|
The Lemondrop Dandy posted:Same deal for me. Seeing what happened with how most all of Obama's incrementalism has been so easily walked back has soured me so much on gradual change. Seeing Warren pick M4A, but maybe later soured me on her. All the other BS since then has just made it worse. I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I hope that the people who soured on Warren* also realized that it was possible to realize she was bad long before she explicitly walked back M4A. There's a reason many of us knew she couldn't be trusted from the beginning of the primary. This is important, because it's possible that a "competent Warren" might come along later, who waits until after the primary to walk back their support for left-wing ideas. * this has been one of the more surprising and heartening things to happen during this primary - to be honest I did not expect so many Warren supporters to change their minds after that
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
I'm okay with Bloomberg being in the debate even if the reason he's in it is dumb and malicious. The guy has no chance of winning and he'll only drain votes from people who mostly wouldn't support Bernie in the first place. It's pretty amazing what a piece of poo poo that guy is, though. Like, every bit as much of a piece of poo poo as someone like Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:While I think the outcome is good (another moderate getting in and taking away airtime from other moderates since he will be attacking Bernie who will get more time to respond, and hopefully hurting moderates by splitting the vote), the process of the DNC arbitrarily deleting requirements midrace to get who they want in the debate is bad. Oh, for sure, but there was never any question that these people are all corrupt scumbags. Better that they be incompetently corrupt.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
Many Bernie supporters are larger than O'Keefe so I don't understand why they don't just eat him
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Even if she does, supporters aren't required to do as she says. The one minor upside to this would be that it would at least teach an important lesson to many people, albeit in the worst way possible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
The CNN Pollmaster returns home the night before the day the polls will be released. "That was some good polling, and I look forward to informing America tomorrow," he thinks. But upon entering his house, he sees a silhouette with a faintly rat-shaped face sitting in his living room chair, cradling a pistol. The results were never released.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 05:59
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:I do think people should be up front about who they're supporting. For example knowing that someone supports Pete gives me a clear indicator of just how huge a racist they probably are and that seems like useful info to have in a discussion. Yeah, I would argue that participating in a thread/discussion like this without actually being explicit about your own opinions is basically tantamount to trolling by any reasonable definition (since it's basically being deliberately deceptive through omission). It's also just not conducive to useful discussion, because it leads to people constantly trying to infer what they're trying to imply.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 06:05
|
|
|
generic one posted:I get all that. You believe Warren’s had a thirty year long charade going on just to get to where she is, based on some speculative tea-leaf reading of her career choices. I don’t think it’s that complicated, and figure focusing on the actual stuff that we know about her that’s bad is a better selling point than speculation that can’t be realistically proven. Maybe that’s “stupid”. Good luck with your method of persuasion, I’ll stick with mine. He's not saying it's some carefully planned out charade; he's just saying that she doesn't really have many real or strong beliefs and adapts her beliefs on the fly in whatever way is advantageous to her. edit: Basically, if you only looked at her Republican to Democrat conversation, maybe I'd agree that her feelings just naturally changed at the same time as many Democrats'. But her career is full of her adopting opinions only when they're "safe" and will benefit her career.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 06:29
|
|
|
I feel like if any more direct ratfucking occurs, it won't occur until Bernie is on a clear path to victory. I believe they're not bold enough to do that before (they'll probably continue telling themselves that there's no way he'll actually win). I think Hillary Clinton was actually kind of unusually direct in terms of being a "schemer." The DNC opposes Bernie and will avoid things that benefit him and support things that hurt him, but I don't think they'll take direct and obvious action against him unless they feel forced to (which is entirely possible if it seems like he's going to win, since it could have big ramifications for their careers).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 06:38
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:Buttigieg winning would be the least bad upset because he has no operation beyond Iowa/NH and no appeal to the kind of multiracial coalition you need to win states like Nevada, California, Texas, etc. Warren or Biden would be far worse. Yeah, the worst case scenario is an unexpectedly high Biden or Warren win.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:i know thread consensus is that we want warren to poo poo the bed, but I honestly think Biden getting stomped is the most important thing. Him getting 4th or 5th would evaporate his soft support in the South and Bernie polls second best among black voters. Remember that Clinton was leading Obama in the south pre Iowa in 2008. Believing that Obama could win among white voters seems to have helped a ton I think it's ideal for either both or neither to get completely stomped, since if one goes down and the other doesn't, the other will likely consolidate their support. So something like Biden or Warren getting 1st or 2nd and the other getting stomped is probably worse than them getting 2nd and 3rd place to Bernie's 1st. pepsi lover posted:I feel blessed to live in this time because very significant things are happening. it's certainly not boring. I hope you all feel as lucky as I do. Nah, it actually sucks rear end if you're one of the countless people affected by it. PepsiOverCoke posted:Knocking on doors in small town Iowa is both hopeful and depressing. They will talk your ear off on how great or bad any candidate is. You ask if they are going to caucus....and they say nah. That's only depressing when the person is Bernie, though. It's great if any of the other supporters stay home.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
Are we even sure that anyone else is left in Iowa other than the people at that Caucus? I haven't seen anyone else from Iowa today, and I can't really trust random people on the internet. Maybe the Iowa primary is already over.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:warren is better than klobb but klobb is better than butt. No, Butt > Klobb > Warren is probably the most accurate order in terms of "people it would be best for Sanders to have to run against as his primary contender." Butt/Klobb is a toss-up, but Warren would be the biggest problem if non-Bernies unified behind her (assuming Biden continues doing poorly).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:i don't think he's wrong but i don't really understand why a precinct captain would be chilling at their location hours prior when you could be knocking doors Courting the vital "caucus chair" demographic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2020 23:07
|
|
|
PepsiOverCoke posted:Way early at the site. Pete. Amy Warren and Biden have shown up with supporters. Biden at the wrong site, directed him where to go. Its crazy how different people are coming together to do this thing You seem to strangely view the caucus like a stage production where the main goal is "running smoothly" as opposed to actually electing a politician to achieve political goals.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 00:17
|
|
|
Kill Bristol posted:I prefer sanders but warren is fine and anyone who thinks she's the same as biden or pete has allowed being online during the horserace to drive them insane. Nah, we just have a better understanding of the candidates. In practice a Warren presidency would be extremely similar to Obama's (and thus a Pete or Biden presidency as well). She will surround herself with the same people, would have the same foreign policy, and wouldn't actually fight for anything that went against Democratic Party orthodoxy. I understand why a superficial evaluation of what the candidates support on paper might result in an opinion like this, but it's wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 03:35
|
|
|
Kill Bristol posted:this is laughably untrue, especially if you know at all about how warren frequently fought the obama admin on things like student loans. Literally the only things Warren has ever done that run against Democratic Party orthodoxy are what you mentioned and arguably pushing for the CFPB. She has literally zero "progressive"/left-leaning background outside of these things (and in fact has a bunch of really terrible poo poo). And she absolutely would not actually stick to a course that causes the disapproval of the rest of the party. The absolute best case scenario out of a Warren presidency is that she briefly pushes for a public option or means-tested student loan forgiveness before either backing down or watering it down into something bad. And again, there's the whole "she is just as awful as Obama and most other Democrats on foreign policy," but (as joepinetree likes to point out) it's been long-established that you folks don't really care about that. How you justify this to yourselves (despite the president having more direct control in that area), I have no idea. I guess you just don't think about it? I get that it's a an "obvious" thing that Warren is super progressive to people who don't pay close attention to this stuff, but her winning would absolutely be a complete loss just as much as it would be for Biden or Buttigieg to win.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 03:49
