The reason Sanders gets dragged for it is because he generally has a reputation, valid or not, for being a cantankerous old man that's notably disagreeable and hard to work with. Building consensus amongst the legislature is not a thing he is well known for. He's well known for yelling at everyone. The whole, 'never actually being a part of the group he's trying to take over' thing just kinda plays into that image. Again, valid or not, this is a thing people attach to Sanders. He could probably find some way to disarm this particular reputation, but he doesn't seem to care to. Being an angry old man is kind of his brand.
freaking out that sanders doesn't put a D after his name is the most ludicrous, Versailles bullshit
we're over here getting pissed at candidates for endorsing a system that lets people die for lack of health care and getting accused of "purity testing" and then really
Nobody here is in favor of letting people die for lack of healthcare
freaking out that sanders doesn't put a D after his name is the most ludicrous, Versailles bullshit
we're over here getting pissed at candidates for endorsing a system that lets people die for lack of health care and getting accused of "purity testing" and then really
Nobody here is in favor of letting people die for lack of healthcare
Well, I guess it’s good then that I support the party platform of reforming healthcare and treating it as a right.
Or do I need to only support the Sanders plan to sufficiently “care” about the issue?
well what number of people dying per year for being unable to afford medical coverage is good for you
what's a good low number that doesn't undercut insurance company profits too much
The insinuation that I’m somehow more interested in corporate profits than human lives simply because I don’t only embrace Bernie’s plan is such bad faith goosery that I have no desire to continue this discussion.
Every other candidate thinks they can reform an industry that has designed itself to feed on blood and misery into something humane that doesnt leave anyone behind or without and honestly that sounds way more pie in the sky than just nationalizing the whole fucking thing.
Id certainly agree thats the picture opponents have tried to paint sure.
Which opponents exactly?
Bernie's thrown a lot of stones at the party, but he's been pretty much been treated with kid's gloves in return.
+7
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
edited September 2019
I find it laughable that calling Sanders our for not actually being a Democrat while running for the Democratic Party nomination for President is being likened to purity testing.
Just some flat out bad faith rolling dirty in here.
Edit
Especially when this was in response to how good he is as a negotiator who crosses over!
jmcdonald on
+2
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
If Joe Manchin can stand having a D label in West Virginia, I'm not sure why Sanders can't do the same in Vermont.
I suspect it's less about "marketing" and more about maintaining an image of being beholden to no one- at the expense of the party whose teat he suckles on whenever he feels like.
I strongly support Bernie playing within the Democratic party rather than going it alone and handing Trump a win. Loyalty isn't everything. The Democratic party isn't a football team.
If Joe Manchin can stand having a D label in West Virginia, I'm not sure why Sanders can't do the same in Vermont.
I suspect it's less about "marketing" and more about maintaining an image of being beholden to no one- at the expense of the party whose teat he suckles on whenever he feels like.
Id rather have an independent who works with the Democrats on everything than a Democrat who gets in the way of everything. But then, you know, priorities.
+14
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Bernie not officially joining the party is a symbol, but it’s a symbol that cuts both ways. It makes him look like a principled, independent politician, but it also makes him look like a cantankerous loner.
I’m less annoyed about the symbol itself than what it symbolizes—the way his campaign likes to pick fights with establishment Dem groups to try and elevate itself, for instance.
Joe Manchin is the light that should guide Bernie is a take. Manchin enjoys his Democrat label as Bernie enjoys his Independent one. Is the alternative being pushed here that Bernie should run as an Independent?
Most of us fall into one of these categories for top two preference:
Warren -> Bernie
Bernie -> Warren
But most of our discussion focuses on the choice between them. Is this because most of the other candidates are either unacceptable or long-shot won't win, so this is the most interesting thing to talk about? (apart from Biden's latest gaffes)
Or is there a big enough valley between the #1 and #2 picks that lots of people would be really unhappy if they had to go with their #2?
As far as I can tell they're friends and fighting the good fights together regardless of some of their differences on details. And those differences are largely moot because Congress is the body that determines those (barring radical stuff like what Trump has been up to). They have their own pet versions of health care and taxation, but in the end it's going to be what Democratic leaders in the House and Senate are able to deliver with whatever downticket pickups we get (or don't) next year.
