Bernie Sanders 2020 Watch

[henrygandorf 29175]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The first thing in my response to you is a question that you could've just answered instead of crying like some garbage alt.right comedian.

*says a stupid thing*
*gets laughed at*
"OH I GUESS FREE SPEECH IS DEAD NOW!! I GUESS THIS IS SOVIET NAZI GERMANYRUSSIA NOW!"

What are the criteria for determining whether or not a candidate is "too old"?

Seems like a fairly straightforward question to answer, right? Is there something triggering about that very simple question, snowflake?

wow, ok.  clearly i'm the one here who is "triggered".  i said in my previous post that voters have a right to consider a candidate's age without it being ageist.  this has come up a number of times, but you seem to be under the false notion that you (or bernie) get to decide what is and isn't important to voters.  it doesn't work like that.

nobody is making jokes, and nobody is laughing.  you used part of my example (of other older candidates) to try to attack my criteria choice, as if swatting away one broad example somehow disqualifies the issue for voters.  no.  

mental and physical faculties start to decline typically when people are in their mid to late 60's, and definitely when people are in their 70's.  it declines even for folks who have lived medium stress lives and are retired.  we're projecting someone who's lived an active life that includes a long history of public service and activism - not exactly a passive, relaxing way to spend your twilight years.

he'll be 81-84 during this term, he just had a heart attack, and we're still over a year from the general.  like i said, my opinion is that he's too old to be president.

this is the part where you prove to me that i'm wrong, but hey, instead of countering any of this with actual evidence that bernie is in fact, some sort of super-human, let's attack's pete's inability to relate to picketers, provide some nonsense exchange comparing me to an alt.right comedian, and then, for a grand finale, call me a snowflake. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Because the recovery from what happened to Bernie is brutal.

I’ve watched and helped give care to a man his age who went through the same recovery.

First, there can be cognitive issues in people his age post anesthesia. Even in people who were at 100% prior to surgery.

Second, he’s looking at cardiac rehab to assist in his recovery. That can last weeks or months depending on the patient. It’s not a fun experience and it can leave a patient irritable and short tempered.

Third, many studies show significant personality/emotional/mental health changes in patients post heart attack.

It’s a concern.

[Js1 85109]

I respect you, b_t, but you are getting Hugo level of defensive if anyone has anything critical to say about Bernie.

"Bernie is probably too old for this job and his health is a concern" should not lead to a giant hissy fit.  Considering you spend all this time calling out non-Bernie candidates as cops, corporate robots, sellouts, etc. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

wow, ok.  clearly i'm the one here who is "triggered"  ... this has come up a number of times, but you seem to be under the false notion that you (or bernie) get to decide what is and isn't important to voters.

Yes, but unironically.

You have a right to your opinion, and no one here is trying to take that right away from you, Free Speech Warrior. I have a right to ask you to expound upon your opinion and also to criticize it for weakness. That's how rights work. You should stop pretending to be oppressed.

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

mental and physical faculties start to decline typically when people are in their mid to late 60's, and definitely when people are in their 70's.  it declines even for folks who have lived medium stress lives and are retired.  we're projecting someone who's lived an active life that includes a long history of public service and activism - not exactly a passive, relaxing way to spend your twilight years.

This is all setup with no punchline.

Is your argument just that we should de facto disqualify everyone once they hit their 60s because they might start declining mentally?

What if an in-decline woman in her 80s is still smarter and making better judgements than a peak-of-his-game man in his 40s?

16 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

It’s a concern.

That's cool. A concern. I share concerns about his health because he's extremely, super old and will be dead within 10-15 years.

Concern makes sense.

Disqualification doesn't.

14 minutes ago, Js1 said:

"Bernie is probably too old for this job and his health is a concern" should not lead to a giant hissy fit.

Saying someone doesn't qualify for a job because of their age is a discriminatory opinion that deserves a response. Being concerned is not the same thing as saying they aren't qualified. You're conflating wildly different things.

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

It's absurd that this disgusting, drooling vegetable thinks he can be president.

Get out of here, you pathetic old man.

[elfenix 34171]

On 10/4/2019 at 10:14 AM, fattyflattie said:

I’m not certain how I feel about taking money from people who’ve made it themselves.  Why should we limit what they’ve created themselves, for their families?

let's keep in mind that they wouldn't have made shit without the massive foundation put in place by civil society. 

 

 

 

edit: i appear to have jumped in a few days later

Edited October 10, 2019 by elfenix

[Rougarou 594]

I think I agree with b_T here; ageism is ageism is ageism.

[bad_teammate 13132]

People get old and frail physically. People get old and decline mentally. These happen. But that doesn't happen to all of them in the same ways and on the same schedules. Age alone should not disqualify a candidate, and saying that it should is discriminatory. I guess we can call that a "hissy fit" if we want, but it doesn't actually change the argument.

If a presidential candidate shows signs of physical decline, I don't care as long as it's not, "Oh god they are going to die very soon" stuff or there isn't some kind of terminal prognosis. The aesthetics of a virile and active president are just that, aesthetic.

If a presidential candidate shows signs of cognitive decline, that's actually a huge problem. And we shouldn't put the specter of cognitive decline over someone who isn't showing it; that is concern trolling.

[henrygandorf 29175]

nobody is saying he should be disqualified.  stop projecting.

voters have the right to take age into consideration for a job this important without it being considered a discriminatory act against a protected class.

get a hold of yourself.

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

nobody is saying he should be disqualified.

henrygandorf, "like i said, my opinion is that he's too old to be president."

lol

You are disqualifying him for his age. Explicitly.

Not legally, of course, but you have no power in that regard so the legalism of it is irrelevant. You have in internal set of qualifications you consider, and an unspecified advanced age is one that disqualifies. That is age discrimination. Congrats.

bing bong, so simple

[Js1 85109]

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

nobody is saying he should be disqualified.  stop projecting.

voters have the right to take age into consideration for a job this important without it being considered a discriminatory act against a protected class.

get a hold of yourself.

Yes, this is not a "he can't run because he's old," it's a "maybe he shouldn't because he's old." 

He can run if he wants.  And the voters can decide if his age is an issue or not.  Same with Gabbard's Republican views or Joe Biden's age or Liz Warren's Republican past.  None of those disqualify them from running.  But they are taken into the totality of deciding who to vote for. 

[Hornius Emeritus 12419]

As I said on an early page of this thread, Bernie is too old. Trump is too old. Biden is too old. Bad Teammate needs to choose a younger horse to ride.

We are not going to meet the challenges offered up by the Chinese, the Russians and everybody else who wishes to harm us with octogeriatrics.

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

3 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

We are not going to meet the challenges offered up by the Chinese, the Russians and everybody else who wishes to harm us with octogeriatrics.

What does the age of the candidate have to do with any of this?

I give huge props to Bama Chick for actually articulating some kind of specifics, even though none of them appear to have a specific relevance to Bernie individually (at least yet, it remains to be seen). This... I don't even know what this means.

Are younger people the best at figuring out massive, complex, historically-larded issues of international dispute? Is there a connection between physical vitality and success in foreign relations? Are these things?

I mean, couldn't someone also argue that the last thing we want is some under-50 who has tremendously less experience and historical background involving these parties?

[henrygandorf 29175]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

henrygandorf, "like i said, my opinion is that he's too old to be president."

which is why i used the phrase "my opinion."  the difference is that you present all your opinions as facts, and everyone who doesn't agree is wrong or "a snowflake."

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Not legally, of course, but you have no power in that regard so the legalism of it is irrelevant. You have in internal set of qualifications you consider, and an unspecified advanced age is one that disqualifies. That is age discrimination. Congrats.

bing bong, so simple

i do actually.  i'm a citizen and a registered voter.  my internal set of qualifications count, just like yours do.

bing bong, so simple.

 

42 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Is your argument just that we should de facto disqualify everyone once they hit their 60s because they might start declining mentally?

 

43 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Concern makes sense.

Disqualification doesn't.

