Does Bernie Sanders want to be the Ralph Nader of 2016?

[workinclasszero]

Does Bernie Sanders want to be the Ralph Nader of 2016?
By Dana Milbank Opinion writer May 17 at 5:11 PM

Let’s examine what Bernie Sanders supporters did in his name over the weekend.

As the Nevada Democratic convention voted to award a majority of delegates to Hillary Clinton — an accurate reflection of her victory in the state’s February caucuses — Sanders backers charged the stage, threw chairs and shouted vulgar epithets at speakers. Security agents had to protect the dais and ultimately clear the room.

Sanders supporters publicized the cellphone number of the party chairwoman, Roberta Lange, resulting in thousands of abusive text messages and threats:

“Praying to God someone shoots you in the FACE and blows your democracy-stealing head off!”

“Hey bitch.?.?. We know where you live. Where you work. Where you eat. Where your kids go to school/grandkids.?.?. Prepare for hell.”

It is no longer accurate to say Sanders is campaigning against Clinton, who has essentially locked up the nomination. The Vermont socialist is now running against the Democratic Party. And that’s excellent news for one Donald J. Trump.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/does-bernie-sanders-want-to-be-the-ralph-nader-of-2016/2016/05/17/b091d75a-1c5f-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html

[DURHAM D]

1. Good read.

Running against the entire Democratic Party is disgusting.

[Kelvin Mace]

2. This meme has been floated mutliple times

and still isn't true.

Gore won the election in 2000, not Bush or Nader.

If you have a problem with how it actually turned out, then look to the Scalia 5 and the 200,000, or so, registered Dems who voted for Bush versus the the 20,000, or so who, voted for Nader.

[ViseGrip]

3. He wouldn't be. Hillary's numbers are too lousy to win in a three way.

That is why the bad faith of the party, against Bernie all the way, has left nothing for him to owe. NOTHING. NOW WITH KY, DON'T EXPECT ANY UNITY.

I will not vote in a corrupt system. I don't blame Hillary. She is not caging voter registrations, etc. That's the party, along with thugs. She has others do her dirty work, which also makes her undeserving as well.

[kaleckim]

5. He also isn't Nader

you know, the person that gave us environmental and consumer protections that we now benefit from, (was instrumental in the formation of the EPA, OSHA, in the passage of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, among countless other things). Clinton is a bad, weak and entirely beatable candidate, someone that is now tied with the most unpopular major party nominee in polling history, is not trusted (good luck improving that with lying like this and attacking the very people whose vote you'll need), and polls much worse with independents than Sanders and polls much worse versus Trump than Sanders. Her corruption also doesn't sit well with people, and should be challenged by all on the left (even her supporters). It's YOUR fault for choosing such a horrible candidate and it will be your fault if she loses, which she is much more likely to do than Sanders. This is a damn democracy, if she can't convince people to vote FOR her (and good luck when she and her lying supporters are busy 24/7 attacking those people), she's toast.

You all seem to think that you can lie like this, slime people on the left, and they'll just fall in line. Times have radically changed, and you should't assume that at all. Keep on with this lying and you'll doom her chances, cause she's on thin ice as is.

[BzaDem]

12. That is entirely backwards.

If someone votes against Clinton, they are making a free choice, and are responsible for the consequences of that choice. No one (certainly not Clinton) would be forcing them to do it. People are responsible for their own free choices. Clinton wouldn't be voting against herself, so I don't see how you could possibly blame her for the actions of others. Saying the words "this is a damn democracy" doesn't eradicate basic logic.

"You all seem to think that you can lie like this, slime people on the left, and they'll just fall in line."

I don't think anyone is lying or sliming anyone. Telling the truth isn't sliming. As for "falling in line," after the 2000 election, the democratic party nominated a more conservative candidate in 2004. Some 90% of Nader's former supporters "fell in line," not wanting to be responsible for yet another 4 years of GWB. If Clinton lost, the same would happen again no doubt, but it would be better for all if people figured it out beforehand.

[kaleckim]

7. Posters like the person that started this thread

are also doing her dirty work. They're instrumental in lying their way to the White House, if they're lucky, and they don't care who they harm along the way. It's funny, because as much as the "progressive" Clinton supporters liked to critique the media, they're clearly on her side and are instrumental in trying to push her talking points and memes. Doesn't seem to matter that none of them, none of them, can provide evidence of violence, chair throwing or property damage at the convention.

[kaleckim]

4. More lying

provide evidence that there was chair throwing, physical violence or property damage at the convention or stop lying. Enough with the reality-less propaganda. Telling that you have to lie like this to barely win an election, and it won't work in the GE.

This is horrible propaganda (just like your "English only" lies) and a means to distract from the fact that your corrupt party acted horribly in Vegas and was caught. The optics were very bad, so now you are all lying in mass.

This videos sums up your blatant lies well:

[workinclasszero]

6. What about this? Death threats against school kids and grandchildren....sick and evil

Sanders supporters publicized the cellphone number of the party chairwoman, Roberta Lange, resulting in thousands of abusive text messages and threats:

“Praying to God someone shoots you in the FACE and blows your democracy-stealing head off!”

“Hey bitch.?.?. We know where you live. Where you work. Where you eat. Where your kids go to school/grandkids.?.?. Prepare for hell.”

[kaleckim]

8. Horrible

and what does that have to do with Sanders, or me for that matter? Sanders revealed yesterday that his campaign offices were shot at and the apartment buildings where his staff lived were ransacked. What does that say about YOU, if you want to play this silly, manipulative game? Be honest, this is another Brock like slime job and you all are working hard, and lying, in order to deflect from the fact that the DNC looked horrible for what they did in Vegas. It's obvious to anyone with eyes and this is not going to help your candidate as far as being trustworthy.

So, which one of you liars wants to take responsibility for this?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/17/nevada-democrats-bernie-sanders-violence

Bernie Sanders, “But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and an apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.”

[Scootaloo]

13. Death threats are against the law. Arrest those who made them, and prosecute

The system there is pretty cut-and-dried.

[riderinthestorm]

20. Where are the police reports on these? Surely they have.the police on it right?

If not, why not?

[SheilaT]

9. Wow. This has been put out there since last summer and it's total garbage.

Plus, who exactly put those brown shirts in place in Nevada?

[SCantiGOP]

10. brown shirts?

They were providing security at the Nevada convention site and the owners of the facility asked them to help shut down the event because they feared violence due to the Sanders crowd.
Look up "brown shirts" and find out how ridiculous your post is.

[SheilaT]

11. Oh, I know what "brown shirts" stands for, and that's

exactly why I said that.

[SCantiGOP]

24. thanks for clarifying

That you think the people standing in front of that stage are a paramilitary group controlled by one faction of the Democratic Party whose only purpose was to suppress the Sanders supporters. Very reasonable argument.

[One of the 99]

14. Haven't trusted Milbank

since he misquoted the President in order to attack him.

[Scootaloo]

15. Except of course, Sanders is running for the Democratic ticket.

So the idea that "he's Nader" is stupid right out the gate. Nader ran an independent ticket, and even if Sanders wanted to (there's zero reason to think he does) it's too late for him to get on ballots with it.

Of course, the reflexive blaming of Nader is dumb as fuck too. Republican party officials stole ballots, rigged machines, and rioted to prevent recounts. The Republican-heavy Supreme Court then ruled in favor of the Bush campaign. Later counting (for the record, I suppose) show that even with all of that, Gore won Florida.

"Blame Nader" is a way of announcing to the world that you fully and completely support election fraud by the Republican party, that you believe Bush won the election fairly, and basically that you're a fucking stooge.

There's also the matter that two hundred thousand Florida Democrats jumped ship to vote for Bush. That's more than twice the number of voters Nader got in Florida, and since they were leaving the Democratic party to vote for the republican, each of their votes had twice the impact.

So again. Blaming Nader lets you hand-wave right-wing quisling Democrats who actively worked to scuttle their own party's candidate. I notice that the "blame Nader" crowd are themselves most often right-wing Democrats, so this makes sense.

If you believe Nader cost us Florida, you're a stupid shit and reality would like a word with you. If you think Bernie Sanders "is Nader" then I think you're the kind of person who might drown in a shower.

[hollowdweller]

16. I don't think he does but I feel Hillary will be the John Kerry of 2016

A candidate with serious soft spots that people perceive as most electable. They are already working on "Howard Deaning" Sanders.

Then the Trump campaign will Rove Hillary by attacking her percieved strengths.

[Beacool]

17. I think that he doesn't care if he ends up playing that role.

He's an ideologue, he doesn't seem to give a hoot about party unity. If he did, he would have stopped attacking Hillary once it became evident that he was not going to be the nominee. I have no problem with him staying until the last vote has been cast, but he should pivot to Trump and stop telling his supporters, as he did last night, that he could make it to the convention with more pledged delegates. He must know fully well that what he said is not true. So why tell so to his supporters? It only serves to rile them even more than they are already.

[Rose Siding]

18. Someone actually alerted this straight up WaPo op

5-2 to leave it

[workinclasszero]

22. Wow!

And all the pro-Sanders screeds from right wing hate sites get a auto pass! SMDH

[azurnoir]

19. why would you ask? are you disappointed that Trump probably will not be the Ross Perot of 2016?

[TheSarcastinator]

21. Yes, I agree: Hillary will need a scapegoat after she loses

Might was well be Bernie, eh?

[AZ Progressive]

23. LOL, the Supreme Court made Bush win, not Nader

In addition, there were so many other factors, including Butterfly Ballots in Palm Beach county, The Cuban community being furious about Elian Gonzales and taking their anger on Gore, and Katherine Harris's purge of many Democratic voters from the state voting rolls...

Of course though, the truth doesn't matter to a paid troll...