2020 US Presidential Election Discussion

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
68
Location
Miami, Florida
Yes, they would. People vote trump because they think democrats have become too far left. We have to rectify that. Biden yang could also be a good ticket too, though I don’t know if people would trust the lack of expirence or yang. Where do you get these polls of Obama trump voters going to sanders and yang? As far as I can tell, the country is mostly moderate and moderates like Biden more. The critical components of trump base are moderates.

Bernie claims to be “pro labor” but he’s full of it. Rural workers won’t won’t for a dramatic 15 dollar minimum wage/climate change and huge socialist government. Biden and klobuchar live in the mid west and rust belt and are pro worker. Especially klobuchar. And she’ll actually get things done in Congress unlike Bernie who’s too idealistic and less effectively pragmatic.

Hillary had higher turnout then Obama did in 2012 and she beat trump by 3 million votes. The reason she lost was that she was tooo socially left and didn’t campaign in critical states due to her arrogance (Which even then, she barley lost). Plus all the celebrity endorsements with the vibe of she’s an “elite” also put people off. Biden and klobuchar aren’t that. They day to day political figures who’ll work to heal and better then country. Bernie social left movement will get the same elites enthusiastic about him and then he and his student AOC will be campaigning in Hollywood rather then the important states.



If “progressives” don’t get in line and vote for our nominee and their whiny ness is the reason trump wins, I’ll never forgive them nor vote for them.
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
People voted for Trump because they detested Hillary and the political machine. Trump ran as an outsider who people could relate to that was going to "clear the swamp." Hillary was the embodiment of the swamp.
It's not as simple as that of course, everyone had their own reasons, but by and large I think this is the biggest trend I've been able to attribute to the results of 2016. And Hillary was a moderate, again. She is not far left at all. She was the "compromise" and people still didn't want her.
YouGov showed Yang and Bernie with the highest Obama/Trump voter support. This was a few months ago but it is consistent with Bernie, Yang, and Gabbard all doing pretty well with independents and conservatives compared to the other democratic candidates.
Now, may I ask you to back up your claim of the country being mostly moderate and Trump's base being mostly moderate?
Bernie being pro labor but is full of it? Why then, does he have so many union endorsements? Why then, is he the candidate with the most donations by far (in fact, the most donations IN HISTORY at this point in the race) with the donors mostly being from working class individuals?
Have you looked at Bernie's climate plans? He has made it very clear that he wants to ensure that former fossil fuel industry workers will have a just transition and a federal job guarantee instead of being left behind.
Biden, on the other hand... Well, he literally said he would sacrifice jobs, which Fox News is already having a field day with. Not really sure rural Americans will like that.
And what makes Biden and Klobuchar more pro worker than Bernie?
Yes, Bernie Sanders is idealistic, but he is also incredibly determined and has proven to be effective, especially in passing ammendments in Congress.

Ok, your last statements show a severe misunderstanding of Bernie's movement and his base. His base is made up of a multiracial working class that is situated around the entire country. It is not liked by the elites at ALL lol. He is smeared or ignored on most mainstream new outlets.
I agree that people did see Hillary as too socially left in some key states. The difference with Bernie is that, even though he is progressive on social issues, he leads with important economic issues that speak to people all over the country.
Also, Bernie is known for campaigning in places that aren't politically popular. Like for example, vs Hillary in 2016 people were confused as to why he went to Oklahoma to campaign, but that shows his strategy of campaigning not just in the coasts but everywhere.

For your final statement- why do progressives need to fall in line? Why don't moderates have fall in line to progressives instead? It's a double standard lol. No one is entitled to votes, they have to earn it.
Again, Hillary lost vs Trump. Biden is running a very similar campaign. Maybe it's time we learn from it.
 

Alicorn

The Fighting Dreamer ❤️
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
438
Location
Friendship Castle
I think you are underestimating Trump and his base.
Controversy surrounds him yes, but this is nothing new. He's been controversial longe before he ran and won and he will be long after. The controversies could even be a benefit to him in a way as it gives him more free coverage in the news.
"The shackles of impeachment" ? Impeachment is likely to end in Senate Republicans voting against his impeachment. His base will be riled up and he'll be able to pull the "They tried to get me but couldn't take me down" argument. And over what? A phone call over military aid to Ukraine? The American public by and large just doesn't care about that.
Biden is not really the best person to call on Trump for corruption because he's wrapped up in scandal too. The water is muddy.
I don't think Trump will win, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that he will lose. Consider that the GOP also has a TON of money and at the moment no outstanding debts and he's an incumbent president with a lot more ground organization.
Trump was running as a dark horse in 2016 so he had that freshness about him that appealed to voters. But after he got into office his approval rating fell. His blunder of a foreign policy almost sent the US to war in the middle east giving bad actors in the region air to breath and prosper. Trump betrayed our allies with his own ignorance and had people around him that only made things worst (Miller and Sessions to name a few) His blunder in Charlottesville. His assassination of the Iranian General and being unable to keep his story straight. The fact he killed the guy to please the warhawks in his party to help him with his impeachment defense. Trump is now praising the growth of the economy when in reality he was the one who wreck it with his Trade war and suspiciously came to an agreement with China around the time of the articles of impeachment being sent to the Senate. Wages have became stagnant and he is cutting foodstamps and trying to undermine SSI too.

Trump committed a crime when he withheld aid from Ukraine and he didn't even give all of it. So now Trump is most likely going to face legal charges when he leaves office which is why he is fighting so hard to get reelected because he knows he will most likely be facing jail time along with carrying the dishonor of impeachment for the rest of his life.

The only way Trump can survive all of that is if he polarizes the divide between the political parties so much that he wins the election. And judging from the Midterm turn out for the House. I see people are getting less apathetic about voting.
 
Last edited:

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
68
Location
Miami, Florida
Trump was running as a dark horse in 2016 so he had that freshness about him that appealed to voters. But after he got into office his approval rating fell. His blunder of a foreign policy almost sent the US to war in the middle east giving bad actors in the region air to breath and prosper. Trump betrayed our allies with his own ignorance and had people around him that only made things worst (Miller and Sessions to name a few) His blunder in Charlottesville. His assassination of the Iranian General and being unable to keep his story straight. The fact he killed the guy to please the warhawks in his party to help him with his impeachment defense. Trump is now praising the growth of the economy when in reality he was the one who wreck it with his Trade war and suspiciously came to an agreement with China around the time of the articles of impeachment being sent to the Senate. Wages have became stagnant and he is cutting foodstamps and trying to undermine SSI too.

Trump committed a crime when he withheld aid from Ukraine and he didn't even give all of it. So now Trump is most likely going to face legal charges when he leaves office which is why he is fighting so hard to get reelected because he knows he will most likely be facing jail time along with carrying the dishonor of impeachment for the rest of his life.

The only way Trump can survive all of that is if he polarizes the divide between the political parties so much that he wins the election. And judging from the Midterm turn out for the House. I see people are getting less apathetic about voting.
I mean, I see what you're saying and he's done some pretty terrible stuff especially recently with regards to Iran. I think that's the biggest blunder since he ran as a "bring the troops home" candidate and hasn't stuck thru with his word.
I'm just saying that we shouldn't underestimate him. 2016 people thought the race would be free and yet he won. We should definitely consider the fact that it is indeed possible he could get re-elected. Complacency won't do any good.
 

HybridXD

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
17
People voted for Trump because they detested Hillary and the political machine. Trump ran as an outsider who people could relate to that was going to "clear the swamp." Hillary was the embodiment of the swamp.
It's not as simple as that of course, everyone had their own reasons, but by and large I think this is the biggest trend I've been able to attribute to the results of 2016. And Hillary was a moderate, again. She is not far left at all. She was the "compromise" and people still didn't want her.
YouGov showed Yang and Bernie with the highest Obama/Trump voter support. This was a few months ago but it is consistent with Bernie, Yang, and Gabbard all doing pretty well with independents and conservatives compared to the other democratic candidates.
Now, may I ask you to back up your claim of the country being mostly moderate and Trump's base being mostly moderate?
Bernie being pro labor but is full of it? Why then, does he have so many union endorsements? Why then, is he the candidate with the most donations by far (in fact, the most donations IN HISTORY at this point in the race) with the donors mostly being from working class individuals?
Have you looked at Bernie's climate plans? He has made it very clear that he wants to ensure that former fossil fuel industry workers will have a just transition and a federal job guarantee instead of being left behind.
Biden, on the other hand... Well, he literally said he would sacrifice jobs, which Fox News is already having a field day with. Not really sure rural Americans will like that.
And what makes Biden and Klobuchar more pro worker than Bernie?
Yes, Bernie Sanders is idealistic, but he is also incredibly determined and has proven to be effective, especially in passing ammendments in Congress.

Ok, your last statements show a severe misunderstanding of Bernie's movement and his base. His base is made up of a multiracial working class that is situated around the entire country. It is not liked by the elites at ALL lol. He is smeared or ignored on most mainstream new outlets.
I agree that people did see Hillary as too socially left in some key states. The difference with Bernie is that, even though he is progressive on social issues, he leads with important economic issues that speak to people all over the country.
Also, Bernie is known for campaigning in places that aren't politically popular. Like for example, vs Hillary in 2016 people were confused as to why he went to Oklahoma to campaign, but that shows his strategy of campaigning not just in the coasts but everywhere.