Saying someone doesn't qualify for a job because of their age is a discriminatory opinion that deserves a response. Being concerned is not the same thing as saying they aren't qualified. You're conflating wildly different things.

you brought up disqualifying someone twice in one post in response to me and bama chick.  you're trying to pretend that's what we said, and then instead, argue that point.  it isn't.  i've said multiple times that the voters get to decide what is and isn't important to them.  the voters get to decide individually if age (and literally any other factors) matters to them.

if this is an argument that his age should disqualify him, or that there should be an age restriction written into law, we can have that separate conversation, and debate the constitutionality of it.  but that's not this.  we're each sharing our opinions, and basing it on different factors.  most around here are ~35-55 years old, which means we all have our own experience dealing with friends and relatives getting older, getting sick, and eventually, dying.

nobody is some 14 year old snot sitting playing video games looking at a photo of bernie going, "that fucking old man lol, what is he, 130?"  so stop treating this like that.

[Biff Tannen 45494]

He can be president, but be better choose a damn good VP

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

I think older candidates get more leeway on age if they’re not “out of touch” like many older people seem to be.  

Bernie, Warren, and to a lesser extent Hillary are older but no one would accuse them of being out of touch and locked into some iteration of an America long past.  In other words, they resonate with younger people and it compensates for the “they’re too old” narrative.

Biden and Trump are prototypical old white dudes that think America was fucking awesome in the 70s and 80s. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

which is why i used the phrase "my opinion." 

Discriminatory positions are always opinions.

If I say, "Obama is too black to be the president" or "Hillary is too female to be president", those are also opinions I could have. They are also discriminatory.

I would be disqualifying Obama because of his race, which would be... racism.
I would be disqualifying Hillary because of her sex, which would be... sexism.

We also use thousands of other discriminatory positions in our internal considerations. Some are  more defensible and acceptable than others.

- Trump is too rapey to be president. That is discrimination against rapists.
- Romney is too Mormon to be president. That is discrimination against Mormons.
- Dubya is too dumb to be president. That is discrimination against idiots.

Advanced age is simply one of yours in the long list. Embrace it.

Quote

i do actually.  i'm a citizen and a registered voter.  my internal set of qualifications count, just like yours do.

Yes, you are legally allowed to use discriminatory factors when making your voting decisions. People do it all the time.

This would all make more sense to you if you just said, "Yes, it's ageist, but I don't care."

Quote

nobody is some 14 year old snot sitting playing video games looking at a photo of bernie going, "that fucking old man lol, what is he, 130?"  so stop treating this like that.

Cool then make an actual argument that demonstrates how Bernie Sanders himself is displaying worrying signs of advanced age that would impact his ability to execute the office of the presidency.

[bad_teammate 13132]

This guy is correct.

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

double post?

[edit]

Might as well fill it with ~*~*~ content ~*~*~

Overwhelmed by this man's physical prowess.

Edited October 10, 2019 by bad_teammate

[henrygandorf 29175]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Discriminatory positions are always opinions.

see, you're doing it again.  you're trying to misrepresent what i actually said in hopes that your story will stick moving forward.

i gave my opinion, as a voter.  i did not call for a constitutional amendment, and i did not say his age should disqualify him.  i have said (5-6x now) that voters are able to use whatever criteria they want.  you started your little tantrum with "omg let's disqualify him because he's about to die!" nonsense, and got sad when nobody wanted to indulge you.

 

12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Cool then make an actual argument that demonstrates how Bernie Sanders himself is displaying worrying signs of advanced age that would impact his ability to execute the office of the presidency.

other than the heart attack he had last week?

[bad_teammate 13132]

12 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i have said (5-6x now) that voters are able to use whatever criteria they want. 

And I have never disagreed with this.

You have stated that Bernie is too old to be president because of his age, yes?
It is your opinion that a 78-year-old should not be considered (in your mind) for president, yes?

If yes to those, you are using ageist discrimination. Do you disagree?

Quote

other than the heart attack he had last week?

He had stents put in and was back to work immediately. LBJ had multiple heart attacks before he was elected, and those weren't the mild-chest-discomfort types, they were massive coronaries.

Is having a mild heart attack and having two stents put in that put an individual out of commission for half a day something you find personally disqualifying in a candidate?

[henrygandorf 29175]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And I have never disagreed with this.

You have stated that Bernie is too old to be president because of his age, yes?
It is your opinion that a 78-year-old should not be considered (in your mind) for president, yes?

it is absolutely my opinion that someone who's lived bernie's life of ultra-passionate activism and public service (doesn't strike me as the type to take long, relaxing vacations) and who has been campaigning aggressively since 2015 (with another 13 months to go til the general) might create problems while being president from ages 80-84 (not taking into account a 2nd term).  even someone in perfect health, like bernie appeared to be a week ago, would concern me at that age.

