Chris Matthews with his personal agenda and his weird red-scare fears. How can they allow these people sit there spewing BS from a veneer of authority.
The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?
When did I say that?
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.
Just stop
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .
Actually, his further response validated my question.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.
Well, the good news about a Sanders presidency, regardless of winning the nomination in the primaries or at a brokered convention -- Democrats will NEVER win the Senate and COULD lose the House with him as our nominee. So, in effect, even if he squeaks out a victory against Trump, he will not get Medicare For All passed. Or anything else. And then maybe in four years . . . sigh . . .
Well, the good news about a Sanders presidency, regardless of winning the nomination in the primaries or at a brokered convention -- Democrats will NEVER win the Senate and COULD lose the House with him as our nominee. So, in effect, even if he squeaks out a victory against Trump, he will not get Medicare For All passed. Or anything else. And then maybe in four years . . . sigh . . .
While I'm with you that I don't see us winning the Senate with him at the top (maybe no one), I don't see losing the House and him winning the POTUS. I don't think that's possible.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,798
“I think it matters a lot what direction we take as a party,” Biden said. “I think the most important thing people are looking for is authenticity: to be able to do what you say you’re going to do, make sure what you say you’re going to do is possible to get done and know how to get it done.”
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
Well, the good news about a Sanders presidency, regardless of winning the nomination in the primaries or at a brokered convention -- Democrats will NEVER win the Senate and COULD lose the House with him as our nominee. So, in effect, even if he squeaks out a victory against Trump, he will not get Medicare For All passed. Or anything else. And then maybe in four years . . . sigh . . .
While I'm with you that I don't see us winning the Senate with him at the top (maybe no one), I don't see losing the House and him winning the POTUS. I don't think that's possible.
It just blows my mind that people don't understand how this works. They will throw away an opportunity to make some progress for a pipe dream that has no chance in hell happening. Dumb. Just dumb.
Well, the good news about a Sanders presidency, regardless of winning the nomination in the primaries or at a brokered convention -- Democrats will NEVER win the Senate and COULD lose the House with him as our nominee. So, in effect, even if he squeaks out a victory against Trump, he will not get Medicare For All passed. Or anything else. And then maybe in four years . . . sigh . . .
While I'm with you that I don't see us winning the Senate with him at the top (maybe no one), I don't see losing the House and him winning the POTUS. I don't think that's possible.
It just blows my mind that people don't understand how this works. They will throw away an opportunity to make some progress for a pipe dream that has no chance in hell happening. Dumb. Just dumb.
Chris Matthews, is that you?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Well, the good news about a Sanders presidency, regardless of winning the nomination in the primaries or at a brokered convention -- Democrats will NEVER win the Senate and COULD lose the House with him as our nominee. So, in effect, even if he squeaks out a victory against Trump, he will not get Medicare For All passed. Or anything else. And then maybe in four years . . . sigh . . .
While I'm with you that I don't see us winning the Senate with him at the top (maybe no one), I don't see losing the House and him winning the POTUS. I don't think that's possible.
It just blows my mind that people don't understand how this works. They will throw away an opportunity to make some progress for a pipe dream that has no chance in hell happening. Dumb. Just dumb.
At work I always counsel.. don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?
When did I say that?
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.
Just stop
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .
Actually, his further response validated my question.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.
The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?
When did I say that?
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.
When did I say that?
Sounds like you are the one being sexist now tbh(?)
Honestly I don't think you're sexist at all, even if you're not perfect. I do struggle with your insufferable Swedish whiteness
Just start reading things twice, instead of reading things completely wrong and throwing out "sexist" like I'm some kind of Bloomberg.
I'm clearly not the only person who read it that way. One of the few females that frequent the site read it the same. So maybe you should read twice before you hit "post comment".
Your sense of personal responsibility is impressive
Well, the good news about a Sanders presidency, regardless of winning the nomination in the primaries or at a brokered convention -- Democrats will NEVER win the Senate and COULD lose the House with him as our nominee. So, in effect, even if he squeaks out a victory against Trump, he will not get Medicare For All passed. Or anything else. And then maybe in four years . . . sigh . . .
While I'm with you that I don't see us winning the Senate with him at the top (maybe no one), I don't see losing the House and him winning the POTUS. I don't think that's possible.
It just blows my mind that people don't understand how this works. They will throw away an opportunity to make some progress for a pipe dream that has no chance in hell happening. Dumb. Just dumb.
At work I always counsel.. don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
At work, I always tell engineers "Don't settle with shit, just because you have been fooled to believe you are the shit"
And they often respond "What has that to do with our new AI solution we're developing?"
And I say, "So have you heard the new Pearl Jam single?"
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Crime rates have been going down for decades - before, during, and after Bloomberg's terms. Crime rates have been going down in the USA and in many other countries the world over. There simply isn't any evidence that they declined more sharply during his tenure in office or as a result of his discriminatory policies. The rates of violent crime in NYC fell significantly, but they also had further to fall as they were higher than most other big cities. There are several competing theories but I'm guessing that the winning one isn't one that applied to only one city for a relatively narrow window of the time that the decline has been occurring.
Not for the ultimate crime, murder. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. Do I need to repost that picture from above?
You're not making any sense here. In what way is "the opposite of what (I) say is true"? It's true that homicide rates across the USA have fallen sharply since 1990, to a low in 2014; this isn't specific to NYC. Your own chart shows that murder rates in NYC dropped from the 1990 right through to 2018, clearly continuing to drop despite changes in leadership and policing policies. I just don't see that it demonstrates what you seem to think it demonstrates.
Its misleading to conflate NYs murder rate decline in the 90s with what happened across the country. There were around 2000 per year around 1990 and 600 at the end of the decade. Almost a 70% decline. The US decline during that period is just not comparable. SAF and broken window started with Rudy in the mid 90s
As far as crime coming back present day, let's see what happens with the NYPD's war first unfortunately. But the signs are there.
Well, the good news about a Sanders presidency, regardless of winning the nomination in the primaries or at a brokered convention -- Democrats will NEVER win the Senate and COULD lose the House with him as our nominee. So, in effect, even if he squeaks out a victory against Trump, he will not get Medicare For All passed. Or anything else. And then maybe in four years . . . sigh . . .
While I'm with you that I don't see us winning the Senate with him at the top (maybe no one), I don't see losing the House and him winning the POTUS. I don't think that's possible.
It just blows my mind that people don't understand how this works. They will throw away an opportunity to make some progress for a pipe dream that has no chance in hell happening. Dumb. Just dumb.
At work I always counsel.. don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Not be dunking on your wordsmithing - but this girls last words are a lot better than yours.
Crime rates have been going down for decades - before, during, and after Bloomberg's terms. Crime rates have been going down in the USA and in many other countries the world over. There simply isn't any evidence that they declined more sharply during his tenure in office or as a result of his discriminatory policies. The rates of violent crime in NYC fell significantly, but they also had further to fall as they were higher than most other big cities. There are several competing theories but I'm guessing that the winning one isn't one that applied to only one city for a relatively narrow window of the time that the decline has been occurring.
Not for the ultimate crime, murder. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. Do I need to repost that picture from above?
You're not making any sense here. In what way is "the opposite of what (I) say is true"? It's true that homicide rates across the USA have fallen sharply since 1990, to a low in 2014; this isn't specific to NYC. Your own chart shows that murder rates in NYC dropped from the 1990 right through to 2018, clearly continuing to drop despite changes in leadership and policing policies. I just don't see that it demonstrates what you seem to think it demonstrates.
Its misleading to conflate NYs murder rate decline in the 90s with what happened across the country. There were around 2000 per year around 1990 and 600 at the end of the decade. Almost a 70% decline. The US decline during that period is just not comparable. SAF and broken window started with Rudy in the mid 90s
As far as crime coming back present day, let's see what happens with the NYPD's war first unfortunately. But the signs are there.
Crime rates have been going down for decades - before, during, and after Bloomberg's terms. Crime rates have been going down in the USA and in many other countries the world over. There simply isn't any evidence that they declined more sharply during his tenure in office or as a result of his discriminatory policies. The rates of violent crime in NYC fell significantly, but they also had further to fall as they were higher than most other big cities. There are several competing theories but I'm guessing that the winning one isn't one that applied to only one city for a relatively narrow window of the time that the decline has been occurring.
Not for the ultimate crime, murder. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. Do I need to repost that picture from above?
You're not making any sense here. In what way is "the opposite of what (I) say is true"? It's true that homicide rates across the USA have fallen sharply since 1990, to a low in 2014; this isn't specific to NYC. Your own chart shows that murder rates in NYC dropped from the 1990 right through to 2018, clearly continuing to drop despite changes in leadership and policing policies. I just don't see that it demonstrates what you seem to think it demonstrates.
Its misleading to conflate NYs murder rate decline in the 90s with what happened across the country. There were around 2000 per year around 1990 and 600 at the end of the decade. Almost a 70% decline. The US decline during that period is just not comparable. SAF and broken window started with Rudy in the mid 90s
As far as crime coming back present day, let's see what happens with the NYPD's war first unfortunately. But the signs are there.
You’ve posted no evidence as to why it’s misleading to “conflate” the drop in NYC’s murder rate with the similar drop in murder rates around the country. The drop was bigger, likely because it started from a higher level, but it happened over the same time as everywhere else and ended up about the same. You have one interpretation of the data but I don’t see that you’ve supported it by anything other than your opinion.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Crime rates have been going down for decades - before, during, and after Bloomberg's terms. Crime rates have been going down in the USA and in many other countries the world over. There simply isn't any evidence that they declined more sharply during his tenure in office or as a result of his discriminatory policies. The rates of violent crime in NYC fell significantly, but they also had further to fall as they were higher than most other big cities. There are several competing theories but I'm guessing that the winning one isn't one that applied to only one city for a relatively narrow window of the time that the decline has been occurring.
Not for the ultimate crime, murder. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. Do I need to repost that picture from above?
You're not making any sense here. In what way is "the opposite of what (I) say is true"? It's true that homicide rates across the USA have fallen sharply since 1990, to a low in 2014; this isn't specific to NYC. Your own chart shows that murder rates in NYC dropped from the 1990 right through to 2018, clearly continuing to drop despite changes in leadership and policing policies. I just don't see that it demonstrates what you seem to think it demonstrates.
Its misleading to conflate NYs murder rate decline in the 90s with what happened across the country. There were around 2000 per year around 1990 and 600 at the end of the decade. Almost a 70% decline. The US decline during that period is just not comparable. SAF and broken window started with Rudy in the mid 90s
As far as crime coming back present day, let's see what happens with the NYPD's war first unfortunately. But the signs are there.
You’ve posted no evidence as to why it’s misleading to “conflate” the drop in NYC’s murder rate with the similar drop in murder rates around the country. The drop was bigger, likely because it started from a higher level, but it happened over the same time as everywhere else and ended up about the same. You have one interpretation of the data but I don’t see that you’ve supported it by anything other than your opinion.
Stop being so nice. He doesn't understand the data, so his "interpretation" of it is absolutely meaningless.
Crime rates have been going down for decades - before, during, and after Bloomberg's terms. Crime rates have been going down in the USA and in many other countries the world over. There simply isn't any evidence that they declined more sharply during his tenure in office or as a result of his discriminatory policies. The rates of violent crime in NYC fell significantly, but they also had further to fall as they were higher than most other big cities. There are several competing theories but I'm guessing that the winning one isn't one that applied to only one city for a relatively narrow window of the time that the decline has been occurring.
Not for the ultimate crime, murder. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. Do I need to repost that picture from above?
You're not making any sense here. In what way is "the opposite of what (I) say is true"? It's true that homicide rates across the USA have fallen sharply since 1990, to a low in 2014; this isn't specific to NYC. Your own chart shows that murder rates in NYC dropped from the 1990 right through to 2018, clearly continuing to drop despite changes in leadership and policing policies. I just don't see that it demonstrates what you seem to think it demonstrates.
Its misleading to conflate NYs murder rate decline in the 90s with what happened across the country. There were around 2000 per year around 1990 and 600 at the end of the decade. Almost a 70% decline. The US decline during that period is just not comparable. SAF and broken window started with Rudy in the mid 90s
As far as crime coming back present day, let's see what happens with the NYPD's war first unfortunately. But the signs are there.
You’ve posted no evidence as to why it’s misleading to “conflate” the drop in NYC’s murder rate with the similar drop in murder rates around the country. The drop was bigger, likely because it started from a higher level, but it happened over the same time as everywhere else and ended up about the same. You have one interpretation of the data but I don’t see that you’ve supported it by anything other than your opinion.
Crime rates have been going down for decades - before, during, and after Bloomberg's terms. Crime rates have been going down in the USA and in many other countries the world over. There simply isn't any evidence that they declined more sharply during his tenure in office or as a result of his discriminatory policies. The rates of violent crime in NYC fell significantly, but they also had further to fall as they were higher than most other big cities. There are several competing theories but I'm guessing that the winning one isn't one that applied to only one city for a relatively narrow window of the time that the decline has been occurring.
Not for the ultimate crime, murder. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. Do I need to repost that picture from above?
You're not making any sense here. In what way is "the opposite of what (I) say is true"? It's true that homicide rates across the USA have fallen sharply since 1990, to a low in 2014; this isn't specific to NYC. Your own chart shows that murder rates in NYC dropped from the 1990 right through to 2018, clearly continuing to drop despite changes in leadership and policing policies. I just don't see that it demonstrates what you seem to think it demonstrates.
Its misleading to conflate NYs murder rate decline in the 90s with what happened across the country. There were around 2000 per year around 1990 and 600 at the end of the decade. Almost a 70% decline. The US decline during that period is just not comparable. SAF and broken window started with Rudy in the mid 90s
As far as crime coming back present day, let's see what happens with the NYPD's war first unfortunately. But the signs are there.
You’ve posted no evidence as to why it’s misleading to “conflate” the drop in NYC’s murder rate with the similar drop in murder rates around the country. The drop was bigger, likely because it started from a higher level, but it happened over the same time as everywhere else and ended up about the same. You have one interpretation of the data but I don’t see that you’ve supported it by anything other than your opinion.
It would be interesting to see when the mandatory minimums changed, three strikes you're out, and other harsher penalties. Curious if there's some correlation between those changes and the drops in the 90s.
The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?
When did I say that?
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.
Just stop
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .
Actually, his further response validated my question.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.
The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?
When did I say that?
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.
Just stop
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .
Actually, his further response validated my question.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.
The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?
When did I say that?
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.
Just stop
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .
Actually, his further response validated my question.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.
Get used to it, it’s the new norm around here.
Only if we let it....
Jesus Christ, people. She misread the post. It’s not a big deal, but do you really have to pretend it didn’t happen just because you dislike SC?
The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?
When did I say that?
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.
Just stop
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .
Actually, his further response validated my question.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.
Get used to it, it’s the new norm around here.
Only if we let it....
Jesus Christ, people. She misread the post. It’s not a big deal, but do you really have to pretend it didn’t happen just because you dislike SC?
I like SC quite a bit. He's grown on me... other than the video spamming
The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?
When did I say that?
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.
Just stop
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .
Actually, his further response validated my question.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.
Get used to it, it’s the new norm around here.
Only if we let it....
Jesus Christ, people. She misread the post. It’s not a big deal, but do you really have to pretend it didn’t happen just because you dislike SC?
I like SC quite a bit. He's grown on me... other than the video spamming
This. Mostly cause I hate having to scroll past videos and gifs and memes and pictures to get to posts. But overall, while I certainly have my disagreements, I at least feel like he is a real person.
hippiemom = goodness
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?
When did I say that?
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.
Just stop
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .
Actually, his further response validated my question.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.
Get used to it, it’s the new norm around here.
Only if we let it....
Jesus Christ, people. She misread the post. It’s not a big deal, but do you really have to pretend it didn’t happen just because you dislike SC?
I don’t believe I misread. And no, I am not calling SC a sexist. The comment could be taken that way though.
Comments
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.
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
PANIC AT THE STATUS QUO DISCO
Lol, yeah this guy doesn't want Bernie to win... ofc...
And they often respond "What has that to do with our new AI solution we're developing?"
And I say, "So have you heard the new Pearl Jam single?"
Its misleading to conflate NYs murder rate decline in the 90s with what happened across the country. There were around 2000 per year around 1990 and 600 at the end of the decade. Almost a 70% decline. The US decline during that period is just not comparable. SAF and broken window started with Rudy in the mid 90s
As far as crime coming back present day, let's see what happens with the NYPD's war first unfortunately. But the signs are there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
This is hilarious.