|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
So it sounds like Mr. Sanders did fairly well in the most recent debate, according to both journalists:
| Quote: |
Winners
* Bernie Sanders: Yes, Sanders has one volume: shouting. And, yes, he got tripped up a few times during the debate on his voting record -- especially on guns. But throughout the debate's first hour -- the hour when most people, especially on the East Coast and in the Midwest, were watching -- he was the prime mover in virtually every discussion from Wall Street reform to health care to climate change. He was on offense, accusing rival Hillary Clinton of half-measures and political caution at a moment when boldness is required.
Sanders held his own in the foreign-policy-focused second hour of the debate, something he had not done in debates past. And he had one of his best moments of the exchange at an unlikely time -- in response to a question about his criticism of Bill Clinton's past behavior. Sanders turned the question into one focused on how the campaign he is running is about policy, not personal differences -- to much applause.
More than anything he said, though, it was the passion and disruption that Sanders oozed from every pore over the two hours that should push Democrats on the fence about the race into his camp. Sanders effectively positioned himself as the anti-status-quo candidate, a very good position to have in this electoral environment. |
And focus groups:
| Quote: |
... according to a dial-test focus group of 30 undecided South Carolinians (all likely Democratic primary voters) being held in Charleston by Chris Kofinis of Park Street Strategies: "Sanders, 29-to-1 -- blowout."
The group includes 14 African Americans; 15 men and 15 women. |
The composition of that focus group is particularly important. I've seen this narrative about how African Americans are going to be the factor that leaves Bernie Sanders unable to win. Whether that will end up being true or not, I don't know, but I suspect that if the average African American were presented with a summary of the political positions of Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, they would embrace the latter over the former. In fact, I suspect that's true of the overwhelming majority of Democrats. In the media, Sanders has been compared to Donald Trump, but a more accurate comparison seems to me to be Ron Paul: someone with a lot of political experience, and a lot of ostensible integrity, who is willing to stand up and voice unorthodox views in which he truly believes. It would be interesting Titus' "conservatives fall in line and liberals fall in love" principle led Democrats to embrace Sanders just as Republicans rejected Ron Paul. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
That is fantastic.
Now I hope all the people who will vote in the primary have seen the debate, and that South Carolina's perception of the debate performance drives their vote.
I tried to pull up a recent poll on South Carolina but I could not. In December, Clinton had a +35% margin there.
Apparently, Clinton's strategy is playing the realist telling primary Democratic voters to think smaller. Its too bad Clinton cannot credibly attack Bernie's 40 years of political experience, because that would only hurt her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is the Bernie Sanders Surge Real?
| Quote: |
harry: I’m sorry, but — knowing I’ve been paid off by my corporate overlords — here’s what I see: There’s just little-to-no sign that Clinton has lost any traction among black voters. The most recent YouGov poll has her up 75 percent to 18 percent among black Democrats. The most recent Morning Consult poll has her ahead 71 percent to 14 percent. The most recent Monmouth poll has her up 71 percent to 21 percent among non-white voters. Sanders would need to close that gap to have any chance in South Carolina. And remember, Clinton was only up by 7 percentage points at this point among non-white voters in the 2008 cycle.
. . .
harry: Here’s what Sanders needs to do: Win caucuses out West (and polling out there suggests he could do so) and some Northern primaries. Then, he needs to combine that with doing better in the outer South (Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia) than President Obama did. That’s the way this works. He won’t be able to recapture the Obama coalition in the Deep South.
. . .
natesilver: Maybe this is all coming out as more skeptical about Bernie than I’m intending it to be. The case for Bernie is that (i) he could win Iowa and New Hampshire, which (ii) could produce huge momentum and very favorable press coverage, and (iii) he has enough money and a good enough ground game to run a long campaign, and (iv) well then, who knows, maybe this time really is different?
How do you translate that into a probability? That’s difficult. There’s a reason we’re trying to model the primaries one state at a time, instead of issuing an overall forecast.
harry: We won’t know if Bernie is for real until he wins Iowa. If he does, then let’s see where his support with non-white voters goes. Until then, it’s a lot of hypotheticals. And I’ve found that this season, hypotheticals have a weird way of playing out. |
Sanders has to win on favorable ground. If he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, and does well in Nevada, he may be able to handle a serious loss in South Carolina. Once Super Tuesday arrives, he can compete in the open and hopefully capture enough real delegates to offset the party's superdelegates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
Is the Bernie Sanders Surge Real?
| Quote: |
harry: I’m sorry, but — knowing I’ve been paid off by my corporate overlords — here’s what I see: There’s just little-to-no sign that Clinton has lost any traction among black voters. The most recent YouGov poll has her up 75 percent to 18 percent among black Democrats. The most recent Morning Consult poll has her ahead 71 percent to 14 percent. The most recent Monmouth poll has her up 71 percent to 21 percent among non-white voters. Sanders would need to close that gap to have any chance in South Carolina. And remember, Clinton was only up by 7 percentage points at this point among non-white voters in the 2008 cycle.
