2020 not so far away

She said it’s appallingly hypocritical for people to remain silent about Hillary covering for her sexually abusive campaign worker and freaking out over some comms guy Bernie hired.

She said they were pieces of shite.

Anyway, that’s what she said. 😀

So if Sanders were able to raise, for the purpose of argument, $30 from twenty million people, O'Rourke would raise $60 from ten million people? That's ten million lucky voters who won't feel compelled to donate "a small amount" when they hear the candidate's clanging beggar bowl!

That means Beto appeals to wealthier people. There’s a lot of facts that go sling with that.

From the Guardian.

Beto O’Rourke frequently voted for Republican legislation, analysis reveals
Review of his six-year record in Congress shows Democrat frequently opposed own party, and supported bills that boosted the fossil fuel industry and Trump’s immigration policy

Gee, I wonder if resident democrats and / or liberals will care about this information?

Don't be ridiculous. You keep banging on about Clinton because that's what Trump does, same with attacking anti fascists and praising the Nazis in Charlottesville.

It happens time and time again, you claim to be left of centre then parrot Trump.

Clinton is history, to everyone except Trump supporters.

Unless it's someone else called Hillary.

Still avoiding the legitimate reason for the comparison, true to form, and threw in some false statement about Nazis —to hide from the fact that two mainstream candidates who made false accusations about others’ hiring practices actually covered for actual sex abusers on their staffs.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1069313001

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/kirsten-gillibrands-sexual-misconduct-hypocrisy/2019/03/12/4c225992-44df-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html

So, any democrat with some comparatively innocuous staffing complaints about Bernie—who apologize for one or both of these women — will have to answer to these glaring facts.

Dancing around about Nazis is cute, but transparent subterfuge.

I don't even know who Gillibrand is. We've got enough **** going down over here. I'll pay attention to the Democrat race when it's down to a manageable number.

Your thread on the rise of fascism in America is an attack on anti fascists.

You deliberately misrepresented the motivation of striking NHS doctors saying they were attacking the system, not the lack of funding. And you continued this misrepresentation even after I had pointed it out to you.

If you really have embraced progressive politics then stop pushing Trump's agenda.

You can't have it both ways.

1. You mischaracterize the fascism thread.
2. If you refuse to inform yourself of the facts I’m discussing, your opinion about it is worthless.
3. I’m hardly supporting Trump.

You’re just looking for something to argue about.

No I'm not. You asked why you weren't "allowed to change."

I've given reason as to why I, and I suspect many others, don't believe you've changed.

You're like a reformed alcoholic with hip flasks full of hooch stashed all over the house.

If you want people to believe you've changed you need to act like you've changed. If you don't want that then just carry on like you're doing.

Btw, I would love it if you changed, joy in heaven about a sinner repenting and all that, but I honestly don't think you have.

I don’t care what people believe-or say they believe about my personal political philosophy; I just point out the hypocrisy of them finding it so easy to believe people like Clinton ‘evolve’ but others can’t. More unsupportable agenda-driven bias.

If that were so you wouldn't have posted about how you weren't allowed to change. At least be honest to yourself.

Nope.

Do you really think I was appealing to people to approve me? (Dude, you know I’m laughing right now)

Everybody here beats the same drum on almost all issues. Hillary, Obama, and more recently, Biden are always forgiven for major policy shifts by someone invoking the ‘evolution of opinion’ trope.

Just pulling the curtain back on the resident hypocritical bullshite.

To the topic: Hickenlooper has shot himself in the foot.

“Why aren’t women asked if they’d choose men as VP?” His office says the question was meant to show sexism.

He’s cancelled. What a dick.

If you have to say you're laughing, chances are you're not.

You ask why, I tell you why, then you claim to laugh at the reason.

Tell you what, stop moaning that people doubt your sincerity and then I might believe you don't care, or even that you might be laughing.

As long as anyone uses that brand of ad hom to dodge issues, I’ll bring it up.

I've not used any ad homs, I've simply pointed out the reasons as to why I remain highly cynical about your change of heart.

Well in the modeling I used, you could raise equal amounts with $60 donations with half the number of contributions. Donating $60 hardly qualifies someone as "wealthy". And remember, Sanders has legions of supporters from '16 who know how much he can raise from small donations so there'd be less peer pressure to increase the amount being given, knowing that the numbers were favorable. People donating to a new candidate might feel the need to provide a little more to give the candidate a good start.

Share some of them for analysis. They might not be as "factual" as you believe.

As you know, attacking the person rather than the argument is ad hom. Inability to address my points often leads people to attack me (‘hey, you’re not really a liberal!!’)—when they should be able to mount a superior argument whether I’m a liberal, conservative, or Martian. Since their candidates are inferior, I’m attacked instead.

Try that in a debate stage...