The White House has called on Congress to approve aid to Israel and Ukraine, but Republicans oppose any measure that excludes provisions to address security on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Because Bernie was entitled to the nomination? There’s a ton of authoritarian shit coming from Bernie fans. Between this, wanting to change the rules of primaries when he lost, wanting to ignore the popular vote to make him the nominee etc.
Are you claiming that wanting to make antidemocratic rules more democratic is authoritarian? Who wanted to ignore the popular vote? And how, exactly, does the comment you replied to suggest that Bernie was entitled to the nomination? The voters are entitled to get the candidate they want.
Changing the rules after the fact is indeed anti democratic. I’m referring to all the talk during the primaries of ignoring the voters and pushing for delegates to vote for Bernie instead. Or course this wasn’t endorsed by Bernie. Rhetoric was rampant online at the time, fueled by Bernie refusing to quit after mathematically eliminated.
The voters are entitled to get the candidate they want, and in 2016 that was Hillary Clinton.
I understand why some people think that, which is why I mentioned it as the other possibility, but I honestly think it was simply a stupid mistake. People don’t get into politics unless they’re willing, to some degree, to make bets on long odds and embrace their inner ego. Sometimes, as with Warren’s refusal to drop out, that ends poorly.
Warren claims that Bernie said something sexist to her, and I’m sure that played into it. At the end of the day, the 1% were able to get their people to drop out and unify behind a single candidate and the 99% weren’t.
She was making sure Bernie lost by splitting the progressive vote. That was exactly the intention.
Because Bernie was entitled to the nomination? There’s a ton of authoritarian shit coming from Bernie fans. Between this, wanting to change the rules of primaries when he lost, wanting to ignore the popular vote to make him the nominee etc.
Are you claiming that wanting to make antidemocratic rules more democratic is authoritarian? Who wanted to ignore the popular vote? And how, exactly, does the comment you replied to suggest that Bernie was entitled to the nomination? The voters are entitled to get the candidate they want.
Changing the rules after the fact is indeed anti democratic. I’m referring to all the talk during the primaries of ignoring the voters and pushing for delegates to vote for Bernie instead. Or course this wasn’t endorsed by Bernie. Rhetoric was rampant online at the time, fueled by Bernie refusing to quit after mathematically eliminated.
The voters are entitled to get the candidate they want, and in 2016 that was Hillary Clinton.
I understand why some people think that, which is why I mentioned it as the other possibility, but I honestly think it was simply a stupid mistake. People don’t get into politics unless they’re willing, to some degree, to make bets on long odds and embrace their inner ego. Sometimes, as with Warren’s refusal to drop out, that ends poorly.
Warren claims that Bernie said something sexist to her, and I’m sure that played into it. At the end of the day, the 1% were able to get their people to drop out and unify behind a single candidate and the 99% weren’t.