We here at The Z Review generally refrain from playing in the comments section. It’s our belief that it should be an area dedicated to our readers, a place where they can rant unfettered and free. Still, after reading a particularly delusional – and lengthy – response to my article ‘Bernie Sanders Gave Us Trump – And I’m Still Pissed!’ by a lovely Z Fan named ‘Choam Nomsky,’ I felt compelled to add my two cents.

I was also in desperate need of something to write about today, so thank you Choam!

Ultimately, our aim with The Z Review is to promote — and engage in — an ongoing conversation with our readers. We don’t care about journalistic convention…we’re far more interested in getting at the truth. So, dear Z people, enjoy the following exchange – and again…thank you Choam!

————————————–

Sure are a good deal of creative insults and condescending generalizations in this article; it’s just a shame that there wasn’t a single shred of statistical data or academic analysis cited to back any of them.

Hmmm… I really thought putting ‘And I’m still pissed’ in the title would be a clear indication of the tone and type of article it would be. So, you were looking for a deep academic analysis of why I loathe Bernie and his busters, huh?

Personally, my peers and I, while proud supporters of Bernie Sanders in the primaries as well as donors to the Democratic Party, would never have voted for Hillary Clinton because we fundamentally disagree with her policies on matters such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, campaign finance reform, and NAFTA. Her record on gay rights and association with scandals such as the Clinton Foundation’s warrant a pause for discussion, at the least.

Ok…so you prefer Trump’s thoughtful policies and well considered strategies on all these matters. Nice. I especially loved when he decreed a military ban for all trans people via Twitter. I seriously wonder a) if you actually know anything about any of these issues and b) how they impact your life. Nothing would give me more pleasure than to hear your academic analysis on NAFTA and TPP and how we’re better off on trade without it. I’m sure it would be as scintillating as receiving a colonoscopy from an irate 500 pound gorilla.

God forbid we have our own opinions and debate them in the open forum of democracy, right?
Unfortunately for your article, we were not the typical democratic primary participants.

Yes…I think I well described what you are – something about the loathsome contingent of humanity that suffers from the delusion that they’re more intellectually inclined than they really are. There was also that stuff about parrot brained sheep fuckfaces…I particularly enjoyed writing that!

It may be conveniently easy to blame Bernie and his supporters for the lost election, however this is distinctly separate from the political reality, first and foremost as illustrated by the polls which pitted Trump against prospective opponents throughout the primary process. Bernie repeatedly performed better against Trump than any other candidate.

Bernie did not win the primary so this point is moot. But I also know Trump and the Republicans would have made mincemeat of him. The socialist that spent his honeymoon in Russia would have gone over big with Americans in the flyover states…oh the tragic irony of it all.

Bernie Sanders himself forsook his rhetoric and wholeheartedly backed Clinton at the DNC in an attempt to prevent the election of Trump. I challenge you to find a single instance between that time and election night where he did anything but actively and publicly support Clinton in her bid.

If by active and public you mean pathetically tepid and begrudging…then you’re absolutely right! Now for your homework…show me one instance where he actually gave a full throated endorsement of Clinton and her abilities and I’ll buy you a candy bar.

If that’s not enough, I ask that you please look at the statistics regarding the exit polls. The majority of former Bernie supporters voted for Clinton, and next to none supported Trump. To assume that without Bernie more people would have voted, or that those who voted 3rd party would have supported Clinton is not only a (pointlessly) absurd notion, but a downright demeaning insinuation that your fellow Americans are unable to make decisions for themselves, let alone stand by their morals.

I don’t need to ‘assume’ that without Bernie more people would have voted – it’s a statistical fact. Oh… there’s some of that statistical data you were talking about! Sweet!

We, however, refuse to mitigate our voices or consent to policies we fundamentally disagree with simply because they represent the lesser of two evils. Especially if they appear incapable of directly addressing difficult questions. Differing ethical/political standards do not make us misogynistic.

Yes…believe me I understand. The abjectly mediocre have historically always had the loudest and least mitigated voice in society. I would add that anyone who wouldn’t pick the ‘lesser of two evils’ has the cognitive function of a brussel sprout. Not that I thought she was in any way ‘evil’…but even still — the choice couldn’t have been clearer. And yes, the fact that the loudest and ‘least mitigated’ Bernie or busters tend to be white males is a red flag on the misogyny!

What’s more, regardless of your perceived (and very palpable) outrage or intentions, I think it’s important to point out that this piece of yours contributes absolutely nothing to meaningful political discourse.

It wasn’t meant to add anything to anything – merely to vent and possibly give others an opportunity to do so as well. Including you…in your very unmitigated way – seriously, I think your comment was longer than my piece! We’re not paying you by the way!

Those who agree with you will share your anger, possibly alienating Bernie supporters from their lives, and those who do not will feel attacked and belittled due to the (quite explicit) elitist, insulting overtones of the article.

From your mouth to god’s ear, baby!

Even as somebody who disagrees with what you’ve said, I read through the entire piece, desperately hoping that there would be some theory of substance, some suggestion or significant argument, or perhaps a proposed solution. Instead, I found nothing but hatred as blind as that you attribute to your supposed political adversaries.

Jeebus mamaloocha, you are a precious little snowflake, aren’t you? Again, the title of the piece ended with, ‘I’m still pissed!’…this was not the Lincoln/Douglas debates part deux!

Needless to say, any Bernie supporter who reads this, myself included, will if anything be far less likely to cooperate with Hillary or any other establishment democrat in the future if this is the sort of response we can expect for trying to start a dialogue or raise issues which would otherwise go unaddressed.
Finger-pointing after the fact achieves nothing.

Hmmm…see, I disagree with you there – this piece has, in fact, started a dialogue! See all the comments in the little boxes below? I’m not ‘mitigating’ anyone’s voice – least of all yours!

Maybe it’s satisfying to spout your hateful stereotypes so as to make yourself feel superior to those around you. Maybe it’s easier to just spew angry profanities than attempt to express your opinions in any sort of actual theoretical analysis or dialogue.

Yes…I’ve always found it easy to spew angry profanities – it’s a lot of fun too!

Maybe it’s energizing to evoke raw hatred devoid of meaning outside of controversy as a means of getting attention.

Way more energizing that a 5-hour energy drink – and no calories! A moment on the lips is a lifetime on the hips!

Yet in spite of your reasons or how you may believe this article appears, anybody who examines it for substance would be left with the impression that it was written by a petulant child, as opposed to an adult with considered, educated, multi-dimensional opinions. It is my (minuscule) hope that you read this, take this as a suggestion, and edit it into something resembling a respectable journalistic piece.

Respectable journalism will not stand here at the Z Review! We prefer honesty, emotion and flair here at the Z. Lots of flair!

So please, if it is impossible to remember that we are thinking, caring human beings, capable and desiring of the best for our country, then remember that tearing us down with juvenile slander is at best useless, and at worst an endeavor destructive to everything you wish to achieve.

Yes…you wanted the best for this country – that’s why you helped to get Trump elected. Thank you for that…it’s much appreciated. But please do keep reading and commenting…it’s all about provoking a dialogue, after all!

Oh… and by the way ‘Choam Nomsky,’ Noam Chomsky thinks you’re an idiot too…

*boom*

UPDATE: Choam provided a lengthy response to this post…so in the spirit of fairness and equal time — and appreciation for him being such a good sport, despite our obvious political differences — I am posting his thoughts below without any further comment. Again, thanks Choam — and like it or not…this is dialogue.

First of all, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to respond to my first comment at such length- I don’t think it needs to be said that entertaining the opinions of others is perhaps the most essential part of any functioning democracy.

Secondly, I think it’s evident I won’t be changing your mind here, but you brought up several points I think are worthy of addressing, if for no other reason than the entertainment of your readers.
Bear with me, I promise the cited sources at the bottom are relevant and of import.

This post is a little long, but if you’d like a succinct explanation of why measures such as NAFTA are harmful for the average person in this country (as well as in Mexico) I suggest you look to sites like Jacobin, academic economic summaries(1), or such books as Thomas Frank’s books Listen Liberal, and to a lesser extent What’s the Matter with Kansas?
It isn’t difficult to find considered analysis (or statistics) condemning these decidedly corporate free trade measures.

(As long as we’re talking about Noam Chomsky, he has written/spoken very well to the matter of the Israeli Palestinian conflict several times- it won’t take more than a few minutes on google or youtube to see the difference between Clinton’s treatment of the issue and ethical reality)

Next, allow me to bring your attention to the fact that you have no cause to believe that republicans would “have made mincemeat” of Bernie- Donald Trump actively shied away from debating him, and the polls don’t lie(2).

Speaking of polls, that source you cited mentions that more young people supported 3rd party candidates and abstained from voting, in the context of the Clinton campaign’s failure- there’s no claim or inference that this was BECAUSE Bernie ran, it’s simply a shift in demographics from Obama voters. To claim otherwise is baseless and ignorant of the fact that the majority(3) of Bernie supporters did vote Clinton (particularly in the swing states where it mattered)(4), and (as stated in my previous response) these people are frustrated and would not necessarily have voted for her in the absence of outsider options.

The establishment Democrats have even admitted Clinton was a weak candidate(5,6,7). No amount of name-calling will change that.

You appear to enjoy being angry, and you’re probably going to believe whatever you desire at the end of the day, but Sanders unequivocally contributed substantial time and money to Clinton’s campaign(8,9,10).

You may not hold yourself to high journalistic standards (this is labeled as news, after all), but that doesn’t mean that people won’t or shouldn’t treat what either of us have to say seriously, and as such excusing your work on such a basis makes my critiques no less valid. You did post it above a comment section, after all.

You seem to be labouring under the impression that this is an effective dialogue, as opposed to the non-serious addressing of opposing viewpoints (mainly through profanity) that it is. To most people, your piece (as well as the above response) understandably would serve to do nothing more than entrench them in their current beliefs. I replied because I was actively seeking out opposing viewpoints to gain and promote understanding.
Obscenity is not an argument, and it doesn’t make you any more correct (or credible) in your assertions.

Furthermore, you repeated the statement that Bernie supporters are somehow intrinsically moronic, yet view themselves as superior to others around them. In light of this I feel it prudent to highlight the fact that out of all the words in these articles, yours have been, by far, the most condescending, dehumanizing and snobbish.

This may well just be garden-variety ideological bigotry, however I think it is indicative of a larger issue.
Contrary to what you may wish to believe, the majority of American voters, Sanders, Trump or otherwise, are not completely blind- they pay attention to what is said about them, the relevant issues, and their elected officials. Articles like this are what make it so easy for them to dismiss serious discussion, as well as the concerns of their opposition, and ultimately the candidates who are associated with such perceived opponents. Just hop on 4chan, youtube or reddit’s politically-serious conservative corners and I promise you’ll find endless gripes about how irrational, pompous and unreasonably detrimental to discourse ‘the left’ seems to them based on examples like this. If we truly share political goals of similarity great enough to warrant cooperation, this is not the way to encourage Bernie supporters to aid you- it’s as much potential to divide us and aid Trump as Bernie ever had.

(As an aside, it’s worthy of comment that much of what you have said here bears a striking resemblance to the most ardent of Mr. Trump’s supporters I have spoken with, whom you appear to substantially loathe- not least of all because you seem to prefer smarmy, dismissive responses to meaningful dialectical ones)

For whatever reason you seem to conflate opposition to Hillary with innate support for Trump, even though plenty of Bernie supporters (myself included) have been the first people to stand up in protest of his policies as president, either in person or through organizations such as the ACLU. The majority of us came from deep blue states which would go to the Democratic candidate regardless. The majority of us are young people struggling to eke out a living in an increasingly stratified society. If you’re so sure we’re inherently stupid for not immediately trusting a candidate whose majority of campaign funding came directly from the corporate institutions who have made a killing at the expense of middle America, whose husband is a man who unflinchingly broke the back of organized labour in this country, then I seriously suggest you reevaluate whatever perceptions of class you may hold, or at least do some research into the deplorable material conditions many of your fellow Americans are saddled with daily. They should at least cause you to hesitate if you care for your fellow man.

On a relevant side note- for all you’ve questioned my intelligence and knowledge, I can’t help but notice that you haven’t displayed an understanding of any issues relevant to the political climate beyond the fact that Clinton is opposed to Trump. Just a casual observation.

I have to seriously wonder, why is it the responsibility of Bernie supporters to carry the burden of opposition to Trump in the form of a system that doesn’t respect them? What about the undemocratic electoral college, or the sensationalist nature of the media? These institutions gave Trump a platform, wildly promoted him, and contributed far more to his election than any single voting bloc.
What about Hillary Clinton and her campaign? Doesn’t she have a responsibility to own up to her scandals, whatever your opinion on them may be, and present her political platform in a way that appeals to the majority of Americans? If she is unconvincing, in a truly democratic society, the fault of her failed campaign lies with its advocates, not the citizens who didn’t think she would represent them well.
You have every right to be mad, but there’s no tenable reason to focus that anger on your ostensible constituents.

I would also like to apologize if I was in any way unclear when talking about the mitigation of Sanders’ supporters’ voices (or rather those outside the establishment Democratic Party in general); I was in no way referring to your or any such public forum of media. When I speak of mitigation, it is concerning such matters as the indisputable conspiracy(11) on the part of the Democratic Party’s leadership to suppress opposition to Hillary Clinton, and more specifically the resulting compromise of our core values when forced to support a candidate who does not represent us. If we do nothing, we mitigate our own voices. The rejection of representatives who do not advocate for the values of their constituency is a fundamental aspect of democracy; to argue otherwise is a tantamount to consent to oligarchy.
After violence, voting against such authorities is the only way to effectively convey discontent.

I support and encourage your right to hold a differing opinion and express that as you see fit, but unlike yourself I believe that an environment permissive of such can only be maintained through civil discussion, not depersonalizing and degrading rhetoric. Expressing anger is not the same as encouraging hatred.

Since you might be wondering, the name is nothing more than a pseudonym. While I read and respect Mr. Chomsky’s work, I am not obligated to agree with him on all issues. He, like all politicians, writers, and activists, is imperfect, and I doubt somebody like himself who values a free-thinking, diverse society would want anybody to think of him otherwise.

At any rate, forgive me if I gave the impression of being angry. On the contrary, I’m happy I could give you something to write about.

All the best.

1. http://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/

2. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/g00/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html?i10c.referrer

3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/25/the-democratic-convention-is-chaotic-the-democratic-base-isnt/?utm_term=.4b59cb8d7843

4. https://grahamkbrown.net/2016/11/14/did-the-bernie-bros-cost-clinton-the-election/

5. http://observer.com/2016/11/hillary-clinton-and-the-dnc-have-only-themselves-to-blame/

6. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-supporters-agree-clinton-has-weaknesses-as-a-candidate-what-can-she-do/2016/05/15/132f4d7e-1874-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?utm_term=.60a4663ac2a4

7. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/hillary-clinton-election-president-loss

8. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/bernie-sanders-campaign-for-clinton-228701

9. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-eye-post-election-goals/story?id=43300037

10. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-road-trip-benrie-sanders-hits-the-1472821260-htmlstory.html

11. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/debbie-wasserman-schultz-and-the-dnc-favored-hillary_us_57b365a4e4b0b3bb4b0800bd

Share.

About Author

I'm a writer/editor with a penchant for saddle shoes, pontification and fried pork rinds. Equal parts gadfly, cut-up, provocateur, philosopher, and silly-willy. My personal heroes include Reggie Jackson, Elvis Costello and Philip Roth.

15 Comments

  1. Nah, what it is is a whole lot of older and middle-aged Democrats who don’t realize that the 90’s are over, that the bloom is off the rose and that times have changed. The Democratic party has gone so far to the right, it’s hard to believe that it was once the party of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. The corporatists have taken over and pushed the party’s platform to nothing more than defending the gains made two, three or four decades ago, rather than going forward. Progress is the name of the game here. Without progress, you’re as good as dead in the water. Nothing ever gets done, nothing ever changes. A large number of American voters have all but given up on the Democratic party because it has ceased to be a real opposition party.

    Look, I get it. The labor unions have been tremendously weakened largely through GOP policies (but also because of Democratic acquiesence to those policies), and so they have been forced to take large donations from the same corporate and banking interests as the Republican party. But times have changed. Howard Dean in 2004 and Bernie Sanders in 2016, through their grassroots campaigns, have already shown that that strategy is no longer necessary.

    • That dog won’t hunt. I’m a Democrat and was a Hillary supporter. If Bernie had won the primary, I would have voted for him and fought for him. He didn’t. His views and policies are nothing groundbreaking. Bernie or busters who say Democrats who have fought against republican ideology for years are the same as they are is infuriating. What do Berniecrats want that’s any different than what anyone who fought for hillary wants? Where’s the daylight? Single payer? Bernie didn’t come up with that… help with college tuition.. increasing minimum wage? It’s all part of the democratic platform… all what Hillary supported.

  2. First of all, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to respond to my first comment at such length- I don’t think it needs to be said that entertaining the opinions of others is perhaps the most essential part of any functioning democracy.

    Secondly, I think it’s evident I won’t be changing your mind here, but you brought up several points I think are worthy of addressing, if for no other reason than the entertainment of your readers.
    Bear with me, I promise the cited sources at the bottom are relevant and of import.

    This post is a little long, but if you’d like a succinct explanation of why measures such as NAFTA are harmful for the average person in this country (as well as in Mexico) I suggest you look to sites like Jacobin, academic economic summaries(1), or such books as Thomas Frank’s books Listen Liberal, and to a lesser extent What’s the Matter with Kansas?
    It isn’t difficult to find considered analysis (or statistics) condemning these decidedly corporate free trade measures.

    (As long as we’re talking about Noam Chomsky, he has written/spoken very well to the matter of the Israeli Palestinian conflict several times- it won’t take more than a few minutes on google or youtube to see the difference between Clinton’s treatment of the issue and ethical reality)

    Next, allow me to bring your attention to the fact that you have no cause to believe that republicans would “have made mincemeat” of Bernie- Donald Trump actively shied away from debating him, and the polls don’t lie(2).

    Speaking of polls, that source you cited mentions that more young people supported 3rd party candidates and abstained from voting, in the context of the Clinton campaign’s failure- there’s no claim or inference that this was BECAUSE Bernie ran, it’s simply a shift in demographics from Obama voters. To claim otherwise is baseless and ignorant of the fact that the majority(3) of Bernie supporters did vote Clinton (particularly in the swing states where it mattered)(4), and (as stated in my previous response) these people are frustrated and would not necessarily have voted for her in the absence of outsider options.

    The establishment Democrats have even admitted Clinton was a weak candidate(5,6,7). No amount of name-calling will change that.

    You appear to enjoy being angry, and you’re probably going to believe whatever you desire at the end of the day, but Sanders unequivocally contributed substantial time and money to Clinton’s campaign(8,9,10).

    You may not hold yourself to high journalistic standards (this is labeled as news, after all), but that doesn’t mean that people won’t or shouldn’t treat what either of us have to say seriously, and as such excusing your work on such a basis makes my critiques no less valid. You did post it above a comment section, after all.

    You seem to be labouring under the impression that this is an effective dialogue, as opposed to the non-serious addressing of opposing viewpoints (mainly through profanity) that it is. To most people, your piece (as well as the above response) understandably would serve to do nothing more than entrench them in their current beliefs. I replied because I was actively seeking out opposing viewpoints to gain and promote understanding.
    Obscenity is not an argument, and it doesn’t make you any more correct (or credible) in your assertions.

    Furthermore, you repeated the statement that Bernie supporters are somehow intrinsically moronic, yet view themselves as superior to others around them. In light of this I feel it prudent to highlight the fact that out of all the words in these articles, yours have been, by far, the most condescending, dehumanizing and snobbish.

    This may well just be garden-variety ideological bigotry, however I think it is indicative of a larger issue.
    Contrary to what you may wish to believe, the majority of American voters, Sanders, Trump or otherwise, are not completely blind- they pay attention to what is said about them, the relevant issues, and their elected officials. Articles like this are what make it so easy for them to dismiss serious discussion, as well as the concerns of their opposition, and ultimately the candidates who are associated with such perceived opponents. Just hop on 4chan, youtube or reddit’s politically-serious conservative corners and I promise you’ll find endless gripes about how irrational, pompous and unreasonably detrimental to discourse ‘the left’ seems to them based on examples like this. If we truly share political goals of similarity great enough to warrant cooperation, this is not the way to encourage Bernie supporters to aid you- it’s as much potential to divide us and aid Trump as Bernie ever had.

    (As an aside, it’s worthy of comment that much of what you have said here bears a striking resemblance to the most ardent of Mr. Trump’s supporters I have spoken with, whom you appear to substantially loathe- not least of all because you seem to prefer smarmy, dismissive responses to meaningful dialectical ones)

    For whatever reason you seem to conflate opposition to Hillary with innate support for Trump, even though plenty of Bernie supporters (myself included) have been the first people to stand up in protest of his policies as president, either in person or through organizations such as the ACLU. The majority of us came from deep blue states which would go to the Democratic candidate regardless. The majority of us are young people struggling to eke out a living in an increasingly stratified society. If you’re so sure we’re inherently stupid for not immediately trusting a candidate whose majority of campaign funding came directly from the corporate institutions who have made a killing at the expense of middle America, whose husband is a man who unflinchingly broke the back of organized labour in this country, then I seriously suggest you reevaluate whatever perceptions of class you may hold, or at least do some research into the deplorable material conditions many of your fellow Americans are saddled with daily. They should at least cause you to hesitate if you care for your fellow man.

    On a relevant side note- for all you’ve questioned my intelligence and knowledge, I can’t help but notice that you haven’t displayed an understanding of any issues relevant to the political climate beyond the fact that Clinton is opposed to Trump. Just a casual observation.

    I have to seriously wonder, why is it the responsibility of Bernie supporters to carry the burden of opposition to Trump in the form of a system that doesn’t respect them? What about the undemocratic electoral college, or the sensationalist nature of the media? These institutions gave Trump a platform, wildly promoted him, and contributed far more to his election than any single voting bloc.
    What about Hillary Clinton and her campaign? Doesn’t she have a responsibility to own up to her scandals, whatever your opinion on them may be, and present her political platform in a way that appeals to the majority of Americans? If she is unconvincing, in a truly democratic society, the fault of her failed campaign lies with its advocates, not the citizens who didn’t think she would represent them well.
    You have every right to be mad, but there’s no tenable reason to focus that anger on your ostensible constituents.

    I would also like to apologize if I was in any way unclear when talking about the mitigation of Sanders’ supporters’ voices (or rather those outside the establishment Democratic Party in general); I was in no way referring to your or any such public forum of media. When I speak of mitigation, it is concerning such matters as the indisputable conspiracy(11) on the part of the Democratic Party’s leadership to suppress opposition to Hillary Clinton, and more specifically the resulting compromise of our core values when forced to support a candidate who does not represent us. If we do nothing, we mitigate our own voices. The rejection of representatives who do not advocate for the values of their constituency is a fundamental aspect of democracy; to argue otherwise is a tantamount to consent to oligarchy.
    After violence, voting against such authorities is the only way to effectively convey discontent.

