Grow up Dan.

And you've chosen the wrong side on this.

Do yourself a favor and rest up... You're gonna need it for NY (I assume you're volunteering for the Hillary campaign... No?).

I read the interview transcript after reading a couple of hours of hair-on-fire posts here.

We must have read two different interviews. *shrugs*

they like pictures over at the Hill group...

Democratic shit doesn't stink!

Oh, please post my private message to you, as you did the other day, to paint me as a "bad guy" and I will post a public message to me from a fellow member of your group. We will the see who the real "bad guys'" are.


Thank you in advance.

Hmmm?

I understand you're hurting. It's fine.

Peace and Love.

I understand you would do anything to justify the actions of a fellow member of your group.


Peace and Love

Now, yes that's aggressive.

But I realize you were upset. Everyone gets upset sometimes. It's ok. I forgive you.

Wanting to speak freely without getting time outed is tantamount to comparing a person to the "dog shit" on his shoe, okay.

I forgive the fellow member of your group for saying that and you for seemingly countenancing it but I will never forget it.




P.S. Shoe on the other foot... When Clinton supporters start referring to Sanders supporters as " dog shit" I'm calling em out. If I don't I become worthy of the appellation assigned to me.

Stop hiding behind that it wont wash

Stop posting misinformation.

If I jump on the Red Line in North Hollywood to go to downtown L A , sit next to some guy, engage him in conversation, and at some point in it in the conversation I tell him your " opinion is worth less than the dog shit I just scraped off the bottom of my shoe" I should expect a hug.

No aggression on my part, none at all...

Please help this plebeian establish the parameters of civil discourse.


Thank you in advance.

I merely pointed out that that was not what had occurred.

Your case for civil discourse would be strengthened without such blatant misrepresentations.

So when I tell my real life interlocutor that I was referring to his opinion being of less value than "the dog shit on his shoe" and he takes umbrage I should have a reasonable expectation that his umbrage will be tempered by the fact I was referring to his opinion and not to him.

Should I have a reasonable expectation he will see it as a distinction without a different?


Again, I am just trying to establish the parameters of civil discourse.

So I can't tell someone I disagree with their opinion without insulting them? Or worse, that I don't respect their opinion? It's the same thing. It is possible to insult a specific opinion that someone holds without insulting or intending to insult the person directly. Nuance. Look it up.

Are you really arguing that someone saying "Your opinion is crap" is the exact same as saying "You are crap"?

If you believe a person can get in a real life and not an internet conversation with a stranger and tell him "Your opinion is worth less than the dog shit I just scraped off the bottom of my shoe" and not place himself in danger there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

That language is incendiary and aggressive.

Please don't try that experiment. I love you too much.

To conflate someone insulting your opinion with a direct insult to yourself in such a deliberate way speaks pretty poorly of anyone.

This has gotten rather sad. If you wish to continue believing that saying "Your opinion is crap" is the exact same as "You are crap" then it's your own problem.

The problem I and most likely many have, is when you deliberately misrepresent what someone said as "Comparing people to waste", which is completely false. You changed it to try to make it worse than it was, just to substantiate your point. It looks very childish to do so, but if that's the hat you want to wear...

I am in L A. If I get in a conversation and tell my interlocutor "Your opinion is worth less than the dog shit I just scraped off the bottom of my shoe" I am liable to get wrecked.

then that's on you.

I feel as if I am in some parallel universe where you can tell strangers in real life "Your opinion is worth less than the dog shit I just scraped off the bottom of my shoe" without reprisals. That doesn't match up with anybody's real life experiences.


Oh, I do appreciate your more or less civil tone.

I am loathe to quote it without context again because I would never want to be seen as the source of such demeaning, provocative, and hateful language and I don't want my post hidden...

My buddy was an adjunct history professor at Rollins College. He told me about this quote that was attributed to Orwell but it might be apocryphal. The quote was "some ideas are so bizarre that only an intellectual could believe them."

The notion that a person could tell a stranger in real life that his "... opinion is worth less than the dog shit I just scraped off the bottom of my shoe " and not place himself in danger is so "bizarre only an intellectual could believe it."


P.S. It's a real quote:

That doesn't excuse blatantly misrepresenting what someone said as you did.

You quoted someone that said "Your opinion is..." and you then said they said it about you and not your opinion.

When called on such blatant misrepresentations of what someone said, you then tried to deflect by saying either way might result in similar anger in real life - which does in no way excuse your saying someone said something they didn't.

It's pretty puerile to continue to double-down on such a blatant misrepresentation. Surely you're aware that people can just read the discrepancy right? You even quoted them exactly and then had the gall to claim they said something different.

"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”


If I tell enough strangers "Your opinion is worth less than the dog shit I just scraped off the bottom of my shoe" eventually one of those strangers is going to take a punch at me. He will not worry about the law because he will be gone before the law comes.

Maybe you live in such a rarefied milieu where you believe such things don't occur or can't happen but I can assure you that is not most folks experience. In fact there is usually a positive correlation between civility and distance. The closer the distance, the more the civility...

The notion that anybody believes a person could tell a stranger "Your opinion is worth less than the dog shit I just scraped off the bottom of my shoe" and not place themselves in danger is risible.

It is baffling to see somebody go to the mat to defend such demeaning, provocative, and hateful language.

P.S. Where you are getting hung up is your insistence my interlocutor didn't say I was worth less than the dog shit he just scraped off the bottom of his shoe but my opinion was. Ordinary people don't stop to make such juridical decisions.

You still misprepresented what the commented said.

I've never said anything about whatever imaginary results you would get. I only pointed out that you quoted someone saying something about your opinion and then said they said something about you in particular.

When you say something that isn't true, most would call that a lie.

Original commenter: "Your opinion is worth less than..."
You said that they were "Comparing people to waste"

Who exactly did the commenter compare to waste??? Nobody. They just said something about your opinion. If you cannot see the difference between yourself and one of your opinions, then you have other issues you might want to address before continuing.

There is a clear difference. If you choose to obfuscate about other things because you can't admit you're wrong, that's on you.

Where you are getting hung up is your insistence my interlocutor didn't say I was worth less than the dog shit he just scraped off the bottom of his shoe but my opinion was. Ordinary people don't stop to make such juridical decisions.

I am flummoxed... I can't see how somebody could countenance such hateful, demeaning, and provocative language, especially someone who holds himself out as exemplifying progressive values.

That's why it had such a profound effect on me when I read it. It was the worst thing ever said to me in my entire life. i would be less than candid if I said it didn't provoke the extraordinarily negative reaction it was intended to.

(SIGH)

Twist it however you want. Be made because they don't like your opinion. But don't expect people to respect your thoughts on something when you clearly misrepresent what they said.

"Ordinary people" can see the difference between someone's opinion and that person themselves. I'm sorry you are unable to do so.

If you believe folks will make a juridical decision that saying one's opinions " is worth less than the dog shit I just scraped off the bottom of my shoe" is not an attack on the person himself there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion. Out of profound love for you I implore you to never say it to anybody in person.

Just about misrepresenting what people say as you did.

You just want to try to obfuscate that you tried to indicate that someone said something other than what they did.

I'm sorry you can't admit that was incorrect and wrong or are just unwilling to. It wouldn't negate your point about anything else, but you chose to build your case on a false representation of what they said.

Again, many would call it a lie when you say that someone said something when they didn't. It's especially galling that you even quoted them, and then continue to try to skirt around the issue by saying "Well people would react the same regardless" as if that excuses it.

If you punch a wall or a dog bites your hand - then yes your hand will hurt. But you would have done two totally separate things. A similar response or result does not excuse misrepresenting what actually happened.

It would be comical if it weren't so sad, that people are so locked into being right, that they would lose any sense of honor and misrepresent facts as such.

The crux of the matter is you are making juridical distinctions when it comes to hateful, provocative, and demeaning speech. My point is a simple and common sense one; the target of such speech doesn't make those juridical decisions. It has nothing to do with an abundance of candor or paucity of candor and everything to do with an abundance or paucity of common sense...

Folks don't go around, in real life, telling other folks "their opinions are worth less than the dog shit they scrape off their shoes", for obvious reasons, foremost among them prudential ones.

Again, obscure it however you want. They didn't say what you indicated they said.

You were wrong and cannot admit it.

Because I don't make that juridical decision. When X demeans, denigrates, and dehumanizes Y, X has abandoned the moral high ground and has no say in how Y interprets the demeaning, denigrating, and dehumanizing statement. X has abandoned the moral high ground and left himself or herself bare. The language was so inflammatory that the line between the person and the opinion disappeared into the ether.

How would you like if somebody said that to you, to a loved one?

That pretty much says you were wrong.

Whether it's a maturity thing, or some ego deficiency, I can't say but you've proven yourself wrong anyway. That you can't admit it and continue to try to obfuscate the issue by talking about other things such as how people might respond, only makes you look worse.

If somebody says to me " I am worth less than the dog shit he scraped off his shoe" or my "opinion is worth less than the dog shit he scraped off his shoe" I am not going to see a difference, and as the profoundly aggrieved party I have every right to. I would extend that right to everybody, even my most fervent detractors.

I am the aggrieved party. If you are the liberal and empathetic person you hold yourself out to be you would take exception from such a heinous assault on my character rather than seemingly countenancing it.

(SIGH)

Time to start posting like adults.

There is nothing as sad as when selective outrage raises it face.

Post about issues, not some PM you got from Morning Joe, proving Hillary is something something. Ridiculous.

BOSNIAN SNIPER FIRE!!!

Any port in a storm, eh?

Sid

And no amount of snark will stop it.


also: SNIPER FIRE!!!

And if Joe was praising Hillary you likely would be fine with that.

Think of it as EVEN Joe says......... to a decently sized audience.

Isn't that gender card getting a little tattered? As a woman, I am embarrassed every time I see it played.
I hate war and fracking and the TPP and cluster bombs, just to name a few things Hillary is happily in favor of. Do you seriously believe I would be okay with those things if a MAN was running against Bernie? That's short-sighted and really kind of pathetic.

We got a winner

I have a bridge to sell you, too!

That interview was what, in popular jargon, is known as a "HOT MESS."

Sanders showed us his bare behind with that waffling, indecisive, clueless conversation.

It was ghastly.

Since when do ACTUAL Democrats take the opinions of an asshole like that to heart? If "Morning Joe" is giving you election guidance, and you're taking it, you just might want to re-think your party affiliation.

Sanders’ “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act,” and its companion bill in the House introduced by Rep. Brad Sherman, would direct the government to compile a list of systemically important financial institutions, just as Dodd-Frank did. But it would also direct the Secretary of the Treasury to break up those institutions within one year, and ban them all from receiving special help from the Federal Reserve or gambling with federally-insured deposits. Under this bill, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley would all be broken up.

Actually here is Bernie's solution to Big Banks.

http://tinyurl.com/h927ncn

We went from dial phones attached to a wall to smart phones with recording capability in less than a generation.

It will be interesting to see what happens next, won't it?

by his own party for such bad judgment in promoting him. Now he's toned it down on his Trumpfest per Headquarters. LOL,

And watching the rerun now, first thing he said about Bernie: "...and barely making a dent in the delegate lead." REALITY.

...the interview is stuff for talking heads to talk about. But, that Daily News cover will have an effect.

Paraphrase:

Says it all.

Are bought by large corporations. I take what either says with a grain of salt.

I thought he was a RW shill? Now he's considered a legitimate pundit? I really can't keep track.

Maybe you replied to the wrong post? I was talking about Scarborough.

Was part of the group allowed to ask questions. There will be a transcript somewhere I'm sure so I'm paraphrasing for now. But he said he didn't get the feeling it was a disaster at all. He said the history of the DN interviews is a bunch of questions being thrown out very quickly and in a rapid fire way. He said Sanders handled that pretty well. He said he has a good grasp of issues. He stumbled a bit when talking about the exact way the big bank breakup process would have to be legally handled. But it wasn't any kind of inability to understand the issue. Just the process was complicated.

He then went on to say he was extremely pleased with Sanders response on the Israel Palestine situation. And overall thought he did an very good job.

Van Jones was also on set on Democracy Now and said that now that NY is coming up -- there will be a lot of focus on the candidates and Sanders will be scrutinized and attacked. He thinks Bernie will need to - and expects he will - fine tune his answers and become more focused in his responses.

I agree. Campaigning like this is not something Sanders has been doing for 20 years. I trust his judgement, believe he is on the right side of issues, believe in his vision. That's why I am voting for him. But he can become more focused in his answers so that he is clearer in responding.

The notion that it was some kind of disaster is a manufactured story. The questioning was openly hostile, but Bernie's answers were fine.

I live across the Hudson river from Manhattan, about 15 minutes from Midtown. Therefore, I'm in the NYC media market. I've already seen the interview mentioned by several news programs.

This is a conservative Republican we are talking about.

They don't want to run against Hillary Clinton.

You are writing about TRUST and throwing your lot in with Republican Joe the Intern Killer? No idea why you would do that, but not surprising at all. This is why Skinner laughed when someone asked him to ban Brock from this site. BernieBros have flooded this site with more right wing and inappropriate sources than have ever graced this website. They seem to be involved in a real right wing lovefest.




Go ahead and stand with Joe and the Republicans. Just get the fuck out of the way.

you really have to question what has happened to your soul.

Fuck Republican Joe the Intern Killer. Most Democrats know better than to fall for or repeat Republican bullshit.

Unfortunately, there aren't many actual Democrats left on DU since handing control over to the trolls. Fortunately, admins are finally going to address and fix that shit after the primaries are over. Let's hope that the trolls don't completely fuck it up for everyone before that happens.

Hitler was against smoking and a vegetarian. Yet I would never quote him even on those subjects.

To question what happened with your soul.

nor am a quoting a known GOP operative.

I don't think that interview changes anyones mind. Hell, 99% of the day-to-day stuff that the media blows out of proportion doesn't change anything.

The same goes for pretty much every election. Look at the 2012 Presidential race. After all the handwringing about Obama's debate performance, the 47%, Bill Clinton at the convention, etc., at the end of the day expected Obama voters voted for Obama, and Romney voters voted for Romney.

Did Bernie blow the Interview, or NYDN Editors simply not understand the issue?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511660489

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-daily-news_us_5704779ce4b0a506064d8df5?utm_hp_ref=tw

Bernie was right, and the editors are uninformed.

Morning Joe can shill for Bernie as much as he wants...that is the real thing people don't care about.

But he has an inside view of that dynamic with Trump.

where they can actually buy a copy of the NY Daily News will be reading the interview in the first place.

Once again, New York City folks don't quite understand that the entire country is their small city.

He has no idea what NYers outside his bubble.

The News is widely read in the city and long Island and this will hurt him on the margins.

People who don't know a damn thing about NY shoukd not pretend to be an expert.

Stop putting your trust in right wing hacks, it is unseemly!