5th Democratic Primary Debate Discussion

[Othon 34,299]

9 minutes ago, Economy said:

If someone simply said far left (like I did) that's not an insult. That's a part of the political spectrum... The most u could do is disagree that u belong to that part of the spectrum but seeing as u took it personally I take it u do consider urself in that political affiliation

The centrists in here referring to Sanders supporters as "far left" are doing so to downplay our views, to pretend as if we're extremists that can be disregarded and that are out of touch with the majority of the party. 

I object to that for two reasons:

1) It's literally a right-wing talking point. It's exactly the same language that Fox News is using right now to disparage Sanders and to defend Buttigieg: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/buttigieg-likely-to-face-attacks-from-all-sides-as-dems-meet-for-debate-amid-impeachment

2) The notion that we're out of touch with what the rest of the party wants (or the rest of America wants, for that matter) is ridiculous given the policies that Bernie Sanders is advocating for are almost uniformly supported by a majority of Americans, when Bernie Sanders is outpolling Buttigieg in the national polling by double digits, and when the candidate that they're defending is, so far, only legitimately competitive in one early primary state and has consistently polled at zero percent with black voters and is only a part of the national conversation because he's received glowing, nearly uniformly positive press coverage for months. 

It's a disingenuous attempt to dismiss legitimate criticism from the left without having to engage with the substance of what we say, which is the go-to tactic for those users.

And no, I wasn't referring to you.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

That's far more reasonable than many make it come across good to know.

 

To answer ur question, one major plan I think won't work as intended is the wealth tax (especially Bernie's high version of it)

A lighter version like Warren's could maybe work if she can overcome failures like in Europe. Most nation's in Europe that tried it failed (only 3 still have it like Spain and budget issues and inequality issues haven't been solved with it) as the cost to enforce it was quite high, evasion was high as well... Some assets were also very hard to value.

They already addressed the issue of ppl with high assets but low cash (like farmers) by having the starting threshold of the tax much higher than in Europe ($20M for sanders and $50M for Warren) this unlikely to have that issue on that department. 

But there's the issue if the amount. Warren's version might be ok but Bernie's 8% will require significant liquidation of assets like stocks and bonds in order for billionaires to comply with their tax obligations every year... This will put downward pressure on stock valuations and that means the taxable base will struggle to stay flat (8% is already a string year on stock market) and quite likely result in diminishing tax revenue over the years

Struggling stocks would also negatively impact capital gains taxes and hurt people's pension funds which would at least in part neutralize some of the positive benefits if a wealth tax

I know he is also a proposer a large corporate tax hikes. I think that's a mistake because. A partial reversal of Trump's exxagerated cuts, fine...

But there is not only international competitiveness to consider but also the fact that I think taxing corporations is taxing the rich is a bit if a misconception

Not all shareholders are rich (normal ppl own shares in corporations too even if it's just in retirement funds)... Also not all corporations are flooded in money. As an investor who used to buy stocks I knew all their stats... While corporations like Apple with insane profit margins of 27% of revenue exist, they are outliers not the norm. There's lots of corporations with profit margins of only 5% to 8% of revenue... A big tax hike on them could result on higher prices being passed on to consumers and that's a tax on everyone not just the rich

I think if u wanna tax the rich directly a hike in capital gains taxes (especially on gains above a certain threshold because investments is how the very rich compound their wealth fast sitting on their butts) is more effective because then u are targeting ONLY the rich individuals. High corporate taxes would end up taxing everyone else along with it so it's better to go after individuals themselves, the very large shareholders

Good answer. 

I think we have a difference in values and priorities tbh.

For example, youre right that with that % wealth tax, many wealthy would have to make tangible funds in order to pay it by liquidating assets. I'm saying this literally isn't a problem . Like if we actually focus on that for a moment...

Only 49 people would be hit with an actual 8% tax on their wealth. There are 320,000,000 people in America. Those 49 people will likely have to liquidate assets in order to pay this* It is a burden on them to an extent, sure, but its not a large burden. It's not going to negatively impact their livelihoods, their families livelihoods, possibly for generations to come if they continue to accumulate wealth (and influence, which is underestimated crucially) and honestly even if they never make another cent.

If you look at how much like, actual money Billionaires and millionaires spend, how they live, the value of the things they own and pay for (outside of things like stocks, - things like their houses, their cars, etc.) It won't actually burden them significantly. Someone living in a mansion will not have to live in a shitty apartment, or become a lower class citizen by virtue of having to pay this tax. To take the recent Warren question, if Jeff Bezos was taxed $100 billion of his $107 billion (im oversimplifying wealth here), he would still have $7 billion, which is still more money than a person could potentially spend in several lifetimes.

And the positive of it is that we can help pay for Medicare for All, affordable housing for every american, universal childcare, and more.

There are legitimate economic things to be concerned about - from an economic standpoint. But when you are arguing that this kind of burden is bad, unfair, unreasonable, or anything really - you are arguing against the potential of free college, or healthcare for all, housing for all, childcare for all - things that are sometimes fundamental needs for human beings to thrive... It all falls apart. Those 49 people will be objectively okay as individuals, corporate heads, etc. with this burden. Their wealth will decrease, but that's only bad if you value wealth and growth. The entire point of Sanders is that it not only should decrease, but must in order for our society to be more equal. When you compare this to the abject poverty and economic distress and consider that there are over 320,000,000 people in this country... It becomes morally indefensible in my position. We are talking about some bad effects (that arguably aren't really bad) versus uplifting hundreds and millions of people financially, socially and culturally in this society. 

The benefits vastly vastly outweigh the detriments.

As for the issue of whether this will result in lower pensions, higher taxes and less revenue, gdp growth slowing, etc this is where  I personally do need to do more research on the issue of how it may affect pensions and stocks etc., but this is ultimately a values led  discussion. We should not be a society that sees wealth accumulation, growth, GDP, stock value, revenue, etc. as being more important than individual human liberties, prosperity, happiness etc. It is important, but the scales are tipped very very heavily. Our economy should serve us, we should not serve it. A good economy is not enough for a just and good society if all we are are slaves towards it. I don't think thats the purpose of humanity.  On that, we may just fundamentally disagree, but if these proposals won't translate into worse actual tangible conditions for everyday of people in this country (and the world), I will take these downsides. The economists, wonks, etc. who have proposed these bills and plans for Bernie and Warren (notably the latter) are very intelligent, well educated, and with diverse backgrounds, and I trust their judgment.

Also, the policy proposals of Warren and Sanders are pretty multifaceted. It isn't as black and white as just a wealth tax to cover everything. You would need to read their actual plans in their fully fleshed out forms, but pundits rarely do that and look for headline worthy bits to note. Warren and Sanders support a variety of different kinds of intersecting taxes and tax reform, its not all about 1 wealth tax to rule them all. The kinds of reform there are predicated on the outcomes they seek by waging them.

***

Spoiler

 

*Estimates show that around 180,000 people who have wealth over $20 million would be impacted by this wealth tax overall, but my point doesn't change with this number, the potential need to liquidate some assets to afford the tax will not devastate the livelihoods or success of these people in any serious way. There may be exceptions, but I would need to see them. I just focused on the 8% part because it's what we were talking about*

 

As a final point, these are not the substantive discussions anyone is having in all of these Pete vs Sanders threads... It usually doesn't go much further than "Pete has a problem with Black voters, who are one of the largest voting blocs in the country" and "Sanders supporters are so aggressive, can't tolerate the idea that people disagree with them" etc. It's unproductive conversation, and from people who claim to love productive conversation, etc. I just don't know why people are so adverse to the potential that they might be wrong about something  Like, acknowledge his polling #s with black people, and argue that he can improve it, or why/how he is making efforts to improve it instead of bad faith arguments against Sanders or his supporters  

[imnotyourbabe10 6,120]

Bernie or bust!  Not buying into the corporate, bought out, neo-liberals.  We don't have time for that slow-paced change.  Bernie has been fighting inequality on all fronts (climate change, homophobia, misogyny, income inequality, racism and so forth) his entire life.  Everyone else is seemingly jumping on his coattails or riding in the moderate lane.

EDIT:  Regardless of political stance, is anyone else sick of the talking heads of the media opining about who "won/lost" or just creating click-bait headlines? Politics is always described as a "battle" --(hell, even "fighting cancer" is framed this way).  Instead of these "war-like" headlines and descriptions of policies, why not elevate the language to more intellectual places rather than what is catchy.  I really hate late stage capitalism, ugh.

[Economy 52,861]

6 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Good answer. 

I think we have a difference in values and priorities tbh.

For example, youre right that with that % wealth tax, many wealthy would have to make tangible funds in order to pay it by liquidating assets. I'm saying this literally isn't a problem . Like if we actually focus on that for a moment...

Only 49 people would be hit with an actual 8% tax on their wealth. There are 320,000,000 people in America. Those 49 people will likely have to liquidate assets in order to pay this* It is a burden on them to an extent, sure, but its not a large burden. It's not going to negatively impact their livelihoods, their families livelihoods, possibly for generations to come if they continue to accumulate wealth (and influence, which is underestimated crucially) and honestly even if they never make another cent.

If you look at how much like, actual money Billionaires and millionaires spend, how they live, the value of the things they own and pay for (outside of things like stocks, - things like their houses, their cars, etc.) It won't actually burden them significantly. Someone living in a mansion will not have to live in a shitty apartment, or become a lower class citizen by virtue of having to pay this tax. To take the recent Warren question, if Jeff Bezos was taxed $100 billion of his $107 billion (im oversimplifying wealth here), he would still have $7 billion, which is still more money than a person could potentially spend in several lifetimes.

And the positive of it is that we can help pay for Medicare for All, affordable housing for every american, universal childcare, and more.

There are legitimate economic things to be concerned about - from an economic standpoint. But when you are arguing that this kind of burden is bad, unfair, unreasonable, or anything really - you are arguing against the potential of free college, or healthcare for all, housing for all, childcare for all - things that are sometimes fundamental needs for human beings to thrive... It all falls apart. Those 49 people will be objectively okay as individuals, corporate heads, etc. with this burden. Their wealth will decrease, but that's only bad if you value wealth and growth. The entire point of Sanders is that it not only should decrease, but must in order for our society to be more equal. When you compare this to the abject poverty and economic distress and consider that there are over 320,000,000 people in this country... It becomes morally indefensible in my position. We are talking about some bad effects (that arguably aren't really bad) versus uplifting hundreds and millions of people financially, socially and culturally in this society. 

The benefits vastly vastly outweigh the detriments.

As for the issue of whether this will result in lower pensions, higher taxes and less revenue, gdp growth slowing, etc this is where  I personally do need to do more research on the issue of how it may affect pensions and stocks etc., but this is ultimately a values led  discussion. We should not be a society that sees wealth accumulation, growth, GDP, stock value, revenue, etc. as being more important than individual human liberties, prosperity, happiness etc. It is important, but the scales are tipped very very heavily. Our economy should serve us, we should not serve it. A good economy is not enough for a just and good society if all we are are slaves towards it. I don't think thats the purpose of humanity.  On that, we may just fundamentally disagree, but if these proposals won't translate into worse actual tangible conditions for everyday of people in this country (and the world), I will take these downsides. The economists, wonks, etc. who have proposed these bills and plans for Bernie and Warren (notably the latter) are very intelligent, well educated, and with diverse backgrounds, and I trust their judgment.

Also, the policy proposals of Warren and Sanders are pretty multifaceted. It isn't as black and white as just a wealth tax to cover everything. You would need to read their actual plans in their fully fleshed out forms, but pundits rarely do that and look for headline worthy bits to note. Warren and Sanders support a variety of different kinds of intersecting taxes and tax reform, its not all about 1 wealth tax to rule them all. The kinds of reform there are predicated on the outcomes they seek by waging them.

***

  Reveal hidden contents

 

*Estimates show that around 180,000 people who have wealth over $20 million would be impacted by this wealth tax overall, but my point doesn't change with this number, the potential need to liquidate some assets to afford the tax will not devastate the livelihoods or success of these people in any serious way. There may be exceptions, but I would need to see them. I just focused on the 8% part because it's what we were talking about*

 

As a final point, these are not the substantive discussions anyone is having in all of these Pete vs Sanders threads... It usually doesn't go much further than "Pete has a problem with Black voters, who are one of the largest voting blocs in the country" and "Sanders supporters are so aggressive, can't tolerate the idea that people disagree with them" etc. It's unproductive conversation, and from people who claim to love productive conversation, etc. I just don't know why people are so adverse to the potential that they might be wrong about something  Like, acknowledge his polling #s with black people, and argue that he can improve it, or why/how he is making efforts to improve it instead of bad faith arguments against Sanders or his supporters  

I think were arguing different things here. I was not talking about whether they will be ok or not. That wasnt my point, i know these billionaires will be more than fine

 

im talking about how much of Americas wealth they own and as such how much money were talking about moving and its impacts 

 

One issue im concerned about is a potential shrinking of the tax base over the years. Like i said, investment assets only grow by more than 8% on the good years (which is more like 6% inflation adjusted), by taxing that out of the rich every year who own a big chunck of capital, growth in equity markets would slow at least a bit... If capital markets on the longer term dont really ecceed this much growth (especially adjusted for inflation) I definitely dont see it growing this fast after the tax...

 

u talked about all the free things we could get like free college and healthcare. Thats fine in itself, even great. But this is spending wed be on the hook forever... but im not convinced the tax base will stay flat, it will probably shrink over time, that means tax revenue could be front loaded with Bernies plan. It may yield a lot of revenue in the early years because of how agressively it targets the super wealthy, but my concern is that as the super wealthy potentially get outright declining assets, the revenues from the wealth tax would then fall over time. And if we get dependent on that revenue it could be a problem if it drops. I dont know how sustainable it really is long term

 

Warrens plan of 3% would not be high enough for that impact and still raise a lot of revenue. I guess i just think its more sustainable 

 

this is not something i can say for sure. Capital markets are something hard to predict how they react. But i think its a legit concern with a tax that high.

 

Also i  dont think you responded to my comment about general Corporate Taxes

 

Tho a modest increase i think is fine (I think Trump did go too far with the cuts, once they are low enough to be internationally competitive, the benefits to lowering them any further are limited and not worth the lost revenue). But a high increase would caused higher prices for consumers and like i said, people have stakes on corporate earnings too

 

i think going after rich individuals capital gains is more effective in targeting only the wealthy because Corporate tax hikes end up taxing everyone directly or indirectly

 

PS: One thing i love about Bernie is hes one of the few that talked about some cuts to US Military. Thats a lot of wasted money that can pay for a lot of good

 

Edit: Also i can give u a very solid example of a major policy change that went theu a lot of political debate here in Ontario (our Province is more populated than even the biggest Scandinavian Countries so i think theres enough GDP scale to make it a fair test) of how both the left wing and the right wing over estimated their Predictions of the impact and how the truth ended up being  as usual somewhere in the middle

 

but i already typed a lot so ill give u the example only if u actually wanna hear it

[Cody James 1,543]

7 hours ago, SKANK said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/latinorebels/status/1196873200682065925

For those interested in what Pete actually said regarding sending troops to Mexico. 

 

Idk how so many of us are saying he lied. He legitimately says that troops in Mexico would be for building allies and helping.... thanks for posting this. 

[pachinko 10,755]

Pete, ugh  take me! 

[pachinko 10,755]

5 hours ago, Bonkers said:

That's pretty funny, actually.  My mistake.  But no, you're exhausted by your own self righteous indignation and from all those "sad" reactions you gave out today.    And you posted a great deal of inaccuracies yourself 

Also, I'm high, so I didn't check it and it looked about right except for Harris had a much better night than 3%

Harris is a more tamed lose cannon than Trump. She doesn't have a shot. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

7 hours ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

I find it outrageous that you and the rest of the handful of centrists on this site outright refuse to engage with the substance of our criticisms (like you literally just did) and fall back on the same line over and over again:

"The mean Bernie bros are so intolerant! I can't even disingenuously mock them or the left or Sanders without them criticizing me! How dare they attack another democrat! This is what gave us Trump!!!!!" 

You in particular have come into these threads over and over again to relentlessly bash Sanders, and when his supporters defend him and criticize the candidates that you're defending with policy-based criticism or criticism rooted in their records, you cry foul and act as if we've crossed a line by simply responding to what you said or substantively criticizing a politician (in a primary, the express purpose of which is to critique potential nominees) while refusing to engage with what we've presented to you. 

Disagreeing over a candidate is fine, if you can substantively defend yourself when faced with criticism from those that are more progressive than you. But when you and the rest of the four or five #NeverSanders people on this site lob an insult at the left or throw out some lazy line about how we shouldn't criticize democrats or claim that we should support conservative candidates that are outright telling us we can't have what every other industrialized country in the world has, policies that would save lives, you better be ready to deal with criticism.

Hillary Clinton did not lose the 2016 election because she faced a primary challenge. The 2015 and 2016 primary was not even remotely as heated as what happened in '08 and Obama beat McCain in a landslide. Sanders and his supporters did not force Clinton, the least popular candidate in the history of the democratic party, who ran an incompetent campaign that stunningly didn't even include a single stop in the state of Wisconsin, to lose to Trump. She lost because she was an awful candidate with a terrible record and was deeply unpopular, which is exactly what the left warned you about in the primary. You didn't listen to us, just like you're not listening to us now. That's what I find outrageous.

 

7 hours ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

This is embarrassing.

"Extreme ideology"? Wanting a universal healthcare system that guarantees healthcare to all Americans as a right, a plan similar to what nearly every other industrialized country in the world has, is an extreme position? Wanting to eliminate poverty is an extreme position? Wanting to avoid electing another centrist that will continue to kill Palestinians and back right-wing coups in Latin America and South America and kill innocent people in the Middle East with drone bombs is "extreme"?

It's been obvious for a while that you and the handful of other centrists on here don't engage with politics on a substantive policy level. When you tell us that what I just described is "extreme", when you outright refuse to engage with us on policy grounds and resort to this lame, semantic nonsense, it makes it extremely clear why we find engaging with you maddening, and why I personally find it a massive waste of my time and avoid it as frequently as I can.

I have to laugh. I am absolutely not a #NeverBernie voter. That’s exactly the kind of sh*t I hate. 
 

re: the word I chose to describe the far left — “extreme”. I tried to convey what I was trying to say without that word, and I knew some people would take issue with it, but I genuinely don't think I could’ve chosen another word.
 

What else would you call THE most leftward Senator we have in Congress? M4A doesn’t even have majority support amongst Democrats, let alone the broader America public. Listen, I hear you in terms of what the right end goal is. Single payer is the inevitable evolution of our healthcare system in my opinion. I think we ought to eventually have a wealth tax, etc. But for ME, I only care about winning the general. These extreme (ie. the MOST leftward policy proposals amongst anyone in the country with a national platform) would be great, but the stakes are too high.
 

I don’t think it’s offensive to describe the far end of either side of the political spectrum extreme. 

I also find it funny that you say you try to avoid engaging as much as possible when you obsessively comb through this forum to “sad” react to anyone who disagrees with you. 
 

Lastly, the fact that you think any one of those candidates what’s to conduct a South American coup is a bad faith attack and you really ought to check yourself. 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

6 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

 

I have to laugh. I am absolutely not a #NeverBernie voter. That’s exactly the kind of sh*t I hate. 
 

re: the word I chose to describe the far left — “extreme”. I tried to convey what I was trying to say without that word, and I knew some people would take issue with it, but I genuinely don't think I could’ve chosen another word.
 

What else would you call THE most leftward Senator we have in Congress? M4A doesn’t even have majority support amongst Democrats, let alone the broader America public. Listen, I hear you in terms of what the right end goal is. Single payer is the inevitable evolution of our healthcare system in my opinion. I think we ought to eventually have a wealth tax, etc. But for ME, I only care about winning the general. These extreme (ie. the MOST leftward policy proposals amongst anyone in the country with a national platform) would be great, but the stakes are too high.
 

I don’t think it’s offensive to describe the far end of either side of the political spectrum extreme. 

I also find it funny that you say you try to avoid engaging as much as possible when you obsessively comb through this forum to “sad” react to anyone who disagrees with you. 
 

Lastly, the fact that you think any one of those candidates what’s to conduct a South American coup is a bad faith attack and you really ought to check yourself. 

Majority of Democrats support medicare for all when the question is asked truthfully and not making the question loaded. Also, for an extreme candidate with views so unlikable, general election matchups show Bernie more capable of defeating Trump than everyone else in the field except for Biden. But generally speaking, considering the under 50 vote has grown in both the 2018 and 2019 elections so far, it is laughable to ignore the fact that Bernie more than any other candidate is going to galvanize the younger voters and is likely to over-perform his general election polling matchups more so than any other candidate. 

Just one example below because I can spend all day arguing about public opinion polling and there's many many more polls that show democrats (and independents and republicans) do in fact support medicare for all. 

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412545-70-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all-health-care

[Othon 34,299]

23 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

M4A doesn’t even have majority support amongst Democrats, let alone the broader America public.

That isn't even remotely true. Even in the most conservative poll, which was cited in this thread by one of the people that has been trolling Sanders supporters on this forum for the past week, shows that the vast majority of Democrats and a majority of Americans support M4A.

25 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Listen, I hear you in terms of what the right end goal is. Single payer is the inevitable evolution of our healthcare system in my opinion. I think we ought to eventually have a wealth tax, etc. But for ME, I only care about winning the general. These extreme (ie. the MOST leftward policy proposals amongst anyone in the country with a national platform) would be great, but the stakes are too high.

Bernie has consistently outpolled Warren and Buttigieg in head-to-head matchups against Trump, so this notion that we have to vote for a more moderate candidate to beat Trump is not, nor has it ever been, true. He's MORE electable, and nearly all of the polling shows that.

30 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Lastly, the fact that you think any one of those candidates what’s to conduct a South American coup is a bad faith attack and you really ought to check yourself. 

This is exactly why I don't waste my time trying to get into it with you. You don't know what you're talking about. 

Warren refused to condemn the coup that literally just happened in Bolivia, stayed silent while countless indigenous protestors are being killed in the streets, and granted legitimacy to an unelected right-wing, self-appointed leader by claiming that she would have the power to call for new elections. None of the other candidates have condemned the coup in Bolivia, aside from Bernie Sanders.

And when asked about Venezuela, she flat out said the she supports installing an unelected right-winger that is being pushed by the Trump administration and supports sanctions that would cripple the Venezuelan economy and harm the most marginalized people in the country.

[FATCAT 60,888]

Honestly, I kind of agree with Pete that it may be best to go with a Medicare for All option before we just make it everyone's healthcare, but we have to do more to help people that can't afford even that option.

[Marilyn MonHoe 11,011]

9 hours ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

Before I go, I just want to point out that the same people in here going after the left and claiming that we're not civil enough are all calling us "far left clowns" or positively engaging with posts including that insult.

This is how I know that this entire back and forth about civility is a lie. They're perfectly fine attacking the left or outright insulting the several Sanders supporters in here while they claim that challenging them on policy is outrageous and out of line. None of this means anything. Politics is a team sport to these people and they want the left to stay silent. That's it. 

Moderates: Unity is important! We shouldn’t be fighting amongst each other!!!111!!1!1

Also Moderates: Far left clowns operate in another reality 

 

The hypocrisy and ignorance jumped out. The unity virtue signaling only happens when progressives criticize moderate politicians but when it’s the other way around.... crickets.

They’re only proving that they would rather argue with their feelings than on anything substantive. Reminds me of how Trump supporters operate 

And not the rabid Bernie hater trying to downplay their toxicity. If you use the term “Bernie Bro” then you are far from a rational person that offers slight criticism of Bernie or his supporters 

[Whispering 18,865]

46 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Honestly, I kind of agree with Pete that it may be best to go with a Medicare for All option before we just make it everyone's healthcare, but we have to do more to help people that can't afford even that option.

Same here. There are many polls that show that Democrats are feeling the same way. They want others to have healthcare, but don’t necessarily want to commit to changing their insurance yet. 

Giving something to people is one thing. It’s a different story when you try to take something away from people. 

Even if Warren or Bernie were to win, we would have to win the trifecta to even begin the process. Then, MFA would be a hard sell getting through Congress. With only 14 supporters currently, the next Dem President would have to spend all their political capital and influence on this one thing...and it would still end up compromised greatly. 

[Economy 52,861]

1 hour ago, Marilyn MonHoe said:

Moderates: Unity is important! We shouldn’t be fighting amongst each other!!!111!!1!1

Also Moderates: Far left clowns operate in another reality 

 

The hypocrisy and ignorance jumped out. The unity virtue signaling only happens when progressives criticize moderate politicians but when it’s the other way around.... crickets.

They’re only proving that they would rather argue with their feelings than on anything substantive. Reminds me of how Trump supporters operate 

And not the rabid Bernie hater trying to downplay their toxicity. If you use the term “Bernie Bro” then you are far from a rational person that offers slight criticism of Bernie or his supporters 

I think thats ppl in all political spectrums tbh. Right, Left and Centre

 

ur right that the right is stubborn and that centrist democrats are being hypocritical about unity but frankly i dont think the left is any better 

 

As someone who doesnt have a specific place in the spectrum (because every situation is different and i believe left vs right is over simplifying things too much)

 

long story short i can disagreebwith not only left and right wingers but centre wingers too

 

Discussing differing points of view with all political types i see that all are equally bad in terms of not respecting other opinions, having a tunnel vision to their idea etc

 

and im generalizing political spectrums as a whole btw. Im not saying every individual is like this

[raragaga 8,119]

daddy pete