Of course, but we disagree on creepy. Surveillance and mining based on monied interest and long term game plan: disturbing but to be expected. Surveillance and mining based on blind partisan extremism and will to vengeance? That's creepy, irrational stuff, to me. glynch, you say Sanders supporters know his flaws. I'll just have to take your word on that. I've seen no evidence of it. He farts rainbows, as far as I can tell.
people who are creeped out by somebody scraping public Twitter feeds-- This isn't surveillance so much as a page that will say "got you" if somebody switches their account. lol. it's not even automated properly. yeah Bernie might be an old creep who attracts way too many dudes to the party, but this particular blog post is like, possibly the least intrusive form of scraping I've seen. You could more or less come to the same thing by finding a specific anti Bernie hashtag in Twitter search. In fact, given the low volume of handles, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what has happened. very KGB
Sigh. Christ on a stick. I didn't post that to be afraid of the internet or to invite the LOLs of digital penis bragging. "Har har -- that's not sophisticated!" The fervor of some dimwit, deluded political fan is what disturbs, not the clumsy low-fi technological attempts. Will delete the original post.
Hang around Twitter enough, and you'll see that they're either all bots or all "deluded". I might have thicker skin but I find this neither disturbing nor particularly accomplished at being creepy. People on Twitter basically exchange doxxing, rape and death threats over political disagreements, women in video games, Saturday morning tea. this seems really tame. And it'll feed into the narrative that ALL Berniebros are systematically obsessive little twats, but only if you let it.
I saw something on Facebook where somebody had said it "That Hillary is running against the will of the people. That is why it is offensive to publicly criticize Bernie."
You might want to unfriend them. If people want to label a movement over what a Facebook user says, we might have just jumped the shark in this thread. --- I found this analysis of Bernie's tax plans, and found plenty to critique and plenty to like, if you wanted an anecdotal counterpoint (fortunately, I cannot vote, thank the Gods ye red-blooded Americans). http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-proposals/full Feel free to compare and contrast with the Hillbill: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-hillary-clintons-tax-proposals/full A few things I dislike: -Even people earning less than the median will see the 2.2% surtax take a healthy chunk out of their budget--given most Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, I don't see that as being a good way to start the "Bernvolution" -The 200,000 tier for cap gains is basically screwing the rank-and-file tech worker or anybody who has vested stock options, which totally changes the dynamic in techlandia. All of a sudden, cap gains goes from 17.2% to 36.9%? Essentially going 3x on current rates? Yikes. Could have a significant disincentive effect for people getting in who put stock in their stock options (pun intended), which can sway a choice between an earlier-stage, more dynamic startup and later-stage stability. That's one industry--I am sure tax effects of the kind Bernie is proposing are going to have all kinds of unforeseen consequences. Things I like to balance this critique out: -Strongest carbon tax I've seen proposed, and strongest program I've seen to create disincentives on oil+gas subsidies. Income tax surcharges "just because" is one thing, properly pricing rare/limited/damaging resources is another. -Stronger stance on estate taxes than Hillary. Given the Republicans want to repeal all estate taxes with some mom-and-pop story of $6 million ranches (the $5.3m exemption sadly doesn't cover the category of wealth that falls slightly under obscene), having a stronger stance on this shows me Bernie is more willing to fight a party which has teetered to financial extremism. oh no there are (relatively) rational "BernieCanadianBros"
A strong carbon tax is a bipartisan proposal...at least when you ask economists. http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_9Rezb430SESUA4Y The sole point of dissension: Bern over Hillary on this one: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/politics/hillary-clinton-environment-keystone-pipeline/
Sanders gaining 15 delegates on the lead today in Wyoming. Now a 214 lead for Clinton. This is the biggest week coming up in 10 days. Sanders probably gets all the delegates in the smaller Northeast states and he's closing in on Penn and NY at a rapid pace. The media lies of those transcripts is Wall Street trying too buy the election. No one seems to be buying including the New York Times
Bernie won by 56%, and 56% of 14 delegates is 7.8 which is basically 8 Why isn't it 8 to 6 instead of 7 to 7? How can they round Sanders down a .8 and raise Clinton .8? I don't understand voting math. But this state only had 14 delegates, and even though Bernie should have receive at least a one or two delegate lead, it doesn't mean much, he didn't loose any ground. Folks don't need to wrap it up yet over a 14 delegate split, let's wait until the 19th.
