PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
In 2016 we were told that Trump wasn't a viable candidate. We all see how that worked out.Bernie isn't a viable candidate against Trump.
In 2016 we were told that Trump wasn't a viable candidate. We all see how that worked out.Bernie isn't a viable candidate against Trump.
yup, he got way fewer votes and in all likelihood they changed the vote totals to get him inIn 2016 we were told that Trump wasn't a viable candidate. We all see how that worked out.
Warren:So was Warren. And Trump changed the Republicans into a cult, Bloomberg has been supporting the Democrats since 2016 for real. He might be flawed candidate, but he is not a Russian plant.
I am still voting Biden. Klobuchar is my 2nd.
Exit poll question:yup, he got way fewer votes and in all likelihood they changed the vote totals to get him in
Logical fallacy. Just because it worked for Trump does not mean it will work for Bernie. As Buck points out, Trump won the electoral college, not the election. He's a minority president who squeaked out a win by a combination of voter suppression laws, Russian interference, a whopping large and committed number of radial racist white men and arcane US presidential election laws that tip the balance of close elections to a few states. The main reason your logical fallacy fails is because Trump is running in 2020 and he has all of the above tools remaining at his disposal on top of the power of the President to squash the opposition whereas Bernie does not.In 2016 we were told that Trump wasn't a viable candidate. We all see how that worked out.
Thank you, I never bothered to look at Warrens history as a Republican, I was afraid it would be around 2006 that she switched, which was when I think this long con that led to Trump as President started. It is a relief it was a good decade prior she switched.Warren:
County governments in New Jersey and Texas, where Warren lived in the 1970s and ’80s, could not locate Warren’s voter registration records, and the senator herself is circumspect about her political past. But records from the time Warren spent living in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts make clear that she was a registered Republican for at least several years of her midcareer adult life. It was not until 1996—when Warren was 47 years old and a newly minted Harvard law professor—that she changed her registration from Republican to Democrat.
Bloomberg:
A lifelong Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his party registration in 2001 to run for mayor as a Republican. He defeated opponent Mark J. Green in a close election held just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. He won a second term in 2005 and left the Republican Party two years later. Bloomberg campaigned to change the city's term limits law and was elected to his third term in 2009 as an independent on the Republican ballot line. His final term as mayor ended on December 31, 2013. Bloomberg also served as chair of the board of trustees at his alma mater, Johns Hopkins University, from 1996 to 2002. After a brief stint as a full-time philanthropist, Bloomberg re-assumed the position of CEO at Bloomberg L.P. by the end of 2014.
Bloomberg switched from Independent to Democratic affiliation in October 2018 and officially launched his campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination in the 2020 presidential election on November 24, 2019, following weeks of speculation that he would join the race as a late entry.[3]
Warren: 24 years ago, switched to Democrat
Bloomberg: Switched to Republikkkan to win an election in 2001, switched to Independent in 2009 to win a third term, switched to Democrat in 2018 to try to win this election.
Conclusion based upon the facts: Warren is a Democrat, Bloomberg has no real affiliation, just like Bernie. Both of them are just opportunists. But hey, both are leagues better than Trump and vote for them if you want. Just don't try to call them Democrats. More like Demorats.
I don't know what you are referring to. Hillary bailed out the DNC in the last week of August, 2015 in order to avoid the DNC declaring bankruptcy. The DNC had frittered it's money away and couldn't pay the bills. The Clinton campaign funded the DNC, keeping offices and infrastructure available to all the then candidates contingent on staffing and policy oversight by Clinton's campaign. Bernie used DNC resources but reneged on his own promise to share costs for them.I wasn't paying close attention in 2016, but didn't Hillary Clinton bail him out after the DNC? Wouldn't that be from large donors, making him a hypocrite too?
If the DNC was using Hillaries money, and Bernie was using the DNC's money, I was basically saying he was really using her money to run that last month.I don't know what you are referring to. Hillary bailed out the DNC in the last week of August, 2015 in order to avoid the DNC declaring bankruptcy. The DNC had frittered it's money away and couldn't pay the bills. The Clinton campaign funded the DNC, keeping offices and infrastructure available to all the then candidates contingent on staffing and policy oversight by Clinton's campaign. Bernie used DNC resources but reneged on his own promise to share costs for them.
Clinton Campaign Had Additional Signed Agreement With DNC In 2015
NPR has learned that Hillary Clinton's campaign had an agreement, separate from one also signed by Bernie Sanders' campaign, providing control over party decisions in exchange for relieving DNC debt.www.npr.org
So, yeah, by Bernie taking advantage of DNC's services that Clinton's campaign kept available using mostly big donor money, Bernie is dirty. That kind of logic is stretched pretty thin IMO. But agree he's dirty if one believes that Clinton's campaign was dirty, about which I do not agree. I think Bernie is a lot dirtier than that for accepting help from Putin's Russian agents in 2016 and going forward to today but a thin patina of Clinton campaign money remains.If the DNC was using Hillaries money, and Bernie was using the DNC's money, I was basically saying he was really using her money to run that last month.
LOL
I'm the 10% !!!Looks as if Bernie isn't going to do very well in California after all
Democrats try to blunt strong California showing for Sanders
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California is the largest prize in the calculations of any Democratic presidential candidate, and Bernie Sanders has been working the state for months, worrying his rivals.apnews.com
This is the best part:
Still, the campaign sounded alarms Friday that less than 10% of the roughly 4 million California independents who vote by mail have taken the necessary steps to vote in the Democratic primary, which they are allowed to do. Independents are California’s second largest voting bloc behind Democrats, and one that’s rapidly growing. Sanders’ campaign has heavily targeted them.
Sanders blamed complicated rules on the low numbers, saying “we risk locking out millions of young people, millions of young people of color,” and many others who “may find it impossible” to vote in the Democratic primary. He and his campaign went on to explain the steps those voters can still take to vote in the primary. Young people and Latino voters have requested Democratic ballots at a rate of less than 5%, according to tracking by Political Data Inc. Both are key demographics for Sanders’ campaign.
I hear the "rigggggged" cries echoing across time. Suck it, Sanders. You to, Pad
Thank you for your vote against Trump in November.I'm the 10% !!!
' I'm the only one who started a business'.i'll give you that one. bloom at least doesn't publicly disparage the dems though.
How is the pan-handling doing?' I'm the only one who started a business'.
"I'm the only one fluent in soft porn novellas"' I'm the only one who started a business'.
my bad @Buss Relville i just pulled up your profile. you're a Millennial. that explains it.
strange but this sleeper cell Komrade has been here since '16 and just ventured in politics in the last week i think.