Dem Party

JimmyV · May 2018

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.

It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite. I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process. I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.
There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.

For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.

Then what, precisely is it about? What are you advocating for here?

A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.

mrussel1 · May 2018

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.

It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite. I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process. I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.
There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.

For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.

Then what, precisely is it about? What are you advocating for here?

A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.

Sure, okay. I don't think anyone is against that. But Sanders was a pretty powerful candidate for a non-Democrat and he still didn't win. But yea, I'm for it. I'm also for keeping SD's, in the event that the alter-ego to Trump rises from the left.

pjhawks · May 2018

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.

It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite. I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process. I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.
There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.

For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.

Then what, precisely is it about? What are you advocating for here?

A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.

if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard. An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.

mrussel1 · May 2018

pjhawks said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.

It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite. I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process. I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.
There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.

For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.

Then what, precisely is it about? What are you advocating for here?

A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.

if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard. An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.

The GOP actually had a big field of very different candidates. Unfortunately the decades of appealing to the least common denominator manifested into Trump. Having super delegates may have saved us from this mess..

mrussel1 · May 2018

I would have been fine waking up to President Kasich every morning on Fox and Friends. I may not agree with much of what he does, but it's rational, thoughtful and he possesses empathy.

rgambs · May 2018

mrussel1 said:

I would have been fine waking up to President Kasich every morning on Fox and Friends. I may not agree with much of what he does, but it's rational, thoughtful and he possesses empathy.

One can only dream.

JimmyV · May 2018

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.

It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite. I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process. I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.
There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.

For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.

Then what, precisely is it about? What are you advocating for here?

A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.

Sure, okay. I don't think anyone is against that. But Sanders was a pretty powerful candidate for a non-Democrat and he still didn't win. But yea, I'm for it. I'm also for keeping SD's, in the event that the alter-ego to Trump rises from the left.

We live in a far more polarized country today than we did in 1972 or 1984. A disasterous candidate today wouldn't produce an electoral map like we saw then. Turn Colorado and Virginia red but otherwise it would look a lot like it did in 2016. I don't think superdelegates are saving us from much of anything. Quite the opposite actually.

JimmyV · May 2018

pjhawks said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.

It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite. I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process. I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.
There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.

For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.

Then what, precisely is it about? What are you advocating for here?

A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.

if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard. An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.

And if the Democrats had done this we might be able to say the same.

mrussel1 · May 2018

JimmyV said:

pjhawks said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.

It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite. I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process. I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.
There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.

For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.

Then what, precisely is it about? What are you advocating for here?

A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.

if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard. An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.

And if the Democrats had done this we might be able to say the same.

You call them "Democrats". They are also called "voters".

JimmyV · May 2018

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

pjhawks said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.

It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite. I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process. I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.
There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.

For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.

Then what, precisely is it about? What are you advocating for here?

A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.

if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard. An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.

And if the Democrats had done this we might be able to say the same.

You call them "Democrats". They are also called "voters".

Really? "Voters" decided who was and was not part of the Democratic field? That doesn't even make sense. The Clinton machine swallowed up the donors and the power brokers months before anyone voted. There was no path for a Biden or a Warren or an anyone else.

mrussel1 · May 2018

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

pjhawks said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.

It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite. I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process. I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.
There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.

For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.

Then what, precisely is it about? What are you advocating for here?

A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.

if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard. An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.

And if the Democrats had done this we might be able to say the same.

You call them "Democrats". They are also called "voters".

Really? "Voters" decided who was and was not part of the Democratic field? That doesn't even make sense. The Clinton machine swallowed up the donors and the power brokers months before anyone voted. There was no path for a Biden or a Warren or an anyone else.

That's a cop out. Donors hedge their bets and spread their money. Warren and Biden decided on their own that they were not going to run. Biden ran against Clinton and Obama in 2008. Either of them could have drummed up support to make a move.

JimmyV · May 2018

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

pjhawks said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.

It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite. I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process. I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.
There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.

For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.

Then what, precisely is it about? What are you advocating for here?

A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.

if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard. An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.

And if the Democrats had done this we might be able to say the same.

You call them "Democrats". They are also called "voters".

Really? "Voters" decided who was and was not part of the Democratic field? That doesn't even make sense. The Clinton machine swallowed up the donors and the power brokers months before anyone voted. There was no path for a Biden or a Warren or an anyone else.

That's a cop out. Donors hedge their bets and spread their money. Warren and Biden decided on their own that they were not going to run. Biden ran against Clinton and Obama in 2008. Either of them could have drummed up support to make a move.

It's hardly a cop out. 2016 was not 2008 or 2004 or 1992 or any other year in which the Democrats had a wide open field.

pjhawks · May 2018

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

pjhawks said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.

It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite. I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process. I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.
There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.

For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.

Then what, precisely is it about? What are you advocating for here?

A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.

if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard. An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.

And if the Democrats had done this we might be able to say the same.

You call them "Democrats". They are also called "voters".

Really? "Voters" decided who was and was not part of the Democratic field? That doesn't even make sense. The Clinton machine swallowed up the donors and the power brokers months before anyone voted. There was no path for a Biden or a Warren or an anyone else.

Biden didn't run because his son died.

JC29856 · May 2018

pjhawks said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

pjhawks said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.

It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite. I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process. I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.
There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.

For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.

Then what, precisely is it about? What are you advocating for here?

A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.

if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard. An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.

And if the Democrats had done this we might be able to say the same.

You call them "Democrats". They are also called "voters".

Really? "Voters" decided who was and was not part of the Democratic field? That doesn't even make sense. The Clinton machine swallowed up the donors and the power brokers months before anyone voted. There was no path for a Biden or a Warren or an anyone else.

Biden didn't run because his son died.

i really do believe it! i really do!

She was great last night. Thanks for inviting me into the campaign, and for sticking with me during the Biden anxiety. You are a great friend and a great leader. It's been a little hard for me to play such a role in the Biden demise - and I am definitely dead to them -- but I'm glad to be on Team HRC, and glad that she had a great debate last night. Thanks John.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5690

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHYIGy1dyd8

JC29856 · May 2018

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

pjhawks said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.

It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite. I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process. I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.
There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.

For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.

Then what, precisely is it about? What are you advocating for here?

A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.

if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard. An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.

And if the Democrats had done this we might be able to say the same.

You call them "Democrats". They are also called "voters".

Really? "Voters" decided who was and was not part of the Democratic field? That doesn't even make sense. The Clinton machine swallowed up the donors and the power brokers months before anyone voted. There was no path for a Biden or a Warren or an anyone else.

That's a cop out. Donors hedge their bets and spread their money. Warren and Biden decided on their own that they were not going to run. Biden ran against Clinton and Obama in 2008. Either of them could have drummed up support to make a mov"e.

"hedge bets"
To the donor class its a no risk gamble, I lose, I win, you LOSE, I still win!
Raise your hand if you are the donor class! (mruss schilling 4 tha donor class)

mrussel1 · May 2018

Truly horrible on John Podesta, particularly when compared to your guy, Trump.

Halifax2TheMax · May 2018

I’m sensing some Team “There was no collusion” Trump Treason news dropping soon. 3D being busy in da boiler room, yo!

JC29856 · May 2018

mrussel1 said:

Truly horrible on John Podesta, particularly when compared to your guy, Trump.

Gish Gallop, Distort, Distract, Deflect
Haven't I tried helping your hapless party for months on end, I couldn't convince you after 18 straight months revealing just how corrupt your Heiress was? In 6 short months Ill again explain why you and your party failed again...give me another chance. When will you realize I'm on your side?
I'm betting that shorty after the mid-terms this thread will also be (perpetually) "closed for review"!

JC29856 · May 2018

JC29856 said:

pjhawks said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

pjhawks said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.

It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite. I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process. I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.
There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.

For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.

Then what, precisely is it about? What are you advocating for here?

A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.

if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard. An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.

And if the Democrats had done this we might be able to say the same.

You call them "Democrats". They are also called "voters".

Really? "Voters" decided who was and was not part of the Democratic field? That doesn't even make sense. The Clinton machine swallowed up the donors and the power brokers months before anyone voted. There was no path for a Biden or a Warren or an anyone else.

Biden didn't run because his son died.

i really do believe it! i really do!
She was great last night. Thanks for inviting me into the campaign, and for sticking with me during the Biden anxiety. You are a great friend and a great leader. It's been a little hard for me to play such a role in the Biden demise - and I am definitely dead to them -- but I'm glad to be on Team HRC, and glad that she had a great debate last night. Thanks John.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5690

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHYIGy1dyd8

Raise your hand if you would enjoy a COCKtail or two while Skippy "plays" with your kid "in that pool"!

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10052
Why the ages? Its chilly!
I am popping >> up again to share our excitement about the Reprise of Our Gang’s visit to >> the farm in Lovettsville. And I thought I’d share a couple more notes: >> We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be >> Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and >> almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in >> that pool for sure. And with the forecast showing prospects of some sun, >> and a cooler temp of lower 60s, I suggest you bring sweaters of whatever >> attire will enable us to use our outdoor table with a pergola overhead so >> we dine al fresco (and ideally not al-CHILLo).

mrussel1 · May 2018

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

Truly horrible on John Podesta, particularly when compared to your guy, Trump.

Gish Gallop, Distort, Distract, Deflect
Haven't I tried helping your hapless party for months on end, I couldn't convince you after 18 straight months revealing just how corrupt your Heiress was? In 6 short months Ill again explain why you and your party failed again...give me another chance. When will you realize I'm on your side?
I'm betting that shorty after the mid-terms this thread will also be (perpetually) "closed for review"!

You traffic in lies, distortions, and false equivalency. You are just doing your little part to try and create dissent in the progressives to advance your alt right agenda. No one is fooled here. Free may have been misguided and the epitome of a Bernie bro, but he wasn't duplicitous.

Dem Party

Comments

Categories