Geoff > Status Update

I think some backroom deal got done to get Pete bow out. Some machinations are in the works.

Yeah, that crossed my mind too. He's nearly half the age of Biden, Sanders and Trump and will have other chances to get ahead. And with his corporate background you can imagine him taking money from Bloomberg or someone.

Antonomasia wrote: "Yeah, that crossed my mind too. He's nearly half the age of Biden, Sanders and Trump and will have other chances to get ahead. And with his corporate background you can imagine him taking money fro..."

He backed out because he didn't want to be the reason Bernie won an "insurmountable lead" on Super Tuesday per CNN sources: https://www.politicususa.com/2020/03/...

There's probably some backroom deal-making going on with Pete and Joe, but it also is a play to try to block Sanders. However, Bernie is 2nd choice to a plurality of Pete supporters, so the effect might not be what is desired.

The "all but Bernie" crew is basically gunning for a "contested convention" at this point, hoping to prevent anyone getting a plurality of delegates.

Yeah, we will have to see how it all shakes out. Although what you say is largely true.

Just in, Kobluchar's suspending her campaign to endorse Biden.

I'm surprised, frankly, and thought she would stay in long enough to win her home state. I suppose if MN is definitely going to Sanders, then suspending her campaign now would be strategic to avoid the embarrassment of losing the home state, and still be able to move some voter support to Biden.

Lots of backroom deals being made here... I like to see her make VP.

Unifying around Biden to save Democratic Consultants gravy train and establishment.

Ian wrote: "Antonomasia wrote: "Yeah, that crossed my mind too. He's nearly half the age of Biden, Sanders and Trump and will have other chances to get ahead. And with his corporate background you can imagine ..."

I've seen at least three poll results floating around w/r/t Pete voters' second choice, and in one of them I saw Bernie with the lead; another had Klobuchar; and another had Biden. So I guess the upshot is that none of us know for sure.

I don't know all the math, but the danger to Bernie seems to be that Biden has been hovering around 15% in a lot of states, which is the magic number for "viability", and to receive statewide delegates. Bernie on the other hand is above 15% in polls just about everywhere. So if Biden gains a few points and Bernie gains a few points, it's apparently disproportionately helpful to Biden. That'll be especially important in California, where Bernie has a big lead...but if Biden (and/or Bloomberg and/or Warren) get above 15%, Bernie's haul won't be quite as big as it could have been.

What's really sick about this is that all the candidates have pretty much tacitly admitted that Bernie is going to end up with the plurality of delegates, yet they're counting on a brokered convention. It's sick, sociopathic, and incredibly irresponsible to try to take the nomination away from the most popular candidate. I thought these people wanted to beat Trump. I thought he was a monster, a danger to democracy. I guess a plan to give everyone healthcare is a bridge too far.

On the other hand, unless there's something I'm not seeing, Klobuchar dropping out should allow Bernie to romp in Minnesota.

Mike wrote: "Ian wrote: "Antonomasia wrote: "Yeah, that crossed my mind too. He's nearly half the age of Biden, Sanders and Trump and will have other chances to get ahead. And with his corporate background you ..."
to establishment types and DNC consultants "winning" with Bernie ruins the donor gravy train. They would rather have 4 more years of ersatz resistance and keep the donors happy and try again in 2024 with a more donor friendly candidate and a demoralized base with nowhere to go. Keeps the tap flowing.

Peter (Pete) wrote: "Mike wrote: "Ian wrote: "Antonomasia wrote: "Yeah, that crossed my mind too. He's nearly half the age of Biden, Sanders and Trump and will have other chances to get ahead. And with his corporate ba..."

I think you're right, and it's fucking grotesque.

It would also be an act of cruelty to put Biden up against that animal. As Taibbi put it recently, Biden shouldn't be driving, let alone running for president.

The Republicans have been grifting for quite a while and now the Dems are doing the same for Donor money. It was a slow process but we are in its terminal phase now.

If Sanders wins the plurality by a huge margin, whatever that magic number is, and the DEM nomination goes to someone else regardless, then yeah, I agree it’s sick and horrible and irresponsible.

But if the margin is small, then the nomination process should play out?

Understandably, there are strong feelings over this... But in 2016, Sanders himself took the opposite position with the DEM nomination going to the candidate with the plurality of delegates. Clinton had more pledged delegates but Sanders made a strong play for the superdelegates to his favor, and in fact, he successfully changed the process before the 2020 election so that the candidate with the plurality of delegates will not win the nomination. But now that Sanders is on the path to get the plurality of delegates, then the process is suddenly not fair? It’s ironic.

Warren called Sanders out on that during one of the debates.

This article has more details.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020...

More here,
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03...

Alfred wrote: "If Sanders wins the plurality by a huge margin, whatever that magic number is, and the DEM nomination goes to someone else regardless, then yeah, I agree it’s sick and horrible and irresponsible.
..."

I'm in favor of selecting the most popular candidate to take on Trump- popular with the people, not with the "superdelegates." We let Trump off the hook four years ago, and I'd rather not do it again.

I think your point is addressed here:

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/02/bernie...

Relevant passage:

"But what Sanders and his supporters are advocating isn’t a last-minute revision to the rules, but simply that superdelegates voluntarily go along with the preferences of primary voters. Talk of “the rules” is a red herring. And even if Sanders were insisting on a rules alteration, Warren’s hypocrisy charge would still be unfounded. In negotiations about the 2020 nomination process, Sanders and his supporters pushed hard to both minimize the number of superdelegates and their role in the process. The rule allowing superdelegates to cast a vote on the second ballot if no candidate came in with an outright majority of pledged delegates was a compromise, not a reflection of Sanders’s raw preferences. Accusing him of hypocrisy would be like criticizing a union negotiator for advocating a significant wage raise after the union “had a big hand in” previous negotiations that led to a more modest hike.

The charge of hypocrisy is more reasonable when applied to Sanders’s stance in the 2016 nomination process. At one point during the 2016 primaries, Sanders indicated his openness to being supported by superdelegates (while making it clear he would prefer that those superdelegates not exist).

Even so, it’s worth remembering that the Vermont senator didn’t go ahead with this plan. In fact, he did the opposite, endorsing Clinton before the convention and moving on the floor to nominate her by acclamation. It’s also worth noting that even if we assume the most uncharitable interpretation of Sanders’s stance in 2016, an inconsistency between his stance then and his stance now would tell us nothing about which of the two conflicting positions was right. If the democratic argument for respecting the will of the primary voters is compelling, then Sanders shouldn’t have flirted with the possibility of relying on superdelegates in 2016 — and eighty-four of the ninety-three superdelegates interviewed by the New York Times are just as wrong to declare their support for such a plan now."

Thanks for the article. It does provide some good perspectives but it doesn’t change the fact that Clinton won the delegates plurality with, and without, counting in the super-delegates. So, even if Sanders had pursued the super-delegates, it would be for naught anyway. Plus, the fact that his campaign had a heavy hand in changing the process and were at peace with it until he is now in the same delegate path that Clinton was in 2016.

BTW, I’m not accusing Sanders of hypocrisy but since this was brought up earlier as a foul cry against the “establishment” (this seems like a catch-all word for anything that’s not pro-Sanders…) I just wanted to bring up that it’s not always clear cut. It’s the nature of the beast in politics. It’s how Trump won the election with more delegates despite losing 3 million popular votes to Clinton.

We talk about thwarting the will of the voters by taking the nomination away from the candidate with the most pledged delegates by giving it to another candidate with fewer delegates. It’s true that currently, Sanders has 60 to Biden’s 54 = a difference of just 6 delegates. Does that mean that the will of the voters for Biden is completely nullified just because he has 6 fewer delegates?

In the same token, Biden currently has 64,000 more popular votes than Sanders despite having 6 fewer delegates. Isn’t that representative of the will of the voters also, and that Biden too should be considered for the nomination?

-----------------------------

"I'm in favor of selecting the most popular candidate to take on Trump- popular with the people, not with the "superdelegates."

Well, RealClearPolitics' average in the consolidation of polls showed Biden with a current lead over Sanders in a general election match-up with Trump:

Biden-Trump 5.4
Sanders-Trump 4.9
Bloomberg-Trump 4.0

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...

----------------------------------

Anyway, after today, we’ll know with more certainty… If Sanders’ margins are so large compared to the next person, then yeah, he should be nominated at the end of the primary. I’ll get myself a Bernie T-shirt, and sign up for GOTV because a 2nd term Trump is by far, much, much worse.

If Sanders gets the nomination he will be totally dependent on his base don't expect the DNC to help much in the general. This is not to be overly pessimistic just realistic. If Sanders gets the nom they won't have much incentive to work for his victory and having ersatz resistance for another 4 years and blaming the loss on the left works fine for them.

Here is NYT page with the big board as super Tuesday unfolds. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...

Here is a youtube channel I trust on politics covering super Tuesday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuAwB...

A bad night. The slow-motion disaster is unfolding and now I just have a feeling of calm resignation.

Lots of luck defeating Trump with a candidate who can barely get through a complete sentence.

2016 all over again but with someone weaker than Hillary maybe there is hope for life elsewhere in the universe.

At least Hillary was sharp. Biden has a terrible record that Trump will attack from the left, and is now routinely lying about things like having been arrested while trying to visit Nelson Mandela.

A candidate who can barely get through a complete sentence debating a president who can barely get through a complete sentence. At least an equal match. That should be fun to watch.

It's true Biden is weaker and less sharp than Clinton. But she was all head and no heart. All doom and gloom about Trump.

Biden connects emotionally with most people, because he could relate on a very personal level (family tragedies, stutter affliction, bringing soul and decency back, finding renewed purpose after his son's death etc). After SC (and the ensuing massive free media coverage), I think many people remembered once again why they loved Biden. People vote with their hearts, for the most part.

Alfred wrote: "A candidate who can barely get through a complete sentence debating a president who can barely get through a complete sentence. At least an equal match. That should be fun to watch.

It's true Bid..."

I always suspected sentimentality would kill us in the end.

Can't wait to watch one septuagenarian dementia patient scream at a second septuagenarian dementia patient on television!

Mentally preparing myself to hear the word "Burisma" a LOT.

Peter (Pete) wrote: "maybe there is hope for life elsewhere in the universe."

This. Exactly this.

Much as Rumi or the Song of Solomon poet express their love of god in erotic terms, I express my feelings of political loss with a song about heartbreak:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RA4M...

Edit: PS - Did you all see Biden doing his best to win over working class voters talking to that Union factory guy yesterday?

I totally agree with all the Biden criticism, and the sadness at what is happening to Bernie, but please tell me none of you is going to refuse to vote for him when it is Biden v Trump.

Honestly, the Biden moment was the only time I've thought he was badass. That dude came at him in bad faith. He was full of shit and should be told so.

Anyway, we have an endemic problem in our politics where any true Leftist policy has to operate in what's essentially a tent-party, home to all of the voices that aren't rich white guys and evangelical Christians. Accommodating a multitude means dilution of ideals. Hopefully, Bernie is able to leverage his ideology with Biden before exiting what's essentially a done campaign.

After 2020, I believe strongly that if anyone could form a new party for the Left, it's Bernie (along with, say, AOC) who could focus their growing resources on transforming local governments and the federal legislature with a true grassroots party for the working class and fiercely pursuing socially progressive policy. It's probably idealistic, but fuck it, I'm an idealist. It's all I've got.

Jonathan wrote: "I totally agree with all the Biden criticism, and the sadness at what is happening to Bernie, but please tell me none of you is going to refuse to vote for him when it is Biden v Trump."

Regardless of anybody on this thread and their personal decisions in November, sentiments around Joe are so tepid you can be sure we're looking at another 4 years of Trumplestiltskin.

yeah I know. Nevertheless, if I was going to be shot in the face but there was a tiny chance of having that reduced to my leg being cut off, I would still do whatever was necessary to try and get the latter.

Regardless, from my vantage point over the pond I still find the whole "electing the person not the party" side of US politics really hard to understand. For a country that set itself up in rejection of the monarchy, you sure do seem to be hardwired toward king-making.

You never know though, Trump might get Coronavirus. What with his poor diet and lack of exercise it might just finish him off...

Jonathan wrote: " if I was going to be shot in the face but there was a tiny chance of having that reduced to my leg being cut off, I would still do whatever was necessary to try and get the latter."

Voting in America is just triage. We have looooooooooong ago renounced all positive projects and EVERY ELECTION is voting for leg loss over face blast.

Soon we shall have no more limbs to lose.

Statistically, enthusiasm for Biden is similar to that for Sanders. The only state I've seen those figures for recently is North Dakota, where the enthusiastic percentage among Democratic voters was exactly the same for both candidates (about a third of the votes), and with Biden having a higher number of "not enthusiastic but satisfied". And that's in one of the very few states Sanders won.

Sanders can't even turn out his voters in the primary, let alone the general. The youth vote has been down compared to 2016 (even though it's been much more of a live contest), and the higher the overall turnout the worse Sanders does.


[if you want neither a face blast nor a leg loss, you need to institute a brutal dictatorship. Because otherwise, you ARE going to have to put up with compromises. That's the downside of there being more than one person in your country.]

Wastrel wrote: "if you want neither a face blast nor a leg loss, you need to institute a brutal dictatorship. Because otherwise, you ARE going to have to put up with compromises. That's the downside of there being more than one person in your country."

Absolutely agree. At the last election here in the UK, for instance, it was as usual a matter of voting for the best of a bad lot. The idea of not voting at all just because the person I wanted was not an option never even entered my mind. And the fact that the person I least wanted to win was always going to do so made no difference.

Wastrel wrote: "you ARE going to have to put up with compromises. That's the downside of there being more than one person in your country"

Leaving aside the idea that I, or anybody else who sees Joe Biden as a deeply problematic candidate, might have forgotten there are actually other people in this country, I'm not sure amputation is an especially useful metaphor for understanding compromise, a process through which you both give and get. And moreover, the logic of always choosing the least bad option forecloses on any possibility of accomplishing anything positive or constructive, and has led us exactlyhere. We have surrendered a little more each election cycle, picking between two evils, amputating legs to avoid something hatefuller still. This slow reduction of civic engagement to triage, the diminution of expectation and the surrender of vital aspects of social life is a process for which the brutality of amputation makes a fitting likeness.

In my reckoning, nominating Joe Biden will be to repeat the mistakes of four years ago. Clearly the DNC has not learned the lesson of 2016 and I am concerned now that we are walking into a bear trap. Biden is weak in very specific ways that make him vulnerable to Trump's attacks, especially the Burisma scandal and investigation. This is not nothing and shouldn't be brushed aside. You can bet it won't be brushed aside by the moderate Republicans Biden is supposedly going to lure across the DMZ between our two parties. The larger part of the "enthusiasm" for Biden seems to be incarnated in the buzzword being drilled into primary voters' heads: "electability." This is a wholly visceral decision, devoid of information, and utterly confused by the chaos of our last few months.

This is what our democracy has become? This is how we are going to, say, meaningfully address climate change before it's too late? Totally random example, there. Seeing Joe Biden as a shit candidate has nothing to do with not being willing to compromise, and frankly Wastrel, I resent your condescending insinuation that drawing attention to this out of very real concern, well before the primary election is over, is somehow being unreasonably stubborn.

ATJG wrote: "Leaving aside the idea that I, or anybody else who sees Joe Biden..."

Amen.

I'm sitting here trying to imagine myself knocking on doors for Joe Biden:

*Knock-knock*

Average American: (Looks out warily from behind screen)

Me: Hi there, I'd like to talk to you about voting for Joe Biden!

AA: Well, okay. Will your candidate help protect Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security?

Me: We-hell, heh...not exactly. In fact he's spent most of his long career advocating cuts to those programs.

AA: Hmm. Okay, well, can I count on him to not get us involved in any more endless Middle Eastern wars?

Me: Um. Haha, eh? No, not judging by his record. You see, he was a cheerleader for our illegal invasion of Iraq.

AA: ...I see. Well surely he has a good history on race relations?

Me: Um. He pretty much wrote the infamous racist crime bill passed during the Clinton administration, and consistently lies about having been part of the Civil Rights movement.

AA: Goddamn, sounds like a right bastard. Plans on healthcare?

Me: He's hinted that he would veto M4A if it came to his desk.

AA: Student loans?

Me: He was instrumental in creating today's student-debt crisis. Google Biden and bankruptcy bill.

AA: (A nerve in the right upper corner of his eye starts to twitch)
Is he at least a nice guy?

Me: Um...sometimes? Maybe? But sometimes a voter will challenge him, and he'll call them fat and challenge them to a push-up contest. His method is not exactly...persuasion. More like a sense that he's entitled to your vote, simply because...

AA: ...Because...?

Me: He's...

AA: For Christ's sake, give me something, man! Spit it out!

Me: (Long pause) He's...not Trump?

(AA closes door in my face)

Barring the coronavirus making Trump look very bad Biden will lose in November.

Trump is gonna end up with coronavirus. Bet on it.

T.R. wrote: "Trump is gonna end up with coronavirus. Bet on it."

In a just world...

Hey! What the FUCK is wrong with 'BBQ' Joe Bidden?!? That dude PARTIES. Not only is he the grill-master, he makes a wicked guac. Grill-Master-In-Chief! Fact! Dude can beerbong, like, 4 Natty Lights at a time. Epic. Total legend.

Sure, I get as tired of listening to .38 Special and Blood, Sweat & Tears when Joe's on the decks as the next guy, but 'Good Time' Joe is a partying dude from the Golden Era of partying dudes. Just sayin'.

So...

Mike: maybe knock on that door with a Coors Light and a, 'Here's a beer, brother.' Start there. Yeah.

ATJG: 'Joey Beerbong' is going to address the climate crisis. How? The weather is perfect for partying and jacuzzi.

Jonathan: You're English, and you smell like cheese. Boom. Burned.

Wastrel: Just puff-puff-pass, man. It's cool. And you can make a lot of cool words out of the letters of your username.

Everyone: Levity. Let's get through one shitstorm at a time. I love you all, and know you to be fundamentally good people. I don't believe any one of you would hasten down COVID-19 on anyone, not even Herr Trump. Let's all just hug it out and share our germs before we ride this jalopy straight into the gaping maw of Hell.

xx

Photograph from Saturday at Mar Largo, guy next to Trump has fully blown coronavirus: https://www.instagram.com/p/B9c_wc3nFKT/

Radiantflux wrote: "Photograph from Saturday at Mar Largo, guy next to Trump has fully blown coronavirus: https://www.instagram.com/p/B9c_wc3nFKT/"

Things are escalating fast. I wouldn't be surprised if a top candidate or the president tests positive any day now.

ATJG wrote: "Wastrel wrote: "you ARE going to have to put up with compromises. That's the downside of there being more than one person in your country"

Leaving aside the idea that I, or anybody else who sees J..."

Yeah, well, I (and the majority of left-leaning voters) get a bit pissed off at the constant insinuations that anyone who isn't voting Nader/Kucinich/Stein/Sanders/[insert fantasy here], and who wants to actually continue the massive progress that has been made on many fronts, and reverse the losses that have been suffered in other respects (precisely BECAUSE of the ideological puritans whose holier-than-thou votes and abstentions knowingly handed us eight years of Bush and four years of Trump) is somehow an enemy of humanity.

We recognise that there are problems. It's just that we'd like to actually do something about them, rather than compete to show how much we hate all politicians.

That said, the idea that the American left has done nothing but lose ground every election is patent nonsense. And, frankly, demonstrates the sort of privileged white liberal perspective that explains why Sanders and his kind have so struggled to connect with real voters.

Take, for example, gay rights. 20 years ago, gay sex was still illegal in parts of America. Legalised nationwide in 2003. Government recognition of same-sex unions only began at the state level in 1999. Gay marriage in some states began in 2004. Now (since 2015) gay marriage is legal throughout America. Gay couples began to be permitted to adop in 1993 in some state, and it was legalised nationwide in 2016. Don't Ask Don't Tell introduced 1994 - controvesially liberal at the time - but in 2011 was ended in favour of non-discrimination in the military. Discrimination in federal agencies banned from 1998. Anti-gay behaviour became a hate crime from 2009. All sexual orientation discrimination now banned in 24 states. Conversion therapy banned in 20 states, starting 2012. Gender identity discrimination banned in healthcare since 2011. Official registered gender change now permitted in 47 states. Anti-trans behaviour now a federal hate crime. Anti-trans discrimination banned in employment in 23 states. Etc etc. Every part of this is a huge victory that you're taking for granted in a way I find stunning.

Similarly, healthcare. The pragmatic left that you hate managed to cut the percentage of the population without healthcare by 40%. That might not matter to you, but it matters a hell of a lot to people who were in that 40%.

When the Biden/Obama/Clinton left were last in power, the percentage of Americans incarcerated decreased for the first time since Lyndon Johnson was in power. Again, that might not affect you, but it's a really big thing for many people in the country.

The last time they were in power, they inherited a financial crisis, and they stopped the economy from collapsing. They brought about the biggest increase in government fiscal stimulus for generations, and as a result they brought back jobs - a recovery that's managed to survive all that Trump can throw at it. Coincidentally, Clinton's administration also inherited a recession and delivered consistent jobs growth. Both Clinton and Obama also delivered sustained growth in real wages - whereas Bush and Trump oversaw sustained declines. It's easy to say that a magical unicorn would deliver even faster real wage growth, but in the trenches of the real world, whether your real paycheck is going up or going down makes a serious difference for a lot of families. These are the sort of real-world changes that the puritanical wing of the party are holding hostage...

[as someone from a country where the financial crisis was followed by ten years of hard right-wing austerity, rather than eight years of "moderate" Democrats, I think maybe you don't realise how good you had it...]


And frankly, if anyone wants to understand why Sanders is getting thumped in the primaries, they need look no further than the behaviour of his supporters, including in this thread. Demonisation, contempt, spreading of smears, outright hatred for anyone who doesn't sign up to the cult. No wonder every single other candidate in the race (other than Williamson) has endorsed the guy running against Sanders (and probably would have done whomever that person had been). No wonder almost all their voters have gone over to the anti-Sanders camp en masse.

[of course, Sanders' strategy of campaigning to be elected leader of the Democratic Party by targeting a) people who hate the Democratic Party and b) people who don't vote... was never likely to be a winning strategy in the first place. ]


[one great irony here is that if Sanders hadn't run, we could well have ended up with President Warren instead. Depending, of course, on how many Sanders voters were actually willing to vote for a woman.]

@Wastrel, there was no recovery and there's been no progress. Google "despair deaths". C'mon, man.


https://www.salon.com/2020/02/23/why-...

We don't have Trump because a handful of pretentious leftists refuse to eat whatever vomit the DNC serves up every four years.

The reason we have Trump is that Americans are killing themselves en masse

Wastrel wrote: "[one great irony here is that if Sanders hadn't run, we could well have ended up with President Warren instead. Depending, of course, on how many Sanders voters were actually willing to vote for a woman.]

I'm willing to vote for someone with a vagina, but have to draw a line at former native Americans.

Warren also supported the bombing/starvation of Yemen, but I guess it's possible that Shireen al-Adeimi actually just hates women because sure that makes as much sense as anything else that gets said about Sanders supporters


https://threader.app/thread/123490951...

David wrote: "Warren also supported the bombing/starvation of Yemen, but I guess it's possible that Shireen al-Adeimi is actually just hates women because sure that makes as much sense as anything else that gets..."

I'm curious David, knowing a little about your views on the Palestine situation from your posts on here in the past, how you feel about Sander's views on Israel? He is explicitly against BDS, for instance and has criticised the US for bias against Israel.

Jonathan wrote: "David wrote: "Warren also supported the bombing/starvation of Yemen, but I guess it's possible that Shireen al-Adeimi is actually just hates women because sure that makes as much sense as anything ..."

I think he's at times frustratingly cautious on the issue, but it's understandable given the paramaters of the discourse in the US. I'd say he's far and away the best in the field. I think an underreported story this election cycle is that the most successful Jewish US presidential candidate has the overwhelming support of Muslim and Arab voters. In Michigan I believe he won around something like 90% of the Arab vote (largely Palestinian and Yemeni). Given that racism towards Arabs (especially Palestinians) is stilly pretty widely accepted in US discourse, Sanders is actually quite bold in his support for Palestine.

Thank you David, that is helpful. I was not aware of those stats re the Arab vote. Very telling.

Wastrel wrote: "ATJG wrote: "Wastrel wrote: "you ARE going to have to put up with compromises. That's the downside of there being more than one person in your country"

Leaving aside the idea that I, or anybody el..."
Crime Bill Clinton decreased incarceration are you kidding. Obama backed wall street and not homeowners. Centrists take the left's votes for granted thinking we have nowhere to go. Watch the apathy for Joe due to establishment shenanigans give us four more years of Trump in their coalescing to Hillary 2.0 but with dementia to boot. Centrists learned nothing from 2016.

Jesus. Guys: my perspective: strong exhibition of mob mentality going on toward Wastrel. Discourse, not draw-and-quarter.

That’s just my etic perspective, though. I’ve got no skin in this game, and will kindly fuck off should you prefer. But I’ve been in Wastrel’s position with you, David, and others on this very thread—THREE YEARS AGO. You’re the nicest guy in the world, David—don’t seek blood. I say that as your real friend outside this shit.

Gloves up.

(*not that David is particularly more x than others. Sorry, DM, but our interactions years ago are still in the memory banks.)