Poll question: Will you vote for the Democratic Nominee for President in 2020?

Poll result (48 votes) I lean progressive and will vote for any Democratic nominee (30 votes) Vote I lean moderate and will vote for any Democratic nominee (12 votes) Vote I lean progressive and will vote for Trump if the nominee isnt prog. (2 votes) Vote I lean moderate and will vote for Trump if the nominee isnt mod. (2 votes) Vote I lean progressive and will not vote/will vote 3rd pty if nominee isnt prog. (2 votes) Vote I lean moderate and will not vote/will vote 3rd pty if nominee isnt mod. (0 votes) Vote

I don't believe there would be any realistic scenario where I would vote for trump.

I'd take a flaming bag of turds over trump.

Iraq war supporters are disqualified. Since we don't seem comfortable sending them to the Hague, it's the least I can do.

I would be honored to vote for Sanders or Warren. Are we counting Buttigieg as a real contender at this point? I don't know if I'd vote for him in a general election. I doubt it, but I suppose anything can happen in ten months.

Bennet
Biden
Bloomberg
Buttigieg
Delaney
Gabbard
Klobuchar
Patrick
Sanders
Steyer
Warren
Yang

are you picking trump over any of these?

I live in DC. I'm not picking Trump over anybody. I'm just not filling out the top of the ballot if Sanders or Warren isn't there.

I'm still gonna vote for attorney general, the city council seat for my ward, city council chairperson, shadow senate/house reps, school board, etc.

President of the United States will get a pass, unless Warren or Sanders are there.

down ballot is its own thing

>I live in DC. I'm not picking Trump over anybody. I'm just
>not filling out the top of the ballot if Sanders or Warren
>isn't there.
>


If you lived in a purple state where the electoral college votes were much more uncertain than D.C., would you still have this stance?

I think that anybody who acted, in their decision-making capacity, to support the Iraq War deserves to be banished from political life. The only way to have done that at the time was to be amoral or deeply, deeply stupid. And the only way to keep a viable political career since that horrifying and destructive crime is to minimize its impact and rely on our weird talent for insulating politicians from the effects of their decisions. That included Clinton in the last election and Biden in this one. Nobody who said "yes" to that at the time deserves to be taken seriously about anything important ever again.

But the rest of the field is off the hook on that, so if I were in a purple state or even a hard red one where voting for a centrist melt like Buttigieg would still feel like a "fuck you" to fascism, then I'd probably be open to voting for them. I lived in Tennessee from 2009 to summer 2012 and being a Democrat of any stripe felt pretty radical at the time.

And they can't imagine why somebody would dare not vote for somebody like Biden, likely because they don't have to face the direct consequences of the bi-partisan war machine tearing up the world.

But talk to a refugee from the MidEast (who is now a U.S. citizen) - and come with that "you better vote for Biden who enthusiastically advocated for the destruction of your country or else!" - and watch the blind privilege shine through.

Voting for the Iraq War and continuing to support mindless militarism is absolutely disqualifying, and I'm glad you're adamant about that.

But of course, you have to really make a decision when it comes to Biden or Trump as to who would be the far worse actor in the region. As bad as Biden is (and he's abysmal on foreign policy) - Trump is the far greater evil.

-->

I get it. If your options are to either 1). vote for Trump or 2) vote for someone else (who is not named Sanders or Warren), you will be unhappy either way.

But is your degree of unhappiness equivalent? Would you just as upset having Trump from 2021-2025 as you would having a non-Sanders/Warren 2021-2025?

Is the reasoning strictly principled? You said you live in DC, so ultimately your vote for president isn't likely to swing things. But lets say you lived a state like Wisconsin where margins could be razor thin. Would you be more pragmatic (assuming you have an extremely strong distaste for Trump and less so for others)?

Would you encourage others to vote like you?

The United States, as a relationship between people, has been failing for several decades now. Just like Rome wasn't built in a day, it didn't fall in one either. An election isn't going to change the fact that whatever relationship was being described by "The United States of America" is effectively finished, but it can be a useful way of cushioning the landing so that the people who live here (citizens or not) can support each other and live more freely.

If my vote is marginalized by wherever I'm living, then I don't see any good reason to support somebody who's going to continue slapping duct-tape on the deadly project of American capitalism.

If my vote might actually mean something, then the principle of protecting the people who live here wins.

There is no perfect candidate...

He asked about my happiness, and though I disagree with that fellow often - he doesn't really seem to ask questions in bad faith. So I answered it.

And, as I've said, living in DC means my vote is meaningless. I commute to Northern Virginia, so it would be a more useful political act to slap a bumper sticker on my car exhorting folks to vote for the Democratic nominee, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) I don't imagine you'd be cranky about me refusing to do that.

Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg

¨Your mother is Colin Powell¨ - Lurkmode

www.Tupreme.com

We don't have a voting representative in congress. Weed is legal but you're not allowed to buy it because a Republican congressman in Maryland thinks it's a bad idea.

But Republicans rarely break 10% in the District of Columbia, and Trump barely scraped half that. You could limit Democrat votes to "people who realistically expect to work for the next administration" and the Democratic candidate would probably still beat Trump.

So, my vote is purely symbolic. And I'm treating it that way. Honestly, I'd rather have my vote be meaningful and have to actually think about it. But it doesn't quite track to insist that I acknowledge the reality of the two party system in America but to get pissy when I point out that political reality has different practical implications from state to state. And particularly for those of us who don't live in states.

being in D.C., you’re familiar with how federal jobs work right?

right before the election in 2016, i certed and was selected for a civil service position at the VA in New Orleans.

at the time i had 15 years in service and was looking to relocate to a bigger city with a more chill position so i can go ahead and retire

Trump takes office and the first thing he did was put a hold on all federal hiring. nothing specific or you know, any official direction, just a vague ass letter about what he *kinda* wanted

with no official instruction, the idiot heads of departments, in an effort to not piss him off, started canceling jobs, announcements, and, contracts. and just like that, the job i thought i had, i didnt. and the president i thought wasnt going to directly effect me, directly effected me.

just saying.

That sucks. A similar-ish thing happened to my dad during the Clinton administration.

But the electoral college doesn't treat me as an equal voter here. Trump got destroyed in the DC vote in 2016. He's going to get destroyed in the DC vote in 2020 no matter who he's running against.

My vote - which is what this poll/question was about - won't have any impact on who becomes president, and it therefore won't have any impact on the decisions (hiring included) that president make.

That's mostly shitty and I hate it. Pretty much the only upside is that I'm free to vote my conscience. So I'm going to do that.

edit: or, to put it another way, I'm not saying that the President doesn't have any effect me. I'm saying that my vote doesn't have any effect on the President.

peace.

Even if it's one of the two that I don't particularly like (Biden & Mayor Pete)

I live in North California, so Democratic candidate NEEDS my vote, but I'll give it to him/her anyway. I voted for both HRC and Kerry, and both of them ran shitty campaigns.

Gonna wait until the general election and vote for whatever Dem wins, most-likely.

you either vote Blue or Putin gets another 4 years to undermine not just us, but the entire world.

The seriousness of the Russian invasion of this country (and the U.K.) can not be overstated

Everyone get all your shit out during the primary, then do the right thing in November.

This is bigger than trump. He's a pawn in an international crime syndicate.

i really need folks to educate themselves.

Listen to Gaslit Nation podcast.
Read Proof of Conspiracy.
Google Lev Parnas & Dimitry Firtash.

Do any one of those 3 things.

d

I intend to get the folks I know off the couch.

WE GOTTA WIN.

you used to scare me with some of your views on trump a while ago lol.

>The seriousness of the Russian invasion of this country (and
>the U.K.) can not be overstated



-->

>>The seriousness of the Russian invasion of this country

Donald Trump is an Russian asset. + FaceBook secretly allowed Cambridge Analytica to run a massive targeted disinformation campaign on their platform, then tried to lie about it when they got caught. These are tactics that Putin "piloted" during his invasion of Ukraine (and is still actively employing)

(and
>>the U.K.)

Brexit. see above for Kremlin disinformation tactics. Destabalizing the EU by getting the UK to leave was a huge win for Russia

Putin/Kremlin has figured out how to infiltrate and undermine sovereign superpowers without firing one weapon. There is no such thing as an ex-KGB agent. they've had a hard on for the US since the cold war.

MBS, Netanyahu, Assad and others all stand to gain from all this. The Putin/MBS dap-up told volumes

If any of this information is new to you, I sincerely suggest you catch up and research. No shade or snark at all cuz honestly we are all fucked if we don't put a stop to this in the only way we can.

the rest of the world is truly looking to us

d

>Donald Trump is an Russian asset. + FaceBook secretly allowed
>Cambridge Analytica to run a massive targeted disinformation
>campaign on their platform, then tried to lie about it when
>they got caught. These are tactics that Putin "piloted" during
>his invasion of Ukraine (and is still actively employing)

Very familiar with the Cambridge Analytica debacle. But Putin and Russia has been running disinformation campaigns for decades, as have other countries (namely China & Israel) to intervene and meddle in our elections. Alike, we have meddled in countless elections, installed authoritarian governments, and have worked to influence elections on every continent. So I think in order to have a broader conversation on this we need to acknowledge this is unfortunately what world governments do in the current paradigm.

>Putin/Kremlin has figured out how to infiltrate and undermine
>sovereign superpowers without firing one weapon. There is no
>such thing as an ex-KGB agent. they've had a hard on for the
>US since the cold war.

For sure. Russia (and Putin in particular) have become adept at cyber warfare and psychological manipulation, and their disinformation campaigns have been effective. They are certainly a problem - but I side more with Obama on this than those who are calling for a renewed Cold War and nuclear escalation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1409sXBleg&t=12s

Obama understood that Russia's economy is disastrous, that it's largely an isolated state, and that its containment is relatively easy to achieve in the region -- and that building up a new Cold War narrative only empowers Russia and weakens our ability to exert diplomacy and build coalitions in the region both neutralize and isolate Russia.

Also - if Trump is a "Russian agent" or whatever the hot phrase is now - then he's not a very effective one. He has gone after Russia's soft allies (Iran and China) - and despite his false claims that he was "getting out of Syria" - he has done anything but, continuing the long-standing U.S. policy of intervention in an effort to topple Assad (a Putin ally) by directly and indirectly supporting Sunni extremist militias like ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

>MBS, Netanyahu, Assad and others all stand to gain from all
>this. The Putin/MBS dap-up told volumes

What Putin/MBS relationship are you referring to? MBS is waging war in Yemen and Syria (with our backing) and seeks to obliterate Iran from the region (a nation with close business/diplomatic ties with Russia) - so I'm not sure what you're referring to with the Putin/MBS connection.


-->

>Very familiar with the Cambridge Analytica debacle. But Putin
>and Russia has been running disinformation campaigns for
>decades, as have other countries (namely China & Israel) to
>intervene and meddle in our elections. Alike, we have meddled
>in countless elections, installed authoritarian governments,
>and have worked to influence elections on every continent. So
>I think in order to have a broader conversation on this we
>need to acknowledge this is unfortunately what world
>governments do in the current paradigm.

saying "whatever its what they do" does not change at all the danger that we face. I don't even understand what one has to do with the other. that's like me telling you someone is one the way to kill me and i'm scared and you say "oh well he's on the way to kill a bunch of other people too and people have tried to kill him too"

just say you don't care, and it will be much quicker.


>For sure. Russia (and Putin in particular) have become adept
>at cyber warfare and psychological manipulation, and their
>disinformation campaigns have been effective. They are
>certainly a problem - but I side more with Obama on this than
>those who are calling for a renewed Cold War and nuclear
>escalation:

i'm not watching a youtube video

>Obama understood that Russia's economy is disastrous, that
>it's largely an isolated state, and that its containment is
>relatively easy to achieve in the region -- and that building
>up a new Cold War narrative only empowers Russia and weakens
>our ability to exert diplomacy and build coalitions in the
>region both neutralize and isolate Russia.

You've contradicted yourself in the space of 2 paragraphs. if it was known that Putin is adept at cyber warfare and information manipulation, than Obama thinking he can be "contained" simply by isolating their economy was extremely naive and shortsighted, in hindsight. U.S. was arrogant to take their eye off Putin's interference and focus it solely on an feather-in-the-cap Iran nuclear deal.

while we weren't "looking", Putin was able to spend years laying the groundwork here and abroad for Trump's presidency and Brexit...

>Also - if Trump is a "Russian agent" or whatever the hot
>phrase is now - then he's not a very effective one.

then you're not paying enough attention. He's been VERY effective.

After Russia attacked and annexed a part of Ukraine (and was found to have interfered in our elections), Obama's admin levied heavy sanctions on Russia diplomats and oligarchs, kicked Russia out of the G8 and committed heavily to supporting Ukraine (and any other European country that might be threatened by Russia) with free money and weapons.

Those 3 things were devastating blows to Putin and Russia. Trump's job has been to undo those things and he's accomplished alot so far.

In fact, what he's been impeached for is directly related to him trying to undermine the safety and security of Ukraine, for his own gain yes, but to also deliver for Putin. a weak Ukraine at war with Russia is ideal.

Trump has tried several times to gut the spending bill that has money set aside to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia

He's argued for Russia to be let back into the G7

He has cirucumvented diplomatic sanctions. He has closed door, unrecorded meetings with Putin and allowed Oligarchs into the oval office at key intervals

Putin's long game is undermining and controlling US foreign policy. He's patient and its starting to work


He has
>gone after Russia's soft allies (Iran and China) - and despite
>his false claims that he was "getting out of Syria" - he has
>done anything but, continuing the long-standing U.S. policy of
>intervention in an effort to topple Assad (a Putin ally) by
>directly and indirectly supporting Sunni extremist militias
>like ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

i'd argue that military leaders are doing those things more than Trump is.


>What Putin/MBS relationship are you referring to?

I was specifically referring to the way they greeted each other in person..that's why i said "dap up"

MBS is
>waging war in Yemen and Syria (with our backing) and seeks to
>obliterate Iran from the region (a nation with close
>business/diplomatic ties with Russia)

Putin doesn't have allies or practice diplomacy in any real way. He's purely self serving around whatever keeps him rich and in control. He uses chaos in other places to get access to what he needs.

-->

Or Trump's in regard to Russia

either:

1. Doesn't know what they are talking about.
2. Is willfully spreading disinformation.

When asked for sources....crickets

i swear we haven't learned shit.

dammit even i almost forgot this shit

Soul crushing than what we have now

and susan sarandon is slated for secretary of state.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

lets vote 3 times!

as soon as he started with that Reagan never took his jacket off in the oval office bullshit, i decided I'd rather have Trump

i'm not voting for a democrat just because they're a democrat, those days are over
(ended with obama's first term for me).

even talking about Obama or Dems or past things means the reality of the world we now live in hasn't dawned on you.

nothing is as it was. that innocence is over.

Trump is not a republican. he's not even a politician or a business man.

He is the head of a crime family. Period.

You're either voting for that, or you're not.

Maybe we can go back to being rightfully annoyed by the Democratic Party when we've survived this crisis.

>even talking about Obama or Dems or past things means the
>reality of the world we now live in hasn't dawned on you.
>
>nothing is as it was. that innocence is over.
>
>Trump is not a republican. he's not even a politician or a
>business man.
>
>He is the head of a crime family. Period.
>
>You're either voting for that, or you're not.
>
>Maybe we can go back to being rightfully annoyed by the
>Democratic Party when we've survived this crisis.

he is pro-russia bc he had biz interests there

but his direct confrontation of Iran and China undermine that

i think Trump is much easier understood when you look at his actions holistically as PURE and UNADULTERATED self-interest and narcissm

his beef with Ukraine has nothing to do with Russia. He didn't even care about Ukraine until he was told that Ukrainian media seemed supportive of Hillary

and he'd likely blow them off just like he did NK's leader if they willingly trashed the Bidens for him

i still think it's extremely important to get him out of office but mostly bc of his ineptitude and inability to put the population's needs above his own selfish impulses

that's why the Mueller report was so hilarious bc it was basically "he tried to collude" but failed bc

he can't even collude correctly...he literally does nothing right and y'all really think he's an agent of anything other than his own ego?

>i'm not voting for a democrat just because they're a
>democrat, those days are over
> (ended with obama's first term for me).

To the DNC lol. I don’t want anyone to be under the delusion that we arent in for a repeat of 2016

But I also think the least effective way in persuading voters to vote for the eventual nominee is to vote-shame them.

Give them an affirmative reason why they should vote for the nominee - be it SCOTUS, war, reproductive rights, health care, immigration reform (or countless other issues) -- but don't vote-shame and *demand!* that they vote how you want them to vote or else you throw them in the trash - lest you create unnecessary contempt out of a potential voter that you could've persuaded with a more even keel and substantive discussion.

-->

Obviously I am a Bernie supporter, and I feel like his platform is an important referendum on American politics, culture, and priority. If we are ok with tax cuts and perpetual war, but not the planet and a social safety net, then I'm sorry I'm kind of done on this country. There is nothing progressive about staying with a status quo that is clearly failing the majority of us.

I do honestly see this as the most important election in very recent times. I feel like Sanders has a majority, and won 22 states previously against a very popular opponent (including states that Trump won in 2016) AND there are the millions of untapped Independents, First Time Voters, and those who normally don't participate waiting for vote for him even outside the Democratic centered polls.

I also feel like if we are going to give a "Progressive" platform a shot, then let's go ALL THE WAY with the attempt, instead of doing something half-assed, and letting it fail because we elected someone who felt it was the flavor of the month, only to renege and fill their cabinet with Wall Street lobbyists.....again.

I'm at a point where I can spend my 30s and 40s and beyond fighting with and against a country where in one area I'm not a human being, and in another where if I get sick I should fuck off and die. OR I can just relocate somewhere that will have me that have already at least gotten past this argument, and participate in their economy.

So I'm all in on Sanders for the primary. If he doesn't win, my heart and head says to vote for the best candidate that reflects my interests. But at this point if people will accept a Blue no matter who and hold their nose to vote for Bloomberg or some shit, why not? In the end America will get the President that they deserve, and if the priority ISN'T revolving around the items he articulates in his plans, then this country legit may not be in my long term best interests.

*edit, btw I am not completely Bernie or bust this go round. There are a few candidates I could see being fit for President. Sanders, Warren, Yang are acceptable to me, in that order, but one is definitely different than the others.

If it was against anyone other than Trump, I wouldn't show up for Bernie. If he got a term as president, the scale of his failures would do permanent harm to the progressive cause.

But right now we need to staunch the bleeding, and a Bernie administration would at least work as a tourniquet.

It's maybe 50-50 if I'd show up for Mayor Pete against a normal Republican. And I'm not really taking Andrew Yang seriously enough to consider him in the question. Or Tulsi.

I'd hold my nose for Steyer or Bloomberg.

Any of the other candidates would easily get my support in any general election.

I've seen you mention it before and forgot to ask then. I am genuinely curious.

Every time I see him, I feel like I'm more qualified to be president than he is.

I'll amend my position on him, though, because that's not a good enough reason to throw away even more court appointments.

But I wouldn't be able to hide my embarrassment.

>Every time I see him, I feel like I'm more qualified to be
>president than he is.

Cannot disagree. And that's a really disquieting feeling to have about oneself too.

smh

all because he committed the unforgivable sin of endorsing another candidate.

https://twitter.com/johnlegend/status/1217302635742547968
https://twitter.com/johnlegend/status/1217307861480460294

At all. They don’t care tho, they can’t even conceptualize anything but fighting tooth and nail for their messiah.

But the best bet would be for all the bros to be silent and let Nina turner or AOC do the fighting, to remind ppl that Bernie actually has female supporters....I personally don’t know a single woman who supports Bernie, I do know a few bros tho and one is just as annoying and fanatical as the ones u see online...str8 white male too...

like john lewis and dolores huerta because they endorsed hillary clinton.

its a complete cult of personality for a lot of these folks. anything that opposes saint bernard must be torn down.

In the 3 years under trump....too much at stake smh.

"Ok, me Reeq & Stadiq vs. Bent, Vex & Walleye.....fight!"

Maybe try actually debating on the merits of the issue instead of getting caught up in snark wars?

Bernie's not even my first choice - and I've consistently complimented Warren for years (and throughout this thread which started several months ago).

Name one positive thing you've had to say about Sanders?

And the world doesn't need to be reminded that Nina Turner, AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and scores of young women and POC stump for Bernie - like in actual real life - like not on a message board.


-->

Who ur first choice is. Bernie is my second choice of the four leaders, as I’ve previously stated I’d prefer him to Biden or mayor Pete. I will try not to hold his rabid cult against him.

-->

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1217306596155494403

#neverwarren....wow. This is sad and they are mad.

Hope Bernie does when it, Warren would make a better president but we can’t have another election where a portion of the democratic electorate doesn’t vote, votes for trump or doesn’t vote for the democrat.

he deserves the flaming times a million

an embarrassed Republican.
That is a verifiable fact.


That's also not entirely a bad thing. People that vote Republican, especially this motherfucker Trump, SHOULD be embarrassed. People that change parties because it's gone too far, especially one as bad as the GOP? GOOD. Shit, even C. Rich Dogg backed away from the GOP and Conservatism®. I would love to see whether Ex-Pac went at least to the "Never Trump" side of Conservatism®.

Where I differ from many of those in this space is that I don't believe "embarrassed Republicans" shouldn't be shaping policy as much as they do.

That's been basically American politics for at least.... 40 years. It's been a disaster for everyone but the rich, who have gotten insanely richer. It shouldn't be life for Americans.

A celebrity publicly endorses a candidate for POTUS on twitter

Twitter replies contrary to the endorsement are automatically Bernie supporters...?

LOL

Warren's campaign slogan is turning into...Bernie's a meanie...LOL

They need to be pounded into absolute extinction.

That being said, this does not mean I do not have nothing but disrespect for how the Democrats continue to show their hand.

the issue is "America".

and what a Trump presidency means:
- plutocrat agenda
- more erosion of civil liberties
- more packed courts
- more war for no reason
- more bullshit culture wars

all adding up to fortifying the fascist dystopia right here in MURRICA.

Russia ain't got nothing to do with it except capitalize on it

unless your gameplan is to wait out the disintegration of society, Blue or GTFO

I'm just personally trying to take at least two of the above listed off the outcome

issue is irrelevant. no disrespect, you're not the only one.

i understand trump supporters and fox news viewers ignoring/dismissing all evidence inconvenient to their handpicked narrative.

but i still cant make sense of liberals doing it.

i can tell you what exact youtube channels they all regularly watch tho lol.

theyre part of a transnational syndicate working to subvert democracy and permanently/institutionally cement authoritarian rule to uphold their interests.

russian state/intelligence/oligarchs, domestic oligarchs from various industries, psyops firms like cambridge analytica and 'israeli' psy group, fossil fuel conglomerates, white nationalist/nativist groups, conservative religious fundamentalists, rupert murdoch, etc.

all working in remarkable cohesion.

it isnt just america. its a well coordinated effort thats been successful here, the uk, brazil, philippines, india, australia, etc.

if you watch elections across the world...its literally the same playbook in mad countries. same targeted/specific rhetoric, same disinformation tactics, same pattern of shady election funding and subversion of campaign finance oversight, etc.

thats why youll consistently notice russian hackings, russian funding of right wing parties/lobbies, russian troll campaigns, etc in all of these stories.

theres a reason republicans in states like wisconsin and mitch mcconnell work hard to hobble election security and campaign watchdogs like the fec as russian dark money flows into their coffers and state pork barrel projects.

russia really is the mother brain to the rising illiberal order defining this era of politics.

it’s not relevant.

The real problem is America still has some racist and ignorant ass people who vote against their interest.

It’s not because FB convinced them to vote this way.

People just have to vote. I’m pretty sure the D base Isuzu larger than the GOP overall folks just lazy or can’t vote due to felonies.

Then you have smart dumb people who won’t vote because they watched a YouTube video. I worked with an older Black woman who proudly said she doesn’t vote even tho she has opinions about Trump and how he’s a racist. She just churched up and simple. That ain’t Russia. That’s ignorance.

Otherwise you're just saying shit that has no basis in reality just based on homespun 'People just need to get out and vote' that betrays your utter ignorance on this subject and what's happened over the last several years.

You don't need to hack fucking voting machines if you can get people not to turn out or if you can split the vote. Or if you can fan the flames of 'her emails' or 'Biden in Ukraine!' You don't need to hack voting machines when you can hack a political party who will suppress votes, install judges, actively work for your interest and then be willing to fucking cover it all up.

Please leave that ignorant shit back in 2019, y'all.

of an issue whose scope seems too large for you to grasp (currently).

on a 'guns dont kill people...people kill people' level.

youre basically saying propaganda aint propaganda, money aint money, espionage aint espionage, voter suppression aint voter suppression, etc. because they dont have the same direct tangible effect of simply changing/hacking actual votes.

theres a reason we have laws prohibiting/limiting these things for elections. because theyre obviously relevant enough to work lol.


>It’s not because FB convinced them to vote this way.

people spend billions of dollars on campaign messaging and political advertising during election years. for the specific purpose of convincing people to vote this way. clearly they know something you dont lol.

a man drove almost 400 miles and risked imminent incarceration or death to shoot up a restaurant in dc because of facebook posts he saw from infowars, gatewaypundit, etc about a pedophile ring conspiracy theory based on a few sentences in a hacked email about pizza.

you dont think 'fb' could influence some votes?

but no one is saying that. of course racism exists, but when you have access to a platform like facebook, have everyone's data, are experts in propaganda and perform psych ops on people, it makes a difference. I don't get how people think it is irrelevant. Russia has been doing this for a long time, they are very good at it, and now they have new tools to mess with people's heads.

She blew it. Just like she blew it with Obama. Didn’t know the rules. Thought she had shit wrapped up.

This time around she didn’t focus on the states that were in play because everyone said it was easy money. No way he could win.

After 8 years of Obama folks really thought Hillary Clinton was the best option.

We’ve never had a woman president and even tho she was “qualified” she was also one of the most hated people in politics.

and some dude also shot up a softball game.

Crazy people are crazy. Shit ain’t new.

As far as Trump goes... dude beat out 16 other republicans by screaming about a wall. Dude is a celeb and spot that racist shit after 8 years of Obama.. then the Dems pick Hilldawg who faints on 9/11 and ignores the rust belt and there we’re multiple reports of a shitty ground game and ignoring the request to visit Wisconsin and Michigan.

She sent Chelsea... yeah, Chelsea.

So I’m sorry but I’m not getting all scared over Russia when we live in a country where we get murdered on film and Americans still have no compassion for the victim.

We live in a country where Trump voters say “I’m on Medicare and I’m voting to get rid of Obamacare because it’s the right thing to do”

We live in a country where evangelicals say Trump is truly a Christian man.

Nah fam.. if it wasn’t Russia it would be Cuba or Nigerian scans or Iran. It’s not Russia. It’s stupid ass Americans

>theyre part of a transnational syndicate working to subvert
>democracy and permanently/institutionally cement authoritarian
>rule to uphold their interests.
>
>russian state/intelligence/oligarchs, domestic oligarchs from
>various industries, psyops firms like cambridge analytica and
>'israeli' psy group, fossil fuel conglomerates, white
>nationalist/nativist groups, conservative religious
>fundamentalists, rupert murdoch, etc.
>
>all working in remarkable cohesion.
>
>it isnt just america. its a well coordinated effort thats
>been successful here, the uk, brazil, philippines, india,
>australia, etc.
>
>if you watch elections across the world...its literally the
>same playbook in mad countries. same targeted/specific
>rhetoric, same disinformation tactics, same pattern of shady
>election funding and subversion of campaign finance oversight,
>etc.
>
>thats why youll consistently notice russian hackings, russian
>funding of right wing parties/lobbies, russian troll
>campaigns, etc in all of these stories.


At BEST they only function to exacerbate EXISTING shit.

I think there are plenty forces within all the countries mentioned that they don't NEED Russian siceage.

The establishment needs the "Russian" villain propped up to take eyes off what they are doing in plain sight.

2016 was more "Republicans cheating" than "Russians trolling" IMO.

>At BEST they only function to exacerbate EXISTING shit.

You influence through exacerbation. I mean this is all based in an enormous mountain of fact and can be vetted. Your refusal isn't based in anything other than your own personal feelings.

>I think there are plenty forces within all the countries
>mentioned that they don't NEED Russian siceage.

This is absolutely true. Does nothing to negate the relevance of Russia's role and their success.

>
>The establishment needs the "Russian" villain propped up to
>take eyes off what they are doing in plain sight.

Yes, the people who are calling Russian's role are the ones really trying to distract from what they're doing. Not the people who are trying to establish a dynastic oligarchy with help from an outside government so they can create an establishment that is actually unstoppable and not subject to repercussions.

That doesn't even make fucking sense.

>
>2016 was more "Republicans cheating" than "Russians trolling"
>IMO.

Argue your case, let's see sources.

'russia doesnt matter but they penetrated election related systems in many states, manafort gave them polling data, trump publicly solicited their hacking campaign, and gop candidates across the country used the info they hacked from a dnc oppo research repository against specific candidates at the state, congressional, and presidential level' is quite the narrative.

and im not sure why republican fuckery and russian fuckery need to be mutually exclusive. thats a false choice.

We ain't gotta thought police every issue like this.

-->

you do know where that term came from right?

cuz its the exact opposite of 2 people freely expressing their differing political opinions on a public forum.

-->

or ratchet up the requirements for voting, effectively reinstituting the poll tax?

Because THAT is more relevant to the electoral situation IMO. This actually cost Stacey Abrams the governorship in GA.

In Milwaukee alone, the GOP-led, deliberate purging cost enough votes in areas that would have flipped Wisconsin for Clinton in 2016.


Unlike Greenwald, I don't go so far to deny that the Russians are involved. Because they are.

Like Greenwald, I am skeptical that the Russian involvement is significant enough for to shoulder as much as the blame as is suggested.

GOP forces in key states were at work keeping people from voting. This has been the case since at least 2009, when Obama fucked around and flipped states that modern Democrats are not "supposed to win".

Ever since that, it's been a game of making it harder for likely Democratic voters to vote.

Russians can cheat code all they want and spread all kinds of disinformation. Unless they can prove that all those votes they glitched were intended for Democratic candidates...

I will get back to it

Let me just be clear, I am in no way downplaying the very real, significant, and sustained campaign to suppress votes on the part of Americans. Nor am I in anyway downplaying America's past and very present racism, racial violence, class war.

America is still America and I know what America is, was and will be. I have no illusions about that.

NOTHING is just about America anymore. NOTHING

you broke that shit down perfectly.

all facts and anyone who won't accept it is hella naive.

this is the world order.

d

We project onto Russia everything we don't like about ourselves, namely:

*That our institutions are corrupt
*That we meddle and actively tilt electoral outcomes in sovereign nations
*That racism, bigotry & prejudice still plagues our society and persists at the highest levels of business & government.
*That we have an oligarchical, corporate elite controlling our financial & political institutions
*That we act militarily to capitalize on regional instability to further our hegemony, not to redress global inequity and crises

etc...

Of course, Russia is a horrible actor on the world stage in many ways (in some instances, far worse than us) - but we can always point to "RuSsiA!!!" to take attention away from the cancers rotting our own system, projecting our own societal failures onto them in an effort to somehow draw contrasts to show us to be the "good" side of this false dichotomy, Cold War, dual super-power narrative that still dominates the American psyche.

but they don't go -too- hard at China, because of how they keep the global wheel of capitalism well-greased.

Russia... not so much.

China is actively engaged in ethic cleansing, concentration camps, mass surveillance and weaponizing A.I. to subvert its people, and has used the planet as its trash-can as it expands its hegemony. It also engages in the exact same kind of cyber warfare and meddling election as Russia (probably even more effectively) - and China boasts a real threat - both militarily and economically - to counter American dominance in geo-political affairs. They are picking off nation after nation - individually (including many EU members and LatAm regions) - slowly acquiring influence as we waste trillions on failed wars and do irreparable damage to our standing world-wide.

Yet you'd think Russia was the Third Reich reincarnated with how some of these people call it.

RUSSSSSIA OMG RUSSSSSIAAA!

Maddow has essentially spent 3 years pushing RussiaGate conspiracy theory. There are actually other things happening that we should be (more) concerned with.

>but they don't go -too- hard at China, because of how they
>keep the global wheel of capitalism well-greased.
>
>Russia... not so much.

Fact.


-->

Because Russia is an oil-rich oligarchy with social conservative political dominance and the surveillance state all in the mix as well. (Like MURRICA)


>Maddow has essentially spent 3 years pushing RussiaGate
>conspiracy theory. There are actually other things happening
>that we should be (more) concerned with.

but unless there is PROOF that Russians funded and inserted Donald Trump as a candidate to upset the cart... it's BULLSHIT.

All I can figure is that Donald Trump (like many other on paper billionaires, esp. huckster types like himself) had improper business deals and money stashed the world over (they really haven't gone far enough in on Deutsche Bank's dealings with 45). Including Russia.

But do we have Donald Trump and all of his incestuous rich nigga problems because of the Russians? Nah.

Are Russians telling Trump to start a war with Iran? Nope.

But you can bet that all this chaos is something they can manipulate. How much I care about that really has to do with how much can be proven they are ACTUALLY responsible for this current situation.

I just don't see the real evidence to support that.

>but unless there is PROOF that Russians funded and inserted
>Donald Trump as a candidate to upset the cart... it's
>BULLSHIT.

We spent *years* trying to prove this. Dems spent all of their political capital on the Mueller Report for 3 whole years (let's not even talk about the irony of placing your faith in Robert Mueller).

Turns out, Russia did what they (and China, and Israel, and many other nations including us) do: seek to influence elections with propaganda.

>Are Russians telling Trump to start a war with Iran? Nope.

Not only that, but we're supposed to believe that Trump and Putin are BFFs and in lockstep on everything apparently - despite the fact that we have the same exact policy in this administration as we did in all the previous administrations re: Russia - strike its allies in the region (Syria/Iran) and weaken Russia's influence and trade partnerships.

