Poll

Best sandwich filling

Trump (R)
Sandford (R)
Walsh (R)
Weld (R)
Bennet (D)
Biden (D)
Booker (D)
Bullock (D)
Buttigieg (D)
Castro (D)
Delaney (D)
Gabbard (D)
Klobuchar (D)
Messam (D)
O'Rourke (D)
Ryan (D)
Sanders (D)
Sestak (D)
Steyer (D)
Warren (D)
Williamson (D)
Yang (D)
A Libertarian
A Green
One of the other ones
Moat (R)
Who fucking cares I dunno some cunt
Guntrip
Les Dennis
Eddie Large
Ralf Little
A musician or actor who think they can make a difference and will ultimately fail
Bensip Hammons
Castro
Gulf Holdall
Ham
Plain
Cook(D)
Bomb(D)

Author Topic: US Elections 2020 thread  (Read 128207 times)

mojo filters

  • Self-impeacher
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1830 on: December 04, 2019, 02:18:56 PM »
Hello please as somebody only dipping in and out of this “United States” lark, what are the chances of Sanders getting the Democrat nomination?

That's an interesting and pertinent question. Bernie Sanders has an enviable and unique position in this race.

Around January 2019, the experienced but sadly #MeToo'd journalist Mark Halperin was positing the notion amongst friends and ex-colleagues, that he saw a clear path for Sanders to lock up the nomination early and easily.

At the time we didn't know for sure Biden would be in the race. Nor could it be anticipated that his broad (and likely misleading) poll numbers would continue to hold up amongst all required demographics, regardless of poor campaign and debate performances.

As a veteran chronicler of more presidential primaries than me, along with co-authoring two successful and authoritative books on the 2008 and 2012 campaigns - I thought Mark offered some valuable perspective.

Mark looked at likely new 2020 provisional democratic contenders' numbers, analysing such alongside all the key metrics Bernie hit in 2016, projecting similar potential best case scenario results for the current cycle.

This was predicated on Bernie's phenomenal ability to continue raising money for as long as it takes, via valuable small-dollar donors spread out amongst a broad and fiercely loyal base.

If Sanders comes in the top three in Iowa, then replicates his 2016 win in New Hampshire - that could provide sufficient momentum to dramatically raise his support in Nevada and North Carolina, Obama 2008 style.

That succession of results could easily put him well ahead in the delegate count, moving into the newly-enlarged Super Tuesday with remarkable momentum. A healthy number of delegates won across the Super Tuesday states, could then propel Sanders to solid frontrunner status - and subsequently an unbeatable delegate count at the convention.

Whilst I appreciate the inherent logic of such potential success, I think the sheer number of democratic candidates has diluted the probable plurality that is now likely to impact negatively on the total of pledged Sanders' delegates.

I'm reluctant to place too much faith in recent polling indicating a short-term shift to the middle, amongst democratic primary voters - I think Bernie is still solidly placed for potential success in the nomination stakes.

Unlike his peers, Sanders has demonstrated consistent polling numbers and ongoing fundraising capabilities. His consistent polling indicates both a solid ceiling and floor, the ceiling currently representing his biggest hurdle.

Given the nebulous and historically non-indicative nature of such numbers this far out from the Iowa caucus, Bernie's solid position might not be the very best - yet there's an undeniable consistency that competitors envy.

Carter, Kerry and Obama came from much further behind to eventually win in Iowa, then go on to win the nomination. In 1984, ex-VP Walter Mondale (who skipped a cycle a la Biden) lost badly to Reagan.

Nevertheless I think the Trump factor has effected these electoral dynamics. A colleague of mine recently reported that his Iowa reporting exhibited an unhealthy desire to caucus for the candidate expected to exhibit the greatest "electability" factor.

The inability to quantify the latter, leaves so much of this race still up in the air. My best assessment is there is simply too much uncertainty, at least until we actually have both the first caucus and primary results.

The worst case scenario for democrats is that this diluted plurality of candidates leads to a contentious brokered convention. Such a situation will revive bad feelings from the 1968 debacle, in conjunction with the ill-considered actions of (out of her depth) 2016 DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

If the democratic primary electorate continues this possible trend pivoting to a safer middle lane, that can only be bad news for Sanders. The irony there is how successful he was in key battleground states such as Michigan, which could tip the electoral college towards Trump in 2020 with a compromised compromise democratic candidate!