. . .
harry: Here’s what Sanders needs to do: Win caucuses out West (and polling out there suggests he could do so) and some Northern primaries. Then, he needs to combine that with doing better in the outer South (Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia) than President Obama did. That’s the way this works. He won’t be able to recapture the Obama coalition in the Deep South.
. . .
natesilver: Maybe this is all coming out as more skeptical about Bernie than I’m intending it to be. The case for Bernie is that (i) he could win Iowa and New Hampshire, which (ii) could produce huge momentum and very favorable press coverage, and (iii) he has enough money and a good enough ground game to run a long campaign, and (iv) well then, who knows, maybe this time really is different?
How do you translate that into a probability? That’s difficult. There’s a reason we’re trying to model the primaries one state at a time, instead of issuing an overall forecast.
harry: We won’t know if Bernie is for real until he wins Iowa. If he does, then let’s see where his support with non-white voters goes. Until then, it’s a lot of hypotheticals. And I’ve found that this season, hypotheticals have a weird way of playing out. |
Sanders has to win on favorable ground. If he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, and does well in Nevada, he may be able to handle a serious loss in South Carolina. Once Super Tuesday arrives, he can compete in the open and hopefully capture enough real delegates to offset the party's superdelegates. |
I've been really turned off by 538's attitude and tone towards Bernie. I keep on reminding myself Nate Silver is pretty much doing the same thing he did in 2012, and his analysis is generally legit. The only difference now is I'm a supporter of the person behind instead of the candidate projected to win.
And FINALLY the NYT is starting to publish some stories critical of HRC instead of more puff pieces. If Bernie keeps on banging away at HRC's ties to Wall St (especially the speeches connection), I think things could turn out pretty well for him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some articles on the BernieBro smear.
The “Bernie Bros” Narrative: a Cheap Campaign Tactic Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism
| Quote: |
The concoction of the “Bernie Bro” narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic — and a journalistic disgrace. It’s intended to imply two equally false claims: (1) a refusal to march enthusiastically behind the Wall Street-enriched, multiple-war-advocating, despot-embracing Hillary Clinton is explainable not by ideology or political conviction, but largely if not exclusively by sexism: demonstrated by the fact that men, not women, support Sanders (his supporters are “bros”); and (2) Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive and misogynistic in their online behavior. Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to this article will instantly illustrate).
It’s become such an all-purpose, handy pro-Clinton smear that even consummate, actual “bros” for whom the term was originally coined — straight guys who act with entitlement and aggression, such as Paul Krugman — are now reflexively (and unironically) applying it to anyone who speaks ill of Hillary Clinton, even when they know nothing else about the people they’re smearing, including their gender, age, or sexual orientation. Thus, a male policy analyst who criticized Sanders’ health care plan “is getting the Bernie Bro treatment,” sneered Krugman. Unfortunately for the New York Times Bro, that analyst, Charles Gaba, said in response that he’s “really not comfortable with [Krugman’s] referring to die-hard Bernie Sanders supporters as ‘Bernie Bros'” because it “implies that only college-age men support Sen. Sanders, which obviously isn’t the case.” |
BTW, David Dayen schooled Krugman, to which Krugman could only emote and status signal in reply. Basically, Krugman supported pushing big banks out of shadow banking before he was against it.
Anyway, the other article I came here to post.
Debunking the Bernie Bro meme |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
Some articles on the BernieBro smear.
The “Bernie Bros” Narrative: a Cheap Campaign Tactic Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism
| Quote: |
The concoction of the “Bernie Bro” narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic — and a journalistic disgrace. It’s intended to imply two equally false claims: (1) a refusal to march enthusiastically behind the Wall Street-enriched, multiple-war-advocating, despot-embracing Hillary Clinton is explainable not by ideology or political conviction, but largely if not exclusively by sexism: demonstrated by the fact that men, not women, support Sanders (his supporters are “bros”); and (2) Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive and misogynistic in their online behavior. Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to this article will instantly illustrate).
It’s become such an all-purpose, handy pro-Clinton smear that even consummate, actual “bros” for whom the term was originally coined — straight guys who act with entitlement and aggression, such as Paul Krugman — are now reflexively (and unironically) applying it to anyone who speaks ill of Hillary Clinton, even when they know nothing else about the people they’re smearing, including their gender, age, or sexual orientation. Thus, a male policy analyst who criticized Sanders’ health care plan “is getting the Bernie Bro treatment,” sneered Krugman. Unfortunately for the New York Times Bro, that analyst, Charles Gaba, said in response that he’s “really not comfortable with [Krugman’s] referring to die-hard Bernie Sanders supporters as ‘Bernie Bros'” because it “implies that only college-age men support Sen. Sanders, which obviously isn’t the case.” |
BTW, David Dayen schooled Krugman, to which Krugman could only emote and status signal in reply. Basically, Krugman supported pushing big banks out of shadow banking before he was against it.
Anyway, the other article I came here to post.
Debunking the Bernie Bro meme |
Krugman has disappointed me. He clearly doesn't understand Sanders popularity. The system is broken Doc! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hasn't Krugman always been a Clinton guy? Like, forever basically? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Still waiting to see what happens on Super Tuesday. Only then will I be optimistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| Still waiting to see what happens on Super Tuesday. Only then will I be optimistic. |
Hello optimistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FMPJ
Joined: 03 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Um, Super Tuesday isn't until March 1. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:15 am Post subject: RE: Bernie Sanders and optimism |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| Still waiting to see what happens on Super Tuesday. Only then will I be optimistic. |
Alabama (-), Alaska (-), Arkansas (-), Colorado (+), Georgia (-), Massachusetts (+), Minnesota (+), Oklahoma (-), Tennessee (-), Texas (-), Vermont (+), Virginia (-). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I have been very struck by the overwhelming Whiteness of support for the candidacy of the archeo-socialist Bernie Sanders to the presidency of the United States of America, which even extends to Europe among young, hip, English-speaking watchers of the Daily Show.
This has been evident in polls and voting. Sanders has done consistently poorly with Black and Hispanic voters as compared to Whites — which does not bode well for him when the primaries shift to states with large non-White populations. Blacks and Hispanics support Hillary Clinton more than two-to-one over Sanders, while Whites are almost evenly split between them. Sanders is absolutely dominating among the young, winning 84% of votes from 17 to 29 year-olds in Iowa. (Feminist Hillary supporters have tried to drive to a wedge between White women and Sanders with the so-called “Bernie bros” meme, but it really has not worked.)
The stark Whiteness of Sanders support was also extremely apparent his “America”
The ad presents does not present any political arguments as such, but summons a compelling feeling of home: Rural farms, renewable energy (wind), organic stuff, wholesome families, happy White people, coffee shops, laptops, hipster glasses, old folks dancing, etc, to the tune of Jewish folk rock stars 1960s’ hippie song of the same name. “Welcome home,” the ad seems to tell its well-thinking White viewers. Yes, welcome to the Whitopia of Organic Communism.
(Incidentally, the obscene comedy show South Park has also been pointing out this liberal White longing for an authentic “home,” which is simultaneously nice and superficially multicultural/multi-class.)
The Sanders ad really struggles to include non-Whites in it (out of hundreds of faces, there is only one noticeable POC). In response, the Clinton campaign predictably accused Sanders of racism: “From this ad it seems Black lives don’t matter much to Bernie Sanders.”
Ads are projections of what campaign consultants think potential supporters want. And I think they achieved that brilliantly in this ad. (Of course, very few Sanders supporters are aware of just how implicitly White their dream of organic communism is . . .) All this very strongly recalls the recent visit California commercial almost exclusively featuring attractive White people doing White people stuff like biking, rock-climbing, camping, and snowboarding.
The Sanders ad very clearly highlights both the idealism and decadence of the more dedicated White liberals. There is an unbearable softness to it all, a world in which everyone will be nice, no hard decisions will be made, and everyone will be both physically and economically secure to enjoy their lattes and free WiFi. The world would be so safe everyone may as well be high on marijuana (and many would be).
Of course, Black murderers and Islamic gang-rapists simply do not exist in this mental universe. Neither, for that matter, do Jewish power brokers. (Jews, 2% of the U.S. general population, astonishingly make up all seven of Hillary’s top seven campaign contributors, the odds of this occurring by chance being absolutely infinitesimal.) There is a hopelessly naïve and infantile quality to Sanders supporters.
Also compare Sanders’ ad to Hillary’s repulsive campaign launch ad, an ode to hollow post-menopausal ambition and rejection of Core Americans in general.
So what is going on?
Interestingly, Pew Research points out that while Democratic Party supporters are becomingly increasingly “liberal,” Whites are much more likely to use the term than Blacks or Hispanics. There has been an astonishing increase in the proportion of self-described liberals among White Democratic voters, from just 28% in 2000 to 50% in 2015, whereas the proportion has remained basically unchanged among Blacks and Hispanics. More generally, youth and education correlate with liberal identification.
I suggest that the support for Sanders reflects the rise of a new generation of sheltered (often superficially) idealistic young White people who have been raised on Jon Stewart Liebowitz and Noam Chomsky. They are soft by temperament, pushovers even (see how two loud Black women were able to simply shout Sanders offstage), eager for the nanny state’s protective embrace. They have grown increasingly dissatisfied by the contradiction between, on the one hand, their soft personality and the egalitarian ideals promoted in their universities and TV sets, and, on the other hand, the increasingly plutocratic and ethnically-chaotic reality that is twenty-first century America. Sanders embodies their striving to make reality conform to their ideal, whereas the warmongering shill Hillary is deeply unattractive to them.
Sanders’ brand of ideological and moralistic politics does not resonate with Blacks or Hispanics. There is a big difference in quality between White and Black or Hispanic support for the Democrats. For Blacks or Hispanics, this is relatively rational, as the Democrats promise a softer approach to crime and ever increasing wealth transfers from the White majority. For Whites, this support, I believe, is more ideological and idealistic. Many Democrat-supporting Whites are in tax brackets which might not economically benefit from liberal tax policies. (Then again, many of these Whites are likely to be in education or government, and thus benefit.)
The Whiteness of #FeelTheBern is unbearable precisely to these same White liberals, who quite self-righteously think of themselves as the least racist of all people. (Try googling “unbearable Whiteness” to witness all the different issues that guilt-ridden White liberals have wrung their hands over.) But the reality is that support for Sanders to a large degree reflects a particular White subculture. Both the Trump and Sanders campaigns are examples of implicitly White identity politics — but of radically different kinds.
Therefore, if Whites (as Paul Krugman urges) were to be reduced to a minority in America and the country were to be reduced, in Barack Obama’s words, to “a hodgepodge of folks,” we can be sure that Sanders’ latte liberalism will be politically impossible. I doubt this reality will convince very many Sanders supporters to embrace White identity. But they must know, somewhere in their lower brain centers, that their dreams are much more likely to be achieved in a country with the demographics of (pre-invasion) Sweden rather than those of Brazil.
There is no getting around it: Any kind of authentic social justice and social cohesion is only possible in a ethno-culturally cohesive and solidary nation. |
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/02/the-unbearable-whiteness-of-feelthebern/
Post-Boomer liberals are going to have to face reality at some point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Quote: |
I have been very struck by the overwhelming Whiteness of support for the candidacy of the archeo-socialist Bernie Sanders to the presidency of the United States of America, which even extends to Europe among young, hip, English-speaking watchers of the Daily Show.
This has been evident in polls and voting. Sanders has done consistently poorly with Black and Hispanic voters as compared to Whites — which does not bode well for him when the primaries shift to states with large non-White populations. Blacks and Hispanics support Hillary Clinton more than two-to-one over Sanders, while Whites are almost evenly split between them. Sanders is absolutely dominating among the young, winning 84% of votes from 17 to 29 year-olds in Iowa. (Feminist Hillary supporters have tried to drive to a wedge between White women and Sanders with the so-called “Bernie bros” meme, but it really has not worked.)
The stark Whiteness of Sanders support was also extremely apparent his “America”
The ad presents does not present any political arguments as such, but summons a compelling feeling of home: Rural farms, renewable energy (wind), organic stuff, wholesome families, happy White people, coffee shops, laptops, hipster glasses, old folks dancing, etc, to the tune of Jewish folk rock stars 1960s’ hippie song of the same name. “Welcome home,” the ad seems to tell its well-thinking White viewers. Yes, welcome to the Whitopia of Organic Communism.
(Incidentally, the obscene comedy show South Park has also been pointing out this liberal White longing for an authentic “home,” which is simultaneously nice and superficially multicultural/multi-class.)
