|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:38 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:28 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 11:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 10:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 10:35 Nebuchad wrote:
I'd just like to highlight that we're having this conversation about how social democrats and liberals should behave to each other because someone thinks that Clinton was cornered into picking Kaine by leftists. The logic presented in this claim is "Look, some social democrats hate it when you create place for social democrats in your administration (This presentation isn't coherent with the facts, as Mohdoo and Nevuk have shown) - I guess I'm forced to choose a liberal instead" (This conclusion wouldn't even be coherent with the argument if the facts were coherent with it in the first place). This is a fiction, and a fairly unbelievable one at that. We cannot go from that fiction to discussing how we should unite as a party.
Magpie is basically putting the blame on leftists for everything bad that happened to democrats (ever?) and then wondering why there's no unity between us. Unity comes with a honest partnership. If the partnership is going to be that I help you get what you want and I take the blame when shit goes wrong, that's not called unity, that's called having a boss. Given that we shouldn't be allies logically and politically, there's no reason why any leftist should accept this. I did not place blame on leftists on anything outside of the failed attempt to get Elizabeth Warren as VP. She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren. Hillary then had a choice of continuing the Warren route, a person who she has had disagreements with in the past for zero gain from the sander's crowd, or Kaine, the safe bet candidate who she was already close with. That is the only thing being argued. The flaws of Bernie, his movement, and his followers are completely disconnected from their sabotage of a Warren VP nomination. So I googled "why Clinton picked Kaine" and I did a keyword search on "Warren" for the results. Your narrative of "Damn it I really wanted to pick Warren but those damn social democrats made it impossible" is not very popular - at least partly, I hope, because it doesn't make any logical sense. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/22/why-hillary-clinton-picked-tim-kaine-for-vp/?utm_term=.f83edb717765"If Clinton felt as though she needed to either court the liberal left or more broadly shake up the race, she would have chosen someone like Sen. Cory Booker, an African American, or Elizabeth Warren, a liberal icon. But Clinton didn't, and, in truth, I'm not sure how close she ever came to picking anyone other than Kaine." http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-vp-pick-tim-kaine-226013"After Donald Trump’s somewhat more polished performance Thursday night in his speech accepting the Republican nomination, even Democrats who had been pushing for a flashier choice like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren or New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker were sobered by what they saw as a challenging four months ahead. “After last night, she needs to make the safest choice possible,” said a former senior White House aide." http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/three-reasons-why-hillary-clinton-chose-tim-kaine"There have been complaints from the left that Kaine isn’t progressive enough, which isn’t exactly surprising. (The Warren wing of the Democratic Party isn’t so-named for nothing: it wanted Elizabeth Warren to get the job.)" "If Team Clinton was seriously worried that Bernie Sanders’s supporters would defect to the Green Party in large numbers, or stay at home on Election Day, it might have taken a chance on Warren as Vice-President, despite the fact that the senator from Massachusetts and Clinton have long had a cool relationship." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-tim-kaine-clinton-vice-president-20160725-story.html"The selection of Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.) as presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's running mate has dismayed some liberals and supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), who were hoping for a more progressive choice such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren" "Naturally, there will be downsides to Kaine's nomination. Some of Bernie Sanders' voters are surely disappointed, having hoped for an outspoken liberal such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren." You're right that news articles about Kaine's nomination released after the fact that he was nominated has the Hillary team in lock step siding with the Kaine pick. But its also not hard to just look at the actual events being discussed. That's not the only thing they say though. They also talk about how the progressives might be disappointed with that pick because they would have preferred Warren. Which is weird since, you know, it's so apparent to Clinton that Warren is going to bring in zero progressive votes that she has to reluctantly drop her even though she really wanted her so so much and pick Kaine instead, so you'd think the media would have an inkling of that reality. Clinton did not need Warren for progressive votes, Hillary needed Warren for the berniebro votes specifically. If the only thing Warren was going to bring Hillary are progressives then simply being in the DNC will do that. Hillary's not going to pick a VP she does not have a great history with if it doesn't get the specific demographic she needs. All right so replace progressive by social democrat in my sentence... It's pretty clear who we were talking about. Yes, we are talking about the members of the BernieBro demographic that were specifically loud, visible, and were a left wing agent attempting to create a narrative of corruption. If picking the lady who was popular among that crowd did not get them to vote for her, then she had no reason to pick that lady. Trying to throw random names on a demographic we already know about is a fairly strange way to attempt to argue with someone Nebuchad, please do better. So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it. You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros.
Well it's hard to know what you mean with that term given that it's a derogative term created to describe a phenomenon that didn't really exist. But please, do tell us the difference between a berniebro and a social democrat, and do answer GH's post about how many of those you think there are.
|
On December 22 2016 16:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:38 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:28 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 11:06 Nebuchad wrote:[quote] So I googled "why Clinton picked Kaine" and I did a keyword search on "Warren" for the results. Your narrative of "Damn it I really wanted to pick Warren but those damn social democrats made it impossible" is not very popular - at least partly, I hope, because it doesn't make any logical sense. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/22/why-hillary-clinton-picked-tim-kaine-for-vp/?utm_term=.f83edb717765"If Clinton felt as though she needed to either court the liberal left or more broadly shake up the race, she would have chosen someone like Sen. Cory Booker, an African American, or Elizabeth Warren, a liberal icon. But Clinton didn't, and, in truth, I'm not sure how close she ever came to picking anyone other than Kaine." http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-vp-pick-tim-kaine-226013"After Donald Trump’s somewhat more polished performance Thursday night in his speech accepting the Republican nomination, even Democrats who had been pushing for a flashier choice like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren or New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker were sobered by what they saw as a challenging four months ahead. “After last night, she needs to make the safest choice possible,” said a former senior White House aide." http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/three-reasons-why-hillary-clinton-chose-tim-kaine"There have been complaints from the left that Kaine isn’t progressive enough, which isn’t exactly surprising. (The Warren wing of the Democratic Party isn’t so-named for nothing: it wanted Elizabeth Warren to get the job.)" "If Team Clinton was seriously worried that Bernie Sanders’s supporters would defect to the Green Party in large numbers, or stay at home on Election Day, it might have taken a chance on Warren as Vice-President, despite the fact that the senator from Massachusetts and Clinton have long had a cool relationship." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-tim-kaine-clinton-vice-president-20160725-story.html"The selection of Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.) as presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's running mate has dismayed some liberals and supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), who were hoping for a more progressive choice such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren" "Naturally, there will be downsides to Kaine's nomination. Some of Bernie Sanders' voters are surely disappointed, having hoped for an outspoken liberal such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren." You're right that news articles about Kaine's nomination released after the fact that he was nominated has the Hillary team in lock step siding with the Kaine pick. But its also not hard to just look at the actual events being discussed. That's not the only thing they say though. They also talk about how the progressives might be disappointed with that pick because they would have preferred Warren. Which is weird since, you know, it's so apparent to Clinton that Warren is going to bring in zero progressive votes that she has to reluctantly drop her even though she really wanted her so so much and pick Kaine instead, so you'd think the media would have an inkling of that reality. Clinton did not need Warren for progressive votes, Hillary needed Warren for the berniebro votes specifically. If the only thing Warren was going to bring Hillary are progressives then simply being in the DNC will do that. Hillary's not going to pick a VP she does not have a great history with if it doesn't get the specific demographic she needs. All right so replace progressive by social democrat in my sentence... It's pretty clear who we were talking about. Yes, we are talking about the members of the BernieBro demographic that were specifically loud, visible, and were a left wing agent attempting to create a narrative of corruption. If picking the lady who was popular among that crowd did not get them to vote for her, then she had no reason to pick that lady. Trying to throw random names on a demographic we already know about is a fairly strange way to attempt to argue with someone Nebuchad, please do better. So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it. Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here: "She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren." You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros. When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question. I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"? Are you suggesting Hillbots were the ones who called Elizabeth Warren a traitor? Were Hillbots the once attacking the Democratic party during the general election? Were Hillbots the once spouting never hillary when the GOP were promising to get rid of immgrants, wall off mexico, and kill syrians? Wait a minute, that was the berniebros wasnt' it? Why wouldn't they? Isolationists who don't want to save syrians is a commonality between them and trump supporters.
It was a pretty simple and straightforward question. I was asking how many BernieBros you think are out there vs how many Hillbots you think are out there?
|
On December 22 2016 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 16:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:38 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:28 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
You're right that news articles about Kaine's nomination released after the fact that he was nominated has the Hillary team in lock step siding with the Kaine pick. But its also not hard to just look at the actual events being discussed. That's not the only thing they say though. They also talk about how the progressives might be disappointed with that pick because they would have preferred Warren. Which is weird since, you know, it's so apparent to Clinton that Warren is going to bring in zero progressive votes that she has to reluctantly drop her even though she really wanted her so so much and pick Kaine instead, so you'd think the media would have an inkling of that reality. Clinton did not need Warren for progressive votes, Hillary needed Warren for the berniebro votes specifically. If the only thing Warren was going to bring Hillary are progressives then simply being in the DNC will do that. Hillary's not going to pick a VP she does not have a great history with if it doesn't get the specific demographic she needs. All right so replace progressive by social democrat in my sentence... It's pretty clear who we were talking about. Yes, we are talking about the members of the BernieBro demographic that were specifically loud, visible, and were a left wing agent attempting to create a narrative of corruption. If picking the lady who was popular among that crowd did not get them to vote for her, then she had no reason to pick that lady. Trying to throw random names on a demographic we already know about is a fairly strange way to attempt to argue with someone Nebuchad, please do better. So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it. Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here: "She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren." You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros. When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question. I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"? Are you suggesting Hillbots were the ones who called Elizabeth Warren a traitor? Were Hillbots the once attacking the Democratic party during the general election? Were Hillbots the once spouting never hillary when the GOP were promising to get rid of immgrants, wall off mexico, and kill syrians? Wait a minute, that was the berniebros wasnt' it? Why wouldn't they? Isolationists who don't want to save syrians is a commonality between them and trump supporters. It was a pretty simple and straightforward question. I was asking how many BernieBros you think are out there vs how many Hillbots you think are out there?
BernieBros: Possibly less than 13,206,428
Hillbots: Possibly less than 65,844,954
|
On December 22 2016 17:02 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:38 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:28 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 11:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 10:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I did not place blame on leftists on anything outside of the failed attempt to get Elizabeth Warren as VP. She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren.
Hillary then had a choice of continuing the Warren route, a person who she has had disagreements with in the past for zero gain from the sander's crowd, or Kaine, the safe bet candidate who she was already close with.
That is the only thing being argued.
The flaws of Bernie, his movement, and his followers are completely disconnected from their sabotage of a Warren VP nomination.
