2020 Democratic Nominee

[henrygandorf 29191]

On 4/19/2019 at 8:14 AM, Dropout said:

It’s obvious by now right? Not like I expected them to go quietly but know supporters of Bernie didn’t want to play this game of chicken leading up to 2020. We won’t blink.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/04/18/cenk-uygur-on-why-democrats-are-afraid-of-bernie-sanders.html

Uygur's point is that big money donors who back mainstream candidates will lose their positions of power in the face of a Sanders win. A political system corrupted by corporate cash and influence, he said, will finally fall if the democratic socialist who has proposed "Medicare for All," free college education and a $15 minimum wage is elected.

"The people with the most money will lose all power, they will not be rewarded," he said. "All their power is in giving money to politicians and controlling them. Bernie Sanders doesn't want their money. They are going to fight Bernie Sanders harder than any Republican will."

That could be a dangerous game: Attacking Sanders will "force everyone to rally around him," Uygur said. "That's why Bernie has always stood an excellent chance of winning. They can't take away a small donor base. The more they attack him, the more he will raise."

Indeed, the Sanders' campaign is already fundraising on the party conflict, dashing off a pitch this week that read in part: "The Democratic establishment and high-dollar donors are already planning how to stop our campaign. They are terrified of our movement - as they should be."

the reasoning behind the article is majorly flawed, in my opinion.  the idea that any democrat is worried for whatever reason because someone beat donald trump in 2020 is ridiculous.

the article states they're not concerned about his ability to beat trump.  i don't agree with it, but that would be the only reason to worry about bernie.

i would take any of 15 candidates if i knew he/she would beat trump.  i think a lot of dems feel that way.

if big money donors are concerned, they can go kick rocks.

[henrygandorf 29191]

11 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

That's absurd. 

i'm not one to agree with fozzz but can you elaborate on this?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

i'm not one to agree with fozzz but can you elaborate on this?

Impeachment requires a simple majority of the House.  Dems can impeach next week if they wanted.  It's far from certain, but unless he works for Pelosi and knows something non-public, suggesting with certainty that it isn't going to happen is baseless.  I think it's pretty likely, actually. 

[bad_teammate 13196]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

That shit is a dead end. It’s simply not going to happen and the only reason to rail about it is to feed red meat to the wine mom crowd. 

I do not trust the current Democratic leadership to make an evaluation on the political wisdom of impeachment in the House. This is the same group of ancient losers whose only non-Obama victory in the last 15 years came because their base was motivated enough to turn out in a midterm by a criminal joke of a president.  When a loser tells you how to win, do you listen to them?

Political implications be damned, this president is a criminal whose acts need to be formally recognized in whatever way we can. I sincerely do not care if he is removed from office, we simply need to set he precedent that what he is doing is unacceptable. Doing the right thing because it's right is good enough.

Obviously the Senate will not convict/remove, but that doesn't change the House's responsibility.

13 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the reasoning behind the article is majorly flawed, in my opinion.  the idea that any democrat is worried for whatever reason because someone beat donald trump in 2020 is ridiculous.

...

if big money donors are concerned, they can go kick rocks.

So you understand it's not ridiculous, after all.

The donation flowchart above tells the story.

[Dropout 355]

37 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the reasoning behind the article is majorly flawed, in my opinion.  the idea that any democrat is worried for whatever reason because someone beat donald trump in 2020 is ridiculous.

the article states they're not concerned about his ability to beat trump.  i don't agree with it, but that would be the only reason to worry about bernie.

i would take any of 15 candidates if i knew he/she would beat trump.  i think a lot of dems feel that way.

if big money donors are concerned, they can go kick rocks.

We will have to agree to disagree. It’s all about the money that gives way to power.

