Bros

you should. True story, I flew from San fran to Auckland. In san fran i had my bags searched, my hands swabbed by guys with guns for drugs, a full body scan and shitty looks off security guards. Landing in auckland i got "ayyy bro, did you see the (rugby) game ? We smashed 'em!".

I live in NZ. Its fucking awesome.

This is true. Because the world isn't perfect, people aren't perfect, and the President is President of the entire country, not just a small sliver who hold Purity Tests and Only Want Their Way or they bawl "sell out."

That covers both Bernie Bros and Tea Partiers who screech "RHINO, RHINO."

I do wish they could both catch a clue that there are diverse people in this country who hold diverse views and the world isn't perfect.

And people aren't perfect.

As a Republican that switched to Democrat for Bernie, screw that!

First off, I'm not a Bernie Bro. That's a derogatory term coined by the Clinton campaign to marginalize the Sanders followers.

Secondly, I don't vote for corruption. There's far too much evidence that Hillary's done twisted stuff, and I'll not be party to it. The problem is that when corruption wins, it makes fighting future corruption all the more difficult. Hillary has enough political experience that she can put into place obstacles for future progressive movements like Bernie's, and that's a problem.

Trump may have his own issues, but at very least he won't make an already unfair system even worse, which would have a longer term impact on the democracy of this country.

Walls can be torn down, Muslim immigrants can start entering again after 4 years, and not all conservative Supreme Court Justices are terrible. (Scalia actually was a pretty bright guy that passed quite a number of laws that had positive effect, for example. And despite him, the more progressive laws were still passed.)

I'm not saying I'll vote Trump, as Stein and Johnson are still options, but I certainly won't help Hillary in any way.

A smart person can do more damage than an idiot.

bro!

I was thinking of what's probably called second wave, or what I think was being called 'the modern feminist movement' back then, but I'm pretty sure even that started in the early/mid 60's, well before I was involved, or even breathing....so yes, it was tongue in cheek.
I was a kid in the 70's, not a political organizer, but I did see Joan Baez twice before I was 10 at two of the dozens of woman's rights events I attended as a kid/teenager, so I say I get credit for being 'part of the movement'...especially since I continued to support, and sometimes actively work towards their goals, and consider them when voting to this day.

I understand I often fail at communication, please let me try again. My point was that when the name of a movement is so focused on one small (or in the case of feminism, large) segment of humanity, it can turn off many that agree completely with the motive.

EDIT: I do take your point, though, about end goals/primary targets. It may be an impossibility, but it would be nice to find names that can invoke both without being exclusionary. It would help people like me that get hung up on minutia and detail not be distracted by imperfect labels, and keep ammunition out of their opponent's guns.

Yes, I understand the reason the movement is 'black lives matter', and agree that they are the MOST oppressed, so deserving of the most attention. I don't claim to have a perfect solution that would both be all inclusive AND focus on the most oppressed.
With "you matter", I was thinking that is a way to say that the issues that matter to 'you' also matter, that your being oppressed and receiving unfair treatment matter, that your opinion matters, and that your life matters, no matter who 'you' are, black, white, woman, man, and all people in-between. Yes, even the Koch Bro's matter, just not more than anyone else.

Of course, you and others are free to focus on any issue, or any specific part of any issue you please, or not. I usually prefer a big picture approach for me, because it's all too easy for me to get myopic and dwell on (often meaningless) detail if I over focus, one of many character flaws. I think both mindsets have their merits and their drawbacks, and I think it's a good thing to have people in both camps.

FYI the politifact piece that Jon is going by is written by Riley Snyder,. With all the retweets he does of Jon Ralston(one of the bigger "violent bernie-bros" pushers) I highly doubt he gave the claims a fair investigation.

He clearly ignored the Roberta rules being pushed through at 9:30 while delegates were still in line to get in. It did not have a 2/3 majority. The rest of Riley Snyder's fact checking was just as reliable.

It is politics as usual, and not nearly as bad as what happened to Ron Paul supporters in the Republican primary.

Vote for the candidate that you think will represent you the best not just the lesser of two evils.

Really topical with all the "news" about chair throwing violent Bernie bros crying foul every time they lose a primary.

Ahhh...OK...for paraphrasing, you should use ' , not ".
I'm not sure what you're saying....they said the picture shows a connection with the campaign, as in evidence that he's a supporter, not evidence that there's a connection as in he was directed to do this by Hillary herself...BUT that is what the Clinton campaign did, attempted to say that a picture of a 'Bernie Bro' with Bernie was proof that he was involved with THEIR actions and that he was personally involved with directing them.
If you draw that inference from this picture, that's on you, because they (TYT) clearly said what it was presented to show, AND they clearly said they don't 'blame' Clinton in any way for having taken the picture with him nor do they assign blame to her based on it, even implied blame....but if you drew that inference from the other picture with Bernie and a Bernie Bro, that's on THEM (the Clinton campaign), because THEY publicly made the case that it WAS proof of a connection and direction.

Your video, Mouse tries to escape across the pipes (Super mario bros), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Yeah, that Krugman piece was pretty ridiculous.
'It wasn't the big banks that caused the crash, it was smaller banks....like Lehman Bro's' (really, smaller?), not BofA and their cohorts.....um....no. I'm sure he's technically correct, that SOME economists have said that, but not those that are impartial.

I'm also getting pretty sick of this lie that Sanders didn't have a plan and couldn't answer the question of "how do you break up the big banks". It's a lie, pure and simple, and only works on the ignorant willing to listen to edited 'interviews' where his actual answer is cut out, or willing to believe those with a clear bias against him. He had a clear plan, he explained it, it's a reasonable plan and it's well thought out. That Clinton can't 1)understand it or 2) admit it, and that her subordinates are willing to spread the lie exemplifies HER lack of qualification to be president, not his.

It's funny (sad really) that many of the 'extravagant promises' that she mentions that have taught the African-American voting block to be distrustful came from the Clintons.

Again with the 'large lead in delegates' lie.....it is 1) not large and 2) quickly evaporating. Without the (well paid for) super delegates, Clinton's lead (before losing Nevada and Missouri) was already <10%, with most states yet to vote polling heavily for Sanders (except in land line only, day time polls). In the past week, 2 states that were called for Clinton have gone to Sanders thanks to her delegates not showing up for her...even they don't really care for her enough to vote, and they're HER DELEGATES! When do we get to start saying Sanders is the clear frontrunner and that Clinton is harming the Democrats by badmouthing HIM? That day must be coming soon.

To the guilty, blame assignment is often called 'petulance' and 'self righteousness'. When one answers charges with insults against those making the charges, it's a pretty good indication that the charges are true.

Oh yeah, I'm well aware that defending yourself can easily turn into a scene from a 70's kung fu movie with multiple attackers going after you for defending yourself...no matter how out of control the female attacker may be. There are many dumb, sexist douchebags out there just itching for a fight. My point is, there's absolutely no legitimate reason you can't defend yourself against a woman who's attacking you physically....idiot douchebags don't count as 'legitimate reasons' to me, but I don't disagree they're a consideration. EDIT: That said...I don't think black Rick Astley there would give me much pause.

My brother knows even better than I, he was attacked by a random angry drunk girl on the street in Austin, she threw her drink on him and sucker punched him in the face out of nowhere, over nothing (according to him), he slapped her, and woke up 5 minutes later face down on the sidewalk with a missing tooth and a broken motorcycle helmet, some 'bro' (read 'brah') sucker punched him in the back of the head and beat him with his own helmet, then probably went home to rape the drunk girl.

That said...if a woman wants to act like her sex isn't an issue and start a physical confrontation with someone much larger, they deserve the debilitating beat down they get and their sex and/or size should not be an issue. That's the logical outcome of believing in equality of the sexes in the eyes of the law.

Cool story bro. Don't suppose you have any of those pesky "facts" or "evidence" to back up your rant?

Didn't think so.