Human cannonball? I have just the person:

Link to tweet

Michael Moore auditions for Drunk History.

I see that a lot on Twittter. A total disconnect from reality. Very Trumpian. I guess once you buy into the lie that is Our Revolution facts go out the window. So Michael Moore is either drunk, delusional, or purposefully lying. We were told Jimmy Carter was too safe. Same for Clinton and Obama. Did we lose? I'm going with drunk.

Earlier today, I went w/ delusional -

'I just had a bro reply to me how Bernie was ahead in the Rust Belt and was popular with people of color (because 'working class') and would do well in the South. I told him he was delusional and then blocked him. No time for that nonsense.'

And the other thing is, Moore's got a point. We went with the "safe" candidate last time, and we got Trump. We went with the unsafe candidate in 2008, and got Obama. We went safe in 2004 and 2000, and got W.

So there's that.

Gore lost because of Nader. Otherwise Florida is his.

And, of course, Gore would have been great on the environment. Instead, you got the Bush years.

Stein voters also cost Clinton. Both had the popular vote.

It has nothing to do with a safe choice.

Which is what I'm interested in. I don't much care who wins the popular vote, I care who gets to sign laws and appoint justices and make executive actions.

And that requires voters in a big tent.

Preferably those who may disagree on economic policy. But are not racists or birthers. Or homophobic. Etc.

And you have every right to prioritize social issues over economic issues, just like other people might prioritize economic issues over social issues, and some people might think both are equally important. That, of course, is a matter of personal politics.

One fact, though, is that if you look at polling, there are a lot more people in the socially-conservative economically-liberal quadrant than there are in the socially-liberal economically-conservative. So just from a point of view of practicality, holding a hard line on social issues while compromising on economics is probably not going to attract as many votes as the converse.

Especially when it comes to Joe Rogan, who, despite his language, on actual social policy is pretty liberal. Yeah, it's contradictory, but he's a guy who will toss around the f-word, but at the same time is strongly in favor of things like gay marriage. It's not like he's a Mike Pence or a social conservative by any means, it's just that he likes using offensive language.

will fail. Richard Spencer loves him some Joe Rogan. When they tell you who they are believe them.

Rogan But AOC, who is an elected Democrat saying the tent needs to be smaller and Biden shouldn’t be in it. And that’s ok until Rogan endorses and suddenly the Bernie campaign is crying about a big tent.

However, the democratic base is minorities, and you cannot compromise on social justice issues without losing them.

Within that big tent, I'm on the progressive, AOC side, but it's counterproductive to try to kick centrists out of the tent because then we get Republicans in power, which is a compromise to everything we believe in.

Regarding social versus economic issues, I don't think we should compromise on either of them. I think we should reach to people who don't agree with us, and get them to vote for us, without compromising our positions. That's one thing I think is great about how the Rogan endorsement went down. Bernie didn't actually compromise his positions, and he still got an endorsement from a figure who has a large and independent viewing audience.

You're right that if we do compromise, we risk losing some of the base. On social issues, we might lose some minority support, on economic issues, we might lose some working class support (although it's obviously not that cut and dry in either case). Neither is good. Sometimes compromise is necessary for a big tent though.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/17/democrats-express-more-economic-distress-than-republicans-including-among-whites/

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/economic-anxiety-didnt-make-people-vote-trump-racism-did/

So there's that.



That's an interesting idea, especially in light of Richard Spencer refering to Rogan as "mainstream."

See the OP...

I don't think it's as simple as just economically versus culturally anxious, there's obviously a mix of things. But still, if these are the culturally anxious "anti-PC" types who are with us on healthcare and minimum wage, but maybe agree with Joe Rogan about trans women not fighting in women's professional combat sports, don't we want those votes, and wouldn't a Joe Rogan endorsement be a good we to get them?

I'm not saying we need to shift our policy to Joe Rogan's on trans women's participation in sports. But I am saying that, given that most Americans poll with Rogan on that one, isn't it a good thing that we can get Rogan's endorsement without having to compromise on the actual policy?

How about his cavalier idea that shooting women in the "c**ts" is hillarious? Or the content in the video where he applies some pretty serious pathological mommy-issue psychosies to HRC and her "lack of appeal to men even to blow them" - you know the other thread where you are bending over backwards to get people to agree with yours and Richard Spencers assessment of Rogan?

And a candidate who states that he's the best candidate for women is jumping right on the audience for that, but you don't see any "hippocrisy" or opportunism whatsoever in that?

And are you going to explain why MoveOn is expressing "Centrist faux-woke outrage" about Rogan, or why Sanders supporters similar feelings concerning Cenk got Sanders to retract his embrace?

Seems to be a bit of a sticky wicket with your characterization of those who don't agree with you on Rogan.

Like I said, I don't think we should change our policy on trans women, or anything else, including violence against women, to try to pander to Joe Rogan's audience. I've been clear about this.

I've also been clear that I don't find Rogan's offensive language and humor acceptable. What more can I say?

I do think it's stupid to push away independent voters that aren't super-woke about everything, because their votes count too. A voter who finds Joe Rogan funny, but also wants universal healthcare and supports gay marriage, do we want their vote or not?

Will you answer that question? Because I've been answering the same questions from you over and over.

Except you defend Rogan as "liberal" and Spencer defends him as "mainstream" I'm pointing that out. It's fact.

You said that Rogan's comedy was like what you go to see in clubs and wouldn't repeat in polite company... but yes, you pay money to see it in clubs...and you equated critcism of him with calling for "CANCELLING ALL COMEDY AND COMEDY CLUBS!" You certainly didn't see any middle ground then.... and weak attempts to derail by pretending one is serious when called don't really shore up one's credibility.

Please.





That's called pandering, and 'proof' that a Democratic candidate is 'republican lite' and is not tolerated by supporters of Sanders, in any other candidate.



Another false dillema fallacy, and I think you are confusing me with someone else you are trying to convince - because I would have told you immediately that it was a false dillema. You think that a voter who wants universal health care and supports gay marriage will refuse to vote for a candidate who supports both, but isn't being blessed by Rogan, will refuse to vote for that candidate?

You refuse to answer my repeated questions over and over, because you can't square that MoveOn would express "Centrist faux-outrage" and why Bernie's supporters who pushed back on him supporting Cenk were also expressing "Centrist faux-outrage" at a misogynist/racist who had a show that was also primarily listened to by 18-35 year old white men.

That demographic seems to be the one that is so ignored, and so oppressed in terms of seeing their interests reflected, and we have to make sure that they are happy in order to win in 2020. I mean, Hillary's nomination was just so traumatic for them. Good thing Rogan understands them, and directs the hate at Hillary that makes them feel powerful, and you believe that Bernie's embrace of Rogan lets them know that the Rogan fan demographic (which apparently Richard Spencer believes are "mainstream&quot interests aren't going to be ignored pandering to those "identity politics" that "establishment" Democrats seem to be obsessed with.

Same old, same old.

I did say that I've seen comedy like Rogan's in comedy clubs, yes. If you've been to a comedy club recently, I suspect you have too. I also joked about canceling comedy clubs, and you're right, that was sarcasm, because I don't believe comedy clubs should be canceled just because I or anyone might find some of the jokes offensive. I don't see what's controversial about any of that.

Now to the crux of the matter, which is the question you didn't answer.

You say this is a "false dilemma", but it's not, because let me assure you, there are large numbers of voters in that category.
You're right, not all such voters will make their decision based on Joe Rogan, but some will will be swayed in our direction because if it, because he's got a huge audience, whether or you like it or not. So, no, it's not a false dilemma at all. It's not just Joe Rogan, it's the more general question of do we want to reach voters like that, or are we too disgusted by the kinds of jokes they laugh at to even try. I say we get them to vote for us and beat Donald Trump. I'm against purity tests.


There are no question marks here, so I don't know what the "questions" are, but I'll give it a shot. Why did MoveOn condemn this? I don't know, I think it was a mistake, but I'm sure there are all kinds of internal political pressures they are dealing with so I get it. Why did Bernie drop the Cenk endorsement? Because Cenk said some stupid things, and that was another political calculation. I probably agree there, but it's a whole different thing from Rogan. That was a case of Bernie endorsing someone else for political office, this is a case of receiving an endorsement. If Rogan runs for office, I don't think Bernie should endorse him, but that's not what happened.

And Sanders is embracing Rogan's endorsement, while he has distanced himself from Cenk, and Skrelli.

So there's that.

Got the stats on that? How "huge" and do you consider his audience demographic to be more important than other demographics? And by that metric, shouldn't Bernie or any other Dems be trying to appeal to Rush for the same reason? He also has a huge audience. What about O'Reilly?



BTW, I've worked in comedy clubs. As talent. 'Splain all you want.

I consider his audience to be equally important to other demographics because every vote is a vote. I don't know how big it is, apparently he's got like 7 million youtube subscribers, for what it's worth. It's pretty much not controversial to say he is influential and has a big audience.

Rush's audience, I mean, I can't imagine getting many or any votes there, they're all right-wingers like him. Like I said, Rush and Rogan are completely different.

That's a twofer, in one sentence.



But... you don't know what his audience size is, but you're basing your defense on Bernie trying to appeal to them, based on their size.

Batting 1000 there on substantiating your claims.



And even though you don't know the actual audience size of anyone you're discussing, you're going to say that size of audience is irrelevant with anyone else in the RW in terms of influence.

Got it.

OK. You're right, I haven't quantified exactly how big it is. Everything I've ever read about Rogan, critical or not, agrees that he has a big audience, but if you want to think his audience is small and insignificant, then you can think that.

But yes, I do think he has a big audience, and I also think it is good to have members of his big audience vote for Dems. Maybe you disagree on one part, or both. But that's how I see it.

Last edited Mon Jan 27, 2020, 09:17 AM - Edit history (2)

I simply pointed out that you never quantified the size of Rogan's audience, even though using it as evidence to back up your claims.

I never made any claims about about Rogan's audience size. You have. You should know by now I don't defend straw men that others set up and attack, and I call out attempts to derail rather than falling for them. Frustrating, isn't it?

Pro Tip: Accusing someone who disagrees with one of being just as fallacious in their claims as you are, however falsely, does not make one's unsubstantiated arguments less unsubstantiated.



You're welcome.

And even after all those backflips to try to derail, misrepresent what I said or otherwise get me on the defensive, it yet again failed. And you have still failed to define what "big audience" is, in terms of Rogan or anyone else, and you are still trying to use it as evidence to support your point...

If you need to deploy a logical fallacy, let alone numerous ones, to make your point, then maybe your point needs to be re-examined.

Just a thought.

That is almost verbatim what my uncle the Trump supporter says when I point out that HRC got 3 million more votes than Trump. Any mention of her actual victory with the people is quite upsetting to him.

It sounds like it also means you "don't much care" about Russian interference, and GOP voter suppression in actual elections where actual votes are counted. Like the suppression that gave Trump the sliver of a percent of a lead in three key states?

I guess that also means you "don't much care" about the primaries, and who wins that popular vote as well?

at least an attempt to throw a wrench or a logical fallacy in to the mix.

Karma?

incarnation....

just a couple of weeks ago? I admit.. I can't keep up with the "smaller" or "bigger" aspects of their "tent".

Bigger? Whiter? Smaller? Dumber? Got me.

that brought us the Blue Wave House Victory in 2018 and #IMPEACHED45.

surrogates being just feet away from the Oval Office? I'm trying to imagine how it will be different from what we're experiencing now.

but kick out more moderate Democrats - some of the party's stalwarts, by the way.

What could possibly go wrong?

That anti-abortion Democrats are not welcome in the “tent”.

So now anti-abortion, bigoted, misogynists are?

It’s a crazy world when solid Democratic voters are demonized while this can happen.

To a tee. Post Office namer now Godlike. I freak out how everything about pre-1980 Bernie is hidden. There are slews of articles with 40 years of this 40 years of that. Like his life began 40 years ago when he became mayor.

Bernie Sanders Has Been Getting It Right for 40 Years. - Common Dreams

Bernie Sanders: 40 Years in One Speech - NYT

Even When It Was Hard | 40 Years of Pride - Facebook

Bernie Sanders Has Stuck To The Same Message For 40 Years - NPR

How Bernie Sanders has been consistent for over 40 years = youtube

I never heard of him before this.

Link to tweet

I put a link to DU in my profile today. I interact w/ a lot of Ridin' w/ Biden people. Maybe we'll get some new supporters.

Lying racist, homophobic, misogynist.. Seth Rich CT.

But maybe BS had as much knowledge of who this guy was as I did.

Bernie is. But if what you say is true, Bernie knows now.... And..... ?

He's a shock jock type that makes offensive comments, kind of like Howard Stern. So people are now all pretending to be outraged.

Looks like BS lost some % with POC..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Mahalo for this, Scurrilous..

thought that it was a good idea to promote a Joe Rogan endorsement like they were proud of it. The Sanders Campaign keeps trying to use "big tent" analogies to justify it. I will tell you this much, Black Americans, Women, and LGBTQIA+ Americans are not impressed. Their allies are not impressed either.

Sanders needs all of these groups, yet his campaign is throwing them under the bus. At this point, I am just shaking my head.

Joe Rogan said he liked M4A. So kisses for him. Despite his loathsome views.

Bernie's litmus test is a dream he carries in his pocket. He has no plan to get it passed if elected. Or to pay for it.

Bernie in 2016 Daily News interview on how to pass his agenda:

A “political revolution” sweeps Republicans out of office and changes the contours of the debate."

He was told then that his response was not considered a real answer.

Bernie in 2019 Democratic debate on how to enact M4A:

"'We will have Medicare for All when tens of millions of people are prepared to stand up & tell the insurance companies & the drug companies that their day is gone, that health care is a human right, not something to make huge profits off of."

CNN noted that this didn't answer the question.

Amateurs all. It's laughable.

That's not a compliment.

Or perhaps steamy.

Meaning Heather Heyer would be alive today if it wasn't for him, and several other people injured during that terrorist attack wouldn't be permanently disabled like they currently are. That punch is the only justice Richard Spencer will ever know.

He got off easy. If the RNC 8 could be held responsible (and initially charged with terrorism) for a few windows being broken during the Republican National Convention in 2008, even though they were only organizers, then Richard Spencer can and should have been held responsible for the violence that happened in Charlottesville.

But the law is not equal when it comes to left wing and right wing activists. So I'll accept a little street justice instead.

I don't advocate violence at all but I can see why many people would agree this guy had it (and more) coming.

On edit HOLY SHIT

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Last edited Mon Jan 27, 2020, 12:16 AM - Edit history (2)

Because he's been getting away with it. Forever.

I was pouring through VOX articles on all his many proposed policies trying to find the one where he answered the question of how to pass massive defense budget cuts through Congress (GOP agrees LOL) and out of the multiple articles that was the only one where he was asked how he'd do it. How he'd pass it. And he gave a non answer. The only push back - "You think that’s how the budget process works?" Out of a dozen or so articles only one questioned him. The rest just typed up his bullshit.

He's been intimidating the press since he was mayor in Vermont. I read an article where they talked how he refused to answer any personal questions from the press. He would fly into a tirade if asked. His staff did the same. They would berate any reporter who would dare. "People are hungry and needy. How dare you ask such a silly question.' He basically told the press those questions were off limits. And kept that up for all his years in office.

That's why much of his past is a cipher. He graduated from college in 1964 and didn't get a real paying job until 1980.

How Encyclopedia Britannica covers those years:

"He attended Brooklyn College before earning a bachelor’s degree (1964) in political science from the University of Chicago. While in Chicago, he became involved in the civil rights movement, and in 1963 he participated in the March on Washington. After graduating, he lived on a kibbutz in Israel.

Upon returning to the United States, Sanders moved to Vermont, participating in the communal back-to-the-land movement and working as a union carpenter and freelance journalist. He also became active in the anti-Vietnam War movement, which drew him into electoral politics."

16 years. And that's what we get. And that's before he became mayor.

His resume:

https://splinternews.com/this-old-copy-of-bernie-sanders-resume-from-the-1980s-i-1793854662

5 jobs. In 16 years. The first two writer and carpenter made him no money. Politico:

"He worked some as a carpenter, although "he was a shitty carpenter," [Liberty Union Party member] Bloch told me. "His carpentry," [Liberty Union Party member] Morrisseau said, “was not going to support him, and didn't."

"The Vanguard paid as little as the rest. "It would’ve been not more than 50 bucks," said Greg Guma, a former editor. Vermont Life? "Our rate was 10 cents a word," said Brian Vachon, a former editor."

The next two - youth counselor and state employee described by Politico as temporary:

"He bounced around for a few years, working stints in New York as an aide at a psychiatric hospital and teaching preschoolers for Head Start [a federal low-income program], and in Vermont researching property taxation for the Vermont Department of Taxes and registering people for food stamps for a nonprofit called the Bread and Law Task Force."

The 5th independent film maker/self employed:

"He started a business out of 295 1/2 Maple, making low-budget films about people, places and events in Vermont and New England history that he felt were getting short shrift in the region’s schools.

He priced it at $200 or offered it for rent for $35. He drove all over, like he had running for Liberty Union, inviting himself into schools, meeting people and trying to persuade them to listen."

When he was on unemployment:

"[Sanders spokesperson Michael Briggs] said Sanders received unemployment, "for a few months," in 1971, though Sanders can't remember what the job was that qualified him for the benefits."

Few months. No definite number. No memory of what job payed into the system. You'd think a guy with only 5 jobs could remember each one. I can remember all my jobs. Where I worked. Where it was. 25 jobs. I remember all of them. Many were years ago when I was in high school and college. I had more jobs in high school than Bernie did before he became mayor.

He went 16 years living on two jobs that payed nothing, two jobs that were part time, one 'job' schlepping home movies, and then a few months of unemployment benefits?

How did he eat? Pay bills? Celebrate May Day?

"I don’t know what he did for money," [Liberty Union member] Troville said. "Everything was always campaigning. Everything was always organizing. Everything was always writing."

No one knows. Bernie can't remember. Don't ask questions. You see that in interviews and articles. Bernie doesn't do details or refuses to answer hard questions. Or gives non answers. He's done it forever. And he gets away with it. All we get now is the carefully constructed, nurtured, and catapulted 'rumpled grandfatherly Socialist from leafy Vermont who has been fighting for you for 40 years.'

And when Daily Mail tried to interview his first wife and the girlfriend whom he had a son with, the former would only state that she 'supported him' and the latter refused to talk at all.

This is some scary stuff. Sorry for the long reply.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/clarence-page/ct-column-ocasio-cortez-democrats-page-20200107-bbvieuuvzfaljnihwpr2weh52a-story.html

breath. l ol

you got it on screen shots.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287409217