that's a whole lot of words for "i can't, because my 'arguments' and premises are completely made up and logically incoherent"...

keep sending money to those nigerian princes and telling yourself it's a smart investment in the long run, fool...

want to know what's logically incoherent?

telling me last night Nominating Bernie sends a message, then this morning challenging me on the consequences when corporations and special interests receive that message.

i dont want the corporations to get your message, because i know the consequences. i have seen their 10 year plans behind NDAs with included alternatives based on changes in healthcare, wage increases, regulation, FDA changes, etc.

all of this you know. as ive told you before, a few times. but yeah, why dont u try keeping your story straight for 5 posts in a row.

He's a progressive who is okay with alot people dying of coronavirus because it would help his own [myself & I style] automation bullshit.

oh you've "seen" it, you just can't put it into words to make actual arguments of why bernie's policies would hurt americans, we just have to believe you because you have 'seen things we couldn't possibly imagine'. it's so funny that every time your lack of arguments and logic coherence gets exposed, you resort to some kind of ficticious anecdotal evidence, as if that gave you any credibility against your long record of centrist shillery...

all i'm asking is, why keep pretending you cared about those issues? keep sending your money to those princes and tell yourself that some day they will make true on their small promises...

i didnt realize u needed me to reiterate how raising minimum wage, increasing regulations on corporations, and raising taxes on corporations would cause people to lose jobs and speed up automation.

i mainly didnt realize this because ive told you a dozen times.

so which is it, does nominating/electing Bernie send a message to corporate america, or not? were you right last night or this morning.

Not really, Warren and Biden have intense animosity, going back to one decade ago when Warren was a non-political expert trying to establish the CFPB and Biden was one of the leading voices in the Senate opposing or slowing down her efforts. (Not surprising considering the fact that he represents Delaware, which is a prominent tax haven.)

The tensions between Bernie and Warren have only emerged on the campaign trail, I dont think they go as deep as her mutual dislike with Biden. She is loyal to the party though, so perhaps she would endorse Biden in the end.






What's wrong with Bloomberg's record and profile? He won 3 mayoral elections in heavily liberal New York City after all. Back in the day, stop and frisk policies were popular, he's only so out of step with the present-day democratic party because the party has moved heavily to the left on a lot of issues over the last 10-16 years. Anyway, you have to keep in mind that he was only able to get his 10-16% vote share because he was running against an unusually fractured, and quite frankly weak, field. And you also have to keep in mind that he was benefitting from having a lot states all to himself, states in which no one else seriously campaigned. Furthermore, his centrist stances allowed him to get a lot of votes from Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in states with an open primary.

At the end of the day, he was running against a vacuum and spent a fortune, and he still didnt get ANY real traction. Once Biden rebounded, Bloomberg immediately crumbled, as shown by the split between Bloomberg's performance in early ballots vs election day.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 4 2020 11:05am

you're posing aquestion based on your bad faith misinterpretation of one of my posts, expecting an answer to a question based on a made up premise, while simultaneously bitching about me judging you by your record here, and not your made up #alternative facts. that's pretty fucking hilarious...



your argument would be valid if we still WERE 'back in the day'. we aren't though - check his first debate to confirm. also, this is undeniably a highly politicised environment, if you acknowledge it or not. someone who almost exclusively ran on TV and internet ads, had a laughably short stint in this race, and still got that many votes DESPITE so many alternative choices has clearly proven that money could easily buy you the candidacy and eventually the presidency under a little more favourable circumstances - especially if it was a less controversial person. i'd argue that bill gates would have a solid fucking shot in 2024.

This post was edited by fender on Mar 4 2020 11:21am

correct, how do you like the mirror?

i havent been engaging you in good faith for about 5 posts now since u questioned my motivations knowing full well its ALWAYS automation based with me.

ive told u 10 times bernie speeds up automation. will it stick the 11th time? stay tuned boys and girls....

my point still stands: someone who won 3 consecutive mayoral elections in heavily liberal NYC cant be THAT bad of a candidate.




wrong, all it proves is that the rest of the field left a significant percentage of the Democratic electorate unssatisfied and looking for a different candidate. and some of Bloomberg's voters were GOP(-leaning) folks who voted in open Democratic primaries this time around because the GOP primaries are a formality.

you should also keep in mind that TV and internet ads have diminishing returns. unlimited spending wont get you unlimited returns. I would argue that Bloomberg's campaign actually reached the saturation point. and in most states which were actively contested by all major candidates, like CA or TX, he still didnt even reach 15%.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 4 2020 11:27am

"w-w-well i t-t-totally did that on purpose, hahahehaaa" *nervously looking around for his emotional support dogs to join

you are aware that rejecting the moronic 'delaying the inevitably only to have it crash down even harder in the future is better than bettering the lives of everybody right now, even without any drawbacks concerning the tens of millions who aren't even affected by that issue' narrative is not the same as not understanding what you're trying to convey, right? especially since we've been over this already it's pretty shocking that you still assume everyone subscribes to your biased framing of the issue.

btw, your nigerian prince biden will do NOTHING in that regard, he won't help those affected by it, or those who aren't. you know why? because he is owned by those who get rich by exploiting the working class to maximise their profits. it's funny how you struggle to do such basic maths...