Bernie Sanders launches 2020 Presidential run

[Yukaphile]

Well, here's one such article.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/b ... ncna973136

Then you got an article like this...

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3 ... politician

Which seems to point me to the inescapable conclusion most people just don't know the real man, because his scandals, like Trump's, the very real skeletons in his closet, the baggage in his past that was as bad as some of Clinton's imagined ones, were barely given the same length that "emails, emails, emails, emails, emails, EMAILS, EMAILS!" dominated the media coverage.

https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-prima ... n-sanders/

Due to that, some people legitimately feel as if Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy comment" or Sanders' sexual articles, which I will link, somehow pale next to what the perp in question, so-called, has admitted to being "careless."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... -myth.html

https://snopes.com/uploads/2015/09/sanders-essay.jpg

Blaming women for getting cervical cancer because they don't orgasm enough...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ancer.html

This is all documented over his long history, and suggests to me he's a very misogynistic, possibly racist old man who hasn't kept up with the times - just like the GOP with their Southern Strategy, learned instead to speak with "dogwhistles" and coded language.

Here's another example.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/p ... exism.html

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well, here's one such article.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/b ... ncna973136

This is hardly damming. Every Democrat has to own their shit about policies they voted on in the past. It's circumstantial and subject to being dated.

https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-prima ... n-sanders/

Due to that, some people legitimately feel as if Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy comment" or Sanders' sexual articles, which I will link, somehow pale next to what the perp in question, so-called, has admitted to being "careless."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... -myth.html

This is ad nauseum and you're not even clarifying what it has to do with anything past general coverage of the primaries as far as the first article, and right-wing speculation of his proposals (I think?) as far as the second. Mannn you corney.

https://snopes.com/uploads/2015/09/sanders-essay.jpg

Apparently he's declared the story behind these, um, articles. They seem to be plays on gender stereotypes, and that's pretty much what he confirmed. Again, it's hardly damming. I mean yeah people might bring it up, but I doubt it's at odds with his generally left constituency.

Blaming women for getting cervical cancer because they don't orgasm enough...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ancer.html

Googling the essay for consideration, it seems that his history also includes talk of alternative medicine.

I guess it wouldn't be too much to ask of me to read this slightly slanted, not too clearly scanned microprint newspaper font with 1 1/2 inch columns. I'm highly skeptical in that regard to your claim though, and would feel stupid for reading that without confidence that your depiction of it doesn't turn out to be substantial. Trying to find more about it.

This is all documented over his long history, and suggests to me he's a very misogynistic, possibly racist old man who hasn't kept up with the times - just like the GOP with their Southern Strategy, learned instead to speak with "dogwhistles" and coded language.

If you wanna play this "how do we know that their outdated views of the past don't mean they're the worst imaginable people today," then go ahead. None of this stuff is strong evidence for dogwhistling.

Here's another example.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/p ... exism.html

This isn't even about him specifically.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

My response to this news can be summarized with "Oh, honey no. Please."

[Yukaphile]

This is hardly damming. Every Democrat has to own their shit about policies they voted on in the past. It's circumstantial and subject to being dated.

Well, I can find you more.

https://bluenationreview.com/bernies-nu ... a-latinos/

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/de ... an-apology

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... ck-market/

https://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/201 ... g-children

https://www.ibtimes.com/why-did-bernie- ... te-2294992

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/clint ... e-history/

https://www.latintimes.com/bernie-sande ... ote-357705

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... e-anymore/

This is ad nauseum and you're not even clarifying what it has to do with anything past general coverage of the primaries as far as the first article, and right-wing speculation of his proposals (I think?) as far as the second. Mannn you corney.

I'm pointing out how 500 days of email coverage, which was a non-scandal, compared to only a few days at best of Trump and Sanders' various scandals that were far worse, and never got as much screentime, were, well, infinitely more detestable, speaks volumes to their kind of retrograde character, and fed the illusion that she was worse than either of them were, and Sanders capitalized on said anger to fuel the hatred against her out of ego and wounded, and that a mere girl beat him.

Googling the essay for consideration, it seems that his history also includes talk of alternative medicine.

I guess it wouldn't be too much to ask of me to read this slightly slanted, not too clearly scanned microprint newspaper font with 1 1/2 inch columns. I'm highly skeptical in that regard to your claim though, and would feel stupid for reading that without confidence that your depiction of it doesn't turn out to be substantial. Trying to find more about it.

He claims it's satire, but I don't trust him, I've seen numerous examples posted throughout 2016 of where he said one thing, and then said something completely different which contradicted it later - usually within the span of a few weeks. Sadly I can't post those because I deleted them all after November 8th, but... Sanders' flip-flops. He's never consistent. And in that, I think he's a liar and a hypocrite. And very regressive on women's rights. He fathered a child just to avoid the draft, for God's sake!

https://liberalasfuck.wordpress.com/201 ... baggage-2/

He strikes me as the kind of spoiled brat who lived off welfare and expected the women in his life to serve him, which is why they left him.

If you wanna play this "how do we know that their outdated views of the past don't mean they're the worst imaginable people today," then go ahead. None of this stuff is strong evidence for dogwhistling.

Here's some example of his "dogwhistles" and coded language.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issu ... icle/44351

He's a career politician and knows how the game is played and has always aligned more closely with the GOP than Democrats, so of course he knows how to use language to shape perception.

This isn't even about him specifically.

No, but it was well-known among Clinton die-hards in 2016 he was a notorious micro-manager and thus knew about the data breach, and so there's no way he didn't know about this. It shows he'd be a poor leader and very similar to Trump, in that he alienates world leaders (like when he pissed off the Pope), and would be abhorrent when it comes to siding with minorities and women. He always keeps harping on about the "white working class" we need to get back, and that's the rhetoric Trump was spouting.

http://time.com/4155185/bernie-sanders- ... nton-data/

https://medium.com/@biancadelarosa/the- ... e26f79f732

They slap him on the wrist over a justified act of cheating, he sues them, in order to, as I'd said earlier, turn any negative attack on himself into a whirlwind of controversy aimed back at his opponents, which in this case is the DNC. He hates Democrats and is not a Democrat. He shouldn't be running for a party ticket he despises.

[Yukaphile]

Here's another.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/il ... jfk-speech

He said JFK, the man who saved the world from a nuclear war, made him sick, because he was "mean" to the man plotting said nuclear war.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

This is ad nauseum and you're not even clarifying what it has to do with anything past general coverage of the primaries as far as the first article, and right-wing speculation of his proposals (I think?) as far as the second. Mannn you corney.

I'm pointing out how 500 days of email coverage, which was a non-scandal, compared to only a few days at best of Trump and Sanders' various scandals that were far worse, and never got as much screentime, were, well, infinitely more detestable, speaks volumes to their kind of retrograde character, and fed the illusion that she was worse than either of them were, and Sanders capitalized on said anger to fuel the hatred against her out of ego and wounded, and that a mere girl beat him.

I don't know where you get the idea that Trump only had a few days of negative coverage. Sanders never capitalized on email scandals etc. He talked about how establishment politicians were too dependent on big money and how Clinton was somewhat complicit in that.

The fact that he didn't get negative screentime was a symptom of him overall not getting coverage profiling.

And I really don't think this stuff stacks up as fodder for left or right wing attacks anyways.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Here's some example of his "dogwhistles" and coded language.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issu ... icle/44351

"Let’s take first, e.g., as a minor example, this report on Politico.com of what Bernie said:

"…I will not be hustling money from the wealthy and the powerful.”

No one should have to explain to a 74-year-old man that “hustler” is a term often used for female prostitutes, and is therefore an unfortunate choice of words to describe the behavior of a female opponent. You may disagree with Hillary Clinton, Bernie, but she’s not a whore."

That's dumb.

[Yukaphile]

He benefited from the fact that emails was mostly what dominated the news coverage. I'm stacking it side by side as a comparison against, say, Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy!" footage or Sanders' rape article, which is far worse, but the media fed the illusion emails were the bigger concern.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

He benefited from the fact that emails was mostly what dominated the news coverage. I'm stacking it side by side as a comparison against, say, Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy!" footage or Sanders' rape article, which is far worse, but the media fed the illusion emails were the bigger concern.

It's up for debate whether Sanders's articles were worse, but the lack of negative dirt put upon him was byproduct the overall condition that media neglected him. Whether you say he's guilty or not, he was a social media candidate, and the lack of attention didn't substantiate for a fair trial in the first place.

[ChrisTheLovableJerk]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVxJ016xb4Q[/youtube]

Don't care much for politics, but this popped into my head once I heard about it.