If Sanders wins Iowa and NH, then the rigging will start. Bloomberg will be the nominee.
Why dont democrats
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH, then the rigging will start. Bloomberg will be the nominee.
They will. I have "friends" on facebook that are also suggesting that they will be violent if Bernie doesn't win the whole thing, let alone the nomination.
i agree with the first part. i disagree with the bloomberg part. i still think its joe or warren, leaning towards joe right now.
funny my friend at work knows has a friend from back in college that is a bernie bro. he said the same thing. lets see if they follow through.
i think they might. we have 1 bernie bro try to shoot up a bunch of gop people at a softball game. we have others on camera talking about doing it and wanting to put conservatives in gulags.
i would like to see 3 or 4 parties emerge instead of the 2 we have now. we have 330 million people. why do we still have 2 parties?
this is what i would like to see:
1 far left, 1 center left, 1 center right, 1 far right.
That would make for really interesting presidential elections. Imagine a scenario where the president only gets 18 million votes and then has to work with Congress, which is potentially split 10-40-40-10.
we would likely see what we have to day where there are still some lines where the rights would band together and so would the lefts. however, we would likely see alot of cross over.
So what would really be the difference in practice? 2 parties make for a pretty divisive environment but it's also much more efficient than having a bunch of factions.
That's just a bastardized version of a Parliamentary system which is prone to its' own problems and missteps. There are a lot of countries with 4-5 parties in a given election but things aren't any better than they are here.
We have 2 parties but realistically we have at least 1-2 sub-parties within each national party. Joe Manchin could not be more different from Nancy Pelosi. etc.
I'm down for Yang, Bernie, or Warren.
Where I think Yang and Bernie have a disadvantage is that yangs ideas are pretty radical and voters tend to resist change that big when things are going reasonably smoothly. He's solving problems that most Americans haven't acknowledged yet but he's right about the problems existing.
Bernie biggest issue is his name. It's a lot easier to support Warren in suburban America than Bernie. Bernie is a known "socialist" to most Americans and again it's the same issue.
Warren presents her ideas in a way that is relatable to most Americans which is why even though she's not leading she's winning most of the second choice votes. She's acceptable to almost all democrats and to many independent where Bernie won't be.
Where I think Yang and Bernie have a disadvantage is that yangs ideas are pretty radical and voters tend to resist change that big when things are going reasonably smoothly. He's solving problems that most Americans haven't acknowledged yet but he's right about the problems existing.
Bernie biggest issue is his name. It's a lot easier to support Warren in suburban America than Bernie. Bernie is a known "socialist" to most Americans and again it's the same issue.
Warren presents her ideas in a way that is relatable to most Americans which is why even though she's not leading she's winning most of the second choice votes. She's acceptable to almost all democrats and to many independent where Bernie won't be.
if trump is hitler, why would you only want the gov to have guns?
Similar threads