Trump is corrupt; Putin is corrupt. But they ain't banding together to take down America. Trump is attempting to achieve that all by his self.

But our media is complicit in all of this - never reporting facts or putting historical context into its "news"

-->

youre just catapulting all kinds of randomly misused phraseology on to the round table today huh? lol.

you 'project' traits from yourself on to people who dont possess them (like you project a movie on to a blank screen) .

if im a cheater and i accuse you of cheating even tho you never cheated...thats projection.

if i catch you cheating and call you a cheater...even tho im a cheater too...thats not projecting. thats an observation lol.

you admit russia is guilty of what we accuse them of. its just that 'we do it too'.

theres a term (thats actually correct lol) for what youre engaging in.

its whataboutism. im sure youve heard of it. the weaponization of 'both sides'.

the goal is to rationalize/normalize/minimize behavior by convincing people that 'they/everyone else does it too'. so the hypocrisy discredits/invalidates the accusation/criticism altogether/entirely.

your reply was a textbook example. you couldnt draw it up any better.

ironically enough it was popularized by russia/soviet union as a signature tactic to normalize their transgressions and atrocities.

and here we are...still going strong...

-->

yet won’t admit that could be the main reason a white male beat the most hated woman in politics after 8 years of Obama?

and reeq and them still shocked at Biden’s polling numbers and he finally admitted Biden might be our best shot

But Russia is our most serious problem?

Nah.. Americans in “flyover country” are the most serious problem.

you might have more to offer than your basic ass takes on everything

But it's 'smarty art niggas' and 'okay experts' fault. We're the ones who don't get it

First month of Audible is free my nigga

so guess we're in a bit of a pickle

within Americas voting system.

if that same white supremacy couldnt beat Obama in 2 terms, why in the fuck do people like you think white supremacy support went into overdrive to stop Hilary?

its such a LAZY conclusion. something you’d expect to hear spoken as fact in your local barbershop from the resident Youtube scholar.

THINK McFly, its wasnt the constant, it was the variables in the equation.

60 mil voted for McCain
61 mil voted for Romney
63 mil voted for Trump

where the fuck is this influx of white supremacy voters?

that same 63 mil or less will vote for Trump again, its us that didnt show up

How can you ask where White Supremacy was when Obama won but not ask where Russia was when Obama won?

I wasn’t even saying White Supremacy was the sole reason Hillary lost but you really think after 8 years of Obama we could trot out Hillary Clinton and White dudes and their loyal ass wives wouldn’t go into overdrive?

Do you guys know how hard it is for one party to win 3 straight terms in American politics?

and yes.. we didn’t show out? Why didn’t we come out? Cause of Russia? FOH.

We didn’t show up because Hillary doesn’t inspire us.

and remember, she only lost by a few votes in the rust belt where she didn’t hit the ground hard the last month.

especially when you factor in a culture that gets their news from social media and thinks the real news is boring.

>and yes.. we didn’t show out? Why didn’t we come out? Cause of Russia? FOH.

- thats right, voter fatigue, caused by Russia, perpetuated by Hilary.

not Russia.

Dude said grab em and they still voted for him over Hilldawg.

The obsession with Russia is largely because of what happened with the DNC leaks that exposed just how corrupt and biased the DNC was in administrating the 2016 primary. Everyone who participated in that cardinal sin has been or is being hunted down (see: Julian Assange).

Prior to that - Obama was barely even focused on Russia because he knew what it actually is: a broken economy and isolated state that has been readily contained decade after decade since the Cold War by thwarting its soft allies and keeping sanctions/economic pressure in order.

In fact, Dems weren't even talking about Russia like this until 2016. It was Republicans who kept calling Obama "weak" for not war-mongering with Putin. Oh how the roles have changed.

-->

Hillary thought she had shit wrapped up early. Didn’t go hard down the stretch.

Back on here when I used to go at people about her chances I kept reminded people how much Americans despise her. That shit is real.

and Trump, while an asshole he beat out established candidates in the GOP screaming about a wall.

It’s politics 101. People on here don’t want to admit that we live in a shitty ass country when it comes to politics.

Someone posted a photo of a gerrymandered district in NC. Shit was unreal. GOP always plays dirty and blame Russia if you want to but it’s politics as usual that lost that race.

It’s the reason people on here still can’t believe Biden is polling well. Trapped in that progressive bubble.

not too long ago folks on here were calling me a biden shill for saying biden had the best shot.

i made this post way back in 2007.
https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13211439&mesg_id=13211439

i was gonna ask where the fuck have *you* been but nigga you were in there lol.

it's not mutually exclusive.

BOTH THINGS ARE TRUE

Putin/Kremlin have taken our own abject corruption and is using it to their advantage and the Republican party are all the way the fuck in.

That's it. There's no deflection or misdirection. Why is that so hard to understand?

It's not about a fantasy/movie boogieman.

This shit is real and its global and we are now a willing part of it, via Trump.

d

and are calling other people's thinking "lazy".

Ok.

-->

Which clearly shows that you're not quite clear on the regional alliances at play (both soft & hard alliances).

Putin has been pushing back Saudi proxies in Syria for years and has backed Assad while MBS has sought to usurp Assad; Russia has aligned itself with Iran (both militarily & economically) - Saudi Arabia's sworn arch rival in the region - yet you're talking about Putin and MBS like they're besties and poised to create some super secretive pact to take over the world.

Your "facts" all over the place.

-->

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZUCld-u0yc

it was a pretty pivotal moment at the g20 and got a lot of coverage.

shes right. if this stuff is new to you then you should catch up and research. no snark.

I heard they also followed each other on Twitter.

Just as Jinping and Trump dapped up.

But please keep citing photo opps as your "evidence" of what constitutes an alliance and/or coordinated geo-strategic effort.

I'm still lit off of your ridiculous attempt to define what "projection" means - so please - do continue.

-->

its clear (to anyone paying attention to politics post 2016) she was talking about that specific event.

lol @ that loud and wrong interpretation of 'dapped up' you typed out.

its ok to say you fucked up fam.

nobody's disputing that they dapped up, my guy.

Enjoy.


-->

...there's still more than enough reasons to say, "Blue or GTFO."

No one should "need" Russia as a reason to vote Democrat in 2020.

>and what a Trump presidency means:
>- plutocrat agenda
>- more erosion of civil liberties
>- more packed courts
>- more war for no reason
>- more bullshit culture wars

^^^A Republican president going for a second term would represent all of these things, even if Russia had been bombed back into the stone age.

The GOP represented ALL of these things before they started worshiping Putin.

they are at the kids table

I honestly don’t know if any of these candidates can rally enough support.

Getting Trump out should be enough but you got people who over think this shit.

The GOP agenda absent Russia is reason enough to vote for Dems.

CNN is clearly a Russian psy-ops masquerading as American media. Just look at their divisive attempts to tear about Democrats on the debate stage. Exactly what Trump (oops, I mean Putin) wanted!

I urge everyone to look in their basements and get ready for the resurgence of the Great Red Scare. There might be a Russian agent hiding under your water boiler - or in your laptop - or in your MIND.

Notice how the articles of impeachment didn't include anything about Russia. It's because all members of Congress are in on the Soviet fix. You thought it was just Bernie & Tulsi who were Russian assets? Think again.

If we're not talking about Russia then we're all asleep sheep falling into Trump's hands. Don't fall for it!

-->

i don't get why you're going so hard against the facts as they are, but knock yourself out.

All the shit is in play at once. a long history of american fuckery got some international villians in the mix.

*shrug*

I don't need to be right or to argue with any of you about what is true.

all i know is that i'm using my limited power to do things to help fix it...and i hope everyone else does the same.

that's it...nothing is more important than the question of "so what are you doing about it"

"the people" need a win.

d

Nobody here is saying that Russia isn’t a threat - but no need to make this out to some existential SuperPower struggle. Nobody loves that comparison more than Russia, who is struggling for relevance on the world stage.

>nothing is more important than the question of "so
>what are you doing about it"
>
>"the people" need a win.

For sure. All hands on deck.


-->

If Dem voters pick the best candidate we won’t have a problem beating Trump.

IMO the best chance to win is Biden even tho he isn’t my favorite.

i said what i said.

so now what?

you calling it absolutism don't make me no nevermind.

the call to action is now the thing.

d

>...there's still more than enough reasons to say, "Blue or
>GTFO."
>
>No one should "need" Russia as a reason to vote Democrat in
>2020.
>
>>and what a Trump presidency means:
>>- plutocrat agenda
>>- more erosion of civil liberties
>>- more packed courts
>>- more war for no reason
>>- more bullshit culture wars
>
>^^^A Republican president going for a second term would
>represent all of these things, even if Russia had been bombed
>back into the stone age.
>
>The GOP represented ALL of these things before they started
>worshiping Putin.

exactly, which is what has been exploited.

shit was already fucked and now its worse. Its all relevant. Period.

d

such cringe in the comments above in denial about the effects of Russia, China, North Korea, and whoever else is actively targeting our country through troll farms

i wanna say im shocked at the ones in denial about it, but im kinda not

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/quiz-which-candidate-agrees-with-me/

My top three were warren (10/20), yang (10/20) and Steyer (10/20)

Wbu?

Steyer 14, Biden 12, Bloomberg 12, Warren 10, Gabbard 9, Sanders 5

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Buttigieg 9, Sanders 8, Biden 7, Gabbard 6

its not so black and white though. some questions have answers that i would agree with all options. or i might have chosen a middle answer but would be okay/good with going bigger. still interesting, at least to see what the candidates that you are not familiar with support.

also, the link didnt work for me but i searched for quiz and it showed up as a result. the link looked to be identical so i dont know whats up with that.

And the URL was exactly the same, and worked. Weird.

Warren
14

Sanders
13

Yang
10

Steyer
9

Buttigieg
6

Klobuchar
6

Gabbard
6

Biden
4

Bloomberg
4

Klobuchar - 16 (the other 4 were actually unknown, so not necessarily disagreement)
Biden - 14
Bloomberg - 14
Yang - 14
Steyer - 14
Buttigieg - 13
Warren - 9
Gabbard - 8
Bernie - 5

I'm good with that

Butt/ Steyer (9)

Warren (8)

Gabbard (7)

im not anti-business so Yang will score high with me

Warren
16

Sanders
13

Steyer
10

Yang
9

Klobuchar
8

Buttigieg
7

Gabbard
7

Bloomberg
6

Biden
5



_______________________________
gamblers and masturbators.

http://twitter.com/urkelmoedee

https://www.albumism.com/search?q=Marcus%20Willis

Return To Zero: A rap radio show hosted by mrhood75 (Spider Jerusalem) and me (UrkelMoeDee)
https://mixcloud.com

I guess I like the idea of Bernie more than his actual policies.

I’ve always said Biden has the best shot but didn’t think I agreed with him that much.

I’m old and grumpy tho... never been much of a progressive when it comes to politics besides cancelling student debt.

>I guess I like the idea of Bernie more than his actual
>policies.
>

https://twitter.com/ShaneGoldmacher/status/1219455944976928768
------
Joe Biden gets a Bernie Sanders apology for @ZephyrTeachout op-ed:

"It is absolutely not my view that Joe is corrupt in any way. And I'm sorry that that op-ed appeared"

https://t.co/nfWdfLKSVe
------


here is the op-ed in question written by his surrogate zephyr teachout (amplified/promoted on social media by his speechwriter david sirota):
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/20/joe-biden-corruption-donald-trump

the zealots in bernies base are on twitter pissed at him backing down over anything...but it was absolutely the right thing to do. people in the broader party are generally turned off by shit like that (which is why dem congressional 'anti-establishment/insurgent' primary campaigns largely fell flat in 2018 and afterwards (hi nomiki konst).


heres bernies press secretary going into some elaborate word salad to kinda distance themselves from the op-ed but still give it credence and not delegitimize it.
https://twitter.com/notcapnamerica/status/1219361934035890179


i feel bad for bernie cuz he has the absolute worst set of surrogates. zephyr teachout was brought on as a high powered surrogate to give the campaign a spark (despite losing literally every election shes run for at every level of government in ny). and only about a week or two into her position...and the campaign already has to throw her under the bus and disavow her work/tactics.

No call for her to apologize?

-->

Hillary isn't Reeq's girl and you know this.


Yeah, its fuck Hillary all day. She needs to go away.


But its also fuck the bros who appear more eager to burn it all down than compromise an inch.


If Trump is re-elected its as much on the bros as anyone.

and the 2 are entirely separate matters.

ive regularly made my feelings known on hillary doing shit like this

But these stories dropped within a day or two of each other so of course I found it peculiar that you would ignore the Hillary nonsense - but clearly you’re not.

(And I was joking about her being your girl. Relax lol)
-->

Something like that. Basically in ur name

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/opinion/biden-sanders-social-security.html

Bernie has a history of this. Some surrogate makes flat-out lies. They sink in with his supporters and other low-info voters. Bernie hems and haws about how "everybody has a lot of supporters and *I* didn't say any of that," and then a week and half later he distances himself after the damage has been done. The only person who does this tactic better is Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/21/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-documentary/index.html

... w/a rotting brain think of all this ?" I often find myself wondering.

What's funny?

She beat Bernie! She won. She's a sore...winner? So is Trump, of course.


Was John Kerry this involved/opinionated on the 08 primary? I honestly don't remember.

>
>What's funny?
>
>She beat Bernie! She won. She's a sore...winner? So is
>Trump, of course.


Out of curiosity, did she or does she blame Saunders somehow for her losing to Trump four years ago? Not to say I do myself; I'm just trying to understand why she seems to hold so much vitriol for the dude in 2020.

>Out of curiosity, did she or does she blame Saunders somehow
>for her losing to Trump four years ago? Not to say I do
>myself; I'm just trying to understand why she seems to hold so
>much vitriol for the dude in 2020.

It's especially weird because he put aside the bullshit and platformed hard for her bitch ass.

..Hillary told the world she stayed in the '08 race against Obama because Obama might get assassinated like RFK did. Hillary did 12 campaign events for Obama after she conceded. Bernie did 40 for Hillary.

but I do wonder if the DNC still has folks that back Hilary Clinton that agree with her and will work to try to hurt Saunders' chances at winning the nomination. That did occur four years ago, correct? Hopefully that won't occur again.

Regarding this story, Hilary is perfectly allowed to have her opinion, but it's a shame she decided to throw this much shade since she's aware folks still hold her opinion with some level of import. Will be interesting to see how Bernie will respond since he will be asked about the matter.

burn every other option at the stake.


Even if you are a passionate Bernie supporter, you have to at least consider the possibility that it is going to be *extra* difficult for him to win the nom.

To win the delegate game, etc. Because he isn't a Democrat. Because the party is probably full of Clintonians still (sigh).

I'm not saying it isn't fucked up- but its true.

So, knowing that Warren is probably a much more appealing choice to delegates, etc....why not be strategic about the "movement" and direct all of the ire at Biden or Pete?

Instead, its been months of "copycat! fake! she didn't shake his hand!" etc.

Calling for her to drop out, but not Yang or Tulsi. Etc.


They've helped tear Warren down, let Yang and Tulsi cook, and we are probably looking at a Biden/Klobuchar ticket.

every time she drops a book, speaking tour, major interview etc...shes always drumming up controversy with some shit that inflames divisions in the party.

and you know the media is ready to amplify it and profit off the reaction.

ive defended her against some of the treatment that shes gotten in the past. but i legit just want her to go away now.

i dont understand why dems in general cant get their shit together and focus on the task at hand without taking 2 steps back every chance they get. a bunch of birds flying solo without regard for the structural integrity of the larger party. just constant bitching, sniping, and alienating other parts of the big tent.

>every time she drops a book, speaking tour, major interview
>etc...shes always drumming up controversy with some shit that
>inflames divisions in the party.
>
>and you know the media is ready to amplify it and profit off
>the reaction.
>
>ive defended her against some of the treatment that shes
>gotten in the past. but i legit just want her to go away
>now.
>
>i dont understand why dems in general cant get their shit
>together and focus on the task at hand without taking 2 steps
>back every chance they get. a bunch of birds flying solo
>without regard for the structural integrity of the larger
>party. just constant bitching, sniping, and alienating other
>parts of the big tent.

You typed all of that with the presumption that Hilary cares about the Democratic party and/or the 2020 election, which may or may not be true. She gave the quote to serve the interest of her Hulu special, which I think speaks to a larger issue at hand; her overarching sense of entitlement. Rather than try to think of the larger picture at hand regarding the election, she would rather give potentially divisive comments to serve her (and only her) best interests.

Hopefully the comment will only get the 15 minutes of attention it deserves, specially since the impeachment is going down this week.

aside from her of all people talking about likeability being hilarious, I'm sure in her circles among establishment dems no one can stand Bernie and they see him as an annoyance who doesn't get it. But she has little connection to actual humans, its always been an issue for her.

Shes not necessarily wrong about Bernie bros, and yeah all of this is counter productive but it will go away soon enough

>and yeah all of
>this is counter productive but it will go away soon enough

every time dems do some dumb ass shit...it brings me a lil comfort knowing nobody will remember it next week lol.

in an alternate reality that doesnt include trump...the press is still peppering candidate elizabeth warren with questions about her heritage and dna test rollout.

this story will feel like something out of 2017 lol

Remember when Clinton and her proxies endlessly cried about Russian meddling in the ‘16 primary by saying that there was an effort to fracture democratic unity by sowing division among the electorate?

These “bots” were said to be instrumental in convincing voters to not support the eventual nominee - and were deployed to smear and tarnish the front-runner in an effort to get Trump elected.

Stein? Russian asset, according to Clinton. Tulsi? Her too. Sanders? Yep. You guessed it.
Anyone who got in her way? Yup. Putin pawns.

Welp. Looks like Hillary Clinton is the ultimate Russian asset - playing right into their playbook (according to her and her holdovers).

Indeed - for Chelyabinsk Clinton - and many Establishment power wielders - the notion of a Sanders nomination is more unacceptable than a second Trump term. And that’s precisely why Clinton came out today and refused to commit to voting for Sanders should he be the eventual nominee.

Let that sink in for a minute.

-->

is just an established fact. If Howard Dean took him seriously, he could have endorsed him. If Pat Leahy took him seriously, he could have endorsed him. If Liz Warren took him seriously, she could have endorsed him. The people who knew Bernie best ignored him the same way they'd ignored Dennis Kucinich in past races.

More important, did Bernie really WANT Pat Leahy and Howard Dean's endorsements?

This is what Bernie was running on! This (the fact that nobody took him seriously) is how he was able to present himself as a revolutionary even though he was a career politician and a sitting US Senator. He wasn't trying to run on his record, he wasn't trying to run on all the bills he'd had signed into law. He ran as a revolutionary (and, for whatever reason, he still hasn't drummed up a revolution, or even an electoral coalition).

As for whether she'd support him, come on. Of course she'd support him if he was the nominee. I doubt he'd want her to be making any appearances. But she'd be at his disposal as Democrats always are for the nominee. She's just being coy right now to remind whatever adults remain in the party that he doesn't deserve to be taken seriously as a candidate now, just like he didn't deserve it then.

I'm guessing that she hoping that someone is going to start a "Draft Hilary!" campaign and is envisioning riding into the DNC Convention on a white horse.

she'll never get over that L and it's somewhat understandable.

at the same time berniebros still aren't over losing to her (they go on about the dnc even more than she goes on about Russia). and it's kinda weird the way Trump still obsesses over her and bernie bros still obsess over her but any time she lashes out back it's fuck you and sit the fuck down, lady lol

I'm not necessarily taking her side, but in some ways I'm like, fuck it. speak your mind.

>I'm not necessarily taking her side, but in some ways I'm
>like, fuck it. speak your mind.

December 2020, specifically. You lost to a braindead nazi because you were lazy and stupid. Sit it out, idiot.

and more in your camp on this. but hardly anyone will remember this in 2 weeks (if that).

let her get it out of her system. if we're post election and she drops this people are still gonna tell her to fuck off and go away, win or loss lol.

I'll also guarantee that he team is currently gassing her up and telling her that she should take another shot at it. Especially if it looks like no one is looking particularly strong coming out of the primaries.

>RE: I'll put money on her doing this throughout the primaries.
>I'll also guarantee that he team is currently gassing her up
>and telling her that she should take another shot at it.
>Especially if it looks like no one is looking particularly
>strong coming out of the primaries.

every time she pops up, or speaks out there's some story from some so called insider that shes considering throwing her hat in the ring. I doubt there's any movement on any scale to make this a reality that exists outside of her own fantasy or of the people who just kinda enjoy shitting on her

>I'll also guarantee that he team is currently gassing her up
>and telling her that she should take another shot at it.
>Especially if it looks like no one is looking particularly
>strong coming out of the primaries.

I'm fucking begging you. please. go for a walk with no airpods in.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Only things on YouTube I watch are sports related or old clips of Parks and Rec.

and what they're telling someone.

cuz...does it take a team to realize that she doesn't like dude?

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Iowa caucuses just around the corner. This strikes me as strategic and as a sign of more to come as head down the stretch to November.

Hope you're right, hope I'm wrong. But I don't think this was a coincidence.

but in actuality, she may be helping Sanders.

Remember: Clinton has record unfavorables. She's projecting mightily by claiming that "nobody likes" Sanders. In actuality, voters *really* don't like Clinton, and this will only generate sympathy for Sanders and prove him and his supporters correct with regards to their claims that she has a vendetta for him.

Voters don't like this kind of grandstanding and lack of personal accountability. She has never taken an ounce of responsibility for getting beaten by Trump - in what was one of the biggest upsets in Presidential electoral history. She ain't convincing anyone with this drama.
-->

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Hope you're having a nice day.

do the same shit over and over again.


also it's monday on a holiday weekend. but otherwise good

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

1)She says Bernie is a career politician: She's right - he's been in government for nearly 40 years. NOW - I happen to like career politicians - same way I like career physicians.

2)She's right about people not liking him in congress - at least by her metric: amount of legislation proposed and apssed.

“He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him. He got nothing done,”

So I get that *if you like Bernie* you'll want to make her out to be a cold heartened butt hurt lady. But she's right on his legislative record.

And when she goes onto say "“I will say, however, that it’s not only him, it’s the culture around him. It’s his leadership team. It’s his prominent supporters. It’s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women."

So attack her mercilessly and PROVE HER RIGHT!!!

Remember this about Hillary: When Obama beat her she switched modes and FULLY supported him - to the point where he appointed her a Secretary of State!

Bernie most certainly did not do that for her in 2016.

and Bernie is not a Democrat - unless it benefits him.

>1)She says Bernie is a career politician: She's right - he's
>been in government for nearly 40 years.

Interesting that she didn't say that about Biden, or better yet - her husband. Clearly, her issue with Sanders isn't that he's a "career politician" - it's just another cheap jab.

>2)She's right about people not liking him in congress - at
>least by her metric: amount of legislation proposed and
>apssed.
>
>“He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support
>him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him. He got
>nothing done,”

lol yea this doesn't carry water either. But don't listen to me - refer to Politifact:

"Bernie Sanders is often criticized for "pie-in-the-sky" proposals and impractical ideals, but his campaign argues the Vermont senator actually gets things done.

Sanders served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 2006 and has been in the Senate since then. Republicans were in control of the House from 1995 to 2007 and of the Senate from 2015 to present.

In 2005, Rolling Stone named Sanders the "amendment king" of the House. At the time, the title held true: Out of 419 amendments Sanders sponsored over his 25 years in Congress, 90 passed, 21 of them by roll call votes.

From 1995 to 2007, Sanders passed 17 amendments by a recorded roll call vote — more than any other member in the House.

Bernie Sanders passed more roll call amendments in a Republican Congress than any other member.

That’s a very specific way of slicing and dicing Sanders’ effectiveness as a lawmaker, but it’s accurate. From 1995 to 2007, when Republicans controlled Congress, Sanders passed the most roll call amendments (17) out of anyone in the House of Representatives.

In the current Congress, Sanders ranks fourth when it comes to the number of career roll call amendments passed, according GovTrack founder, Josh Tauberer.

Source: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/

That certainly doesn't sound like someone who "nobody likes" in Congress. Clearly, his colleagues collaborated with him (at record numbers) in an effort to get quite a few things done.

So yea - maybe we could start by not saying dumb stuff that lacks merit.



-->

But he DOES suggest changes that pass about twice a year.

Again, Bernies always playing the outsider - when dude's been an insider for nearly 40 years. Biden, Clinton, Warren AREN'T trying to play that card - that's why she didn't bring it up about them.

But:
Let' face - she don't like him because he was a fucking bitch in 2016 - crying about treated unfairly then being MILQUETOAST when it came time to support the nominee.


I don't like him because he's not effective and HE'S NOT A DEMOCRAT.

For the record:I'll vote for him if he's the nominee - but I'll never trust his supporters after 2016.

From the PolitFact I just linked for you:

Volden and Vanderbilt University’s Alan Wiseman assess the legislative effectiveness of House members by comparing their records to a benchmark. According to this analysis, Sanders has either met or exceeded expectations during his tenure in the House.

Far cry from the "he gets nothing done" lamentations from you and Clinton.

>But:
>Let' face - she don't like him because he was a fucking bitch
>in 2016 - crying about treated unfairly then being MILQUETOAST
>when it came time to support the nominee.

ahhh there it is - nothing like pure hatred to expose your lack of objectivity. "He's a fucking bitch" - yea that's deep.

Listening to you - you would think that Clinton was cheated out of the 2016 Primary. Thankfully, we have facts that have established the contrary: Sanders was cheated. Despite that, he stumped for Clinton 40 times! It was Clinton who thanked him for his "relentless campaign support" in 2016:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwr6QuCKOGI

I know you're probably lathered up in a fact-free safe zone - but it's gonna be ok.


-->

Here's a link to the 3 Bills that Bernie introduced and that were enacted by direct signing over 39 years:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=300008#sponsor=412542&enacted_ex=on

Your boy has BIG ideas but can't work with anyone to get his major ideas - because he's not very good at legislating.

39 years and 394 bills introduced - and 3 passed. 2 were post Office namings. (Note:I'm sure the slits below also contain inconsequential bills that other people introduced.)

That's less than 1%. And he's not a giant co-sponor of groundbreaking legislation either.


Here's a link to the 28 Bills that Biden introduced and that were enacted by direct signing over 39 years (including 2 pretty bad ones at least):
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=300008#current_status[]=28


Here's a link to the 3 Bills that Booker introduced and that were enacted in 7 years:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=300008#sponsor=412598¤t_status[]=28

Here's a link to the 14 Bills that Klobachar introduced and that were enacted in 13 years:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=300008#sponsor=412242¤t_status[]=28


Only Warren has less - but in 7 years vs 39, here's a link to the 1 bill she introduced that was enacted:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=300008#sponsor=412542¤t_status[]=28

To sum up: He gets you wet - but he doesn't come through.

Y’all think Obama was stonewalled! Smh. It doesn’t hurt to try tho.

as it pertains to his legislative record (as evidenced by my above reply).

We could go on for days with the link wars - but let's not waste our time.

You despise Sanders so you'll find data to fit your narrative. Alike, I support Sanders so I'll find data to support my argument.

But the notion that "none of his colleagues like him" is erroneous. You don't pass the amount of amendments that he's passed without finding common ground with peers.

Further, one's legislative record is just one facet of leadership. His vote against the Iraq war bodies the entire field in terms of foresight and courage under fire. That's the kind of vision and leadership that is so badly missing at the top of our body politic.


-->

-->

Maybe Bernie's campaign slogan should be "Change You Can Occasionally Sneak in Small Quantities into Unrelated Bills."

of course everyone is focused on...what hillary clinton is doing!

good job everybody, you're super smart and good looking and can't be easily distracted at all.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

1. won the primary against Bernie
2. Bernie holds 30+ campaign events for Hillary, particularly in states she neglected
3. lost the (electoral college rigged) election to the worst GOP candidate since George W. Bush, whose last job was a reality TV show host
4. is mad at Bernie years later

rich coming from a person who counted Harvey Weinstein and Jeff Epstein as "friends"

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1219773503735508992

duh

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

He’s unquestionably a true contender for the nom...but he was in 2016 too. Im wondering with years to promote himself since then and virtually universal name ID, why he doesn’t have stronger support than 25 percent. Of course the same can be said for Biden but we all know his flaws are numerous.

In really curious to see how February plays out

https://twitter.com/KaivanShroff/status/1220114487988060171
--------
BREAKING:
@BernieSanders called for “adjustments” to Social Security in 1996, a term that his campaign insists was a “euphemism” for cuts when it was used by Biden. More hypocrisy.

https://t.co/jTcdIfdDjT?amp=1
-------

this is why you shouldnt play purity police. cuz eventually you fall below your own standard.

not to mention the fact that bernies campaign is disingenuously categorizing bidens calls for "freezes" as "cuts". thats some republican shit right there.

bernie supporters complain about the media shadowbanning him from coverage in some instances (legit criticism imo...they leave him out of the convo when they shouldnt).

but what the media is *not* doing is vetting bernies past political history the same way theyve vetted biden and warren.

and candidates arent attacking him the same way he/his campaign attack them on their past.

like...

- voted to protect the nra death lobby from lawsuits.
- voted against brady bill (gun background check and waiting period) 5 times
- voted against amber alerts
- voted against chip (child health insurance program)
- voted for indefinite detention of immigrants
- voted for measure supporting anti-immigrant minutemen militia
- pushed trumpian rhetoric that immigrants take jobs and burden/threaten our social safety net
- voted to dump toxic waste (from a company his wife was on the board of) in the backyard of a latino community.
- sanders institute funneling donations into the pockets of family members and loyalists (something they accused clinton of doing)
- endorsed/campaigned for an anti-abortion mayoral candidate in 2017 while roe v wade is under threat from trump supreme court justices (he double down on this when questioned too)
- voted against closing gitmo
- voted against russian sanctions after they attacked our elections
- said black people are locked up more often for drug crimes because most drug dealers are black


thats just off top. im sure theres more that would come to light if dug into (like the social security 'adjustment').

plenty of times bernie didnt live up to his own standard that he holds *everybody else* to. and nobody is really calling it out.

and movies.

https://streamable.com/leib8


dude has done an amazing job of creating a brand identity as the perfect progressive because nobody really paid attention to him until 2015 and beyond.

but hes clearly like most other 'career politician' with the same vulnerabilities and questionable activity that doesnt withstand scrutiny under his current political persona.

>and movies.
>
>https://streamable.com/leib8
>
>
>dude has done an amazing job of creating a brand identity as
>the perfect progressive because nobody really paid attention
>to him until 2015 and beyond.
>
>but hes clearly like most other 'career politician' with the
>same vulnerabilities and questionable activity that doesnt
>withstand scrutiny under his current political persona.

He's not going to get that pass in the general if he wins the nom.

>He's not going to get that pass in the general if he wins the
>nom.

youd rather things get exposed and defended in the primary then let loose in the general. we could be putting forth a soft/sheltered and largely untested candidate.

like what happens to latino voters when they find out he wanted to dump toxic waste in their backyard? or when bernie-bro-skeptical women find out bernie threw his political weight behind a pro-abortion politician while they were agonizing about the future of roe v wade?

>
>youd rather things get exposed and defended in the primary
>then let loose in the general. we could be putting forth a
>soft/sheltered and largely untested candidate.


Exactly

>like what happens to latino voters when they find out he
>wanted to dump toxic waste in their backyard? or when
>bernie-bro-skeptical women find out bernie threw his political
>weight behind a pro-abortion politician while they were
>agonizing about the future of roe v wade?

When I read that I was thinking wtf.

what do you find questionable? what did he say that was un-progressive? Sounds like he was giving a three-pronged answer, the video removes the context but even at the end of the cherry-picked clip he says "certainly guns are an important part of what has to be done".

also, that was 2012. in 2011, Anders Breivik killed 77 people in Norway:

"Breivik's manifesto included writings detailing how he played video games such as World of Warcraft to relax, and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 for "training-simulation". He told a court in April 2012 that he trained for shooting using a holographic device while playing Call of Duty. He claimed it helped him gain target acquisition."

so you blame world of warcraft for dude shooting those people?

you don't have to do everything in the world to protect bernie.

he probably also drove a car and ate ice cream.

did those cause him to shoot those people? *millions of people* have played call of duty

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Time to pick a candidate. Why not defend the candidate I want to see win?

As for inside the mind of a mass shooter: who knows? What ultimately "causes" any behavior isnt easy to pin down. Doesn't help when guns are easy to get. But is it possible that video games might be a contributing factor? Of course it's possible. Breivik himself claimed they helped him murder. He was clearly playing Call of Duty while thinking about killing real people. Less likely to think that way playing fifa

then I can't really stop you from doing it.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

you are a very negative person.

You could literally do this to every candidate running - but yet again - you choose to solely focus on Sanders.

-->

Pretty sure that’s what drives most of this hate in 2020.

I’d love to see these same laundry lists for Warren, Kamala, Pete & Biden.

Haven’t seen them - but doesn’t mean they aren’t there in the vaults. I’m legitimately asking to see them as I’d like to read them. So please direct me to those critiques.
-->

it has literally been done for every other candidate. they all have a laundry list of critiques (constantly launched/highlighted by the sanders campaign).

yet nobody is attacking bernie on the laundry list of past inconsistencies that i pointed out.

you think repubs arent waiting with a stockpile of oppo research on sanders (who hasnt been put through the ringer in either of the past 2 primaries)?

the whole point of the primary is to make sure the candidate we put forth in the general is battle tested right?

shouldnt we be kicking sanders tires?

>it has literally been done for every other candidate. they
>all have a laundry list of critiques (constantly
>launched/highlighted by the sanders campaign).

Again - check your post count here and see how many times you (at least try to) critique Sanders vs other candidates. Vast disparity in your analysis.

Not sure why you’re trying to act like you’re just trying to vet and do oppo research - you’re clearly making the case that you think Sanders is the weakest candidate of the top tier (which is hilarious given the egregious pass you’ve given Biden).

And that’s perfectly fine if that’s your stance. Just own it and be real and stop trying to feign objectivity.

>you think repubs arent waiting with a stockpile of oppo
>research on sanders (who hasnt been put through the ringer in
>either of the past 2 primaries)?

Lol yea ok. He’s only been cheated out of a primary and smeared as wholly unelectable, a do-nothing Soviet-style socialist, and posited as some craven creature who nobody likes. It’s not as if he isn’t the continual target of corporate media smears (albeit ineffective ones). Such a cake walk for Sanders.

You’re in here just throwing links at the wall thinking it sticks. You don’t think the Clinton machine (who smeared Obama as a *Muslim* of questionable character) didn’t do everything they can to denigrate Sanders? They are still doing it - it’s just not sticking.

For somebody who spends an awful lot of time on politics - you seemingly haven’t learned anything from 2016. These purity tests don’t work. Donald F’ing Trump is President - a candidate so corrupt that you could fill a museum with negative oppo research on him.

Yet you’re in here really making the case that Sanders - who has essentially been who he is for a half century - is somehow not going to survive a general election in *this* political climate.

Yikes.



-->

specifically doing it as a means to deflect from any kind of gun control legislation. I know he's not the most anti gun candidate but I think he has a D nra rating

you can just say bernie's not perfect and hasn't thought through every single thing, but you still support him.

you don't have to be silly

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>bernie supporters complain about the media shadowbanning him
>from coverage in some instances (legit criticism imo...they
>leave him out of the convo when they shouldnt).
>
>but what the media is *not* doing is vetting bernies past
>political history the same way theyve vetted biden and
>warren.
>
>and candidates arent attacking him the same way he/his
>campaign attack them on their past.
>
>like...
>
>- voted to protect the nra death lobby from lawsuits.
>- voted against brady bill (gun background check and waiting
>period) 5 times
>- voted against amber alerts
>- voted against chip (child health insurance program)
>- voted for indefinite detention of immigrants
>- voted for measure supporting anti-immigrant minutemen
>militia
>- pushed trumpian rhetoric that immigrants take jobs and
>burden/threaten our social safety net
>- voted to dump toxic waste (from a company his wife was on
>the board of) in the backyard of a latino community.
>- sanders institute funneling donations into the pockets of
>family members and loyalists (something they accused clinton
>of doing)
>- endorsed/campaigned for an anti-abortion mayoral candidate
>in 2017 while roe v wade is under threat from trump supreme
>court justices (he double down on this when questioned too)
>- voted against closing gitmo
>- voted against russian sanctions after they attacked our
>elections
>- said black people are locked up more often for drug crimes
>because most drug dealers are black
>
>
>thats just off top. im sure theres more that would come to
>light if dug into (like the social security 'adjustment').
>
>plenty of times bernie didnt live up to his own standard that
>he holds *everybody else* to. and nobody is really calling it
>out.
>

Nothing from the Bernie people on here. Dammmnnnnnn

Those are all huge knocks to his perceived sainthood among progressives.

I mean, it's not exactly switching parties but they are valid criticisms of past conservative-leaning votes or claims similar to those leveled at Clinton, Biden, Warren, Kamala and others.

I would like to see where he now stands on all of those or how he would walk them back in today's public sphere. I wish Warren or someone more astute than Biden or even an early young progressive outlier had taken him up on those issues directly.

and i dont personally have an issue with those *past* stances. i believe most dems should be given room to adapt and grow with the party. and im pretty sure bernie is on the right side of things *now*.

but his campaign has been hammering people on shit they said/did 30-40 years ago. meanwhile bernie was doing some of that shit listed while obama was in office.

when you pick apart his track record. The way republicans can with a straight face, call dems anti-semitic (yes they might even call Bernie, a Jew, anti-semitic for kicks), racist, or inconsistent, it can represent a weakness

holding other folks to the sanders standard (that sanders doesnt even meet) but then giving sanders and his loyalists a pass.

take rogan for instance.

bernie supporters were calling him a gateway to the alt right and criticizing him for platforming people like milo, ben shapiro, and jordan peterson.

now they are happy to brandish his bernie endorsement as a symbol of bernies big tent appeal.

zero shame about the bipolarity.

on with the meathead, redneck, gunloving demographic that also listens to him.

I stopped listening when he gave Jordan Peterson and Shapiro a platform but the Sanders interview has so many views, the benefit it gave to parts of his message we can probably agree on cannot be overstated.

Supposedly MAGA guys were supporting Yang now, supposedly many that were Trumpers are now on the Sanders wagon. You have that type of voter listening to JRE regularly along with many others. I think your cynicism is warranted on the everyday left's excitement about being seen around town with that demographic, or rewarding them for anything just yet.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

i'm sure some bernie supporters, have called Rogan "alt right adjacent" but it's probably less for the bernie bro crowd. Most people who coin Rogan that tend to be the call-out culture/think piece/twitter mob crowd who never really listen to the show but see that he's had certain guests on or that youtube's algorithm tend to tie his videos to "so and so DESTROYS lib" videos, or whining about him having comedians on who they feel whine too much about cancel culture.

>I stopped listening when he gave Jordan Peterson and Shapiro a
>platform

i've heard a couple of the peterson ones. he's neither as brilliant or horrible as most people say. he's a bit of a fraud, but half his successs comes from lefty's obsession over him. Shapiro i can't listen to at all. he's just a grating little shit, and somehow people think he's a great thinker because he drops alot of obscure historical references and talks fast.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

But he interviews across the board. Cornel West recently had an excellent interview on the JRE - and he’s had lefties in quite often.

Incidentally, Warren, Pete & Biden all tried to land Rogan interviews (unsuccessfully) - so not sure how much ground their supporters can stand on when claiming Rogan is some unsavory character.

-->

>Incidentally, Warren, Pete & Biden all tried to land Rogan
>interviews (unsuccessfully) - so not sure how much ground
>their supporters can stand on when claiming Rogan is some
>unsavory character.
>
>-->

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

or is it for promoting his endorsement?

because one of those things would make your claim relevant, and the other one would kind of expose it as an attempt to muddy the conversation.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

and not just a "pretend" problem that someone can use as a political point.

what if, and I know you've never heard of this before, there are real people who listen to joe rogan and go down the path of racism, anti-gay and anti-trans viewpoints that get a platform on his show, and promoting him is bad because promoting those things is bad.


but sure. it's all about whether or not someone can falsely claim hypocrisy.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

in his own home state?

do you know how effective that headline will be for republicans?

'bernies medicare for all failed in his own state. now he wants to take it national'.

hes got a ton of vulnerability that isnt being stress tested in the primary.

Since you are one of the very few on here that seems to be discussing things in good faith I took a quick look at the list and all of these have been discussed before and most of them are distortions. Obviously Bernie isn't perfect but if you look at the two gun ones those were debated ad nauseam by Hilary in the 2016 debates against him. The amber alert one I found a thorough response to:

Did Bernie really vote against the Amber Alert program?

Yes. He did. Though not for the reasons some people think.

Why did Bernie vote against it then?

The bill contained the amendment that gave us the 3 strikes law and lead to mass incarceration.

Bernie strongly supported the Amber Alert notifications legislation and signed onto a 2004 letter to the House leadership requesting full funding for it. He voted against the Amber Alert bill because he believed an add-on to the legislation which imposed sentencing guidelines that limited the discretion of federal judges unconstitutionally took power that should rest with the judiciary.

Here is a link to the discussion in the Senate about the Feeney amendment where you can read about the civil rights concerns. American Bar Association, 618 criminal law professors, Eight former U.S. attorneys in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York all feared making this amendment law.

At the time Senator Leahy, said of the Amber alert bill in his April 10, 2003 statement, "After months and months of trying, we've finally gotten a green light for a national Amber Alert program," "The problem has never been winning enough support to pass it. The problem has been that our bill has garnered such strong support that it has been abused as a sweetener for highly controversial add-ons."

Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote a letter to Congress expressing the same concerns as Bernie that the add-on sentencing provisions would do "serious harm to the basic structure of the sentencing guideline system" used by federal judges "and would seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and reasonable sentences."

Sometimes when legislation is sure to pass congress members use amendments to try and get through less popular or controversial laws that otherwise would never pass. That’s what happened here. Bernie knew the sentencing guideline add-on was a horrible idea and he voted against it. He ignored the political backlash and took the vote because it was the right thing to do. Bernie has done this with numerous votes where he chose to take a principled stance instead of cowering to political pressure.

And the rest of them are in similar veins. The bottom line is that Bernie is one of the most vetted candidates in history, every attack has been lobbied at him and he is still surging. There is no better example of this in that Peter Daou who was Bernie's strongest critic in 2016 and worked on Opposition Research for Clinton against Bernie is now fully in the Bernie movement and says that nothing is in the oppo that isn't already public and tweeted "I know more about #Bernie's negatives than just about anyone in politics and I'm still supporting him, because his positives FAR outweigh his negatives." https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/1220454535552032770?s=20

I'm definitely familiar with Daou and his shift from critic to avid supporter of Bernie. I've read a lot of his reposted tweets.

that he voted in favor of the 1994 crime bill?

how do you square that one?

but I'll repeat it, it was just like the Amber Alert bill that there were provisions in the crime bill like the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on assault weapons that Bernie did support so he voted for it. This video explains it well:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/28/politics/bernie-sanders-not-happy-terrible-1994-crime-bill/index.html

Bernie heavily criticized the mass incarceration parts of the bill, look at the juxtaposition of his words compared to Biden's here, and yet Biden is the electable one?

https://twitter.com/DonWinslow16/status/1218720895075745792?s=20

From now on unless someone with good faith wants to discuss anything Bernie related my time will be better spent volunteering for the man who has fought his whole life for a more fair and just society.

help for domestic violence victims. but he had no problem voting against help for kidnapped/trafficked children.

meanwhile both measures were tethered to the same severe criminal justice provisions.

how do you explain supporting one but not the other?

cuz this is what the sanders campaign has been doing to every other candidate.

you?




www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

https://twitter.com/EmersonPolling/status/1220531705682984961

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPAzHgTWAAA2p5M?format=png&name=small

meanwhile for the other 3 major candidates...86+% have already committed to vote for the nominee no matter who it is.

even 78% of *bloomberg* supporters are committed to vote for the dem nominee and some of that support even includes moderate repubs.

there goes the #neverbernie myth up in smoke.

clearly its not supporters of other candidates who are biased and hardened against bernie. its his supporters towards the other candidates.

yang gang is in the same realm as bernie folks. both exhibit the behavior of cults of personality.

>https://twitter.com/EmersonPolling/status/1220531705682984961
>
>https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPAzHgTWAAA2p5M?format=png&name=small
>
>meanwhile for the other 3 major candidates...86+% have already
>committed to vote for the nominee no matter who it is.
>
>even 78% of *bloomberg* supporters are committed to vote for
>the dem nominee and some of that support even includes
>moderate repubs.

lol

Don't get me started on Bloomberg supporters. These are the older white centrist liberals and I-love-gays-but-not-poor-people 'socially liberal, fiscally conservatives' that think Bloomberg did nothing but good for NY and they're annoying as fuck. We are to applaud that his supporters are morally flexible and blindly money-worshipping (he can really put Trump in his place because his fortune DWARFS The Orange One's!) and might also be secretly harboring a tendency to support racist practices in policing?

>there goes the #neverbernie myth up in smoke.
>
>clearly its not supporters of other candidates who are biased
>and hardened against bernie. its his supporters towards the
>other candidates.

Meanwhile CNN, NYT, Wapo, Daily Beast, the sources people depend on for some type of sane reporting, display a pretty clear bias in their coverage, consistently. I think the arguments are less about #neverbernie being a populist phenomenon, and more it being a institutional phenomenon.

>yang gang is in the same realm as bernie folks. both exhibit
>the behavior of cults of personality.

Both have shown pretty discernible personalities in contrast to Warren and Biden. is it strange that they are intensely liked? Are Yang and Bernie really espousing dangerous rhetoric that warrants comparison to Trump's?

The very valid and positive way to spin that is that Bernie brings people into the Democractic party who no other candidates can attract.

That's kind of why this Joe Rogan thing has me beating my head against the wall. For some strange reason which I can't understand, Joe Rogan is the most influential figure among a huge swath of a certain type of males and if you want to win, you can't just write off their votes.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

rogan doesnt represent any voting bloc thats voting for dems in significant numbers. non college degree white males are firmly republican. thats the foundation of their party. thats the foundation of rogans audience.

this fascination with chasing/peeling off a small sliver of these white male voters instead of just ramping up efforts to increase women, non white, and suburban turnout (aka the 2018 base/coalition) is fools gold.

national elections arent won on the fringes. theyre about base turnout.

trump didnt win states like wisconsin because he attracted indies or even dem crossover voters. he actually gained less total votes in the state than mitt romney. its just that dem base voters lagged significantly between obama and clinton.

I wouldn’t really depend on them this time around.

I’ve always thought it made sense to vote for a Bernie type since most Dems are going to vote Blue regardless.

Apparently I’m not as much of a Bernie fan as I thought base on a recent exam but whatever.. I don’t think this means Bernie is holding the Dem party hostage.. just means he is speaking to a portion of voters who aren’t loyal to the Dems.

Ain’t like those voters would jump to vote for other Dems if Bernie wasn’t in the race.

I agree with Buddy on this one and thought the same thing in 2016. Get the person who can create the largest umbrella.

>
>
>I agree with Buddy on this one and thought the same thing in
>2016. Get the person who can create the largest umbrella.


Is it an umbrella if he can't pull in enough of the Black vote to win the nom ?

"- said black people are locked up more often for drug crimes because most drug dealers are black" <----- that's awful Bern should know better.

>Is it an umbrella if he can't pull in enough of the Black vote
>to win the nom ?

Sanders pulls in the most Black voters (other than Biden) - and it’s not even close. He’s first with young Black voters under 35, first with the LatinX vote, and has the lowest % of white support of all the candidates.

But let you tell it and he’s basically polling akin to Steve King demos.

-->

>
>>Is it an umbrella if he can't pull in enough of the Black
>vote
>>to win the nom ?
>
>Sanders pulls in the most Black voters (other than Biden) -
>and it’s not even close. He’s first with young Black
>voters under 35, first with the LatinX vote, and has the
>lowest % of white support of all the candidates.
>

He needs to pull in more than Biden.

>But let you tell it and he’s basically polling akin to Steve
>King demos.
>

You have a list of unanswered receipts waiting for you up above start with this

"Sanders, seated across the table, a yellow legal pad at hand, responded with a question of his own, according to two people present: “Aren’t most of the people who sell the drugs African American?” The candidate, whose aides froze in the moment, was quickly rebuffed: The answer, the activists told him, was no. Even confronted with figures and data to the contrary, Sanders appeared to have still struggled to grasp that he had made an error, the two people present said."

-->

This is bad

voted to protect the nra death lobby from lawsuits.
- voted against brady bill (gun background check and waiting period) 5 times
- voted against amber alerts
- voted against chip (child health insurance program)
- voted for indefinite detention of immigrants
- voted for measure supporting anti-immigrant minutemen militia
- pushed trumpian rhetoric that immigrants take jobs and burden/threaten our social safety net
- voted to dump toxic waste (from a company his wife was on the board of) in the backyard of a latino community.
- sanders institute funneling donations into the pockets of family members and loyalists (something they accused clinton of doing)
- endorsed/campaigned for an anti-abortion mayoral candidate in 2017 while roe v wade is under threat from trump supreme court justices (he double down on this when questioned too)
- voted against closing gitmo
- voted against russian sanctions after they attacked our elections
- said black people are locked up more often for drug crimes because most drug dealers are black


that other Bernie support picked up his ball and he is taking it home.

Cause I can’t see how Black voters stay home in 2020 if Biden isn’t the nominee.

Hell, Warren could be the nominee and she doesn’t have a bunch of Black support but I doubt y’all would say she would struggle with Black turn out.

I know some people implied Black voters didn’t come out for Hilldawg but if that’s true I think it’s because they thought she had it in the bag because everyone had her running away with it.

I guess it’s Biden if it comes down to Black voters.

and he's not going to make it that far if he is still struggling, he could end up like Hillary if he squeaks by Biden.


>Cause I can’t see how Black voters stay home in 2020 if
>Biden isn’t the nominee.
>

It only takes a few in a couple of places.

>Hell, Warren could be the nominee and she doesn’t have a
>bunch of Black support but I doubt y’all would say she would
>struggle with Black turn out.
>

Same for Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar all of them.

>I know some people implied Black voters didn’t come out for
>Hilldawg but if that’s true I think it’s because they
>thought she had it in the bag because everyone had her running
>away with it.
>

Maybe or she didn't do enough.

>I guess it’s Biden if it comes down to Black voters.

Bern needs a big win in those early states.

Biden is going to pad his stats in these southern states.

It’s going to be hard and it might be impossible.

But I think if Bernie got the nom he would win because Black folk aren’t about to let Trump ride in 2020.

just look at the shift in va from 2016 to 2017 to 2019.

but this is where things stand now:

https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1217477433869377537
------
Trump approval ratings via new NPR/PBS/Marist poll:

White women w/o degree:
48% approve, 47% disapprove

White women w/ degree:
31% approve, 68% disapprove
------

trump used to be up big with non college degree white women. now he barely has a plurality. white women with college degrees are a big wash.


>I’ve always thought it made sense to vote for a Bernie type
>since most Dems are going to vote Blue regardless.

i mean yeah. most dems are gonna vote blue. but what percentage of dems are gonna *turn out*?

most dems voted for hillary. its just that a smaller percentage of them turned out for her in key places than for obama.


>I agree with Buddy on this one and thought the same thing in
>2016. Get the person who can create the largest umbrella.

we dont know who can create the largest umbrella til the votes roll in during the primary. it doesnt matter how well you perform with other groups...or disaffected voters on the margins...if you underperform clinton with women and/or black voters. or you underperform 2018 candidates in the burbs. thats pretty much the ball game right there.

Never ever ever trust polls when it comes to white women.

They lie.

and nah, the Black vote is southern states really screws up the data. Does it matter if Biden gets a ton of Black support in GA, SC and Bama? We aren’t winning those states in the Electoral College.

If Bernie can get a bunch of weirdos to turn out AND Dems fall in like like we always do he will have the best shot out of anyone not named Biden.

That’s why I laugh when these smart asses throw darts and try to tell people they don’t know how this shit works.

People still following news stories and believing polls.

I trust not one of them hoes to do the right thing.

and by hoes I do mean suburban WW.

So arguments about the general electorate based on the primary electorate are usually specious and statistically invalid.

So basically these people are fine with another Trump term then. If this many people are willing to risk Trumps reelection over this or that policy difference of someone from their own party, this country is a lot more fucked than I thought. Selfish babies.

and that is to be expected when talking politics.

Not everyone is anyone but Trump.

and Trump is in office so we already know this country is nuts.

A lot of their supporters are uniquely attracted to the candidate, not the party label. They probably wouldn't even be interested in voting if it wasn't for that candidate. You can't just swap them out.

You think Jeb Bush could have collected Trump's "disaffected, forgotten men and women" in Michigan? Probably not. Just like Amy Klobuchar probably wouldn't garner Bernie's "young, economically unsecure" supporters.

Jeb Bush wasn't talking to them, just like Klobuchar isn't talking to them.


I tried to find an identical question given in 2016, but these were as similar as I could find real quick:

http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/1/1239/1866/index.html

"Although the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that 66 percent of Trump supporters would vote for the Republican nominee regardless. The others all say they will do something else, with 11 percent saying they will support a third party candidate, six percent won’t vote and four percent will vote Democratic."


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/12/08/poll-trump-cruz-rubio-clinton-sanders/76948760/

"And in a chilling sign for Republicans, 68% of Trump's supporters say they would vote for the blustery billionaire businessman if he ran as an independent rather than a Republican; just 18% say they wouldn't. The rest were undecided."

More 2008 Clinton primary voters voted for McCain (15%) than did Sanders supporters who voted for Trump in 2016 (12%).

Also - Gary Johnson siphoned more votes away from Trump (he earned 3% of the vote in 2016) than Stein did to Clinton (Stein earned just 1% of the vote).

What was more material in the Clinton loss was this: Latino voters didn’t turn out in sufficient numbers; neither did African-Americans. She lost white men, and couldn’t win over white women. By just about every measure, Clinton underperformed Obama and her electability was always suspect given her historic unfavorables.

All that being said - it is certainly possible that in 2020 - Sanders voters will revolt at unprecedented numbers if there is more foul play at hand in the primary (namely if it comes down to a brokered convention and the Super Delegates end up picking the nominee - which won't be Sanders). If Sanders outperforms the field in the primary - yet is vetoed by the SD's - then all hell would break loose and I would expect unprecedented revolt from Sanders voters.

Let's hope that doesn't happen.

-->

also FUCK TYT

its amazing what starts turning up when a candidates past is actually vetted. lol @ people thinking a senator in a 95% white state wouldnt back legislation to get tougher on crime in the 90s.

he actually said more jails were needed and the 1994 crime bill was a good balance between prevention and penalizing. and he urged others to support it based off the criminal justice merits.


https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/1221468426855755776 (part 1)
------
NEW: A 1994 video shows Bernie Sanders backing the now controversial crime bill as a effective “two pronged” approach to crime, calling the prevention & tough on crime aspects "equally important" w/ Sanders adding does think the U.S. needs “more jails.”

https://t.co/6N4dpUVR13
------

https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/1221470334681001986 (part 2)
------
Sanders, has defended his vote bill citing the VAWA act and assault weapons ban. But in the 1994 video, though he says he favors more money going into prevention – he backs the bill as a good "a balance" between the two approaches to crime.

https://t.co/6N4dpUVR13
------

so dude was basically a lefty when it came to economics...but a typical white politician when it came to other issues like crime and immigration. far from the consistent lifelong 'progressive' he is potrayed to be.

Quick! Everyone vote for Biden now!
-->

They're definitely trolling, though.



_______________________________
gamblers and masturbators.

http://twitter.com/urkelmoedee

https://www.albumism.com/search?q=Marcus%20Willis

Return To Zero: A rap radio show hosted by mrhood75 (Spider Jerusalem) and me (UrkelMoeDee)
https://mixcloud.com

That man is not only TRUMP, but he is TRUMP with just enough of a layer of "respectability politics" to evade certain liberal and older Black votes to cover the horrific personal and policy record this man has wielded since becoming an elected official.

I don't care if it's Biden (who is also shit).

But NO BLOOMBERG.

NONE.

...limits. Someone would have to do a masterful job convincing not to write someone in or vote third party in that scenario.

I live in California, so it would really matter; we're going blue even with Bloomberg as the nominee.

I still am finding it very hard to believe how he's gone from not even trying to complete in the first two primaries to people treating him like he's the prohibitive front-runner. In the words of the homie Squeeg, how is he Industry Plant-ing his way into this election?

considering M4A and free college won't happen?