[henrygandorf 29191]

i guess i wasn't completely clear.

the article starts with this:

mainstream Democrats are worried about Bernie Sanders winning the White House in 2020

Sen. Bernie Sanders is making Democrats nervous. But some supporters say it's not because he can't win in 2020. It's because he can.

what i'm saying, in a general sense, is that at this point, democrats need a fucking win in 2020, and they should take what they can get, whomever it is.  donors getting their panties in a bunch because they may lose control over what their dollars mean is very low on the list of shit i'm worried about.

a win is a win.  if the best chance for that win is bernie, then it's time to go to war for that, not against it.

[Fozzz 152]

59 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Impeachment requires a simple majority of the House.  Dems can impeach next week if they wanted.  It's far from certain, but unless he works for Pelosi and knows something non-public, suggesting with certainty that it isn't going to happen is baseless.  I think it's pretty likely, actually. 

“if they wanted” indeed. I don’t think you understand the role the Democratic Party plays in our politics. It’s not an opposition party. 

[henrygandorf 29191]

i don't know why 1/5 of my quoted posts end up like this, but the actual "quoted" area ends with "because he can".

everything after that ^^^ is what i wrote.  i'm sick of hearing what the big money dems care about.

[henrygandorf 29191]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

Impeachment requires a simple majority of the House.  Dems can impeach next week if they wanted.  It's far from certain, but unless he works for Pelosi and knows something non-public, suggesting with certainty that it isn't going to happen is baseless.  I think it's pretty likely, actually. 

i guess when i hear "impeachment" i think "removal from office."

i think there's certainly a chance he's impeached.  i think there's an insanely low chance he gets removed.  if fozzz was taking it like i was, i agree that is is absurd to suggest that he gets removed.

[bad_teammate 13196]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

what i'm saying, in a general sense, is that at this point, democrats need a fucking win in 2020, and they should take what they can get, whomever it is.  donors getting their panties in a bunch because they may lose control over what their dollars mean is very low on the list of shit i'm worried about.

Sure, it's low on the list of what you are motivated by, but there absolutely are rich/powerful liberals who are better off under a Trump admin than a Sanders admin.

I can understand thinking that those people are not important because they are small in number and live in safe blue areas, so their individual votes don't matter, but the amount of money they give to contenders will keep those contenders' hopes alive and the contenders will remain beholden to the people who funded their ascent. There's a reason Obama packed his cabinet and advisory staff with Wall Street figures. People are loyal to who pays them.

If we get into a situation where a candidate wins the nomination because of backroom dealings and that candidate was not funded by the people en masse and did not win a plurality of the votes/delegates, to whom is that candidate loyal?

[henrygandorf 29191]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Sure, it's low on the list of what you are motivated by, but there absolutely are rich/powerful liberals who are better off under a Trump admin than a Sanders admin.

I can understand thinking that those people are not important because they are small in number and live in safe blue areas, so their individual votes don't matter, but the amount of money they give to contenders will keep those contenders' hopes alive and the contenders will remain beholden to the people who funded their ascent. There's a reason Obama packed his cabinet and advisory staff with Wall Street figures. People are loyal to who pays them.

If we get into a situation where a candidate wins the nomination because of backroom dealings and that candidate was not funded by the people en masse and did not win a plurality of the votes/delegates, to whom is that candidate loyal?

agree, it's slippery.  and yes, this is how it's worked in the past (obama).  but it's time to get our shit together here.

[David Dennison 18860]

14 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

“if they wanted” indeed. I don’t think you understand the role the Democratic Party plays in our politics. It’s not an opposition party. 

Then why are you supporting a Democrat?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

32 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i guess when i hear "impeachment" i think "removal from office."

i think there's certainly a chance he's impeached.  i think there's an insanely low chance he gets removed.  if fozzz was taking it like i was, i agree that is is absurd to suggest that he gets removed.

I don't think anyone has suggested that removal is even remotely likely.   The question for Dems right now is purely whether to impeach, under the actual meaning of that term.  That's what Elizabeth Warren is talking about.  Removal is almost beside the point, especially with Trump up for reelection next year.   Make the GOP senators defend his ass and take them down in 2020 right along with him. 

