Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Hillary and the DNC did what the could to make him appear unelectable, and blatantly screwed him in Nevada, and he was still a strong contender until the end.Slightly different rules for superdelegates this time, and I don't think voters have forgotten the shit the DNC pulled last time.
Optimistic, maybe, but it beats laying down and accepting the shitshow for what it is.
She's apparently doing it again. Said she'd not support Sanders if he got it.
I'm behind the rules then.
Agreed there 👆
Originally posted by Robtard
She's apparently doing it again. Said she'd not support Sanders if he got it.I'm behind the rules then.
Agreed there 👆
Hillary Clinton is one bitter and egotistical person, too arrogant to admit her own shortcomings and inability to excite the Democratic voter base enough to vote for her, even in some of the key Democrat states. Bernie held a shitload more rallies than she did for Obama, too, but if you ask her, he screwed her over. She probably resents Obama some too. Quite an anti-feat losing the presidential bid twice (twice to political newcomers and once to a crooked business man who inherited his wealth and has f*ck all in common with the average American) with the political resume and name recognition she's got.
Pretty ironic that she has more in common with Trump than she does with Sanders.
Originally posted by BackFire
I think it's going to be Sanders. He's surging at just the right time. If he wins the first couple of contests he'll have huge momentum.
2008 Obama-esque. Reminds me of exactly what was going down with Obama and Hillary.
There are even parallels between Warren and Sanders butting heads.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I like Nina Turner too, and that was a great example of calling out bullshit identity politics and woke for the sake of woke culture for what they are. The merit of a candidate's policies and their intent to follow through on those policies are what voters should be concerned with, not this bullshit of "It's time for a ______ president!" even if their policies are shit and their voting records and/or conduct are spotty.As far as Tulsi being a good VP choice for Sanders, that may have been true several months ago, but I think choosing her as his VP at this point would likely hurt Sanders in the elections more than help him. Better double down on his populist progressive platform by naming a much more likeable progressive VP and win over more center-left voters than try to appeal to more conservative voters and risk losing support from his growing voter base of progressives going into the primaries or general election.
Tulsi's lost the plot burning bridges within her own party while trying to appeal to independents and conservatives. Corrupt or not, they still have to work with them in Congress and get their support if they hope to get anything passed. Capture independents and Republicans? She can't even unify the Democratic party, nevermind bridge the gap between progressives, centrists, and conservatives.
She's put in most of her campaigning effort into saying she's against unnecessary wars (so is just about everyone else...officially anyhow) and that politicians--specifically, Democrats--are corrupt (only unique in the fact that she is only lambasting those in her own party, but not in the opposition party). She's already caved on Medicare for All, and isn't really focused on any other big life-changing ideas for this country. She's just a loose cannon in the Democratic Party, at this point, and doesn't deserve our trust.
Actually, you could be correct about Tulsi. I thought about it more after reading your post. One thing voters do not like, from any side, is changing positions of a candidate. It's odd but if a candidate is stubborn on their positions are unchanging for a long time, it appeals more to the tribalistic part of the human brain. I don't know why this is because a more logical and science-based approach would be changing your position based on new evidence and science. A more agreeable position would be admitting you are wrong and matching the best logic and evidence. But that's not how it works for the masses.
If the Trump Campaign can capitalize on Tulsi's changiness, that would hurt Sanders bid for president. He'd need a more solid candidate who can kick ass and take names like Nina Turner.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, you could be correct about Tulsi. I thought about it more after reading your post. One thing voters do not like, from any side, is changing positions of a candidate. It's odd but if a candidate is stubborn on their positions are unchanging for a long time, it appeals more to the tribalistic part of the human brain. I don't know why this is because a more logical and science-based approach would be changing your position based on new evidence and science. A more agreeable position would be admitting you are wrong and matching the best logic and evidence. But that's not how it works for the masses.If the Trump Campaign can capitalize on Tulsi's changiness, that would hurt Sanders bid for president. He'd need a more solid candidate who can kick ass and take names like Nina Turner.
Exactly. It's just one more thing everyone from progressives to Trump and the Republican party could hit him with if Tulsi was his VP pick.
I'm all about changing opinions based on new and relevant information, but much like Warren, I think Tulsi's poor choices as of late were bad attempts at smearing opponents for the sake of self-promotion, rather than anything done out of principle or logic.
It's also quite telling that Bernie got more shit from progressives over Joe Rogan endorsing him than he did for his involvement with Linda Sarsour.
And Hillary courted f*cking Henry Kissinger's endorsement.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
It's admirable of Bernie to take the high road and resist the temptation to call his critics absolute scumbags, even if they are being unfair and dishonest.Sorry if I missed the response to my question to you before, Surt, but if it comes down to Bernie and Trump in the general election, whom will you support and why?
I could never support Bernie after he said he'd put a moratorium on deportations.
And to even *consider* supporting him I'd need to know who he is running for VP and the reason is his age and recent heart attack. I get the feeling he'd go the stupid woke route and try for some black female VP just to virtue signal.
Originally posted by Surtur
It's also quite telling that Bernie got more shit from progressives over Joe Rogan endorsing him than he did for his involvement with Linda Sarsour.And Hillary courted f*cking Henry Kissinger's endorsement.
I could never support Bernie after he said he'd put a moratorium on deportations.
And to even *consider* supporting him I'd need to know who he is running for VP and the reason is his age and recent heart attack. I get the feeling he'd go the stupid woke route and try for some black female VP just to virtue signal.
Knowing my own family history, and being familiar with the experiences of many others, I'd be in favor of a stop to deportations, and a simplified and quicker immigration process in general.
It's not official, just a hunch, but Bernie will likely choose Nina Turner as his VP. Me and DDM were talking about her earlier, and he even shared a video. When asked who his VP pick would be, Bernie said it would be a progressive woman of color. I don't think he was virtue signaling there as much as he was dropping clues as to who he actually had in mind.
I get what you mean about the disingenuous virtue signaling others have tried, but it would actually make more sense for Bernie to pick Nina than it did for McCain to choose Palin. Given his history, Bernie doesn't need to pick her as a gesture to the world to show that he likes and cares about Black people. Nina has been a much bigger supporter of Bernie and advocate for his progressive platform than Warren ever was, even after the last election. Jill Stein wanted her to be her VP running mate in the general election and got turned down. Nina's been collaborating with Bernie and progressives since.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Knowing my own family history, and being familiar with the experiences of many others, I'd be in favor of a stop to deportations, and a simplified and quicker immigration process in general.
Since my paternal great grandparents came over in 1917 via Ellis Island, I don't think I have any room to demand strictly enforced borders.
And my maternal family members came over in the 1600s and 1700s as settlers. Literally no borders at the time.
The world is different than in the early 1900s or Colonial Period.
Sanders Campaign Rocked Again: More Staff Caught Advocating Violence Against Opponents
God damn you trump for causing these people to be violent douches who need the shit slapped out of them!
Originally posted by dadudemon
2008 Obama-esque. Reminds me of exactly what was going down with Obama and Hillary.There are even parallels between Warren and Sanders butting heads.
The big difference is specifically who is backing Sanders vs who was backing Obama. It's a completely different group. Black people still largely support Biden and don't care for Sanders very much.
Sanders Campaign Rocked Again: More Staff Caught Advocating Violence Against Opponents
“I’ve canvassed with someone who’s an anarchist, and with someone who’s a Marxist-Leninist. So, we attract radical, truly radical people in the campaign … obviously that’s not outward-facing.”
“A lot of those people who do that kind of work, are … their politics fall well outside of the American sort of norm. So, they’re Marxist-Leninist, they’re anarchists, they’re these types of folks, and um, and they have more of a mind for direct action, for engaging in politics outside of the electoral system.”
lol frickin commies
“A lot of the stories we’re told in the United States about, you know, the gulags and the persecution of the Kulaks and things like that are exaggerated … we certainly don’t have, uh, a straight perspective on that stuff here in America.”
LOL!
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Remember when people here said “oh it’s just one person.”
This is the 4th person now and I don't think Bernie has denounced it. Also notice how the media isn't really touching this? Well I've seen it discussed on Fox, but left leaning media outlets haven't really been talking about this.
Given their dislike for Bernie it makes you wonder why. Anti Bernie democrats are instead running attack ads about how he had a heart attack and the media is mostly silent. Any left wing outlets that did discuss it only did so briefly.
I have a theory: this is about project veritas. They don't want to legitimize it...lest they ever have anyone ever exposed by veritas. Too funny lol.
Originally posted by Robtard
Team Trump seems to have sent marching orders to attack Bernie Sanders again (see: Surt and Broly's autistic anti-Sanders screeching), guess Sanders' recent surging in popularity claims are legit.Go Sanders.
It could be the Trump teams but Hilary has been poking the sleeping giant of Bernie as well, Bernie probably knows though that he needs strong numbers to prevent a brokered convention.