Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So you're speculating there's an entity using micro targeting like how Facebook did to drive outrage, only driving homosexuality with the express intent of targeting conservative families? Or that division efforts are and always have been ongoing online, and this is just the new button being pressed to get that outcome?

I’m saying there are groups inside and outside this country that gain from our societal discord, that have no problem engineering societal discord where and when they can, and if they had the means to use gender dysphoria as a means to engineer societal discord, well… their morality and conscience certainly wouldn’t prevent them from doing it.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, Goredho said:

I’m saying there are groups inside and outside this country that gain from our societal discord, that have no problem engineering societal discord where and when they can, and if they had the means to use gender dysphoria as a means to engineer societal discord, well… their morality and conscience certainly wouldn’t prevent them from doing it.

I don't think it's online ads, I think it's the products that are being marketed at the general public. Hell, when I was in NYC for work I saw one of the most dystopic ads I've ever seen:

20250816_204546.thumb.jpg.4a156c643b47913669b472f9d0c09944.jpg

Every camera app has a filter to make you beautiful, or skinny, or a different color, or a different sex, or an animal. I feel like literally seeing yourself and your peers as other things besides their own selves is a bigger contributor to body dysmorphia than some outside malignant targeted effort

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Everybody loves big titty white women

Speak for yourself.  They skew way too far on the fat end of the spectrum for my liking.  Of course their are exceptions but we're speaking in generalities here.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Speak for yourself.  They skew way too far on the fat end of the spectrum for my liking.  Of course there are exceptions but we're speaking in generalities here.

Skinny women can do this for you:

Episode 4 Snl GIF by Saturday Night Live

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Skinny women can do this for you:

Episode 4 Snl GIF by Saturday Night Live

Neither me nor my wife tolerate excess poundage very well, but a certain amount must be allowed as part of the fun and uncrazy quotient. Flat stomachs and perfectly sculpted thighs are the tune of the sirens, be very wary. 

Posted
On 8/19/2025 at 11:02 AM, Pancho said:

This shit is cracking me up

 

 

 

image.png

Goddam if they put Trump in one of these laying on hands they would break the internet 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I understand your point (and I think you get mine) but: if people have preferred pronouns I want to know and will use them. I also don’t want to misgender people, or deadname them, or for that matter even mispronounce people’s names. Or call people by a married name if they either didn’t take it or got rid of it. It’s important that we don’t disrespect people by assigning them an identity they don’t accept. 

It’s not the same as gender, clearly, but the problem with “LatinX” is that it disrespected many Hispanics who didn’t and don’t see themselves as LatinX. At best, it presented progressives and Democrats as hopelessly out of touch, but for some it is offensive. 

I missed this but think I made my point - both are performative - not the desire to be respectful or inclusive - but the forced label on Hispanics and the assumption that all is good if you just put your pronouns in your email footer and make people state their pronouns in a meeting. Honestly it’s in the same ball park as honoring indigenous tribes that once lived on the land, look I get it but you feeling better because you made those references to cultures long since forcibly removed is more offensive in my opinion than saying nothing. 

Dems spend WAY too much time on labels and performance than actually doing the next practical right thing to do.

so in the end, yeah I kinda find the performative pronoun ritual - often dutifully employed by cisgender heterosexual white women - to be kind of offensive. Not because of their well meaning views but because in the end, well it was paired with nothing else. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
8 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Are you saying that it’s fine to call a trans woman “he” or “him?”  

 

Everybody loves big titty white women

Not this guy. You will not see me reenacting the scene from Blazing Saddles asking about them. Now a Brazilian, Ethiopian or Nigerian and you’ve got my attention.

Posted
7 hours ago, troph said:

I missed this but think I made my point - both are performative - not the desire to be respectful or inclusive - but the forced label on Hispanics and the assumption that all is good if you just put your pronouns in your email footer and make people state their pronouns in a meeting. Honestly it’s in the same ball park as honoring indigenous tribes that once lived on the land, look I get it but you feeling better because you made those references to cultures long since forcibly removed is more offensive in my opinion than saying nothing. 