For your final statement- why do progressives need to fall in line? Why don't moderates have fall in line to progressives instead? It's a double standard lol. No one is entitled to votes, they have to earn it.
Again, Hillary lost vs Trump. Biden is running a very similar campaign. Maybe it's time we learn from it.
https://time.com/voices-from-democratic-counties-where-trump-won-big/
Again, some of these people not only thought Hillary was too socially, one talked about economics and not “paying for someone” and you have to do it yourself. Democrats are party civil rights and equality freedom and opportunity. Not socialism and stagnation, the ReThugs are already smearing us with that hence why people have walked away from the democrats. We need to win back the workers and middle class in key states. And that’s with smart pragmatics then Socialist idealism that always fail.

While the democrats won big in 2018, non democrat Bernie sanders and his allies all lost:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.po...ie-sanders-endorsements-2018-elections-767403


Bernie sanders barley gets anything done in Congress except name post offices:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/1560188/what-the-2020-democratic-candidates-did-in-congress/amp/


Bernie is endorsed by AOC and ilhan Omar who all are incredibly unpopular. Even more then agent orange in the white horse.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-and-aoc-polling/


The Putin party are going to eat us up with that many holes and lack of accomplishments. Klobuchar gets things done and has mid western appeal. She as VP and Biden who has the trust of the American people is the best to beat the ReThugs and the orange menace in the White House. Not a sexist socialist and his followers who Harrass women on social media. At least the women are undefeated in elections, can’t say the same for the men.


Bernie climate plan cost 32 trillion dollars. His health plan cost 30 trillion dollars. Instead of wanting college affordable, he wants a huge free college. He’s not going to appeal to many rust belt people at all. He has terrible economics. At least agent orange speaks the talk on economic. That’ll appeal to them which will hurt us even someone as clueless as sanders is running. His donations are just his base over donating again and again to a guy has gotten anything done. Those aren’t new individual donors.

If Bernie spoke to the people, he’d have beaten Hillary but he didn’t. If his message spoke to the people, he would be leading now but he’s not. He’s just there to divide up the democrats and turn us into an autocracy like the GOP with their emperor orangutan. Democrats aren’t as spineless as the GOP to allow an outsider to hijack us like that. While the republicans allowed a Putin nazi to rule them, democrats will not allow a communist to rule us. Won’t happen.
NeverBernie!



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...emocrats-poll-moderates-battleground.amp.html

People want sanity and stability. Not racism and incompetence, nor radicalism like Bernie.


And progressives need to get in line because while Putin and the sexist deplorables did not want a women in office, progressives didn’t all vote for #her. We forgive them this time but not again.
Bernie better get his psychopants to all turn out and #VoteBlueNoMatterWho
 
Last edited:

Qualk

Smash Cadet
Writing Team
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
69
And over what? A phone call over military aid to Ukraine?
This is actually incredibly important because of the precedent it could set. Just think about it, he extorted a foreign government to help him get re-elected using his powers as President. If the Senate acquits him then they're sending the message to all future Presidents that it's fine to use your position as President to keep yourself in power. It goes against EVERYTHING that America stands for.

Bottom line is this is a HUGE deal and people DO care. Polls have shown that as more details have emerged more and more people are favoring impeachment and removal.
 

StoicPhantom

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
408
Trump now has to work even harder to appeal to people outside his base because his opponents have four years worth of mud they can sling on Trump
For who? The media has run a several year long hate train on Trump and invented everything from the Russia conspiracy to insinuating that he partook of Jeffrey Epstein's "merchandise". There isn't much more mud you can sling on this guy and yet there hasn't been any mass revolts from his base nor has his approval rating changed that much from inauguration. It seems like very wishful thinking that his base that was fine with all the things he said on his campaign trail and has allegedly done in his past would all of a sudden see the light and reject him. Even if the ones that voted for him on economics have woken up to his lies, that still doesn't mean they are going to vote Democrat.

Second Bernie is going to have a tough year going in due to the Republicans being so bullish, Republicans really gave Obama a hard time and he was moderate. Sanders is basically the GOP's worst nightmare they will do everything in their power to limit Bernie Sanders leading a lot of deadlocking in the house and senate.
But that's the thing though and kind of kills the entire moderate argument. Obama did literally everything he could to compromise with Republicans. Even his defining accomplishment was still just taking a conservative healthcare plan from the Nixon days and watering it down even further and they still rejected it, solely because it was Obama that was pushing it. Absolutely no Republicans voted for the ACA. Obama had to ram it down their throats. When they eventually got back in power, one of the first things they tried to do was repeal it. Even though repeal had an 85% disapproval rating.

If the ACA had a 0% chance of Republican approval, then a public option will also have a 0% chance of a Republican approval, as will Medicare for All. It then makes no sense to make incremental gains or "compromise" by going for a public option, which will have the exact same chance of Republican approval as Medicare for All would. You might as well go whole hog and actually energize your base for once.

Rural workers won’t won’t for a dramatic 15 dollar minimum wage/climate change and huge socialist government.
People will vote for climate change mitigation or they will kiss the planet and their asses goodbye. It doesn't matter if you don't believe in climate change, reality will still bite you regardless.

The reason she lost was that she was tooo socially left and didn’t campaign in critical states due to her arrogance
She lost because the electoral college was literally designed to subvert democracy and gives far too much importance to land over people. Hillary was no further left socially than Obama and people didn't have difficulty voting for him.

His blunder of a foreign policy almost sent the US to war in the middle east giving bad actors in the region air to breath and prosper. Trump betrayed our allies with his own ignorance and had people around him that only made things worst (Miller and Sessions to name a few) His blunder in Charlottesville. His assassination of the Iranian General and being unable to keep his story straight. The fact he killed the guy to please the warhawks in his party to help him with his impeachment defense. Trump is now praising the growth of the economy when in reality he was the one who wreck it with his Trade war and suspiciously came to an agreement with China around the time of the articles of impeachment being sent to the Senate. Wages have became stagnant and he is cutting foodstamps and trying to undermine SSI too.
Al of that is everything most of his base wanted and more. Do you really think the types that would shout "Jew S A" at his rallies are going to be overly bothered about Charlottesville? Or that he assassinated what was essentially the VP of a country we've been told hates us and is one of our greatest enemies for decades? Or the party that has long been accusing people on Social Security and food stamps of being lazy and mooching off society, wouldn't be happy about him cutting those programs?

You are giving people way too much credit. Most people aren't very informed on these matters in the first place, but given there hasn't been any major outcry during the last two administrations for doing these things, I'm not seeing any strong case for this one to buck the trend. And the best you can say about the current climate, is that people are apathetic at best. I don't see any protests on the level of Vietnam going on, just as I don't see anyone rushing to denounce American support for "bad actors". Just ask Latin America on that last bit.

Again, some of these people not only thought Hillary was too socially, one talked about economics and not “paying for someone” and you have to do it yourself.
AKA selfish assholes who would never vote Democrat in the first place. If people honestly think the person that voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and helped institute the draconian crime bills that deliberately cracked down hard on black Americans was too socially liberal, then I would hate to see what they consider "moderate".

Not socialism and stagnation, the ReThugs are already smearing us with that hence why people have walked away from the democrats. We need to win back the workers and middle class in key states. And that’s with smart pragmatics then Socialist idealism that always fail.
The "ReThugs" are going to smear Democrats regardless of what they do. Obama's tenure really should have proved that, but for some reason people still feel the need to bend over backwards for the party that has made it pretty clear they will never compromise or act like decent human beings. And you've been doing a pretty good job of baseless smears yourself.

Bernie is endorsed by AOC and ilhan Omar who all are incredibly unpopular. Even more then agent orange in the white horse.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-and-aoc-polling/
From that article
In sum, we don’t have enough information about the poll described by Axios to assess whether its results are reliable, and even if we did, it seems it was intended to give Democratic party insiders information about potential swing voters, and not meant as a bellwether for any of the congresswomen’s reelection prospects, or overall popularity. As such, to claim without qualification that Omar and Ocasio-Cortez are polling 8 or 9 percent and 21 percent, respectively, is misleading.
literally disproving what you said. And for supposedly being unpopular losers, they all certainly enjoy lots of support and attention and influence in the Democratic party, including Bernie, who has been polling in the top 3 most of the primary so far and has broken numerous fundraising records.

Klobuchar gets things done and has mid western appeal.
Klobuchar hasn't done ****. And as someone that actually lives in the midwest, I can confidently say that no one knew who she was before the debate, other than her state, and no one is really enthused about her at all. She's been polling in the single digits in her own party, let alone elsewhere.

Not a sexist socialist and his followers who Harrass women on social media.
Citation needed.

Bernie climate plan cost 32 trillion dollars. His health plan cost 30 trillion dollars. Instead of wanting college affordable, he wants a huge free college.
Yes, it's almost like fixing problems that have been ignored and allowed to grow worse is going to be costly. Still far cheaper than the status quo though.

He’s not going to appeal to many rust belt people at all.
That's why he's polling very favorably in those areas right now, right?

He has terrible economics.
Citation needed. All of his plans have been tried and are currently working well in multiple countries.

At least agent orange speaks the talk on economic.
Lmfao no.

. His donations are just his base over donating again and again to a guy has gotten anything done. Those aren’t new individual donors.
Citation needed. He's been breaking his own records, meaning he's getting new voters. Point to any article from the past few months that shows he's stagnating, I dare you.

. Democrats aren’t as spineless as the GOP to allow an outsider to hijack us like that.
Establishment Democrats have completely lost control of the party. In case you didn't know, there's a major civil war going on in the party and people like AOC and Bernie have more influence among voters than whatever crusty neoliberal is your favorite. Or are we just going to ignore that Bernie has been allowed to jack the narrative for the second time in the past two presidential election cycles?

