Sanders Statement on Nevada
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday issued the following statement
“It is imperative that the Democratic leadership, both nationally and in the states, understand that the political world is changing and that millions of Americans are outraged at establishment politics and establishment economics. The people of this country want a government which represents all of us, not just the 1 percent, super PACs and wealthy campaign contributors.
“The Democratic Party has a choice. It can open its doors and welcome into the party people who are prepared to fight for real economic and social change – people who are willing to take on Wall Street, corporate greed and a fossil fuel industry which is destroying this planet. Or the party can choose to maintain its status quo structure, remain dependent on big-money campaign contributions and be a party with limited participation and limited energy.
“Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a ‘penchant for violence.’ That is nonsense. Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.
“If the Democratic Party is to be successful in November, it is imperative that all state parties treat our campaign supporters with fairness and the respect that they have earned. I am happy to say that has been the case at state conventions in Maine, Alaska, Colorado and Hawaii where good discussions were held and democratic decisions were reached. Unfortunately, that was not the case at the Nevada convention. At that convention the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place. Among other things:
- The chair of the convention announced that the convention rules passed on voice vote, when the vote was a clear no-vote. At the very least, the Chair should have allowed for a headcount.
- The chair allowed its Credentials Committee to en mass rule that 64 delegates were ineligible without offering an opportunity for 58 of them to be heard. That decision enabled the Clinton campaign to end up with a 30-vote majority.
- The chair refused to acknowledge any motions made from the floor or allow votes on them.
The chair refused to accept any petitions for amendments to the rules that were properly submitted.
“These are on top of failures at the precinct and county conventions including trying to depose and then threaten with arrest the Clark County convention credentials chair because she was operating too fairly.”
Is he accusing the Clinton campaign of shooting at his office? I dont understand the purpose of mentioning that.
Sounds like the handiwork of Oscar Goodman.
That he starts this by lecturing the DNC, instead of condemning the violence and threats from his own supporters seems rather unfortunate.
Based on this, I think we can all expect to see more threats and violence.
This mirrors the verbal statements (and even refusals to answer questions from reporters on the issue) I have seen thus far.
Does this statement provide some insight into what his attitude at the convention will be? Will his supporters decide that based on his statement, their behavior is not just appropriate but necessary? It doesn’t look good.
However, the good news is that Clinton gets the play the adult in all this. Which is appropriate, because she happens to be the adult. Also, the DNC has been unleashed to be able to respond more forcefully because they were the ones actually being attacked.
Depends on your perspective I guess. I just watched the video and didn’t see any violence. I did see the NV Democratic Party Chair acting deplorably and adjuring while a motion to recount the delegations was on the floor.
You guys have so much faith in the media. It really is charming.
We all need to ask ourselves one question: if this were Trump instead of Sanders, would we react the same way? If the answer is no, then we need to reevaluate how we are assessing this situation. Violence should be condemned in our political process in the strongest terms not matter the cause it supposedly supports.
What violence?
Puck, Someone lifted up a chair, put it down, and revived a hug. Are you not sickened?
We have a new zombie lie.
Screaming obscenities (lovely, misogynistic ones) while rushing the stage and pushing back barriers is okay now? Convention officials being escorted to the bathroom due to security concerns? Um… okay. Just a little Gamergate, don’t ya think?
Bernie blew this. Big time. Why the hell didn’t he simply call out the bad behavior and move on? He gave the press exactly what they were looking for. I don’t get it. Perhaps someone could explain why Bernie’s (and Weaver’s) response was okay?
Other than that, what MikeM2784 said.
Could just as well be described as “heated” or “raucous.” Don’t define violence down, and don’t demagogue it. Sticks and stones…
LOL! We’ve discussed this sort of downplaying terminology when it comes to race. Ruckus vs riots.
There was no violence. Deal with it.
Screaming obscenities and pushing back the barriers was meant to bully the Chair. And bullying is violence which is why we tell our kids it is unacceptable behavior.
“And bullying is violence which is why we tell our kids it is unacceptable behavior.”
I’m not defending the behavior, it’s both ugly and counterproductive, but it comes from the part of the brain we share with the other primates, all of which establish dominance through what we’d call bullying.
In street demonstrations (not in Wilmington, obviously) I have never noticed a reluctance of protesters to turn to bullying when the numbers favor them. Bullying produces bullies, and when tables are turned, few resist the opportunity to respond in kind. Very few people in those situations do noble things that we all admire afterwards.
When you have a fight with a spouse, it’s not important who started it. It’s important to reconcile.
bullying = violence? I don’t think it’s 1:1 exactly.
But what this below says doesn’t mention violence. Me shouting you’re an idiot, really loudly isn’t violent. I can show you violence…it happened at Trump Rallies. Hater’s gonna hate…and you all clearly don’t like Bernie Supporters, like Obama supporters didn’t Like Hillary Supporters and said it was on Obama to get Clinton Supporters on his side…not Hillary’s…but that was back then…when you know…it was different
From Wikipedia
Definition
There is no universal definition of bullying, however, it is widely agreed upon that bullying is a subcategory of aggressive behavior characterized by the following three minimum criteria: (1) hostile intent, (2) imbalance of power, and (3) repetition over a period of time.[10] Bullying may thus be defined as the activity of repeated, aggressive behavior intended to hurt another individual, physically, mentally or emotionally.
The Norwegian researcher Dan Olweus[11] says bullying occurs when a person is “exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons”. He says negative actions occur “when a person intentionally inflicts injury or discomfort upon another person, through physical contact, through words or in other ways.”[11] Individual bullying is usually characterized by a person behaving in a certain way to gain power over another person.[12]
Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power, which distinguishes bullying from conflict.[1] Behaviors used to assert such domination can include verbal harassment or threat, physical assault or coercion, and such acts may be directed repeatedly towards particular targets. Rationalizations for such behavior sometimes include differences of social class, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, appearance, behavior, body language, personality, reputation, lineage, strength, size or ability.[2][3] If bullying is done by a group, it is called mobbing.[4]
Bullying can be defined in many different ways. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has no legal definition of bullying,[5] while some states in the United States have laws against it.[6] Bullying is divided into four basic types of abuse – emotional (sometimes called relational), verbal, physical, and cyber.[7] It typically involves subtle methods of coercion, such as intimidation.
Cassandra’s link is definitive proof that there was no violence. The most aggressive action was when a guy pushes a barrier. Then a security officer approaches and (apparently) says “knock it off” and the barrier pushing guy stops.
Such violence! Dear me… I have the vapors.
There’s more than one person pushing barriers and why would you do that except to threaten the people on the stage?
The article that DD posted has links to some of the threatening calls made to the Dem Chair. Threats specifically to communicate violence could be criminal.
And of course you can mock that. Who would even dream of trying to prosecute *you* for threats or bullying? That happens to other people, right?
I guess we see what we want to see. It doesn’t look like violence to me, and I have a low threshold for aggressive intimidation.
If screaming obscenities is violence, the stands in any given Eagles game are a killing field.
I’ve left a VM on your home answering machine suggesting how I’d like to see you die. Check back after you listen to it.
We shall overcome
Not all of us, apparently.