The Democratic Presidential Debates

Ledbetterman10 said:

So Biden is high-tailing it out of New Hampshire and heading towards South Carolina. 

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa? 

Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?

https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9Q

Ain't got a subscription. 

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.

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.  

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?

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) 

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.  

What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?

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.  

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.

How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.  

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. 

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.

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.  

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.  

Like Bernie like son.

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa? 

Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?

https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9Q

Ain't got a subscription. 

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.

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.  

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?

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) 

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.  

What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?

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.  

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.

How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.  

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. 

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.

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.  

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.  

Like Bernie like son.

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.  
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 person

	Republican	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=syndication

Not 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.

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa? 

Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?

https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9Q

Ain't got a subscription. 

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.

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.  

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?

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) 

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.  

What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?

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.  

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.

How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.  

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. 

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.

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.  

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.  

Like Bernie like son.

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.  
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 person

	Republican	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=syndication

That’s a disheartening poll in so many ways. 

Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours. 

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa? 

Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?

https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9Q

Ain't got a subscription. 

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.

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.  

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?

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) 

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.  

What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?

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.  

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.

How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.  

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. 

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.

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.  

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.  

Like Bernie like son.

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.  
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 person

	Republican	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=syndication

Not 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.

No fucking way.  I don't hang on cult sites.  You're braver than me. 

I’m confused. Reddit or porch?

Lerxst1992 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa? 

Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?

https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9Q

Ain't got a subscription. 

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.

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.  

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?

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) 

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.  

What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?

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.  

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.

How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.  

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. 

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.

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.  

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.  

Like Bernie like son.

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.  
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 person

	Republican	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=syndication

That’s a disheartening poll in so many ways. 

Prejudice 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.

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa? 

Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?

https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9Q

Ain't got a subscription. 

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.

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.  

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?

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) 

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.  

What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?

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.  

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.

How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.  

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. 

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.

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.  

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.  

Like Bernie like son.

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.  
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 person

	Republican	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=syndication

That’s a disheartening poll in so many ways. 

Prejudice 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.

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. 

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.