Trump Wants Sanders Voters - (Edited to Add) Or Wants Them To Not Vote Democratic In November

paulsurovell said:

The Bernie Quit movement has lost an important supporter.

"I'm not calling myself that (the presumptive nominee)," Clinton said. "I know there are some contests ahead and I respect Sen. Sanders and whatever choices he's making. And I have a lot of empathy about this, Anderson. You know, I ran to the very end in 2008."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-exit-race/

There may be a "Bernie Quit movement", but that is beside the point.

I think there should be vigorous discussion of issues, and if the primary campaigns continue through NJ in June, great.

But, again, on issues.  Not personal attacks, or misinformation.  Issues discussions are healthy; personal attacks get you President Trump and his Supremes.

I would hate to see Bernie quit, a couple of his supporters yes, Bernie absolutely not.  And there are a few Hillary supporters that should quit also.

jeffhandy said:

nan said:

jeffhandy said:

I can't remember which Koch that it was (not both) but he did say that she would have to change a lot of her positions for him to support her.  The comment was more a condemnation of the republican situation.  

While I would much rather see Sanders as the nominee, I find your positions and opinions to be offensive and completely out of touch with reality.

What's with the personal attacks with no example where I can defend myself?  Totally unfair.  I think you owe me an apology.    

First of all, this was a comment on positions and opinions which are casting most Sanders supporters in an unfavorable light, it is not a personal attack.  I think that you need to get a better understanding of the difference.  If I had said that you were stupid, fat, ugly, racist, or sexist, these would be personal attacks.  

My issue is that you consistently post misleading information and distortions about our candidates opponent and that is not in line with the values that Bernie is trying to promote.  For those posts, it is you who owes the rest of us an apology.  Many of us would rather have Sanders as the nominee but we are also attached to reality and understand that unlike a spoiled child, we can't always get what we want.  So we will make the best of the situation and work with the viable option that gets us to the results that take us to the closest possible position that Sanders was trying to achieve.  If that means only that the Supreme Court gets turned, that is still better than a Trump presidency.  A protest vote is not a sign of political integrity, it is a sign of selfishness.

What comment????  There is no comment in the original post.  There is just some information about the Koch brothers and a personal attack.  You tell me I'm posting misleading information and distortions, but there are no examples.  You don't even state my position correctly.  You seem to think I'm part of the Bernie or Bust movement, which is not true.  I am considering that, and have respect for that position, but I see the problems.  What I have been strongly trying to bring up for discussion is that young people will not vote for Clinton unless there is a significant attempt to bring them over.   I don't need to apologize for bringing this up, because it's a real problem and ignoring it will not make it go away.  The Hillary is a Great Consolation Prize group are the ones who don't see reality.  They think they can win Bernie supporters over by just repeatedly stating that they must vote for her or they will be electing Trump.  End of story.  But it's not the end of the story.  And if people want Bernie supporters to vote for Hillary, they are going to have to do something else.  I'm not sure what, but berating them will probably not work.  Most likely Hillary herself will have to do something to bring them on board, but I'm not sure she even realizes there is a problem.  Her latest ad, which just bases Donald Trump rather than focus on much needed reforms seems to demonstrate that she misses the point.  

Anyway, you still owe me an apology for a unfair personal attack.  

Point out a true personal attack and I will.  And I think that gerryl pointed out your misleading posts.

How many times do I have to post the same thing.  Here goes number 3:

"While I would much rather see Sanders as the nominee, I find your positions and opinions to be offensive and completely out of touch with reality."

You posted this without any supporting evidence.  That's a personal attack.  You should get banned for that. It's out of line.  

It may have not been the nicest thing in the world, but it's hardly a personal attack. 

People just get frustrated by your deliberate misrepresentations and refusal to respond when called on it.

nan said:

How many times do I have to post the same thing.  Here goes number 3:

"While I would much rather see Sanders as the nominee, I find your positions and opinions to be offensive and completely out of touch with reality."

You posted this without any supporting evidence.  That's a personal attack.  You should get banned for that. It's out of line.  