Because delegates aren't just allocated by popular vote. It's often by congressional district or other means. Given how far along we are in the primaries, it's really sad that you still don't understand the process. Amazing also that you think Sanders would gain 15 delegates in a state that has only 14, even ignoring the idea of proportional distribution. Sanders LOST ground compared to his targets with this "win". NY is the big one for him. At the bare minimum, he needs to win and change the narrative. But even that may not be enough to keep his hopes alive - he probably needs to win solidly and cut a slice off the delegate lead. Ideally getting something around 140-150 delegates would change the game a bit.
The problem is that the entire political spectrum of the U.S. is WAY to the right of the international community. Compromising makes sense, but it has to come from both sides for good consistent results. Only one party has been compromising the last 30 years, and as a result there is a huge hole on the left in terms of representation. Bernie is not a radical, he is a New Deal democrat who became independent because the party left him. He remained principled because he saw what was going around him and everyone getting bought off. That being said, don't justify corruption by masking it as compromise. Your statement parallels what Obama said about not calling democrats "sell-outs". The democrats are predominantly sell-outs, whether they want to admit it or not. We should not accept a political system that cannot deliver on positions that 70%+ of the American people agree on (single-payer). Calling compromise "savvy" or "clever" has become fairly popular among democrats who view themselves as pragmatists or "a progressive who likes to get things done". Stop the BS and represent the interests of the people, end of story.
Ya, Bernie should just quit and tell the people that gave him $44 million last month to F*** off. Btw, if he had won by 50%, y'all MSM tools would've been like : "Oh, it's just a small state, remember the proportional representation, he barely got any more delegates" Let's ignore the fact that he has won the last 7 states in a row. Let's ignore the fact that he flipped Nevada and most recently, Missouri. Let's ignore the fact that he does exceedingly well in states that give him some time to campaign in. Let's just pretend that Clinton's once 325 delegate lead has been sliced to 204 in just a few weeks. Let's just quit. History is made, not recycled, recut, and reprinted. Try to gain some real perspective.
So, he missed his delegate target by .868 delegates, or basically, 1 delegate. Let's ignore the fact that he beat his target in Washington by 15 delegates, in Utah by 7 delegates, in Idaho by 6 delegates (yeah I know he missed his target in Arizona, I know he needs to win big going forward, if you have any info that the MSM isn't spitting out every day I'd like to hear it) Nobody was propping up Wyoming as some kind of game changer, so don't act like anybody was saying that. And btw, Clinton got that percentage in Wyoming largely due to absentee surrogate ballots. Given how far we are in the primaries and caucuses, it's really sad that you still don't understand the caucuses. There are multiple rounds in the caucuses, and they can flip if the candidate's delegates don't show up in subsequent rounds. Bernie has already flipped Nevada AND Missouri because of this. Amazing that you think delegates reported right after the election is a certainty. And lastly, his target in New York is 139 delegates, not "140-150", get YOUR facts straight. (see how irritating that is?) I don't like being an a**hole in my posts but don't be condescending towards anybody that is becoming excited about the political process, regardless of if they support Clinton, Sanders, or a Republican. Especially if they may have just simply been misinformed or made a typo.
He missed his delegate target by 1 delegate - if your goal is just to maintain the status quo. But that's not the goal - he needs to make up 200 delegates in a shrinking calendar. Every state that he maintains the status quo is a loss for him. And yes, the person I replied to was acting like it was a game changer. He was claiming Sanders gained +15 delegates in the state. Flipping a delegate or two at a state convention is not going to be the difference he needs. I'm not sure where your 139 comes from, but according to 538, his target is 125 - again, that is to maintain the status quo and lose by 200+ delegates. He needs to be significantly outperforming the rest of the way. That's why I said 140-150 would be huge for him. It would gain him about 40-50 delegates on his 200 delegate shortfall. And that only gets him to a pledged delegate tie. After that, he needs to convince a whole chunk of superdelegates to swap their votes, which is unrealistic unless he has a more significant pledged delegate lead. So instead of the 200 shortfall he need to make up, it likely needs to be 250-300. Education is vital. Multiple people have explained to Scolalist over the past month where and why he is wrong. He continues to ignore basic math and spouts completely inaccurate nonsense. We're long beyond explaining why he's wrong - he has no interest in learning anything about the process. If he voluntarily wants to be misinformed and/or simply lie, he'll continue to get called on out it.
Kinda shows you how broken the system is when a guy wins by double digits in the popular vote and it is considered to be a tie.
I'll ignore it and also I'll promise to ignore this post a couple of weeks from now when reality has finally sunk in among the Berniebros.
Or when he loses a state but still wins the delegate count, right? Both sides have benefited by the quirky rules of the primary/caucus system.