--a separate concern is that after the trump/mcconnell years, i would think most dems would prefer someone who can be the president for the next 8 years.  i doubt i'm alone in this.  to me, this is troubling when discussing bernie and biden, but that might be a different conversation for another time--

back to topic.  is it absolutely disqualifying, and should it become a law?  no.  if the only candidates were bernie, biden, and kamala - i would be all about bernie, even if he was 90.  but at this point, i think it's perfectly reasonable to use age as a tie-breaker that could have more people prefer someone like warren, who shares several of his policy ideas and general values.

overall, it seems that you've pivoted some and now just want me to admit that using age as a factor constitutes discriminatory "ageism".  here's the difference:

-if i fire someone (or don't hire them) because they're a woman, or jewish, or gay, or black, or mexican, or disabled, or whatever - and then turn around and say, "these people get distracted, these people are untrustworthy, these people are lazy" then that's bigoted nonsense, and would absolutely represent discriminatory and unlawful behavior.  regarding ageism, if i'm hiring/promoting someone, and i choose a 35 year old over a 53 year old (who's more qualified), then that could certainly bring an ageism suit, and rightfully so.  nothing in this paragraph is justifiable, and i think we'd all agree on that.

but if i'm a voter, and i'm choosing who i want to be the most powerful man in the world, leader of my country, representative of my people, then i have every right to have concerns about someone who would be president during ages 80-84 (or 88) when there is actual medical knowledge that these are ages (if not earlier) when people's physical and mental faculties start to break down, regardless of the intense stress that comes with the job description.

is bernie awesome and a fucking superhero?  absolutely.  do i wish he was my papa?  fuck yes i do, all mine died fairly young.  but to say i'm ageist to prefer a 70 year old to a 79 year old is silly.  what if bernie was 90, but was sharp as a tack?  what about 100?  still ageist if i vote for warren?  my nana died at 103 shoving bacon in her face for the last 10 years, and was still throwing the ball around with her great-grandkids into her late 90's (and had a hole-in-one at 94 - she was in the newspaper!) but i don't want her to be president, either.  

if this is about you proving your point by attacking me and my opinion and trying to put labels on me, sure.  take your win, call me ageist.  he wouldn't be top 2 on my list if he was 60, so i won't let my stark, raving ageism get in the way of my vote this cycle.

[henrygandorf 29175]

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

He had stents put in and was back to work immediately. LBJ had multiple heart attacks before he was elected, and those weren't the mild-chest-discomfort types, they were massive coronaries.

Is having a mild heart attack and having two stents put in that put an individual out of commission for half a day something you find personally disqualifying in a candidate?

you wanted an example specific to bernie, so i gave you one.  it did seem minor, and i'm glad he's ok.  i've seen interviews with him, and he looks great.

i think this whole conversation has gotten a little gross, so i'm gonna check out now.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Why are you pretending that you think Bernie is too old when you actually just dislike him because he's too far left?

Super weird.

[Rougarou 594]

27 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why are you pretending that you think Bernie is too old when you actually just dislike him because he's too far left?

Super weird.

I think you should address his last response instead of ignoring it and trying to stoke these flames. He has some good points and overall I think it’s a good and necessary discussion to be had. Because I also kind of agree with you in that ageism is ageism and it’s black and white. But also I’ve never had to really directly participate in ageism due to my youth privilege but I know as people live longer and work longer and can’t retire Ageism is going to be a 2020-2030 issue for sure so I want to see you guys come to a clean understanding and this pivot seems like a bail.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Well he said "he wouldn't be top 2 on my list if he was 60" so it's not even about age at all, is it? So it's all a bunch of noise, especially when you note that he considers age a "tie-breaker" with Liz... who is 70 years old.

Bernie is super old. He's going to be dead within a decade or two.

We should be very worried about the cognitive abilities of presidential candidates. Not just that, we should worry about their current mental abilities and their current values.

I do not care if they die immediately after leaving office. I don't even really care if they die halfway through their second term. All I really care about is his first two years in office when the initial fire burns. As long as he can be in a wheelchair and get rolled up the ramp to shout at the bosses and billionaires at rallies and marches as organizer-in-chief, I do not care about his physical vitality.

We can worry about 2024 in 2024. If Bernie's brain starts melting out and in September of 2023 he says, "Raprock Bromaba was a president who did presidenting for America and he's my best friend", fine, someone should primary him (from the left) and replace him.

I don't care about the aesthetics. I don't care about making sure our next president has a long post-presidency with a Netflix deal. It doesn't actually matter in regard to anything I care about. I don't care about feeling good about my nice president yachting with Richard Branson later in life. I don't care about their later memoirs or touching interviews.

We have huge problems facing us and we need someone who is going to use all of the energy they have to motivate the millions of working class people who are inactive.

I WANT the president to disappear as quickly as possible. I don't want some gunner who spends his entire tenure ensuring that his remaining 40 years are well-feted and that his power and influence are secure after he leaves with a nest to settle in lined with donor dollars. I want someone who isn't thinking about himself at all. I want someone who is singularly focused on accomplishing massive change for the working classes. Someone who won't even endorse his own son for office because he hates the concept of dynasty so much.

Yes, there are things to be ~*~*~concerned~*~*~ about with older candidates, but there are things to be ~*~*~concerned~*~*~ about with younger ones as well that are completely ignored in these conversations.

[Js1 85109]

I'm think I'm now less concerned about Bernie having another heart attack as I am b_t having his first.  You and Hugo both could use a vacation without your phones or computers. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I'm think I'm now less concerned about Bernie having another heart attack as I am b_t having his first.  You and Hugo both could use a vacation without your phones or computers. 

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by bad_teammate

[henrygandorf 29175]

bernie doing a nice sit-down currently with sanjay gupta on cnn.  talking more about current events than his health.

i'll find a link and post later.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Bernard whippin in the Chevy Spark.

Daewoo engineering inspires littl confidence.

[RayDog 682]

A candidate for president should be reasonably expected to remain healthy and functioning for their entire term.

In a quick Google search the average life expectancy for an 80 year old white male in the US is 7 years.

Life expectency for an 80 year old who has had a heart attack and a stent is shorter, but I did not find precise statistics on how much shorter. 

So what if his life expectency at 80 is 4 years as an example? And we must keep in mind that many people are functionally impaired months or even years before death.

I do not think there is a high enough probability of Bernie remaining healthy for a full 4 year term to take the chance. He is therefore disqualified.

[bad_teammate 13132]

nobody is saying he should be disqualified.  stop projecting.

lol

[RayDog 682]

59 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

nobody is saying he should be disqualified.  stop projecting.

lol

I am saying he should be disqualified by any rational person. We should not vote for someone who only has a 50/50 or even a 70/30 chance of functionally completing their term.

Note that this applies to Biden too, particularly since he is already showing what may be advanced signs of senility.

We should only be considering candidates who we can confidently expect with be healthy at the end of their term. It should not be 50/50 odds, but 90/10 or better.

[bad_teammate 13132]

10 hours ago, RayDog said:

I am saying he should be disqualified by any rational person. We should not vote for someone who only has a 50/50 or even a 70/30 chance of functionally completing their term.

Bernie will be alive at 82, calm down. He already has great medical care and he will have doctors hovering around him in the Oval.

He might die during a 2nd term and will almost definitely die within 5-10 years of leaving office, though. I'm totally cool with VP Warren taking power in Year 1 of Bernie's 2nd term and then her getting 11 years after Bernie's 5.

(then AOC brings in the global communist utopia, of course)

Edited October 11, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie will be alive at 82, calm down. He already has great medical care and he will have doctors hovering around him in the Oval.

He might die during a 2nd term and will almost definitely die within 5-10 years of leaving office, though. I'm totally cool with VP Warren taking power in Year 1 of Bernie's 2nd term and then her getting 11 years after Bernie's 5.

(then AOC brings in the global communist utopia, of course)

In this fantasy of yours I assume that the 22nd amendment had been repealed?

[bad_teammate 13132]

3 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

In this fantasy of yours I assume that the 22nd amendment had been repealed?

Can't repeal amendments to a Constitution that doesn't exist.

