Bernie wins New Hampshire!

[Wolverine]

Go fuck yourself. You're probably on SSDI, aren't you? Leech.

Go get a job! Tired of supporting you!

[Nomad]

Well, I sure as hell care about the youth vote more than I care about the votes of people who demand accommodation despite getting that accommodation non-stop for the last 10 years.

We did the moderate thing...it didn't work. In fact, it got us Trump. At what point are you going to admit that pinning your hopes on a few million voters of bad faith is misguided?

We don't need moderates to win elections.

For every "moderate" in 2016 that voted for Clinton, we can replace them at an almost 2:1 clip with non-voters.

Clinton got about 65 million votes in 2016, but 95 million people didn't vote. So if losing one Clinton vote means picking up one and a half to two non-voters, are you more behind 2016 or ahead of it?

Nothing but unsubstantiated assumptions and conclusions jumped to with specious reasoning.

You have ZERO clues as to what would turn out best, only gut feeling like the rest of us.

I think progs and young people, especially today's young people, are naive, sky-pie-grasping nitwits, and as such, I don't buy anything they promote.

Age and experience bring wisdom and wisdom in its leadership is what this country desperately needs.

[LV426]

Go get a job! Tired of supporting you!

You don't have a job, who are you kidding? Stop.

[LV426]

Nothing but unsubstantiated assumptions and conclusions jumped to with specious reasoning.

Word salad there.

What assumptions did I make? Care to point them out? I don't think you can.

[Wolverine]

You don't have a job, who are you kidding? Stop.

31 years same company been working since I was 8 doing something! Now stop leeching off mom and go to work!

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

What policy would you like me to look at? Stop and Frisk?

im just saying in general, you should reject identity politics.

[LV426]

You have ZERO clues as to what would turn out best, only gut feeling like the rest of us.

Well, here's what I know...

In 2016, we went with the "moderate" and lost.

In 2014, we went with "moderate" Senate candidates and lost.

In 2010, we went with "moderate" House candidates and lost.

So...if we keep going to moderates and we keep losing, what is that telling you?

"Moderation" by definition isn't enthusiasm or excitement. And the only way you get people to the polls is by getting them enthused and excited for something. "Moderation" ain't it, as we saw in 2016.

I think progs and young people, especially today's young people, are naive, sky-pie-grasping nitwits, and as such, I don't buy anything they promote.

Well they think you act in bad faith and demand outsized accommodation after a track record of failure, like 2016.

To think that winning an election isn't dependent on spurring turnout is naive and sky-grasping.

To think that you can persuade people of bad faith to your candidate is naive and sky-grasping.

It's much easier to get a non-voter to vote than it is to change the mind of a Conservative.

If "moderation" was what people wanted, Clinton would be our President.

Age and experience bring wisdom and wisdom in its leadership is what this country desperately needs.

Then Bernie should be your guy since he's the oldest candidate.

[LV426]

31 years same company been working since I was 8 doing something! Now stop leeching off mom and go to work!

Wait - you're doing the same thing you did when you were 8?

Well, no one can fault you for lack of ambition.

[LV426]

im just saying in general, you should reject identity politics.

Well, then I'm just saying in general that you're a poseur who won't even explain himself and retreats to tired old tropes that aren't convincing the way you think they are.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Well, then I'm just saying in general that you're a poseur who won't even explain himself and retreats to tired old tropes that aren't convincing the way you think they are.

ok, nedward.

[Nomad]

OK...billionaires have concentrated wealth, which means they've concentrated their power. If they concentrate their power, how do the rest of us get any?

Just because you're rich doesn't mean you're successful or a better person. When you are that rich, you've cast your morality aside and are for self-preservation solely. That's because of the wealth you've concentrated for yourself that insulates you from the problems facing most people.

So yeah...that's a pretty big fucking problem.

Fuck Oprah. How's that? I don't want any billionaires running for President because they're out of touch with the needs of most people in this country.

Billionaire accommodations are not aligned with accommodations for everyone else.

Listen to the people at the bottom; they outnumber those at the top.

Oh, puh-lease.

More half-baked opinion.

Maybe being a billionaire gives one a better grasp of how to solve complex financial problems.

Maybe being a billionaire gives certain people a better perspective on what it takes to become successful in both business and life.

Maybe being a billionaire gives one better access to and familiarity with the levers of power and how to best pull them.

Was Bloomberg born a billionaire or a spoiled rotten multi-millionaire with a silver spoon, like Trump was?

Cannot guys like Steyer who started out with nothing empathize with those struggling?

You ignore a lot in jumping to your half-baked conclusions.

There are good billionaires and bad billionaires.

You're lumping them all in with Trump whether you admit it or not.

[Nomad]

Well, here's what I know...

In 2016, we went with the "moderate" and lost.

In 2014, we went with "moderate" Senate candidates and lost.

In 2010, we went with "moderate" House candidates and lost.

So...if we keep going to moderates and we keep losing, what is that telling you?

"Moderation" by definition isn't enthusiasm or excitement. And the only way you get people to the polls is by getting them enthused and excited for something. "Moderation" ain't it, as we saw in 2016.

Well they think you act in bad faith and demand outsized accommodation after a track record of failure, like 2016.

To think that winning an election isn't dependent on spurring turnout is naive and sky-grasping.

To think that you can persuade people of bad faith to your candidate is naive and sky-grasping.

It's much easier to get a non-voter to vote than it is to change the mind of a Conservative.

If "moderation" was what people wanted, Clinton would be our President.

Then Bernie should be your guy since he's the oldest candidate.

I've attempted to talk sense to immature teenagers enough times in my life that I should know better than to try to do so with a Bernie-bot.

I explain and you ignore, then come back with the same half-baked nonsense and jumped-to conclusions.

I'll make a deal with you.... you go vote for ol' BS and I'll vote for a real Democrat.

I won't try to stop you and you don't try to stop me.

Otherwise, I'm done with this monotonous exercise in futility.

[Nomad]

Word salad there.

What assumptions did I make? Care to point them out? I don't think you can.

Look at your posts.

It's one after another after another.

[LV426]

Maybe being a billionaire gives one a better grasp of how to solve complex financial problems.

Or not because those are usually handled by CFO's.

Maybe being a billionaire gives certain people a better perspective on what it takes to become successful in both business and life.

Unless they inherited that wealth or were given help either by their family, or the institutional advantages that are inherent in the system.

No billionaire is going to read this thread, so there's no point in sucking up to them.

Let me tell you another secret: Billionaires don't give a shit about you. The reason is because they don't have to because their wealth has insulated them from you. If billionaires did give a shit about you, they wouldn't be billionaires.

Maybe being a billionaire gives one better access to and familiarity with the levers of power and how to best pull them.

So concentrating power is a good thing?

Was Bloomberg born a billionaire or a spoiled rotten multi-millionaire with a silver spoon, like Drumpf was?

No, but he became on because of his wealth.

Cannot guys like Steyer who started out with nothing empathize with those struggling?

Empathy and sympathy are two different things. And no, I don't believe billionaires are capable of either because they've concentrated their wealth and power, and are trying to do more of that concentration.

You ignore a lot in jumping to your half-baked conclusions.

What is half-baked? You're the one with the half-baked idea that a billionaire cares about your needs and wants, or that a billionaire would ever accommodate you. They don't care about you, and they don't want to accommodate you. All they want to do is preserve their pile of gold, like Smaug. Say, what happened to Smaug?

There are good billionaires and bad billionaires.

LOL...would you say that some are "very fine people"?

You're lumping them all in with Drumpf whether you admit it or not.

They lump themselves in with him. How many pictures are there of Bloomberg and Trump together? Several. In fact, here's one. At a fucking golf course. Like besties.

donald-trump-mike-bloomberg-golf-1.jpg

[Sailor]

Nothing funnier than two fag ass Democrats slapping at each other.........LMAO!!!!!!!!!