-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US PoliEra 2019 |OT7| It's happening
- Thread starter Ogodei
- Start date
- Status
New Hampshire feeling the Bern?
Fucking kill me. I love Liz, but seriously, I question her capacity to make smart decisions. Being in any cahoots with a person who is responsible for the loss of the biggest slam dunk election in history is some self-awareness lacking shit
Garbage burns. Dont want your garbo candidate to catch fire? Dont be next to the incinerator. All these people gaslighting voters with "THIS IS HOW TRUMP WON" during a fucking Primary is some doo-doo trash.
Fucking kill me. I love Liz, but seriously, I question her capacity to make smart decisions. Being in any cahoots with a person who is responsible for the loss of the biggest slam dunk election in history is some self-awareness lacking shit
This reply deserves better than to sit at the bottom of the page.
When all you have is an incinerator everything looks like it needs to be burned. That's just it- the actual content and context of people opposing Sanders hasn't mattered- all that matters is that they oppose him and thus they must burn. The reason will be determined after the decision to go after them. Bernie's hired on human trash fires like Sirota, Turner and Gray, and the result has been the petty grievance campaign you'd expect from them. This isn't gaslighting, its saying that burning the party down in the name of victory for a singular candidate is actively bad. And this HAS happened before to the dems.
Of course you question her "ability to make smart decision". Of course.
1) people are DYING, cant afford to pay their medical Bill's, the coast is going to be underwater, some of the water here is undrinkable, people cant afford insulin, etc etc. I think you've falsely identified the "incinerator" in this equation. I mean, if you wanna keep defending garbage candidate with garbage candidate solutions who want to "ReaCH aCRosS tHe iSlE" centrist do-nothing, please let's not pretend for standing for anything, hmm?
2) say what you really mean. Or define what you're implying. I'm a Warren advocate. But shes done plenty of stupid shit from my view. Let's hear it. This Party has been a gigantic loser for over a decade. Fuck the party if it wants to keep it that way. Spare me your guilt trip
This is a hilarious post. A good leader will seek input for relevant experienced persons. If Warren sought Bernies advice (being a loser) you wouldn't care.
Warren actually reaching out to all aspects of the Democratic party is why she's going to win. Unlike other campaigns who if the person isn't already on board just get yelled at for not being pure enough....Having decades of contacts within the Democratic party is a good thing if, you know, you want to actually win a Democratic primary. Who knew?
Lol
Also. Two front runners in the primary hooking up to go to victory (hopefully)? Gosh who would want THAT?!
Honestly, if this association bothers you but Sirota, Nina Turner and Briahna Joy Gray don't I think it might be time to pull back and look at the bigger picture.
Bernie's campaign staff have absolutely -50 do do with my criticism lol
I mean, be salty all you want about those terrible "bernie bros", bit cmon, yall cant honestly tell me this is a good idea
One of those losers ainy running in the election and this close to passing the preferred candidate right now.
I dont know why this framing feels so disingenuous lol
Ah, but you see, he only lost because it was RIGGED! If every state was a caucus state, and if the DNC agreed to hold ten debates a week, and if the superdelegates had all overturned the will of the majority to support Bernie, he would have won.
Now Clinton on the other hand? Being the target of coordinated Republican and Russian disinformation campaigns for decades, and losing by a few tens of thousands of votes across three crucial swing states? Totally on her. Absolutely no chance Sanders would have faced any sort of negative campaigning from the right, and if he had, it would have smoothly rolled off his back while he whispers sweet nothings into the ears of middle-class America, along the lines of "Your tax increase will be offset by the less money you'll need to pay in premiums," after which Donald Trump spontaneously combusts at the first debate in the presence of such grace and purity.
Because they don't think Bernie lost. They think it was stolen from him and given to the person who lost.
The same thing they'll be thinking when he loses again.
What? The mere fact of talking to Hillary? You don't know what the deal is or why they're talking. Maybe it's to avoid mistakes she made. It's ridiculous to say just talking to her is a bad idea
"Democrats lose because they don't reach out to the people who disagree with them"
"Here is why Warren reaching out to an extremely well-known Democrat she's had very public disagreements with is a bad idea"
This isnt even a straw man. It's like....what's thinner than straw? Only thing that comes to mind is Bernie's skin.
.
You said you "question her ability to make smart decisions" because she might be consulting with a Dem vet & power player. Yet you don't question Bernie's ability to "make smart decisions" when he's staffed up with garbage people, grifters and Jill Stein supporters.
I desperately need to see this board in action if hes nominated. Desperately.
It's still cute to see folks gleefully ignoring even basic fuckery that happened in 2016 because y'alls preferred candidate got nominated.
Literally anyone involved in Hillary 2016 needs to sit this one out. That's what I'm saying.
Let's look at the polls.
Why not extend this to the campaign that lost to hers?
Huh?
btw Hillary still has 77% approval among voters in the Democratic Party (per Gallup). You know, the source of the overwhelming majority of primary voters in 2016 and likely 2020.
Don't underestimate how powerful of a sell "Hillary without the baggage" would be.
Don't underestimate how powerful of a sell "Hillary without the baggage" would be.
Anyone involved with a campaign that failed to win the nomination in 2016 needs to sit this out. That's all I'm saying.
Ask an overwhelming majority of the candidate running with his policy proposals ;)
Pretty much what I see. Warren's ability to build a D coalition is what sets her over Sanders IMO. There are a lot of garbage Dems in Washington that will need to be wrangled to make lasting change.
And if you want to make progress on those things you have to work within the party. Including with people who spout meaningless platitudes because moderates/Is like them. When you hire on people who refused to vote against a literal White Supremacist but who have no problem yelling at an airline/s customer service peopl on twitter for hours because they're going to miss an international wedding because their standby ticket didn't pan out, its going to cause issues doing that. Warren having been able to earn trust with Clinton and her team to the point where they were running their policy proposals by Warren before pushing them out is a big positive sign that she can actually build bridges instead of burning them.
Bernie could have won 2016 with better decisions and didn't make them. And he's now in third place. Yet I don't see you criticizing him for his major fuckups that led to this problem for him. Warren, Hillary- they get assigned all the blame for anything and everything that goes wrong. Bernie gets excuses. It's always someone else's fault - they're the ones who need to change, not him. It all would have worked out if it weren't for the meddling (DNC/WaPo/Superdelegates/insert newest excuse here)!
Exactly correct. Warren is doing the right thing building a coalition (which is the only real path to victory) while certain other candidates surround themselves with staffers who are pro-doxxing on Twitter, stoke conspiracy theories and get defensive about having supported grifting troll & popular Putin state dinner guest, Dr. Jill Stein.
She's leading him in them. It's why she's sharing center stage w/ Biden at the upcoming debates.
Well, perhaps I was hoping youd present some realistic and logic reasonings behind your post aside from trivial stuff like "hes too old" or even venturing into right wing talking point territory like "he has 3 houses and an expensive coat!"
I mean, all ya gotta say is "I just dont like him" lol. Petty. Fair, but petty
The axiom of "Of course no one could possibly dislike Bernie in good faith!" is so tiring.
User Banned (1 week): trolling, history of similar behavior
Yet here we are. You still havnt done it lol
I'm impressed
We're getting so close to valuable and thoughtful discourse
Starting with campaign employees. Which after all is the greatest measure of Whitehouse staff choices.
You don't see Warren campaign officials getting into twitter battles. They are working instead.
Pretty much.
I'm really starting to dislike clowns who do nothing but play dumb. I have no respect for that whatsoever.
I dislike plenty about Sanders. I dont agree with his stance on the filibuster or sex workers. I agree that hes a bit too crotchety sometimes.
Man, that was so easy to say just now
Valuable and thoughtful discourse such as dismissing Warren because she may have had a meeting with Hillary Clinton?
I dunno.
#3,294
So I guess an incomplete list would be:
Someone younger
Someone postitive
Someone who can electrify the ENTIRE base
Someone not so goddamn crotchety
Someone who understands nuance within the party
Someone not all or nothing
Someone positive in the eyes of minorities
Others can add to that list, I suppose.
I mean, idk why the hell I'm doing this because you aren't actually interested in a good faith argument but, I'll humor you.
1) Bernie is shit on guns. He has always been shit on guns. His gun stance is bad. He should feel bad.
2) Bernie decries "identity politics" because it gets in the way of his glorious revolution.
3) He's an ineffective messenger for progressive ideas.
4) He hires questionable people, who have no business being within ten miles of the halls of power. The only qualification he seems to value is blind loyalty.
5) He is, at best, tone deaf on racial issues. And this is a polite reading of the situation.
6) His personality is grating to me. He seems like a jerk 90% of the time, and bitchy professor doesn't do it for me. I question his temperament.
7) Presidents require an ability to form consensus. It's not about preaching from on high. He has shown zero ability to bring people together, and instead alienates literally everyone who even mostly agrees with him.
8) His wife probably should be under investigation by the FBI, and god knows what he knew about her lying/selling access. Plus, there is a long history of nepotism when it comes to his various organizations.
9) I think he is fundamentally wrong on many issues, including both the diagnosis, prognosis, and best treatment option.
10) His plans are not even remotely close to realistic. I don't mean politically either. I mean they literally do not add up mathematically. Unless math is somehow a conspiracy against him.
11) He attempts to weaponize any and all opposition to him. If someone or some organization does not agree with him, it is somehow ESTABLISHMENT and bad. (See Planned Parenthood a la 2016). It borders on Trumpian.
12) He is trying to run against literally everything and everyone--even when being quiet and just taking a lump would suit him better. Someone writes a non flattering story about him, he and his team lose their fucking shit. It's pathetic and beneath him as a Senator and as a potential President.
13) I don't think he can win a general election.
14) I think some of his views, specifically those from the 70s and 80s which he has never disavowed publicly,, are fucking atrocious. (Charter schools, lack of sex causes cancer, kids should be allowed to be naked around each other, porn is dying, etc).
15) He's 77 freaking years old. It's too old. Sorry not sorry.
This is the Nate punditry I can get behind
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1170417638541074432?s=19
- Status