Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

Who are your favorite candidates?

  • Kamala Harris

    Votes: 43 8.0%
  • Elizabeth Warren

    Votes: 99 18.4%
  • Julián Castro

    Votes: 16 3.0%
  • Pete Buttigieg

    Votes: 51 9.5%
  • Kirsten Gillibrand

    Votes: 7 1.3%
  • John Delaney

    Votes: 9 1.7%
  • Tulsi Gabbard

    Votes: 63 11.7%
  • Bernie Sanders

    Votes: 338 62.9%
  • Amy Klobuchar

    Votes: 12 2.2%
  • Joe Biden

    Votes: 45 8.4%
  • Andrew Yang

    Votes: 112 20.9%
  • Cory Booker

    Votes: 7 1.3%
  • Marianne Williamson

    Votes: 19 3.5%
  • Mike Bloomberg

    Votes: 12 2.2%

  • Total voters
    537

THE_IRON_...KENYAN?

Banned deucer.
Its definitely not because hes a white guy lol. Kamala Harris is a complete stick in the mud charisma wise with a Biden-esque record against minorities as a no-nonsense prosecutor. Beto is basically a white Obama, and its pretty clear that hes the DNC man elect. They are trying to capture lightning in a bottle a second time. Also, I would argue that despite his Caucasian nature that Robert O'Rourke is at least as mestizo - in spirit - as any POC who lives in El Paso, the place he represents. But that is neither here nor there. My take is much more comprehensive, succinct, and accurate than yours.
 

MikeDawg

Banned deucer.
Its definitely not because hes a white guy lol. Kamala Harris is a complete stick in the mud charisma wise with a Biden-esque record against minorities as a no-nonsense prosecutor. Beto is basically a white Obama, and its pretty clear that hes the DNC man elect. They are trying to capture lightning in a bottle a second time. Also, I would argue that despite his Caucasian nature that Robert O'Rourke is at least as mestizo - in spirit - as any POC who lives in El Paso, the place he represents. But that is neither here nor there. My take is much more comprehensive, succinct, and accurate than yours.
166113
 

MikeDawg

Banned deucer.
Side note, I think Kamala is actually pretty great in front of a crowd/camera. Even my 80 y/o aunt thinks Kamala is charming, and she high key hates POC.
 

THE_IRON_...KENYAN?

Banned deucer.
Beto is definitely more politically savvy than Elizabeth Warren considering she was dumb enough to indulge Trump on his Pocahontas provocation and end up looking worse because of it. Its not very often that somebody takes on Trump and ends up looking dumber than he is but she managed to do it. And really thats all that matters when it comes to electabilty. Beto skateboards, Beto has a kickass band, Beto is handsome, Beto knows how to speak so hes clearly an articulate dude with policy ideas himself.

There are absolutely only 3 people who are worth a shit this election for the DNC and that is 1. Bernie Sanders 2. Andrew Yang and the Yang Gang and 3. Beto O'Rourke.

Im telling you, hes the DNC guy. Hes got a fuck ton of donations real early, and since we know they dont like Bernie, Beto is their guy. As for Yang? Hes the slant eyes joker in the deck of DNC candidates. Total wildcard. But hes an ideas man who has potential
 

phantom

Banned deucer.
Beto is a charlatan. He’s running the single most self-absorbed nonessential campaign out of every democrat right now, and that’s saying a lot given you have jokers like Cory Booker running. He has no fucking platform other than him saying he deserves to be president because he was “born to be in it”. His initial announcement didn’t mention a single policy issue and was a bunch of platitude word vomit. That’s not unique to him since other establishment dems like Kamala Harris and Cory Booker are running on platitudes also. But what the fuck is this nonsense:

“We have the single greatest mechanism to call forth the genius of our fellow human beings. This democracy … can bring the ingenuity, the creativity, the resolve of an entire country”

I’m not sure how anyone can listen to this insipid flowery garbage and not get irritated. In addition, beto kowtows to aipac, takes more money from fossil fuel industries than even most republicans, and is against medicare for all among other redeeming qualities. If the establishment wants to do another repeat of the 2016 election and run another unviable candidate who hardly appeals to anyone, at least don’t pick the one dem who’s staunchly anti-environment.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
THE_IRON_...KENYAN? I will not be defending Elizabeth Warren's campaigning, charisma or political Savvy... she is a wonk with a good heart, but she seems lost in the game, and I also think she would be lost on how to get her vision implemented.

Still, I'm not willing to call Beto comprehensive, succinct, or likenable to Obama. I mean I guess he's tall, thin, handsome, and too optimistic... but that's where the comparison ends.

Obama also built a campaign on bipartisan "hope and change" without policy specifics but he was an academic, he was a lecturer-- he gave platitudes, but those platitudes were couched in a historic context, and he always clearly orated how his speech fit into the arc of America's progressive story. Beto is unintelligible and word salad.

Kamala Harris pisses me off playing lip service to progressive policy, not having the policy chops to back her argument up, and all too willing to run to identity politics without really speaking for vulnerable voices... but at least I understand wtf she's talking about.

I mean I'm actually glad Beto's in it because he will compete with Kamala Harris directly (where Booker and Gillibrand are total duds) but his nothing in policy, nothing in rhetoric, nothing even in identity politics campaign... as Michael Brooks said, the vapid entitlement of it all kind of pisses me off.
 

MikeDawg

Banned deucer.
I know a lot of people like Pete, but if we're going to elect a mayor, I think Duke from Minnesota is a safer choice. He's more centrist than most of the other candidates, but his animal rights record is spectacular, and I think that's an often neglected topic in politics. His net approval rating is ridiculously high, and he's really charismatic in front of a crowd. He hasn't been particularly outspoken on medicare for all, but he's certainly not opposed to it. I hope he can get enough donations to earn a spot on the debate stage.

Here's a recent interview he did:

Duke/Harris 2020
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
https://momism.substack.com/p/your-...3Plw0MBi-oT3egq4wIwsf1Zu-z9z9txSIQYBx7tHGKGRI
the most important piece ive read this election cycle, but i reckon the message will be lost for many

"I’m writing this essay, like everything else I write, on stolen time.

When my husband and I moved out of Brooklyn, and into upstate New York — not the cool upstate, the vacation homes and weed-dealing farmer’s markets and artist’s communes an hour or so out of the city, but true upstate, rocky foothills and pine forests and industrial devastation — the only thought on my mind was childcare."

"
So, anyway, how’s Beto O’Rourke doing?
Henry, age eight, weighs in from the back of the Toyota Tundra.
“Dad, if you run for president, I’m going to cry all day,” he says.
“Just the one day?” asks O’Rourke, hopefully.
“Every day,” says Henry."

"
This is how we want women: Embedded in family, in community, in place, responsible primarily to others and not to themselves, having to haggle every minute of work time away from children or husbands or both. Then we want to dismiss them for not being engaged enough with the world, for not being free enough, for being too consumed with their petty personal affairs. Suburban soccer mom, some Bernie Sanders supporter hissed at me on Twitter, no doubt believing he supported universal childcare as he did so."

anyway, the end of the piece is an odd fantasy hymn to elizabeth warren, which I bet not even the author can seriously stand by, altho she takes a correct line of reasoning to an incorrect conclusion (elizabeth warren 'deserves' to be president) the piece should still be taken very seriously imo. the leftist candidates need to make the offer of free childcare, eldercare, and housing programs part of their central talking points and platforms for a start.
 

MikeDawg

Banned deucer.
So from sources I’ve seen, that article has it wrong— that O’Rourke has 128k unique contributions, not unique donors.

The same donor could make 100 donations of 47 dollars. Unlike Harris and Sanders, O’Rourke didn’t release “unique contributors.”
Ok, but the only demographic ridiculous enough to do that overwhelmingly supports Bernie.

Is there really nothing better to talk about than completely unfounded claims regarding things that don't matter at all? Jfc. At least, "Hillary probably won the popular vote because 2 million illegal immigrants voted for her," was about votes. This is literally nothing.
 

DetroitLolcat

Maize and Blue Badge Set 2014-2017
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
I want to post more about Andrew Yang later, but I do not get the hype around this guy. Universal Basic Income is not as radical or as necessary a proposal as Medicare for All or a Green New Deal. Heck, it's not even as leftist as the Workplace Democracy bills sponsored by Bernie Sanders.