Edited April 20, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[henrygandorf 29191]

3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I don't think anyone has suggested the removal is even remotely likely.   The question for Dems right now is purely whether to impeach, under the actual meaning of that term.  That's what Elizabeth Warren is talking about.  Removal is almost beside the point, especially with Trump up for reelection next year.   Make the GOP senators defend his ass and take them down in 2020 right along with him. 

once again, will it even be the senators?  how much are they involved in the proceedings?  i thought they just voted, but i admit i don't know.

i understand they're gonna call barr and mueller in the coming weeks, and that's important.  maybe even instrumental in deciding whether to hold impeachment hearings.  the real question is what comes out during the impeachment hearings that isn't basically out there already?  because if it's seen as "essentially the same old stuff" by the american people, then the dems look like whiny little children who won't let things go.  in the latest polls, voters don't even care about russia.

"you know the results of the latest gallup poll?  half the country never even heard of the word watergate.  nobody gives a shit." (ben bradlee, all the president's men).

personally, i think it would be more effective for every single democrat, every single time they were asked in front of cameras, to repeat the same stump of "we know he's a crook, we know he obstructed, we know blah blah blah, and we will defeat him at the ballot box in 2020.  that's how real american democracy works."  right now, nobody can agree on shit, and dems look unorganized and unprepared.  like usual.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

once again, will it even be the senators?  how much are they involved in the proceedings?  i thought they just voted, but i admit i don't know.

i understand they're gonna call barr and mueller in the coming weeks, and that's important.  maybe even instrumental in deciding whether to hold impeachment hearings.  the real question is what comes out during the impeachment hearings that isn't basically out there already?  because if it's seen as "essentially the same old stuff" by the american people, then the dems look like whiny little children who won't let things go.  in the latest polls, voters don't even care about russia.

"you know the results of the latest gallup poll?  half the country never even heard of the word watergate.  nobody gives a shit." (ben bradlee, all the president's men).

personally, i think it would be more effective for every single democrat, every single time they were asked in front of cameras, to repeat the same stump of "we know he's a crook, we know he obstructed, we know blah blah blah, and we will defeat him at the ballot box in 2020.  that's how real american democracy works."  right now, nobody can agree on shit, and dems look unorganized and unprepared.  like usual.

If the House votes to impeach, there will be a trial in the Senate, and Senators will have to go on the record voting whether or not to remove Trump from office. 

There's certainly a reasonable argument for your position, and many Dems agree with it.  I don't.  The biggest problem for modern Dems has been a failure to really stand for something.  They are always scared of Republicans and polls.   Republicans don't have that fear, and they drive public messaging and the polls extremely well as a result.  While Dems ran scared, the GOP was able to demonize Obamacare and Obama's economic policies, both of which (whole imperfect) have proven to be fairly effective and popular.   They were able to make the entire election about Hillary's emails and "lock her up!" while running the biggest piece of shit the presidency has ever seen by far. 

If Dems do their typical milquetoast "let's do nothing and hope voters bail us out" bullshit, I think the GOP will again drive the public narrative and turn the polls in their favor.   Dems need to do a little "lock him up!" of their own and set the narrative.   Only there is much more substantial basis for that argument than there ever was for Hillary's emails.  

Make 2020 about removing the cancer that is Trump, along with the partisan hack GOP members of Congress who protect him from removal. 

[henrygandorf 29191]

9 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

If the House votes to impeach, there will be a trial in the Senate, and Senators will have to go on the record voting whether or not to remove Trump from office. 

There's certainly a reasonable argument for your position, and many Dems agree with it.  I don't.  The biggest problem for modern Dems has been a failure to really stand for something.  They are always scared of Republicans and polls.   Republicans don't have that fear, and they drive public messaging and the polls extremely well as a result.  While Dems ran scared, the GOP was able to demonize Obamacare and Obama's economic policies, both of which (whole imperfect) have proven to be fairly effective and popular.   They were able to make the entire election about Hillary's emails and "lock her up!" while running the biggest piece of shit the presidency has ever seen by far. 

