DNC Primary: Biden: Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > DNC Primary: Biden: Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.

«‹›271 »

Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed.
Joe Biden, the Inappropriate Toucher	18	1.46%
Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer	665	54.11%
Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker	319	25.96%
Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord	26	2.12%
Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe	5	0.41%
Julian Castro, the Twin	5	0.41%
Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer	5	0.41%
Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath	17	1.38%
Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino	3	0.24%
Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist	8	0.65%
Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen	86	7.00%
Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater	23	1.87%
Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool	32	2.60%
Eric Swalwell, the Insurance Wife Guy	2	0.16%
Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast	1	0.08%
Bill de Blasio, the NYPD Most Hated	4	0.33%
Tim Ryan, the Dope Face	3	0.24%
John Hickenlooper, the Also Ran	7	0.57%
Total:	1229 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Pembroke Fuse: Dec 29, 2008

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

The problem with this thinking is that it assumes that human beings can solve all problems, once they try. It completely precludes the notion that we could gently caress the climate so badly that there is no way to fix it no matter how many resources the capitalists throw at it. It's also solving the tragedy of the commons by simply waving a hand and claiming that, once the problems gets bad enough, people will magically start behaving in completely different ways. History is rife with examples of groups of people driving right off a loving cliff even when the inevitable result of their actions was obvious to everyone - both in-group and out.

This is a really fundamental problem... both believing that the universe is "linear" (things get worse or better at a constant rate) and that our ability to grapple with problems is "linear" (if we apply more intellectual and financial resources, we'll get be able to solve linearly larger problems). Its a massive, incredible blind-spot given how many problems we've been trying to solve for the last four decades or so (nuclear fusion, space colonies, cloning of larger organisms) that we're not really any closer to solving today.

e:

# ? Jul 30, 2019 18:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 00:59

plogo: Jan 20, 2009

Pembroke Fuse posted:

This is a good distinction. I may have mischaracterized Danni then, who I believe is closer to being a post-Keynesian.

I would not characterize Rodrik as a post-Keynesian.

# ? Jul 30, 2019 19:01

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

Pembroke Fuse posted:

This is a good distinction. I may have mischaracterized Danni then, who I believe is closer to being a post-Keynesian.

No, Rodrik is fully within the neoclassical tradition (of which Neo-Keynesians are a part, but not Post-Keynesians). He is just a more lefty, international version of it, more in the mold of a Stiglitz. If people have an interest in understanding these obscure divisions within economics, I can do a write up of the economics schools of thought in some other thread of their choosing.

It really creates some very interesting and strange bedfellows. Post-Keynesians and Austrian economists are radically different in their politics but frequently gang up together in methodological issues within economics against neoclassical economists, even as Austrian economists and Neoclassical, especially supply side, economists tend to be more aligned on policy.

joepinetree fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jul 30, 2019

# ? Jul 30, 2019 19:01

Bald Stalin: Jul 11, 2004; Our posts

Pembroke Fuse posted:

This is a really fundamental problem... both believing that the universe is "linear" (things get worse or better at a constant rate) and that our ability to grapple with problems is "linear" (if we apply more intellectual and financial resources, we'll get be able to solve linearly larger problems). Its a massive, incredible blind-spot given how many problems we've been trying to solve for the last four decades or so (nuclear fusion, space colonies, cloning of larger organisms) that we're not really any closer to solving today.

e:

Hope this isn't too big a derail but there was a NASA scientist here with a thread about space colonies next to NEOs (not misguided gravity well colonies such as Mars) and I don't recall anyone saying it wasn't feasible for any reason other than money. IIRC the consensus was the tech has existed for decades, and we could be a space civilization in a decade if half of the money spent on the Iraq war was spent on sending rockets up to build the infrastructure instead. Does anyone have a link to that thread if it still exists?

# ? Jul 30, 2019 19:12

Gyges: Aug 4, 2004; NOW NO ONE
RECOGNIZE HULK

FlamingLiberal posted:

The attacks on Bernie are getting dumber somehow

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1156180284330663936?s=21

https://twitter.com/BethLynch2020/status/1156250788727050240?s=19

# ? Jul 30, 2019 19:20

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Mellow Seas posted:

Krugman was also a fierce opponent of austerity and debt panic during the recession. That view was depressingly rare in the mainstream. He was very hard on Obama�s attempts to lower deficits and (especially) cut entitlements. He called the stimulus too small, loudly and repeatedly. He was against almost of all of Obama�s economic feints to the right.

I don�t know what his bugaboo is with single payer but generally speaking he�s on the party�s left.

Pembroke Fuse posted:

Krugman was one of Obama's policy booster, AFAIK. He hasn't even hopped on the "neo-Keynesianist" train like Danni Roderik and others.

Krugman made a hard pivot from being one of Obama's fiercest liberal critics to being one of his most ardent fans, sometime between about 2012 and 2014. Suddenly Obama was the best President any liberal could ask for and his track record was an amazing series of accomplishments. As someone who soured on Obama in part because of Krugman's very effective takedown of his early policy missteps it was pretty eye opening watching him reverse himself almost in real time. Of course this wasn't nearly as shocking as it otherwise would have been because I had read a bunch of his columns from the 1990s, but it was still pretty wild seeing him abandon his own criticisms.

Mellow Seas posted:

Or maybe he just disagrees with you.

quote:

The Plot Against Medicare

Paul Krugman APRIL 20, 2007

The plot against Social Security failed: President Bush�s attempt to privatize the system crashed and burned when the public realized what he was up to. But the plot against Medicare is faring better: the stealth privatization embedded in the Medicare Modernization Act, which Congress literally passed in the dead of night back in 2003, is proceeding apace.

Worse yet, the forces behind privatization not only continue to have the G.O.P. in their pocket, but they have also been finding useful idiots within the newly powerful Democratic coalition. And it�s not just politicians with an eye on campaign contributions. There�s no nice way to say it: the N.A.A.C.P. and the League of United Latin American Citizens have become patsies for the insurance industry.

To appreciate what�s going on, you need to know what has been happening to Medicare in the last few years.

The 2003 Medicare legislation created Part D, the drug benefit for seniors � but unlike the rest of Medicare, Part D isn�t provided directly by the government. Instead, you can get it only through a private drug plan, provided by an insurance company. At the same time, the bill sharply increased payments to Medicare Advantage plans, which also funnel Medicare funds through insurance companies.

As a result, Medicare � originally a system in which the government paid people�s medical bills � is becoming, instead, a system in which the government pays the insurance industry to provide coverage. And a lot of the money never makes it to the people Medicare is supposed to help.

In the case of the drug benefit, the private drug plans add an extra, costly layer of bureaucracy. Worse yet, they have much less ability to bargain for lower drug prices than government programs like Medicaid and the Veterans Health Administration. Reasonable estimates suggest that if Congress had eliminated the middlemen, it could have created a much better drug plan � one without the notorious �doughnut hole,� the gap in coverage once your annual expenses exceed $2,400 per year � at no higher cost.

Meanwhile, those Medicare Advantage plans cost taxpayers 12 percent more per recipient than standard Medicare. In the next five years that subsidy will cost more than $50 billion � about what it would cost to provide all children in America with health insurance. Some of that $50 billion will be passed on to seniors in extra benefits, but a lot of it will go to overhead, marketing expenses and profits.

With the Democratic victory last fall, you might have expected these things to change. But the political news over the last few days has been grim.

First, the Senate failed to end debate on a bill � in effect, killing it � that would have allowed Medicare to negotiate over drug prices. The bill was too weak to have allowed Medicare to get large discounts. Still, it would at least have established the principle of using government bargaining power to get a better deal. But in spite of overwhelming public support for price negotiation, 42 senators, all Republicans, voted no on allowing the bill to go forward.

If we can�t even establish the principle of negotiation, a true repair of the damage done in 2003 � which would require having Medicare offer seniors the option of getting their drug coverage directly, without involving the insurance companies � seems politically far out of reach.

At the same time, attempts to rein in those Medicare Advantage payments seem to be running aground. Everyone knew that reducing payments would be politically tough. What comes as a bitter surprise is the fact that minority advocacy groups are now part of the problem, with both the N.A.A.C.P. and the League of United Latin American Citizens sending letters to Congressional leaders opposing plans to scale back the subsidy.

What seems to have happened is that both groups have been taken in by insurance industry disinformation, which falsely claims that minorities benefit disproportionately from this subsidy. It�s a claim that has been thoroughly debunked in a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities � but apparently the truth isn�t getting through.

Public opinion is strongly in favor of universal health care, and for good reason: fear of losing health insurance has become a constant anxiety of the middle class. Yet even as we talk about guaranteeing insurance to all, privatization is undermining Medicare � and people who should know better are aiding and abetting the process.

I mean, he did publish this article on 420. Maybe he literally forgot writing it.

# ? Jul 30, 2019 19:24

Pembroke Fuse: Dec 29, 2008

joepinetree posted:

No, Rodrik is fully within the neoclassical tradition (of which Neo-Keynesians are a part, but not Post-Keynesians). He is just a more lefty, international version of it, more in the mold of a Stiglitz. If people have an interest in understanding these obscure divisions within economics, I can do a write up of the economics schools of thought in some other thread of their choosing.

Interesting... would have pegged Rodrik for a non-MMT post-Keynesian, given the fact that he's positively written about rejecting the "Washington consensus" in most situations and replacing it with developmental structures, like the PRC's Township and Village Enterprises, that are appropriate to the local economic and political context. Anyway, yes, would be interested in reading that thread.

# ? Jul 30, 2019 19:25

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

Pembroke Fuse posted:

Interesting... would have pegged Rodrik for a non-MMT post-Keynesian, given the fact that he's positively written about rejecting the "Washington consensus" in most situations and replacing it with developmental structures, like the PRC's Township and Village Enterprises, that are appropriate to the local economic and political context. Anyway, yes, would be interested in reading that thread.

I don't know if there is enough content for a stand alone thread, but someone point me to an appropriate existing thread and I'll do the write up of the history of economic thought in a very summarized version.

Edit: The following graph captures the main evolutions:

From

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2014/04/modern-schools-of-economics-family-tree.html

which I have not otherwise read or endorse.

joepinetree fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jul 30, 2019

# ? Jul 30, 2019 19:31

Pembroke Fuse: Dec 29, 2008

Ranter posted:

Hope this isn't too big a derail but there was a NASA scientist here with a thread about space colonies next to NEOs (not misguided gravity well colonies such as Mars) and I don't recall anyone saying it wasn't feasible for any reason other than money. IIRC the consensus was the tech has existed for decades, and we could be a space civilization in a decade if half of the money spent on the Iraq war was spent on sending rockets up to build the infrastructure instead. Does anyone have a link to that thread if it still exists?

Some of the technology certainly exists. Dealing with the degenerative health effects of long-term microgravity or even partial gravity (loss of bone and muscle density, disruption of circadian rhythms, permanent disruption of vision, etc) doesn't have any viable solutions at this moment.

I did use space colonies as an example, but if its not a good one, others exist. Science and technology are not linear problem-solving factories (bigger inputs == bigger outputs) and the idea that if we all thought really hard about climate change, we could fix it regardless of how bad it had gotten, is a serious blind-spot.

Pembroke Fuse fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Jul 30, 2019

# ? Jul 30, 2019 19:34

Pinky Artichoke: Apr 10, 2011; Dinner has blossomed.

joepinetree posted:

So, let me get this straight:

"you can call it anything you want, but you can't call that medicare for all" is an unforgivable smear.

saying that Bernie is smearing and misrepresenting Kamala and that exemplifies eveything that is wrong with his campaign, not an attack, and in fact if you think its an attack you are thin skinned.

Is that your very smart take on this?

Yes, I am saying that a person having an opinion about an email is not an attack.

# ? Jul 30, 2019 19:46

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Helsing posted:

Krugman made a hard pivot from being one of Obama's fiercest liberal critics to being one of his most ardent fans, sometime between about 2012 and 2014.