|
|
|
Ty1990 posted:Seems like Bernie, Warren, and Pete are the clear top 3 with Joe Biden eating a massive pile of poo poo based on the small sample size we’ve been given. From what I can see, it's 1. Pete 2. Bernie 3.Biden? I think the sample size is actually approaching levels that are predictive, though I guess it depends on where the samples are coming from.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 03:52
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:No, they really aren't. They're a bunch of misinformed and lied-to people who are struggling to make sense of a world where lies always win if the lie benefits capital. From the beleaguered Biden voter to the cutthroat Buttigieg voter they're all loving wrong, but they're not morons. I think it's easy to lose track of how things look to older people who don't use the internet. To these people, they have literally nothing to go by other than what people say on TV and in the mainstream print media. All this stuff we learn through seeing the journalists and politicians commenting on things through twitter, they almost never hear about (unless it contributes to a narrative they want to boost). More often than not, they're judging based off of a vague impression of how appealing the person sounds when they speak. That's it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:good news. cnn reports the chair in pottawattamie county (which is a real county) is saying "the app isn't working." Well, look at the bright side - the failsons/daughters of some DNC officials probably got some good coding experience. Maybe they'll use that experience to create an app that solves climate change.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 04:24
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:It's easy to lose track of the fact that being more online doesn't actually mean being more informed. Especially when you're getting clusters of information that seem to be more spread out than they actually are. I'm not talking about getting caucus result numbers, I'm talking about learning about the candidates.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 04:28
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:"i'm more rational because i'm on twitter" may not be a great road to go down It is unquestionably true that someone who is reasonably intelligent and follows this stuff online is at least going to have the possibility of getting accurate information about things, in stark contrast to someone who only pays attention to mainstream television/print media. This is not a controversial statement. This is not because there's some secret great wisdom on the internet, but because tv/print media are extremely blatant propaganda. It's at least possible to find out whether the things people say are true or not if you have access to outside information (and outside information is most effectively acquired via the internet). I get that it feels like some smart thing to be like "lol twitter," but the only difference between journalists posting stuff on twitter and journalists writing/saying stuff in newspapers/television is that there's a much larger variety of journalists spanning a larger ideological spectrum in the former (and it's generally not even twitter itself that has the information - people just link to various online journalism using it). It is very obviously a thing that is actually relevant.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 05:31
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:the 2016 app worked fine so i don't know why they needed to make a new one They need to prevent Russian hacking, or some such (I think this is actually part of the reason lol).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 05:33
|
|
|
Pick posted:lmao jesus, is Pete actually doing well?????? this is THE most baffling part of anything I've ever seen. I've met all stripes--I've met straight-up Steyer supporters and Bloomburgers--but not a single Petey in the land There is actual significant Pete support in Iowa specifically, but really only Iowa. He is just bizarrely popular there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 05:35
|
|
|
One interesting and potentially good thing about this stuff where Bernie is getting hurt by re-alignment is that it means he might actually do better in regular non-caucus primaries. In 2016 this wasn't the case, but this time around he gets hurt because the non-viable people mostly consolidate with other candidates (whereas that won't happen during a regular primary).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 05:52
|
|
|
