2020 Democratic Nominee

[horncyclist 1,391]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pete is one of those guys that would be good at anything he decides to do.  I must say though, I do not like his connection to Zuckerberg who I consider one of the biggest pieces of shit on earth. 

What's the Zuck connection?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

41 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

What's the Zuck connection?

Just know they’re bros and had a pretty big meet up in 2017.  I can only suspect they were plotting to take over the world. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.indystar.com/amp/101145566

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/recode/2019/5/7/18527646/pete-buttigieg-silicon-valley-donors-mark-zuckerberg

 

I love Pete but Zuckerberg is one of the most unethical and destructive forces on the planet. 

[bad_teammate 13,220]

STOCKS!

[bad_teammate 13,220]

Canvassing is very important. People hostile to voting need outreach.

[Hank Kingsley 20,991]

14 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Just know they’re bros and had a pretty big meet up in 2017.  I can only suspect they were plotting to take over the world. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.indystar.com/amp/101145566

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/recode/2019/5/7/18527646/pete-buttigieg-silicon-valley-donors-mark-zuckerberg

 

I love Pete but Zuckerberg is one of the most unethical and destructive forces on the planet. 

 

They weren't friends at Harvard.  A mutual friend introduced them to each other before they met up in SB.  Zuckerberg asked for a tour. Is Pete supposed to turn down that type of exposure for his city? 

 

Edited September 8, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[Guest Lobo]

Yeah, not really seeing that Pete and Zuckerberg are in cahoots.  If anything, I feel bad for Pete.  Having to ride around, trapped in a compact car, with that creepy weirdo looks miserable.  And Mark is the shittiest driver in his marriage, which should tell you something.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

36 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

They weren't friends at Harvard.  A mutual friend introduced them to each other before they met up in SB.  Zuckerberg asked for a tour. Is Pete supposed to turn down that type of exposure for his city? 

Pete was one of the first 300 people to sign up on Facebook and Zuckerberg doesn’t have any friends, only people he looks to exploit.  I hope Pete understands this and in 2017, Zuckerberg was politically toxic, he still is.  I just wish Pete showed better judgement instead of rolling out the red carpet for Zuck.  It’s not a deal breaker for Pete but I am going to take notice .

Edited September 8, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hank Kingsley 20,991]

Oh no!  A classmate at Harvard was one of the first to sign up to Facebook. The horror. 

And in 2017 Pete should have given Zuckerberg a hard "no" when asked if he could come tour his small city. Got it. 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

16 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Pete should have given Zuckerberg a hard "no" when asked if he could come tour his small city

Why would Zuckerberg want to tour South Bend?  Is that something normal billionaires do? 

[horncyclist 1,391]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Why would Zuckerberg want to tour South Bend?  Is that something normal billionaires do? 

I think it was part of his "understand America" so I can "fix Facebook" tour.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

8 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

I think it was part of his "understand America" so I can "fix Facebook" tour.

Wasn’t Zuckerberg reportedly also considering running for President around this time? 

Yes, he was...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/08/15/mark-zuckerberg-could-be-running-for-president-in-2020.html

 

Edited September 8, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hank Kingsley 20,991]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Why would Zuckerberg want to tour South Bend?  Is that something normal billionaires do? 

He wanted to tour SB so Buttigieg could take him to his secret lair where they discuss how to make billionaires richer and let the techies run the entire world. 

 

[bad_teammate 13,220]

"normal billionaire"

lol

That is a class of deranged freakshows and there's nothing normal about any of them. 

Zuck wants everyone to think he's a human, and in the deranged mind of the billionaire, visiting a small(er) area makes someone human and relateable. But he doesn't actually want to be around plebians, so his people found a fellow Ivy android that he could visit the disturbing wastelands between the coasts with.

There is also the never-ending desire among white guy Ivies to convince themselves and each other that the cure for the world's ills is more white guy Ivies in power. Hence, "How can we get more people like you to run for office?"

It's really not very complicated.

 

[horncyclist 1,391]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Wasn’t Zuckerberg reportedly also considering running for President around this time? 

Yes, he was...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/08/15/mark-zuckerberg-could-be-running-for-president-in-2020.html

 

I think that was largely a made up media thing. His listening tour was about Facebook.

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

A big reason Zuckerberg isn’t currently in prison is because our laws haven’t caught up to his technology and he clearly intends to keep it that way or at least have the most significant role in writing the new laws. 

Edited September 8, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13,220]

All polls where Biden is not #1 are real.

The South Carolina poll is fake news and I categorically reject it.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Yeah, I’m going to need more information on those state polls.  Like dates, sample sizes, and methodology.  Otherwise this is some propaganda.

[Hank Kingsley 20,991]

Buttigieg met with Zuckerberg in South Bend two years ago. Elizabeth Warren was literally a registered Republican. 

Neither mean anything outside of a talking point for detractors. 

[bad_teammate 13,220]

Buttigieg meeting with Zuck means very little.

Warren's lifetime of conservative political beliefs might actually matter a lot if you take even one step backwards from the drama and stop thinking of literally fucking everything in terms of fanboys and detractors.

Bizarre to conflate those two extremely different things.

[Hank Kingsley 20,991]

I was comparing them as one-liners that provide little context. 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

10 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I was comparing them as one-liners that provide little context.

Still a false equivalency but I agree that they’re digs without much substance except that Pete’s big money donors are tech bros.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/recode/2019/5/7/18527646/pete-buttigieg-silicon-valley-donors-mark-zuckerberg

I suppose that’s just because Pete is most in touch with the technology, generation, and culture to handle their issues responsibly and not because they are buying him for protection. 

Edited September 8, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz
Responsibility issues

[Hank Kingsley 20,991]

Goddamnit

 

[Hank Kingsley 20,991]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I suppose that’s just because Pete is most in touch with the technology, generation, and culture to handle their issues responsibility and not because they are buying him for protection. 

Makes sense to me

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Kinda glad there will be two debates in October now.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

19 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Warren and Clinton

fucking LOL

[bad_teammate 13,220]

Nothing good comes from working with Hillary in this primary.

[horncyclist 1,391]

I mean one's the first female major party nominee and the other has the inside track to be the second, and the first to win the Presidency, but other than that I can't see anything they could possibly bond over. How awful of Warren to associate with her. 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2019 by horncyclist

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

3 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

I mean one's the first female major party nominee and the other has the inside track to be the second, and the first to win the Presidency, but other than that I can't see anything they could possibly bond over. How awful of Warren to associate with her. 

What’s interesting about this story is it was someone from HILLARY’s side that leaked they were communicating.  It’s almost like Hillary wants to let the world know she’s with Warren.   There’s a lot of disinformation out there in the information space that Warren and Hillary are enemies.  Perhaps Hillary was trying to throw cold water on the bullshit?  Seemed like a good way to do it without coming out and endorsing. 

[bad_teammate 13,220]

What Elizabeth Warren is Quietly Telling Democratic Insiders

Quote

Her point was easy to grasp: While her liberal agenda may be further left than some in the Democratic establishment would prefer, she is a team player who is seeking to lead the party — not stage a hostile takeover of it.

As Ms. Warren steadily rises in the polls she is working diligently to protect her left flank, lining up with progressives on nearly every issue and trying to defuse potential attacks from supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. “I’m with Bernie,” she responds when asked about what is perhaps the most contentious issue of the primary race: “Medicare for all.”

Yet publicly, and even more in private, she is signaling to party leaders that, far from wanting to stage a “political revolution” in the fashion of Mr. Sanders, she wants to revive the beleaguered Democratic National Committee and help recapture the Senate while retaining the House in 2020.

In phone calls, text messages and small gatherings before her rallies, as well as in one-on-one meetings over hot tea at her Washington condominium, Ms. Warren is simultaneously courting and assuring Democratic town leaders, statewide officials and the chiefs of the country’s largest unions.

The outreach is not just an effort to avoid the confrontational approach Mr. Sanders took in 2016, when he inveighed against party insiders and the committee itself, which he correctly believed was favoring Hillary Clinton. Ms. Warren is also trying to allay concerns among Democrats that, as a progressive candidate proposing sweeping change, she may not have enough mainstream appeal to compete with President Trump in the general election.

She's playing a very dangerous game with very bad people. Establishment kissing, Clinton backchannel, and a readiness to be bought by the donor class in the general are not good signs.

[tantric superman 4,667]

It ain't for the faint of heart.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What Elizabeth Warren is Quietly Telling Democratic Insiders

She's playing a very dangerous game with very bad people. Establishment kissing, Clinton backchannel, and a readiness to be bought by the donor class in the general are not good signs.

 

Maybe just maybe Warren realizes the best way to advance her agenda is to BUILD bridges instead of burn them?!? 

[bad_teammate 13,220]

18 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Maybe just maybe Warren realizes the best way to advance her agenda is to BUILD bridges instead of burn them?!? 

It depends on what her agenda is.

Building bridges to the class of people who put us where we are is not the way forward. We don't move forward by continuing to be a party dominated by the Clintons, their 1990s New Democrat donor base, and the professional elite classes in DC/NY. We move forward by being a 50-state grassroots movement and having our ultimate loyalties be among the working people and the working people alone.

If it's a great idea to be best buddies with the wealth and donor classes, why not do it in the primary?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

She seems pretty clear on what her agenda is. 

Keep fighting the revolution tho...

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[bad_teammate 13,220]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She seems pretty clear on what her agenda is.

Nope.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Maybe it’s time we review Bernie’s record on guns. 

[bad_teammate 13,220]

Sounds great, let's do it

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Biden and Warren, longtime frenemies, will finally meet in a debate chasing the biggest prize of all

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-and-warren-longtime-frenemies-will-finally-meet-in-a-debate-chasing-the-biggest-prize-of-all/2019/09/08/6c64a646-cf69-11e9-8c1c-7c8ee785b855_story.html

Vice President Joe Biden came to the Capitol in late 2016 to preside over Senate passage of a cancer-fighting measure named after his son, the Beau Biden Memorial Moonshot. In a day of bipartisan bonhomie, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was among those praising Biden, calling him “a man who spent his career fighting for working families.”

But earlier, in a private meeting with Democratic leaders, Warren had slammed the bill that included the Moonshot, saying its relaxed rules on drug companies made Democrats appear cozy with big business — a big reason she believed President Trump had just won the White House. In a blistering floor speech, she said the bill’s compromises with industry amounted to “extortion.” She was one of only five senators to oppose it.

Now, Biden and Warren, two of the leading presidential hopefuls, are set to meet Thursday on the debate stage, a setting that will highlight their wildly different styles and messages.

Those contrasting impulses were captured in their disagreement three years ago. Where Warren saw Democrats cravenly caving to corporations, Biden saw a necessary compromise on a critical issue and praised Republicans heartily for their support. It was just one episode in a long and complicated history between Biden and Warren that has showcased their fundamental difference: Biden believes in the system, and Warren believes it needs radical change.

“They’re both very strong but with a different touch,” said former senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who served in the Senate with Biden and Warren. “Elizabeth connects with you strongly on the issues. Joe connects even more on a personal level. . . . She makes the most passionate argument, but Joe has the added dimension of having a personal touch.”

That divergence began long before they even met. As a young senator in the early 1970s, Biden fought against mandated busing as a path to school integration, arguing for less coercive methods. Warren, as a law student during the same period, wrote her first law review article about why the Supreme Court was wrong to restrict busing.

But their hardest-fought confrontations came during the late 1990s and early 2000s, when credit companies were fighting to make it harder for Americans to declare bankruptcy, complaining that free-spending consumers were irresponsibly using the process to protect themselves.

Biden, whose home state of Delaware was the headquarters of many financial services firms, championed their cause. These firms were among Biden’s top campaign contributors. He even earned the nickname “the senator from MBNA,” a reference to a bank founded in Delaware.

Warren, then a professor, blasted Biden by name in a 2002 New York Times piece for playing a key role in what she called an “unconscionable” bankruptcy bill.

In a paper in the Harvard Women’s Law Review in 2002, she argued that with his “presidential ambitions growing,” women’s groups should oppose Biden because the bill would disproportionately harm women. In her 2003 book, “The Two-Income Trap,” written with Amelia Warren Tyagi, she added that he was a “sellout” when it came to women.

Warren was Biden’s opposite, a fighter where he was a backslapper, an activist who once said of battling financial institutions that she wanted “plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.” She was already a top bankruptcy expert, winning a Harvard Law School professorship in part because of her research on how middle-class families were going broke at alarming rates. She saw the bankruptcy system as a safety net, allowing families to erase debt and start fresh. 

The two clashed again in 2005 when the bankruptcy bill made it to the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which Biden was a senior member. Sitting at the witness table, Warren listened as Biden pushed her to talk about the role government should play when families cannot pay their bills.

Biden referred to Warren as “professor” twice and, before she spoke, characterized her argument as “very compelling and mildly demagogic.”

He asked who should foot the bill when consumers can’t pay. If Warren believed the chief victims were struggling families doing their best to stay afloat, Biden also sympathized with companies, including small businesses, that were getting shortchanged through no fault of their own.

“Is it the responsibility of the gas company and the drugstore and whoever else you name to make sure that these people do not have to make these hard choices?” Biden asked. “Or is that the responsibility of the government or the people at large?”

Warren did not directly answer the question, a tactic she continues to employ, saying the real solution is an economy where Americans are doing better.

“We need fewer families to need to turn to the bankruptcy system,” Warren said, pointing to health-care costs as a major factor. Until the health system can be fixed, she argued, Americans need the option of a generous bankruptcy system.

Jared Bernstein, Biden’s chief economist during the early years of Barack Obama’s presidency, said there was “no question he and Warren were on different sides.”

But he insisted the relationship warmed once Biden became vice president. In the bankruptcy fight, Biden was representing his state’s interests. His prism broadened significantly when he joined the administration, Bernstein said.

The Obama team, after all, immediately confronted a devastating financial meltdown that threatened middle-class families across the country. Warren was tapped by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) to come to Washington to help oversee the distribution of bailout money, becoming a resource for the Obama team rather than an adversary.

“At that point, it’s clear that Elizabeth Warren really knows what she’s talking about regarding what happened and that her vision of the appropriate guardrails needed was a smart one,” Bernstein said. “You can call it ideologically aligned or meeting of the minds or whatever, but it was more of a pragmatic alignment.”

Obama tapped Biden to head a task force aimed at improving the lot of the middle class, and Biden saw Warren as an ally. He supported her successful push to create an agency charged with protecting consumers from deceptive financial practices.

“What I got to see was a relationship that was really forged on respect,” said Terrell McSweeny, a former Biden aide. “I think they had a lot of shared perspective in terms of focusing on getting the economy back on track.”

Still, some Warren allies play down Biden’s role in winning passage of the Dodd-Frank law, the sweeping bank overhaul measure that established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) championed by Warren.

Some liberal Democrats still say Biden is too close to corporate interests, and some moderates say they are uncomfortable with Warren’s attacks on the status quo.

“Biden was simply not part of the conversation” surrounding the passage of Dodd-Frank, the oversight of the bank bailout and the creation of the CFPB, said one Warren ally who worked closely with her at the time and spoke on the condition of anonymity because their current employer is neutral in the presidential race.

By that point — Dodd-Frank passed in 2010 — some saw early signs of Warren’s interest in higher office. At a White House photo op, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) pressed Obama to appoint Warren as head of the CFPB, adding that she would probably run for Senate if she wasn’t nominated.

“The president said, ‘Do you think she wants to be a senator?’ ” Frank recalled. “And I said, ‘No, I think she wants your job, but she knows she’s got to start somewhere.’ ”

It is unclear whether Biden played a role in recommending or discouraging Warren’s appointment as leader of the CFPB. Facing forceful opposition from Republican senators, Obama ultimately declined to nominate her — a blow to Warren, but one that set her on course for the Senate.

When Warren won her 2012 Senate campaign, it was Biden, in his role as vice president, who presided over her swearing in. “You gave me hell,” Biden joked to Warren, referring to their previous skirmishes.

Biden harbored no ill will toward Warren, and the two periodically chatted on the phone after she became a senator, according to former senator Ted Kaufman, a onetime Biden aide who took over his Senate seat after he became vice president. That fits Biden’s tendency to view political adversaries as friendly opponents rather than implacable enemies, Kaufman said

“I think at the end of the day, it’s entirely consistent with the way Vice President Biden approaches relationships,” McSweeny said. “In his heart, I think he believes they are aligned on helping the middle class. Whether they agree on every solution is different, but they are trying to address the same issues.”

In August 2015, as Biden was considering his own presidential bid, he invited Warren to lunch at the U.S. Naval Observatory, which serves as the vice president’s residence. As they dined without aides present, Biden hinted at the possibility of the two joining forces on a ticket, a development that set Washington abuzz for weeks, according to news reports.

Biden did not run that year, and the 21st Century Cures Act that contained his cancer-fighting provision passed shortly after the election. At a White House signing ceremony, he fondly remembered his son and said the law would save lives.

He praised Republicans — naming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), in particular — acknowledging that the bill could not have passed without them.

“It shows that our politics can still come together to do big, consequential things for the American people,” he said.

Warren had a different reaction. When Trump won, she concluded that traditional approaches were no longer working. Regarding the 21st Century Cures Act, she told fellow Democrats they were using an outdated strategy in trying to placate the opposition, according to a Democratic aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss a private conversation.

Warren called Reid, the Senate minority leader at the time, to tell him she planned to oppose the bill and push other Democrats to join her, according to the former Senate aide. She was impassioned on the Senate floor, telling colleagues that voters “didn’t send us here to whimper, whine or grovel” to drug companies.

Most of all, Warren felt the bill would send a devastating political message about lawmakers’ coziness with industry. The Democratic aide summed up Warren’s argument this way: “I tried it your way and it didn’t work, so it’s time to listen to what I have to say.”

[bad_teammate 13,220]

If you look at the crosstabs, Pete was somehow at -7.

Statisticians in major research institutions are trying to figure out how this is possible.

[bad_teammate 13,220]

I thought we were going to talk about Bernie's record on guns!

Politifact

Some key points:

- In 1989, Bernie was running for a seat in the US House and ran on supporting the assault weapons ban. He won

- In the early 90s, Bernie opposed the 5 and 7-day waiting periods because (1) he wanted it to be handled at the state level and (2) Vermont is a very rural state with high gun ownership and very low violent crime.

- He also opposed allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers for "misuse" of the weapons in the early 2000s.

[GSU&UT 1,798]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

If you look at the crosstabs, Pete was somehow at -7.

Statisticians in major research institutions are trying to figure out how this is possible.
 

Would fucking love it if all of us millennials voted at historic numbers in these primaries. 2018 was a great turnout for us younger people

[cactusflinthead 27,601]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

I thought we were going to talk about Bernie's record on guns!

Politifact

Some key points:

- In 1989, Bernie was running for a seat in the US House and ran on supporting the assault weapons ban. He won

- In the early 90s, Bernie opposed the 5 and 7-day waiting periods because (1) he wanted it to be handled at the state level and (2) Vermont is a very rural state with high gun ownership and very low violent crime.

- He also opposed allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers for "misuse" of the weapons in the early 2000s.

That's been old news since last time. He's got to get elected. I don't blame him for voting that way back then, but it would be nice if he's evolved since.

I'd rather talk about the 26% in the Essence poll that won't tell us who they like.

Is this another shitty poll of bad methodology?

[bad_teammate 13,220]

22 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

That's been old news since last time. He's got to get elected. I don't blame him for voting that way back then, but it would be nice if he's evolved since.

There isn't really much of anything for him to evolve on there. He's supported assault weapons bans since Liz was a Republican and Biden was trying to put black kids in prison for life for walking near a crack house.

The two knocks on him are waiting period details and suing gun manufacturers, neither of which is that means much if the goal is to truly address gun deaths.

Quote

I'd rather talk about the 26% in the Essence poll that won't tell us who they like.

Is this another shitty poll of bad methodology?

Why? 26% undecided is perfectly normal this far out from the voting dates.

[cactusflinthead 27,601]

A quarter seems kinda high. Most of the ones that I can recall are in the 10-15% range. I get it that it's early. There are a lot of people with things they did in the past that they regret today. Obama wasn't in favor of LGBT rights until he was. 

I was rooting around to see if there were other polls of only black female voters or actually the search term was undecideds and ran across this from earlier in the week.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-handle-an-outlier-poll/

Quote

In the long run, failure to publish results that pollsters presume to be outliers can yield far more embarrassment for the industry than the occasional funky-looking set of topline numbers. Suppressing outliers is a form of herding, a practice in which pollsters are influenced by other polls and strive to keep results within a narrow consensus. Herding makes polling averages less accurate, and it makes polling less objective. And more often than you’d think, it winds up being a case of the blind leading the blind. One recent example comes from Australia, where despite the Labor Party holding only a narrow and tenuous lead, pollsters declined to publish polls showing the conservatives narrowly ahead instead. The conservatives went on to a modest win, yielding a national controversy about polling that could have been avoided if the pollsters had trusted their numbers instead of the conventional wisdom.

----

The sixth category, the end of the campaign, is less well-known as a source of polling movement, but the final days of the campaign can produce sharp shifts in the polls as undecided voters finally settle upon a candidate and as supporters of candidates who look like they can’t win (say, a Libertarian who is polling at 4 percent) hold their noses and pick one of the major contenders. Often, especially in primaries, this movement occurs fairly late — within the final week of the campaign or even the final 24 to 48 hours (in which case it may occur too late to show up in polls). There’s no guarantee that undecided voters will evenly divide themselves between the major candidates; in Wisconsin in 2016, for example, voters who decided in the final few days went almost 2-1 for Trump over Clinton.

You mean to tell me that people wait until the last second to make up their minds? NO WAY.

We're the junkies. We have got to have a daily fix of politics. Sickos. I'm scrolling through Twitter last night, texting with a fellow surly, and watching the game while I post things on Brexit.

Sick. The distraction of the political chaos was enough to keep me from cursing even more than necessary due to getting burned again in the backfield. But, we are the outliers. We peer at the tea leaves and wonder what they mean.

"Greedy for news, though he hated it." Treebeard 

meh, it's early. and I can't get enough. No wonder they want to keep us corralled in here.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Give me a president who can casually and from memory drop in a Langston Hughes quote.

And the rest of his answer here is spot on.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

WARREN ISSUED THUNDERSTICKS!!  TOTALLY UNFAIR!!  

JFC she is clowning on these fools. 

[Js1 85,449]

You ok, Hugo? 

[bad_teammate 13,220]

Shills accusing other shills about a Potemkin village "viz" event

"Elizabeth Warren is besmirching the honor and integrity of this clown circus!"

Edited September 9, 2019 by bad_teammate