I was thinking about that blog more. She says right in there that she almost left to work on a Governor's race in California. So she was already planning on leaving before Tate talked her into joining him in the midwest. There's no contradiction there - she had other reasons for leaving. Was it about a sexual assault? Who knows.
Why the fuck are you people listening to Louise Mensch?
Why are you on about Louise Mensch? You're making this about her. She happened to post these articles which plays into the exact thing I was talking about last week, that this woman has had multiple contacts with the media and never brought up the assault...until like two weeks ago.
She's a bullshit artist and whatever gotcha she thinks she's presenting is bullshit
You've completely missed the point I was making because you're do hung up on her.
What was your point?
That until two weeks ago, she never accused Biden of this, even when she was on record talking about abuse several times. And in 2019, talking specifically about Biden and that he touched her neck inappropriately. But suddenly in the last two weeks, we’ve escalated to assault.
Ok...I didn't miss your point. You're just talking about aspects of this that I'm not interested in discussing. All of these things can be true:
- Her accusation isn't accurate - Mensch is a bullshit artist and her points posted here don't amount to anything - The media has a double standard in coverage of these stories
I don't care about 2 and 3 is obvious. I guess I don't expect the press to be fair. Throughout American history, the media always pushed narratives. It's not new. The concept of fair media was a mid 20th century ideal from the advent of television and it ended with... at best.. the end of Cronkite.
That's totally fair and I should have added that we seemed to be in agreement there anyway. Since the other 2 cancel each other out, I'll move on to a more positive subject:
I don't mind Amash.. I have disagreements with Libertarians though, for a few reasons, but at least they are principled. I don't like when they move too deep into objectivism. They lose me quickly there. I think he should run. Helps Biden.
Yeah, the guy who is sorta their frontrunner right now, Hornberger, is one of those objectivist types. For several reasons I couldn't vote for him.
The Libertarian candidate does historically pull more Republican voters. 2016 was interesting - Johnson seemed to pull about equally from both. Looking back you have to wonder if that had more to do with Clinton than anything. I agree that for Biden it's at worst a wash, but likely a net bump.
Yeah I think we see from the primary voting that there was definitely an anti- Hillary vote.
I don't see anyone really talking about it, but I think that's going to hit Trump, too. The one poll I've seen since Sanders bowed out had Biden with an 11 point lead. I really think that's about where things are right now. A lot will happen in 7 months, but still.
I don't think 538 started their head to head polling average in '16 until sometime in the summer.
Definitely good numbers so far, but a long time left to go.
I looked back and the 2016 Dem primary was still a two-person race into June. But yeah a long time left and things are extremely volatile. I can't imagine Trump's daily slap fights with the press are helping.
Oh yeah that's a great point. Trump didn't wrap it up until May-ish and Hillary was a little bit after.
Weird not having primaries drag out deep into the spring..
Although whatever Republican wins the 2024 nomination will certainly get branded "worse than Trump," so check back in 4 years for your answer. Shit, some even tried to do it with Marco Rubio briefly!
I was thinking about that blog more. She says right in there that she almost left to work on a Governor's race in California. So she was already planning on leaving before Tate talked her into joining him in the midwest. There's no contradiction there - she had other reasons for leaving. Was it about a sexual assault? Who knows.
Why the fuck are you people listening to Louise Mensch?
Why are you on about Louise Mensch? You're making this about her. She happened to post these articles which plays into the exact thing I was talking about last week, that this woman has had multiple contacts with the media and never brought up the assault...until like two weeks ago.
She's a bullshit artist and whatever gotcha she thinks she's presenting is bullshit
You've completely missed the point I was making because you're do hung up on her.
What was your point?
That until two weeks ago, she never accused Biden of this, even when she was on record talking about abuse several times. And in 2019, talking specifically about Biden and that he touched her neck inappropriately. But suddenly in the last two weeks, we’ve escalated to assault.
Ok...I didn't miss your point. You're just talking about aspects of this that I'm not interested in discussing. All of these things can be true:
- Her accusation isn't accurate - Mensch is a bullshit artist and her points posted here don't amount to anything - The media has a double standard in coverage of these stories
I don't care about 2 and 3 is obvious. I guess I don't expect the press to be fair. Throughout American history, the media always pushed narratives. It's not new. The concept of fair media was a mid 20th century ideal from the advent of television and it ended with... at best.. the end of Cronkite.
That's totally fair and I should have added that we seemed to be in agreement there anyway. Since the other 2 cancel each other out, I'll move on to a more positive subject:
I don't mind Amash.. I have disagreements with Libertarians though, for a few reasons, but at least they are principled. I don't like when they move too deep into objectivism. They lose me quickly there. I think he should run. Helps Biden.
Yeah, the guy who is sorta their frontrunner right now, Hornberger, is one of those objectivist types. For several reasons I couldn't vote for him.
The Libertarian candidate does historically pull more Republican voters. 2016 was interesting - Johnson seemed to pull about equally from both. Looking back you have to wonder if that had more to do with Clinton than anything. I agree that for Biden it's at worst a wash, but likely a net bump.
Yeah I think we see from the primary voting that there was definitely an anti- Hillary vote.
I don't see anyone really talking about it, but I think that's going to hit Trump, too. The one poll I've seen since Sanders bowed out had Biden with an 11 point lead. I really think that's about where things are right now. A lot will happen in 7 months, but still.
I don't think 538 started their head to head polling average in '16 until sometime in the summer.
Definitely good numbers so far, but a long time left to go.
I looked back and the 2016 Dem primary was still a two-person race into June. But yeah a long time left and things are extremely volatile. I can't imagine Trump's daily slap fights with the press are helping.
Oh yeah that's a great point. Trump didn't wrap it up until May-ish and Hillary was a little bit after.
Weird not having primaries drag out deep into the spring..
I envy your ability to be aware of what season it is
What an endorsement for Joe! So between Biden and Trump, Obama sides with Biden. Talk about playing it safe. I guess Obama didn’t want to endorse when it was possible that Joe wouldn’t win the primary. It looks like Obama is like me and and many others that’ll vote for Joe in November: “Well, if he’s all we got, I guess I’ll back him.”
No, not really. Sitting and past presidents traditionally do not insert themselves into the nominating process as they prefer, and the party prefers, that the process play out. Obama not endorsing Sleepy Woke Joe until now is nothing more than him allowing the process to play out and then backing whoever the eventual nominee is. Obama would have endorsed Bernie had Bernie been the nominee. And he would have encouraged ALL democrats to get behind Bernie and help him win. Hardly an "if he's all we got," moment.
So basically he would’ve endorsed whoever won the primary. So for all we know, he could think Biden’s not a good choice (didn’t Obama say that in 2015 and that’s what led to Joe not running? I can’t remember but I thought he had something to do with Hillary being the party’s choice). I dunno, I just don’t think endorsements mean much. Especially something like this. Is he really endorsing Joe Biden? Or is he endorsing “insert democratic nominee here”?
Obama didn't endorse Clinton until June of 16, when the race was over. Same thing here. And yes, that's the point. Obama does not want to be seen as tipping the scales in a contested primary, so he remained silent. He was clear that was his plan in 16 and 20. And yes, one would think he would endorse any D put forward against Trump. That seems to be a fairly reasonable conclusion.
I’m not referring to his actual public endorsement of Hillary following the primary. I was under the impression that behind-the-scenes, he was instrumental in Joe not running, because he thought Hillary was the better candidate. I could be wrong, I can’t remember where I read that. But it makes sense because Joe not running in 2016 did NOT make sense. I’ve heard the reasoning that his son had just passed and that’s why he didn’t run. That might be true as well. But man, following Obama (who was popular), and going against Hilary and then Trump? 2016 was Joe’s year. 2020 might be too, but 2016 definitely was.
Well I'm sure Joe and Obama had a conversation about it. Biden is a team player and has shown himself to be that during his whole career, and by the fact that he was so respectful of Obama throughout the 8 years. Barack very well may have advised him not to run, and allow HRC to take the mantle. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm sure Obama also weighed in on Joe running this year. But I thought this whole conversation was about the public endorsement which is what you linked to at the beginning.
Well that was the conversation but I made reference to Obama’s behind-the-scenes endorsement of Hillary and I thought you were responding to that.
And there is something wrong with him telling Joe to step aside and let Hillary have the mantle. This why party politics suck. Why couldn’t they both run in the 2016 primary and let the Democratic electorate choose?
I know. I was half-kidding with that line. We've learned enough about the DNC over the past five years to know better.
20 candidates this time was not enough for you?
Oh come on. You know I’m referring to the internal emails favoring Hillary over Bernie in 2016, and the coordinated dropout effort prior to this election’s Super Tuesday.
A few things on that...
1. Hillary won the vote and it wasn't particularly close. 2. I agree the party wanted Hillary, but part of that is because Sanders isn't a Democrat and never did much to support the party in his 30 years. So that shouldn't surprise anyone. 3. The party 'learned' its lesson in 16 and bent over backwards in 20. Why not let that be your current focus rather than 16?
I made reference to the pre-Super Tuesday dropout by Pete and Amy. That was this election cycle. It was a coordinated effort to get more votes for Biden. Which is fine. The system is the system. But I don’t think they learned shit from ‘16 and they didn’t bend over backwards for anything. It was kinda similar to ‘16: anybody but Bernie. Sanders’ campaign manager felt Fox News was more fair to Bernie than MSNBC. Of course they were. MSNBC does the DNC’s bidding (attempting to hurt Bernie) and Fox News does Trump’s bidding (“Please give me Bernie to run against!”).
So because the Democratic party voters consolidated behind a particular candidate, that's a bad thing? What's clear is Bernie was ONLY benefiting from the fractured field. Should they have stayed to give Bernie a unique advantage, even though he could get above his 30 some % ceiling? Bernie's problem was Bernie, not when the other candidates dropped. If he had a winning coalition, the actions of Pete, Amy, Bloomberg wouldn't matter.
I don’t disagree that Bernie was benefiting from the fractured field, and he was hopeless once they dropped out. I’m just saying that the DNC was pulling strings and coordinating things. Otherwise Amy doesn’t go from campaigning on the weekend to dropping out on Monday. And that’s fine. The system is fucked in many ways. Coordinated dropouts so the party’s preferred candidate has the best chance to win is low on the list of problems with the primary system.
'the DNC was pulling strings and coordinating things'
...that's kind of their job...it's why the DNC exists....it's not even a secret....
I know. That’s why I said “that’s fine, the system is fucked in many ways.” Not just because of the DNC or RNC puppet masters, the whole primary system is America is a joke. From the power of the parties, to how the elections are held. We here in Pennsylvania don't even get one this year. Iowa and New Hampshire, who combined have 1/4 of the population of Pennsylvania, gets more of a say in this process than PA does. Ridiculous.
What an endorsement for Joe! So between Biden and Trump, Obama sides with Biden. Talk about playing it safe. I guess Obama didn’t want to endorse when it was possible that Joe wouldn’t win the primary. It looks like Obama is like me and and many others that’ll vote for Joe in November: “Well, if he’s all we got, I guess I’ll back him.”
No, not really. Sitting and past presidents traditionally do not insert themselves into the nominating process as they prefer, and the party prefers, that the process play out. Obama not endorsing Sleepy Woke Joe until now is nothing more than him allowing the process to play out and then backing whoever the eventual nominee is. Obama would have endorsed Bernie had Bernie been the nominee. And he would have encouraged ALL democrats to get behind Bernie and help him win. Hardly an "if he's all we got," moment.
So basically he would’ve endorsed whoever won the primary. So for all we know, he could think Biden’s not a good choice (didn’t Obama say that in 2015 and that’s what led to Joe not running? I can’t remember but I thought he had something to do with Hillary being the party’s choice). I dunno, I just don’t think endorsements mean much. Especially something like this. Is he really endorsing Joe Biden? Or is he endorsing “insert democratic nominee here”?
Obama didn't endorse Clinton until June of 16, when the race was over. Same thing here. And yes, that's the point. Obama does not want to be seen as tipping the scales in a contested primary, so he remained silent. He was clear that was his plan in 16 and 20. And yes, one would think he would endorse any D put forward against Trump. That seems to be a fairly reasonable conclusion.
I’m not referring to his actual public endorsement of Hillary following the primary. I was under the impression that behind-the-scenes, he was instrumental in Joe not running, because he thought Hillary was the better candidate. I could be wrong, I can’t remember where I read that. But it makes sense because Joe not running in 2016 did NOT make sense. I’ve heard the reasoning that his son had just passed and that’s why he didn’t run. That might be true as well. But man, following Obama (who was popular), and going against Hilary and then Trump? 2016 was Joe’s year. 2020 might be too, but 2016 definitely was.
Well I'm sure Joe and Obama had a conversation about it. Biden is a team player and has shown himself to be that during his whole career, and by the fact that he was so respectful of Obama throughout the 8 years. Barack very well may have advised him not to run, and allow HRC to take the mantle. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm sure Obama also weighed in on Joe running this year. But I thought this whole conversation was about the public endorsement which is what you linked to at the beginning.
Well that was the conversation but I made reference to Obama’s behind-the-scenes endorsement of Hillary and I thought you were responding to that.
And there is something wrong with him telling Joe to step aside and let Hillary have the mantle. This why party politics suck. Why couldn’t they both run in the 2016 primary and let the Democratic electorate choose?
I know. I was half-kidding with that line. We've learned enough about the DNC over the past five years to know better.
20 candidates this time was not enough for you?
Oh come on. You know I’m referring to the internal emails favoring Hillary over Bernie in 2016, and the coordinated dropout effort prior to this election’s Super Tuesday.
A few things on that...
1. Hillary won the vote and it wasn't particularly close. 2. I agree the party wanted Hillary, but part of that is because Sanders isn't a Democrat and never did much to support the party in his 30 years. So that shouldn't surprise anyone. 3. The party 'learned' its lesson in 16 and bent over backwards in 20. Why not let that be your current focus rather than 16?
I made reference to the pre-Super Tuesday dropout by Pete and Amy. That was this election cycle. It was a coordinated effort to get more votes for Biden. Which is fine. The system is the system. But I don’t think they learned shit from ‘16 and they didn’t bend over backwards for anything. It was kinda similar to ‘16: anybody but Bernie. Sanders’ campaign manager felt Fox News was more fair to Bernie than MSNBC. Of course they were. MSNBC does the DNC’s bidding (attempting to hurt Bernie) and Fox News does Trump’s bidding (“Please give me Bernie to run against!”).
So because the Democratic party voters consolidated behind a particular candidate, that's a bad thing? What's clear is Bernie was ONLY benefiting from the fractured field. Should they have stayed to give Bernie a unique advantage, even though he could get above his 30 some % ceiling? Bernie's problem was Bernie, not when the other candidates dropped. If he had a winning coalition, the actions of Pete, Amy, Bloomberg wouldn't matter.
I don’t disagree that Bernie was benefiting from the fractured field, and he was hopeless once they dropped out. I’m just saying that the DNC was pulling strings and coordinating things. Otherwise Amy doesn’t go from campaigning on the weekend to dropping out on Monday. And that’s fine. The system is fucked in many ways. Coordinated dropouts so the party’s preferred candidate has the best chance to win is low on the list of problems with the primary system.
'the DNC was pulling strings and coordinating things'
...that's kind of their job...it's why the DNC exists....it's not even a secret....
I know. That’s why I said “that’s fine, the system is fucked in many ways.” Not just because of the DNC or RNC puppet masters, the whole primary system is America is a joke. From the power of the parties, to how the elections are held. We here in Pennsylvania don't even get one this year. Iowa and New Hampshire, who combined have 1/4 of the population of Pennsylvania, gets more of a say in this process than PA does. Ridiculous.
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
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: "It's legitimate to talk about" allegations against Joe Biden
New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday night said the Democratic Party should discuss the recent sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden, a charge the presumptive nominee's campaign has denied.
On Tuesday evening in an online conversation with The Wing, a networking and community space for women, a questioner asked Ocasio-Cortez about the accusation recently leveled against Biden by Tara Reade, who worked for him when he was a Delaware senator in the 1990s. The questioner opposes President Trump's reelection, but also "really resent[s] the fact that the other choice is someone who has a really long history of being creepy to women."
Ocasio-Cortez responded, "What you're voicing is so legitimate and real. That's why I find this kind of silencing of all dissent to be a form of gaslighting."
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: "It's legitimate to talk about" allegations against Joe Biden
New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday night said the Democratic Party should discuss the recent sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden, a charge the presumptive nominee's campaign has denied.
On Tuesday evening in an online conversation with The Wing, a networking and community space for women, a questioner asked Ocasio-Cortez about the accusation recently leveled against Biden by Tara Reade, who worked for him when he was a Delaware senator in the 1990s. The questioner opposes President Trump's reelection, but also "really resent[s] the fact that the other choice is someone who has a really long history of being creepy to women."
Ocasio-Cortez responded, "What you're voicing is so legitimate and real. That's why I find this kind of silencing of all dissent to be a form of gaslighting."
Well fortunately for Joe, they don’t have presidential nominee confirmation hearings like they have Supreme Court nominee confirmation hearings. Can you imagine if Joe had to defend himself in front of the world like Kavanaugh had to?
Believing these Biden allegations to be true means believing the "vast, right-wing conspiracy" somehow missed them for decades, including two election cycles when his name was on the ballot for Vice President.
Liz Warren refusing to be easily herded but still doing the right thing is one more reason to like her.
As long as you weren’t one of the people that was calling for Bernie to drop out and endorse Biden before Elizabeth made her endorsement.
Warren dropped out when it was clear she was beaten, Bernie stuck around for awhile after it was clear that he was. People called for Bernie to drop out for that reason. As for endorsing, both did so in their own time.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: "It's legitimate to talk about" allegations against Joe Biden
New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday night said the Democratic Party should discuss the recent sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden, a charge the presumptive nominee's campaign has denied.
On Tuesday evening in an online conversation with The Wing, a networking and community space for women, a questioner asked Ocasio-Cortez about the accusation recently leveled against Biden by Tara Reade, who worked for him when he was a Delaware senator in the 1990s. The questioner opposes President Trump's reelection, but also "really resent[s] the fact that the other choice is someone who has a really long history of being creepy to women."
Ocasio-Cortez responded, "What you're voicing is so legitimate and real. That's why I find this kind of silencing of all dissent to be a form of gaslighting."
Well fortunately for Joe, they don’t have presidential nominee confirmation hearings like they have Supreme Court nominee confirmation hearings. Can you imagine if Joe had to defend himself in front of the world like Kavanaugh had to?
We'd walk away thinking he probably didn't do it but insist he step down immediately because he lied about what he meant by "blumpkin" in a note to Chris Dodd
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: "It's legitimate to talk about" allegations against Joe Biden
New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday night said the Democratic Party should discuss the recent sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden, a charge the presumptive nominee's campaign has denied.
On Tuesday evening in an online conversation with The Wing, a networking and community space for women, a questioner asked Ocasio-Cortez about the accusation recently leveled against Biden by Tara Reade, who worked for him when he was a Delaware senator in the 1990s. The questioner opposes President Trump's reelection, but also "really resent[s] the fact that the other choice is someone who has a really long history of being creepy to women."
Ocasio-Cortez responded, "What you're voicing is so legitimate and real. That's why I find this kind of silencing of all dissent to be a form of gaslighting."
Well fortunately for Joe, they don’t have presidential nominee confirmation hearings like they have Supreme Court nominee confirmation hearings. Can you imagine if Joe had to defend himself in front of the world like Kavanaugh had to?
We'd walk away thinking he probably didn't do it but insist he step down immediately because he lied about what he meant by "blumpkin" in a note to Chris Dodd
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: "It's legitimate to talk about" allegations against Joe Biden
New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday night said the Democratic Party should discuss the recent sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden, a charge the presumptive nominee's campaign has denied.
On Tuesday evening in an online conversation with The Wing, a networking and community space for women, a questioner asked Ocasio-Cortez about the accusation recently leveled against Biden by Tara Reade, who worked for him when he was a Delaware senator in the 1990s. The questioner opposes President Trump's reelection, but also "really resent[s] the fact that the other choice is someone who has a really long history of being creepy to women."
Ocasio-Cortez responded, "What you're voicing is so legitimate and real. That's why I find this kind of silencing of all dissent to be a form of gaslighting."
Well fortunately for Joe, they don’t have presidential nominee confirmation hearings like they have Supreme Court nominee confirmation hearings. Can you imagine if Joe had to defend himself in front of the world like Kavanaugh had to?
We'd walk away thinking he probably didn't do it but insist he step down immediately because he lied about what he meant by "blumpkin" in a note to Chris Dodd
What's a blumpkin?
You're the one who has a pornhub premium account and frequent gentleman clubs, you tell us.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: "It's legitimate to talk about" allegations against Joe Biden
New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday night said the Democratic Party should discuss the recent sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden, a charge the presumptive nominee's campaign has denied.
On Tuesday evening in an online conversation with The Wing, a networking and community space for women, a questioner asked Ocasio-Cortez about the accusation recently leveled against Biden by Tara Reade, who worked for him when he was a Delaware senator in the 1990s. The questioner opposes President Trump's reelection, but also "really resent[s] the fact that the other choice is someone who has a really long history of being creepy to women."
Ocasio-Cortez responded, "What you're voicing is so legitimate and real. That's why I find this kind of silencing of all dissent to be a form of gaslighting."
Well fortunately for Joe, they don’t have presidential nominee confirmation hearings like they have Supreme Court nominee confirmation hearings. Can you imagine if Joe had to defend himself in front of the world like Kavanaugh had to?
We'd walk away thinking he probably didn't do it but insist he step down immediately because he lied about what he meant by "blumpkin" in a note to Chris Dodd
What's a blumpkin?
You're the one who has a pornhub premium account and frequent gentleman clubs, you tell us.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: "It's legitimate to talk about" allegations against Joe Biden
New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday night said the Democratic Party should discuss the recent sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden, a charge the presumptive nominee's campaign has denied.
On Tuesday evening in an online conversation with The Wing, a networking and community space for women, a questioner asked Ocasio-Cortez about the accusation recently leveled against Biden by Tara Reade, who worked for him when he was a Delaware senator in the 1990s. The questioner opposes President Trump's reelection, but also "really resent[s] the fact that the other choice is someone who has a really long history of being creepy to women."
Ocasio-Cortez responded, "What you're voicing is so legitimate and real. That's why I find this kind of silencing of all dissent to be a form of gaslighting."
Well fortunately for Joe, they don’t have presidential nominee confirmation hearings like they have Supreme Court nominee confirmation hearings. Can you imagine if Joe had to defend himself in front of the world like Kavanaugh had to?
We'd walk away thinking he probably didn't do it but insist he step down immediately because he lied about what he meant by "blumpkin" in a note to Chris Dodd
What's a blumpkin?
You're the one who has a pornhub premium account and frequent gentleman clubs, you tell us.
You make a point: crawling through a forest of covid to vote (then self quarantining, of course) just might be preferable than trudging through the cesspool of literal bullshit for 4 more years.
"A smart monkey doesn't monkey around with another monkey's monkey" - Darwin's Theory
Comments
Weird not having primaries drag out deep into the spring..
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
And yes, leaders lead. Well put CM.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: "It's legitimate to talk about" allegations against Joe Biden
New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday night said the Democratic Party should discuss the recent sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden, a charge the presumptive nominee's campaign has denied.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-biden-its-legitimate-to-talk-about-allegations/
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/492882-warren-endorses-biden-for-president
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Warren dropped out when it was clear she was beaten, Bernie stuck around for awhile after it was clear that he was. People called for Bernie to drop out for that reason. As for endorsing, both did so in their own time.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
(I know it was a joke)
Go ahead sit this one out take a look at Bernie and what he believes! I’ll crawl through a forest of covid to vote come November!!