|
https://twitter.com/kath_krueger/status/1174817869856686080
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Do you mean president Bernie leads to a bunch of AOCs getting elected in 2022? That’s not really how midterms work, buddy. Ah that's right, I forgot - the only way midterms work is for Democrats to disappoint their base, depressing turnout and handing over control of the government to literal fascists. Why break with tradition? Hateful, racist rhetoric like, "Release the vote totals please."
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
They're just never going to loving let him win even if he does. This party is just complicit and compromised. I will destroy it personally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
eke out posted:Bernie: Medicare For All sounds like a great slogan to me, I'll notify Senator Gillibrand it'll get her back in the race 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
Even if Sanders is screwed out of the nomination, the infrastructure his campaign is building is extremely powerful. Case in point: https://twitter.com/gabemschneider/status/1174750473024344064?s=19
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
Pretty cool to watch a bunch of randos sign onto an embarrassing letter condemning an issue born from literally nothing. quote:The letter goes on to say that many of its signatories—which include, among many others, Alicia Garza, co-founder of Black Lives Matter Global Network; Tarana Burke, founder and executive director of MeToo; and strategist and CNN commentator Angela Rye—are “no stranger to these kinds of attacks,” that they’re patently “unacceptable,” and only work to further empower “those who have real power over our lives.”  loving spare me.
ded redd fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Sep 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Pretty cool to watch a bunch of randos sign onto an embarrassing letter condemning an issue born from literally nothing. They're all party consultants, and some of the same people who signed onto attacking Omar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
Beto still sucks but I like this https://twitter.com/robsfriedlander/status/1174817130379956224?s=19
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
It’s almost like an inverted John Lewis jumping on the Biden grenade but more contrived and pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:They're all party consultants, and some of the same people who signed onto attacking Omar. Hahah, of course they are. Fantastic. 2016 never really left.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:The recent posts on this topic has been that Bernie will either steal funding like Trump’s wall gimmick, which ignores that shifting around a few billion is literally a thousand times easier than a few trillion and that SCOTUS will still be around in 2021. If you want someone to spell out how the President could take action on climate change without the support of Congress, OK. The President can issue executive orders; Sanders could use an executive order to ban fracking, or offshore drilling, or pipeline construction. The President can veto budget bills that don't include climate change funding, or threaten to. The President can staff agencies like the EPA with people who believe climate change is real, and who will implement new regulations on emissions, drilling, etc. The President could, as Sanders has suggested, direct the DOJ to investigate and sue fossil fuel companies. The President can threaten to break off relations with countries like Brazil who are not doing anything to stop global warming. The President can declare a national emergency. U.S. Presidents are pretty powerful even when Congress opposes their agenda.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
Idea of Warren presidency frightens investors at conference: ‘She’s not my candidate of choice’ Everybody hates Dangerous Liz.  It amazes me what people are calling socialism nowadays. It's like no one ever pays attention in their history, government or economics classes. I should have gone for a MBA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Idea of Warren presidency frightens investors at conference: ‘She’s not my candidate of choice’ It's really laughable when people declare Warren the Just and True Friend of Capital and the 1%.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 01:16
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Idea of Warren presidency frightens investors at conference: ‘She’s not my candidate of choice’ You know they pulled this stunt already, the one where Jim Cramer was so scared until he got reassurance later and was suddenly a-okay with Warren?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Idea of Warren presidency frightens investors at conference: ‘She’s not my candidate of choice’ rich prick posted:“You don’t make the poor people rich by making rich people poor,” he added. They're going to be SO POOR, y'all. Have some pity. mediaphage fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Sep 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
I don't think anyone is of the idea that any candidate won't have to compromise to pass their agenda. But the amount they'll have to do so I'd based on first how far left they are starting from, and how big a mandate they get when elected. So if you're worried that Bernie won't be able to get his Medicare for all passed, get better Dems on the ballot with him and drive up the turnout
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:They're going to be SO POOR, y'all. Have some pity. I am not even sure why, if you're wealthy, you are worried about Elizabeth Warren. You must be doing the math and realizing that Biden is most likely the winner if someone like Sanders drops out, for the simple reason that there's no movement to back Warren into a winning position. So you're left with two candidates friendly to your interests slugging it out in the general. As always. Then again, this stinks of the media trying to position Warren as "the one the elite fear most".
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
How are u posted:It's really laughable when people declare Warren the Just and True Friend of Capital and the 1%. Capitalists too dumb to realize Warren wants to Save Capitalism From Itself doesn't mean she does not in fact want to save capitalism from itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
How are u posted:It's really laughable when people declare Warren the Just and True Friend of Capital and the 1%. It’s actually laughable when you fall for the exact same ruse, constantly, even when the farce is revealed and you just fall for it all over again. I know you’ve already made it clear you don’t actually give a poo poo about reality but having one of those oh so scared crooks admit his growing warmth to Warren just on the last few pages kind of makes me wonder if you really are an illiterate. ded redd fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Sep 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:You know they pulled this stunt already, the one where Jim Cramer was so scared until he got reassurance later and was suddenly a-okay with Warren? Well, when she tweeted this in response to Cramer's remarks... https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1171538730621915136?s=20 ...maybe he's backing off so he doesn't give her attention. "Oh she's fine! I have no beef with her. Let's move on..."
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Then again, this stinks of the media trying to position Warren as "the one the elite fear most". My insane fever dream scenario is that this becomes the entire media narrative about her from now until at least Iowa to the point that it draws in the mythical centrist "concerned voter" to vote for Bernie in the primaries in order to stop that dangerous radical Elizabeth Warren.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
overmind2000 posted:My insane fever dream scenario is that this becomes the entire media narrative about her from now until at least Iowa to the point that it draws in the mythical centrist "concerned voter" to vote for Bernie in the primaries in order to stop that dangerous radical Elizabeth Warren. That would be a hilarious backfire, but life is not that funny.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:Well, when she tweeted this in response to Cramer's remarks... On the other hand, and more likely by her bad habit of taking money from her supposed foes, is that Warren is perceptibly corruptible to the party and its benefactors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
Maybe frightening people who poo poo their paints in a terror rage over even the idea that someone might think they were bested even when they're not is not actually a high bar to clear. As someone else put it, we're talking about a gluttonous beast that is never full and fiercely guards every single scrap it owns regardless of how inconsequential it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:What a load of bullshit. Overall results were 61 to 35. If there's a split, it wasn't a close split. No, my argument is that there are potentially embarrassing reasons to not reveal the vote totals that might not stem exclusively from a membership/leadership divide, because there's another group voting. Maybe they don't think the results were manipulated but can't/don't want to handle questions about the integrity, maybe they don't want to talk about a split, maybe they don't want to admit to members how many non-members they gave a voice, maybe they do think it was hosed with and want to let the result stand. The obvious answer for why they wouldn't directly address something questionable is the same one people are suggesting for why they wouldn't reveal numbers showing a sharp leadership/membership divide, which I'll happily grant can exist in conjunction with any or none of these things: they like and don't want to undermine the result.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 02:57
|
|
|
Or maybe these are just the same idiots who were scared shitless about the communist Obama raising their taxes, and they're not actually playing 11th dimensional chess to convince us to vote for Warren.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 03:00
|
|
|
Better not take any chances then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 03:02
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:No, my argument is that there are potentially embarrassing reasons to not reveal the vote totals that might not stem exclusively from a membership/leadership divide, because there's another group voting. Maybe they don't think the results were manipulated but can't/don't want to handle questions about the integrity, maybe they don't want to talk about a split, maybe they don't want to admit to members how many non-members they gave a voice, maybe they do think it was hosed with and want to let the result stand. If the result was "hosed with" it is grounds for a recount/revote. Thats... a bold accusation to be leveling at a nominally democratic vote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Or maybe these are just the same idiots who were scared shitless about the communist Obama raising their taxes, and they're not actually playing 11th dimensional chess to convince us to vote for Warren. They aren't playing anything. But the media is cynically using soundbites like that to paint a very stupid picture.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:No, my argument is that there are potentially embarrassing reasons to not reveal the vote totals that might not stem exclusively from a membership/leadership divide, because there's another group voting. Maybe they don't think the results were manipulated but can't/don't want to handle questions about the integrity, maybe they don't want to talk about a split, maybe they don't want to admit to members how many non-members they gave a voice, maybe they do think it was hosed with and want to let the result stand. The obvious answer for why they wouldn't directly address something questionable is the same one people are suggesting for why they wouldn't reveal numbers showing a sharp leadership/membership divide, which I'll happily grant can exist in conjunction with any or none of these things: they like and don't want to undermine the result. Like, how the gently caress is this a defense of it? "They are not hiding the totals because it shows a leadership/membership split, they are hiding it because there might have been fraud and they prefer not to deal with it because they like the result."
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 03:18
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Like, how the gently caress is this a defense of it? It’s not? I was positing alternative explanations for a sketchy decision to keep the total secret, not arguing that the decision was legit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 03:27
|
|
|
gently caress this guy he just wants a clip of Warren saying "taxes will go up" to use when the primary gets nasty. Warren is absolutely right to be evasive when it comes to saying those exact words because the most important point is "middle class families will have more money in their pockets". No one should give a poo poo about their tax burden at the expense of their actual income, and if someone says "i'd rather pay less in taxes and have less money to spend than pay more in taxes but also have more money in my pocket" they are either a libertarian or an rear end in a top hat (but i repeat myself)
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 03:32
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:which I'll happily grant can exist in conjunction with any or none of these things thank you
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
Could Pete be the Tulsi to Warren's Kamala? Perhaps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:gently caress this guy Obviously it's smart to avoid an "I PROMISE TO RAISE YOUR TAXES" soundbite, but it's possible to phrase the answer in a soundbite-averse way, rather than dodging the question so obviously. Something a little more passive-voice like, "Any increase in taxes will be outweighed by the reduction in costs."
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Could Pete be the Tulsi to Warren's Kamala? Perhaps. ...what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:gently caress this guy She's evasive because she doesn't want to publicly commit to something her wealthy donors haven't signed off on. Not because she just can't figure out the right phrasing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 04:04
|
|
Judakel posted:Could Pete be the Tulsi to Warren's Kamala? Perhaps. Could Pete be the Biden to O'Rourke's Klobuchar? Only time will tell.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 04:06
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Could Pete be the Biden to O'Rourke's Klobuchar? Only time will tell. We shall see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
oh, i get it, the joke is that elizabeth warren is not a threat to bernie and mayor butt is even less
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 04:10
|
|