/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Proletariat without Borders

Mode: Reply

Max message length: 4096


Max file size: limitless

Max files: 3


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion.

IRC: Rizon.net #bunkerchan

(1.19 MB 788x1492 Death_of_mayor_mccheese.png)
/buger/ Anonymous 10/22/2019 (Tue) 03:07:47 No. 102231
I don't see anyone making the new booger thread so here you go.
Are their any active communist communes?
(74.37 KB 750x422 yang-wins.jpg)
how would you feel about a yang administration
It would be pretty meh, as I doubt that he would be able to fulfill any of his promises.
would be a middle-of-the-road neolib with silicon valley characteristics
Techno-feudalism would suck hard and might ramp up exploitation enough to postpone a crash.
Yang is the apex decelerationist pick. All his policies will keep capitalism going indefinitely.
(401.66 KB 535x518 astro.png)
Just a reminder for whenever someone tries to use Muh crowd size as an argument

I wouldn't like it because Yang's policies are band aids on a broken system and would actively oppose him. However, if his UBI actually passed and was actually universal I'd enjoy it immensely until revolution.
His ubi is literally a landowners subsidy
Where can I sign up for this shit?
t. needy and destitute

Explain. I'm poor and 1,000$ a month would drastically improve my quality of life. That's what I meant.
He wants to get ubi by dismanteling other social safteynets like medicare and medicaid

Okay, still don't have an explanation about that landowners subsidy. Genuinely curious what that anon meant. Also I never said I supported getting rid of social safety nets or Yang himself. All I ever said was that my life would be better with that added 1k income.
The day everybody gets $1000 a month from the government is also the day everybody gets a $1000 rent hike
Basically if yang passes ubi hell do it by taking money out of social security and other programs as hes said before. Your life would be better in the short term but youll probably lose your retirement.
>Trump calls constitution "phony" says it "dosent matter" because "He's rich"
Dolan was fucking grown in a Vat somewhere in france by the situatonists and positioned to become president so he could be like agent smith and introduce a virus into the system that corrupts and destroy's it

Trump is the best thing ever.
What could Trump tweet that would cause absolute global chaos?
It's good to be sceptical of UBI if it's propagated by some technocrat prick but that's not how it works.
As if anyone under 30 is ever gonna retire.
He forgets he's on main and somehow ends up posting the link to the site that He and Clinton use to buy children off of African warlords
Basically anything regarding using nukes that aren't just suggestions.
“We are gonna bring big bad nukes down on Israel.”
Seriously what would stop capitalists from taking advantage of the situation. They would know for sure that everyone in america just got $1000 of expendable income (whether its expendable or not) and they would make sure that goes back to them as quickly as possible.
Fucking faggot Yang
Or This threatening to use a nuke against Iran / China or some shit
(69.46 KB 520x745 uncle_sam.jpg_1193087768.jpg)
So in light of recent events, mainly the uprising in the American puppet states, i wanted to take a look at where America spread their influences and installed dictatorships through out time, and had the bright idea of looking it up on Wikipedia.
Apparently there has only been maybe two puppet states under American influences (allegedly)
>Texas under Mexico being a puppet state of the US, later joining the US after Texas having 10 years of independence
<Muh MURICAN TEXAS, who cares desu
>"At the same time, South Korea and Japan was accused of being an American puppet state by North Korea"
<Acting like this is not just a fact
<In other words, haha those crazy NK spreading propaganda

Doesn't mention:
<South Vietnam
<West Germany
<Saudi Arabia
<South Korea
<Hong Kong (Coming soon)
Even if it's arguable about whether or not these places are "puppet states", the American influence and literally proven installation of Dictators should warrant them to at least be mentioned on the list. I guess this is just another proof that you need to be very skeptical about what you read on Wikipedia.
This isn’t true. Yang has always advocated for Medicare for all.
Granted he supports it so that Employers don’t have to pay for their worker’s healthcare, but free healthcare is free healthcare.
“The United States of America recognizes Crimea as part of Russian integral Territory”
>>102426 (me)
And these are just countries i can think of from the top of my head, if anyone have any overview of American influences and installation of puppets in countries outside US, that would be appreciated
Because if you give everyone 1000 dollars whats stopping landlords from raising rent 1000 dollars? the only people who will actually get to keep it are people that own their own home already and they are not really major need of UBI
(474.58 KB 1024x1000 1571772791009.jpg)
>be burger
nice, fuck the troops
Great reminder what complete trash these people are.

There are, what, 4 wars the US has fought that weren't just completely cynical adventurism?
>civil war
She is so hot and has such nice small perky tits.
You forgot Afghanistan, that one was parcialy justified in the begining at least.
This was motivated by imperialism just like WWI.
Arguably to a greater degree, but I included it because fighting the nazis kind of outweighs it IMO. Yes, the USSR did most of the fighting, but how would the war have played out without US involvement?

Was it though? Wasn't it still about spheres of influence?
>Was it though?
After 9/11 the US sent the Taliban an ultimatum to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the US, Mohammed Omar leader of the Taliban did not respond. War ensued.
taliban responded asking for evidence that OBL was responsible. War ensued.

<Hilldawg maybe for 2020
its a shame that the bourgs can only be executed once
She should just do it, honk honk nigga
>if she thought she could win
It's the fucking Russians man they have it out for her. Everyone knows she would win in a fair match up but she's smart enough to know the Russians have infiltrated the system so completely to make sure she can't
I can see upsides if she does it, bernie people won't be able to have any more illusions about using/fixing the Dems

>Next Democratic Debate
>Tulsi is being questioned over Hilary accusations
>In the middle of her rant
>Out walks Hilary Clinton
Republicans storm impeachment inquiry deposition in House Intel hearing room

a bunch of old senile men pretending it is fucking D-Day when you breach procedure to own the libs
So how do you guys think the impeachment process will turn out and how do you think it's gonna impact the election?

Because landlords will know you are getting 1k a month from the government, so they're gonna raise your rent. In addition, not only do the landlords know, so do all of the other bourgeoisie. They too will raise the prices of all of their consumer goods, causing widespread inflation. In addition, with that extra money in people, they're going to spend more, raising demand even more, causing more inflation.

And then theres the excuse that UBI provides republicans to gut the hell out of the social safety-net.
>house votes to impeach
>senate doesn't convict
>dems again wag their fingers at the newly "disqualified" trump like they've been doing for the past four years
>literally nothing changes and the past year of hysteria was again a completely pointless distraction
They only switched on the impeach machine in order to take coverage away from the election to hope sanders numbers dropped low enough that he wont be a threat and one of their preferred name recognition candidates got in
they can actively avoid covering him either way tbh
I wish yang would die, honestly.
His administration would destory the country and send millions of people spiraling into crippling poverty. Myself included.

He seems to treat politics as some sort of, flippant, reality tv show where he plays the role of opera dolling out prizes to the masses.

A yang administration would do irreparable damage to the economy and society as a whole.
(318.94 KB 500x500 cheeki-breeki3.png)
yang is accelerationist gang
C'mon baby, I'm tired of all these clinton-lite pretenders like Warren. I just want the OG, pure Clinton over here.
How do we get the current unrest in Latin America to spread North?
I heard some anon here was talking about things heating up in Mexico. I don't know how true that is though.
So next debate has 4 women from MSNBC and Washington Post. Bets on which lower-tier candidates are going to get more speaking time than sanders?
Lmao impossible. Better you yanks work towards leaving Latin America alone, when shit really hits the fan.
Buttigeg and Klobuchar definitely. They're really trying to make her a thing.
I don't even understand who the fuck supports Klobuchar. Literally what does she bring as a candidate other than cringy jokes
I cant figure that out either. I watch MSNBC sometimes and they cream their pants over her because she’s a Clinton proxy, but her poll numbers are lower than even fucking Tom Steyer.
And you just know yang is the type of porky who wouldnt do a thing about housing
she's seen as a generic "moderate" Dem. The establishment likes her because she will change nothing and protect their wealthy donors and the status quo from populist revolt and reform. They also believe (or pretend to believe) that being centrist means being "electable". Also she's a woman, so she checks enough of their boxes to look like a viable alternative to Bernie and Warren if Biden can't cut it.
Is it really the woman angle? She seems to be basically interchangeable with Buttigieg and Biden.
She's there to make feminists bothered that the others don't pander to women enough.
i think they're worried that Biden won't be able to hang on, so are looking for alternatives. I think they're probably more comfortable with the woman thing than they gay thing, because they're not as sure how to sell that that or how it plays out with the voters. Also they worry that Buttigeg can't seem to appeal to anyone but whites and that he's too young/green. They really wanted Kamala i think but she just never caught on, and then was destroyed by Tulsi. They're grasping at straws now and Klobuchar fits the bill as a generic "electable" centrist dem who will do nothing.
They will obviuosly go with warren, she is the PMC canditate.
I guess it's a positive that they may have to go for their panic button please anyone but Bernie candidate. I don't think they wanted her at the outset, although maybe
Some of you guys makes this nice glow thread, does't it?
So, centrist liberals hate Julian Assange because of a link to wikileaks, which posted the DNC emails showing evidence of their rigging the 2016 primary. This means he's a Russian agent and therefore bad and deserves to be tortured. Fascinating
(54.09 KB 600x513 snowden's greatest fear.jpg)
There's also their love of the current "leakers" who went through the "correct" "official" channels, which conveniently just so happened to respond as advertised when fed material for a hobbyhorse the CIA/NSA/FBI have been pursuing since le drumpf entered office, while disparaging Assange/Manning/Snowden for daring to use unofficial channels celebrated heroes like Deep Throat did.
I don't even understand what the "correct" channel is. If it's anything where any superior has the ability to redact the leaked info or know the identity of the leaner, it's inherently glowing and useless. And yet that's what it seems it is. Are people so stupid they don't understand this?
Lissen we have to prevent the public from knowing that the FBI hired mercenaries to kill union organizers in order to protect the prof- I mean ensure the protection of National Security. You wouldn’t want to endanger National Security, would you anon?
Anonymous tip to Internal Affairs, Ombuds office, MPs, etc. Of course, libs ignore the fact that Snowden and Manning among others DID make appeals through official channels regarding violations of the NSA's own official rules, both indirectly and in his own name, with precisely zero results:

That inaction in the face of gross injustice is precisely what disgusted whistleblowers into turning from their organization to the global citizenry, in an appeal to get attention from someone whose job it is wasn't being paid to not care.
Bump for Burgers are retarded and deserve to just have this country wiped out and started fresh
Americans unironically think the declaration of independence is the greatest document ever written, and the american revolution was the start of the free world.

It's extremely exhausting having a conversation and having the other person *GASP* at any criticism pointed at the "founding fathers" or the bill of rights.

The founders couldn't have actually believed all men are created equal because they owned slaves, but it's okay because "they were a product of their time!"
If the Senate doesn't convict (which is 90% likely at this point), I think it will piss off Democrats and increase voter turnout. Well, it depends on how it's framed by the media and the Democratic leadership, they could somehow fuck up and depress the vote, especially if Biden gets the nomination.
The older I get the more I think the Constitution is a piece of shit honestly.
I mean it's better than monarchy but it's lacking in so many areas. Especially when it comes to the executive and judicial branches, they didn't think that through at all and now we're suffering the consequences.
I guess it's later generations' fault for not amending it enough, but the Constitution makes passing amendments too difficult.
Watch a lurking /pol/tard screencap this.
Compare it to more modern constitutions, like in countries that wrote them after wwii. It IS seriously lacking. I don't know if it's just because it's old, or because they weren't really all in (the good point in >>108388 about slavery)
>the more I think the Constitution is a piece of shit honestly.
No shit, it’s two hundred years old, what do you expect?
The preamble is the only good part tbh.
>We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
What's with yang supporters and obsession with VAT? VAT seems regressive as fuck no matter how much they yell about "But UBI+VAT is not regressive!". Why wouldn't they just fund a UBI any other way if they weren't just right wingers looking for an excuse to add regressive taxes?
Yang claims that rich people and corporations don’t pay income tax because they just offshore their money so their is no point in taxing them.
That’s a problem that should be made impossible though, not one that you throw up your hands and do nothing ever again because it exists.
Ok so if you offshore your money and don't pay tax we just pull out the guillotine, simple
is anyone else a bit chuffed that radical centrists' sperging out over tulsi seems like it's boosting her enough to continue qualifying for debates? not like i really care about tulsi specifically, but yknow
I just hope she ends another career like she did with Copmala.

Yeah no shit. It had to be amended 3 times before slavery could come to an end.
Trump Reveals Plans for Nationwide Crackdown and More Militarized Police. President Donald Trump on Monday said the Justice Department is preparing to launch a sweeping crackdown on crime that he named “the surge,” a term commonly associated with the George W. Bush administration’s decision to send tens of thousands of additional troops into Iraq in 2007. https://www.truthdig.com/articles/trump-reveals-plans-for-nationwide-crackdown-and-more-militarized-police/
(102.27 KB 600x457 Spectacle.jpg)
>He seems to treat politics as some sort of, flippant, reality tv show where he plays the role of opera dolling out prizes to the masses.
That's Literally what politics fully morphed into when Trump got elected. Politics no longer concerns any sort of actual politics at all. The thing that the bread and circus was meant to distract people from has itself become the bread and circus. Everything that actually matters in politics is passed quietly with no media coverage and behind closed door's
But there is hope. Because once the characters used to uphold the spectacle and actual Politico's became interchangeable (Trump) that was when the Situationists predicted it would begin to rip itself apart
Not only that, but it would essentially act as a wage subsidy by lowering the value of labour power, allowing employers to cut wages. What this would mean is that unskilled or minimum wage workers would receive little increase in income, while inflation rises and social services are gutted.
I like the US. But their reactionaries can be extremely unerving.
She needs to talk faster so she can get to the attacks on Warren without getting cut off by "commercial breaks". Also she needs to stop treating Biden with kid gloves + start going after Buttigieg.
Then she should drop out and endorse Bernie. We can't fuck around with second bananas anymore. She can make a deal to be secretary of state or something and get Bernie to talk more about foreign policy on the campaign trail.
She did waste a lot of time on bullshit when she was about to attack warren, and she was already over her time at that point (yes, I know she didn't get much time overall, but she wasted a lot of what she had). I could see a completely impartial moderator cutting her off on that one
Biden is in the middle of a self-induced implosion. Not much value in taking him down until later in the race, as the scaffolding holding up Biden crumbles and he can be knocked out quickly (and before media campaigns can suck up all the old vote and put it behind some other centrist ghoul). Bootygig is not a serious candidate, America won't vote for a known fag pure and simple.

There's still three months before the first primary. I don't think it's worthwhile to make any big dramatic moves if you're one of the bigger fish (and only Biden, Warren, and Sanders have any business staying in this past Iowa, and as I said Biden is crumbling politically and physically). Tulsi isn't Bernie's hatchetman, she's running her own grift. Plus, no one on that stage is going to touch Biden's corruption, that would be politically stupid for everyone involved at that venue. That would be the big wrecking ball to throw at him, and already word of mouth is going around that Biden is an insanely corrupt motherfucker.

It'd be hard but Bernie has to find a way to reach the olds. He needs to get as much of that vote as he can once Biden drops out, and avoid allowing the centrists to sweet-talk the olds with stories about how the youngs want to dilute their benefits.
That actually surprises me, because the reactionaries in the U.S. always seemed really goofy to me compared to those in Europe.
isn't Sanders the candidate with the plurality of second-choice support among Biden voters, or is that old info now? I'm 99% sure that was true at some point
Do most pollsters really measure that? does polling even matter after 2016?
It was and still is the case. Olds like them some white men. But Bernie's going to need a bit more, or he's going to have to mobilize a fuckton of young people.
Mobilizing young people and non-voters is his entire strategy.
But the fact that he still polls well in early states puts him in a good position, because there's a whole slew of (previously aforementioned) non-traditional voters that are almost always undersampled by polling. The important thing is that those non-trad voters have to THINK Bernie stands a chance, so they go out and vote, and polling obviously plays into public perception to some degree. And if Bernie has a good showing in the Iowa caucus and/or New Hampshire primary, I think a lot of people will go "oh, he actually has a shot" and show up in huge numbers in later states.

It's not 2016, the corporate establishment doesn't have Shillary to rally around. They're a complete mess right now. They're regretting Biden, trying to force Buttigieg, and would rather not support Warren (but might be forced to, to fight Bernie).
>Justice Department is preparing to launch a sweeping crackdown on crime that he named “the surge,”
I think you mean the purge.
Very true, and probably why they try to shut him out of news stories and such. I remember last time the hype when he ended up winning one state he was polling at like -20%, Michigan? Anyway at some point even my mom who is neurally linked to MSNBC got on board with him

I'm honestly not sure what his chances are, but I think he needs a couple early state wins and good chunks of support in each to stay viable
(61.12 KB 750x717 wDrG2nO.jpg)
Kurd killers embassy is right next to the boston duck boats lol
i went in a duck boat once in philadelphia and the fucking thing sank
(20.12 KB 606x402 impeachment inquiry vote.png)
From a leftist perspective is it a good or a bad thing that a basic understanding of the law is divided along partisan lines?

Honestly not sure how the public will react if/when the same divide happens in the Senate. A lot of people worry that it will be perceived as a "victory" for Trump and will help his re-election chances, but it might also make the Democrats (and some independents) so angry that they vote in larger numbers.
I think that kind of division is pretty much what everybody expects at this point
It's videos like these is why I can't take Unruhe seriously.


Day of the rake can't come soon enough

Almost all NA leftist youtubers are fucking Leafs. The great blight North.
Anything less than a majority and Bernie is toast. This has always been Bernie vs. the Party, and the Demoshits are actually dumb enough to think a brokered convention is a good idea.

I don't think it matters much because everyone knew this was going to pass. No Republican would throw away their vote in a symbolic gesture. Why Democrats keep doing this is because they fucking suck at politics.

Ultimately I don't think these focuses on narrative really matter. The people who hate Trump already really, really hate him, and the people who like Trump really, really like him (or at least the corruption Trump enables). The people outside of those two groups don't give a shit and just want this national embarrassment to be over.
If the Rethugs in Washington could have their way they'd likely want to remove Trump, and they're willing to run wall-to-wall coverage to give them a public excuse to do so. Trump and the people behind him are an obstacle to their political power. I think in the event of a Bernie primary win, they'll pull the trigger so a boring "centrist" ghoul can run on the GOP and libs defect en masse to the Republicans.
i'm gonna be honest, the intense media and centrist handwringing over Bernie really makes me want him much much more
(408.86 KB 640x434 xfhha01cz4w31.png)
who's bernie?
(534.54 KB 2211x1658 who.jpg)
Never heard of a guy by that name...
(400.13 KB 2048x1536 EIFAs_DU0AARhli.jpeg)
yes exactly this. when the NH poll came out with a smaller MOE, and sanders ahead of warren by the same amount, it was called a tie
well, Beto! is done. he's probably gone for good now with his gungrabbing comment
He probably could have gotten a senetorship if he played his cards right but nope! got to go full attention whore and run for president with your only accomplishment being loosing to literal lizard person ted cruz. Its almost like this was engineered by the elites to make sure texas never even tries to go blue again

So She has a plan, guys! It's dogshit, but it's a plan! Now let's see MSNBC spin this as revolutionary OMGWTFBBQ.

This is the literal pie in the sky fantasizing Clintonites claim Bernie is doing, except far worse. They really don't want Warren to win, do they?
so what I gathered from the plan is that it's basically just going to fix costs per person, so effectively even worse than a flat percentage tax, a flat amount tax. just it's "on employers" so it's not "actually" a tax. yeah?
Also if you're unemployed, self-employed, or an "independent contractor" you're shit out of luck. Guess what happens to the already proletarianized worker!

This is naked pandering to the PMCs. Ultimately the "middle class" has to be included in class warfare, because they will never be allies.
i'm not sure I understand - would they literally have to pay the tax on themselves? if so that is pants on head retarded

and yeah they definitely don't want warren to win. they'll tolerate her if they need to to avoid sanders. (because warren has a solid chance of losing to trump. then they could blame it on her being too leftist or a woman). but they'd much rather run biden or buttigieg. biden could win and nothing would change, or lose and it gets blamed on russia again. buttigieg's loss would be blamed on homophobia
(23.59 KB 480x330 B0JnfgVCMAE1Q5-.jpg)
Build pipe bombs and make as many as you can with a long ignition so you dont hurt yourself. In america you have full access to all the world weaponry but they are all talk and no action so they wont even count.
Revolution must spread into america and we need in the end to put these people into elementary school to learn basic geography.
fuck off cia
They would be exempt from the tax, since it only applies to employers with more than 50 employees. Reality check, more people are now working shitty gig jobs for Uber or something of that sort.

This shit is just put out so they can say "oh my gawd, Medicare is unaffordable, we can't have single-payer and maybe we should cut the program for the elderly". It's pure pigheadedness, not a real plan and not even intended to be such. But they'll muddy the waters and say how it's unaffordable, etc. etc. when the obvious answer is to levy the payroll taxes and make the six figures people pay through the nose.
>implying Bernie and Warren are threats to capital and not just the feckless social democrats they clearly are
the ABSOLUTE state of our union
bernies job guarantee, if passed, would bring capitalism to its knees as workers gain power from not having unemployment hanging over their heads
Warren isn't even socdem, she's straight up liberal.

I know this is all some LARPing about how elections don't matter / muh feelz shit but I'm throwing my two cents towards Bernard. It's a lot better than the shit we're going to get otherwise and at least it makes politics more interesting than the banal shitshow that was 2016.
Sometimes its good to tell it how it is. Im not afraid of local police because i dont live in a totalitarian society like America.
you don't even need to worry about 6 figures people. 6 figures have more luxuries than someone lower, not working paycheck-to-paycheck, but 7, 8, 9 figures are the ones raking in real cash. but yeah not just making a progressive tax is retarded
(28.85 KB 750x224 socdems.jpg)
>job guarantee, if passed, would bring capitalism to its knees as workers gain power from not having unemployment hanging over their heads
As we all know that strategy worked so well with FDR in the past and I'm sure there's no way FDR's successor plans could possibly fail for the exact same reasons :)
Gonna assume this is before FDR started those farm subsidies
the new deal ended because of ww2 and the postwar boom made it obsolete to the working class. If a jobs program were enacted today it would be too popular to repeal immediately and if enough succdem candidates are elected in a row, solidifying the peoples dependence on it, it can be like social security, too popular for even the most hardliner liberals to get rid of. And eventually a labor crisis will happen like in the 70's and we can try another go at revolution.
Farmer bro said that months after the act was passed.
>it would be too popular to repeal immediately and if enough succdem candidates are elected in a row, solidifying the peoples dependence on it, it can be like social security, too popular for even the most hardliner liberals to get rid of. And eventually a labor crisis will happen like in the 70's and we can try another go at revolution.
literal social fascism just destroying and delaying all revolutionary potential is contained inside that paragraph.
(10.81 KB 430x600 justvote.png)
Look, even michael roberts agrees that voting for bernie is the best option because he's going to make the crisis worse. JUST VOTE. Do it. vote for bernie.
(29.52 KB 638x480 D47Bb1q.jpg)
Its a tragedy that america is the strongest nation in the world and wants their 3rd world policies forced on other nations.
well i was writing something out but roberts pretty much said it better here >>113479
>Social Democracy will hurt profitability
much better argument for voting then “muh overton window”
>Its a tragedy that america is the strongest nation in the world and wants their 3rd world policies forced on other nations.
Git gud.
The new deal ended way earlier than wwii. It ended as early as 1935/6
(226.32 KB 1024x1821 IMG_20191102_034914.jpg)
(67.16 KB 750x1334 IMG_20191102_034934.jpg)
people protesting train fare hikes and over policing in new york. looks pretty good.

think it could grow to yellow vest tier?
(401.54 KB 406x540 IMG_20191102_040025.jpg)
(87.34 KB 360x160 IMG_20191102_040036.jpg)
(188.93 KB 644x186 IMG_20191102_040040.jpg)
this is the first time i've heard of this
>yellow vest tier
>in burgerlard
No meatspace happening here aside from perhaps extremely issue-focused labor strikes will be able to avoid being watered down to mere "orange man bad" virtue signalling that gutters out like a candle in a gust of wind when confronted with perpetrators of the exact same crimes that comply with YASS QUAAN duhversity checkboxes and shitlib DNC allegiance.
(49.87 KB 1430x339 WPAenddate.png)
No. the WPA, which ran the jobs program, was dissolved in 1943, well after the US entered ww2, completely in line with what i said
What choice do they have? No pandering to your typical neoliberal vanilla Dem like Klobuchar will cut it. At this point it's more realistic that Tulsi (oh whom they're more afraid than Bernie) or Yang (whom they can't figure out which is why zero OPeds about him exist so far) become the nominee, so literally their only choice is Warren, and so far, Warren has actually reciprocated, with her flirting with the Superdelegates.

They know Warren will be Obama 2.0.
>go through "official channels"
>be assassinated and the evidence gets buried
Liberals want whistleblowers to do suicide by alphabet soup apparently. Anybody who isn't immediately going to Russia or something when having material as compromising as the things Snowden or Assange had is suicidal, as showcased by Assange (probably) being tortured.
What the fuck is wrong with American libs. I could stomach no longer than 1 minute on r/politics.

By the way, where does this "Moscow Mitch" stuff come from? I've never seen anybody coining that, the way everybody uses it these days makes me think it was astroturfed into existence
(139.18 KB 1280x720 serveimage.jpg)
>he doesn't know about Red Donald
Also, as I noted >>105659 even when people such as Snowden DID use official channels, the response varied from "don't rock the boat or we'll be tossed overboard" to "nosiree this illegal thing we're doing is totes legal".
Upwards with Marxism-Leninim Trump Thought!
The Trump Sword® will lead us to victory!!
You’d think these “educated” people would be lil saner that rightoids.
You can be icreadably smart but still be a dumb ass thanks to the sheer amount of propaganda that gets shoved down your thoat and/or talking about fields you have no knowledge in
Considering most of the corporate democrats get their support from well-educated coastal liberals from the upper-middle class, you'd think the education system is either utter shit, or they're being deliberately dishonest.

I mean with Rachel Maddow, a published "academic" with a PhD, it's definitely the latter. There is no way you can a smart person and unironically believe this shit.
Also, this.
>There is no way you can a smart person and unironically believe this shit.
Yeah, she just lies. She lies because she is payed thirty thousand dollars a day to lie.
the nypd is well known for beating the fuck out of ppl
1000+ people joined. My radical friend went (I was sick). I'll ask him what he thinks of the momentum. I'm seeing a lot more graffiti on the subway about it. If there's an attempt to tie it to the Chile protests there's a chance.
(387.17 KB 2048x1536 IMG_20191102_124144.jpg)
(327.26 KB 2048x1536 IMG_20191102_124203.jpg)
They've even picked up the "Evade" tag from Chile
Why do Americans brand themselves proudly as "taxpayer" as if it's a badge of honor? We the American Taxpayers. Does this make North Koreans extra evil for not paying any taxes because they don't have any?
Or how about homeowner? Americans say they are proud owners of homes even though technically a bank still owns most of them because they owe a giant debt called a mortgage. I am a Proud American Homeowner. Does this make North Koreans extra evil for not ever having to buy a home or take any loans?
It's ironically a myth of public ownership. The idea being that as a taxpayer you own a stake in the government/society. Homeowner is like that but it's about having "achieved" "success" in the "meritocratic" system.
slave mentality
The longer I go on the more I'm convinced that Yang was specifically planted by the establishment to undermine Bernie. I'm very concerned that he will drain away just enough young people/non-voters from Bernie to allow Warren/Biden to squeeze in. I hope I'm wrong.
Bernie has a really solid strategy for Iowa (he's already surpassed his January 2016 count for caucus volunteers) and is polling well in New Hampshire so it might not matter. Will be interesting to see the newsmedia's mental gymnastics if he wins both states.
>The longer I go on the more I'm convinced that Yang was specifically planted by the establishment to undermine Bernie.
I was thinking the same thing, didn't he propose recently to be Biden vice-president?
(103.89 KB 900x490 EIXiXJhXkAABp7V.jpg)
That was obvious from the get-go. The Democrats were consciously trying to attack Bernie's support with as many groups as possible by running spoilers, and sowing sour grapes. For Yang Gang it's about retarding the discourse so that something like a jobs guarantee or rehabilitation are tossed aside, with the intended consensus being that either nothing is wrong with the economy (lol) or to suggest more of those neoliberal retraining program scams that are just a way for the education business to rake in more $. (Of course Bernie is not immune to this, the education sector is 1000% behind him because he's promising the gibs and his wife comes from that sector.)
Something important to note about Iowa is that there are essentially precinct-level runoffs. Yang probably won't breach 15% in many precincts so most of his supporters will probably end up caucusing for Bernie.
(1.18 MB 500x274 bernie_5.gif)
>America won't vote for a known fag pure and simple.
This is what my boomer lib dad who likes Kamala Harris thinks and his political predictions are usually wrong. I think America would surprise you, but I'd reckon we'd probably have a lesbian president before a gay male one. Tammy Baldwin, the progressive (D) senator from Wisconsin, is lesbian and I think has a strong chance of being in the running for VP under a Sanders ticket (she's broadly aligned with his agenda, Wisconsin is a swing state, and the Dem convention is going to be in Milwaukee). Buttigieg's problem is just that he's too fucking weird and corporate and is just way out of sync with the national mood. I keep thinking he's man-sized bug alien wearing a human skin suit and he'll have meltdown one day, causing the bug alien to violently vomit its way out of his throat while this music plays:
>Look, even michael roberts agrees that voting for bernie is the best option because he's going to make the crisis worse. JUST VOTE. Do it. vote for bernie.
He might be right. Now, Bernie and the rest of us might end up getting crushed anyways and we'll all die but at least it'll heighten the contradictions. Roberts (as a good Leninist) knows well enough that it's not possible for workers to not want things to continue in the same old way, but that the ruling class must also not want things to continue in same old way. If the ruling class faces demands from workers in such a situation, it can make concessions or launch an attack on workers and forestall the crisis (even for many decades) if it can afford to, but if the ruling class is paralyzed by its own contradictions and is either unwilling or *unable* to afford to make them, then its back will be up against the wall and you have a potentially revolutionary situation. You're not guaranteed to win it, though.

Main thing is that it's not like you can just pull the One Perfect Plan to make the socialism out of your ass, rather it's something that emerges dialectically with revolution being primarily a strategic and political question once you come to it. AS LENIN SAID!!1!
(91.47 KB 560x420 technos_01.jpg)
(74.34 KB 560x420 technos_02.jpg)
(142.58 KB 564x800 technos_03.jpg)
>The longer I go on the more I'm convinced that Yang was specifically planted by the establishment to undermine Bernie.
I don't think that's strictly necessary to explain his movement, rather it's more that Yang strikes me as leading a technocratic "panacea" movement, and there are always movements like this that pop up in times of distress for working people. Some are bad or even fascist while others are more progressive-minded. Back in the 1930s you got weird ones like Howard Scott's "technocracy" movement. William Z. Foster, the O.G. burger communist leader, believed that Americans go agog for these kinds of things because we're basically dunderheads who don't have strong labor and/or communist parties to slap us around and tell that we're being stupid idiots: "That such confused movements could spring up testified to the ideological backwardness of the American workers and their lack of a broad political party with progressive working class leadership."

Anyways, on Technocracy, take it away, Bill!
>Fathered by Howard Scott and based upon a mishmash of ideas of the I.W.W. and Thorstein Veblen, this movement developed during the deepest phases of the economic crisis and ran like wildfire throughout the country in 1932-33, the entire capitalist press being agog with it. Technocracy was based on the fallacy that the evils of capitalism originated not primarily in its productions relations, but simply in its "distributive system." Its cure-all was to substitute a system of "ergs," or energy units, in place of the current "price system." Technocracy denied that the workers were exploited, repudiated the class struggle, and rejected the revolutionary role of the workers. In substance, it advocated a ruling aristocracy of engineers. For a while it had a big vogue among the intellectuals, making a special appeal to engineers and technicians. It declined as swiftly as it arose, but some remnants still linger.
Extreme Boomer energy coming from that name
Liberals are the ultimate idealists
>You're not guaranteed to win it, though.
And thanks to nearly zilch leftist support networks right now i dont feel very confident.
>seriously implying that yet another social fascist will somehow weaken the capitalist mode of production and change things
Michael Roberts, I...
>full employment doesn't hurt profitability
>high wages and benefits packages doesn't hurt profitability
>higher taxes on the bourgeoisie and bourgeois property don't hurt profitability
>nationalizing industries doesn't hurt profitability
>doing this during a profitability crisis doesn't weaken capitalism
>muh social fascism
Anon, I...
I have to wonder if Yang's Biden comments will make his supporters more likely to caucus with Biden though. The possibility of Biden making Yang his VP is somewhere around 0.00001% but his supporters might fall for it.
I suppose it depends on who is supporting a candidate based on superficial factors (identity, charisma, branding, etc) and who is supporting based on policy/ideology. There are an unfortunately large amount of voters who fall into the former category. You have some really bizarre takes out there, like people whose first choice is Biden and second choice is Bernie. Not to get full of myself because I'm far from perfect, but the average voter is not like you and me. Their underpinnings are much weaker.
>full employment doesn't hurt profitability
>high wages and benefits packages doesn't hurt profitability
>higher taxes on the bourgeoisie and bourgeois property don't hurt profitability
>nationalizing industries doesn't hurt profitability
>doing this during a profitability crisis doesn't weaken capitalism
Yes, yes and yes to all of that
wtf I love profitability now
Perhaps I'm confusing it with the legislative aspect of the New Deal, most of which were passed in two different spurts (1933 and 1935/6). The WPA was only set up in 1935 as part of the 2nd new deal, and its activity, according to the wiki, peaked in 1938 at 3 million employed (out of a 122 million population) and it employed 8 million in total. That is impressive, but by the late 1930s the rising conservative reaction destroyed a lot of the New Deal and also affected the WPA in various ways. also according to the wiki, there were also quite clearly vicious rumors spread about it- that wpa workers were lazy and they slowed down work on purpose to work longer, and that their jobs imparted poor skills, inefficiency and work ethic- all of which is retarded compared to not working at all for years. Apparently, working for the WPA also got you overlooked for employment later on (I doubt this though in the post-war boom). In other words, there was a large reaction against it from petit bourgeoisie and other types, and we'll expect resistance among these cunts if such a program is implemented again
They were trying to flood the field both in general and with Bernie vampires. Undermine Bernie's campaign in the early states and make it easier to rig the nomination, since if no clear winner emerges in the first round they vote with superdelegates in the second. Everyone is doing way worse than expected except Bernie, so this is looking less viable every week. It'll be interesting to see what the pivot is, because they absolutely don't want an FDR 2. Honestly at this time in history his policies seem more liable to destroy capitalism than prolong it. Profits are already way down (the New Deal happened when the US was living large off WWI reparations and in the wake of WWII where European and Soviet manufacturing was unable to compete). Combine the fact that the profits we see now are largely bubbles and other finance sector chicanery, and burger capitalism likely couldn't take modest socdem reforms. Depending on the political context and ideological conditions among the public, that could take a turn for socialism or fascism.
>Everyone is doing way worse than expected except Bernie
is that really true though? Biden still has a solid 25-30%, warren is usually higher than sanders at 20-25%, and bernie doesn't seem to crack 20 all that often anymore
>believing pollsters
>at this stage of capitalism
>at this point in the election cycle
>in this part of the imperial core
>conducted entirely via landline phones
What am I to believe then? I don't think it's true anymore that polls are land-line only still. Surely Bernie will outperform them at least somewhat due to his campaign focusing on people less likely to be polled, but is it enough to say that he's not only is, but is the only one outperforming expectations? If anything I'd have expected people to have learned their lesson from last time and practically handed it to him on a silver platter.
"people" as in real ones and not media/dnc shills
Bernie is polling 1st in New Hampshire, 2nd in Iowa (but has more pledged caucus goers than in January 2016), tied for 1st in Nevada, 1st in Michigan, and 2nd in California. And that's keeping in mind that polls undersample young voters and people who don't often come out to vote, two demographics which Bernie is banking on to win. So it's actually possible that Bernie being 1st = landslide, 2nd = surprise 1st, 3rd = close 2nd.

All Bernie has to do is have a strong showing in Iowa and New Hampshire to really build momentum for later states. The big worry is that he might get a plurality instead of a majority, which would allow a 2nd round of voting which includes superdelegates (made up of Democratic party insiders), most of which are strongly against Bernie. But if they legitimately flipped the nomination against Bernie, the Democratic Party would basically be committing murder suicide. Sure there was rigging in 2016 but it was indirect, if they rig the actual vote everyone will know it. They will legitimately destroy the party for decades, if not permanently. Now, there's an unfortunately high possibility they'll do it because they're massively corrupt and have more loyalty to the donors who control the party than the actual party.
None of that matters if he still underperforms in the South just like last time.
(179.41 KB 1220x1602 iowa 2016 democratic primary.png)
To clarify, this is the result for the 2016 Iowa caucus.
And Bernie has a very good chance of doing better than this.

Bernie is in a way better position in 2020 because of much higher name recognition + better infrastructure/ground-game, not to mention a divided establishment (they were all behind Shillary in 2016 but are divided between Biden/Buttigieg/Warren/etc in 2020). He has far far more individual donors than anyone in the race. He has the most volunteers. etc

Biden absolutely still stands a chance but he's a horrible candidate, his supporters are almost all people who are not paying attention and just remember him from the Obama years. He's sinking, not as quickly as he should be but it's noticeable. His base is so unenthusiastic that his grassroots funding is dogshit, he's now resorting to super PACs.

Do not let the media trick you into not voting. Bernie's whole strategy relies on people who don't traditionally vote to come out in huge numbers. And since primaries have low voter turnouts, your vote has a much bigger impact. It's absolutely possible to flip a ton of states, even ones considered "unwinnable". Michigan was considered unwinnable in 2016. If Bernie wins, it will be in spite of the polling and the newsmedia.
Meh I do vote in pretty much all elections except for basically uncontested local ones, but I'm in a late state anyway.

I will be really impressed if Biden manages to win, he can barely string together words and I don't even know what policies he's advocating for. That said isn't the main issue that someone needs a majority of delegates to avoid the nominee being decided by super delegates? I don't see anyone really getting that majority, cuz even if it becomes a two person race at some point, a lot of delegates will probably go to an additional two. I've heard the whole thing about one candidate giving their delegates to another, but that seems a bit weird
One thing to keep in mind about the Iowa caucuses, is that they were definitely stolen last time by Clinton. Democratic party people are the ones who counted the votes, and they cheated in her favor. Coin flips were also used to determine tie, and surprise, she won a lot of them. I caucused for Bernie and saw some of this shit happen.
They literally don't use ballots at these things, a democratic party volunteer just does a hand headcount of the people on either side, incredibly easy to cheat and I guarantee it will happen again. Start making noise about it now.
(482.08 KB 809x1614 desktop voting machine.png)
>yelling yay or nay
<muh thrown chairs
JFC, congress solved this issue decades ago. A simple phone app would be more than adequate. This is just embarrassing, 3rd-world-tier sleaze.
or....yknow.... a fucking ballot

what's the deal with caucuses anyway
what's the deal with american electoral system anyways, as a eurofag this shit is so alien. coinflips to decide the party candidate like wtf is this shit??
Man, I don't know why we do this shit. Even the republican party in Iowa uses a normal secret ballot, but for some reason the dems continue with this weird shit.
well, the primaries are different than general election because the party elections aren't "real" (which is one reason why the DNC faced no consequences for rigging the 2016 primary). the primaries are split between caucuses and "primaries" which are just regular elections with a voting machine. caucuses basically require you to go in person at a certain time, and physically put yourself in a portion of the room for your candidate. candidates that do not receive a minimum threshold of support are eliminated, and their supporters can go to other candidates.

general elections are standard FPTP per state. the winner of each state gets a certain number of "electoral votes" which is equivalent to the number of senators and number of House representatives from that state. the winner of the presidency is decided by who gets a majority of the electoral votes, which may not be the same as the winner would have been in a pure FPTP election (notable examples are 2016 clinton v trump and 2000 gore v bush)
The idea of a caucus is you have the chance to convince other voters to vote for your guy.

Burgers are descended from a bunch of woo-woo protestants. They/we love dumbass rituals. Combine that with a rigged electoral system, and there you go.

Republicans rig with gerrymandering. Democrats rig with procedure.
>well, the primaries are different than general election because the party elections aren't "real" (which is one reason why the DNC faced no consequences for rigging the 2016 primary)
Not quite, primary elections are real elections paid for with real state money. The reason the DNC didn't face consequences is because the DNC fraud lawsuit didn't really focus on elections or election fraud/voter suppression. It focused on the defrauding of donators by engaging in a rigged internal progress, to which the ruling was that they're a private organization that can do whatever it wants internally.
Both parties rig with voter suppression and election fraud. Democrats just do it more often in the Primaries while the Republicans favor General elections.
Reminder Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana are still using extremely vulnerable electronic voting machines without even a voter-verified paper trail.
ah shit yeah? well, i hope if shit happens again they don't just take it sitting down....

only those? i'm pretty sure there's no paper trail on the machines I use, although they're not straight up touchscreen type
Of states in the South on a state-wide basis. And actually I think I might be wrong, it looks like Georgia and South Carolina might have mildly cleaned up their act recently. A voter-verified paper trail doesn't really mean anything without a hand-counted risk-limiting audit however, and people frequently just run the paper trial back through vulnerable optical scanning machines and call that a "recount". See here if you want see the whole breakdown of who's using what systems by state:
>if shit happens again they don't just take it sitting down....
They will. You have to understand that demanding recounts is the most important part of exposing fraudulent elections, and due to bullshit "legal standing" concepts in court, only the candidates actually running for office have the power to get recounts. And when you have cowards controlled opposition like Bernie Sanders and Al Gore who refuse to confront their own blatantly stolen elections, you're not going to get that.
ah, i've only ever voted in Mixed Paper Ballot and DREs without VVPAT states - i had no idea paper trails or even paper ballots were so common
It focused on both, and for the latter point, while the DNC actually did have the gall to offer that as a legal argument ("even if we did it, we did nothing wrong"), the judge (after being replaced due to totally unrelated corruption) did not agree, affirming the prosecution's argument that it was a violation of private contract law.
how is there a viable path for any candidate other than biden or buttigieg? to stop the superdelegates from voting, someone needs a majority of delegates, correct? and if that doesn't happen, the superdelegates decide
Bootygig has no path.
The brokered convention would be an absolute disaster if the Dems tried it if they denied the plurality winner. It's like thinking those 16 idiots they brought against Trump were somehow going to block the convention - the media was hoping for that clusterfuck, but there was no way it was going to happen.
Most likely the mask will come off and the party will push one candidate, most likely Warren because Biden is decrepit and his failure is being openly discussed in neoliberal world. Warren has the blessing of Madame Clinton.
It probably doesn't get to the delegates because Bernie just doesn't have enough popular support to win outright. America doesn't want socdem, America's old people just want the gibs to keep coming for themselves and to imagine they're fucking over other olds to get ahead. But even if they wanted socdem, they know full well capitalism won't allow socdem in America again. The world's socdemmery has been on the retreat for a long time now.
Hate to break it to you but European parties don't even pretend to have a inner-party democracy, most of the nominees are chosen in back rooms. At least burgerland has this thing called primaries, with debates, votes and media coverage, in Europe we are usually being presented with some corporate shithead pulled out of porky's hat that nobody even knew before.
At least most of Europe has some amount of proportional representation, allowing dissatisfied candidates to simply form their own parties to reach voters.
The two big American political parties are not parties in the European sense. It makes more sense to think of them as coalitions. The Republicans are a coalition of different right-wing factions,where as the Dems are a coalition of different centrist factions. Primaries function to determine how much power different factions have.
this is the main problem, and why I don't think it even matters as much that yuros don't select the actual candidate for their parties. i mean, sure proportional with primary selection would be better, but proportional still kicks the shit out of the bullshit farce we have to deal with in burgerland

even if hypothetically bernie won a plurality of the votes in primaries, you think the superdelegates would just consent to that and not even give it to warren if not biden?
>you think the superdelegates would just consent to that and not even give it to warren if not biden?
as per the DNC reforms passed a while back, superdelegates are not included in the first round of the primaries. This is why the Dems tried to flood the field with centrists, to make it so it is contested and goes to a second round where they can bring in superdelegates.
>even if hypothetically bernie won a plurality of the votes in primaries, you think the superdelegates would just consent to that and not even give it to warren if not biden?
I'm banking on the numbers at least being slanted enough that no amount of MSM apologia could prevent massive popular reaction from rapid judicial injunctions at minimum to physical insurrection at the DNC.
yes that's my point, a plurality rather than a majority. i'm not convinced anyone will get a majority, and the other poster seemed to imply that he thought the superdelegates would just go with whoever wins the plurality. i'm skeptical

that's fair, i guess it just seems like a long shot. if it's anywhere close they can give it to whomever they want (within reason) without facing much backlash i think
Demsocs scare me quite dearly, I feel as though Dengism is going to be the next stage of International Capital , and I feel as though Demsocs will be the the ones to open up the way for that to happen.
Right, we do have proportional representation, which isn't ranked choice voting. A lot of American progressives I talk to seem to think that because European countries have six or seven parties that we have ranked choice voting.

This ends up with a lot of good parties people vote for selling out during coalition building. I'm German and we had elections in the state of Thuringa for example: Major winner was the PdL, literally the successor organisation of the ruling party of the GDR, and guess what they will now probably do: A coalition with the centre-right CDU to keep the far-right out of power. It's basically the European version of Bernie endorsing Hilldawg after she cheated him.

Another thing I feel like addressing is the different mentality. Even though it has a presidential system, American liberal democracy isn't that different from European liberal democracy on paper. Third parties aren't illegal in the US. I feel a lot of this is just ideology that you only have to vote blue or red, which is a problem ranked choice voting won't fix, the only thing it would fix is that libshits won't tell at you anymore that you elected Trump by voting for Jill Stein. Actually, they can still do that if you didn't throw your vote behind every corporate democrat. Nothing stops you from forming a party, and voting the party into Congress in the US, just like Yurofag politicians do. Or is there something particular that screws third parties? Enlighten me burgers.
If they gave it to Biden, yes, but a lot of people are duped by Warren and would not do anything if Warren becomes the nominee over Bernie.
Warren is going to have a hard time continuing to fool people for a whole damn year.
Actually Ireland and Malta both use Single Transferable Vote, a type of ranked voting method, to achieve proportional representation as an alternative to party-list methods. Unfortunately they also use STV's sister method, Instant Runoff Voting, for single-winner elections and it's complete shit tier for allowing more than two parties to be competitive.
>Third parties aren't illegal in the US. I feel a lot of this is just ideology that you only have to vote blue or red, which is a problem ranked choice voting won't fix, the only thing it would fix is that libshits won't tell at you anymore that you elected Trump by voting for Jill Stein.
They may not be illegal, but the United States has some of the most repressive ballot access laws in the world. The number of signatures required to get a party on ballots in many states is downright impossible for small parties unless a millionaire comes in and hires a bunch of commercial petitioners. And instant runoff voting does in fact still have tactical voting--it's only safe to vote sincerely for your third party candidate when they have no chance of winning in the first place.

>Nothing stops you from forming a party, and voting the party into Congress in the US, just like Yurofag politicians do. Or is there something particular that screws third parties? Enlighten me burgers.
The issue is a psychological effect caused by voting methods with vote splitting and strong incentives for tactical voting, and the feedback loop created between elections by single-winner systems. It's called Duverger's Law. Two-party systems aren't exclusive to the US, they manifest themselves with few exceptions in nearly every country that has plurality voting and single-winner election districts.>>117238
She only needs to fool people through super Tuesday, when she can get a ton of delegates. Remember she doesn't need to be a clear and definite winner, just close enough to Bernie that she can be chosen without any outrage
>Nothing stops you from forming a party, and voting the party into Congress in the US, just like Yurofag politicians do. Or is there something particular that screws third parties? Enlighten me burgers
Then why, in a country of 300 million, are there a handful 3rd party candidates in Congress? I’m not convinced that 300 million are stuck in a mentality of “red vs blue”. The reality is that there are structural issues that prevent 3rd parties from gaining national power
How does Bernie keeps winning Vermont as an independent though?
Only sanders and one other candidate ever get a non-trivial number of votes in elections for his seat. It's not like he has to run against both a Democrat and republican in his races. As >>117260 said, two parties naturally arise in our voting system, just as a mathematical phenomenon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Now, this doesn't totally explain why nationally it's pretty much only democrats and Republicans. I think that is just because it's easier for local candidates to get elected when they have the resources of a major party. Just look at how many national candidates and party figures work to help people like state representatives get elected. Since each individual race will tend to two parties, it makes sense that they would all tend to the same two parties. Of course there are exceptions, sanders being one huge one. Because he is such an exception who actually has gained traction, he's really a once in a generation opportunity
A lot of times third parties have only one or two candidates on the ballot for state legislatures, even while they're getting 10%-15% of the vote for Governor or Senator there.
The Alaska Senate election in 2016 is a particularly extreme example. The Libertarian party candidate got 30% of the vote, and they had zero candidates on the ballot for the state legislature. The situation of the election was quite odd, but they should still have been prepared to leverage it somehow.

Not sure why this is. The requirements to get on the ballot are sometimes rather onerous but they should still be able to manage it in at least a few districts.
It is a bit late but happy birthday to the greatest socialist America ever produced. I could not earnestly say I was a socialist until I read his works.
Anyone seen this yet?

> People in the comments saying IT was a defensive move
How are people this retarded?
You can’t cure ideology.
apparently shifting your body weight is enough to have someone defensively throw acid in your face.
>why yes i do carry battery acid with me everywhere i go
it was aggressive body weight shifting
The right to bear arms battery acid shall not be infringed!
If anyone has kept up with the elections, the Dems have picked up the Governors spot in Kentucky, made larger gains in the Virginia legislature, & lost in Mississippi for the Governor spot.
(64.82 KB 969x546 ralph northam blackface.jpg)
The VA state legislature flipped from majority R to majority D in both houses.
Senate went from 19D/20R to 21D/19R
House went from 48D/51R to 54D/45R
Lots of dems are bootlickers though so don't expect too much. There's a shitload of military cucks here. Remember that the current governor is pic related.
>current governor is pic related.

If you live in Germany that's a pretty ignorant statement and you have never been member in a party. We do have internal party democracy to a much larger degree than yanks, but you need to be member of a party to participate in its internal elections.
Sanders isn't really that big of an exception. Ever since he lost a three-way race in the late '80s, he has had a deal with the Democrats of Vermont where they never actually run anyone against him.
Forgot I had this lying around but never encoded. Enjoy.
(77.08 KB 432x656 muhRussia.jpg)
History repeats itself, the first as tragedy, then as farce
(108.06 KB 1448x1577 1571331362361.jpg)
>trying to get health insurance since open enrollment
>$200+ a month for catastrophic plans
And then there's the deductible.
"Better" insurance isn't even much better (unless you pay less upfront because of work)

I've had several expensive surgeries all completely denied. Several basic exams and lab tests, all denied. And what recourse do I have? Fucking nothing. I'm sure there is some bullshit clause they can point to if I decided to try to bankrupt myself with lawyer fees. It's all fucking bullshit and they all deserve to hang
They keep trying to get me to sign up for medicaid, which is it's own huge hassle of regulations and income confirmations to try and prevent people from signing up for it, and no one takes it anymore unless you're headed to the ER
honestly if you can get on it I would try anyway. I was on it for a year or so, didn't end up using it but at least it would have been effectively a catastrophic plan

and if you can't get a normal procedure covered, sometimes there will be charity deductions if your income is medicaid level
Klobuchar has now qualified for debates through December, and tulsi for November.
If you're a burger it's probably cheaper to just go to Canada if you need a procedure done. As for emergency care, they have to treat you if you go to the hospital, and it will put you in debt if you can't pay. Medical debt is one of the current bubbles in the economy. Anybody who pays medical debt right now is accomplishing nothing except postponing the crash. A fucked credit score is almost certainly preferable to foregoing treatment if you need immediate medical attention.

People who defend this system should be treated like total pariahs tbh.
They gained that much in spite of that governor?
The point is that the Democrats will clear the field when the elections really get going, so Bernie likely won't have the plurality or only a slim one at best. Democrats know how their primaries work, they've always been rigged pony shows that are more about putting someone in the spotlight and making sure they comply with the donors than anything else (hence why you see this asinine attempt to defend health insurance companies despite the vast majority of the country hating the shit out of this health care system and wanting at least something different, or at least to not be forced to pay for insurance).
That's what I mean. Even if Bernie gets a plurality, if anyone else (particularly Warren) is close, there won't be long term backlash when the super delegates give it to that person
Is there a video of buttchug speaking Arabic at the rally and the attendees breaking into thunderous applause?
>Is there a video of buttchug speaking Arabic at the rally and the attendees breaking into thunderous applause?
Wait I though this was a meme.
I thought it's real
Another article attacking Bernie with IdPol.


But wait... something feels different here. Teen Vogue, which has recently published an surprisingly radical article about Marxism, may still be redeemable, you'd think, when you notice that the article attacks Sanders - despite the IdPol - from the left:
>And despite his “progressive” statements on everything from bodily autonomy to a history of imperialist U.S. intervention abroad, Sanders has not always followed through on actions that actually align with those values, which is why my diminishing support for the senator has been a long time coming. He was among the 100 senators who signed a letter to the United Nations asking to improve its treatment of Israel in 2017, which I disagree with.
Also, there is no endorsement of Warren or any other IdPol candidate, instead the author endorses some grassroots organiser in the end. So, is this, despite the IdPol attacks, actually a critique from the left?

No. The author is a literal gusano LARPing as a fake far-left persona:

<In 2007, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez government effectively shut down RCTV, the nation's most influential private cable channel. The decision sparked protests across the country. Atlanta's Venezuelan community demonstrated locally, too.

<Isabella Gomez Sarmiento, who was 10 at the time, attended with her parents and learned from them to value freedom of expression and an unfettered press.
Blond hair, leaving Venezuela once Chavez disciplines opposition media - and it gets worse:
She literally supports Guaido, apperently.

Don't get duped, burgers. Even if it seems someone attacks Bernie from the left, do your research.
>inb4 Hillary jumps into the race
(33.81 KB 1043x328 mcbath.png)
Yuuuup. This is another tell:
>In the last several years, we’ve seen the rise of politicians like Virginia state legislator Danica Roem and Georgia representative Lucy McBath, who advocate tirelessly for their communities because they know firsthand what it’s like to experience actual discrimination. We need more leaders like them to pave the way for the future of our country — not candidates like Sanders, who still think they deserve to be the voice for groups fully capable of speaking up for themselves.
Lucy McBath yeah? See pic

Danica Roem is okay I guess but is just a state legislator.

i don't care who advocates for policies that help people of the particular minority group i happen to be in, as long as the policies are good and the person seems genuine.
Cringe is a common zoomer colloquial, and you're an upset boomer.
(167.25 KB 780x602 sawant.jpg)
Sawant closing the gap in Seattle. More votes to be counted but she won 60% of Thursday's vote and is now -739 votes behind. She needs 53% of the remaining 13,000 ballots. Hasn't clinched it yet but the Amazon / porky community is starting to fume. And if she pulls it out... well I have a tendency of knocking Trots but that is unfair of me IMO as the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Long live the red fortress!
Imma need more context to fully appreciate Amazon tears
(174.28 KB 730x795 sawant_signs.jpg)
Amazon gave $1.5 million to her opponent who is a corporate plant / bourgie director of the city's gay pride festival who largely moralized about being for gay rights (you know, in the infamously conservative, homophobic backwater of Seattle). Anyways, I'm a gay person myself and it was obviously a sucker ploy to present the idea that Sawant -- a Trotskyist -- "doesn't care about gay people." The larger goal is to stop Sawant's "Head Tax" which would expand housing and homeless services and paid for with a per-employee tax on companies that makes $20 million+ in revenue (i.e. Amazon). She has a lot of support though in her district and Socialist Alternative has the best ground game in the city. Also her opponents are the worst kind of porky scum and vandalized her signs
gringoids are shilling for USA intervention in Mexico and AMLO is spreading his ass for it. Lesson learned: Never trust a fucking SocDem
Really? I read that he was pushing back on the U.S.:

The whole affair with the Mormon fundie settlers is weird though. The U.S. press is playing up the angle of white people getting murked by Mexican bandits but I think there's more to the story. Apparently the clan has been drilling hundreds of illegal wells to water their almond trees -- which if you know anything about almonds they are some of the most water-intensive crops you can grow -- in the middle of the Sonoran desert, which had the effect of threatening the ecology and livelihoods of the surrounding farming and ranching communities, which banded together and invaded the Mormon area with 500 people last year to destroy the wells (they did a lot of damage, apparently, but were repelled by gunfire). Anyways, the whole situation seems like trouble if you ask me.

I'm just speculating but I imagine the "Sonorense Protective Association" or whatever you'd like to call them offered to lend a hand to send a message, and when the cops and army ask the surrounding communities if they know who murked the family, no one is gonna say shit
At least the Funkosoys from Reddit would be happy.
(158.35 KB 1024x683 sawant_cwi.jpg)
>is she /ourgirl?
Hell yes. Seattle grunge Trot who makes neolibs furious
I do find it interesting how much the media reports on Sawant all the time. You'd think they'd realize they can neutralize the threat outside Seattle if they just shut up about her.
>To trigger machine recount
AKA not a fucking recount.
I'm more of a Anna Louise Strong guy myself
So whats her plans of bringing socialism to America? rent controls?
(143.22 KB 1552x579 ElectoralSocialism.png)
How did i know
>how is a city council member in Seattle going to turn America socialist
come on
(58.60 KB 771x390 MuhTaxes.png)
>turn America socialist
not what i was implying.
If your gonna to call yourself "socialist" that means you want to put the means of production into the workers hands. This means shit like permanent state industry and co-ops, not rent control. like look at pic related, she shouldn't be advocating for "taxing muh big buisness", she should be advocating nationalization or creation of state business. Small shit like buying farms to employ people to feed their city. That is a real socialist policy that even a small city council member can help create, bringing a little bit of real socialism to America.
Im not ignoring how she does talk about expanding social housing but since that is just a sub point to rent controls it makes me suspicious on whether she actually prioritizes it.
I really think the important thing to point out with milquetoast reformism like this is that when you go to negotiate for the shit you want, you are not going to even get your opening bid. Whatever someone with these goals might actually get would be a watered down version of even this crap.
She has literally called on Boeing workers to rise up and seize the means lol

Of course she can't seize those means as a city council member but more actual commies in government is a good thing, not a bad thing.
To me its even counter productive to go with taxation for funding these programs because the bouge WILL move out. A electorial socialist program HAS to build productive forces or its gaurenteed to fail as all the people you tax simply leave. Besides, the bouge are EXTREMELY hostile to direct confrintation on their property so instead of trying to fight them over it go around and start selling alternative, socially produced, products instead. they wont realize they have been duped until its already established
>She has literally called on Boeing workers to rise up and seize the means lol
Basically socialist virtue signalling. i know it wont happen, the employees know it wont happen, everyone knows it wont happen
>she can't seize those means as a city council member
She may not be able to SEIZE productive forces away from the bouge but she can help build them, we all can
>actual commies
Whats the point of calling themselves that when it means nothing?
>good thing, not a bad thing.
except it completely misrepresents our goals and values
>the bouge WILL move out. A electorial socialist program HAS to build productive forces or its gaurenteed to fail
I agree, but that's a more complicated and therefore a more difficult point to make to the average person. IME it's easier to explain that if you try for some basic shit like rent control you'll get shitty rent control. I get the angle of arguing for the ideal praxis, but we are so far from that I think it's more productive to point out how non-radical people are and how any functional solution would have to be farther to the left. I don't think there's anything to say or do to "win" a situation where there's no good option. Instead you have to think in terms of how much ground can you gain here.
Im sorry i really disregarded your post to continue ranting about succdems, burger reading comphension etc

Anyways i disagree with you that its too complicated for a political program. Like i said, stating with a community food program is pretty simple and can easily put on posters like FEED YOUR COMMUNITY, VOLENTEER AT THE CITY GARDENS or some shit. In fact i think its even more simple than trying to explain the economics of rent control and how the bouge propaganda is wrong about it. IF that program is successful you can use the proceeds or political energy to do more complicated stuff like state built family housing. To me, its simple enough, true to the movement, and really sets you in a good place for combating the capitalist mode of production
(101.17 KB 640x960 AnarchistVSmarxists.jpg)
meme pic
>i disagree with you that its too complicated for a political program
I don't think it's too complex, but in a context where it doesn't exist, simply arguing for it is pretty futile, IMO. If there's an opportunity to actually organize for more radical change then great. My point here is that when reformism flops the point we need to make is not "they shoulda been more radical." That's true, but it won't land with the average person. Most people tend to view that sort of thinking as pie-in-the-sky. The important ideological work to do is to explain how the situation demonstrates the inevitable failure of reform, and that it simply isn't a worthwhile strategy. If you can get people to accept that, they will be more open to genuinely radical approaches in the future.

>Anyways i disagree with you that its too complicated for a political program. Like i said, stating with a community food program is pretty simple and can easily put on posters like FEED YOUR COMMUNITY, VOLENTEER AT THE CITY GARDENS or some shit.
I agree. That's good praxis. Parallel production free of the capitalist machine is a good step. It's the method I prefer tbh, but I was talking more about best practices for talking about reformist failures to proles.

Sorry if I wasn't making the point clear enough. I'm kinda hammered.
(368.07 KB 680x605 im going in.png)
>but I was talking more about best practices for talking about reformist failures to proles.
oh god my bad im having a real moment here tonight
Dude I'm drunk af don't worry about it.
(21.12 KB 300x300 lucille-ball-9196958-3-402.jpg)
>To me its even counter productive to go with taxation for funding these programs because the bouge WILL move out. A electorial socialist program HAS to build productive forces or its gaurenteed to fail as all the people you tax simply leave. Besides, the bouge are EXTREMELY hostile to direct confrintation on their property so instead of trying to fight them over it go around and start selling alternative, socially produced, products instead. they wont realize they have been duped until its already established
I dunno. I'm pretty sure the bourg will figure that out. The way I see it, Amazon (which is some big capital) wouldn't have burned several million dollars on trying to take down Sawant if she wasn't at least being somewhat of a pain in the ass for them. And they also lost, which is great news because people who might not particularly like Amazon, but don't particularly think socialism is "workable," will see a socialist successfully defend her little fortress, which will inspire other people to make similar attempts. Have some faith in the class struggle and the dialectic here instead of trying to run from the porkies into your utopian community garden.

I made this point over in the Stalin thread but the proof is in the pudding and you need to be a little Machiavellian about this. Like the first task of any political project is just to survive and be capable of reproducing yourself. Legitimacy can't really be conferred to something that doesn't exist at all. I mean say what you will about the Bob Avakian cultists but at least they're keeping a bookstore in Harlem going which is more than can be said for a lot of communists in America.
(157.37 KB 707x1003 GigaGulag.png)
>I dunno. I'm pretty sure the bourg will figure that out.
Well my little utopian garden wont immediately come onto the radar of McDonald and Walmart HQ until it starts getting success and closing their stores in the city, is what im implying, and even then they might not do anything about it if the profits wont exceed the short term cost of a soft local coup
>The way I see it, Amazon (which is some big capital) wouldn't have burned several million dollars on trying to take down Sawant if she wasn't at least being somewhat of a pain in the ass for them.
This is true, but its because shes trying to raise taxes, directly threatening his property, to build her solar panals and houses, not because of some ideological agenda against her.

I agree with the rest of your post though, would you say that the replication of the movement would be easier though if they demostrate real inroads or is that more about legitimacy
My view is that americans live in a huge propaganda bubble that is feed by trillions of dollars.
>I agree with the rest of your post though, would you say that the replication of the movement would be easier though if they demostrate real inroads or is that more about legitimacy
Hmm that's a good question. I don't really know but I'm going to say it's probably "both/and." Now, Sawant might fall short here, but I still feel compelled to defend her. Like, I think you gotta pick a side when a socialist is getting blasted by Jeff Bezos and his cronies.
fuggen this
(228.81 KB 521x768 GrillMate.png)
>Like, I think you gotta pick a side when a socialist is getting blasted by Jeff Bezos and his cronies.
yeah well you do you man, I just want real socialist productive forces
You know what? Thinking about it like most people in the city care about rent. thats probably like the single biggest issue in the cities right now and who am i to say that that problem needs or should be held off? this might be a retarded stratigy where i live, which is more rural and has plenty of space, but not there. The fact she pins social housing on top of the rent controls just shows that she is thinking about socialist productive forces and like where the fuck would she put a fucking farm in seattle?
anyone have any thoughts on bloomberg running?
Good for bernie i guess because hes only going to divide the bluedog vote
Finally a man wealthier than Trump.
He won't even get 1% of the vote

A literal who candidate who's not even attempting to get in the debates or contest any of the early primaries
Normally the enemy of my enemy is not my fiend. But the enemies of Bezos are an exception.
(12.72 MB Kamala Cringe.webm)
Nuclear Cringe from the Copmala campaign.
>Putin is selling out our justice system
bitch it was already sold out
(16.07 KB 293x323 1488945622719.jpg)
Burger here who was Demsoc in nature but recently sympathies to Communism have again resurfaced, considering the rise of Latin American movements and Cuba's success in general what are some reads on their models that's made it differ from traditional Marxist Leninism? Leninism makes sense but I'd like to avoid pitfalling into the wastebin of history.

I'm curious as to how we could implement Cuban policy and what their implements to their present system were post 1991. Seems like they have made leaps and bounds and I would imagine US industrial technology could do the same if not better.
I wish I had some lit for you instead of just posting my rubbish but it's my understanding the Cuban system didn't differ that much from the Soviet one -- it pretty early on aligned with the USSR for instance. I think the main thing that helped keep it stable is that Cuba is an island in the Caribbean so the color revolutions which spread throughout the Soviet bloc didn't contaminate it.

The Cubans might have also gotten the politics down a bit better, more populist, and less elitist like the Soviets could be (Soviet communist politicians could be terribly elitist). The Soviets, I think, also got way too wrapped up in needing to justify any shift in policy by reference to Lenin (there's that elitism again), which started becoming contradictory in the 1970s and 1980s as the Soviet economy was much different than in the 1920s. Fidel Castro explicitly told people not to make a cult of personality around him as well, so it's not like you have to say "point to me where Fideo said this," which has made the system more adaptable, realistic, etc. I'd track down some collections of Castro's speeches and interviews, along with Che. In general Castro struck me as a very loose, casual and comfortable sort of fellow who was easy to talk with about all kinds of things, whereas often with Marxism-Leninism it can get stodgy.
The truth is you have whatever system your movement builds pragmatically. Marx was right to criticize overly specific goals as utopian. What sort of system works for people will be built organically as the organizations and movements develop. Given the material conditions of today, we shouldn't expect an older system to work the same, or be the best we can do. Our information technology is already a huge boon to more democratic control. A new system that fails to account for distributed democracy through the internet or something like it is too mired in the past to see the future. We need to put more effort into organizing to solve real problems now, and build on that to create a larger movement, coming up with a new bespoke system for the contemporary problems. Utopianism isn't going to convince anybody to join us, but helping them deal with their shit will.
Thanks for the brief explanation comrade, its still eye opening and I feel silly not realizing its practically the same system sans national chauvinism and with an adaptable attitude rather than ideologically pragmatic.

I'll look further into works by Fidel,Che,and possibly Ortega whilst looking for related media such as interviews. They seem authentic rather than some weird deified towering man of some special branded version of "The Immortal Science"

That being said let us pray to our glorious leader Fidel Castro and receive all the candy we can eat.
I understand that Bookchin highlighted some of these problems with contemporary socialism as well as Zizek.

Could electronic democracy and cybersyn alleviate these issues while we work directly with the working class and uniquely those oppressed by capital?
She sold out poor people’s lives for her political career using the justice system, the cunt
Kamal deserves to be raped by the people she put in jail.
The Cuban system is different from the Soviet one because it has eliminated the party supremacy in elections. Cuba is probably the most democratic country in the world.
they dont even seem threatened, could you imagine if the right did this? thousands plus magatards, charlottesvillian alt-right, KKK, and threeper militias all came through a new york sub way like that armed and angry? The fucking national guard would be called. We either need to arm so we at least defend ourselves or we vote accerlationist to let the reactionaries have their "boogaloo" so we can at least have a chance
Warren is self-destructing. She'll still get the Shillary voting block though and the primaries will be rigged and nothing will happen like in 2016, just a few youtube celebs making a fuss with outrage porn and grifting dumb amerilards via Patreon
>just a few youtube celebs making a fuss with outrage porn and grifting dumb amerilards via Patreon
I hate that this seems pretty accurate. Discontent has been rehabilitated into outrage porn. None of this will change because people are in bubbles now, and in those bubbles only approved messages appear. Nobody who needs to see Warren acting like this will see it.
i'm not even convinced she'll get it. biden honestly is looking stronger lately despite himself
I remain firmly convinced that Trump is going to easily win reelection
Trump is probably going to win unless the economy is going down the toilet.
this time again, i think the only candidate who can beat him is sanders

so you're right
>Environmental Justice
it means not dumping toxic waste etc. in poor communities, not greta thunberg autism
(83.78 KB 500x375 tulsi.jpg)
Tulsi Gabbard is going on The Jimmy Dore Show, starting now.
jimmy dore has such a hardon for tulsi
why not shes hot
ok but he clearly pretends to be a legit commentator despite his claims otherwise, so maybe he should jerk off before interviewing some woman he wants to fuck
He likes to talk about Tulsi because of how much she triggers the media. I saw the segment, and that's largely what they talked about.
Jimmy Dore has over six hundred thousand subscribers. This is comparable to how many people tune into Morning Joe every day.
Most TV News viewership is from waiting rooms and gyms where they just play in the background.
Why do you think fed’s pumping the money into markets?
I'm not sure what you mean. He is big for sure
Jimmy Dore is a legitiment reporter and interviewer.
How is Biden still in the lead?
because Based Buttigieg hasn't completely toppled him yet
Central Illinois DSA groups and PSL coalition where you at
Old people. Lots of goddamn old people.

That and sampling bias because young people don't bother answering poll calls, and pollers don't even bother sending phone calls to youngs. I haven't received a single such call about the election, and I didn't receive any in 2016 either, even though it's a matter of record that I vote in almost every election.

But mostly, old people. They don't want change, they want their gibs and they don't want to share with the youngs. The Demoshits are a conservative party, as is much of their base.
Worth remembering that polling companies will give old peoples' votes more weight on the polling than young people. Because young people have lower turnout or because the pollsters are biased, pick your narrative.
(167.59 KB 1702x1034 D5bj5ZcV4AAk3NX.jpeg)
and that's if they even bother getting enough young people to include
>That and sampling bias because young people don't bother answering poll calls, and pollers don't even bother sending phone calls to youngs
Most phone polls are done via landlines, which almost nobody under 100 has these days. And you shouldn't answer calls from numbers you don't recognize unless you're expecting a call. There's so much spam now that legitimately something like 90% of phone calls in the US are scammers. If you don't answer your phone they might take you off the list, but if you pick up at all they'll have a confirmation that your number has a potential mark.
(31.63 KB 474x300 th.jpg)
The more likely case is that the numbers are just totally made up, because there's no way 96% of Democrats give a shit about Climate Boogaloo 2020. Olds still think the problem is global cooling because that was what they were told growing up. Plus, you're largely dealing with a voter base whose opinions are incoherent (and were engineered to be that way from endless lies, which is what the CIA info warfare program openly claimed to be the goal).
friendly reminder about primary polling
At least Warren is down.
Farmers like that fag? Why?
For once he has his head out of his ass. Think it's because he's personally interacted with Morales.
Most farmers are fags.
Most people in Iowa aren't farmers. I live in a university town in Iowa and he is pretty popular with the libtard students, not sure why.
Farmers are less than 3% of the workforce
(179.76 KB 2254x1190 dore.png)
Motherfucker openly flexes his Gabbhardon right in front of his wife. What a chad.
Putin the soviet zombie and communism gave us Trump! https://reddit.com/comments/dve5ij
>fags like fags
That’s cause half the country lives in costal megacities. In rural state like Iowa things are different.
When is the actual vote in the house on impeachment?
Party lines
No, dummy. That is a myth. Even in the so-called rural states most people do not work agriculture.
In 2016 1.2% of Iowa’s workforce was in agriculture.
It's not the early 20th century any more. Farms are highly industrialized.
Warren sounds like nails on a chalk board. I hate her voice so much.
I hope she kills herself or someone gives her the HK treatment and throughs kerosine on her and lights her on fire.
tucker carlson's show always has the strangest good takes https://twitter.com/i/status/1194442653208891393

well gosh, yknow, i just... that doesn't sound very nice now does it?
(2.21 MB BurningMan.mp4)
>well gosh, yknow, i just... that doesn't sound very nice now does it?
It wouldn’t be very hard. A quarter of people carry lighters in their pockets. After the event you can put it in a bag and shove it up you ass so the police can’t find it. You can store the kerosine in a coffee cup. Make sure to where gloves so their can be no fingerprints. When she is one fire through the cup at her and it’ll disintegrate. You can do this during an event where she shakes hands with people. If chinks can do it, we can do it.
sounds good! let's get this going - contact me 855-835-5324
(75.75 KB 500x500 cia real socialism.jpg)
> If chinks can do it, we can do it.
>I hope she kills herself or someone gives her the HK treatment and throughs kerosine on her and lights her on fire.
real subtle...
>Anyone who wants to do anything is CIA, real socialists lie down and rot while Porky fucks their corpse.
(173.98 KB 300x300 wew lad.gif)
>hoping she kills herself or someone gives her the HK treatment is doing something...
now you're getting it!

but really, even if you found other people who wanted to do what you say, it's common sense not to discuss it on public forums....
>when fucking fox is more onto what’s going on

No its just common sense not to talk about terroristic plots on a mongolian throat singing forum that could very well be monitored by feds.
tell me she isn’t mommy
Under Comrade Sanders, will Faux News become a NazJuche channel?
I'll make her a mommy again
Debate is final https://www.npr.org/2019/11/14/778674519/10-democratic-candidates-qualify-for-next-weeks-november-debate

>10 candidates
>shortened to 2 hours
>"equal speaking time" for each candidate
>"equal speaking time" for each candidate
These people are insane
You might even say 'fair'
might? he filed and announced
He’d become a living meme.
Trump said in the past that if he ran he'd run as a Republican because they're dumb enough to believe anything, once Reagan got in there.

No one gives a shit about the debates, nor should they given what a joke they are. They're multi-hour infomercials without the entertainment of seeing Jeb Bush implode on stage. I imagine none of the debates moved the needle particularly much, and that the reality is that the candidates outside the big three didn't have an actual base nor political machinery backing them up, standard issue stuff for the Democrats.

I'm not getting my hopes up for Bernie. He doesn't have enough hard support. In 2016 he was extremely reliant on people who just fucking hated Hillary. Old Boomers remembered Hillary and largely did not like her (but for most, they hate socialism more and they know how these primaries work, so they voted for Queen Nasty if they bothered to vote at all).

Chunk is such a tool.
the debates matter because candidates have a chance to put others on the spot and cause them to gaffe or box themselves into corners (like how Warren's entire m4a funding thing is to weasel out "no tax increases for the middle class"). the debates are the best chance to fuck up biden because he can get caught off guard
Why is he running? Isn’t he Bernie supporter?
Oh nvm it’s Congress.
The olds who watch these things are incredibly partisan. My mother came away from the VP debate last year thinking Kaine came off GOOD, while I sadly had to admit Pence beat the shit out of him.

Sanity has left the Democratic Party many years ago. Now it's about who can get the donor money and who pleases Queen Hillary.
you really think she didnt blow most of her political capital last time?

id think as dumb as the dnc is they have to know shes tainted for real now after loosing to trump. they have to be holding her back from running somehow because she would have otherwise.
There are certainly people in the party that wanted her to stay the fuck out of politics entirely, but she's still putting her machine behind Warren (hence why Warren's messaging is even worse than usual, she's taking marching orders from Third Way and CAP). I think even Hillary knows she can't go into a primary after such a humiliation, but she's going to make America pay for denying Her Turn.

Remember back in 1960, people thought Nixon was finished. Hillary really does model herself on Nixon. I fear we haven't seen the last of her.
whats the end game with warren though, being a shadow president as vp?
warren is really dumb if she thinks having hillary as her vp will help her, she already has those people
The endgame is that Hillary is vindicated because Woman Power, and Warren is beholden to the Clinton machine and the neocons that are worming their way into the Democratic Party. She'd become a creature of either the Clinton faction or the financial interests that ruled over Obama, a figurehead even if Warren did give enough of a shit to understand that capitalism is broken.
>Trump said in the past that if he ran he'd run as a Republican because they're dumb enough to believe anything, once Reagan got in there.
That isn't a real quote but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if that was Trump's motivation to switch parties:
>They're multi-hour infomercials without the entertainment of seeing Jeb Bush implode on stage.
It's such a shame the Dem debates don't have anyone with Big Dick Energy™ like Kucinich, or even a prominent heckler like Nader. Tulsi is the only person even near that stage with even one drop of venom in her fangs.
that's what gravel would have been


Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?