100%, Klaus. Also, if Bernie's following is "toxic", then who aren't? Trump's following? Bloomberg's, Biden's, Buttigieg's? There aren't really many people left then.

It's not a myth if it's anything like some die hard Corbynistas. I know lots of people who are angry who don't go around aggressively abusing or critising anyone who has a bad word to say about their deity, often perfectly reasonable people who have nothing to do with the political establishment. It's not passion for their political beliefs , it's just tribalism.

jones wrote:

Well put. What the fuck does toxic following even mean in this context? Not supporting Hillary after it was leaked how she fucked Bernie over?

Right, and I think the irony is that they actually did pull together to support Hillary too when it came down to it. There were more Hillary supporters in 2008 that voted for John McCain than there were Bernie supporters in 2016 that voted for Trump. The ones that didn't vote for her largely belonged to a block of independents that wouldn't usually have voted for a democrat either way. They were lured over by Sanders's politics and when they got screwed over again they upped and left. I think Bernie himself held over 30 rallies for Clinton in the run-up to the election, while Clinton herself only held 10 or so for Barack Obama.

I very rarely see these simple facts presented in an objective fashion though. The only thanks Sanders has ever gotten for involving so many young people and outsiders in politics are unfounded claims that he's trying to ruin the party. A lot of neoconservative think pieces have popped up questioning whether his supporters really want to defeat Trump when it comes down to it, which basically no supporters of any other candidate are accused of. It's not a question that is being asked in good faith.

"Tribalism" is forced upon his supporters. Almost all media present Sanders as the enemy, I think it'd be really hard not to get defensive. People talk about them having conspiracy theories while we Arsenal supporters are adamant that referees have it in for us. When you're constantly thwarted by what's supposed to be objective, truth-seeking actors, you're bound to feel that something is seriously wrong.

goon wrote:

It's not a myth if it's anything like some die hard Corbynistas. I know lots of people who are angry who don't go around aggressively abusing or critising anyone who has a bad word to say about their deity, often perfectly reasonable people who have nothing to do with the political establishment. It's not passion for their political beliefs , it's just tribalism.

this.

its one thing to be angry at the system. im angry at the system too. its another thing to spend your day online harassing people just because they dont support your candidate. if you honestly think that sanders supporters are just lashing out against the system, you are woefully misguided. his supporters have personally attacked, doxxed and harassed people who dare question his record. his supporters have threatened to "vote for no one if you don't make bernie the nominee"....that is toxic behavior. in a lot of ways, its no different from the way trump supporters act. there is a big difference between hating the current government and asking for systemic change and doxxing someone because they ask you to explain why sanders voted for this or that, or why he is now refusing to release his medical records that he promised he'd release.

that behavior may seem enticing to some. i find it fairly reprehensible. im in my late 30s and not rich. i grew up with the internet. i think the behavior of his cult like supporters is toxic and gross, to be honest, and he hasnt done enough to try and stop it.

the most distressing thing to me is that i dont think people really understand how difficult it is to make big change in this country, because of our outdated, archaic system of government. the big changes that people want (universal health care, affordable college, actual climate change solutions) are hugely important, but to get there, the only way to do it is to vote republicans out of office. republicans realize that their base of support is shrinking because of demographics, so they have done everything in their power to hold on to what they have, through gerrymandering and the federal court system. it gets talked about far less than it should, but what mcconnell did under obama, holding open hundreds of federal court seats and refusing to confirm nominees, is going to impact the country for the next 40 years. democrats will get nothing done on any of their priority items until they have at least 51 votes in the senate, and that becomes more difficult every day as democrats keep killing each other internally and arguing over purity tests and whatever other nonsense is out there.

i know that the people on this board who look at america from the outside think there is no difference between democrats and republicans, and that simply isn't the case for people who live here and for our day to day life. republicans have regressive retrograde viewpoints on so many issues that impact basic quality of life for everyone in america. i want the big structural change that sanders and warren want. thats why i donate money and why i give to groups that are trying to make that change happen. but it cant happen while we have a republican in the white house and a republican controlled senate. obama made a lot of mistakes in 8 years, and he got fucked over in a lot of ways by mcconnell once he took control of the senate, but he made small progress on things like health care, which trump is now trying to reverse.

Quincy Abeyie wrote:

100%, Klaus. Also, if Bernie's following is "toxic", then who aren't? Trump's following? Bloomberg's, Biden's, Buttigieg's? There aren't really many people left then.

Exactly. There's an entire community of Native American scholars, politicians and writers right now that are being harrassed by Warren supporters for instance, because unlike liberals they're less willing to let Warren's past slide:

I don't really see anyone in the news condemning Warren for what some of her supporters are doing to quiet down her frankly disgraceful treatment of indigenous people, and unlike people yelling at Bloomberg to go fuck himself this is actually a pretty big issue. I guess it's only when it comes to Bernie Sanders that we're determined to define a candidacy based on the behaviour of its rudest and most abrasive supporters.

mdgoonah41 wrote:

i know that the people on this board who look at america from the outside think there is no difference between democrats and republicans, and that simply isn't the case for people who live here and for our day to day life.

You keep repeating this point as if it were true. No one sane outside the US doesn't care whether there's a red or blue president. You're just 4% of the world's population yet your governments actions have a profound direct or indirect impact on literally every single person on the planet. The US controls the unholy trifecta of currency oil and arms which means that yes absolutely I know there's a difference between a gun toting redneck and an even moderately progressive bloke or lady.

What you don't seem to grasp is that aside for the rest of the world your candidates are almost exclusively different shades of red. For the 96% of the world not carrying an American passport it doesn't matter just as much as to you what Trump does to Obamacare. Shit most would be glad to hear that someone is doing something against the obscene tuition fees regular people suffer from there. They won't care as much though if it is Trump Hillary or Buttigieg literally starving them to death like in Venezuela or Iran, aiding corrupt regimes in killing their own like in Brazil or Egypt or straight bombing them dead like in God knows how many countries. Try maybe thinking about it from their point of view instead of just an American standpoint, then you won't be as frustrated about people not getting yours.

I'd much prefer Sanders winning but a lighter shade of red is preferable to Trump. The current president's tactics have emboldened a generation of zealots and racists that I thought only existed in the fringes of society. In addition to controlling oil, currency and arms, the US also win the soft power war and as a result any breakdown of social cohesion or social liberties reverberates across the planet and empowers other countries to do the same.

Plus, y'know, it would be nice if the next President didn't pretend climate change was a hoax and I'd argue that's probably the most pertinent issue facing the planet so any progress on that would be good.

Small addition to the point about the political leanings of Sanders supporters:

It follows common sense logic that the people who have the most actual things to lose from a Trump administration are the ones strongest opposed to him, but the entire media narrative during the primaries has been about whether they will 'revenge vote' republican or not. I think that speaks volumes about the state of corporate media.

He released medical records after fixing his heart issue, didn't he? Has any other primary candidate released anything at all?

Still in Flint, Doc?

Klaus wrote:

He released medical records after fixing his heart issue, didn't he? Has any other primary candidate released anything at all?

i dont think he did. as recently as like a few weeks ago he was saying he'd be releasing more info about his health. he had a heart attack a few months ago. i think its reasonable to wonder if hes healthy. if hes healthy, why wouldnt he just release it? for the same reason trump never released his tax returns? because the heat for not releasing it isnt as bad as whats in the records?

this is what pisses people off. he said he'd release the records, now hes saying he wont, and this is like birtherism? what?

This took two seconds on google to find: https://eu.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2019/12/31/bernie-sanders-releases-medical-records-showing-good-health/2781926001/

After he canceled three presidential campaign events in September in order to rest his voice, Sen. Bernie Sanders made a pledge to release his medical records before the Iowa caucus on February 3rd, NBC News reported.

That was before he suffered a heart attack on Oct 1. Still, Sanders has made good on his promise. He released letters on Dec. 30 from his primary physician and two UVM cardiologists that said he's healthy, able to campaign without restriction and fit to serve as president.

...

The director of cardiac rehabilitation at the University of Vermont said Sanders was able to exercise at "a level that is 50% higher than other men his age with a similar diagnosis," the letter said.

A letter from the attending physician of the United States Congress, Brian P. Monahan, said Bernie was in good health and has been "engaging vigorously in the rigors of (his) campaign, travel, and other scheduled activities without any limitation,” Monahan wrote.

According to the letters, Sanders has been treated in the past for "gout, hypercholesterolemia, diverticulitis, hypothyroidism, laryngitis secondary to esophageal reflux, lumbar strain, and complete removal of superficial skin lesions." He's had surgery on left and right-side inguinal hernias as well as a cyst removed from his vocal cord.

Sanders takes five medications, including atorvastatin, aspirin, clopidogrel, levothyroxine, and lisinopril.

Sanders' doctors say his lab work was normal, and his exercise test results were average for men his age.

Here's another one that details blood pressure and HDL/LDL cholesterol values: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/30/us/politics/bernie-sanders-health-medical-records.html

It seems to me that any important information is already publicly available. What else is he supposed to release, and why is he supposed to do it when no one else does?

The bernie bros angle really makes his opponents look pretty thin-skinned and weak. That's not to say there isn't a cultish segment of his base, but as a strategy to slow him down it never had any affect. It also brushes over the diversity of his supporters quite arrogantly. Tbh its the kind of coverage that strengthens his populist, political outsider energy