Democratic Primary Thread (New Poll - January)

[BleedBlueGold]

I LOL’d. I’m not the least bit surprised. Good grief. He has an enormous audience. They should be thanking him. But I mean God forbid he have conversations with people in which he disagrees. Or God forbid he doesn’t toe their constantly-moving line of political wokeness. God forbid he doesn’t bow to their misinformation campaigns and is a free thinker himself.

Bernie has a giant following of toxic far left people who get off on doxing etc. Twitter is a cesspool for them. Toe the woke Democratic Socialist line, or else you’re Alt-Right. They’re lunatics and I feel sorry for them. Thankfully they make up a small percentage of the voting public. I work side by side with one of “those people” and have learned to just laugh it off.

Isn’t it hilarious that Warren wouldn’t endorse Bernie in 2016 but is now running on his platforms. Haha. She’s the worst.

 

[NorthDakota]

By the time Barack Obama endorses someone, or if he does, hard left folks are gonna be calling him a bigot lmaoo.

 

[GATTACA!]

Yes, it's this or they're offering ridiculous "solutions" to appease weak minded people. I completely agree with your post and it's why I'm personally a big Yang supporter. He's authentic and gives real answers to real questions.

90% of what is talked about in these debates is some version of pandering or the #woke olympics.

Virginia votes on Super Tuesday. If Yang is competitive before that, I will vote for him. If not, then I will likely vote for Biden or Buttigieg for some normalcy. I will not vote for Warren under any circumstance, and Bernie supporters are also starting to really get on my nerves with their pompous rhetoric and other shenanigans (see: today lashing out at Joe Rogan).

Starting to seem like a vote for Pete would be just as much of a waste as a Yang vote if he doesn't outperform in Iowa.

Pete can't win the nomination.

 

[Irish2155]

Three names we came up with - Mitch Daniels, that dude can run anything. Dr Drew - that guy has the balls and the mouthpiece to compete against Trump. And, the off, Tony Robbins - she’s firm with that guy. I’ll let you all fill how you see fit.

Those are the three guys. Outside of those, my vote stays Republican

 

[ACamp1900]

Three names we came up with - Mitch Daniels, that dude can run anything. Dr Drew - that guy has the balls and the mouthpiece to compete against Trump. And, the off, Tony Robbins - she’s firm with that guy. I’ll let you all fill how you see fit.

Those are the three guys. Outside of those, my vote stays Republican

Drew is fairly politically agnostic anyway isn't he? Unless I've read him wrong (I've paid attention at times but not SUPER close or anything) he seems to be along my lines more than anything, a small gov champion that can't seem to find a home in either party.

 

[Irish2155]

Drew is fairly politically agnostic anyway isn't he? Unless I've read him wrong (I've paid attention at times but not SUPER close or anything) he seems to be along my lines more than anything, a small gov champion that can't seem to find a home in either party.

If you want to win, than that’s the small list. Drew, from my understanding, is close to the middle in terms of politics. Cleaning the shit (literally) out Cali is a good start.

 

[IrishLax]

Andrew Yang polling at 8% in recent nationwide polls, and has qualified for the next debate. Some polls have him 4th and within the margin of error of Warren.

Biden and Sanders really distancing themselves from the pack in nationwide polling. Biden clearly losing some voters to Bloomberg, who is also in the 5%-8% range.

 

[GATTACA!]

Andrew Yang polling at 8% in recent nationwide polls, and has qualified for the next debate. Some polls have him 4th and within the margin of error of Warren.

Biden and Sanders really distancing themselves from the pack in nationwide polling. Biden clearly losing some voters to Bloomberg, who is also in the 5%-8% range.

Yang got 4 qualifying polls just today alone. Momentum is definitely building. I hope there's enough time.

 

[GoIrish41]

Yes, it's this or they're offering ridiculous "solutions" to appease weak minded people. I completely agree with your post and it's why I'm personally a big Yang supporter. He's authentic and gives real answers to real questions.

90% of what is talked about in these debates is some version of pandering or the #woke olympics.

Virginia votes on Super Tuesday. If Yang is competitive before that, I will vote for him. If not, then I will likely vote for Biden or Buttigieg for some normalcy. I will not vote for Warren under any circumstance, and Bernie supporters are also starting to really get on my nerves with their pompous rhetoric and other shenanigans (see: today lashing out at Joe Rogan).

I'm a big Bernie fan, but I find his hard core supporters insufferable. The big push for young people to vote is something I personally think is vital to our democracy ... the down side is that many of them are young and headstrong and (like the current occupant of the West Wing) tend to look through a prism of "my way or no way." I don't necessarily hold that against Bernie, who I still think has the best long-term vision for improving the lives of the poor and middle class. That said, any candidate on the Democratic slate is light years better than Trump, so blue no matter who in the general, but I'm still rooting for Bernie in the primaries despite the Bernie Bros.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I'm a big Bernie fan, but I find his hard core supporters insufferable. The big push for young people to vote is something I personally think is vital to our democracy ... the down side is that many of them are young and headstrong and (like the current occupant of the West Wing) tend to look through a prism of "my way or no way." I don't necessarily hold that against Bernie, who I still think has the best long-term vision for improving the lives of the poor and middle class. That said, any candidate on the Democratic slate is light years better than Trump, so blue no matter who in the general, but I'm still rooting for Bernie in the primaries despite the Bernie Bros.

I agree with some of this. However, the "my way or no way" absolutely holds true of Bernie as said by many Congress men and women and it's one of the main reasons he doesn't get much accomplished. There are so many people in Congress who agree on what the problems are. They just disagree on the solutions. But Bernie is supposedly unwilling to compromise. That's clear-cut "my way or no way" and it trickles out to his die hard supporters.

I'm glad Bernie is bringing to light the issues with poverty, the middle class, corruption, etc and is championing universal healthcare (although I personally don't align with his platform on the subject), among other things. "We" who are in favor of such policies have him to thank for that as he's pushed a lot of the party Left on those issues. Said people happen to be those I like more than him (Yang/Gabbard). SEE!! Free market of ideas and competition does work! haha

 

[stlnd01]

I agree with some of this. However, the "my way or no way" absolutely holds true of Bernie as said by many Congress men and women and it's one of the main reasons he doesn't get much accomplished. There are so many people in Congress who agree on what the problems are. They just disagree on the solutions. But Bernie is supposedly unwilling to compromise. That's clear-cut "my way or no way" and it trickles out to his die hard supporters.

I'm glad Bernie is bringing to light the issues with poverty, the middle class, corruption, etc and is championing universal healthcare (although I personally don't align with his platform on the subject), among other things. "We" who are in favor of such policies have him to thank for that as he's pushed a lot of the party Left on those issues. Said people happen to be those I like more than him (Yang/Gabbard). SEE!! Free market of ideas and competition does work! haha

This.

Someone a few posts up was ragging on Warren for taking on some of Bernie’s proposals as her own. I’m not sure why that’s a bad thing. That’s the marketplace of ideas, at work. And it’s not just her. The entire party has moved left, thanks in part to the energy Bernie saw and unleashed in 2016. Every major candidate except maaaybe Biden has run well to the left - policy-wise - of how Obama and certainly Hillary ran. There are many reasons for this, of course, but Bernie deserves a lot of credit for moving the window of what national Dem politicians can talk about.

Which is not to say he should be rewarded with the nomination. Maybe there are others who would be more effective at enacting some of those policies (Warren, IMO). Or who stand a better chance of beating Trump (Biden, IMO). Or who seem like they’re more temperamentally suited for the job (Yang, oddly, IMO).

That said if I had to bet right now today on who actually wins I’d probably bet on Bernie, because he’s polling so strong in both Iowa and NH. Interesting times.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

This.

Someone a few posts up was ragging on Warren for taking on some of Bernie’s proposals as her own. I’m not sure why that’s a bad thing. That’s the marketplace of ideas, at work. And it’s not just her. The entire party has moved left, thanks in part to the energy Bernie saw and unleashed in 2016. Every major candidate except maaaybe Biden has run well to the left - policy-wise - of how Obama and certainly Hillary ran. There are many reasons for this, of course, but Bernie deserves a lot of credit for moving the window of what national Dem politicians can talk about.

Which is not to say he should be rewarded with the nomination. Maybe there are others who would be more effective at enacting some of those policies (Warren, IMO). Or who stand a better chance of beating Trump (Biden, IMO). Or who seem like they’re more temperamentally suited for the job (Yang, oddly, IMO).

That said if I had to bet right now today on who actually wins I’d probably bet on Bernie, because he’s polling so strong in both Iowa and NH. Interesting times.

I'd wager it was me or LAX with the Warren-bashing. Neither of us can stand her.

Running to left on some select policies polls well. Running far to the left on all policies still does not for much of the country. Understanding which ones is important. Most of the Dem candidates are up there just pandering. Warren is one of them.

Also, it's great to have a thriving marketplace for ideas, but those ideas need to still be realistically implemented. Yang gets that and is one of the only candidates discussing details of his policies.

 

[IrishLax]

I'd wager it was me or LAX with the Warren-bashing. Neither of us can stand her.

Running to left on some select policies polls well. Running far to the left on all policies still does not for much of the country. Understanding which ones is important. Most of the Dem candidates are up there just pandering. Warren is one of them.

Also, it's great to have a thriving marketplace for ideas, but those ideas need to still be realistically implemented. Yang gets that and is one of the only candidates discussing details of his policies.

Yeah, my disdain for Warren started with the fake Native American thing. I find that inherently disqualifying. Then it was little things, like lying to someone's face about where he kids went to school for no reason. I don't expect politicians to be "honest", but if you think you can just lie with impunity then you will never get my vote.

But the number one reason why I think she's a clown is that her & her husband had no problems with student loans and sky high tuition when they were cashing in to the tune of damn near $1 million/year to teach in higher education. But now that she's done filling up her bank account, she wants to talk about how "horrible" and "evil" student loans are... and then take our money to write off that debt. Convenient.

At least with Bernie, he is reasonably authentic and consistent. He has always been about free college and things like that, not just "pay off loans... now that I'm not suckling at the teat of bloated higher ed salaries." Warren = opportunist, Bernie = true believer. That's the main difference, and why the Warren campaign is now failing.

 

[stlnd01]

I'd wager it was me or LAX with the Warren-bashing. Neither of us can stand her.

Running to left on some select policies polls well. Running far to the left on all policies still does not for much of the country. Understanding which ones is important. Most of the Dem candidates are up there just pandering. Warren is one of them.

Also, it's great to have a thriving marketplace for ideas, but those ideas need to still be realistically implemented. Yang gets that and is one of the only candidates discussing details of his policies.

Warren is another. Bernie is not.

If, like Lax, you consider the Native American thing disqualifying for Warren, OK, I’m probably not going to convince you otherwise. It’s not great but it’s also a mountain out of a molehill, in my opinion. And making a good living as a professor at an elite law school doesn’t really have anything to do with the broader debate about a student loan system that saddles lower- and middle-income undergrad students with huge debt, often from for-profit colleges peddling largely-worthless degrees. In my opinion, again.

I like Warren and will probably vote for her because I think - since entering political/public life a decade ago - she has been remarkably consistent on some very important issues that are her bread and butter. I know where she stands on issues of money and corporate power in American life, and she takes a broad, inclusive, view of who matters in this country. I also think, if elected, she’ll be more effective at enacting some of these progressive policies than Bernie, whose approach seems mainly to consist of yelling about “taking on” various “industries” and... assuming the revolution will follow? I agree Warren isn’t great on TV, and can occasionally pander. She’s made a few mind-boggling own-goals (like on the Medicare-for-All discussion) on issues that, I suspect, she’s not passionate about but seemed politically expedient. I worry she can’t beat Trump. She’s not perfect. None of them are.

That said, I’m not really interested in arguing Warren v Bernie (or Biden or Buttigieg or Yang or Bloomberg). Grand scheme of things they’re all pretty good, and way better than what we’ve got now.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Warren is another. Bernie is not.

If, like Lax, you consider the Native American thing disqualifying for Warren, OK, I’m probably not going to convince you otherwise. It’s not great but it’s also a mountain out of a molehill, in my opinion. And making a good living as a professor at an elite law school doesn’t really have anything to do with the broader debate about a student loan system that saddles lower- and middle-income undergrad students with huge debt, often from for-profit colleges peddling largely-worthless degrees. In my opinion, again.

She's a bold faced liar, that was Lax's point. She's also been caught numerous times flat out pandering. Par for the course with politicians, but the country doesn't want your typical everyday politician in office anymore.

For the record, I'm actually completely against "free college" and "student debt elimination" on the back's of American tax payers because it won't fix the issue of rising tuition costs and also punishes the people who made responsible decisions and sacrifices in order not carry debt or get out of it themselves.

I like Warren and will probably vote for her because I think - since entering political/public life a decade ago - she has been remarkably consistent on some very important issues that are her bread and butter. I know where she stands on issues of money and corporate power in American life, and she takes a broad, inclusive, view of who matters in this country. I also think, if elected, she’ll be more effective at enacting some of these progressive policies than Bernie, whose approach seems mainly to consist of yelling about “taking on” various “industries” and... assuming the revolution will follow? I agree Warren isn’t great on TV, and can occasionally pander. She’s made a few mind-boggling own-goals (like on the Medicare-for-All discussion) on issues that, I suspect, she’s not passionate about but seemed politically expedient. I worry she can’t beat Trump. She’s not perfect. None of them are.

That said, I’m not really interested in arguing Warren v Bernie (or Biden or Buttigieg or Yang or Bloomberg). Grand scheme of things they’re all pretty good, and way better than what we’ve got now.

Warren was a Republican until she was in her 40s*. She endorsed HRC and not Bernie for a reason. She's not a real progressive (whatever that term means anymore). *Yes, people can change, and it's been awhile since she wrote Two Income Trap (which touted some conservative ideals), but again, if she's so Progressive, why didn't she endorse Sanders in '16?

She also polls terribly against Trump, as you mentioned. Which matters if you want a candidate with electibility.

 

[stlnd01]

When Warren endorsed Hillary in 2016 there was one primary left, DC. She effectively stayed neutral until it was over and endorsed Hillary to help avoid a contested convention. That seems fair.

As for Warren being a Republican until she was in her 40s, I guess I think people are allowed to evolve. And it’s been like 30 years. It’s pretty clear where Warren has stood since she became a political figure.

I think some Bernie people are trying to paint Warren as another Hillary and I think that’s bullshit.

 

[ulukinatme]

That said, I’m not really interested in arguing Warren v Bernie (or Biden or Buttigieg or Yang or Bloomberg). Grand scheme of things they’re all pretty good, and way better than what we’ve got now.

Right now the Democrats have a two quarterback situation. As they say, if you have two quarterbacks, you have none.

If they want the best possible chance of beating Trump, they need to back a charismatic candidate that is moderate enough to pickup the voters in the middle. Most of the front runners don't check both boxes. Bernie has the youth vote and the charisma, but is too far left. Warren is kind of in the same boat, but she tends to step in crap from time to time. Mayor Pete doesn't have the charisma. Biden can't get out of his own way in a similar fashion. A guy like Yang could get the job done, but he's not part of the establishment and it doesn't look like the Democratic party is ready to make a break with the establishment. They're going to fight Trump the same way they've been trying to since 2016 and it's probably going to cost them an election again.

It's funny that you think all of those candidates are incredibly better when compared to Trump. We're already experiencing a very successful economic period with incredibly low unemployment. I guess we can expect a true golden age once Trump is out of office.

 

[GATTACA!]

Warren is another. Bernie is not.

If, like Lax, you consider the Native American thing disqualifying for Warren, OK, I’m probably not going to convince you otherwise. It’s not great but it’s also a mountain out of a molehill, in my opinion. And making a good living as a professor at an elite law school doesn’t really have anything to do with the broader debate about a student loan system that saddles lower- and middle-income undergrad students with huge debt, often from for-profit colleges peddling largely-worthless degrees. In my opinion, again.

I like Warren and will probably vote for her because I think - since entering political/public life a decade ago - she has been remarkably consistent on some very important issues that are her bread and butter. I know where she stands on issues of money and corporate power in American life, and she takes a broad, inclusive, view of who matters in this country. I also think, if elected, she’ll be more effective at enacting some of these progressive policies than Bernie, whose approach seems mainly to consist of yelling about “taking on” various “industries” and... assuming the revolution will follow? I agree Warren isn’t great on TV, and can occasionally pander. She’s made a few mind-boggling own-goals (like on the Medicare-for-All discussion) on issues that, I suspect, she’s not passionate about but seemed politically expedient. I worry she can’t beat Trump. She’s not perfect. None of them are.

That said, I’m not really interested in arguing Warren v Bernie (or Biden or Buttigieg or Yang or Bloomberg). Grand scheme of things they’re all pretty good, and way better than what we’ve got now.

Good luck getting her to talk specifics about her health care plan. She refuses to admit that it will increase taxes. Her trying to squirm out of answering that question multiple times at multiple debates gave me second hand embarrassment.

How anyone could support her after the sexist bullshit she tried to pull against Bernie (someone I don't even like that much) is beyond me. That was despicable.

 

[NorthDakota]

Good luck getting her to talk specifics about her health care plan. She refuses to admit that it will increase taxes. Her trying to squirm out of answering that question multiple times at multiple debates gave me second hand embarrassment.

How anyone could support her after the sexist bullshit she tried to pull against Bernie (someone I don't even like that much) is beyond me. That was despicable.

She's weak. Cant imagine her holding up over the course of a debate with The Donald. She hardly could handle Bernie saying "I didnt say that."

 

[Whiskeyjack]

*Yes, people can change, and it's been awhile since she wrote Two Income Trap (which touted some conservative ideals), but again, if she's so Progressive, why didn't she endorse Sanders in '16?

It kills me that the notion "most Americans should be able to raise a family on a single income" is somehow anti-Progressive these days. Apparently far better to insist that dual income households are the new norm, with American children largely raised by poorly-paid strangers instead.

I guess we're only allowed to be "progressive" in ways that benefit the 1% and the S&P500.

 

[drayer54]

Good luck getting her to talk specifics about her health care plan. She refuses to admit that it will increase taxes. Her trying to squirm out of answering that question multiple times at multiple debates gave me second hand embarrassment.

How anyone could support her after the sexist bullshit she tried to pull against Bernie (someone I don't even like that much) is beyond me. That was despicable.

Warren v Trump would turn into right-wing populism vs democratic socialism far-left populism. She would get called Pocahontas to her face, which would be... nice. 1/1024th reference drop here and there. Right wing populism would win big. That's why I'm shocked the libs at NYT/DMR were so happy to endorse her. Ohh wait, I wasn't shocked at all by either.

Also, update on the Bidens --> https://pagesix.com/2020/01/27/hunter-biden-agrees-to-pay-child-support-to-ex-stripper-baby-mama/

 

[BleedBlueGold]

When Warren endorsed Hillary in 2016 there was one primary left, DC. She effectively stayed neutral until it was over and endorsed Hillary to help avoid a contested convention. That seems fair.

As for Warren being a Republican until she was in her 40s, I guess I think people are allowed to evolve. And it’s been like 30 years. It’s pretty clear where Warren has stood since she became a political figure.

I think some Bernie people are trying to paint Warren as another Hillary and I think that’s bullshit.

Warren purposefully didn’t endorse the only progressive candidate in 2016 because she was too busy playing politics is how that reads to me.

It kills me that the notion "most Americans should be able to raise a family on a single income" is somehow anti-Progressive these days. Far better to insist that dual income households are the new norm, with American children largely raised by poorly-paid strangers instead apparently.

I guess we're only allowed to be "progressive" in ways that benefit the 1% and the S&P500.

I was referencing her support for vouchers at the time which is largely advocated by the right these days. Shallow comparison, I know.

But yes. To your point, the powers that be used a magnitude of techniques to push families into the perceived necessity of two incomes. Her book wasn’t wrong to point out the wave of mom’s entering the workforce but I also feel Warren would be one of the first to raise the “you’re sexist” flag when pointing that children do better when they had a parent at home (during the writing of her book, that parent being predominantly the woman.)

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I was referencing her support for vouchers at the time which is largely advocated by the right these days. Shallow comparison, I know.

I figured. My frustration wasn't directed at you, but the stupidity of the position. Who benefits from normalizing two-income households and abortion-on-demand so things like pregnancy and child-rearing don't interfere with a woman's obligations to her employers? Only the rich, and it takes a heavy toll on the average American family. But God forbid you try to point that out within the DNC, because you'd immediately be labeled a misogynist and run out of the party.

If the Democrats ran a populist pro-life candidate, they'd own the White House for the rest of the 21st century. But that would require some vision and the moral fortitude to tell some very wealthy donors to fuck off.

But yes. To your point, the powers that be used a magnitude of techniques to push families into the perceived necessity of two incomes. Her book wasn’t wrong to point out the wave of mom’s entering the workforce but I also feel Warren would be one of the first to raise the “you’re sexist” flag when pointing that children do better when they had a parent at home (during the writing of her book, that parent being predominantly the woman.)

Exactly. Warren's reversal on this point is a symptom of deeper problems within the party. How are you going to be the "progressive" party when you're in hock to the ultra rich?

 

[IrishLax]

Warren is another. Bernie is not.

If, like Lax, you consider the Native American thing disqualifying for Warren, OK, I’m probably not going to convince you otherwise. It’s not great but it’s also a mountain out of a molehill, in my opinion. And making a good living as a professor at an elite law school doesn’t really have anything to do with the broader debate about a student loan system that saddles lower- and middle-income undergrad students with huge debt, often from for-profit colleges peddling largely-worthless degrees. In my opinion, again.

I like Warren and will probably vote for her because I think - since entering political/public life a decade ago - she has been remarkably consistent on some very important issues that are her bread and butter. I know where she stands on issues of money and corporate power in American life, and she takes a broad, inclusive, view of who matters in this country. I also think, if elected, she’ll be more effective at enacting some of these progressive policies than Bernie, whose approach seems mainly to consist of yelling about “taking on” various “industries” and... assuming the revolution will follow? I agree Warren isn’t great on TV, and can occasionally pander. She’s made a few mind-boggling own-goals (like on the Medicare-for-All discussion) on issues that, I suspect, she’s not passionate about but seemed politically expedient. I worry she can’t beat Trump. She’s not perfect. None of them are.

That said, I’m not really interested in arguing Warren v Bernie (or Biden or Buttigieg or Yang or Bloomberg). Grand scheme of things they’re all pretty good, and way better than what we’ve got now.

Posts like these are what I was hoping to get when I made this thread.

 

[IrishLax]

Good luck getting her to talk specifics about her health care plan. She refuses to admit that it will increase taxes. Her trying to squirm out of answering that question multiple times at multiple debates gave me second hand embarrassment.

How anyone could support her after the sexist bullshit she tried to pull against Bernie (someone I don't even like that much) is beyond me. That was despicable.

Yeah, that laughable smear was when she totally jumped the shark and tanked her campaign. But it's pretty much par for the course with other cringey stuff she has done.

Elizabeth Warren campaigning to cure the ills of student loans would be like one of the Waltons running for public office and talking about how they're going to protect small businesses.

 

[Irishize]

It kills me that the notion "most Americans should be able to raise a family on a single income" is somehow anti-Progressive these days. Apparently far better to insist that dual income households are the new norm, with American children largely raised by poorly-paid strangers instead.

I guess we're only allowed to be "progressive" in ways that benefit the 1% and the S&P500.

This is so spot on. Why not be honest about the situation? Husbands/Wives should just admit that they prefer having more “stuff” vs one of the parents staying home w/ the kids in their formative years.

YES...THERE ARE COUPLES WHO MUST BOTH WORK. The majority of the middle class wants to appear upper middle class & the majority of the upper middle class wants to appear wealthy. Swimming pools, Louis Vuitton bags, luxury SUVs, the right house in the right neighborhood, kids wearing designer clothes before they hit puberty, etc.

Don’t get me wrong, I like nice stuff, too. But when you make it your god it tends to rule your life & you’re stuck keeping up w/ the Jones’ which has to be maddening. Just look at Facebook.

 

[Irishize]

I figured. My frustration wasn't directed at you, but the stupidity of the position. Who benefits from normalizing two-income households and abortion-on-demand so things like pregnancy and child-rearing don't interfere with a woman's obligations to her employers? Only the rich, and it takes a heavy toll on the average American family. But God forbid you try to point that out within the DNC, because you'd immediately be labeled a misogynist and run out of the party.

If the Democrats ran a populist pro-life candidate, they'd own the White House for the rest of the 21st century. But that would require some vision and the moral fortitude to tell some very wealthy donors to fuck off.

Instead you have candidates telling pro-Life Dems that there’s no place for them in the Democratic Party. Buttiegieg, of all people; did that recently. WTH?

 

[Irish YJ]

Nice article on how shady Bernie has been through his career.

Bernie Sanders rails about common good but public service has made him (and his family) rich
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-public-service-rich-peter-schweizer

 

[ab2cmiller]

I would not have posted this, but I thought it more interesting because the former South Bend cop that they interviewed was Derek Dieter, Gherig's father.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mMbXDY-oRD4" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Irish YJ]

LOL..... WTF.....

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="und" dir="ltr">😍🏳️*🌈🍦 <a href="https://twitter.com/biggayicecream?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@biggayicecream</a> <a href="https://t.co/ftKPL9oRsy">pic.twitter.com/ftKPL9oRsy</a></p>— Team Bloomberg (@Mike2020) <a href="https://twitter.com/Mike2020/status/1222324982786797568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>