I wonder if maybe it�s fear of conservatism; Krugman didn�t like the debt ceiling deal or the sequester but he definitely hated Romney and (especially) Ryan more than he disliked Obama policy, even at his most critical. (Not sure how the 2012 election lines up with his donning Obama Pom-Poms.)

This fear-based advocacy would be consistent with his anti-Bernism and electoral fear of single payer. Many liberal boomers were effed up by the Reagan years, and that would go double for a guy with a passionate opposition to Reaganomics and the Chicago School who saw them dominate his field for much of his career.

# ? Jul 30, 2019 19:48

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

It's only an attack when Bernie has opinions.

An opinion from a well-heeled economist who went to a nice school can never be an attack.

# ? Jul 30, 2019 19:48

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

Pinky Artichoke posted:

Yes, I am saying that a person having an opinion about an email is not an attack.

As opposed to the opinion expressed in said email, which is an attack that deserves to be called a smear and misleading, because...

# ? Jul 30, 2019 19:50

MSDOS KAPITAL: Jun 25, 2018

Pembroke Fuse posted:

Science and technology are not linear problem-solving factories (bigger inputs == bigger outputs) and the idea that if we all thought really hard about climate change, we could fix it regardless of how bad it had gotten, is a serious blind-spot.

Completely agree but for what it's worth: I think we probably should proceed as though they are. It's possible we will gently caress the climate so badly we can't fix it. It's possible we already have. Especially on the right you are already seeing this attitude start to take hold where they're acknowledging climate change, but throwing up their hands and trying to search for how to exploit the fact of it, rather than fix it (this is what the rich will do, by the way, and why Blythe is wrong). But instead we should just assume we can solve the problem and dumb resources into solving it, because the alternative is death.

# ? Jul 30, 2019 19:51

mormonpartyboat: Jan 14, 2015; by Reene

joepinetree posted:

I don't know if there is enough content for a stand alone thread, but someone point me to an appropriate existing thread and I'll do the write up of the history of economic thought in a very summarized version.

Edit: The following graph captures the main evolutions:

From

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2014/04/modern-schools-of-economics-family-tree.html

which I have not otherwise read or endorse.

this all looks like a bunch of horseshit

# ? Jul 30, 2019 19:54

Groovelord Neato: Dec 6, 2014

https://twitter.com/MattBruenig/status/1156194161424551937

# ? Jul 30, 2019 19:54

punishedkissinger: Sep 20, 2017

mormonpartyboat posted:

this all looks like a bunch of horseshit

well it is about economics so

# ? Jul 30, 2019 19:54

mormonpartyboat: Jan 14, 2015; by Reene

# ? Jul 30, 2019 19:57

Impkins Patootie: Apr 20, 2017

# ? Jul 30, 2019 19:57

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Groovelord Neato posted:

https://twitter.com/MattBruenig/status/1156194161424551937

Mayor Butt is scarier to me than someone like Harris because he seems like some kind of android programmed to pander to whoever theoretically could vote for him, but he has zero strongly held positions and could flip on a dime. Like if he wasn�t gay he could easily be a Tom Cotton type of weirdo Republican veteran

# ? Jul 30, 2019 20:00

Gripweed: Nov 8, 2018

gently caress "scholar's chip". If your ice cream has a pun name, it has to be a pun that suggests the flavor of the ice cream

# ? Jul 30, 2019 20:12

mormonpartyboat: Jan 14, 2015; by Reene

Groovelord Neato posted:

https://twitter.com/MattBruenig/status/1156194161424551937

# ? Jul 30, 2019 20:14

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

How Bernie Sanders went from Civil Rights protester to 'socialism for white bros only, I don't care about PoC'

# ? Jul 30, 2019 20:14

Nissin Cup Nudist: Sep 3, 2011; Sleep with one eye open

We're off to Gritty Gritty land

Gripweed posted:

gently caress "scholar's chip". If your ice cream has a pun name, it has to be a pun that suggests the flavor of the ice cream

Not Beto's fault Peachy Paterno is flavor non grata

# ? Jul 30, 2019 20:18

Pembroke Fuse: Dec 29, 2008

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

Completely agree but for what it's worth: I think we probably should proceed as though they are. It's possible we will gently caress the climate so badly we can't fix it. It's possible we already have. Especially on the right you are already seeing this attitude start to take hold where they're acknowledging climate change, but throwing up their hands and trying to search for how to exploit the fact of it, rather than fix it (this is what the rich will do, by the way, and why Blythe is wrong). But instead we should just assume we can solve the problem and dumb resources into solving it, because the alternative is death.

Yeah, we're pretty much going to have to try regardless of the chance of success.

# ? Jul 30, 2019 20:20

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Mellow Seas posted:

I wonder if maybe it�s fear of conservatism; Krugman didn�t like the debt ceiling deal or the sequester but he definitely hated Romney and (especially) Ryan more than he disliked Obama policy, even at his most critical. (Not sure how the 2012 election lines up with his donning Obama Pom-Poms.)

This fear-based advocacy would be consistent with his anti-Bernism and electoral fear of single payer. Many liberal boomers were effed up by the Reagan years, and that would go double for a guy with a passionate opposition to Reaganomics and the Chicago School who saw them dominate his field for much of his career.

Yeah, I don't think Krugman is willfully malicious I just think he's a Badly Burned Leftie Boomer who's learned helplessness and is terminally afraid that better things aren't possible.

A lot of older lefties just have terminal post-Reagan PTSD and can't dare to dream of anything further left than Bill Clinton.

# ? Jul 30, 2019 20:27

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

I don't know about Krugman, but everyone else making the same argument that single payer is better but unrealistic so we have to accept the versions that keep private insurance, like CAP, the PSA bros and the Brookings institute, are people who makes thousands of dollars from contributions by health insurance companies.

# ? Jul 30, 2019 20:30

Eschenique: Jul 19, 2019

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

The problem with this thinking is that it assumes that human beings can solve all problems, once they try. It completely precludes the notion that we could gently caress the climate so badly that there is no way to fix it no matter how many resources the capitalists throw at it. It's also solving the tragedy of the commons by simply waving a hand and claiming that, once the problems gets bad enough, people will magically start behaving in completely different ways. History is rife with examples of groups of people driving right off a loving cliff even when the inevitable result of their actions was obvious to everyone - both in-group and out.

I like Mark Blythe (and full disclosure I am responding only to your summary of the video - I haven't watched it yet), but this seems to miss the mark.

btw I hope you saw my apology to you earlier

I hadn't but I went back and found it.

It's fine I didn't take it personally at all

# ? Jul 30, 2019 20:42

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

joepinetree posted:

I don't know about Krugman, but everyone else making the same argument that single payer is better but unrealistic so we have to accept the versions that keep private insurance, like CAP, the PSA bros and the Brookings institute, are people who makes thousands of dollars from contributions by health insurance companies.

AFAIK Krugman is paid by the NYT, Princeton and his publishers. Sometimes wrong is just wrong, no corruption needed.

# ? Jul 30, 2019 20:50

Homeless Friend: Jul 16, 2007

Endorph posted:

williamson should be in jail

sounds like she has the qualifications to be a democrat candidate imo

# ? Jul 30, 2019 21:02

Colonel Taint: Mar 14, 2004

Homeless Friend posted:

sounds like she has the qualifications to be a democrat candidate imo

Oh this again. There's two sides to every story: some remember the good she did. There's also a good chance her message is getting confused with that of Louise Hay, who literally wrote a book about how to cure your AIDS by loving yourself or something.

Colonel Taint fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Jul 30, 2019

# ? Jul 30, 2019 21:25

Judakel: Jul 29, 2004; Can't post for 9 years!

MadJackal posted:

This was the race 4 years ago. Bernie was running pretty much the worst uphill battle for a nomination ever, and still managed to get within 15% by the end.

Biden before the second round of debated begins is polling at +15% with all of his name recognition backing him. And I very much doubt every debate between now and Iowa is going to gain him any support.

It won't be Biden. It'll be the Cop or Warren or maybe Bernie.

Biden's base is Democrats who aren't paying attention, and that doesn't translate well to early states or post-debate polling.

Ugh. If Warren ends up being an obstacle to a Sanders nomination this time around.

# ? Jul 30, 2019 21:39

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

Judakel posted:

Ugh. If Warren ends up being an obstacle to a Sanders nomination this time around.

Pollingwise, Bernie loses more supporters to Biden or to the voter screens than to Warren.
When you look at polls, it is very clear that the Warren and Bernie bases are completely different.
Bernie only loses to Warren in support for those who are 65+, those who have post-graduate degrees, and those who make over 100k a year (where Warren has over 3x the support that Bernie has).
Warren also slightly leads Bernie among those who have a favorable view of Pelosi, while Bernie is #1 overall for those with a neutral view or a negative view of Pelosi.

# ? Jul 30, 2019 21:49

Gripweed: Nov 8, 2018

what the gently caress is going on with these people

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1156203815403687937?s=20

# ? Jul 30, 2019 21:54

Judakel: Jul 29, 2004; Can't post for 9 years!

joepinetree posted:

Pollingwise, Bernie loses more supporters to Biden or to the voter screens than to Warren.
When you look at polls, it is very clear that the Warren and Bernie bases are completely different.
Bernie only loses to Warren in support for those who are 65+, those who have post-graduate degrees, and those who make over 100k a year (where Warren has over 3x the support that Bernie has).
Warren also slightly leads Bernie among those who have a favorable view of Pelosi, while Bernie is #1 overall for those with a neutral view or a negative view of Pelosi.

One does forget these facts. However, the narrative that Warren is more progressive than Sanders, or a better choice if you want some of what Sanders is proposing, is a real problem for Sanders. That narrative needs to die, and for that to happen, he needs to confront her "plans" as the half-measures they are and he needs to do it tonight.

# ? Jul 30, 2019 21:58

mormonpartyboat: Jan 14, 2015; by Reene

https://twitter.com/LATSeema/status/1156307418143498240

# ? Jul 30, 2019 22:16

OctaMurk: Jun 21, 2013

mormonpartyboat posted:

https://twitter.com/LATSeema/status/1156307418143498240

Dont need to try it to hate it, much like I dont need Buttigieg to become nominee to know he'd be a loser

# ? Jul 30, 2019 22:23

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Yeah, I don't think Krugman is willfully malicious I just think he's a Badly Burned Leftie Boomer who's learned helplessness and is terminally afraid that better things aren't possible.

A lot of older lefties just have terminal post-Reagan PTSD and can't dare to dream of anything further left than Bill Clinton.

Krugman briefly worked for the Reagan administration and if you read his 90s collumns he is 100% on board with the free trade dogmatism of the era and writes plenty of articles scolding irresponsible lefties who ignore the lessons of neoclassical economics at their own peril. He has always been a liberal and was never a leftist. I realize that's pedantic in most cases but in the context of one of the world's most widely read living economists (ugh) that distinction matters a lot. He actually moved quite a bit to the left after taking his New York Times column but contextually I think that had a lot to do with the election of George W. Bush shortly thereafter. His Clinton era writings are often terrible, especially when read in light of some of his later statements.

The best thing I can say for Krugman is that he correctly identified many terrible habits of mind within the economist and pundit class. The worst thing I can say about him is that he was able to detail those traits with such exactitude because he was inadvertently describing himself.

# ? Jul 30, 2019 22:37

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Gripweed posted:

Bernie is very good you guys

https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1156212374866710528?s=20

decriminalization is not legalization, gulag the centrist

# ? Jul 30, 2019 22:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 00:59

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

I'm guessing that tonight's debate (in just under two and a half hours) will probably express a bit more of a dividing line between Warren and Sanders. I doubt they'll actively be gunning for each other, but I expect the moderators to hone in on their similarities and challenge them to distinguish themselves from each other. No matter how well they get along, there's a basic question neither can really avoid: why are both of them still running? Why should people vote for one over the other?

# ? Jul 30, 2019 22:39

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > DNC Primary: Biden: Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.

«‹›271 »