST said:
 So if you agree 100% with a Party's policies and programs but their method of picking their candidate is to have the Party Central Committee make the pick you would not vote for that candidate?
If the DNC voted to cancel the caucuses, primaries and National Convention and declared Bernie Sanders the Party's Presidential Candidate, nan would say "Hooray". How would you react?

 And here's a short version.  Suppose support for Sanders edged out support for a right liberal candidate, and the DP declared they were scrapping all democratic procedures as a result and designating Sanders the nominee.

How would you "react" when it came time to vote?  See the prob' if the controlling right liberal bloc uses its institutional advantages to get its candidate in, regardless of the will of the citizens it wants to vote for it?

nan said:

STANV said:
 I did not see that post. You are overreacting. I meant no offense. Please tell me where your long discussion of Warren is and I will try to respond.

 I am "overreacting" when you attack me like that and say those horrible things? I "meant" no offence?  So, you are telling me how I need to respond to personal attack?   F* you.  Starting to sound sexist, too.  It was on the 2020 thread.  Find it yourself.  

 Wow, could you be any more sensitive, or potty-mouthed? 

STANV said:

nan said:
Don't see why a community discussion about politics needs to be shut down.  I get why it is suggested though.  

 You are correct.
The reason it is suggested is because you completely dominate the discussion and you don't really discuss. You just keep campaigning on behalf of your favorite candidate. But, I admire your passion and will continue to attempt to engage you in actual "give and take" discussion.
In that vein, why isn't Sen. Warren preferable to Sen. Sanders? Her policies are very close to his, she is younger and she is a woman.To me those are all pluses.

A very vicious awful, HORRIBLE post from STANV, followed by this very valid response:

nan said:

STANV said:  You are correct. The reason it is suggested is because you completely dominate the discussion and you don't really discuss. You just keep campaigning on behalf of your favorite candidate. But, I admire your passion and will continue to attempt to engage you in actual "give and take" discussion. In that vein, why isn't Sen. Warren preferable to Sen. Sanders? Her policies are very close to his, she is younger and she is a woman.To me those are all pluses.

 That is a really crappy thing for you to  say, especially since I was (I think) the only one to respond last time to your asking for remarks on Warren (and you singled me out in a mean way on that). I took time and wrote a LONG post about her which you never responded to.  And now you are saying that I don't participate in discussions.  I thought you were a good poster and I was enjoying your contributions, so my feelings are a bit hurt by this and I think it is off base and unfair. In that LONG post, I included a discussion about why I like her, but have some issues, one of which is a dealbreaker.  We could have had a nice discussion about it, but instead, you choose to ignore that and join up with the trolls in this thread.   Also, did you notice that you are posting this in the BERNIE THREAD!  So, why are you bashing me when I am posting about Bernie in the BERNIE THREAD????   When I do my posting, I go though the other posts and try to respond to everyone and to address everything in their post--so if you go through this thread or any other you will see that I  do participate in "give and take" discussion.  I just don't agree with much of what I read here and I think that is the real problem you are having.  

STANV then gets even uglier by suggesting that the post above was an overreaction!  WTF?   Sexist a bit?   And then get this..he piles on by saying that he "meant no offense".   Right!  We believe that!  He then asks Nan to point him to where the other post is as if he gives a ****.  Obviously STANV is just looking for an argument!

nan said:

STANV said:  I did not see that post. You are overreacting. I meant no offense. Please tell me where your long discussion of Warren is and I will try to respond.

 I am "overreacting" when you attack me like that and say those horrible things? I "meant" no offence?  So, you are telling me how I need to respond to personal attack?   F* you.  Starting to sound sexist, too.  It was on the 2020 thread.  Find it yourself.  

And here Nan comes back with a very justified **** YOU for all of the ugliness that STANV was throwing her way!

Obviously.

Here you go, STANV.

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/2020-candidates-c?page=next&limit=2460#discussion-replies-3452526

Nan really needs to take a break. Get out and take in some vitamin D, it does wonders for negative thoughts. I'm not trying to be mean or anything. Just a bit concerned.

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/bernie-sanders-lost-my-support

 "In the past four years, Sanders’s words and actions have shown me time and time again that he is more concerned with boosting his image as a white savior figure of social justice than actually uplifting the voices of the communities he so direly pretends to represent. In fact, a New York Times article recently described how his campaign — the one I volunteered to support — initially focused on predominantly white states and failed to gain momentum with black voters in southern states, while black staff members told the Times they faced a plethora of microaggressions from white campaign leaders."

sbenois said:
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/bernie-sanders-lost-my-support

 "the one I volunteered to support"

What proposed policies of Sanders led you to "volunteer" for him vs. Clinton?

Dennis_Seelbach said:
 Wow, could you be any more sensitive, or potty-mouthed? 

 arf!

nan said:

STANV said:
 I did not see that post. You are overreacting. I meant no offense. Please tell me where your long discussion of Warren is and I will try to respond.

 I am "overreacting" when you attack me like that and say those horrible things? I "meant" no offence?  So, you are telling me how I need to respond to personal attack?   F* you.  Starting to sound sexist, too.  It was on the 2020 thread.  Find it yourself.  

 Another one to save for later.  *Happy Easter*

DaveSchmidt said:
Here you go, STANV.
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/2020-candidates-c?page=next&limit=2460#discussion-replies-3452526

 Thanks, Dave.  I took a look and I was the only one who responded in writing.  Paul posted a picture of support--so the two people who get piled on the most responded when they were asked.  Did not see anything from Dennis or Dave or  Klinker or Smedley or jamie or Jaytee or Red_Baretta or sbenois or even drummerboy, who says he is going to vote for her.  None of the people who regularly pile on me responded when you asked and here is your original request where you specifically asked others and kind of gave me a little jab.  

STANV

 Apr 16, 2019 at 1:54pm

Here is a profile of the candidate I am currently supporting. She has put out the most comprehensive and detailed policy positions. 

https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/elections/presidential-profiles-2020/elizabeth-warren-campaign-election/

I am interested in how others (and not just Nan) view her candidacy.

And so I wrote that long post, and now I am the one being told I don't participate in conversations.  Perhaps you can understand why I was so angry at your comments. 

nan said:

Did not see anything from Dennis or Dave or DaveS, or Klinker or Smedley or jamie or Jaytee or Red_Baretta or sbenois or even drummerboy, who says he is going to vote for her.  None of the people who regularly pile on me responded when you asked and here is your original request where you specifically asked others and kind of gave me a little jab.  

Hi, nan. I’m DaveS. We’ve met before here on MOL.

DaveSchmidt said:
Hi, nan. I’m DaveS. We’ve met before here on MOL.

 OK.  Hi.  Hopefully you got the point.  And to be fair, now that I think of it, I don't think of you as being a pile-on guy.  You are pretty hard on me, but it's been fair.  So, I will take your name off.  

nan said:

 Thanks, Dave.  I took a look and I was the only one who responded in writing.  Paul posted a picture of support--so the two people who get piled on the most responded when they were asked.  Did not see anything from Dennis or Dave or DaveS, or Klinker or Smedley or jamie or Jaytee or Red_Baretta or sbenois or even drummerboy, who says he is going to vote for her.  None of the people who regularly pile on me responded when you asked and here is your original request where you specifically asked others and kind of gave me a little jab.  

 And just why am I required to make a choice at this time. I have some attraction to a number of candidates, both declared and not, and am waiting to see how the campaign runs before making up my mind. I am not even anti-Bernie, as odd as that may seem. I AM anti-nan.

Dennis_Seelbach said:
 And just why am I required to make a choice at this time. I have some attraction to a number of candidates, both declared and not, and am waiting to see how the campaign runs before making up my mind. I am not even anti-Bernie, as odd as that may seem. I AM anti-nan.

Did you even read what you posted?  STANV asked you to comment on Elizabeth Warren and you did not, probably distracted by troll postings.  Thank you for playing. Next.  

As soon as I figure out how to, I'm banning nan for  a week.  God knows we can all use a break from her personal attacks.

Or we could discipline ourselves instead (by engaging with nan, or anybody, when we want to and skipping it when we don’t). Just a thought.

In the past the bar was much lower for a ban.   Telling someone 'FU' when the person on the other end of that attack was in an honest debate with her is too close a step to becoming like nj.com forums; and it's not even 2020 yet, so plenty of time to engage later.

As the offended party I should get the choice of weapons.

DaveSchmidt said:
Here you go, STANV.
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/2020-candidates-c?page=next&limit=2460#discussion-replies-3452526

 Thanks. I now remember reading that. 

sbenois said:
And here Nan comes back with a very justified **** YOU for all of the ugliness that STANV was throwing her way!


Obviously.


 

 I'm glad someone understands me.

Thread title slightly modified to reflect where the discussion went.

What's wrong with a little sabotage?

nohero said:
Thread title slightly modified to reflect where the discussion went.

 Thread title modified to reflect conservative Democrat control of the website.

A lot like how conservative Democrats use their institutional power to stop the progressive insurgency in their electorate.

Nothing like overriding popular sentiment to foster the "unity" you say is needed to beat Republicans, eh?

gvico said:

nohero said:
Thread title slightly modified to reflect where the discussion went.

 Thread title modified to reflect conservative Democrat control of the website.
A lot like how conservative Democrats use their institutional power to stop the progressive insurgency in their electorate.
Nothing like overriding popular sentiment to foster the "unity" you say is needed to beat Republicans, eh?

 The thread title is controlled by the Original Poster. I'm not aware of the website owners ever changing a thread title.

In this case, I don't think the OP is "conservative." He's just got a very, very, very serious case of Bernie Derangement Syndrome.

paulsurovell said:

gvico said:

nohero said:
Thread title slightly modified to reflect where the discussion went.

 Thread title modified to reflect conservative Democrat control of the website.
A lot like how conservative Democrats use their institutional power to stop the progressive insurgency in their electorate.
Nothing like overriding popular sentiment to foster the "unity" you say is needed to beat Republicans, eh?

 The thread title is controlled by the Original Poster. I'm not aware of the website owners ever changing a thread title.
In this case, I don't think the OP is "conservative." He's just got a very, very, very serious case of Bernie Derangement Syndrome.

 Actually, I think it's more of a nanpaul justified derangement syndrome.

gvico said:
 Thread title modified to reflect conservative Democrat control of the website.
A lot like how conservative Democrats use their institutional power to stop the progressive insurgency in their electorate.
Nothing like overriding popular sentiment to foster the "unity" you say is needed to beat Republicans, eh?

 You are also over riding popular sentiment that cussing people is a banable offense. 

paulsurovell said:

In this case, I don't think the OP is "conservative." He's just got a very, very, very serious case of Bernie Derangement Syndrome.

I question a claim of "sabotage" when some politicians choose a preference, and I'm the one who's deranged?

Besides, these alleged "saboteurs" are amateurs.  If you really want to sabotage a campaign, have your delegates march out in protest after you're not nominated (even though the outcome wasn't in doubt, so the protest couldn't have been spontaneous).  Have them gather in the press tent for maximum exposure.  Start your own campaign-in-waiting organization within a month, and make sure its website celebrates that protest by featuring a photo of it on the page describing its purpose.  Sure seems like ways to keep control of your assets.

Of course, if there's any disagreement about the facts I've just described, someone can tell me what's incorrect.

gvico said:
 Thread title modified to reflect conservative Democrat control of the website.

Couple of thoughts:

1.  It reflects that the "sabotage" claim became the topic of discussion;  I am expressing my view of that claim.

2.  What the actions are which are "sabotage" AND why that word is appropriate to describe them, has yet to be explaiined.  If someone disagrees with my view of that claim, then that explanation can be set out.  That would be more useful than name calling.  And with regard to that -

3.  "Democrat" (as in the phrase "conservative Democrat control) is not the appropriate adjectival form used by actual Democrats.  It's usually found in statements by Republicans and anyone else who thinks it's a way to say "I'm not a Democrat".

Some call what the opposition to Bernie is doing "sabotage" . And somewhere Donald Segretti is laughing.