Nan, he spoke of your positions, not you.   It's not a personal attack.

Meanwhile, maybe you could explain how & why you equated donations (by media companies) to the Clinton Foundation to donations to the Clinton campaign.  

mjh - he posted something negative about me without any examples.  I can't even defend myself because I don't know what he is referring to. You think that is acceptable?  Evidently, since you piled on.

 I posted that list, along with the link because the discussion was about Clinton supporters in the media.  I just googled Clinton campaign media doners quickly and presented it as a point of reference.  I thought it was donations to the Clinton campaign.  I was curious about who contributes to her campaign, although I'm not sure that is public, and I did not use it to make any points, except wonder about Scaife.  I knew the Politico was sympathetic to Clinton so I figured it would not be controversial.  

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

The Bernie Quit movement has lost an important supporter.

"I'm not calling myself that (the presumptive nominee)," Clinton said. "I know there are some contests ahead and I respect Sen. Sanders and whatever choices he's making. And I have a lot of empathy about this, Anderson. You know, I ran to the very end in 2008."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-exit-race/

There may be a "Bernie Quit movement", but that is beside the point.

I think there should be vigorous discussion of issues, and if the primary campaigns continue through NJ in June, great.

But, again, on issues.  Not personal attacks, or misinformation.  Issues discussions are healthy; personal attacks get you President Trump and his Supremes.

Agreed.  But to be clear, the demand that Hillary release her Goldman Sachs transcripts is not a personal attack.

nan said:

You tell me I'm posting misleading information and distortions, but there are no examples.

I don't know about jeffhandy's use of the word "consistently," but these two stopped me: 

"Here are at least some of the media supporting Clinton." (Noted also by gerryl and mjh.) Support for the foundation is not the same as support for Clinton and her candidacy.

"The other staffers are technically free to write what they want, but evidently all support Hillary too." Reporters at large newspapers write independently of the paper's editorial stances, but they are not "technically free to write what they want"; several levels of editing take place -- sometimes heavy, sometimes light, usually for the better, occasionally for the worse. As for evidence that "all support Hillary, too," I took the points about bias made by both Ezra Klein, in the link provided by mjh, and Matt Taibbi, whose critique I read in March, but found Klein's to be more perceptive and reflective of newsroom reality.

NBC has adopted appropriate language to describe the state of the primary:

http://bit.ly/1q29AmJ

dave23 said:

It may have not been the nicest thing in the world, but it's hardly a personal attack. 

People just get frustrated by your deliberate misrepresentations and refusal to respond when called on it.

I think Nan is justified to ask what is meant by "completely out of touch with reality."

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

The Bernie Quit movement has lost an important supporter.

"I'm not calling myself that (the presumptive nominee)," Clinton said. "I know there are some contests ahead and I respect Sen. Sanders and whatever choices he's making. And I have a lot of empathy about this, Anderson. You know, I ran to the very end in 2008."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-exit-race/

There may be a "Bernie Quit movement", but that is beside the point.

I think there should be vigorous discussion of issues, and if the primary campaigns continue through NJ in June, great.

But, again, on issues.  Not personal attacks, or misinformation.  Issues discussions are healthy; personal attacks get you President Trump and his Supremes.

Agreed.  But to be clear, the demand that Hillary release her Goldman Sachs transcripts is not a personal attack.

My comment had nothing to do with the transcripts.  I think that was obvious.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

It may have not been the nicest thing in the world, but it's hardly a personal attack. 

People just get frustrated by your deliberate misrepresentations and refusal to respond when called on it.

I think Nan is justified to ask what is meant by "completely out of touch with reality."

The rules here are pretty clear, I think.  

He said her positions are completely out of touch with reality. He did not say "Nan is completely out of touch with reality".   

It's not a personal attack according to the rules of this site.

Move on, already.

mjh said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

It may have not been the nicest thing in the world, but it's hardly a personal attack. 

People just get frustrated by your deliberate misrepresentations and refusal to respond when called on it.

I think Nan is justified to ask what is meant by "completely out of touch with reality."

The rules here are pretty clear, I think.  

He said her positions are completely out of touch with reality. He did not say "Nan is completely out of touch with reality".   

It's not a personal attack according to the rules of this site.

Move on, already.

When someone says your positions are "completely out of touch with reality" I think you are justified to ask what is meant by that and to ask for specifics.

I think that's a reasonable response, whether the conversation is in-person or online, or whether the comment qualifies as a personal attack or not.

People have been pointing out the many instances in which her claims do not align with reality. She ignores them.

I was once banned on this site for saying someone's remarks were racist-sounding without calling them a racist.  Banning is at the desecration of the moderators and do not always follow strict rules.  The main point is that we are supposed to be civil and fair and jeffhandy's post was out of bounds as was the pile on and the call to "Move on, already"   Just because some of you disagree with me, does not mean you can just throw out nasty remarks where I can't even defend myself.  Jeffhandy needs to apologize for his attack or at least delete that post. 

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

The Bernie Quit movement has lost an important supporter.

"I'm not calling myself that (the presumptive nominee)," Clinton said. "I know there are some contests ahead and I respect Sen. Sanders and whatever choices he's making. And I have a lot of empathy about this, Anderson. You know, I ran to the very end in 2008."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-exit-race/

There may be a "Bernie Quit movement", but that is beside the point.

I think there should be vigorous discussion of issues, and if the primary campaigns continue through NJ in June, great.

But, again, on issues.  Not personal attacks, or misinformation.  Issues discussions are healthy; personal attacks get you President Trump and his Supremes.

Agreed.  But to be clear, the demand that Hillary release her Goldman Sachs transcripts is not a personal attack.

My comment had nothing to do with the transcripts.  I think that was obvious.

It was.  I took your comment one step further.

dave23 said:

People have been pointing out the many instances in which her claims do not align with reality. She ignores them.

Nothing wrong with that, but why not leave it at that.

nan said:

How many times do I have to post the same thing.  Here goes number 3:

"While I would much rather see Sanders as the nominee, I find your positions and opinions to be offensive and completely out of touch with reality."

You posted this without any supporting evidence.  That's a personal attack.  You should get banned for that. It's out of line.  

People on MOL keep saying they are for Sanders but personally attacking and ganging up on anyone defending Sanders against the "but you must vote for Hillary" crowd, Have the courage of your convictions, people, and get off Sanders supporters' backs!  You are offensive!

Sandernistas have got to be the thinnest skinned revolutionaries in history.

tjohn - This is my first experience, since the 60's/70's when I was very young, supporting a democrat who goes against a mainstream candidate.  It's been a real eye opener and all I can say is that it's easy to throw stones.  

tjohn said:

Sandernistas have got to be the thinnest skinned revolutionaries in history.

No, you can't stand anyone criticizing St Hillary. YOU are thin- skinned and WAY too quick to pounce.

I know you are but what am I...    

jimmurphy said:

I know you are but what am I...   "> 

i can't say it here.

Lighten up - just pointing out the childishness on both sides. Nothing personal.

springgreen2 said:

tjohn said:

Sandernistas have got to be the thinnest skinned revolutionaries in history.

No, you can't stand anyone criticizing St Hillary. YOU are thin- skinned and WAY too quick to pounce.

Give me a little while to go back through my accumulated posts to find one where I have engaged in Hillary worship.

nan said:

tjohn - This is my first experience, since the 60's/70's when I was very young, supporting a democrat who goes against a mainstream candidate.  It's been a real eye opener and all I can say is that it's easy to throw stones.  

Yes it is.  And Sandernistas here are getting outraged over cream puffs.

tjohn said:

nan said:

tjohn - This is my first experience, since the 60's/70's when I was very young, supporting a democrat who goes against a mainstream candidate.  It's been a real eye opener and all I can say is that it's easy to throw stones.  

Yes it is.  And Sandernistas here are getting outraged over cream puffs.

Speak for yourself.

I demand that you apologize for that comment.