Fleur de Alys on
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
Barring a big shake up its a three way race at this point and everyone here hates Biden so
Which is interesting in itself. Every young Democrat hates the fuck out of Biden. And while young people don't vote as much as older folks they certainly do a lot of the grunt work in campaigns, volunteering, running errands and organizing things.
Barring a big shake up its a three way race at this point and everyone here hates Biden so
Which is interesting in itself. Every young Democrat hates the fuck out of Biden. And while young people don't vote as much as older folks they certainly do a lot of the grunt work in campaigns, volunteering, running errands and organizing things.
Bernie has to run as a Democrat because we live in a glorious first past the post reality and if he were to run as an independent instead I imagine everybody would scream their heads off at how he’s splitting the Dem vote, and rightly so
We give Democrats a pass on shittier behavior than this because of how red their state is and somehow it’s not okay when not toeing the party line comes from someone in a very blue state
For all the talk of how Bernie can’t compromise he’s at least meeting the party in the middle and running under their banner instead of fucking up their shit like a third party candidate
And I say all this as someone who would prefer Warren!
Anyway this is all nitpicking, and calls for unity shouldn’t be one sided
joshofalltrades on
+30
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
For the record my preference is:
1 Warren
2 Harris
3 Beto
4 Castro
5 Bernie
So I’m not just quibbling between two different flavors of vanilla or whatever. I like Bernie’s policies generally but I have a lot of problems with him personally as a candidate—the intraparty contentiousness and his age being two of the biggest. Warren is not just a different packaging of his ideas to me but a significant upgrade in terms of her demeanor, campaign style, and ethos.
I think Trump has a reasonable path to victory under Warren and Sanders as well.
Warren's polling with minorities hasnt been great, i worry about her campaigning style against Trump's, and I suspect she's going tonstruggle appealing to people outside the white educated center-left, which incidentally makes is the demographic here by and large.
Sanders I think campaigns the best against Trump. He can meet him on populism. But a fairly large amount if the base will not accept him for a variety of reasons. Maybe he can make up for that with new voters? My bigger concern is that if Sanders wins capital is going to view it as a 5 alarm fire and there will be an overwhelming amount of money against him.
I think Trump has a reasonable path to victory under Warren and Sanders as well.
Warren's polling with minorities hasnt been great, i worry about her campaigning style against Trump's, and I suspect she's going tonstruggle appealing to people outside the white educated center-left, which incidentally makes is the demographic here by and large.
Sanders I think campaigns the best against Trump. He can meet him on populism. But a fairly large amount if the base will not accept him for a variety of reasons. Maybe he can make up for that with new voters? My bigger concern is that if Sanders wins capital is going to view it as a 5 alarm fire and there will be an overwhelming amount of money against him.
Warren really does need to figure out how to court black voters. Badly, and quickly.
Whoever the nominee is needs to have them locked up and turn out younger voters. Obama won on the backs of those two demographics.
It is kinda hilarious seeing the switch from defending Warren’s Republican past to some people tripping over themselves to do the “he’s not actually a Democrat and blah blah” dance. People care about stupid bullshit when they want to care about stupid bullshit, and they don’t have the slightest embarrassment about it.
+25
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
It is kinda hilarious seeing the switch from defending Warren’s Republican past to some people tripping over themselves to do the “he’s not actually a Democrat and blah blah” dance. People care about stupid bullshit when they want to care about stupid bullshit, and they don’t have the slightest embarrassment about it.
Warren became a Democrat in 1996, Bernie still hasn’t:
Bernie Sanders filed Monday to be a candidate for the Senate in 2024 — as an independent.
But last month, Sanders filed as a Democrat for president.
The complaints that Sanders is a yelly man who yells a lot are kind of baffling in the face of the adulation Beto received for saying fuck a couple times.
It is kinda hilarious seeing the switch from defending Warren’s Republican past to some people tripping over themselves to do the “he’s not actually a Democrat and blah blah” dance. People care about stupid bullshit when they want to care about stupid bullshit, and they don’t have the slightest embarrassment about it.
The other thing that gets missed is that Bernie's independent status is not unique but instead a throwback to an earlier era. Look at Congress lists from 30 years ago on back, and there were a lot more independents and regional small parties that ran candidates then caucused and got counted with the Big Two in office. He's not braving some unheard of trail, but instead following a path that used to be more common in the days when party fundraising wasn't as important.
I'm the rare breed who likes Elizabeth Warren and thinks Bernie Sanders is a bit of a hack. I remember reading the full text of his “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist” Act and being disappointed by the cavalier way in which he proposes something that would completely disrupt the lives of millions of Americans (not just rich people) without a detailed plan to address any of the fallout, instead laying all the responsibility on others (mostly Treasury) in vague terms. It’s a proposal that was neither serious nor real, just stump rhetoric in the form of legislation he knew wasn't going to go anywhere.
In his entire Senate career he's been the primary sponsor of only 7 enacted bills (though he's cosponsored several hundred). It paints a picture of someone who latches onto the real work of others while playing arm chair general to the mob.
In his entire Senate career he's been the primary sponsor of only 7 enacted bills (though he's cosponsored several hundred). It paints a picture of someone who latches onto the real work of others while playing arm chair general to the mob.
That seems to be exactly what we'd expect for a democratic socialist who had to work with a center right party his entire career.
Beto is cursing people out cause they are asking dumb questions about the stochastic terrorism that defines our current day to day lives while he's trying to be there for all the people being murdered in mass shootings in his state.
Sanders has a career of yelling at people because they don't meet his ideological values. Like he's been doing the yelling at people bit for years now. That's what doing a bit gets you. You get defined by the bit.
Like the criticism of Warren we were on last month was that she would compromise where Sanders would not.
Now this month we're on to defending Sanders saying he'll definitely be able to build consensus and compromise and isn't unrelenting in his ideological stances.
Either he's agreeable and can build consensus and compromise, or he's a cantankerous old man that will accept no compromise. He literally can't be both.
In his entire Senate career he's been the primary sponsor of only 7 enacted bills (though he's cosponsored several hundred). It paints a picture of someone who latches onto the real work of others while playing arm chair general to the mob.
That seems to be exactly what we'd expect for a democratic socialist who had to work with a center right party his entire career.
Partially, yes. But then many of his proposals, even in the vein of a radical, could've been much more legitimate. I.E. Even if he HAD the votes for some of his bank-breaking legislation it would've fallen flat on implementation.
Also, I don't want to over-slader Sanders. I admire that he's never cowered away from terms like liberal, progressive, or socialist in public (unlike numerous prior Dem candidates). Instead he’s managed to outline his own version of the script, and people buy into it. I just question his ability to deliver.
Beto is cursing people out cause they are asking dumb questions about the stochastic terrorism that defines our current day to day lives while he's trying to be there for all the people being murdered in mass shootings in his state.
Sanders has a career of yelling at people because they don't meet his ideological values. Like he's been doing the yelling at people bit for years now. That's what doing a bit gets you. You get defined by the bit.
Like the criticism of Warren we were on last month was that she would compromise where Sanders would not.
Now this month we're on to defending Sanders saying he'll definitely be able to build consensus and compromise and isn't unrelenting in his ideological stances.
Either he's agreeable and can build consensus and compromise, or he's a cantankerous old man that will accept no compromise. He literally can't be both.
The argument was, as was explained then too, that Sanders seemed less likely to compromise as a starting position.
Warren right now seems to be the only candidate growing support outside of the margin of error. Considering most people hold onto their preferences until their horse looks like a bum ticket, I think it's fair to say we should wait and see where older minority support is going to end up if they start to abandon Biden.
Also I think the question that weighs heaviest on everyone here is - What if Biden decides to go the distance and it doesn't look like Warren or Bernie can close the deal?
And an addendum to that for Warren supporters: Will Bernie try to push Warren out at the convention in the case still that he's third in delegates?
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
In his entire Senate career he's been the primary sponsor of only 7 enacted bills (though he's cosponsored several hundred). It paints a picture of someone who latches onto the real work of others while playing arm chair general to the mob.
That seems to be exactly what we'd expect for a democratic socialist who had to work with a center right party his entire career.
Partially, yes. But then many of his proposals, even in the vein of a radical, could've been much more legitimate. I.E. Even if he HAD the votes for some of his bank-breaking legislation it would've fallen flat on implementation.
Also, I don't want to over-slader Sanders. I admire that he's never cowered away from terms like liberal, progressive, or socialist in public (unlike numerous prior Dem candidates). Instead he’s managed to outline his own version of the script, and people buy into it. I just question his ability to deliver.
I think you're too dismissive of his cosponsored efforts.
Also I think the question that weighs heaviest on everyone here is - What if Biden decides to go the distance and it doesn't look like Warren or Bernie can close the deal?
This is, in my opinion, the place we're gonna find ourselves after super Tuesday. Like maybe NH and the caucuses change the outlook on this, but this is pretty much the worry is that this is where we end up.
The reason Sanders gets dragged for it is because he generally has a reputation, valid or not, for being a cantankerous old man that's notably disagreeable and hard to work with. Building consensus amongst the legislature is not a thing he is well known for. He's well known for yelling at everyone. The whole, 'never actually being a part of the group he's trying to take over' thing just kinda plays into that image. Again, valid or not, this is a thing people attach to Sanders. He could probably find some way to disarm this particular reputation, but he doesn't seem to care to. Being an angry old man is kind of his brand.
This is to some extent the persona he’s adopted (and certainly the one opponents have tried to paint him with), but it’s not substantiated by his legislative career really at all. He was one of the more prolific and successful amenders of legislation in Congress even from the minority, which isn’t a position normally occupied by backbench screamers
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I think Trump has a reasonable path to victory under Warren and Sanders as well.
Warren's polling with minorities hasnt been great, i worry about her campaigning style against Trump's, and I suspect she's going tonstruggle appealing to people outside the white educated center-left, which incidentally makes is the demographic here by and large.
Sanders I think campaigns the best against Trump. He can meet him on populism. But a fairly large amount if the base will not accept him for a variety of reasons. Maybe he can make up for that with new voters? My bigger concern is that if Sanders wins capital is going to view it as a 5 alarm fire and there will be an overwhelming amount of money against him.
I mean, Obama's polling with minorities was also not great, until it was. It's a problem she needs to fix but isn't insurmountable.
And again, financial people hate Sanders' policies, but they think Warren is more likely to win, so are afraid of her.
Also I think the question that weighs heaviest on everyone here is - What if Biden decides to go the distance and it doesn't look like Warren or Bernie can close the deal?
This is, in my opinion, the place we're gonna find ourselves after super Tuesday. Like maybe NH and the caucuses change the outlook on this, but this is pretty much the worry is that this is where we end up.
Basically if Biden still looks like the presumptive nominee post Super Tuesday, somebody probably has to jump ship.
Personally I hope Kamala, Beto and Booker are gone before then so we'll have a clear picture of where the anti Biden vote has settled. Because if Bernie or Warren are within the margin of error for each other with multiple DoA campaigns floating around its going to make things ugly.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
It is kinda hilarious seeing the switch from defending Warren’s Republican past to some people tripping over themselves to do the “he’s not actually a Democrat and blah blah” dance. People care about stupid bullshit when they want to care about stupid bullshit, and they don’t have the slightest embarrassment about it.
In his entire Senate career he's been the primary sponsor of only 7 enacted bills (though he's cosponsored several hundred). It paints a picture of someone who latches onto the real work of others while playing arm chair general to the mob.
That seems to be exactly what we'd expect for a democratic socialist who had to work with a center right party his entire career.
Partially, yes. But then many of his proposals, even in the vein of a radical, could've been much more legitimate. I.E. Even if he HAD the votes for some of his bank-breaking legislation it would've fallen flat on implementation.
Also, I don't want to over-slader Sanders. I admire that he's never cowered away from terms like liberal, progressive, or socialist in public (unlike numerous prior Dem candidates). Instead he’s managed to outline his own version of the script, and people buy into it. I just question his ability to deliver.
I think you're too dismissive of his cosponsored efforts.
I can only speak to examples where he "wrote the damn bill" when it comes to his ability to articulate legislative solutions. This is the bill I had my beef with: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1206/text
It basically asks the treasury secretary to remodel the entire financial sector. Now, SHOULD the sector be remodeled? Probably. Is it a good idea to punt that responsibility to an individual appointee in the executive with an arbitrary 1 year deadline? No. You have to restructure FINRA, for starters, and that ALONE is more like a 5 year job...
In his entire Senate career he's been the primary sponsor of only 7 enacted bills (though he's cosponsored several hundred). It paints a picture of someone who latches onto the real work of others while playing arm chair general to the mob.
That seems to be exactly what we'd expect for a democratic socialist who had to work with a center right party his entire career.
Partially, yes. But then many of his proposals, even in the vein of a radical, could've been much more legitimate. I.E. Even if he HAD the votes for some of his bank-breaking legislation it would've fallen flat on implementation.
Also, I don't want to over-slader Sanders. I admire that he's never cowered away from terms like liberal, progressive, or socialist in public (unlike numerous prior Dem candidates). Instead he’s managed to outline his own version of the script, and people buy into it. I just question his ability to deliver.
I think you're too dismissive of his cosponsored efforts.
I can only speak to examples where he "wrote the damn bill" when it comes to his ability to articulate legislative solutions. This is the bill I had my beef with: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1206/text
It basically asks the treasury secretary to remodel the entire financial sector. Now, SHOULD the sector be remodeled? Probably. Is it a good idea to punt that responsibility to an individual appointee in the executive with an arbitrary 1 year deadline? No. You have to restructure FINRA, for starters, and that ALONE is more like a 5 year job...
Honestly Im not terribly fussed about the practicality or lack there of of value signaling proposals. Its why I dont think there's much point to digging into Warren's proposals either beyond a surface level and why "she has a plan!" seems kind of silly to me.
Posts
what's a good low number that doesn't undercut insurance company profits too much
The insinuation that I’m somehow more interested in corporate profits than human lives simply because I don’t only embrace Bernie’s plan is such bad faith goosery that I have no desire to continue this discussion.
Which opponents exactly?
Bernie's thrown a lot of stones at the party, but he's been pretty much been treated with kid's gloves in return.
Just some flat out bad faith rolling dirty in here.
Edit
Especially when this was in response to how good he is as a negotiator who crosses over!
I suspect it's less about "marketing" and more about maintaining an image of being beholden to no one- at the expense of the party whose teat he suckles on whenever he feels like.
Id rather have an independent who works with the Democrats on everything than a Democrat who gets in the way of everything. But then, you know, priorities.
I’m less annoyed about the symbol itself than what it symbolizes—the way his campaign likes to pick fights with establishment Dem groups to try and elevate itself, for instance.
Warren -> Bernie
Bernie -> Warren
But most of our discussion focuses on the choice between them. Is this because most of the other candidates are either unacceptable or long-shot won't win, so this is the most interesting thing to talk about? (apart from Biden's latest gaffes)
Or is there a big enough valley between the #1 and #2 picks that lots of people would be really unhappy if they had to go with their #2?
As far as I can tell they're friends and fighting the good fights together regardless of some of their differences on details. And those differences are largely moot because Congress is the body that determines those (barring radical stuff like what Trump has been up to). They have their own pet versions of health care and taxation, but in the end it's going to be what Democratic leaders in the House and Senate are able to deliver with whatever downticket pickups we get (or don't) next year.
Which is interesting in itself. Every young Democrat hates the fuck out of Biden. And while young people don't vote as much as older folks they certainly do a lot of the grunt work in campaigns, volunteering, running errands and organizing things.
Its why I think Biden loses the General
Bernie has to run as a Democrat because we live in a glorious first past the post reality and if he were to run as an independent instead I imagine everybody would scream their heads off at how he’s splitting the Dem vote, and rightly so
We give Democrats a pass on shittier behavior than this because of how red their state is and somehow it’s not okay when not toeing the party line comes from someone in a very blue state
For all the talk of how Bernie can’t compromise he’s at least meeting the party in the middle and running under their banner instead of fucking up their shit like a third party candidate
And I say all this as someone who would prefer Warren!
Anyway this is all nitpicking, and calls for unity shouldn’t be one sided
1 Warren
2 Harris
3 Beto
4 Castro
5 Bernie
So I’m not just quibbling between two different flavors of vanilla or whatever. I like Bernie’s policies generally but I have a lot of problems with him personally as a candidate—the intraparty contentiousness and his age being two of the biggest. Warren is not just a different packaging of his ideas to me but a significant upgrade in terms of her demeanor, campaign style, and ethos.
Warren's polling with minorities hasnt been great, i worry about her campaigning style against Trump's, and I suspect she's going tonstruggle appealing to people outside the white educated center-left, which incidentally makes is the demographic here by and large.
Sanders I think campaigns the best against Trump. He can meet him on populism. But a fairly large amount if the base will not accept him for a variety of reasons. Maybe he can make up for that with new voters? My bigger concern is that if Sanders wins capital is going to view it as a 5 alarm fire and there will be an overwhelming amount of money against him.
Warren really does need to figure out how to court black voters. Badly, and quickly.
Whoever the nominee is needs to have them locked up and turn out younger voters. Obama won on the backs of those two demographics.
Warren became a Democrat in 1996, Bernie still hasn’t:
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/04/700121429/bernie-sanders-files-to-run-as-a-democrat-and-an-independent
The other thing that gets missed is that Bernie's independent status is not unique but instead a throwback to an earlier era. Look at Congress lists from 30 years ago on back, and there were a lot more independents and regional small parties that ran candidates then caucused and got counted with the Big Two in office. He's not braving some unheard of trail, but instead following a path that used to be more common in the days when party fundraising wasn't as important.
In his entire Senate career he's been the primary sponsor of only 7 enacted bills (though he's cosponsored several hundred). It paints a picture of someone who latches onto the real work of others while playing arm chair general to the mob.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
That seems to be exactly what we'd expect for a democratic socialist who had to work with a center right party his entire career.
Sanders has a career of yelling at people because they don't meet his ideological values. Like he's been doing the yelling at people bit for years now. That's what doing a bit gets you. You get defined by the bit.
Like the criticism of Warren we were on last month was that she would compromise where Sanders would not.
Now this month we're on to defending Sanders saying he'll definitely be able to build consensus and compromise and isn't unrelenting in his ideological stances.
Either he's agreeable and can build consensus and compromise, or he's a cantankerous old man that will accept no compromise. He literally can't be both.
Partially, yes. But then many of his proposals, even in the vein of a radical, could've been much more legitimate. I.E. Even if he HAD the votes for some of his bank-breaking legislation it would've fallen flat on implementation.
Also, I don't want to over-slader Sanders. I admire that he's never cowered away from terms like liberal, progressive, or socialist in public (unlike numerous prior Dem candidates). Instead he’s managed to outline his own version of the script, and people buy into it. I just question his ability to deliver.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
The argument was, as was explained then too, that Sanders seemed less likely to compromise as a starting position.
Also I think the question that weighs heaviest on everyone here is - What if Biden decides to go the distance and it doesn't look like Warren or Bernie can close the deal?
And an addendum to that for Warren supporters: Will Bernie try to push Warren out at the convention in the case still that he's third in delegates?
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I think you're too dismissive of his cosponsored efforts.
This is, in my opinion, the place we're gonna find ourselves after super Tuesday. Like maybe NH and the caucuses change the outlook on this, but this is pretty much the worry is that this is where we end up.
This is to some extent the persona he’s adopted (and certainly the one opponents have tried to paint him with), but it’s not substantiated by his legislative career really at all. He was one of the more prolific and successful amenders of legislation in Congress even from the minority, which isn’t a position normally occupied by backbench screamers
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I mean, Obama's polling with minorities was also not great, until it was. It's a problem she needs to fix but isn't insurmountable.
And again, financial people hate Sanders' policies, but they think Warren is more likely to win, so are afraid of her.
Basically if Biden still looks like the presumptive nominee post Super Tuesday, somebody probably has to jump ship.
Personally I hope Kamala, Beto and Booker are gone before then so we'll have a clear picture of where the anti Biden vote has settled. Because if Bernie or Warren are within the margin of error for each other with multiple DoA campaigns floating around its going to make things ugly.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Sanders isn’t a Democrat right now
This is some false equivalence bull
I can only speak to examples where he "wrote the damn bill" when it comes to his ability to articulate legislative solutions. This is the bill I had my beef with: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1206/text
It basically asks the treasury secretary to remodel the entire financial sector. Now, SHOULD the sector be remodeled? Probably. Is it a good idea to punt that responsibility to an individual appointee in the executive with an arbitrary 1 year deadline? No. You have to restructure FINRA, for starters, and that ALONE is more like a 5 year job...
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Honestly Im not terribly fussed about the practicality or lack there of of value signaling proposals. Its why I dont think there's much point to digging into Warren's proposals either beyond a surface level and why "she has a plan!" seems kind of silly to me.