So Biden is high-tailing it out of New Hampshire and heading towards South Carolina.
That's his Alamo. He has to win convincingly there.
Still kind of a bad look though. The old “take your ball and go home” look.
Like you said though, South Carolina looks good for him, and Super Tuesday is the following week. He’s still tangibly okay. But intangibly, perception is reality. And he’s probably being perceived as a washed-up loser in many areas of the country right now.
He's been a senior senator and 2x VP. Loser? His resume is better than 99.8% of Americans.
But whatevz. He gets questions about it. He and Petes agrees the popular vote is what counts, so Bernie won - jippie. Pete weasel-pushing the narrative of his win was "smart" but backbone-less. Bernie countered it by him saying how he won for real. just like Biden countered when Pete attacked.
Weasel pushing? I'd argue the opposite. Bernie declaring "decisive" victory was much closer to weasely... considering as of this moment, Pete is the winner and has the most SDE's. Iowa is a caucus and that's how delegates work. You don't get to declare victory because you won the popular, when that's not how the process is set up. Just ask Hillary.
If you were an honest man, you would say they both were the winners getting the same delegates. That is what it was all about?
And I don't need to ask "Hillary" - I CAN JUST ASK PETE:
"At risk of of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an american presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins"
The "Pete standard" as Jake Tapper calls it. And even Pete can't spin it:
(and now you maybe will say - but that is the presidential election, he didn't say ioooowaaaaaa - he's free on a technicality.
And we all know who famously was let free on a technicality)
They didn't get the same delegate count, so why would anyone say that? It's 13-12 currently. Now that doesn't mean re-canvassing won't flip that, but as of now, it's not a tie.
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?
Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not. So that means he had strong data coming from his precinct captains. Tell me what was weasly about it, and contrast it with why Sanders saying his victory was "decisive" is okay.
A house is red.
Stupid Mayor: That house is blue.
Stupid Mayor lies.
Days later the house is painted blue.
M Russel: Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not.
If the house was red. Yes, he was wrong.
Tenses is a thing.
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.
I just did. You just put your energy into putting people down, instead of having to face the argumentation. Proven not only by this, but also your "pot blabla kettle" post.
But it is okey. You have been bending backwards to try to save your arguments while they go sour in hours, for Biden and Pete these last few pages. I understand it takes a toll. You have been a (making up) Dream(s) Warrior.
So with your silly story, you're saying that because of the chance that re-canvassing may change teh result, Pete should not declare victory. By contrast, because the re-canvassing may change the result it's okay that Sanders declares "decisive" victory? Can you please square that logic, because it completely escapes common sense.
C'mon @spiritual_chaos I'm ready to "face the argumentation". Explain to me why it's wrong for Pete to declare victory with an official lead in the delegates, but okay for Bernie who is behind to declare decisive victory? You're like our own little Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda while you litter the boards with You Tube clip, memes and gifs.
Like Bernie like son.
It is interesting that the only person on the board actively advocating for Bernie isn't a US citizen. I don't have any problem with our Canadian, Australian, Swedish friends putting out their opinion. I'm pointing out that on a rock board from a leftish wing band, there aren't really any Bernie fans from the US. Gallup released a poll today that shows that 53% of Americans would not vote for a socialist. That includes a majority of independents and 25% of Democrats. That's a death poll for Sanders and the D's if it's accurate. By contrast 8/10 would vote for a gay candidate. That number surprises me a bit. Either way, now you know why Trump has been white gloves on Sanders. Here's the applicable table and link:
Willingness to Vote for Candidates With Diverse Characteristics, by Party ID
Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours.
Nov 2016 wasn’t a punch to your jaw? I could have ODd that night. I think.
Is Victoria as pretty as Vancouver? That’s one city I really want to visit. I bring that up because it’s different when you live thru trumps victory here. Even in a solid blue state.
Its a lot different when Trump wins your country by inspiring division and hate. And your in-laws vote for him. All of them. (My wife is more liberal than me btw). And all the white people at work that voted for him, including the pretty woman I have to sit next to 8 hours a day. Full on maga head. Vomit.
Where do you live? I'm in finance and I know very few Trump supporters. And all of them demur when I go into his behavior as a human. They just talk about the economy.
Hint (this should be a juicy one to a long time porch vet).
im about fifteen miles from the scene of Eddie’s biggest political disaster. And very embarrassed by it.
Nassau, long Island?
We have a winner.
I would definitely be embarrassed about how my town acted in that case if I was from there too! There's plenty to be embarrassed about when you're from Ohio lol
I’m a native but left at 18. I’m embarrassed with what has happened to my beloved hometown.
Ohio or LI?
NYC and the city suburbs/Nassau are blue. Longtime Republican Peter King won a close election last time and announced his retirement after the midterms, probably seeing the writing on the wall. Once you get to central Suffolk, away from the city and a little exurban, it gets scary trump country. That’s Rep Lee Zeldin’s district. The Hamptons of course go back to the blue zone. Surprisingly not enough to turn Zeldins seat blue. Before trump started marginalizing race and immigrants, that district used to be blue.
It was a bit of a risky move by Eddie in 2003, since Bush leveraged 9/11 to justify the Iraq war, and we were hit very hard by that attack and many casualties were from the Island. Not a smart move by Ed, but still embarrassing the legendary Fort Neverlose aka Nassau Coliseum was the site of perhaps the most embarrassing PJ crowd of all time.
Ohio... how do you have so many Trump humpers in a blue area.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,033
edited February 2020
1.6% win. its solid. that may change slightly with 10% of precincts still to report.....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
But whatevz. He gets questions about it. He and Petes agrees the popular vote is what counts, so Bernie won - jippie. Pete weasel-pushing the narrative of his win was "smart" but backbone-less. Bernie countered it by him saying how he won for real. just like Biden countered when Pete attacked.
Weasel pushing? I'd argue the opposite. Bernie declaring "decisive" victory was much closer to weasely... considering as of this moment, Pete is the winner and has the most SDE's. Iowa is a caucus and that's how delegates work. You don't get to declare victory because you won the popular, when that's not how the process is set up. Just ask Hillary.
If you were an honest man, you would say they both were the winners getting the same delegates. That is what it was all about?
And I don't need to ask "Hillary" - I CAN JUST ASK PETE:
"At risk of of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an american presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins"
The "Pete standard" as Jake Tapper calls it. And even Pete can't spin it:
(and now you maybe will say - but that is the presidential election, he didn't say ioooowaaaaaa - he's free on a technicality.
And we all know who famously was let free on a technicality)
They didn't get the same delegate count, so why would anyone say that? It's 13-12 currently. Now that doesn't mean re-canvassing won't flip that, but as of now, it's not a tie.
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?
Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not. So that means he had strong data coming from his precinct captains. Tell me what was weasly about it, and contrast it with why Sanders saying his victory was "decisive" is okay.
A house is red.
Stupid Mayor: That house is blue.
Stupid Mayor lies.
Days later the house is painted blue.
M Russel: Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not.
If the house was red. Yes, he was wrong.
Tenses is a thing.
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.
I just did. You just put your energy into putting people down, instead of having to face the argumentation. Proven not only by this, but also your "pot blabla kettle" post.
But it is okey. You have been bending backwards to try to save your arguments while they go sour in hours, for Biden and Pete these last few pages. I understand it takes a toll. You have been a (making up) Dream(s) Warrior.
So with your silly story, you're saying that because of the chance that re-canvassing may change teh result, Pete should not declare victory. By contrast, because the re-canvassing may change the result it's okay that Sanders declares "decisive" victory? Can you please square that logic, because it completely escapes common sense.
C'mon @spiritual_chaos I'm ready to "face the argumentation". Explain to me why it's wrong for Pete to declare victory with an official lead in the delegates, but okay for Bernie who is behind to declare decisive victory? You're like our own little Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda while you litter the boards with You Tube clip, memes and gifs.
Like Bernie like son.