Dems spend WAY too much time on labels and performance than actually doing the next practical right thing to do.

so in the end, yeah I kinda find the performative pronoun ritual - often dutifully employed by cisgender heterosexual white women - to be kind of offensive. Not because of their well meaning views but because in the end, well it was paired with nothing else. 

You seem to care.  

Posted
6 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

Not this guy. You will not see me reenacting the scene from Blazing Saddles asking about them. Now a Brazilian, Ethiopian or Nigerian and you’ve got my attention.

 

Posted
15 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

LatinX almost felt like a psyop. Such a weird moment that come out of nowhere. 

 

Everything is a psyop. That's why nothing happens. Everything for a long time in politics has not been about authenticity or actual service. Its a fucking psyop for a power grab. 

Politicians at the federal level are all pretty much fucked up save for a few young ones who are still going through the corruption process. 

What happens to AOC when she hasn't done shit and still goes on her little Bernie Sanders style tours after he dies for the next 30 years? The problem with the AOCs of the world isn't that she should fuck off its that she can't get anyone else on her side, she's too small to say hey we need more people like me and I'm gonna campaign with them, because she represents some new Yorkers in the house with 430+ other chucklefucks. She has no shot at a Senate seat. 

Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand aren't going anywhere for another 10-20 years. They will die in those Senate seats. 

That's what's wrong with not only the party, but any position of power or money in the US - people are too fucking greedy to just ride out their turn and get the fuck off the ride. There's no reason you should be in the Senate for more than 2 terms, find something else to fucking do. 

Same thing for CEOs - hang it up after a cycle. Fuck off with your money and do something else. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted

David French has an interesting piece today in the NY Times

Gift Link

TL:DR, he says Article II is to blame for a rapacious executive.  

Anyway, quick reaction to this is I think the Dems should promote the idea of a constitutional convention.  "We have to fix the Constitution" is at least an ethos, and it's vague enough that it could mean almost anything while appealing to anyone unhappy with the status quo.  

It's also a complex problem that can be sold in a single sentence, it's not asking neighbors to blame each other, and it's the kind of big, aspirant thing that tends to get Democrats united.  

Posted

To me, this is the blueprint for responding to all the accusations about woke, pronouns, latinx, litterboxes, or whatever. Dismiss the attack and counterpunch. "What the hell are talking about?" "Let me ask you a question..." followed by one of the painfully obvious counterattacks that's just sitting there wide open. I'm not saying we abandon anyone or cooperate in any way with their fucked up agenda but always call them out for their stupid deflections and don't let them always be the ones to raise or frame the issues.

 

  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, immamac said:

Everything is a psyop. That's why nothing happens. Everything for a long time in politics has not been about authenticity or actual service. Its a fucking psyop for a power grab. 

Politicians at the federal level are all pretty much fucked up save for a few young ones who are still going through the corruption process. 

What happens to AOC when she hasn't done shit and still goes on her little Bernie Sanders style tours after he dies for the next 30 years? The problem with the AOCs of the world isn't that she should fuck off its that she can't get anyone else on her side, she's too small to say hey we need more people like me and I'm gonna campaign with them, because she represents some new Yorkers in the house with 430+ other chucklefucks. She has no shot at a Senate seat. 

Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand aren't going anywhere for another 10-20 years. They will die in those Senate seats. 

That's what's wrong with not only the party, but any position of power or money in the US - people are too fucking greedy to just ride out their turn and get the fuck off the ride. There's no reason you should be in the Senate for more than 2 terms, find something else to fucking do. 

Same thing for CEOs - hang it up after a cycle. Fuck off with your money and do something else. 

