Effectively so. Buttigieg is one of the neoliberal consensus’s winners, so he’s not going to seriously upset that particular applecart any more than Biden would.
5 Likes
LAST 12 POLLS: Biden 27.5% Warren 19.4% Sanders 17.3%
LAST 24 POLLS: Biden 28.3% Warren 20.7% Sanders 16.4%
LAST 48 POLLS: Biden 27.7% Warren 21.0% Sanders 15.9%
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national
4 Likes
Once again: ACAB.
6 Likes
That tweet takes Harris’s words out of context and pretends like her quote was made in the context of a discussion of cops killing black people. The actual context:
But back to safe communities. That’s about having a Secretary of Education who understands the role that our public education system needs to play in dealing with this around early detection, around prevention and things like that. It’s about having a Department of Labor, and a Secretary of Labor, who understands, as I did when I created Back on Track in the early 2000s that, you know—to talk about violence—nothing stops a bullet like a job.
And she went on to talk about the importance of helping at-risk youth regarding jobs, training, and apprenticeship programs. Do you disagree with that point? Would you oppose that kind of initiative?
4 Likes
Etc.
Black people in America are routinely murdered because they live in a brutally White Supremacist society. Employment has fuck-all to do with it, except in the sense that societal violence always falls most heavily upon the poor.
7 Likes
Black people in America are routinely murdered because they live in a brutally White Supremacist society.
Agreed.
Employment has fuck-all to do with it
Harris was not talking about what you’re talking about. Would you actually oppose a program to help at-risk youth get training and jobs? Because that’s what she was proposing. I agree with you that such a program won’t stop cops from killing black people, but that was not the context of her quote. Do you think such a program would have no benefit? I’m just saying, you’re ignoring the context of what she was actually talking about to make a point that no know here disagrees with.
societal violence always falls most heavily upon the poor.
Absolutely!
3 Likes
Bernie’s been getting a lot of mileage from supporter-created ads. Zero cost to the campaign.
Here’s another:
5 Likes
7 Likes
Joe Biden in Danger of Humiliating Loss in Iowa, Top Democrats Warn
Will Joe Biden Win in Iowa? 2020 Candidate Risks Humiliating Loss - Bloomberg
Sounds like the Right-of-Centercrats are worried.
7 Likes
Here’s a non paywalled version that was up on Yahoo’s front page
8 Likes
It’s almost as if an entitled attitude that it’s “my turn, my turn” leads to a sense of complacency and doesn’t inspire voters. Biden learned nothing from the 2016 campaign.
I’m sure the Third-Way Dems are already shifting toward Buttigieg as the white male defender of their privilege, even if his relative youth and sexual orientation makes some of the older ones uncomfortable.
6 Likes
This could go in about 7 different places, but I’ll put it here since it involves Gabbard…
And just in case she deletes this and it stops OneBoxing…
(Gabbard is not, in fact, a SENATOR. Neat that the Fox crowd is super dedicated to making sure she doesn’t look bad though. Can’t have any uncomfortable questions the next time she goes on Tucker’s show I guess.)
10 Likes
Who is gonna tell Hirono and Schatz? They will be very sad!
9 Likes
Hawaii, being a deep blue Democratic stronghold, clearly gets 3 SENATORs because the libs love to break all the rules.
(Maybe we can take one of the seats away from Wyoming, which is clearly not using it for anything. 
)
7 Likes
Just for the recursiveness:
10 IF LAURA INGRAHAM THEN WRITE “Laura Ingraham is a low-rent Ann Coulter.”
20 IF ANN COULTER THEN WRITE “Ann Coulter is a low-rent Laura Ingraham.”
30 GOTO 10
11 Likes
So…our Jill Stein for their side?
4 Likes
Soshalism on the march. Won’t someone think of the billionaires and “slow AIs”?
This is no time for wide-eyed Commie lady radicals. We need a return to the neoliberal-lite norm offered by grinning old white men.
10 Likes
Fuckin’ New York Times. “Huge tax increases on businesses” my ass - it’s an offset for what they won’t be paying in premiums. Disingenuous assholes.
8 Likes
Warren is trying to combat this but it’s being shilled from everyone. All these rich people and business leaders and media outlets trying to make sure we know that money you pay to something called a “tax” is more important than money you have to pay out to some other expense. Of course without actually saying that, because it’s stupid on it’s face. And whenever Warren tries to explain that people care about how much money they have, not whether the money they don’t have went to a tax or not, they say Warren is dodging their questions. I sort of wish Warren would say, “I’m avoiding your question because it’s a stupid question.”
11 Likes
That’s basically what she said to Mayor Pete during the debate. But nicely.
5 Likes
