The Swamp

There really is nothing wrong with wealth -- that's a pretty innocuous statement in and of itself.

But that doesn't mean that immense wealth shouldn't be more severely taxed. Those two opinions aren't mutually exclusive.

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:21 pm You don't need to attack Biden on his defense of the rich when, on the day before Juneteenth and while people going into Trump's rally flashing white power signs, he felt the need to defend segrationist Senators.

Bumping this so it doesn’t get buried by the page change. Absolutely shameful shit by Biden praising the “civility” of vicious white supremacist Senators.

Yeah, the GOP's great victory over the last 30 years has been to trick working class Americans into thinking wealth was an attainable/achievable goal, all while increasingly consolidating that wealth in increasingly smaller pockets of rich Americans.

It is absolutely partisan to characterize the vast majority of Americans that are on welfare as lazy lay-abouts with a lifetime goal of sucking the country dry to their betterment. Yeah, sure, it exists in pockets here and there. But the vast majority of people on assistance want it to be temporary and (shocking to some) a lot more white people are on assistance than POC.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:46 pmIn a nation of 320 million with a 20 Trillion dollar GDP there is exactly zero reason for children to be hungry, people needing Go Fund Me for their Health Care, workers being labeled "independent contractors" so that billion dollar valuation companies don't have to pay them well, free education, and a plethora of other things that we "just don't have the money for" happening. All the meanwhile were still in Afghanistan and Iraq (amongst several other countries) and seem to having money for that shit.

Remember when the list of billionaires was like the Walton Family, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and that one dude from Mexico who controlled all the cable companies? Now it's a ton of fucking people. And collectively they control more wealth than nations and I'm supposed to believe had I made better decisions I could have been one of them too.

I think there's kind of a disconnect there. I don't read Citgo as saying (i) everyone who is rich worked hard to get there, or (ii) if you work hard you will be a multibillionaire, or (iii) super-rich people shouldn't be taxed and regulated more.

De Blasio unloads on Biden. More of this, please.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:01 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:46 pmIn a nation of 320 million with a 20 Trillion dollar GDP there is exactly zero reason for children to be hungry, people needing Go Fund Me for their Health Care, workers being labeled "independent contractors" so that billion dollar valuation companies don't have to pay them well, free education, and a plethora of other things that we "just don't have the money for" happening. All the meanwhile were still in Afghanistan and Iraq (amongst several other countries) and seem to having money for that shit.

Remember when the list of billionaires was like the Walton Family, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and that one dude from Mexico who controlled all the cable companies? Now it's a ton of fucking people. And collectively they control more wealth than nations and I'm supposed to believe had I made better decisions I could have been one of them too.

I think there's kind of a disconnect there. I don't read Citgo as saying (i) everyone who is rich worked hard to get there, or (ii) if you work hard you will be a multibillionaire, or (iii) super-rich people shouldn't be taxed and regulated more.

I've re-read his post multiple times. It starts off that some of us are left wing whack jobs. It then pontificates on a "concept" that is, as he states, a Republican view.

So, I'm going to need clarity on whatever point he's trying to make. I agree with Brian that being rich isn't bad necessarily. But when the concentration of wealth is so acute that a very small amount of people control so much of it when others are in need, I don't need some "republican view" to set me straight.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:27 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:01 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:46 pmIn a nation of 320 million with a 20 Trillion dollar GDP there is exactly zero reason for children to be hungry, people needing Go Fund Me for their Health Care, workers being labeled "independent contractors" so that billion dollar valuation companies don't have to pay them well, free education, and a plethora of other things that we "just don't have the money for" happening. All the meanwhile were still in Afghanistan and Iraq (amongst several other countries) and seem to having money for that shit.

Remember when the list of billionaires was like the Walton Family, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and that one dude from Mexico who controlled all the cable companies? Now it's a ton of fucking people. And collectively they control more wealth than nations and I'm supposed to believe had I made better decisions I could have been one of them too.

I think there's kind of a disconnect there. I don't read Citgo as saying (i) everyone who is rich worked hard to get there, or (ii) if you work hard you will be a multibillionaire, or (iii) super-rich people shouldn't be taxed and regulated more.

I've re-read his post multiple times. It starts off that some of us are left wing whack jobs. It then pontificates on a "concept" that is, as he states, a Republican view.

So, I'm going to need clarity on whatever point he's trying to make. I agree with Brian that being rich isn't bad necessarily. But when the concentration of wealth is so acute that a very small amount of people control so much of it when others are in need, I don't need some "republican view" to set me straight.

1. Some of us are left wing whack jobs. (Hard to disagree with that.)

2. There's nothing wrong with being rich.

3. Everyone should get behind the concept that hard work and good decision making leads to greater wealth.

3a. Not being an addict, avoiding having kids out of wedlock, staying married, finishing school, and going to work everyday and geting there on time go a long way towards wealth.

Personally, I agree with all of these, although I do think one could argue about how "rich" people in certain situations can get simply by working hard and being responsible. I also am leery of assuming that staying in a bad marriage is the right thing to do.

But generally, I am totally on board with both the notion that there's nothing wrong with being rich - if you aren't being a selfish hoarding asshole - and also that working hard and being responsible are better for you than not working hard and not being responsible.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:27 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:01 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:46 pmIn a nation of 320 million with a 20 Trillion dollar GDP there is exactly zero reason for children to be hungry, people needing Go Fund Me for their Health Care, workers being labeled "independent contractors" so that billion dollar valuation companies don't have to pay them well, free education, and a plethora of other things that we "just don't have the money for" happening. All the meanwhile were still in Afghanistan and Iraq (amongst several other countries) and seem to having money for that shit.

Remember when the list of billionaires was like the Walton Family, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and that one dude from Mexico who controlled all the cable companies? Now it's a ton of fucking people. And collectively they control more wealth than nations and I'm supposed to believe had I made better decisions I could have been one of them too.

I think there's kind of a disconnect there. I don't read Citgo as saying (i) everyone who is rich worked hard to get there, or (ii) if you work hard you will be a multibillionaire, or (iii) super-rich people shouldn't be taxed and regulated more.

I've re-read his post multiple times. It starts off that some of us are left wing whack jobs. It then pontificates on a "concept" that is, as he states, a Republican view.

So, I'm going to need clarity on whatever point he's trying to make. I agree with Brian that being rich isn't bad necessarily. But when the concentration of wealth is so acute that a very small amount of people control so much of it when others are in need, I don't need some "republican view" to set me straight.

While a few Left Wing nutjobs believe wealth is evil, I think the majority of Liberals respect the need for a capitalist component in our system, where desire for wealth drives progress. The GOP have done a masterful job of framing the issue as Liberals hate rich people and want to punish hard work. I think most Liberals respect that someone who works hard or has a great idea deserves wealth, and don't begrudge them their wealth, but we know the system is rigged, and the wealthy control the politicians and don't pay their share of the tax burden. The wealthiest reaped the benefits of trillions of $ in tax cuts, at the expense of the other 99.9999% of us, and the GOP has somehow convinced the working class majority of their supporters that tax cuts for the wealthy will magically make them rich. Part of it is the Horatio Alger Rags to Riches mentality Americans have had for 200 years, most of us think one day we will be rich. I think it is fucking criminal and catastrophic that Amazon earned over $10 Billion in 2018, and not only paid zero income tax, and still got $129 Million federal tax rebate. And the GOP responds with, "but they create jobs?" Fucking great, and he pays his workers bullshit wages, and treats them like slaves, and uses the tax savings to invest in automating his business, so he won't have to pay wages.

I don't begrudge Bezos for making Billions, he took a simple idea and blew it up into the biggest corporation in the world. Good for him, he deserves to be one of the richest men in the world, but that shouldn't give him (or the Kochs) the right to buy Senators who in turn slash their taxes and remove all regulations that reduce their profits. Good on the Kochs for becoming Billionaires, but fuck them if they want to buy votes to abolish the EPA so they can save some money on dumping toxic waste into rivers rather than dispose of it responsibly. And that savings doesn't go to create more jobs, it goes straight to the Kochs and shareholders.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:16 pmThe GOP have done a masterful job of framing the issue as Liberals hate rich people and want to punish hard work.

