Then go find it. You also insisted Bernie bros didn't exist, and that Bernie was expanding the electorate and all sorts of things. I don't particularly care if you want to ignore reality and live in your fantasy world. That's your choice.
It is impossible to have a discussion if you just rationalize everything that has happened as someone else's fault. Can you at least acknowledge that Bernie didn't run a great campaign? If you want to win the nomination you need to get a majority of voters. Biden is winning across the board. In Michigan he even won the counties with colleges. I sympathize and largely agree with all of the issues that Bernie cites but he is an awful salesman when it comes to explaining how he's going to solve any of them. Elizabeth Warren at least attempted to explain how she'd fund M4A and other programs. She attempted to have a real and honest conversation about how she would solve some of these challenges. She described a funding plan for Medicare for All (although I'm not convinced her plan is constitutional). But hey, she's putting in the effort to explain that she has an actual plan.
Elizabeth Warren in a debate wasn't willing to answer a question about raising taxes on the middle class for her programs while Bernie was upfront and stated taxes will go up for middle class Americans. So no, Bernie was more upfront. I've stated this before but I have post history of criticising Bernie dozens of times. Not just a few times but literally dozens of times from calling him not charismatic to being sometimes naive. My issue is people not acknowledging the thumb on the scale that Wall Street bankers and the insurance industry has on suppressing grass roots progressive movements. They pretend it doesn't exist and label anyone who states the undue influence as conspiratorial equating us to QAnon junkies. It's frustrating. I notice it's mostly older posters who completely dismiss it. Maybe they grew up in an era of more implicit trust in our government institutions and less skepitism towards it? I don't know. I wish someone could explain it. I'm assuming it has something to do with this graph:
You start every post by putting [premium post] and under your avatar it says "king of the D&D". If it wasn't so evident by the content of your posts that you're trolling and have no introspection into your own candidate's flaws, it's blatantly obvious that you're taking on the role of some strange charicature. You're advertising that you shouldn't be taken seriously
I don't know why you keep saying he was respectful, your only going by the conversation when the video started and the transcript has allready changed. Do you actually think Biden went off with a respectful question?
Late to the party on this one. It's my assumption that Biden's aggression in these incidents is put on. When he encounters a guy like this, he suspects it's a plant or a troll whose mission it is to create a little footage to embarrass him with, not a well-meaning citizen with a genuine question. So how should a candidate handle such people? Do you engage sincerely with an insincere questioner? Do you act meekly to assuage the person's false concern? I think -- given the number of times he's reacted this same way -- that he made the strategic choice to answer suspected trolls with aggression. He says his bit to acquit himself of whatever accusation, but he also asserts a dominant position while also communicating that he's the injured party here with his indignation. I'd say threatening to fight people or stooping to personal insults is maybe over the top, but it probably works for him.
They have been talking about a public option since 2008, Obama pushed for a public option. This is not a new thing.
Funny enough Bernie had how much more money than Biden. Guess what the PEOPLE decided not some rich billionaires on Super Tuesday last week. How much did Biden spend in Massachusetts? How much did Bernie spend?
Interesting questions. I am sure I am not the only one that thought it was a trump plant or someone from right wing groups like project veritas or judicial watch...
Bankers and insurance industry executives don't need to spend money directly towards a candidate to push the thumb on the scale. They can create their own PACs and think tanks that merely just attack Sanders without endorsing a specific candidate. Look at Third Way for example. They don't care if the candidate DNC chooses is Biden or Pete or Amy or whoever. As long as it isn't Sanders and to a lesser extent Warren. They don't have to specifically endorse a candidate. They can just attack Sanders. You seriously think the only way a trillion dollar industry and Wall Street influence elections is by endorsing a specific candidate? No, they throw many at media, think tanks, biased studies along with specifically attacking Sanders. When other candidates don't have to face that same uphill battle, you hopefully can see how these bankers and executives push the thumb on the scale.
So it was super PACs that caused Biden’s victories on Super Tuesday?. If it was just about money or influence why didn’t bloomberg win Super Tuesday? Again you blaming others for bernie’s failure. Did billionaires prevented young people to vote in record numbers? Did billionaires and super PACs prevent African Americans to vote for Bernie? Please explain why it is everyone’s fault but bernie’s.
No matter how beautiful plans Sanders has, he is old, does not look healthy, there is no a chance for him to put his plans on the table without beating Trump. Another guy is old too, but at least he looks normal, he and Trump are both old, see who would be alive during the Nov. time. This country is fanny for electing old and older president each team.
Yes, I have heard everything from the DNC prevented a fair election by putting their collective fingers on the scale, to some saying the DNC conspired to prevent Sanders from winning and forced the other candidates to drop out. I have even seen some say it isn't fair that Sanders had to go against a single candidate..... and that Sanders should win the nomination if he had a plurality. It was and is absurd. Okay? It was very popular at the time, and was championed by the vast majority or liberals and conservatives. It is a bill that Bernie Sanders supported and voted for as well. Further, the bill had many parts that have been very positive and are still supported to this day I never supported an invasion of Iraq. However, the vast majority of democrats and republicans did support the invasion based on the information the White House provided. So? Biden has always been against segregation. He said he was against busing being the solution to end segregation and wanted increased funding in black schools. There are polls that show that a majority of Americans are against forced busing. If your inference is that Biden has not supported programs or bills that support traditional AA causes, that is simply false. Okay if you say so. Sorry justification for not voting for Sanders? Sorry but not wanting the government budget to more than TRIPLE, not wanting the government to get more than 74% of the entire GDP isn't a "sorry justification". Sanders could not even provide viable revenue streams to support to his programs. Not wanting the actual basis and form of economy of the government isn't a "sorry justification". He has FAR more often been on the right side of history over the last 50 years in public office.
And Deck, this post to me makes no sense at all. I already stated I was supporting Biden and that Bernie lost - on super Tuesday a week ago. I'm not a big fan of Bidens politics, but I was going to vote for him. What you and many others in this thread have failed to do, is ready my post. Differences with Biden aren't why I'm not voting for him, my views on what MIGHT be best for the progressive movement is also, not the reasoning either. I have a fundamental problem with how Biden cursed out and threatened physical violence to a respectful man. You guys can disagree, you can like it that he's being tough or whatever, I'm not gonna vote for a president, whether it be Trump or Biden, that physically threatens people for no reason. Just a personal moral line.
At the end of the day it is simple. The majority of Democrats, not to mention a majority of American's do not want the totality of the radical changes the Bernie Sanders wants. Had he stuck to one issue like MFA or even one or two issues, he would have been successful. Instead he wanted everything from drastically cutting the military, to MFA for 40 trillion dollars, to spending two trillion dollars a year on global warming, to providing every single American a government job offer that would cost 30 trillion dollars, to student loan forgiveness for 3 trillion dollars.' Under Sanders plan nearly half of all American's would be government employees! People want improvements and changes but they don't want THAT total change and they do not trust it. That is why he couldn't get a coalition. At the end of the day he is an extremist. In 5 or 10 years he may no longer be an extremist, and his views may be mainstream but not now...... that is why Sanders lost.
That is exactly what it is and you can tell from what Biden has said in the past about people like the guy in Michigan and also from what some of the Biden surrogates have said in the past. I think equating it to Trump is over the top. However I have no issue with people not liking it, and wanting more decorum. I just do not see it as remotely disqualifying based on what I heard and saw in that video.
I won't be voting for Biden because he drove recklessly to respectful celebrity car enthusiast Jay Leno -- burnouts are also extremely polluting.
A couple of his posts were certainly educational though. I, for one, had no idea that Trader Jorge was such a firm supporter of incest.