It is interesting that the only person on the board actively advocating for Bernie isn't a US citizen. I don't have any problem with our Canadian, Australian, Swedish friends putting out their opinion. I'm pointing out that on a rock board from a leftish wing band, there aren't really any Bernie fans from the US. Gallup released a poll today that shows that 53% of Americans would not vote for a socialist. That includes a majority of independents and 25% of Democrats. That's a death poll for Sanders and the D's if it's accurate. By contrast 8/10 would vote for a gay candidate. That number surprises me a bit. Either way, now you know why Trump has been white gloves on Sanders. Here's the applicable table and link:
Willingness to Vote for Candidates With Diverse Characteristics, by Party ID
Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours.
Nov 2016 wasn’t a punch to your jaw? I could have ODd that night. I think.
Is Victoria as pretty as Vancouver? That’s one city I really want to visit. I bring that up because it’s different when you live thru trumps victory here. Even in a solid blue state.
Its a lot different when Trump wins your country by inspiring division and hate. And your in-laws vote for him. All of them. (My wife is more liberal than me btw). And all the white people at work that voted for him, including the pretty woman I have to sit next to 8 hours a day. Full on maga head. Vomit.
Where do you live? I'm in finance and I know very few Trump supporters. And all of them demur when I go into his behavior as a human. They just talk about the economy.
Hint (this should be a juicy one to a long time porch vet).
im about fifteen miles from the scene of Eddie’s biggest political disaster. And very embarrassed by it.
Nassau, long Island?
We have a winner.
I would definitely be embarrassed about how my town acted in that case if I was from there too! There's plenty to be embarrassed about when ?you're from Ohio lol
I’m a native but left at 18. I’m embarrassed with what has happened to my beloved hometown.
I’m embarrassed by what’s happened to my country. Hardly recognize it anymore. When was the last time four federal prosecutors resigned because of the actions of the AG? And that’s just scratching the surface of the last three to four years with one of two major political parties totally fine with all of it. Disgusting.
Flush twice, my friend. It's a long way to hell.
This nation is starting to look like a hard core alcoholic or substance abuser. Sometimes the only way they will get better is to hit rock bottom. From there it's either moving on to a healthier life, or it's death. I've seen it go both ways. I'm hoping for a healthier life for this country. I'm a die-hard optimist that way. We'll see.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
A win is a win, hardly impressive though. I thought tonight showed a large group of the party in NH that wants nothing to do with their neighbor Bernie. Pete and Amy. I wonder which one will last....
So Biden is high-tailing it out of New Hampshire and heading towards South Carolina.
That's his Alamo. He has to win convincingly there.
Still kind of a bad look though. The old “take your ball and go home” look.
Like you said though, South Carolina looks good for him, and Super Tuesday is the following week. He’s still tangibly okay. But intangibly, perception is reality. And he’s probably being perceived as a washed-up loser in many areas of the country right now.
He's been a senior senator and 2x VP. Loser? His resume is better than 99.8% of Americans.
I’m not talking about his resume. I’m talking about his 5th place finish last night and him ducking out early because of it.
A win is a win, hardly impressive though. I thought tonight showed a large group of the party in NH that wants nothing to do with their neighbor Bernie. Pete and Amy. I wonder which one will last....
I agree. Bernie met expectations tonight. He certainly didn't exceed them with a 1.5% win. You would have thought he could get a majority in NH, considering how poorly Liz did.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,033
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Full disclosure, the following are the observations and opinions of a Buttigeg supporter.
A win is a win, for sure. But I would have expected Bernie to win NH by more than 1.6%. I believe he won NH by 22% in 2016...but I very well could be wrong.
I personally believe we are down to a final 5 at most, and likely a final 3 now.
I find it hard to believe that Warren or Biden have a legitimate shot at this point as they seem to be trending in the opposite direction. Though it does seem Biden is poised to do well in SC.
I kind of get the feeling that Sanders has peaked. At this point most people likely know if they are a Bernie Sanders voter or not.
That leaves us with Pete and Amy. She seems to be the candidate that is gaining the most ground of late and I think she seems to be doing very well. Unfortunately, I cannot help but to wonder if is going to be too little too late. As stated, I think most voting for Sanders have already made up their minds. I think the same applies to Biden as well. My belief is that the majority of undecideds remaining are chosing between Warren, Amy and Pete. People like the "hot hand" and if Pete has a couple more good showings in the very near future, I think he winds up being the nominee.
Pete/Amy 2020!
"A smart monkey doesn't monkey around with another monkey's monkey" - Darwin's Theory
Full disclosure, the following are the observations and opinions of a Buttigeg supporter.
A win is a win, for sure. But I would have expected Bernie to win NH by more than 1.6%. I believe he won NH by 22% in 2016...but I very well could be wrong.
I personally believe we are down to a final 5 at most, and likely a final 3 now.
I find it hard to believe that Warren or Biden have a legitimate shot at this point as they seem to be trending in the opposite direction. Though it does seem Biden is poised to do well in SC.
I kind of get the feeling that Sanders has peaked. At this point most people likely know if they are a Bernie Sanders voter or not.
That leaves us with Pete and Amy. She seems to be the candidate that is gaining the most ground of late and I think she seems to be doing very well. Unfortunately, I cannot help but to wonder if is going to be too little too late. As stated, I think most voting for Sanders have already made up their minds. I think the same applies to Biden as well. My belief is that the majority of undecideds remaining are chosing between Warren, Amy and Pete. People like the "hot hand" and if Pete has a couple more good showings in the very near future, I think he winds up being the nominee.
Pete/Amy 2020!
Pete being the nominee would be quite the story. I'm a supporter as well, but not passionately at this point. But I could/would feel fine about voting for him. Don't discount Bloomberg. He has purchased (through ads) his way to 14% nationally. I think the chances of a brokered convention are real. While the political junkie in me would love to watch such a thing, the likelihood of Bernie winning there is probably lower, thereby creating a division in the party that won't be fixed by November. Brokered is a bonus for Trump.
As an aside, technically Pete is winning the delegate count right now, since he and Sanders earned the same number last night. So even with the win, it wasn't quite a win for Sanders in the tally that matters.
But whatevz. He gets questions about it. He and Petes agrees the popular vote is what counts, so Bernie won - jippie. Pete weasel-pushing the narrative of his win was "smart" but backbone-less. Bernie countered it by him saying how he won for real. just like Biden countered when Pete attacked.
Weasel pushing? I'd argue the opposite. Bernie declaring "decisive" victory was much closer to weasely... considering as of this moment, Pete is the winner and has the most SDE's. Iowa is a caucus and that's how delegates work. You don't get to declare victory because you won the popular, when that's not how the process is set up. Just ask Hillary.
If you were an honest man, you would say they both were the winners getting the same delegates. That is what it was all about?
And I don't need to ask "Hillary" - I CAN JUST ASK PETE:
"At risk of of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an american presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins"
The "Pete standard" as Jake Tapper calls it. And even Pete can't spin it:
(and now you maybe will say - but that is the presidential election, he didn't say ioooowaaaaaa - he's free on a technicality.
And we all know who famously was let free on a technicality)
They didn't get the same delegate count, so why would anyone say that? It's 13-12 currently. Now that doesn't mean re-canvassing won't flip that, but as of now, it's not a tie.
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?
Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not. So that means he had strong data coming from his precinct captains. Tell me what was weasly about it, and contrast it with why Sanders saying his victory was "decisive" is okay.
A house is red.
Stupid Mayor: That house is blue.
Stupid Mayor lies.
Days later the house is painted blue.
M Russel: Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not.
If the house was red. Yes, he was wrong.
Tenses is a thing.
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.
I just did. You just put your energy into putting people down, instead of having to face the argumentation. Proven not only by this, but also your "pot blabla kettle" post.
But it is okey. You have been bending backwards to try to save your arguments while they go sour in hours, for Biden and Pete these last few pages. I understand it takes a toll. You have been a (making up) Dream(s) Warrior.
So with your silly story, you're saying that because of the chance that re-canvassing may change teh result, Pete should not declare victory. By contrast, because the re-canvassing may change the result it's okay that Sanders declares "decisive" victory? Can you please square that logic, because it completely escapes common sense.
