Mojo Hand

After denying the distinction altogether, now you go to the far extreme of "Lulz you think Bernie volunteers are hiding in the bushes!!" It's a shame you can't just honestly engage with the actual issue, which is a direct request to the public to enter info already gleaned from family and friends into a database. Your Reach quote isn't from the Warren campaign or any other campaign, and it's the campaign's responsibility to tell its volunteers how to use its technology appropriately.

In all seriousness, Trump's attacks on American Jews is far worse and more consequential than anything Ilhan Omar ever said. Particularly because he has so many followers who already have Jews in their crosshairs. They haven't really known what to do with Trump's superficial support for Israel, other than maybe thinking it's a great idea to have a foreign country that American Jews should leave for. But just think about how dangerous the new message he is sending is — "after all Trump has done for your Jew country, you ungrateful and disloyal Jews still try to stop him!"

Uh, no, I didn't read the screen of the mobile phone the person is holding in the video, and it's pretty funny that you did. But I just looked, and "she" is "Karen E.", on a list of names provided by the campaign, for whom there is a boilerplate script. The video indicates that a canvasser went to Karen E.'s door, recited the script saying "I'm a volunteer with Obama for America", and was told by Karen E. that she supported Obama. That's exactly what I said was fine. It wasn't "so my mom is in, but my brother told me last week he's leaning Hillary, and I overheard my neighbor talking positively about Romney." All of the other interactions you describe, whether at the door or at the store, are ones in which the target is on notice that they are talking to a campaign representative. You continue to fail to grapple with what the Bernie email asked for, which was reports on what you already know about your friends and family and anyone else. That is, in a personal capacity, and not with notice that it is a conversation with a campaign representative. Maybe other campaigns do that too (although if they do, I'm surprised that you have no other examples of a similar request and are clinging to the screen of the phone in the Obama video). But maybe it is standard practice. Maybe you've done it in your vast, impressive campaign experience. Hell, I'll stipulate to that. But it's irrelevant to my view of the practice as creepy and inappropriate. If Obama sent emails asking my neighbor to tell the campaign how I was leaning, that was creepy and inappropriate. If Warren is doing it, that is creepy and inappropriate. A campaign should instruct its volunteers to identify themselves as with the campaign before collecting any information from a target. If that's not standard practice, it should be. If a volunteer ignores that instruction, the volunteer is the asshole. If the campaign asks for info gleaned from other, personal interactions, the campaign is the asshole. And your whole "you just wanna argue on the internet!" thing is pretty embarrassing. You dredge up this complaint from months ago to attack "shitlibs" for hypocrisy with Warren, then argue and argue about normal canvassing and what's on the screen of the phone in the Obama video and other ridiculousness, without ever addressing the one point I've actually made. You calling someone else out for just wanting to argue is Trump-level lack of self-awareness.

Per the video, notes while canvassing from a list of voters in your area that the campaign provides. Not "write up what you already know about your friends and family in this notes area!" I know Bernie can do no wrong in your eyes, but it's astounding that you continue to generalize the issue to canvassing. If someone shows up at my door for the Bernie campaign, I'm choosing to give whatever I tell them to the campaign. If my neighbor gets that email from Bernie and follows the instructions, information that I did not choose to give the campaign is transmitted to the campaign. They are asking to bypass my consent. That is a real and significant distinction. And your appeal to campaign experience to dodge it is laughable. Just admit it, it's ok. You have no problem with Bernie telling people to report on the contents of past conversations without notice that it would be transmitted to a campaign. That's fine. We just disagree.

Sure, that would annoy me too, but not nearly as much as the content of my private conversations.

As I said in my last post, "I haven't worked on any campaigns." But you keep avoiding the actual issue, which isn't the use of an app to help with canvassing. Here's the statement from Bernie's campaign that started it, pulled from the other thread: That's the issue: —"look up people you know and indicate if they support our campaign, are undecided, or support someone else" —"visit this link, look up some of your friends and family members, and let us know if they support our campaign or are undecided." Not, here's some training on canvassing and an app to put the responses into a database. Rather, click here and report on what your friends and family and other people you know personally are thinking. I watched the Obama video you linked and didn't see anything like that.

If so, your life must really suck.

He said this several years ago. Not that it's any less crazy, but the statement isn't recent.

3 hours before Trump's tweet...

Cannot be unseen

Like, I have conversations with my neighbor about who we're favoring in the primaries. Bernie has asked me to enter what my neighbor has told me into Bernie's database so that he can be better targeted. That bothers me, and I'd be pissed if my neighbor did it to me. If a Bernie volunteer armed with the Bern app goes to my neighbor's door and my neighbor tells him his views, there's obviously nothing wrong with entering that voluntarily given info into the app. Hopefully that is what Warren is asking her volunteers to do. I haven't worked on any campaigns, so maybe getting people to report on their neighbors is common. But I pay a reasonable amount of attention to politics, and I've never seen a public call for that kind of thing other than Bernie doing it this year.

I've never seen a public call from a campaign for people to report on their friends and neighbors without their consent. And I haven't seen one this election season, other than from Bernie. If it's standard practice, then I oppose that standard practice. If I've been living in a cave, then I'm glad I learned about it now.

Her campaign has always sucked, aside from one long-prepared moment. I posted this 6 weeks ago when a few people here praised her for running a smart campaign after the Biden attack:

New CNN poll shows that Biden has gained 7 since June at Kamala's expense (-12), and that Bernie and Warren are pretty much the same. However

If the Warren campaign is asking people to upload non-public info about their friends and neighbors, like Bernie did, I have the same exact problem with that as I did when Bernie did it, and I'm disappointed to see it from Warren. If they are instead using the app simply to collect and store info that people voluntarily give them during canvassing, I don't have a problem with it. I haven't taken the Reach training. Anyone know which it is?

I was talking last week to a guy whose parents are foxnews-watching Trump voters. He can't convince them to stop supporting Trump. I asked what they say about policies like child separations, which is the one thing I can't understand how anyone can justify. He said that they don't like it, but they blame Democrats for creating the border situation that led to it, and there's nothing he can say to shake them of that belief.

Looks like Elkhart County went for Trump 64-32 over Hillary in 2016, so fuck 'em. Enjoy the tariffs you voted for!

She is the same chick that blew Tom and gave him his own load to swallow last year.

I wish I deserved a friend like Will Matthews. I guess I never really knew what kind of guy Ced was, but he must have been really special as a person.

"You should try swallowing something" Fucking lulz. Did Shiv fuck up? I think she fucked up.

It's fine that you feel that way. It just doesn't seem like a lie to me. The question isn't whether it's possible or even reasonable to define what she was doing as political. It's whether she could reasonably view herself as not that politically active during the time period before she first worked on actual public policy proposals. It seems pretty clear to me that it's an entirely reasonable assessment from her. And your reasonable disagreement on what is a pretty subjective characterization doesn't make it a lie, in my view. I don't have a problem calling out when she does lie. She clearly lied when she wrote "American Indian" as her race on the bar card, even granting that she truly believed she had one Native American ancestor several generations back. But I think you're reaching on this one.

It was good overall, but there was some stuff I didn't like.

Meh, I don't mind. It's a competition. Bernie should be trying to win. It's fine if his supporters have problems with Warren. I just don't see it on this one.

That's a real stretch. She was a legal/economic academic. While that involves things that are the subject of political activity, it doesn't mean that speaking publicly on the areas of her academic expertise was necessarily political. As far as I've seen, the first time she actually went to work on legislation was 1995-1996.

I'm wondering why you think it was a lie. Is it that you think a law professor speaking to the federalist society in the 80s/90s necessarily constitutes political activity? If so, I disagree. But it's not clear to me exactly why you think she was lying, so I don't want to make assumptions.