|
Who will you vote for in 2020? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Biden |
|
425 | 18.06% |
| Trump |
|
105 | 4.46% |
| whoever the Green Party runs |
|
307 | 13.05% |
| GOOGLE RON PAUL |
|
151 | 6.42% |
| Bernie Sanders |
|
346 | 14.70% |
| Stalin |
|
246 | 10.45% |
| Satan |
|
300 | 12.75% |
| Nobody |
|
202 | 8.58% |
| Jess Scarane |
|
110 | 4.67% |
| mystery man Brian Carroll of the American Solidarity Party |
|
61 | 2.59% |
| Dick Nixon |
|
100 | 4.25% |
| Total: | 2089 votes | ||
|
StratGoatCom posted:That is kind of best case scenario. I mean the dirty secret about this poo poo in the UK is their people are using EXTREMELY American talking points/tricks. People saying it's bad one of the nation's most famous children's writers seems to have nothing but hate and violence in her heart for trans people? That's a cancel culture. Me going on national news to ask if the transes are going to strap down every tomboy they see and shove testosterone injections into her veins? That's just asking questions, we're having a free debate here! Trying to get funding pulled from charities that help kids? It's actually to protect kids, really. Focusing debates around if parents should get a veto on their kids coming out, using insane situations like 'the trans lobby wants to give any little girl that plays with trucks hormone blockers'? That's some good old family values being protected baby! UK style tefery is just US style homophobia and racism and it's gonna come back home soon, and as it seems now the current VP and president will welcome it.
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 16:27 |
|
|
The thing about "but they were running in safe blue districts!", even if it were true, is that it still makes no sense strategically. The Democratic party has not generally been running democratic socialist candidates in the last twenty years, and those red districts are red on the failures of "safe" centrist candidates. The Dem establishment running these republican-lite candidates over and over and losing over and over in conservative districts exposes the insane anti-logic* of their electoral strategy, something that should be roundly refuted by Trump's performance with Republicans this year. You won't win trying to trick or cajole people into voting for a watered down version of the real article they could just as easily vote for. You'll be much more successful energizing and mobilizing the people that might want to vote for you. *I should point out that it's only so bizarre on its own terms. It makes perfect sense from the materialist perspective of the wealthy party leadership managing and diffusing any possible challenge to their donor networks and capital in general. World War Mammories posted:data does not support this claim Thank you for this. StratGoatCom posted:There is a genuine risk of UK style terfery jumping the pond into that receptive culture. 100% going to happen and people should be prepared for it. TERF poo poo is at the crux of reactionary positions that self-identified Democrats largely have but really don't like to admit AND the "it's good, actually" poo poo that's already coming out now that the K-hive psychopaths are slithering out into the daylight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:Isn’t it that there are two hypotheses and nobody really knows yet which is correct? Well the centrist hypothesis is more strictly: we lost because of socialism. The counter from people like AOC is: you run poo poo campaigns. Also you run on bad policy, but even without the bad policy your campaigns are trash fires designed to burn money. But my larger point is that we wouldn't even be talking about this if a bunch of centrists and Lincoln Project ghouls weren't out there shrieking about how socialism is the Great Destroyer and it's why poor Claire McCaskill is trapped in purgatory to this day, unable to leave her chair at MSNBC. And on COVID talk, I asked yesterday if anyone had heard a peep about Harris's vaunted $2k/month. Did more digging since then but still haven't found anything since she got the VP pick. I wouldn't be surprised if another one-time check made it into the next negotiations but the idea of monthly checks seems to have vanished into the ether, and even single checks under Biden is potentially a non-starter if the Dems don't catch the hail mary and win two special elections in Georgia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 16:23
|
|
|
World War Mammories posted:data does not support this claim *The first chart is simple and might convey the idea better to a lot of people, but the added data in the second chart makes the argument a lot more convincing to wonkier people, I think. ** It's very possible that vocal support from the top of the ticket, or from the reps themselves, for M4A could've blunted this underperformance. Very possible! StratGoatCom posted:https://twitter.com/ThomasIsOnline/status/1325278101111250944
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 16:35
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:If 10% of lovely Kamala stans are TERF bigots on twitter and nobody gives a poo poo, is it a politically relevant issue? I think there is a large amount of meaningful evidence that the President-elect views trans people very positively, and that's a lot more relevant to how this administration is going to go than a weird sub-category of KHivers. Let's see! TERFs are clearly emboldened by the discriminatory example set by Harris' past actions in a similar way chuds were with Trump. The UK should be seen as a warning that you should not underestimate their ability to get the media on their side and snowball even a tiny amount of leverage into active hate campaigns. It's easy to miss just how precarious the current baseline of trans acceptance really is if you don't have to deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:
What is this 'large amount of evidence' other than meaningless words and a story or two of him not treating his peers with active disdain for being trans? Kamala has a record, it's one of massive violence against trans people, and he liked it enough to reward her with VP despite her being maybe the most meaningless and useless person in the primary field by the time things were done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 16:44
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:This chart is a huge improvement on the first*, and does much more to convincingly suggest that M4A is not a losing issue. I did notice one error on it; Powell is listed as the [former] rep for FL-29 when it's actually FL-26. (Florida only has 27 US House districts.) The FL-26 and FL-27 results, where M4A-opposing candidates lost what had been solidly Democratic districts, have some confounding factors with general underperformance in the South Florida area by the Democratic ticket**, but even if you throw them out it's still pretty clear that M4A isn't a big drag on candidates in swing districts. Nor should we expect it to be, as the policy is broadly popular. The vice president put trans women in mens prisons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 16:44
|
|
|
CYBEReris posted:TERFs are clearly emboldened by the discriminatory example set by Harris' past actions in a similar way chuds were with Trump. The UK should be seen as a warning that you should not underestimate their ability to get the media on their side and snowball even a tiny amount of leverage into active hate campaigns. It's easy to miss just how precarious the current baseline of trans acceptance really is if you don't have to deal with it. Yeah. I think it's worth keeping an eye on, especially considering the really awful way T and Q gets treated by even some LGB liberals. That said, I'm down with leaving twitter randos out of this thread lest we have another "adult tries to bully 13 y/o, fails" incident. e. also....what evidence? she added her pronouns to twitter, and keeping with the admonishment against taking twitter seriously, that means nothing to me. only evidence I see is the "putting trans women in men's prisons" as mentioned ad nauseum (because the idea is literally nauseating) Famethrowa fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Nov 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 16:46
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:What is this 'large amount of evidence' other than meaningless words and a story or two of him not treating his peers with active disdain for being trans? Kamala has a record, it's one of massive violence against trans people, and he liked it enough to reward her with VP despite her being maybe the most meaningless and useless person in the primary field by the time things were done. As for Kamala's lovely action towards trans women as AG - obviously it's bad. But I think it's bad more in the way that she doesn't give a poo poo about trans rights than that she's actively opposed to them. It would've been a political headache for her to put trans women in the correct prisons, so she just punted on it, which is disgraceful and clearly put women's lives in danger! But I think she's more in the category of the Bors comic where the Democratic politicians sweatily wait for 57% support before enthusiastically jumping on board with the issue, rather than somebody who's an actual TERF. This isn't saying that Harris is a good person, it's far from it - it's saying that she was too much of a coward to stand up for people who desperately needed her help. It's a huge black mark on her character. It's definitely a reason to campaign against her seemingly-inevitable coronation in 2024. But it doesn't mean she's going to be bad on the issue forever. As far as trans rights go I'm glad she's not President right now because I think she would continue to not give a poo poo about the issue and cave to what is currently popular opinion, as she perceives it. But she's not the President right now, Joe Biden is, and I hope over the next four years we can continue to make massive progress on general public acceptance of trans people, and by the time her power grows (if it does), it'll be easier for her to do the right thing. Like I said, let's see. Some people in this thread like to make really strong, uncompromising predictions about the future, and I think it's clear that I'm not one of them. I'm prepared to be wrong on this, but I think there's real reason for optimism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 16:56
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Right, but the anecdotal evidence suggesting Biden is pro-trans rights isn't something that he made as a political pitch. It's in privately supporting Danica Roem, it's in calling it the next big civil rights issue to the horror of the Obama administration, it's in mentioning it in his acceptance speech when he absolutely didn't have any conservative-electoral reason to do so. so basically when I asked for the 'large amount of evidence' YOU claimed there was, which should ideally be more than just saying nice words and not being actively bigoted to someone who's his peer, you just relisted those things and said 'look maybe he just picked someone who didn't care about the harm she did to trans people not someone who actively WANTED to harm them'? FEELIN SAFE.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 16:59
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:so basically when I asked for the 'large amount of evidence' YOU claimed there was, which should ideally be more than just saying nice words and not being actively bigoted to someone who's his peer, you just relisted those things and said 'look maybe he just picked someone who didn't care about the harm she did to trans people not someone who actively WANTED to harm them'? It would've been nice if Biden did consider trans rights when selecting his VP, but he didn't check "was a dick to trans prisoners" off as a box in his "pro" column when he selected her. We should also recognize that Joe Biden presumably had many private conversations with Harris before he selected her, and probably knows her actual current-day views on the issue more clearly than we can divine from 5-10 year old actions as AG. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Yes, I'm more genuinely concerned about Harris's apparently positive view of the carceral state. That's endemic to prosecutor-types and an issue I actually believe she's on the wrong side of. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Nov 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:07
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:so basically when I asked for the 'large amount of evidence' YOU claimed there was, which should ideally be more than just saying nice words and not being actively bigoted to someone who's his peer, you just relisted those things and said 'look maybe he just picked someone who didn't care about the harm she did to trans people not someone who actively WANTED to harm them'? I mean her office also argued that releasing people from prison early to reduce the unconstitutional overcrowding of CA prisons shouldn't be allowed because it would threaten CA's state-controlled slave population and isn't having lots of slaves to fight wildfires for free a public good worth preserving, then went shocked_pikachu.png when called out on it later. This isn't to change the subject away from her record on trans rights, just to point out that no one should feel safer with them in power because neither she nor Joe have any record of caring about human life and the ways in which our society and government actively destroy it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:09
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Honestly, I don't think Joe Biden wasn't thinking about trans rights at all when he picked Harris. It's not exactly a flagship issue for her. She didn't make suppressing trans rights part of her campaign platform as a Senate candidate or a presidential candidate. so we agree then, despite Joe saying meaningless platitudes and one story existing of him not calling a trans woman a slur at his son's funeral when it came time to pick the second chair in his campaign he was so far from thinking about trans rights he picked someone who's office actively abused and oppressed them under her, almost as if he isn't actually in any way to be trusted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:11
|
|
|
What's relevant is that Harris' base is people who think they're progressive because they're voting for a black woman, while being conservative and regressive on a whole host of issues. I don't expect Harris to promote any anti-transgender bills, but she doesn't need to. She's a conservative and I expect her to govern as such, to the extent that she governs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:16
|
|
|
And, as I've said, if they want to get rid of something stinking her up before 2020... their gambit with #MeToo worked. Between that and the terven success at working the media overseas, let alone the suburbs... we have the makings of a real and big problem on our hands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:18
|
|
|
I do think this is one issue Biden is personally OK on, but I don't think that that personal stance translates much if at all to the leadership/party, as vividly illustrated by his Harris pick. The dems courting traditionally republican voters combined with their tacit disdain for trans people is a volatile mix. The dems have already shown they'll sacrifice anything on the altar of electability. They're probably not gonna run on outright terf poo poo but any kind of progress or protections will get shouted down as a "losing issue" (which it actually might be for do nothing dems with a conservative base, as it's a big culture war issue and they have no actual material policy or successes to buoy them). There's already been some grumblings to that effect iirc. So at best things remain as they are (awful) and otherwise trans people get thrown under the bus yet again as part of a dogshit "compromise" for tax credits or w/e. witchy fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Nov 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:18
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:so we agree then, despite Joe saying meaningless platitudes and one story existing of him not calling a trans woman a slur at his son's funeral when it came time to pick the second chair in his campaign he was so far from thinking about trans rights he picked someone who's office actively abused and oppressed them under her, almost as if he isn't actually in any way to be trusted. I don't think there's a terribly compelling reason to be skeptical of his views right now. But ultimately our personal opinions on Biden's thoughts are meaningless. We have to see what he does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
https://prospect.org/economy/biden-poised-to-name-ron-klain-janet-yellen-to-key-positions/ that treasury secretary you liked is back, in pog form
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:23
|
|
|
kitten emergency posted:https://prospect.org/economy/biden-poised-to-name-ron-klain-janet-yellen-to-key-positions/ Yellen was Fed chair, not Treasury Secretary. Very different jobs, although I grant that they tend to attract the same kind of people. Interestingly, Yellen is an economist who had an academic background before she got she became a major player in monetary policy, not someone who worked in the finance industry. There are a lot of question marks in her policy preferences (as working for the Fed only puts you on record for a very small sliver of issues), but appointing Yellen would be much, much better than appointing Jamie Dimon or some other Tim Geitner-type Wall Street guy. She also has the most boring, dry, academic speaking style of any public figure I've ever heard, which doesn't really say anything about whether she'd be a good Treasury Secretary but is something I enjoy immensely on a personal level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:30
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:some junk Lemme help you out here: THIS: quote:As for Kamala's lovely action towards trans women as AG - obviously it's bad. But I think it's bad more in the way that she doesn't give a poo poo about trans rights than that she's actively opposed to them. It would've been a political headache for her to put trans women in the correct prisons, so she just punted on it, which is disgraceful and clearly put women's lives in danger! carries vastly more weight than this: quote:It's in privately supporting Danica Roem, it's in calling it the next big civil rights issue to the horror of the Obama administration, it's in mentioning it in his acceptance speech when he absolutely didn't have any conservative-electoral reason to do so. If Biden really cared about trans rights then Kamala's actions as AG should have alone disqualified her from VP consideration. Evrart Claire fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Nov 9, 2020 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:34
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Yellen was Fed chair, not Treasury Secretary. Very different jobs, although I grant that they tend to attract the same kind of people. as long as it's not summers i guess. this would be 2-for-2 on getting proposed and shot down for the job i believe, which is amusing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
Zerilan posted:Lemme help you out here: Wait you mean actions matter more than nice cheap words?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:41
|
|
|
Klain and Yellen would both be uncontroversial picks. Neither is going to get the left's ire too high, and neither of them should be particularly objectionable even to a Republican-controlled Senate if Biden is looking for easy nominations (also assuming a GOP Senate wouldn't just stonewall literally everything).
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:41
|
|
|
biden to provide material support for trans people: $10 rebate on gender affirming surgery for trans programmers who own a fracking company
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:46
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Wait you mean actions matter more than nice cheap words? Mellow Seas posted:But ultimately our personal opinions on Biden's thoughts are meaningless. We have to see what he does. kitten emergency posted:as long as it's not summers i guess. this would be 2-for-2 on getting proposed and shot down for the job i believe, which is amusing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:47
|
|
|
Selecting Kamala Harris as a running mate doesn't count as action here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:If 10% of lovely Kamala stans are TERF bigots on twitter and nobody gives a poo poo, is it a politically relevant issue? I think there is a large amount of meaningful evidence that the President-elect views trans people very positively, and that's a lot more relevant to how this administration is going to go than a weird sub-category of KHivers. Let's see! My sister is a trans woman which is part of the reason that, yes, terfs being emboldened by our new lovely vp’s actual-factual record of violence against trans people does concern me
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
this might be a little glib on my part, but: if the centrist plan is to double down on moving right, they're sooner or later going to run out of economic distinctions from the Republican party and are going to have to start jettisoning the least-well-polling minority issues, especially if they're excising left minority positions within a party structure that still tries to capture the minority vote. You're left with in-fact conservatives that still very strongly identify as Democrats and hate -- but hold mostly identical positions to -- Republicans: just like the K-hive
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
Battle-lines are being drawn for the cabinet fight: https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1325838653701156867?s=20 If Rahm does get a post that will be a very clear "gently caress you" to the left, given Rahm's tendency to literally say "gently caress you" to the left at every opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
TERFs getting a seat at the table happens less because Kamala was bad about trans stuff when she was top cop and a whole lot more like McCaskill getting zero pushback or reprimand from the party leadership or anybody else present for her comments There's going to be a rapidly growing number of people in the party who are desperately seeking some reason why their ideology is failing and being rejected who are absolutely prepared to elevate "actually its trans people and commies' fault" even though not a single one of the TERFs worming their way into the power structures will even be voting for Dems lol If Dems don't take both GA seats you're going to see a whole lot of people getting big platforms to Just Ask Questions about being too open-minded and maybe the voters rejected our guys because bathroom panic
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:this might be a little glib on my part, but: if the centrist plan is to double down on moving right, they're sooner or later going to run out of economic distinctions from the Republican party and are going to have to start jettisoning the least-well-polling minority issues, especially if they're excising left minority positions within a party structure that still tries to capture the minority vote. You're left with in-fact conservatives that still very strongly identify as Democrats and hate -- but hold mostly identical positions to -- Republicans: just like the K-hive Trump's win was as a (fake) populist and the neoliberal-with-regressive-attitudes wing of the Republican party is losing ground to the populist/explicit racism/QAnon wing of the party every day. What's happened is that Democrats are abandoning their traditional working class base in favor of trying to cater to the part of the old Republican base that thinks Trump is icky, while the Republicans are starting to pick up segments of that traditional base by telling them that their (real) material impoverishment is the result of (fake) causes that the Democrats won't address (ignoring the actual causes that the Democrats won't address). So instead of a Democratic coalition of working class people, minorities, and neoliberal pride flag capitalists and their minions vs a Republican coalition of racists and neoconservative non-pride flag capitalists, you get a Democratic coalition of ascendant capitalists (ex: tech moguls) and the PMC vs a Republican coalition of retreating capitalists (ex: fossil fuel tycoons) and a fully nationalist working class with a heavy coat of white supremacy being strung along by them. Left and minority issues get fully blown out the airlock. E: Epic High Five posted:TERFs getting a seat at the table happens less because Kamala was bad about trans stuff when she was top cop and a whole lot more like McCaskill getting zero pushback or reprimand from the party leadership or anybody else present for her comments It's the same picture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:this might be a little glib on my part, but: if the centrist plan is to double down on moving right, they're sooner or later going to run out of economic distinctions from the Republican party and are going to have to start jettisoning the least-well-polling minority issues, especially if they're excising left minority positions within a party structure that still tries to capture the minority vote. You're left with in-fact conservatives that still very strongly identify as Democrats and hate -- but hold mostly identical positions to -- Republicans: just like the K-hive Reading the K-hive as the new Black Republican contingent feels very accurate. This is especially true because conservatives rally support by punching downwards. In this case, they're dragging the LGBTQ community downwards so they can step on their heads to climb up. It perfectly grafts onto the fascist "culture/race war" narrative. And you may notice the Democrats doing to same to the Spanish-speaking community; Trump-style targeting proved successful, and so the Democrats are following suit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 18:12
|
|
|
kitten emergency posted:https://prospect.org/economy/biden-poised-to-name-ron-klain-janet-yellen-to-key-positions/ while it's still entrail-reading, Klain and Yellen both seem fine
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
World War Mammories posted:data does not support this claim
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
NoDamage posted:Where did this image come from? Compiled by the DSA, and added to by their twitter follower https://twitter.com/DemSocialists/status/1325237843195797504/photo/1 here's the sourcing https://twitter.com/minvskv/status/1325713546974556160 Famethrowa fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Nov 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
fancy stats posted:Selecting Kamala Harris as a running mate doesn't count as action here? Let's be real here. There are two reasons that Biden chose Harris. 1. She was the DNC's original choice in the first place, so this backdoors her into the White House and all but guarantees that she's the nominee in 2024 without that pesky primary process getting in the way. 2. She checks the IDPOL demographic boxes that suburban white women LOVE to clap and Yaaas Kween about, so that way the liberals who weren't entirely swayed by the comprehensive platform of "Joe Biden is not Trump" would still have incentive to come out and vote when they otherwise may have just stayed home. It's one thing to vote against Trump, everybody was doing that, but to be able to toot your own horn about helping elect the first WOC vice president? They weren't going to miss that chance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Let's be real here. There are two reasons that Biden chose Harris. Not gonna' lie, I've seen a ton of #2 on social media lately. Like, more suburban white ladies are way happier about Kalama being VP than Joe Biden being the P, for that exist reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
the_steve posted:2. She checks the IDPOL demographic boxes that suburban white women LOVE to clap and Yaaas Kween about, so that way the liberals who weren't entirely swayed by the comprehensive platform of "Joe Biden is not Trump" would still have incentive to come out and vote when they otherwise may have just stayed home. It's one thing to vote against Trump, everybody was doing that, but to be able to toot your own horn about helping elect the first WOC vice president? They weren't going to miss that chance. I had the privilege of watching the race get called while I was visiting my fiance's brother and his wife, who is both A) a white woman who grew up in blue-leaning, white suburbs in pronounced affluence and B) a public defender. It was interesting to watch her struggle to resolve the "yaas kween" impulses you refer to with her understanding that prosecutors are absolutely cops, and bad people, and hostile to the left. (She was very aware of this conflict and open about it.) Celebrating the symbolic victory of Harris's position seemed more prominent on Saturday, but in a "let's just enjoy the moment" kind of way rather than a "Harris is good, actually" kind of way. It's also notable, of course, that this is a person who intentionally decided to go into public defense as a profession, and so somebody who is way left of the Democratic Party in general on criminal justice issues, but it was still fun to watch that conflict play out in real time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 19:35
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Let's be real here. There are two reasons that Biden chose Harris. My distinct impression, including anecdotally from talking to, uh, actual DNC members and party insiders in Texas, is that "the DNC" and "the establishment" were pretty split. Harris was the clintonworld pick, as evidenced by her campaign being full of Hillary's finest morons, but saying that the entire establishment preferred her over, say, the recent vice president and 50-year senator is a bit... simplistic. warren and butt also had noticeable support among less-lefty Texas democratic officials but I'm willing to grant that the warren part may be a little unusual She was also a notionally progressive senator, which Biden may have thought would help shore up his left cred lol, a reasonably charismatic speaker, and non-ancient. My Bass Mass energy aside, Harris was always the most likely pick, and not just for stupid shallow reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 16:27 |
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:She was also [...] a reasonably charismatic speaker... now, de gustibus non est disputandum and all, but I cannot imagine thinking this e: in unrelated news to get around the post timer and also not to double post: https://twitter.com/thrasherxy/status/1325865699533856768 https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1325838653701156867 the claim that rahm emanuel is on the outs within the democratic party leadership keeps getting made and I still don't understand why World War Mammories fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Nov 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 19:48
|
|