Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vini

So much for Sanders and Warren joining forces

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Cookester15 said:

why must you have an ideology? this isn't religion. You can agree with things both sides do. You have to be quite the zealot to be 100% against an entire party and everything they do. 

no.........voting just to cause sheer chaos is even more irresponsible.

 

voting because you have a clear idea of what type of direction this country should go in........is not zealoutry. Its fulfilling the BASIC responsibilities and obligations as a citizen.

 

You're saying that you don't take that responsibility seriously..............okay that's fine, this country gives you the freedom to not fulfill that responsibility.

 

The best way to do that is by simply fucking off, and not try to jump in just to spoil things.

 

The other thing is...........you think this is some expression of individualism, but your SPOILING is something that is manipulated by others.

 

I mean, I can list an obvious example: You posting that video from the #walkaway guy................you got duped, did you not? Who's to say that's not going to happen again...........somebody comes along and collects disgruntled fans of whatsherface and whatshisface campaigns who crashed and burned, and they get duped by a group of people who say "HEY, let's vote Green Party!!!!!" or they say "You should be angry at Democrats........punish them by Voting for Trump"

 

BOOM..........that's getting duped. That is certain people taking advantage of your emotions and ego and manipulating you. You could call that zealotry, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Liquid said:

To swing from Bernie or Yang to Trump isn't merely having bipartisan views. It's like saying you want Mr. Rogers as a roommate but if you can't get him you'll take OJ Simpson. 

It's an understandable position if your main goal is to change the status quo. Trump sucks cocks but I can understand why people voted for him over Hillary Clinton and would vote for him again over Warren and Biden.  I'm not condoning this at all though. I want Tulsi, Bernie or Yang to win but I'd still reluctantly vote for the Democratic nominee over Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jehurey said:

no.........voting just to cause sheer chaos is even more irresponsible.

 

voting because you have a clear idea of what type of direction this country should go in........is not zealoutry. Its fulfilling the BASIC responsibilities and obligations as a citizen.

 

You're saying that you don't take that responsibility seriously..............okay that's fine, this country gives you the freedom to not fulfill that responsibility.

 

The best way to do that is by simply fucking off, and not try to jump in just to spoil things.

 

The other thing is...........you think this is some expression of individualism, but your SPOILING is something that is manipulated by others.

 

I mean, I can list an obvious example: You posting that video from the #walkaway guy................you got duped, did you not? Who's to say that's not going to happen again...........somebody comes along and collects disgruntled fans of whatsherface and whatshisface campaigns who crashed and burned, and they get duped by a group of people who say "HEY, let's vote Green Party!!!!!" or they say "You should be angry at Democrats........punish them by Voting for Trump"

 

BOOM..........that's getting duped. That is certain people taking advantage of your emotions and ego and manipulating you. You could call that zealotry, as well.

What is this chaos you are referring to? Your country is pretty damn stable, nothing has really gone off the rails. It's always this sky is falling mentality that's going on. Try having a little perspective for once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cookester15 said:

It's an understandable position if your main goal is to change the status quo.

No it isn't

 

Who are you fooling? You're trying to give yourself an integirty that you do not actually have.

 

Its bullshit.

 

If you're smart enough to determine what you don't like about the "status quo"..........then you should be smart enough to figure WHICH PARTICULAR political ideology this country should move in.

 

You don't say "well, I don't like the status quo............so I'll vote for a semi-fascist government so that things will get shaken up"
 

You don't ever say to yourself "well...........I'm sick and tired of eating the same dinner every night, so I'm gonna SHAKE THINGS UP by picking a turd off the ground and eating it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cookester15 said:

What is this chaos you are referring to? Your country is pretty damn stable, nothing has really gone off the rails. It's always this sky is falling mentality that's going on. Try having a little perspective for once.

Weren't you the one pretending that America was full of wars, and you were practically screaming for the US to get out of wars now, like as if it was of immediate urgency???????????????

 

And now you've changed your story to: "well...........things are pretty stable"

 

You seem like you are full of shit.

 

And you seem like you don't understand what is going on in America.

 

You don't understand the income inequality................you don't under the 40,000 people that are dying because they have health insurance..........actual American healthcare policy that is KILLING Americans.

 

I sorta knew that you were ignorant of all of this, from the very beginning.

 

You don't have enough knowledge of America to even have perspective. There are people suffering, in a country that could easily change certain policies to end that suffering rather quickly.

 

Guess who's advocating the status quo now???????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jehurey said:

Weren't you the one pretending that America was full of wars, and you were practically screaming for the US to get out of wars now, like as if it was of immediate urgency???????????????

 

And now you've changed your story to: "well...........things are pretty stable"

 

You seem like you are full of shit.

 

And you seem like you don't understand what is going on in America.

 

You don't understand the income inequality................you don't under the 40,000 people that are dying because they have health insurance..........actual American healthcare policy that is KILLING Americans.

 

I sorta knew that you were ignorant of all of this, from the very beginning.

 

You don't have enough knowledge of America to even have perspective. There are people suffering, in a country that could easily change certain policies to end that suffering rather quickly.

 

Guess who's advocating the status quo now???????

The status quo of wars? Yes. What does this have to with what I said? Youre going off the rails jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cookester15 said:

The status quo of wars? Yes. What does this have to with what I said? Youre going off the rails jerry

you're asking what VOTING FOR TRUMP have to do with the state of America getting into wars?

 

You think you can ask that question with a straight face?

 

It means that your position regarding war..............is full of shit, and was never a real position to begin with.

 

Gee...........I wonder if I insinuated that about you from the very beginning last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cookester15 said:

It's an understandable position if your main goal is to change the status quo. Trump sucks cocks but I can understand why people voted for him over Hillary Clinton and would vote for him again over Warren and Biden.  I'm not condoning this at all though. I want Tulsi, Bernie or Yang to win but I'd still reluctantly vote for the Democratic nominee over Trump. 

It's idiotic to think that Trump bucks the status quo. The only norms he bucks is personal conduct because he's so immensely broken and is a sociopath. He only makes waves in matters that his ego controls him like Tariffs because he's spent his entire career operating like a crook which is why his businesses are as toxic as he is. Other than that, he's just a puppet for Republican special interest. 

 

When Trump won Vini bought all of Trump's hype which all turned out not only to be untrue but also on steroids. He never drained the swamp, his administration is the swampiest in history, he reversed the civil liberties that Vini swore Trump would preserve, and the Republican party had a blank check to destroy social and  environment protections, increased our military footprint, and gave even more tax breaks for the rich. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jehurey said:

you're asking what VOTING FOR TRUMP have to do with the state of America getting into wars?

 

You think you can ask that question with a straight face?

 

It means that your position regarding war..............is full of shit, and was never a real position to begin with.

 

Gee...........I wonder if I insinuated that about you from the very beginning last year.

Dude, I'm not a Trump supporter :|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cookester15 said:

Dude, I'm not a Trump supporter :|

That's not the question that you made, or the one that I responded to, was it?

 

You said that there's a logic to somebody swinging wildly from a no-name Democratic spoiler to voting for Trump.

 

I then asked you how that could possibly be considering your (supposed) position on wars.

 

You then said "eh, things don't swing wildly in America, its pretty stable"

 

But now you are seeing how supporting Trump, or even TOLERATING Trump, is a dangerous notion.

 

We've now reached the core of the argument: Its not logical, if you are someone who has firm positions on issues.  You act like an adult......and select the person who comes CLOSEST to your position on your most important issues.

 

You don't go and vote for a "shake things up" candidate, because shit didn't go your way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Liquid said:

lol This motherfucker is like a Republican Terminator. 

 

There are people on this forum who, a year ago........were adamantly against Muslim countries and Islam-controlled governments, and how they're inherently evil.

 

.........and now we see a sitting US President, and clearly supported by one political party.......trying to institute the SAME TYPE of religious infiltration in government institutions, essentially plantings the seeds to make America controlled by a religion.

 

These SAME PEOPLE who complained about Muslim governments............won't say a single fucking word about what happened today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jehurey said:

There are people on this forum who, a year ago........were adamantly against Muslim countries and Islam-controlled governments, and how they're inherently evil.

 

.........and now we see a sitting US President, and clearly supported by one political party.......trying to institute the SAME TYPE of religious infiltration in government institutions, essentially plantings the seeds to make America controlled by a religion.

 

These SAME PEOPLE who complained about Muslim governments............won't say a single fucking word about what happened today.

The part that grinds my gears is that this mothrfucker doesn't give a quarter of a fuck about religion. This is just shit he does to be an asshole throw catnip to his idiotic base that doesn't actually better their lives or inconvenience his pimps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, jehurey said:

That's not the question that you made, or the one that I responded to, was it?

 

You said that there's a logic to somebody swinging wildly from a no-name Democratic spoiler to voting for Trump.

 

I then asked you how that could possibly be considering your (supposed) position on wars.

 

You then said "eh, things don't swing wildly in America, its pretty stable"

 

But now you are seeing how supporting Trump, or even TOLERATING Trump, is a dangerous notion.

 

We've now reached the core of the argument: Its not logical, if you are someone who has firm positions on issues.  You act like an adult......and select the person who comes CLOSEST to your position on your most important issues.

 

You don't go and vote for a "shake things up" candidate, because shit didn't go your way.

Yes, and I'm not agreeing with that stance but there are many people who are this way. I'm saying I understand why they would support Trump instead of an establishment democrat if Bernie or Yang are not the nominee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cookester15 said:

Yes, and I'm not agreeing with that stance but there are many people who are this way. I'm saying I understand why they would support Trump instead of an establishment democrat if Bernie or Yang are not the nominee. 

The people who "are this way" are gullible suckers who are not responsible, critical-thinking citizens.

 

I, too, .understand that there are stupid voters out there.

 

That's doesn't make me have a newfound level of respect or appreciation. The idea of the "idiotic American voter who votes against their best interest" is not a new concept. We've know that for quite some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Sanders climbs, now tied with Biden among registered voters: Reuters poll

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has been steadily climbing in popularity this year and is now tied with former Vice President Joe Biden for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination among registered voters, according to a Reuters/Ipsos national poll.

 

The online poll, released Thursday, shows that 20% of registered Democrats and independents said they would back Sanders over 11 other candidates to run in the general election against President Donald Trump, an increase of 2 percentage points from a similar poll that ran last week.

 

Another 19% supported Biden, 12% said they would vote for Senator Elizabeth Warren, 9% backed former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and 6% said they would support Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

 

Sanders and Bloomberg have increased their level of support in each of the last three Reuters/Ipsos polls starting in mid-December, while support for Biden, Warren and Buttigieg has remained flat.

 

The poll also shows that about one in five potential primary voters remain undecided. And among those who have picked, nearly two out of three say they are open to changing their minds.

 

Sanders, an independent who built a national network of fervent supporters while running for the party’s nomination in 2016, has consistently ranked among the most popular candidates since he entered the race.

 

The poll shows that standing does not appear to have been hurt by his recent confrontation with Warren over Sanders’ views of women and politics.

 

 

Y'know its interesting..............the only candidate that has been consistently rising in the polls for the longest amount of time is Sanders.

 

Can't seem to find any such stories with similar news for the other candidates.

 

And if he wins Iowa, its only going to increase the momentum.

Edited by jehurey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jehurey said:

 

 

Y'know its interesting..............the only candidate that has been consistently rising in the polls for the longest amount of time is Sanders.

 

Can't seem to find any such stories with similar news for the other candidates.

 

And if he wins Iowa, its only going to increase the momentum.

Once Biden limped his way into the race I knew this was going to be a weak race. Like last time Bernie has legs in a race, but things are challenging with Biden sucking so much air out of the room. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/17/sanders-warren-vice-president-treasury-secretary/

 

Quote

 

The Sanders Campaign Researched Whether Warren Could Be Both Vice President and Treasury Secretary at Once

Ryan-Grim-2-bw-crop-1521473736.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&h=60&w=60

January 17 2020, 9:47 p.m.

The presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders has researched the question of whether the same person can serve as both vice president and treasury secretary, according to three sources on the campaign. The person the Sanders campaign had in mind with the inquiry was Sen. Elizabeth Warren, his rival for the nomination and the bane of Wall Street over the last decade.

 

The answer the lawyers came back with was yes: There is nothing in the Constitution that bars the vice president from also serving as treasury secretary. Sanders has made no final decisions on a potential running mate or cabinet officers, considering such questions premature and presumptuous, but the research into the question of Warren’s dual eligibility reflects the political affinity that has long existed between the two — an affinity that was dealt a setback over the past week, as the pair clashed over the contents of a year-old private conversation. The sources were not authorized to speak publicly about internal deliberations.

 

 

:vince::vince::vince::vince::vince::vince::vince:

 

That's one way to mend the relationship, and one that I am pretty certain both people would be quite satisfied with.

 

And you'd be able to hear Wall Street lose its collective shit from outer space.

 

Instead of offering Warren a thankless VP spot that neuters her because she doesn't have the power of a Senator anymore, she can still be President should anything happen to Bernie, but during the meantime she controls a powerful department of the government.

 

Rumor has it that Warren may have started this dirty spat with Bernie because Biden was offering her the VP spot.

 

Bernie can now offer her a massively more powerful and meaningful VP spot. We know for a fact that a centrist like Biden and the Democratic establishment would never allow Warren near the Treasury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jehurey said:

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/17/sanders-warren-vice-president-treasury-secretary/

 

 

:vince::vince::vince::vince::vince::vince::vince:

 

That's one way to mend the relationship, and one that I am pretty certain both people would be quite satisfied with.

 

And you'd be able to hear Wall Street lose its collective shit from outer space.

 

Instead of offering Warren a thankless VP spot that neuters her because she doesn't have the power of a Senator anymore, she can still be President should anything happen to Bernie, but during the meantime she controls a powerful department of the government.

 

Rumor has it that Warren may have started this dirty spat with Bernie because Biden was offering her the VP spot.

 

Bernie can now offer her a massively more powerful and meaningful VP spot. We know for a fact that a centrist like Biden and the Democratic establishment would never allow Warren near the Treasury.

Fuck her, she is fake as shit and burned that bridge. 
 

And she would get devastated by Republicans in the General with the amount of dishonesty in her legacy.

 

it hurts the authenticity of Bernie’s brand and will also piss off his supporters who won’t readily forgive her


Tulsi is a better choice and a better bridge to the conservative/republican vote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×