|
Bernie _______ This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| would've won! |
|
87 | 34.52% |
| has won! |
|
45 | 17.86% |
| will win! |
|
56 | 22.22% |
| is winning! |
|
64 | 25.40% |
| Total: | 124 votes | ||
|
Hillary warned you (about poo poo she would have also done, but with less bad press about it).
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 09:28 |
|
|
ikanreed posted:Man, while Hillary is bad, "both sides are bad" remains bullshit. Obviously Hillary wouldn't do everything Trump is doing, but she'd be fine with plenty of it and Democrats would actively defend horrible poo poo like mass deportation and war if it was her doing it. Yes, she would be less bad, absolutely, that's part of why I voted for her in the general (mostly that SCOTUS seat though) but it would also come with less criticism of the parts where Hillary's and Republican's shittiness overlap. I'm sorry that I was being too reductionist in my shitpost so it came across as a blanket BOTH SIDES BAD message when I was trying to focus on Hillary specifically being terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
karthun posted:No, Al Gore was well to the left of Bush, those Democratic voters were far to the right of Bush. They were southern white supremacists who supported Jim Crow. They would have proudly voted for trump. And Heaps of Sheeps thinks we need to bring them back into the Democratic tent; gently caress that ,gently caress them and gently caress him. Nobody in this thread is making that argument, they're only being brought up as a counter to the narrative about how third party voters are at fault for democrat losses. After all, how can you attack third party voters when your own party members are voting directly against you? It wasn't meant to be a discussion about who's votes to chase but an argument about why attacking third party voters specifically doesn't make much sense.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 03:43
|
|