I have several back home type facebook friends that frequently post memes about AOC that are an unflattering picture of her with a caption that'll always be something she never ever said. One of those captions recently was "If we ban Tik Tok, the clocks won't work." Some of those dipshits actually seemed to think it was a real quote. They frame the narrative of AOC as her being a bimbo, too far left, out of touch with regular people. Then people just go along with it and don't counterpunch. The counterattack is "what did she ever actually say that you think is stupid or that you even disagree with?" Nah, let's just let the Maga dispshits frame all the issues and retreat. Just resign ourselves to we gotta nominate old straight white men to have a chance. It's either fascist lunacy or Chuck Schumer and his reading glasses. 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bojack said:

I have several back home type facebook friends that frequently post memes about AOC that are an unflattering picture of her with a caption that'll always be something she never ever said. One of those captions recently was "If we ban Tik Tok, the clocks won't work." Some of those dipshits actually seemed to think it was a real quote. They frame the narrative of AOC as her being a bimbo, too far left, out of touch with regular people. Then people just go along with it and don't counterpunch. The counterattack is "what did she ever actually say that you think is stupid or that you even disagree with?" Nah, let's just let the Maga dispshits frame all the issues and retreat. Just resign ourselves to we gotta nominate old straight white men to have a chance. It's either fascist lunacy or Chuck Schumer and his reading glasses. 

She's not their rep it doesn't matter. Imagine if their rep was an AOC type though and how fucking dumb they would look. That was my point. 

Posted
26 minutes ago, immamac said:

What happens to AOC when she hasn't done shit and still goes on her little Bernie Sanders style tours after he dies for the next 30 years? The problem with the AOCs of the world isn't that she should fuck off its that she can't get anyone else on her side, she's too small to say hey we need more people like me and I'm gonna campaign with them, because she represents some new Yorkers in the house with 430+ other chucklefucks. She has no shot at a Senate seat. 

She would have more than a shot if she actually did something. Where is she right now? She's being silent on any number of issues that should be important to her constituents and she's wasting the popularity she has among the base.

Posted

Protesters confront Missouri Congressman Wesley Bell about his support of Israel | KCUR - Kansas City news and NPR

This fucking moron is exactly what is wrong with the Democrat party today. This is the guy that AIPAC poured millions of dollars into in order to unseat Cori Bush because she dared to have a position on Gaza that ran counter to the Party line. He has nothing but contempt for his constituents, evidenced by the numerous plainclothes, off duty cops he hired to rough up the crowd because he knew they were going to be hostile to him.

He's literally only there to take Israeli money and do genocide denial from his seat of power. That's his only purpose.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

She would have more than a shot if she actually did something. Where is she right now? She's being silent on any number of issues that should be important to her constituents and she's wasting the popularity she has among the base.

You are the most guilty person of understanding how any of this works. Public perception doesn't mean dick. She's one of 435 in a vote. She needs 100 other people like her to put a dent in it and then she can be the mouthpiece for that contingent and have real leverage. 

Right now she's just a recognizable face in a crowd. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, immamac said:

You are the most guilty person of understanding how any of this works. Public perception doesn't mean dick. She's one of 435 in a vote. She needs 100 other people like her to put a dent in it and then she can be the mouthpiece for that contingent and have real leverage. 

Right now she's just a recognizable face in a crowd. 

You're literaly not even responding to the post I made.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

You're literaly not even responding to the post I made.

I read those posts together for some reason and tuned out the last half because of an Israel rant and equated it to you turning your brain off and saying AOC isn't popular because israel. Mea culpa. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, immamac said:

I read those posts together for some reason and tuned out the last half because of an Israel rant and equated it to you turning your brain off and saying AOC isn't popular because israel. Mea culpa. 

Ok that makes more sense haha....I pretty much agree with everything you said other than I think she would have a good shot at a Senate seat if she was actually trying to message. I don't really understand the D strategy of just shutting the fuck up right now.

Posted (edited)

Is this the thread where I can complain about the move from homeless to unhoused?  What's the fucking difference?  Does unhoused provide better shelter from the elements or more food?

Edited by kevwun
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Is this the thread where I can complain about the move from homeless to unhoused?  What's the fucking difference?  Does unhoused provide better shelter from the elements or more food?

Experiencing homelessness, boomer.

Posted
19 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Is this the thread where I can complain about the move from homeless to unhoused?  What's the fucking difference?  Does unhoused provide better shelter from the elements or more food?

Unhoused provides a little more dignity and little less stigma than homeless.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
30 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Is this the thread where I can complain about the move from homeless to unhoused?  What's the fucking difference?  Does unhoused provide better shelter from the elements or more food?

Think it will move in that direction after finishing up with land acknowledgements. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, kevwun said:

In 20 years when it has the same stigma, it will have to be another word.  It all seems so pointless to me.

Yes it’s not the label that’s the problem it’s society being heartless and cruel to the given out group

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, LCHorn said:

David French has an interesting piece today in the NY Times

What David French doesn’t understand yet is that the law can’t protect what people in power won’t protect. 
One side is doing politics. The other is doing politics by other means. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I think an underdiscussed issue within the failing Democratic party is the lack of actual identity from the "far" left. 

What the hell do we have to show after Bernie's run in 2016? He ran again with less success in 2020. AOC is the other big name in national politics, but I think the reality is it's easy to get swallowed up when you're just one of many Representatives in a dead duck political system. Mamdani is currently the face of the party as a young mayoral candidate. Is Bernie gonna run AGAIN in 2028? I don't see any other legitimate option at the moment. The leftist ideas have gained popularity but haven't produced multiple - let alone, one - national figure to take over for Bernie in the last decade? It's crazy. IMO it feels like they haven't shown enough maturity to self-scout and figure out what they're doing wrong. 

And one of the things that infuriates me about the left in general is how the world view revolves around NYC. 95% of the "influencers" and commentators seem to live within a couple miles of Brooklyn. We've got Bernie (born in NY), AOC, and Mamdani.  I beg the left to start lifting up voices in other parts of the country, and to start strategizing like there is a world outside of the five boroughs.  

 

 

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, kevwun said:

In 20 years when it has the same stigma, it will have to be another word.  It all seems so pointless to me.

 

19 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Yes it’s not the label that’s the problem it’s society being heartless and cruel to the given out group

I don't disagree with either of you about the term, but it takes very little effort to switch terms. I definitely still use homeless at times without thinking, but I try to say unhoused because I've had to ask plenty of people to their faces whether or not they have a roof over their heads, and I get a lot fewer hurt and wounded looks with unhoused than I do homeless.

Like I said, it offers more dignity to those affected, and with our heartless and cruel society, it is down to us as individuals to help those people maintain their dignity. Switching a word as often as I can is a pretty effortless way to help

Edited by safe sex
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I think an underdiscussed issue within the failing Democratic party is the lack of actual identity from the "far" left. 

What the hell do we have to show after Bernie's run in 2016? He ran again with less success in 2020. AOC is the other big name in national politics, but I think the reality is it's easy to get swallowed up when you're just one of many Representatives in a dead duck political system. Mamdani is currently the face of the party as a young mayoral candidate. Is Bernie gonna run AGAIN in 2028? I don't see any other legitimate option at the moment. The leftist ideas have gained popularity but haven't produced multiple - let alone, one - national figure to take over for Bernie in the last decade? It's crazy. IMO it feels like they haven't shown enough maturity to self-scout and figure out what they're doing wrong. 

And one of the things that infuriates me about the left in general is how the world view revolves around NYC. 95% of the "influencers" and commentators seem to live within a couple miles of Brooklyn. We've got Bernie (born in NY), AOC, and Mamdani.  I beg the left to start lifting up voices in other parts of the country, and to start strategizing like there is a world outside of the five boroughs.  

 

 

What do you know about DSA? Would it surprise you to learn that its members are in every state, every city, and have surged in size since the first Bernie campaign? If you're looking for an actual identity, look there. The organization is much, MUCH deeper than a gaggle of influencers from Billyburg

Posted
10 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

One side is doing whatever it wants, the other side is doing nothing. Unless you count book tours, I guess.

You obviously aren't paying attention to California, just to name one place.

But I get the frustration.

Posted
16 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Unhoused provides a little more dignity and little less stigma than homeless.

So… this is an incredibly good example of the distance between the academia, policy think tanks, and ideology that powers the progressive movement and the people the movement seeks to serve. 

I  understand you are coming from a good place, but it really doesn’t. Im not picking on you. This is a PSA:


“Unhoused” does not provide more dignity and less stigma. It obscures reality and confers the moral license to look away.

I spent years actively volunteering with the homeless. I’ve cooked for them, cried with them, washed their feet, raised money for programs, spent the night with them at the cold weather shelter and so on. My wife volunteers with a homeless support program. My mother was homeless, and died as a result of her homelessness. So that’s my bona fides on this.

People who actually spend years with the homeless mostly hate the term “unhoused.” It reduces an extraordinarily complex and devastating syndrome to a real estate problem. 

They are not just ‘unhoused’ people. They are homeless people, which is to say they are trapped in a self-reinforcing process of slow dehumanization,  spiritual/psychological decay and isolation. 

To call them “unhoused” implies that the problem can be solved by providing housing only, or housing first, and that simply isn’t true. In some ways that’s as bad as sending them back to the jungle or to jail, or perhaps worse than jail, since jail offers the remote but occasional possibility of stabilization and rehab. 
 

Anyway, sorry to go off- but I speak for a lot of people on this one. Just say homeless. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
Just now, chainsaw said:

What do you know about DSA? Would it surprise you to learn that its members are in every state, every city, and have surged in size since the first Bernie campaign? If you're looking for an actual identity, look there. The organization is much, MUCH deeper than a gaggle of influencers from Billyburg

Yeah, but DSAs outside of NY are not producing any national names or candidates. Really good at organizing, but where has that gotten us? 

I voted for Bernie in 2016 and 2020. So I'm not asking the left to convince me to vote for their ideas. Give me some goddamn candidates that are worth a shit. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

So… this is an incredibly good example of the distance between the academia, policy think tanks, and ideology that powers the progressive movement and the people the movement seeks to serve. 

I  understand you are coming from a good place, but it really doesn’t. Im not picking on you. This is a PSA:


“Unhoused” does not provide more dignity and less stigma. It obscures reality and confers the moral license to look away.

I spent years actively volunteering with the homeless. I’ve cooked for them, cried with them, washed their feet, raised money for programs, spent the night with them at the cold weather shelter and so on. My wife volunteers with a homeless support program. My mother was homeless, and died as a result of her homelessness. So that’s my bona fides on this.

People who actually spend years with the homeless mostly hate the term “unhoused.” It reduces an extraordinarily complex and devastating syndrome to a real estate problem. 

They are not just ‘unhoused’ people. They are homeless people, which is to say they are trapped in a self-reinforcing process of slow dehumanization,  spiritual/psychological decay and isolation. 

To call them “unhoused” implies that the problem can be solved by providing housing only, or housing first, and that simply isn’t true. In some ways that’s as bad as sending them back to the jungle or to jail, or perhaps worse than jail, since jail offers the remote but occasional possibility of stabilization and rehab. 
 

Anyway, sorry to go off- but I speak for a lot of people on this one. Just say homeless. 

And give them money.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The leftist ideas have gained popularity but haven't produced multiple - let alone, one - national figure to take over for Bernie in the last decade? It's crazy. IMO it feels like they haven't shown enough maturity to self-scout and figure out what they're doing wrong. 

And one of the things that infuriates me about the left in general is how the world view revolves around NYC. 95% of the "influencers" and commentators seem to live within a couple miles of Brooklyn. We've got Bernie (born in NY), AOC, and Mamdani.

Any Democrat with openly leftist views that tries to burst into the mainstream is almost always actively squashed by the Party. Bernie had too much longevity and popularity to be cast aside, but they for sure couldn't allow him to be the nominee, at the cost of giving the world Donald Trump. AOC and Mamdani are outliers that have thus far been able to weather the anti-leftist hostility that is endemic to the Party by appealing directly to their constituents rather than simply parroting the Party lines, for the most part.

Mamdani employed the super radical strategy of talking directly to his potential constituents, absorbing what policies they wanted from their mayor, and then running directly on those policies. It turns out, when you do that, it's difficult for the Party apparatus to eject you, even when they try their best, as they did and are.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

So… this is an incredibly good example of the distance between the academia, policy think tanks, and ideology that powers the progressive movement and the people the movement seeks to serve. 

I  understand you are coming from a good place, but it really doesn’t. Im not picking on you. This is a PSA:


“Unhoused” does not provide more dignity and less stigma. It obscures reality and confers the moral license to look away.

I spent years actively volunteering with the homeless. I’ve cooked for them, cried with them, washed their feet, raised money for programs, spent the night with them at the cold weather shelter and so on. My wife volunteers with a homeless support program. My mother was homeless, and died as a result of her homelessness. So that’s my bona fides on this.

People who actually spend years with the homeless mostly hate the term “unhoused.” It reduces an extraordinarily complex and devastating syndrome to a real estate problem. 

They are not just ‘unhoused’ people. They are homeless people, which is to say they are trapped in a self-reinforcing process of slow dehumanization,  spiritual/psychological decay and isolation. 

To call them “unhoused” implies that the problem can be solved by providing housing only, or housing first, and that simply isn’t true. In some ways that’s as bad as sending them back to the jungle or to jail, or perhaps worse than jail, since jail offers the remote but occasional possibility of stabilization and rehab. 
 

Anyway, sorry to go off- but I speak for a lot of people on this one. Just say homeless. 

100% agree. Enough of this shit. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Yeah, but DSAs outside of NY are not producing any national names or candidates. Really good at organizing, but where has that gotten us? 

I voted for Bernie in 2016 and 2020. So I'm not asking the left to convince me to vote for their ideas. Give me some goddamn candidates that are worth a shit. 

There's Greg Casar, who's in Texas.

At the state and local level, there are many outside NYC as well. The organization's support is so powerful that even someone like Jose Garza can easily win re-election because of it.

National names and candidates won't happen until one of them shows us something in a federal office. If the Dems supported DSA candidates the way the GOP supported Tea Party and MAGA candidates, it would've already happened. But the donor class will never allow it.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

So… this is an incredibly good example of the distance between the academia, policy think tanks, and ideology that powers the progressive movement and the people the movement seeks to serve. 

I  understand you are coming from a good place, but it really doesn’t. Im not picking on you. This is a PSA:


“Unhoused” does not provide more dignity and less stigma. It obscures reality and confers the moral license to look away.

I spent years actively volunteering with the homeless. I’ve cooked for them, cried with them, washed their feet, raised money for programs, spent the night with them at the cold weather shelter and so on. My wife volunteers with a homeless support program. My mother was homeless, and died as a result of her homelessness. So that’s my bona fides on this.

People who actually spend years with the homeless mostly hate the term “unhoused.” It reduces an extraordinarily complex and devastating syndrome to a real estate problem. 

They are not just ‘unhoused’ people. They are homeless people, which is to say they are trapped in a self-reinforcing process of slow dehumanization,  spiritual/psychological decay and isolation. 

To call them “unhoused” implies that the problem can be solved by providing housing only, or housing first, and that simply isn’t true. In some ways that’s as bad as sending them back to the jungle or to jail, or perhaps worse than jail, since jail offers the remote but occasional possibility of stabilization and rehab. 
 

Anyway, sorry to go off- but I speak for a lot of people on this one. Just say homeless. 

Fair enough. I appreciate you sharing. The majority of my contact with the homeless is with people who are very new to it and in Austin, and I was being very serious about the difference in response I would get using the respective word. Perhaps there is a contextual difference there.

Regardless, thanks.

Posted

And also, Bernie is one of the few mainstream politicians that has maintained largely the same policy positions on the same issues for the entirety of his political career. It's extremely rare to find any politician that sticks to his guns like that. Whether they agree with him or not, most people have at least some level of respect for him because of that, and the level of popularity he has maintained over the decades has made it impossible for the Party to discard him, even though they would certainly like to.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

And as much as we love Mamdani he's constitutionally barred from running for President due to his Ugandan place of birth. Plus he has to actually spend a meaningful amount of time being the Mayor, and the man clearly loves NYC too much to leave it.

Posted
1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

And also, Bernie is one of the few mainstream politicians that has maintained largely the same policy positions on the same issues for the entirety of his political career. It's extremely rare to find any politician that sticks to his guns like that. Whether they agree with him or not, most people have at least some level of respect for him because of that, and the level of popularity he has maintained over the decades has made it impossible for the Party to discard him, even though they would certainly like to.

But also, Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat.



×
×
  • Create New...