Who is going to win democrat nominee 2020? - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Who is going to win democrat nominee?

Bernie Sanders
23
47%
Joe Biden
19
39%
Elizabeth Warren
4
8%
Other
3
6%
#15067347
Ter wrote:A homosexual, a socialist Jew, a woman who lies about her ancestry, another Jew who is a billionaire, and a few females of dubious quality.
Don't you have normal people in America ?

Running against an unhinged reality TV star...

:eek: :roll:


Klobuchar is basically "the woman who everyone thinks is a Jew, because she basically is(just look at her track record)"!

;) :up:
#15067354
Ter wrote:A homosexual, a socialist Jew, a woman who lies about her ancestry, another Jew who is a billionaire, and a few females of dubious quality.
Don't you have normal people in America ?

Running against an unhinged reality TV star...

:eek: :roll:


Good job, Ter. This looks like a comment that I could have posted. :D
#15067364
blackjack21 wrote:
Given that no female has ever won the presidency or vice presidency, why do you think that's a requirement? Statistically, it sounds like a sure loser.



It's time.

You wouldn't understand.

But there is one thing, people don't usually care much about the Veep. So that will only cost votes among the radical Right who would never vote Dem in any case. And it will pick up some votes from women that think it's time.
#15067375
Ter wrote:A homosexual, a socialist Jew, a woman who lies about her ancestry, another Jew who is a billionaire, and a few females of dubious quality.
Don't you have normal people in America ?

Running against an unhinged reality TV star...

:eek: :roll:

What's unnormal about people being of Jewish descent? Given what we know of Jewish and Black achievement levels in relevant areas, the Bell curve should lead us to have expected a Jewish President before a Black President, assuming there was no racial prejudice. People of Jewish decent make up up to 25% of the students at America's top universities. Amongst the highest achievers at those universities the Bell curve's effects on the tails of the distributions would lead to even higher percentages.

Contry to the fantasies of the Nazis and other like minded people, Marxism is not a Jewish supremacist conspiracy. The absurd dominance of far left leadership by people of Jewish decent, is just what happens when people of Jewish, or particularly Ashkenazi decent can compete for political leadership, without racist prejudice. it was particularly amusing the way the British media conspired to portray the British "Momentum" group as hate filled anti-Semites, when 3 of the 4 founding members were Jewish. :lol: Really you couldn't make this stuff up.

Sometimes the interests of Jewish supremacist Zionists and Marxists have aligned. Classically they aligned in demonising the Nazis after the second world war. Of course the British, Americans, French, Czechs and Poles also wanted to demonise the Nazis and Germans in order to justify the genocidal firebombing of German cities, the use of German slave labour for years after the war and the the ethnic cleansing of Germans from lands they had lived for centuries.

But the interests of Jewish supremacist Zionists and Islamophile Marxists are diametrically opposed over Israel. Marxists are not anti-Jewish, they think that Israelis should hate themselves as White oppressors. They think that Jews should allow themselves to be ethnically cleansed and genocided just like other White people. Obviously that message can be difficult to sell for Gentile Marxists. But not for Jewish Marxists. Hence leaders like Tony Cliff (aka Yagail Gluckstein) founder and long time leader of the British Socialist Workers Party, a hard line anti Zionist. When he died he was replaced by another guy of Jewish decent, John Reese. John Reese did get sacked though. What for you ask, did his ethnic origins make him too soft on Israel? :lol: Oh no, quite the reverse. He was sacked because he was too much of a rabid Muslim lover even for the tastes of the British Socialist Workers Party. As I said you really can't make this stuff up.

Anyway this is why the people Jewish Supremacist Zionists fear the most, are anti-zionist Jews. This is is why the Jewish suprmemacist dominated establishment is terified of a Bernie Sanders victory. its just going to be very difficult to sell him as anti-Semite. :)
#15067379
In US electoral history there were only one major VP candidate (Sarah Palin) and one major President candidate (Hilary Clinton). Both their losses do not make any conclusion.


Not actually. Geraldine Ferraro ran for Vice President in 1984 on the democratic ticket. They lost monumentally. Polls at the time showed that only 22% of women were impressed with a woman candidate. In the last election 40% of white women voted for Trump. Putting a woman on the ticket is not a "winning strategy" because women do not seem to much care about it. If they did Hillary would be the president.
#15067380
Patrickov wrote:In US electoral history there were only one major VP candidate (Sarah Palin) and one major President candidate (Hilary Clinton).

You are forgetting Geraldine Ferraro. At any rate, the rumblings now are that Bloomberg would select Hillary Clinton as his VP nominee.

late wrote:It's time.

You wouldn't understand.

Exactly. I vote for policies not genitals.
#15067384
@Drlee @blackjack21

Even with that, just three.

I am not proving fielding a woman leads to victory, I am just questioning whether these three losses is sufficient to make a conclusion that "fielding a woman is a losing strategy". As long as the person is competent or represents the right side I have no concern of the gender.
#15067387
Drlee wrote:They would have to field a woman who could go head to head with Trump? Wh is that woman?


I guess it depends what you mean by going head to head with Trump. So far, all the female candidates, as well as The Squad, seem to be just as smart, capable, and able to navigate Washington as Trump is.

However, when it comes to appealing to mouth breathing chuds, none of these ladies can compete with Trump.
#15067388
@blackjack21 , concerning your reply to my contention that the Elites who have controlled the Democratic Party wish to throw the election, you said;

blackjack21 wrote:You think so even in view of Supreme Court appointments? I think that's why the Democrats are freaking out so badly.


I think I have it figured out. See, we've been talking about the obvious political insanity of the Democratic Party for a while, you coming at it from a Conservative angle and me from a Socialist one, but it appears to be true. What I do know then is that the insane do not lead but are led, and so there is another group with another agenda at play behind all this. Removing all preconceptions and looking at all the known facts, it appears that since this unknown group wants Trump Impeached and/or otherwise removed from office, and the Democratic Party to lose badly to him in 2020 as in 2016, they MUST BE actively working to get VP Pence in as President, if not in the first term of Trump than absolutely the second term.... Where they might have more votes to remove Trump by then or something else, resignation, etc...

Why? Trump was electable, while Pence isn't and wasn't very electable. And knowing that the Democrats cannot be 100% controllable on certain foreign policy issues themselves, the Democratic Party remains for this unknown group the field of action to work upon the most for right now.

You might ask in response that why couldn't they just let President Trump serve out his second term until 2024, and have him endorse Pence and see Pence elected in 2024? Because again from just the known facts it appears that Pence is their man but too risky to try and have him running for President in 2024, and they want something to happen in the world between 2020 and 2022... So there's no risky political accountability from the voters in reaction to whatever this unknown group wants to see done.

So if i'm right, sure they'll let Trump appoint more judges to the Supreme Court and the federal bench, etc... continue his job, but probably not after the mid-term elections in Congress in 2022. So based on that political calculus they want something to happen in the world that they'd rather see an un-elected President Pence help carry out sometime, ideally for them after 2020 but before 2022.

That goal to carry out would have to be, in my opinion, starting a regional or even world war against one nation or a group of foreign nations, that the American public couldn't be trusted with deciding on or against war as an option.
#15067396
blackjack21 wrote:
At any rate, the rumblings now are that Bloomberg would select Hillary Clinton as his VP nominee.




The way you stagger around blindly is amusing at times.

Anyone who isn't a fever swamp crazy would know better. You are trying a smear by association.

Problem is, your propaganda needs to be vaguely plausible, and yours isn't.
#15067403
Patrickov wrote:I am not proving fielding a woman leads to victory, I am just questioning whether these three losses is sufficient to make a conclusion that "fielding a woman is a losing strategy".

Fielding a woman as a novelty is a losing strategy. Even Obama didn't run on his being black. He talked about healthcare, which was popular among Democrats. A woman running for office needs to have a political agenda other than being a woman. That's why AOC is interesting, because she's outspoken and provides a clear contrast from the status quo. There are accomplished women Senators, like Dianne Feinstein. However, she's never been a POTUS contender and is too old to do it now. There's also the sort of "serious" quality people want in a president that they don't typically like in a woman. Sarah Palin was unnecessarily vilified, because she had a cheery sort of Sally Field-type personality and a bit of a quirky use of passive voice in her speech. So they characterized her as stupid.

Patrickov wrote:As long as the person is competent or represents the right side I have no concern of the gender.

Neither do I, but not too many women enter politics in the first place, as it is a rough and tumble business. Not too many women could fill Margaret Thatcher's shoes. One only has to look at how horribly Teresa May or Angela Merkel did to realize that women are certainly no panacea. We've had women mayors, legislators, senators, and governors. Yet, we haven't had any that have had a profound impact on policy as yet. Someone like AOC is someone to watch not because of her policy ideas, but because like Trump she has a fiery personality, which draws ratings/attention. Like a lot of Marxists, she does a decent enough job at pointing out some of the structural flaws of capitalism, but like most of them has totally unworkable or hopelessly unrealistic solutions.

annatar1914 wrote:See, we've been talking about the obvious political insanity of the Democratic Party for a while, you coming at it from a Conservative angle and me from a Socialist one, but it appears to be true. What I do know then is that the insane do not lead but are led, and so there is another group with another agenda at play behind all this.

I would say more than one. I think the neoconservative/neoliberal cabal have been a faction for a long time and have been able to toggle between the Democratic and Republican parties and remain more or less in control for a long time. I think Trump's election was a direct challenge to that scheme, but I think there is also a powerful faction behind Trump that is in opposition to the anti-sovereignty tendencies of the globalists.

annatar1914 wrote:Removing all preconceptions and looking at all the known facts, it appears that since this unknown group wants Trump Impeached and/or otherwise removed from office, and the Democratic Party to lose badly to him in 2020 as in 2016, they MUST BE actively working to get VP Pence in as President, if not in the first term of Trump than absolutely the second term.... Where they might have more votes to remove Trump by then or something else, resignation, etc...

Well, I don't think the group is unknown--it's neoliberals/neoconservatives, which is a sort of Janus, two-faced singularity. They just pick up support from other factions like Progressives and leftists who want Trump out for other reasons. The neoliberals/neoconservatives would naturally consider Mike Pence more reliable.

annatar1914 wrote:Why? Trump was electable, while Pence isn't and wasn't very electable.

Well, that's more or less because Pence has the personality of a fence post. Whereas, Trump is highly entertaining even to the people who hate him--they monitor his Twitter feed constantly. He has them wrapped around his finger.

annatar1914 wrote:You might ask in response that why couldn't they just let President Trump serve out his second term until 2024, and have him endorse Pence and see Pence elected in 2024? Because again from just the known facts it appears that Pence is their man but too risky to try and have him running for President in 2024, and they want something to happen in the world between 2020 and 2022... So there's no risky political accountability from the voters in reaction to whatever this unknown group wants to see done.

Well there are other forces in play too. Globalism cannot operate with the United States alone. Europe is a big player as is China. In Europe, we are seeing the same political dynamic as people are rejecting globalism. Brexit, Le Pen, AfD, Syriza, heck even Sinn Fein just took power in Ireland. Nationalism, whether right or left, is more popular than globalism principally because supposedly democratic politicians working in the interest of the people have throttled the working classes in Europe and America in favor of the Chinese. China is not democratic, so politics there is a different dynamic, but it's getting perilous there too as we're seeing with Hong Kong, Coronavirus and the economic downturn from tariffs.

annatar1914 wrote:So if i'm right, sure they'll let Trump appoint more judges to the Supreme Court and the federal bench, etc... continue his job, but probably not after the mid-term elections in Congress in 2022.

I agree with you in so far as I think they did have an expectation of some sort of outcome at some date in time. People like Soros are now panicking that the EU is going to go the way of the Soviet Union. I agree. However, they only have themselves to blame for this eventuality.

annatar1914 wrote:That goal to carry out would have to be, in my opinion, starting a regional or even world war against one nation or a group of foreign nations, that the American public couldn't be trusted with deciding on or against war as an option.

While they tend to oversimplify things. I think some of the popular geostrategists have it right in that the US can effectively disengage from much of the world right now; and, it's in the US interest to do so.



I have nits to pick on on some of Zeihan's points; namely, as much as he lionizes George H.W. Bush, it was Bush that gave us what he calls "the parade of morons"--presidents Clinton through Trump. However, Zeihan does note that Trump is right about the post WWII alliance--concisely saying what I've said for 20 years now: that we bribed up an alliance to fight the Soviets; and we don't need that alliance anymore. In fact, we're creating a problem by free trade with China--a communist oligarchy. It was possibly the stupidest geostrategic move of the last 500 years.

So as much as Europeans lament the United States economy, much of US trade policy leaves other countries with the luxury of being far less efficient than they think they are. For example, consider car companies:

US: 300M people. Ford, GM, Chrysler.
Germany: 83M people. Volkswagen, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche
Japan: 175M people. Honda, Isuzu, Toyota, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru, Suzuki, Hino (unknown in the US). Even Yamaha used to make cars.

From a capitalist perspective, this is not a very efficient allocation of resources. Yet, they survive and thrive largely due to unfettered access to the US market. What if the US simply decided to put a 25% tariff on vehicle imports? Imagine the implications around the world. Yet, Germany had 10% tariffs on US cars until Trump confronted them on it. None of the parade of morons ever did anything to address that. None of them took on China on its mercantile trade policies. People like Bloomberg have made billions from labor arbitrage--and it's absolutely remarkable that the Democrats would ever seriously consider a former Republican interloper who championed stop-and-frisk (throwing black kids up against a wall) as their standard bearer while simultaneously throwing baseless charges at Republicans, calling them racist.

So I think Trump is politically significant in that he broke the establishment's game, because he fought back when utterly useless Republicans like Mike Pence would never do that. They would just defend and deny, but never have the balls to counter attack. Consider Warren's call for Barr to resign. Why? Because they are investigating the establishment's manufactured hits on Trump and the criminality involved. This is a group of people who clearly operate as though they are above the law. So I think when Pelosi claim's time is running out, I think she's right.
#15067406
late wrote:The way you stagger around blindly is amusing at times.

Anyone who isn't a fever swamp crazy would know better. You are trying a smear by association.

Problem is, your propaganda needs to be vaguely plausible, and yours isn't.

Considering my political predictions materialize at least twice as frequently as yours, you ought to consider what I'm saying.


Mike Bloomberg 'is considering picking Hillary Clinton as his running mate in the 2020 Democratic race to help take on Trump'

THAT'S THE TICKET? Mike Bloomberg ‘wants Hillary Clinton as VP to help take down Trump’ and ‘will leave New York to make it happen’

So why do you think Hillary Clinton as a VP candidate for Bloomberg is a smear by association? You dislike Hillary Clinton? You were just saying in another post it's time for a woman president.
#15067407
blackjack21 wrote:

In Europe, we are seeing the same political dynamic as people are rejecting globalism.



It's called capitalism. International trade is the reason capitalism evolved in Renaissance Italy a few centuries ago.

Our sciences and arts evolved at the same time, because they were also part of it.

Which is not to say there aren't problems, there's a lot of them, and they are deadly serious. In this case, it's abuse of power by the rich. Which should sound familiar to the Americans in the audience.

However fixing any of those problems is far outside the ability of your ideology, which is more mercantilist than capitalist.
#15067408
blackjack21 wrote:
Considering my political predictions materialize at least twice as frequently as yours, you ought to consider what I'm saying.

So why do you think Hillary Clinton as a VP candidate for Bloomberg is a smear by association? You dislike Hillary Clinton? You were just saying in another post it's time for a woman president.



Fox's source was Drudge. Which sucks.

So back to Politics 101, again...

Bloomberg is Machiavellian. Google it. There is a less than zero chance he'd pick Hillary.

He has a problem, most Democrats don't like him and they don't trust him. So he says nice things about Hillary trying to score brownie points.

I may have been mistaken about your intent, or even that you had one. It's understandable given the Hillary Derangement Syndrome the Right has had for decades.

I said it would be smart for a male candidate to pick a female VP candidate.
#15067422
@blackjack21 , on consideration of my political theory about Elite factionalism, you wrote;

I would say more than one. I think the neoconservative/neoliberal cabal have been a faction for a long time and have been able to toggle between the Democratic and Republican parties and remain more or less in control for a long time. I think Trump's election was a direct challenge to that scheme, but I think there is also a powerful faction behind Trump that is in opposition to the anti-sovereignty tendencies of the globalists.


I agree, which is what makes this interesting. It's like a funhouse mirror version of Reagan being saddled with Bush as VP if he was going to be allowed to accomplish anything at all.


Well, I don't think the group is unknown--it's neoliberals/neoconservatives, which is a sort of Janus, two-faced singularity. They just pick up support from other factions like Progressives and leftists who want Trump out for other reasons. The neoliberals/neoconservatives would naturally consider Mike Pence more reliable.


Well, I think even the Neoliberal/Neoconservative faction is being ''controlled'' after a fashion, like a fish is ''controlled'' by the waters it swims in.


Well, that's more or less because Pence has the personality of a fence post. Whereas, Trump is highly entertaining even to the people who hate him--they monitor his Twitter feed constantly. He has them wrapped around his finger.


He is at that :lol: . Most master persuaders are despite their personal deficiencies.


Well there are other forces in play too. Globalism cannot operate with the United States alone. Europe is a big player as is China. In Europe, we are seeing the same political dynamic as people are rejecting globalism. Brexit, Le Pen, AfD, Syriza, heck even Sinn Fein just took power in Ireland. Nationalism, whether right or left, is more popular than globalism principally because supposedly democratic politicians working in the interest of the people have throttled the working classes in Europe and America in favor of the Chinese. China is not democratic, so politics there is a different dynamic, but it's getting perilous there too as we're seeing with Hong Kong, Coronavirus and the economic downturn from tariffs.


Indeed there are other forces at play, and the Western Elites are even more represented in Europe of course than their provincial American cousins.

I agree with you in so far as I think they did have an expectation of some sort of outcome at some date in time. People like Soros are now panicking that the EU is going to go the way of the Soviet Union. I agree. However, they only have themselves to blame for this eventuality.


Who picks up the pieces? That's the big question.

While they tend to oversimplify things. I think some of the popular geostrategists have it right in that the US can effectively disengage from much of the world right now; and, it's in the US interest to do so.



I have nits to pick on on some of Zeihan's points; namely, as much as he lionizes George H.W. Bush, it was Bush that gave us what he calls "the parade of morons"--presidents Clinton through Trump. However, Zeihan does note that Trump is right about the post WWII alliance--concisely saying what I've said for 20 years now: that we bribed up an alliance to fight the Soviets; and we don't need that alliance anymore. In fact, we're creating a problem by free trade with China--a communist oligarchy. It was possibly the stupidest geostrategic move of the last 500 years.


Stupid for whom though? For others it was a brilliant move, because in spite of recent events China is still in a very good position for certain people.
#15067425
late wrote:Fox's source was Drudge. Which sucks.

Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He also scooped Swift Vote Veterans for Truth. He published the photo of Obama in Somali dress in 2008--something he received from the Clinton campaign. He has sources everywhere, but is not considered a journalist because he publishes from single sources a lot. That used to matter before the media became so transparently biased, so Drudge has as much or more credibility than a lot of mainstream outlets.

late wrote:Bloomberg is Machiavellian.

No doubt. He endorsed Hillary in 2016.

late wrote:He has a problem, most Democrats don't like him and they don't trust him. So he says nice things about Hillary trying to score brownie points.

He's got many problems, but he has one hell of a lot of money. Saying nice things about Hillary Clinton is more than just brownie points. He's addressing the fact that her faction is unrepresented in the Democratic lineup after Biden fails, which appears to be imminent.

annatar1914 wrote:Stupid for whom though? For others it was a brilliant move, because in spite of recent events China is still in a very good position for certain people.

For America. Trump hit on the main factors hurting the wage prospects of working class people: illegal immigration and trade. The Democratic party has virtually abandoned the working class, which suggests that they had taken their vote for granted as they do with black voters. So Trump was a shot out of the blue for them. Nobody thought it possible. Similarly, that same refrain occurred in the UK. The Whitehall establishment could not believe that Leave won decisively. They're reeling now from Johnson's victory.
#15067426
The Guardian wrote:Bernie Sanders' success has Democratic centrists sounding the alarm

The self-described democratic socialist would spell disaster for down-ballot Democrats, party moderates are warning


Adam Gabbatt

Sat 15 Feb 2020 09.00 GMTLast modified on Sat 15 Feb 2020 09.04 GMT


ImageBernie Sanders’ victory in New Hampshire will inspire well-funded attacks from Democratic political ac-
tion committees similar to what was seen in Iowa. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images


Bernie Sanders’ win in New Hampshire should delight progressives, but it will not be without consequences. His victory has put a target on his back, supporters fear, with well-funded centrist Democrats and allied organizations sharpening their knives as they attempt to scupper his newly won frontrunner status.

Candidates including Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar have repeatedly warned that Sanders would lose to Trump – despite evidence suggesting otherwise – but each has broadened their attacks in the past days to suggest that nominating Sanders would also spell disaster for House and Senate Democrats.

In the coming week, meanwhile, a Democratic Super Pac that spent $700,000 running anti-Sanders ads in Iowa is set to repeat the effort in Nevada, which votes on 22 February.

“You’re going to absolutely see significant money behind centrists, moderates, whatever, to defeat Sanders,” said Democratic strategist Andrew Feldman.

“Bernie is absolutely going to see intensified scrutiny. He was never in this position of the frontrunner in the 2016 race, and you’re going to see things from a long career come out that people are gonna go after.”

The Democratic Majority for Israel Pac ran an anti-Sanders campaign in Iowa, the week before the state’s caucus, highlighting the Vermont senator’s supposed unelectability against Trump, despite polls showing Sanders leading the president nationally. A Quinnipiac study released on 10 February showed Sanders eight points ahead of Trump – the biggest margin of any candidate other than the billionaire media mogul Mike Bloomberg.

Alongside the argument that Sanders would lose to Trump, what is becoming a more prevalent line of attack is the supposed impact a Sanders nomination would wreak on down-ballot Democrats.

Moderate members of Congress, who support Sanders’ rivals, have lined up this week to paint a dystopian vision of a Sanders nomination.

“Elected officials across the country understand there will be down-ballot carnage to the Democratic party if we elect the wrong person,” Congressman Cedric Richmond, a co-chair of Biden’s campaign, told the New York Times.

Dina Titus, congresswoman from Nevada and another Biden backer, suggested that with Sanders as the nominee “you’re not going to take back the Senate”.

“There’s not any way, because everybody’s going to be tarred with the same brush. We will probably lose seats in the House,” Titus said.

The claims have been echoed by Unite the Country, a Biden-supporting Super Pac. On Tuesday it sent a fundraising memo to donors, warning: “The legacy of the Sanders campaign (such as the Squad [a term given to four female progressive members of Congress, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]) will ravage any chance Center-Left Democrats have of maintaining hard won victories in states from Pennsylvania to California.”

Many fear, however, that the main beneficiary of the brewing Democratic party civil war would probably be Donald Trump.

“The party and centrists and different factions within it have to be very careful about the way they go after Sanders, because it plays right into Trump’s hands if we look completely in disarray,” Feldman, the founder of Feldman Strategies, said.

“Comments about how people don’t like Bernie are not beneficial to our ultimate goal of beating Donald Trump.”

The claims that the leftwing Sanders would spell disaster for other Democrats are also tempered by the likelihood that Trump and his allies will portray whoever wins the nomination as an out-of-control socialist.

Trump has already characterized the Democratic party as a whole as the “Do Nothing, Radical Left Dems!”, whether referring to the House of Representatives, the Senate, Sanders or otherwise. It seems unlikely he will change his rhetoric even if the nominee is clearly not a member of the left.

Centrist Democrats also run the risk of alienating Sanders supporters ahead of November. Sanders has proved himself to be the only Democratic candidate capable of inspiring the same energy among his supporters as Trump, and the party risks alienating his swath of enthusiastic supporters across the country through further attacks.

“They’re here,” read the subject line of an email Sanders sent to supporters on Thursday. The message pointed to the planned Democratic Majority for Israel ad campaign in Nevada, but also to VoteVets, a Buttigieg-supporting Pac which is planning its own spend in the state.

“We’re not just competing with other candidates … we are competing with Super Pacs and billionaires too,” the Sanders email said.

“We’ve got the momentum. The political establishment and billionaire class know it. If our movement stands together, there is nothing we cannot accomplish.”

In campaign speeches, Sanders tells his supporters they must unite behind whoever is the Democratic nominee, but if Sanders supporters have spent months watching their candidate lambasted by the Democratic establishment, there should be concern about their reaction if Sanders misses out.

“I’m concerned that the more we alienate them the harder it’s going to be to unify for the general, and the reality is that we need everyone’s supporters here,” Feldman said.

Like an asteroid approaches. 'We're going to lose everything if he wins!'

Image
It's just the dinosaurs crying.

Image
#15067433
blackjack21 wrote:
1) He also scooped Swift Vote Veterans for Truth.


2) He's got many problems, but he has one hell of a lot of money. Saying nice things about Hillary Clinton is more than just brownie points. He's addressing the fact that her faction is unrepresented in the Democratic lineup after Biden fails, which appears to be imminent.





1) Operatives organised those idiots, taught them how to dress and behave. They did it because they were paid to do it. It was manufactured propaganda. Look at their first press conference...

2) Wow. Biden, Bloomberg, and Pete are all gunning for Establishment support.
#15067439
late wrote:1) Operatives organised those idiots, taught them how to dress and behave. They did it because they were paid to do it. It was manufactured propaganda. Look at their first press conference...

John Kerry was famous for his testimony to Congress and for throwing his medals away. So no doubt they were going to exploit that for political gains, just as Bloomberg is going to face the wrath of his own statements about minority throwing kids up against the wall, because they are the ones committing all the crimes.

late wrote:2) Wow. Biden, Bloomberg, and Pete are all gunning for Establishment support.

That buys a lot of positive press coverage.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 19

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]

I would bet you have very strong feelings about DE[…]

@Rugoz A compromise with Putin is impossibl[…]

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]