The problem isn't Bernie Sanders' supporters. It's Bernie Sanders himself

[Zorro]

Shit got all crazy in Nevada. Some people threw chairs (or maybe they just waved them in the air), others sent threatening misogynistic and terroristic voicemails and texts to the head of the Nevada Democratic Party.

Here’s the thing. Even though these were supporters of Bernie Sanders, I don’t consider them in any way representative of Bernie Sanders’ supporters. Politics is full of cranks. I used to do a Sunday feature of all the hate email I got until Twitter made that obsolete. Now I get them on Twitter. All sorts of hateful messages. The Secret Service is tasked in large part with following up with people making threats against the president. This is politics and people get mad and do really stupid shit.

I don’t think that has anything to do with “Bernie Sanders’ supporters.” They are a problem, but they aren’t the problem. Make sense?

The problem is Bernie Sanders himself, who as a leader refuses to forcefully and unambiguously reject that violence, instead rationalizing and explaining it away with a mix of grievances and outright conspiracy theory. The same guy who once said, “Mr. Trump should take responsibility for addressing his supporters’ violent actions,” now can’t be bothered to do the same when it’s a few rotten apples in his crowd acting insane.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/20/1528657/-The-problem-isn-t-Bernie-Sanders-supporters-It-s-Bernie-Sanders-himself

[oldandhappy]

1. But he did.

[Nitram]

33. No Sanders did not.

He spoke first about how his supporters were right to be enraged, and then he disavowed violence- without ever admitting that his followers had been involved. thus exposing him as a hypocrite and a demagogue. I am very disappointed. I thought Sanders had a huge role to play in moving the Democratic Party farther left. This is not the way to do it.

[Baobab]

44. No chairs were thrown, we've all seen the video-

This is ridiculous.

they must get paid by the word.

[Nitram]

46. Did I say anything about chairs?

[GoneFishin]

51. Yeah. But that is too fact based for the people that brought you "Bernie is a sexist, racist, bigot,

anti-semite, kitten raper".

[think]

2. Keep spreading those lies. It makes you look stupid but you don't care. Winning...

[Nitram]

34. Using the word "Winning" in this context is about as stupid and irrelevant as anything

you could have written.

[think]

37. "Winning" was referring to Hillary supporters who don't care about spreading lies like chairs being

thrown.

No chairs were thrown. It was debunked days ago yet the OP posts an article suggesting it happened STILL.

Sorry you're too busy defending the spreading of lies to comprehend that.

[Nitram]

41. And you're too focused on "winning" to see how out of control the Bernie crowd has become.

Time to grow up and work together.

[liberal from boston]

61. Go Bernie

Remember Hillary has a Million Dollar SuperPack for paid trolls. Interesting that Politifact regarding Nevada violence has changed ruling unproven to false. Snopes has reported that there was no violence & NPR has walked back their claim that there was violence at the Nevada Democratic Convention. Waiting for CNN & other media to walk back their reporting & admit mistakes were made in their coverage of Nevada violence.

[dmosh42]

3. You should try watching TV-news instead of whatever you're trying to accomplish.

[merrily]

4. What a dishonest, FU OP article.

Chairs, plural were waved around? Bullshit. One chair was lifted straight up in the air for about 5 seconds and then released, with no struggle, to someone who put it back down.

Bernie has always rejected violence. HOWEVER THERE WAS NO FUCKING VIOLENCE IN NEVAD .NONE. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA. THERE WERE ONLY LIES ABOUT VIOLENCE AND FEAR.

It's bad enough some asshat at Kos posts a stinking pile of garbage like that.

[LiberalArkie]

7. It is, but the article shows very distinctly what is taking place. Kos, Brock and others have to

place the blame somewhere. They got caught and it could be that they are lying. Brock needs the Bernie supporters to vote for Her Magisty in November. So they have to start moving the blame for their mistakes to Bernie himself instead of the supporters.

And this is todays talking point on the news service.

And the Asshat who posted it is KOS himself or Brocks alter ego as some call him.

[merrily]

9. What is taking place? For 1 thing, people are willing to lie at KOS and to repost KOS lies here.

Barbara Boxer is willing to lie. The head of the Nevada state Democratic Party is willing to go dictator. etc. That is what is taking place. Has been throughout this so-called primary.

[LiberalArkie]

10. Well no one ever said Kos wasn't a tool of the powers that be. Kos is willing to

do what ever they tell him to say. I do not think the admins here are willing to go that far.

You know, before this week people could say that all that we were saying was just CT, now I think it is very obvious to everyone. But they can not backtrack. Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;

[merrily]

13. Using the CIA term "conspiracy theory" is just another example of RW authoritarian bullshit.

http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?1706-Conspiracy-theories-Give-Ockham-s-Razor*-a-rest-now-and-again-will-ya&highlight=ockham%27s

http://www.democraticunderground.com/127710043


Both the above threads start with my OP's. The JPR OP is better than the DU OP. However, on both threads, the replies far outshine my OPs.

[LiberalArkie]

16. I liked Eridani's reply

To criticize “conspiracy theorists” is to blame the victim instead of taking on the -- perpetrators.

[merrily]

17. There are facts and then there are opinions and theories. The term CT itself is a CIA weapon.

Eridani is too cool for school.

[LiberalArkie]

18. I get a headache when I read too much over there, the thought processes are so much higher

than I can usually grasp.

[Zorro]

12. It's amusing to see you get so worked up about lies

at the same time declaring "The head of the Nevada state Democratic Party is willing to go dictator..."

Keep knocking out those hits!

[merrily]

14. Knowing you need to post a bs post from KOS and then engage in false equivalencies as to me says

it all--as if anything still needed saying.

[Zorro]

20. Nothing false about it. It's spot on.

[merrily]

21. LOL! ok nt

[rgbecker]

5. Only thing is...

comparing the "violence" of Bernie Supporters at the Nevada Convention with Trump's supporters is so far off the mark, the rest is just shit.

[merrily]

22. The ONLY violence in Nevada appeared in the lies of Hillary's supporters and surrogates. Hillary's

supporter, on the other hand, got arrested for actual violence.

[Nitram]

35. You don't consider death threats and misogynistic venom a kind of violence?

[merrily]

38. That you even have to say "a kind of violence" answers your question.

No, words don't break bones or cause bruises or draw blood. Violence does, unless your fighting with an infant.

Is a threat bad. Of Course but calling it violence is exactly the kind of crap I have come to expect.

A man punched a woman in a bar. That's violence. Bernie's office in Nevada got shot into. That's violence. When will Hillary condemn it?

FYI, I never would have asked that if so much bullshit about Bernie didn't get catapulted by the Hillary campaign, her surrogates, her supporters and minion media.

[Nitram]

39. Sorry, merrily, verbal abuse is assault, and that is violence.

Wake up and smell the coffee!

[merrily]

40. So, if I leave a nasty message on your answering machine, that's assault?

Got a statute from any state or the federal government that backs up that definition of assault?

[Nitram]

42. You decide if you think this is violence. It would be considered domestic violence.

Rolling Stone magazine contacted some of the people verified as Bernie supporters who phone calls and sent tweets.

They're texts sent from your number: "Answer the phone bitch." "You're fired bitch." Images of dead animals next to next to Roberta Lange's photo.

Did you intend your message as a threat?
Like, from a legal perspective… I didn't make it a direct threat. There's an implication, and I'm implying, right? I'm inferring that I could do something...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/pro-bernie-trolls-on-why-they-harassed-nevadas-democratic-chair-20160518?page=7

Other calls and/or tweets reported elsewhere:

“Loved how you broke the system,” one person wrote in a text message that said he or she knew where Ms. Lange’s grandchildren went to school. “Prepare for hell. Calls won’t stop.”

Another person left a voice mail message saying he thought Ms. Lange should be “hung in public execution” for her actions.

You will regret your actions. Shameful CUNT.

We know where you live. Where you work. Where you eat. Where your kids go to school/grandkids.

a man from Atlanta, who called Lange a “corrupt bitch” and texted her, “Someone will hurt you.”

[merrily]

43. So, no statute saying a very nasty message on an answering machine is assault, much less battery?

I didn't think so.

Words have commonly understood meanings and some also have legal meanings. You don't get to change either because you want to portray something nasty as even worse than it is because you imagine that so doing somehow helps Hillary. BTW, there is also zero proof the callers were Bernie supporters. Zip.

http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?11573-The-Sit-Down-and-Shut-Up-Award-and-Other-Realities&p=71850#post71850

[Nitram]

45. Not true. If a credible threat is made, it is considered assault.

Look it up in a legal dictionary. and there is proof the callers were Bernie supporters. Read the article.

[merrily]

47. So, still no statute.

[Nitram]

48. Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 784 ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE

View Entire Chapter
784.011?Assault.—
(1)?An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2)?Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.—s. 5, Feb. 10, 1832; RS 2400; GS 3226; RGS 5059; CGL 7161; s. 1, ch. 70-88; s. 729, ch 71-136; s. 17, ch. 74-383; s. 7, ch. 75-298; s. 171, ch. 91-224.
Note.—Former s. 784.02.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.011.html

[merrily]

54. Sorry, no cigar. See Reply 52, and, bear in mind, criminal statutes are construed narrowly.

[Nitram]

49. 2015 Minnesota Statutes Chapter 609 Section 609.224

Subdivision 1. Misdemeanor.

Whoever does any of the following commits an assault and is guilty of a misdemeanor:

(1) commits an act with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or

(2) intentionally inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily harm upon another.

[merrily]

53. IMMEDIATE See reply 52.

[Nitram]

50. Texas PENAL CODE TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON CHAPTER 22. ASSAULTIVE OFFENSES

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse;

[merrily]

52. IMMINENT being the key word. Sorry.A nasty message on an answering message doesn't fit the statute.

[Nitram]

55. And you immediately know when you receive a phone call or email that the person

has no intention of carrying out a threat immediately? Merrily, just admit you're wrong and stop the petulant bs.

[merrily]

56. Sorry. IMMEDIATELY means immediately--and criminal statues are, as posted above, construed

narrowly. So, if the person is not in the room with you, no immediate bodily harm is possible.

I simply stated, very flatly and accurately, that the statutes you cited did not prove your claim. I have no idea what about that you imagine is "petulant." Your Reply 55 however....

[Nitram]

57. I'll leave you with the legalistic and narrowly-defined concept of violence with which you...

...are comfortable. Have a nice, non-violent day.

[merrily]

58. Yes, criminal statutes are both legalistic and narrowly defined.

I assumed that was common knowledge. I guess I overestimated "common."

Sorry that means the statutes don't support your claims about messages left on answering, but that's not my doing.

Take it up with courts and legislatures.

[Nitram]

59. Hi, Merrily, I thought this article might interest you.

http://jezebel.com/the-cops-dont-care-about-violent-online-threats-what-d-1682577343

[merrily]

60. Not sure why you thought that, but I appreciate the thought anyway.

[xocet]

6. "Some people threw chairs..." The article starts with lies. Here is a video that shows the truth:

[onecaliberal]

8. Only a Hillary supporter has been arrested for violence.

Assault, to be exact. Get your smear straight. It's kinda stupid to blame someone else for something you've done. Just like her asking for tax returns when she never released the transcripts. I guess the irony is lost on you folks.

[Zorro]

11. Looks like Kos goes under the bus now

It will be interesting to watch Bernie go under the bus too when he enthusiastically endorses Clinton.

[merrily]

15. Now? Really? DUers haven't posted for years about Markos' RW and CIA ties? More deceit. nt

[Zorro]

19. And the smears against Democrats from BS puritans continue!

Keep showing the world your contempt for the party!

[merrily]

23. Pointing out lies in a KOS post = contempt for the Party now? That's more deceit.

If you need to keep catapulting the bs in order to keep your bogus OP KOS article kicked, go for it!

[Zorro]

24. Keep plucking that chicken!

[merrily]

25. Keep posting deceptive things to keep this thread kicked!

This is the last time I will help you kick this mess though. I can deal with deception, but not with tedium and boredom and your posts to me have become tedious and boring, as well as free of reliable info. Have a great day!

[Zorro]

32. Nothing deceptive about my posts

Another day, another great Democrat -- Kos -- gets slandered on DU for daring to criticize Saint Bernard.

[portlander23]

26. Gasp

[rock]

27. Yep

There's always a few bad apples in every bunch. But the real problem is Bernie.

[pmorlan1]

28. Honesty & Integrity

It's really sad that you and a lot of other Hillary supporters think that the guy, who is known for having a reputation for honesty and integrity, is what you see as the problem. What should that tell you about the candidate you support? Don't bother answering me just think about it.

[rock]

29. His reputation is not as shiny as you portray

And is getting worse due to his behavior. "Everyone knows" is an argument that works only for the weak-minded.

[Nitram]

36. Yup. Bernie had me fooled. Now we're seeing his true colors.

[WDIM]

30. Hillary is an expert at rationalizing violence

And explaining it away.

The problem is Hillary Clinton. The problem is the corrupt oligarchs and corporate media propaganda.

Hillary Clintons rationalization of violence through out the world is the reason I can never vote for her. To much blood on her hands

[Raster]

31. Quoting from The Daily Hillary...nice