2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI got banned from the sanders group for posting this
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Hassin Bin Sober (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).
usually each side gets equal amount of tickets so the audience can't be stacked for one side or another
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Don't they realize? I mean... seriously.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)BlueStateLib
(937 posts)And live in California
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)enjoy your stay.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)eom.
dsc
(52,152 posts)if their explanation is to be taken at face value. bottom line it is their group and they get to run it how they wish.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)A number of folks said they were banned from the Hillary group for dumb reasons and if that's so it should be called out as well. I would like to hear the back stories of those bans.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Is that the case this time, you would have come across more sincere if you could provide proof of that fact. I got banned for a post two plus years ago in the Hillary group.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Not surprised, tho.
Sid
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)This is on the poster's journal:
*********
Sanderss Screwy Mideast Strategy
A problem with Sanderss limited articulation of a foreign policy is that his most passionately stated position is extremely regressive and incredibly dangerous. Sanders has actually pushed for the repressive Saudi Arabian regime to engage in more intervention in the Mideast.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/08/26/sanderss-screwy-mideast-strategy/
Posted by BlueStateLib | Thu Sep 10, 2015, 05:10 PM (14 replies)
**********
I bet you hate that it is getting harder and harder to fool DUers, eh, Sid?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Who would be proud of that?
And from the Bernie Sanders Group SOP:
Statement of Purpose
A group for supporters of Bernie Sanders.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I mean. It's their group. They can ban anyone for any reason. Obviously.
Certainly, the post linked isn't disruptive. Is it?
Sid
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The OP in question is obviously trying to pull one over on yall.
They come here and piddle on the floor because they got caught.
Remember this, Sid, this is Bernie Underground now. Things are different. You should re-enlist?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I guess I have a problem with preemptive blocking.
But, hey. It's their Group.
Sid
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'll just repost the comments I made when you dragged that stinking thing back here to DU:
This hit piece was already posted back in August so I'm just going to repost my response to the bullshit:
Husseini said:
...
Why is Sanders doing this? Is there a domestic constituency called Americans for Saudi Domination of the Arab World? Well, yes and no. It would obviously play well in the general public to say: Weve got to stop backing dictatorships like the Saudis. They behead people, they are tyrannical. They have a system of male guardianship. Why the hell are they an ally?
But Sanders is unwilling to break with the U.S.-Saudi alliance that has done such damage to both the Arab people and the American people. Now, we have a full-fledged Israeli-Saudi alliance and it must be music to the ears of pro-Israeli journalists like Wolf Blitzer for Sanders to be calling for U.S. backing of further Saudi domination.
...
So Sanders and Saudi planners seem to be working toward the same ends, as though war by an autocratic state in a critical region can be expected to breed good outcomes. Sanders doesnt seem to take money from Lockheed Martin though hes backed their F-35, slated to be based in Vermont but his stance on Saudi Arabia must bring a smile to the faces of bigwigs there.
What a crock.
Bernie is not pro-Saudi, he has criticized them in the past and will continue to do so.
His comments are being taken out of context by the author, he was angry that they want the US to send troops to defeat ISIS:
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) ripped Saudi Arabia Friday after the nations top diplomat suggested the U.S. would have to deploy ground troops to ultimately defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
I find it remarkable that Saudi Arabia, which borders Iraq and is controlled by a multi-billion dollar family, is demanding that U.S. combat troops have boots on the ground against ISIS. Where are the Saudi troops? Sanders, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, said in a statement.
With the third largest military budget in the world and an army far larger than ISIS, the Saudi government must accept its full responsibility for stability in their own region of the world, he added.
The sharp words come the day after Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, expressed concern that Irans military is increasing its support to Baghdads forces in the fight against the terror group, especially around the city of Tikrit.
...
Sanders flatly rejected the notion that America must lead the vanguard against ISIS.
Ultimately, this is a profound struggle for the soul of Islam, and the anti-ISIS Muslim nations must lead that fight. While the United States and other western nations should be supportive, the Muslim nations must lead, he said.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/234907-sanders-blast-saudi-arabia-for-suggesting-us-troops-against-isis
You've got a lot of nerve complaining about being blocked from the BERNIE SANDERS GROUP after posting that piece of garbage.
Cry me a river.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That seems to be the case from what I read in the thread
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I didn't see the thread in the Bernie group but I had a feeling they did more than post an innocent link.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)so its not a surprise that anything that causes the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance in their group is not allowed, even something as innocuous as your post.
At least one Bernie supporter has said they are putting you on ignore for daring to post this fairly milquetoast post.
I am sure this post of mine will be alerted too, I give it 50-50 it will be hidden. It's what they do.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Y'know, we sure could do without the meta-whining, and stick to the issues.
The OP threw out a turd and never even replied in its own turd thread.
Then it comes here and drops another turd.
Remember, it's like Sid says: This IS Bernie Underground. Turds will be swept away!
dsc
(52,152 posts)how could he reply.
Response to stevenleser (Reply #14)
GeorgeGist This message was self-deleted by its author.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Don't play dumb. Your reputation preceded you, and it was an inarguably good call by the host.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)They're preemptively making excuses for Sanders losing. Rigged Union endorsements, lite debate schedules, stacked audiences etc. that will progress into 'reports of voting irregularities,' vote machine tampering, etc.
doc03
(35,300 posts)I support her. Apparently I made some comment that was interpreted to be anti Hillary I guess. Who knows if you say something that someone disagrees with you are banned or they call out the jury. This forum has been f---ed up since they started the jury system.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)BlueWaveDem
(403 posts)I didn't like being called an "anti-semite". And I'm Jewish.