|
get angry at government, give bernie money. a way to become poor quickly.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
It would crater the Democratic party and ensure they don't achieve national prominence again for a generation, if ever, but so would ratfucking him on the second ballot, which they will absolutely do if they can. So then they have two questions to ask themselves: how likely are they to be able to force a second ballot, and which path would affect the grift more?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
Bushido Brown posted:Can you correct Warren's bit? She's not Harvard-educated. (Just was a Harvard Prof.) I tweaked it! Vox Nihili posted:The crazy thing is that she's actually a pretty intelligent person. She's been getting poisonous advice for months now. I think Warren just isn't good at being a public figure. I think she fears the media, and therefore makes an active effort to jump headfirst into centrist talking points and media narratives without stopping to consider that they could look bad to the voters. For someone who makes a big deal about having detailed plans, the details of her plans often seem like nothing more than a route to a cheap slogan she thinks the media will like. For example, her public option plan actively rewarding companies that currently provide lovely healthcare pay less, because she wanted to be able to say that not a single company would pay more for the public option than they currently do for private healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:13
|
|
|
Warren's biggest self-own was almost certainly the "I support M4A but I don't support the payroll taxes required to fund it and no I can't tell you what we're going to do instead" thing that played out over a couple debates and news cycles in the fall. She got her pie eaten by PETE of all people. It's all been a slow drift downhill since then, and in recent weeks she's resorted to increasingly self-destructive tactics (the "Bernie is sexist" leak, the pivot to more idpol and less "big structural change" in voter outreach in Iowa, etc.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
I find it interesting that the same people screaming that you shouldn't use a ~bad process~ to get a good outcome like shutting down concentration camps...suddenly don't have a problem with a corrupt process as long as they get an outcome they consider good like a billionaire buying his way into a debate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:23
|
|
|
Bloomberg didn't just buy himself some decent poll numbers - he also slipped the DNC several hundred thousand bucks. I wonder if that has anything to do with why they're willing to change the rules for him after telling a bunch of upstart outsiders to get hosed. https://mobile.twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1223337638691856385
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
Oh hey, they didn't even wait for Iowa this time. https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1223378150316367872 DNC's already showing how they're gonna put the knife in to try and keep Bernie out this time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
RottenK posted:these people are complete idiots but even they should understand that switching back to superdelegates deciding on the first ballot right when bernie is doing well in the polls is so blatant that no amount of media spin will fool anyone Rigging the 2016 primary in the first place was stupid as hell, because you need all the people you just cheated to turn out and vote for you in November, and they still did that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:The crazy thing is that she's actually a pretty intelligent person. She's been getting poisonous advice for months now. I don't understand why there's this need to deny agency to Warren, as if she's only being the way that she is because the advisors are bad, as opposed to her being bad. Warren was involved with the Federalist Society when there was a Republican president and it seemed that republicans would be in power forever. She left the republican party only once she moved to MA and Clinton was about to win reelection. She claimed Native American heritage several times, including plagiarizing recipes for a Cherokee cookbook. When that was exposed, she viciously attacked the Native American activists who had a problem with that, and insisted on the Native American lie until a campaign video backfired so spectacularly she had no choice. She had terrible opinions on trans rights, Israel and charter schools until the moment she decided to run for president, much like she had no issues fundraising from billionaires until she decided to run against Bernie. She is not some doofus being misled by bad advisors. She is precisely the type of social climber that you have to be to go from Rutgers law to Harvard law, and from Harvard Law to the senate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:28
|
|
|
I support Bloomberg entering the debates because I want to see Bernie tee off against the living embodiment of an impossibly vain billionaire trying to buy his way into an election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:28
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:I support Bloomberg entering the debates because I want to see Bernie tee off against the living embodiment of an impossibly vain billionaire trying to buy his way into an election. Nah, that would let Warren get away with not making some insanely petty and avoidable self-own on stage, which needs to happen at this point to either get her to shape up or admit defeat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:33
|
|
|
$325k? I guess the old chestnut about American politicians being so cheap to bribe still rings true
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
Perez trying to get out in front of the ratfuck story. https://twitter.com/TomPerez/status/1223386600555646979
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:36
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Warren's biggest self-own was almost certainly the "I support M4A but I don't support the payroll taxes required to fund it and no I can't tell you what we're going to do instead" thing that played out over a couple debates and news cycles in the fall. She got her pie eaten by PETE of all people. It's all been a slow drift downhill since then, and in recent weeks she's resorted to increasingly self-destructive tactics (the "Bernie is sexist" leak, the pivot to more idpol and less "big structural change" in voter outreach in Iowa, etc.) I did get a kick out of the PLANS candidate having a universal healthcare plan that was only 2/3 funded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/tomperez/status/1223386600555646979?s=21
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
I just read the politico article and it sounds like the DNC people pushing this are actually looking for a rules reversion in 2024 and think a Bernie nomination would be enough to get the DNC to restore the superdelegates to full power. So they're hoping for something like: a Bernie nom leading to a Bernie general loss to Trump, at which point they go "see?? Told you the proles would gently caress it up!" and then they get their previous status back for 2024 now that the left is suitably cowed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
I also wonder if they leaked an obviously stupid rule change to try to deflect from the actual stupid rule change over the debates. This is probably giving the DNC far more credit than it deserves for its ability to plan
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
How can the Democratic party machine be this loving inept even when it's trying to gently caress someone over before the primaries start? It boggles the mind, but offers a lot of explanations for why the GOP still exists...
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
Honestly the DNC should be hoping for a Bernie nom that loses to Trump because that would devastate the left for a generation
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Bloomberg didn't just buy himself some decent poll numbers - he also slipped the DNC several hundred thousand bucks. I wonder if that has anything to do with why they're willing to change the rules for him after telling a bunch of upstart outsiders to get hosed. ah but we have no way of knowing this was the reason, there was no explicit quid pro quo, maybe they would have done it anyway and he gave them the money just to be nice etc etc
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:43
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Perez trying to get out in front of the ratfuck story. Sure would be a lot more convincing if they hadn't within the last 24 hours changed their rules to let the billionaire into the debates after vociferously denying calls to change the rules to allow a climate debate, a poverty debate, or to ensure diversity on the debate stage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:43
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:I just read the politico article and it sounds like the DNC people pushing this are actually looking for a rules reversion in 2024 and think a Bernie nomination would be enough to get the DNC to restore the superdelegates to full power. Why would anyone float a 2024 change right now? There's no way they aren't just testing the waters for either changing the rules or how well a 2nd round ratfuck would play. That they don't understand any of these would rip up the party sure is something. E: then again with so many of the awful lobbyist, business folk, and political types that fill the DNC, they probably don't give a gently caress as they could just hop to the republicans
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:ah but we have no way of knowing this was the reason, there was no explicit quid pro quo, maybe they would have done it anyway and he gave them the money just to be nice etc etc Chief Justice John Roberts??
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:44
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:Sure would be a lot more convincing if they hadn't within the last 24 hours changed their rules to let the billionaire into the debates after vociferously denying calls to change the rules to allow a climate debate, a poverty debate, or to ensure diversity on the debate stage. Or if Perez hadn't nominated ghouls and dead-enders for all the positions in the DNC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:Why would anyone float a 2024 change right now? There's no way they aren't just testing the waters for either changing the rules or how well a 2nd round ratfuck would play. They think the leftists are going to go away when Trump does. The DNC elites are frighteningly out of touch with the grass roots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:46
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:Chief Justice John Roberts?? You didn't really think I was paying attention to the trial did you
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
I'm working with the SC Sanders team and am loving exhausted. Support us. Please. Thank you for all donations. As much work as I've done for the campaign lately, yall are probably in part paying my mortgage. Without that support I wouldn't be able to push as hard as I am right now. We've flipped so many people but there's so many more to go. Pizza party tomorrow, though (and not with campaign funds).
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:They think the leftists are going to go away when Trump does. It's one hell of a mix of hubris, delusion, and cynical power grabbing. I suppose also how inept all their leaders are that nobody can slap some reality into them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:Honestly the DNC should be hoping for a Bernie nom that loses to Trump because that would devastate the left for a generation
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
Fluffy Bunnies posted:Pizza party tomorrow, though (and not with campaign funds). IMHO campaign funds should be ok to buy pizza for the proletariat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Perez trying to get out in front of the ratfuck story. I truly hate this loving idiot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
bowser posted:https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1223344642059534337?s=20 lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
snorch posted:IMHO campaign funds should be ok to buy pizza for the proletariat. Pizza is the most communist food. It comes evenly divided to be distributed as equally as possible among the people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:Why would anyone float a 2024 change right now? There's no way they aren't just testing the waters for either changing the rules or how well a 2nd round ratfuck would play. I have a sneaking suspicion that the point of this had nothing to do with actually changing the rules. The point was to put out a story that Bernie can't win, because they won't allow it. Because they both believe in their power and the feeble mental ability of the voters. They think that they can scare people out of voting Bernie, because not only can't he win but even getting close will destroy the party. That seems like more the brand of stupid that rules the DNC and the 3rd Way. They don't want to actually ratfuck Bernie directly, because that would be bad and just not how things are done. But doing it indirectly, while pretending that no such thing ever actually happened? Well, that's just the type of stupid that gets you wanting to once again empower the minority if you take power in the Senate or pass a funding bill with the assurance that Donny pinky swears he'll stop being a monster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Perez trying to get out in front of the ratfuck story. Unless Bloomberg slips them a few hundred grand more for the grift, of course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 01:06
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I have a sneaking suspicion that the point of this had nothing to do with actually changing the rules. The point was to put out a story that Bernie can't win, because they won't allow it. Because they both believe in their power and the feeble mental ability of the voters. They think that they can scare people out of voting Bernie, because not only can't he win but even getting close will destroy the party. Another case of what the gently caress are they trying to do with this impossibly stupid maneuver that has no upside. Gotta hand it to them though, they're impressively bad at everything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 01:09
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Pizza is the most communist food. It comes evenly divided to be distributed as equally as possible among the people. From each according to their ability to pay for pizza, to each according to their need for pizza
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 01:10
|
|
|
Had a nice chat with my mom today on a long drive back from a client's site. She's a boomer in her early 70s, white Jewish middle-class lady on a teacher's pension, always votes D, but relatively averse to change like most boomers, pro-Israel (and won't believe me when I tell her criticizing Israel isn't necessarily antisemetic), and distrustful of M4A. Almost the first thing she said to me when we talked about politics is "Biden's not gonna beat him." She was a Hillary champion and I expected her to be in his camp, but no. She said he seems like a nice guy but he's terrible on stage, doesn't know what he's doing. "Maybe 20 years ago," she said, "but his time is done." It makes me  a little to know that Biden might be looking like a poor choice to even the comfortable white centrist boomers. We talked a little about Bernie and I told her I didn't know how he was gonna pay for college, but I dispelled a lot of her concerns about M4A -- it's really a lot of misinformation like "I won't get to see my doctor" that seems to worry people. And she said she would vote for him. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 01:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GravelInstitute/status/1223345215404199944?s=19
the_steve fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Feb 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
I understand the frustration, but accepting this framing is bullshit. Bloomberg isn't accepting donations, he knows the debate qualification rules. If anything, the donor requirement protected him from having to be on stage with Bernie. Can you imagine how good it would be for Bernie to be able to contrast himself against Mike loving Bloomberg? Tom Steyer is trying to be Bernie's friend and always says "I agree with Bernie," so the contrast doesn't work there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2020 01:23
|
|
