• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The bi-partisan effort to take down Nina Turner

According to whom? You?
According to the results of the 2020 election. The subsequent stuff RE: 2016 I've already addressed.

Well it's both true and accurate. And any "reactive anger" would be totally irrelevant to the FACTS. Sanders wasn't the first candidate to fall just short of a party nomination. But some of his voters sure do make a bunch of excuses for themselves.
What I'm saying that if it were true and accurate, and frankly I don't invest much value with singular polls, nevermind aggregates that have proven to be wildly wrong as of late, 'reactive anger' in the immediate aftermath of the primary kind of plays a significant role in exaggerating the malcontent that evidently was not sustained by the time of the actual election in 2020.

Well-regulated capitalism, as imperfect as it will always be...is the best economic model we humans have been able to come up with.
Yes, but that is not America, whether under Democrats or Republicans, and under a more holistic standard for the developed world, AOC and Sanders are not remotely on the lunatic fringe of the left, nor am I. We are as stated effectively European/Scandinavian centrists. If anything, establishment Dems are closer to a lunatic fringe on the right by said standards (they literally are more conservative on the economy in many respects than Canadian Conservatives, and Canada's general political frame of reference isn't nearly as left as West/Northern Europe.

Such as...??
I mean I already stated several important issues: Medicare for All, Housing as a Human Right, College Debt Cancellation and Marijuana Legalization are huge differences alone, just off the top of my head.

Then of course taking corporate PAC money in explicit contradiction of the Squad's standards which is among the most potent and consistent litmus tests.

She's taking money from gopers. So did Biden. So did Obama. So did Clinton. So does Sherrod Brown. So did, BERNIE SANDERS, btw. ..
You do realize those were donations for Sanders were from individuals working for those corporations, and not corporate bundling right? And that he didn't accept or court super PACs. So too is this the case for Turner. Meanwhile, Sherrod explicitly went out of her way to beg for PAC support and corporate cash; that is an explicit and indelible difference which is disqualifying for anyone who would seek to identify as a progressive: https://theintercept.com/2021/05/08/nina-turner-shontel-brown-super-pac/


Not really. You mentioned Medicare for All...

I'm trying to get you to offer specifics, but you keep deflecting...
I literally gave you specifics, both before and earlier during this response, and no, Brown does not support Medicare for All; it's not on her website, and it's not part of her official platform (at best she said she would vote for it if it came to the house floor, not that she supports it, or that she would fight or advocate for it; this is a marked difference vs Turner), and most importantly, it's not the only issue she's deficient on.


Simply put, the two are really not different from a policy/platform position.
They are, it's possible to agree with someone in the majoritarian yet have substantial, deal breaking differences on the remainder; this is such a case. It's also a question of how vigorously I can expect Brown to fight for my priorities.

Fair enough. You wouldn't vote for Brown over Turner.

But would you vote for Brown over her GOP challenger, if she won the primary? I would support either one over a republican. What about you? There is a sizable faction of the Sanders wing that would not. And that's a problem for the party. That's the point of the discussion. I don't think that's even controversial.
Yes I would, but Brown indisputably represents the pro-corporate, pro-establishment wing of the party, and even if you're not convinced by the policy discrepancies (and they should certainly be convincing) her endorsements, her funding, and her pursuit of that funding makes this abundantly clear.
 

You had me ready to be surprised and say thanks for correcting me, but I just looked through everyone in the Progressive Caucus and do not see Clyburn.



https://www.essence.com/news/politics/clyburn-democrats-defund-police-election-2020/

You think Jim Clyburn is a "tap dancing mouth piece"?

Or are those the words of Pascal Robert?

Either way, they are a ill-informed opinion; but I'd like to know whose words they are. If they are Robert's words, it makes sense, given the source. He's a socialist ideologue with a point of view. He's been verbally attacking and criticizing prominent African-Americans for a long time. But his audience is primarily white liberals. That says it all. .He's just a bomb-thrower who appeals to a certain crowd.

On the other hand, if those are you words.....please elaborate on that choice of phrase.

You're entitled to your opinion. But, as a black man, I am careful with that sort of phraseology. But Paschal Robert is hardly someone worth quoting on issues relevant to African-Americans

They are his words. They're not the words I would choose. I don't disagree with them, but I wouldn't be comfortable choosing them, I think there are better ways to make the point and that's a somewhat unnecessarily offensive way to say the point.

How about using your own words rather than hiding behind "random poster's"?

I'd have to learn more details about Clyburn to characterize him more fully in my own words.

But I think Bernie was an utterly historically important candidate needed to reverse the last 40 years of the US being destroyed by plutocracy, and that the dominant 'corporate wing' of the Democratic Party is on the side of the plutocrats too much and against progressives, and that Clyburn did a disservice to the country that is his legacy and outweighs anything else he has done for his part in derailing front-runner Sanders' candidacy, and that he seems to be far too much in the corporatist side of the party and highly loyal to it. It seems to me that black voters deserve enormous credit at supporting Democrats over Republicans more than any other race, but that they are not nearly as strong at recognizing the need to support the progressive wing over the corporatist wing, and are often strong support for the corporatists.

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/bernie-sanders/summary?cid=N00000528

Take a look through the public disclosures of Clyburn and Bernie Sanders....then tell me which of the two is the "corporatist Democrat". And, while you're at it, check out
the financial disclosures of each, and talk to me about which of the two has actually enriched himself over the last 20 years, ok?

OK. Your link shows Bernie's biggest contributor after $40,000 from a University as $27,000 from Amazon. As I understand it, that is money from Amazon *workers* in small donations, and for all I know similarly for the university. Bernie made money by writing a book, nothing wrong with that. Why are you trying to do a smear job and without any substance?

Jim Clyburn's actual record is actually MORE progressive than Sanders'....because Clyburn has actually sponsored progressive legislation that has become law.

That is a ridiculous argument. Sanders is the leading progressive in the country. You don't say a word about how he has also been called the "Amendment King" for getting the most amendments to bills passed of any Senator for years. His presidential campaign, in which he went from an unknown 4% to 46% and coming in second twice, strengthened the progressive movement more than anything in many decades; Clyburn FOUGHT progressives.

You really need to retract and change that statement to continue any discussion, because otherwise it says quite bad things about you.

Gee...a senior-statement African-American Democratic leader in Congress who doesn't ignore black voters.

You're misrepresenting what I said as a criticism. My point was that you presented his position on an issue as proof he's a 'progressive', and I responded that his focus on it as an issue affecting black voters much more is a more likely reason IMO. There happens to be a lot of overlap, but far from a complete one, between progressive issues and issues that affect black Americans more.
 
Hillary Clinton, James Clyburn and the Democratic Establishment have joined forces with Fox News and Big Oil -- among many others -- to take down the progressive warrior, Nina Turner, who seeks to replace Marcia Judge's Ohio congressional seat. The alternative is a bought-and-paid-for corporate smear-stooge who literally uses canned applause at her rallies.
Anyone who didn't know who to vote for in the 2016 and 2020 general elections doesn't have the judgment to serve in Congress. The House has a big enough shortage of serious people as it is.
 
Anyone who didn't know who to vote for in the 2016 and 2020 general elections doesn't have the judgment to serve in Congress. The House has a big enough shortage of serious people as it is.
Interesting that you think someone faced with a serious ethics probe in a clear cut abuse of power is a 'serious person', but then you're definitely a known quantity when it comes to supporting corp dems come hell or highwater, no matter how dubious or corrupt:

https://www.newsweek.com/hillary-cl...el-brown-faces-potential-ethics-probe-1613460


Or that you would assert without evidence that Nina didn't vote for Biden. While she made plain her distaste for the choice, which was completely understandable (and yes, I'm aware, she referred to them as bowls of shit with Biden's being half full; she's not wrong), I see no proof that she didn't ultimately vote for Biden, which she also clearly thought to be the better option.
 
Or that you would assert without evidence that Nina didn't vote for Biden. While she made plain her distaste for the choice, which was completely understandable (and yes, I'm aware, she referred to them as bowls of shit with Biden's being half full; she's not wrong), I see no proof that she didn't ultimately vote for Biden, which she also clearly thought to be the better option.

Trying to depress turnout for Biden in Ohio is egregious and an obvious demerit in a Dem primary. We need fewer people in government who are content to burn the world down out of spite if they don't get their way, not more.
 
Trying to depress turnout for Biden in Ohio is egregious and an obvious demerit in a Dem primary. We need fewer people in government who are content to burn the world down out of spite if they don't get their way, not more.
Venting frustrations != a conscious attempt to depress Biden's turnout.

I will also notice you haven't spoken to the serious allegations against Brown which are frankly disqualifying if even partly true.
 
Venting frustrations != a conscious attempt to depress Biden's turnout.

If she went on TV to call Biden a "bowl of shit" with an intention other than depressing his turnout, then she's a moron. Either way, she's not fit. The leftwing Trumpsters need to be shown the door.
 
If she went on TV to call Biden a "bowl of shit" with an intention other than depressing his turnout, then she's a moron. Either way, she's not fit. The leftwing Trumpsters need to be shown the door.
First of all, not everything anyone says has to be or should be an explicit calculus devoid of emotion and with specific intent. I prefer genuine politicos who will give things to me straight, even if it's not what I want to hear at times, and frankly when it comes to disqualifying comments, others have done worse on your side of the party. I'm fairly certain you were still all in on Eliot Engel after he was caught on a hot mic saying he the only reason he cared to address constituents about the COVID crisis was because he was in a primary despite that being horribly callous and betraying a lack of basic humanity. Hell, I bet you might even think Manchin and Sinema are preferable to a prog despite them doing more damage to the party's future governing prospects and ability to implement its agenda than all progressives combined.

Understanding full and well that Biden is a half bowl of shit didn't stop me from voting for him, and I rather doubt it stopped Nina either, and many other Americans, including progressives who understand that's exactly what he is, but with the full bowl being so much worse.

Second, once again, I note you dancing around the probe facing Shontel; is it your preference we go with the nakedly corrupt candidate facing serious ethics charges over the person who once upon a time hurt your feelings over Biden and ultimately cost him nothing?
 
First of all, not everything anyone says has to be or should be an explicit calculus devoid of emotion and with specific intent.

Emotional ranting about the party's standard bearer in public and on the record without any thought toward possible consequences is a possibility there, I suppose. I already conceded she might just be a moron.
 
Emotional ranting about the party's standard bearer in public and on the record without any thought toward possible consequences is a possibility there, I suppose. I already conceded she might just be a moron.
Characterizing an accurate one off comment as a 'rant' is a very curious and self-serving definition of the word indeed that has no basis in reality, but then we both knew you're out to get her regardless of her opinion for Biden, nevermind the absurdity of branding her as a 'moron' on the basis of a single impassioned statement, even if you do feel that it was irresponsible or foolish. I'm sure you still think Pelosi is a genius despite repeatedly stumbling over her words and saying truly timeless things like 'we have to pass the bill to know what's in it' (which, to preempt you, is still a stupid thing to say even in context and with knowledge of what she was trying to communicate).

Moreover, I once again note you refuse to acknowledge the rhetorical failings of your side of the party, and Shontel's ethics probe.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure you still think Pelosi is a genius despite repeatedly stumbling over her words and saying truly timeless things like 'we have to pass the bill to know what's in it' (which, to preempt you, is still a stupid thing to say even in context and with knowledge of what she was trying to communicate).

I always forget that when you folks are regurgitating GOP talking points you’re pretending to represent the left.
 
I always forget that when you folks are regurgitating GOP talking points you’re pretending to represent the left.
Stupid is as stupid does, and what Pelosi said was definitely stupid, whether or not the GOP seized on it. Hell even a broken clock like Trump is right twice a day (see the investigations into Cuomo's disastrous COVID mishandling and coverups) even if for all the wrong reasons.

And yes, I am fully aware she was clumsily trying to refer to the benefits of the bill.

Lastly, I have been nothing if not consistent in my hatred for the GOP and support of the American left.

Meanwhile you literally can't bring yourself to acknowledge the failings of the politicos you fall in behind, nor the probe facing Shontel.
 
Stupid is as stupid does, and what Pelosi said was definitely stupid, whether or not the GOP seized on it. Hell even a broken clock like Trump is right twice a day (see the investigations into Cuomo's disastrous COVID mishandling and coverups) even if for all the wrong reasons.

And yes, I am fully aware she was clumsily trying to refer to the benefits of the bill.

Lastly, I have been nothing if not consistent in my hatred for the GOP and support of the American left.

Meanwhile you literally can't bring yourself to acknowledge the failings of the politicos you fall in behind, nor the probe facing Shontel.

And now the obligatory defense of Trump to pair with the GOP talking points about Dem leaders. Can’t imagine why horseshoe ‘lefties’ winning Dem primaries would be bad.
 
And now the obligatory defense of Trump to pair with the GOP talking points about Dem leaders. Can’t imagine why horseshoe ‘lefties’ winning Dem primaries would be bad.
I literally just called him a broken clock, and anyone can freely search my posting history to immediately note I am no fan of the bloviating orange retard.

Nice attempt at deflection though.

By the way, when will you be acknowledging Shontel's ethics probe?
 
If she went on TV to call Biden a "bowl of shit" with an intention other than depressing his turnout, then she's a moron. Either way, she's not fit. The leftwing Trumpsters need to be shown the door.

Historically Biden is a bowl of shit. Just saying. He was to the right of Reagan on the War on Drugs and is chiefly responsible for a bill that led to mass incarceration of black and brown people, destroying countless families, is chiefly responsible for saddling students with debt that they cannot shed until death, was an instrumental Democratic voice in the Iraq Invasion, and made the Bush Tax Cuts permanent without ANY concessions from Republicans.

Please point out where Nina was wrong.

That Biden is a FAR better choice than Trump and is vulnerable to progressive influence does not excuse Biden's atrocious history. Suck it up, this is the real world.
 
Moderate centrists have revealed themselves in the Trump and Biden era. They never cared about black issues, they merely use black people as a means to secure political power.

Nina, Killer Mike, or another black and brown progressive voices criticism of the corrupt nature of the moderate corporate Democratic party and Dems' hair is on fire with righteous indignation. Look, Clyburn, Biden, Sinema, Manchin -- they all take legalized bribes from corporations to enact policy CONTRARY to the interests of the American people. Shontel is yet another cog in this wheel. Calling Biden a 'bowl of shit' is far less insulting than negatively impacting the lives of countless Americans in favor of corporate interests for DECADES. So please, sit the hell down with your BS.

Anyways, in other news:



Rather than running for Congress, Shontel should be focusing on her legal woes, which could land her in jail.
 
Anyone who didn't know who to vote for in the 2016 and 2020 general elections doesn't have the judgment to serve in Congress. The House has a big enough shortage of serious people as it is.

Serious people meaning people who take legalized bribes.
 
Serious people meaning people who take legalized bribes.
And people, like say, Shontel Brown, who blatantly takes money from ardent Trump supporters, but evidently that's not a problem for Greenbeard despite him apparently despising Trump and ridiculously trying to smear me in the pejorative as a Trump supporter/fake leftist. If this disingenuous establishment simp is so concerned about Trump sleeper agents among us, surely he should be at least raising eyebrows at the fact that Brown is so singularly favoured by Donnie boy's people rather than refusing to acknowledge the fact while openly and repeatedly ignoring ethics probes over tens of millions worth of corruption apparently because Turner wasn't adequately supplicant towards Biden.
 
And people, like say, Shontel Brown, who blatantly takes money from ardent Trump supporters, but evidently that's not a problem for Greenbeard despite him apparently despising Trump and ridiculously trying to smear me in the pejorative as a Trump supporter/fake leftist. If this disingenuous establishment simp is so concerned about Trump sleeper agents among us, surely he should be at least raising eyebrows at the fact that Brown is so singularly favoured by Donnie boy's people rather than refusing to acknowledge the fact while openly and repeatedly ignoring ethics probes over tens of millions worth of corruption apparently because Turner wasn't adequately supplicant towards Biden.

True, true. In terms of policy, people like Shontel are FAR closer to Trump and the GOP than progressives like Nina Turner are. That's just a demonstrable fact.



People like Greenbeard don't seem to realize (or pretend not to) that corporate Dems and corporate Repubicans AGREE on most policy, they just (supposedly) differ on social issues. In fact, neither side truly cares -- but merely use their respective bases as a means to secure power in favor of corporate interests. Blue states get the social libs, red states get the social conservatives. They meet in the middle on screwing over the American people.

That's the reasonable, rational, pragmatic moderate centrism we're supposed to applaud.
 
This is just silly. Since when did that (M4M4A) become the measure of "true" progressiveness?

I was demonstrating I am not a partisan cultist of personality, unlike you, and don't give a shit, unlike you, and am unbiased, unlike you, and that I really don't have a dog in this fight, so I am going to correctly guess that 99.99% of the crux of your argument from henceforth falls apart since I am 99.99% sure that it revolves and hinges entirely upon the notion that I'm a "eViLbErNiEbRo"

There you go again with the simple-minded conspiracy theory b.s.

Pot, meet kettle:
















Who are my people? What's "mega corporation"? And why would "my people" work with rightwing Republicans?

I dunno, maybe you should ask them:


On what planet does any of that nonsense pass for rational thought? Please elaborate

Why bother when you're just going to froth and spit and kick and scream whenever you're confronted with an actual opponent and not just a sheepdog controlled opposition like Sanders or AOC?

cont'd
 
Is that what you socialist/fake progressive/fake liberal types think of all intelligent, rational, educated liberals?

Because being a liberal automatically makes you the almighty and infallible "intelligent, rational and educated?" This is why nobody ****ing likes you people, you act all holier-and-mightier-than-thou because you do the bare minimum like wear a mask and get vaccinated, while acting like being MARGINALLY more competent than the kind of people that are effectively the homo sapiens equivalent of ****ing Neanderthals and troglodytes gives you some sort of claim of moral superiority or the right to talk down to and bully anyone and everyone who disagrees with you. I actually applaud the others in this thread that have challenged you for remaining somewhat calm and collected in the face of your cascade of regurgitated partisan, self-righteous and smug bullshit. You endlessly cape for your anointed ones while acting like Trump supporters are somehow different than you, and endlessly project that identity onto all that oppose you. You attempt, and fail, to rehabilitate Republican war criminals like George W. Bush and the Cheneys, apologize for police brutality, military imperialism and racists that voted for Trump by attributing the defeat of Clinton to Bernie supporters, while ignoring the literal "basket of deplorables" THAT PUT TRUMP IN OFFICE IN THE FIRST ****ING PLACE, probably because you refuse to admit that Trump talked friendly politics with Bill Clinton WEEKS before announcing his presidential campaign, and - of course - who other than a braindead Clinton supporter could ignore that they wanted Trump to catapult Hillary into the White House as far back as 2015.

You sure you want to do this?

So who in the Democratic Party to you trust or respect? Anyone?

Nope. Never been a registered democrat other than 2020, and never will be again.

You don't know either candidate, do you? If anything, Turner is slightly to the left of Brown. But their policy differences are largely semantic.

Which makes her the centrist in this equation.

:ROFLMAO:.....typical. Like most of your ilk, everyone to the right of you is a rightwinger.

Only in the Imperial Confederacy of Amerikkka.

You people really are not much different than the Trumpsters. All emotion. No reason. Opinions = Facts. And facts be damned.

Ah, the delicious taste of hyper-partisan projection and mouth-frothing.

Translation: You're irrational and a bit of an ideologue.

Translation: This is all projection on my part, and no matter what you said I've dug in my heels against any and all contrary opinions or view points, and anyone who does the same in response or self-defense I will accuse of doing the exact thing I am doing.

:ROFLMAO:...this is a bizarrely disconnected response to what I actually said. Wow. You seem intent on injecting talking points into every response, without regard to the actual content to which you are pretending to respond.

Considering the endless rivers of shit you vomit to anyone and everyone who opposes you, I'm not surprised it got lost in translation. Maybe you should start a new thread next time instead of trying to shit all over everyone else's.

CONT'D
 
Last edited:
Needless to say, you won't be anyone's arbiter of centrism.

Yep, because anyone and everyone to the left of you is basically a Communist. Sound familiar? Either way, your argument and opinion on this matter is irrelevant, since you've proven yourself ostensibly a far-right reactionary pro-establishment military imperialist who will shit all over anyone with an ardent fervor that attempts to upset the right-wing imperialist authoritarian lock-step intolerant Democratic establishment. And with an even greater effort and opposition than that of the lip-service lackadaisical "assistance" to the progressive opposition to the fascist dictator known as Donald Trump.

:ROFLMAO:What kind of moron thinks (or pretends) that he speaks for "everyone here"?

Nice ad-hominem logical fallacy you got there.

Were you TRYING to prove my point with this, or what? Again, REAL PROGRESSIVES wouldn't be "pushed out". REAL PROGRESSIVES understand the elections are about choices, not fantasies. You and your ilk are clearly not REAL progressives. You are (I guess) leftwing extremists, who are (I'm quite sure) more trouble than you are worth.

Then why even bother? Or, could it be *gasp!* your ideology and dogma compels you to. The simple fact you think a rather unremarkable milquetoast centre-left career politician like Bernie and his supporters are "leftwing extremists" says a lot more about your own personal world view than it does theirs.

With seemingly every response, you help illustrate how you are really just the flip side of the Trump coin.

More frothing projection.

Another strange non-sequitur from you, but apparently another case of you pretending to speak for others.

I never claimed to speak for others, it is you who is making such an assertion from your partisan-addled illogical frothing mad excuse for a brain.

You talk a lot, but you don't say much.

And still yet more frothing projection. It's difficult to extract a diamond from a pile of shit, but that doesn't stop me from trying.

Not sure what any of the above (or the graph) has to do with anything I said. Perhaps you could elaborate?

Oh my god.

That said, the seat is for one congressional district, not the state of Ohio.

Exactly, so why are you so bigbutthurtbigmad over Nina Turner doing so well despite all the right-wing establishment corporatist forces that have been marshalled against her at the 11th hour?

Not entirely true, but still...good for Nina. She does get funding from out of state, and not all for "the people".

And Hillary Clinton and the DNC establishment are not "from out of state"? Come back down to earth please.

And who are these "mega corporations" and wall street billionaires you're talking about?

People that actually exist in reality no matter how hard you try to deny it.

You mean "educated folk", I take it?

No. Try again with less fail.

cont'd
 
And would you care to address the FACT that 15% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump and in FACT provided the margins in MICH, PA AND WISC that put Trump in the White House?

Yes, and I disagree with them. Are you seriously going to blame Bernie supporters for 4 years of Trump? Is that the hill you are willing to die on, I'd like to know, before I draw my sword and slay you upon it?

Who said anything about the failed white supremacist coup attempt on the US Capital? You have me mistaken for someone else. I suggest you review my post history and stop belching out stupid, empty talking points like the above.

I do not, you mean like the empty, stupid talking points like systemic racism and bigotry NOT being responsible for Trump and it is instead a handful of struggling working-class black and brown poor people and women?

:ROFLMAO:....you're talking to an African-American man who. My guess is you're a white guy whose emotions have gotten the best of him, here. Everything you've said here is absolutely correct, but your problem is that NONE of it has ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING I've posted in this thread. So let's get back to that, shall we?

Why are you so insistent on making the election of Trump over Hillary about Bernie supporters specifically? What is your psychopathology with these people here? I'm genuinely curious as to why you think a handful of Bernie supporters are worse than HALF THE COUNTRY.

Trump's base did NOT get him elected in 2016.

LMFAO!

Bernie's "base" did.

LMFAO!

Those were the 220K Bernie supporters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Penn who hated Hillary Clinton SOOOOOOO much that they cast their votes for Trump....thus providing TWICE the margin of victory he needed to win those three states (and, as a direct result, the presidency).

Was it that they just "hated Hillary Clinton SOOOOOOOO much" or was it the Electoral College?

PICK.

ONE.

That, along with a very poorly run Clinton campaign and a complicit national news media....are the reasons that Trump was elected.

Oh wow you actually said something somewhat intelligent.

Trump's "base" did NOT win him the 3 midwestern swing states he needed to squeak out that Electoral College victory. Sorry.

Nice to know you'll side with racist Trump supporters before the "eViLbErNiEbRoZ".

Stupid comment. I'm challenging him (and now you) to define "progressive", because it's increasingly clear that some of you are confused.

Irrelevant. As I do not consider myself a progressive in the first place.

And what "socialist" or "traditional progressive values" did I "shit' on? Be specific. Or stop lying. Your choice.

Oh just join the GOP already.

You people need to get your emotions under control, I think.

Says the person who thinks Hillary Clinton and her supporters are infallible holier-than-thou angelic vessels hovering a slight meter above everyone else.

The FACTS about 220K Sanders' supporters voting for Trump in Mich, Pa and Wisc....are not up for debate. And your inability to rebut them is your problem, not mine.

I never did rebut them, I'm challenging you to answer why you think they're worse for this country than racists who literally kill Black people en masse in the ****ing streets, among other deplorables.

Nope. But your opinion really doesn't matter in this instance. So...

The feeling's mutual.

So....you're another Bernie supporter, I take it.

Wrong, as usual.
 
And now the obligatory defense of Trump to pair with the GOP talking points about Dem leaders. Can’t imagine why horseshoe ‘lefties’ winning Dem primaries would be bad.
When are you going to fight the Republicans other than using them to waterboard your base into complacency?
 
Historically Biden is a bowl of shit.

Biden has virtually universal approval among Democrats.

A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds 6 in 10 Democrats say they’re optimistic about their party’s future, and Democrats nearly universally — 92% — approve of the way Biden is handling his job. The Democratic president is viewed favorably by both liberals and moderates.

May be easier to win a Dem primary if you find a candidate that doesn't hate Dems. Food for thought for next time.
 
Back
Top Bottom