C'mon @spiritual_chaos I'm ready to "face the argumentation". Explain to me why it's wrong for Pete to declare victory with an official lead in the delegates, but okay for Bernie who is behind to declare decisive victory? You're like our own little Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda while you litter the boards with You Tube clip, memes and gifs.
Like Bernie like son.
It is interesting that the only person on the board actively advocating for Bernie isn't a US citizen. I don't have any problem with our Canadian, Australian, Swedish friends putting out their opinion. I'm pointing out that on a rock board from a leftish wing band, there aren't really any Bernie fans from the US. Gallup released a poll today that shows that 53% of Americans would not vote for a socialist. That includes a majority of independents and 25% of Democrats. That's a death poll for Sanders and the D's if it's accurate. By contrast 8/10 would vote for a gay candidate. That number surprises me a bit. Either way, now you know why Trump has been white gloves on Sanders. Here's the applicable table and link:
Willingness to Vote for Candidates With Diverse Characteristics, by Party ID
Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours.
For what's considered a protected class in this country, the numbers are better than I expected. I don't consider a political or economic ideology protected. The Muslim numbers are disappointing.
Based on how you've responded, I'm not sure that you took from my comment what I had intended. I'm not referring to the low numbers who would consider voting for "a socialist" - that's no surprise, especially considering what seems to be a pretty poor understanding of what that means for many people. It's the low numbers for most of the other categories, whether gay, female, Muslim, atheist, particularly but not just for the Rs.
However, nice to see that only 73% of Republicans would consider voting for Trump
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
But whatevz. He gets questions about it. He and Petes agrees the popular vote is what counts, so Bernie won - jippie. Pete weasel-pushing the narrative of his win was "smart" but backbone-less. Bernie countered it by him saying how he won for real. just like Biden countered when Pete attacked.
Weasel pushing? I'd argue the opposite. Bernie declaring "decisive" victory was much closer to weasely... considering as of this moment, Pete is the winner and has the most SDE's. Iowa is a caucus and that's how delegates work. You don't get to declare victory because you won the popular, when that's not how the process is set up. Just ask Hillary.
If you were an honest man, you would say they both were the winners getting the same delegates. That is what it was all about?
And I don't need to ask "Hillary" - I CAN JUST ASK PETE:
"At risk of of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an american presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins"
The "Pete standard" as Jake Tapper calls it. And even Pete can't spin it:
(and now you maybe will say - but that is the presidential election, he didn't say ioooowaaaaaa - he's free on a technicality.
And we all know who famously was let free on a technicality)
They didn't get the same delegate count, so why would anyone say that? It's 13-12 currently. Now that doesn't mean re-canvassing won't flip that, but as of now, it's not a tie.
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?
Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not. So that means he had strong data coming from his precinct captains. Tell me what was weasly about it, and contrast it with why Sanders saying his victory was "decisive" is okay.
A house is red.
Stupid Mayor: That house is blue.
Stupid Mayor lies.
Days later the house is painted blue.
M Russel: Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not.
If the house was red. Yes, he was wrong.
Tenses is a thing.
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.
I just did. You just put your energy into putting people down, instead of having to face the argumentation. Proven not only by this, but also your "pot blabla kettle" post.
But it is okey. You have been bending backwards to try to save your arguments while they go sour in hours, for Biden and Pete these last few pages. I understand it takes a toll. You have been a (making up) Dream(s) Warrior.
So with your silly story, you're saying that because of the chance that re-canvassing may change teh result, Pete should not declare victory. By contrast, because the re-canvassing may change the result it's okay that Sanders declares "decisive" victory? Can you please square that logic, because it completely escapes common sense.
C'mon @spiritual_chaos I'm ready to "face the argumentation". Explain to me why it's wrong for Pete to declare victory with an official lead in the delegates, but okay for Bernie who is behind to declare decisive victory? You're like our own little Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda while you litter the boards with You Tube clip, memes and gifs.
Like Bernie like son.
It is interesting that the only person on the board actively advocating for Bernie isn't a US citizen. I don't have any problem with our Canadian, Australian, Swedish friends putting out their opinion. I'm pointing out that on a rock board from a leftish wing band, there aren't really any Bernie fans from the US. Gallup released a poll today that shows that 53% of Americans would not vote for a socialist. That includes a majority of independents and 25% of Democrats. That's a death poll for Sanders and the D's if it's accurate. By contrast 8/10 would vote for a gay candidate. That number surprises me a bit. Either way, now you know why Trump has been white gloves on Sanders. Here's the applicable table and link:
Willingness to Vote for Candidates With Diverse Characteristics, by Party ID
Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours.
Nov 2016 wasn’t a punch to your jaw? I could have ODd that night. I think.
Is Victoria as pretty as Vancouver? That’s one city I really want to visit. I bring that up because it’s different when you live thru trumps victory here. Even in a solid blue state.
Its a lot different when Trump wins your country by inspiring division and hate. And your in-laws vote for him. All of them. (My wife is more liberal than me btw). And all the white people at work that voted for him, including the pretty woman I have to sit next to 8 hours a day. Full on maga head. Vomit.
Victoria is indeed a beautiful city. It's not as visually striking as Vancouver, as we don't have those gorgeous North Shore mountains right on the edge of the city, but still very pretty. The downtown is right on the Inner Harbour and is small, safe, and very walkable, the city's cycling infrastructure is good and getting better all the time, and the food and drink scene has improved a ton even in the last five years.
For work and personal reasons I spend a good chunk of time in the US. I'm in the US right now. I have some sense of what it feels like, though obviously not as much as someone who was born and bred here.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,690
But whatevz. He gets questions about it. He and Petes agrees the popular vote is what counts, so Bernie won - jippie. Pete weasel-pushing the narrative of his win was "smart" but backbone-less. Bernie countered it by him saying how he won for real. just like Biden countered when Pete attacked.
Weasel pushing? I'd argue the opposite. Bernie declaring "decisive" victory was much closer to weasely... considering as of this moment, Pete is the winner and has the most SDE's. Iowa is a caucus and that's how delegates work. You don't get to declare victory because you won the popular, when that's not how the process is set up. Just ask Hillary.
If you were an honest man, you would say they both were the winners getting the same delegates. That is what it was all about?
And I don't need to ask "Hillary" - I CAN JUST ASK PETE:
"At risk of of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an american presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins"
The "Pete standard" as Jake Tapper calls it. And even Pete can't spin it:
(and now you maybe will say - but that is the presidential election, he didn't say ioooowaaaaaa - he's free on a technicality.
And we all know who famously was let free on a technicality)
They didn't get the same delegate count, so why would anyone say that? It's 13-12 currently. Now that doesn't mean re-canvassing won't flip that, but as of now, it's not a tie.
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?
Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not. So that means he had strong data coming from his precinct captains. Tell me what was weasly about it, and contrast it with why Sanders saying his victory was "decisive" is okay.
A house is red.
Stupid Mayor: That house is blue.
Stupid Mayor lies.
Days later the house is painted blue.
M Russel: Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not.
If the house was red. Yes, he was wrong.
Tenses is a thing.
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.
I just did. You just put your energy into putting people down, instead of having to face the argumentation. Proven not only by this, but also your "pot blabla kettle" post.
But it is okey. You have been bending backwards to try to save your arguments while they go sour in hours, for Biden and Pete these last few pages. I understand it takes a toll. You have been a (making up) Dream(s) Warrior.
So with your silly story, you're saying that because of the chance that re-canvassing may change teh result, Pete should not declare victory. By contrast, because the re-canvassing may change the result it's okay that Sanders declares "decisive" victory? Can you please square that logic, because it completely escapes common sense.
C'mon @spiritual_chaos I'm ready to "face the argumentation". Explain to me why it's wrong for Pete to declare victory with an official lead in the delegates, but okay for Bernie who is behind to declare decisive victory? You're like our own little Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda while you litter the boards with You Tube clip, memes and gifs.
Like Bernie like son.
It is interesting that the only person on the board actively advocating for Bernie isn't a US citizen. I don't have any problem with our Canadian, Australian, Swedish friends putting out their opinion. I'm pointing out that on a rock board from a leftish wing band, there aren't really any Bernie fans from the US. Gallup released a poll today that shows that 53% of Americans would not vote for a socialist. That includes a majority of independents and 25% of Democrats. That's a death poll for Sanders and the D's if it's accurate. By contrast 8/10 would vote for a gay candidate. That number surprises me a bit. Either way, now you know why Trump has been white gloves on Sanders. Here's the applicable table and link:
Willingness to Vote for Candidates With Diverse Characteristics, by Party ID
Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours.
For what's considered a protected class in this country, the numbers are better than I expected. I don't consider a political or economic ideology protected. The Muslim numbers are disappointing.
Based on how you've responded, I'm not sure that you took from my comment what I had intended. I'm not referring to the low numbers who would consider voting for "a socialist" - that's no surprise, especially considering what seems to be a pretty poor understanding of what that means for many people. It's the low numbers for most of the other categories, whether gay, female, Muslim, atheist, particularly but not just for the Rs.
However, nice to see that only 73% of Republicans would consider voting for Trump
That poll is the worst. People lie.
9 out of 10 republicans would vote for a black person? HA
A person who is Jewish? HA
A Hispanic person? HA
This is people being PC bullshitters and not admitting how they really feel/would vote.
Based on nothing but my opinion and observations in life. No way 9 out of 10 vote for those categories. I would put the numbers at 5 out of 10, at best.
And, a gay person? Those church dummies will not do that -- this would be even less than would vote for the people listed above, in my opinion.
But whatevz. He gets questions about it. He and Petes agrees the popular vote is what counts, so Bernie won - jippie. Pete weasel-pushing the narrative of his win was "smart" but backbone-less. Bernie countered it by him saying how he won for real. just like Biden countered when Pete attacked.
Weasel pushing? I'd argue the opposite. Bernie declaring "decisive" victory was much closer to weasely... considering as of this moment, Pete is the winner and has the most SDE's. Iowa is a caucus and that's how delegates work. You don't get to declare victory because you won the popular, when that's not how the process is set up. Just ask Hillary.
If you were an honest man, you would say they both were the winners getting the same delegates. That is what it was all about?
And I don't need to ask "Hillary" - I CAN JUST ASK PETE:
"At risk of of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an american presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins"
The "Pete standard" as Jake Tapper calls it. And even Pete can't spin it:
(and now you maybe will say - but that is the presidential election, he didn't say ioooowaaaaaa - he's free on a technicality.
And we all know who famously was let free on a technicality)
They didn't get the same delegate count, so why would anyone say that? It's 13-12 currently. Now that doesn't mean re-canvassing won't flip that, but as of now, it's not a tie.
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?
Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not. So that means he had strong data coming from his precinct captains. Tell me what was weasly about it, and contrast it with why Sanders saying his victory was "decisive" is okay.
A house is red.
Stupid Mayor: That house is blue.
Stupid Mayor lies.
Days later the house is painted blue.
M Russel: Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not.
If the house was red. Yes, he was wrong.
Tenses is a thing.
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.
I just did. You just put your energy into putting people down, instead of having to face the argumentation. Proven not only by this, but also your "pot blabla kettle" post.
But it is okey. You have been bending backwards to try to save your arguments while they go sour in hours, for Biden and Pete these last few pages. I understand it takes a toll. You have been a (making up) Dream(s) Warrior.
So with your silly story, you're saying that because of the chance that re-canvassing may change teh result, Pete should not declare victory. By contrast, because the re-canvassing may change the result it's okay that Sanders declares "decisive" victory? Can you please square that logic, because it completely escapes common sense.
C'mon @spiritual_chaos I'm ready to "face the argumentation". Explain to me why it's wrong for Pete to declare victory with an official lead in the delegates, but okay for Bernie who is behind to declare decisive victory? You're like our own little Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda while you litter the boards with You Tube clip, memes and gifs.
Like Bernie like son.
It is interesting that the only person on the board actively advocating for Bernie isn't a US citizen. I don't have any problem with our Canadian, Australian, Swedish friends putting out their opinion. I'm pointing out that on a rock board from a leftish wing band, there aren't really any Bernie fans from the US. Gallup released a poll today that shows that 53% of Americans would not vote for a socialist. That includes a majority of independents and 25% of Democrats. That's a death poll for Sanders and the D's if it's accurate. By contrast 8/10 would vote for a gay candidate. That number surprises me a bit. Either way, now you know why Trump has been white gloves on Sanders. Here's the applicable table and link:
Willingness to Vote for Candidates With Diverse Characteristics, by Party ID
Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours.
For what's considered a protected class in this country, the numbers are better than I expected. I don't consider a political or economic ideology protected. The Muslim numbers are disappointing.
Based on how you've responded, I'm not sure that you took from my comment what I had intended. I'm not referring to the low numbers who would consider voting for "a socialist" - that's no surprise, especially considering what seems to be a pretty poor understanding of what that means for many people. It's the low numbers for most of the other categories, whether gay, female, Muslim, atheist, particularly but not just for the Rs.
However, nice to see that only 73% of Republicans would consider voting for Trump
Considering the problems we've had in this country historically, and how many evangelical Christians there are, I'm actually rather surprised by the high numbers for blacks and gays to be honest. I'd like it to be 99%, but it's not realistic at this point. 8/10 for gays across the board gives me hope. I actually think it shows progress.
But whatevz. He gets questions about it. He and Petes agrees the popular vote is what counts, so Bernie won - jippie. Pete weasel-pushing the narrative of his win was "smart" but backbone-less. Bernie countered it by him saying how he won for real. just like Biden countered when Pete attacked.
Weasel pushing? I'd argue the opposite. Bernie declaring "decisive" victory was much closer to weasely... considering as of this moment, Pete is the winner and has the most SDE's. Iowa is a caucus and that's how delegates work. You don't get to declare victory because you won the popular, when that's not how the process is set up. Just ask Hillary.
If you were an honest man, you would say they both were the winners getting the same delegates. That is what it was all about?
And I don't need to ask "Hillary" - I CAN JUST ASK PETE:
"At risk of of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an american presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins"
The "Pete standard" as Jake Tapper calls it. And even Pete can't spin it:
(and now you maybe will say - but that is the presidential election, he didn't say ioooowaaaaaa - he's free on a technicality.
And we all know who famously was let free on a technicality)
They didn't get the same delegate count, so why would anyone say that? It's 13-12 currently. Now that doesn't mean re-canvassing won't flip that, but as of now, it's not a tie.
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?
Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not. So that means he had strong data coming from his precinct captains. Tell me what was weasly about it, and contrast it with why Sanders saying his victory was "decisive" is okay.
A house is red.
Stupid Mayor: That house is blue.
Stupid Mayor lies.
Days later the house is painted blue.
M Russel: Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not.
If the house was red. Yes, he was wrong.
Tenses is a thing.
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.
I just did. You just put your energy into putting people down, instead of having to face the argumentation. Proven not only by this, but also your "pot blabla kettle" post.
But it is okey. You have been bending backwards to try to save your arguments while they go sour in hours, for Biden and Pete these last few pages. I understand it takes a toll. You have been a (making up) Dream(s) Warrior.
So with your silly story, you're saying that because of the chance that re-canvassing may change teh result, Pete should not declare victory. By contrast, because the re-canvassing may change the result it's okay that Sanders declares "decisive" victory? Can you please square that logic, because it completely escapes common sense.
C'mon @spiritual_chaos I'm ready to "face the argumentation". Explain to me why it's wrong for Pete to declare victory with an official lead in the delegates, but okay for Bernie who is behind to declare decisive victory? You're like our own little Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda while you litter the boards with You Tube clip, memes and gifs.
Like Bernie like son.
It is interesting that the only person on the board actively advocating for Bernie isn't a US citizen. I don't have any problem with our Canadian, Australian, Swedish friends putting out their opinion. I'm pointing out that on a rock board from a leftish wing band, there aren't really any Bernie fans from the US. Gallup released a poll today that shows that 53% of Americans would not vote for a socialist. That includes a majority of independents and 25% of Democrats. That's a death poll for Sanders and the D's if it's accurate. By contrast 8/10 would vote for a gay candidate. That number surprises me a bit. Either way, now you know why Trump has been white gloves on Sanders. Here's the applicable table and link:
Willingness to Vote for Candidates With Diverse Characteristics, by Party ID
Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours.
Nov 2016 wasn’t a punch to your jaw? I could have ODd that night. I think.
Is Victoria as pretty as Vancouver? That’s one city I really want to visit. I bring that up because it’s different when you live thru trumps victory here. Even in a solid blue state.
Its a lot different when Trump wins your country by inspiring division and hate. And your in-laws vote for him. All of them. (My wife is more liberal than me btw). And all the white people at work that voted for him, including the pretty woman I have to sit next to 8 hours a day. Full on maga head. Vomit.
Victoria is indeed a beautiful city. It's not as visually striking as Vancouver, as we don't have those gorgeous North Shore mountains right on the edge of the city, but still very pretty. The downtown is right on the Inner Harbour and is small, safe, and very walkable, the city's cycling infrastructure is good and getting better all the time, and the food and drink scene has improved a ton even in the last five years.
For work and personal reasons I spend a good chunk of time in the US. I'm in the US right now. I have some sense of what it feels like, though obviously not as much as someone who was born and bred here.
Thanks for the info on BC and clarifying your background on the trump phenomenon. I work a few miles from where trumps parents last lived so in a way his hometown outside of the city. Its nauseating.
But whatevz. He gets questions about it. He and Petes agrees the popular vote is what counts, so Bernie won - jippie. Pete weasel-pushing the narrative of his win was "smart" but backbone-less. Bernie countered it by him saying how he won for real. just like Biden countered when Pete attacked.
Weasel pushing? I'd argue the opposite. Bernie declaring "decisive" victory was much closer to weasely... considering as of this moment, Pete is the winner and has the most SDE's. Iowa is a caucus and that's how delegates work. You don't get to declare victory because you won the popular, when that's not how the process is set up. Just ask Hillary.
If you were an honest man, you would say they both were the winners getting the same delegates. That is what it was all about?
And I don't need to ask "Hillary" - I CAN JUST ASK PETE:
"At risk of of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an american presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins"
The "Pete standard" as Jake Tapper calls it. And even Pete can't spin it:
(and now you maybe will say - but that is the presidential election, he didn't say ioooowaaaaaa - he's free on a technicality.
And we all know who famously was let free on a technicality)
They didn't get the same delegate count, so why would anyone say that? It's 13-12 currently. Now that doesn't mean re-canvassing won't flip that, but as of now, it's not a tie.
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?
Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not. So that means he had strong data coming from his precinct captains. Tell me what was weasly about it, and contrast it with why Sanders saying his victory was "decisive" is okay.
A house is red.
Stupid Mayor: That house is blue.
Stupid Mayor lies.
Days later the house is painted blue.
M Russel: Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not.
If the house was red. Yes, he was wrong.
Tenses is a thing.
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.
I just did. You just put your energy into putting people down, instead of having to face the argumentation. Proven not only by this, but also your "pot blabla kettle" post.
But it is okey. You have been bending backwards to try to save your arguments while they go sour in hours, for Biden and Pete these last few pages. I understand it takes a toll. You have been a (making up) Dream(s) Warrior.
So with your silly story, you're saying that because of the chance that re-canvassing may change teh result, Pete should not declare victory. By contrast, because the re-canvassing may change the result it's okay that Sanders declares "decisive" victory? Can you please square that logic, because it completely escapes common sense.
C'mon @spiritual_chaos I'm ready to "face the argumentation". Explain to me why it's wrong for Pete to declare victory with an official lead in the delegates, but okay for Bernie who is behind to declare decisive victory? You're like our own little Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda while you litter the boards with You Tube clip, memes and gifs.
Like Bernie like son.
It is interesting that the only person on the board actively advocating for Bernie isn't a US citizen. I don't have any problem with our Canadian, Australian, Swedish friends putting out their opinion. I'm pointing out that on a rock board from a leftish wing band, there aren't really any Bernie fans from the US. Gallup released a poll today that shows that 53% of Americans would not vote for a socialist. That includes a majority of independents and 25% of Democrats. That's a death poll for Sanders and the D's if it's accurate. By contrast 8/10 would vote for a gay candidate. That number surprises me a bit. Either way, now you know why Trump has been white gloves on Sanders. Here's the applicable table and link:
Willingness to Vote for Candidates With Diverse Characteristics, by Party ID
Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours.
For what's considered a protected class in this country, the numbers are better than I expected. I don't consider a political or economic ideology protected. The Muslim numbers are disappointing.
Based on how you've responded, I'm not sure that you took from my comment what I had intended. I'm not referring to the low numbers who would consider voting for "a socialist" - that's no surprise, especially considering what seems to be a pretty poor understanding of what that means for many people. It's the low numbers for most of the other categories, whether gay, female, Muslim, atheist, particularly but not just for the Rs.
However, nice to see that only 73% of Republicans would consider voting for Trump
That poll is the worst. People lie.
9 out of 10 republicans would vote for a black person? HA
A person who is Jewish? HA
A Hispanic person? HA
This is people being PC bullshitters and not admitting how they really feel/would vote.
Based on nothing but my opinion and observations in life. No way 9 out of 10 vote for those categories. I would put the numbers at 5 out of 10, at best.
And, a gay person? Those church dummies will not do that -- this would be even less than would vote for the people listed above, in my opinion.
Obama did win twice and one of the most solid republican states has a black senator.
The " church dummies" might never vote for Pete but they'd probably never vote D anyway.
Perhaps some would want to mask bigotry in these polls but I find it hard to believe that would influence what they say about socialism, which was the least popular category in the poll. Not good news for Bernie
But whatevz. He gets questions about it. He and Petes agrees the popular vote is what counts, so Bernie won - jippie. Pete weasel-pushing the narrative of his win was "smart" but backbone-less. Bernie countered it by him saying how he won for real. just like Biden countered when Pete attacked.
Weasel pushing? I'd argue the opposite. Bernie declaring "decisive" victory was much closer to weasely... considering as of this moment, Pete is the winner and has the most SDE's. Iowa is a caucus and that's how delegates work. You don't get to declare victory because you won the popular, when that's not how the process is set up. Just ask Hillary.
If you were an honest man, you would say they both were the winners getting the same delegates. That is what it was all about?
And I don't need to ask "Hillary" - I CAN JUST ASK PETE:
"At risk of of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an american presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins"
The "Pete standard" as Jake Tapper calls it. And even Pete can't spin it:
(and now you maybe will say - but that is the presidential election, he didn't say ioooowaaaaaa - he's free on a technicality.
And we all know who famously was let free on a technicality)
They didn't get the same delegate count, so why would anyone say that? It's 13-12 currently. Now that doesn't mean re-canvassing won't flip that, but as of now, it's not a tie.
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?
Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not. So that means he had strong data coming from his precinct captains. Tell me what was weasly about it, and contrast it with why Sanders saying his victory was "decisive" is okay.
A house is red.
Stupid Mayor: That house is blue.
Stupid Mayor lies.
Days later the house is painted blue.
M Russel: Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not.
If the house was red. Yes, he was wrong.
Tenses is a thing.
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.
I just did. You just put your energy into putting people down, instead of having to face the argumentation. Proven not only by this, but also your "pot blabla kettle" post.
But it is okey. You have been bending backwards to try to save your arguments while they go sour in hours, for Biden and Pete these last few pages. I understand it takes a toll. You have been a (making up) Dream(s) Warrior.
So with your silly story, you're saying that because of the chance that re-canvassing may change teh result, Pete should not declare victory. By contrast, because the re-canvassing may change the result it's okay that Sanders declares "decisive" victory? Can you please square that logic, because it completely escapes common sense.
C'mon @spiritual_chaos I'm ready to "face the argumentation". Explain to me why it's wrong for Pete to declare victory with an official lead in the delegates, but okay for Bernie who is behind to declare decisive victory? You're like our own little Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda while you litter the boards with You Tube clip, memes and gifs.
Like Bernie like son.
It is interesting that the only person on the board actively advocating for Bernie isn't a US citizen. I don't have any problem with our Canadian, Australian, Swedish friends putting out their opinion. I'm pointing out that on a rock board from a leftish wing band, there aren't really any Bernie fans from the US. Gallup released a poll today that shows that 53% of Americans would not vote for a socialist. That includes a majority of independents and 25% of Democrats. That's a death poll for Sanders and the D's if it's accurate. By contrast 8/10 would vote for a gay candidate. That number surprises me a bit. Either way, now you know why Trump has been white gloves on Sanders. Here's the applicable table and link:
Willingness to Vote for Candidates With Diverse Characteristics, by Party ID
Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours.
For what's considered a protected class in this country, the numbers are better than I expected. I don't consider a political or economic ideology protected. The Muslim numbers are disappointing.
Based on how you've responded, I'm not sure that you took from my comment what I had intended. I'm not referring to the low numbers who would consider voting for "a socialist" - that's no surprise, especially considering what seems to be a pretty poor understanding of what that means for many people. It's the low numbers for most of the other categories, whether gay, female, Muslim, atheist, particularly but not just for the Rs.
However, nice to see that only 73% of Republicans would consider voting for Trump
That poll is the worst. People lie.
9 out of 10 republicans would vote for a black person? HA
A person who is Jewish? HA
A Hispanic person? HA
This is people being PC bullshitters and not admitting how they really feel/would vote.
Based on nothing but my opinion and observations in life. No way 9 out of 10 vote for those categories. I would put the numbers at 5 out of 10, at best.
And, a gay person? Those church dummies will not do that -- this would be even less than would vote for the people listed above, in my opinion.
Obama did win twice and one of the most solid republican states has a black senator.
The " church dummies" might never vote for Pete but they'd probably never vote D anyway.
Perhaps some would want to mask bigotry in these polls but I find it hard to believe that would influence what they say about socialism, which was the least popular category in the poll. Not good news for Bernie
Agreed, Tim Scott is a great example. And yes, the point of the poll (or the point of me posting it) is that a socialist is the worst 'demo' of any polled. People are just so conditioned by the cold war that it's still ingrained in anyone older than 40, at least at some level.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,033
But whatevz. He gets questions about it. He and Petes agrees the popular vote is what counts, so Bernie won - jippie. Pete weasel-pushing the narrative of his win was "smart" but backbone-less. Bernie countered it by him saying how he won for real. just like Biden countered when Pete attacked.
Weasel pushing? I'd argue the opposite. Bernie declaring "decisive" victory was much closer to weasely... considering as of this moment, Pete is the winner and has the most SDE's. Iowa is a caucus and that's how delegates work. You don't get to declare victory because you won the popular, when that's not how the process is set up. Just ask Hillary.
If you were an honest man, you would say they both were the winners getting the same delegates. That is what it was all about?
And I don't need to ask "Hillary" - I CAN JUST ASK PETE:
"At risk of of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an american presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins"
The "Pete standard" as Jake Tapper calls it. And even Pete can't spin it:
(and now you maybe will say - but that is the presidential election, he didn't say ioooowaaaaaa - he's free on a technicality.
And we all know who famously was let free on a technicality)
They didn't get the same delegate count, so why would anyone say that? It's 13-12 currently. Now that doesn't mean re-canvassing won't flip that, but as of now, it's not a tie.
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?
Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not. So that means he had strong data coming from his precinct captains. Tell me what was weasly about it, and contrast it with why Sanders saying his victory was "decisive" is okay.
A house is red.
Stupid Mayor: That house is blue.
Stupid Mayor lies.
Days later the house is painted blue.
M Russel: Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not.
If the house was red. Yes, he was wrong.
Tenses is a thing.
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.
I just did. You just put your energy into putting people down, instead of having to face the argumentation. Proven not only by this, but also your "pot blabla kettle" post.
But it is okey. You have been bending backwards to try to save your arguments while they go sour in hours, for Biden and Pete these last few pages. I understand it takes a toll. You have been a (making up) Dream(s) Warrior.
So with your silly story, you're saying that because of the chance that re-canvassing may change teh result, Pete should not declare victory. By contrast, because the re-canvassing may change the result it's okay that Sanders declares "decisive" victory? Can you please square that logic, because it completely escapes common sense.
C'mon @spiritual_chaos I'm ready to "face the argumentation". Explain to me why it's wrong for Pete to declare victory with an official lead in the delegates, but okay for Bernie who is behind to declare decisive victory? You're like our own little Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda while you litter the boards with You Tube clip, memes and gifs.
Like Bernie like son.
It is interesting that the only person on the board actively advocating for Bernie isn't a US citizen. I don't have any problem with our Canadian, Australian, Swedish friends putting out their opinion. I'm pointing out that on a rock board from a leftish wing band, there aren't really any Bernie fans from the US. Gallup released a poll today that shows that 53% of Americans would not vote for a socialist. That includes a majority of independents and 25% of Democrats. That's a death poll for Sanders and the D's if it's accurate. By contrast 8/10 would vote for a gay candidate. That number surprises me a bit. Either way, now you know why Trump has been white gloves on Sanders. Here's the applicable table and link:
Willingness to Vote for Candidates With Diverse Characteristics, by Party ID
Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours.
For what's considered a protected class in this country, the numbers are better than I expected. I don't consider a political or economic ideology protected. The Muslim numbers are disappointing.
Based on how you've responded, I'm not sure that you took from my comment what I had intended. I'm not referring to the low numbers who would consider voting for "a socialist" - that's no surprise, especially considering what seems to be a pretty poor understanding of what that means for many people. It's the low numbers for most of the other categories, whether gay, female, Muslim, atheist, particularly but not just for the Rs.
However, nice to see that only 73% of Republicans would consider voting for Trump
That poll is the worst. People lie.
9 out of 10 republicans would vote for a black person? HA
A person who is Jewish? HA
A Hispanic person? HA
This is people being PC bullshitters and not admitting how they really feel/would vote.
Based on nothing but my opinion and observations in life. No way 9 out of 10 vote for those categories. I would put the numbers at 5 out of 10, at best.
And, a gay person? Those church dummies will not do that -- this would be even less than would vote for the people listed above, in my opinion.
Obama did win twice and one of the most solid republican states has a black senator.
The " church dummies" might never vote for Pete but they'd probably never vote D anyway.
Perhaps some would want to mask bigotry in these polls but I find it hard to believe that would influence what they say about socialism, which was the least popular category in the poll. Not good news for Bernie
Agreed, Tim Scott is a great example. And yes, the point of the poll (or the point of me posting it) is that a socialist is the worst 'demo' of any polled. People are just so conditioned by the cold war that it's still ingrained in anyone older than 40, at least at some level.
they didnt ask about fake socialists or fake social democrats. Would have been cool to ask how everyone feels about party hijackers......
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
But whatevz. He gets questions about it. He and Petes agrees the popular vote is what counts, so Bernie won - jippie. Pete weasel-pushing the narrative of his win was "smart" but backbone-less. Bernie countered it by him saying how he won for real. just like Biden countered when Pete attacked.
Weasel pushing? I'd argue the opposite. Bernie declaring "decisive" victory was much closer to weasely... considering as of this moment, Pete is the winner and has the most SDE's. Iowa is a caucus and that's how delegates work. You don't get to declare victory because you won the popular, when that's not how the process is set up. Just ask Hillary.
If you were an honest man, you would say they both were the winners getting the same delegates. That is what it was all about?
And I don't need to ask "Hillary" - I CAN JUST ASK PETE:
"At risk of of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an american presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins"
The "Pete standard" as Jake Tapper calls it. And even Pete can't spin it:
(and now you maybe will say - but that is the presidential election, he didn't say ioooowaaaaaa - he's free on a technicality.
And we all know who famously was let free on a technicality)
They didn't get the same delegate count, so why would anyone say that? It's 13-12 currently. Now that doesn't mean re-canvassing won't flip that, but as of now, it's not a tie.
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?
Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not. So that means he had strong data coming from his precinct captains. Tell me what was weasly about it, and contrast it with why Sanders saying his victory was "decisive" is okay.
A house is red.
Stupid Mayor: That house is blue.
Stupid Mayor lies.
Days later the house is painted blue.
M Russel: Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not.
If the house was red. Yes, he was wrong.
Tenses is a thing.
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.
I just did. You just put your energy into putting people down, instead of having to face the argumentation. Proven not only by this, but also your "pot blabla kettle" post.
But it is okey. You have been bending backwards to try to save your arguments while they go sour in hours, for Biden and Pete these last few pages. I understand it takes a toll. You have been a (making up) Dream(s) Warrior.
So with your silly story, you're saying that because of the chance that re-canvassing may change teh result, Pete should not declare victory. By contrast, because the re-canvassing may change the result it's okay that Sanders declares "decisive" victory? Can you please square that logic, because it completely escapes common sense.
C'mon @spiritual_chaos I'm ready to "face the argumentation". Explain to me why it's wrong for Pete to declare victory with an official lead in the delegates, but okay for Bernie who is behind to declare decisive victory? You're like our own little Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda while you litter the boards with You Tube clip, memes and gifs.
Like Bernie like son.
It is interesting that the only person on the board actively advocating for Bernie isn't a US citizen. I don't have any problem with our Canadian, Australian, Swedish friends putting out their opinion. I'm pointing out that on a rock board from a leftish wing band, there aren't really any Bernie fans from the US. Gallup released a poll today that shows that 53% of Americans would not vote for a socialist. That includes a majority of independents and 25% of Democrats. That's a death poll for Sanders and the D's if it's accurate. By contrast 8/10 would vote for a gay candidate. That number surprises me a bit. Either way, now you know why Trump has been white gloves on Sanders. Here's the applicable table and link:
Willingness to Vote for Candidates With Diverse Characteristics, by Party ID
Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours.
For what's considered a protected class in this country, the numbers are better than I expected. I don't consider a political or economic ideology protected. The Muslim numbers are disappointing.
Based on how you've responded, I'm not sure that you took from my comment what I had intended. I'm not referring to the low numbers who would consider voting for "a socialist" - that's no surprise, especially considering what seems to be a pretty poor understanding of what that means for many people. It's the low numbers for most of the other categories, whether gay, female, Muslim, atheist, particularly but not just for the Rs.
However, nice to see that only 73% of Republicans would consider voting for Trump
That poll is the worst. People lie.
9 out of 10 republicans would vote for a black person? HA
A person who is Jewish? HA
A Hispanic person? HA
This is people being PC bullshitters and not admitting how they really feel/would vote.
Based on nothing but my opinion and observations in life. No way 9 out of 10 vote for those categories. I would put the numbers at 5 out of 10, at best.
And, a gay person? Those church dummies will not do that -- this would be even less than would vote for the people listed above, in my opinion.
Obama did win twice and one of the most solid republican states has a black senator.
The " church dummies" might never vote for Pete but they'd probably never vote D anyway.
Perhaps some would want to mask bigotry in these polls but I find it hard to believe that would influence what they say about socialism, which was the least popular category in the poll. Not good news for Bernie
Agreed, Tim Scott is a great example. And yes, the point of the poll (or the point of me posting it) is that a socialist is the worst 'demo' of any polled. People are just so conditioned by the cold war that it's still ingrained in anyone older than 40, at least at some level.
they didnt ask about fake socialists or fake social democrats. Would have been cool to ask how everyone feels about party hijackers......
But whatevz. He gets questions about it. He and Petes agrees the popular vote is what counts, so Bernie won - jippie. Pete weasel-pushing the narrative of his win was "smart" but backbone-less. Bernie countered it by him saying how he won for real. just like Biden countered when Pete attacked.
Weasel pushing? I'd argue the opposite. Bernie declaring "decisive" victory was much closer to weasely... considering as of this moment, Pete is the winner and has the most SDE's. Iowa is a caucus and that's how delegates work. You don't get to declare victory because you won the popular, when that's not how the process is set up. Just ask Hillary.
If you were an honest man, you would say they both were the winners getting the same delegates. That is what it was all about?
And I don't need to ask "Hillary" - I CAN JUST ASK PETE:
"At risk of of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an american presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins"
The "Pete standard" as Jake Tapper calls it. And even Pete can't spin it:
(and now you maybe will say - but that is the presidential election, he didn't say ioooowaaaaaa - he's free on a technicality.
And we all know who famously was let free on a technicality)
They didn't get the same delegate count, so why would anyone say that? It's 13-12 currently. Now that doesn't mean re-canvassing won't flip that, but as of now, it's not a tie.
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?
Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not. So that means he had strong data coming from his precinct captains. Tell me what was weasly about it, and contrast it with why Sanders saying his victory was "decisive" is okay.
A house is red.
Stupid Mayor: That house is blue.
Stupid Mayor lies.
Days later the house is painted blue.
M Russel: Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not.
If the house was red. Yes, he was wrong.
Tenses is a thing.
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.
I just did. You just put your energy into putting people down, instead of having to face the argumentation. Proven not only by this, but also your "pot blabla kettle" post.
But it is okey. You have been bending backwards to try to save your arguments while they go sour in hours, for Biden and Pete these last few pages. I understand it takes a toll. You have been a (making up) Dream(s) Warrior.
So with your silly story, you're saying that because of the chance that re-canvassing may change teh result, Pete should not declare victory. By contrast, because the re-canvassing may change the result it's okay that Sanders declares "decisive" victory? Can you please square that logic, because it completely escapes common sense.
C'mon @spiritual_chaos I'm ready to "face the argumentation". Explain to me why it's wrong for Pete to declare victory with an official lead in the delegates, but okay for Bernie who is behind to declare decisive victory? You're like our own little Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda while you litter the boards with You Tube clip, memes and gifs.
Like Bernie like son.
It is interesting that the only person on the board actively advocating for Bernie isn't a US citizen. I don't have any problem with our Canadian, Australian, Swedish friends putting out their opinion. I'm pointing out that on a rock board from a leftish wing band, there aren't really any Bernie fans from the US. Gallup released a poll today that shows that 53% of Americans would not vote for a socialist. That includes a majority of independents and 25% of Democrats. That's a death poll for Sanders and the D's if it's accurate. By contrast 8/10 would vote for a gay candidate. That number surprises me a bit. Either way, now you know why Trump has been white gloves on Sanders. Here's the applicable table and link:
Willingness to Vote for Candidates With Diverse Characteristics, by Party ID
Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours.
For what's considered a protected class in this country, the numbers are better than I expected. I don't consider a political or economic ideology protected. The Muslim numbers are disappointing.
Based on how you've responded, I'm not sure that you took from my comment what I had intended. I'm not referring to the low numbers who would consider voting for "a socialist" - that's no surprise, especially considering what seems to be a pretty poor understanding of what that means for many people. It's the low numbers for most of the other categories, whether gay, female, Muslim, atheist, particularly but not just for the Rs.
However, nice to see that only 73% of Republicans would consider voting for Trump
That poll is the worst. People lie.
9 out of 10 republicans would vote for a black person? HA
A person who is Jewish? HA
A Hispanic person? HA
This is people being PC bullshitters and not admitting how they really feel/would vote.
Based on nothing but my opinion and observations in life. No way 9 out of 10 vote for those categories. I would put the numbers at 5 out of 10, at best.
And, a gay person? Those church dummies will not do that -- this would be even less than would vote for the people listed above, in my opinion.
Obama did win twice and one of the most solid republican states has a black senator.
The " church dummies" might never vote for Pete but they'd probably never vote D anyway.
