|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
And you are saying that this anger was in defense of Clinton, rather than disappointed in Warren?
|
Elizabeth Warren is one of the most overhyped politicians in the country. She just isn't that impressive.
|
On December 22 2016 06:06 Mohdoo wrote:And you are saying that this anger was in defense of Clinton, rather than disappointed in Warren?
I'm saying that if getting a far left candidate gets you backlash, then the only recourse is to grab a moderate candidate to grab from voters who won't backlash.
There's a reason I called her appointment of Kaine the worst mistake her campaign made in this election cycle. But when even Elizabeth Warren gets the kind of backlash from Bernie supporters what choice did she have? Fidel Castro? Zombie Lenin? How more left than Warren could Hillary have gone?
|
On December 22 2016 06:19 xDaunt wrote:
Elizabeth Warren is one of the most overhyped politicians in the country. She just isn't that impressive.
She's an outspoken leftist with a history of going toe-to-toe with Hillary. She was a great choice to serve as a middle ground between Hillary and Bernie in the Oval Office specifically after Bernie continually declined any interest in being just a VP. Except that the BernieBros were not looking for what was best for the country, they were looking for what was best for their "I'm more left than anyone" nerd cred.
|
Magpie, you're like the oBlade of liberals... Sometimes I see what you're arguing and I'm remembered that there are no limits.
You're saying that Clinton was cornered into picking Kaine because leftists wouldn't let her pick Warren. Think about that for a second.
|
Wait, who am I the oBlade of?
|
Only one of these is remotely credible (the washington times ones) and it flat out says that Warren would have been the second best pick after Sanders according to polling. Also, all the rest are talking about the backlash to Warren endorsing Clinton, not about a backlash to Clinton considering Warren. It's a statement about how heavily disliked Clinton is, not how much progressives would have hated her as a VP choice.
|
warren was rather more impressive before she became a senator. since then she hasnt done much more than yell at wall street people.
|
On December 22 2016 06:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 06:06 Mohdoo wrote:And you are saying that this anger was in defense of Clinton, rather than disappointed in Warren? I'm saying that if getting a far left candidate gets you backlash, then the only recourse is to grab a moderate candidate to grab from voters who won't backlash. There's a reason I called her appointment of Kaine the worst mistake her campaign made in this election cycle. But when even Elizabeth Warren gets the kind of backlash from Bernie supporters what choice did she have? Fidel Castro? Zombie Lenin? How more left than Warren could Hillary have gone?
I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the backlash. Bernie supporters would have cheered for, and often did drooled over a Sanders/Warren ticket. But Bernie supporters were even disappointed in Bernie himself when he finally endorsed Clinton. The issue is Clinton.
|
On December 22 2016 08:04 ticklishmusic wrote:
warren was rather more impressive before she became a senator. since then she hasnt done much more than yell at wall street people.
has she really had a chance to do anything else? I mean republicans have controlled it for a while. Also didn't she just join some foreign relations committee?
|
On December 22 2016 07:04 Nevuk wrote:Only one of these is remotely credible (the washington times ones) and it flat out says that Warren would have been the second best pick after Sanders according to polling. Also, all the rest are talking about the backlash to Warren endorsing Clinton, not about a backlash to Clinton considering Warren. It's a statement about how heavily disliked Clinton is, not how much progressives would have hated her as a VP choice.
You do recall that there was never an official announcement. The backlash came when it was rumored that Hillary and Warren would have some private chats which was immediately followed by attacks on Warren. Quickly after the backlash Kain got selected.
Here's a few more if you didn't like the first set of sources. One of them showing images of the attacks on Warren. Including relevant quotes if you dislike reading the articles being shared.
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/09/481449658/elizabeth-warren-to-back-hillary-clinton
"But there was immediate backlash online to Warren's anticipated nomination. Many supporters took to her Facebook page with profane comments, calling her a "sell out" for not endorsing Sanders."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/elizabeth-warrens-facebook-fans-clinton-endorsement-noooooooooooo
"After news broke Thursday afternoon that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the progressive hero from Massachusetts, would endorse Hillary Clinton on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show on Thursday night, Bernie Sanders' fans took to Facebook to voice their frustration."
|
On December 22 2016 08:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 07:04 Nevuk wrote:Only one of these is remotely credible (the washington times ones) and it flat out says that Warren would have been the second best pick after Sanders according to polling. Also, all the rest are talking about the backlash to Warren endorsing Clinton, not about a backlash to Clinton considering Warren. It's a statement about how heavily disliked Clinton is, not how much progressives would have hated her as a VP choice. You do recall that there was never an official announcement. The backlash came when it was rumored that Hillary and Warren would have some private chats which was immediately followed by attacks on Warren. Quickly after the backlash Kain got selected. Here's a few more if you didn't like the first set of sources. One of them showing images of the attacks on Warren. Including relevant quotes if you dislike reading the articles being shared. http://www.npr.org/2016/06/09/481449658/elizabeth-warren-to-back-hillary-clinton"But there was immediate backlash online to Warren's anticipated nomination. Many supporters took to her Facebook page with profane comments, calling her a "sell out" for not endorsing Sanders." http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/elizabeth-warrens-facebook-fans-clinton-endorsement-noooooooooooo"After news broke Thursday afternoon that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the progressive hero from Massachusetts, would endorse Hillary Clinton on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show on Thursday night, Bernie Sanders' fans took to Facebook to voice their frustration."
This is all people being disappointed in Warren for (possibly) making a deal with the devil. The issue is the devil, not the person making the deal. They all thought more highly of her than for that. For example, they'd have preferred her as president rather than Clinton.
|
On December 22 2016 08:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 06:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 06:06 Mohdoo wrote:And you are saying that this anger was in defense of Clinton, rather than disappointed in Warren? I'm saying that if getting a far left candidate gets you backlash, then the only recourse is to grab a moderate candidate to grab from voters who won't backlash. There's a reason I called her appointment of Kaine the worst mistake her campaign made in this election cycle. But when even Elizabeth Warren gets the kind of backlash from Bernie supporters what choice did she have? Fidel Castro? Zombie Lenin? How more left than Warren could Hillary have gone? I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the backlash. Bernie supporters would have cheered for, and often did drooled over a Sanders/Warren ticket. But Bernie supporters were even disappointed in Bernie himself when he finally endorsed Clinton. The issue is Clinton.
I was not analyzing the backlash, I was simply informing people of what happened. Hillary began the process of getting a liberal VP, but instead of being united by the prospect the BernieBros attacked the liberal candidate instead. What choice did Hillary have if running the far left candidate would cause hate from the Bernie side of the aisle--so instead she picked the "safe pick" of Kaine.
I don't really give a fuck what reasons BernieBros felt was justified for attacking a person they said they liked just because she was aiming to find a middle ground between Hillary and Bernie. Uncaring purists that don't want to listen to reason or arguments is the reason Bernie did not have the support system needed to win a primary. Its the reason why he jumps in and out of loyalty to the democrats to simply fit his needs instead of trying to fit the needs of the people as a whole. His angle is not to install liberal policies, his goal is to simply yell every other year so that people get to praise him for being a rebel, never really wanting to do the work or commit the effort needed to make any lasting change to anything.
And even all that is irrelevant to the fact that the only reason Kaine became the biggest mistake of the Hillary campaign is because BernieBros attacked Warren. I don't care what the reason they had for attacking her.
|
On December 22 2016 07:04 Nevuk wrote:Only one of these is remotely credible (the washington times ones) and it flat out says that Warren would have been the second best pick after Sanders according to polling. Also, all the rest are talking about the backlash to Warren endorsing Clinton, not about a backlash to Clinton considering Warren. It's a statement about how heavily disliked Clinton is, not how much progressives would have hated her as a VP choice.
Its not my fault that BernieBros would rather there be no liberal progress than some liberal progress.
|
A majority of Democratic and independent voters made clear that they don’t foresee Hillary Clinton in their 2020 vision of the presidential election, according to a USA Today/Suffolk University poll released Wednesday.
Sixty-two percent of Democrats and independents surveyed said the twice-failed presidential candidate shouldn’t mount another campaign in 2020, and only 23 percent would be excited by her campaign if she did.
The two people they would most like to see are two of the most prominent Democratic-aligned politicians unlikely to seek the White House in 2020: Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Vice President Joe Biden. Forty-four percent and 43 percent of those voters, respectively, said they would be excited to see Sanders and Biden run.
Sanders challenged Clinton for the Democratic nomination, but it’s unlikely that the 75-year-old independent senator would mount another White House bid. However, he has said he plans to run for reelection to his Senate seat in 2018.
Biden, 74, repeatedly teased a possible 2020 White House run earlier this month but ultimately conceded he has “no plans” to run but will “stay deeply, deeply involved” in Democratic politics.
A majority of Democrats and independents would like to see a new name, though. While 35 percent would be excited about a Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren run and 10 percent for former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, 66 percent would like to see “someone entirely new” become the Democratic Party’s standard-bearer as it looks to rebound from a surprising Election Day loss that saw Donald Trump prevail over Clinton and Republicans maintain control over the House and Senate.
President Barack Obama, who has said he’s interested in “developing a whole new generation of talent” once he leaves office, enjoys a 54 percent approval rating. But 59 percent of likely voters believe Trump “will significantly dismantle” the president’s legacy. Likely voters are largely split over whether that’s good or bad — 45 percent said it’s good, and 43 percent said it’s bad.
Trump is 30 days out from being sworn in as the nation’s 45th president, but likely voters still aren’t sold on his transition into the White House. While 41 percent approve of the billionaire’s transition into the nation’s highest office, 40 percent disapprove.
Source
|
On December 22 2016 08:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 08:16 Mohdoo wrote:On December 22 2016 06:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 06:06 Mohdoo wrote:And you are saying that this anger was in defense of Clinton, rather than disappointed in Warren? I'm saying that if getting a far left candidate gets you backlash, then the only recourse is to grab a moderate candidate to grab from voters who won't backlash. There's a reason I called her appointment of Kaine the worst mistake her campaign made in this election cycle. But when even Elizabeth Warren gets the kind of backlash from Bernie supporters what choice did she have? Fidel Castro? Zombie Lenin? How more left than Warren could Hillary have gone? I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the backlash. Bernie supporters would have cheered for, and often did drooled over a Sanders/Warren ticket. But Bernie supporters were even disappointed in Bernie himself when he finally endorsed Clinton. The issue is Clinton. I was not analyzing the backlash, I was simply informing people of what happened. Hillary began the process of getting a liberal VP, but instead of being united by the prospect the BernieBros attacked the liberal candidate instead. What choice did Hillary have if running the far left candidate would cause hate from the Bernie side of the aisle--so instead she picked the "safe pick" of Kaine. I don't really give a fuck what reasons BernieBros felt was justified for attacking a person they said they liked just because she was aiming to find a middle ground between Hillary and Bernie. Uncaring purists that don't want to listen to reason or arguments is the reason Bernie did not have the support system needed to win a primary. Its the reason why he jumps in and out of loyalty to the democrats to simply fit his needs instead of trying to fit the needs of the people as a whole. His angle is not to install liberal policies, his goal is to simply yell every other year so that people get to praise him for being a rebel, never really wanting to do the work or commit the effort needed to make any lasting change to anything. And even all that is irrelevant to the fact that the only reason Kaine became the biggest mistake of the Hillary campaign is because BernieBros attacked Warren. I don't care what the reason they had for attacking her.
It's an interesting world view that arrives at the conclusion that Bernie is the selfish one and the Democratic party is the one really fighting for the people.
|
On December 22 2016 08:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 08:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 08:16 Mohdoo wrote:On December 22 2016 06:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 06:06 Mohdoo wrote:And you are saying that this anger was in defense of Clinton, rather than disappointed in Warren? I'm saying that if getting a far left candidate gets you backlash, then the only recourse is to grab a moderate candidate to grab from voters who won't backlash. There's a reason I called her appointment of Kaine the worst mistake her campaign made in this election cycle. But when even Elizabeth Warren gets the kind of backlash from Bernie supporters what choice did she have? Fidel Castro? Zombie Lenin? How more left than Warren could Hillary have gone? I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the backlash. Bernie supporters would have cheered for, and often did drooled over a Sanders/Warren ticket. But Bernie supporters were even disappointed in Bernie himself when he finally endorsed Clinton. The issue is Clinton. I was not analyzing the backlash, I was simply informing people of what happened. Hillary began the process of getting a liberal VP, but instead of being united by the prospect the BernieBros attacked the liberal candidate instead. What choice did Hillary have if running the far left candidate would cause hate from the Bernie side of the aisle--so instead she picked the "safe pick" of Kaine. I don't really give a fuck what reasons BernieBros felt was justified for attacking a person they said they liked just because she was aiming to find a middle ground between Hillary and Bernie. Uncaring purists that don't want to listen to reason or arguments is the reason Bernie did not have the support system needed to win a primary. Its the reason why he jumps in and out of loyalty to the democrats to simply fit his needs instead of trying to fit the needs of the people as a whole. His angle is not to install liberal policies, his goal is to simply yell every other year so that people get to praise him for being a rebel, never really wanting to do the work or commit the effort needed to make any lasting change to anything. And even all that is irrelevant to the fact that the only reason Kaine became the biggest mistake of the Hillary campaign is because BernieBros attacked Warren. I don't care what the reason they had for attacking her. It's an interesting world view that arrives at the conclusion that Bernie is the selfish one and the Democratic party is the one really fighting for the people.