Edited October 11, 2019 by bad_teammate

[bad_teammate 13132]

Wow, Bernie, this is some sexist music to be listening to. Way to reinforce the bro image and alienate feminists.

 

[Js1 85109]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Can't repeal amendments to a Constitution that doesn't exist.

Sure it exists.  Last checked, it's in the Oval Office crapper being used as toilet paper. 

[Anastasis 23395]

44 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

He might die during a 2nd term and will almost definitely die within 5-10 years of leaving office, though. I'm totally cool with VP Warren taking power in Year 1 of Bernie's 2nd term and then her getting 11 years after Bernie's 5.

 

I'd take the under.

 

Median survival was 4.8 years (25th, 75th percentiles 1.1, 8.5); among patients aged 65–74 years it was 8.2 years (3.3, 8.9) while for patients aged ≥75 years it was 3.1 years (0.6, 7.6). 

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.117.007230

Long‐Term Mortality of Older Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated in US Clinical Practice

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, Js1 said:

Sure it exists.

For now.

(You have to subscribe to Bernie's Patreon at the $27/mth level to get access to the special "After Dark" episodes of the Hear the Bern podcasts where you hear about the secret plans.)

[bad_teammate 13132]

He's right.

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Bernie brings the heat, as always.

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

I can understanding wanting to distract attention away from your candidate's history of voting for Reagan twice during the AIDS crisis and opposing public funding of gender reassignment until a few months ago, but this Warren surrogate's attempt to pretend Bernie's strength is actually a weakness is accurately swatted away here by Glenn Greenwald.

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Not necessarily a stroke lol

Lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-yous

 

[Hank Kingsley 20696]

10 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I can understanding wanting to distract attention away from your candidate's history of voting for Reagan twice during the AIDS crisis and opposing public funding of gender reassignment until a few months ago, but this Warren surrogate's attempt to pretend Bernie's strength is actually a weakness is accurately swatted away here by Glenn Greenwald.

 

Candidates to be very careful about surrogates. Warren welcomed in Ashlee Marie Preston with open arms, and a lot ugly stuff is now coming out about Preston (namely racist, sexist tweets from years ago). 

Preston is running her own little grift for national attention. There are many other "Democrats" doing the same thing and more will pop up. Unfortunately, grifting doesn't belong to a political party, and the Trump era really fucking sucks. 

 

 

[Js1 85109]

28 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Candidates to be very careful about surrogates. Warren welcomed in Ashlee Marie Preston with open arms, and a lot ugly stuff is now coming out about Preston (namely racist, sexist tweets from years ago). 

Preston is running her own little grift for national attention. There are many other "Democrats" doing the same thing and more will pop up. Unfortunately, grifting doesn't belong to a political party, and the Trump era really fucking sucks. 

 

 

Yeah, this is pretty bad.  Warren has Ashlee Marie Preston as a surrogate and a lot of ugly stuff surfaced.  Bernie hired Matt Orafela who had to resign quickly after his horrible past tweets and videos surfaced. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

The Preston and Orafela things aren't the same at all.

Preston was just straight up racist, homophobic, and transphobic. Like outright "I hate these people."

Orafela was not doing anything like that at all. He made some bad joke videos (splicing MLK to make him say dirty words) and used "gay" and "retarded" like young men constantly did/do. Not even the most bad faith argument can be made that he was ever being racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic.

Also, Orafela actually made something genuinely great. He's absolutely not a grifter.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Lol, none of this shit matters. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lol, none of this shit matters. 

I mean, I agree that none of it matters, but that's so rich coming from someone who gave birth to kittens every time David Sirota said something like, "I like Elizabeth Warren but she's not as trustworthy on M4A as Bernie is."

*Twitter user BongDrinker69 with 3 followers posts, "lol Bernie is better than Pocahontas."*

Hugo: "Bernie should respond publicly and personally to this. This reflects terribly on the rot inside of his campaign and fandom. Truly a toxic culture that is terrible for this great nation."

*An official Warren surrogate posts outright, furious racism/homophobia*

Hugo: "lol who cares none of this matters it's just the Internet!"

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Elizabeth Warren should terminate Preston’s employment.  

Oh wait, she’s not even a paid employee of the campaign. 

Never change Berners. 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz