The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
all this victimhood reminds me of someone, but who...........?
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
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 '140 -
I'm starting to think the person you are referring probably got the idea from the other person instead of the other way around. 2 peasmickeyrat said:all this victimhood reminds me of someone, but who...........?hippiemom = goodness0 -
So Biden is high-tailing it out of New Hampshire and heading towards South Carolina.2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
bueller? has any one seen bueller?mickeyrat said:oh I see now. because you cant vote your opinion is irrelevant.now answer mine. its the 3rd time it was asked.....
Post edited by mickeyrat on_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
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 '140 -
That's his Alamo. He has to win convincingly there.Ledbetterman10 said:So Biden is high-tailing it out of New Hampshire and heading towards South Carolina.0 -
mrussel1 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.mrussel1 said:
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Ain't got a subscription.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9QSpiritual_Chaos said:
Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?Halifax2TheMax said:Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa?
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.
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:
https://youtu.be/KpKJJ5lbOS8
(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)
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.
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.
Like Bernie like son.0 -
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.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.mrussel1 said:
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Ain't got a subscription.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9QSpiritual_Chaos said:
Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?Halifax2TheMax said:Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa?
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.
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:https://youtu.be/KpKJJ5lbOS8
(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)
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.
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.
Like Bernie like son.
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% Yes, would vote for that personRepublican Independent Democrat % % % Black 91 97 99 Catholic 95 94 97 Hispanic 90 94 99 A woman 86 95 99 Jewish 92 92 95 An evangelical Christian 88 77 77 Gay or lesbian 62 82 89 Under the age of 40 63 72 75 Over the age of 70 73 68 66 Muslim 42 71 88 An atheist 41 68 69 A socialist 17 45 76 GALLUP, JAN. 16-29, 2020
https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication0 -
mrussel1 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.mrussel1 said:
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Ain't got a subscription.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9QSpiritual_Chaos said:
Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?Halifax2TheMax said:Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa?
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.
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:https://youtu.be/KpKJJ5lbOS8
(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)
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.
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.
Like Bernie like son.
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% Yes, would vote for that personRepublican Independent Democrat % % % Black 91 97 99 Catholic 95 94 97 Hispanic 90 94 99 A woman 86 95 99 Jewish 92 92 95 An evangelical Christian 88 77 77 Gay or lesbian 62 82 89 Under the age of 40 63 72 75 Over the age of 70 73 68 66 Muslim 42 71 88 An atheist 41 68 69 A socialist 17 45 76 GALLUP, JAN. 16-29, 2020
https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndicationNot sure if you’ve checked out the politics subreddit. It’s a Bernie fantasy society, they really think he can beat trump. When I tell them he ain’t getting 270, no way no how, they bloody my nose almost as bad as the porch.0 -
No fucking way. I don't hang on cult sites. You're braver than me.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.mrussel1 said:
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Ain't got a subscription.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9QSpiritual_Chaos said:
Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?Halifax2TheMax said:Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa?
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.
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:https://youtu.be/KpKJJ5lbOS8
(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)
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.
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.
Like Bernie like son.
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% Yes, would vote for that personRepublican Independent Democrat % % % Black 91 97 99 Catholic 95 94 97 Hispanic 90 94 99 A woman 86 95 99 Jewish 92 92 95 An evangelical Christian 88 77 77 Gay or lesbian 62 82 89 Under the age of 40 63 72 75 Over the age of 70 73 68 66 Muslim 42 71 88 An atheist 41 68 69 A socialist 17 45 76 GALLUP, JAN. 16-29, 2020
https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndicationNot sure if you’ve checked out the politics subreddit. It’s a Bernie fantasy society, they really think he can beat trump. When I tell them he ain’t getting 270, no way no how, they bloody my nose almost as bad as the porch.0 -
That’s a disheartening poll in so many ways.mrussel1 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.mrussel1 said:
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Ain't got a subscription.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9QSpiritual_Chaos said:
Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?Halifax2TheMax said:Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa?
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.
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:https://youtu.be/KpKJJ5lbOS8
(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)
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.
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.
Like Bernie like son.
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% Yes, would vote for that personRepublican Independent Democrat % % % Black 91 97 99 Catholic 95 94 97 Hispanic 90 94 99 A woman 86 95 99 Jewish 92 92 95 An evangelical Christian 88 77 77 Gay or lesbian 62 82 89 Under the age of 40 63 72 75 Over the age of 70 73 68 66 Muslim 42 71 88 An atheist 41 68 69 A socialist 17 45 76 GALLUP, JAN. 16-29, 2020
https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndicationPrejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
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.oftenreading said:
That’s a disheartening poll in so many ways.mrussel1 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.mrussel1 said:
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Ain't got a subscription.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9QSpiritual_Chaos said:
Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?Halifax2TheMax said:Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa?
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.
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:https://youtu.be/KpKJJ5lbOS8
(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)
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.
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.
Like Bernie like son.
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% Yes, would vote for that personRepublican Independent Democrat % % % Black 91 97 99 Catholic 95 94 97 Hispanic 90 94 99 A woman 86 95 99 Jewish 92 92 95 An evangelical Christian 88 77 77 Gay or lesbian 62 82 89 Under the age of 40 63 72 75 Over the age of 70 73 68 66 Muslim 42 71 88 An atheist 41 68 69 A socialist 17 45 76 GALLUP, JAN. 16-29, 2020
https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndicationPrejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours.0 -
mrussel1 said:
No fucking way. I don't hang on cult sites. You're braver than me.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.mrussel1 said:
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Ain't got a subscription.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9QSpiritual_Chaos said:
Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?Halifax2TheMax said:Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa?
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.
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:https://youtu.be/KpKJJ5lbOS8
(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)
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.
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.
Like Bernie like son.
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% Yes, would vote for that personRepublican Independent Democrat % % % Black 91 97 99 Catholic 95 94 97 Hispanic 90 94 99 A woman 86 95 99 Jewish 92 92 95 An evangelical Christian 88 77 77 Gay or lesbian 62 82 89 Under the age of 40 63 72 75 Over the age of 70 73 68 66 Muslim 42 71 88 An atheist 41 68 69 A socialist 17 45 76 GALLUP, JAN. 16-29, 2020
https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndicationNot sure if you’ve checked out the politics subreddit. It’s a Bernie fantasy society, they really think he can beat trump. When I tell them he ain’t getting 270, no way no how, they bloody my nose almost as bad as the porch.I’m confused. Reddit or porch?0 -
Ha. ToucheLerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
No fucking way. I don't hang on cult sites. You're braver than me.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.mrussel1 said:
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Ain't got a subscription.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9QSpiritual_Chaos said:
Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?Halifax2TheMax said:Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa?
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.
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:https://youtu.be/KpKJJ5lbOS8
(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)
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.
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.
Like Bernie like son.
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% Yes, would vote for that personRepublican Independent Democrat % % % Black 91 97 99 Catholic 95 94 97 Hispanic 90 94 99 A woman 86 95 99 Jewish 92 92 95 An evangelical Christian 88 77 77 Gay or lesbian 62 82 89 Under the age of 40 63 72 75 Over the age of 70 73 68 66 Muslim 42 71 88 An atheist 41 68 69 A socialist 17 45 76 GALLUP, JAN. 16-29, 2020
https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndicationNot sure if you’ve checked out the politics subreddit. It’s a Bernie fantasy society, they really think he can beat trump. When I tell them he ain’t getting 270, no way no how, they bloody my nose almost as bad as the porch.I’m confused. Reddit or porch?0 -
oftenreading said:
That’s a disheartening poll in so many ways.mrussel1 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.mrussel1 said:
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Ain't got a subscription.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9QSpiritual_Chaos said:
Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?Halifax2TheMax said:Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa?
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.
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:https://youtu.be/KpKJJ5lbOS8
(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)
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.
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.
Like Bernie like son.
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% Yes, would vote for that personRepublican Independent Democrat % % % Black 91 97 99 Catholic 95 94 97 Hispanic 90 94 99 A woman 86 95 99 Jewish 92 92 95 An evangelical Christian 88 77 77 Gay or lesbian 62 82 89 Under the age of 40 63 72 75 Over the age of 70 73 68 66 Muslim 42 71 88 An atheist 41 68 69 A socialist 17 45 76 GALLUP, JAN. 16-29, 2020
https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndicationPrejudice 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.0 -
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.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:
That’s a disheartening poll in so many ways.mrussel1 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.mrussel1 said:
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Ain't got a subscription.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9QSpiritual_Chaos said:
Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?Halifax2TheMax said:Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa?
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.
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:https://youtu.be/KpKJJ5lbOS8
(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)
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.
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.
Like Bernie like son.
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% Yes, would vote for that personRepublican Independent Democrat % % % Black 91 97 99 Catholic 95 94 97 Hispanic 90 94 99 A woman 86 95 99 Jewish 92 92 95 An evangelical Christian 88 77 77 Gay or lesbian 62 82 89 Under the age of 40 63 72 75 Over the age of 70 73 68 66 Muslim 42 71 88 An atheist 41 68 69 A socialist 17 45 76 GALLUP, JAN. 16-29, 2020
https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndicationPrejudice 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.0 -
Wear your “MAGA is not the only great thing” with the downward arrow T to work.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
mrussel1 said:
Ha. ToucheLerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
No fucking way. I don't hang on cult sites. You're braver than me.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.mrussel1 said:
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Ain't got a subscription.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9QSpiritual_Chaos said:
Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?Halifax2TheMax said:Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa?
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.
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:https://youtu.be/KpKJJ5lbOS8
(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)
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.
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.
Like Bernie like son.
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% Yes, would vote for that personRepublican Independent Democrat % % % Black 91 97 99 Catholic 95 94 97 Hispanic 90 94 99 A woman 86 95 99 Jewish 92 92 95 An evangelical Christian 88 77 77 Gay or lesbian 62 82 89 Under the age of 40 63 72 75 Over the age of 70 73 68 66 Muslim 42 71 88 An atheist 41 68 69 A socialist 17 45 76 GALLUP, JAN. 16-29, 2020
https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndicationNot sure if you’ve checked out the politics subreddit. It’s a Bernie fantasy society, they really think he can beat trump. When I tell them he ain’t getting 270, no way no how, they bloody my nose almost as bad as the porch.I’m confused. Reddit or porch?
I guess that means Reddit. It’s stunning how the “politics” subreddit is 100% Bernie. And they are quite aggressive. They scream and yell about Bloomberg not being a democrat, as I point out to that neither is Bernie. But they don’t care. They are one small step above the maga crowd.
I get that The Donald is 100% trump,as its named after him, but this is the politics sub, not the Bernie sub.0 -
mrussel1 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:
That’s a disheartening poll in so many ways.mrussel1 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.mrussel1 said:
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Ain't got a subscription.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9QSpiritual_Chaos said:
Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?Halifax2TheMax said:Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa?
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.
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:https://youtu.be/KpKJJ5lbOS8
(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)
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.
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.
Like Bernie like son.
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% Yes, would vote for that personRepublican Independent Democrat % % % Black 91 97 99 Catholic 95 94 97 Hispanic 90 94 99 A woman 86 95 99 Jewish 92 92 95 An evangelical Christian 88 77 77 Gay or lesbian 62 82 89 Under the age of 40 63 72 75 Over the age of 70 73 68 66 Muslim 42 71 88 An atheist 41 68 69 A socialist 17 45 76 GALLUP, JAN. 16-29, 2020
https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndicationPrejudice 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.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.0 -
Nassau, long Island?Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:oftenreading said:
That’s a disheartening poll in so many ways.mrussel1 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.mrussel1 said:
How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Ain't got a subscription.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9QSpiritual_Chaos said:
Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?Halifax2TheMax said:Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa?
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.
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:https://youtu.be/KpKJJ5lbOS8
(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)
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.
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.
Like Bernie like son.
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% Yes, would vote for that personRepublican Independent Democrat % % % Black 91 97 99 Catholic 95 94 97 Hispanic 90 94 99 A woman 86 95 99 Jewish 92 92 95 An evangelical Christian 88 77 77 Gay or lesbian 62 82 89 Under the age of 40 63 72 75 Over the age of 70 73 68 66 Muslim 42 71 88 An atheist 41 68 69 A socialist 17 45 76 GALLUP, JAN. 16-29, 2020
https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndicationPrejudice 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.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.0 -
Yang is out.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
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 '140
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help