[Apologies for spelling and grammar errors, no time to proof as House Judiciary Cmte is assembling]

kngen

  • Member
  • **
  • Fighting sleep's deathlike grip
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1831 on: December 04, 2019, 06:17:25 PM »
… sadly #MeToo'd journalist Mark Halperin

Quote from: Matt Taibbi's Hate Inc.
I was saddened to read a story in the Washington Post this past summer about the shattered partnership of John Heilemann and Mark Halperin of MSNBC, Bloomberg, ABC, and Game Change fame.

Because of Halperin’s sexual harassment scandal, Heilemann now refuses to work with his old comrade. This means the two will no longer be able to make assloads of money together being wrong about presidential politics.

Heilemann and Halperin were once an unfailing compass of American conventional wisdom. Whatever was true, they went the other way, and the national press usually followed. They perfected the art of commenting upon their own invented political narratives, a practice that brilliantly allows reporters to write about writing about what they write about.

Famous Mortimer

  • War - it's fantastic!
    • International Syndicate of Cult Film Critics
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1832 on: December 04, 2019, 07:36:58 PM »
With Kamala Harris dropping out, the sole bit of entertainment to be gotten from any of this mess is the "always-wrongs" such as...well, pretty much every "centrist" Democrat pundit, who confidently predicted Harris being one of the very strongest candidates. Thread favourite Nate Silver, for example, consistently put her in the top bracket of his fantasy Dem candidate tables, amusingly having to expand the definition of top level from 2 people to 4 to keep her as "rank 1" despite her having nothing worthwhile to offer and being a former vigorous prosecutor of the most minor of drug crimes.

Will this stop these fantasists from being paid for the wrong opinions, though? Of course not. Imagine if they'd reported honestly on these candidates from the beginning, eh?

FerriswheelBueller

  • CaB rear of the year 2020
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Take it easy, but take it.
    • I am antsy for baseball in the off-season.
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1833 on: December 04, 2019, 07:50:19 PM »
In fairness, she’s a senator of a populous state and ticks two diversity boxes for a party that is targeting a diverse voter base. I don’t think there’s anything insidious about saying she started as a top tier candidate on that basis, in a way that Steve Bullock or what’s his name from Colorado never were.

Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1834 on: December 04, 2019, 07:58:27 PM »
Kamala Harris with the right team behind her could've probably done very well. The fact she's a bit of a charisma vacuum and hired large chunks of Hillary's team had her dead on arrival.
She'd've needed to commit to her track record of being a dick instead of trying to lull Sanders supporters over (which was never gonna happen with Warren running too). Trying to do comedy bits on the Colbert Report or whatever was exactly what she should've kept away from.

In contrast, Biden running as an unintentionally funny entitled senile prick is almost his strength. Viewing the whole thing as a big pro-wrestling build there's undoubtedly a market for seeing him and Trump bickering with each other.

FerriswheelBueller

  • CaB rear of the year 2020
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Take it easy, but take it.
    • I am antsy for baseball in the off-season.
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1835 on: December 04, 2019, 08:06:14 PM »
^completely agree with all of that.

(Imagine hiring Hillary’s old team lmao)

mojo filters

  • Self-impeacher
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1836 on: December 04, 2019, 09:10:57 PM »
Quote from: Matt Taibbi's Hate...
...and bile, resentment, petty jealousies and professional score-settling - vaguely masquerading as nonfiction literature, though my old publishers had doubts around the veracity of such classification.

Insert controversial and completely contrary opinion piece about news de jour. Ensure to mix sufficient fiction with fact, enough to thoroughly confuzzle the fact-checkers I used to have when I could get my books properly published



PS - I'm very sorry for my previous ill-considered writing, where I unapologetically bragged about sexual assaults and unpleasantly taking advantage of young women. I am not a hypocrite.

Please can I have my reputation back, so I can afford another cycle of sex and drug-fuelled bad behaviour?


Famous Mortimer

  • War - it's fantastic!
    • International Syndicate of Cult Film Critics
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1837 on: December 04, 2019, 09:27:13 PM »
In fairness, she’s a senator of a populous state and ticks two diversity boxes for a party that is targeting a diverse voter base. I don’t think there’s anything insidious about saying she started as a top tier candidate on that basis, in a way that Steve Bullock or what’s his name from Colorado never were.
She never polled worth a damn. She had no policies. She had a rotten history (being a terrible anti-drug prosecutor, then pretending she cared about that stuff when she was nominated).

People whose job is allegedly to predict these things all thought she was a top-tier candidate, and were all wrong. Actually, they weren't wrong - they were trying to make her into the nominee by running articles pretending she was doing better than she actually was. They failed, will suffer no consequences for it, and will just go on to do the same thing with the next pro-business pro-war centrist candidate.

I'd have more respect for Harry Enten, and Nate Silver, and the whole rotten lot of them, if they stopped pretending there was anything remotely objective about their analysis. They're just never-Bernies who will twist whatever they can to attack him with, or just never mention him at all and hope that works (look at Silver's ranking of candidates, and how Harris consistently ranked above Sanders, despite never polling anywhere close to him, getting money from the same group of rich liberals, etc).

Urinal Cake

  • -0/-0
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1838 on: December 04, 2019, 10:22:02 PM »
Harris was a lazy analog to Obama. On paper she fit the bill- smart, lawyer, black, socially progressive and with enough wiggle room economically. And she did a good job at the Kavanagh hearings and other senate hearings etc generally. But being a prosecutor means you have skeletons in your closet. And also if she wasn't prosecuting someone she looked uncomfortable, nervous, insincere and stiff.

Of course there's a strong anti-establishment flavour. Sanders threatens the whole system and most people know he won't achieve his goals his real importance is getting the ball rolling. Gabbard is similar in foreign policy. With Warren there's a lot of 4D chess going about but I really think billionaires are afraid of her because from 2008 she's been on the same path. But Yang you'd think someone would work with him to try and splinter the progressive vote since he seems workable. But no he gets dumped in with the rest because we just can't give money for free! That's against our Protestant work ethic!

kngen

  • Member
  • **
  • Fighting sleep's deathlike grip
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1839 on: December 04, 2019, 10:31:28 PM »
Journalists who say bad things about other journalists aren't playing fair. Waaaah!

Ever read The Divide? There's more journalistic integrity and passion in half a page of that than in a full election-cycle's worth of MSNBC circle jerks. But it deals with actual social injustice and the brutal inequality of the wealth gap in the US rather than some Beltway bullshit, so it would be too much to expect a walking lanyard like yourself to give two shits.

Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1840 on: December 05, 2019, 12:10:30 AM »
It's truly amazing how the media class are pathologically obsessed with Donald Trump and the Trump presidency, and yet have collective amnesia about everything that happened in 2016.

The Experts are back to being experts on electability, etc. Polls are dictating the media narratives, etc.

FerriswheelBueller

  • CaB rear of the year 2020
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Take it easy, but take it.
    • I am antsy for baseball in the off-season.
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1841 on: December 05, 2019, 12:49:55 AM »
She never polled worth a damn. She had no policies. She had a rotten history (being a terrible anti-drug prosecutor, then pretending she cared about that stuff when she was nominated).

People whose job is allegedly to predict these things all thought she was a top-tier candidate, and were all wrong. Actually, they weren't wrong - they were trying to make her into the nominee by running articles pretending she was doing better than she actually was. They failed, will suffer no consequences for it, and will just go on to do the same thing with the next pro-business pro-war centrist candidate.

I'd have more respect for Harry Enten, and Nate Silver, and the whole rotten lot of them, if they stopped pretending there was anything remotely objective about their analysis. They're just never-Bernies who will twist whatever they can to attack him with, or just never mention him at all and hope that works (look at Silver's ranking of candidates, and how Harris consistently ranked above Sanders, despite never polling anywhere close to him, getting money from the same group of rich liberals, etc).

I agree with most of that, and disagree with other bits. You can say “hey, this person is a potential top-tier candidate” based on the reasons I gave above, without that qualifier meaning “...and god I’d love them to win so we can have some more war!” Bear in mind, the last person who won a federal election had no policies, a rotten history, and was given zero chance most of the way through.