A UBI is a milquetoast social democratic reform that exists for the purpose of keeping the means of production in the hands of the capitalist class. It's not revolutionary - it doesn't transfer ownership of autonomous devices to the people whose work is being displaced by them. While automation is ultimately a step forward for humanity, it can't be allowed to happen under capitalism. We have to cure our society of capitalism and make sure that automated production is democratically owned. If you're in favor of a UBI as a reaction to mass unemployment (which isn't going to happen anytime soon anyway), then you're only concerned with buying off the working class while letting the people displacing their labor make out like kings. UBI is explicitly an anti-socialist position.

Furthermore, Yang has dog-whistled to white nationalists just a little too much. His tweets about "Americans becoming underdogs in their own land" is - whether he means it as one or not - a dog-whistle to the far right. The same is true of his tweets about white life expectancies declining (plus the fact that he uses the "we" pronoun when talking about it...). The fact that he decided to go on podcasts like Sam Harris (a blatant white supremacist, don't try to convince me otherwise) and Ben Shapiro is a little suspect. I get that he has to get his name recognition, it's just curious that he uses those avenues of doing so. This thread sums up my concerns about him:


Unlike this thread, I'm not willing to call Andrew Yang a fascist. I could absolutely be reading into things. But he's one of only three individuals running in 2020 (Trump and Gabbard being the other two) who I cannot say for certain "this person is not a fascist". And even if I could, Yang is absolutely not more progressive than Bernie Sanders or even Elizabeth Warren IMO.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I want to post more about Andrew Yang later, but I do not get the hype around this guy. Universal Basic Income is not as radical or as necessary a proposal as Medicare for All or a Green New Deal. Heck, it's not even as leftist as the Workplace Democracy bills sponsored by Bernie Sanders.

A UBI is a milquetoast social democratic reform that exists for the purpose of keeping the means of production in the hands of the capitalist class. It's not revolutionary - it doesn't transfer ownership of autonomous devices to the people whose work is being displaced by them. While automation is ultimately a step forward for humanity, it can't be allowed to happen under capitalism. We have to cure our society of capitalism and make sure that automated production is democratically owned. If you're in favor of a UBI as a reaction to mass unemployment (which isn't going to happen anytime soon anyway), then you're only concerned with buying off the working class while letting the people displacing their labor make out like kings. UBI is explicitly an anti-socialist position.

Furthermore, Yang has dog-whistled to white nationalists just a little too much. His tweets about "Americans becoming underdogs in their own land" is - whether he means it as one or not - a dog-whistle to the far right. The same is true of his tweets about white life expectancies declining (plus the fact that he uses the "we" pronoun when talking about it...). The fact that he decided to go on podcasts like Sam Harris (a blatant white supremacist, don't try to convince me otherwise) and Ben Shapiro is a little suspect. I get that he has to get his name recognition, it's just curious that he uses those avenues of doing so. This thread sums up my concerns about him:


Unlike this thread, I'm not willing to call Andrew Yang a fascist. I could absolutely be reading into things. But he's one of only three individuals running in 2020 (Trump and Gabbard being the other two) who I cannot say for certain "this person is not a fascist". And even if I could, Yang is absolutely not more progressive than Bernie Sanders or even Elizabeth Warren IMO.
Definitely agree that Yang is not a more left or more progressive than Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren-- and agree with you that I hope people actually listen and agree with Yang (correctly) that there is nothing socialist about his policies. (in both the best and worst senses)
Though let's note that he has only ever expressed support for Medicare for All and the Green New Deal-- which is more than we can say about most of the candidates.

He's a left libertarian social demoncrat (as am I)-- but that's why I said "he would be my ideal candidate in a world that already had better moral foundations"; ie. a society already governed by Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists and we were arguing about whether we needed more social democratic/new deal-type state capitalist programs, or whether we should leave more so democratic socialist worker co-op run private industries (and to what degree we were going to allow capitalist structured organizations to take the lead in limited areas). Left libertarians like Yang would be the voice in the room arguing for some areas where we could allow capitalist entraprenuership and/or pointing at unneeded government programs to break down and pay out universal dividends, as Yang himself calls them. It's not a the most progressive or ideal fix for the problems we face.

The more transformative set would be a jobs guarantee in the form of a Green New Deal, Medicare for All (personally I think the US should consider the German and Taiwanese models of single payer though), Education and housing guarantees, Demanding representation of workers on all Boards of Directors as Japan and Germany have, and a Rights of first Refusal like Jeremy Corbyn is proposing in the UK.

Also massively increasing social insurance like this while also making all these programs available to all immigrants (documented or otherwise) within the boarders is the best way to make immigration a problem for elites to handle, and not a problem for the citizens to suffer from. We don't have to worry about Americans becoming underdogs in our own country... because suddenly the term "underdog" is much less meaningful.

All that is true, but I understand his instinct that UBI would help entrapreneurship, local community development, help kids go to school, help people move to jobs-- it helps people do the things we want them to do, on their own. It's a left libertarian instinct and as a left libertarian I understand it. And I also understand his argument that it requires very little government involvement because the IRS could manage it tomorrow if we wanted it to. The logistical and planning issues around it are nothing compared to a Green New Deal.

That said, most SOCIALIST great ideas also require almost no administration bloat. Like a Right of First Refusal law, or the Stop WALMART act from Bernie, or requiring x % of board of directors members to be voted for by labor, or the Spanish program where workers can take their unemployment benefits in a lump sum to start a worker co-op. Some of the most transformative ideas require no new tax revenue or administration... and I hope some of those ideas start getting talked about more... by somebody...
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
With my view on his economics out of the way, I am as certain as I can be that Andrew Yang is no fascist, no white nationalist. For why, it might be best to look at him talk about "Why Asian Americans Need to get involved in Politics."


"And one thing that scares the heck out of me, is that this country is heading towards becoming majority minority by 2045. There's a very happy notion in some quarters that the country will just get more tolerant as it gets more diverse. They just figure the math will take care of it. If you have enough diversity, people will just have to get along. UNFORTUNATELY, that is not the way things play out if you look at historical examples. There are very very few examples in human history of a dominant racial or ethnic group giving up its dominance over time. That actually is not normal. So what you can see in this country is an increasingly insecure white majority becoming more and more hostile. Truly. And who do you think is going to be the boogy man of the next 10 to 20 years? Who is going to be the great rival to the United States in the eyes of American society?

...China, that's right.
And so what do you think the attitude is going to be over time for the shrinking insecure white majority that's losing their jobs for... let's say Chinese Americans or Asian Americans? I think we are one generation away from falling into the same camp as the Jews who were attacked in Pittsburg. We are probably one generation away from Americans shooting up a bunch of Asians saying damn the Chinese because we'll be in a new Cold War with China. That is the great fear I have for my two sons, 6 and 3, as they grow up in this country."

...I'm pretty sure Andrew Yang is not a white nationalist. I am sure he is a very concerned minority American father with no patience for skirting political correctness to avoid talking about the real dynamics of tribal behavior that we see in our observable reality.



One of my favorite friends to talk politics with is a Trump Supporter (friends from college, neither of us had strong political views at the time). He is also a Chinese/Japanese American man like me, and he's recently moved here to Japan without speaking a lick of Japanese because he believes that a rise of white nationalism is unavoidable, and he doesn't want to make his future in the United States-- he wants to be "with people who look like him.” He likes Steve Bannon, I like Thomas Frank and Noam Chomsky... but it’s always surprising on how much we find ourselves agreeing on.

If we talk politics though, every time I want to argue economics, he always wants to bring it back to tribalism, and he always challenges me about whether it's actually possible for a diverse multi-cultural state to work for the people and work for democracy.

"Dude, all the socialist ideas you love-- how many of them ALREADY actually exist right here, in Japan? Single payer healthcare, robust infrastructure everywhere, representation on corporate boards of directors for workers? Even the right wing LDP's tax policy is massively pro-worker. Why do you think that is? And would you say Japan is better described as a Socialist country? Or an ethno-nationalist one?"

...and his point is difficult to argue. The Japanese people are much less engaged in politics, much less active in holding their government to task... and yet we have single payer healthcare, we have great infrastructure, estate taxes start at 100k not 5 million, inequality is pitiful compared to the US, and there's strong unions and representation on boards of directors for labor everywhere. But why? Why doesn't Abe's right wing nationalist party not have to be held to political account on domestic issues? (He’s a freakin’ neocon on foreign policy though...)

...the simple fact of the matter is it's because they're radical nationalists. They're racists, but's because they believe the Japanese are a chosen people of the sun god or whatever that crap is... but because they believe in that tribal vision, they do work for the people even when the people aren't paying attention. And my friend says I am insane for teaching my daughters English or thinking about moving back to the US.

My friend chose to run away, he decided that humans could not overcome tribalism or be held to a higher standard. Andrew Yang is choosing to go the other way.

"If we want people to be more logical, to be more reasonable, we have to get the boot of economic insecurity off of their throats."

He often says if we want to win over tribalism, if we want to win over division, we have to get people out of a mindset of austerity, and into a mindset of abundance. And that's why he's pushing UBI, Medicare for All, and other policies-- to give the people a shot of anti-austerity.

Yang may have appeared on Sam Harris, but his views of the world look a lot more like two other members of the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)... specifically, he sounds like the the 2 most progressive IDW members, the Weinstein Brothers, Bret and Eric Weinstein.

His views on tribalism, race, and their connection to economics sounds like the younger brother, evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein:
(Here Bret Weinstein describes the memetic layer in human evolution, how evolutionary triggers to austerity are connected to re-emergence of fascism, and why evolutionary forces in free markets always leads to the demise of benevolent firms— whatever your thoughts on the IDW, this vid is ABSOLUTELY worth the 30 mins)

Weinstein posits that humans are creatures addicted to growth-- growth comes from frontiers of 3 types: 1) Frontiers of land (new resources) (2) Frontiers of technology (better utilization of resources) (3) Frontiers of other tribes... seizing the resources of the other.

Weinstein says that humans can be incredibly moral a collaborative creatures... we have that programming for generosity because it's advantageous in times of plenty, where frontiers of types 1 and 2 create abundance best utilized through cooperation instead of tribalism.

But humans can be incredibly evil and terrible creatures as well... we have programming for tribalism and war, and it almost always has to do with pursuing frontier 3, and is most strongly activated by a sense of austerity. Andrew Yang is looking at the age of Trump, and yes he's looking at those suicide rates increasing most rapidly in middle-aged white men, he's looking at the social deterioration-- and yes, he's looking at how austerity is making it easier and easier for white nationalists and even just populist nationalists to stoke that tribalism.

He is trying to fix that-- and in the process of doing so, I have no issue with him talking about the soaring rates of drug overdose and suicide amongst middle age white men with empathy, and how it's connected to economic insecurity-- what happened to the manufacturing workers in the era of Reganomics, and what is about to happen to the Truck Drivers.

Andrew Yang is a candidate on the right side of history here. While Bernie and his socialist revolution mission is the best cure in the medicine cabinet, I would say that if you are trying to expunge facism, Yang is a much much better remedy than a neoliberal like Biden or Beto O'Rourke. At least he sees the problems accurately.

On a side note, if you want to better understand Andrew Yang's "Human Centered Capitalism," the place to start would be reading with the elder Weinstein brother (who Andrew constantly quotes), Eric Weinstein.

"Why Capitalism Won't Survive without Socialism" -- Eric Weinstein
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ric-weinstein-capitalism-socialism-revolution




As for my buddy here in Japan, he pushes me to sight any majority-minority country that has achieved for the people what the ethno-nationalist state Japan has achieved. To be honest, there are no examples. BUT... I tell him that the model of our future in America does need to be less like Japan, and more like my home town of Hawaii which IS majority minority and has been for a long time.

Martin Luther King Jr. speech during his first visit to the 50th state:
"I come to you with a great deal of appreciation and great feeling of appreciation, I should say, for what has been accomplished in this beautiful setting and in this beautiful state of our Union. As I think of the struggle that we are engaged in in the South land, we look to you for inspiration and as a noble example, where you have already accomplished in the area of racial harmony and racial justice, what we are struggling to accomplish in other sections of the country, and you can never know what it means to those of us caught for the moment in the tragic and often dark midnight of man’s inhumanity to man, to come to a place where we see the glowing daybreak of freedom and dignity and racial justice."

^Which presidential candidate understands what a Majority minority state looks like and quoted this MLK speech in her presidential campaign kick off? Tulsi Gabbard.
 
Last edited:
A UBI is a milquetoast social democratic reform that exists for the purpose of keeping the means of production in the hands of the capitalist class. It's not revolutionary - it doesn't transfer ownership of autonomous devices to the people whose work is being displaced by them.
It's even worse than that! UBI as Yang has proposed is actually likely to be harmful to poorer people, and from everything I gather doesn't pay much if any attention to the intricacies of introducing unrestricted money into the economy. A flat UBI like Yang proposed makes a ton of assumptions about economics, most of which are unfounded.

He commonly hand-waves away inflationary concerns by saying that competition between firms will keep prices fair. This assumes that most industries are not oligopolies or duopolies, which is BS. The barrier to entry to compete against nationwide firms is extremely high right now. Additionally, economies of scale in most industries, especially in industries that have physical goods, makes competition difficult and/or heavily slanted against the consumer. Even all that considered, a flat UBI might not cause inflation concerns overnight. But, given a flat UBI the market will find a new, higher equilibrium eventually.

There's also baked in assumptions about elasticity of certain types of goods. Most companies don't want to or can't expand quickly, and a price adjustment is quicker and doesn't come with the same fixed costs expansion does. And, with a consumer base with newfound free cash in their pockets, it's likely they'll be able to increase prices with slightly reduced demand and still come out even or ahead of where they started (because I'd guess a majority of the population will tolerate a price increase if they have $1000 unrestricted cash coming in every month). Flat UBI will also likely raise the price of non-essential goods restricting those types of goods further from the working poor or unemployed. While someone with minimum wage might spend a UBI on food, rent, and similar stuff, someone with an income over a certain point is likely to spend that extra $1000 a month on PlayStations, vacations, sports tickets etc increasing the prices on those types of goods.

It's not as simple as taxing out UBI, even gradually, above certain income levels. The problem becomes it's a) not universal and just a restated, simpler, less effective, less targeted welfare system and b) makes the claims about the economic growth UBI would provide to be overstated.

He proposes a flat tax to fund UBI too (a VAT, or value-added tax). Flat taxes are inherently regressive and a VAT is a flat tax. Additionally, higher-value goods tend to have more vertical integration, giving more potential avenues for those corporations to "dodge" parts of a VAT (dodge in quotes because it's based on a fundamental flaw in VATs). A VAT is invoice-based, and as a result firms that have high levels of vertical integration (read: bigger firms) have less invoices and lower priced raw materials as a result.

The long story short is a UBI funded by a VAT is regressive and legislation, taxes, and social programs that are targeted at the actual sources of inequality work much better.
 
Last edited:

MikeDawg

Banned deucer.
Ok, but the only demographic ridiculous enough to do that overwhelmingly supports Bernie.

Is there really nothing better to talk about than completely unfounded claims regarding things that don't matter at all? Jfc. At least, "Hillary probably won the popular vote because 2 million illegal immigrants voted for her," was about votes. This is literally nothing.

Case in point:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/b3gek5
 
Seems like a fun race. I hope most candidates do well.

Gabbard seems like a troll/plant, Gillibrand and Booker are questionable, but other than that the field seems solid.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Ok, but the only demographic ridiculous enough to do that overwhelmingly supports Bernie.

Is there really nothing better to talk about than completely unfounded claims regarding things that don't matter at all? Jfc. At least, "Hillary probably won the popular vote because 2 million illegal immigrants voted for her," was about votes. This is literally nothing.
The most ridiculous demographic in this race is Beto’s— the elite oligarchy clutching to power.
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
The most ridiculous demographic in this race is Beto’s— the elite oligarchy clutching to power.
Do you ever respond to the point people are actually making or do you just respond with the first almost tangentially related thing that pops into your mind?

FTR I don’t like Beto at all, but this post is as stupid as it is condescending and irrelevant.
 
MikeDawg, the point is that Bernie actually fire up people, while Beto make them fall asleep. This is particularly important if you care about beating an incumbent president in the best economy ever. The number of contributors is a good way to track this.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 2)

Top