Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

[Myzozoa]

we're not quite there yet, as you said, but the next few moves in trump's 2nd term will be irreversible. the mistake is in thinking that 'elections' aren't compatible with authoritarianism. There will still be elections, they'll just be rigged like Iowa and Georgia or all of Russia. What I said was that 'free and fair' elections will end. Conservatives have entered self-awareness and now realize suppressing the vote is their only option. there are at least 3 important ways they can do this:

1. most important, change who counts as a citizen. they've already begun this process, this is the main project of things like ICE detaining and deporting American citizens as well as immigrants, they're rewriting who is a part of society, while rewriting who counts as a person. it is not that out there for them to do things like functionally or even explicitly repeal the 14th amendment and declare open season on minorities. they can do this like duerte did in the Philippines.

2. already established voter suppression methods that we've seen deployed over the last decade

3. turn the dnc into paid opposition (the dnc will do this to itself in all likelihood) and end term limits. I never thought Iowa would be a litmus test of anything, but such blatant electioneering at the caucus turned it into a fertile proving ground to test whether or not you could outright rig an election through sheer politicking in America. We will never know if the 'audited' results are sufficiently accurate or fabrications by some interested parties, meanwhile centrists/moderates will practice accusing progressives of conspiracy theories instead of thinking about what a lack of transparency means for the future. Authoritarian powers will definitely be paying attention to this development.

 

[RaikouLover]

If Bernie is the nominee we’re fvcked. Four more years of Trump.

 

[fanyfan]

If Bernie is the nominee we’re fvcked. Four more years of Trump.

Why do you say that? I’d argue he’s one of the best to take on Trump. In polls he consistently beats Trump and he better fits with the sensibilities of the rust belt on the issue that helped Trump win the rust belt, trade. Plus, he can rail on Trump for being corrupt while the other dems are also are corrupt (especially Biden) so they don’t have credibility on that issue

 

[RaikouLover]

The poll I’ve been paying attention to has been the 2020 Generic Congressional Ballot. Everyone is focused on the Presidency rather than the Democrats persistent +6-7% edge there, only slightly down from 2018. This suggests that the Senate is indeed in play. Republican Senators cowardly votes will be a factor in 2020 and many seats are up for grabs. I’d say the Dems have good chances to win Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Iowa, Kansas, and to hold Alabama (Roy Moore or Jeff sessions? Lmao). In the event Trump sneaks out a razor thin electoral college win it’s still likely Dems could capture the Senate, and will certainly capture it by 2022 midterms. Such would be the immediate end of Trump’s Presidency, as he will be removed in a second impeachment trial.

Even with the Dems dysfunction I’d rate Trump no better than 50/50 odds in November. The Dem electorate is petrified, which suggests very high turnout. Dems have significant party registration advantages in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin so don’t expect them to sit out this go around.

 

[RaikouLover]

Why do you say that? I’d argue he’s one of the best to take on Trump. In polls he consistently beats Trump and he better fits with the sensibilities of the rust belt on the issue that helped Trump win the rust belt, trade. Plus, he can rail on Trump for being corrupt while the other dems are also are corrupt (especially Biden) so they don’t have credibility on that issue

Bernie is not battle tested at all. No one has truly attacked him or run negative ads.

 

[Myzozoa]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...NtJpStncP-XJvixF8D4Ma0kPvVqvTy5Yvg9iyFnm_AwbY

tfw the national review is on point

 

[termi]

If Bernie is the nominee we’re fvcked. Four more years of Trump.

yeah it'd be a terrible idea to nominate one of the few candidates for whom actual enthusiasm exists, this is definitely how politics works

Bernie is not battle tested at all. No one has truly attacked him or run negative ads.

this is a completely meaningless statement

we're not quite there yet, as you said, but the next few moves in trump's 2nd term will be irreversible. the mistake is in thinking that 'elections' aren't compatible with authoritarianism. There will still be elections, they'll just be rigged like Iowa and Georgia or all of Russia. What I said was that 'free and fair' elections will end. Conservatives have entered self-awareness and now realize suppressing the vote is their only option. there are at least 3 important ways they can do this:

1. most important, change who counts as a citizen. they've already begun this process, this is the main project of things like ICE detaining and deporting American citizens as well as immigrants, they're rewriting who is a part of society, while rewriting who counts as a person. it is not that out there for them to do things like functionally or even explicitly repeal the 14th amendment and declare open season on minorities. they can do this like duerte did in the Philippines.

