Bernie Sanders Drops Frivolous Lawsuit Against DNC

[Morphine Prince 109,655]

15 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Trump might be a few short...maybe. If they deny him the nominee, I can't imagine what will happen...inside and outside the convention center! 

I feel like he will get the amount he needs but I'm not gonna lie... I hope he doesn't just to witness the glorious disaster the convention will be. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Cackling.

How can you be in agreement with that? 

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

If truths are statements that are mostly true, Bernie has +2% on truths. He's told the truth more than Hillary 2% of the total times.

If lies are statements that are mostly false, Bernie has +2% on lies. He's lied more than Hillary. He's told lies more than Hillary 2% of the total times.

Wouldn't that make them approximately the same in terms of honesty?

Stop perpetuating ignorance. She's not a bigger liar than any politician. Compared to most of the Republicans she's a saint. 

[Bebe 17,289]

35 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

What makes you think he didn't?

You have no proof otherwise except their word, so don't try to base your assumptions as fact either. 

In any case the entire point is that he lied so try to cover it up, and then his campaign lied about the results make him look at it at a skewed light. Tell me...why would he suddenly drop it? There's more than we know and we'll never know.

Considering that my entire point is to humanize Sanders, I'm glad you agree that this is as irrelevant as the emails. It's a ****up, one that happens a lot when you don't have complete control over your subordinates or plans. One that many Bernie supporters feel obliged to connect with Hillary's competence. 

So...thanks for agreeing with me. 

We are talking about junior-level staffers... The idea that he knew what was going on or was involved is ludicrous and you know it. It would be like blaming the CEO of McDonald's because some young kid working at the counter was dishing out the wrong amount of change.

He didn't lie to cover up anything... The results show that Bernie and his camp told the truth to the best of their ability and the results show they took immediate action to fire those responsible when it was discovered what happened. He dropped the lawsuit because there is no need to sue anymore, he has been proven correct about the data breach.

At the time, DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz used the word “steal” to describe what the Sanders campaign had done. A Clinton spokesman accused the Sanders staffers of going “hog wild, downloading as much data as they could.”

This has been proven false by these findings.

"Considering that my entire point is to humanize Sanders" People like him because he is human  There is no reason to try. Maybe you should try humanizing Hillary because that's where I think people have trouble.

I'm glad you also think this is irrelevant, don't know why you made a topic calling him a liar if you think it's irrelevant but go ahead...

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

I know s'we said we wouldn't question each other's intelligence, but how can you be in agreement with that?

I'm actually not per se, I just thought that was a hilarious thing to say.

I don't know that much about Hillary tbh, but I did see proof of her lying about the weirdest things, over and over again, which turned me off massively. I can't stand people who continue to lie when they're caught right in the act. Just acknowledge it and explain.

And yes, when Bernie's caught I would be very cross if he used Hillary's tactic indeed.

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

She's not a bigger liar than any politician. Compared to most of the Republicans she's a saint. 

Well, I wouldn't vote for a Republican, so that argument doesn't really matter to me, nor do I care about politicians lying in general, that's what I expect. Representational democracy naturally attracts people who are the least educated about the world, yet have the most talents to convince people they're fit to take charge of it. I don't expect any less. And no, I don't think Bernie is a special case here either. Especially on the subject of international politics he shows his lack of clarity and he makes massive mistakes (I will never forgive him for saying that Assad would have to be dealt with after ISIS as if the two don't have anything to do with each other).

But... someone who will lie over as random a thing as what happened after you step off a plane, and you continue to fabricate stuff after your report has been proven false twice, is just lying on a whole other level to me, which is why I find it almost impossible to trust her on any issue in general. And I know this a Bernie fan classic, but her "defense" against the demand to release the content of her infamous speeches is as embarrassing as it can get for me. She doesn't give me any reason to trust her, while other politicians can at least convincingly create the impression that they don't have a public and a private motive at least.

But like I said, I mostly thought the comment was hilariously phrased.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

22 minutes ago, Bebe said:

We are talking about junior-level staffers... The idea that he knew what was going on or was involved is ludicrous and you know it. It would be like blaming the CEO of McDonald's because some young kid working at the counter was dishing out the wrong amount of change.

He didn't lie to cover up anything... The results show that Bernie and his camp told the truth to the best of their ability and the results show they took immediate action to fire those responsible when it was discovered what happened. He dropped the lawsuit because there is no need to sue anymore, he has been proven correct about the data breach.

At the time, DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz used the word “steal” to describe what the Sanders campaign had done. A Clinton spokesman accused the Sanders staffers of going “hog wild, downloading as much data as they could.”

This has been proven false by these findings.

"Considering that my entire point is to humanize Sanders" People like him because he is human  There is no reason to try. Maybe you should try humanizing Hillary because that's where I think people have trouble.

I'm glad you also think this is irrelevant, don't know why you made a topic calling him a liar if you think it's irrelevant but go head...

Your analogy is wrong. I get what you're saying, but the level of hierarchy is vastly different. The staff numbers in the hundreds in the same location. There's no way you can justify that Sanders could not have known anything about it. 

The lies the campaign made: The Sanders campaign never ‘stole’ any voter file data; the Sanders campaign never ‘exported’ any unauthorized voter file data; and the Sanders campaign certainly never had access to the Clinton campaign’s ‘strategic road map,’ the Sanders campaign said.

The truth: The Sanders team, which consisted of four people, ran multiple searches in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and about 10 March states, including Florida and Colorado. In Iowa and New Hampshire, the Clinton campaign has ranked voters on a scale of 1-100 for turnout, enthusiasm and support, the senior Democrats said. The Sanders campaign ran two searches: "Show me all the Clinton people rated higher than 60" and "Show me all the people rated less than 30." This would be a key way of knowing who Sanders should target in the final weeks before voting: Ignore those above 60, while focus on those below 30, because they are looking for a Clinton alternative and might be open to Sanders.

So...they did everything they claimed they didn't. 

In any case my issue isn't that they did it. It's that they didn't report it, and rather than acknowledge it attempted to hide it for damage control. 

This is totally fine really. It's expected of politicians...except people don't view Sanders as a politician.

So you can't be serious regarding Sanders. He's viewed as the second coming of Jesus by many, thinking he can do no wrong and has no fault. I'm here to make him seem like just another politician, because that's exactly who he is. Perhaps in that regard, Hillary can look less like a demon. Considering I've tried working on Hillary directly before without resorting to Sanders and have failed miserably, this is the next best course of action.

Of course I don't make posts that aren't backed up by some measure of facts. It doesn't even matter anymore really since he won't be getting the nomination, so you won't see much of this anymore don't worry. I'll go back to discussing Hillary's merits when she's against Trump. That's a much easier job compared to Sanders, to his credit.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

13 minutes ago, Didymus said:

And I know this a Bernie fan classic, but her "defense" against the demand to release the content of her infamous speeches is as embarrassing as it can get for me. She doesn't give me any reason to trust her, while other politicians can at least convincingly create the impression that they don't have a public and a private motive at least.

The response I gave Legalize Chris when questioned about it:

It's because it's a slippery slope. If she doesn't release them, she's untrustworthy. If she releases them, someone will try to find something and blow it out of proportion. It's simply better to let people believe what they want.

Furthermore, I detest the notion that she should be compelled to release these records when they were made as a private citizen (she was not in an elected body at the time) to a private institution at a private event. This is such a broad breach of privacy that it's unthinkable that an American would endorse it. 

Hillary is right. She should not release the transcripts unless everyone else does. Even if Sanders doesn't have any speeches in particular, that does not put him in the place to dictate what should be released and who should release them.

What stops Hillary from accusing Sanders of making corrupt deals on the phone and demanding he release his phone records? 

What stops Trump from accusing Hillary of engaging in sexual proclivities on Tinder and demand that she release her Tinder records?

The combination if it being a double standard being imposed on her, as well as the fact that people will want to find something bad if they're so inclined, makes it unfair and even outrageous that she's being put in this position.

------

So it's not necessarily that you can't find a reason to trust her. It could be that you are rationalizing justifications for not trusting her. Do you think otherwise?

---

Edited to seem less accusatory.

[Didymus 34,380]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

 It's simply better to let people believe what they want.

That's an entertaining idea. But I do think it's indeed correct.

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

Hillary is right. She should not release the transcripts unless everyone else does. Even if Sanders doesn't have any speeches in particular, that does not put him in the place to dictate what should be released and who should release them.

This is correct in theory, but on the other hand, it makes Hillary's defense completely pointless as well. The argument that her voters have a right to know what she is getting paid for behind their backs will always outweigh the argument that it's a matter of privacy. I'm not saying she should be forced to release them, but the fact that she won't and can never seem to explain why she shouldn't without sounding uncomfortable makes me uncomfortable too, which affects my stance on her, which I don't think is that odd.

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

What stops Hillary from accusing Sanders of making corrupt deals on the phone and demanding he release his phone records? 

What stops Trump from accusing Hillary of engaging in sexual proclivities on Tinder and demand that she release her Tinder records?

Well, what stops them is that there's no suspicion, while in Hillary's case, there is an obvious amount of suspicion that I feel Hillary should at least acknowledge and try to erase, even without releasing the transcripts. The sensationalist in me is almost disappointed that she has no better strategy for this than to avoid talking about it.

8 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

The combination if it being a double standard being imposed on her, as well as the fact that people will want to find something bad if they're so inclined, makes it unfair and even outrageous that she's being put in this position.

But on the other hand Bernie has been slandered more than once by people who were intent on finding something bad in any of his speeches, so to be completely fair, that danger is always there for politicians, whether they release secret speeches or not.

9 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

So it's not that you can't find a reason to trust her. It's that you are finding justifications for not trusting her.

Well no, I gave a very specific reason. Someone who will lie over as simple a thing as what happens on a very specific place and time and changes her story twice as she's caught is not someone I want sitting in the White House. I guess that's a form of justification, but on the other hand, I wouldn't trust that much of a blatant and random liar to fix my toilet or tv either. Why would I want one to run the country?

[Bebe 17,289]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Your analogy is wrong. I get what you're saying, but the level of hierarchy is vastly different. The staff numbers in the hundreds in the same location. There's no way you can justify that Sanders could not have known anything about it. 

The lies the campaign made: The Sanders campaign never ‘stole’ any voter file data; the Sanders campaign never ‘exported’ any unauthorized voter file data; and the Sanders campaign certainly never had access to the Clinton campaign’s ‘strategic road map,’ the Sanders campaign said.

The truth: The Sanders team, which consisted of four people, ran multiple searches in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and about 10 March states, including Florida and Colorado. In Iowa and New Hampshire, the Clinton campaign has ranked voters on a scale of 1-100 for turnout, enthusiasm and support, the senior Democrats said. The Sanders campaign ran two searches: "Show me all the Clinton people rated higher than 60" and "Show me all the people rated less than 30." This would be a key way of knowing who Sanders should target in the final weeks before voting: Ignore those above 60, while focus on those below 30, because they are looking for a Clinton alternative and might be open to Sanders.

So...they did everything they claimed they didn't. 

In any case my issue isn't that they did it. It's that they didn't report it, and rather than acknowledge it attempted to hide it for damage control. 

This is totally fine really. It's expected of politicians...except people don't view Sanders as a politician.

So you can't be serious regarding Sanders. He's viewed as the second coming of Jesus by many, thinking he can do no wrong and has no fault. I'm here to make him seem like just another politician, because that's exactly who he is. Perhaps in that regard, Hillary can look less like a demon. Considering I've tried working on Hillary directly before without resorting to Sanders and have failed miserably, this is the next best course of action.

Of course I don't make posts that aren't backed up by some measure of facts.

 

 

"The lies the campaign made: The Sanders campaign never ‘stole’ any voter file data; the Sanders campaign never ‘exported’ any unauthorized voter file data; and the Sanders campaign certainly never had access to the Clinton campaign’s ‘strategic road map,’ the Sanders campaign said."

Yes that's  what Sanders said after the investigation came out supporting them.

As CNN says "A DNC investigation, the results of which were also released Friday, concluded that the wrongdoing did not go beyond the four Sanders staffers who accessed the database and were fired soon after the incident came to light."

An investigation of the campaigns computers could not locate the exported file, and that no one in the Sanders campaign had ever seen it.  They never 'stole' or exported any voter file data - there is no evidence of this. Like you say (slightly adjusted, you twisted it to the Sander's campaign - I'm correcting it) "Four people, who where low level staffers reccomended by the DNC, ran multiple searches in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina". There is no evidence that ANY files were exported.

You are blowing this way out of proportion. Even if you find a few details strange (search results were saved in a computer system except in one instance, when a Sanders staffer exported information using Clinton data for New Hampshire.) Bernie is cleared of all charges considering that despite an in depth investigation nobody could find any evidence of this exported file. So where are Bernie's lies? He absolutely told the truth to the best of his knowledge and as the investigation showed, the staffer responsible was fired immediately. 


The support for Sanders is so big, not because he seems like some Messiah, but because he is a different sort of politician to the Establishment candidates. People like him because he is human and because he represents the people. Like I suggested, try humanising Hillary because right now only 42% of Americans find her honest and trustworthy.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

17 minutes ago, Didymus said:

This is correct in theory, but on the other hand, it makes Hillary's defense completely pointless as well. The argument that her voters have a right to know what she is getting paid for behind their backs will always outweigh the argument that it's a matter of privacy. I'm not saying she should be forced to release them, but the fact that she won't and can never seem to explain why she shouldn't without sounding uncomfortable makes me uncomfortable too, which affects my stance on her, which I don't think is that odd.

Well, what stops them is that there's no suspicion, while in Hillary's case, there is an obvious amount of suspicion that I feel Hillary should at least acknowledge and try to erase, even without releasing the transcripts. The sensationalist in me is almost disappointed that she has no better strategy for this than to avoid talking about it.

Is it difficult to understand how uncomfortable it would be if someone asked you to release private information?

Remember that this speech was done as a private citizen when she wasn't at elected office.

Considering that she has never legislated anything that affects these corporations in particular. it's rather odd that anyone would directly assume that she will somehow use her elected office to benefit them.

It's especially odd considering that she has made her stance regarding them quite clear.

Regarding the content, one can assume that given she was being paid a handsome amount, she was more than generous in glorifying the company's achievements. Given her current stances, it could paint her as a hypocrite, when one can just as easily understand that her current stances are the genuine ones and she was previously being overly gracious.

There are many ways to interpret it. That you choose the worst potential outcome can perhaps be indicative of some level of bias, intentional or not.

17 minutes ago, Didymus said:

But on the other hand Bernie has been slandered more than once by people who were intent on finding something bad in any of his speeches, so to be completely fair, that danger is always there for politicians, whether they release secret speeches or not.

I agree.

17 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Well no, I gave a very specific reason. Someone who will lie over as simple a thing as what happens on a very specific place and time and changes her story twice as she's caught is not someone I want sitting in the White House. I guess that's a form of justification, but on the other hand, I wouldn't trust that much of a blatant and random liar to fix my toilet or tv either. Why would I want one to run the country?

Hillary has admittedly lied overtly around three times in her career. How does that dismiss all her other qualifications, and why is "overtly" lying a much bigger deal than "mostly lying" when Sanders has more of those?

What you're dismissing is Hillary's positions. Many of them require confidentiality that she's had to work around to try to be as transparent as possible. Sanders for example has no equivalent.

It's often said that the best way to convince someone of a lie is to weave truth and fiction. Considering both do that in spades, isn't that what's more dangerous? Considering that constitutes all politicians, it's the risk you take.

[Himeros26 1,688]

43 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

How can you be in agreement with that? 

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

If truths are statements that are mostly true, Bernie has +2% on truths. He's told the truth more than Hillary 2% of the total times.

If lies are statements that are mostly false, Bernie has +2% on lies. He's lied more than Hillary. He's told lies more than Hillary 2% of the total times.

Wouldn't that make them approximately the same in terms of honesty?

Stop perpetuating ignorance. She's not a bigger liar than any politician. Compared to most of the Republicans she's a saint. 

She's not that bad of a liar!

Yes, exactly what a leader should be. Just like everyone else but not as bad! 

[Bebe 17,289]

I mean what more do you want than "A DNC investigation, the results of which were also released Friday, concluded that the wrongdoing did not go beyond the four Sanders staffers who accessed the database and were fired soon after the incident came to light."

What does Sanders have to hide when an investigation concluded that nobody beyond four staffers were to blame? That shows Sanders was not involved....

[Himeros26 1,688]

15 minutes ago, Didymus said:

That's an entertaining idea. But I do think it's indeed correct.

This is correct in theory, but on the other hand, it makes Hillary's defense completely pointless as well. The argument that her voters have a right to know what she is getting paid for behind their backs will always outweigh the argument that it's a matter of privacy. I'm not saying she should be forced to release them, but the fact that she won't and can never seem to explain why she shouldn't without sounding uncomfortable makes me uncomfortable too, which affects my stance on her, which I don't think is that odd.

Well, what stops them is that there's no suspicion, while in Hillary's case, there is an obvious amount of suspicion that I feel Hillary should at least acknowledge and try to erase, even without releasing the transcripts. The sensationalist in me is almost disappointed that she has no better strategy for this than to avoid talking about it.

But on the other hand Bernie has been slandered more than once by people who were intent on finding something bad in any of his speeches, so to be completely fair, that danger is always there for politicians, whether they release secret speeches or not.

Well no, I gave a very specific reason. Someone who will lie over as simple a thing as what happens on a very specific place and time and changes her story twice as she's caught is not someone I want sitting in the White House. I guess that's a form of justification, but on the other hand, I wouldn't trust that much of a blatant and random liar to fix my toilet or tv either. Why would I want one to run the country?

You're my Queen

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

21 minutes ago, Bebe said:

The support for Sanders is so big, not because he seems like some Messiah, but because he is a different sort of politician to the Establishment candidates. People like him because he is human and because he represents the people. Like I suggested, try humanising Hillary because right now only 42% of Americans find her honest and trustworthy.

See this is the stuff that riles me up. He is not any different. He is exactly the same. The only difference is that he's a socialist and that appeals to you. He's not part of the "establishment" because there is no powerful "Socialist" party in the USA. If there were, he'd be part of the establishment. It's not the establishment that appeals to you.

He doesn't represent the people too. He represents the socialist structure which directly benefits the people at the cost of capitalism. You're speaking as if capitalism has no benefits and. socialism has no failures.

It's also odd that "people" are only the subset of people that you claim he represents. What about those who don't. Are they not people too? Considering Hillary has far more of the popular vote, isn't it more accurate that she represents the people more?

Those who fail to find Hillary to be trustworthy are not going to be convinced otherwise, especially when they are doing so in willful ignorance without bothering to research the facts. 

It is serendipity that Sanders and Hillary have the exact same level of honesty if you take "truths" as statements that are mostly true and more and "lies" as statements that are mostly false or less, all the while ignoring variations in context such as Hillary telling more complete truths than Sanders but telling more complete lies three times as opposed to Sanders' none.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

People can do the research themselves. I have presented the facts for them but they don't want to see it. What other recourse is there.

[Didymus 34,380]

16 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Is it difficult to understand how uncomfortable it would be if someone asked you to release private information?

No one's asking her to reveal her XTube profile. This is about professional speeches, no matter if she was a "private citizen" or not. Obviously a big difference. If she's that uncomfortable about something she's paid for then that's even more reason to worry imo.

16 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Regarding the content, one can assume that given she was being paid a handsome amount, she was more than generous in glorifying the company's achievements. Given her current stances, it could paint her as a hypocrite, when one can just as easily understand that her current stances are the genuine ones and she was previously being overly gracious.

There are many ways to interpret it. That you choose the worst potential outcome can perhaps be indicative of some level of bias, intentional or not.

Well.. agreed. But I wouldn't have been drawn more to the worst case scenario if she had told me exactly what you're telling me now. That the speeches she made don't reflect her current stance. That would be plausible and I would feel inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe.

But the fact that she doesn't say this leads many people to conclude that she still owes some debt that is gonna be reflected after her election. And to be fair, why would I take that risk when I can vote for someone who doesn't present so many mysteries to me and who is largely in agreement about fundamental issues, and who is personally more to my liking based on his stances on a few non-fundamental issues?

And, well.. it's a bit ironic that now you present the "There are many ways to interpret it. That you choose the worst potential outcome can perhaps be indicative of some level of bias, intentional or not." argument when we're here in a thread where you're implying Bernie is a liar and a fraud and we can't trust him based on his word. Not many ways to interpret the situation there, I see. You're basically acting like a Bernie stan on the other end of the spectrum.

16 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Hillary has admittedly lied overtly around three times in her career. How does that dismiss all her other qualifications, and why is "overtly" lying a much bigger deal than "mostly lying" when Sanders has more of those?

What you're dismissing is Hillary's positions. Many of them require confidentiality that she's had to work around to try to be as transparent as possible. Sanders for example has no equivalent.

It's often said that the best way to convince someone of a lie is to weave truth and fiction. Considering both do that in spades, isn't that what's more dangerous? Considering that constitutes all politicians, it's the risk you take.

I don't think her qualifications massively exceed Bernie's to tempt me to vote for someone who lied about such random things. I don't claim to know people, but people that lie about stupid bs that's not even important I just don't trust because it reveals a root dynamic that is obviously a possibility in every single situation, no matter how trivial. Or urgent. It's not my fault she lied so blatantly about those things. If it changes my view then that's one of the logical outcomes of her past actions and I don't see why I would have to justify it. Like I said: I wouldn't trust someone like that in ordinary life either, so I happily project that mundane setting on to politics.

I'm not familiar with the track record of Bernie's "mostly lies" but I'll look into it.

[Bebe 17,289]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

See this is the stuff that riles me up. He is not any different. He is exactly the same. The only difference is that he's a socialist and that appeals to you. 

He doesn't represent the people too. He represents the socialist structure which directly benefits the people at the cost of capitalism. You're speaking as if capitalism has no benefits and. socialism has no failures.

People who fail to find Hillary to be trustworthy are not going to be convinced otherwise, especially when they are doing so in willful ignorance without bothering to research the facts. 

It is serendipity that Sanders and Hillary have the exact same level of honesty if you take "truths" as statements that are mostly true and more and "lies" as statements that are mostly false or less, all the while ignoring variations in context such as Hillary telling more complete truths than Sanders but telling more complete lies three times as opposed to Sanders' none.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

People can do the research themselves. I have presented the facts for them but they don't want to see it. What other recourse is there.

People trust Bernie Sanders because he isn't taking direct contributions from big money. He is absolutely different. He is not an establishment candidate.

"He represents the socialist structure which directly benefits the people at the cost of capitalism. You're speaking as if capitalism has no benefits and. socialism has no failures."

That's such a load of BS. I'm not anti-capitalism and neither is Sanders. It would be really nice if at least this far into the process you learned what a Social Democrat is. NOBODY has said that capitalism has no benefits and socialism has no failures. Not me, not Bernie Sanders. Nobody has claimed such a stupid thing and I'm not going to talk to you if you are going to be purposefully difficult.