What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Democrats need to wake the hell up (1 Viewer)

Sam Quentin said:
Joe closed the other thread, but I just want to rant that the COVID response for the last six months has been non-existent to horrible.

With all of the therapeutics, testing, 60% of the people vaxxed, natural immunity covering more, many of the most vulnerable, sadly gone, how in world is it as bad as it ever was?

I feel like the only arrow in their quiver was the vaccine, and now they are floundering badly.  Completely clueless and worthless government response.  
Do more!  

We hate mandates!

 
How many times do you suppose the police stop a murder in progress or before it happens?
Sometimes.  Not often would be my guess although it definitely does happen.  But having less of a presence will exacerbate this and having more of a presense will stem it.  That seems fairly clear.  The vast majority of the shootings that are happening in Philly are gang and drug deal related.  Obviously, cracking down on the drug trade would be a net benefit-arrest drug dealers, it means less trigger men.  Again this doesn't seem that difficult.

The other part of this is prosecution, obviously.  Refer to my post from yesterday.  Of the 2,213 shootings only 352 have associated court cases.  This is due in part because of the overwhelming case load that detectives have.  The bigger issue is the DA essentially is not interested in prosecuting cases.  We aren't talking San Fransisco level abdication of duty but its not far behind.  

This is the Kensington area of Philadelphia.  I drive through here to get to job sites from time to time.  You watch this video and after you pick your jaw up off the ground, you explain to me how less police makes sense.  

 
The councilwoman for that area is Maria Quinones Sanchez.  I know her-she torpedoed a low income housing development I was involved with because she didn't want construction in front of her house.  She's been elected and re-elected to her office four times because Democrats.  

 
Sometimes.  Not often would be my guess although it definitely does happen.  But having less of a presence will exacerbate this and having more of a presense will stem it.  That seems fairly clear.  The vast majority of the shootings that are happening in Philly are gang and drug deal related.  Obviously, cracking down on the drug trade would be a net benefit-arrest drug dealers, it means less trigger men.  Again this doesn't seem that difficult.

The other part of this is prosecution, obviously.  Refer to my post from yesterday.  Of the 2,213 shootings only 352 have associated court cases.  This is due in part because of the overwhelming case load that detectives have.  The bigger issue is the DA essentially is not interested in prosecuting cases.  We aren't talking San Fransisco level abdication of duty but its not far behind.  

This is the Kensington area of Philadelphia.  I drive through here to get to job sites from time to time.  You watch this video and after you pick your jaw up off the ground, you explain to me how less police makes sense.  
I see more social work than police needed in that video.  That's bad, but sure there's semblances in all states.

 
Firmly disagree. I don’t think Biden is the problem. 
If Biden had his way infrastructure would have been done in August and it would have been more bipartisan, which would have made BBB easier to do and probably done by now. But the leftists screwed up the works (like they usually do IMO.) 
The left? No your centrist model Manchin did that. The bipartisan infrastructure only got voted on because it's a corporate giveaway. And the left rightly said if you vote that through the Manchin wing will kill the BBB so let's tie them together. Well they blew that and now where's the BBB? Oh yeah Manchin has completely reneged on any support for it just as predicted. "Centrists" another way of saying completely corrupted screwed this up.

 
The left? No your centrist model Manchin did that. The bipartisan infrastructure only got voted on because it's a corporate giveaway. And the left rightly said if you vote that through the Manchin wing will kill the BBB so let's tie them together. Well they blew that and now where's the BBB? Oh yeah Manchin has completely reneged on any support for it just as predicted. "Centrists" another way of saying completely corrupted screwed this up.
What I wrote is that Biden wanted the infrastructure deal to be voted on in the first place without BBB and the progressives forced the two deals together, causing a several month delay. Nothing was gained by doing so and a lot of good messaging was lost. So I think it’s reasonable to blame progressives. 

Large parts of the infrastructure deal may be, as you put it, a corporate giveaway. But so what? Good things are going to happen as a result. We need to repair and replace significant parts of our infrastructure. Now much of that is going to happen. This is a great result. 

 
Harris did an interview on tha god’s honest truth.  She attempted to defend Biden and the Dems agenda.  She was horrible and made herself and the Dems look foolish.  Joe needs to keep her out of the public eyes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Harris did an interview on tha god’s honest truth.  She attempted to defend Biden and the Dems agenda.  She was horrible and made herself and the Dems look foolish.  Joe needs to keep here out of the public eyes.
I didn’t see the interview. But I doubt it was designed to sway conservatives and those who already strongly oppose Biden. 

 
I didn’t see the interview. But I doubt it was designed to sway conservatives and those who already strongly oppose Biden. 
She lost her cool, unprofessional no matter if conservatives asked the questions.  Not what anyone would except from a potential future presidential candidate.
Why even let her go on the show in the first place,  Joe needs to review her commitments.

 
Harris did an interview on tha god’s honest truth.  She attempted to defend Biden and the Dems agenda.  She was horrible and made herself and the Dems look foolish.  Joe needs to keep her out of the public eyes.
Was that before or after he said.

"That Kamala Harris? That’s the one I like,” he said. “That’s the one I’d like to see out here more often in these streets.”

 
I didn’t see the interview. But I doubt it was designed to sway conservatives and those who already strongly oppose Biden. 
it's a comedy central show.  he thought it would be funny to ask her who the real president is.  she didn't think it was funny.

reaching so hard here

 
She lost her cool, unprofessional no matter if conservatives asked the questions.  Not what anyone would except from a potential future presidential candidate.
Why even let her go on the show in the first place,  Joe needs to review her commitments.
"You can hear me",  "They are pretending they cant hear me yo."  :lol:

Link to the video.

Angry Momala is at the end.  

 
I think a huge chunk of the "crime" issue is really just messaging.  Some of it is substantive, like the decision by some mayors to essentially decriminalize shoplifting, but those are dumb decisions made by relative scrubs at the local level.  Nobody running for congress is pushing this sort of thing. 

Where Democrats can help themselves is by cleaning up the way they talk about crime.  An obvious first step is to STHU about "defund the police."  That phrase should be shot down the memory hole, but not before being Sister Soulja'd by some of the more politically astute Ds.  They also need to break their habit of apologizing for riots and looting -- this is going to be a heavier lift because they've been doing this decades.  

But it's not as if AOC is sponsoring the Burn Down Your Local Target Act of 2021 or anything.  They're okay on policy.  
That may be true, but there sure are a lot of notable people already in Congress, the Senate, WH who sure are.  

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/who-wants-to-defund-the-police/

This is a who's who list of prominent Dems who openly support the idea of policy to refund the police.  So even if what you said is true, we don't have to look at what someone might do if they get elected.  They are already there. And we have already seen some of the results simp,y as a result of influence, absentia of firm policy.  That should alarm people. 

 
There is no doubt in my mind that crime will be a factor in getting Republicans elected. The question is, what will Republicans do about crime if they win? Let’s get tough, more law and order? Do you think that will make things better? 
Yes.  That is traditionally how "do the crime, do the time" has historically operated and been unsurprisingly exceedingly effective in this country.  

Having deterants that outline acceptable societal behavior and then enforcing consequences, when necessary has proven to be an incredible teacher of mankind down the years.  

 
Yes.  That is traditionally how "do the crime, do the time" has historically operated and been unsurprisingly exceedingly effective in this country.  

Having deterants that outline acceptable societal behavior and then enforcing consequences, when necessary has proven to be an incredible teacher of mankind down the years.  
It’s also led to severe and, IMO, justifiable complaints about inequities within the criminal justice system, much of it racial. (And, to be fair, much of it instituted by Democrats as well as Republicans.) 

Myself, I want my the best of both worlds. I want to support police- I certainly don’t want to defund them- and I want them to prevent crime. But I don’t want them to do it in such a way that targets African-American youths and other minorities and I don’t want sentencing for crimes to be unfair or tied more to a private jail for profit system than to actual justice. It frustrates me that I can’t get both things to happen, that politics constantly force me (and everyone else$ to choose between anarchy on one side and supporting the police without any criticism on the other. 

 
It’s also led to severe and, IMO, justifiable complaints about inequities within the criminal justice system, much of it racial. (And, to be fair, much of it instituted by Democrats as well as Republicans.) 

Myself, I want my the best of both worlds. I want to support police- I certainly don’t want to defund them- and I want them to prevent crime. But I don’t want them to do it in such a way that targets African-American youths and other minorities and I don’t want sentencing for crimes to be unfair or tied more to a private jail for profit system than to actual justice. It frustrates me that I can’t get both things to happen, that politics constantly force me (and everyone else$ to choose between anarchy on one side and supporting the police without any criticism on the other. 
Perhaps, in the simplest form (and without us contributing too many words to it), we could just say then that this attempted solution to the perceived problem was wrong.  Why? Because the assessment of the problem was wrong.  It is not about a need to do less to make the perceived inequities diminish. It is about finding a solution to the perceived issues. 

Instead of seeing a car with a flat tire and deciding to take the air out of the three other tires, they should be looking at how to change a flat tire. 

 
As I wrote earlier, I believe that Biden and the Democrats are doing a terrible job messaging about Covid: But I disagree that they’re actually doing a poor job overall. 
There are two main reasons we have a Covid problem: new, more powerful strains keep appearing, and 40% of the population refuse to be vaccinated. I don’t know what Biden is supposed to actually do about these two things. But he certainly needs to talk about it better. 
I'm not sure that is the issue because, generally speaking, viruses will evolve to become far more transmittable but far less deadly. After all, no mater what the life form, in nature, life always looks for a way to survive and replicate and a virus that is too deadly has kills its host will kill itself. So, normally, perhaps more powerful in spreading but less powerful in impact and that is the key in relation to humans.  As humans, we shouldn't give two minutes of concern if ever human on the planet was suddenly at risk to catch a virus that turned our pinky toenail purple but didn't harm us.  We should only be caring if it got us all or a good number of us and seriously harmed or killed us. 

And you can't cite blame over 40% of the population choosing to live their life as they best see fit, absent something that is concretely, clearly a threat to the continuation of human life, etc. If it were announced next week that killing all cats on earth would cure all possibility of the death by allergies that some people have on Earth, we wouldn't push a crusade on this because as unfortunate as it is that some people do indeed die of severe allergies, we wouldn't infringe on 40% or so of people who would choose NOT to kill all cats on Earth. 

As off-the-wall as that example is, it's relevant. If ever person on Earth got a flu shot tomorrow, it would be in line if 100% of the world got a covid vaccine because the truth that people keep ignoring is this "vaccine" is not a vaccine in the traditional sense of preventative vaccine. It is more of an immunity booster.  Huge difference and just as when it was said a year ago that when we got to 60-70%, everything would go back to normal, we now know (as many suspected), that it was never going to be the case.  

All that being said, this isn't something I want to go discuss ad nadeem in this thread because it has been discussed quite a bit already elsewhere. I just wanted to list two fundamental stumbling blocks in that sentence. 

 
Sometimes.  Not often would be my guess although it definitely does happen.  But having less of a presence will exacerbate this and having more of a presense will stem it.  That seems fairly clear.  The vast majority of the shootings that are happening in Philly are gang and drug deal related.  Obviously, cracking down on the drug trade would be a net benefit-arrest drug dealers, it means less trigger men.  Again this doesn't seem that difficult.

The other part of this is prosecution, obviously.  Refer to my post from yesterday.  Of the 2,213 shootings only 352 have associated court cases.  This is due in part because of the overwhelming case load that detectives have.  The bigger issue is the DA essentially is not interested in prosecuting cases.  We aren't talking San Fransisco level abdication of duty but its not far behind.  

This is the Kensington area of Philadelphia.  I drive through here to get to job sites from time to time.  You watch this video and after you pick your jaw up off the ground, you explain to me how less police makes sense.  
Kensington is a bit North of the city ? When we came in town for the game earlier this season and took the kids to do the tourist routine at the Liberty Bell etc it was quite an experience but I didn’t realize how widespread it is. It’s quite the experience as a father explaining to your kids why they are trying not to step in human feces. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kensington is a bit North of the city ? When we came in town for the game earlier this season and took the kids to do the tourist routine at the Liberty Bell etc it was quite an experience but I didn’t realize how widespread it is. It’s quite the experience as a father explaining to your kids why they are trying not to step in human feces. 
Kensington is to the north east of center city, but Philadelphia extends past Kenzo by another 12 miles or so.  The Great Northeast.  I used to take the train into Suburban Station 8-9 years ago every day.  Its a lovely spot that drops you in the heart of the city.  Hadn't been in quite awhile.  Took my daughters to the Franklin Institute on a Saturday morning and thought it would be fun to train it in.  Every bench, seat, corner in the building had homeless sleeping, openly doing drugs, one guy actually was pissing in the corner.  Awesome experience for the family.  We uber'd home.

 
Kensington is to the north east of center city, but Philadelphia extends past Kenzo by another 12 miles or so.  The Great Northeast.  I used to take the train into Suburban Station 8-9 years ago every day.  Its a lovely spot that drops you in the heart of the city.  Hadn't been in quite awhile.  Took my daughters to the Franklin Institute on a Saturday morning and thought it would be fun to train it in.  Every bench, seat, corner in the building had homeless sleeping, openly doing drugs, one guy actually was pissing in the corner.  Awesome experience for the family.  We uber'd home.
Man, just sad to hear. Love my Eagles but could never live there.  

 
Sometimes.  Not often would be my guess although it definitely does happen.  But having less of a presence will exacerbate this and having more of a presense will stem it.  That seems fairly clear.  The vast majority of the shootings that are happening in Philly are gang and drug deal related.  Obviously, cracking down on the drug trade would be a net benefit-arrest drug dealers, it means less trigger men.  Again this doesn't seem that difficult.

The other part of this is prosecution, obviously.  Refer to my post from yesterday.  Of the 2,213 shootings only 352 have associated court cases.  This is due in part because of the overwhelming case load that detectives have.  The bigger issue is the DA essentially is not interested in prosecuting cases.  We aren't talking San Fransisco level abdication of duty but its not far behind.  

This is the Kensington area of Philadelphia.  I drive through here to get to job sites from time to time.  You watch this video and after you pick your jaw up off the ground, you explain to me how less police makes sense.  
It’s like zombie apocalypse.  We had 100k people die from drugs already this year which is a record primarily from fentanyl coming from our open Mexico borders,,  but who cares because we have cheap labor per Tim.. 

 
The left? No your centrist model Manchin did that. The bipartisan infrastructure only got voted on because it's a corporate giveaway. And the left rightly said if you vote that through the Manchin wing will kill the BBB so let's tie them together. Well they blew that and now where's the BBB? Oh yeah Manchin has completely reneged on any support for it just as predicted. "Centrists" another way of saying completely corrupted screwed this up.
I don't remember what I wrote in January, but anyone who expected Machin to behave differently (no matter what team one is on) only has themselves to blame. 

 
4. Make DC a state already.  The next 12 months may be the only chance for another decade.

5. Get serious about the courts.  Start suing states that are replacing executive control of elections with legislative control.

6. Move faster on the Jan 6 investigation.  Don't let Republicans run out the clock.  Make EVERYTHING public.
Need the laughing emoji back

 
It’s like zombie apocalypse.  We had 100k people die from drugs already this year which is a record primarily from fentanyl coming from our open Mexico borders,,  but who cares because we have cheap labor per Tim.. 
how do illegal drugs enter the U.S.? And what, if anything, can be done to stop it? To help us answer this question, we've called Gil Kerlikowske. He knows both the border and the problem of illegal drug trafficking well because he was director of U.S. Customs and Border Protection from 2014 to 2017. And before that, from 2009 to 2014, he ran the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy - so a highly relevant experience. And he's with us now.

Mr. Kerlikowske, welcome back to the program. Thanks for joining us.

GIL KERLIKOWSKE: And thank you.

MARTIN: So, first of all, just walk me through it. How do most illegal drugs enter the U.S.?

KERLIKOWSKE: So the drugs that are actually taking the lives of people here in the United States - methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, fentanyl - almost universally come through the ports of entry along the southern border - so that is people that carry them on their bodies or even in their bodies or cars or vehicles. And then the second way is through the international postal mail service.

MARTIN: And when you say most, what do you mean? Like, 50 percent, 60 percent, 90 percent?

KERLIKOWSKE: Oh, well over 90 percent. People don't backpack or try to sneak those drugs across the border between the ports of entry because, one, they could be caught by the Border Patrol. Number two, they don't really trust those people to do that. So it's much better for them to have somebody that is taking the drugs through a port of entry where they're met on the other side of the port here in the United States, and those drugs are immediately taken.

MARTIN: So you're saying, basically, virtually all of it comes through legal ports of entry.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/06/710712195/how-do-illegal-drugs-cross-the-u-s-mexico-border

 
how do illegal drugs enter the U.S.? And what, if anything, can be done to stop it? To help us answer this question, we've called Gil Kerlikowske. He knows both the border and the problem of illegal drug trafficking well because he was director of U.S. Customs and Border Protection from 2014 to 2017. And before that, from 2009 to 2014, he ran the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy - so a highly relevant experience. And he's with us now.

Mr. Kerlikowske, welcome back to the program. Thanks for joining us.

GIL KERLIKOWSKE: And thank you.

MARTIN: So, first of all, just walk me through it. How do most illegal drugs enter the U.S.?

KERLIKOWSKE: So the drugs that are actually taking the lives of people here in the United States - methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, fentanyl - almost universally come through the ports of entry along the southern border - so that is people that carry them on their bodies or even in their bodies or cars or vehicles. And then the second way is through the international postal mail service.

MARTIN: And when you say most, what do you mean? Like, 50 percent, 60 percent, 90 percent?

KERLIKOWSKE: Oh, well over 90 percent. People don't backpack or try to sneak those drugs across the border between the ports of entry because, one, they could be caught by the Border Patrol. Number two, they don't really trust those people to do that. So it's much better for them to have somebody that is taking the drugs through a port of entry where they're met on the other side of the port here in the United States, and those drugs are immediately taken.

MARTIN: So you're saying, basically, virtually all of it comes through legal ports of entry.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/06/710712195/how-do-illegal-drugs-cross-the-u-s-mexico-border
From what i understand the majority of fentanyl comes from Mexico.  Your information is 4 years old.  No?

 
how do illegal drugs enter the U.S.? And what, if anything, can be done to stop it? To help us answer this question, we've called Gil Kerlikowske. He knows both the border and the problem of illegal drug trafficking well because he was director of U.S. Customs and Border Protection from 2014 to 2017. And before that, from 2009 to 2014, he ran the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy - so a highly relevant experience. And he's with us now.

Mr. Kerlikowske, welcome back to the program. Thanks for joining us.

GIL KERLIKOWSKE: And thank you.

MARTIN: So, first of all, just walk me through it. How do most illegal drugs enter the U.S.?

KERLIKOWSKE: So the drugs that are actually taking the lives of people here in the United States - methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, fentanyl - almost universally come through the ports of entry along the southern border - so that is people that carry them on their bodies or even in their bodies or cars or vehicles. And then the second way is through the international postal mail service.

MARTIN: And when you say most, what do you mean? Like, 50 percent, 60 percent, 90 percent?

KERLIKOWSKE: Oh, well over 90 percent. People don't backpack or try to sneak those drugs across the border between the ports of entry because, one, they could be caught by the Border Patrol. Number two, they don't really trust those people to do that. So it's much better for them to have somebody that is taking the drugs through a port of entry where they're met on the other side of the port here in the United States, and those drugs are immediately taken.

MARTIN: So you're saying, basically, virtually all of it comes through legal ports of entry.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/06/710712195/how-do-illegal-drugs-cross-the-u-s-mexico-border
https://www.dea.gov/resources/facts-about-fentanyl Dea disagrees 

 
It’s like zombie apocalypse.  We had 100k people die from drugs already this year which is a record primarily from fentanyl coming from our open Mexico borders,,  but who cares because we have cheap labor per Tim.. 
Whether or not drugs come over the border, it’s irrational to blame migrants, the vast majority of which come here seeking honest work and a better life. 

 
Whether or not drugs come over the border, it’s irrational to blame migrants, the vast majority of which come here seeking honest work and a better life. 


Why would they want to come to a country where white supremist rule and institutional racism against people of color make it nearly impossible for them to get ahead?  

 
It’s like zombie apocalypse.  We had 100k people die from drugs already this year which is a record primarily from fentanyl coming from our open Mexico borders,,  but who cares because we have cheap labor per Tim.. 
Fentanyl is now the number one cause of death for adults 18-45.

link

 
jon_mx said:
Why would they want to come to a country where white supremist rule and institutional racism against people of color make it nearly impossible for them to get ahead?  
Because it isn’t nearly impossible- not even close. It’s just more difficult. That’s the flaw in your sarcasm. 
I believe that the United States is the greatest country that has ever existed, and that we provide more opportunities for success and prosperity than anywhere else on Earth, and that includes for minorities of all races. I also believe that we have institutional racism and white privilege that we need to clean up and make better. These two beliefs are not incompatible despite your insistence that they are. 

 
jon_mx said:
Why would they want to come to a country where white supremist rule and institutional racism against people of color make it nearly impossible for them to get ahead?  
That only proves how bad it is in their home country that they would choose that over what they had.  

 
timschochet said:
What I wrote is that Biden wanted the infrastructure deal to be voted on in the first place without BBB and the progressives forced the two deals together, causing a several month delay. Nothing was gained by doing so and a lot of good messaging was lost. So I think it’s reasonable to blame progressives. 

Large parts of the infrastructure deal may be, as you put it, a corporate giveaway. But so what? Good things are going to happen as a result. We need to repair and replace significant parts of our infrastructure. Now much of that is going to happen. This is a great result. 


The progressives need to be voted out next cycle and replaced with moderate Dems.

 
The issue that is being danced around here is the inability of the Democrats to govern.  They have their own level of incompetence rivalling Trump when it comes to getting basic things done.  If they could deliver basic governance they might dominate things for decades to come, but they can't get outof the way. 

 
The issue that is being danced around here is the inability of the Democrats to govern.  They have their own level of incompetence rivalling Trump when it comes to getting basic things done.  If they could deliver basic governance they might dominate things for decades to come, but they can't get outof the way. 
This is hard to argue this morning as it appears that Build Back Better is dead. Manchin has just killed it: 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/19/politics/joe-manchin-build-back-better/index.html

Rather than try to work with Manchin further, the Democrats are ripping him to shreds. That’s sure to work. 

 
Well, the Democrats are headed for an electoral wipeout in 2022, and they only have themselves to blame for it. There are only two possibilities I can see that could reverse this: 

1. if Roe vs Wade gets overturned. 
2. There’s not a lot of confidence out there that Republicans will do any better. 

 
Bernie Sanders is on CNN slamming Joe Manchin: “He’s going to have to explain this to the people of West Virginia”. 
Or else what Bernie? You going to primary him? I get that liberals are frustrated but this is crazy talk. 

 
Well, the Democrats are headed for an electoral wipeout in 2022, and they only have themselves to blame for it. There are only two possibilities I can see that could reverse this: 

1. if Roe vs Wade gets overturned. 
2. There’s not a lot of confidence out there that Republicans will do any better. 
Agree.  American government will effectively be shut down until January 2025.  All that remains to be seen is how big a mockery the GOP makes of the legislative process in service to their dear leader. 

 
Bernie Sanders is on CNN slamming Joe Manchin: “He’s going to have to explain this to the people of West Virginia”. 
Or else what Bernie? You going to primary him? I get that liberals are frustrated but this is crazy talk. 
I wonder if it ever occurs to Bernie that the people of West Virginia might agree with Manchin more than his stupid ###?  Oh wait no it wouldn't.  Dumb question.

 
I wonder if it ever occurs to Bernie that the people of West Virginia might agree with Manchin more than his stupid ###?  Oh wait no it wouldn't.  Dumb question.
Bernie said that Big Pharma is contributing millions of dollars to Manchin to oppose BBB because it would force a reduction in drug prices. I have no idea if this is true but it wouldn’t surprise me at all. But so what? That’s our political system. If you don’t like it, elect more progressives. 

 
Bernie said that Big Pharma is contributing millions of dollars to Manchin to oppose BBB because it would force a reduction in drug prices. I have no idea if this is true but it wouldn’t surprise me at all. But so what? That’s our political system. If you don’t like it, elect more progressives. 
Bernie is an absolutist and at his core doesn't respect the VAST majority of U.S. citizens to vote, lead their life etc.  You are a cow to be lead not a person to be convinced. 

 
Bernie is an absolutist and at his core doesn't respect the VAST majority of U.S. citizens to vote, lead their life etc.  You are a cow to be lead not a person to be convinced. 
Well…I think you’re off on this. I don’t agree with Bernie a lot of the time (and I certainly don’t agree with his messaging here) but I don’t think he has the contempt for voters that you think he has. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top