For what it’s worth, I totally get why FiveThirtyEight saw her as a potential top tier candidate over, say, Julian Castro. I also understand why they kept her in the top tier for so long - these races can change quickly; she had the profile of someone who’d be successful in exactly this kind of race in exactly this media environment; she had some strong debate showings. I don’t think it’s because Nate Silver’s harbours some deep, fevered desire to see small-weight narcotics possession prosecutions spike on a federal level - I think he just has a reasonable read on how the media works and which candidates have viability.

In the end, she fizzled out and FiveThirtyEight tipped her as the next candidate to drop out last month (or possibly October, I forget) due to her crappy polling. Fair enough. This will all inevitably change once we get some primaries underway.

Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1842 on: December 05, 2019, 01:06:13 AM »
I think he just has a reasonable read on how the media works and which candidates have viability.

Well clearly he don't. These people are wrong every single time.

FerriswheelBueller

  • CaB rear of the year 2020
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Take it easy, but take it.
    • I am antsy for baseball in the off-season.
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1843 on: December 05, 2019, 01:20:39 AM »
Well clearly he don't. These people are wrong every single time.

He’s taking 20 candidates and saying “these are the ones that could do well and these are the no-hopers”. I don’t really get what more you can do with that. The data manifestly does not get it wrong “every single time”, they’re typically within about 2 percentage points of the actual result.

Absent actual primary wins and losses, they are using prelim polls and other measures (endorsements, cash on hand, number/size of donation, friendliness of coverage etc etc). Sometimes someone you think will perform better based on these determinants completely flops (Harris), or overperforms (Butigieg), or does about as well as you expected (Biden). But to think he’s picking winners and losers (and getting it wrong) is sort of missing the point. The site aggregates polls and gives percentages based on previous election models. You might as well argue that Vegas odds-setters are “picking favourites” when they give somebody short odds, or “got it wrong” when an underdog wins.

Is it possible they are cynically manipulating this for their own gain? Yes, I suppose? Though it’d be quite the conspiracy to coverup - it’s not just Nate Silver and a spreadsheet these days. Ockham’s razor says that isn’t the case (in my opinion anyway - other opinions are available).

I don’t know how I’m in this argument, I’m not massively arsed about FiveThirtyEight.

Edit: though it’s just occurred to me you and FM might be talking about pundits and cable talking heads in general (rather than 538 specifically which I think does a pretty decent job all things considered), in which case - I plead my ignorance and accept you will almost certainly know more than I will and therefore are probably right.

Double edit: I hope that doesn’t sound snarky. “Oooh I don’t watch TV but you clearly watch looooads of cable”. That wasn’t what I meant at all. Sorry if that’s how it comes across!
« Last Edit: December 05, 2019, 01:35:00 AM by FerriswheelBueller »

Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1844 on: December 05, 2019, 01:42:43 AM »
I unapologetically bragged about sexual assaults and unpleasantly taking advantage of young women

As I understand it, the women in question confirmed that none of that actually happened. It was (shit) satire - but very ill-conceived and he is rightly embarrassed by it.

Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1845 on: December 05, 2019, 01:58:40 AM »
He’s taking 20 candidates and saying “these are the ones that could do well and these are the no-hopers”. I don’t really get what more you can do with that. The data manifestly does not get it wrong “every single time”, they’re typically within about 2 percentage points of the actual result.

Absent actual primary wins and losses, they are using prelim polls and other measures (endorsements, cash on hand, number/size of donation, friendliness of coverage etc etc). Sometimes someone you think will perform better based on these determinants completely flops (Harris), or overperforms (Butigieg), or does about as well as you expected (Biden). But to think he’s picking winners and losers (and getting it wrong) is sort of missing the point. The site aggregates polls and gives percentages based on previous election models. You might as well argue that Vegas odds-setters are “picking favourites” when they give somebody short odds, or “got it wrong” when an underdog wins.

Is it possible they are cynically manipulating this for their own gain? Yes, I suppose? Though it’d be quite the conspiracy to coverup - it’s not just Nate Silver and a spreadsheet these days. Ockham’s razor says that isn’t the case (in my opinion anyway - other opinions are available).

I don’t know how I’m in this argument, I’m not massively arsed about FiveThirtyEight.

Edit: though it’s just occurred to me you and FM might be talking about pundits and cable talking heads in general (rather than 538 specifically which I think does a pretty decent job all things considered), in which case - I plead my ignorance and accept you will almost certainly know more than I will and therefore are probably right.

Double edit: I hope that doesn’t sound snarky. “Oooh I don’t watch TV but you clearly watch looooads of cable”. That wasn’t what I meant at all. Sorry if that’s how it comes across!

They are absolute frauds. Pseudoscientist charlatans who add no value to anything.

FerriswheelBueller

  • CaB rear of the year 2020
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Take it easy, but take it.
    • I am antsy for baseball in the off-season.
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1846 on: December 05, 2019, 02:07:51 AM »
They are absolute frauds. Pseudoscientist charlatans who add no value to anything.

ok

Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1847 on: December 05, 2019, 02:32:40 AM »
Nate Silver? More like Mate. Silver

kngen

  • Member
  • **
  • Fighting sleep's deathlike grip
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1848 on: December 05, 2019, 02:44:02 AM »
As I understand it, the women in question confirmed that none of that actually happened. It was (shit) satire - but very ill-conceived and he is rightly embarrassed by it.


As opposed to Halperin who seems entirely unembarrassed by the myriad accusations of genuine sexual harassment brought against him, and has spent every waking hour since unashamedly trying to wheedle his way back onto cable news.
 

Urinal Cake

  • -0/-0
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1849 on: December 05, 2019, 02:44:51 AM »
It is amazing that any of these guys are taken seriously after 2016 especially the ones that use maths and degrees. Didn't report facts on the ground, no successful analysis and certainly didn't away public opinion.

Even the betting agencies were caught out I wonder if they've changed their methodology since it turns out their the only types with real money on the line.

chveik

  • DON'T GET THAT COVID, YEAH!?
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1850 on: December 05, 2019, 02:53:19 AM »
edit: come back Twed you silly goose


Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1852 on: December 05, 2019, 04:24:05 AM »
He’s taking 20 candidates and saying “these are the ones that could do well and these are the no-hopers”. I don’t really get what more you can do with that. The data manifestly does not get it wrong “every single time”, they’re typically within about 2 percentage points of the actual result.

Absent actual primary wins and losses, they are using prelim polls and other measures (endorsements, cash on hand, number/size of donation, friendliness of coverage etc etc). Sometimes someone you think will perform better based on these determinants completely flops (Harris), or overperforms (Butigieg), or does about as well as you expected (Biden). But to think he’s picking winners and losers (and getting it wrong) is sort of missing the point. The site aggregates polls and gives percentages based on previous election models. You might as well argue that Vegas odds-setters are “picking favourites” when they give somebody short odds, or “got it wrong” when an underdog wins.

Is it possible they are cynically manipulating this for their own gain? Yes, I suppose? Though it’d be quite the conspiracy to coverup - it’s not just Nate Silver and a spreadsheet these days. Ockham’s razor says that isn’t the case (in my opinion anyway - other opinions are available).

I don’t know how I’m in this argument, I’m not massively arsed about FiveThirtyEight.

Edit: though it’s just occurred to me you and FM might be talking about pundits and cable talking heads in general (rather than 538 specifically which I think does a pretty decent job all things considered), in which case - I plead my ignorance and accept you will almost certainly know more than I will and therefore are probably right.

Double edit: I hope that doesn’t sound snarky. “Oooh I don’t watch TV but you clearly watch looooads of cable”. That wasn’t what I meant at all. Sorry if that’s how it comes across!

where the fuck is Twed, I miss that crazy motherfucker

Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1853 on: December 05, 2019, 05:11:53 AM »
I am reminded of this bit from episode 87 of the 'Citations Needed' podcast:

Quote
Adam: Yeah. Cause the thing is is that in reviewing Nate Silver’s work, and you look back, especially at kind of the peak smartest guy in the room, West Wing phase of like 2007, 2008 much of which was fused by Obama because Obama kind of was that candidate, I posed the question on Twitter back in August, which is Nate Silver, wrote a tweet saying, this is from August 26 he said, quote, “Is Warren still gradually moving up in polls? Very likely, yes. Is Biden gradually moving down? Quite possibly but not as clear. Is Sanders on a bit of an upward trajectory? Maybe, but even less clear. Have there been any sudden shifts in the past ~1–2 weeks? Pretty doubtful.” So it’s like there’s all these weasel words “maybe” “possibly” “pretty” and I’m reading this and I’m just like, why would you dedicate your life to that? Like what? None of that means anything. It’s just words. It’s just, you know, and this is really the thing here, which is that horse race in general is at best a massive time suck and distraction from substantive debate and at worst — I think possibly more likely — is really just a sort of overly cynical, bloated market for reinforcing the status quo. So you read this and I think what is the virtue of this? How is this valuable? Imagine dedicating your life to this schlock and that’s the thing is that there’s no, it’s not clear what is, I don’t want to be too sort of Socratic here, but what is the virtue of this? Why is it good? And I have yet to see an answer. And the reality is that horse race in general, and really the horse race is the issue here, is that it’s not clear what value it has. It’s not clear why New York Times and ESPN and ABC dumping all these resources into paying Nate Silver presumably millions of dollars and not paying people to provide analysis that is based on first principles or based on some sort of adversarial relationship with power or — god forbid — funding journalists who actually reveal new information. Right? I don’t know what the value is. I don’t know how it contributes to society. I don’t know how tea leaf reading polls in an incessant and increasingly granular way, I mean I’m not being rhetorical, Nima, you tell me, why is that good? What is the point?

Nima: As we’ve discussed on Citations Needed before, Adam, the idea that polling is not also self-fulfilling is something that is often not really talked about all that much. The idea that you know, FiveThirtyEight and Nate Silver predicted the 2008 election pretty much perfectly like electoral college wise, doing that then gave him this authority that when he speaks about polling it’s like, ‘ooh, then that’s what it’s going to be.’ Except it’s never been that way since. He got famous off that thing and like he’s able to do statistical analysis, which is fine, but he also comes from this very, as you said Adam, it’s very cynical and it’s very snarky and his entire schtick winds up being that which you could only actually do if politics didn’t mean anything to you, if you would never really be negatively affected by anything that happens. And so it’s almost like you never know when he’s being serious and when he’s not being serious.

Paul Calf

  • LOTION MAN
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • พระบาทสมเด็จพระวชิรเกล้าเจ้าอยู่หัวเป็นคนงี่เง่าของฆาตกร
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1854 on: December 05, 2019, 06:17:29 AM »
Can't wait to see a debate between Biden and Trump. It'll be like Waiting for Godot played by to senile old disasters.

It’s nice that we’ve still got ageism isn’t it? Any other characteristic in place of ‘old’ and there’s no way you’d have made that post.

Fortunately, we seem to have reserved age for emergency situations where our hidden and bitter prejudices need an outlet.

Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1855 on: December 05, 2019, 06:31:32 AM »
fucking hell, you complete melt

Urinal Cake

  • -0/-0
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1856 on: December 05, 2019, 06:37:33 AM »
Sanders is older than they are. Warren if elected will be older than Trump was when he got elected and was talking rubbish. Both are old and make sense.

Biden I think is suffering from some sort of early dementia, forgetfulness especially compared to his VP era.  But Biden and Trump are both suffering from, ' I'm an old/experienced great (mediocre) man but let me ramble on about something because hey you're here to listen me talk.'

Paul Calf

  • LOTION MAN
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • พระบาทสมเด็จพระวชิรเกล้าเจ้าอยู่หัวเป็นคนงี่เง่าของฆาตกร
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1857 on: December 05, 2019, 06:39:16 AM »
fucking hell, you complete melt

This isn’t very dignified mate.

Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1858 on: December 05, 2019, 06:40:13 AM »
it's exactly as dignified as your extremely weird concern trolling

Paul Calf

  • LOTION MAN
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • พระบาทสมเด็จพระวชิรเกล้าเจ้าอยู่หัวเป็นคนงี่เง่าของฆาตกร
Re: US Elections 2020 thread
« Reply #1859 on: December 05, 2019, 06:40:40 AM »
Mind, I suppose it’s more dignified than trying to justify the barefaced hypocrisy of the original comment.

What do you do when people start attacking Bernie for being too old?

Tags: