|
Cerebral Bore posted:Warren apparently forgot that you at least have to try hiding the pandering a little. It's a bad idea, but I think it's a bit dodgy to call it pandering. It's a bad idea because you're using one person of a certain identity to represent a whole identity, and as anyone running for President really ought to know, political rhetoric aside, you can't represent 100% of a group 100% of the time. Like if her young transgender advisor is Blaire White, then what's the loving point. ratbert90 posted:News dude has a video for boomers. This guy does a really good impression of old TDS, but the video is longer than most LWT main segments. He needs to learn to speed it up, because you don't need to come up with three different ways of saying that Pete is inoffensive to boomers to get to the part where he's a fraud. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Jan 31, 2020 |
#
¿
Jan 31, 2020 13:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
Nebalebadingdong posted:What is a satellite caucus? Applying a bandaid to a system that sucks instead of using another system. Everything about people on social media making fun of that Warren person pretty much highlights the problem with caucuses, barring (perhaps?) the app-based caucus that I plan to try this year. I should be able to file a vote in a democracy without risking becoming a meme.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
I hate conspiracy theories on both the right and the left, and I think man has yet to make a political tool that wasn’t built by someone with a political affiliation. But, I have been beating this “caucuses are bad” drum and I will keep beating it, because this system is supposed to address some of my complaints with the process and it failed tremendously. This will be my third caucus (if the app bothers to count me.) Caucuses are bad. Primary elections overseen by the department of elections and subject to fraud laws beat state parties basically running a private function. One that’s sometimes decided by coin flips and (in Nevada) drawing cards.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 08:03
|
|
|
Has NH ever been taken to court over that law? I’d kind of like to see a state do the same thing just to make a court invalidate both of them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 08:22
|
|
|
Good luck finding any developer with no political preferences. Let me know when you find one.cowofwar posted:Sure but these ballots aren't actual per caucuser records right? They're just tabulated counts of the first realignment and final count right? As this program will roll out in Nevada, I can speak from what I know we’ll be doing here: it’s a ranked choice thing. You are required to list your preferences of at least three candidates and, I think, up to five. Getting ballots of each caucuser shouldn’t be all that hard.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 09:03
|
|
|
Vichan posted:I'm not inclined towards conspiracies at all but Jesus loving Christ. This kind of thing shouldn't surprise any caucus veterans. In 2016, my caucus determined how many delegates there were going to be but everyone took off before the organizer could ask who was going to represent them at the county/state convention. (This became a regional/national fracas when Bernie won the county convention due to the Hillary delegates forgetting to show and represent their precincts like they said they would, and then the state party made a rapid voice vote to make it clear that caucus day results were what really matters and that the subsequent conventions are basically formalities.) This was the same year a YouTuber went to another caucus and watched the guy organizing fail to record it properly and try in futility to ask everyone to stop leaving. Weirdly enough, our Republican party went to paper ballot ranked choice caucusing so that this stupid "count the people in the room" and "argue with your neighbors about policy, electability, etc" pointlessness is generally cut out. Once you don't have to physically stand together on one side of a room like a bunch of kindergartners poo poo improves. EDIT: Gunthen posted:58. Fifty eight Bernie sanders delegates were decertified from the Nevada caucus costing him the state in 2016. After he won the second round of delegates, they changed the rules to only count the first tier. This is the event I was talking about. Hillary won the larger share of delegates on caucus day, but the (generally older in my precinct) people in her corner who said they'd go to the county convention downtown in two weeks did not; they failed to remember and/or appear while the Sanders delegates made the effort to go downtown and be physically present. Therefore, Sanders had more delegates being counted at a convention than Clinton despite having fewer delegates on caucus day. This is not representative of the will of the voters, per se, because the people who were supposed to carry out the will of the voters were simply not reliable. Therefore, Sanders should win by the shoddily-written letter of the law, and the chair decided that the rules are just guidelines and can be bent if it's going to upset how regular non-delegate voters were represented. This whole procedure relies upon people putting aside their daily lives to go volunteer for not just themselves but on behalf of other people in their general vicinity. It's loving stupid and needs to go, because while it's good that Bernie does have devoted people the whole thing is run by the establishment and is meant to demand so much of normal people that they step aside and let party elites, old boys, the well connected, etc run the things for them. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Feb 4, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 12:28
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I can't think of anything a caucus accomplishes that isn't accomplished better by an instant runoff voting system. Still, the problem tonight wasn't caucus, it was app. The app is being given a go, at least in my state, in response to criticism that the caucus populace tends old retirees and workers from one industry that have on-site caucuses. So, the app's existence is due to how poo poo the caucus fundamentally is. Like they're rolling the app out at various libraries and high schools in the week before the traditional caucus because previously, if you couldn't show up then, you were hosed. BigBallChunkyTime posted:Ok, just getting up and haven't had coffee. What's the Cliff's notes version of this clusterfuck? Apparently there was a technical malfunction for this virtual caucus app some states are using, fortunately it uses a paper trail so they're hand counting it but in the meantime people are noticing that people from the firm that made it have connections in the Pete campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 13:45
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:You don't have to go full conspiracy to acknowledge that the app's developers have, on top of extreme incompetence, a clear and huge conflict of interest that absolutely shouldn't have been allowed to happen. We still don't know what actually happened. mr whistler posted:I actually like Bernie but goddamn why does everything that is even possibly slightly negatively bad for him a massive illuminati conspiracy on here. I don't know if it's so much illuminati, the parties are increasingly making their own in-house tech firms, and the people who are likely to run them have been "in the trenches" of past campaigns. The only conspiracy like thing is that people jump to conclusions and assume that anyone who had anything to do with Obama 2008 (which, face it, kind of produced the modern online campaign blueprint) was personally directing him to sign lovely legislation and asking if they could push the button to drone-strike someone, and would kill their mother to stop Bernie. Part of the reason they do this, I'm guessing, is that big tech companies who know what they're doing don't want to take on the possible liability of a hosed up election.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 13:54
|
|
|
Last I looked, the most detailed look we've gotten at what went wrong, was an IADems person on the phone calling it, "human error atop technical error."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 14:04
|
|
|
"Oh, uh, you can also see Bloomberg at zero percent."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
The likelihood that Bernie wins is very high. The likelihood that he wins without any convention drama is low. You guys who are this worried about one state that's mostly white people in corn fields need to sit down, because it's a long ride.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
Bernie probably not winning Nevada for the reason I long suspected: https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1225863200693837824 To recap, the union representing most of the waitress/bartenders you meet when you go to Vegas is one of the most powerful political forces in the state, and thinks they’ll lose influence and growth if their health plan isn’t better than what’s offered non-union. As Nevada is a caucus state and the casinos on the Strip hold special caucus precincts so members can vote without having to leave work, it means if you go against the union’s wishes you have to do so publicly and likely in front of other union members/leaders. The facets of the Reid machine are tight with Culinary, so Bernie’s best bet is the early voting private polling system which is... currently a kind of a mess thanks to Shadow. They’re going to do some electronic thing and require you to fill out your own paperwork as well.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Also, even if the Butt prevails, take heart that he will get absolutely obliterated in the general and we can all be smug for 4 years. While it’s all well and good to criticize Pete, please don’t divide Democrats with rhetoric like this. It’s fine to feel Pete is bad, but let’s not pretend a second term for Trump is in any sense a victory.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Not voting for DNC candidates for as long as the DNC takes its present form. Sorry not sorry. So the last time I argued the opposite of this, I was reminded there was a rule against that sort of thing. I think it should apply both ways. Also, "sorry not sorry" is a little less sincere than just writing, "gently caress you."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2020 22:46
|
|
|
I think at this point Yang needs to drop out and endorse Bernie. If he doesn't, he's hurting his signature issue more than if he stays in. As a hanger-on candidate goes, the boost should be significant.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
I just want to say that while I don’t like Pete because he speaks in platitudes and vision statements that almost never address the issue at hand, there is a purpose behind his campaign organization that is being discounted. The guy can not expect the donations of the lower classes, or the votes of any stipe of church. Even though my income puts me more in the same side of the class war with blue collar plumbers and the like, I gravitate socially to people with more education and far more income than I do. The are usually less likely to hate me. That’s not to excuse Pete’s vapid speeches or the problems in his city. It’s that I’d expect any gay candidate to hold pricey fundraisers in the hills. The elites aren’t as devout to the Old Testament.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2020 08:26
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:You ever think the problem might be you? Based on your posting history i'd go in that direction rather than blame "this superstitious poors". The gently caress all does my posting history have to do with it? I’d probably be hospitalized as a teen if I grew up in the Bible Belt.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2020 08:37
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Those 'elites' will let you die in a ditch to make a dime off your corpse. Yeah well that’s why I still like Bernie. But I think for the near future any competent gay candidate (Butty isn’t competent) is not going to be favored by the “You can’t take dark money” crowd. There’s too many biases against them in this puritanical messed up country to lose the bigots and turn down PACs. The thing people need to realize about Butt is that, and I know this is the second time I said this but I think it’s true and effective, he talks like a corporate vision statement. Everything is faint on specifics and questions are often derailed after only ten words on what he was asked.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2020 09:49
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:What you're saying is that gay candidates definitionally must be corrupt in order to be successful. I don't think that's a good take at all! You’re only going to have to be as ‘corrupt’ as candidate Obama was (not talking about incumbent) to overcome prejudice. That you think it counts as corruption speaks more to your purity test than anything. I’d like only state public financing of elections as much as anybody else, but things aren’t there. Edit: Ice Phisherman posted:Very long text Yes, I think Pete is shallow and shouldn’t be elected. I’ve read the same articles you did regarding the police. The bulldozing homes thing has been done in many midwestern cities such as Detroit; I’m not sure if the entire process is racist or just how Pete went about it. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Feb 9, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2020 10:25
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:I don't think anyone needs to take dark money to succeed. I confess, I probably don’t get out of my own neck of the woods enough (media controlled by right wingers, both parties being a proxy of moneyed interests). Almost everything in my local political sphere is run on mega-donors.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2020 10:34
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:You say 'the right policies and reputation' like they're an incidental thing. Well, reputation can be, but policy is not. And it's part of the liberal disease to treat 'policies' as a ephemeral trivia that no one really cares about, especially since it's been demonstrably proven wrong over and over. My belief is, the way the game is played now, most everybody needs PACs. I get that Bernie doesn't, because he's offering a much better deal to younger voters who can't afford a nice place to live but can afford to throw him $25 now and then. But his haul is still well below Trump, who hasn't even gotten to campaigning yet beyond the news cycle privileges automatically afforded to incumbents. On top of it, what Bernie's getting presently is having to go into this primary instead of going into the general. This probably would have been easier if the party had not been so corrupt in 2016, as in 2016 Trump had to spend money on a primary, but we had to have The Coronation instead. It's sometimes said that Nevada is Sheldon Adelson's state and the rest of us are occupying it. I've had to drop local media because it's all been bought by arch-conservatives over the past five years, including Adelson buying the city's biggest newspaper to investigate his enemies. This presidency is more or less a casino boss presidency, and the past four years has felt like my particular local branch of locusts have infected the rest of the nation, and I just don't think you win an election against those fucks, and Peter Thiel, and Charles Koch etc without wealthy backers of your own. I honestly believe that, and it's one of the small reasons I felt Warren was being a more realistic candidate until mid-October or so. I still wish Bernie the best of luck. It'd be great if he could pull it all the way to getting money out of politics, but even just reversing Citizens United would be a great step. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Feb 9, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2020 13:31
|
|
|
amaru_chulla posted:I get what you’re saying. The reason why I brought up the Women’s March was that in the end, the liberals made the demonstration about them. They weren’t in charge of it (wasn’t it actually made by Bernie’s surrogates?) but they still managed to become the face it. To me, the thing about the women's march was that it allowed people to have a political protest rally that didn't descent into chaos and looming violence. The first march was held during a time when chuds and Nazis were emboldened as all hell, and with Trump calling dissenters Literally The Problem With America, and combined with the amount of racial violence, the police brutalities, and just plain weird fucks from the survivalist store, there was a lot of fear that a protest event would draw a lot of right wingers bringing their Freedom Guns. Internet Nazis also felt like they had ascended and the third reich had conquered America, so any political event seemed ripe for a throwdown between pepeposters and antifa. The answer was getting rid of all the men. These NRA hillbilly fucks view men holding a sign and hurting nobody as a valid target, but women doing it are not. It's one of the few things still separating them from the mass killers. I think the women's march is mostly useless in 2020, but I think it the very first one was necessary in establishing that an anti-right protest can actually happen and exist peacefully without guns being flaunted, and without fascists and Y'all Qaeda feeling righteous to stomp everyone's faces in.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
Kale posted:Sanders has actually had to go out a couple times recently to point out that his campaign does not endorse the sort of harassment and batshit crazy stuff that's been going on with some of his purported supporters on twitter so yeah I don't know. It's clearly not a problem with Sanders or the tone and policy he's attempting to directly set for his own campaign (though he won't let himself get pushed around on his policy issues which is good), it's a problem with elements of his purported support base that have emerged on social media and really contribute little to his political fortunes or the overall political discourse that I can see. I really wonder how seriously some people actually take Bernie Sanders campaign and policies if they're going to act like this because that sort of behavior and the America Sanders envisions don't really line up much, but it sure aligns well with the Trumpism approach. Like have they actually been listening to the guy in recent months or is it just a twitter mob mentality thing? That'd be the question I'd pose. Because SA doesn’t have an upvote/downvote system ala Reddit, dogpiling seems to be the method of “downvoting to irrelevancy” used anymore, so I’m sure you’re going to have like four snide responses but I agree with you.aybe it’s because we’ve demonized appeals to decorum to the point where this bullshit is seen as passable, but what I see from Bernie Twitter is some small children on the schoolyard poo poo. Sanders himself stays above the fray and only bothers with trolls on his level (namely, Hillary Clinton) but the online sphere around his campaign... I still will vote for him, but goddamn does it sting to see “eighth grade bullies” as the communication protocol of the day. Trump has simply mainstreamed what batshit right wing bloggers have said among themselves for years (RINO, “lamestream media”, etc) and from talking to those people for a few years I can tell you that they feel your opinion matters so long as it agrees with theirs, and as soon as it doesn’t gently caress you. That poo poo helped un-center me me away from the GOP and it’s sad to see a place like this, which moved me left in so many issues, repeat it. I think the core of it is that I follow most of the same political Twitters that people here do, but I’m disgusted by what I see and come here for more measured analysis and less conspiracy theory bullshit. But what I get is CTH megadittos.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2020 23:26
|
|
so much as you really probably don't have to be a raging rear end in a top hat borderline making poo poo up about your preferred candidates political opponents and supporters ala #TrumpTeam to get your guy nominated.....and if it turns out that you do then god help American politics for the next generation or so.
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I know you're not the best poster but maybe question yourself if you're going to agree with Kale. This take was already mocked and rightly so. Go ahead and mock, because I don’t care. There are a few good people here, but the overall tone is way different than it was ten or even five years ago. And I was one of those “Clinton will steal the election” people in 2008, but goddamn there’s people jumping at shadows over every little thing. And just because I will support and vote for Bernie doesn’t mean I can’t sense a lot of BernieIs46 dot com in some of the more frequent posters itt.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2020 23:30
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Decorum is why we're in the state we're in. It's only used to protect the powerful. Someday you'll come around. Decorum is endlessly repeating the same fiscal impact analysis about how single payer saves money in administrative costs, rather than saying “people are dying from lack of care and you’re saying this is part of an efficient system”. Doing away with the policy wonk stuff and appealing to people’s emotional cores and asking them whose side they’re on is fine. Photoshopping people’s faces to look like undesirable animals and “little Marco” style insult-memes is the kind of schoolyard bullshit I hoped would end when I entered adulthood.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2020 23:39
|
|
|
FuzzySlippers posted:Here's a thought: how many people did Pod Save America inspire to drive cross country and volunteer for whomever they support? Contrast that with Chapo. Some will find passion off putting, but the biggest problem in American politics is getting people fired up. The largest demographic in the country are non-voters. Politics as civics lesson is only persuasive to people who already view politics as a hobby. Do you think either of these shows are unique save for policy? Both PSA and Chapo is doing successfully what Air America and other attempts failed at, sure; but that’s just respectively a DNC and DSA equivalent of the AM talk radio bullshit the GOP has had for 30 years. That has made the right wing into the reality-denying, ends justifyings, gently caress your feelings, hypocritical gasbags that they are.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2020 00:36
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:The right denies reality because their political positions require them to. Nobody in their camp dares question the big lie, though, because the fill the airwaves with so many lies and filth. You come for Michael Savage calling the Clintons traitors or whatever, and stay for the soothing shoulder-rubs that the endless wars are good and everything’s gonna be fine. We have not reached that situation. You can understand why the megadittoes mindset grinds at some people’s brains, though. These radio shows caused a bunch of people to stop thinking for themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2020 00:51
|
|
|
Peacoffee posted:They've honestly done enough damage to the idea that government is capable of doing any public good that they may have actually forgotten what elections/governments were for at all. Caucuses aren’t government run and have no government oversight. Don’t blame Iowa’s elections department for this mess. This is like saying you’ve lost faith in the records bureau because your wedding went poorly. Eminai posted:JFC the one delegate means Klob is qualified for the Nevada debate, when will this nightmare end. She may as well. The local newsman moderating in the Nevada debates enjoys agitating online Sanders supporters for years. He calls them “Bernie bots”, and sometimes “chair truthers” based on disagreements with his assertions that a Bernie supporter did indeed throw a chair at the disputed state convention. He’s most of the state’s last remaining legitimate news source for political news following Adelson’s buyout of the Vegas newspaper, and established a good rapport with Chuck Todd when NBC was trying to find somebody credible in this state which is how he got the moderator’s seat. And his online newspaper is non-profit and reveals any donor conflicts at the bottom of it’s stories. But he’s still not gonna win any friends from this crowd.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2020 01:17
|
|
|
Such a stupid question deserves such a stupid response. I don’t know who asked that question but I’d guess they don’t phrase it to Biden in such a creepy way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2020 01:24
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:This poo poo in Iowa is just such a joke. Like it's one thing if they're going to declare they won't fix any errors on the certified sheets because of some byzantine law. Fine, whatever. But they are still blatantly ignoring numbers from certified sheets that are wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2020 01:30
|
|
|
Slowpoke! posted:This thread skews far left at times and occasionally people need to be reminded that the Dem party is probably too big of a tent. Most countries have 3-4 major parties, not 2. Most of the time there is a party further left that Bernie, AOC, and most of the progressive Dems would be a part of. Biden and Pete would fit neatly in the centralist Democratic Party, as would the Clintons and Obama. The problem is financing. Bernie could have been a major part of a party instead of the independent Mostly-Democrat if a party that represents the leftist base wouldn't get washed away under cash. Most these countries have elections be publicly financed with tax dollars, so you can indeed have a party that is against money that is able to afford to buy advertising.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2020 03:20
|
|
|
re: genx It is my experience (e.g. among me and my circle of Facebook peoples) that "technocrat" is much less of a dirty word to ears born before 1984.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2020 06:25
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:Why is there an undercurrent of PoC voters who don't trust Bernie? I don't understand why Biden gets more voters, other than I guess riding Obama's coattails. There's an elaborate answer, but it basically comes down to the fact that the "no war but the class war" left bristles at means-tested, needs-based matrixes to public service; seeing them as obstacles to people getting help and an easy reason for the self-sufficient to demand a program be eliminated. Examples include: "Public schools don't do anything for me because I don't intend to produce children, so why do we need them," "I get better healthcare through my employer than what the public option offers, therefore I shouldn't be asked to fund it," that sort of thing. The idpol sphere many politically active minorities belong to don't see it this way. To them, something like free public college education to everyone isn't helpful, because even if their own personal station is improved it's not as improved as dramatically as if everyone else's station wasn't improved, too. Google "equality vs equity" and see the oft-used images used to exemplify this thinking. Basically, free college only to black people closes the race gap, free college for everyone doesn't. They see this as trying to correct imbalances, leftists see it as a combination of a logic trap wherein wealth only is valuable being relative to one's peers (essentially "it's not enough for me to succeed, someone must fail") and an easy target for dyed-in-the-wool racists/sexists to destroy by recruiting those who are merely passively racist/sexist through a message of self-interest. "It doesn't benefit you personally, so why support it's existence?" The leftist argument is that the ultra-wealthy, though mostly male white and straight and cis and judeo-christian, have so thoroughly hoarded everyone's wealth that these sorts of biases are untenable and will just make more racial resentment. The 1960-84 approach was that if the rich kept the white middle class above the dirty poor brown people, they would feel they had some skin in the game and help you oppress minorities. But as the need to get richer never is quenched, they stopped paying off the middle class and today straight white christian blue-collar labor now have more in common with minorities than they do the ultra-wealthy. All of us have been robbed blind by these motherfuckers, and their share of the wealth is so bloated that if you took 20% of their wealth for reparations you'd have median black wealth that's something around five times median white wealth. We have to do a lot to improve the station of everyone in this country, and then improve the station of the disadavantaged, in that order. To do it in the other order raises the risk of more of the white nationalism we've seen from the Trump campaign. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Feb 11, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2020 02:16
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Unfortunately, it also really hurts disabled voters. They can/should vote absentee. Anyone who can vote absentee should. New Hampshire limits who is able to, but the disabled is one of those classes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2020 03:42
|
|
|
Send your resisters this article. Knowing where they're coming from, I can tell you this hits harder than anything else to the Hillary supporting crowd. EDIT: Particularly this poo poo right here: quote:“Bloomberg’s Sexual Blind Spot” is how The Village Voice summed it up in 2001. “Anti-woman obnoxiousness,” Cord Jefferson, then at Gawker, called it in 2013. Part of that obnoxiousness involves the many reports related to what Bloomberg once told a reporter: “I like theater, dining, and chasing women.” (He elaborated: “Let me put it this way: I am a single, straight billionaire in Manhattan. What do you think? It’s a wet dream.”) In his 1997 autobiography, Bloomberg by Bloomberg, the mogul bragged about keeping “a girlfriend in every city” during his years working as a Wall Street stock trader in the 1960s and ’70s. He is reported to have said, of the computer terminal that made his fortune, “It will do everything, including give you [oral sex]. I guess that puts a lot of you girls out of business.” This means a lot more to white liberals who wouldn't give a poo poo what happens to people who break the law regarding marijuana. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Feb 11, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2020 04:47
|
|
|
SaturdayKnight posted:Bloomberg only needs enough votes to gently caress up the convention, not win. He knows he doesn’t have a chance to win, he just wants make sure someone who would raise his taxes doesn’t win either. He’s doing like a weird kamikaze run, he’s gonna take out Bernie (or Warren too I guess) and have spent less blowing the cash to do that than he’d pay in taxes if he didn’t. This doesn’t make sense, all he has to do is run a low-key third party candidacy. Pulling down Bernie is a lot cheaper than actually making yourself the winner.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2020 08:00
|
|
|
Wait until you see how we spell cheque. Edit: Bernie is a Democratic Socialist because that’s what you get when you convert Social Democracy from metric. It’s just one of those things.  Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Feb 11, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2020 08:57
|
|
|
My Dad's a boomer that voted Republican until 2004, but never accepted that the Cold War ended and thus can't understand why today's Republicans have left Reagan to embrace Russia. This is a guy that twelve years ago objected to me calling healthcare a right (as only negative rights can be guaranteed to all people in all places), and called Bernie 2016 "a fantasy that isn't realistic." He's always skeptical of anyone's promises, and says things like "of course they're lying, they're politicians." In other words, the kind of person who would usually write off Bernie as a bullshit artist. He says to me tonight: "You know, when people say that everyone's out to get their candidate, I don't buy it. I hate conspiracies, that 'they're out to get us'. But I've watched clips of MSNBC on their YouTube page, and it looks like they are doing everything they can think of to Sanders in order to shove him off..." Me: "It's mostly wealthy people looking out for one another." "I don't understand why they hate him so much." "He threatens their profit margins in very direct ways. The sort of health insurance system he idealizes leaves very little room for private companies. In most countries it's even written into law that they can't compete." "So what? That's no reason to call people brown shirts. I don't know what the hell got into Chuck Todd, he shouldn't try to be Hannity." I also talked to him about Bernie's free public tuition, and he went on about how college in the 70s was so much cheaper than today and how the most expensive things were the books. Congrats to the DNC for turning this around for being so blatantly terrible. You can't even keep the skeptic vote.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2020 14:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
Au Revoir Shosanna posted:neveda unions went loving hard trying to defeat bernie in 2016, you're high if you think they aren't going to go twice as hard this time Teachers union is supporting him, and everybody in this state knows education is hosed and needs help. Culinary in 2016 made no endorsement after Bernie’s people posed as union reps to get into casino back of house and campaign in employee breakrooms, a lovely move Clinton’s people tried in 2008 and they endorsed Obama shortly afterward. However they also swung a midterms primary to defeat two progressive candidates and elect an ex-lobbyist. Culinary is why we can’t have a homegrown AOC. Seeing them eat poo poo for a while makes me smile, even if it won’t last (most the criticism comes from out of state, they’ll shrug it off in a few months.)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2020 00:24
|
|