2. already established voter suppression methods that we've seen deployed over the last decade

3. turn the dnc into paid opposition (the dnc will do this to itself in all likelihood) and end term limits. I never thought Iowa would be a litmus test of anything, but such blatant electioneering at the caucus turned it into a fertile proving ground to test whether or not you could outright rig an election through sheer politicking in America. We will never know if the 'audited' results are sufficiently accurate or fabrications by some interested parties, meanwhile centrists/moderates will practice accusing progressives of conspiracy theories instead of thinking about what a lack of transparency means for the future. Authoritarian powers will definitely be paying attention to this development.

i agree with your first and second points, although wrt the first point i would argue who they exclude from citizenship would be limited to (relatively) recent immigrants, i'd assume anything beyond that (currently) goes too far in the eyes of the public. most vulnerable groups are already disenfranchised one way or another, so there's no real need for reactionaries to push things further by giving them reduced citizenship status. wrt your third point, the dnc already basically is paid opposition (although i think it's more accurate to say that the democratic party establishment is not even paid opposition as much as it's just part of the same ruling class that the republican party establishment is part of, with the dnc serving as a tool for the ruling class to stifle any real opposition within the party), but i don't see the end of term limits happening. mind, when i speak of authoritarianism in this context i mean "that which is generally seen as authoritarian by the general populace," because it is that kind of authoritarianism that imo can spark real resistance against the political establishment as a whole. ending term limits would likely be understood by "both sides" as an anti-democratic move and as such doesn't seem politically viable (although who knows what the propaganda machine can do within the next 4 years).

the actual divide between "authoritarian regimes" and "democratic regimes," though, obviously doesn't really exist. that kind of divide relies upon highly political and contentious definitions of such things as "democracy" and "freedom" and any party trying to define a regime as more or less democratic will invariably be biased towards one or another definition of these concepts. of course in addition to that, even if we could hypothetically agree on a definition of something like democracy, it's still very hard to measure how democratic a state is when a lot of important decision-making happens behind closed doors, leaving it impossible to determine to what degree political decisions are influenced by actors that fall outside of the scope of what we might consider "democratic actors" (big business etc)

 

[fanyfan]

Bernie is not battle tested at all. No one has truly attacked him or run negative ads.

First of all, Second of all, there have been attacks on him in the Democratic debates and whenever that happens he is always able to hit back hard. “I wrote the damn bill” is a good example. Third of all, the media has been constantly attacking/trying to undermine his campaign since 2015. There’s plenty of examples of anti-Sanders bias in this very thread. With all that, I’d argue he’s used to attacks being thrown his way and it doesn’t seem to hurt him as much as you’re implying. In fact, after that negative as in Iowa, Bernie raised a ton of money so if anything, the attacks tend to be a positive for him.

 

[tcr]

I think that there is a sizable overlap between those fed up with the two party system who voted for 'outside' Donald Trump in 2016 and who would be perfectly content with switching to Bernie, who is also not a DNC shill. People like to say that those who approve of Trump are all die hard cultists but I don't think that's the case. There are certainly zealots who will always vote Trump, but from what we're seeing with people like Joe Walsh, Mitt Romney, there is also a portion of the Republican base who don't like the man. I suspect if you ask a lot of Trump supporters their opinion about him they might say "I think the man is an asshole.... [insert reason they support anyway, economics, etc]." I think that so many people are fed up with the ineptitude of the two party system, the blatant bipartisanship in our government, the mudslinging. It's not 2008 anymore and I don't think an established candidate would win, but what does win is getting a populist outsider candidate who motivates people to go to the polls, which is something that Trump, Bernie, and Warren all do (though Warren is much more loose compared to the two).

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

we're not quite there yet, as you said, but the next few moves in trump's 2nd term will be irreversible. the mistake is in thinking that 'elections' aren't compatible with authoritarianism. There will still be elections, they'll just be rigged like Iowa and Georgia or all of Russia. What I said was that 'free and fair' elections will end. Conservatives have entered self-awareness and now realize suppressing the vote is their only option. there are at least 3 important ways they can do this:

1. most important, change who counts as a citizen. they've already begun this process, this is the main project of things like ICE detaining and deporting American citizens as well as immigrants, they're rewriting who is a part of society, while rewriting who counts as a person. it is not that out there for them to do things like functionally or even explicitly repeal the 14th amendment and declare open season on minorities. they can do this like duerte did in the Philippines.

2. already established voter suppression methods that we've seen deployed over the last decade

3. turn the dnc into paid opposition (the dnc will do this to itself in all likelihood) and end term limits. I never thought Iowa would be a litmus test of anything, but such blatant electioneering at the caucus turned it into a fertile proving ground to test whether or not you could outright rig an election through sheer politicking in America. We will never know if the 'audited' results are sufficiently accurate or fabrications by some interested parties, meanwhile centrists/moderates will practice accusing progressives of conspiracy theories instead of thinking about what a lack of transparency means for the future. Authoritarian powers will definitely be paying attention to this development.

I think your argument with regards to the 14th Amendment ignores just how difficult it is to amend the Constitution. Not only would two-thirds of both chambers of Congress have to agree to it (which means you need sizable support from both Democrats and Republicans to get it through Congress), three-fourths of state legislatures have to ratify the amendment, or, in other terms, it only takes thirteen states to block a constitutional amendment. There is not one state that goes to a Democratic candidate that will agree to a repeal of the 14th Amendment and there's a reason the most recent constitutional amendment happened in 1992 after it had been pending before the states for over 200 years.

 

[Myzozoa]

I think your argument with regards to the 14th Amendment ignores just how difficult it is to amend the Constitution. Not only would two-thirds of both chambers of Congress have to agree to it (which means you need sizable support from both Democrats and Republicans to get it through Congress), three-fourths of state legislatures have to ratify the amendment, or, in other terms, it only takes thirteen states to block a constitutional amendment. There is not one state that goes to a Democratic candidate that will agree to a repeal of the 14th Amendment and there's a reason the most recent constitutional amendment happened in 1992 after it had been pending before the states for over 200 years.

the problem with this line of thinking is analogous to the framing of abortion rights in terms of 'protecting roe v wade' vs 'advancing access to abortions for women'. by your notion some legal or governmental process will prevent the erosion of the norm of equal protection under the law, so perhaps me saying that the 14th could be explicitly repealed ignores the nature of that process, however, in fact there are ways of eroding equal protection under the law that do not require repealing any amendments or negotiating a constitutional revising process.

 

[Izzk Tzzk]

I’m a conservative so normally I would be lurking 100% in this Democratic party thread, but while we are off-topic I would like to ask some questions on a few Democratic party talking points (in good faith, not looking for an argument; just elaboration), specifically in regards to Myzozoa’s contention that

‘free and fair’ elections will end.

Firstly, about this statement

Conservatives have entered self-awareness and now realize suppressing the vote is their only option.

I’m assuming that you mean that conservatives think voter suppression is the only way for the Republican party to remain competitive. While I disagree, I think that the more important discussion is about your belief that conservatives in general are out to suppress the vote, which I think is an idea that needs to be expressed more specifically to be taken seriously. If the idea is that all or even most conservatives want to suppress the vote, then I don’t really know what to tell you; you would seem to think that half of Americans are unredeemable.

What I believe you mean, though, is that conservative politicians are undermining democracy, which brings me to my genuine, not-pointed questions.

[they are trying to] change who counts as a citizen. they've already begun this process, this is the main project of things like ICE detaining and deporting American citizens as well as immigrants

I don’t think that deporting illegal immigrants erodes the ability for citizens to be represented in the slightest (by definition, such immigrants are not citizens), but you haven’t necessarily made contention of that. What did catch my attention, however, was the line about ICE deporting American citizens. You didn’t give any examples or sources (which I don’t expect, because this is just a casual internet forum post), so I would like to inquire:

1. When did this happen / is it still happening?

2. Is this happening systematically/regularly?

If American citizens are being deported in a way that is systematic or regular (as opposed to a one-off mistake or a special case?), then this is an issue worth getting riled up about on a bipartisan basis.

One more subject of inquiry, though a bit more open-ended:

[conservatives have] already established voter suppression methods that we've seen deployed over the last decade

I’m sure liberals have already produced detailed essays about this idea, but I’ve never really heard this expressed in a clear way other than about gerrymandering. (I’m mostly curious about other-than-gerrymandering stuff, because gerrymandering seems bipartisan but also not insurmountable.)

How and where is voter suppression currently happening? How does it disproportionately prop up Republicans? Does data suggest that voter suppression exists to a degree meaningful enough to sway an election? Finally, where are the people who are saying “my vote was suppressed”?

None of these are really meant to be pointed, they are just thoughts that I have whenever I hear the voter suppression topic in passing. You don’t have to go all out with the voter suppression questions, if you want you can just shoot me some links and point me in the right direction.

Anyways, that’s enough from this conservative. You guys keep doing you, but maybe move the discussion back on topic I say, as I dive down this rabbit hole.

 

[The Amazonian Rainforest]

Finally, a straightforward conservative who has a coherent argument and is confident. Cong needs a poster like this.

 

[Chou Toshio]

From Pete Staffer to Director in the Nevada Party... lolololol

I hope AOC & other progressive leaders wake up and realize that we must bust and we must leave the DNC when they cheat Bernie.

 

[RaikouLover]

From Pete Staffer to Director in the Nevada Party... lolololol

I hope AOC & other progressive leaders wake up and realize that we must bust and we must leave the DNC when they cheat Bernie.

Asinine. Let’s give the world 4 more years of Trump just to spite Democrats. What a productive idea that is!

 

[Bughouse]

I agree you really gotta be watching out for those 30ish year old women who change jobs!

 

[RaikouLover]

First of all, Second of all, there have been attacks on him in the Democratic debates and whenever that happens he is always able to hit back hard. “I wrote the damn bill” is a good example. Third of all, the media has been constantly attacking/trying to undermine his campaign since 2015. There’s plenty of examples of anti-Sanders bias in this very thread. With all that, I’d argue he’s used to attacks being thrown his way and it doesn’t seem to hurt him as much as you’re implying. In fact, after that negative as in Iowa, Bernie raised a ton of money so if anything, the attacks tend to be a positive for him.

Democrats know Sanders voters are fickle. The treat him with kid gloves not to alienate his young supporters. If you think Republicans went low against Clinton just wait until you see how ruthless they will be on a 78 year old Jewish socialist that just had a heart attack.

 

[tazz]

Anyways, that’s enough from this conservative. You guys keep doing you, but maybe move the discussion back on topic I say, as I dive down this rabbit hole.

This topic is very accurately described as a rabbit hole, I decided to do some quick research into this myself and the amount of examples and information was far too much for me to summarize in a reasonable amount of time. I'll go through the various ways that I found that would constitute voter suppression and I'll link to a compilation of sources listed by state, but understand that this post is just scratching the surface of this topic.
1. Gerrymandering
This is the one that you've already used, but I think that you severely underrate just how egregious gerrymandering is. First, while you are correct that both sides do this, republicans have intentionally and methodically taken this practice to extremes that democrats have not met in the slightest. For a more statistical reading on this, you can read this: http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/ I do understand it is a bit long though, so here is an example of one of the important graphs:

where the author isolated the votes with demonstrable statistical defeciencies in voting numbers vs representatives and found that the actual impact of gerrymandering done by republicans was more than eleven times that done by democrats. This is certainly not by accident; the republicans after their loss in 2008 made a concerted effort to pour money into state house races (that are normally sidelined for national ones in terms of funding) in order to get control of redistricting in a strategy later dubbed the REDMAP project. You can read about it more here: https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/07/19/gerrymandering-republicans-redmap
Republicans have also been much more hesitant to actually do anything about this massive problem. There is a serious initiative among the Democratic Party to try to end gerrymandering with multiple democratic candidates trying to solve the problem, but no such initiative seriously existed within the last republican race. A court case that could have ended gerrymandering as we know it came up last year, but gerrymandering was ruled out of the court's jurisdiction by, you guessed it, a 5-4 republican majority.
2. Voter purges
This front of suppression has actually been in the news fairly recently, as there have been concerted efforts by republicans in Georgia and Wisconsin to purge people from the registration record in order to make it more difficult for those people to vote. This is probably the most basic method of suppression so I won't delve into too much detail, and while it is absolutely a historical issue that happens fairly often I'll link the most recent examples to keep this as current as possible.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/31/voter-purges-republicans-2020-elections-trump
https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2019/mar/02/federal-judge-halts-texas-voter-roll-pu/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...s-order-ohio-allow-purged-voters-back-n929526
(luckily our court systems seems to be able to stop them sometimes)
3. Voting site manipulation
This technique is exactly what it sounds like: it consists of manipulating where voting sites are located in a way that would make voting sites in areas that don't vote republican more inconvenient to use in some way, usually either by making them farther away from voters or by making the lines much longer. This is usually done on the statewide level so I'll just link some documented examples of this happening, though this is much more difficult to pin down than most of these methods.
https://www.ajc.com/news/state--reg...tion-oversight-lifted/bBkHxptlim0Gp9pKu7dfrN/
https://fox4kc.com/2018/11/02/kansa...sed-the-change-but-a-judge-says-its-too-late/
4. Voter registration
While the former strategy attempts to control the vote by making it more convenient to get to the polling site once registered, this strategy relies on making registering itself harder. This is a pretty broad category done in a couple ways: by closing registration excessively early, by closing DMVs or opening them at restrictive times (which lessens the effects of moter voter laws), by rejecting groups that work to register minorities, and so on. Here are a couple examples.
https://newrepublic.com/article/121...e-hammers-minority-voter-registration-efforts
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdal/p...ensure-equitable-driver-license-office-access
5. Felon voting
This is probably the type of voter suppression that I'm most familiar with, as my home state of Florida has been doing this for decades, and is perhaps the most egregious example on this list. These disenfranchisement laws that can permanently take away the right to vote of someone who has committed a felony even after they have served their debt to society often stem directly from Jim Crow era laws (as the one in Florida did), and are present in their most intense forms almost exclusively in republican states:

Before an advocacy grouped forced these suppression laws to a referendum in 2018, these voting rights had to be restored by a council directly led by the governor. Our wonderful Rick Scott, who has been governor for most of my life, was famous for only restoring rights of under 100 people per year, although far more than that would appeal. This might sound like a lot on the surface, until you consider that under this law 1.5 million people were barred from voting, which translates to about a third of our African American male population at the laws peak. This method of reinstitution was directly architected by Rick Scott, as you can read about here
https://www.tampabay.com/florida-po...das-system-for-restoring-felon-voting-rights/
The people of Florida voted to end this nonsensical system in 2018 and to restore the voting rights of all felons, but republican politicians have opposed this referendum every step of the way:
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/08/florida-felon-voting-rights-amendment-4-2/ Here they claim that the system won't be ready for the next election, despite the clear directives from the Florida DoS. They also claimed multiple delays to the system, if you want to find a news story for each one you are free to but it would take too long for the purposes of this post.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ghts-despite-constitutional-amendment-n985156 Here they require that people who want their voting rights restored must pay court fees, a move accurately described by democrats as an effective poll tax
Virginia has a similar system as you can see in that wikipedia article, their democratic governor managed to restore the voting rights of some but the Jim Crow era law at its core still remains. I'm going to stop with these two states, though I am sure that you can find egregious conduct in some of the other states mentioned in that article.

There are more methods of voter suppression that I might edit in later, but I'm done for now.

Here's the list of news examples by state:

list

https://www.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/comments/9q14v5

Edit: Republican politicians at the very least seem to admit that lower turnout is a good thing for them, even if they won't admit to suppressing the vote in public. Mitch Mcconnell has even gone so far as to call making Election Day a national holiday a "power grab" by the democrats. I don't know how you can get more clear than that.

 

[Machoke]

Democrats know Sanders voters are fickle. The treat him with kid gloves not to alienate his young supporters. If you think Republicans went low against Clinton just wait until you see how ruthless they will be on a 78 year old Jewish socialist that just had a heart attack.

What planet are you living on to think Bernie is treated with kid gloves? Have you seen CNN? MSNBC? The debates? The other candidates talking about Sanders's positions? Hillary and her political apparatus? Obama and his political apparatus? The New York Times? The Washington Post? Politico?
I'd say he's the candidate of the current democratic candidates who's been treated with the most contempt by the media and by the party, aside from maybe Tulsi.

 

[RaikouLover]

What planet are you living on to think Bernie is treated with kid gloves? Have you seen CNN? MSNBC? The debates? The other candidates talking about Sanders's positions? Hillary and her political apparatus? Obama and his political apparatus? The New York Times? The Washington Post? Politico?
I'd say he's the candidate of the current democratic candidates who's been treated with the most contempt by the media and by the party, aside from maybe Tulsi.

The Democrats and media are respectfully antagonistic at best towards Sanders. Like I said, wait until the Republicans get a chance to run their socialism and anti-Semitic propaganda. All they had on Clinton was Benghazi and emails and we got years of that bullshvt.

 

[Machoke]

The Democrats and media are respectfully antagonistic at best towards Sanders. Like I said, wait until the Republicans get a chance to run their socialism and anti-Semitic propaganda. All they had on Clinton was Benghazi and emails and we got years of that bullshvt.

Thanks for this, I needed a laugh tonight! It's a been a long day.

 

[RaikouLover]

Thanks for this, I needed a laugh tonight! It's a been a long day.

Really this conversation is pointless, as Bernie is not winning the nomination.

 

[Myzozoa]

I’m a conservative so normally I would be lurking 100% in this Democratic party thread, but while we are off-topic I would like to ask some questions on a few Democratic party talking points (in good faith, not looking for an argument; just elaboration), specifically in regards to Myzozoa’s contention that



Firstly, about this statement



I’m assuming that you mean that conservatives think voter suppression is the only way for the Republican party to remain competitive. While I disagree, I think that the more important discussion is about your belief that conservatives in general are out to suppress the vote, which I think is an idea that needs to be expressed more specifically to be taken seriously. If the idea is that all or even most conservatives want to suppress the vote, then I don’t really know what to tell you; you would seem to think that half of Americans are unredeemable.

What I believe you mean, though, is that conservative politicians are undermining democracy, which brings me to my genuine, not-pointed questions.




I don’t think that deporting illegal immigrants erodes the ability for citizens to be represented in the slightest (by definition, such immigrants are not citizens), but you haven’t necessarily made contention of that. What did catch my attention, however, was the line about ICE deporting American citizens. You didn’t give any examples or sources (which I don’t expect, because this is just a casual internet forum post), so I would like to inquire:

1. When did this happen / is it still happening?

2. Is this happening systematically/regularly?

If American citizens are being deported in a way that is systematic or regular (as opposed to a one-off mistake or a special case?), then this is an issue worth getting riled up about on a bipartisan basis.

One more subject of inquiry, though a bit more open-ended:


I’m sure liberals have already produced detailed essays about this idea, but I’ve never really heard this expressed in a clear way other than about gerrymandering. (I’m mostly curious about other-than-gerrymandering stuff, because gerrymandering seems bipartisan but also not insurmountable.)

How and where is voter suppression currently happening? How does it disproportionately prop up Republicans? Does data suggest that voter suppression exists to a degree meaningful enough to sway an election? Finally, where are the people who are saying “my vote was suppressed”?

None of these are really meant to be pointed, they are just thoughts that I have whenever I hear the voter suppression topic in passing. You don’t have to go all out with the voter suppression questions, if you want you can just shoot me some links and point me in the right direction.

Anyways, that’s enough from this conservative. You guys keep doing you, but maybe move the discussion back on topic I say, as I dive down this rabbit hole.

i think someone already got to it but basically your incredulity is not an intellectual position. When ICE is deporting American citizens and voter suppression is widely understood by conservatives to be a corner stone of their electoral success idk how much more systemic this rewriting I talked about could get. you can easily verify this with a google search:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...ut-what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/12/opinion/ice-raids.html

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pa4mq7/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-deporting-its-own-citizens

i would point out ppl may have been deported and no one would ever have heard abt it cause the deported ppl don't have the resources or smthg bad happens to them when they return

voter suppression: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/21/trump-adviser-republicans-voter-suppression

 

[atomicllamas]

https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/l...cle_dd9759d1-f1f0-54b7-9559-b5a559a4d8ee.html

Also that

 

[Celticpride]

Thanks for this, I needed a laugh tonight! It's a been a long day.

I think the point he’s making is the GOP will not be anywhere near the same as dealing with the Dems. All this nonsense about ”the establishment“ keeping Bernie down is a bit overblown imo. Could they do better by him? Certainly. But if you watched the debate the other night, when they went to commercial Bernie was shaking hands and chatting with the other candidates like anyone else; I remember him and Biden chatting a few times. Bernie is “an outsider” to an extent but especially after his 2016 rise he‘s a lot closer to the core of the party. It’s all relative. Biden v Bernie is like Iron Man v Cap.

clear hatred inside

The GOP won’t treat him anywhere near the same way. I fully expect in the event Bernie wins the nom that we’ll see an insane level of antisemitism and consistent mentions of his heart attack, his age, his trips to the Soviet Union, etc.