The Democratic Primary is Upon Us! - Biden is the Presumptive Nominee

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Wonder what's going on there.

Someone on Twitter has the username ButtSexington, that's what.

 

[Avnger]

Ummm...

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/ButtSexington/status/1239606114225999872"]

Wonder what's going on there.

Based on the fact that neither the picture nor the tweet exist anymore, absolutely nothing seems to be what the evidence points towards.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Ummm...

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/ButtSexington/status/1239606114225999872"]

Wonder what's going on there.

Based on the fact that neither the picture nor the tweet exist anymore, absolutely nothing seems to be what the evidence points towards.

https://heavy.com/news/2020/03/biden-bernie-primary-results-aired-early-video/

 

[Kwak]

Ummm...

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/ButtSexington/status/1239606114225999872"]

Wonder what's going on there.

Based on the fact that neither the picture nor the tweet exist anymore, absolutely nothing seems to be what the evidence points towards.

https://heavy.com/news/2020/03/biden-bernie-primary-results-aired-early-video/

Oh well, as long as they change those numbers a little on the day they can continue to claim innocence.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The OAS should condemn US elections and stage an intervention.

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/aj_bloomberg/status/1239969074295091200"]
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/leabeapea/status/1239887822330515456"]

Total shit-show.

DNC is considering penalizing states that delay their primaries.

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/benigma2017/status/1239989100008148992"]

Of course, giving voters more time before making a decision is likely to hurt the candidate that lied profusely on national television [https://theintercept.com/2020/03/17/biden-fact-check-social-security-bankruptcy/]. The DNC has an agenda and they're willing to kill people to see it through.

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/SarcasmStardust/status/1239984676527312896"]

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

At least my governor was sane enough to postpone the election. Maybe while the democratic establishment and idiots that follow them are saying they would rather people die than let Joe Biden face a prolonged primary season in case that idiot Joe Biden says something stupid.

If anyone here gets sick voting, sue the DNC.

 

[Seanchaidh]

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/ebruenig/status/1240004731654856705"]

At least my governor was sane enough to postpone the election. Maybe while the democratic establishment and idiots that follow them are saying they would rather people die than let Joe Biden face a prolonged primary season in case that idiot Joe Biden says something stupid.

If anyone here gets sick voting, sue the DNC.

I agree.

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/saddamshaikh1/status/1240006524086497290"]

There is no end to "moderate" mendacity.

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/PissCastle/status/1240136268350193666"]

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

OP updated to reflect the Northern Marianas Islands Caucus and the current results from last night's primary elections.

Sanders won the Caucus with 84 [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2020-northern-mariana-islands-caucuses-results/story?id=69437342] votes to Biden's 48

Biden appears to have swept all three states that were voting yesterday.

 

[Marik2]

I guess the virus will impact voting and the elections. My guess is that Donald will win.

 

[Agema]

I guess the virus will impact voting and the elections. My guess is that Donald will win.

It's very hard to say. Trump was clearly looking at the economy to secure his re-election, and on face value that's his trump card blasted out of his hand. However, people are unlikely to blame the leadership for the economy being canned by a pandemic, so it might not cost him much.

On the plus, people often rally around the leadership in a crisis, as long as it's reasonably well handled. I think a lot of the "war" imagery that's beginning to emerge is an attempt to convince people towards this line of thinking. This is why the Democrats have to hammer at errors made, to show that the government handled it badly. How far the infection spreads and how much damage it will do will have a big impact on this perception.

 

[Seanchaidh]

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/JordanChariton/status/1240424316363329537"]

I guess the virus will impact voting and the elections. My guess is that Donald will win.

It's very hard to say. Trump was clearly looking at the economy to secure his re-election, and on face value that's his trump card blasted out of his hand.

That was never a terribly great argument; the stock market was fine, but the people here weren't even before the outbreak.

However, people are unlikely to blame the leadership for the economy being canned by a pandemic, so it might not cost him much.

On the plus, people often rally around the leadership in a crisis, as long as it's reasonably well handled. I think a lot of the "war" imagery that's beginning to emerge is an attempt to convince people towards this line of thinking. This is why the Democrats have to hammer at errors made, to show that the government handled it badly. How far the infection spreads and how much damage it will do will have a big impact on this perception.

It'll depend on what narratives emerge and stick about that handling, yeah. Democratic leadership in the Congress has so far been rather ham-handed, appearing to prioritize deficit hawkishness over the relief of human needs: Nancy Pelosi blocked at least one bill that would distribute money to those who need it because it was universal rather than means-tested.

Schumer is also here trying to make sure that some people fall through the cracks.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-schumer/democratic-leader-schumer-criticizes-trumps-call-for-1000-checks-idUSKBN2152P9?fbclid=IwAR1prI2rVoOD2ha77c2V9rVVRolpixh2mY9tSwfXB6OTcOcqCM0TygNEI4M

 

[Avnger]

It'll depend on what narratives emerge and stick about that handling, yeah. Democratic leadership in the Congress has so far been rather ham-handed, appearing to prioritize deficit hawkishness over the relief of human needs: Nancy Pelosi blocked at least one bill that would distribute money to those who need it because it was universal rather than means-tested.

Schumer is also here trying to make sure that some people fall through the cracks.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-schumer/democratic-leader-schumer-criticizes-trumps-call-for-1000-checks-idUSKBN2152P9?fbclid=IwAR1prI2rVoOD2ha77c2V9rVVRolpixh2mY9tSwfXB6OTcOcqCM0TygNEI4M

Huh... never figured you for one fighting to ensure billionaires get more handouts. Personally, I'd rather see that money go to those struggling than trying to ensure the rich receive personal checks in the mail, but you do you.

(I see why you do it now. It's much easier to shit on people while feeling superior this way.)

 

[Agema]

NEWS JUST IN OF WITHDRAWAL FROM DEMOCRATIC RACE!!!

But it's only Tulsi Gabbard

That was never a terribly great argument; the stock market was fine, but the people here weren't even before the outbreak.

And yet plenty of potential swing voters could be found saying they'd vote for Trump because the economy was doing well. It only needs to be 2% of the population, and that's the election wrapped up. Hell, it only needs to be 2% in a handful of states.

Huh... never figured you for one fighting to ensure billionaires get more handouts. Personally, I'd rather see that money go to those struggling than trying to ensure the rich receive personal checks in the mail, but you do you.

If the US government hands every adult in the country $1000, the amount that goes to billionaires or even millionaires ends up being trivial and ultimately of little benefit to them. If doing so gets money to poor people who need it faster and more efficiently, one might argue it's a small price to pay.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Huh... never figured you for one fighting to ensure billionaires get more handouts. Personally, I'd rather see that money go to those struggling than trying to ensure the rich receive personal checks in the mail, but you do you.

If the US government hands every adult in the country $1000, the amount that goes to billionaires or even millionaires ends up being trivial and ultimately of little benefit to them. If doing so gets money to poor people who need it faster and more efficiently, one might argue it's a small price to pay.

It really is, especially in the face of what Pelosi and friends want, which is to make sure the unemployed don't get any money. I think they wanted to put out a payroll tax abatement, which of course wouldn't help anyone laid off or not getting work because of this.

 

[Seanchaidh]

It'll depend on what narratives emerge and stick about that handling, yeah. Democratic leadership in the Congress has so far been rather ham-handed, appearing to prioritize deficit hawkishness over the relief of human needs: Nancy Pelosi blocked at least one bill that would distribute money to those who need it because it was universal rather than means-tested.

Schumer is also here trying to make sure that some people fall through the cracks.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-schumer/democratic-leader-schumer-criticizes-trumps-call-for-1000-checks-idUSKBN2152P9?fbclid=IwAR1prI2rVoOD2ha77c2V9rVVRolpixh2mY9tSwfXB6OTcOcqCM0TygNEI4M

Huh... never figured you for one fighting to ensure billionaires get more handouts. Personally, I'd rather see that money go to those struggling than trying to ensure the rich receive personal checks in the mail, but you do you.

(I see why you do it now. It's much easier to shit on people while feeling superior this way.)

Really? What do you think the point of medicare 4 all is? Universality.

You think means-tested bullshit is good when you could just have universal programs with progressive taxation? Why spend the administrative effort on denying people benefits? It's asinine. And it often leads to people who could really use the help not getting it. There's absolutely no need and no useful rationale, budgetary or economic, to deny people an income replacer/supplement right now.

That was never a terribly great argument; the stock market was fine, but the people here weren't even before the outbreak.

And yet plenty of potential swing voters could be found saying they'd vote for Trump because the economy was doing well. It only needs to be 2% of the population, and that's the election wrapped up. Hell, it only needs to be 2% in a handful of states.

Sure, though the importance of that analysis is easy to overstate. That matters a lot more if Biden (or any other bland centrist) is the nominee, since Biden isn't going to be exciting anyone who wasn't already excited by Hillary Clinton for whatever odious reason. That 2% of the population doesn't matter if twice that number of people who didn't vote in 2016 have the opposite opinion.

 

[Avnger]

Huh... never figured you for one fighting to ensure billionaires get more handouts. Personally, I'd rather see that money go to those struggling than trying to ensure the rich receive personal checks in the mail, but you do you.

If the US government hands every adult in the country $1000, the amount that goes to billionaires or even millionaires ends up being trivial and ultimately of little benefit to them. If doing so gets money to poor people who need it faster and more efficiently, one might argue it's a small price to pay.

This is entirely true. I just saw the perfect chance to make a point about the rhetorical nonsense some users in this thread have been heavy on and took it. Honestly, a short-term "public bailout" or what have you like that followed by boosting/creating support programs for lower-income families/households/individuals (which would include some sort of means-testing) would likely be the best combination to help those out.

As an example, I personally haven't been too affected by this situation; I've transitioned to working from home, but I won't see a loss in income nor will my expenses rise too much. There's plenty of people like me who don't need much in the way of support right now while there are others who do. A financial boost of $1000 or whatever to everyone will do good, but focusing the resources being spent on those most hurting or in the most danger is also important.

 

[Avnger]

Huh... never figured you for one fighting to ensure billionaires get more handouts. Personally, I'd rather see that money go to those struggling than trying to ensure the rich receive personal checks in the mail, but you do you.

If the US government hands every adult in the country $1000, the amount that goes to billionaires or even millionaires ends up being trivial and ultimately of little benefit to them. If doing so gets money to poor people who need it faster and more efficiently, one might argue it's a small price to pay.

This is entirely true. I just saw the perfect chance to make a point about the rhetorical nonsense some users in this thread have been heavy on and took it.

You jumped at the chance to repeat an asinine talking point that any leftist has already heard before and knows why it's stupid to defend shitlibs Schumer and Pelosi.

Yikes.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Huh... never figured you for one fighting to ensure billionaires get more handouts. Personally, I'd rather see that money go to those struggling than trying to ensure the rich receive personal checks in the mail, but you do you.

If the US government hands every adult in the country $1000, the amount that goes to billionaires or even millionaires ends up being trivial and ultimately of little benefit to them. If doing so gets money to poor people who need it faster and more efficiently, one might argue it's a small price to pay.

This is entirely true. I just saw the perfect chance to make a point about the rhetorical nonsense some users in this thread have been heavy on and took it.

You jumped at the chance to repeat an asinine talking point that any leftist has already heard before and knows why it's stupid to defend shitlibs Schumer and Pelosi.

Yikes.

Well your attempt to 'own the leftys' was repeating the conservative austerity talking point being bandied about by the Democrat leadership in the defense of delaying help in a time critical action for purely political reasons.

 

[Seanchaidh]

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/jackallisonLOL/status/1240989600215994368"]

Where is Joe Biden?

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/BadJohnBrown/status/1241070240139624453"]

Joe Biden's campaign is a media-created illusion. An empty falsehood. A steaming pile of malarkey.

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/PrettyBadLefty/status/1241096767514517506"]

Huh... never figured you for one fighting to ensure billionaires get more handouts. Personally, I'd rather see that money go to those struggling than trying to ensure the rich receive personal checks in the mail, but you do you.

If the US government hands every adult in the country $1000, the amount that goes to billionaires or even millionaires ends up being trivial and ultimately of little benefit to them. If doing so gets money to poor people who need it faster and more efficiently, one might argue it's a small price to pay.

This is entirely true. I just saw the perfect chance to make a point about the rhetorical nonsense some users in this thread have been heavy on and took it.

You jumped at the chance to repeat an asinine talking point that any leftist has already heard before and knows why it's stupid to defend shitlibs Schumer and Pelosi.

Yikes.

I'm not inclined to mince words regarding the Pete Peterson austerity death cult.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Here's a useful pie chart that shows how ridiculous the unceasing questions about whether Bernie Sanders will drop out are:

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1241093349290975239"]

And here's a video of Joe Biden being entirely inadequate to take on Donald Trump in the general election:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADDrSvNyqEY

And this is what Bernie's doing:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBstcJ2GjGQ

... just for a bit of contrast.