Is "brandishing" more appropriate? Does that somehow help?
Bernie's people threw an unwarranted tantrum. That's the bottom line.
Cheers,
Scott.
Bernie's people threw an unwarranted tantrum. That's the bottom line.
Cheers,
Scott.
Lift != Throw. HTH.
|
|
Apparently from some angles, it looked like the chair was thrown.
Is "brandishing" more appropriate? Does that somehow help? Bernie's people threw an unwarranted tantrum. That's the bottom line. Cheers, Scott. |
|
unwarranted? after the meeting was supposed to start ast 10 am and they voted at 9:30?
always look out for number one and don't step in number two |
|
Meh.
You weren't there. I wasn't there. There are lots and lots of posts from people who claim to have been there with differing opinions. LetsTalkNevada All this tantrum nonsense over around 2 net delegates is ridiculous - especially when Hillary won the actual vote at the caucus in February. Cheers, Scott. |
|
You'd think Clinton would recognize that she didn't need to cheat. But its a lifestyle for her.
|
|
Re: You'd think Clinton would recognize that she didn't need to cheat. But its a lifestyle for her.
Politifact: There’s little disagreement that the convention was chaotic. PolitiFact Nevada was at the convention and saw it firsthand. But does the Sanders campaign’s complaints have merit? FWIW. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Unwarranted?
Do you actually work for Clinton's campaign? Correct the Record? The DNC? They *changed* the rules without debate. They were supposed to debate the rule changes before the vote. One of the "temporary" rules was on --- wait for it --- the legitimacy of voice votes and whether they should continue to use them. Jesus, man, it would have been apparent to Helen Keller that the first "voice vote" rejected making the rules permanent, but permanent rules favored Clinton, so the chair lied and said the yea's have it. I've lost a TON of respect for Barbara Boxer and not just for her supporting Hillary over Bernie. She "felt her life was in danger" my arse. Surrounded by her own security detail, behind a line of cops, behind a barricade some people shouted at her. Oh yeah, she *really was* afraid, wasn't she? Or is it more likely that if Clinton and her surrogates (Boxer among them) play the tired old "BernieBros are violent" nonsense that the establishment media are all too happy to echo, then maybe, just maybe they can force Bernie to stop talking about the issues and drop out of the race because when Bernie talks about the issues, it's casts the Annointed One in a dim light. And to add epic hypocrisy to Clinton's latest smear campaign against Bernie, WHERE IS HILLARY'S APOLOGY FOR WENDELL PIERCE? That *actually did* happen, unlike the nonsense being spewed Clinton, Wasserman-Schultz, CNN and rest of the Clinton apologists. |
|
You're wrong, Mike. Stop seeing conspiracies in this.
|
|
You're beginning to sound (insert gentler synonym for "deranged")
I've lost a TON of respect for Barbara Boxer and not just for her supporting Hillary over Bernie.And you'll lose respect for Saint Bernard if he "betrays" you by endorsing the nominee (assuming he doesn't go with the "bern it down" faction of his constituency. What it comes down to is that no one's positions are to be respected if they deviate from your own. Barbara Boxer's account of her emotional state on thus-and-such an occasion is discounted by you, who was not there and who is not Barbara Boxer. This is solipsism of a high order. By the way, the events of the past few days have acquainted me with a piece of youthful argot with which I was not previously familiar, although I'd heard of the practice: "doxxing."Rolling Stone interviewed a few of these charmers, including the guy who emitted the charming messages pictured below: And then there's this one: Did you intend your message as a threat?The tone of your own comments recently makes me think you might be feeling increasingly comfortable with this lot (it was particularly amusing that the one I quoted just now was indignant that her number had been "divulged" to a Rolling Stone reporter. These kids). Even my younger brother, who I think as of now is still planning to vote for the Sage of Burlington over the Dread Butch Hillary next month, has expressed some reservations about the company he'd be keeping. cordially, |
|
Is he working for Correct the Record? Or do you *trust* David Brock?
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) backer Nomiki Konst lambasted Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign on Monday for trying to “shame” Sanders supporters into voting for the former secretary of state through a pro-Clinton super PAC that is buying $1 million in “internet trolls” to launch attacks against them. http://freebeacon.com/politics/sanders-backer-nomiki-konst-clinton-supporting-correct-record-spent-1-million-internet-trolls/ But, he MUST be a Bernie Supporter because "It's on the Internet!" right? And if you don't think David Brock is capable of these sorts of "dirty tricks" I would encourage you to check his background a little. Just a little. That's all it would take. I have an advantage over most. I was exposed to how extraordinarily effective the US Propaganda machine was as a tot. No real American wants to believe its government and the machinery behind it could possibly mislead us. As far as strange bedfellows goes, well, I can only say that having a few unhinged folks in my tribe (and I'm certain they exist and are dwarfed in number by the people in my tribe who want a more wealth balanced, just and less war loving nation) is immeasurably preferable to me than being in the tribe in which Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon and Henry Kissinger are all members in Good Standing. |
|
Re: Boxer. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
|