The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/2/bernie-sanders-iowa-caucus-democratic-presidential-primary?fbclid=IwAR2WWWfanfTU9qFSOWIpoxQon8fU_iBtnBdnsRH1VHvuxwydZY5A3ACIR2kHalifax2TheMax said:
Bernie's just jealous he got outhustled in Iowa by the young whippasnappa who needs to more patiently wait his turn and respect his elders.Spiritual_Chaos said:
0 -
ecdanc said:
Actually I don’t get the reference to Ed’s guitar (send me over to be pilloried on the “real fan” threads on The Porch). I taught Zinn’s work years and years ago. I thought you might know Zinn which makes him a good choice for countering your absurd suggestion that historians don’t admonish.mrussel1 said:
Considering that concept is foreign to you, I doubt that.ecdanc said:
I’m a helluva lot closer than you are.mrussel1 said:
You're not an historianecdanc said:
No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.mrussel1 said:
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.ecdanc said:
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?mrussel1 said:
You clearly don't understand the concept.ecdanc said:
Poorly.mrussel1 said:
No im applying historical perspective.ecdanc said:
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approachmrussel1 said:
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.ecdanc said:
Am I wrong?mrussel1 said:
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.ecdanc said:
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.mrussel1 said:
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.Halifax2TheMax said:
Yes. Is it perfect? No.ecdanc said:
Can you?Halifax2TheMax said:
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?OnWis97 said:
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.Halifax2TheMax said:Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
I fear you're a one trick pony.
But sure, I guess you would argue that Washington DC should be renamed because the Fathers didn't bestow suffrage on women who identify as men. Under your mindset, they should be admonished. For an historian, that's silliness.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Conspiracies abound.ecdanc said:
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/2/bernie-sanders-iowa-caucus-democratic-presidential-primary?fbclid=IwAR2WWWfanfTU9qFSOWIpoxQon8fU_iBtnBdnsRH1VHvuxwydZY5A3ACIR2kHalifax2TheMax said:
Bernie's just jealous he got outhustled in Iowa by the young whippasnappa who needs to more patiently wait his turn and respect his elders.Spiritual_Chaos said: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; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Thanks. That’s pretty cool.Spiritual_Chaos said:ecdanc said:
Actually I don’t get the reference to Ed’s guitar (send me over to be pilloried on the “real fan” threads on The Porch). I taught Zinn’s work years and years ago. I thought you might know Zinn which makes him a good choice for countering your absurd suggestion that historians don’t admonish.mrussel1 said:
Considering that concept is foreign to you, I doubt that.ecdanc said:
I’m a helluva lot closer than you are.mrussel1 said:
You're not an historianecdanc said:
No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.mrussel1 said:
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.ecdanc said:
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?mrussel1 said:
You clearly don't understand the concept.ecdanc said:
Poorly.mrussel1 said:
No im applying historical perspective.ecdanc said:
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approachmrussel1 said:
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.ecdanc said:
Am I wrong?mrussel1 said:
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.ecdanc said:
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.mrussel1 said:
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.Halifax2TheMax said:
Yes. Is it perfect? No.ecdanc said:
Can you?Halifax2TheMax said:
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?OnWis97 said:
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.Halifax2TheMax said:Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
I fear you're a one trick pony.
But sure, I guess you would argue that Washington DC should be renamed because the Fathers didn't bestow suffrage on women who identify as men. Under your mindset, they should be admonished. For an historian, that's silliness.0 -
Indeed. Like the ones you expounded here earlier today.Halifax2TheMax said:
Conspiracies abound.ecdanc said:
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/2/bernie-sanders-iowa-caucus-democratic-presidential-primary?fbclid=IwAR2WWWfanfTU9qFSOWIpoxQon8fU_iBtnBdnsRH1VHvuxwydZY5A3ACIR2kHalifax2TheMax said:
Bernie's just jealous he got outhustled in Iowa by the young whippasnappa who needs to more patiently wait his turn and respect his elders.Spiritual_Chaos said:
0 -
I didn't say they don't, I said historical perspective is passing judgments based on the societal norms and concepts of the time, not today's. That's why I brought up that example of criticizing the lack of suffrage for Trans being a ridiculous bar for the founding fathers.ecdanc said:
Actually I don’t get the reference to Ed’s guitar (send me over to be pilloried on the “real fan” threads on The Porch). I taught Zinn’s work years and years ago. I thought you might know Zinn which makes him a good choice for countering your absurd suggestion that historians don’t admonish.mrussel1 said:
Considering that concept is foreign to you, I doubt that.ecdanc said:
I’m a helluva lot closer than you are.mrussel1 said:
You're not an historianecdanc said:
No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.mrussel1 said:
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.ecdanc said:
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?mrussel1 said:
You clearly don't understand the concept.ecdanc said:
Poorly.mrussel1 said:
No im applying historical perspective.ecdanc said:
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approachmrussel1 said:
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.ecdanc said:
Am I wrong?mrussel1 said:
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.ecdanc said:
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.mrussel1 said:
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.Halifax2TheMax said:
Yes. Is it perfect? No.ecdanc said:
Can you?Halifax2TheMax said:
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?OnWis97 said:
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.Halifax2TheMax said:Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
I fear you're a one trick pony.
But sure, I guess you would argue that Washington DC should be renamed because the Fathers didn't bestow suffrage on women who identify as men. Under your mindset, they should be admonished. For an historian, that's silliness.
I read People's 25 years ago, probably in 1101, as everyone does. And he's a social professor (like Goldhagen) whereas I focused on political history. And as I said to you much earlier, specifically Age of Jackson.0 -
from an article linked above.....For example, in Ottumwa, Iowa, fourteen late-shift workers at a meat processing plant, most of them Ethiopian immigrants, showed up to a satellite caucus to support Bernie.umm arent 15 required for viability according to Iowas rules?
_____________________________________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 -
No, that isn’t what you said.mrussel1 said:
I didn't say they don't, I said historical perspective is passing judgments based on the societal norms and concepts of the time, not today's. That's why I brought up that example of criticizing the lack of suffrage for Trans being a ridiculous bar for the founding fathers.ecdanc said:
Actually I don’t get the reference to Ed’s guitar (send me over to be pilloried on the “real fan” threads on The Porch). I taught Zinn’s work years and years ago. I thought you might know Zinn which makes him a good choice for countering your absurd suggestion that historians don’t admonish.mrussel1 said:
Considering that concept is foreign to you, I doubt that.ecdanc said:
I’m a helluva lot closer than you are.mrussel1 said:
You're not an historianecdanc said:
No I don’t. You might want to sit in on my class on Huck Finn sometime.mrussel1 said:
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.ecdanc said:
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?mrussel1 said:
You clearly don't understand the concept.ecdanc said:
Poorly.mrussel1 said:
No im applying historical perspective.ecdanc said:
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approachmrussel1 said:
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.ecdanc said:
Am I wrong?mrussel1 said:
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.ecdanc said:
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.mrussel1 said:
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.Halifax2TheMax said:
Yes. Is it perfect? No.ecdanc said:
Can you?Halifax2TheMax said:
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?OnWis97 said:
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.Halifax2TheMax said:Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
I fear you're a one trick pony.
But sure, I guess you would argue that Washington DC should be renamed because the Fathers didn't bestow suffrage on women who identify as men. Under your mindset, they should be admonished. For an historian, that's silliness.
I read People's 25 years ago, probably in 1101, as everyone does. And he's a social professor (like Goldhagen) whereas I focused on political history. And as I said to you much earlier, specifically Age of Jackson.0 -
15%?mickeyrat said:from an article linked above.....For example, in Ottumwa, Iowa, fourteen late-shift workers at a meat processing plant, most of them Ethiopian immigrants, showed up to a satellite caucus to support Bernie.umm arent 15 required for viability according to Iowas rules?0 -
@ecdanc - this is what I said.mrussel1 said:
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.ecdanc said:
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?mrussel1 said:
You clearly don't understand the concept.ecdanc said:
Poorly.mrussel1 said:
No im applying historical perspective.ecdanc said:
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approachmrussel1 said:
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.ecdanc said:
Am I wrong?mrussel1 said:
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.ecdanc said:
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.mrussel1 said:
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.Halifax2TheMax said:
Yes. Is it perfect? No.ecdanc said:
Can you?Halifax2TheMax said:
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?OnWis97 said:
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.Halifax2TheMax said:Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
I fear you're a one trick pony.0 -
You shifted from prescriptive to descriptivemrussel1 said:
@ecdanc - this is what I said.mrussel1 said:
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.ecdanc said:
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?mrussel1 said:
You clearly don't understand the concept.ecdanc said:
Poorly.mrussel1 said:
No im applying historical perspective.ecdanc said:
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approachmrussel1 said:
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.ecdanc said:
Am I wrong?mrussel1 said:
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.ecdanc said:
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.mrussel1 said:
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.Halifax2TheMax said:
Yes. Is it perfect? No.ecdanc said:
Can you?Halifax2TheMax said:
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?OnWis97 said:
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.Halifax2TheMax said:Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
I fear you're a one trick pony.0 -
I frickin' LOVE the IGNORE feature!0
-
you and me both...... would prefer the block we used to have but .....what dreams said:I frickin' LOVE the IGNORE feature!
_____________________________________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 -
Oh Christ. Really? Now you agree with me?ecdanc said:
You shifted from prescriptive to descriptivemrussel1 said:
@ecdanc - this is what I said.mrussel1 said:
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.ecdanc said:
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?mrussel1 said:
You clearly don't understand the concept.ecdanc said:
Poorly.mrussel1 said:
No im applying historical perspective.ecdanc said:
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approachmrussel1 said:
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.ecdanc said:
Am I wrong?mrussel1 said:
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.ecdanc said:
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.mrussel1 said:
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.Halifax2TheMax said:
Yes. Is it perfect? No.ecdanc said:
Can you?Halifax2TheMax said:
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?OnWis97 said:
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.Halifax2TheMax said:Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
I fear you're a one trick pony.0 -
And regardless, we’re really arguing about what one should do, which makes this bit an irrelevant tangent (on both our parts)ecdanc said:
You shifted from prescriptive to descriptivemrussel1 said:
@ecdanc - this is what I said.mrussel1 said:
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.ecdanc said:
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?mrussel1 said:
You clearly don't understand the concept.ecdanc said:
Poorly.mrussel1 said:
No im applying historical perspective.ecdanc said:
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approachmrussel1 said:
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.ecdanc said:
Am I wrong?mrussel1 said:
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.ecdanc said:
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.mrussel1 said:
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.Halifax2TheMax said:
Yes. Is it perfect? No.ecdanc said:
Can you?Halifax2TheMax said:
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?OnWis97 said:
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.Halifax2TheMax said:Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
I fear you're a one trick pony.0 -
I agree that you’re describing one way to view things. A shitty way.mrussel1 said:
Oh Christ. Really? Now you agree with me?ecdanc said:
You shifted from prescriptive to descriptivemrussel1 said:
@ecdanc - this is what I said.mrussel1 said:
You make historical judgments based on the concepts of the time, not today's. Slavery wasn't outlawed in any western country before the turn of the 19th century, so it's improper to use that as a bar.ecdanc said:
No it’s P&L I don’t understand, remember?mrussel1 said:
You clearly don't understand the concept.ecdanc said:
Poorly.mrussel1 said:
No im applying historical perspective.ecdanc said:
Your defense is “they weren’t trying to help those other people?” Interesting approachmrussel1 said:
Yes considering the concept was about religious and voting minorities.ecdanc said:
Am I wrong?mrussel1 said:
You think you're clever but it comes off more like a lame joke.ecdanc said:
Good thing minorities had it so well in the 1780s.mrussel1 said:
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's straight from the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu.Halifax2TheMax said:
Yes. Is it perfect? No.ecdanc said:
Can you?Halifax2TheMax said:
And therein lies the everlasting challenge of democracy, how do you have majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority?OnWis97 said:
I'm not convinced "violence" is the right word...but I understand it.Halifax2TheMax said:Oh please. There’s get shot and killed in school as a second grader violence that equals I got screwed on my taxes because Team Trump Treason got elected violence? Voting = violence, this country is really fucked.
That said, if everything works well, majority rule doesn't always hold form. We didn't end slavery on a majority popular vote (it would have failed, particularly if the individual states had their own choice. One high-profile example that the right thing can be done despite a likely majority being against it. Admittedly it puts a lot of trust into people who have conflicts of interest between themselves and the public good.
I fear you're a one trick pony.
0 -
0
-
With ignore, you get just enough quoted material to understand the context, with a few really laughable moments thrown in between. My favorite was "voting is an act of violence."mickeyrat said:
you and me both...... would prefer the block we used to have but .....what dreams said:I frickin' LOVE the IGNORE feature!0 -
mrussel1 said:
Bernie seeks to damage his opponent. You simply don't do that if you want to win in the general.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
So anyone loving Pete but hating Bernie. Would Bernie have stood by this tshirt? @benjs ?
https://theintercept.com/2019/12/19/pete-buttigieg-south-bend-i-cant-breathe-shirts/
Pete is spineless, opportunistic trash with just the eye on the prize and will walk over anyone, and will flip-flop on anything to get it.
Agree with Bernie or not -- but he at least stands for something and believes in something.Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K 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
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help