2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Bernie supported the resolution when first introduced and then said it was a mistake much later. Therefore, if he had to do it all over again, he would not have support the resolution to attack the Taliban & AQ in Afghanistan back in 2001. Are you disputing this?

No. You criticized him for saying that. I was just saying why I thought the war was a waste.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Your second paragraph is weird. Initially (which is what we are talking about), there obviously was a defined goal. Taliban & AQ were clearly a threat to the US (like how you left out AQ). This was truly about fighting back against "who attacked us militarily".

The Taliban was not a threat at all. It was a regional force that was propped up by Pakistan. There have been no Taliban attacks on our soil.

Al-Qaeda was a stateless terrorist organization that operated out of a number of countries. The leadership had left Afghanistan by 2002 and were hanging out with our "allies" who we were giving billions to. All the major Al-Qaeda attacks after 9/11 were planned out of Pakistan.

If this was a war against Al-Qaeda, we would have been fighting Pakistan. But they can fight back so we passed. Or Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar. But those countries have oil and our leaders didn't think an extra couple bucks at the gas tank was worth the lives of 3,000 Americans.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Direct question to you - would you have supported the Afghan resolution when first introduced in 2001? I think the answer is no because you have said the only war you would have supported was WW2 but just want to confirm that you have the same position as that atheist, deadbeat dad.

Probably not. Sending other people to fight in a war I am capable of fighting in is for cowards. What does Atheism have to do with anything?

Considering we spent trillions, lost a bunch of lives, and ended up losing the war anyway, I feel pretty good about my stance.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by bronconick

If Bernie has the capacity to expand the electorate, then he'll win the primary. If the extent that he can expand it is overated, then Biden will win. Bernie supporters need to stop whining and back up what Sanders claims at his rallies.

Very much this. All of these unicorn voters that Bernie claims will put him over the top needs to come out now and do so. So far, there is little to no evidence that that he can rally the numbers he needs to win.

Originally Posted by Atocep

I agree. If Bernie can win despite the establishment coming together against him then the electability argument goes out the window.

The worst thing that could happen for Dems, though, is a contested convention with Bernie holding the majority of delegates and losing the nomination to Biden. That's Trump's easiest path to a 2020 win.

If Bernie holds the majority of the delegates, then there is no way to have a contested convention. The question is can he win a contested convention with the plurality of the votes. Four years ago argued against just automatically giving the nomination to the person that just had a plurality, instead saying the party should pick who could best beat Trump. Now suddenly he says the plurality holder should get the nomination. Wonder why the sudden change of heart? Hmmmmm......

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No. You criticized him for saying that. I was just saying why I thought the war was a waste.

Great, good we agree on his stance that he would not attack a "government" or "group of people" that supported and defended another group of people in attacking us on our soil when it first happened in 2001.

The Taliban was not a threat at all. It was a regional force that was propped up by Pakistan. There have been no Taliban attacks on our soil.

If I missed saying AQ whenever I said Taliban, then just assume I meant Taliban + AQ. Stop using Taliban as if we attacked Taliban only with no provocation.

1) AQ attacked us on our soil

2) We asked Taliban (okay it was more threatened) to give us Bin Laden and kick out AQ

3) The Taliban refused

4) So we attacked the Taliban + AQ

Al-Qaeda was a stateless terrorist organization that operated out of a number of countries. The leadership had left Afghanistan by 2002 and were hanging out with our "allies" who we were giving billions to. All the major Al-Qaeda attacks after 9/11 were planned out of Pakistan.

The center of gravity for AQ was clearly in Afghanistan in 2001. So what does the leadership having left in Afghanistan in 2002 have anything to do with the "initial" resolution to enter into Afghanistan in 2001? It has nothing to do with the initial 2001 resolution where your bro would have refused to defend us.

If this was a war against Al-Qaeda, we would have been fighting Pakistan. But they can fight back so we passed. Or Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar. But those countries have oil and our leaders didn't think an extra couple bucks at the gas tank was worth the lives of 3,000 Americans.

It's not either or. There levels of scale & degree that has to be factored into, along with geopolitical consequences. AQ in Afghanistan in 2001 was clearly the threat, they were being supported and defended by the Taliban. Clear enough reason to stand up to support and defend the US.

If your argument is that we should have attacked Taliban + AQ and also those other countries, fine let's have that discussion. But we are talking about 2001 and the initial resolution and your bro (and you) would not even have attacked Taliban + AQ. Your other countries defense are used to obfuscate what we are talking here ... your bro simply not willing to defend the US when we were attacked on our soil back in 2001.

If your bro is not willing to do that back then, when is he willing to fight back against our attackers?

Probably not. Sending other people to fight in a war I am capable of fighting in is for cowards.

Why can't you just simply say "no"? That is clearly your stance by calling others who supported it cowards.

What does Atheism have to do with anything?

Atheism doesn't have much to do with the support of 2001 resolution. Just enjoying using arguably hyperbolic, out-of-context & innuendo arguments/defense to follow the pattern.

Considering we spent trillions, lost a bunch of lives, and ended up losing the war anyway, I feel pretty good about my stance.

Yup, keep on deflecting away from the original 2001 resolution.




Let me try the tactic I used before so we do not go off on tangents and irrelevancy.

The original discussion: The big bro was not willing to support the US in attacking our AQ attackers back in 2001.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You brought up the evils of socialism and I pointed out the guys you stan for love giving out trillions in government handouts.

Sure, let's have the Trump discussion in the Trump thread.

However, in this thread I have said I would vote for Biden because he brings the old normal which is what I want after 4 years of Trump.

Let's be clear. It isn't because of just socialism because there are degrees of socialism in the US and I'm all for socialized medicine & SS. It is Bernie in total

1) Socialist - most extreme senator/congressman in recent memory
2) Commie lover
3) Atheist
4) Deadbeat dad who left mother + son in welfare
5) Extreme pacifist to extent not willing to defend the US when the US has been directly attacked
6) (Placeholder as I do more research)


The problem with the Biden (and the other dropouts) is he is not willing to play dirty. He should be constantly attacking the big bro on his policies and also these other controversial items.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If I missed saying AQ whenever I said Taliban, then just assume I meant Taliban + AQ. Stop using Taliban as if we attacked Taliban only with no provocation.

1) AQ attacked us on our soil

2) We asked Taliban (okay it was more threatened) to give us Bin Laden and kick out AQ

3) The Taliban refused

4) So we attacked the Taliban + AQ

I understand the reasoning behind why it was done. The reason you don't do it this way is precisely because of the end result we have now. The terrorists move elsewhere because they are stateless entities. Then you're left fighting an unwinnable war against a native population that is no threat to this country.

I don't know how you can look at a war that we lost and say it was a good idea.

Originally Posted by Edward64

The center of gravity for AQ was clearly in Afghanistan in 2001.

No it wasn't. AQ wasn't some big group hanging out in a single country. It was a loose collection of like-minded individuals from around the world. The 9/11 hijackers spent more time training in Hamburg, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, Malaysia, and the United States than they did Afghanistan. This is all in the 9/11 Report.

If there was a center of gravity, it was Pakistan. They were the one's that trained and funded AQ. They were the one's that protected them (and still do). Pakistan is the man behind the mask.

Originally Posted by Edward64

It's not either or. There levels of scale & degree that has to be factored into, along with geopolitical consequences. AQ in Afghanistan in 2001 was clearly the threat, they were being supported and defended by the Taliban. Clear enough reason to stand up to support and defend the US.

Again, the Taliban is Pakistan. They were created by the ISI. Those training camps in Afghanistan were run by Pakistani military and intelligence. The Taliban was a proxy for them to keep India influence at bay and avoid having the nation become a safe haven for anti-Pakistani revolutionaries. Note that other countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE pitched in too for their own reasons.

Originally Posted by Edward64

If your argument is that we should have attacked Taliban + AQ and also those other countries, fine let's have that discussion. But we are talking about 2001 and the initial resolution and your bro (and you) would not even have attacked Taliban + AQ. Your other countries defense are used to obfuscate what we are talking here ... your bro simply not willing to defend the US when we were attacked on our soil back in 2001.

Going into Afghanistan didn't defend us. It just sent the leaders into the safe hands of Pakistan and engaged us in a never-ending war with the Taliban that we lost. All the while creating other terrorist hotspots in the region.

My argument is that if you truly wanted to defend America against terrorists, you would have went after Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Two countries that created, supported, and protected those terrorists.

So my question is why didn't our leaders go to war with them? Because when they kicked us in the mouth, we begged them for friendship, gave them money, and then tried and failed to beat up their little brother.

Originally Posted by Edward64

The original discussion: The big bro was not willing to support the US in attacking our AQ attackers back in 2001.

What infantry were you in over there?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sure, let's have the Trump discussion in the Trump thread.

However, in this thread I have said I would vote for Biden because he brings the old normal which is what I want after 4 years of Trump.

Let's be clear. It isn't because of just socialism because there are degrees of socialism in the US and I'm all for socialized medicine & SS. It is Bernie in total

1) Socialist - most extreme senator/congressman in recent memory
2) Commie lover
3) Atheist
4) Deadbeat dad who left mother + son in welfare
5) Extreme pacifist to extent not willing to defend the US when the US has been directly attacked
6) (Placeholder as I do more research)


The problem with the Biden (and the other dropouts) is he is not willing to play dirty. He should be constantly attacking the big bro on his policies and also these other controversial items.

I don't follow personal lives much but I'm pretty sure he's Jewish.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't follow personal lives much but I'm pretty sure he's Jewish.

Yeah I think that was the interesting part of the campaign so far was there were two Jewish candidates, a gay candidate, and 2 women. All of which have never been president and while one would think none of them are big deals they are for some people.

On the flip side don't know why atheism would be a disqualifier or a negative. Actual policy on the Middle East that possibly doesn't involve religious dogma?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yeah I think that was the interesting part of the campaign so far was there were two Jewish candidates, a gay candidate, and 2 women. All of which have never been president and while one would think none of them are big deals they are for some people.

On the flip side don't know why atheism would be a disqualifier or a negative. Actual policy on the Middle East that possibly doesn't involve religious dogma?

I'm not sure you can have a Middle East policy that ignores religion.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'm not sure you can have a Middle East policy that ignores religion.

Agree. My point was more along the lines of a George W. Bush who from all accounts seemed to believe the Bible literally in terms of the Rapture. Or a Mike Pence who tried to pray solutions to an HIV crisis while governor of Indiana. These are big negatives in my book. Wondering what the big negative is of an atheist?

[bob]

Super Tuesday predictions?

[RainMaker]

Guessing Biden ends up with a slight lead in delegates after tonight. Tough to say since I've read that some states like California are real slow to calculate numbers.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by bob

Super Tuesday predictions?

Pain

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by panerd

Agree. My point was more along the lines of a George W. Bush who from all accounts seemed to believe the Bible literally in terms of the Rapture. Or a Mike Pence who tried to pray solutions to an HIV crisis while governor of Indiana. These are big negatives in my book. Wondering what the big negative is of an atheist?

Public Perception for one thing, atheists are as popular in this country as muslims.



I think many religious folk take a dim view of people who deny their God.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I understand the reasoning behind why it was done. The reason you don't do it this way is precisely because of the end result we have now. The terrorists move elsewhere because they are stateless entities. Then you're left fighting an unwinnable war against a native population that is no threat to this country.

I don't know how you can look at a war that we lost and say it was a good idea.

Glad you understand why we went in there. The question is why don't you and the Bro think it was valid to go in there back in 2001 (not 2002 or later).

Let's put it this way. If the war turned out great and everything was in great shape in 2020, you and the Bro would still have said not justified right?

No it wasn't. AQ wasn't some big group hanging out in a single country. It was a loose collection of like-minded individuals from around the world. The 9/11 hijackers spent more time training in Hamburg, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, Malaysia, and the United States than they did Afghanistan. This is all in the 9/11 Report.

If there was a center of gravity, it was Pakistan. They were the one's that trained and funded AQ. They were the one's that protected them (and still do). Pakistan is the man behind the mask.

Sure AQ had support elsewhere. Nevertheless the greatest quantity of their troops and their supporters were in Afghanistan. Scale and degree is what you are missing.

Again, the Taliban is Pakistan. They were created by the ISI. Those training camps in Afghanistan were run by Pakistani military and intelligence. The Taliban was a proxy for them to keep India influence at bay and avoid having the nation become a safe haven for anti-Pakistani revolutionaries. Note that other countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE pitched in too for their own reasons.

Sure, I agree with this. Don't know what it has to do with the Afghan resolution in 2001.

Going into Afghanistan didn't defend us. It just sent the leaders into the safe hands of Pakistan and engaged us in a never-ending war with the Taliban that we lost. All the while creating other terrorist hotspots in the region.

You don't think AQ would have continued their attacks on us after 9/11 with a safe haven in Afghanistan?

My argument is that if you truly wanted to defend America against terrorists, you would have went after Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Two countries that created, supported, and protected those terrorists.

Yeah, continue to deflect when the point is the Bro not willing to defend the US back in 2001.

So my question is why didn't our leaders go to war with them? Because when they kicked us in the mouth, we begged them for friendship, gave them money, and then tried and failed to beat up their little brother.

We went into Afghanistan first in 2001 because AQ clearly attacked us and the folks in charge of the safe haven did not turn them over to us. Then because of politics, mis-mangement, Iraq etc. we did not pursue the others as aggressively.

What infantry were you in over there?

Same discussion as before in other threads. So you don't think anyone that was not in the military can have a valid reason to support a war. Go ahead and keep on living in la-la-land.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't follow personal lives much but I'm pretty sure he's Jewish.

Not actively involved in organized religion. Why stop there and not extrapolate and be hyperbolic in statements (e.g. Hillary is a Republican), it takes things out of context but it sounds good.

[Ryche]

We have an atheist in the White House now.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sure AQ had support elsewhere. Nevertheless the greatest quantity of their troops and their supporters were in Afghanistan. Scale and degree is what you are missing.

They had 170 members. Did you think they had battalions or something?

Originally Posted by Edward64

You don't think AQ would have continued their attacks on us after 9/11 with a safe haven in Afghanistan?

They did continue attacks. This time in Pakistan where we did nothing about it.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Yeah, continue to deflect when the point is the Bro not willing to defend the US back in 2001.

Seems like you weren't willing to defend the US back in 2001 either. Heel spurs?

Originally Posted by Edward64

We went into Afghanistan first in 2001 because AQ clearly attacked us and the folks in charge of the safe haven did not turn them over to us. Then because of politics, mis-mangement, Iraq etc. we did not pursue the others as aggressively.

The 9/11 attackers were mostly Saudis who lived and met each other in Germany before moving to the United States with Pakistani money and military training.

[RainMaker]

Also when you get your ass kicked in a war that every history book told you would end this way, I don't think the response should be "that was a good idea".

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Guessing Biden ends up with a slight lead in delegates after tonight. Tough to say since I've read that some states like California are real slow to calculate numbers.

Maybe they should go to a caucus format then

My guess is Bernie wins California, Mass, Minn, Colorado, Utah, Maine, Vermont
Biden wins NC, VA, Tenn, Ala, OK and Ark

I think Texas is a tossup, I'm leaning Bernie. I plugged those results into the 538 projecting system and here's the results:

Chances at winning a majority (in 145 simulations):
Sanders - 13.8%
Biden - 13.8%

Ave Delegates (in 145 simulations):
Sanders - 1,610
Biden - 1,564

Yowsers - this could be quite the primary finish! BTW, if Biden wins Texas, he goes to 29.1% at a Majority (vs 3% for Sanders) and has a 400 delegate avg lead. Texas could be the key to deciding the democrat nominee (think about that for a minute).

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Arles

Maybe they should go to a caucus format then

My guess is Bernie wins California, Mass, Minn, Colorado, Utah, Maine, Vermont
Biden wins NC, VA, Tenn, Ala, OK and Ark

I think Texas is a tossup, I'm leaning Bernie. I plugged those results into the 538 projecting system and here's the results:

Chances at winning a majority (in 145 simulations):
Sanders - 13.8%
Biden - 13.8%

Ave Delegates (in 145 simulations):
Sanders - 1,610
Biden - 1,564

Yowsers - this could be quite the primary finish! BTW, if Biden wins Texas, he goes to 29.1% at a Majority (vs 3% for Sanders) and has a 400 delegate avg lead. Texas could be the key to deciding the democrat nominee (think about that for a minute).

Polls in most states this am are showing a huge bounce for Biden. Also if Biden can win Texas the SE and stay close in Cali he can do well enough. If Bloomberg drops after Biden will get those which will help him in the other big states after ST.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They had 170 members. Did you think they had battalions or something?

So how many of the 170 were in Afghanistan? Was the majority in Afghanistan? If so, doesn't that mean center of gravity was in Afghanistan.

They did continue attacks. This time in Pakistan where we did nothing about it.

We were too busy fighting them in Afghanistan and went off on a tangent in Iraq. If we invaded Pakistan, you and Bro would have been against it anyway.

Seems like you weren't willing to defend the US back in 2001 either. Heel spurs?

Still waiting on your answer to:

Let's put it this way. If the war turned out great and everything was in great shape in 2020, you and the Bro would still have said not justified right?

The 9/11 attackers were mostly Saudis who lived and met each other in Germany before moving to the United States with Pakistani money and military training.

Okay? So?

[Edward64]

FWIW. Going to be an interesting night.

Our Final Forecast For Super Tuesday Shows Biden’s Surge — And Lots Of Uncertainty | FiveThirtyEight

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

FWIW. Going to be an interesting night.

Our Final Forecast For Super Tuesday Shows Biden’s Surge — And Lots Of Uncertainty | FiveThirtyEight

I like the 538 people, but I think that might be a bit too much of a Biden bounce. I still say it is closer to 50/50 between Biden/Sanders. I believe that things might prove to be closer by the end of the night (and Sanders might be looking real good as California comes in over the next couple of days.)

[JPhillips]

Dems apparently looking at how to do the formal nomination and platform if it's deemed inadvisable to hold a convention.

Does seem like quite a risk for 70 some year old candidates from both parties.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I like the 538 people, but I think that might be a bit too much of a Biden bounce. I still say it is closer to 50/50 between Biden/Sanders. I believe that things might prove to be closer by the end of the night (and Sanders might be looking real good as California comes in over the next couple of days.)

Yeah, I was surprised at the bounce I saw. Fingers crossed though.

[GrantDawg]

Early voting is open here, but I am not ready to vote until we have a clearer picture of where we are going to be by the time we get to March 24th. I can't think of any way I would vote for Sanders or Bloomberg (though I would if they won the nomination in the general), but I really don't love Biden as the candidate. I am leaning toward voting for Warren if there is still any plausible chance of her winning by then.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Dems apparently looking at how to do the formal nomination and platform if it's deemed inadvisable to hold a convention.

Does seem like quite a risk for 70 some year old candidates from both parties.

That's a good point. I wonder how the virus will affect campaigning in general. Candidates have to be major targets for the flu given how many people they interact with on any given day and especially at rallies. And as you pointed out the candidates are all in their 70s (shut up Tulsi) which makes the especially susceptible.

I wonder if Warren and Sanders have considered just holing up in the senate under the guise of "getting work done" instead of campaigning until the flu season is over.

[ISiddiqui]

The reason 538's bounce is so high is because the morning polls today came in much higher for Biden than they anticipated after SC. That made their model think it had underestimated Biden's chances significantly.

We'll see what happens tonight.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Kodos]

Until then, we'll be Biden our time.

[albionmoonlight]

I am too online. Any my social media follows are very liberal and overeducated.

The disconnect between the support I see for Warren on there and her actual polling numbers is stark.

[Lathum]

Daily Caller on Twitter: "Former DNC chair Donna Brazile tells @GOPChairwoman to “Go to hell.� https://t.co/S2SZh2Y5QE"

[molson]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I am too online. Any my social media follows are very liberal and overeducated.

The disconnect between the support I see for Warren on there and her actual polling numbers is stark.

Of people willing to express their preference (which will never be me, I've never made a political post on social media in my life), my people-I-know feed was probably 70% Mayor Pete, 15% Warren, 15% Bernie, 0% anybody else - wait, except my mom likes Joe Biden. I don't know what the Mayor Pete people are doing now if they still have primaries coming up.

[albionmoonlight]

James Comey just came out in support of Biden.

How self-deluded does James Comey have to be to think that his endorsement is a positive thing?

[Ben E Lou]

Literally every single black Dem I know personally that has expressed on social media is for Biden. Of course that’s almost exclusively Southern, mostly church-going, and mostly mid 40s and up, though the Chicago-based Lewis clan (all three of my dad’s siblings had moved there by the end of the 70s) also is 100% Biden. My white Dem social media friends definitely trend younger due to all my years in youth ministry, and educated. Definitely more Warren than any others there, probably Bernie #2 and a smattering from there. The 30something educated women on my FB feed are, almost to a person. shocked and angry that Warren isn’t the front runner.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

The 30something educated women on my FB feed are, almost to a person. shocked and angry that Warren isn’t the front runner.

That's what I was trying to get at and failing. Their bubble is such that they are both shocked and angry that she hasn't already sewn this thing up.

It's like a bunch of guys who spend all their time in a Boston sports bar would react to a top-10 all time QB list that didn't include Tom Brady.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

James Comey just came out in support of Biden.

How self-deluded does James Comey have to be to think that his endorsement is a positive thing?

Or that anyone actually gives any fucks at all?

[Kodos]

Hey Comey. You already screwed up one election. Maybe just sit this one out?

[JPhillips]

Bernie's message of, the working class supports me, doesn't include blacks, because those voters are what has changed this race.

[bhlloy]

The issue with the Biden bounce and everyone talking about what the polls say is that up to 40% of people in the states that really matter had already voted before today. I still think Sanders ends up with more delegates, we are headed towards a contested convention and an absolute bloodbath.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

That's what I was trying to get at and failing. Their bubble is such that they are both shocked and angry that she hasn't already sewn this thing up.

It's like a bunch of guys who spend all their time in a Boston sports bar would react to a top-10 all time QB list that didn't include Tom Brady.

Maybe closer to a top-10 all time WR list that didn't include Julian Edelman?

[GrantDawg]

Crazy prediction of the night: A couple states actually go to Gabbard, and begin the Tulsi-sunami.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Crazy prediction of the night: A couple states actually go to Gabbard, and begin the Tulsi-sunami.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Um, is this what you've been doin'???

[tarcone]

Bloomberg saying he can only win in a contested convention.

Does that mean he buys all the super delegates?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Bloomberg saying he can only win in a contested convention.

Does that mean he buys all the super delegates?

That's been his strategy from the start.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

That's what I was trying to get at and failing. Their bubble is such that they are both shocked and angry that she hasn't already sewn this thing up.

I find myself in bubbles as I've made some active changes in who I hang out with and what I support - gravitating towards some folks who take a very active interest in supporting and trying to promote the work and causes of those who have been historically disenfranchised and oppressed - sometimes that's as simple as artist friends with decent social media reach actively looking to promote PoC and LGBT artists/musicians, sometimes its working towards political goals and some activism. With lots of these folks being low income, healthcare and education end up being huge priorities in addition to equality and wealth gape issues. As someone who was a strong Warren supporter at the start, I've been surprised at how much of a Bernie bubble these areas are, instead of more equal progressive support between the two

I definitely make myself find time to read other perspectives so I'm not too far into kool aid land, and honestly, to relay some reality to my friends, many of whom are far into bernie kool-aid land and consider it impossible that he could lose...

My own facebook remains unchanged and little used, which has meant very few political posts. I have a cousin who is a big-time bernie bro. The rest of my extended family either doesn't care or supports Trump, but I've cut off all communication with them (not b/c of trump support, but b/c their way of showing trump support is constantly sharing hateful memes on the internet).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So how many of the 170 were in Afghanistan? Was the majority in Afghanistan? If so, doesn't that mean center of gravity was in Afghanistan.

The US government didn't release the full list. But many names on the list were not in Afghanistan. Some in East Africa, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia. A bunch had gone to fight in Chechnya and others just quit. There was no center of gravity, these cells were all over the world.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Still waiting on your answer to:

If we had gone into Afghanistan, banished terrorism around the world, set up a democracy, and drank some beers with our new pals the Afghans, I'd call it a great decision.

But that didn't happen. We lost. The bad guys cashed our checks and kept doing what they wanted to. And those who supported it ended up being wrong.

[Jas_lov]

Virginia called for Biden at poll close. This race turned on a dime.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Literally every single black Dem I know personally that has expressed on social media is for Biden. Of course that’s almost exclusively Southern, mostly church-going, and mostly mid 40s and up, though the Chicago-based Lewis clan (all three of my dad’s siblings had moved there by the end of the 70s) also is 100% Biden. My white Dem social media friends definitely trend younger due to all my years in youth ministry, and educated. Definitely more Warren than any others there, probably Bernie #2 and a smattering from there. The 30something educated women on my FB feed are, almost to a person. shocked and angry that Warren isn’t the front runner.

The Warren campaign is interesting. She was the clear frontrunner going into this primary and by all accounts should have done much better. Would be interesting to see an obituary on the campaign someday to see what went wrong.

Was trying to find a comparison for her in recent times. Maybe Jeb? A safe pick who could appeal to everyone in the party in some capacity but never could gain traction.

[bronconick]

Vermont for Sanders and Virginia for Biden on exit polling

[GrantDawg]

Sanders win Vermont, and Biden gets Virginia. The numbers in Virginia in particular is pretty bad for Bernie. He only got 17% of the black vote there, only up 1% from 2016. He doesn't seem to be making the inroads into the black community that his campaign has been claiming.
Many are going to give the establishment credit for Biden's resurgence, but it is really the African-American community that saved Biden.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk