US Presidential Election 2020

reg114

everlast75 wrote: »

Warren is out.

Pity she didn't get further.

This tweet sums it up for her now.

https://twitter.com/CMSeeberger/status/1235289358732857345?s=19

Real shame, but Warren is too much of an intellectual to appeal to the great American unwashed, she' also too female... America simply is not ready for a woman president.

The democratic party need to get their act together and fast. They must roll in behind a single candidate asap. The unfortunate reality is that the democratic party seems even more divided than America itself. Their sole purpose should be to defeat Trump and restore a semblance of sanity to the Whitehouse. The more they squabble within their ranks the more they are handing the power to Trump. This comes down to simplicity of message akin to the Tory Party's pre-election Brexit slogan .. 'Lets get Brexit done'. It was pithy and simple to process. Democrats need a candidate and they need a unified message.

I believe we are looking at a two horse race between Biden and Sanders and I feel Biden will win. Its shocking that after the last 4 years a 78 and a 77 year old is all the Democratic party could come up with as viable challengers to the throne. Then again look at Pelosi , she 79 herself. Where are the younger candidates, and Im not talking about Buttigeig who I feel was chancing his arm , saying all the right things with little or no track record and little life experience.Surely the Democrats have within their ranks female and male politicians in the 40s , 50s and 60s who have amassed a body of work as public servants and have the ambition to move up the ladder?

As far as Biden is concerned I would have serious reservations about his smarts. I just dont think he's sharp enough to tackle Trump especially in head to head debates. Biden is also prone to putting his foot in his mouth. This is a problem when you are trying to present yourself as the clear thinking sane alternative to Trump.

Sanders main problem is his tendency to rant. I admire his passion but given his advancing years and slightly unkempt appearance , he reminds me sometimes of Grandpa Simpson. Its a simplistic image I know but aesthetics / visuals will affect this race. Sanders is also very much an outsider as far as the establishment are concerned and this is what scares people within the traditional party lines. To be honest Sanders is exactly the left field kind of president America needs in a heartbeat but its not going to happen.

So unless Biden can sell a message to the masses and really up his game, you are looking at 4 more years of the imbecile. Nobody can afford that.

Foxtrol

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Shame, I still think she was the best candidate by a mile. If the Democratic bigwigs had a lick of sense they would've forced Biden to **** off and backed her.

If you want to chastise anyone for not dropping out it should be Bernie. If he cared about the progressive cause more than himself he would have dropped out after his heart attack and pushed all his support behind her.

briany

reg114 wrote: »

Sanders main problem is his tendency to rant. I admire his passion but given his advancing years and slightly unkempt appearance , he reminds me sometimes of Grandpa Simpson. Its a simplistic image I know but aesthetics / visuals will affect this race. Sanders is also very much an outsider as far as the establishment are concerned and this is what scares people within the traditional party lines. To be honest Sanders is exactly the left field kind of president America needs in a heartbeat but its not going to happen.

Trump looks patently ridiculous with his M.C. Escher combover and oompa loompa tan job, but he still became president. And that was down to the message he was bringing. Someone like Joe Biden has to make sure the good dentures are in and not a hair is out of place because image is all he has. Sanders is banking on the message above all, and making that resonate with voters.

Anyway, it's arguable that what is happening with the Democrats in the U.S. is what is happening with Labour in the UK. The party has been 'infiltrated' by a huge mass of left-wing younger voters who are really only there because of what's being promised by someone who the party long considered a crank. The Democrats don't want those people. As far as the Democrats are concerned, younger voters really aren't worth bothering with. They need to wait a few years until they have careers, are working toward a 401K and are ready to listen to some sensible middle-of-the-road policies, or else just become disillusioned and not vote altogether.

It's bearing out just as it did 4 years ago. Young people are not to be relied upon when it comes to actually turning up to vote. Maybe if they did do that, the Dem establishment would be forced to listen. But they don't, so it won't.

Dytalus

pixelburp wrote: »

I dunno, she's 70 now, and while she wears it well, she could be 78 before she gets another chance at the White House. 74 at a minimum if Trump gets a second term. I'm sure she'll continue to work as a senator or State level, but you'd imagine that's that for any Presidential aspirations.

Oh I don't disagree. Although as mentioned by another poster her age seems to hinder a lot less than some other candidates. But yeah, I meant more along the lines of get role as senator. I'd love to see her as majority least, but to many variables have to line up to make that happen I think.

Hande hoche!

If Trump wins decisively in November, could imagine her throwing in her hat in 2024. If however the DNC candidate takes the prize, can't see a path for her.

Red for Danger

everlast75 wrote: »

So, according to you, those who insult the other the most "wins" the debate? Says a lot about your perspective.

Secondly, it is very easy to do something like that. It doesn't take a genius.

Wha? Im for Sanders and it ain't for his looks or ability to crack a joke


Sanders is gonna win anyways, when the focus goes back onto bidan it will dawn on folks what they're dealing with.
Whats the plan? Keep him in a glass jar and when he finally gets on stage he starts stripping down.

eagle eye

Dems have no hope of winning this election. You are not getting enough people to the polls to vote for a socialist or a man in the early throws of dementia.
They have four years to learn from all.this and find a candidate who can unite the party.
Joe Kennedy, Chris Murphy and Martin Heinrich are three exceptional candidates imo. Ami Bera is another interesting man who I think would make a great candidate.
Bera is a former medical doctor who could talk about Medicare reform and people would believe him.

AbusesToilets

Dytalus wrote: »

Oh I don't disagree. Although as mentioned by another poster her age seems to hinder a lot less than some other candidates. But yeah, I meant more along the lines of get role as senator. I'd love to see her as majority least, but to many variables have to line up to make that happen I think.

She would be excellent in that role. Clear idea for policy initiatives, and able to take on anyone in a debate.

The Phantom Jipper

Working on the (perhaps incorrect) assumption that Biden needs to choose a woman for VP, would he be strong enough in the black community not to need to have Abrams or Harris? Abrams would make a lot of sense to help push Georgia in to play but are there any Hispanic choices in the mix to placate that wing of the party?

Rosahane

...when even the Ayatollahs get it right
https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/03/05/iranian-state-media-joe-biden-feeble-minded-incoherent/

Water John

Julian Castro?

Rjd2

Water John wrote: »

Julian Castro?

Backed Warren didn't he? I dunno he was the only person who touched on Biden not really been at the races regarding his memory.

I don't think Biden really needs a black VP that much, he is pretty strong with the older black voters who do vote. Harris didn't really do well in polls with black voters either before she dropped out so bar keeping the media happy would it really move the needle on the ground?

He could pick Kloub' to nail down the rust belt. It might not be the most diverse or exciting ticket but probably gets it done in Nov.

Harris and her are the 2 betting favs at the moment with Stacey Abrams 3rd.

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2020/democratic-vp-nominee

sid waddell

There's some bad news coming out of Ukraine for Biden. Zelensky has fired his cabinet, and the prosecutor general, a guy called Ruslan Ryaboshapka, who was widely regarded as good at his job and of high integrity.

It looks like there's a big changing of the guard to go in a much more pro-Russian and certainly pro-oligarch direction.

That means Ukraine is likely to co-operate in doing what the Russians and Trump want in terms of manufacturing fake "dirt" on Biden.

AllForIt

sid waddell wrote: »

There's some bad news coming out of Ukraine for Biden. Zelensky has fired his cabinet, and the prosecutor general, a guy called Ruslan Ryaboshapka, who was widely regarded as good at his job and of high integrity.

It looks like there's a big changing of the guard to go in a much more pro-Russian and certainly pro-oligarch direction.

That means Ukraine is likely to co-operate in doing what the Russians and Trump want in terms of manufacturing fake "dirt" on Biden.

Are you for real?

eagle eye

sid waddell wrote:

That means Ukraine is likely to co-operate in doing what the Russians and Trump want in terms of manufacturing fake "dirt" on Biden.

I love how you say it's fake before we get any information like it couldn't be true.

Manic Moran

Oddity coming out of swing state Colorado.

Latest figures are showing 280,000 votes for Sanders, 180,00 for Biden, 160,000 for Bloomberg, and 135,000 for Warren. That’s about 730,000 all told.

Trump is on 600,000, and there wasn’t much point in anyone arsing themselves to go vote in the Republican election. Colorado is an open primary, anyone could vote for either party. Not a good sign for Democrats, compared to figures such as Virginia which saw (reasonably) a lot more D votes than R.

Red for Danger

Maybe trump is a more prolific but both trump and bidan are compulsive liars.
Now we can stop listening to so called concern about "trumps lies"

one world order

Town hall meeting went well. Trump has gone after Biden's mental incompetence, his sons corrupt dealings with a Ukrainian oil company, Sanders communist ideology and the mainstream media that is effectively part of the democratic party. He is a very strong leader and should get another 4 more years.

everlast75

one world order wrote: »

Town hall meeting went well. Trump has gone after Biden's mental incompetence, his sons corrupt dealings with a Ukrainian oil company, Sanders communist ideology and the mainstream media that is effectively part of the democratic party. He is a very strong leader and should get another 4 more years.

It's like the greatest hits, albeit with a silent "s" at the start.

Absolutely nothing positive about what he has done in the past four years. The man is a conman and at this stage, I wonder about the gullibility of those that still cannot see it.


PS - the bit in bold actually made me laugh out loud

Wanderer78

one world order wrote:

Town hall meeting went well. Trump has gone after Biden's mental incompetence, his sons corrupt dealings with a Ukrainian oil company, Sanders communist ideology and the mainstream media that is effectively part of the democratic party. He is a very strong leader and should get another 4 more years.

'Communist ideology', hahaha brilliant

sid waddell

eagle eye wrote: »

I love how you say it's fake before we get any information like it couldn't be true.

Well we don't have any information to say that it couldn't be true that you sexually abuse kids.

Even though we have absolutely zero evidence that you do.

But you can't prove a negative, can you?

I bet you wouldn't like it if people went around without any evidence whstsoever saying that you sexually abused children, would you?

And with good reason.

It's exactly the same principle.

eagle eye

sid waddell wrote:

I bet you wouldn't like it if people went around without any evidence whstsoever saying that you sexually abused children, would you?

You are putting me in the position of the alleged offender.
I'm talking about making assumptions based off of no information. And I'm talking either way here.

everlast75

Biden should issue a press release stating that he will undergo a full neurological assessment by a random top tier surgeon, and release the records, if Trump will do the same.

In relation to allegations that Hunter Biden was making money off his old man's name, Biden should release a comprehensive analysis by a reputable firm of accountants of how Trump and his kids have been grifting off the american public for the last 3 plus years.

Any mention of Biden not supporting Annie Hall back in the day, should be dealt with by reference to her forgiving him and promptly thereafter reference to Summer Zervos and all of the women who are currently suing Trump for sex related crimes.

Time to slap (figuratively speaking) that smug pout off Trump's mouth.

Rjd2

Warren not getting behind Sanders is proof she is fake progressive and priorities her career above poor people.

Sure support Biden when its he v Trump in November but if she supposedly shares the same beliefs that Bernie does go to work for him, he needs help.

Shouldn't be shocked though, she sat on the sidelines in 2016 and tried to keep all sides happy.

If Trump wins, God help her if she thinks progressives will forgive her in 2024.

Also while establishment hacks (Hi Maddow) scream about BERNIE BROS@! and how PUTIN LOVES BERNIE@!!! , Nazis are targeting Bernie. But heh a Bernie bro was mean on twitter so meh.

https://twitter.com/elivalley/status/1235799131580436480

The Phantom Jipper

Rjd2 wrote: »

Warren not getting behind Sanders is proof she is fake progressive and priorities her career above poor people.

Sure support Biden when its he v Trump in November but if she supposedly shares the same beliefs that Bernie does go to work for him, he needs help.

Shouldn't be shocked though, she sat on the sidelines in 2016 and tried to keep all sides happy.

If Trump wins, God help her if she thinks progressives will forgive her in 2024.

Also while establishment hacks (Hi Maddow) scream about BERNIE BROS@! and how PUTIN LOVES BERNIE@!!! , Nazis are targeting Bernie. But heh a Bernie bro was mean on twitter so meh.

https://twitter.com/elivalley/status/1235799131580436480

It's more likely that she prioritises winning in November rather than endorsing a guy whose campaign is on life support and would run the risk of fuelling the same grievances that undermined party unity in 2016.

As an aside, it appears that her remaining supporters aren't guaranteed Sanders voters; they had already jumped ship to him at this stage, so an endorsement wouldn't be that much of a game-changer.

Foxtrol

Rjd2 wrote: »

Warren not getting behind Sanders is proof she is fake progressive and priorities her career above poor people.

Sure support Biden when its he v Trump in November but if she supposedly shares the same beliefs that Bernie does go to work for him, he needs help.

Shouldn't be shocked though, she sat on the sidelines in 2016 and tried to keep all sides happy.

If Trump wins, God help her if she thinks progressives will forgive her in 2024.

Also while establishment hacks (Hi Maddow) scream about BERNIE BROS@! and how PUTIN LOVES BERNIE@!!! , Nazis are targeting Bernie. But heh a Bernie bro was mean on twitter so meh.

Though horrible I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by pointing out one person waved a flag in the nose bleeds behind his back and he wasn't even aware of it until he was told afterwards.

Are you looking for sympathy for him? Is this supposed to excuse the way it is perceived that his supporters have acted and the fact that he has brushed over the issue?

Rjd2

Foxtrol wrote: »

Though horrible I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by pointing out one person waved a flag in the nose bleeds behind his back and he wasn't even aware of it until he was told afterwards.

Are you looking for sympathy for him? Is this supposed to excuse the way it is perceived that his supporters have acted and the fact that he has brushed over the issue?

The Bernie bro stuff is a media created myth created by the usual media hacks in the pocket of the DNC to limit Bernie. He has denounced them numerous times, but they keep making hay of it.

Warren making a big deal of it is just her making a lame excuse to stay on the sidelines and try and keep everyone happy like she did in 2016.

However she has shown that by not helping Bernie, she sees no difference between him and Biden a man whose policies are supposedly opposite of hers.

Best of luck to Biden in November as obviously he is better than Trump, but hopefully in 2024 the party leans more towards the AOC side rather than the likes of Warren/Biden.

The Phantom Jipper

Rjd2 wrote: »

The Bernie bro stuff is a media created myth created by the usual media hacks in the pocket of the DNC to limit Bernie. He has denounced them numerous times, but they keep making hay of it.

Warren making a big deal of it is just her making a lame excuse to stay on the sidelines and try and keep everyone happy like she did in 2016.

However she has shown that by not helping Bernie, she sees no difference between him and Biden a man whose policies are supposedly opposite of hers.

Best of luck to Biden in November as obviously he is better than Trump, but hopefully in 2024 the party leans more towards the AOC side rather than the likes of Warren/Biden.

Whatever about Bernie Bros, but you yourself have just written off a person's entire career and claimed they don't care about poor people, based solely on the fact that they haven't yet endorsed the candidate you like. It's that kind of absolutism that people have an issue with I think, and that supporters of his justifiably get criticised for.

Foxtrol

Rjd2 wrote: »

The Bernie bro stuff is a media created myth created by the usual media hacks in the pocket of the DNC to limit Bernie. He has denounced them numerous times, but they keep making hay of it.

Warren making a big deal of it is just her making a lame excuse to stay on the sidelines and try and keep everyone happy like she did in 2016.

However she has shown that by not helping Bernie, she sees no difference between him and Biden a man whose policies are supposedly opposite of hers.

Best of luck to Biden in November as obviously he is better than Trump, but hopefully in 2024 the party leans more towards the AOC side rather than the likes of Warren/Biden.

I don't see an answer to my question there.

Given his family history, I can see why Bernie would be offended by that flag being waived at the rally, it is a pity that many Bernie supporters couldn't see how his praise of elements of what Castro did would similarly offend families that were destroyed by that regime.

Regarding Warren's support, or lack thereof, a person can agree with another's policies while also believing they a) can't win the general election or b) doesn't have the ability to get the policies implemented. If they feel either of those things then it makes sense to not endorse.

Rjd2

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

It's more likely that she prioritises winning in November rather than endorsing a guy whose campaign is on life support and would run the risk of fuelling the same grievances that undermined party unity in 2016.

As an aside, it appears that her remaining supporters aren't guaranteed Sanders voters; they had already jumped ship to him at this stage, so an endorsement wouldn't be that much of a game-changer.

She could have dropped out weeks ago after Iowa or even Nevada when it was obvious she could not have won and thrown her lot in behind Bernie.

Although to be fair Bernie also showed his lack of political expertise by not trying to get her to join him.

It is interesting that around that time a Super pac something Warren said she wanted no part of started throwing money at her the oh so principled candidate she is.

Ah well it is what it is.

Rjd2

Foxtrol wrote: »

I don't see an answer to my question there.

Given his family history, I can see why Bernie would be offended by that flag being waived at the rally, it is a pity that many Bernie supporters couldn't see how his praise of elements of what Castro did would similarly offend families that were destroyed by that regime.

Regarding Warren's support, or lack thereof, a person can agree with another's policies while also believing they a) can't win the general election or b) doesn't have the ability to get the policies implemented. If they feel either of those things then it makes sense to not endorse.

He said Castro was a thug, but the mainstream media focused on that one line. He should have shot it down quicker obviously.

I am sure those who buried those who they lost to the Iraq war must be delighted that Biden who played a role in getting into that war was championed by regime change neocon horrors such as Kristol, Boot and Frum who in turn have spent the last few years demonising Bernie.

Biden is better than Trump, but lets hope we get something a little more progressive in 2024 and hopefully not Warren.

Rjd2

Although Foxtrol is right in that Bernie did make a mess of the last few weeks.
Its cool having progressive surrogates but he needed some diversity. e.g who were the voices who the rural white voters could relate to?

The DNC clearly did not want him, but progressives to need to learn lessons from his mistakes in 2024. Oddly enough the campaign Bernie ran in 2016 probably would have won this time round. Ah well.

3 posts in a row. And all ****e.

Foxtrol

Rjd2 wrote: »

He said Castro was a thug, but the mainstream media focused on that one line. He should have shot it down quicker obviously.

I am sure those who buried those who they lost to the Iraq war must be delighted that Biden who played a role in getting into that war was championed by regime change neocon horrors such as Kristol, Boot and Frum who in turn have spent the last few years demonising Bernie.

Biden is better than Trump, but lets hope we get something a little more progressive in 2024 and hopefully not Warren.

I'm sure all those who buried their children because of easy access of guns must be delighted that Bernie, who voted again and again against gun control, is so championed by 'progressives'. Bernie claims that people should understand that sometimes politicians make 'bad votes' but his supporters don't give that same respect to Biden.

If Bernie's policies are so aligned to Warren's and he truly cared about them being implemented, more than it being about himself, then he'd have dropped out after he had his heart attack and put all his support behind Warren, who was surging at the time. If he did so I believe we'd have Warren as the nominee, but time and again Bernie shows he only believes it is 'Bernie or bust', policies be damned.

Manic Moran

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'm sure all those who buried their children because of easy access of guns must be delighted that Bernie, who voted again and again against gun control, is so championed by 'progressives'.

Looking at his record, he seems to have voted in favour of gun control a lot more than against it. For background checks, for banning 'assault weapons', for magazine limitations, against concealed-carry reciprocity, and so on.

https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/37/guns

People are hammering at him mainly for supporting the bill preventing suing gun manufacturers, but it's not an unreasonable position. If you get hit by a DUI driver or someone running from the cops, do you sue Ford for making the car?

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

Looking at his record, he seems to have voted in favour of gun control a lot more than against it. For background checks, for banning 'assault weapons', for magazine limitations, against concealed-carry reciprocity, and so on.

https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/37/guns

People are hammering at him mainly for supporting the bill preventing suing gun manufacturers, but it's not an unreasonable position. If you get hit by a DUI driver or someone running from the cops, do you sue Ford for making the car?

That comparison would only make sense if cars were only designed to kill things.

Bernie not only supported that bit he also voted against the Brady bill because he was against background checks.

Manic Moran

Foxtrol wrote: »

That comparison would only make sense if cars were only designed to kill things.

Bernie not only supported that bit he also voted against the Brady bill because he was against background checks.

If you object to killing things, make it illegal to kill things, or to make things designed to kill things.

Otherwise, it's frivolous lawsuits with the intent of affecting law-abiding businesses. Why not see conservatives sue the manufacturer of mifepristones? After all, it's used only for abortions. Who cares if it's a legal process? Obviously conservatives realise they will lose.

As for the Brady Bill, incorrect. He is in favour of background checks, and has always been. He is not in favour of mandatory waiting periods, at least federally imposed ones.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jul/10/generation-forward-pac/did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you object to killing things, make it illegal to kill things, or to make things designed to kill things.

Otherwise, it's frivolous lawsuits with the intent of affecting law-abiding businesses. Why not see conservatives sue the manufacturer of mifepristones? After all, it's used only for abortions. Who cares if it's a legal process? Obviously conservatives realise they will lose.

As for the Brady Bill, incorrect. He is in favour of background checks, and has always been. He is not in favour of mandatory waiting periods, at least federally imposed ones.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jul/10/generation-forward-pac/did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/

I'm pretty sure if the manufacturer of mifepristones decided they would sell them to people in packs of 200 and that they were designing ways to get around restrictions on their sale conservatives would be suing them.

No matter his reason Bernie's vote meant the same thing, he cared so much about waiting period that he was fine with being against the rest of the bill, including backgrounds checks. Being opposed to waiting periods can also cause the deaths I mentioned in my OP, so it isn't any better of a look for a progressive that wants to throw crap at Biden for his voting record.

Manic Moran

I'm pretty sure if the manufacturer of mifepristones decided they would sell them to people in packs of 200 and that they were designing ways to get around restrictions on their sale conservatives would be suing them

Why? They're not suing them now, and the manufacturers don't even need to navigate any of the above hoops.

Foxtrol wrote: »

No matter his reason Bernie's vote meant the same thing, he cared so much about waiting period that he was fine with being against the rest of the bill, including backgrounds checks. Being opposed to waiting periods can also cause the deaths I mentioned in my OP, so it isn't any better of a look for a progressive that wants to throw crap at Biden for his voting record.

Being in favour of waiting periods can also cause death. There have been cases of people being killed in between when they decided they were sufficiently at risk to want a gun, and when the State decided they were worthy of having one.

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why? They're not suing them now, and the manufacturers don't even need to navigate any of the above hoops.

Are you saying conservatives are already suing those pill manufacturers? Maybe it would help if they also had the protections the PLCAA provides

Being in favour of waiting periods can also cause death. There have been cases of people being killed in between when they decided they were sufficiently at risk to want a gun, and when the State decided they were worthy of having one.

And it is more likely those people would have shot themselves or a family member than shot a bad guy.

Manic Moran

Foxtrol wrote: »

Are you saying conservatives are already suing those pill manufacturers? Maybe it would help if they also had the protections the PLCAA provides

No, they're not. They know very well they aren't going to win, and pharmaceutical companies tend to have rather deep pockets so aren't at risk from defending themselves from frivolous suits.

And it is more likely those people would have shot themselves or a family member than shot a bad guy.

False equivalence, as well as a goalpost change. Not bad. I know the stat you are referring to, but that does not confine the statistic to those who actually faced a bad guy. Note the CDC-sponsored report after Newton that said that when actually confronted, those who used a firearm were less likely to be injured than anyone using any other technique.
Not having a gun certainly didn't help the ones who were denied and then got killed.

Either way, there are logical arguments against that particular legislation, if you like it or not, and it is only one of many upon which Bernie has stated an opinion, most of which fall under the 'gun control' camp. The NRA rates him as a "D-minus", hardly a staunch supporter of gun rights.

Itssoeasy

I have to say sanders is talking out of both sides of his mouth since before Super Tuesday. He goes on about the Democratic establishment but last Sunday he said on face the nation hosted by Margaret Brennan that he considered himself a member of the dems leadership in the senate which is the definition of the establishment. He’s also putting an ad out(slightly altered) of him walking with President Obama at the White House. Wouldn’t a sitting president of either party by the essence of the establishment ?

Also the trump base are a disgrace but sanders “Bernie bros” aren’t angels either. He said after 2016 he had work to do with black voters and in four years he’s clearly not improved.

O'Neill

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/06/politics/nazi-flag-at-bernie-sanders-rally-gets-person-kicked-out/index.html

That flag behind him on the podium is a sight to behold giving his family had to flee Poland due to the holocaust

O'Neill

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I have to say sanders is talking out of both sides of his mouth since before Super Tuesday. He goes on about the Democratic establishment but last Sunday he said on face the nation hosted by Margaret Brennan that he considered himself a member of the dems leadership in the senate which is the definition of the establishment. He’s also putting an ad out(slightly altered) of him walking with President Obama at the White House. Wouldn’t a sitting president of either party by the essence of the establishment ?

Also the trump base are a disgrace but sanders “Bernie bros” aren’t angels either. He said after 2016 he had work to do with black voters and in four years he’s clearly not improved.

I have to ask where on earth did this 'bernie bros' come from? Every video I've seen of him giving speeches, it was very mixed gender! Also, the people that's associated with his campaign (Nina Turner, AOC, Rashida Talib, Ilan Omar) aren't exactly white men, unless I completely misunderstood the term.

Itssoeasy

O'Neill wrote: »

I have to ask where on earth did this 'bernie bros' come from? Every video I've seen of him giving speeches, it was very mixed gender! Also, the people that's associated with his campaign (Nina Turner, AOC, Rashida Talib, Ilan Omar) aren't exactly white men, unless I completely misunderstood the term.

As far as I can tell it’s male sanders supporters who inhabit Twitter and post some awful ****e.

O'Neill

Itssoeasy wrote: »

As far as I can tell it’s male sanders supporters who inhabit Twitter and post some awful ****e.

Best ignore twitter in general tbh

Rjd2

O'Neill wrote: »

I have to ask where on earth did this 'bernie bros' come from? Every video I've seen of him giving speeches, it was very mixed gender! Also, the people that's associated with his campaign (Nina Turner, AOC, Rashida Talib, Ilan Omar) aren't exactly white men, unless I completely misunderstood the term.

It doesn't exist.

A couple of random nobodies on twitter, however its a nice tool to smear the Bernie base with which is young diverse and actually not doing well with white and older voters. A more diverse fanbase than Warren whose support was mainly confined to educated wealthy white liberals who read the NYT. :pac:

You get the usual suspects e.g Maddow and her corporate ilk to repeat the mantra and its easy how it becomes widespread.

Its a great culture war trick that both left and right use, find some random loon and then use those nobodies to smear a whole movement such as the Bernie base.

Rjd2

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1235990900481896448

That's why the Bernie bro stuff is not to be taken seriously.

Frum a neocon who is all in for Biden who played a big role in the Iraq war lecturing people on decency who a few days previously said that Sanders supporters don't pay their cable bills.

Its also galling as last night as someone waved a nazi flag at Bernie. Bernie has faced a lot of Anti-Semitism this campaign, but its something the media especially MSNBC rarely focus on instead focusing on some random nobodies online who may have upset one of their own.

eire4

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1235990900481896448

That's why the Bernie bro stuff is not to be taken seriously.

Frum a neocon who is all in for Biden who played a big role in the Iraq war lecturing people on decency who a few days previously said that Sanders supporters don't pay their cable bills.

Its also galling as last night as someone waved a nazi flag at Bernie. Bernie has faced a lot of Anti-Semitism this campaign, but its something the media especially MSNBC rarely focus on instead focusing on some random nobodies online who may have upset one of their own.

Being lectured like that on what is moral and decent by David Frum is the height of hypocrisy. The man who wrote the infamous "axis of evil" speach for Bush that was part of paving the way for the lies and deceit that lead to the invasion of Iraqi.

Red for Danger

O'Neill wrote: »

I have to ask where on earth did this 'bernie bros' come from? .

The same place as "Obama was born in Kenya" very powerful people gathered in a room, put some ideas up on a board and emerged from that room with "bernie bro"
You then pump that idea into all the news shows news papers any kind of political commentary such as, " the view" "bill maher" "morning Joe" etc.

I reckon they had very little dirt on sanders, so knowing that large sections of older people aren't aware of the dynamics involded with all online, and would just get the message that sanders supporters are terrible.

Its ridiculous when, (as you see on this thread) people who are aware of the dynamics of online start playing the victim even though we all know they fully understand what to expect if they were to read say; Donald Trump's base, discussing Michelle Obama or Aoc or Omar. They're also well aware that all high profile people on the Sanders side or any side for that matter would be getting constant death threats online.

Thats what propaganda and brainwashing is, people have already read somewhere online, vicious racism, the most disturbing disgusting things you could imagine are now looking at that this post and thinking my online activity is a serious concern. Unbelievable.

sid waddell

Let's play the culture war trick and accuse Biden of having a problem with thuggish supporters on Twitter.

Because that's exactly what Biden supporters do to Sanders.

https://twitter.com/Urquwill/status/1236109292589244416