https://spectator.org/sanders-supporters...as-at-cnn/
Writer laughs at progressives who actually thought CNN was a news organization.

"...They credulously watched for three years as its “journalists” accused President Trump, without a scrap of evidence, of colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 election and still believed the cable network was in the news business.

Consequently, when the CNN moderators gave Sanders the Trump treatment, the outraged ululations of the Left could be heard from sea to shining sea. Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi tweeted, “This is an unusually vile performance by CNN.” The Nation’s Elie Mystal raged, “Jesus Christ I hate these biased questions from the moderators. ‘How would you keep your plan from bankrupting the country?’ JUST ASK THE KOCH BROTHERS TO MODERATE NEXT TIME!” HuffPost’s Zach Carter griped about CNN’s post-debate panel discussion, “CNN’s crew is just straight bashing Sanders post-debate.” The New Republic’s Libby Watson whined, “CNN is truly a terrible influence on this country.”

Hmm … Where have we heard that before? Oh, that’s right. Conservatives have been making the same point for decades, only to be sneered at by progressives who insisted that such claims were conspiracy theories. In reality, it has long been obvious that CNN operates more like the PR department for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) than a legitimate news outlet...."

_____________

First Sharpton, now Van. Democrats should be very concerned.









Was van jones red-pilled?

______________

Two liars calling each other a liar, and they are both speaking the truth.

(01-16-2020 02:53 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

_____________

First Sharpton, now Van. Democrats should be very concerned.









Was van jones red-pilled?

______________

Two liars calling each other a liar, and they are both speaking the truth.

She just called him a sexist and complains about him calling her a liar about it?
She wanted that on video and I think it makes Warren look bad. I guess this Caleb is CNN.

Only applause timed to make Bernie Sanders look bad so they can rig it again.

Talking points are out. All kinds of articles about how Joe Biden did well and Sanders looks bad. Its pretty pathetic. With Warren's history, its Warren who looks desperate.

And if he had the opinion that a woman couldn't win (and there is every indication he believed otherwise), so what? Maybe he said Warren couldn't win. Or more likely, he said nothing like that and it is more Warren fiction.

He won't get the nomination. It is a proportional system and he will get trounced in the South. He might win more delegates than anyone else, but they'll take him out in a brokered convention if necessary.

The question is: Who is the most communist? Seems to me it's like asking if Stalin or Mao were most communist. They're in a deadbeat.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...on/605134/
Seems like Democrats are in a worse echo chamber than 2016. You have Nancy permanently staining herself with impeachment. Then there is this discussion of Biden vs. Sanders vs. Warren. The key sentence:
"...In six key swing states—Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—Democrats would prefer a 2020 nominee who is more moderate, a November poll from The New York Times and Siena College showed...."

No mention of Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado or Virginia. Minnesota and New Hampshire are more likely to flip than North Carolina or Florida. The others are all key swing states.

Finally watched some of this. Literally everyone on stage is unelectable to me. Everyone couldn't do math. Actual policy specifics were rarer than winning lottery tickets. With the exit of several token minority candidates the open unabashed anti-white racism and ageism set in again. The woke left threw a tantrum over how old white male the panel has become.

I don't think anyone on that stage will even do as good as Hillary did.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using CSNbbs mobile app