While the republicans allowed a Putin nazi to rule them, democrats will not allow a communist to rule us. Won’t happen.
Good thing there isn't a communist trying to rule anyone in the party.

#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
That sounds about right. I'm honestly curious how many of you so-called moderates will actually vote for him, if Bernie gets the nomination. Other "moderates" notwithstanding, given your propensity for fake news and penchant for calling anyone left of Goldwater a communist, I think you may be in the wrong party as well.

This is actually incredibly important because of the precedent it could set. Just think about it, he extorted a foreign government to help him get re-elected using his powers as President. If the Senate acquits him then they're sending the message to all future Presidents that it's fine to use your position as President to keep yourself in power. It goes against EVERYTHING that America stands for.

Bottom line is this is a HUGE deal and people DO care. Polls have shown that as more details have emerged more and more people are favoring impeachment and removal.
When exactly has the GOP ever considered what America stands for? Their first act back in power was to try to gut the ethics committee, then repeal the ACA, which had a whopping 15% approval rating. The whole reason why Iran is a thing, was because executive powers were increased under the Bush administration, which flies in the face of what the founding fathers originally intended, which was only Congress can declare war or authorize military action. And Bush got reelected.

The GOP are pretty okay with doing just that, because they know a good chunk of America will blindly vote for them. I'm not saying this can't have a negative blowback on Trump, but past history and trends among actual actions, not just what people say they feel, tends to point to the opposite. People will make a show of caring, but won't lift a finger to do so. Executive orders were originally promised to only be used in emergencies and are now done immediately upon inauguration to undo the previous administration's. The Patriot Act is in complete violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and a bipartisan renewal just passed again for like the third time or whatever.

Seems to me that people have been pretty chill about losing rights and allowing ever increasing power grabs for the executive branch. I mean yeah, if you ask them directly they will say they aren't okay with it, but it's kind of been two and a half administrations since the above happened and there hasn't been any real protest or attempt at changing things.
 

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
68
Location
Miami, Florida
This is actually incredibly important because of the precedent it could set. Just think about it, he extorted a foreign government to help him get re-elected using his powers as President. If the Senate acquits him then they're sending the message to all future Presidents that it's fine to use your position as President to keep yourself in power. It goes against EVERYTHING that America stands for.

Bottom line is this is a HUGE deal and people DO care. Polls have shown that as more details have emerged more and more people are favoring impeachment and removal.
I'm not saying it wasn't bad, but the grounds on which they chose to impeach him are so esoteric and far removed from the American public's actual daily struggles that I don't think people really seem to care. And right now, it looks like opinions on impeachment are pretty evenly split. Just as in congress, this just looks pretty partisan.
And again, the waters are muddy. Democrats who are corrupt like Trump (see: Joe Biden) can't really talk corruption without it sounding hypocritical. Hunter Biden being involved in places he clearly shouldn't have but profited off his dad's VP status especially in regards to Ukraine is uh... not a good look, to say the least.
Had they chosen to impeach him based on the Emoluments Clause or even for the assassination of Soleimani, I think it would have been a better choice.
Regardless, we're almost at the start of the election and doing impeachment now over such a limited scope is sucking the oxygen out of the electoral process and even hindering the senators who are currently running in the primaries (Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar), giving an unfair advantage to the other ****tier candidates.
Democrats keep thinking they're going to have a silver bullet moment where they can "gotcha!" Trump but I think a far better strategy is creating and rallying a working class movement filled with hope and policies that'll affect people in their daily lives and solve the problems that led to his election in the first place.
 

Qualk

Smash Cadet
Writing Team
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
69
Democrats keep thinking they're going to have a silver bullet moment where they can "gotcha!" Trump but I think a far better strategy is creating and rallying a working class movement filled with hope and policies that'll affect people in their daily lives and solve the problems that led to his election in the first place.
Why not both? Bernie and Warren are both doing a great job at contributing to the impeachment effort and putting policies that'll help people and undo the damage Trump and his cronies have done.

And all of the past impeachments you could argue were also "far removed from the American public's actual daily struggles" and still managed to remove them. Honestly, I think that Trump's impeachment is even CLOSER to the American public's daily struggles simply because of who he is. He's been the elephant in the room at millions of family gatherings for 4 years, people are nervous about what he's going to do next and it's affecting America's mental health and relationships. My own wife's relationship with her sister has been significantly eroded by their opposing views on Trump and his policies.

Impeachment should be in a totally separate box from other political issues. It's simple, he did something impeachable and he got impeached, as he should've been. The fact that it's an election year should be irrelevant.
 

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
68
Location
Miami, Florida
Why not both? Bernie and Warren are both doing a great job at contributing to the impeachment effort and putting policies that'll help people and undo the damage Trump and his cronies have done.

And all of the past impeachments you could argue were also "far removed from the American public's actual daily struggles" and still managed to remove them. Honestly, I think that Trump's impeachment is even CLOSER to the American public's daily struggles simply because of who he is. He's been the elephant in the room at millions of family gatherings for 4 years, people are nervous about what he's going to do next and it's affecting America's mental health and relationships. My own wife's relationship with her sister has been significantly eroded by their opposing views on Trump and his policies.

Impeachment should be in a totally separate box from other political issues. It's simple, he did something impeachable and he got impeached, as he should've been. The fact that it's an election year should be irrelevant.
Again, I see what you're saying but I disagree.
I don't really know how Bernie and Warren could be said to be doing a good job in impeachment efforts when the articles just got forwarded to the Senate, so not much as happened yet. The reason it can't be both or at least not as effectively, is because impeachment requires senators to be in DC 6 days a week, the whole day. That means no campaigning in Iowa or doing events that help them. It's a roadblock in the most vital time of the primaries.
Well, Bill Clinton for exampled was impeached but not removed. I know Trump is a very polarizing person but I'm trying to say the grounds on which he is being impeached isn't really relevant to people's lives in a tangible way. Not that what he did was bad, I just think it shows in how partisan the impeachment support/opposition is.
I see what you're saying at the end, it's just an unfortunate situation. I personally think if they wanted to impeach they could have done it way earlier based on the emoluments clause. At this point I'm not really sure how well strategically this all works out. Personally I don't think this event was impeach-worthy unlike what I mentioned earlier or murdering soleimani.
 

HybridXD

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
17
I'm not saying it wasn't bad, but the grounds on which they chose to impeach him are so esoteric and far removed from the American public's actual daily struggles that I don't think people really seem to care. And right now, it looks like opinions on impeachment are pretty evenly split. Just as in congress, this just looks pretty partisan.
And again, the waters are muddy. Democrats who are corrupt like Trump (see: Joe Biden) can't really talk corruption without it sounding hypocritical. Hunter Biden being involved in places he clearly shouldn't have but profited off his dad's VP status especially in regards to Ukraine is uh... not a good look, to say the least.
Had they chosen to impeach him based on the Emoluments Clause or even for the assassination of Soleimani, I think it would have been a better choice.
Regardless, we're almost at the start of the election and doing impeachment now over such a limited scope is sucking the oxygen out of the electoral process and even hindering the senators who are currently running in the primaries (Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar), giving an unfair advantage to the other ****tier candidates.
Democrats keep thinking they're going to have a silver bullet moment where they can "gotcha!" Trump but I think a far better strategy is creating and rallying a working class movement filled with hope and policies that'll affect people in their daily lives and solve the problems that led to his election in the first place.
And what problems led to election in the first place? The only reason trump won was because he cheated with his boss Putin, angry Bernie bros and sexist and racist deplorables who were hateful of a black man and did not want a woman as president.
 

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
68
Location
Miami, Florida
And what problems led to election in the first place? The only reason trump won was because he cheated with his boss Putin, angry Bernie bros and sexist and racist deplorables who were hateful of a black man and did not want a woman as president.
If you're gonna post in this thread, at least try to seem like you are acting in good faith instead of trolling.
 

StoicPhantom

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
408
And again, the waters are muddy. Democrats who are corrupt like Trump (see: Joe Biden) can't really talk corruption without it sounding hypocritical. Hunter Biden being involved in places he clearly shouldn't have but profited off his dad's VP status especially in regards to Ukraine is uh... not a good look, to say the least.
Well, Bill Clinton for exampled was impeached but not removed. I know Trump is a very polarizing person but I'm trying to say the grounds on which he is being impeached isn't really relevant to people's lives in a tangible way. Not that what he did was bad, I just think it shows in how partisan the impeachment support/opposition is.
Pretty much this. Let's not forget that the same people frothing at the mouth for Clinton's impeachment were the same people that let slide the fact that Trump paid a pornstar for sex, which last I checked was illegal, but I guess we just decided to ignore that. And that Watergate had a mountain of evidence that was impossible to ignore and Nixon resigned anyway.

Ukraine in contrast, is just not something a country that doesn't pay attention to the outside world can really relate to. There isn't really anything that has affected Americans directly and this is honestly just appealing to morality more than anything. The GOP has long since given up on trying to defend the indefensible and has instead opted to drag Democrats down to their level. Playing the whataboutism game and appealing to the partisan divide is exactly what's going to happen here. Sprinkle in accusations of witch hunts and fake news and they will have given their supporters all the rationalizations they need to dismiss this and continue believing their own reality.

The GOP is not going to betray Trump, he's literally keeping them alive. Any attempt to do so will face swift backlash from the base. People go on about the Supreme Court and how dangerous it will be to have a conservative court, but it's pretty rare in history that we didn't have one and being part of the Judiciary, means they are still bound by the law. The Senate is not however, and impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.
 

Sucumbio

Smash Powerslave
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
5,306
This will boil down to a case of Executive branch vs Congress insofar as Congress approved money for Ukrainian military aid and Trump withheld it in lieu of cooperation with his political agenda regarding his rival. He no doubt felt that because it was military aid that it fell ultimately within his jurisdiction to render it or withhold it despite it being a Legislative responsibility. That is where high crimes is concerned, basically taking the situation into his own hands and pointing towards Biden and his son as the reason for the delay in aid. The second article is about his attempts to sabotaging the oversight brought against him.

I don't think he'll be ousted obviously. And I don't think he'll lose reelection either. We just have to have faith that 4 more years with him at the helm won't turn into a true disaster. So far we've been lucky. The economy IS strong and he HAS wrestled China into a position that is better than before. What he fails at is our exodus from the middle east. The escalating tensions and failed diplomacy with Iran and its proxies. And so that's where we'll want to keep our attention over the next year as the election approaches.
 

HybridXD

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
17
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/
Klobuchar is RISING IN IOWA. 11%! BIDEN IS EXTENDING HIS LEAD IN IOWA. PLUS WE GOT A. ENDORSMENT FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES!
YAAAS!!!
Seems like warren got a slight boost in the polls after exposing the hypocritical sexist comments of Bernie as well as pointing about how the two woman are the only undefeated people in an election.
I wouldn’t mind if warren won the election, only that she make klobuchar her vice.

Agent Orange, we are coming for you! We see through the lies. How you are trying to divide up the democrats by vouching for your secret ally in Bernard Sanders hoping he can win nomination and give you an 2020 Opponent that comes from your same cloth of sexism, demagoguey and high jacking. The GoP went low succumbing to far right nazi wing outsiders, but democrats are going to go high. We are going to nominate the right candidate who’ll make the right ticket that’ll unify the democrats to take you and your Pychophants out of the White House as we take back the senate. Remember what we did in 2018? Expect worse in 2020 little Donnie!
#Klobuchar
#warren
#Biden
Oh yeah, once we do all of that. Kamala is going to take you to jail.
https://media.giphy.com/media/3ohzdEwCBFMHlg0l2g/200.gif
Good luck, individual 1. Justice is coming!
;)
 
Last edited:

link2702

Smash Champion
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
2,621
Location
Oklahoma
I know this slightly veers from the current discussion (kinda?) but honestly....if he gets re-elected, I truly honestly think he’ll be assassinated, or a very serious attempt on him.

His rhetoric, as well as many of his actions, have caused the biggest divide in the nations history next to the civil war. And he has no interest in trying to heal that divide, and instead continues fanning the flames. If he gets acquitted(which is likely given how all the republican senators are standing by him even knowing full well he’s committed impeachable offenses.) he’ll only feel emboldened to take this rhetoric and actions to the next level. And he already encourages his supporters to take actions of violence against his opponents and/or their supporters, so just imagine things worse than that. That’ll be the straw that breaks the camels back. Someone is gonna snap if it happens, I’d almost guarantee it.
 

Crimson King

I am become death
GRimer
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
29,033
Location
The nightmare corpse-city of R'lyeh
I know this slightly veers from the current discussion (kinda?) but honestly....if he gets re-elected, I truly honestly think he’ll be assassinated, or a very serious attempt on him.

His rhetoric, as well as many of his actions, have caused the biggest divide in the nations history next to the civil war. And he has no interest in trying to heal that divide, and instead continues fanning the flames. If he gets acquitted(which is likely given how all the republican senators are standing by him even knowing full well he’s committed impeachable offenses.) he’ll only feel emboldened to take this rhetoric and actions to the next level. And he already encourages his supporters to take actions of violence against his opponents and/or their supporters, so just imagine things worse than that. That’ll be the straw that breaks the camels back. Someone is gonna snap if it happens, I’d almost guarantee it.
There's a small chance of an actual, honest assassinate attempt. Like less 1%.

The people who oppose him, and that number is fortunately growing, are not the ones to take violence, especially violence that results in life in prison or execution.

If anything, I think he'll pull for a third term.
 

Sucumbio

Smash Powerslave
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
5,306
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/
Klobuchar is RISING IN IOWA. 11%! BIDEN IS EXTENDING HIS LEAD IN IOWA. PLUS WE GOT A. ENDORSMENT FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES!
YAAAS!!!
Seems like warren got a slight boost in the polls after exposing the hypocritical sexist comments of Bernie as well as pointing about how the two woman are the only undefeated people in an election.
I wouldn’t mind if warren won the election, only that she make klobuchar her vice.

Agent Orange, we are coming for you! We see through the lies. How you are trying to divide up the democrats by vouching for your secret ally in Bernard Sanders hoping he can win nomination and give you an 2020 Opponent that comes from your same cloth of sexism, demagoguey and high jacking. The GoP went low succumbing to far right nazi wing outsiders, but democrats are going to go high. We are going to nominate the right candidate who’ll make the right ticket that’ll unify the democrats to take you and your Pychophants out of the White House as we take back the senate. Remember what we did in 2018? Expect worse in 2020 little Donnie!
#Klobuchar
#warren
#Biden
Oh yeah, once we do all of that. Kamala is going to take you to jail.
https://media.giphy.com/media/3ohzdEwCBFMHlg0l2g/200.gif
Good luck, individual 1. Justice is coming!
;)
..... While I appreciate the enthusiasm lol let's tone it down a bit...

Crimson King Crimson King I'd buy that for a dollar. He's definitely egotistical enough to believe he could and should have a third term. And Pence is a dud tbh, I see nothing good coming from his being elected. Alas we'll have to wait and see.

As for assassination I don't know really. Kennedy was not actually unanimously loved politically and yet the nation did mourn in earnest and together. Perhaps it's an extreme stance to wish him dead... I can't say honestly.
 

link2702

Smash Champion
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
2,621
Location
Oklahoma
Hey don’t get me wrong, I definitely do NOT wish him assassinated, not at all, it’d make things far far FAR worse and probably lead to mass riots around the country. I’m just saying, it seems more likely with this president as he keeps fanning the flames and doesn’t even attempt to bring Americans together. I think it’s more likely than 1% for an actual attempt to happen, but again i’m only speculating based simply on how much division he brings.

Keep in mind we did see one person go off the deep end a few years back and shoot a republican politician at the baseball games they used to always have, so it’s not unheard of for someone on the far left to snap and turn to violence, it might be more common with those on the far right side of the spectrum but it’s not exclusive to it.

The difference with Kennedy was, he did not deliberately sow division, his rhetoric was not extremely "us vs them" against his opposing political party. He damn sure never told any of his supporters they should go attack his opponents or their voter base.
 
Last edited:

Qualk

Smash Cadet
Writing Team
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
69
Nah he's just gonna endorse one of his kids to run and it'll be endless Trumps hijacking the GOP nominations.
 

link2702

Smash Champion
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
2,621
Location
Oklahoma
Nah he's just gonna endorse one of his kids to run and it'll be endless Trumps hijacking the GOP nominations.
I don't think he'll be able to pull a Bush moment tbh...


We won't know of course until 2020, and 2024 of course.

Though I also see the GOP trying to wash their hands of this mess after he's permanently out. Whether by impeachment(hopefully but unlikely), being voted out (most likely), or assassination.(...)

If he loses in November, I almost guarantee they'll toss him under the bus soon as possible and try to pretend he never happened. In many regards just like they did George Bush Jr. Though I suspect it'll be a far bigger bus for Trump.
 

StoicPhantom

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
408
Was going to write up a long observation but I'm far too tired for that tonight and won't have time before tomorrow. I'll just say that it's very interesting how the establishment very quickly revved up the attacks and smears and how they seem to be backfiring and actually driving more support towards Bernie lol. From Warren tanking her campaign over the sexist angle she tried to do, to the establishment getting Joe Rogan's supporters to register Dem and vote Bernie to "trigger the libs" after he somewhat endorsed Bernie and caused multiple groups to meltdown simultaneously.

He's surging but it's not the time to get complacent if you're a Bernie supporter. He doesn't just need to win, he needs to win big, so the establishment doesn't pull shenanigans at a potential brokered convention with the super delegates. The polls aren't exactly consistent either, so if you're a Bernie supporter in Iowa, make sure you get out and vote!

Both excited and apprehensive to see what happens tomorrow.
 

StoicPhantom

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
408
Welp, that was a mess of historic proportions. I don't know why we always have to have something like this go down in Iowa and not have any sort of change to an actual sane system. I get that this gives an otherwise nationally irrelevant state attention, but it really ****s things up badly.

But more importantly, there's all sorts of ****ery going down here, some through monumental incompetence, some through potential nefariousness. It's unclear exactly what is going down, and lots of conflicting stories as usual, but this is either due to the smartphone app that was created to handle votes or somehow getting tallies wrong, but it seems there is a discrepancy in the second round totals. This has caused the Iowa Democratic Party to freeze the results and now they're going to announce it Tuesday (maybe), after supposedly manually counting through the backup paper ballots and phone screenshots of delegate worksheets.

There is also a brewing conspiracy with Pete and the smartphone app in question. Shadow Inc. which is a subsidiary of ACRONYM, which runs the dark money group Super PAC Pacronym, seems to have been the one behind the app. It seems Pete's campaign may have donated to Shadow Inc. not too long ago. Whether or not this was responsible for the current debacle, having a company that has received funding from one of the candidates managing the election results, is a major conflict of interest. Pete has also declared himself the winner, even though the results have not been published. And it seems the CEO of the parent company is a huge Pete fan.


Regardless of the outcome, Pete, or rather Pete's donors, ultimately won. Even if Bernie wins Iowa, his momentum has effectively been killed. What should be talk about how his closest rival in the polls, and one that has been leading in most of them, seems to have placed in fourth or fifth, and how the narrative from the establishment and media about Bernie and his viability was hilariously wrong, now will be about the major ****show that just happened.

Biden is already threatening legal action if they don't talk to his campaign before they release the results and no one is really going to feel good about the legitimacy of the results. The Sanders' campaign has released their internal polling they have been collecting, and it has him in a significant lead.

But that ultimately won't matter much, as Iowa is a significant delegate count, but isn't the end all be all. What's important is how Iowa is the momentum starter and that won't be happening anymore. There's going to be a lot of confusion and anger after this, and we likely are going to see similarly divided and confusing ****shows. Especially as Nevada is also going to be using this same app.

This will play nicely into the brokered convention super delegate usurpation narrative I made earlier, as people who are uncertain and confused are less likely to gather behind one candidate. If Bernie isn't a clear and obvious winner, you're going to see a lot of undecideds and a lot of people getting confused over which completely ideologically opposite candidate is the best to beat Donald Trump.

Because that's exactly what was happening in Iowa, people voting on who they thought was the best to beat Trump, not necessarily who has the policies they liked. My favorite example was the lady in the Klobuchar camp wearing a Bernie sticker and saying he was her second choice. Talk about completely different ideologies. People don't really know who to vote for it seems, and this isn't going to help in the least.

Speaking of Donald Trump, guess who's going to be parading this around come election time. If Bernie doesn't make it, then Trump can easily claim the process was rigged again and ensure that Dems won't be siphoning off any swing voters that were sympathetic to Bernie. And if the super delegates do tip things if Bernie gets a plurality, then that will spell the end of the party. If Bernie doesn't win period, you can bet Iowa will be pointed at and Trump will handily win against Pete or Biden.


Sanders had the surge, had the polls, had the ground game, had the support, 30% of his Iowa supporters were first time voters, which is huge, and would have had major momentum coming out of an Iowa victory that would have allowed him to sweep to at least South Carolina. He lost Iowa on a coin toss and handily won New Hampshire in 2016. He's close in Nevada and has been rising in South Carolina. Something like 20% of SC voters are undecided and that likely means they were waiting to see what happens in the other states.

And now that's likely all gone. From what we've seen in Iowa, it looks like people are struggling considerably on who to vote for. Given the large amount of undecideds, it's likely people are waiting for a candidate to be a clear leader to get behind. That was supposed to be Bernie's moment, handily winning Iowa and signaling that he's a clear front runner for people to coalesce behind. Now things are muddy and unclear, all the losers will be claiming the results to be illegitimate, and we might see something similar to Florida in 2000.

Which might mean that we will continue to see very divided close races among the five front runners, with no clear leader. And that's bad for Bernie, because he needs to ensure there is no brokered convention, as the DNC Chair Tom Perez is currently trying to stuff them with heavily anti-Bernie corporate lobbyists. Which is bad for the party, because there absolutely will be backlash far worse than 2016. And you can bet neither Pete nor Biden, who by all accounts did absolutely terrible in Iowa, will be able to hold a candle in a battle against Trump.

My hope is that when I wake up tomorrow, Sanders will be declared the victor, there won't be any riots, he will sweep New Hampshire next week, and that will hopefully jump start his momentum again. Winning New Hampshire didn't seem to change anything in 2016 though, so hopefully Sanders supporters and volunteers can subsist on rage and go absolutely nuts on the campaign trail in Nevada and South Carolina. Texas seems sympathetic to him for whatever reason and California seems promising, so if he can grab these early states, and at least ensure a wash in neoliberal New York, he might be able to turn things around.


This is not at all how I expected things to go and things have really taken a depressing turn. Sweeping Iowa and New Hampshire should have been enough to tip things in Nevada and possibly sway those undecideds in South Carolina. From there, he could have easily made the front runner case for California and Texas and possibly swayed things in New York, or at least ensured a tie. Probably would have lost a lot of southern states, but still be pretty convincing in terms of viability persuasion. His campaign is now going to have to continue giving their all every step of the way, and any supporters still reading this, every vote counts! Make sure to turn out, no matter how seemingly irrelevant your state is!

So yeah, I'm ****ing pissed and leave it to the incompetence of the party leadership to accidentally sway things back in their favor. Which ever way this ends, we are probably going to see the end of the Iowa caucus and possibly the current party establishment.
 

Buddhahobo

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
1,662
Location
Persona kids, Persona squids.
There is also a brewing conspiracy with Pete and the smartphone app in question. Shadow Inc. which is a subsidiary of ACRONYM, which runs the dark money group Super PAC Pacronym, seems to have been the one behind the app. It seems Pete's campaign may have donated to Shadow Inc. not too long ago. Whether or not this was responsible for the current debacle, having a company that has received funding from one of the candidates managing the election results, is a major conflict of interest. Pete has also declared himself the winner, even though the results have not been published. And it seems the CEO of the parent company is a huge Pete fan.
Conspiracy is the right way to put it.

There were reps for most of the major players at each caucus jotting all the numbers down, along with a pretty significant amount all being televised. Last I heard the Sanders camp's internal numbers match up with what the app is saying, and we've got the months of polling showing Pete always doing well in Iowa as he's been cannibalizing the Warren camp.

Pete calling Iowa a win without coming in "first" is a complete nonissue. Coming in close second in a state that divides up their delegates by vote % is a win. In the same way Warren will likely also be calling this a win, and Biden will be handwaving it away like he said he would since he started running (His chance of winning Iowa was always really low, just from the demographic).

Mind you, I will also feel a lot more comfortable once the numbers actually come out, but at the moment all this twitter-rage is pretty baseless.

And you can bet neither Pete nor Biden, who by all accounts did absolutely terrible in Iowa, will be able to hold a candle in a battle against Trump.
a) Pete is currently reported to have done quite well in Iowa, and has been polled well in Iowa for months.

b) Biden has had the best polling against Trump since he announced he was running.

My hope is that when I wake up tomorrow, Sanders will be declared the victor, there won't be any riots, he will sweep New Hampshire next week, and that will hopefully jump start his momentum again.
Alternatively: people really don't like Sanders as much as you hype up when they have more options than the single most hated woman in the country, the DNC is filled with people who are actual Democrats and not independents from bumble**** Vermont, the large turnout is a Trump inspired effect and has nothing to do with Sanders as the 2018 midterm results also show, and shockingly enough, Iowa does not decide the Presidential candidate before the other 49 states vote on it.

Similarly, even if he had won Iowa if not NH too solidly, he still would be is major danger of losing as soon as Super Tuesday hit and states significantly closer to the average demographic makeup of the country voted, and likely for Biden at that given current polling.

You should be keeping in mind that Bill Clinton also lost Iowa and NH, and that Sanders was never going to have anything close to a smooth ride.

So yeah, I'm ****ing pissed and leave it to the incompetence of the party leadership to accidentally sway things back in their favor.
Party Leadership has nothing to do with how an individual state does their voting. Tom Perez nor the DNC nor Pelosi have any control on how the state of Iowa has always done their primaries.

It's honestly hilarious watching Sanders supports condemn the Iowa caucus system now given how much they were defending it four years ago when it won him multiple states he otherwise wouldn't have gotten.

But yeah, the caucus system has always helped Sanders. If he's doing poorly with it, then chances aren't looking too good for him. Knock on wood that he doesn't have another heart attack, I guess?
 

HybridXD

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
17
Conspiracy is the right way to put it.

There were reps for most of the major players at each caucus jotting all the numbers down, along with a pretty significant amount all being televised. Last I heard the Sanders camp's internal numbers match up with what the app is saying, and we've got the months of polling showing Pete always doing well in Iowa as he's been cannibalizing the Warren camp.

Pete calling Iowa a win without coming in "first" is a complete nonissue. Coming in close second in a state that divides up their delegates by vote % is a win. In the same way Warren will likely also be calling this a win, and Biden will be handwaving it away like he said he would since he started running (His chance of winning Iowa was always really low, just from the demographic).

Mind you, I will also feel a lot more comfortable once the numbers actually come out, but at the moment all this twitter-rage is pretty baseless.



a) Pete is currently reported to have done quite well in Iowa, and has been polled well in Iowa for months.

b) Biden has had the best polling against Trump since he announced he was running.



Alternatively: people really don't like Sanders as much as you hype up when they have more options than the single most hated woman in the country, the DNC is filled with people who are actual Democrats and not independents from bumble**** Vermont, the large turnout is a Trump inspired effect and has nothing to do with Sanders as the 2018 midterm results also show, and shockingly enough, Iowa does not decide the Presidential candidate before the other 49 states vote on it.

Similarly, even if he had won Iowa if not NH too solidly, he still would be is major danger of losing as soon as Super Tuesday hit and states significantly closer to the average demographic makeup of the country voted, and likely for Biden at that given current polling.

You should be keeping in mind that Bill Clinton also lost Iowa and NH, and that Sanders was never going to have anything close to a smooth ride.



Party Leadership has nothing to do with how an individual state does their voting. Tom Perez nor the DNC nor Pelosi have any control on how the state of Iowa has always done their primaries.

It's honestly hilarious watching Sanders supports condemn the Iowa caucus system now given how much they were defending it four years ago when it won him multiple states he otherwise wouldn't have gotten.

But yeah, the caucus system has always helped Sanders. If he's doing poorly with it, then chances aren't looking too good for him. Knock on wood that he doesn't have another heart attack, I guess?
Agreed. More divisive conspiracies from sanders camp that are going to hurt democrat unity and make it easier for trump to win 2020. I’m really thinking that Bernie isn’t as popular as they show, but rather a huge part of his base is filled with Russians and the Drumph cult meant to divide the democrat party. Remember, Bernie is not even a democrat.
I’m getting sick of them. This better be the last time we ever allow a non democrat to run for office in our party. They just cause to much division.
 

StoicPhantom

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
408
a) Pete is currently reported to have done quite well in Iowa, and has been polled well in Iowa for months.

b) Biden has had the best polling against Trump since he announced he was running.
a) Pete is only doing well in Iowa and has been tanking in the polls nationally for the past few months. He doesn't have the black vote, the Progressive vote, or young people in general. His only real demographic is the old white "moderates" that are currently being divided by all the other "moderate" candidates. You could say this would give him a boost, but I've seen nothing that indicates any long term support, and this debacle may overshadow any good placement boost, much like with Sanders.

b) Biden got crushed in the Midwestern rural "moderate" white swing state he was supposed to do really well in. Not a close second, not a respectable third, but by all current accounts, fourth. The important swing state of Iowa, the one that supposedly has a lot of these "moderate" Trump voters that a "moderate" candidate like Biden is supposed to appeal to, completely rejected him. He wasn't even in the top 4 in some precincts.

Klobuchar too, the one that was supposed to be the Midwest darling, all because she's from this area. My little sister said it best earlier today, when she said "Who's Klobuchar?". She knew who every other candidate except Steyer was, but didn't know our darling evidently. She hasn't made it to the top 4 by current accounts, and is in fifth.

Wacky Socialist Bernie, with his crazy "Pie in the Sky" socialist policies, that would never fly in the Midwest and places like Iowa, is currently in a very close race for first. That's a complete upending of the narrative that the establishment and media have been parroting all this time. We were supposed to see Bernie get fifth and drop out by now. That clearly isn't the case.

Klobuchar is one thing, but Biden has been polling as the front runner since the beginning. Now he's last among the top 4 and it's become clear that the polls were indeed polling him incorrectly. And if this trend continues, that's going to throw his general election polling into question as well.

Alternatively: people really don't like Sanders as much as you hype up when they have more options than the single most hated woman in the country, the DNC is filled with people who are actual Democrats and not independents from bumble**** Vermont, the large turnout is a Trump inspired effect and has nothing to do with Sanders as the 2018 midterm results also show, and shockingly enough, Iowa does not decide the Presidential candidate before the other 49 states vote on it.
No, but Iowa is an important state that will decide the general. I would think ideally that we would have our nominee do well in these important swing states in their own primary, so we don't have a repeat of 2016, where Hillary lost all the southern states she won in the primary, in the general, and lost important places like Michigan and Wisconsin in both the primary and the general. Because you are going to need those independents to beat Trump, whether you like it or not.

There wasn't any significant turnout, turnout was roughly around 2016. The important point was that 30% of Sanders voters were first time, AKA new voters. That is what Democrats need is new voters. Bernie had the largest portion of new voters, meaning he can cross to other demographics outside of the typical Democrat, AKA he is popular.

Similarly, even if he had won Iowa if not NH too solidly, he still would be is major danger of losing as soon as Super Tuesday hit and states significantly closer to the average demographic makeup of the country voted, and likely for Biden at that given current polling.
Last I checked, he's pulled ahead in California, is very close in Texas and polls better against Trump than Biden there, and is doing well in smaller places like Utah. I haven't done a full study of the entire lineup, but he seems to be running relatively close races in other states. If Warren and Klobuchar are still in by then, they will probably knock off their respective states they currently hold office in, but Bernie will do so with Vermont as well. He's not in "major danger" it will be a close race.

Party Leadership has nothing to do with how an individual state does their voting. Tom Perez nor the DNC nor Pelosi have any control on how the state of Iowa has always done their primaries.
I was using party leadership in a general sense. The IDP for using an app from a shady company, with ties to other shady companies, without properly vetting or testing it. The DNC for continually excusing incompetence in their party under the guise of "unity" and resisting any attempts at reforming the party that routinely shoots itself in the foot. It's just straight embarrassing that right out of the gate, we have impressively bad optics and legitimacy questions. Even if nothing nefarious is going on and it's all due to major incompetence, it's very bad optically and is going to have major impacts, potentially all the way to the general.

It's honestly hilarious watching Sanders supports condemn the Iowa caucus system now given how much they were defending it four years ago when it won him multiple states he otherwise wouldn't have gotten.
No Sanders supporter that has ever caucused, myself included, likes the caucus system. Nor do Sanders supporters support caucuses on the whole. He lost Iowa in 2016. What they were probably "defending" against, was the notion of "won him multiple states he otherwise wouldn't have gotten". How would you know he wouldn't have gotten them otherwise? And what about his big wins in primaries like New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Michigan? You know, states that you really need in the general?

But yeah, the caucus system has always helped Sanders. If he's doing poorly with it, then chances aren't looking too good for him. Knock on wood that he doesn't have another heart attack, I guess?
Look at the current data. Notice how Bernie has by far the strongest initial support in the first round? And how Pete and all the other candidates other than Biden, have poor initial support? Notice how Pete and Warren have bigger jumps at the final vote than Bernie, due to unviable candidate voters? Notice how Pete ****ing gets more delegates, even though Sanders got more votes?

That means Pete, not Bernie, is unfairly benefiting from this caucus system. Not only does he get a boost from other people's voters, but he gets more delegates with less of the vote. That last part is utter horse**** and is the same thing that carried Hillary in Iowa in 2016. Des Moines Precinct 80 has Bernie with 101 and Pete with 66, and ended in a 4 delegate tie after a coin toss. He won like four coin tosses against Warren too.

Pete is being carried hard by this bull**** system and Bernie is the one hurt the most by it. This would not happen in a primary, where initial support is the only thing that matters, and Bernie's strong initial support would have him winning. These trailers would not be able to feed off each other and Bernie would be the clear winner. #MayorCheat indeed.

We know about this now, thanks to the reforms Bernie pushed for, that allows the first and second rounds to be public knowledge. We'll never know about 2016, because the data is not public knowledge, but I wouldn't be surprised if a similar thing happened in 2016. Bernie doesn't benefit from a caucus system, he benefits from being liked in those states that happen to have caucuses.
 

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
68
Location
Miami, Florida
I'm so tired. So so so ****ing tired of this BS. How much more incompetent can the DNC get? Talk about demoralizing. I just want the 100% reporting results in already.
 

SSGuy

Smash Champion
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
2,257
Location
Dallas, TX/FGCU
3DS FC
4871-4520-9643
I'm so tired. So so so ****ing tired of this BS. How much more incompetent can the DNC get? Talk about demoralizing. I just want the 100% reporting results in already.
They will never give you the results unless it is 100% in the DNC's favor. That is the kind of game they have been playing for decades now.
 

Sucumbio

Smash Powerslave
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
5,306
Well I think he means he wants to know who won the Iowa Democratic Caucus which won't be until tonight or even tomorrow because dumb.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/04/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus.html

I AM legit surprised Pete is in the lead... I expected Sanders to walk away with this. And lol @ Joe Biden's worthless turnout. Just goes to show winning Iowa doesn't mean you are guaranteed national victory.
 

HybridXD

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
17
It looks like Bernie is going to be our nominee. He looks prime to win New Hampshire easily, and is creeping up on joe for South Carolina. His momentum will be too much, and blooemburg won’t do much to stop that either. But can bernie beat trump in a general election? Won’t we turn off moderates, and suburbs the same people we won big in 2018? I hope my democrats know what they are doing electing someone as volatile as him.
 
Last edited:

StoicPhantom

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
408
Day 3 of the Iowa Caucus and we have 97% of the total now lol. Looks like they are going to be releasing the final 3% tomorrow.

Candidate, SDE, State Delegates

Buttigieg, 550 (26.2%), 11

Sanders, 547 (26.1%), 11

Warren, 381 (18.2%), 5

Biden , 331 (15.8%), 0

My understanding is that the remaining counties and satellite caucuses favor Bernie and these errors getting corrected may have Bernie pull ahead.

NYT's needle has gone from this to slight Bernie chance lol. Looks like they didn't include the satellite caucuses. Nate Cohn's Twitter is full of apologies and people dunking on him lol.

But unfortunately the damage seems to be already done. Emerson and Suffolk have Pete gaining substantially from all this and he's now viable in NH. I thought I read somewhere that it was largely from undecideds, but can't find it right now. If true, then what I said about momentum picking up undecideds is true. And that would mean Pete would still be the winner, even if he's the loser, all due to the media parading his "victory" everywhere.

I said before that NH Bernie supporters can't get complacent, and that is especially true now. If Pete wins in NH, that might put him in the top 2 and make him a viable candidate, and possibly killing Bernie's momentum going into Super Tuesday. Even Bernie hating 538 has him sweeping Super Tuesday and is the favorite to win overall. Let's not let Pete and Iowa throw off that prediction.

But can bernie beat trump in a general election?
I think a better question now, would be can the other candidates beat Trump in the general? Bernie's the only candidate that is repeatedly scrutinized about this and this has been answered quite a bit. The only real reasoning given for the other candidates, is that they are "moderate" and thus will attract the "moderate" unicorn that never seems to vote. I think Iowa might have just blown up that reasoning, so do the other candidates have something other than "moderation" that will appeal to voters? Not just "moderates" and "suburbs", but the Democratic base?

Mondale, Gore, Kerry, and Hillary were all the "moderate' candidates and they all lost to their more "extreme" opponent. The only Democrats that have managed to win the presidency in the last 35 years were Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama. Both candidates that radically shifted the party and campaigned as such. What makes Pete or Biden different than those four and what makes Bernie so radically different than 2008 Kenyan Muslim Socialist Obama with his death panels and FEMA camps? The Obama that advocated for hope and change, healthcare and system reform, was called all the political swear words, and had allegations that he wasn't even a natural citizen?

I'm repeatedly told by "moderate centrists" that they make up the vast majority of the country and want to vote for a "moderate candidate that represents the vast majority", but these "moderates" never seem to turn out for these "moderate candidates that represent the vast majority of the country". Mondale got devastated by the more extreme Reagan, Gore got beat by the clown that was Dubya, Kerry got bodied by post Iraq war and Patriot Act Dubya, Hillary got beat by the past, present, and future root of all evil Donald Trump.

Where was the "vast majority of the country" then? And why didn't they turn out for the "moderate candidate" that they wanted? And will they turn out for Biden and Pete? And where do they get off thinking everyone else has to cater to them, when they never seem to turn out to vote? How about we try the more "volatile" candidate this time and see what happens? Preferably for another twenty years, given that's how much time these "moderate candidates" got.
 

Buddhahobo

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
1,662
Location
Persona kids, Persona squids.
a) Pete is only doing well in Iowa and has been tanking in the polls nationally for the past few months.
Yes, that's been his campaign strategy for months.

Win Iowa, carry the momentum into NH.

b) Biden got crushed in the Midwestern rural "moderate" white swing state he was supposed to do really well in.
No.

Sanders, Warren, and especially Pete were supposed to do well in Iowa.

Biden does substantially better in states with minority populations and working class populations, neither of whom are known for having the time to attend caucuses. Of which, what, about 150,000 people attend out of several million in Iowa IIRC?

His campaign has literally been writing off Iowa and New Hampshire for the last 8 months.

There wasn't any significant turnout, turnout was roughly around 2016. The important point was that 30% of Sanders voters were first time, AKA new voters. That is what Democrats need is new voters. Bernie had the largest portion of new voters, meaning he can cross to other demographics outside of the typical Democrat, AKA he is popular.
There's little evidence to support that.

The 2018 midterm elections had a massive 20% increase in voter turnout compared to 2014, but besides few examples the Sanders backed candidate failed miserably. It was the moderates, and the people coming out to vote for the moderates, that took the House.

I was using party leadership in a general sense. The IDP for using an app from a shady company, with ties to other shady companies, without properly vetting or testing it.
...The app they used was literally them trying to appease Sanders because he outright refused to use an app from a reputable company in 2016.

https://www.engadget.com/2016/01/28/bernie-sanders-yells-at-microsofts-cloud/
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-campaign-suspicious-corporate-influence-iowa-caucus

Both Iowa still using the caucus system in 2020 and the untested app "from a shady company" were both due the national party bowing to Sander's standard brand of anti-intellectual antagonism towards competency.

Mondale, Gore, Kerry, and Hillary were all the "moderate' candidates and they all lost to their more "extreme" opponent. The only Democrats that have managed to win the presidency in the last 35 years were Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama. Both candidates that radically shifted the party and campaigned as such. What makes Pete or Biden different than those four and what makes Bernie so radically different than 2008 Kenyan Muslim Socialist Obama with his death panels and FEMA camps? The Obama that advocated for hope and change, healthcare and system reform, was called all the political swear words, and had allegations that he wasn't even a natural citizen?

I'm repeatedly told by "moderate centrists" that they make up the vast majority of the country and want to vote for a "moderate candidate that represents the vast majority", but these "moderates" never seem to turn out for these "moderate candidates that represent the vast majority of the country". Mondale got devastated by the more extreme Reagan, Gore got beat by the clown that was Dubya, Kerry got bodied by post Iraq war and Patriot Act Dubya, Hillary got beat by the past, present, and future root of all evil Donald Trump.

Where was the "vast majority of the country" then? And why didn't they turn out for the "moderate candidate" that they wanted? And will they turn out for Biden and Pete? And where do they get off thinking everyone else has to cater to them, when they never seem to turn out to vote? How about we try the more "volatile" candidate this time and see what happens? Preferably for another twenty years, given that's how much time these "moderate candidates" got.
...Damn there's a lot to unpack here.

So, time for a short history lessen as I don't have much time, but let's start with Mondale I suppose. Or, to explain it better, Jimmy Carter.

In response to Watergate and Nixon, the US pivoted after going with a moderate (i.e. Ford) with Carter. Carter proceeded to tank the US economy and nearly destroyed the Democratic Party in a way not thought possible for a US party until...well, Trump. Mondale was Carter's VP, and was similarly tainted by the failures of the Carter administration.

So, bluntly, Reagan was the moderate choice and showed how deeply disliked the Democrats had become post-Carter.

It took Bill Clinton coming from absolutely nowhere and publicly bringing the party back to center that he won. Moderate-izing is literally the only reason the Democratic Party existed in the 90s, and it won them the Presidency.

Then we get to 2000 where, however hard it is to remember it, Bush was meant to bring in a new era of "Compassionate Conservatism" and won on a feel-good and inclusive family-oriented platform with incredibly high approval across most minorities. He even held rallies entirely in Spanish. Clinton had also been incredibly damaged by the unsuccessful Impeachment train to the point where in 2000, the GOP held the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

Bush might also have won in 2004, but he was effectively a "lame duck" President for the entire duration where the GOP congresscritters would even block Bush's own bills such as Immigration Reform (something Sanders was perfectly happy to team up with them on.) He might have won the second term, but he was not in charge nor respected due to the Iraq War.

Obama was Obama, not really anything to say there. Many, many people voted for him, and that there were illegitimate accusations about him doesn't really matter when everyone knew they were baseless. There's also that by virtue of their records, he was also more of a centrist than Hillary was and didn't have the baggage / fear of the creation of "Presidental Dynasties" at play with the possibility of the Presidency flipping back and forth between the Clintons and Bushs. Then in the general, well...this is the man who won a Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush. The largest failure of the DNC during the Obama years was the dismantling of the Obama-created support structure he had made during his campaign, along with the administration utterly ignoring non-federal elections for 8 years leaving the GOP effectively unchallenged on the county and state level.

So then that brings us to 2016. Where the moderates...voted for Clinton in the primary. In mass droves. In both delegates and popular vote over Sanders. While also dealing with a multi-decade smear campaign and a baseless corruption inquiry going on at the same time.

Then in the general, Trump hadn't actually gone completely off the deep end left, the Russians were Russianing, and Clinton had been forced to move further to the left due to Sanders and walk back on many her positions which played into her being seen as "two-faced". One of the several reasons accusations like that stuck a lot more to her was the Trump and Sanders (and Obama, frankly) camps basically had identical attack ads. When you're being told it by every spectrum, then it begins to stack up. For many, Trump did seem like the moderate and even then Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million. Several of the battle states she lost were by less than what Jill Stein received.

-----
Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, yes. And Bernie Sander lost to Hillary Clinton, so why they hell am I supposed to believe he'd do better than the person who curb-stomped him in the primary?

New voters? Obama brought in new voters, as 2008 and 2012 showed. Backlash against Trump brought in new voters, as 2018 showed. The only "wins" Sanders backed candidates had in 2018 were people who primaried other Democrats and won with abysmal turnouts. They didn't bring in new voters, they didn't challenge Republicans for congressional seats, and they weren't the ones to flip the House. Michael Bloomberg as a private citizen did more to help the Democrats in the last four years than Sanders has.

If there's supposed to be La Revolution on its way of "Justice Democrats" to tear down the establishment...where the hell were they two years ago?

Where the hell were they four years ago?

And of the very few who are now in Congress, what have they accomplished besides ******** as much about Pelosi as the Republicans, forcing the vote then failing to remove Trump, and spending half their time engaging in blatant genocide denialism?
 
Last edited:

Sucumbio

Smash Powerslave
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
5,306
I was with you until that last bit... Genocide what now? Honest question I'm just not familiar with this, source/explanation pls?
 

HybridXD

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
17
Yes, that's been his campaign strategy for months.

Win Iowa, carry the momentum into NH.



No.

Sanders, Warren, and especially Pete were supposed to do well in Iowa.

Biden does substantially better in states with minority populations and working class populations, neither of whom are known for having the time to attend caucuses. Of which, what, about 150,000 people attend out of several million in Iowa IIRC?

His campaign has literally been writing off Iowa and New Hampshire for the last 8 months.



There's little evidence to support that.

The 2018 midterm elections had a massive 20% increase in voter turnout compared to 2014, but besides few examples the Sanders backed candidate failed miserably. It was the moderates, and the people coming out to vote for the moderates, that took the House.



...The app they used was literally them trying to appease Sanders because he outright refused to use an app from a reputable company in 2016.

https://www.engadget.com/2016/01/28/bernie-sanders-yells-at-microsofts-cloud/
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-campaign-suspicious-corporate-influence-iowa-caucus

Both Iowa still using the caucus system in 2020 and the untested app "from a shady company" were both due the national party bowing to Sander's standard brand of anti-intellectual antagonism towards competency.



...Damn there's a lot to unpack here.

So, time for a short history lessen as I don't have much time, but let's start with Mondale I suppose. Or, to explain it better, Jimmy Carter.

In response to Watergate and Nixon, the US pivoted after going with a moderate (i.e. Ford) with Carter. Carter proceeded to tank the US economy and nearly destroyed the Democratic Party in a way not thought possible for a US party until...well, Trump. Mondale was Carter's VP, and was similarly tainted by the failures of the Carter administration.

So, bluntly, Reagan was the moderate choice and showed how deeply disliked the Democrats had become post-Carter.

It took Bill Clinton coming from absolutely nowhere and publicly bringing the party back to center that he won. Moderate-izing is literally the only reason the Democratic Party existed in the 90s, and it won them the Presidency.

Then we get to 2000 where, however hard it is to remember it, Bush was meant to bring in a new era of "Compassionate Conservatism" and won on a feel-good and inclusive family-oriented platform with incredibly high approval across most minorities. He even held rallies entirely in Spanish. Clinton had also been incredibly damaged by the unsuccessful Impeachment train to the point where in 2000, the GOP held the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

Bush might also have won in 2004, but he was effectively a "lame duck" President for the entire duration where the GOP congresscritters would even block Bush's own bills such as Immigration Reform (something Sanders was perfectly happy to team up with them on.) He might have won the second term, but he was not in charge nor respected due to the Iraq War.

Obama was Obama, not really anything to say there. Many, many people voted for him, and that there were illegitimate accusations about him doesn't really matter when everyone knew they were baseless. There's also that by virtue of their records, he was also more of a centrist than Hillary was and didn't have the baggage / fear of the creation of "Presidental Dynasties" at play with the possibility of the Presidency flipping back and forth between the Clintons and Bushs. Then in the general, well...this is the man who won a Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush. The largest failure of the DNC during the Obama years was the dismantling of the Obama-created support structure he had made during his campaign, along with the administration utterly ignoring non-federal elections for 8 years leaving the GOP effectively unchallenged on the county and state level.

So then that brings us to 2016. Where the moderates...voted for Clinton in the primary. In mass droves. In both delegates and popular vote over Sanders. While also dealing with a multi-decade smear campaign and a baseless corruption inquiry going on at the same time.

Then in the general, Trump hadn't actually gone completely off the deep end left, the Russians were Russianing, and Clinton had been forced to move further to the left due to Sanders and walk back on many her positions which played into her being seen as "two-faced". One of the several reasons accusations like that stuck a lot more to her was the Trump and Sanders (and Obama, frankly) camps basically had identical attack ads. When you're being told it by every spectrum, then it begins to stack up. For many, Trump did seem like the moderate and even then Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million. Several of the battle states she lost were by less than what Jill Stein received.

-----
Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, yes. And Bernie Sander lost to Hillary Clinton, so why they hell am I supposed to believe he'd do better than the person who curb-stomped him in the primary?

New voters? Obama brought in new voters, as 2008 and 2012 showed. Backlash against Trump brought in new voters, as 2018 showed. The only "wins" Sanders backed candidates had in 2018 were people who primaried other Democrats and won with abysmal turnouts. They didn't bring in new voters, they didn't challenge Republicans for congressional seats, and they weren't the ones to flip the House. Michael Bloomberg as a private citizen did more to help the Democrats in the last four years than Sanders has.

If there's supposed to be La Revolution on its way of "Justice Democrats" to tear down the establishment...where the hell were they two years ago?

Where the hell were they four years ago?

And of the very few who are now in Congress, what have they accomplished besides ******** as much about Pelosi as the Republicans, forcing the vote then failing to remove Trump, and spending half their time engaging in blatant genocide denialism?
I was with you until that last bit... Genocide what now? Honest question I'm just not familiar with this, source/explanation pls?
I like true democrats as much as the next guy, but it’s undeniable the momentum sanders has.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/
He already won Iowa. Is about to win landslide New Hampshire.
He’ll probably win California easily.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/california/
And he’s favored to win many states:
https://mobile.twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1225215545617866753

Hel he’s even catching up to biden in south Carolina according to a cbs poll. It’s over. Pete and blooemburg will be nothing more then nuisances to the eventual inevitable.
That Bernie is going to be our nominee. I think democrats are just going to try to fight fire with fire. A outsider demogauge from the right came and won the presidency. So an outsider demogauge from the left must challenge him. This is going to be the most divisive election in history. It’s basically going to be, would you rather have facism or communism? Stallin or Hitler?
thinking about it, I don’t think I could vote for either candiaites in good conscience. I refuse to partake in growing sentiments of autocracy
 

remilia

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
68
Location
Miami, Florida
I like true democrats as much as the next guy, but it’s undeniable the momentum sanders has.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/
He already won Iowa. Is about to win landslide New Hampshire.
He’ll probably win California easily.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/california/
And he’s favored to win many states:
https://mobile.twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1225215545617866753

Hel he’s even catching up to biden in south Carolina according to a cbs poll. It’s over. Pete and blooemburg will be nothing more then nuisances to the eventual inevitable.
That Bernie is going to be our nominee. I think democrats are just going to try to fight fire with fire. A outsider demogauge from the right came and won the presidency. So an outsider demogauge from the left must challenge him. This is going to be the most divisive election in history. It’s basically going to be, would you rather have facism or communism? Stallin or Hitler?
thinking about it, I don’t think I could vote for either candiaites in good conscience. I refuse to partake in growing sentiments of autocracy
so much for "vote blue no matter who" !
 

Sucumbio

Smash Powerslave
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
5,306
I like true democrats as much as the next guy, but it’s undeniable the momentum sanders has.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/
He already won Iowa. Is about to win landslide New Hampshire.
He’ll probably win California easily.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/california/
And he’s favored to win many states:
https://mobile.twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1225215545617866753

Hel he’s even catching up to biden in south Carolina according to a cbs poll. It’s over. Pete and blooemburg will be nothing more then nuisances to the eventual inevitable.
That Bernie is going to be our nominee. I think democrats are just going to try to fight fire with fire. A outsider demogauge from the right came and won the presidency. So an outsider demogauge from the left must challenge him. This is going to be the most divisive election in history. It’s basically going to be, would you rather have facism or communism? Stallin or Hitler?
thinking about it, I don’t think I could vote for either candiaites in good conscience. I refuse to partake in growing sentiments of autocracy
... How is this = to genocide denialism?

I thought you were going to say democrats deny the Holocaust happened or something...

I'm very confused.
 

Sucumbio

Smash Powerslave
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
5,306
Bernie is not a democrat.


I don’t know. Maybe that user is Armenian. Far left circles tend to ignore Armenian genocide.
oh snap you’re not the one that was meant for, my fault.

Ahem.

Buddhahobo Buddhahobo what did you mean by “genocide denialism?”

I understand the words but not how they apply to Democrats in general or any of their current members in office / seeking election. Everything else you posted made perfect sense and I mainly agree just this one thing totally feels like from ... left field (ha!).
 

Buddhahobo

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
1,662
Location
Persona kids, Persona squids.
Ahem
Buddhahobo Buddhahobo Buddhahobo Buddhahobo what did you mean by “genocide denialism?”

I understand the words but not how they apply to Democrats in general or any of their current members in office / seeking election. Everything else you posted made perfect sense and I mainly agree just this one thing totally feels like from ... left field (ha!).
To give a TLDR version as this is in no way how I want to be spending my evening:

I am not talking about the Democratic party in general in the sentence you're asking for elaboration on, but about the Justice Democrats (i.e., the small group of Sanders-backed congresswomen who actually managed to win in 2018).

This is, largely, a reference to Illham Omar who refused to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide back in November and justified it while speaking near word-for-word the official stance of the Turkish government. That she's effectively incapable of going a month without making yet another inflammatory comment about Jews is another massive issue, where she seems to only feel comfortable doing her job so long as it gives her an excuse to equate Jews to Nazis (which has won her the admiration of, among others, KKK Grand Wizard David Duke). Or like when she denounced the creation of the Black-Jewish caucus as a jewish conspiracy because they unanimously refused to let her join.

Her last stunt IIRC was going on a trip to Palestine with fellow Justice Democrat Rashida Tlaib sponsored by a known hate group known for naming streets after suicide bombers and accusing Jews of baking their bread with the blood of kidnapped Christian children.

That both of them have immediate ties to Louis "I'm not anti-semite, I'm anti-termite" Farrakahn should also be all one really needs to know about their constant "gaffes".

We then have some people he supported, such as Cenk Ugyur, founder of 'The Young Turks', notable Armenian Genocide denialist and all around scumbag. As the second link shows Sanders later retracted his endorsement from the massive backlash, but he unfortunately he's kept notable anti-semite Linda Sarsour on as a campaign surrogate.

So, again:

And of the very few who are now in Congress, what have they accomplished besides ******** as much about Pelosi as the Republicans, forcing the vote then failing to remove Trump, and spending half their time engaging in blatant genocide denialism?
I trust the highly publicized spats AOC and "the squad" keep instigating with Pelosi do not require a refresher?
 
Last edited:
Top