HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Bernie's current proposed...

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:14 AM

 

Bernie's current proposed strategy could win him the nomination.

Unfortunately for Bernie, he waited too long. Bernie started off saying he wanted to run a non-negative, issue oriented campaign. Somewhere along the way (*cough* Jeff Weaver *cough* Tad Devine) his movement became less about issues and more about trying to destroy Hillary.

If Bernie stuck to his guns (no pun intended) and focused solely on the issues and building himself up instead of trying to tear Hillary down, I believe he would be doing far better. Perhaps even winning.

Now, he kind of alluded in his speech a tack back to the issues (which I agree with) and less talk about Hillary (which I agree with). THIS was his winning campaign strategy and I believe Weaver and Devine destroyed Bernie Sanders by not sticking to his original theme.

Imagine for a moment, if Bernie's online brigade spent all of their time and energy building their candidate up instead of creating memes trying to tear Hillary down. THAT was the winning strategy. But somewhere along the way it became about tearing Hillary down.

Yes, Hillary has to court progressives, but Bernie's movement has also created a movement of people who believe Hillary is only winning due to superdelegates, voter fraud, and conspiracy theories. And THAT is on Bernie to try and heal those wounds.

If there is anything we can agree on at this point it should be: 1-Bernie, at this point, needs to help unify the Dem party by stopping any negative remarks about Hillary. 2-Build his own platform up. 3-Stop Trump, an orange white supremacist who wants to punish women for having abortions, deport 11 million families, start 3 wars, make racism codified law, crush unions, and load SCOTUS with dingbats. 4-There is a lot more that unites us than divides us.

74 replies, 2880 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 74 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bernie's current proposed strategy could win him the nomination. (Original post)
JaneyVee Apr 2016 OP
NCTraveler Apr 2016 #1
Trust Buster Apr 2016 #2
bkkyosemite Apr 2016 #6
JaneyVee Apr 2016 #8
bkkyosemite Apr 2016 #74
msanthrope Apr 2016 #14
R B Garr Apr 2016 #24
IamMab Apr 2016 #28
bkkyosemite Apr 2016 #68
JanetLovesObama Apr 2016 #7
democrattotheend Apr 2016 #12
IamMab Apr 2016 #30
thesquanderer Apr 2016 #22
workinclasszero Apr 2016 #39
bkkyosemite Apr 2016 #3
PowerToThePeople Apr 2016 #4
Orsino Apr 2016 #5
msanthrope Apr 2016 #15
Orsino Apr 2016 #17
msanthrope Apr 2016 #18
Orsino Apr 2016 #20
LexVegas Apr 2016 #9
JaneyVee Apr 2016 #11
frylock Apr 2016 #19
R B Garr Apr 2016 #25
frylock Apr 2016 #26
R B Garr Apr 2016 #31
frylock Apr 2016 #32
R B Garr Apr 2016 #33
frylock Apr 2016 #34
R B Garr Apr 2016 #35
frylock Apr 2016 #36
R B Garr Apr 2016 #40
frylock Apr 2016 #41
R B Garr Apr 2016 #42
frylock Apr 2016 #43
R B Garr Apr 2016 #44
frylock Apr 2016 #45
R B Garr Apr 2016 #46
frylock Apr 2016 #47
R B Garr Apr 2016 #48
frylock Apr 2016 #50
azmom Apr 2016 #53
frylock Apr 2016 #54
R B Garr Apr 2016 #55
frylock Apr 2016 #57
R B Garr Apr 2016 #58
frylock Apr 2016 #59
R B Garr Apr 2016 #60
frylock Apr 2016 #61
R B Garr Apr 2016 #49
frylock Apr 2016 #62
R B Garr Apr 2016 #63
frylock Apr 2016 #67
R B Garr Apr 2016 #69
Generic Brad Apr 2016 #71
Marr Apr 2016 #64
R B Garr Apr 2016 #66
Marr Apr 2016 #70
R B Garr Apr 2016 #73
Iliyah Apr 2016 #10
Sheepshank Apr 2016 #13
NurseJackie Apr 2016 #16
JaneyVee Apr 2016 #21
mcar Apr 2016 #23
LWolf Apr 2016 #27
SidDithers Apr 2016 #29
Tarc Apr 2016 #37
workinclasszero Apr 2016 #38
grasswire Apr 2016 #51
Jitter65 Apr 2016 #52
azmom Apr 2016 #56
ucrdem Apr 2016 #65
ismnotwasm Apr 2016 #72

Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:16 AM

1. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:17 AM

2. His two week negativity fest in New York hurt his momentum badly.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trust Buster (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:18 AM

6. No! The rigged system hurt his momentum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:23 AM

8. No, voters did, bkkyosemite, voters did.

 

Bernie doesnt even have as many votes as Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 03:06 PM

74. No JaneyVee rigged system did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 10:17 AM

14. He sandbagged himself with Sandy Hook. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:21 AM

24. No, the New York Daily News interview bomb stopped his momentum, among

other self-inflicted wounds.

He looked small and petty attacking Clinton for "issues" he couldn't even quantify or qualify in that interview. It destroyed his credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bkkyosemite (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:41 AM

28. His supporters being too low-information to know the rules ruined his chances. And that's on them.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IamMab (Reply #28)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:27 PM

68. ...... not so low information at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trust Buster (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:22 AM

7. Absolutely !!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trust Buster (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 10:10 AM

12. As a supporter I half agree

I don't think any of his criticisms of Hillary were untrue, overly personal, or below the belt, but I do think that he might have done better if he had focused a little less on her and a little more on himself and his message. When I canvassed for him, the undecideds I met liked him, usually more than they liked Hillary. The reason they were on the fence was because they were either concerned about whether he was electable or felt that his plans were unrealistic and/or not specific enough. His slightly more critical approach did not seem to lower voters' opinions of him. However, I think some of the time he spent focused on Clinton's shortcomings as a candidate would have been better spent stressing the specifics of his proposals to rebut criticisms that he lacked specifics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #12)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:42 AM

30. We're coming up on May and Sanders still can't articulate the "specifics of his proposals."

 

It's time to stop assuming he's just not talking about them and admit that he doesn't have them to begin with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trust Buster (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:55 AM

22. True, his most negative period was between Wisconsin and New York.

It was largely a reaction to things the Hillary campaign put forth about whether he was qualified, but he fell into a bit of a trap there, as the words never literally came out of Hillary's mouth.

Where I disagree with the OP is that, if he had run a more positive campaign all along, he could have won the nomination. Most of the campaign was very positive. He never even ran the kinds of attack ads that Hilary ran against him. The only period he strayed much was, as I said, from Wisconsin to New York, so to the extent that "staying positive" might have won him the nomination, I'd say, at best, it might have won him New York. But New York, with its close primary that required declaring your party affiliation 6 months ahead of time was always going to be a real tough one for him. I doubt he would have won it anyway. But let's say he might have gotten ten points closer, which still would have been a great result for him, all things considered. When it comes down to the delegate math, things would not be terribly different than they are now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trust Buster (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 12:13 PM

39. Yup the wheels really came off in NY

 

Someone should write a book about it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:17 AM

3. She has to court progressives because she is not one. She pretends to be after Bernie came on

the scene and stole his words she is now and has been using. She will go right back to what she really is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:17 AM

4. Bernie will do the right thing.

 

I am sure he will support the nominee and work towards beating the Republicans.

As for my vote, I will vote my conscience in November.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:18 AM

5. There's also the opportunity to force Clinton to be a better candidate...

...if she has the courage and tenacity to enact progressve change. Watch the platform coming out of this convention.

Imagine: a program of self-improvent instead of another cover-up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 10:18 AM

15. You have to have leverage to do that. Bernie's campaign frittered his away. t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #15)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 10:30 AM

17. Delegates are leverage.

...and about all the leverage any candidate ought to have.