Perhaps some would want to mask bigotry in these polls but I find it hard to believe that would influence what they say about socialism, which was the least popular category in the poll. Not good news for Bernie
Agreed, Tim Scott is a great example. And yes, the point of the poll (or the point of me posting it) is that a socialist is the worst 'demo' of any polled. People are just so conditioned by the cold war that it's still ingrained in anyone older than 40, at least at some level.
they didnt ask about fake socialists or fake social democrats. Would have been cool to ask how everyone feels about party hijackers......
You're cracking me up on this line of thought!
The irony is alot of undecideds are not into politics nor government. It's a tough sell to these potential voters that the govt has all of the solutions
Let alone getting them to understand the nuances of socialist vs socialist democrat.
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,690
But whatevz. He gets questions about it. He and Petes agrees the popular vote is what counts, so Bernie won - jippie. Pete weasel-pushing the narrative of his win was "smart" but backbone-less. Bernie countered it by him saying how he won for real. just like Biden countered when Pete attacked.
Weasel pushing? I'd argue the opposite. Bernie declaring "decisive" victory was much closer to weasely... considering as of this moment, Pete is the winner and has the most SDE's. Iowa is a caucus and that's how delegates work. You don't get to declare victory because you won the popular, when that's not how the process is set up. Just ask Hillary.
If you were an honest man, you would say they both were the winners getting the same delegates. That is what it was all about?
And I don't need to ask "Hillary" - I CAN JUST ASK PETE:
"At risk of of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an american presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins"
The "Pete standard" as Jake Tapper calls it. And even Pete can't spin it:
(and now you maybe will say - but that is the presidential election, he didn't say ioooowaaaaaa - he's free on a technicality.
And we all know who famously was let free on a technicality)
They didn't get the same delegate count, so why would anyone say that? It's 13-12 currently. Now that doesn't mean re-canvassing won't flip that, but as of now, it's not a tie.
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?
Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not. So that means he had strong data coming from his precinct captains. Tell me what was weasly about it, and contrast it with why Sanders saying his victory was "decisive" is okay.
A house is red.
Stupid Mayor: That house is blue.
Stupid Mayor lies.
Days later the house is painted blue.
M Russel: Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not.
If the house was red. Yes, he was wrong.
Tenses is a thing.
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.
I just did. You just put your energy into putting people down, instead of having to face the argumentation. Proven not only by this, but also your "pot blabla kettle" post.
But it is okey. You have been bending backwards to try to save your arguments while they go sour in hours, for Biden and Pete these last few pages. I understand it takes a toll. You have been a (making up) Dream(s) Warrior.
So with your silly story, you're saying that because of the chance that re-canvassing may change teh result, Pete should not declare victory. By contrast, because the re-canvassing may change the result it's okay that Sanders declares "decisive" victory? Can you please square that logic, because it completely escapes common sense.
C'mon @spiritual_chaos I'm ready to "face the argumentation". Explain to me why it's wrong for Pete to declare victory with an official lead in the delegates, but okay for Bernie who is behind to declare decisive victory? You're like our own little Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda while you litter the boards with You Tube clip, memes and gifs.
Like Bernie like son.
It is interesting that the only person on the board actively advocating for Bernie isn't a US citizen. I don't have any problem with our Canadian, Australian, Swedish friends putting out their opinion. I'm pointing out that on a rock board from a leftish wing band, there aren't really any Bernie fans from the US. Gallup released a poll today that shows that 53% of Americans would not vote for a socialist. That includes a majority of independents and 25% of Democrats. That's a death poll for Sanders and the D's if it's accurate. By contrast 8/10 would vote for a gay candidate. That number surprises me a bit. Either way, now you know why Trump has been white gloves on Sanders. Here's the applicable table and link:
Willingness to Vote for Candidates With Diverse Characteristics, by Party ID
Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours.
For what's considered a protected class in this country, the numbers are better than I expected. I don't consider a political or economic ideology protected. The Muslim numbers are disappointing.
Based on how you've responded, I'm not sure that you took from my comment what I had intended. I'm not referring to the low numbers who would consider voting for "a socialist" - that's no surprise, especially considering what seems to be a pretty poor understanding of what that means for many people. It's the low numbers for most of the other categories, whether gay, female, Muslim, atheist, particularly but not just for the Rs.
However, nice to see that only 73% of Republicans would consider voting for Trump
That poll is the worst. People lie.
9 out of 10 republicans would vote for a black person? HA
A person who is Jewish? HA
A Hispanic person? HA
This is people being PC bullshitters and not admitting how they really feel/would vote.
Based on nothing but my opinion and observations in life. No way 9 out of 10 vote for those categories. I would put the numbers at 5 out of 10, at best.
And, a gay person? Those church dummies will not do that -- this would be even less than would vote for the people listed above, in my opinion.
Obama did win twice and one of the most solid republican states has a black senator.
The " church dummies" might never vote for Pete but they'd probably never vote D anyway.
Perhaps some would want to mask bigotry in these polls but I find it hard to believe that would influence what they say about socialism, which was the least popular category in the poll. Not good news for Bernie
Agreed on their distaste for that to be bad news for Bernie, or for anyone on the extreme left.
The love he receives is the love that is saved
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,033
edited February 2020
BEULLER!!!! OH BEULLER, can you help a fella out and answer the damn question.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
A win is a win, for sure. But I would have expected Bernie to win NH by more than 1.6%. I believe he won NH by 22% in 2016...but I very well could be wrong.
I personally believe we are down to a final 5 at most, and likely a final 3 now.
I find it hard to believe that Warren or Biden have a legitimate shot at this point as they seem to be trending in the opposite direction. Though it does seem Biden is poised to do well in SC.
I kind of get the feeling that Sanders has peaked. At this point most people likely know if they are a Bernie Sanders voter or not.
That leaves us with Pete and Amy. She seems to be the candidate that is gaining the most ground of late and I think she seems to be doing very well. Unfortunately, I cannot help but to wonder if is going to be too little too late. As stated, I think most voting for Sanders have already made up their minds. I think the same applies to Biden as well. My belief is that the majority of undecideds remaining are chosing between Warren, Amy and Pete. People like the "hot hand" and if Pete has a couple more good showings in the very near future, I think he winds up being the nominee.
Pete/Amy 2020!
As an aside, technically Pete is winning the delegate count right now, since he and Sanders earned the same number last night. So even with the win, it wasn't quite a win for Sanders in the tally that matters.
Based on how you've responded, I'm not sure that you took from my comment what I had intended. I'm not referring to the low numbers who would consider voting for "a socialist" - that's no surprise, especially considering what seems to be a pretty poor understanding of what that means for many people. It's the low numbers for most of the other categories, whether gay, female, Muslim, atheist, particularly but not just for the Rs.
However, nice to see that only 73% of Republicans would consider voting for Trump
Victoria is indeed a beautiful city. It's not as visually striking as Vancouver, as we don't have those gorgeous North Shore mountains right on the edge of the city, but still very pretty. The downtown is right on the Inner Harbour and is small, safe, and very walkable, the city's cycling infrastructure is good and getting better all the time, and the food and drink scene has improved a ton even in the last five years.
For work and personal reasons I spend a good chunk of time in the US. I'm in the US right now. I have some sense of what it feels like, though obviously not as much as someone who was born and bred here.
Thanks for the info on BC and clarifying your background on the trump phenomenon. I work a few miles from where trumps parents last lived so in a way his hometown outside of the city. Its nauseating.
Obama did win twice and one of the most solid republican states has a black senator.
The " church dummies" might never vote for Pete but they'd probably never vote D anyway.
Perhaps some would want to mask bigotry in these polls but I find it hard to believe that would influence what they say about socialism, which was the least popular category in the poll. Not good news for Bernie
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The irony is alot of undecideds are not into politics nor government. It's a tough sell to these potential voters that the govt has all of the solutions
Let alone getting them to understand the nuances of socialist vs socialist democrat.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
They are hoping for anyone who isn't tRUmp.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana