U.S. Politics: By Gawd King, That's Joe Biden's Music!!!!

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

What the actual fucking fuck? Do I need to force choke someone?

He says I did it--a person whose son also had cancer. I don't know how he twisted something I said into that, but I'd never do that to someone I hated, let alone some I sometimes tolerate.

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

He says I did it--a person whose son also had cancer. I don't know how he twisted something I said into that, but I'd never do that to someone I hated, let alone some I sometimes tolerate.

I don't say that at all. That's entirely bullshit. 

ETA: to be really, really fucking clear this happened in 2016 on twitter. It did not happen here. 

[Maithanet]

I do not interpret Kal's statement to be at all implying that it was Simon who accused him of inventing his son's cancer, merely that it was a Sanders supporter who did that at some point in the past. 

[maarsen]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

 watch forward to see Bernie run again in 4-8 years, with the same arguments about Bernie bros versus electability.

if sanders weren't in the race, they'd invent him.  dems need a far left alternative out there so they can allege see, that guy's a crazy communist.  we're the reasonable market-fundamentalist-yet-allegedly-pragmatic cynically-identity-politicking warmongering-wall-street-imperialists whom you've always loved.

 

hard to stop people bringing shoes in though.

when i was in school, WJC came to campus campaigning, and they did not let a guy wearing a kilt into the event because "you might flash the president."

Were they afraid Bill would lose in the comparison? 

[Larry of the Lawn]

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yep, as what happened in Nevada. Or like what has happened to several people I know online. 

I've not seen this at all - the people who are largely claiming black people are voting against their interests has been Sanders supporters. But if that happened, well, they suck too. 

And I disagree, at least to the level that Sanders supporters seem to have. Someone made the joke that Biden's supporters can't actually get online due to age, so that at least isn't a problem. 

It is when you make a comment about Sanders online and hundreds of people harass you constantly when you're used to, say, getting a notification a day. It is things like doxxing the Nevada union people. It is the expectation that if you speak your opinion online you will almost certainly be attacked - not for ideas, but accusations of hating poor people or being unable to empathize with others. Or like what happened to me, where I got accused of making up my son's cancer. This goes far beyond typing emojis. 

To the bolded: that's super fucked up and that is harassment, and there is zero excuse for that from anyone.  

To the Nevada stuff - as far as I understand it no one was doxxed, it was literally Google search results being shared?  And this was after the Culinary 226 leadership didn't make an endorsement, despite Sanders having the rank and file union support?  Would happily admit I'm wrong here if someone was actually doxxed 

Obviously, doxxing or asking people to harass someone is one thing, but sorry getting 5k replies on Twitter isn't.  But the realm that most of the "Bernie Bro" shit falls into is people being assholes online.  Not doxxing 

Also, maybe a nitpick but that group that was trolling Biden with coffins, largely attributed Sanders supporters and featured in a Bloomberg funded attack ad, hadn't officially endorsed anyone, although their leaders had publicly endorsed Warren.  And Sanders was called out on it. 

At some point it gets to be like LBJ constantly implying his opponent was commiting bestiality, not because it was true, but because he wanted him to have to keep on denying it.

And then on top of that we have the idea that we need to vote based not in ideas, but in which candidate has the most supporters we'd can call civil.  

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, larrytheimp said:

And then on top of that we have the idea that we need to vote based not in ideas, but in which candidate has the most supporters we'd can call civil.  

Again, this isn't about civility vs being mean. This is about harassment, and the bolded that you called out is precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about. Saying you're an asshole because you're supporting Biden is not the same thing as, for example, telling someone who has been through childhood abuse that their dad was right to abuse them. 

Or things like this:

 

I mean seriously, we can find these examples all over the place. This isn't people just using bad language, and characterizing like that is fucking puerile. This is repeated harassment, usually of women, who say something critical about Sanders. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

19 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I do not interpret Kal's statement to be at all implying that it was Simon who accused him of inventing his son's cancer, merely that it was a Sanders supporter who did that at some point in the past. 

He said it directly to me a few threads back. He may have recanted on that, but he never said anything to me.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

He said it directly to me a few threads back. He may have recanted on that, but he never said anything to me.

No, I did not, and that's bullshit. If you took it that way I am sorry, but I never once said that to you.

[Myshkin]

I think the thing that’s being elided here as concerns abusive behavior by the supporters of various presidential candidates, is that more than any other candidate Bernie Sanders and his team have been very weak in addressing the issue, at some points even seeming to excuse or even condone the behavior. When Sanders supporters chanted cunt at Barbara Boxer in Nevada in 2016, the response from Bernie was basically “they shouldn’t have called her a cunt, but also she shouldn’t have acted like a cunt”. This type of shit is a wink and a nod to these assholes. When Biden or Warren supporters get abusive we don’t generally blame the candidates, because those candidates don’t have a clear and recent history of condoning or being soft on such behavior. They have earned the benefit of the doubt. Bernie Sanders has not.

Also, as I said in my last post, the Sanders campaign tends to stoke the grievances of its base with allegations of election rigging and media conspiracies, which is why his most ardent supporters feel justified in acting so abusively. This is what Donald Trump does as well; whipping his base up into a frenzy, and then stepping back and saying he’s not responsible for their actions. We don’t give Trump a pass on that shit, and we shouldn’t give Bernie one either.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Regarding security, doesn’t each campaign have a SS detail by this point? Biden should have one anyways being a former VP.

No. This campaign the federal government is not providing Secret Service security for the candidates, as has been done for decades of election cycles -- bedbug got Secret Service security detail the day he announced he was running, but he sent the word down that not for his opponents now that he is ONE AND ONLY.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

JFC give it a rest already.

In other news, Jordan is probably donezo.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, I did not, and that's bullshit. If you took it that way I am sorry, but I never once said that to you.

I will say an late and aggressive apology is better than nothing. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

They do not have them automatically. It has to be requested, and up to now there had been no request, but I'm not sure if that's changed as of today. There was talk about it after the rush by protestors on Biden's stage.

Former VPs get protection for six months after leaving office, a time that can be extended, but they don't get perpetual protection, no.

Interesting. Perhaps I just assumed the VP got a similar post-presidency treatment that POTUS gets.

Anyways, I’m still surprised he didn’t have better security. I met him once during the 2012 campaign in the VIP area, and he had four or five SS guys with him (they were yolked to hell). I would have assumed he would have the same set up now, but I guess it was on Super Tuesday and they weren’t expecting him to finish the night as the front runner.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, Zorral said:

No. This campaign the federal government is not providing Secret Service security for the candidates, as has been done for decades of election cycles -- bedbug got Secret Service security detail the day he announced he was running, but he sent the word down that not for his opponents now that he is ONE AND ONLY.

I had not heard that, but with today’s cycle it’s easy to miss a lot. Reminds me of living in Argentina. Nobody in Buenos Aires voted for Kirchner, so after she won she basically pulled all of the federal police out of the city, and in turn the city had to hire its own police force.

[Zorral]

 

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I had not heard that, but with today’s cycle it’s easy to miss a lot. Reminds me of living in Argentina. Nobody in Buenos Aires voted for Kirchner, so after she won she basically pulled all of the federal police out of the city, and in turn the city had to hire its own police force.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/03/05/secret-service-prepares-protect-presidential-candidates/2120032001/

However, this is very confusing because reports say that it was after Jill Biden body blocked, then Secret Service decided maybe there needed to be some. From my takeaway its seemed the Secret Service was saying there had been too many candidates (who hadn't requested their services) and were waiting for the shake-out.  But bedbug had it from day one he declared his candidacy and the rethug field was crowded then too.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/04/politics/secret-service-protection-2020-candidates/index.html

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Again, this isn't about civility vs being mean. This is about harassment, and the bolded that you called out is precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about. Saying you're an asshole because you're supporting Biden is not the same thing as, for example, telling someone who has been through childhood abuse that their dad was right to abuse them. 

Or things like this:

 

I mean seriously, we can find these examples all over the place. This isn't people just using bad language, and characterizing like that is fucking puerile. This is repeated harassment, usually of women, who say something critical about Sanders. 

I think Sady Doyle regularly says toxic and harmful things on Twitter to other women sharing their experiences, but if she's been harassed or threatened that is awful and no one deserves that.  In the tweets you quoted it's just people talking about her - she's not being addressed directly, it's people talking about a public figure.  And yes they are taking joy in 'dogpiling' on her bad tweets, but again, she's a public figure and saying mean things about her isn't a crime.  

 

Look, I'm not denying that Sanders supporters have bee assholes online or bullied people.  So have Warren supporters and Buttigieg supporters and Klobuchar supporters and Biden supporters.  Doxxing and threatening is not ok.  But people being dicks to Sady Doyle isn't really convincing me this is a uniquely Sanders problem.

Eta: looked back at the Sady Doyle stuff I thought was toxic and digging deeper she wasn't out of line and was just responding to what other people had said.  The vitriol she's getting in that thread and others wasn't warranted and she wasn't being toxic or harrassing.

[Kalbear]

25 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I will say an late and aggressive apology is better than nothing. 

I'm assuming you're talking about this post. If you read the context, it's a lot clearer what I was talking about, which is your dismissing the ACA (and other things Obama did) as doing nothing. Which you did. 

So to be really, really clear - what I accused you of is saying that the ACA was worthless and caused more harm, and that my son's ability to get treatment for his cancer was essentially worthless. 

[DMC]

7 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

It is vitriolic. It is condescending, and it doesn't matter if someone says to me, "When we say Bernie Bros we don't mean you," as if that is supposed to make me feel better. I find it incredibly dismissive, to be frank, that a small minority of his supporters are focused on as the problem while his large, diverse coalition who just wants a better shot are completely dismissed and ignored in this process. 

This is so rife with irony, it's like a textbook example.  You are right, it's often unfair to group one's thoughts into some category you then employ to denigrate.  Like "Bernie Bros."  Or, "centrists."

 

[Jace, Extat]

48 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

In other news, Jordan is probably donezo.

What makes you say that?

[SpaceChampion]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

It is equivalent in guilt by association. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Sanders is responsible for Chapo.  

Then you're being irrational, because "guilt by association" is literally a logical fallacy, "association fallacy".