He's got a lot, and that means significant influence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #17)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 10:35 AM

18. We will see. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #18)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 10:45 AM

20. Yes.

I think Bernie's support will help craft a party platform that looks a bit more like his own than just an Establishment creation. That's the sort of thing that ought to please us supporters, even if our candidate doesn't wind up on the ticket or in the Cabinet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:23 AM

9. He went off the rails when his surrogates starting attacking civil rights icons. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LexVegas (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:35 AM

11. True true.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LexVegas (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 10:45 AM

19. Calling out civil rights icons for their blatant lying.

FIFY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #19)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:25 AM

25. She wasn't lying! Her translation on her social media page didn't match

word for word what a tape said, but the meaning was the same. She wasn't lying. That was a huge mistake to be that vicious to her for no reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #25)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:38 AM

26. No, she lied.

Nobody was chanting "Speak english". Nobody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #26)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:36 AM

31. She didn't lie. She translated what happened with different words.

The meaning was the same. She didn't lie. They clearly didn't want her to translate. That was the meaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #31)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:45 AM

32. Did she, or did she not claim that Bernie supporters were chanting "English only"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #32)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:49 AM

33. This is a silly and transparent trick where you pretend all meaning is lost if the words

don't match up entirely, which is the nature of translation, BTW. The intent and meaning of the message is not lost. She didn't lie. She translated differently on social media, but the meaning was the same. They didn't want her to translate. That was the meaning. Quit calling her a liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #33)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:55 AM

34. Then where was the retraction? Where was the correction? Where was the clarification?

Where was the FUCKING chanting? That tweet still stands to this day. She. Lied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #34)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 12:01 PM

35. The meaning was clear. No retraction was needed. What she needed was an apology

from Bernie fans.

I saw the shouting in the video. It was clear they were shouting to stop her from speaking. She was the target of their ire. It wasn't a sweet scene at all. People were nasty to her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #35)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 12:04 PM

36. Post the video and let's break it down.

We ALL watched the video the day it happened. It completely debunked Huerta's "translation" of what transpired. Moreover, the repeating (NOT chanting) of "English only" was from a Hillary Supporter. Find the video and let's do this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #36)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 12:20 PM

40. The video showed what she translated. She was being harassed into not translating because

it was believed the non-English speakers were there to help Hillary and the Bernie people didn't want that. The only people who want to "break it down" are those that want to call her a liar because they want to discredit her. Her translation of what she experienced wasn't a lie.

I've seen the threads and the irrational responses from BS'ers calling her a liar, so post all the crap you want to. It only makes you look bad, which is probably why few people stopped you from proceeding with this lame tactic. It damages Bernie even now. But she didn't lie, and she translated what she experienced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #40)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 12:28 PM

41. Raucous Caucus

Activist Dolores Huerta sent a tweet claiming Bernie Sanders supporters shouted 'English only' at her, but witnesses gave conflicting accounts.

[font size="26"]FALSE[/font size]

Example: [Collected via Twitter, February 2016]

Origin:On 20 February 2016, the Nevada Democratic caucuses ended in a victory for Hillary Clinton. Not long after that, actress America Ferrera tweeted that that supporters of Bernie Sanders shouted "English only!" at longtime civil rights activist Dolores Huerta (who had apparently offered to translate from English to Spanish at an event at Harrah's casino on the Las Vegas strip), objecting to a translation of remarks from English to Spanish:

Shortly thereafter, Huerta tweeted:

Huerta initially didn't specify how she identified the chanters as Sanders supporters. We spoke to Erin Cruz, who was present at the rally with a nurses' union to support Sanders:

Cruz told us she was accompanied by ten other nurses and actors Susan Sarandon and Gaby Hoffman. Cruz said she was unaware of any recording during the disputed chanting:

@KimLaCapria @brooklynmarie I don't know that anyone was recording, but I would gladly give a statement along with all the other nurses. — Erin Cruz (@neuroticnurse75) February 20, 2016

A video of Huerta speaking surfaced not long afterward:

Huerta has been extremely outspoken in her support for Hillary Clinton in recent weeks, and in fact was at the Nevada event to stump for her.

Later on 20 February 2016, Huerta told ThinkProgress that she was able to identify Sanders' supporters as the "room was divided with the Hillary people on one side and the Bernie people on the other." Huerta then nullified the "English only" claim entirely, herself stating that objections were raised not about translation but due to her affiliation with the Clinton campaign. Huerta further confirmed that the "English only" statement was made by the temporary precinct chair and not those objecting:

“The fellow that was running the caucus said that the first person to come up to the stage could translate, so I went up. Nobody else did,” she said. “Then the Bernie people started yelling no, no, no. One of their people came up, and I suggested we both translate. But the moderator decided we would have no translation. So the Bernie people preferred we would have no translation just because I was going to do the translating. It’s ridiculous, because if I had said something that wasn’t accurate, I’m sure somebody would have corrected me.”