    I support and encourage your right to hold a differing opinion and express that as you see fit, but unlike yourself I believe that an environment permissive of such can only be maintained through civil discussion, not depersonalizing and degrading rhetoric. Expressing anger is not the same as encouraging hatred.

    Since you might be wondering, the name is nothing more than a pseudonym. While I read and respect Mr. Chomsky’s work, I am not obligated to agree with him on all issues. He, like all politicians, writers, and activists, is imperfect, and I doubt somebody like himself who values a free-thinking, diverse society would want anybody to think of him otherwise.

    At any rate, forgive me if I gave the impression of being angry. On the contrary, I’m happy I could give you something to write about.

    All the best.

    1. http://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/

    2. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/g00/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html?i10c.referrer

    3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/25/the-democratic-convention-is-chaotic-the-democratic-base-isnt/?utm_term=.4b59cb8d7843

    4. https://grahamkbrown.net/2016/11/14/did-the-bernie-bros-cost-clinton-the-election/

    5. http://observer.com/2016/11/hillary-clinton-and-the-dnc-have-only-themselves-to-blame/

    6. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-supporters-agree-clinton-has-weaknesses-as-a-candidate-what-can-she-do/2016/05/15/132f4d7e-1874-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?utm_term=.60a4663ac2a4

    7. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/hillary-clinton-election-president-loss

    8. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/bernie-sanders-campaign-for-clinton-228701

    9. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-eye-post-election-goals/story?id=43300037

    10. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-road-trip-benrie-sanders-hits-the-1472821260-htmlstory.html

    11. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/debbie-wasserman-schultz-and-the-dnc-favored-hillary_us_57b365a4e4b0b3bb4b0800bd

  3. Not in this Lifetime on

    Breaking News? As a soldier and a Bernie supporter who happens to be over 40 years old I am patiently waiting for one of you Hillary apologist to spew your “Bernie Bro crap at me in person.
    It wont happen because you are all at heart cowards.

  4. You Identity liberals and the white nationalists are two sides of the same coin, and frankly, deserve each other. (How is this public attack on a reader different than a typicalTrump tweet for example?) *You* did this to the country. If you dont like it, you should have held a Democratic Primary (get it?) Subtle or overt, fascism is fascism. You tried to hold democracy hostage, and the people refused to march to your drum. Ot was our civic duty, as lovers of democracy. We will refuse again in 2020 if you refuse to learn from this.

    • This article is at best an opinion piece or editorial. That is not news, its opinion. Secondly a follow up to a story you wrote about an event that happened a year ago is definitely not breaking.

      That is just bad editing

      Your childish response to a perfectly practical comment shows your journalistic ignorance. And again your lack of a good editor. If you want to be a professional news source, act like it.

  5. also backbiting is not an effective form of either leadership, or effective teamwork.

    Also this was loaded on your page as “Breaking News” and as a news professional I would say not only is it not breaking news for a miriad of reasons, any news editor that believed it was should be replaced

  6. The sanders defender seemed much more thoughtful than you do. I question why you would release an article that made you look so ignorant and arrogant.

    • The Sanders defender was adequately described by the author in the first go-round: “the loathsome contingent of humanity that suffers from the delusion that they’re more intellectually inclined than they really are” and then comes back to ASSUME that the writer and the many millions who do not support Sanders haven’t heard/studied/already know all the shit he’s spewing up one side and down the other. Just like libertarians think they’re the brightest light in the room, refusing to acknowledge that others have already studied and discarded their ‘beliefs’ in favor of reality. The left didn’t need a tea party, and we don’t accept you as democrats when you suddenly think you can do better because a lazy old white man told you so. Get a clue and join the world of reality. Or become like Paulbots/Naderites/Steinsheep and Perot nuts, swept to the curb by the dustbin of history. I won’t be back. My quota of suffering fools gladly has been filled for the day!

Leave A Reply