• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Clinton News Network(CNN) Red baiting and antisemitism in one artcle!

I read the linked article and I can't see anything wrong or disgusting with it, am I missing something? There's no attack on Bernie, just talking about his time at the kibbutz - is that not accurate?
 
Wow they really mined the history for this one!

Sanders spent a few months on a kibbutz over half a century ago - clearly this is when the Ruskies converted him to Communism. He has been a secret Commie for over 50 years, just waiting for his chance to become POTUS.

Who writes this stuff? So he spent a few months in a kibbutz, so what?

I hope that, when I am Sanders' age, people don't dig up things I did 50 years ago. I probably won't even remember them.
 
Ancalagon44 said:
Wow they really mined the history for this one!

Sanders spent a few months on a kibbutz over half a century ago - clearly this is when the Ruskies converted him to Communism. He has been a secret Commie for over 50 years, just waiting for his chance to become POTUS.

Who writes this stuff? So he spent a few months in a kibbutz, so what?

I hope that, when I am Sanders' age, people don't dig up things I did 50 years ago. I probably won't even remember them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you and OP seem to be viewing this as an attack on Bernie. It's part of his background is it not? The article is just giving us a look at his background, most of us know nothing (or very little) about Bernie. He himself doesn't seem to shy away from his socialist roots , so why is it bad if they show things that might have influenced those roots?
 
Double Trouble said:
I'm not sure why you and OP seem to be viewing this as an attack on Bernie. It's part of his background is it not? The article is just giving us a look at his background, most of us know nothing (or very little) about Bernie. He himself doesn't seem to shy away from his socialist roots , so why is it bad if they show things that might have influenced those roots?
Click to expand...

Because in America, the word socialist has a lot of negative connotations.

Witness a lot of people calling Obama socialist - meant in a derogatory fashion.

So, they aren't directly attacking him, but they are highlighting his socialism, which is sure to worry a lot of Americans.
 
Double Trouble said:
I'm not sure why you and OP seem to be viewing this as an attack on Bernie. It's part of his background is it not? The article is just giving us a look at his background, most of us know nothing (or very little) about Bernie. He himself doesn't seem to shy away from his socialist roots , so why is it bad if they show things that might have influenced those roots?
Click to expand...

Ok, you're just being intellectually dishonest right now. This is part of Sander's background the same way that Bush smoked pot. It's actually an interesting article in itself, but the title itself is just one more way to try to attach the word socialist to Sanders. And let's throw in the Israeli connection just to push those folks away too.

It is a pretty desperate ploy. It's unfortunate they can't simply discuss the platforms of each candidate and have to pull stunts like this.
 
There's no "trying" to attach the word to Sanders (which implies Sanders is trying to keep the label from being used to describe him), he proudly attached it to himself months ago.

And honestly, I don't get the anti-semitism label the OP attached to the article.
 
Pulsar said:
Ok, you're just being intellectually dishonest right now. This is part of Sander's background the same way that Bush smoked pot. It's actually an interesting article in itself, but the title itself is just one more way to try to attach the word socialist to Sanders. And let's throw in the Israeli connection just to push those folks away too.

It is a pretty desperate ploy. It's unfortunate they can't simply discuss the platforms of each candidate and have to pull stunts like this.
Click to expand...

Obama smoked pot (smokes pot), as a lot of us do. Clinton snorted cocaine too. What difference, at this point, does it make?
 
mysticjbyrd said:
it's getting ugly!
Click to expand...


Bros.jpeg
 
Are Bernie Bros determined to double down on PaulBot stupidity? I like Bernie's proposals but nine more months of Bernie Bros might change my mind.
 
Pulsar said:
Ok, you're just being intellectually dishonest right now. This is part of Sander's background the same way that Bush smoked pot. It's actually an interesting article in itself, but the title itself is just one more way to try to attach the word socialist to Sanders. And let's throw in the Israeli connection just to push those folks away too.

It is a pretty desperate ploy. It's unfortunate they can't simply discuss the platforms of each candidate and have to pull stunts like this.
Click to expand...

Republicans like Bush are supposed to be pro-War on Drugs. Where is Sanders supposed to be anti-collective farm ownership?
 
Ancalagon44 said:
Because in America, the word socialist has a lot of negative connotations.

Witness a lot of people calling Obama socialist - meant in a derogatory fashion.

So, they aren't directly attacking him, but they are highlighting his socialism, which is sure to worry a lot of Americans.
Click to expand...

Seems to me it's the duty of the socialists to demonstrate the value of their ideas to win over Americans rather than the duty of Americans to cater to socialist preferences or unhappiness that the term is seen as a derogatorive. If gays could win over a majority of Americans to treat them with respect and grant marriage rights, I think socialists can likewise put in the hard work to influence people to adopt their views.
 
glenn1 said:
Seems to me it's the duty of the socialists to demonstrate the value of their ideas to win over Americans rather than the duty of Americans to cater to socialist preferences or unhappiness that the term is seen as a derogatorive. If gays could win over a majority of Americans to treat them with respect and grant marriage rights, I think socialists can likewise put in the hard work to influence people to adopt their views.
Click to expand...

Gays didn't really do that though. They basically got the Libs in the media to whip up gay agenda and push the 'it's no big deal just accept it' and 'if you don't accept it you're a total POS' messages for a couple decades. Couple that with it being potrayed us un-cool to not be completely sympathetic to the gay agenda in schools, and after a sustained period of time, poof!, gay agenda realized. Actually, this is basically how all Lib policies work. Whine long and loud enough, and finally enough of a majority is used to the background noise that making it be turned off isn't such a big deal.
 
chucky2 said:
Gays didn't really do that though. They basically got the Libs in the media to whip up gay agenda and push the 'it's no big deal just accept it' and 'if you don't accept it you're a total POS' messages for a couple decades. Couple that with it being potrayed us un-cool to not be completely sympathetic to the gay agenda in schools, and after a sustained period of time, poof!, gay agenda realized. Actually, this is basically how all Lib policies work. Whine long and loud enough, and finally enough of a majority is used to the background noise that making it be turned off isn't such a big deal.
Click to expand...

That's how we freed the slaves, won WWII and went to the moon as well; no special effort required, no struggle, just a public relations campaign and "poof" now it's reality.
 
I don't see anything wrong with the article. Doesn't change my opinion of Bernie. Glad to see he actually did some manual labor at some point in his life.
 
Double Trouble said:
I'm not sure why you and OP seem to be viewing this as an attack on Bernie. It's part of his background is it not? The article is just giving us a look at his background, most of us know nothing (or very little) about Bernie. He himself doesn't seem to shy away from his socialist roots , so why is it bad if they show things that might have influenced those roots?
Click to expand...

Because they are super sensitive to Bernie's complete lack of electability.

He'll be destroyed once the spotlight turns on. If Hillary doesn't do it, you bet the Rs will.
 
"It was once communism. Today it's socialism. Call it whatever you want," Ely says. "It's a number of people who want to live together. And want to share everything together. We think that you have to take care of the weak (community members). The strong can deal with themselves."
Click to expand...

Seriously. Wtf are Democrats thinking? Hillary is no prize, but let's get real. A vote for Bernie is a vote for President Trump or Cruz. Pick your poison.

Only a communist could see Hillary and Cruz think they are the same.
 
Ancalagon44 said:
Because in America, the word socialist has a lot of negative connotations.

Witness a lot of people calling Obama socialist - meant in a derogatory fashion.

So, they aren't directly attacking him, but they are highlighting his socialism, which is sure to worry a lot of Americans.
Click to expand...

It's not like Bernie is some closet socialist or they are trying to expose it or something. He makes no bones about his socialist views, he embraces them. I don't see how attaching the term "socialist" to a self described socialist is an attack.

Pulsar said:
Ok, you're just being intellectually dishonest right now. This is part of Sander's background the same way that Bush smoked pot. It's actually an interesting article in itself, but the title itself is just one more way to try to attach the word socialist to Sanders. And let's throw in the Israeli connection just to push those folks away too.

It is a pretty desperate ploy. It's unfortunate they can't simply discuss the platforms of each candidate and have to pull stunts like this.
Click to expand...

Intellectually dishonest? You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don't see how calling him something that he freely calls himself is an attack.

Bitek said:
Because they are super sensitive to Bernie's complete lack of electability.

He'll be destroyed once the spotlight turns on. If Hillary doesn't do it, you bet the Rs will.
Click to expand...

I suspect you are correct. Time will tell.
 
Every democrat that I personally know refuses to ever vote for HRC so...IMO its either gonna be bernie or a republican. Even if HRC gets the nomination she will lose due to low voter turnout.

I find it funny that Bernie, the white haired old man is not electable...but a woman and a black guy with a muslim name are....interesting lol.

Oh and still I haven't met a female in person that supports HRC. Just on the internet.

My 30yr old GF, 66 year old mother and 87 yr old grandmother want bernie as well. And none of them even like each other lol.
 
Brainonska511 said:
Your anecdotal evidence means squat.
Click to expand...

Agreed, anecdotal evidence doesn't mean a whole lot, but I definitely get the sense that most democrats are not enthusiastic about hildebeast. Many (most?) of them would still vote for her over a gop candidate (especially Trump), but I definitely don't sense the same level of enthusiasm there was in the prior two elections. Part of it is probably just hildebeast being so personally dis-likable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top