"Sanders supporters have weaponized Facebook"

[Jimmy Higgins]

...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What is with this obsession with Facebook, Russian “bots” and the fuckwits that post silly memes ? “Weaponized” Facebook lol. Why are so many Americans obsessed with conspiracy theories? Mental.

What, the Bots that have been in action in Western European elections too? You do realize the whole point is to fracture the Western alliances. Russia benefits from a weaker Europe. That isn't a conspiracy theory, that's reality.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Russian "bots" can weaponize Facebook because apparently Americans can't think for themselves, or so some would have to believe. It's really not that. It's really a convenient excuse for the Dems to point fingers at without actually considering what they can change about themselves to attract more support.

Europe as well. Seriously, you clearly aren't paying attention to much of anything.

 

[marc]

I think the idea of the Bernie supporter who would refuse to vote for any other candidate is pretty much BS. Yea, there is a small percentage that might be stupid and either not vote or vote for someone other than the Democratic party's nominee, but I think you would find that with just about any primary candidate, and it certainly is unlikely to be a majority.

 

[TSwizzle]

What is with this obsession with Facebook, Russian “bots” and the fuckwits that post silly memes ? “Weaponized” Facebook lol. Why are so many Americans obsessed with conspiracy theories? Mental.

What, the Bots that have been in action in Western European elections too? You do realize the whole point is to fracture the Western alliances. Russia benefits from a weaker Europe. That isn't a conspiracy theory, that's reality.

This irrational obsession with Russian bots really needs to stop. File it away with the $50m inheritance from a relative in Nigeria like a normal person. It's conspiracy theory nonsense.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, you love saying it. We know that Wikileaks received stolen emails and dished them out at times that were beneficial to Trump. We know that the emails were stolen by the Russians. We also know that the Russians have bots across social media trolling both sides.

These are known quantities. Ultimately people should be responsible for their own actions and how they ingest garbage media, but that Russia is manipulating things is hardly conspiracy theory talk.

 

[TSwizzle]

Three years in and some people still can't get over Hillary losing. Hilarious.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Three years in and some people still can't get over Hillary losing. Hilarious.

Brexit, France, EU, etc... This is far removed than just being the US.

 

[rousseau]

Spend any amount of time on Twitter or Facebook, and the political interference is plainly obvious. And it's impactful too.

 

[ZiprHead]

What is with this obsession with Facebook, Russian “bots” and the fuckwits that post silly memes ? “Weaponized” Facebook lol. Why are so many Americans obsessed with conspiracy theories? Mental.

What, the Bots that have been in action in Western European elections too? You do realize the whole point is to fracture the Western alliances. Russia benefits from a weaker Europe. That isn't a conspiracy theory, that's reality.

This irrational obsession with Russian bots really needs to stop. File it away with the $50m inheritance from a relative in Nigeria like a normal person. It's conspiracy theory nonsense.

By saying it didn't happen in the face of the mountain of evidence it did makes you the one spreading conspiracy theories, comrade.

 

[rousseau]

Three years in and some people still can't get over Hillary losing. Hilarious.

Brexit, France, EU, etc... This is far removed than just being the US.

Canada too.

 

[laughing dog]

I think the idea of the Bernie supporter who would refuse to vote for any other candidate is pretty much BS. Yea, there is a small percentage that might be stupid and either not vote or vote for someone other than the Democratic party's nominee, but I think you would find that with just about any primary candidate, and it certainly is unlikely to be a majority.

View attachment 25851

That was then, this is now: https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-poll-warren-biden-2020-nominee-emerson-college-1483831:

Only a small majority of Bernie Sanders voters say they will definitely support the eventual Democratic nominee at the 2020 election if the independent Vermont senator does not win the race, according to a poll.

The National Emerson College Poll of 1,128 registered voters between January 21 and January 23 found that 53 percent of Sanders supporters said "yes" when asked if they would support the Democratic nominee even if it is not their candidate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

From above:

42% of Yang supporters say "No" to supporting Dem candidate.
16% of Sanders supporters say "No" to supporting Dem candidate

So Yang is getting some offshoot wing of the Democrat Party support. Warren, Buttigieg, Biden are a lot more friendly to the general election Candidate, while Sanders supporters are probably going to vote for the Democrat.

 

[PyramidHead]

Then you and your ilk can stay home until the general election, and let those of us who fucking care about policy and see material differences that are more important than just Trump versus non-Trump pick the nominee. If it doesn't matter to you who is President as long as it isn't Trump, then leave the selection of a candidate to those who think it actually matters.

Nice sentiment. Does it extend to the choice of President if Bernie is not the nominee? And if it does, are you willing to help educate the apparent majority of Bernie supporters who plan to act like fucking narcissistic babies and not vote blue?

Did you read what I said? I don't vote for colors or parties, I vote for policy agendas. If you do the same, and you happen to prefer a candidate with a policy agenda different than mine, then you should vote for that candidate. But I have no obligation to vote for him or her, because I don't signal how enlightened and above-the-fray I am by constantly calling for Dem unity.

If you're so worried about Bernie's supporters staying home if he isn't nominated, and those votes were enough to cost Clinton the election in 2016, hand-wringing and name-calling are far less effective coping strategies than the obvious one: put all your weight behind supporting Bernie and get those votes. Yes, it feels better to call them babies, yes, you will have to spend time with people you don't like, but surely you're mature enough to put such things aside when the alternative is a Trump victory, right? If you're so concerned about that outcome, and have no ability to change the minds of the Bernie voters who won't show up if he doesn't get nominated, then why don't you do what's best for the country instead of gnashing your teeth about things you can't change? Surely you agree that now is not the time for a purity test, when Trump is running for POTUS!

 

[laughing dog]

Then you and your ilk can stay home until the general election, and let those of us who fucking care about policy and see material differences that are more important than just Trump versus non-Trump pick the nominee. If it doesn't matter to you who is President as long as it isn't Trump, then leave the selection of a candidate to those who think it actually matters.

Nice sentiment. Does it extend to the choice of President if Bernie is not the nominee? And if it does, are you willing to help educate the apparent majority of Bernie supporters who plan to act like fucking narcissistic babies and not vote blue?

Did you read what I said? I don't vote for colors or parties, I vote for policy agendas. If you do the same, and you happen to prefer a candidate with a policy agenda different than mine, then you should vote for that candidate. But I have no obligation to vote for him or her, because I don't signal how enlightened and above-the-fray I am by constantly calling for Dem unity.

If you're so worried about Bernie's supporters staying home if he isn't nominated, and those votes were enough to cost Clinton the election in 2016, hand-wringing and name-calling are far less effective coping strategies than the obvious one: put all your weight behind supporting Bernie and get those votes. Yes, it feels better to call them babies, yes, you will have to spend time with people you don't like, but surely you're mature enough to put such things aside when the alternative is a Trump victory, right? If you're so concerned about that outcome, and have no ability to change the minds of the Bernie voters who won't show up if he doesn't get nominated, then why don't you do what's best for the country instead of gnashing your teeth about things you can't change? Surely you agree that now is not the time for a purity test, when Trump is running for POTUS!

I asked a simple question that required a simple answer, and I get more Bernie Bro babble.

I will rephrase my question. In the unlikely event that the Democrats do something incredibly stupid and nominate someone for President other than Savior Sanders, are you willing to educate the rightly disappointed Sanders supporters into voting blue?

 

[ZiprHead]

42% of Yang supporters say "No" to supporting Dem candidate.

Half of nothing is still nothing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Then you and your ilk can stay home until the general election, and let those of us who fucking care about policy and see material differences that are more important than just Trump versus non-Trump pick the nominee. If it doesn't matter to you who is President as long as it isn't Trump, then leave the selection of a candidate to those who think it actually matters.

Nice sentiment. Does it extend to the choice of President if Bernie is not the nominee? And if it does, are you willing to help educate the apparent majority of Bernie supporters who plan to act like fucking narcissistic babies and not vote blue?

Did you read what I said? I don't vote for colors or parties, I vote for policy agendas. If you do the same, and you happen to prefer a candidate with a policy agenda different than mine, then you should vote for that candidate. But I have no obligation to vote for him or her, because I don't signal how enlightened and above-the-fray I am by constantly calling for Dem unity.

If you're so worried about Bernie's supporters staying home if he isn't nominated, and those votes were enough to cost Clinton the election in 2016, hand-wringing and name-calling are far less effective coping strategies than the obvious one: put all your weight behind supporting Bernie and get those votes. Yes, it feels better to call them babies, yes, you will have to spend time with people you don't like, but surely you're mature enough to put such things aside when the alternative is a Trump victory, right? If you're so concerned about that outcome, and have no ability to change the minds of the Bernie voters who won't show up if he doesn't get nominated, then why don't you do what's best for the country instead of gnashing your teeth about things you can't change? Surely you agree that now is not the time for a purity test, when Trump is running for POTUS!

So is laughing dog supposed to be expected to vote for Sanders in the General Election if Sanders doesn't win the primary?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

42% of Yang supporters say "No" to supporting Dem candidate.

Half of nothing is still nothing.

Yang got about 5% in the Emerson poll... or 22 people out of about 450 polled. We are talking Ron Paul kingmaker stuff here.

 

[ZiprHead]

Then you and your ilk can stay home until the general election, and let those of us who fucking care about policy and see material differences that are more important than just Trump versus non-Trump pick the nominee. If it doesn't matter to you who is President as long as it isn't Trump, then leave the selection of a candidate to those who think it actually matters.

Nice sentiment. Does it extend to the choice of President if Bernie is not the nominee? And if it does, are you willing to help educate the apparent majority of Bernie supporters who plan to act like fucking narcissistic babies and not vote blue?

Did you read what I said? I don't vote for colors or parties, I vote for policy agendas. If you do the same, and you happen to prefer a candidate with a policy agenda different than mine, then you should vote for that candidate. But I have no obligation to vote for him or her, because I don't signal how enlightened and above-the-fray I am by constantly calling for Dem unity.

If you're so worried about Bernie's supporters staying home if he isn't nominated, and those votes were enough to cost Clinton the election in 2016, hand-wringing and name-calling are far less effective coping strategies than the obvious one: put all your weight behind supporting Bernie and get those votes. Yes, it feels better to call them babies, yes, you will have to spend time with people you don't like, but surely you're mature enough to put such things aside when the alternative is a Trump victory, right? If you're so concerned about that outcome, and have no ability to change the minds of the Bernie voters who won't show up if he doesn't get nominated, then why don't you do what's best for the country instead of gnashing your teeth about things you can't change? Surely you agree that now is not the time for a purity test, when Trump is running for POTUS!

I think you're confusing issues here. I think most people agree with voting for the candidate you find most appealing in the primaries.

The question is, what do you do in the general election if your preferred candidate loses in the primary.

 

[PyramidHead]

Did you read what I said? I don't vote for colors or parties, I vote for policy agendas. If you do the same, and you happen to prefer a candidate with a policy agenda different than mine, then you should vote for that candidate. But I have no obligation to vote for him or her, because I don't signal how enlightened and above-the-fray I am by constantly calling for Dem unity.

If you're so worried about Bernie's supporters staying home if he isn't nominated, and those votes were enough to cost Clinton the election in 2016, hand-wringing and name-calling are far less effective coping strategies than the obvious one: put all your weight behind supporting Bernie and get those votes. Yes, it feels better to call them babies, yes, you will have to spend time with people you don't like, but surely you're mature enough to put such things aside when the alternative is a Trump victory, right? If you're so concerned about that outcome, and have no ability to change the minds of the Bernie voters who won't show up if he doesn't get nominated, then why don't you do what's best for the country instead of gnashing your teeth about things you can't change? Surely you agree that now is not the time for a purity test, when Trump is running for POTUS!

I asked a simple question that required a simple answer, and I get more Bernie Bro babble.

I will rephrase my question. In the unlikely event that the Democrats do something incredibly stupid and nominate someone for President other than Savior Sanders, are you willing to educate the rightly disappointed Sanders supporters into voting blue?

No, because I don't vote blue no matter who. I'm one of those narcissistic babies you have no choice but to accommodate, lest you reveal yourself as caring more about purity than beating Trump. Was that somehow not obvious from what I said?