A subsequent tweet from Susan Sarandon (who was present at that caucus) provided an account of the dispute in question along with a longer video clip:

Also present was actor Gaby Hoffman, who tweeted:

As Sarandon correctly stated, the segment in dispute started around the 53:30 mark, when parties called for a Spanish-language translator. As she indicated, at 55:18 the caucus moderator (not Sanders' supporters) simply stated that the inability to locate a neutral translator meant the caucus would continue in "English only." At no point did any Sanders supporters appear to have refused a translator based on the fact that translation was objectionable to them; nor was "English only" used in a pejorative fashion. The term was invoked a single time, during the moderator's assertion that no suitable translator was located to provide Spanish-language translations:



A number of readers pointed us toward a 20 February 2016 BuzzFeed item titled "Sources: Bernie Supporters Did Chant “English Only” At Latina Labor Activist," which held:

On Saturday, Bernie Sanders supporters chanted “English only!” at a longtime labor and Latina activist, two neutral sources unaffiliated with either campaign told BuzzFeed News.

On 22 February 2016, we contacted BuzzFeed reporter Evan McMorris-Santoro to ask whether we could obtain more information on the "two anonymous sources" cited in the piece. McMorris-Santoro apologized and stated he was unwilling to discuss the claim, adding that his reporting "speaks for itself" in that respect.

Significant edits to that item might be the reporting to which McMorris-Santoro referred. On 21 February 2016, the item was updated to include the following passage:

BuzzFeed News asked Huerta about the specific wording of Ferrara’s tweet: “Harrah’s casino site- Bernie supporters chant “English-only” to stop civil rights leader @DoloresHuerta from providing Spanish translation.”

... asked to detail what happened, she described a scene different from the image of a legion of Sanders faithful engaged in a racist chant that some read into the Ferrara tweet. When videos of the Harrah’s site posted online didn’t show a scene of mass chants, some dismissed the Huerta story entirely.

“What happened was this,” Huerta began. “We were there as observers, Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters in the back of the room. Somebody said, ‘we need translation’ and the gentleman running the caucus said we can have translation and the first person on stage can be the translator. I started walking toward the stage. Bernie supporters chanted, ‘no, no, no.’ A Bernie supporter said he wanted to translate. The gentleman running the caucus said we’re not going to do that. It got very loud, and I stepped off the stage.”

An individual or individuals yelled “English only” Huerta said, part of general yelling and chanting by Sanders supporters at the Harrah’s site aimed at her.

“They’re whole attitude is, I call it crash and burn, which is if we can’t do it we’d rather not have anyone do it,” she said of the translation scene.

We examined Nevada State Democratic Party caucus guidelines with respect to general procedure, and were unable to locate any specific procedural policy about translators. If such a provision was codified, it wasn't available in caucus-related instructional material.

However, caucus policy documents published by the Nevada State Democratic Party in 2008 [PDF] and 2016 [PDF] appeared to favor the objections to Huerta's participation after the caucus was called to order, because of her clear identification as a campaign operative, advocate, volunteer, or surrogate. (Below, Huerta speaking outside the caucus on 20 February 2015, wearing a Clinton campaign t-shirt and hat):

huerta caucus

Guidelines from 2008 stated that campaign operatives were prohibited from communicating in any fashion with caucus participants once the caucus was called to order:

Only eligible, registered caucus participants may participate on caucus matters or elections ... Campaign Staff and campaign volunteers that are observers will not be allowed to communicate, signal, or instruct the eligible caucus participants once the caucus is called to order by the Temporary Chair ... Anyone may attend the caucus as an observer but may only observe and may not participate or attempt to influence the caucus in [any way] if they are not eligible to caucus.

Under the heading "Campaigning and Other Activities" in Nevada Democrats' 2016 At-Large Precinct Caucus Guidelines, that procedure was reiterated:

Persons appearing on behalf of candidates or issues not specifically mentioned in the agenda will not be offered an opportunity to speak during the caucus. However, they may speak individually with attendees, pass out literature or collect signatures prior to the caucus being called to order at 11:30 a.m. on Saturday, February 20 ... No campaigning activity by presidential campaigns is permitted inside the registration area of the At-Large Precinct site ...

... Only eligible, registered caucus participants may participate on caucus matters or elections ... Campaign staff and campaign volunteers who are observers will not be allowed to communicate, signal, or instruct the eligible caucus participants once the caucus is called to order by the Temporary Chair.

We tried several times to contact Huerta on 20 February 2016, but have not yet received a reply.

On 22 February 2016 we contacted Raymond Buckley, Chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party and Temporary Precinct Chair (TPC) of the 20 February 2016 Harrah's Caucus. Presumably, Buckley was the individual referenced as TPC in media reports and made the call to proceed without translation under the circumstances:

buckley harrah's 1 buckley harrah's 2 buckley harrah's 4 buckley harrahs 4

A representative for Chairman Buckley responded to our initial query, but we have not yet made direct contact with the Harrah's TPC, nor have we confirmed he was one of the two neutral parties with whom BuzzFeed purportedly discussed Huerta's claims.

Last updated: 23 February 2016

Originally published: 20 February 2016

Featured Image: Flickr

Tags:
hillary clintonbernie sandersamerica ferreradolores huertanevada caucusbuzzfeed

http://www.snopes.com/sanders-english-only-huerta/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #41)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 12:39 PM

42. "It's Dolores Huerta, my goodness"



The video doesn't lie and she translated what she experienced. You just want to quibble over the exact order of the words when the meaning was clear. Your link only confirms what I said. You are trying to discredit her based on the order of words. Bernie fans didn't want her to translate because it was considered helping Hillary voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #42)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 12:42 PM

43. At what mark does the "chanting" begin?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #43)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 12:45 PM

44. The whole video is shouting.

All of it is shouting. Nasty shouting. Quite a scene. LMAO at you trying to parse translated words so you can call her a liar. It's obvious what the meaning was of what she was saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #44)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 12:48 PM

45. Where. Is. The. Chanting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #45)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:09 PM

46. Her translation was accurate. She was being shouted down for translating.

There was nothing wrong with her using the word chanting, as she was being shouted down and some words were repeated in all the shouting. Nothing wrong with her translation of "Neutral" to "English only". WTF would "neutral" mean to a non-English speaker, so she translated it. Her translations were accurate depictions of the situation. Only someone with an agenda to discredit her would call her a liar. This isn't going to go over well in California where there are large Hispanic populations and where Dolores became known for her activism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #46)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:11 PM

47. Where. Is. The. Chanting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #47)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:23 PM

48. Definition of chanting:

chant


/CHant/


verb

gerund or present participle: chanting




say or shout repeatedly in a singsong tone.
"protesters were chanting slogans"


synonyms: shout, chorus, repeat
"protesters were chanting slogans"




•sing or intone (a psalm, canticle, or sacred text).

synonyms: sing, intone, incant
"the choir chanted Psalm 118"
---------------

The video depicts the shouting she was referring to. She translated it as chanting. Her meaning was clear. Only someone trying desperately to parse her words to call her a liar would say they didn't understand what she was saying. The definition of "chant" contains the word "shout" and that happened repeatedly in the video.

Her meaning in her Tweets and Social Media was that she was shouted down from translating. Some people repeated words (chanting). It was easy to see they were Bernie supporters doing it because the room was divided into Hillary supporters on one side and Bernie supporters on the other. The people in charge of the event were also involved in calming the crowds chants/shouts. It's clear what happened is what she said happened, but she used some different words in her translation than what the tape shows. She was clear in what happened as it is backed up by the video.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #48)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:27 PM

50. At what mark in that video do you hear "English only"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #50)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:37 PM

53. I'm Latina and a supporter of Huerta, but she lied.

It was a blatant attempt to paint the Bernie supporters as racist. I was and will always be dissapointed in her actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azmom (Reply #53)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:42 PM

54. Of course she lied.

If it was a misunderstanding, that should have been corrected or retracted. However, that tweet still stands without clarification. I think we are all disappointed, az.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #50)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:46 PM

55. This is a silly transparent game that really points to arrogance.

It is just arrogance and deception to say that a English to Spanish translator/speaker is a liar because she translated the meaning of words in a way you refuse to understand so you can discredit her.

She translated her experience. Why would you even ask that when I already brought that up a couple posts ago and also initially. It isn't lying to translate meaning into another language. Explain how you do not understand that Huerta is being shouted down from speaking Spanish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #55)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 02:01 PM

57. Try reading the Snopes link again.

She was being shouted down because she was a PARTISAN operative, not because she was speaking Spanish.

We examined Nevada State Democratic Party caucus guidelines with respect to general procedure, and were unable to locate any specific procedural policy about translators. If such a provision was codified, it wasn't available in caucus-related instructional material.

However, caucus policy documents published by the Nevada State Democratic Party in 2008 and 2016 appeared to favor the objections to Huerta's participation after the caucus was called to order, because of her clear identification as a campaign operative, advocate, volunteer, or surrogate.

She decided to make this about race, because of her clear identification as a campaign operative, advocate, volunteer, or surrogate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #57)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 02:16 PM

58. I have read the link before, but it just explains the video. Look how you cling to words to twist

into calling her a liar.

Basically, your little self-reflection here shows her translation was right. All of her input was about her attempts to TRANSLATE from English to Spanish. She was shouted down because they didn't want her to TRANSLATE. So she was SHOUTED DOWN, as you've refused to acknowledge before until this post. She TRANSLATED "shouted down" on her social media and was attacked for being a liar. So basically you've wasted time here because you wanted to parse words that were perfectly acceptable as TRANSLATIONS of what was very obviously depicted in the video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #58)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:27 PM

59. Where was the FUCKING CHANTING of ENGLISH ONLY?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #59)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:13 PM

60. LOL at you insisting you don't understand her simple translation.

She translated her experience, and we've been through this already for several posts. This is obviously your safe default position to insist that her translation must match word for word when the meaning matched by the hostility in the video is clear.

Explain how you don't understand she was being shouted down for starting to translate English to Spanish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #60)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:17 PM

61. Okay, then. I'll play your game. Where was the FUCKING SHOUTING of ENGLISH ONLY?

At what mark in the video did someone SHOUT (happy now?) "English only"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #47)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:25 PM

49. Definition of chanting in Spanish:

canto


---------------

verb


cantar
chant, jingle

corear
chant

gritar
scream, shout, cry, yell, cry out, shout out






Show less

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #49)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:18 PM

62. At what mark in the video did someone scream, shout, cry, yell, cry out, shout out..

"English only"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #62)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:20 PM

63. lol at your desperate parsing. The whole video was shouting.

All of it. The hostility was even noted by another speaker/rep when she said, "It's Delores Huerta, my goodness."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #63)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:25 PM

67. So you can't say where in the video someone shouted "English only".

And despite eyewitness accounts that debunk the notion that someone screamed, shouted, cried, yelled, cried out, shouted out "English only", you're going to accuse ME of parsing? For reals?! And the fuck does "It's Delores Huerta, my goodness." have to do with the fact that nobody screamed, shouted, cried, yelled, cried out, shouted out "English only"?

The evidence is not in your favor and we're done here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #67)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:29 PM

69. Explain how you don't understand she was shouted down for starting to translate

English to Spanish. Explain how her translation of that hostile situation to "English only" is so confusing to you.

"Eyewitness" means a biased Bernie supporter wanting to attribute malice to everything and anyone who supports Hillary.

The ENTIRE video was shouting. Hostile shouting. You just want to call her a liar so you can discredit her. She translated her experience. It matches the video.

And the evidence is in my favor. It's in my favor because the rest of the room understood that she was shouted down while attempting to TRANSLATE, so obviously they wanted her to speak English only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #47)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:52 PM

71. The chanting is in your posts

You keep posting the same thing over and over. That is chanting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #31)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:23 PM

64. "She translated what happened with different words."

 

LMFAO.

I guess it all depends on the definition of 'is' or something. Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #64)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:24 PM

66. Explain how you don't understand she was shouted down for starting to translate

English to Spanish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #66)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:35 PM

70. I understand she lied.

 

Here's how I can tell:

She claimed a thing happened that didn't actually happen. If there hadn't been video of it, you'd still be backing her lie, instead of offering hilarious equivocations like, 'she translated what happened with different words".

lol, yeah-- words that were different from what actually happened. Also known as a lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #70)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:34 PM

73. LOL, the words were not different from what actually

happened. She was shouted down for translating English to Spanish. That means English only.

Her Twitter translation was truncated for the Twitter limit. So she translated English only. Because that's what the translation means of being shouted down for speaking Spanish. Translating foreign languages is not lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:25 AM

10. Disagree. Further information concerning implementing his proposals would not have

resonated with the Dems, Indies and GOPers, i.e. taxes. Second, he was not helpful for the down ticket Dems.

Agree that he, his campaign, and supporters work together to stop the GOP re: WH and congress.

One thing about the Democratic Party, like it or not, we are diverse. Liberals/progressives; conservatives; moderates; centrist. What the United States of America is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 10:15 AM

13. Thank you...clear well thought out

 

I do agree that only Bernie can unite where he has driven a wedge. Hillary trying too hard will be seen as a negative and pandering. Unfortunately, I am not sure Bernie will do such a thing for several reasons. So I think we are stuck with trying to figure out a GE strategy without Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 10:20 AM

16. They were consumed by hatred...

... all other considerations were secondary. (And for many, that's still true.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 07:08 PM

21. kick.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:15 AM

23. Excellent analysis

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:38 AM

27. No.

1. I haven't heard negative remarks about Clinton, unless mentioning her actual record is negative. Which, of course, it is. At this point, many of us have not gotten to vote in our own primary, so trying to get us to "unify" behind our opposition is undemocratic, to say the least.
2. He already has.
3. I'll stop Trump by working to nominate the candidate with the best chance of beating him...Sanders. Clinton supporters using this as a talking point for Sanders quitting at this point are disingenuous and hypocritical, to say the least.
4. Until the Democratic Party wants to acknowledge and address what truly divides us, that divide will continue to grow wider and deeper. The current Democratic Party is the party of neo-liberals, and the efforts over the last 2 decades to purge the rest of us from the party have increased in scope and intensity. At this point, if Democratic voters continue to vote for neo-liberals and allow neo-liberals to hold power within the party, those Democrats are going to have to let the idea of unity go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:42 AM

29. DU rec...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 12:09 PM

37. Sanders lost this election when he went all in with "Killer Mike" in S.C.

While Rep. Lewis and others, who endorsed Hillary, were savaged mercilessly by Sanders supporters. That is when the African-American voters said "no fucking way" and supported Hillary in droves, giving him a thumping in S.C. that extended through the rest of the primaries.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 12:11 PM

38. They welcomed to many hater republican/libertarians/greens into the fold with open arms

 

It put Sanders off message and ruined his campaign with vast swathes of undecided democrats.

You should never invite a poisonous snake into your house, knowing the nature of the beast.

Great analysis JV

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:31 PM

51. In the words of a great American naval commander.



"Nuts"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:35 PM

52. Weaver and Devine allowed their personal hate for Hillary to get in the way of a great campaign.

 

And Bernie did not have the good judgement to see or understand this because he too has personal animus toward Hillary. I really think it's a sexist thing. They don't seem to demonize males holding the same views and voting record as Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:47 PM

56. Bernie's strategy is and has always been to tell

the truth. If he is losing, it's because of people's unwillingness to accept the fact that the entire political system is corrupt.

The fact that Hillary has been a major player in the whole pay to play scheme is not Bernie's fault.

I will vote my conscious regardless of what Bernie decides to do in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:23 PM

65. No, his campaign was always about bashing Hillary and Barack.

I know many will disagree but he started out bashing Barack for a year over TPP and fast track, launched on the same day Clinton Cash was published and went all-in on the talking points, and his whole "I'm the only honest one" is a Hillary bash, as is "Superpacs" and his campaign financing shtick.

He had a good run, but he wasn't all that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:55 PM

72. He made serious campaign blunders

Which is why, until March, I thought he *could* win. After that it was clear he would not. But he could have. Oh yes indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread