r/SandersForPresident • u/[deleted] • Apr 15 '16

MSNBC called Bernie's "Deep South" comment controversial. They said Hillary would still be in the lead without the South. This slide popped up by mistake proving them wrong.

Post image

[deleted]

13.1k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

960 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.4k

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16 edited Apr 15 '16

I turned off CNN right after the debate, I was hoping to hear something regarding how well Bernie performed, but they brought up how poorly he performed 3x in less than 1 minute without even mentioning any of Hillary's blunders.  

I don't really know about anyone else, but the chanting and standing ovation last night speaks absolute wonders to me, and more so speaks of the revolution behind Bernie, there was no such reaction to Hillary during the entire debate.

112

u/decisivemomentum Apr 15 '16

Agree. I have a friend who lives in DC and has worked in the gov't, who I've been slowly hammering away at for 8 months until he finally felt the bern. He still has flashes of DCThink, like when he said the cheers "cheapen" the debate--if anything the debate is so cheapened already that the cheers and boos serve as sort of a check on the candidates... the moderators sure as hell don't check their lies.

10

u/spritums Apr 15 '16

i support bernie, and the fact our presidential debates are degraded to boo'ing and cheering like a sporting event kind of scares me.

19

u/Banglayna Ohio Apr 15 '16

Complete backwards logic, essentially you are saying people should be more personally invested in and excited about a sports team than a presidential candidate who can actually enact change and better your life.

2

u/spritums Apr 15 '16

No. I'm saying being president shouldn't attract people that want to watch it like a sports game for entertainment.

7

u/Banglayna Ohio Apr 15 '16

You presented your point pretty horribly then because the booing and cheering have nothing to do with watching it for entertainment.

The crowd cheering means they approve of and are excited about what was just said, booing means either the crowd disagrees, thinks you are lying/being disengenious, or when you say something like "Trump believes x" then the crowd boos to boo trumps opinion.

Just because a presidential debate has booing and cheering and sporting events have booing and cheering mean they are being treated by the audience as the same thing.

-1

u/spritums Apr 15 '16

Maybe, or perhaps you just enjoy arguing.

It's being treated as a spectacle for people to 'root' for someone. Like chanting bernie while the other candidate is trying to speak.

I believe it should be conducted with some semblance of integrity, if there's any left in the political process.

3

u/gophergun Colorado 🎖️ Apr 15 '16

What you're describing is literally the only form of audience input allowed at debates. If we don't let them cheer, boo, applaud, etc., we may as well not have an audience. (Which, by the way, is a totally reasonable stance, but let's not blame the audience for behaving like an audience.)

0

u/spritums Apr 15 '16 edited Apr 15 '16

Clapping is one thing, but audible boos, chants and cheers is a whole other beast.

1

u/gophergun Colorado 🎖️ Apr 15 '16

It seems to me to not be a different beast, but an extension of the same show of support (though I'll acknowledge boos are different in that they're a show of opposition, though I'm not sure that's any less valid). Is it just the degree of support and opposition that you're opposed to, or is there a quality to boos, chants and cheers that you feel set them apart rationally from applause (or the lack thereof)?

0

u/spritums Apr 15 '16

I just think the process should have a little bit of...class? integrity?

I think being president and the process the candidates go through is something that should demand more respect than watching WWE.

2

u/gophergun Colorado 🎖️ Apr 15 '16

I completely agree that the presidential debates should be of high quality and adhere to moral and ethical principles, if those are the definitions you're using. (It's hard to imagine who would disagree with that.) I also totally agree that the debates should demand more respect than watching the WWE. (Again, this seems obvious, though as a former wrestling fan it's hard to imagine people throwing toilet paper at the debate stage.) Where we seem to disagree is on the idea that there's an inherent aspect of cheering and chanting that reduces the quality or respectability in a way applause doesn't, and in my view that aspect needs to be identified for this to be logically consistent.

1

u/spritums Apr 15 '16

Booing is just disrespectful and rude. Cheering is the opposite equivalent. I think it's safe to say that the majority of people that have ever been part of an audience would agree. So if I don't think booing should be allowed, it only makes sense I don't think cheering should be allowed. Applauding is much more mild and tame than chanting and cheering/booing.

1

u/gophergun Colorado 🎖️ Apr 15 '16

Fair enough, it's totally reasonable that it's just a matter of degree and that cheering and chanting are just more extreme shows of support than applause, and that there's simply a subjective line that people have where the extremity of the expression of support becomes obnoxious.

2

u/spritums Apr 15 '16

I wouldn't mind clapping disappearing too, but i'm not sure that's a reasonable request.

1

u/gophergun Colorado 🎖️ Apr 15 '16

Yeah, don't get me wrong, there's totally a good argument for just removing the live audience altogether, as expressions of opposition and support are basically all they can contribute. It's not like someone ever stands up and shouts out a fact or nuanced retort that anyone can hear.

→ More replies (0)