I'm not the one who believes being divided is a better way to push liberal legislation than being united. That's Bernie.
|
On December 22 2016 08:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 06:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 06:06 Mohdoo wrote:And you are saying that this anger was in defense of Clinton, rather than disappointed in Warren? I'm saying that if getting a far left candidate gets you backlash, then the only recourse is to grab a moderate candidate to grab from voters who won't backlash. There's a reason I called her appointment of Kaine the worst mistake her campaign made in this election cycle. But when even Elizabeth Warren gets the kind of backlash from Bernie supporters what choice did she have? Fidel Castro? Zombie Lenin? How more left than Warren could Hillary have gone? I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the backlash. Bernie supporters would have cheered for, and often did drooled over a Sanders/Warren ticket. But Bernie supporters were even disappointed in Bernie himself when he finally endorsed Clinton. The issue is Clinton.
It sounds like the real problem isn't clinton, bernie, or warren, the problem is bernie supporters (a subset of them).
They don't even support bernie himself when he says to go with clinton.
The supporters (or at least the problem ones in this context), are crazy uncompromising revolutionary ideologues who cannot be usefully satisfied, because meeting their demands cannot be done without sacrificing too many others, as they're not willing to compromise, and they turn on their own all too readily for not being pure enough.
|
On December 22 2016 08:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 08:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 08:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 08:16 Mohdoo wrote:On December 22 2016 06:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 06:06 Mohdoo wrote:And you are saying that this anger was in defense of Clinton, rather than disappointed in Warren? I'm saying that if getting a far left candidate gets you backlash, then the only recourse is to grab a moderate candidate to grab from voters who won't backlash. There's a reason I called her appointment of Kaine the worst mistake her campaign made in this election cycle. But when even Elizabeth Warren gets the kind of backlash from Bernie supporters what choice did she have? Fidel Castro? Zombie Lenin? How more left than Warren could Hillary have gone? I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the backlash. Bernie supporters would have cheered for, and often did drooled over a Sanders/Warren ticket. But Bernie supporters were even disappointed in Bernie himself when he finally endorsed Clinton. The issue is Clinton. I was not analyzing the backlash, I was simply informing people of what happened. Hillary began the process of getting a liberal VP, but instead of being united by the prospect the BernieBros attacked the liberal candidate instead. What choice did Hillary have if running the far left candidate would cause hate from the Bernie side of the aisle--so instead she picked the "safe pick" of Kaine. I don't really give a fuck what reasons BernieBros felt was justified for attacking a person they said they liked just because she was aiming to find a middle ground between Hillary and Bernie. Uncaring purists that don't want to listen to reason or arguments is the reason Bernie did not have the support system needed to win a primary. Its the reason why he jumps in and out of loyalty to the democrats to simply fit his needs instead of trying to fit the needs of the people as a whole. His angle is not to install liberal policies, his goal is to simply yell every other year so that people get to praise him for being a rebel, never really wanting to do the work or commit the effort needed to make any lasting change to anything. And even all that is irrelevant to the fact that the only reason Kaine became the biggest mistake of the Hillary campaign is because BernieBros attacked Warren. I don't care what the reason they had for attacking her. It's an interesting world view that arrives at the conclusion that Bernie is the selfish one and the Democratic party is the one really fighting for the people. I'm not the one who believes being divided is a better way to push liberal legislation than being united. That's Bernie.
No one is against unity, just matters what we're uniting around. Pushing fracking, cozying up to Wall st, seeking Kissinger's endorsement, deporting desperate children fleeing danger to "send their parents a message", lying, etc... weren't things many on the left wanted to unite around/ignore.
Democratic party would have been united as a mutha with Bernie on the top of the ticket.
What it boils down to is Hillary, not BernieBros, no matter how much you twist things to try to fit that story.
They don't even support bernie himself when he says to go with clinton.
They/we were supporting the Bernie that told us not to (listen to him telling us to vote for her).
It was on her, and she failed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