So I googled "why Clinton picked Kaine" and I did a keyword search on "Warren" for the results. Your narrative of "Damn it I really wanted to pick Warren but those damn social democrats made it impossible" is not very popular - at least partly, I hope, because it doesn't make any logical sense. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/22/why-hillary-clinton-picked-tim-kaine-for-vp/?utm_term=.f83edb717765"If Clinton felt as though she needed to either court the liberal left or more broadly shake up the race, she would have chosen someone like Sen. Cory Booker, an African American, or Elizabeth Warren, a liberal icon. But Clinton didn't, and, in truth, I'm not sure how close she ever came to picking anyone other than Kaine." http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-vp-pick-tim-kaine-226013"After Donald Trump’s somewhat more polished performance Thursday night in his speech accepting the Republican nomination, even Democrats who had been pushing for a flashier choice like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren or New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker were sobered by what they saw as a challenging four months ahead. “After last night, she needs to make the safest choice possible,” said a former senior White House aide." http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/three-reasons-why-hillary-clinton-chose-tim-kaine"There have been complaints from the left that Kaine isn’t progressive enough, which isn’t exactly surprising. (The Warren wing of the Democratic Party isn’t so-named for nothing: it wanted Elizabeth Warren to get the job.)" "If Team Clinton was seriously worried that Bernie Sanders’s supporters would defect to the Green Party in large numbers, or stay at home on Election Day, it might have taken a chance on Warren as Vice-President, despite the fact that the senator from Massachusetts and Clinton have long had a cool relationship." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-tim-kaine-clinton-vice-president-20160725-story.html"The selection of Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.) as presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's running mate has dismayed some liberals and supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), who were hoping for a more progressive choice such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren" "Naturally, there will be downsides to Kaine's nomination. Some of Bernie Sanders' voters are surely disappointed, having hoped for an outspoken liberal such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren." You're right that news articles about Kaine's nomination released after the fact that he was nominated has the Hillary team in lock step siding with the Kaine pick. But its also not hard to just look at the actual events being discussed. That's not the only thing they say though. They also talk about how the progressives might be disappointed with that pick because they would have preferred Warren. Which is weird since, you know, it's so apparent to Clinton that Warren is going to bring in zero progressive votes that she has to reluctantly drop her even though she really wanted her so so much and pick Kaine instead, so you'd think the media would have an inkling of that reality. Clinton did not need Warren for progressive votes, Hillary needed Warren for the berniebro votes specifically. If the only thing Warren was going to bring Hillary are progressives then simply being in the DNC will do that. Hillary's not going to pick a VP she does not have a great history with if it doesn't get the specific demographic she needs. All right so replace progressive by social democrat in my sentence... It's pretty clear who we were talking about. Yes, we are talking about the members of the BernieBro demographic that were specifically loud, visible, and were a left wing agent attempting to create a narrative of corruption. If picking the lady who was popular among that crowd did not get them to vote for her, then she had no reason to pick that lady. Trying to throw random names on a demographic we already know about is a fairly strange way to attempt to argue with someone Nebuchad, please do better. So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it. You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros. Well it's hard to know what you mean with that term given that it's a derogative term created to describe a phenomenon that didn't really exist. But please, do tell us the difference between a berniebro and a social democrat, and do answer GH's post about how many of those you think there are.
If you don't believe BernieBros exist then lets just agree to disagree.
|
On December 22 2016 17:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:38 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:28 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
That's not the only thing they say though. They also talk about how the progressives might be disappointed with that pick because they would have preferred Warren. Which is weird since, you know, it's so apparent to Clinton that Warren is going to bring in zero progressive votes that she has to reluctantly drop her even though she really wanted her so so much and pick Kaine instead, so you'd think the media would have an inkling of that reality. Clinton did not need Warren for progressive votes, Hillary needed Warren for the berniebro votes specifically. If the only thing Warren was going to bring Hillary are progressives then simply being in the DNC will do that. Hillary's not going to pick a VP she does not have a great history with if it doesn't get the specific demographic she needs. All right so replace progressive by social democrat in my sentence... It's pretty clear who we were talking about. Yes, we are talking about the members of the BernieBro demographic that were specifically loud, visible, and were a left wing agent attempting to create a narrative of corruption. If picking the lady who was popular among that crowd did not get them to vote for her, then she had no reason to pick that lady. Trying to throw random names on a demographic we already know about is a fairly strange way to attempt to argue with someone Nebuchad, please do better. So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it. Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here: "She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren." You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros. When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question. I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"? Are you suggesting Hillbots were the ones who called Elizabeth Warren a traitor? Were Hillbots the once attacking the Democratic party during the general election? Were Hillbots the once spouting never hillary when the GOP were promising to get rid of immgrants, wall off mexico, and kill syrians? Wait a minute, that was the berniebros wasnt' it? Why wouldn't they? Isolationists who don't want to save syrians is a commonality between them and trump supporters. It was a pretty simple and straightforward question. I was asking how many BernieBros you think are out there vs how many Hillbots you think are out there? BernieBros: Possibly less than 13,206,428
...So we were talking about the same people... I don't know if what you did on those last 5 posts counts as shitposting but it should.
|
On December 22 2016 17:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:38 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:28 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
That's not the only thing they say though. They also talk about how the progressives might be disappointed with that pick because they would have preferred Warren. Which is weird since, you know, it's so apparent to Clinton that Warren is going to bring in zero progressive votes that she has to reluctantly drop her even though she really wanted her so so much and pick Kaine instead, so you'd think the media would have an inkling of that reality. Clinton did not need Warren for progressive votes, Hillary needed Warren for the berniebro votes specifically. If the only thing Warren was going to bring Hillary are progressives then simply being in the DNC will do that. Hillary's not going to pick a VP she does not have a great history with if it doesn't get the specific demographic she needs. All right so replace progressive by social democrat in my sentence... It's pretty clear who we were talking about. Yes, we are talking about the members of the BernieBro demographic that were specifically loud, visible, and were a left wing agent attempting to create a narrative of corruption. If picking the lady who was popular among that crowd did not get them to vote for her, then she had no reason to pick that lady. Trying to throw random names on a demographic we already know about is a fairly strange way to attempt to argue with someone Nebuchad, please do better. So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it. Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here: "She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren." You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros. When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question. I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"? Are you suggesting Hillbots were the ones who called Elizabeth Warren a traitor? Were Hillbots the once attacking the Democratic party during the general election? Were Hillbots the once spouting never hillary when the GOP were promising to get rid of immgrants, wall off mexico, and kill syrians? Wait a minute, that was the berniebros wasnt' it? Why wouldn't they? Isolationists who don't want to save syrians is a commonality between them and trump supporters. It was a pretty simple and straightforward question. I was asking how many BernieBros you think are out there vs how many Hillbots you think are out there? BernieBros: Possibly less than 13,206,428 Hillbots: Possibly less than 65,844,954
Are those supposed to be upper limits?
If so, does that mean you think there may be 13 million voters who fit into the BernieBro category you're describing?
If not, that's the number I'm looking for, how many BernieBros you think are out there, and how many Hillbots. Is there something confusing you about the question?
|
On December 22 2016 17:18 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 17:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:38 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Clinton did not need Warren for progressive votes, Hillary needed Warren for the berniebro votes specifically. If the only thing Warren was going to bring Hillary are progressives then simply being in the DNC will do that. Hillary's not going to pick a VP she does not have a great history with if it doesn't get the specific demographic she needs. All right so replace progressive by social democrat in my sentence... It's pretty clear who we were talking about. Yes, we are talking about the members of the BernieBro demographic that were specifically loud, visible, and were a left wing agent attempting to create a narrative of corruption. If picking the lady who was popular among that crowd did not get them to vote for her, then she had no reason to pick that lady. Trying to throw random names on a demographic we already know about is a fairly strange way to attempt to argue with someone Nebuchad, please do better. So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it. Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here: "She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren." You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros. When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question. I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"? Are you suggesting Hillbots were the ones who called Elizabeth Warren a traitor? Were Hillbots the once attacking the Democratic party during the general election? Were Hillbots the once spouting never hillary when the GOP were promising to get rid of immgrants, wall off mexico, and kill syrians? Wait a minute, that was the berniebros wasnt' it? Why wouldn't they? Isolationists who don't want to save syrians is a commonality between them and trump supporters. It was a pretty simple and straightforward question. I was asking how many BernieBros you think are out there vs how many Hillbots you think are out there? BernieBros: Possibly less than 13,206,428 ...So we were talking about the same people... I don't know if what you did on those last 5 posts counts as shitposting but it should.
GH asked for numbers. I gave him a possible range. The fact that you don't agree the BernieBro demographic exists means that we don't see eye to eye. So stop bothering me until you start believing BernieBros are real. The last thing this thread needs is you spamming page after page explaining how the constant attacks on women, warren, and Hillary was by fringe wackos and not real Bernie supporters.
|
On December 22 2016 17:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 17:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:38 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Clinton did not need Warren for progressive votes, Hillary needed Warren for the berniebro votes specifically. If the only thing Warren was going to bring Hillary are progressives then simply being in the DNC will do that. Hillary's not going to pick a VP she does not have a great history with if it doesn't get the specific demographic she needs. All right so replace progressive by social democrat in my sentence... It's pretty clear who we were talking about. Yes, we are talking about the members of the BernieBro demographic that were specifically loud, visible, and were a left wing agent attempting to create a narrative of corruption. If picking the lady who was popular among that crowd did not get them to vote for her, then she had no reason to pick that lady. Trying to throw random names on a demographic we already know about is a fairly strange way to attempt to argue with someone Nebuchad, please do better. So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it. Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here: "She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren." You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros. When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question. I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"? Are you suggesting Hillbots were the ones who called Elizabeth Warren a traitor? Were Hillbots the once attacking the Democratic party during the general election? Were Hillbots the once spouting never hillary when the GOP were promising to get rid of immgrants, wall off mexico, and kill syrians? Wait a minute, that was the berniebros wasnt' it? Why wouldn't they? Isolationists who don't want to save syrians is a commonality between them and trump supporters. It was a pretty simple and straightforward question. I was asking how many BernieBros you think are out there vs how many Hillbots you think are out there? BernieBros: Possibly less than 13,206,428 Hillbots: Possibly less than 65,844,954 Are those supposed to be upper limits? If so, does that mean you think there may be 13 million voters who fit into the BernieBro category you're describing? If not, that's the number I'm looking for, how many BernieBros you think are out there, and how many Hillbots. Is there something confusing you about the question?
Its not complicated:
That many voted for each candidate. I can assume members within that group could or couldn't be BernieBros or Hillbots. Anything more specific than that is purely speculative. But I guess it makes sense that a Bernie supporter can't really differentiate speculation from facts.
|
On December 22 2016 17:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 17:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 17:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:38 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
All right so replace progressive by social democrat in my sentence... It's pretty clear who we were talking about. Yes, we are talking about the members of the BernieBro demographic that were specifically loud, visible, and were a left wing agent attempting to create a narrative of corruption. If picking the lady who was popular among that crowd did not get them to vote for her, then she had no reason to pick that lady. Trying to throw random names on a demographic we already know about is a fairly strange way to attempt to argue with someone Nebuchad, please do better. So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it. Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here: "She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren." You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros. When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question. I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"? Are you suggesting Hillbots were the ones who called Elizabeth Warren a traitor? Were Hillbots the once attacking the Democratic party during the general election? Were Hillbots the once spouting never hillary when the GOP were promising to get rid of immgrants, wall off mexico, and kill syrians? Wait a minute, that was the berniebros wasnt' it? Why wouldn't they? Isolationists who don't want to save syrians is a commonality between them and trump supporters. It was a pretty simple and straightforward question. I was asking how many BernieBros you think are out there vs how many Hillbots you think are out there? BernieBros: Possibly less than 13,206,428 Hillbots: Possibly less than 65,844,954 Are those supposed to be upper limits? If so, does that mean you think there may be 13 million voters who fit into the BernieBro category you're describing? If not, that's the number I'm looking for, how many BernieBros you think are out there, and how many Hillbots. Is there something confusing you about the question? Its not complicated: That many voted for each candidate. I can assume members within that group could or couldn't be BernieBros or Hillbots. Anything more specific than that is purely speculative. But I guess it makes sense that a Bernie supporter can't really differentiate speculation from facts.
I'm not asking for a factual number, I'm asking how many you think there are. If you can't estimate them closer than "more than 0 and possibly less than 13.2 million", then I don't think you should speculate on their impact on Hillary's VP choice.
|
On December 22 2016 17:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 17:18 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 17:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:38 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
All right so replace progressive by social democrat in my sentence... It's pretty clear who we were talking about. Yes, we are talking about the members of the BernieBro demographic that were specifically loud, visible, and were a left wing agent attempting to create a narrative of corruption. If picking the lady who was popular among that crowd did not get them to vote for her, then she had no reason to pick that lady. Trying to throw random names on a demographic we already know about is a fairly strange way to attempt to argue with someone Nebuchad, please do better. So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it. Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here: "She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren." You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros. When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question. I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"? Are you suggesting Hillbots were the ones who called Elizabeth Warren a traitor? Were Hillbots the once attacking the Democratic party during the general election? Were Hillbots the once spouting never hillary when the GOP were promising to get rid of immgrants, wall off mexico, and kill syrians? Wait a minute, that was the berniebros wasnt' it? Why wouldn't they? Isolationists who don't want to save syrians is a commonality between them and trump supporters. It was a pretty simple and straightforward question. I was asking how many BernieBros you think are out there vs how many Hillbots you think are out there? BernieBros: Possibly less than 13,206,428 ...So we were talking about the same people... I don't know if what you did on those last 5 posts counts as shitposting but it should. GH asked for numbers. I gave him a possible range. The fact that you don't agree the BernieBro demographic exists means that we don't see eye to eye. So stop bothering me until you start believing BernieBros are real. The last thing this thread needs is you spamming page after page explaining how the constant attacks on women, warren, and Hillary was by fringe wackos and not real Bernie supporters.
If Berniebros are defined by being Sanders supporters, then they are the same people I was refering to in my earlier posts, and there's no way you don't know that. If Berniebros are defined by this sexism that you now bring up and I (supposedly) can't deny, then it's ridiculous to argue, as you have done, that Warren was supposed to bring them in in the first place. She's a woman.
Pick your poison I guess.
|
On December 22 2016 17:33 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 17:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:18 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 17:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Yes, we are talking about the members of the BernieBro demographic that were specifically loud, visible, and were a left wing agent attempting to create a narrative of corruption. If picking the lady who was popular among that crowd did not get them to vote for her, then she had no reason to pick that lady.
Trying to throw random names on a demographic we already know about is a fairly strange way to attempt to argue with someone Nebuchad, please do better.
So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it. Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here: "She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren." You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros. When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question. I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"? Are you suggesting Hillbots were the ones who called Elizabeth Warren a traitor? Were Hillbots the once attacking the Democratic party during the general election? Were Hillbots the once spouting never hillary when the GOP were promising to get rid of immgrants, wall off mexico, and kill syrians? Wait a minute, that was the berniebros wasnt' it? Why wouldn't they? Isolationists who don't want to save syrians is a commonality between them and trump supporters. It was a pretty simple and straightforward question. I was asking how many BernieBros you think are out there vs how many Hillbots you think are out there? BernieBros: Possibly less than 13,206,428 ...So we were talking about the same people... I don't know if what you did on those last 5 posts counts as shitposting but it should. GH asked for numbers. I gave him a possible range. The fact that you don't agree the BernieBro demographic exists means that we don't see eye to eye. So stop bothering me until you start believing BernieBros are real. The last thing this thread needs is you spamming page after page explaining how the constant attacks on women, warren, and Hillary was by fringe wackos and not real Bernie supporters. If Berniebros are defined by being Sanders supporters, then they are the same people I was refering to in my earlier posts, and there's no way you don't know that. If Berniebros are defined by this sexism that you now bring up and I can't deny, then it's ridiculous to argue, as you have done, that Warren was supposed to bring them in in the first place. She's a woman. Pick your poison I guess.
I did not define sander's supporter as a BernieBro. I pointed to the fact that we know that many people voted for Bernie, we can assume that some number of those people who voted for Bernie as Berniebros. For the same reason that we know, of the 65.8 million people who voted for Hillary, that some number of them will be hillbots. That is the best you can show for a request for a number.
As for your silly attempt to rebrand why happened with Warren let me ask you some questions.
Do you deny that Hillary was actively grooming Warren to be a VP pick on the month of June 2016?
Do you deny that Warren was immediately attacked by Sander's supporters that same month?
Do you deny that the Kaine VP announcement came after Hillary spent a month grooming Warren for the role?
Do you deny that it seems highly likely that the backlash Warren recieved contributed to her not getting the pick?
I've pointed to when and where these events happened, what order they happened in, and how closely they happened in succession. Do you deny the historic evidence of my argument?
|
On December 22 2016 17:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 17:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 17:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Yes, we are talking about the members of the BernieBro demographic that were specifically loud, visible, and were a left wing agent attempting to create a narrative of corruption. If picking the lady who was popular among that crowd did not get them to vote for her, then she had no reason to pick that lady.
Trying to throw random names on a demographic we already know about is a fairly strange way to attempt to argue with someone Nebuchad, please do better.
So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it. Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here: "She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren." You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros. When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question. I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"? Are you suggesting Hillbots were the ones who called Elizabeth Warren a traitor? Were Hillbots the once attacking the Democratic party during the general election? Were Hillbots the once spouting never hillary when the GOP were promising to get rid of immgrants, wall off mexico, and kill syrians? Wait a minute, that was the berniebros wasnt' it? Why wouldn't they? Isolationists who don't want to save syrians is a commonality between them and trump supporters. It was a pretty simple and straightforward question. I was asking how many BernieBros you think are out there vs how many Hillbots you think are out there? BernieBros: Possibly less than 13,206,428 Hillbots: Possibly less than 65,844,954 Are those supposed to be upper limits? If so, does that mean you think there may be 13 million voters who fit into the BernieBro category you're describing? If not, that's the number I'm looking for, how many BernieBros you think are out there, and how many Hillbots. Is there something confusing you about the question? Its not complicated: That many voted for each candidate. I can assume members within that group could or couldn't be BernieBros or Hillbots. Anything more specific than that is purely speculative. But I guess it makes sense that a Bernie supporter can't really differentiate speculation from facts. I'm not asking for a factual number, I'm asking how many you think there are. If you can't estimate them closer than "more than 0 and possibly less than 13.2 million", then I don't think you should speculate on their impact on Hillary's VP choice.
You do understand that saying "how many you think there are" is the opposite of saying "I'm not asking for a factual number"
|
On December 22 2016 17:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 17:33 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 17:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:18 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 17:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it. Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here: "She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren." You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros. When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question. I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"? Are you suggesting Hillbots were the ones who called Elizabeth Warren a traitor? Were Hillbots the once attacking the Democratic party during the general election? Were Hillbots the once spouting never hillary when the GOP were promising to get rid of immgrants, wall off mexico, and kill syrians? Wait a minute, that was the berniebros wasnt' it? Why wouldn't they? Isolationists who don't want to save syrians is a commonality between them and trump supporters. It was a pretty simple and straightforward question. I was asking how many BernieBros you think are out there vs how many Hillbots you think are out there? BernieBros: Possibly less than 13,206,428 ...So we were talking about the same people... I don't know if what you did on those last 5 posts counts as shitposting but it should. GH asked for numbers. I gave him a possible range. The fact that you don't agree the BernieBro demographic exists means that we don't see eye to eye. So stop bothering me until you start believing BernieBros are real. The last thing this thread needs is you spamming page after page explaining how the constant attacks on women, warren, and Hillary was by fringe wackos and not real Bernie supporters. If Berniebros are defined by being Sanders supporters, then they are the same people I was refering to in my earlier posts, and there's no way you don't know that. If Berniebros are defined by this sexism that you now bring up and I can't deny, then it's ridiculous to argue, as you have done, that Warren was supposed to bring them in in the first place. She's a woman. Pick your poison I guess. I did not define sander's supporter as a BernieBro. I pointed to the fact that we know that many people voted for Bernie, we can assume that some number of those people who voted for Bernie as Berniebros. For the same reason that we know, of the 65.8 million people who voted for Hillary, that some number of them will be hillbots. That is the best you can show for a request for a number.
You've also said that Warren's only usefulness for Clinton was to bring in Berniebros. I quote you, "Hillary needed Warren for the berniebro votes specifically" / "BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren)" / "When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary."
So you're saying that Warren was specifically supposed to target the people who are sexist amidst Bernie supporters. Which doesn't make sense, since she is a woman. These people who are supposedly so sexist that they don't want Hillary were supposed to be convinced to vote for her by another woman joining the ticket.
Btw, wouldn't Warren still keep a usefulness in that she could bring to Clinton some of the Bernie supporters who aren't Berniebros? Just a thought.
As per your timeline: slight deny (groomed is too strong, I'd say considered), don't deny, deny, massive deny.
|
On December 22 2016 17:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 17:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 17:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 17:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it. Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here: "She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren." You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros. When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question. I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"? Are you suggesting Hillbots were the ones who called Elizabeth Warren a traitor? Were Hillbots the once attacking the Democratic party during the general election? Were Hillbots the once spouting never hillary when the GOP were promising to get rid of immgrants, wall off mexico, and kill syrians? Wait a minute, that was the berniebros wasnt' it? Why wouldn't they? Isolationists who don't want to save syrians is a commonality between them and trump supporters. It was a pretty simple and straightforward question. I was asking how many BernieBros you think are out there vs how many Hillbots you think are out there? BernieBros: Possibly less than 13,206,428 Hillbots: Possibly less than 65,844,954 Are those supposed to be upper limits? If so, does that mean you think there may be 13 million voters who fit into the BernieBro category you're describing? If not, that's the number I'm looking for, how many BernieBros you think are out there, and how many Hillbots. Is there something confusing you about the question? Its not complicated: That many voted for each candidate. I can assume members within that group could or couldn't be BernieBros or Hillbots. Anything more specific than that is purely speculative. But I guess it makes sense that a Bernie supporter can't really differentiate speculation from facts. I'm not asking for a factual number, I'm asking how many you think there are. If you can't estimate them closer than "more than 0 and possibly less than 13.2 million", then I don't think you should speculate on their impact on Hillary's VP choice. You do understand that saying "how many you think there are" is the opposite of saying "I'm not asking for a factual number"
Lol how is that the opposite?
"how many you think there are" = opinion
"not factual" = opinion
So how are they opposite things?
He just wants your opinion on how many berniebros there are.
|
On December 22 2016 17:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 17:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 17:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 17:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it. Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here: "She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren." You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros. When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question. I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"? Are you suggesting Hillbots were the ones who called Elizabeth Warren a traitor? Were Hillbots the once attacking the Democratic party during the general election? Were Hillbots the once spouting never hillary when the GOP were promising to get rid of immgrants, wall off mexico, and kill syrians? Wait a minute, that was the berniebros wasnt' it? Why wouldn't they? Isolationists who don't want to save syrians is a commonality between them and trump supporters. It was a pretty simple and straightforward question. I was asking how many BernieBros you think are out there vs how many Hillbots you think are out there? BernieBros: Possibly less than 13,206,428 Hillbots: Possibly less than 65,844,954 Are those supposed to be upper limits? If so, does that mean you think there may be 13 million voters who fit into the BernieBro category you're describing? If not, that's the number I'm looking for, how many BernieBros you think are out there, and how many Hillbots. Is there something confusing you about the question? Its not complicated: That many voted for each candidate. I can assume members within that group could or couldn't be BernieBros or Hillbots. Anything more specific than that is purely speculative. But I guess it makes sense that a Bernie supporter can't really differentiate speculation from facts. I'm not asking for a factual number, I'm asking how many you think there are. If you can't estimate them closer than "more than 0 and possibly less than 13.2 million", then I don't think you should speculate on their impact on Hillary's VP choice. You do understand that saying "how many you think there are" is the opposite of saying "I'm not asking for a factual number"
No it's not. If I asked you how many people *you think* that sell AVON there are in your neighborhood, I'm not asking you to tell me as a matter of fact how many there are, I'm asking how many you think there are.
If your answer is "possibly less than how many people live in it" then it's pretty dumb to use that understanding to then speculate on the influence of AVON sellers in your neighborhood.
I'll paint it as an example since this seems to be difficult for you to grasp.
Set: Community meeting
P1. I'm sick of these soliciters, we need a "No soliciting" sign on our neighborhood gate.
P2. It'll never pass because there's too many damn AVON sellers
P3. I'm not sure that's true, how many AVON sellers do you think are in the neighborhood?
P2. Possibly less than there are people in the neighborhood.
P1&P3: Uhh.. wtf? So you have no idea whether it's 1 or everyone, but you're confidently stating they would stop the sign?
P4. We should probably ignore this guy.
*edited for clarity (the text didn't match what I was trying to say)
|
On December 22 2016 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 17:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 17:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 17:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here:
"She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren."
You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros.
When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question.
I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"? Are you suggesting Hillbots were the ones who called Elizabeth Warren a traitor? Were Hillbots the once attacking the Democratic party during the general election? Were Hillbots the once spouting never hillary when the GOP were promising to get rid of immgrants, wall off mexico, and kill syrians? Wait a minute, that was the berniebros wasnt' it? Why wouldn't they? Isolationists who don't want to save syrians is a commonality between them and trump supporters. It was a pretty simple and straightforward question. I was asking how many BernieBros you think are out there vs how many Hillbots you think are out there? BernieBros: Possibly less than 13,206,428 Hillbots: Possibly less than 65,844,954 Are those supposed to be upper limits? If so, does that mean you think there may be 13 million voters who fit into the BernieBro category you're describing? If not, that's the number I'm looking for, how many BernieBros you think are out there, and how many Hillbots. Is there something confusing you about the question? Its not complicated: That many voted for each candidate. I can assume members within that group could or couldn't be BernieBros or Hillbots. Anything more specific than that is purely speculative. But I guess it makes sense that a Bernie supporter can't really differentiate speculation from facts. I'm not asking for a factual number, I'm asking how many you think there are. If you can't estimate them closer than "more than 0 and possibly less than 13.2 million", then I don't think you should speculate on their impact on Hillary's VP choice. You do understand that saying "how many you think there are" is the opposite of saying "I'm not asking for a factual number" No it's not. If I asked you how many people *you think* that sell AVON there are in your neighborhood, I'm not asking you to tell me as a matter of fact how many there are, I'm asking how many you think there are. If your answer is "possibly less than how many people live in it" then it's pretty dumb to use that understanding to then speculate on the influence of AVON sellers in your neighborhood. I'll paint it as an example since this seems to be difficult for you to grasp. Set: Community meeting P1. I'm sick of these soliciters, we need a "No soliciting" sign on our neighborhood gate. P2. It'll never pass because there's too many damn AVON sellers P3. I'm not sure that's true, how many AVON sellers do you think are in the neighborhood? P2. Possibly less than there are people in the neighborhood. P1&P3: Uhh.. wtf? So you have no idea whether it's 1 or everyone, but you're confidently stating they would stop the sign? P4. We should probably ignore this guy. *edited for clarity (the text didn't match what I was trying to say)
I'm just surprised that you're seriously replying to Magpie at this point. He's just straight up trolling with his "BernieBros" line of posting. The second he descended into name calling is the second he lost any credibility.
|
On December 22 2016 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 17:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 17:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 17:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here:
"She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren."
You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros.
When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question.
I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"? Are you suggesting Hillbots were the ones who called Elizabeth Warren a traitor? Were Hillbots the once attacking the Democratic party during the general election? Were Hillbots the once spouting never hillary when the GOP were promising to get rid of immgrants, wall off mexico, and kill syrians? Wait a minute, that was the berniebros wasnt' it? Why wouldn't they? Isolationists who don't want to save syrians is a commonality between them and trump supporters. It was a pretty simple and straightforward question. I was asking how many BernieBros you think are out there vs how many Hillbots you think are out there? BernieBros: Possibly less than 13,206,428 Hillbots: Possibly less than 65,844,954 Are those supposed to be upper limits? If so, does that mean you think there may be 13 million voters who fit into the BernieBro category you're describing? If not, that's the number I'm looking for, how many BernieBros you think are out there, and how many Hillbots. Is there something confusing you about the question? Its not complicated: That many voted for each candidate. I can assume members within that group could or couldn't be BernieBros or Hillbots. Anything more specific than that is purely speculative. But I guess it makes sense that a Bernie supporter can't really differentiate speculation from facts. I'm not asking for a factual number, I'm asking how many you think there are. If you can't estimate them closer than "more than 0 and possibly less than 13.2 million", then I don't think you should speculate on their impact on Hillary's VP choice. You do understand that saying "how many you think there are" is the opposite of saying "I'm not asking for a factual number" No it's not. If I asked you how many people *you think* that sell AVON there are in your neighborhood, I'm not asking you to tell me as a matter of fact how many there are, I'm asking how many you think there are. If your answer is "possibly less than how many people live in it" then it's pretty dumb to use that understanding to then speculate on the influence of AVON sellers in your neighborhood. I'll paint it as an example since this seems to be difficult for you to grasp. Set: Community meeting P1. I'm sick of these soliciters, we need a "No soliciting" sign on our neighborhood gate. P2. It'll never pass because there's too many damn AVON sellers P3. I'm not sure that's true, how many AVON sellers do you think are in the neighborhood? P2. Possibly less than there are people in the neighborhood. P1&P3: Uhh.. wtf? So you have no idea whether it's 1 or everyone, but you're confidently stating they would stop the sign? P4. We should probably ignore this guy. *edited for clarity (the text didn't match what I was trying to say)
The true example is actually:
People keep voting for me, but social media still keeps attacking me. Maybe a middle ground to try to cover both angles? Hey, they keep saying Elizabeth Warren is cool, let's use that.
Hill C-Zy be like "Hey Liz, come by my place, I believe in two women ticket" and then Liz is like "yo ray-mad, I know I haven't said shit about who I endorse, but I randomly decided its Hill C-zy, also, I got an appointment at her place tomorrow so bye"
Social media hasn't changed after a month of this?
Holy shit social media now attacking Warren too? Guess there ain't no middle grounding this bullshit. Where's that list again of VPs?
Her staff is like "who we want? Kaine right?"
Hill is like "Kaine cool, he speaks Spanish right?"
Her team is like "so let's court him too right? Just like Liz?"
Hill is like "social media don't care either or let's just get him and announce when it's done"
1-2 weeks later Hill is like "yo peeps I got Tim K on my team now!"
|
On December 22 2016 18:03 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 17:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 17:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 17:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here:
"She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren."
You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros.
When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question.
I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"? Are you suggesting Hillbots were the ones who called Elizabeth Warren a traitor? Were Hillbots the once attacking the Democratic party during the general election? Were Hillbots the once spouting never hillary when the GOP were promising to get rid of immgrants, wall off mexico, and kill syrians? Wait a minute, that was the berniebros wasnt' it? Why wouldn't they? Isolationists who don't want to save syrians is a commonality between them and trump supporters. It was a pretty simple and straightforward question. I was asking how many BernieBros you think are out there vs how many Hillbots you think are out there? BernieBros: Possibly less than 13,206,428 Hillbots: Possibly less than 65,844,954 Are those supposed to be upper limits? If so, does that mean you think there may be 13 million voters who fit into the BernieBro category you're describing? If not, that's the number I'm looking for, how many BernieBros you think are out there, and how many Hillbots. Is there something confusing you about the question? Its not complicated: That many voted for each candidate. I can assume members within that group could or couldn't be BernieBros or Hillbots. Anything more specific than that is purely speculative. But I guess it makes sense that a Bernie supporter can't really differentiate speculation from facts. I'm not asking for a factual number, I'm asking how many you think there are. If you can't estimate them closer than "more than 0 and possibly less than 13.2 million", then I don't think you should speculate on their impact on Hillary's VP choice. You do understand that saying "how many you think there are" is the opposite of saying "I'm not asking for a factual number" Lol how is that the opposite? "how many you think there are" = opinion "not factual" = opinion So how are they opposite things? He just wants your opinion on how many berniebros there are.
he asked for a guess
I told him an estimate with a wide range
He got upset that I wasn't being specific enough
I told him anything more specific than that is speculative and not factual.
He then asks me to make a more specific guess because he doesn't want a factual number.
I can't get him something more specific if he doesn't want factual.
|
Washington (CNN)The Trump transition team is floating the possibility of an early executive action to impose tariffs on foreign imports, according to multiple sources.
Such a move would deliver on President-elect Donald Trump's "America First" campaign theme. But it's causing alarm among business interests and the pro-trade Republican establishment.
The Trump transition team didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the prospect of new tariffs. But a transition official said the team has discussed implementing a border adjustment tax measure under consideration by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, which would tax imports to spur US manufacturing.
Curbing free trade was a central element of Trump's campaign. He promised to rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada. He also vowed to take a tougher line against other international trading partners, almost always speaking harshly of China but often including traditional US allies such as Japan in his complaint that American workers get the short end of the stick under current trade practices.
It is an area where there is a huge gulf between Trump's stated positions and traditional GOP orthodoxy. Business groups and GOP establishment figures -- including House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- have been hoping the transition from the campaign to governing would bring a different approach.
The pro-business GOP establishment says the new Trump administration could make clear it would withdraw from NAFTA unless Canada and Mexico entered new talks to modernize the agreement to reflect today's economy. That would allow Trump to say he kept a promise to make the agreement fairer to American workers without starting a trade war and exacerbating tensions with America's neighbors and vital economic partners.
But there remain establishment jitters that Trump, who views his tough trade message as critical to his election victory, will look for ways to make an early statement that he is serious about reshaping the trade playing field.
Two sources who represent business interests in Washington tell CNN that the man in line to be White House chief of staff, Reince Preibus, has told key Washington players that one idea being debated internally is a 5% tariff on imports.
Source
|
On December 22 2016 17:56 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 17:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:33 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 17:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:18 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 17:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 17:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here:
"She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren."
You would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros.
When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question.
I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"? Are you suggesting Hillbots were the ones who called Elizabeth Warren a traitor? Were Hillbots the once attacking the Democratic party during the general election? Were Hillbots the once spouting never hillary when the GOP were promising to get rid of immgrants, wall off mexico, and kill syrians? Wait a minute, that was the berniebros wasnt' it? Why wouldn't they? Isolationists who don't want to save syrians is a commonality between them and trump supporters. It was a pretty simple and straightforward question. I was asking how many BernieBros you think are out there vs how many Hillbots you think are out there? BernieBros: Possibly less than 13,206,428 ...So we were talking about the same people... I don't know if what you did on those last 5 posts counts as shitposting but it should. GH asked for numbers. I gave him a possible range. The fact that you don't agree the BernieBro demographic exists means that we don't see eye to eye. So stop bothering me until you start believing BernieBros are real. The last thing this thread needs is you spamming page after page explaining how the constant attacks on women, warren, and Hillary was by fringe wackos and not real Bernie supporters. If Berniebros are defined by being Sanders supporters, then they are the same people I was refering to in my earlier posts, and there's no way you don't know that. If Berniebros are defined by this sexism that you now bring up and I can't deny, then it's ridiculous to argue, as you have done, that Warren was supposed to bring them in in the first place. She's a woman. Pick your poison I guess. I did not define sander's supporter as a BernieBro. I pointed to the fact that we know that many people voted for Bernie, we can assume that some number of those people who voted for Bernie as Berniebros. For the same reason that we know, of the 65.8 million people who voted for Hillary, that some number of them will be hillbots. That is the best you can show for a request for a number. You've also said that Warren's only usefulness for Clinton was to bring in Berniebros. I quote you, "Hillary needed Warren for the berniebro votes specifically" / "BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren)" / "When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary." So you're saying that Warren was specifically supposed to target the people who are sexist amidst Bernie supporters. Which doesn't make sense, since she is a woman. These people who are supposedly so sexist that they don't want Hillary were supposed to be convinced to vote for her by another woman joining the ticket. Btw, wouldn't Warren still keep a usefulness in that she could bring to Clinton some of the Bernie supporters who aren't Berniebros? Just a thought. As per your timeline: slight deny (groomed is too strong, I'd say considered), don't deny, deny, massive deny.
Have I posted links or made arguments that Warren was being courted to convince sexists to vote Hillary? No, I said she was meant to bring in BernieBros.
Hillary was winning almost any state that had a high turnout of people voting and was also winning a lot of "red states" as well. However, despite being ahead on every metric there was still lots of vitriol thrown against her by people in the Bernie crowd.
Hillary could bank on democrats and liberals to back her. And her winning the red states suggested the centrists also backed her. What she needed was Berniebros to stop campaigning false accusations against her constantly bringing up emails that don't say anything and pretending it did.
During that time almost every media interview Bernie went on he was asked the question of whether he would say yes to a VP position, and Bernie did everything he could not to just give them an anal fucking as he politely moved to the next topic. With Bernie out of the mix, Hillary reaches out to Elizabeth.
Now, fast forward to a few pages ago when oBlade commented about women had to block a tonne of folks on social media for harassment. I then comment based on how Berniebros treated Warren it's not a surprise that most women had to do that.
Notice your constant attempt to change the narrative does not fit into any of that? Please stop trying to misrepresent my argument. It's not becoming and changes what should be a discussion of facts to you trying to fight a battle of semantics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
