What can I say, I call it like I see it.

Doug,

Please feel free to show me where I said Fred was "angry".  All I did was point out the fact that indeed many people in the Sanders wing of the Democratic party were upset with the election.

Brady Bunch wrote:

Doug,

Please feel free to show me where I said Fred was "angry".  All I did was point out the fact that indeed many people in the Sanders wing of the Democratic party were upset with the election.

He's obviously referring to common's description of any thing he dislikes as 'raging' as he did in post 9.
Sheesh

Let me break it down for ya.

You said that "the Sanders part of the party is really upset" In other words, if I drew a Venn diagram, the "Sanders wing of the party" would fall completely within the larger sphere of "people who are upset about Perez winning the DNC vote".

***Author's note: I actually did draw the Venn diagram in four parts to illustrate my point, but I tried uploading it to Imgur and it doesn't seem to display right in this thread. So you'll have to make your own.***

Fred came along and said that he's in the Sanders part of the party, but he's not upset. So now you have an outlier and as long as we consider Fred to be truthful that he is A) a member of the Sanders wing of the party, and B) not upset, then we can consider your statement inaccurate. Again, a Venn diagram would now show that there is an unknown portion of the Sanders part of the party that does *not* fall within the greater number of people that are upset about Perez winning the DNC vote.

But, you came back around and said the CNN article was "proof that Common was indeed correct in pointing out that the Sanders wing of the party was upset with the election of Perez". You also said there was turmoil at the meeting and that, "It is not up for debate, but is a fact." So, flying in the face of evidence to the contrary, you reasserted that there are no outliers, and that the Sanders wing of the party is upset about the Perez win, and you cited the CNN article as proof of this when in fact the CNN article did not make that assertion at all. In the CNN article they noted that "angry Ellison loyalists rose from their seats in the back of the ballroom at the Westin Peachtree Plaza Hotel." So you are correct that there was turmoil at the meeting, but you used those loyalists in the back of the room at the hotel as representative of the *entire* Sanders wing of the party, which as Fred has stated, is incorrect.

So, I read all of that back-and-forth and thought it was funny that even though Fred identified himself as an outlier, you ignored him and reiterated your position, using a CNN article as defense that - when read - does not defend *your* point at all.

Har. Har.

This is where, having caused a commotion and wasted precious seconds of my life in futility, I walk away from this thread and return to the cave where trolls like me spend our days plotting and not showering and eating raw meat.

Last edited by opendoug (2/27/2017 1:55 pm)

Doug,

I never said that the "entire" wing of the party was upset, that would be ludicrous for me to assume every Sanders supporter in the entire county or world was upset, it would be impossible for me or anyone to know that. Nowhere did I accuse or insinuate that Fred himself was angry or that he was lying about not being angry.  If I wanted to accuse Fred of lying or actually being angry, I would have done so.

Of course there are outliers, and it appears Fred is one of them.  It is still accurate to say that the people at the meeting who were backing Ellison were from the Sanders wing of the party and they were upset.

No, the CNN article didn't say the Sanders part of the party was upset.  But it made it clear that many Sanders supporters are also the same people who were supporting Ellison for DNC chair and were the ones who were upset.  I think it is pretty obvious these are the same group of people.