• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 14:25
CEST 20:25
KST 03:25
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
BGE Stara Zagora 2025: Info & Preview27Code S RO12 Preview: GuMiho, Bunny, SHIN, ByuN3The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL47Code S RO12 Preview: Cure, Zoun, Solar, Creator4[ASL19] Finals Preview: Daunting Task30
Community News
Weekly Cups (June 2-8): herO doubles down1[BSL20] ProLeague: Bracket Stage & Dates9GSL Ro4 and Finals moved to Sunday June 15th13Weekly Cups (May 27-June 1): ByuN goes back-to-back0EWC 2025 Regional Qualifier Results26
StarCraft 2
General
CN community: Firefly accused of suspicious activities Firefly do had match fixing The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation How does the number of casters affect your enjoyment of esports? Serious Question: Mech
Tourneys
$3,500 WardiTV European League 2025 Bellum Gens Elite: Stara Zagora 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025 Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2)
Strategy
[G] Darkgrid Layout Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance
Brood War
General
Will foreigners ever be able to challenge Koreans? BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Mihu vs Korea Players Statistics BW General Discussion [BSL20] ProLeague: Bracket Stage & Dates
Tourneys
[ASL19] Grand Finals NA Team League 6/8/2025 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] ProLeague Bracket Stage - Day 2
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread What do you want from future RTS games? Armies of Exigo - YesYes? Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
LiquidLegends to reintegrate into TL.net
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Vape Nation Thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
Maru Fan Club Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Cognitive styles x game perf…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Poker
Nebuchad
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 22206 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3322

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 3320 3321 3322 3323 3324 5008 Next
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!

NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.

Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.


If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread
Zambrah
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
United States7240 Posts
Last Edited: 2021-09-22 19:33:05
September 22 2021 19:11 GMT
#66421
On September 23 2021 04:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2021 03:45 StasisField wrote:
Email leaks show the Clinton campaign conspired with CNN and other major news networks to prop Clinton up, tear Bernie down, and push "weak" candidates in the GOP primary like Donald Trump, whom they literally called the pied piper. There was also the Nevada delegates fiasco in 2016. There's also the issue of the 2016 DNC selling a t-shirt with an anti-Semitic depiction of Bernie. The DNC also argued in court after the 2016 primary that they are allowed to rig their own elections.

If you don't think something shady happened in at least the 2016 Democratic primary, your head is in the sand.


What I'd like to hear from the progressive wing is if Bernie was cheated and it was this obvious why did he run in the democratic primary again in 2020?

Show nested quote +
The moderate Democrats had to pull a maneuver to drop out their serious candidates to consolidate behind one to beat an underdog, sorry but thats sad. Not to mention that if Bernie was such an impossibility to win then why did they have everyone drop out to beat him? His odds were probably still not great, but clearly they were good enough to force the Democrats to make a concerted effort to stop him.


The democrats consolidated behind one candidate so they didn't end up like the Republicans in 2016 with Trump beating out a split vote between Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio.


Very possibly, which is why I find,

- but he simply didn't have the votes.


incongruous with,

instead of making excuses that Bernie lost because the establishment was being unfair by not throwing the election.


If Bernie didnt potentially have the votes then why did they need to have all of their candidates drop out to back Biden is my question.

Not that this was my original point, which still is that its pathetic that the dominant faction of the Democrats had to try so hard to beat their significantly less powerful bloc. Its a lot like the Republican primary that Trump won, it was also pathetic that the Republican candidates lost to Trump in the primary.
Incremental change is the Democrat version of Trickle Down economics.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
September 22 2021 19:16 GMT
#66422
On September 23 2021 04:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2021 03:45 StasisField wrote:
Email leaks show the Clinton campaign conspired with CNN and other major news networks to prop Clinton up, tear Bernie down, and push "weak" candidates in the GOP primary like Donald Trump, whom they literally called the pied piper. There was also the Nevada delegates fiasco in 2016. There's also the issue of the 2016 DNC selling a t-shirt with an anti-Semitic depiction of Bernie. The DNC also argued in court after the 2016 primary that they are allowed to rig their own elections.

If you don't think something shady happened in at least the 2016 Democratic primary, your head is in the sand.


What I'd like to hear from the progressive wing is if Bernie was cheated and it was this obvious why did he run in the democratic primary again in 2020?

Because it's the only game in town. As a left-leaning independent who caucuses with the Democrats, it's the only party nomination he can run for that isn't just leading up to a guaranteed loss.

Yes, it is problematic that we have a situation where both:
1. There are only two viable parties in the country; and
2. One of said parties gets to dismiss any allegations of foul play by making the argument that they're allowed to do whatever they want for their own party nomination.

But all that being so, playing the game with the deck stacked against him is the only realistic option Bernie has.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
DarkPlasmaBall
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States44106 Posts
September 22 2021 19:54 GMT
#66423
On September 23 2021 04:11 Zambrah wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2021 04:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On September 23 2021 03:45 StasisField wrote:
Email leaks show the Clinton campaign conspired with CNN and other major news networks to prop Clinton up, tear Bernie down, and push "weak" candidates in the GOP primary like Donald Trump, whom they literally called the pied piper. There was also the Nevada delegates fiasco in 2016. There's also the issue of the 2016 DNC selling a t-shirt with an anti-Semitic depiction of Bernie. The DNC also argued in court after the 2016 primary that they are allowed to rig their own elections.