The Sanders ad really struggles to include non-Whites in it (out of hundreds of faces, there is only one noticeable POC). In response, the Clinton campaign predictably accused Sanders of racism: “From this ad it seems Black lives don’t matter much to Bernie Sanders.”
Ads are projections of what campaign consultants think potential supporters want. And I think they achieved that brilliantly in this ad. (Of course, very few Sanders supporters are aware of just how implicitly White their dream of organic communism is . . .) All this very strongly recalls the recent visit California commercial almost exclusively featuring attractive White people doing White people stuff like biking, rock-climbing, camping, and snowboarding.
The Sanders ad very clearly highlights both the idealism and decadence of the more dedicated White liberals. There is an unbearable softness to it all, a world in which everyone will be nice, no hard decisions will be made, and everyone will be both physically and economically secure to enjoy their lattes and free WiFi. The world would be so safe everyone may as well be high on marijuana (and many would be).
Of course, Black murderers and Islamic gang-rapists simply do not exist in this mental universe. Neither, for that matter, do Jewish power brokers. (Jews, 2% of the U.S. general population, astonishingly make up all seven of Hillary’s top seven campaign contributors, the odds of this occurring by chance being absolutely infinitesimal.) There is a hopelessly naïve and infantile quality to Sanders supporters.
Also compare Sanders’ ad to Hillary’s repulsive campaign launch ad, an ode to hollow post-menopausal ambition and rejection of Core Americans in general.
So what is going on?
Interestingly, Pew Research points out that while Democratic Party supporters are becomingly increasingly “liberal,” Whites are much more likely to use the term than Blacks or Hispanics. There has been an astonishing increase in the proportion of self-described liberals among White Democratic voters, from just 28% in 2000 to 50% in 2015, whereas the proportion has remained basically unchanged among Blacks and Hispanics. More generally, youth and education correlate with liberal identification.
I suggest that the support for Sanders reflects the rise of a new generation of sheltered (often superficially) idealistic young White people who have been raised on Jon Stewart Liebowitz and Noam Chomsky. They are soft by temperament, pushovers even (see how two loud Black women were able to simply shout Sanders offstage), eager for the nanny state’s protective embrace. They have grown increasingly dissatisfied by the contradiction between, on the one hand, their soft personality and the egalitarian ideals promoted in their universities and TV sets, and, on the other hand, the increasingly plutocratic and ethnically-chaotic reality that is twenty-first century America. Sanders embodies their striving to make reality conform to their ideal, whereas the warmongering shill Hillary is deeply unattractive to them.
Sanders’ brand of ideological and moralistic politics does not resonate with Blacks or Hispanics. There is a big difference in quality between White and Black or Hispanic support for the Democrats. For Blacks or Hispanics, this is relatively rational, as the Democrats promise a softer approach to crime and ever increasing wealth transfers from the White majority. For Whites, this support, I believe, is more ideological and idealistic. Many Democrat-supporting Whites are in tax brackets which might not economically benefit from liberal tax policies. (Then again, many of these Whites are likely to be in education or government, and thus benefit.)
The Whiteness of #FeelTheBern is unbearable precisely to these same White liberals, who quite self-righteously think of themselves as the least racist of all people. (Try googling “unbearable Whiteness” to witness all the different issues that guilt-ridden White liberals have wrung their hands over.) But the reality is that support for Sanders to a large degree reflects a particular White subculture. Both the Trump and Sanders campaigns are examples of implicitly White identity politics — but of radically different kinds.
Therefore, if Whites (as Paul Krugman urges) were to be reduced to a minority in America and the country were to be reduced, in Barack Obama’s words, to “a hodgepodge of folks,” we can be sure that Sanders’ latte liberalism will be politically impossible. I doubt this reality will convince very many Sanders supporters to embrace White identity. But they must know, somewhere in their lower brain centers, that their dreams are much more likely to be achieved in a country with the demographics of (pre-invasion) Sweden rather than those of Brazil.
There is no getting around it: Any kind of authentic social justice and social cohesion is only possible in a ethno-culturally cohesive and solidary nation. |
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/02/the-unbearable-whiteness-of-feelthebern/
Post-Boomer liberals are going to have to face reality at some point. |
What reality is that? In your own words. That article was rather unclear on the topic or reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| What reality is that? In your own words. That article was rather unclear on the topic or reality. |
As the article states at the very end, the reality is that what Bernie liberals want politically and ideologically is unfeasible if US demographics mirror those of Brazil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
