Warren 2020 Campaign in turmoil after Iowa?

[StarstruckIllusion 53,654]

1 minute ago, FATCAT said:

I personally hope he doesn't move on it. I understand and accept the push for legalization of marijuana, but that's where I draw the line.

Why tho? That video perfectly explains why it’s dumb to draw the line there. It might be smart for 2020 bc Americans are too brainwashed on that issue.. but that’s just sad. Bernie’s whole thing is get smart and active against fear-based-conservative ideology, esp here bc diseases of despair is such a huge epidemic rn. 
 

Spoiler: The alcoholic prohibition in the last century flopped for a reason. 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

10 minutes ago, Gov Hooka said:

I’m going to push back on using the centrist label for her. Yes her foreign policy isn’t exactly progressive but she still supports the progressive agenda domestically. That alone should merit the label of progressive. She’s not AS progressive as Bernie of course when it comes to her policy, rhetoric, and messaging, but calling her a centrist does her a disservice. Though it is really strange that so many people who support centrist, even neoliberal policies support her and again that’s because she’s not FULLY progressive in her broader messaging which helps her image immensely in terms of appealing to the moderate Dems. 

@Economy 

As I’ve said many times, when *I* say centrist, I’m referring to more broadly. In other places she would be a centrist and Bernie would be left of center. To me the political spectrum is more than the narrow slice that has been American politics. 

[Economy 53,076]

13 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

@Economy 

As I’ve said many times, when *I* say centrist, I’m referring to more broadly. In other places she would be a centrist and Bernie would be left of center. To me the political spectrum is more than the narrow slice that has been American politics. 

I'm not sure I agree with ur analysis

 

Bernie is proposing Corporate tax rates and other taxes on wealthy to a level not even Scandinavian Countries do. That seems pretty left to me not centre left

 

And even Warren to say she's a centrist by other Nation standards I think is really pushing it. Certainly in terms of economy for sure

 

Trudeau here in Canada is part of the Centrist Liberal party and there's all kinds of things him and his party are way more right winged in than even Warren

 

Wealth taxes, 35% Corporate taxes (and with less loop holes), cancelling student debts, banning fracking or aspects of oil industry...

 

None of the Centrists here propose anything close to those lines

 

On Military and Healthcare I can see Elizabeth being further right winged but that's about it... And Bernie there's nothing Centre Left about him. He's definitely left even by other Nation Standards

[pachinko 10,765]

57 minutes ago, PartySick said:

If I abandon Warren I'm going to Bernie

I'm a Little Lizzard, not enthusiastic about Sanders at all, but Liz is less viable every day

Adonden her immediately. Sinking ship. Come to bernie 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

13 minutes ago, Economy said:

I'm not sure I agree with ur analysis

 

Bernie is proposing Corporate tax rates and other taxes on wealthy to a level not even Scandinavian Countries do. That seems pretty left to me not centre left

 

And even Warren to say she's a centrist by other Nation standards I think is really pushing it. Certainly in terms of economy for sure

 

Trudeau here in Canada is part of the Centrist Liberal party and there's all kinds of things him and his party are way more right winged in than even Warren

Imma just copy-paste this and reformat a bit from wikipedia on "Far-Left Politics" (from a global perspective, but Europe obviously has a richer history of leftist politics than America does so it takes on a European mindset)

"To distinguish the far left from the moderate left, March and Mudde identify three "useful criteria":

1) They reject the underlying socio-economic structure of contemporary capitalism

2) They advocate alternative economic and power structures involving redistribution of resources from political elites, and

3)They are internationalist, seeing causality between imperialism and globalism and regional socio-economic issues.

On #1 - Warren is a "capitalist to her bones" (center or moderate left)

On #2 - Warren agrees with the idea of wealth taxes not only as fundraising but as reduction of undue power in democracy. I'd say this is more actual left or "radical left" w.e

On #3 - Warren's worst area is foreign policy. She has the rhetoric, but not the history of policies to back up any kind of reliable Internationalist stance. To me, this is an issue she probably only began taking seriously when she decided to run for President, because her voting record and public stances on these issues are in line with the most casual of moderate democrats (center-right)

The scope of #2 isnt the deciding factor between whether shes a centrist or not. It's the fact that her wealth tax while having the right idea, just actually isnt substantial enough to accomplish its goal, which reeks of the same problem of neo-liberalism - half measures with dubious intentions that you can claim victory for while also placating the rich. Bernie is smart to hold the wealthy at arms length and deny them power in the decision making process, whereas Warren wants to work with them to make a more ethical capitalist state. (Which some would say its oxymoronic  )