PepsiOverCoke posted:I never said who i caucused for or if i even caucused myself. People are reacting negatively because this is pretty weird. You gotta realize that for us, there's a strong moral imperative to support Bernie Sanders in this primary. Basically, to us it's sorta like someone staying "impartial" in a discussion about whether to be pro- or anti-choice. HonorableTB posted:I know we're all about ideological purity here but the amount of people going after PepsiOverCoke and how vitriolic they are is pretty gross. Dude stepped up to be a precinct captain and many people in this thread are savaging him because he supported a different Dem but ran a fair caucus. Jesus Christ folks it's not like we're dealing with a chud here "Supporting a different Dem" is not a morally neutral action, especially in this election. The confusion here stems from the fact that you guys don't seem to really comprehend the extent to which many others on the left simply having different values than you. Your "ideological purity" is, to us, "issues that should be non-negotiable (with only Sanders even remotely crossing the threshold of being decent)." We think of these things in the same way you (hopefully) view stuff like being pro-choice (using this as an example in both this and the above post since I think it's something most liberals agree is a thing you obviously need to support). Many of us then react negatively because you're pretty explicitly saying that the things we care about are trivial (or at least implying that by saying that it's ridiculous to be so strongly opposed to the people who don't support those things). Again, think of how you would react to someone who said that being pro-choice was a matter of "ideological purity."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
Rigel posted:As a Bernie supporter from Iowa who was pessimistically predicting Biden's coronation by the DNC last year, I am actually very pleased with this result. Yeah, the result is fine. It's basically the second best possible result (anything worse would have left me feeling anxious and upset). I would have been very concerned if Biden or Warren were first to Bernie's second (or obviously if Bernie weren't in the top 2), but Buttigieg is the best person to beat him (much less "barely beat him, if he beat him at all"). The biggest realistic concern from here on out is that non-Bernies drop out and consolidate behind another non-Bernie. The re-alignment stuff often involving non-Bernies going to other non-Bernies could indicate this, but I think it's important to keep in mind that only the most motivated people go to caucuses, so these aren't just people who had a light preference for a non-Bernie - they were often strongly in favor of them. People with a light preference for someone else might be far more willing to switch their vote to Bernie if their candidate drops out. When Bernie said turn-out wasn't as high as he hoped, I think it's because his goal is to not only win, but win by a large enough margin that he wins a flat majority and can't be ratfucked at the convention. VitalSigns posted:I would understand caping for Biden in a "vote blue no matter who" push had he won or even just done well in Iowa because you believe he's inevitable and that it's important to beat Trump. A strong cultural distaste for the left. The left irks them for reasons they probably don't even fully understand themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2020 01:44
|
|
|
Isn't this the thing where it's randomized?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:The lesser evil argument has hidden costs in that it pushes the whole political spectrum away from the left and leads to far right politicians being viable. I don't think a Clinton presidency would be as bad as a Trump presidency - but the Republican candidate in 2020/2024 would have been a ghoul that made Trump look mild. This has happened time and time again. It's not just .8 evil units vs 1.2 evil units. Not only this, but who the president is has ramifications for who is elected in mid-term congressional/state races. I think one can pretty reliably say that Trump would drive more Dems to the polls in the midterms than a lovely Democratic president like Biden. Basically, a lot of people grant the point of "a Trump presidency is definitely worse than any Democratic presidency" and I really don't think one can confidently make that argument. Trump is likely worse in the specific role as president, but if you're including the broader state of the US governments (federal, state, and local), it isn't nearly as clear. A ton (arguably most) of the harm Republicans have done has been through taking control of state legislatures under Obama. Parrotine posted:For every one argument there was half a dozen 'Bernie or Bust/get hosed' replies, so yeah I'm gonna say they were pissy cause Sanders is winning the popular vote but losing the SDEs to Buttigieg. Go back and read that wall of noise, it's just attacks cause they're afraid that maybe things might not turn out the way they want and it's terrifying to them. Your logic seems to presuppose that there is no actual difference between candidates and no such thing as a right or wrong choice (which to be fair is something you probably actually believe because you're obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I don't think it really matters who anyone in this thread caucused for, unless you're planning to hurl a bunch of insults if the answer was "not Bernie". They can say it if they want to, but if you just can't read their posts without knowing their candidate preference, then you should probably just put them on ignore rather than endlessly hounding them to demand an answer over and over again. While I agree with not demanding to know his specific role in running his caucus (since that's basically a sort of personal information), I think a strong argument could be made that posting in this thread without saying one's own candidate preference (and this can include "not having a preference" on the off-chance that's the case) is a sort of deliberately dishonest posting that should be considered the same as outright trolling. It basically causes people to understandably want to know what the person actually believes, since it's basically impossible to honestly engage with them without knowing that. This leads to a situation where someone is constantly vaguely implying things without supplying the context of their actual beliefs and interpretation. This isn't just referring to PepsiOverCoke (he's probably actually one of the least bad examples of this); this is something various people have done for a while. The argument you're making here ("you could just block them") could be made about literally any sort of trolling or bad posting. vvv Though to be fair I suppose there's also the possibility that the person's genuine preference is something that is indistinguishable from trolling lol PepsiOverCoke posted:I told you, I'm all in for Bloomberg, pay attention.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Given that my main criticism is being certain of something without evidence, it's rich that you're claiming I called everyone insane crackpots and that their views were completely impossible. Literally who gives a poo poo. There is zero negative consequences to that, whereas there are absolutely negative consequences to trying to downplay and silence concerns over something that could actually have a significant negative impact if not more closely examined. Like, yeah, being absolutely certain that this apparent discrepancy is a ratfuck is probably technically illogical since it's possible that they just happened to mistakenly gently caress up the numbers in a way that favors Buttigieg, but the default assumption that it's not is at least as illogical and much more harmful of an assumption to make. When dealing with a hostile institution, like the Democratic Party, it makes sense to assume hostility and demand proof otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2020 01:27
|
|
|
PepsiOverCoke posted:I will tell you in Iowa, Biden, Warren, and Klob supporters DO NOT like Sanders. Its a spectrum for sure, but Bernie is definitely the least popular of supporters of other candidates. Not only is there a very large difference between Iowa and the rest of the country in terms of voter preference, but the sort of person drawn to a caucus is going to be different than the sort of people voting in a regular primary. Someone is usually only going to go to a caucus if they feel fairly strongly about their candidate (or strongly against another candidate). The dynamics are significantly different than 2016. In 2016 caucuses were a clear benefit to Sanders because Hillary was unquestionably the "default" choice for low-engagement voters. But this time around, there isn't a clear "default choice." That sort of voter is likely to be split between the various candidates, with Sanders taking a significant share if he's perceived as a likely winner (which has a good chance of being the case after New Hampshire). Basically what I'm saying is that the sort of non-Bernie voter to show up at a caucus is probably more likely to be an ardent anti-Bernie type than the sort of person who might vote for a non-Bernie candidate in a regular primary. yronic heroism posted:Or, and just hear out this wacky theory, life isn’t a binary choice between “which logical leap should we make” and choose door C where it’s okay to wait until results are 100 percent reported and checked and then draw conclusions. Because reporting errors happen a loving lot in the aggregate and there’s a paper trail so there’s literally no reason not to wait and see rather than being terminally The point is that there is something very wrong with the reasoning of someone who is more angry at the people assuming the discrepancy and other strange behavior is definitely malicious than they are at people who are just as confident that it's just a mistake. Not only are neither of those positions exactly "logically airtight," but the latter is much more harmful in practice. The former is at least a line of thought that will keep pushing the issue instead of just nodding and accepting mistakes happening. I don't see any good reason to get frustrated and annoyed at people committing the cardinal sin of "perhaps being somewhat overeager at assuming the worst of bad people/organizations."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2020 03:03
|
|
ing this stuff.
|
My personal feeling about this being a "ratfuck" is that it's unlikely it was some sort of top-down "we're gonna organize this to gently caress-over Bernie" thing, since that sort of thing would be difficult to conceal. Instead, I think what likely happened is a bunch of people coming up with excuses to make choices that have a chance of hurting Bernie. For example, with the app they may have thought "it gives jobs to people I like, and if they gently caress it up it'll just prevent Bernie from gaining momentum - it's win-win!" If numbers were fudged to make Bernie's results worse, it was probably not an explicit top-down command, but rather the action of individuals who thought they might as well gently caress with the numbers some to depress Bernie's results. Worst case scenario is that people notice it and make an issue of it, in which case they simply have to say "whoops, we'll correct that." Unless they were stupid, you can't prove malice. Like I think joepinetree said, ratfucking can take the form of a bunch of people in an organization simply being purposefully slow to take action on mistakes that benefit them (and fast to take actions on those that don't). Or being more lax in situations where they have little to lose (like letting the Iowa Caucuses become a clusterfuck).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2020 03:10
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:There's literally precedent for ratfucking going back to the Nevada primary of 2016. Very little has changed in the democratic party since then. To be clear, I would not be surprised if it actually were a straight-up direct ratfucking planned from the beginning, but it's likely to be the sort of ratfucking where people just make decisions to gently caress-over Sanders, rather than a situation where this was all planned out from the beginning (like in the example you gave, where people just decided to not obey rules to prevent Sanders from winning). So individuals at any level can and probably will (or rather probably already have) make decisions to make Sanders do worse, but it'll probably generally be something that can be done entirely by a small number of people (rather than an organizational directive with people organizing with other people to do stuff). There's no real meaningful difference between these things, though, so it's all quibbling.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2020 03:34
|
|
|
Otteration posted:I'm willing to admit that I'm terrified of independent Pandas. There, I said it. Pandas are basically the failchildren of the animal world. I went to the zoo a few weeks back and there was a panda there, and he was just sitting there like a piece of poo poo munching on a bamboo with his stomach sticking out all covered in bamboo pieces. Bamboo is basically doritoes for pandas. Looking at people outside the window is gaming. I took a picture while I was there:  PepsiOverCoke posted:Its mainly why i think Pete can beat Sanders. If people go into things thinking they have a slam dunk, go on media with this, and then someone from Pete or even Warren crew goes "uh no [explains the rules]" it makes Bernie look like an absolute idiot in comparison. No one cares about this except people like you, and since you don't support Bernie you are not acting with the best of intentions.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2020 05:23
|
|
|
PepsiOverCoke posted:And Ytlaya you can talk about how I'm supposedly not supporting Sanders, but I'm telling you, you don't know who I support (The Bloomberg thing was OBVIOUSLY a joke), this is not a narrative that lives only online. It is no one's fault but your own if people react negatively to this and assume the worst. It is frankly weird as hell to not be upfront about your own beliefs if you're engaging in a discussion like this (to the extent that I think it should realistically be considered no different than any other sort of malicious trolling). It's difficult to come up with any reason other than "someone realizes people will react negatively." Any remotely productive political discussion should require, as a prerequisite, for people to state their own beliefs about the subject in question (and this can include "being unsure" if that's actually true). This sort of thing is by far one of the worst offenders in terms of ruining/derailing discussions and just results in a ton of ill will all around. Imagine someone coming into any other discussion about a clear moral issue, like segregation or abortion or something, and avoiding stating their own beliefs on the topic. People who strongly care about (for example) abortion rights would likely respond with hostility and assume the worst, because it's weird to be cagey about that. I realize that you probably don't believe the Democratic Primary is this sort of clear moral issue, but many of us do.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2020 05:49
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:It is a bit of an upset for Pete- his polling was a lot worse than this - but if the news networks all have to claim "actually, Bernie won" - a real possibility - it's going to get a lot of attention. Maybe even more than if Bernie had won at the end of the first night. Eh, even if Bernie ends up winning the news will barely report it. It won't make it into the awareness of your average older person. The main thing to potentially change the narrative will be if Bernie can get a clean in in New Hampshire and other primaries.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2020 08:30
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/1225475122229739520?s=21 My prediction is that they'll actually do this more or less correctly, but that the whole thing is an excuse to delay reporting a Bernie win for as long as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Also given the enormity of what has already happened among the establishment for trying to stop Bernie, him choosing a moderate establishment-friendly VP would likely get him Epstein'd within a week. Surprising everyone, Bernie's VP ends up being a huge, muscular man convicted of several murders.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
HD DAD posted:I get why establishment dems hate Bernie, but I don’t get why regular liberal middle class white people would too. They would benefit greatly from his policies - are they just so indignant, or would they rather not dirty the brunch table with politics talk, and bat for the most status-quo man ever? It's largely a cultural thing. They have a certain mental image of what it means to be "smart" and someone like Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg fits that image. That sort of person also thinks that part of being "smart" is listening to all the "reputable" news sources, like NPR, WaPo, etc, so they absorb the opinions stated by those organizations.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2020 00:35
|
|