And attacking Biden for what he said today seems to confirm the GOP's framing.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:23 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:16 pmThe GOP have done a masterful job of framing the issue as Liberals hate rich people and want to punish hard work.

And attacking Biden for what he said today seems to confirm the GOP's framing.

Here’s a verbatim quote from Biden’s remarks to rich donors: “No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change.” It’s more than fair, in a primary where actual progressives are running, to take issue with him promising that “nothing would fundamentally change” if he is President. If you don’t think any fundamental changes are necessary, that’s one thing. But if you do, Biden’s comments are an obvious red flag.

Pretty much fucking evergreen at this point:

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:00 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:23 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:16 pmThe GOP have done a masterful job of framing the issue as Liberals hate rich people and want to punish hard work.

And attacking Biden for what he said today seems to confirm the GOP's framing.

Here’s a verbatim quote from Biden’s remarks to rich donors: “No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change.” It’s more than fair, in a primary where actual progressives are running, to take issue with him promising that “nothing would fundamentally change” if he is President. If you don’t think any fundamental changes are necessary, that’s one thing. But if you do, Biden’s comments are an obvious red flag.

Are any of the candidates (including Sanders or Warren) proposing anything that would fundamentally change the way rich people live? Are those proposals going to get the support of 50 senators?

I mean, Dems are promising to increase taxes on the rich and to regulate corporations more. (And both of those are great.) But is anyone promising the kind of changes that would really put a dent into the standard of living for rich people?

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:05 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:27 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:01 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:46 pmIn a nation of 320 million with a 20 Trillion dollar GDP there is exactly zero reason for children to be hungry, people needing Go Fund Me for their Health Care, workers being labeled "independent contractors" so that billion dollar valuation companies don't have to pay them well, free education, and a plethora of other things that we "just don't have the money for" happening. All the meanwhile were still in Afghanistan and Iraq (amongst several other countries) and seem to having money for that shit.

Remember when the list of billionaires was like the Walton Family, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and that one dude from Mexico who controlled all the cable companies? Now it's a ton of fucking people. And collectively they control more wealth than nations and I'm supposed to believe had I made better decisions I could have been one of them too.

I think there's kind of a disconnect there. I don't read Citgo as saying (i) everyone who is rich worked hard to get there, or (ii) if you work hard you will be a multibillionaire, or (iii) super-rich people shouldn't be taxed and regulated more.

I've re-read his post multiple times. It starts off that some of us are left wing whack jobs. It then pontificates on a "concept" that is, as he states, a Republican view.

So, I'm going to need clarity on whatever point he's trying to make. I agree with Brian that being rich isn't bad necessarily. But when the concentration of wealth is so acute that a very small amount of people control so much of it when others are in need, I don't need some "republican view" to set me straight.

1. Some of us are left wing whack jobs. (Hard to disagree with that.)

2. There's nothing wrong with being rich.

3. Everyone should get behind the concept that hard work and good decision making leads to greater wealth.

3a. Not being an addict, avoiding having kids out of wedlock, staying married, finishing school, and going to work everyday and geting there on time go a long way towards wealth.

Personally, I agree with all of these, although I do think one could argue about how "rich" people in certain situations can get simply by working hard and being responsible. I also am leery of assuming that staying in a bad marriage is the right thing to do.

But generally, I am totally on board with both the notion that there's nothing wrong with being rich - if you aren't being a selfish hoarding asshole - and also that working hard and being responsible are better for you than not working hard and not being responsible.

And to make the bold part possible, the country needs living wages, affordable housing, better education and childcare, affordable/better healthcare, abortion rights, better public transportation, and a bunch of other liberal programs that I'm sure every conservative spouting this bolded part is fighting for.

Phenomenal quote I just read:

"Let's be honest. Bipartisanship is just where the interests of the wealthy who control each party overlaps."

EdRomero wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:51 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:05 pm 3a. Not being an addict, avoiding having kids out of wedlock, staying married, finishing school, and going to work everyday and geting there on time go a long way towards wealth.

And to make the bold part possible, the country needs living wages, affordable housing, better education and childcare, affordable/better healthcare, abortion rights, better public transportation, and a bunch of other liberal programs that I'm sure every conservative spouting this bolded part is fighting for.

No argument here.

Interesting data here. As the field condenses, Biden and Sanders' unfavorables are going to hurt them more and more with the rest of the field that's left, which could help Beto, Warren, Harris and Mayor Pete. Standard caveats about how there's a long way to go, etc.,etc.

Who said it?

I have some friends on the far left, and they can justify to me the murder of a white deaf mute for a nickel by five colored guys. They say the black men had been oppressed and so on. But they can’t justify some Alabama farmers tar and feathering an old colored woman. I suspect the ACLU would leap to defend the five black guys. But no one would go down to help the ‘rednecks.’ They are both products of an environment. The truth is somewhere between the two poles. And rednecks are usually people with very real concerns, people who lack the education and skills to express themselves quietly and articulately.

A: Joe Biden, as part of his initial Senate campaign. And yet he has the audacity to portray himself as a life long ally of the Civil Rights movement.

I would take Warren to win at +400. She's passed Bernie who is at +600.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:36 am

EdRomero wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:51 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:05 pm 3a. Not being an addict, avoiding having kids out of wedlock, staying married, finishing school, and going to work everyday and geting there on time go a long way towards wealth.

And to make the bold part possible, the country needs living wages, affordable housing, better education and childcare, affordable/better healthcare, abortion rights, better public transportation, and a bunch of other liberal programs that I'm sure every conservative spouting this bolded part is fighting for.

No argument here.

Agree also. Im in favor of all those but while policy is a necessary tool to help level a very slanted playing field, personal/community responsibility and determination are much more effective and cant be taken away when the political winds change. Those that make good decisions despite their situation are rewarded by not having child support orders, having two incomes to sustain a household, higher wages, etc. and move up the class ladder. The trick with the policy should be to minimize the overwhelming effect of where your parents start on the class ladder. My issue with the policy analysis is that that ideas like education vouchers (which I dont know enough about to opine) that attempt to address the issue of parental wealth imbalance are summarily disregarded because of the polarized politics. And liberal/democrats complain (rightfully) about the impact of money/lobbying on policy, but its pretty clear that the teachers union and massive economy of public schools plays a outsized role in that debate.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:29 pm I would take Warren to win at +400. She's passed Bernie who is at +600.

I think the increasingly common perception that Warren has passed Bernie is a bit of wishful thinking from the Never Bernie crowd. Has she polled ahead of him in any national polls?

Sanders also has a big advantage over every other candidate in the race in that he ran a national campaign just four years ago and has on the ground organization already in place. Particularly in the early caucus states that could probe important. If he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, a lot of Warren supporters could switch to him to stop Biden.

Bernie's tweet the other day shows he probably thinks that too.

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:19 pm Who said it?

I have some friends on the far left, and they can justify to me the murder of a white deaf mute for a nickel by five colored guys. They say the black men had been oppressed and so on. But they can’t justify some Alabama farmers tar and feathering an old colored woman. I suspect the ACLU would leap to defend the five black guys. But no one would go down to help the ‘rednecks.’ They are both products of an environment. The truth is somewhere between the two poles. And rednecks are usually people with very real concerns, people who lack the education and skills to express themselves quietly and articulately.

A: Joe Biden, as part of his initial Senate campaign. And yet he has the audacity to portray himself as a life long ally of the Civil Rights movement.

Again, what is wrong with that (other than the use of colored... which isnt far off probably than my use of Black... whereas my kids always say Brown). You guys are making the case FOR Biden.

HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:41 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:19 pm Who said it?

I have some friends on the far left, and they can justify to me the murder of a white deaf mute for a nickel by five colored guys. They say the black men had been oppressed and so on. But they can’t justify some Alabama farmers tar and feathering an old colored woman. I suspect the ACLU would leap to defend the five black guys. But no one would go down to help the ‘rednecks.’ They are both products of an environment. The truth is somewhere between the two poles. And rednecks are usually people with very real concerns, people who lack the education and skills to express themselves quietly and articulately.

A: Joe Biden, as part of his initial Senate campaign. And yet he has the audacity to portray himself as a life long ally of the Civil Rights movement.

Again, what is wrong with that (other than the use of colored... which isnt far off probably than my use of Black... whereas my kids always say Brown). You guys are making the case FOR Biden.

What's the ACLU case he's referring to here?

HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:41 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:19 pm Who said it?

I have some friends on the far left, and they can justify to me the murder of a white deaf mute for a nickel by five colored guys. They say the black men had been oppressed and so on. But they can’t justify some Alabama farmers tar and feathering an old colored woman. I suspect the ACLU would leap to defend the five black guys. But no one would go down to help the ‘rednecks.’ They are both products of an environment. The truth is somewhere between the two poles. And rednecks are usually people with very real concerns, people who lack the education and skills to express themselves quietly and articulately.

A: Joe Biden, as part of his initial Senate campaign. And yet he has the audacity to portray himself as a life long ally of the Civil Rights movement.

Again, what is wrong with that (other than the use of colored... which isnt far off probably than my use of Black... whereas my kids always say Brown). You guys are making the case FOR Biden.

It’s a ridiculous and offensive characterization of the ALCU (and other civil rights organizations) to reduce their activism to the defense of wanton attacks on white people.

Giff wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:40 pm Bernie's tweet the other day shows he probably thinks that too.

Or maybe he’s just running an overtly anti-establishment campaign and is thus trying to use the hatred he gets from the establishment to his favor.

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:49 pm

Giff wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:40 pm Bernie's tweet the other day shows he probably thinks that too.

Or maybe he’s just running an overtly anti-establishment campaign and is thus trying to use the hatred he gets from the establishment to his favor.

It was a great strategy in 2016!

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:39 pm

degenerasian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:29 pm I would take Warren to win at +400. She's passed Bernie who is at +600.

I think the increasingly common perception that Warren has passed Bernie is a bit of wishful thinking from the Never Bernie crowd. Has she polled ahead of him in any national polls?

Sanders also has a big advantage over every other candidate in the race in that he ran a national campaign just four years ago and has on the ground organization already in place. Particularly in the early caucus states that could probe important. If he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, a lot of Warren supporters could switch to him to stop Biden.

FWIW, Warren has passed Bernie in Nevada (third primary/caucus) in the latest poll from about a week ago.

Giff wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:54 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:49 pm

Giff wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:40 pm Bernie's tweet the other day shows he probably thinks that too.

Or maybe he’s just running an overtly anti-establishment campaign and is thus trying to use the hatred he gets from the establishment to his favor.

It was a great strategy in 2016!

It was! He ran a solid campaign, brought important issues to the forefront, and still did dozens of campaign events for Clinton and delivered a far higher percentage of his voters to her than she did for Obama.

LOL

Giff wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:45 pmLOL

Are you currently outraged at Warren, Harris, Buttegieg, Beto, Booker, etc. for having the audacity to help Trump by challenging the presumptive frontrunner Joe Biden? Or does that rule only apply to Sanders?

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:56 pm

Giff wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:45 pmLOL

Are you currently outraged at Warren, Harris, Buttegieg, Beto, Booker, etc. for having the audacity to help Trump by challenging the presumptive frontrunner Joe Biden? Or does that rule only apply to Sanders?

Dude, c'mon. You can't possibly believe that other folks simply running for the nomination (especially of a party of which they are members) is the same thing as what Bernie Sanders did from late 2015 into June 2016.

Sanders may have delivered a higher percentage of his supporters than Clinton did for Obama in 2008. (Though I'd like to see a cite for that.) But he literally spent months tearing down Clinton - on a personal and political level - as well as the entire Democratic Party itself. And he did it based on false premises. I think I've mentioned this before, but he even deceived my mother into thinking that Clinton was only leading in delegates because of superdelegates.

Eight days before election day 2016, Nina Turner went on MSNBC and "corrected" the host when he said that she was backing Clinton in the general election. Bernie has apparently hired Turner to be one of the national co-chairs for his campaign.

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:56 pm

Giff wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:45 pmLOL

Are you currently outraged at Warren, Harris, Buttegieg, Beto, Booker, etc. for having the audacity to help Trump by challenging the presumptive frontrunner Joe Biden? Or does that rule only apply to Sanders?

If I thought that's who he was challenging there, that would make this question relevant. My opinion is that he is scared of Warren more than anyone else and he's lashing out at her rising popularity. But to answer it...after 2016 and the way a lot of his supporters acted, he's the only one that's earned that kind of scrutiny, IMO.

Trump also fanned those flames, getting people to turn on Hillary.

We mock Trump but he ran a great campaign in 2016, lying like crazy and playing people and the media off each other both in the primaries and then in the general.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:42 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:56 pm

Giff wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:45 pmLOL

Are you currently outraged at Warren, Harris, Buttegieg, Beto, Booker, etc. for having the audacity to help Trump by challenging the presumptive frontrunner Joe Biden? Or does that rule only apply to Sanders?

Dude, c'mon. You can't possibly believe that other folks simply running for the nomination (especially of a party of which they are members) is the same thing as what Bernie Sanders did from late 2015 into June 2016.

Sanders may have delivered a higher percentage of his supporters than Clinton did for Obama in 2008. (Though I'd like to see a cite for that.)

Here’s your cite:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... ce70d389c2

Here are some quotes from that article:

New data is shedding light, however, on Sanders’s role in the last election — and on how many Sanders voters ended up supporting Trump. It’s a question many in the party will be asking about a candidate who may want to compete again for the Democratic nomination.

How many Sanders voters voted for Donald Trump?

Two surveys estimate that 12 percent of Sanders voters voted for Trump. A third survey suggests it was 6 percent. ...

Another useful comparison is to 2008, when the question was whether Clinton supporters would vote for Barack Obama or John McCain (R-Ariz.) Based on data from the 2008 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project, a YouGov survey that also interviewed respondents multiple times during the campaign, 24 percent of people who supported Clinton in the primary as of March 2008 then reported voting for McCain in the general election.

An analysis of a different 2008 survey by the political scientists Michael Henderson, Sunshine Hillygus and Trevor Thompson produced a similar estimate: 25 percent. (Unsurprisingly, Clinton voters who supported McCain were more likely to have negative views of African Americans, relative to those who supported Obama.)

Thus, the 6 percent or 12 percent of Sanders supporters who may have supported Trump does not look especially large in comparison with these other examples.

Giff wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 3:21 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:56 pm

Giff wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:45 pmLOL

Are you currently outraged at Warren, Harris, Buttegieg, Beto, Booker, etc. for having the audacity to help Trump by challenging the presumptive frontrunner Joe Biden? Or does that rule only apply to Sanders?

If I thought that's who he was challenging there, that would make this question relevant. My opinion is that he is scared of Warren more than anyone else and he's lashing out at her rising popularity. But to answer it...after 2016 and the way a lot of his supporters acted, he's the only one that's earned that kind of scrutiny, IMO.

Here’s the full quote from Bernie that people are calling an “attack” on Warren:

I think there are a certain number of people who would like to see a woman elected, and I understand that. There are people who would like to see somebody who is younger, and I understand that also. There are a lot of factors out there. Elizabeth is a friend of mine and I think she is running a good campaign.

So he calls her a friend, says she’s “running a good campaign,” and says he understands why people would vote for her because she’s a woman and younger than him.

Some absolutely brutal “lashing out” there. He’s just as bad as Trump.

Cops in South Bend killed a black man and Mayor Pete is under fire to fix it.

Pete Buttigieg Leaves Campaign Trail After Fatal Police Shooting. Reality Rears Its Head.

Doesn't matter how hard I work, I'll never be part of this club.

The One Percent Have Gotten $21 Trillion Richer Since 1989. The Bottom 50% Have Gotten Poorer.

Which one?

Bill de Blasio Just Can't Get the 'Normal Human Being' Thing Down

WTF?