If Dems do their typical milquetoast "let's do nothing and hope voters bail us out" bullshit, I think the GOP will again drive the public narrative and turn the polls in their favor.   Dems need to do a little "lock him up!" of their own and set the narrative.   Only there is much more substantial basis for that argument than there ever was for Hillary's emails.  

Make 2020 about removing the cancer that is Trump, along with the partisan hack GOP members of Congress who protect him from removal. 

while i agree with you, it could end up a circular argument.

 

dems need to take a hard line, establish the agenda, and control the narrative.

dems suck at doing this.

therefore, dems fail.

 

i think if executed flawlessly (like the gop seems to do), then it's a strong argument for that strategy.  the question is whether dems can pull it off.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Again, it’s fucking infuriating that the conversation is “What should Democrats do?” and no one even bothers to ask “What should Republicans do?” because Republicans have completely abdicated any responsibility.

[henrygandorf 29191]

7 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Again, it’s fucking infuriating that the conversation is “What should Democrats do?” and no one even bothers to ask “What should Republicans do?” because Republicans have completely abdicated any responsibility.

yep.  a report states that a foreign country attacked our democratic process and they acted alone. 

trump says nothing mean about russia, so neither do any republicans.

just because trump and putin are besties doesn't mean every republican is.  they should be publicly angry, and we haven't heard a thing.  why aren't republican senators and house reps taking a hardline to protect the integrity of the 2020 election?

[retread 2951]

It's like it never happened.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

50 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

yep.  a report states that a foreign country attacked our democratic process and they acted alone. 

trump says nothing mean about russia, so neither do any republicans.

just because trump and putin are besties doesn't mean every republican is.  they should be publicly angry, and we haven't heard a thing.  why aren't republican senators and house reps taking a hardline to protect the integrity of the 2020 election?

The answer to this is a truth that they will never admit:  they are glad that Putin is helping them win elections.    And they would love for him to keep doing it, as long as he is for them. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

The answer to this is a truth that they will never admit:  they are glad that Putin is helping them win elections.    And they would love for him to keep doing it, as long as he is for them. 

This is correct. The Republican Party is a nihilistic organization focused only on winning. They are traitors. 

[BradInATX 9208]

B_t, I just wanted to take a moment to tell you that I completely agree with this. I guess just to affirm that despite your bullshit, and mine too, most of us are on the same side here.

 

"what i'm saying, in a general sense, is that at this point, democrats need a fucking win in 2020, and they should take what they can get, whomever it is.  donors getting their panties in a bunch because they may lose control over what their dollars mean is very low on the list of shit i'm worried about.

a win is a win.  if the best chance for that win is bernie, then it's time to go to war for that, not against it."

 

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13196]

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

agree, it's slippery.  and yes, this is how it's worked in the past (obama).  but it's time to get our shit together here.

That means different things to different people. If we are not speaking specifically, credibly, and empathetically to the material conditions of people whose cities are dying of economic neglect and children are dying of opiod addictions and lost futures, then we will lose again and deserve it.

I do not consider another 4-8 years of neoliberal austerity politics getting our shit together, even if it is marginally less corrupt and more internationally celebrated. We need to look at these candidates' positions and ask, of each policy, "How is this going to improve the real, lived experiences of vulnerable Americans?"

If all we do is prattle on about the destruction of norms and how undecorous and uncouth and unlettered the Cheeto Man is then I honestly don't know why people are supposed to care about voting us in.

"Back to normal" is not where we need to go. The old normal is what led us here.

[wildcat09 29354]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That means different things to different people. If we are not speaking specifically, credibly, and empathetically to the material conditions of people whose cities are dying of economic neglect and children are dying of opiod addictions and lost futures, then we will lose again and deserve it.

I do not consider another 4-8 years of neoliberal austerity politics getting our shit together, even if it is marginally less corrupt and more internationally celebrated. We need to look at these candidates' positions and ask, of each policy, "How is this going to improve the real, lived experiences of vulnerable Americans?"

If all we do is prattle on about the destruction of norms and how undecorous and uncouth and unlettered the Cheeto Man is then I honestly don't know why people are supposed to care about voting us in.

"Back to normal" is not where we need to go. The old normal is what led us here.

I think this is right but I think a candidate has to still forcefully speak out against the GOP’s rampant corruption, of which the Russia shit is just a part. And it really shouldn’t be hard for the Dems to tie corruption to the fact that the government doesn’t serve the interests of the people.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think this is right but I think a candidate has to still forcefully speak out against the GOP’s rampant corruption, of which the Russia shit is just a part. And it really shouldn’t be hard for the Dems to tie corruption to the fact that the government doesn’t serve the interests of the people.

And Exhibit A is Elizabeth Warren, who is doing exactly this policywise while being among the first to come out for impeachment after the Mueller report. 

[henrygandorf 29191]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

B_t, I just wanted to take a moment to tell you that I completely agree with this. I guess just to affirm that despite your bullshit, and mine too, most of us are on the same side here.

 

"what i'm saying, in a general sense, is that at this point, democrats need a fucking win in 2020, and they should take what they can get, whomever it is.  donors getting their panties in a bunch because they may lose control over what their dollars mean is very low on the list of shit i'm worried about.

a win is a win.  if the best chance for that win is bernie, then it's time to go to war for that, not against it."

 

 

 

 

yeah, i said that ^^

: /

[henrygandorf 29191]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

That means different things to different people. If we are not speaking specifically, credibly, and empathetically to the material conditions of people whose cities are dying of economic neglect and children are dying of opiod addictions and lost futures, then we will lose again and deserve it.

I do not consider another 4-8 years of neoliberal austerity politics getting our shit together, even if it is marginally less corrupt and more internationally celebrated. We need to look at these candidates' positions and ask, of each policy, "How is this going to improve the real, lived experiences of vulnerable Americans?"

If all we do is prattle on about the destruction of norms and how undecorous and uncouth and unlettered the Cheeto Man is then I honestly don't know why people are supposed to care about voting us in.

"Back to normal" is not where we need to go. The old normal is what led us here.

who said "back to normal"?  i said get our shit together.

all the stuff you listed sounds great, but the truth is that none of the 20 candidates have been president before, so we have no real idea how they will govern.  what we do know, is the guy in office now is trying to be in office again, and we already know what he will and won't do.

if beto ends up being the nominee, and you don't think he's gonna be able to address dying cities and the opioid epidemic or improve the lives for vulnerable americans, then are you going to abstain?  or vote trump?

[bad_teammate 13196]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

all the stuff you listed sounds great, but the truth is that none of the 20 candidates have been president before, so we have no real idea how they will govern. 

If you look at things with a critical eye, it's actually not impossible to hazard a pretty good guess as to how they will govern. It's not a pure shot in the dark.

Quote

if beto ends up being the nominee, and you don't think he's gonna be able to address dying cities and the opioid epidemic or improve the lives for vulnerable americans, then are you going to abstain?  or vote trump?

It's weird that you guys feel the need to constantly seek reassurance about how I, personally, am going to vote. I'm going to vote for the Dem, regardless, because I'm a comfortable white lib that actually cares a little about almost-entirely-meaningless things like decorum and norms. I'm not who you need to worry about.

[bad_teammate 13196]

Not impossible to know how someone will govern.

 

[henrygandorf 29191]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's weird that you guys feel the need to constantly seek reassurance about how I, personally, am going to vote. I'm going to vote for the Dem, regardless, because I'm a comfortable white lib that actually cares a little about almost-entirely-meaningless things like decorum and norms. I'm not who you need to worry about.

you're adorable.  nobody is "constantly" doing anything.  i addressed you specifically twice today.

1. to point out an article basically claiming that the sentiment from the bros is that if bernie isn't the nom, there's a pretty decent chance they won't be team players for the party.  you had previously claimed the exact opposite, and since you follow a lot of the bros on twitter (or wherever), i wondered if that was commonplace, since i don't keep up with them.  i was asking for your perspective, not your reassurance.

2. i asked you after your little soapbox speech where you essentially said "if the candidate isn't willing to address these important things, then what the fuck is the point of voting for them" and i wanted to see if you actually believed that.  if i addressed anyone else, and i often do, it would be to ask how they specifically felt about something.  i'm not asking you to speak for others.

[henrygandorf 29191]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Not impossible to know how someone will govern.

 

you do you, brotha.

fistbump emoji.

[Hank Kingsley 20942]

The Saint Bernards are insufferable. 

 

[BradInATX 9208]

yeah, i said that ^^
: /

Well shit

[BradInATX 9208]

It's weird that you guys feel the need to constantly seek reassurance about how I, personally, am going to vote. I'm going to vote for the Dem, regardless, because I'm a comfortable white lib that actually cares a little about almost-entirely-meaningless things like decorum and norms. I'm not who you need to worry about.

Here's why

https://mobile.twitter.com/crampell/status/1119298836835590144

[Hank Kingsley 20942]

Just now, BradInATX said:

Here's why

https://mobile.twitter.com/crampell/status/1119298836835590144

Honestly, that stat/claim is worthless based on a small poll of voters. 

But my issue with Bernie crazies is they are in the clear minority of the Democratic Party voters as we speak. Right now, the best polls have Bernie getting 30% of the D vote.  His diehard supporters are trying to take down any legitimate D candidate, outside of maybe Warren.  It's not just people on Twitter with a handful of followers. It's accounts with bigger followings that are mean spirited and grading on a purity test that only Sanders can pass.  I can appreciate the spirit and desire for progressive values, but the friendly fire is inexcusable. Support Bernie. Tell us why you think he's the best candidate. A lot of us are tired of the disingenuous bullshit, and it's frustrating that it's not just coming from the right. 

I like Bernie. I will happily vote for him in the general election. But his most diehard supporters can fuck right off. 

 

 

[Larry T. Spider 1746]

I got called a pussy by the Bernie people on here for “caring about shit talking on twitter” about a month ago. I’ve given up on them having any sense of decency during this primary, especially if he gets behind. I truly hope that most will get in line with the eventual nominee like BT. 

[troph 24805]

“if they wanted” indeed. I don’t think you understand the role the Democratic Party plays in our politics. It’s not an opposition party. 

 

Trump has set precedent for how not to govern to such a degree that failure to impeach may have its own damning consequences. At some point you cannot let a president get away with the acts described in the Mueller Report unless you are willing to make that the new precedent for the lawful exercise of executive power.

 

I think the Dems hands are tied. And so what they should do is move public opinion on impeachment - this week its moving in the right direction. Then impeach and force it on the senate then campaign like motherfuckers on the issue.

 

The problem is, Dems cant posture politically to save their lives. And it’s sad, this one is easy....

 

Trump is a criminal. Start with that. Have 3 to 4 other talking points - (1) he lied about having millions of dollars at stake in business dealings in Russia tied directly to Putin, (2) his campaign back channeled and negotiated favorable treatment for Russia, (3) his campaign was aware of and meeting with Russian criminals who were attacking our democracy, and (4) he tried to cover it up over and over again. We have him on 7-8 counts of obstruction. This is not a banana republic this is the United States of America and NO ONE is above the law. If republicans want to save their party and participate in saving the rule of law they must convict.

 

That’s the playbook. Impeachment very likely will happen. The political moves - They won’t happen.

 

So we will have a dog fight in 2020 as trump declares victory in the senate and uses it to “prove” his innocence.

[troph 24805]

I got called a pussy by the Bernie people on here for “caring about shit talking on twitter” about a month ago. I’ve given up on them having any sense of decency during this primary, especially if he gets behind. I truly hope that most will get in line with the eventual nominee like BT. 

I hope they do to, I’ll vote for Bernie if he wins the nom. But I’m not confident they will, had they trump wouldn’t be president.

[Dropout 355]

45 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

I got called a pussy by the Bernie people on here for “caring about shit talking on twitter” about a month ago. I’ve given up on them having any sense of decency during this primary, especially if he gets behind. I truly hope that most will get in line with the eventual nominee like BT. 

Must have missed that

[troph 24805]

Nadler says impeachable yes, if proven the obstruction would be impeachable. On meet the press.

[kevwun 15789]

Mueller is going to have to go on the record in his testimony that he thinks Trump colluded and obstructed to impeachment and removal a real shot.  I don't know if he's willing to do that.

[troph 24805]

He will have no choice. He will be under oath and a skilled questioner can probably get him there

 

But I do think it’s public opinion that matters and yes if he says that public opinion will move further

[kevwun 15789]

He can say it's not what I think, it's what I can prove.

[bad_teammate 13196]

24 minutes ago, Dropout said:

Must have missed that

I don't know which Bernie bro here calls someone "pussy", but I absolutely think people who get hurt feelings about Bernie Bros on Twitter are doing nothing but looking for stuff to get mad about (and, likely as not, paper over their insecurities regarding their own values/chosen allegiances).

If you go on Twitter and search for anything you'll find it. Bernie Bros, Dem #Resisters, racists, Nazis, MAGAs, vegans, carnivores, whatever.

#NeverBernie

Click and scroll briefly. Not 3 minutes goes by without someone posting that hashtag about how they will never vote for Bernie Sanders. Does that mean there's a huge movement in real life of anti-bernie Dems who will vote Trump? No. It's Twitter.

10 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

It's accounts with bigger followings that are mean spirited and grading on a purity test that only Sanders can pass.  I can appreciate the spirit and desire for progressive values, but the friendly fire is inexcusable. Support Bernie. Tell us why you think he's the best candidate. A lot of us are tired of the disingenuous bullshit, and it's frustrating that it's not just coming from the right. 

There is no more "disingenuous bullshit" being discussed right now than whining about nameless "accounts with bigger followings that are mean spirited and grading on a purity test that only Sanders can pass".

There's nothing mean about having values and ideals and then scrutinizing potential candidates against those values and ideals. What is a primary even for if not "purity" testing?

- Figure out what your values are.
- Judge all candidates against those values.
- Pick the candidate who most closely aligns with your values.

That's not mean-spirited, delicate flower, it's how this should work.

In terms of "friendly fire" in the 2020 Dem campaign, which individual candidate has received the most so far and from which specific sources? Which candidates have had attack videos made against them by Democratic Party think tanks? Which candidates have Democratic officials openly speaking out against them and conspiring against them in secret dinners of wealthy donors?

[troph 24805]

He can say it's not what I think, it's what I can prove.

You laid out evidence and as a prosecutor would you have enough evidence to indict but for the OLC opinion?

Look he might not answer that question but I’m not a trial attorney - I bet any one of the shaggy trial lawyer elites would relish the chance to try and get him on this issue. They would ask a couple dozen questions before letting him go on this point.

[kevwun 15789]

I think he is smart enough to avoid saying what he doesn't want to say.  He is The Sphinx though.  I have no idea how his testimony is going to go.  I hope we finally get some insight in to how he sees all of this.

Edited April 21, 2019 by kevwun

[Celery Man 20952]

yeah we should all follow b_t's lead and be less thin skinned

[bad_teammate 13196]

Not even bothering to deny what I'm saying, just hoping to distract from it by making it about me personally. #sad

[Celery Man 20952]

I agree with what you're saying.

[bad_teammate 13196]

Unless the candidate is in Congress, I don't know why anyone wants the 2020 Dems to talk about impeachment.

It has nothing to do with the office they are seeking.

2020 Dems (who aren't in Congress) should just punt it to Congress. Let the House Dems handle this hot potato.