If you don't think something shady happened in at least the 2016 Democratic primary, your head is in the sand.


What I'd like to hear from the progressive wing is if Bernie was cheated and it was this obvious why did he run in the democratic primary again in 2020?

The moderate Democrats had to pull a maneuver to drop out their serious candidates to consolidate behind one to beat an underdog, sorry but thats sad. Not to mention that if Bernie was such an impossibility to win then why did they have everyone drop out to beat him? His odds were probably still not great, but clearly they were good enough to force the Democrats to make a concerted effort to stop him.


The democrats consolidated behind one candidate so they didn't end up like the Republicans in 2016 with Trump beating out a split vote between Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio.


Very possibly, which is why I find,

Show nested quote +
- but he simply didn't have the votes.


incongruous with,

Show nested quote +
instead of making excuses that Bernie lost because the establishment was being unfair by not throwing the election.


If Bernie didnt potentially have the votes then why did they need to have all of their candidates drop out to back Biden is my question.

Not that this was my original point, which still is that its pathetic that the dominant faction of the Democrats had to try so hard to beat their significantly less powerful bloc. Its a lot like the Republican primary that Trump won, it was also pathetic that the Republican candidates lost to Trump in the primary.


It's pretty easy to see with percentages; here's an example (the actual numbers don't matter here - they're just arbitrary). For example, let's suppose that 30% of Dems want a progressive, while 70% of Dems want a moderate. In a one-on-one, it's very clear that the moderate would beat the progressive. The progressive wouldn't have the votes to beat the moderate. However, if ten moderates split the 70% into 7% each, then the progressive would win despite still having the same vote count. Bernie didn't have the votes to beat Biden in a head-to-head, although Bernie could have potentially won if there were enough moderates diluting the vote, just like how a ton of opposing progressives could have diluted Bernie's vote too. For all we know, a bunch of progressives decided not to run at all, as it would hurt the chances of any one of them having 100% of the progressive vote. Either way, deciding not to dilute your team isn't shady or sad.
"There is nothing more satisfying than looking at a crowd of people and helping them get what I love." ~Day[9] Daily #100
Blitzkrieg0
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States13132 Posts
Last Edited: 2021-09-22 20:02:48
September 22 2021 19:55 GMT
#66424
On September 23 2021 04:11 Zambrah wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2021 04:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On September 23 2021 03:45 StasisField wrote:
Email leaks show the Clinton campaign conspired with CNN and other major news networks to prop Clinton up, tear Bernie down, and push "weak" candidates in the GOP primary like Donald Trump, whom they literally called the pied piper. There was also the Nevada delegates fiasco in 2016. There's also the issue of the 2016 DNC selling a t-shirt with an anti-Semitic depiction of Bernie. The DNC also argued in court after the 2016 primary that they are allowed to rig their own elections.

If you don't think something shady happened in at least the 2016 Democratic primary, your head is in the sand.


What I'd like to hear from the progressive wing is if Bernie was cheated and it was this obvious why did he run in the democratic primary again in 2020?

The moderate Democrats had to pull a maneuver to drop out their serious candidates to consolidate behind one to beat an underdog, sorry but thats sad. Not to mention that if Bernie was such an impossibility to win then why did they have everyone drop out to beat him? His odds were probably still not great, but clearly they were good enough to force the Democrats to make a concerted effort to stop him.


The democrats consolidated behind one candidate so they didn't end up like the Republicans in 2016 with Trump beating out a split vote between Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio.


Very possibly, which is why I find,

Show nested quote +
- but he simply didn't have the votes.


incongruous with,

Show nested quote +
instead of making excuses that Bernie lost because the establishment was being unfair by not throwing the election.


If Bernie didnt potentially have the votes then why did they need to have all of their candidates drop out to back Biden is my question.

Not that this was my original point, which still is that its pathetic that the dominant faction of the Democrats had to try so hard to beat their significantly less powerful bloc. Its a lot like the Republican primary that Trump won, it was also pathetic that the Republican candidates lost to Trump in the primary.


I don't understand what you don't understand about this. Say there is a progressive wing that gets 40% of the vote. The democrat wing gets 60% of the vote. If you split the democrat vote evenly between two parties who wins the election? The democrats want the democrats to win so they force a consolidation behind Biden so he wins with 60% versus 40% instead of losing 40%-30%-30%.

What should happen is ranked choice voting so that this consolidation doesn't need to happen behind the scenes.
I'll always be your shadow and veil your eyes from states of ain soph aur.
Dangermousecatdog
Profile Joined December 2010
United Kingdom7084 Posts
September 22 2021 20:18 GMT
#66425
On September 22 2021 10:54 Salazarz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 22 2021 08:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On September 21 2021 16:57 Salazarz wrote:
Think about it for a second. What does China stand to gain from invading Vietnam? Like, literally what would be the point of that? It's just such a dumb idea in 21st century. Call CCP what you want, but they aren't idiots, and they don't do evil shit just for the sake of being evil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

I don't know, better ask the CCP that one. They aren't idiots for sure, so just why did China invade Vietnam some 40 years ago, curiously as far away from the 21st century as we are currently into it.


You do realize that this war was a skirmish that China started (with US' blessing, ironically enough) in response to Vietnam's repressions against their own local minorities and occupation of Cambodia and that China never had any intent of actually occupying any territory or anything of the sort in this war, yes? Like, this is about as far from 'imperialistic, Asia-conquering ambition' as it gets.

Interesting to see how the war was sold to the Chinese. What did China stand to gain from invading Vietnam? China did go ahead and did invade Vietnam, thus invalidating your revisionist history that China did not invade Vietnam.
Zambrah
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
United States7240 Posts
Last Edited: 2021-09-22 20:36:59
September 22 2021 20:34 GMT
#66426
On September 23 2021 04:55 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2021 04:11 Zambrah wrote:
On September 23 2021 04:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On September 23 2021 03:45 StasisField wrote:
Email leaks show the Clinton campaign conspired with CNN and other major news networks to prop Clinton up, tear Bernie down, and push "weak" candidates in the GOP primary like Donald Trump, whom they literally called the pied piper. There was also the Nevada delegates fiasco in 2016. There's also the issue of the 2016 DNC selling a t-shirt with an anti-Semitic depiction of Bernie. The DNC also argued in court after the 2016 primary that they are allowed to rig their own elections.

If you don't think something shady happened in at least the 2016 Democratic primary, your head is in the sand.


What I'd like to hear from the progressive wing is if Bernie was cheated and it was this obvious why did he run in the democratic primary again in 2020?

The moderate Democrats had to pull a maneuver to drop out their serious candidates to consolidate behind one to beat an underdog, sorry but thats sad. Not to mention that if Bernie was such an impossibility to win then why did they have everyone drop out to beat him? His odds were probably still not great, but clearly they were good enough to force the Democrats to make a concerted effort to stop him.


The democrats consolidated behind one candidate so they didn't end up like the Republicans in 2016 with Trump beating out a split vote between Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio.


Very possibly, which is why I find,

- but he simply didn't have the votes.


incongruous with,

instead of making excuses that Bernie lost because the establishment was being unfair by not throwing the election.


If Bernie didnt potentially have the votes then why did they need to have all of their candidates drop out to back Biden is my question.

Not that this was my original point, which still is that its pathetic that the dominant faction of the Democrats had to try so hard to beat their significantly less powerful bloc. Its a lot like the Republican primary that Trump won, it was also pathetic that the Republican candidates lost to Trump in the primary.


I don't understand what you don't understand about this. Say there is a progressive wing that gets 40% of the vote. The democrat wing gets 60% of the vote. If you split the democrat vote evenly between two parties who wins the election? The democrats want the democrats to win so they force a consolidation behind Biden so he wins with 60% versus 40% instead of losing 40%-30%-30%.

What should happen is ranked choice voting so that this consolidation doesn't need to happen behind the scenes.


I literally acknowledge this in the first sentence of the post you’re quoting. I am very aware of why they consolidated around Biden, as is everyone else, the fuckin point is that it’s sad that the large powerful majority of the Democrats had to consolidate in order to beat their vastly less powerful minority.

I agree about ranked choice voting, it’ll never happen though, neither party wants to lose that kind of control.

And DPB, completely disagree with the notion that not consolidating and having an expanded candidate pool is a bad thing, frankly the Democrats gravely need more talent, if we just had one establishment candidate vs. one progressive candidate we’d have a parade of unlikeable Hillary Clinton’s and completely pass over charisma like Obama had. It also completely neuters an avenue for developing new political talent. Consolidating like they did is absolutely sad, and having to be all back room about it is lame as hell.

We just fundamentally disagree about what’s sad then, I think it’s pretty clear the moderate Dems are a huge favorite compared to progressives because they have nigh complete control over the party, seeing the progressives as anything other than underdogs is absurd to me. Massive favorites having to back room deal candidate consolidations because their candidates were so unappealing against an underdog is pathetic and speaks to the hilariously weak state of the Democrats political roster.

Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, good lord, what a roster we have to look forward to leading the future of the Democratic Party..
Incremental change is the Democrat version of Trickle Down economics.
Blitzkrieg0
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States13132 Posts
Last Edited: 2021-09-22 21:31:25
September 22 2021 20:58 GMT
#66427
On September 23 2021 05:34 Zambrah wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2021 04:55 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On September 23 2021 04:11 Zambrah wrote:
On September 23 2021 04:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On September 23 2021 03:45 StasisField wrote:
Email leaks show the Clinton campaign conspired with CNN and other major news networks to prop Clinton up, tear Bernie down, and push "weak" candidates in the GOP primary like Donald Trump, whom they literally called the pied piper. There was also the Nevada delegates fiasco in 2016. There's also the issue of the 2016 DNC selling a t-shirt with an anti-Semitic depiction of Bernie. The DNC also argued in court after the 2016 primary that they are allowed to rig their own elections.

If you don't think something shady happened in at least the 2016 Democratic primary, your head is in the sand.


What I'd like to hear from the progressive wing is if Bernie was cheated and it was this obvious why did he run in the democratic primary again in 2020?

The moderate Democrats had to pull a maneuver to drop out their serious candidates to consolidate behind one to beat an underdog, sorry but thats sad. Not to mention that if Bernie was such an impossibility to win then why did they have everyone drop out to beat him? His odds were probably still not great, but clearly they were good enough to force the Democrats to make a concerted effort to stop him.


The democrats consolidated behind one candidate so they didn't end up like the Republicans in 2016 with Trump beating out a split vote between Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio.


Very possibly, which is why I find,

- but he simply didn't have the votes.


incongruous with,

instead of making excuses that Bernie lost because the establishment was being unfair by not throwing the election.


If Bernie didnt potentially have the votes then why did they need to have all of their candidates drop out to back Biden is my question.

Not that this was my original point, which still is that its pathetic that the dominant faction of the Democrats had to try so hard to beat their significantly less powerful bloc. Its a lot like the Republican primary that Trump won, it was also pathetic that the Republican candidates lost to Trump in the primary.


I don't understand what you don't understand about this. Say there is a progressive wing that gets 40% of the vote. The democrat wing gets 60% of the vote. If you split the democrat vote evenly between two parties who wins the election? The democrats want the democrats to win so they force a consolidation behind Biden so he wins with 60% versus 40% instead of losing 40%-30%-30%.

What should happen is ranked choice voting so that this consolidation doesn't need to happen behind the scenes.


I literally acknowledge this in the first sentence of the post you’re quoting. I am very aware of why they consolidated around Biden, as is everyone else, the fuckin point is that it’s sad that the large powerful majority of the Democrats had to consolidate in order to beat their vastly less powerful minority.

I agree about ranked choice voting, it’ll never happen though, neither party wants to lose that kind of control.

And DPB, completely disagree with the notion that not consolidating and having an expanded candidate pool is a bad thing, frankly the Democrats gravely need more talent, if we just had one establishment candidate vs. one progressive candidate we’d have a parade of unlikeable Hillary Clinton’s and completely pass over charisma like Obama had. It also completely neuters an avenue for developing new political talent. Consolidating like they did is absolutely sad, and having to be all back room about it is lame as hell.

We just fundamentally disagree about what’s sad then, I think it’s pretty clear the moderate Dems are a huge favorite compared to progressives because they have nigh complete control over the party, seeing the progressives as anything other than underdogs is absurd to me. Massive favorites having to back room deal candidate consolidations because their candidates were so unappealing against an underdog is pathetic and speaks to the hilariously weak state of the Democrats political roster.

Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, good lord, what a roster we have to look forward to leading the future of the Democratic Party..


You acknowledge, but then write a bunch of drivel that doesn't apply. Hillary versus Obama wasn't a case of a large pool of candidates. There were only two runners in the 2008 primary and Obama won because he had popular support. For this example to make sense you'd need Obama not to have over 50% and Edwards to have enough percent for Hilary to pass Obama's plurality of the votes if they voted for Hilary instead of Edwards.

Assuming Bernie doesn't run again in 2024 there will be an interesting situation for progressives. I don't think AoC will want to run yet for president and I'm not sure of the next prince/princess behind Bernie. They could end up in the same situation as the democrat wing where they need to consolidate behind someone. A wide primary tells you that there isn't a king on top of the party, not that it is weak.
I'll always be your shadow and veil your eyes from states of ain soph aur.
DarkPlasmaBall
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States44106 Posts
Last Edited: 2021-09-22 21:01:50
September 22 2021 21:00 GMT
#66428
On September 23 2021 05:34 Zambrah wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2021 04:55 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On September 23 2021 04:11 Zambrah wrote:
On September 23 2021 04:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On September 23 2021 03:45 StasisField wrote:
Email leaks show the Clinton campaign conspired with CNN and other major news networks to prop Clinton up, tear Bernie down, and push "weak" candidates in the GOP primary like Donald Trump, whom they literally called the pied piper. There was also the Nevada delegates fiasco in 2016. There's also the issue of the 2016 DNC selling a t-shirt with an anti-Semitic depiction of Bernie. The DNC also argued in court after the 2016 primary that they are allowed to rig their own elections.

If you don't think something shady happened in at least the 2016 Democratic primary, your head is in the sand.


What I'd like to hear from the progressive wing is if Bernie was cheated and it was this obvious why did he run in the democratic primary again in 2020?

The moderate Democrats had to pull a maneuver to drop out their serious candidates to consolidate behind one to beat an underdog, sorry but thats sad. Not to mention that if Bernie was such an impossibility to win then why did they have everyone drop out to beat him? His odds were probably still not great, but clearly they were good enough to force the Democrats to make a concerted effort to stop him.


The democrats consolidated behind one candidate so they didn't end up like the Republicans in 2016 with Trump beating out a split vote between Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio.


Very possibly, which is why I find,

- but he simply didn't have the votes.


incongruous with,

instead of making excuses that Bernie lost because the establishment was being unfair by not throwing the election.


If Bernie didnt potentially have the votes then why did they need to have all of their candidates drop out to back Biden is my question.

Not that this was my original point, which still is that its pathetic that the dominant faction of the Democrats had to try so hard to beat their significantly less powerful bloc. Its a lot like the Republican primary that Trump won, it was also pathetic that the Republican candidates lost to Trump in the primary.


I don't understand what you don't understand about this. Say there is a progressive wing that gets 40% of the vote. The democrat wing gets 60% of the vote. If you split the democrat vote evenly between two parties who wins the election? The democrats want the democrats to win so they force a consolidation behind Biden so he wins with 60% versus 40% instead of losing 40%-30%-30%.

What should happen is ranked choice voting so that this consolidation doesn't need to happen behind the scenes.


I literally acknowledge this in the first sentence of the post you’re quoting. I am very aware of why they consolidated around Biden, as is everyone else, the fuckin point is that it’s sad that the large powerful majority of the Democrats had to consolidate in order to beat their vastly less powerful minority.

I agree about ranked choice voting, it’ll never happen though, neither party wants to lose that kind of control.

And DPB, completely disagree with the notion that not consolidating and having an expanded candidate pool is a bad thing, frankly the Democrats gravely need more talent, if we just had one establishment candidate vs. one progressive candidate we’d have a parade of unlikeable Hillary Clinton’s and completely pass over charisma like Obama had. It also completely neuters an avenue for developing new political talent. Consolidating like they did is absolutely sad, and having to be all back room about it is lame as hell.

We just fundamentally disagree about what’s sad then, I think it’s pretty clear the moderate Dems are a huge favorite compared to progressives because they have nigh complete control over the party, seeing the progressives as anything other than underdogs is absurd to me. Massive favorites having to back room deal candidate consolidations because their candidates were so unappealing against an underdog is pathetic and speaks to the hilariously weak state of the Democrats political roster.

Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, good lord, what a roster we have to look forward to leading the future of the Democratic Party..


The fact that redundant moderates stepped down to consolidate isn't "sad". It would literally be stupid not to do that. Dilution of votes is always going to happen, and it's always going to matter, unless you're talking about 90+% of moderates vs. 10-% of progressives, and thankfully, the disparity isn't that bad. But it's just simple math, and it's silly to expect that one of the moderates should have 10x the votes of the other redundant moderates, if they're all similar, which would have to be the extreme case where there's no reason for them to bother consolidating.

I agree with you that the Dems need more talent and a more diverse cast. I'd love to see that. I think that's a great idea. We're talking about what happened in 2020 though, not what ought to happen in the future. And yes, the moderate Dems are a huge favorite compared to progressives, but that's because more Americans are moderates than progressives.
"There is nothing more satisfying than looking at a crowd of people and helping them get what I love." ~Day[9] Daily #100
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
September 22 2021 22:02 GMT
#66429
--- Nuked ---
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42423 Posts
September 22 2021 22:26 GMT
#66430
On September 23 2021 04:00 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2021 03:45 StasisField wrote:
Email leaks show the Clinton campaign conspired with CNN and other major news networks to prop Clinton up, tear Bernie down, and push "weak" candidates in the GOP primary like Donald Trump, whom they literally called the pied piper. There was also the Nevada delegates fiasco in 2016. There's also the issue of the 2016 DNC selling a t-shirt with an anti-Semitic depiction of Bernie. The DNC also argued in court after the 2016 primary that they are allowed to rig their own elections.

If you don't think something shady happened in at least the 2016 Democratic primary, your head is in the sand.

Dumdums like to say “but it wasn’t illegal!!!” as if slavery didn’t used to be legal

Did you really just compare the Democratic Party picking their candidate for the Presidency with slavery?
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Shingi11
Profile Joined May 2016
290 Posts
September 22 2021 23:25 GMT
#66431
On September 23 2021 05:58 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2021 05:34 Zambrah wrote:
On September 23 2021 04:55 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On September 23 2021 04:11 Zambrah wrote:
On September 23 2021 04:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On September 23 2021 03:45 StasisField wrote:
Email leaks show the Clinton campaign conspired with CNN and other major news networks to prop Clinton up, tear Bernie down, and push "weak" candidates in the GOP primary like Donald Trump, whom they literally called the pied piper. There was also the Nevada delegates fiasco in 2016. There's also the issue of the 2016 DNC selling a t-shirt with an anti-Semitic depiction of Bernie. The DNC also argued in court after the 2016 primary that they are allowed to rig their own elections.

If you don't think something shady happened in at least the 2016 Democratic primary, your head is in the sand.


What I'd like to hear from the progressive wing is if Bernie was cheated and it was this obvious why did he run in the democratic primary again in 2020?

The moderate Democrats had to pull a maneuver to drop out their serious candidates to consolidate behind one to beat an underdog, sorry but thats sad. Not to mention that if Bernie was such an impossibility to win then why did they have everyone drop out to beat him? His odds were probably still not great, but clearly they were good enough to force the Democrats to make a concerted effort to stop him.


The democrats consolidated behind one candidate so they didn't end up like the Republicans in 2016 with Trump beating out a split vote between Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio.


Very possibly, which is why I find,

- but he simply didn't have the votes.


incongruous with,

instead of making excuses that Bernie lost because the establishment was being unfair by not throwing the election.


If Bernie didnt potentially have the votes then why did they need to have all of their candidates drop out to back Biden is my question.

Not that this was my original point, which still is that its pathetic that the dominant faction of the Democrats had to try so hard to beat their significantly less powerful bloc. Its a lot like the Republican primary that Trump won, it was also pathetic that the Republican candidates lost to Trump in the primary.


I don't understand what you don't understand about this. Say there is a progressive wing that gets 40% of the vote. The democrat wing gets 60% of the vote. If you split the democrat vote evenly between two parties who wins the election? The democrats want the democrats to win so they force a consolidation behind Biden so he wins with 60% versus 40% instead of losing 40%-30%-30%.

What should happen is ranked choice voting so that this consolidation doesn't need to happen behind the scenes.


I literally acknowledge this in the first sentence of the post you’re quoting. I am very aware of why they consolidated around Biden, as is everyone else, the fuckin point is that it’s sad that the large powerful majority of the Democrats had to consolidate in order to beat their vastly less powerful minority.

I agree about ranked choice voting, it’ll never happen though, neither party wants to lose that kind of control.

And DPB, completely disagree with the notion that not consolidating and having an expanded candidate pool is a bad thing, frankly the Democrats gravely need more talent, if we just had one establishment candidate vs. one progressive candidate we’d have a parade of unlikeable Hillary Clinton’s and completely pass over charisma like Obama had. It also completely neuters an avenue for developing new political talent. Consolidating like they did is absolutely sad, and having to be all back room about it is lame as hell.

We just fundamentally disagree about what’s sad then, I think it’s pretty clear the moderate Dems are a huge favorite compared to progressives because they have nigh complete control over the party, seeing the progressives as anything other than underdogs is absurd to me. Massive favorites having to back room deal candidate consolidations because their candidates were so unappealing against an underdog is pathetic and speaks to the hilariously weak state of the Democrats political roster.

Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, good lord, what a roster we have to look forward to leading the future of the Democratic Party..


You acknowledge, but then write a bunch of drivel that doesn't apply. Hillary versus Obama wasn't a case of a large pool of candidates. There were only two runners in the 2008 primary and Obama won because he had popular support. For this example to make sense you'd need Obama not to have over 50% and Edwards to have enough percent for Hilary to pass Obama's plurality of the votes if they voted for Hilary instead of Edwards.

Assuming Bernie doesn't run again in 2024 there will be an interesting situation for progressives. I don't think AoC will want to run yet for president and I'm not sure of the next prince/princess behind Bernie. They could end up in the same situation as the democrat wing where they need to consolidate behind someone. A wide primary tells you that there isn't a king on top of the party, not that it is weak.


AOC cant run in 2024, not old enough
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15509 Posts
September 23 2021 00:49 GMT
#66432
On September 23 2021 07:26 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2021 04:00 Mohdoo wrote:
On September 23 2021 03:45 StasisField wrote:
Email leaks show the Clinton campaign conspired with CNN and other major news networks to prop Clinton up, tear Bernie down, and push "weak" candidates in the GOP primary like Donald Trump, whom they literally called the pied piper. There was also the Nevada delegates fiasco in 2016. There's also the issue of the 2016 DNC selling a t-shirt with an anti-Semitic depiction of Bernie. The DNC also argued in court after the 2016 primary that they are allowed to rig their own elections.

If you don't think something shady happened in at least the 2016 Democratic primary, your head is in the sand.

Dumdums like to say “but it wasn’t illegal!!!” as if slavery didn’t used to be legal

Did you really just compare the Democratic Party picking their candidate for the Presidency with slavery?

Slavery is the easiest way to show people something being legal doesn’t mean it is ethical. In order for something to be ethical, it must be more than just legal.
Severedevil
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
United States4835 Posts
September 23 2021 00:57 GMT
#66433
On September 23 2021 08:25 Shingi11 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2021 05:58 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On September 23 2021 05:34 Zambrah wrote:
On September 23 2021 04:55 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On September 23 2021 04:11 Zambrah wrote:
On September 23 2021 04:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On September 23 2021 03:45 StasisField wrote:
Email leaks show the Clinton campaign conspired with CNN and other major news networks to prop Clinton up, tear Bernie down, and push "weak" candidates in the GOP primary like Donald Trump, whom they literally called the pied piper. There was also the Nevada delegates fiasco in 2016. There's also the issue of the 2016 DNC selling a t-shirt with an anti-Semitic depiction of Bernie. The DNC also argued in court after the 2016 primary that they are allowed to rig their own elections.

If you don't think something shady happened in at least the 2016 Democratic primary, your head is in the sand.


What I'd like to hear from the progressive wing is if Bernie was cheated and it was this obvious why did he run in the democratic primary again in 2020?

The moderate Democrats had to pull a maneuver to drop out their serious candidates to consolidate behind one to beat an underdog, sorry but thats sad. Not to mention that if Bernie was such an impossibility to win then why did they have everyone drop out to beat him? His odds were probably still not great, but clearly they were good enough to force the Democrats to make a concerted effort to stop him.


The democrats consolidated behind one candidate so they didn't end up like the Republicans in 2016 with Trump beating out a split vote between Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio.


Very possibly, which is why I find,

- but he simply didn't have the votes.


incongruous with,

instead of making excuses that Bernie lost because the establishment was being unfair by not throwing the election.


If Bernie didnt potentially have the votes then why did they need to have all of their candidates drop out to back Biden is my question.

Not that this was my original point, which still is that its pathetic that the dominant faction of the Democrats had to try so hard to beat their significantly less powerful bloc. Its a lot like the Republican primary that Trump won, it was also pathetic that the Republican candidates lost to Trump in the primary.


I don't understand what you don't understand about this. Say there is a progressive wing that gets 40% of the vote. The democrat wing gets 60% of the vote. If you split the democrat vote evenly between two parties who wins the election? The democrats want the democrats to win so they force a consolidation behind Biden so he wins with 60% versus 40% instead of losing 40%-30%-30%.

What should happen is ranked choice voting so that this consolidation doesn't need to happen behind the scenes.


I literally acknowledge this in the first sentence of the post you’re quoting. I am very aware of why they consolidated around Biden, as is everyone else, the fuckin point is that it’s sad that the large powerful majority of the Democrats had to consolidate in order to beat their vastly less powerful minority.

I agree about ranked choice voting, it’ll never happen though, neither party wants to lose that kind of control.

And DPB, completely disagree with the notion that not consolidating and having an expanded candidate pool is a bad thing, frankly the Democrats gravely need more talent, if we just had one establishment candidate vs. one progressive candidate we’d have a parade of unlikeable Hillary Clinton’s and completely pass over charisma like Obama had. It also completely neuters an avenue for developing new political talent. Consolidating like they did is absolutely sad, and having to be all back room about it is lame as hell.

We just fundamentally disagree about what’s sad then, I think it’s pretty clear the moderate Dems are a huge favorite compared to progressives because they have nigh complete control over the party, seeing the progressives as anything other than underdogs is absurd to me. Massive favorites having to back room deal candidate consolidations because their candidates were so unappealing against an underdog is pathetic and speaks to the hilariously weak state of the Democrats political roster.

Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, good lord, what a roster we have to look forward to leading the future of the Democratic Party..


You acknowledge, but then write a bunch of drivel that doesn't apply. Hillary versus Obama wasn't a case of a large pool of candidates. There were only two runners in the 2008 primary and Obama won because he had popular support. For this example to make sense you'd need Obama not to have over 50% and Edwards to have enough percent for Hilary to pass Obama's plurality of the votes if they voted for Hilary instead of Edwards.

Assuming Bernie doesn't run again in 2024 there will be an interesting situation for progressives. I don't think AoC will want to run yet for president and I'm not sure of the next prince/princess behind Bernie. They could end up in the same situation as the democrat wing where they need to consolidate behind someone. A wide primary tells you that there isn't a king on top of the party, not that it is weak.


AOC cant run in 2024, not old enough

AOC turns 35 on October 13, 2024, so she's legally old enough to run for President in 2024.
My strategy is to fork people.
WombaT
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Northern Ireland24800 Posts
September 23 2021 01:14 GMT
#66434
On September 23 2021 07:02 JimmiC wrote:
I find it interesting that some people appear to hold both the position that the DNC is unwilling to play dirty and this is why the Reps do so much, and that the DNC plays so dirty that this is why Bernie is not the leader.

I don’t see why those are contradictory.

You can play dirty to maintain a stagnant status quo, while also not choosing to play dirty to maintain a stagnant status quo.

Indeed, in some instances the criticism isn’t even about the Dems not choosing to play dirty, it’s them choosing not to play at all.

They say, do Bernie dirty, in ways under the auspices of being electable and to get elected into positions of influence in power, but once installed can’t stop Texas legislating for abortion bounty hunters roaming the place.

'You'll always be the cuddly marsupial of my heart, despite the inherent flaws of your ancestry' - Squat
Salazarz
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
Korea (South)2591 Posts
September 23 2021 02:29 GMT
#66435
On September 23 2021 05:18 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 22 2021 10:54 Salazarz wrote:
On September 22 2021 08:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On September 21 2021 16:57 Salazarz wrote:
Think about it for a second. What does China stand to gain from invading Vietnam? Like, literally what would be the point of that? It's just such a dumb idea in 21st century. Call CCP what you want, but they aren't idiots, and they don't do evil shit just for the sake of being evil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

I don't know, better ask the CCP that one. They aren't idiots for sure, so just why did China invade Vietnam some 40 years ago, curiously as far away from the 21st century as we are currently into it.


You do realize that this war was a skirmish that China started (with US' blessing, ironically enough) in response to Vietnam's repressions against their own local minorities and occupation of Cambodia and that China never had any intent of actually occupying any territory or anything of the sort in this war, yes? Like, this is about as far from 'imperialistic, Asia-conquering ambition' as it gets.

Interesting to see how the war was sold to the Chinese. What did China stand to gain from invading Vietnam? China did go ahead and did invade Vietnam, thus invalidating your revisionist history that China did not invade Vietnam.


I have never said that China did not invade Vietnam in the past. If you want to play stupid 'gotcha' games, at least make sure your 'gotchas' are actually right. Or better yet, don't play those stupid games at all and have a honest debate instead, with real arguments that actually address the points being discussed.
Jockmcplop
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
United Kingdom9561 Posts
September 23 2021 02:48 GMT
#66436
On September 23 2021 07:02 JimmiC wrote:
I find it interesting that some people appear to hold both the position that the DNC is unwilling to play dirty and this is why the Reps do so much, and that the DNC plays so dirty that this is why Bernie is not the leader.

It is interesting that the dems will play dirty (if one believes that they did, i'm not arguing that) when it comes to beating Bernie, but not when it comes to enacting their policies.
RIP Meatloaf <3
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15509 Posts
Last Edited: 2021-09-23 03:56:26
September 23 2021 03:34 GMT
#66437
On September 23 2021 11:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2021 07:02 JimmiC wrote:
I find it interesting that some people appear to hold both the position that the DNC is unwilling to play dirty and this is why the Reps do so much, and that the DNC plays so dirty that this is why Bernie is not the leader.

It is interesting that the dems will play dirty (if one believes that they did, i'm not arguing that) when it comes to beating Bernie, but not when it comes to enacting their policies.


It is easier to be a bully than to fight for progress and advancement. For anyone who remembers student government, those are the folks running the DNC. It is a huge mess. The people you don't want in those positions are the people in those positions.

The Republican party are plain and simply fighters. They truly believe in the things they are doing and they will go to any lengths to secure it. Just look at all the reports coming out about who knew what about Jan6. The goal is all that matters for republicans. Getting there by any means necessary is what they do and they are damn good at it. Republican leadership competence far outperforms democrats. McConnell as a democrat would reshape the country in like 6 months. Sinema and Manchin would not be pulling the shit they are pulling if they answered to McConnell.

On that note, McConnell is one of my top people I would love to interview over a few beers. I have an enormous amount of respect for him as an enemy. It is hard to not respect his performance, even if I loathe everything he's ever done. Having a 100% honest interview with him where I ask about what it means to have an enemy, how to crush enemies, how you subdue your underlings, everything, it would just be an absolute pleasure to hear how his brain works and his perspective on achieving and holding power.
Salazarz
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
Korea (South)2591 Posts
September 23 2021 03:57 GMT
#66438
On September 23 2021 11:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2021 07:02 JimmiC wrote:
I find it interesting that some people appear to hold both the position that the DNC is unwilling to play dirty and this is why the Reps do so much, and that the DNC plays so dirty that this is why Bernie is not the leader.

It is interesting that the dems will play dirty (if one believes that they did, i'm not arguing that) when it comes to beating Bernie, but not when it comes to enacting their policies.


Do the dems in America actually want to enact their policies, though? Personally, I'm not convinced. The way I see it, status quo is perfectly acceptable to most, and even preferable to a non-insignificant portion of them, and a lot of their ideas and policy proposals are only there to win elections rather than a genuine desire to create meaningful change in the country.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23063 Posts
Last Edited: 2021-09-23 04:47:11
September 23 2021 04:46 GMT
#66439
On September 23 2021 12:57 Salazarz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2021 11:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
On September 23 2021 07:02 JimmiC wrote:
I find it interesting that some people appear to hold both the position that the DNC is unwilling to play dirty and this is why the Reps do so much, and that the DNC plays so dirty that this is why Bernie is not the leader.

It is interesting that the dems will play dirty (if one believes that they did, i'm not arguing that) when it comes to beating Bernie, but not when it comes to enacting their policies.


Do the dems in America actually want to enact their policies, though? Personally, I'm not convinced. The way I see it, status quo is perfectly acceptable to most, and even preferable to a non-insignificant portion of them, and a lot of their ideas and policy proposals are only there to win elections rather than a genuine desire to create meaningful change in the country.

Feel like this is readily apparent in every facet of Democrat governance. One of note which we have relatively good longitudinal data on is the racial wealth disparity between Black and white citizens.

It serves as a rather concrete example of something Democrats have consistently campaigned on without improving it at all. It's clearly a hustle.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15509 Posts
September 23 2021 05:57 GMT
#66440
On September 23 2021 12:57 Salazarz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On September 23 2021 11:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
On September 23 2021 07:02 JimmiC wrote:
I find it interesting that some people appear to hold both the position that the DNC is unwilling to play dirty and this is why the Reps do so much, and that the DNC plays so dirty that this is why Bernie is not the leader.

It is interesting that the dems will play dirty (if one believes that they did, i'm not arguing that) when it comes to beating Bernie, but not when it comes to enacting their policies.


Do the dems in America actually want to enact their policies, though? Personally, I'm not convinced. The way I see it, status quo is perfectly acceptable to most, and even preferable to a non-insignificant portion of them, and a lot of their ideas and policy proposals are only there to win elections rather than a genuine desire to create meaningful change in the country.


It depends. I don't think it makes sense to analyze the situation with democrats being a single block. Manchin and Schumer disagree on many things. There are some democrats who are basically bought and paid for by big pharma. Some democrats want price fixing and single payer healthcare. There is a giant mix to democrats and a lot of that comes from a spineless, ineffective leadership. McConnell is able to bring his members in line in a way that democrats could only dream of. Democrats are more like independent mercenaries whereas republicans all serve under a single flag.
Prev 1 3320 3321 3322 3323 3324 5008 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 5h 35m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
MindelVK 55
EnDerr 51
StarCraft: Brood War
Horang2 657
firebathero 159
Dewaltoss 124
sSak 74
Movie 42
sorry 17
Sacsri 17
yabsab 12
Dota 2
qojqva3969
Counter-Strike
fl0m6226
olofmeister1814
rGuardiaN117
FunKaTv 54
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King70
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu241
Other Games
tarik_tv63223
gofns14875
summit1g7950
B2W.Neo901
Beastyqt860
ceh9639
mouzStarbuck264
ArmadaUGS181
KnowMe113
Trikslyr68
QueenE63
BRAT_OK 52
Organizations
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Main Stream2701
Other Games
BasetradeTV94
StarCraft 2
angryscii 45
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 20 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• kabyraGe 173
• Adnapsc2 32
• Dystopia_ 2
• Kozan
• sooper7s
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 4356
• masondota2773
• Ler122
League of Legends
• Nemesis5121
• TFBlade739
Other Games
• imaqtpie642
• Shiphtur324
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
5h 35m
Replay Cast
15h 35m
WardiTV Invitational
16h 35m
WardiTV Invitational
16h 35m
PiGosaur Monday
1d 5h
GSL Code S
1d 15h
Rogue vs GuMiho
Maru vs Solar
Online Event
2 days
Replay Cast
2 days
GSL Code S
2 days
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Bunny
The PondCast
2 days
[ Show More ]
Replay Cast
3 days
WardiTV Invitational
3 days
OSC
3 days
Korean StarCraft League
4 days
CranKy Ducklings
4 days
WardiTV Invitational
4 days
Cheesadelphia
4 days
GSL Code S
5 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Season 17: Qualifier 2
BGE Stara Zagora 2025
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
2025 GSL S2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
ECL Season 49: Europe
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025

Upcoming

Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.