But yeah, I would agree that she is center-left leaning but has some center or center-right ideas or mindsets that kind of complicate her. Would she be the most progressive president in recent history? Ofc, but compared to Bernie Sanders its apples and oranges.

~~~~

More On Topic, I didn't expect this kind of thing so early necessarily, and we don't know that much about this - its just a few staffers, but this is the kind of thing that is a bad sign looking ahead towards Super Tuesday. Shes not projected to win Massachusetts the last time I looked, which is a bad sign for her. She might need to pull a Kamala and drop out to save face for her political future, because her electoral history in Massachusetts is both short and not especially robust - she is actually one of the least popular senators believe it or not (I don't think she deserves that tbh but it is what it is)

[PartySick 174,165]

13 minutes ago, pachinko said:

Adonden her immediately. Sinking ship. Come to bernie 

I've already accepted that I'm probably voting for him

The only thing that could change that is if Liz sky rockets somehow but that isn't happening.

So Feel the Bern 2.0: The Re-up - Sanders' Revenge, the Remix Collection 2020

[Economy 53,076]

7 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Imma just copy-paste this and reformat a bit from wikipedia on "Far-Left Politics" (from a global perspective, but Europe obviously has a richer history of leftist politics than America does so it takes on a European mindset)

"To distinguish the far left from the moderate left, March and Mudde identify three "useful criteria":

1) They reject the underlying socio-economic structure of contemporary capitalism

2) They advocate alternative economic and power structures involving redistribution of resources from political elites, and

3)They are internationalist, seeing causality between imperialism and globalism and regional socio-economic issues.

On #1 - Warren is a "capitalist to her bones" (center or moderate left)

On #2 - Warren agrees with the idea of wealth taxes not only as fundraising but as reduction of undue power in democracy. I'd say this is more actual left or "radical left" w.e

On #3 - Warren's worst area is foreign policy. She has the rhetoric, but not the history of policies to back up any kind of reliable Internationalist stance. To me, this is an issue she probably only began taking seriously when she decided to run for President, because her voting record and public stances on these issues are in line with the most casual of moderate democrats (center-right)

The scope of #2 isnt the deciding factor between whether shes a centrist or not. It's the fact that her wealth tax while having the right idea, just actually isnt substantial enough to accomplish its goal, which reeks of the same problem of neo-liberalism - half measures with dubious intentions that you can claim victory for while also placating the rich. Bernie is smart to hold the wealthy at arms length and deny them power in the decision making process, whereas Warren wants to work with them to make a more ethical capitalist state. (Which some would say its oxymoronic  )

He said he was comparing it to other Nations tho... Most Nations don't "socio-economic structure of contemporary capitalism" either. The free market is pretty standard globally especially in democratic countries. The only thing that varies is how much regulation or how much they tax

 

Then there's stuff like the fracking ban. Again a very left thing to do. Ask and see if our Centrist Trudeau would outright ban any part of our energy industry

 

On foreign policy I agree with u

 

And yeah I get it Bernie wants to destroy the rich. The problem is once he's milked them and shrunk their wealth enough, how is he going to replace the revenue from his wealth tax for his programs? His tax and revenue plans vs spending don't seem sustainable long term. Especially considering few experts believe the revenue will be as high as he's expecting

 

I still think Bernie's ideas are too agressive

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

He said he was comparing it to other Nations tho... Most Nations don't "socio-economic structure of contemporary capitalism" either. The free market is pretty standard globally especially in democratic countries. The only thing that varies is how much regulation or how much they tax

 

Then there's stuff like the fracking ban. Again a very left thing to do. Ask and see if our Centrist Trudeau would outright ban any part of our energy industry

 

On foreign policy I agree with u

 

And yeah I get it Bernie wants to destroy the rich. The problem is once he's milked them and shrunk their wealth enough, how is he going to replace the revenue from his wealth tax for his programs? 

 

I still think Bernie's ideas are too agressive

There is not a purely socialist state anywhere in the world... 

One can "reject the socio-economic structure of contemporary capitalism" and not be a socialist... Bernie Sanders is only a social democrat in his actual economic goals, even if he identifies as a Democratic Socialist. I used the "capitalist to her bones" quote because their self identification matters in assessing their worldview or theory of change. Warren does NOT reject the socio-economic structures of contemporary capitalism, she wants big change that leaves capitalism itself pretty well in place, whereas Bernie wants to eliminate and reduce some elements of capitalism (such as substantially reducing the profit motive in Healthcare, giving power back to workers by giving them partial ownership of their workplaces, nationalize some things etc) that he feels are not reformable. So he is partially "Rejecting" the structures that make capitalism inherently oppressive. Warren would rather tinker with them and try to make them less oppressive, but Bernie says they can go. He stops very far away from actual "returning the means of production" though, and is center-left. So this does put him in the same camp as the Scandinavian model of social democracy, even if the scope of the projects are somewhat larger. As I've said to you before, the income inequality and size of our economy is VASTLY larger than comparable European countries, so I just don't see why this should be an indication of him being further left.

The purpose of a nationalized healthcare system is universal coverage and understanding that one's livelihood has no maximum price, therefore it would be immoral to allow it to exist in a capitalist system, especially in ours which is especially pernicious. That he would need to implement a large wealth tax, a 4% income tax, and eliminate private insurance to achieve it doesn't make it further left than the contemporary nations with analogous systems, our country is bigger, our problems are larger and more expensive, and taking just the exact same model as they have implemented wouldn't actually get to the core of our problems.

HELL, Many leftists like myself actually think M4A is a compromise position (it retains the privatized state of hospitals and doctors) and in America, an 8% wealth tax isn't enough  (it would take decades before some of the wealthiest's wealth actually decreases substantially in any way that is tangible to their influence on our political system at just 8%)

Far-leftists are literally communists, hard marxists, anarchists, etc. for comparison. Bernie isn't a communist  

[Economy 53,076]

3 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

There is not a purely socialist state anywhere in the world... 

One can "reject the socio-economic structure of contemporary capitalism" and not be a socialist... Bernie Sanders is only a social democrat in his actual economic goals, even if he identifies as a Democratic Socialist. I used the "capitalist to her bones" quote because their self identification matters in assessing their worldview or theory of change. Warren does NOT reject the socio-economic structures of contemporary capitalism, she wants big change that leaves capitalism itself pretty well in place, whereas Bernie wants to eliminate and reduce some elements of capitalism (such as substantially reducing the profit motive in Healthcare, giving power back to workers by giving them partial ownership of their workplaces, nationalize some things etc) that he feels are not reformable. So he is partially "Rejecting" the structures that make capitalism inherently oppressive. Warren would rather tinker with them and try to make them less oppressive, but Bernie says they can go. He stops very far away from actual "returning the means of production" though, and is center-left. So this does put him in the same camp as the Scandinavian model of social democracy, even if the scope of the projects are somewhat larger. As I've said to you before, the income inequality and size of our economy is VASTLY larger than comparable European countries, so I just don't see why this should be an indication of him being further left.

The purpose of a nationalized healthcare system is universal coverage and understanding that one's livelihood has no maximum price, therefore it would be immoral to allow it to exist in a capitalist system, especially in ours which is especially pernicious. That he would need to implement a large wealth tax, a 4% income tax, and eliminate private insurance to achieve it doesn't make it further left than the contemporary nations with analogous systems, our country is bigger, our problems are larger and more expensive, and taking just the exact same model as they have implemented wouldn't actually get to the core of our problems.

HELL, Many leftists like myself actually think M4A is a compromise position (it retains the privatized state of hospitals and doctors) and in America, an 8% wealth tax isn't enough  (it would take decades before some of the wealthiest's wealth actually decreases substantially in any way that is tangible to their influence on our political system at just 8%)

Far-leftists are literally communists, hard marxists, anarchists, etc. for comparison. Bernie isn't a communist  

My criticism of the 8% tax has nothing to do with whether it's enough to take away excessive power. Power and influence is not what I was talking about there. 

 

I was talking about money. Their wealth will shrink, which means the tax base will also shrink over time. To my knowledge he has not given any plans as to how he would replace this income. If I missed something feel free to tell me but I don't think he has as far as I'm aware which makes his plans unsustainable in my view if it depends on that much revenue since he doesn't wanna raise taxes on the general population like other Nations do

 

If u go to Europe the rich pay more than they do in the US but so does the general population. For the US to pay for the same programs specifically with only money from the wealthy, the taxes have to be higher... Once they are tapped out enough, I feel like the US would have no choice but to raise taxes on everyone else too

 

Cuz he's just not giving a plan to replace a tax plan that shrinks the wealth of the rich overtime and therefore cannot fund the tax plans indefinitely

 

As for the US being more expensive that's the issue with the system not the size.

 

Size has little relevance in cost burden. If you have 10X the population as another Nation u have 10X the ppl to cover programs for bit also 10X the ppl paying taxes and larger economy

[Luc 4,776]

Warren was my favourite candidate for a long time, but I think I'm quite pragmatic in this. Warren has better policies than Bernie in my opinion, but she doesn't have the kind of following or 'legacy' that Bernie does, and would've had more trouble winning the GE against Trump than Bernie will.

The only sad thing is that with Bernie, you get all of the stuff that comes with him, mostly his supporters. I hope Bernie supporters (including many on GGD) see that all the conspiracies, the Bernie-or-bust attitude, attacking other candidates so harshly, basically making your base look like a Trump-like cult, is not appealing to me and probably quite a lot of other people.

[Economy 53,076]

9 minutes ago, Luc said:

Warren was my favourite candidate for a long time, but I think I'm quite pragmatic in this. Warren has better policies than Bernie in my opinion, but she doesn't have the kind of following or 'legacy' that Bernie does, and would've had more trouble winning the GE against Trump than Bernie will.

The only sad thing is that with Bernie, you get all of the stuff that comes with him, mostly his supporters. I hope Bernie supporters (including many on GGD) see that all the conspiracies, the Bernie-or-bust attitude, attacking other candidates so harshly, basically making your base look like a Trump-like cult, is not appealing to me and probably quite a lot of other people.

Yeah I do find many of his supporters overly agressive and with purity tests etc

 

Many act like he's perfect, can do no wrong and everyone else is terrible etc and it just comes across toxic like Trumpsters only on the other side

 

All you gotta do is whatch big followed outliers like The Young Turks. Everyday they post 3-4 videos talking about how Bernie is amazing and everyone else sucks essentially and they have the nerve to call the rest of the media biased

 

I do believe nevertheless he can sway the US in a positive direction to level the playing field for ordinary ppl that aren't seeing any of the economic benefits of money that is being hoarded at the top. I don't agree with how far he wants to go in certain things but again I don't think he will be allowed to anyway

 

Next to Warren (who clearly isn't gonna win), Bernie is the best candidate in my opinion

 

In fact there's a few things I prefer him over Warren like desire to reduce military spending and a more complete healthcare coverage plan

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

 

I still don't agree that a wealth tax would make us unable to afford the programs he is proposing...

BUT, I have evolved on this issue a bit recently, and I think its actually a better marketing strategy to make a wealth tax more about power/wealth redistribution rather than as a means of the way that we must pay for everything proposed.

That money can still be used towards those purposes (but it is not the sole means of paying for any single plan proposed, as I've said) but I think all of us, especially in America, fall into a trap of being too focused on the specific elements of how it will affect mathematical models and less on bending and reshaping those models to reflect a new reality. That sounds really hippy-dippy, but I mean it  Our system is not inherent, it works to serve us and we can decide to make it work differently to quite some extent. I understand why people are so focused on certain elements, aggressively so often, but I do think that many people don't understand Sanders' theory of change very much, and it certainly is pretty revolutionary. Y'all should watch videos and clips and read the words of a YOUNG Bernie Sanders (he was hot too tbh  ) arguing that the profit motive isnt inherent to the human spirit and much more to really get a sense of how his politics have been shaped throughout his life.

24 minutes ago, Economy said:

My criticism of the 8% tax has nothing to do with whether it's enough to take away excessive power. Power and influence is not what I was talking about there. 

 

I was talking about money. Their wealth will shrink, which means the tax base will also shrink over time. To my knowledge he has not given any plans as to how he would replace this income. If I missed something feel free to tell me but I don't think he has as far as I'm aware which makes his plans unsustainable in my view if it depends on that much revenue since he doesn't wanna raise taxes on the general population like other Nations do

 

If u go to Europe the rich pay more than they do in the US but so does the general population. For the US to pay for the same programs specifically with only money from the wealthy, the taxes have to be higher... Once they are tapped out enough, I feel like the US would have no choice but to raise taxes on everyone else too

 

Cuz he's just not giving a plan to replace a tax plan that shrinks the wealth of the rich overtime and therefore cannot fund the tax plans indefinitely

 

As for the US being more expensive that's the issue with the system not the size.

 

Size has little relevance in cost burden. If you have 10X the population as another Nation u have 10X the ppl to cover programs for bit also 10X the ppl paying taxes and larger economy

We've literally been over this like 3x before   but you still aren't getting my point, and I was responding to the message of why Warren could be considered a centrist, or center-left leaning, but bernie is not far left, even though some of his plans are in your words more "aggressive" than his european counterparts he likes to mention. I think I answered that and you havent refuted it here, this ^ comment is a question about how you feel about a wealth tax as a means of revenue generation for social programs... which is a separate topic from how "left" it makes a person's political views

To resummarize, it is the goals, worldview, ideology that informs things like the numbers, not the other way around necessarily.

A 3% wealth tax is more indicative of a capitalist-friendly mentality (center), whereas an 8% is more indicative of a capitalist-skeptical mentality (center-left). Neither is something like "a 100% inheritance tax upon death" (which would be pure meritocracy and remove people's ability to pass on wealth to their descendents) or a fully decentralized government, etc. That is the far left, not what Bernie proposes at all.

~~~

And I'm not talking about demographic size... The income inequality in canada just for example is less than it is in America just by a national indexing average, which is a calculable stat, amongst other indicators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_metrics

I did not mean to imply "we have 300 million people therefore we need 30x the taxes of a country of 10 million" if that's the impression it gave. Rather, I am saying that the scale of our problems with income inequality outweighs the scale of income inequality of some other places, that they happen to also be smaller countries with less immediate need for redistributive forces (such as in the Scandinavian model) is more of an aftereffect of how our histories have shaped out than by design.

America for example was entirely built on highly capitalist slave labor and secession of the elite class from a parent country, despite how we often think of it (yes, the founders weren't the "middle class" average Joe, lmfao they were wealthy highly educated elites)

I don't know the *entire* history of Sweden to compare, but I know enough to know its different.

I'm off topic though  PM me if you want to go on with this.

OT: Warren's first name is Elizabeth and her dog's name is Bailey. There was a large inflatable balloon of him made for a rally or something once that had her 2 cent wealth tax on it in the form of two pennies for his collar. It's a meme in niche leftist circles now as "Big Structural Bailey"

[Economy 53,076]

5 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

 

I still don't agree that a wealth tax would make us unable to afford the programs he is proposing...

BUT, I have evolved on this issue a bit recently, and I think its actually a better marketing strategy to make a wealth tax more about power/wealth redistribution rather than as a means of the way that we must pay for everything proposed.

That money can still be used towards those purposes (but it is not the sole means of paying for any single plan proposed, as I've said) but I think all of us, especially in America, fall into a trap of being too focused on the specific elements of how it will affect mathematical models and less on bending and reshaping those models to reflect a new reality. That sounds really hippy-dippy, but I mean it  Our system is not inherent, it works to serve us and we can decide to make it work differently to quite some extent. I understand why people are so focused on certain elements, aggressively so often, but I do think that many people don't understand Sanders' theory of change very much, and it certainly is pretty revolutionary. Y'all should watch videos and clips and read the words of a YOUNG Bernie Sanders (he was hot too tbh  ) arguing that the profit motive isnt inherent to the human spirit and much more to really get a sense of how his politics have been shaped throughout his life.

We've literally been over this like 3x before   but you still aren't getting my point, and I was responding to the message of why Warren could be considered a centrist, or center-left leaning, but bernie is not far left, even though some of his plans are in your words more "aggressive" than his european counterparts he likes to mention. I think I answered that and you havent refuted it here, this ^ comment is a question about how you feel about a wealth tax as a means of revenue generation for social programs... which is a separate topic from how "left" it makes a person's political views

To resummarize, it is the goals, worldview, ideology that informs things like the numbers, not the other way around necessarily.

A 3% wealth tax is more indicative of a capitalist-friendly mentality (center), whereas an 8% is more indicative of a capitalist-skeptical mentality (center-left). Neither is something like "a 100% inheritance tax upon death" (which would be pure meritocracy and remove people's ability to pass on wealth to their descendents) or a fully decentralized government, etc. That is the far left, not what Bernie proposes at all.

~~~

And I'm not talking about demographic size... The income inequality in canada just for example is less than it is in America just by a national indexing average, which is a calculable stat, amongst other indicators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_metrics

I did not mean to imply "we have 300 million people therefore we need 30x the taxes of a country of 10 million" if that's the impression it gave. Rather, I am saying that the scale of our problems with income inequality outweighs the scale of income inequality of some other places, that they happen to also be smaller countries with less immediate need for redistributive forces (such as in the Scandinavian model) is more of an aftereffect of how our histories have shaped out than by design.

America for example was entirely built on highly capitalist slave labor and secession of the elite class from a parent country, despite how we often think of it (yes, the founders weren't the "middle class" average Joe, lmfao they were wealthy highly educated elites)

I don't know the *entire* history of Sweden to compare, but I know enough to know its different.

I'm off topic though  PM me if you want to go on with this.

OT: Warren's first name is Elizabeth and her dog's name is Bailey. There was a large inflatable balloon of him made for a rally or something once that had her 2 cent wealth tax on it in the form of two pennies for his collar. It's a meme in niche leftist circles now as "Big Structural Bailey"

Oh sorry. I didn't realize u meant bigger problems my bad. I understood your wording as in with more population it makes it more expensive. Many on GGD have made that argument and it makes no sense. If that's what u meant then I can agree with you ok that

 

Anyway to be completely honest with you, our replies to eachother are so long that by the time u reply and I get back to it I don't remember anymore what my original point or thought process with it was

 

There was a reason I brought up the wealth tax in response the way I did but I'd have to read our essays again from the beggining to remember what my original connection was the to left vs centre-left with the wealth taxes so nvm

 

I love debating with u but also hate it at the same time cuz ur the one person on this that replies to me with equally as long answers as mine if not bigger sometimes and my mind starts to loose focus

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

22 minutes ago, Luc said:

Warren was my favourite candidate for a long time, but I think I'm quite pragmatic in this. Warren has better policies than Bernie in my opinion, but she doesn't have the kind of following or 'legacy' that Bernie does, and would've had more trouble winning the GE against Trump than Bernie will.

The only sad thing is that with Bernie, you get all of the stuff that comes with him, mostly his supporters. I hope Bernie supporters (including many on GGD) see that all the conspiracies, the Bernie-or-bust attitude, attacking other candidates so harshly, basically making your base look like a Trump-like cult, is not appealing to me and probably quite a lot of other people.

I preferred Warren for a few months last year, and I didn't even want Bernie to run. I wanted Warren to run in 2016 (and tbh, I think she would've won though this campaign has taught me some of her political instincts are kind of off, or at the least she's chosen to surround herself with some people who are idiots  Probably former Clinton people  )

I disagree strongly with the rest though. Trump like implies racism, bigotry, lack of intelligence... and cult-like implies unearned reverence for Bernie the figure as a divine figure who can do no wrong... For contrast, people critique Bernie's mistakes, we're (at least on this site IMO) highly informed on political issues, and I don't think we're bigoted.

It's just literally true though that the "Bernie Bro" narrative was created by Hillary Clinton's team in response to him gaining in the polls in the primaries... They needed to win NV/SC and wanted to castigate Sanders support as being superficial, male, young, and white, to call up people's pre-existing feelings about young-white-men in the democratic electorate (we assume they are racist, bigoted, sexist, etc). In reality, Bernie's support has always been generational, even in 2016 he received more votes from young people of color than Trump and Hillary did combined, even in the midwest.

There aren't real bernie supporters who are vastly more aggressive, mean, bigoted, etc. than the supporters of any other campaign, and there really isn't any empirical way to prove the claim that they are. In fact, its easily disproven by the nature of social media itself, as well as the literal reported demographics of Bernie's support. We shouldn't let media narratives that were created for political purposes infect the way we see reality. This is not an attempt to deny any real experiences you had/have or feelings in interactions with potentially nasty Sanders supporters, but I do think it is worth considering. When I switched to Hillary in early-ish 2016, I also felt like Sanders supporters were too white for me and I started to internalize that they were problematic... and I'm a black feminist, I hate the idea stereotypical white men who are sexist, racist, and privileged 

 I thought they were all socialist anti-establishment dude-bros who don't care about race or anything, and since I've become more actively a Bernie supporter, I kick myself in the head for ever buying into this narrative, its one that I see daily as being false (And I'm connected through various media circles to thousands of supporters). Just my thoughts  

[Marilyn MonHoe 11,011]

1 hour ago, PartySick said:

I've already accepted that I'm probably voting for him

The only thing that could change that is if Liz sky rockets somehow but that isn't happening.

So Feel the Bern 2.0: The Re-up - Sanders' Revenge, the Remix Collection 2020

I sent you a whole bunch of Sanders gifs PartySick, don’t let me down