User talk:Pbfreespace3/Article Refutation 1

Too tired to review. Droppig this here. Good read. http://wonkette.com/601971/nice-grandpa-bernie-sanders-gonna-burn-your-sht-dowwwwwn If Wonkette is mad at the more liberal person then something is wrong. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 05:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

DiamondDisc1's critique

This will be built in parts, due to time constraints on my part.

Convention Woes

The Washington Post is exaggerating the situation, in my opinion. I, however, don't know what actually happened there, so who knows? Since I don't know where you got your proof from, I am not sure if yours is accurate. But giving the benefit of the doubt, it does seem that WP is making a mountain out of a molehill. Death threats, although common in politics, are not to be merely handled by statements along the lines of,"Everybody does it." RobSmith at the bottom of the page is partially correct in that Bernie Sanders is an Democrat, however he is an independent that has caucused with the Democrats for a while.

Statement

I agree with you that there were irregularities in the Nevada convention. That is not hypocritical at all to state that. However, with all due respect, saying HRC states the same idea does not justify ,um, _{whataboutism.}

The Message

I agree with most of your article. However,"left wing ideals" and "the majority of the nation agrees with Bernie Sanders" are purely opinion.

Primary Process

Washington Post is getting it wrong. However, a lot of state caucuses are closed.

In Conclusion

"He still has a path to the nomination. He's 43 to her 57. That's pretty close in primary terms, and that can change when uber-liberal states like California and pro-Sanders states such as the Dakotas and Montana. In fact, Sanders will split or win the states on June 7, setting the stage for an interesting convention." A quirky, piquant point. "Superdelegates can always switch their loyalty, especially if Hillary is indicted or assassinated." Assassinated? Lolololol! "Also, Sanders is not ensuring the election of Trump. Hillary supporters are, because she loses against Trump in swing states and national polls. By supporting Hillary, you will put Trump into office, probably for 8 years." I actually thought Hillary Clinton had higher poll numbers than Donald Trump...but who knows?

Withoutaname's Review

Convention Woes

On WP's side, media exaggeration and sensationalism, a common strategy for raising click revenue. On Pb's side, as far as chairs being thrown, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and plausible deniability is involved, but I'm tempted to let that one go. The difference between advocating and protesting rule changes doesn't seem important, and frankly neither is the mention of death threats which is a common occurrence in politics, but then again this seems like a pointless effort to reframe the anger of a potentially radical movement into one more palatable to the mainstream bourgeois politics it is ostensibly against. The last is whataboutism with HRC.

Statement

On WP's side, having no knowledge of what transpired I don't see any justifications for the charges of "self-righteousness" or "hypocrisy", or what is somehow wrong in the sentences that follow. On Pb's side is more whataboutism with HRC.

The Message

On WP's side, everything beside the first and last sentences have been accurate descriptions of what many have predicted about bourgeois politics — Sanders' movement is somehow just starting to realize you can't play inside the game to win the game. On Pb's side, it's not necessary to say another economic crisis will come along in five years since they're inevitable anyway. Also "left-wing" ideals haha yeah sure.

Primary Process

I don't see anything wrong here, but I probably don't know enough about bourgeois process anyway.

In Conclusion

On WP's side, there seems to be a false dichotomy about "Sanders" or "Trump" when there are more than two choices. On Pb's side, idk what "superdelegates" are. I think directly supporting Trump is more likely to put Trump in office than supporting Hillary. (I'm guessing the logic here is if you make HRC the nominee so many people hate her they'll flock to Trump?) The last sentence about the paper switching stances (and perhaps writers too) arbitrarily is just a beautiful mockery of bourgeois politics.

http://onestruggle.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/elections1.jpg Withoutaname (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

My 2 cents

Paragraph 1: (a) Sanders is not and Independant as WaPo tries to make him out. He currently is a Democrat, as is required by rules in order for him to run. (b) the term "attacked" here is outrageous, suggesting violence when it refers to verbal criticism. (c) There is no established connection between the state party chair receiving death threats and "Supporters of Bernie Sanders", other than innuendo.

Paragraph 2: (a) "self-righteousness and hypocrisy" - utterly subjective. (b) again, the hyperbolic misuse of the word "attack" (c) the recipient of millions of votes certainly has the power, authority, and right to speak for millions of outraged Americans. It is WaPo that is offering throwaway lines and hypocrisy.

Paragraph 3 (a) Of course the corporate entity, the Washington Post, would "attack" Sanders. 72% of Americans feel the country is heading in the wrong direction. Obviously the Washington Post doesn't even read some of the crap they spew every day. (b) "toxic mix"? why, cause it threatens the corrupt Clinton machine and DNC?

Paragraph 4 (a) "sketchy quirks". Yah, like last weeks Washington State primary where Hillary won but received no delegates -- cause the delegates were awarded weeks ago in another "sketchy quirk". Thanks for throwing the people a bone and allowing them to express an opinion, even tho that had no influence whatsoever over the process. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Paragraph 5 (a) "passion cannot trump reality". Amen to that. The system rigged. The systems fucked. The Washington Post is like (notice the disclaimer, "like", that way I can deny I ever said it) a Stalinist mouthpiece for a corrupt undemocratic, and anti-democratic regime. nobs^{#NeverHillary} 00:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems like we agree on most points. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)