|
Whitecloak posted:Unless we're all taking a pledge to vote some socialist slate I don't see any real pro-union pols on either major party ticket. And there are plenty of Mexican-Americans who benefitted from unionization in America's better days. Labor is made valuable in scarcity. And Mexican American labor will certainly be more scarce after you evict them all.
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
Whitecloak posted:Unless we're all taking a pledge to vote some socialist slate I don't see any real pro-union pols on either major party ticket. And there are plenty of Mexican-Americans who benefitted from unionization in America's better days. Labor is made valuable in scarcity. Tell that to Wisconsin. What Scott Walker has done is what Republicans want to do to the country, telling you the shifty Mexican is stealing your job is how they get you to vote to destroy your rights and benefits. E: If having a few million more people in the country is the real cause of low wages and no benefits then the baby boom generation should have been the poorest in history. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Tell that to Wisconsin. I'm talking upticket races. I know full well how bad a governor can screw up a state with their right to work nonsense. I'm not seeing how Hillary is some great friend of labor. Actually, I think at the most local level the point still stands- how many pro-Charterization Dems are there out there now? Is a vote for Rahm any better than a vote for a Republican for a Chicago citizen?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:I'm talking upticket races. I know full well how bad a governor can screw up a state with their right to work nonsense. I'm not seeing how Hillary is some great friend of labor. Is Trump? Isn't he union-busting in his hotels, like right now? Like fighting in court to keep them from unionizing? Believing a union-buster in his private business is suddenly going to trade in his profits to support labor once he's elected is probably almost as dumb as believing that he's any more serious about your blessed wall than he is about suddenly deciding he's against Roe v Wade quote:“They pressured us a lot [to vote no],” she said. “They told us the union only wants our money, that if we supported the union we’d lose our jobs, that the company would put our names on a blacklist and no other hotels in Las Vegas would hire us. They told us to think of what our children would do if we were out of work. Everyone was very stressed. People were afraid. But bendito sea Diós, we still won, even with all that pressure.” Good job, go vote for the guy who will blacklist you from the industry if you vote to unionize.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Tell that to Wisconsin. The Baby Boom generation wasn't competing with labor arbitrage the globe over, at least not at first. Quite a few boomers were turboshafted once the trends started in force. A few million? Try near on 3 billion between China and India. And Vitalsigns, I think at least for me I've been convinced. I'll stick to my third party protest vote rather than the Spite Ticket. Whitecloak fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:The Baby Boom generation wasn't competing with labor arbitrage the globe over, at least not at first. Quite a few boomers were turboshafted once the trends started in force. A few million? Try near on 3 billion between China and India. Well since Republicans are for free trade, kicking Mexicans out doesn't stop them from competing for your job then does it. It's almost like it's theatre to get you to vote for them to dismantle labor protections by selling you an ineffectual false solution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well since Republicans are for free trade, kicking Mexicans out doesn't stop them from competing for your job then does it. It's almost like it's theatre to get you to vote for them to dismantle labor protections by selling you an ineffectual false solution. That doesn't explain why the Democrats don't seem to push any alternatives worth a drat to the folks who, unlike myself, will be more than willing to vote Spite Ticket? Are the party mavens too wedded to their corporate donorbucks to push for real economic reforms that don't involve racist false fronts for big business?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It takes less monitoring and oversight to enforce employment laws than to track down millions of undocumented people. The reason the right isn't going after businesses is they want an underclass of undocumented immigrants bidding down wages while they placate workers with theatre about walls. As for which is easier, if you consider cracking down on that would involve investigating hundreds of landscaping companies in a place like Atlanta alone to give an example of one industry, it's probably not any easier although both should be done. VitalSigns posted:Having to see filthy nonwhites is not, actually, a detriment to anyone except ignorant racists hth Yes, I'm sure that's the extent of how you see things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Tell that to Wisconsin. No the real cause is bowing to the free market. Bringing a few million desperate ppl into the country makes it worse tho. I don't blame them at all, they are doing what they have to do after NAFTA destroyed Mexico and Central America's economy, but I can be both anti free trade and anti wage arbitrage. Trump is a bigot and he appeals to bigots in that he wants to go after them as individuals and gently caress up their lives. That's horrible. I don't think any illegal immigrant currently in this country should be treated with anything other than compassion and legal protections, but I also believe that we need to stop them from coming over in the future. Which of course means going after business owners first and coming down very very hard on them. But it also means at times physically preventing people from entering. I'd be fine with trading immediate blanket amnesty and right of return for separated families for a more secure border.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Don't worry Democrats will get right back around to fighting for labor protections after they finally win Gun Control
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
go3 posted:Don't worry Democrats will get right back around to fighting for labor protections after they finally win Gun Control I think that this is a big part of the 'why now' for the right wing populist backlash. In Europe and at home, the working classes have been betrayed by the parties that ostensibly supported them- and the only people offering answers or hopes, false or otherwise, have been rightist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:That doesn't explain why the Democrats don't seem to push any alternatives worth a drat to the folks who, unlike myself, will be more than willing to vote Spite Ticket? Are the party mavens too wedded to their corporate donorbucks to push for real economic reforms that don't involve racist false fronts for big business? Yes. Voting a spite ticket is a false solution though. The Democrats aren't as good as they should be but they're the only party fighting for minimum wage, labor protections, universal health care, education, etc, there is no equivalence between the parties and thinking there is is dangerous. Again, ask Wisconsin if there's no difference between the parties. Vote as progressive as you can in the primary if you want to give Democrats a reason to move left. Or vote for pro-labor Republicans and try to get their party to actually offer real solutions to these problems instead of race-baiting on the campaign trail and then gutting the working and middle class when they get to the statehouse. The parties have realigned before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
go3 posted:Don't worry Democrats will get right back around to fighting for labor protections after they finally win Gun Control And saving the environment. And boycotting Isreal. And slavery reparations. And... Labor issues (union or not) are simply not on the Democrats priority list anymore, which is why most of the Reagan Democrats switched over to the Republican side.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
gaj70 posted:And saving the environment. And boycotting Isreal. And slavery reparations. And... Wait, so Reagan was good to labor now? A bunch of air traffic controllers might want a word with you...
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes. Your argument fails because you're confusing state politics with federal politics. Hillary is objectively worse for workers since she supports the same neoliberal policies that have been obliterating jobs since her husband was in office. Say what you will about Trump being a heartless business tycoon but he has come out against horrible trade agreements like the TPP. That's a positive even if he's done some questionable things in his business affairs. Listen to a guy like James Goldsmith debate the top person from Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. It's possible for a person who was a complete monster in his business dealings to come out on the side of the working class later in life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s&feature=youtu.be&t=15m25s
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Fascism has a pretty poor economic record. Neil I be r a Liam is no picnic but fascism is a lot worse
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Your argument fails because you're confusing state politics with federal politics. Hillary is objectively worse for workers since she supports the same neoliberal policies that have been obliterating jobs since her husband was in office. Say what you will about Trump being a heartless business tycoon but he has come out against horrible trade agreements like the TPP. That's a positive even if he's done some questionable things in his business affairs. Yes what's Trump's opinion on wages, did you even watch the debates? Trump posted:“It’s such a nasty question because the answer has to be nasty,” Mr. Trump said. “You know, we’re in a global economy now. It used to be people would leave New York state and companies would leave New York state or leave another state and go to Florida, go to Texas, go to wherever they go because the wages … you know, all sorts of different things.” Yeah let me vote for the guy who thinks making America great means we all work for a dollar a day to underbid the Chinese, that's the ticket to riches.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes what's Trump's opinion on wages, did you even watch the debates? And yet... quote:When he rails against Mexico, China and Japan, Donald Trump sounds more like Bernie Sanders than any of his Republican rivals in the presidential race. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/26/politics/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-free-trade-2016/ Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
The Trump style of "success" is one reason America manufactures or builds fewer and fewer things of value anymore. This is the business-style of trump and the lowest form of business in general. These types of businessmen (snakeoil salesmen like trump) are just propped up babies in suits who's entire modus operandi is built on bullying instead of leadership, deception instead of coalition, and drama instead of work. They pervert American workmanship through branding by slapping their style/look/feeling on stuff other people make. Anyone who’s worked in the creation and sale of things knows what trump is. He is the person we hire to sell things. He’s a brand, an idea, a feeling. That feeling attaches to certain people who we want to buy in on something. So people like me, who actually plan and execute the creation of things, we hire people like Trump to sell things rich people like (e.g. condos or golf courses) because trump plays a pretty good rich guy. That’s all he is. He’s a tool that gets used by people who make real things. The only reason he’s ascended to such great heights is because twitter and social media let’s him sell his tough-rich-guy performance directly to consumers. And he has used that to grab attention, poll numbers and votes. Personally I think it’s time for more people to call him what he is: a crummy leader and a potential train wreck of a president. He's never ran a successful business except the business of pretending to be successful. No substance. No value. His only success is that he's a reality-tv star who puts his name on other people's work. To answer the question: why now? I think people are afraid and they think the world is out to get them. Fearful people who think the world is full of bullies cower behind the biggest bully they can find. That and he's a really good self-promoter and people can't tell the difference between social media and real life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:And yet... Did you just post an article wherein Trump says he likes free trade if you do it right, oh and by the way doing it right means letting his Wall Street friends negotiate all the deals? As a pro-Trump piece? Yeah dude, don't trust Hillary she takes money from bankers to negotiate bad trade deals on their behalf, elect the guy who says he'll let the bankers do all the negotiating directly, he hates Mexicans so you know he's working for you! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
loud-bob posted:The Trump style of "success" is one reason America manufactures or builds fewer and fewer things of value anymore. This is the business-style of trump and the lowest form of business in general. These types of businessmen (snakeoil salesmen like trump) are just propped up babies in suits who's entire modus operandi is built on bullying instead of leadership, deception instead of coalition, and drama instead of work. They pervert American workmanship through branding by slapping their style/look/feeling on stuff other people make. And yet the remainder candidates for high office from the major parties, save an unlikely nomination of Sanders, are equally ephemeral and sell nothing of value to the average working American. You'd not have a rage fueled hairpiece gaining such momentum if our politicians actually performed their duties to the common man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
That whole effort post rubs me the wrong way since selling yourself is the most important part of business. There were plenty of MP3 players on the market, but Steve Jobs sells an aesthetic and all of a sudden you have a breakthrough, must have product. You can argue that it is stupid (which I'd be inclined to agree with) or that there is some nobility in the nebulous concept of "creation" (which I'd argue is a hilariously naive narrative that serves to exploit workers) but so what? That isn't how capitalism works. For better or for worse, Trump is the consumate capitalist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
User experience is a valuable part of the product though. Like yeah the engineers downplay it (which is why things made solely by engineers are uncomfortable to use) but it's something that requires labor and demonstrably adds value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
loud-bob posted:The Trump style of "success" is one reason America manufactures or builds fewer and fewer things of value anymore. This is the business-style of trump and the lowest form of business in general. These types of businessmen (snakeoil salesmen like trump) are just propped up babies in suits who's entire modus operandi is built on bullying instead of leadership, deception instead of coalition, and drama instead of work. They pervert American workmanship through branding by slapping their style/look/feeling on stuff other people make. There is truth to all this but it also avoids the elephant in the room, which is why he is so successful at it especially compared to other candidates who are snake oil salesmen of their own. Trump is an undoubtedly an opportunist but the question is why he has that opportunity in the first place, other politicians have been bullies and generally lovely people (look at Christie/Cruz), but ultimately there is something more to Trump that that. Part of has to be that in parts of the country that anger at economic conditions has hit critical mass, and there is no way for the political process to channel it. Trump can be a charlatan, but the reason he is an successful one is he knows what people want and knows how sell them on it. It is also why he is so dangerous, he has touched a deep vein of resentment that doesn't seem to be openly acknowledged in Washington and that gives him the power to now control it. Sanders knows how to tap that resentment as well but he is very likely going to be pushed aside which will allow Trump basically free reign to own that conversation at this point. If you want to look into the future, look at Putin and Russia and how Putin came into power in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:
We already had our former intelligence agency member become President though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Did you just post an article wherein Trump says he likes free trade if you do it right, oh and by the way doing it right means letting his Wall Street friends negotiate all the deals? I posted an article where Trump stated publicly that he would use tariffs and roll back the NAFTA agreement (which was put into place by Bill Clinton's administration) to keep American jobs from being outsourced. People thought Tom Wheeler would be a horrible appointment to the FCC due to his previous history and he's done a fantastic job representing the American people. It's possible for business-people who've done horrible things in their career to come out on the side of working class later in life. I don't trust Hillary because she's a neoliberal with a long history of supporting destructive policies that don't work. If you want to try to paraphrase that to mean that I hate mexicans, so be it. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:That whole effort post rubs me the wrong way since selling yourself is the most important part of business.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:We already had our former intelligence agency member become President though. A opportunist that knows how to manipulate the desires of the public can come from many different career paths although some manner of shrewdness is required and maybe some "moral flexibility." But yeah, there is an economic parallel there that is hard to miss, even if the situation in Russia during the late 1990s was far far worse. Call Me Charlie posted:I posted an article where Trump stated publicly that he would use tariffs and roll back the NAFTA agreement (which was put into place by Bill Clinton's administration) to keep American jobs from being outsourced. Trump knows what he is doing in that sense (political wise). In particularly he knows how unpopular free trade is and how closely tied Hillary and her husband is to it and has found an attack strategy that has written itself. Personally, I don't he will actually do poo poo about it but the narrative there has potency. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Trump's campaign relies primarily on momentum, and the fact that none of his opponents can challenge his principles only adds to that. When he loses, the retrospectives are going to be all about how he was a paper tiger and never had a chance at victory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:Nah, the iPod was a real breakthrough in usability. It wasn't just "an aesthetic" Is that math you do as a parasite to make yourself feel better? iPod advertising is not only being taught in marketing schools but also art schools. It's in freaking museums. It's not the product, it's the pusher.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Is that math you do as a parasite to make yourself feel better? I mean the second era Steve Jobs advertising, marketing, and packaging were important https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUXnJraKM3k but that's not all it was. There was real substance to it, just like the iPhone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
I had an old MP3 player and the scroll wheel was a huge ui improvement, like orders of mangnitude
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:Like did you do ever use any of those pre-iPod MP3 players? I had an Archos Jukebox. The iPod was a quantum leap in usability, even for something as simple as playing MP3 files and playlists. Ultimately it is a combination of both, you need to market something but in order to keep them on the hook there has to be some arguable substance. Jobs found a way to do both very well...until he died. He had both the product and a narrative to sell people and ultimately thats why Apple made so much money. I do think there is a double bind here: in order to properly fight Trump you have to acknowledge why his narrative works so well in the first place but in order to acknowledge it you have to admit to the multiple failures that allowed his narrative to work in the first place. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I posted an article where Trump stated publicly that he would use tariffs and roll back the NAFTA agreement (which was put into place by Bill Clinton's administration) to keep American jobs from being outsourced. And he also stated he'd let Wall Street negotiate all our trade deals. One of the more interesting facets of Trump is how he can promise to be all things to all people: everything I don't like he doesn't really mean, everything I like is what he'll really do. He's not going to be putting back those tariffs you want without repealing NAFTA which a Republican congress won't let him do, and anyway, there's more to labor than tariffs, we had high-rear end tariffs throughout most of our history as a country and workers were still treated like poo poo, what raised us from tenements and 100-hour weeks was not tariffs, it was socialism and labor unions. Call Me Charlie posted:I don't trust Hillary because she's a neoliberal with a long history of supporting destructive policies that don't work. If you want to try to paraphrase that to mean that I hate mexicans, so be it. Hillary is also a progressive with a long history of supporting good policies that do work, and the destructive ones are policies that the Republican Party does even more and even harder. But someone with no record and wildly unstable views that change as a matter of convenience and sometimes conflict with each other is going to do everything that I want because
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And he also stated he'd let Wall Street negotiate all our trade deals. Um, no, he hasn't. VitalSigns posted:Hillary is also a progressive with a long history of supporting good policies that do work, and the destructive ones are policies that the Republican Party does even more and even harder. But someone with no record and wildly unstable views that change as a matter of convenience and sometimes conflict with each other is going to do everything that I want because Like what? She's for globalization, she's for bad trade deals like the TPP (unless you believe her latest flop), she's for charter schools (unless you believe her latest flop), she's for "tough on crime" laws (unless you believe her latest flop), she's silent on the drug war, she's business as usual with Israel, she's given up on universal healthcare, she's the one that started the birther rumors against Obama, she was the one in the Obama Administration that pushed for intervention in Libya. How the gently caress is that being a progressive? I think you're being blinded by party lines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Um, no, he hasn't. Do you think Trump will veto bills put forth by the Republican controlled Congress?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Do you think Trump will veto bills put forth by the Republican controlled Congress? I think it depends on what the bill is. There's a reason why the Republican party is fighting so hard to get any other candidate nominated instead of Trump. And I don't think that reason is solely because of his electability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Um, no, he hasn't. It was in the article that you posted, you quoted it. Call Me Charlie posted:Like what? She's for globalization, she's for bad trade deals like the TPP (unless you believe her latest flop), she's for charter schools (unless you believe her latest flop), she's for "tough on crime" laws (unless you believe her latest flop), she's silent on the drug war, she's business as usual with Israel, she's given up on universal healthcare, she's the one that started the birther rumors against Obama, she was the one in the Obama Administration that pushed for intervention in Libya. She's been fighting for universal health care for decades (Sanders is better because he supports single payer, but that's an argument for voting Sanders over Hillary, not for voting Trump who still refuses to say what he'll support beyond repealing the ACA and then  ), she opposes education vouchers, she's got an 82% rating from the NEA on support for public education, she supports a higher minimum wage, she's voted for paid family leave and child welfare, she differed with her husband and opposed NAFTA, she voted against CAFTA, and opposed the TPP once she read it, she's got a decade of supporting decriminalization and treatment for drug users instead of jail, her voting record in the Senate was one of the most liberal (more than Obama less than Sanders), you're just full of poo poo sorry there's no nicer way to put it.Meanwhile Trump has no record at all but a history of buying politicians, bankrupting companies, and busting unions with blackmail and intimidation. His list of supreme court nominees are trickle-down conservative assholes in the vein of Alito and Thomas who will continue the Roberts Court trend of destroying labor rights, consumer rights, and campaign finance restrictions. And he changed all his positions at the drop of a hat to tick all the boxes for evangelical nativist GOP voters and tell them what they want to hear, but I'm sure the couple of things he tosses out that you want to hear are his true beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:There's a reason why the Republican party is fighting so hard to get any other candidate nominated instead of Trump. And I don't think that reason is solely because of his electability. This doesn't mean anything. The Republican party also fought hard against Ron Paul, that just means they disagree with him on core issues, that doesn't mean that Ron Paul is good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It was in the article that you posted, you quoted it. quote:Repealing it isn't practical, since pro-trade Republicans control the House and the Senate. However, a President Trump could find ways to pull back on NAFTA. He could appoint members to the International Trade Commission who would vote to slap duties -- steep ones -- on Mexican products, and he could tap a U.S. trade representative who agrees with his views. Wouldn't it make sense that he's talking about appointing cutthroat people to government positions to work on our behalf and not the insane idea you said that he's going to let Wall Street negotiate our trade deals? Because I'm pretty sure that Wall Street would go 'yes Globalization. yes unlimited free trade'. The same as both political parties. VitalSigns posted:She's been fighting for universal health care for decades (Sanders is better because he supports single payer, but that's an argument for voting Sanders over Hillary, not for voting Trump who still refuses to say what he'll support beyond repealing the ACA and then She walked back her support on universal health care, she flopped on education vouchers, she supported NAFTA at the time, she supported TPP on multiple occasions, her husband was the one who put those 'tough on law' laws in place. (Oh and here's another fun one, she supported Bill's welfare reform) I guess it's nice that she supports higher minimum wage but it doesn't really matter when corporations export the jobs or bring people here on visas to do the work under the normal pay. How can you say I'm a rube falling for Trump's 'I'll say anything for a vote' campaign when there's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI VitalSigns posted:Meanwhile Trump has no record at all but a history of buying politicians, bankrupting companies, and busting unions with blackmail and intimidation. His list of supreme court nominees are trickle-down conservative assholes in the vein of Alito and Thomas who will continue the Roberts Court trend of destroying labor rights, consumer rights, and campaign finance restrictions. And he changed all his positions at the drop of a hat to tick all the boxes for evangelical nativist GOP voters and tell them what they want to hear, but I'm sure the couple of things he tosses out that you want to hear are his true beliefs. Trump has the fact that he doesn't want to destroy Social Security or Medicare. Trump has the fact that he doesn't want to have people dying in the streets. Trump has the fact he doesn't want to try to do a run around on the Supreme Court over gay marriage. Trump has the fact he wants to welcome illegal immigrants to come back through legal channels after he kicks them out. Trump has (borderline) liberal positions on alot of issues. If you give me the choice of a liberal pretending to be a conservative for votes or a conservative pretending to be a liberal for votes, I'm going to pick the liberal pretending to be a conservative. That said, I really want Bernie and I'll be voting for him in the primary. VitalSigns posted:This doesn't mean anything. The Republican party also fought hard against Ron Paul, that just means they disagree with him on core issues, that doesn't mean that Ron Paul is good. Ron Paul never had something like this story happen to him http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html (also Ron Paul was terrible) Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 09:53
|
|