Working Families Party Staffers Face Harassment After Warren Endorsement

[George II]

BY CHARLOTTE ALTER UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 7:51 PM ET

In the days since the Working Families Party endorsed Senator Elizabeth Warren for President on Monday, staffers at the progressive group have received hundreds of furious messages, including several using racial slurs against black staffers and at least one celebrating a junior employee’s rape.

Maurice Mitchell, the National Director of the Working Families Party (WFP) and an organizer with the Movement for Black Lives, received messages calling him a “half man” and “Uncle Tom,” and telling him to “go back to his slave masters,” according to emails and tweets reviewed by TIME.



WFP organizer Ember Ollom, a rape survivor who has tweeted about her assault, received a message that said: “We were raped by this process, so I’m happy it happened to you.”

When Ollom tweeted about the harassment, more people responded to tell her she was lying.

(MUCH more)....

https://time.com/5681261/working-families-party-harrassment/

[Cha]

1. Ah.. ".. racial slurs against Black staffers.. " :(

I wondered why there were the "racial slurs" that I had been reading about.

Glad WFP is speaking out about this harassment.. Thank you, George!

Business as usual.

[Blue_true]

11. Remember Portland 2016 and what happened to the BLM people at a Bernie rally.

I seriously think that Bernie attracts a lot of Whites that have no core values other than Bernie is saying what they want to hear (lots of free stuff). Since they have no core values, they threaten anyone that threaten their ability to get what they desire.

[Cha]

12. Sounds like solid analysis

to me... and it only backfires.

[Hortensis]

41. Yes. A lot of populists are at least somewhat socially conservative.

Not all are. But as you say, they're all concerned with social programs. Those drawn to populist leaders vary; but regardless of what some might have, for sure values aren't what rule these mobs.

In fact, Scientific American reported on research that showed a dominating characteristic of populist movements is antagonism.

I think a lot of people see these behaviors and assume they're fringe when in fact they're manifestations of populism's dominating features. How many people know populist movements in democracies by their very nature exist to overcome majority rule? Their leaders typically pose as reformers and never say that, of course, until or if they give a huge clue by trying to subvert elections.

Happily, our LW populist movement failed last time and is doing significantly worse this time as well. Lost a lot of those who don't need antagonism topped up to candidates who don't sell it.

The Personality Trait That Is Ripping America (and the World) Apart: People who are antagonistic resonate more with populist messages
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-personality-trait-that-is-ripping-america-and-the-world-apart/

[enid602]

72. Dolores

And don’t forget Dolores Huerta.

[Blue_true]

125. I haven't. The way Sarandon treated that legend was beyond shameful. nt

[LakeArenal]

2. Ay Caramba!!

‘Merika gets worse everyday.

[Cha]

3. They have no self awareness.

[MustLoveBeagles]

4. That's horrible

[ritapria]

5. As a young man , Bernie marched with Dr. King

Is he responsible for the actions of a couple of nuts spewing out racial slurs …..?

[Cha]

6. Yeah we know. That doesn't excuse

Last edited Fri Sep 20, 2019, 12:22 AM - Edit history (1)

these supporters who harass those at WFP for endorsing Elizabeth Warren.

ETA~ As posted down thread.. It isn't correct to say BS "marched" with MLK.. he attended MLK's speech.

[tblue37]

69. OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if some of those are not real Berners, but ratf**kers deliberately

sowing animosity among Democrats.

[Me.]

70. I Was Going To Say That

As for him not being responsible for the way his supporters behave, do we say the same about traitor trump's supporters? You can tell what a person is like by the company they keep.

[Cha]

124. No we don't..

Good point.

Do anyone of the Dems' supporters act out like that?

Hoaaloha!

[MustLoveBeagles]

7. Bernie isn't responsible for these assholes did

All the same I think he needs to make a statement condemning this. This should have no place in our party.

Edit: I'm not ruling out the possibility that it was RW trolls posing as Bernie supporters. They'll do anything and everything to divide us.

[George II]

9. He's responsible for Sirota, Turner, and Gray.

[Cha]

14. Good reminder, George!

[MustLoveBeagles]

144. Yes he is

That's one of the many reasons I'm not supporting him in the primary this time around. I just can't rule out RW shitstiring completely.

[cannabis_flower]

10. He already has

Sanders himself has long refrained from personal attacks on his rivals or their supporters, and has been quick to decry harassment undertaken in his name. “This campaign condemns racist bulling and harassment of any kind, in any space” Sanders tweeted Thursday. “We are building a multiracial movement for justice—that’s how we win the White House.”

[tblue37]

71. GMTA--I suggested the same thing: ratf**kers nt

[George II]

8. No he didn't! He was AT the "March on Washington" back in 1963, along with 249,999 others....

...in this crowd:

[SidDithers]

23. Moscow Mitch was also in that crowd...

But nobody in their right mind would try to use Mitch’s attendance at that speech to suggest he’s been fighting for Civil Rights for 50+ years.


Sid

[Docreed2003]

26. Was going to post the same....

Spot on

[George II]

35. Bazinga!

[dalton99a]

38. +1

[obamanut2012]

46. Thank you -- was coming here to state this

[comradebillyboy]

13. He attended a speech by Martin Luthur King. They didn't march together.

Mitch McConnell was in the audience as well. Did Mitch march with Dr. King too?

How is any of this relevant to the WFP controversy?

[SidDithers]

22. He also chained himself to a black woman...

I can’t get Bernie Civil Rights bingo if you don’t mention that too.

Sid

[ehrnst]

126. Oh, right!!! An actual black woman.

[LongtimeAZDem]

24. Um, no, he didnt:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sanders-mlk-selma-march/

[George II]

36. When I was younger I was a community organizer with Barack Obama. Oh wait, no....

...I saw him speak in Bridgeport CT in 2014.

[PhoenixDem]

47. He didn't march "with" Dr. King

He was one in a crowd of hundreds of thousands.

[mcar]

56. So did Mitch McConnell

And yes, Bernie should speak out when the harassment is being done by his supporters.

[Hortensis]

68. Yes, Ritapria, Sanders IS responsible as a populist leader

who has actively worked to draw these people to him. As I said in another post, aggressively antagonistic group behaviors are not, as many assume, atypical in populist movements. No, they're not the duds who seem to pop up everywhere.

These are manifestations of dominant characteristics of populist movements.

And Sanders had to know that when he decided to become a leader of a populists, harnessing these antagonisms and resentments to win power. That, btw, is why he also tries to draw populist followers away from Trump. By definition, a majority of those drawn to populist messages tend to be economically left and socially right -- in a wide range of mixtures found across the political spectrum.

[betsuni]

138. +1

[wasupaloopa]

94. The lives and myths of Bernie Sanders

Marched with Dr King that conard is brought on stage every time Bernie and racism appear in the same sentence

[ehrnst]

123. Well, then so did Charleston Heston, by that definition.

Does that justify or bestow "civil rights cred" on anything he did or said in the decades afterwards? No.

For the umpteenth time, that's not a relevant retort or substitute for a progressive and articluate position concerning race and white supremacy, as Sanders learned at the She the People forum. Nor does it excuse being tone deaf or slow to condemn racist acts on the part of his supporters in his name.

And no, it wasn't just a couple, and they were doing it in his name. It's not the first time that his supporters have organized to harass a group they feel 'betrayed' Sanders, and he needs to understand that no matter how unhappy he is with the target of the harassment, he needs to make a PERSONAL and sincere denouncement of that kind of behavior.

Yes, that WFP endorsement of Warren must have really, really stung - not just him but many of his most fervent supporters, who feel that Sanders represents their anger.

Especially since Bernie has called the WFP “the closest thing there is to a political party that believes in my vision of democratic socialism.”

I find it interesting that he didn't use the term "I" or even "My campaign" in his tweet, or name WFP and support them.

Not surprising, but interesting.

[emmaverybo]

127. Then he can disavow them and their aggressive harassment, but he doesn't, a fact that shows a

failure of leadership at the very least, at the worst tacit approval.

[nini]

137. LOL

This is becoming funny to see that repeated so much.

Let me know when he gets into the 21st century and shows some work that is MLK in nature.

At the very least he should tell his followers to knock that shit off. but.. crickets...

[Gothmog]

15. This type of conduct will alienate voters

Link to tweet

[PhoenixDem]

49. BS is finished already

He should just drop out of the race to stop this divisive crap

[TCJ70]

16. The WFP should release the vote count. Put all this conspiracy shit to rest.

If Bernie lost, great. I’d prefer if Warren won. If not, then they didn’t listen to their members and validated the complaints about their process.

NOTHING justifies threats against anyone else, but only the WFP can clear this up and for some reason, they aren’t.

[betsuni]

17. Long form birth certificate. Transcript of paid speech. Emails. Conspiracy theory.

Bullshit.

[TCJ70]

20. Ugh...

The best solution for conspiracy theories is daylight. It causes people who hold onto those theories to be considered fringe.

Obama cleared it up.
Hillary didn’t clear up her speeches.
The emails were put out there and largely ended things except for the fact that there was 20 years of bullshit thrown at her.

The vote count is the EASIEST thing to clear up and they’re choosing the paid speeches route. Their choice. Opaqueness is not the best course here.

[PhoenixDem]

50. WFP is a private organization -they don't have to do anything

No one is "entitled" to an endorsement. If you get it, fine, celebrate. If you don't, shrug and move on. BS's people feel entitled and this has been going on for four long years.

What about accepting losses graciously?

[TCJ70]

51. Do you know the process they used for this vote?

They had two groups vote and weighed them equally. The two groups were:
- Their membership
- A 56 person board

Each of those groups were given 50% consideration in the final tally. 56 people given as much weight as many thousands. It wouldn't take very many of those 56 people to throw the results from the membership another direction. Making the vote count transparent would immediately remove any validity to the complaints they're getting about it.

Obviously nobody is entitled to an endorsement and I don't think anyone is making that argument (you seem to have pulled that out of nowhere). The only people who can clear the air here are the WFP. They're choosing not to. If they don't, that's on them.

Let's not be so quick to lump all Sanders supporters into one category, yeah?

[PhoenixDem]

52. So what? Their organization, their rules

Was BS "entitled" to an endorsement?

[TCJ70]

55. I LITERALLY WROTE "OBVIOUSLY NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO AN ENDORSEMENT". It's a rare day...

...when someone just obviously stops reading a post half way through and completely gives it away.

[PhoenixDem]

59. I saw it ... but the rest of your post negated that line. n/t

[Hortensis]

81. TCJ, as Betsuni so succinctly says. You didn't really believe dozens of state

Democratic parties stole their states' primary elections from Sanders last time, did you? This response is SOP for these people.

We saw it against not just state and national Democratic organizations but everyone from the AA monolith, to various unions, to entertainment figures, to Planned Parenthood, and so on. Anyone who endorsed the opponent became a target of their aggressive hostility.

[TCJ70]

82. Just like PhoenixDem...why are you injecting arguments that weren't made...

...where did I mention anything about state primaries?

The one, and ONLY, point I am making, is that if the WFP cares about this "controversy" they are the ones that can clear it up. The vote count is the vote count. If he lost, he lost. Put it out there. If they aren't concerned about it, then they aren't.

I have no skin in this game as I'm not supporting Sanders.

[Hortensis]

84. Harassment is harassment, regardless of the target.

It's also regardless of the method. A lot of lawsuits were filed against state parties and then dropped once the media moved on. Don't for a moment imagine the people of all those states wanted their donations to end up being used to answer phony, harassing lawsuits. OR for special security to guard against hack attacks, threats against officials and their homes, and mobs at party events.

Congrats on having Warren for a choice this time. Some of the same people are drawn to her, but they'll be the better for it if they stick. Good leaders elevate, and Warren feeds aspirations, not antagonisms.

[George II]

98. They can make their own rules, just as the DNC can make their own rules.....

Why is it that Sanders and/or his surrogates and supporters are always trying to tell organizations that they don't belong to how to run their organization?

[TCJ70]

100. I never said otherwise, only said what I thought would be...

...the best way to deal with this particular “controversy”.

[ehrnst]

130. Who is "lumping all Sanders supporters into one category?"

Straw man much?

[TCJ70]

132. PheonixDem did. And I quote:

shrug and move on. BS's people feel entitled and this has been going on for four long years.

It’s in the post just before mine that you replied to. Your welcome for the explanation.

[ehrnst]

142. I thought that was about his staffers. (nt)

[TCJ70]

143. No one from the campaign is among the people in the complaints...

...at least not that I’ve seen. Also, there’s nothing in the post to indicate that it is just about his staff.

[ehrnst]

90. Hillary "didn't clear up her speeches?"

What does that mean?

[TCJ70]

91. As far as I know...

...she never released them. The point was that it remained a problem for her, even if you personally didn’t view it as a problem, that just kept boiling. The best thing she could have done in that situation was put them out there or explain why she couldn’t. She chose neither.

[ehrnst]

93. Right, she thought that releasing her tax returns for 10 years was more important.

The speech transcripts seemed to be far, far more important than personal financial transparency to some when it came to a POTUS candidate.

I have no idea why.

Privacy is considered to be sacred when it comes to some public figures, but suspect and nefarious when it comes to their opponents.

[TCJ70]

104. Ok.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=288106

[ehrnst]

105. Ok.

Not sure what that had to do with my post.

[George II]

99. She was a private citizen when she made those speeches, why should she have to....

..."clear them up"? Up until the time that issue was raised by one person those speeches were never an issue.

[TCJ70]

103. Nothing that you wrote is relevant to the conversation at hand.

The point is that it was something that continued to follow her. I made no statement on whether or not it should have been a problem to begin with.

[ehrnst]

106. Well, there were those who were going to jump on anything, real or fictional

as "evidence" that she wasn't ethical.

No use in pandering to those whose minds are made up, no matter what.

They were a huge nothingburger when Wikileaks released them, but there was still a feeding frenzy.

Ironically, now that shoe is on someone elses' foot.

[George II]

117. It only continued to follow her because one person wouldn't let it go.....

....and if we're going to stick to what is relevant to the conversation at hand, we should be discussing "Working Families Party Staffers Face Harassment After Warren Endorsement".

[betsuni]

134. "Yet he was still hammering away at Clinton, invoking the words

'Goldman' and 'Sachs' as often as possible, and delivering crowd-pleasing sarcasm about Clinton's unreleased transcripts of her speeches. Ignoring the fact that the fees, outrageous as they are, are standard (if not on the low side) for famous folk, he used the line, over and over: 'It must be a fantastic speech, a brilliant speech which you would want to share with the American people. It must be Shakespearean!' As to the DNC emails, as Sanders himself later admitted, we surely would have found emails just as nasty, if not worse, had Sanders been hacked as well. ... Did he do serious damage to Clinton's chances of winning over Trump every time 'devil' and 'demon' were used to describe her and he offered no protest, every time he portrayed her as the servant of Wall Street whose impending victory was stolen from 'the people' by a 'corrupt' DNC? Again, yes. Undoubtedly yes." Susan Bordo.

[ehrnst]

128. And the smearing of WFP continues.

Warren got the same treatment from Sanders supporters when she endorsed HRC.

[mcar]

58. This

[OilemFirchen]

61. ...

Did the Working Families Party disclose their vote totals for the 2016 Primary endorsement?

No.

In the fall of 2015, the Working Families Party conducted a combined membership-drive and open poll among its enrolled members on whom to endorse for President in 2016; the result being Bernie Sanders. Official numbers were not disclosed but party spokesman and co-founder Dan Cantor said the results were "overwhelmingly" in favor of Sanders, with some sources stating it was an 87 to 12 to 1 percent vote with Sanders over Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Families_Party#2010s

[TCJ70]

64. It's 2019...not 2015.

They're free to clear it up if they want. If not, then that's how it goes. The "controversy" exists now so what 2015 has to do with it adds up to about zero.

[OilemFirchen]

65. What "controversy"? (n/t)

[TCJ70]

66. That's why it's in quotes. n/t

[IronLionZion]

18. So much hate, you'd think these were Trump supporters

[Amimnoch]

27. must.. hold.. my.. tongue! -nt.

[redstatebluegirl]

30. Wish I could say what I think but I shouldn't.

[dalton99a]

39. They are cranky and hateful like the old man

[IronLionZion]

85. They could be trolls

I hope we don't have such hateful people on our side

[ehrnst]

129. WFP is getting the same treatment Warren got from Sanders supporters when she endorsed HRC

And the Superdelegates got.

[Act_of_Reparation]

19. Fucking despicable.

I can't imagine what sad pathetic state of mind one must be in to get all cranked up about who the WFP endorses.

[NurseJackie]

21. That really does reveal quite a lot, doesn't it?

It's one thing to be disappointed... but they really do feel like they're ENTITLED to something, don't they?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. These miscreants have no place in our party

[Hortensis]

29. +100, but I'm sure a lot of the most passionate aren't or

are only registered to be able to vote in the primaries.

Boy, deja vu all over again.

This intensely hostile behavior toward anyone who crosses them suggests the populist faction's aggressive antagonisms are still leading the class-revolution faction. Of course. All too common, and a mercifully small but nasty illustration of what's threatening governments around the planet.

[IronLionZion]

101. Williamson says love will defeat hate

and there is a lot of hate out there that needs to be defeated

[Autumn]

28. Tweets from Bernie and Nina Turner

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[LongtimeAZDem]

31. Yeah, that should do it

[Autumn]

33. Not here to argue it. Just posted their responses condemning those actions, take it as you will.

IMO some are probably Bots.

[George II]

32. Two sentences from BS and one from NT. On twitter!

[Autumn]

37. If they are asked about it by the media I'm sure there will be more said. Posted because I

hadn't seen their responses posted yet. Not here to argue it.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[ehrnst]

107. Passive wording that doesn't include "I" doesn't really project

as much of a personal negative reaction to these people as "this campaign."

He, or Sirota, or whoever wrote it could have made a better choice there. But everything that his campaign does is always subject to Bernie's approval, as I hear.

I imagine he felt very betrayed by the WFP after saying that they were the closest thing to a political party that he felt embodied by Democratic Socialism, but I think he could have demonstrated more personal displeasure at what his supporters did to them in revenge.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/16/20868862/working-families-party-endorsement-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren

[George II]

139. And BS' tweet doesn't address the problem of his supporters directly, just another campaign pitch.

[ehrnst]

141. Yep.

[PhoenixDem]

43. A day late and a dollar short

BS had four whole years to instill some discipline. This problem is not new -- it was pointed out a long time ago.

[obamanut2012]

48. Turner has no room to lecture anyone

[Autumn]

62. I think she does, those people should not be posting things like that to the WFP staff.

As a supporter of Liz and Bernie I would have been very upset had Bernie and Nina not responded to those attacks.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[ehrnst]

73. Would have been nice to have said "I, along with my campaign, condemn..."

rather than referring to 'the campaign" condemning the actions.

Makes it more personal.

[NurseJackie]

114. Another missed opportunity. What a shame.

This makes me think less of him.

[BlueMississippi]

87. Turner has said worse things about Hillary

She has no room to condemn anyone. She resonates the campaign's militant tone. The campaign is primarily a militancy - not an ordinary political campaign.

[ehrnst]

108. Hear hear. (nt)

[ehrnst]

77. Indeed. (nt)

[Demsrule86]

34. That is just wrong...no one should allow this in their campaign...it makes

their candidate look bad.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

40. Lol @ "allow this in their campaign"

Tell me how a candidate stops anonymous internet twitter and other trolls from posting?

Yeah yeah, I know, fire up the outrage Wurlitzer. Some anonymous person said something mean on Twitter.

[PhoenixDem]

45. By setting an example

Unfortunately, all the yelling, screaming and finger wagging sets a bad example.

Furthermore, in the past, this behavior was tolerated -- which is as good as encouraging it.

[Autumn]

53. Question for you. What has he said or done that encourages someone to say anything

even close to what is posted in the OP? He didn't tolerate it in the past, he condemned it then also.

[PhoenixDem]

57. Even the condemnations are done with a wink and a nod.

He bears 100% responsibility. Perhaps his entire leadership should go on TV shows and tell the supporters to stop this militant posture. Command them, order them, make it imperative that it should stop.

[Autumn]

67. Which parts are the wink and a nod? No politician can "command" supporters to do anything

They are not kings. Not Bernie. Not Biden. Not Liz. People are responsible for their own actions. Can you answer my question?

What has he said or done that encourages someone to say anything even close to what is posted in the OP? He didn't tolerate it in the past, he condemned it then also.

I would just like to see a couple of actions where he encouraged anyone to do anything like that or talk about anyone in the way those people who attacked the staff of the WFP did.

[ehrnst]

83. It's not that he literally "encouraged" them to bully someone, of course he didn't

Last edited Fri Sep 20, 2019, 03:16 PM - Edit history (1)

But in the past, a lack of public condemnation of harassment and jeering of those who endorsed other candidates by his supporters, or slurs against his opponents even after the primary was over, may have given the impression to some that he wasn't terribly disturbed by it.

There are those here on DU who think that a lack of strong enough action and words on the part of Congress to rebuke DT's actions could possibly encourage him, and give him a sense of impunity.

That's something that all Democratic candidates whose supporters are harassing entities that endorse other candidates should keep in mind.

[PhoenixDem]

86. BS can command

his supporters are devoted to him and take cues directly from him. His anger and his yelling is directly the inductive force that drives the anger of his supporters.

He can calmly say, "if you cannot control your anger, stop supporting me"

[Autumn]

89. I'm a supporter and I don't yell because he yells, I don't see it as yelling either. He talks loud

and it's magnified by the mics at his speeches and rallies. He did better than saying if you can't control your anger stop supporting me. He told them that what they were doing is racist bullying and harassment. And he and his campaign condemns racist bullying and harassment of any kind, in any space. Nina called them cowards.

His anger doesn't drive his supporters. His supporters, who are largely younger are angry because of the way things are. They are burdened with debt, most homeownership is out of their reach, and they face an uncertain future.

[PhoenixDem]

92. lol

"He doesn't yell - he just talks loud" is like saying "Chicken is not frozen, it has just been in a freezer too long"

All candidates use a mic -- and their voices amplified -- so nice try.

Young kids have been burdened with debt since 1980 and they were never so angry until BS showed up. There have been several Democratic conventions since 1968 (when the young ones were actually dying) and there has not been a convention since 1968 where delegates of one candidate misbehaved including bullying the delegates of other candidates until 2016. No one condemned their behavior.

Maxine Waters was harassed at the California convention and her speech was downed out --- no one condemned that. There is tacit approval by Bernie of such tactics. He likes the militancy.

[Autumn]

95. I disagree that Bernie gives tacit approval of of such tactics. I've seen nothing like that.

You have a nice day and a belated welcome to DU.

[PhoenixDem]

102. By not stomping out militancy at every step he does imply approval n/t

[NurseJackie]

140. Okay, sure.

I don't see it as yelling either. He talks loud

[ehrnst]

122. He couldn't and wouldn't want to do that. His brand is based in anger, and wanting people to be

angry is his goal.

He relies on anger in his supporters to make his message work.

[BlueMississippi]

88. Complaints about supporters' tone have been ubiquitous

for 4 long years. This is the first time someone has said anything and that too because it is beginning to cost votes.

Like someone said up there -- "a day late and a dollar short"

Tolerating such behavior for 4 years sends an implicit message of encouragement.

[Gothmog]

63. I have seen similar actions and conduct close up by sanders supporters

what has sanders done to stop this type of behavior?

[ehrnst]

78. I remember. (nt)

[ehrnst]

75. Did he publicly condemn the jeering of Rep. John Lewis by his supporters

at the Convention?

I must've missed that.

Those weren't bots.

[George II]

96. It's not necessarily what he has said and done that are the problem....

....(although he's ignored or avoided issues, as we all know), it's what the people he has hired have said and done, starting with Sirota. He was so vicious on twitter that once he was formally hired by the campaign he felt the need to delete more than 20,000 tweets.

Just today Briahna Gray posted someone's personal information on twitter, a supporter of Senator Harris. It has been reported to twitter. This is his National Press Secretary! Is he not responsible for her behavior?

[Autumn]

110. I asked what Bernie has done George. Do you have a link to what Briahna Gray did?

[George II]

111. It's on twitter. She posts her tweets under her own name. So Sanders is absolved....

....of anything his closest advisers and employees do in his name?

[Autumn]

112. Do you have a link? I looked at a Briahna Gray on twitter and didn't see it. nt

[George II]

116. They run off the page quickly, hard to keep up with. But if you're on twitter, just follow her....

....she has two or three zingers a day:

Briahna Joy Gray @briebriejoy

[Autumn]

118. Thanks for the whole twitter name, I'll look for it. nt

[George II]

119. You're welcome. You might want to look at David Sirota's account, too...

He's even worse than Ms. Gray, although he has toned it down of late:

David Sirota @davidsirota

[Gothmog]

79. The sanders campaign had veto rights over his delegates at the national convention

National convention delegates are representatives of their candidate. Are you proud of the way that sanders delegates represented sanders?

[Demsrule86]

80. Don't ignore this. Call it out ...say it won't be tolerated...that will stop some...any who are

working for the campaign at any level engaged this behavior gets kicked out...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

97. You mean like he's already done?

Great. Glad that’s settled. Anonymous twitter trolls are hereby forbidden to post racist stuff. Let’s see if it sticks.

[ehrnst]

109. What about when they aren't anonymous twitter trolls? What if they're right there in front of him.

In the past, a lack of public condemnation of harassment and jeering of those who endorsed other candidates by his supporters, or supporters chanting slurs against his opponents even after the primary was over, may have given the impression to some that he wasn't terribly disturbed by it.


That hasn't been forgotten, and I really hope that's something he learned from.

However saying "This campaign" not even "My campaign" or better yet "I" condemn... isn't quite what one would hope from a candidate to indicate that the behavior of these people was really upsetting to him personally.

[NurseJackie]

115. I doubt he wrote it himself. Those are someone else's words. He missed a golden opportunity...

... and as a result I respect him less.

[ehrnst]

120. Well, I'm sure after it was written, he had to approve it. I understand that nothing happens without

his approval.

I'm thinking that he may have been likely to change it to "The campaign" if it was "I" before.

He uses language in a way that distances himself from saying anything that might indicate that he aligns with someone that he feels anger towards. He once said that WFP is “the closest thing there is to a political party that believes in my vision of democratic socialism." I'm sure anger is what he felt when told that the WFP party had backed Warren, especially on the heels of the 'She the People" episode, and not long after him and his supporters started taking shots at Warren as being the "safe" choice of "Democratic Establishment" and people who "would like to see a woman elected. "

"We need to be sure that Donald Trump is not president!" for instance.

[NurseJackie]

133. Agreed. Something like that should get his personal attention...

... rather than delegating it to some staffer. It should also be in the FIRST PERSON. What I read was weak sauce.

[George II]

135. lulz

[PhoenixDem]

42. Is anyone surprised?

It is a militant group and they feel entitled enough to violently lash out when they don't get their way.

This is why Bernie won't win.

[Gothmog]

60. No

I have seen similar action close up

[crazytown]

74. Yes you have.

I am so sorry something like that would happen at a Democratic Convention. : hug:

[obamanut2012]

44. A replay of 2016

When women and POC Hillary supporters were called the most disgusting, bigoted things.

[mcar]

54. This is disgusting

[comradebillyboy]

76. If Bernie had won the WFP endorsement does anyone think Warren's

supporters would be harassing the WFP staffers? I don't.

[ehrnst]

121. +1000. (nt)

[Cha]

131. Excellent question, comradebillyboy!

[Scurrilous]

136. ...

[Gothmog]

145. Another victim

Link to tweet