whenever someone is clearly doing a troll post you will get one of the mods or just some jackass saying "LMAO THIS IS BAIT!! HA HA HA" like they are in on the joke.

imagine you are watching a movie and some asshole yells out spoilers. it ruins the total performance. just shut the fuck up, like a good retard, and enjoy the show. dont be such an idiot and scream like you and the writers are on the same level because you are not. it is art.

i have literally seen countless posts where bait is ruined because some faggot points out it is bait so they can feel internet savvy. i am actually very angry.

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp, archive.is

^{I am a bot. (Info / Contact)}

Here’s how Bernie can still lose.

Biden is going to take Bernie to the back of the barn and shoot him.

literally, if necessary

Did I say metaphorically?

It is gonna be hilarious if Bernie wins the primary to see CNN start talking about how Trump isnt that bad.

I can't wait to watch the foids sperg out tbh.

Are foids anti Bernie ?

In my experience they like the idea of socialism because they believe it'll finally make them equal.

most foids maybe not, but there is a large (both in terms of body mass and online presence) and very loud group of rabid "a woman must win" foids.

They're mainly Hillary shills, but they've latched on to Harris.

Good God. Daddy's gonna win isn't he ?

The winnable Dem is Bernard or Biden. However the Dems won't accept them.

They will definitely accept Biden. The establishment will completely reject Bernie though despite him having the best chance to beat Trump.

If they reject Bernard then I'm afraid Trump has a chance.

Bernard is unironically the best choice. Most of his plans are stupid (no, not everyone should go to college) but you guys need universal healthcare.

Once you have that, no Europoor or third worlder can criticise you.

I'm no burger for the record. I'm leafcuck living in the land of the Europoors. And the college thing isnt bad if it is talking about trades and shit. I agree that university shouldnt be free though but the amount they do have to pay for that in America is just fucking bonkers as well.

I think Bernard wants degrees when he says college.

Hell he if he runs on trade schools, universal healthcare, tax the billionaires, look out for the middle class and tight immigration (he thinks corporations want to exploit cheap labour) he'll be centrist as fuck and steal the small c conservative vote.

I agree with the college cost part. Their model is fucked up. 4 years for a BA AND residential colleges. All this + greed leads to inflated costs. And the whole college loans thing means that any idiot can sign up for one.

Even for their law course for example you need a bachelors. Same for doctors. Too much actually. All this adds up.

Hell he if he runs on trade schools, universal healthcare, tax the billionaires, look out for the middle class and tight immigration (he thinks corporations want to exploit cheap labour) he'll be centrist as fuck and steal the small c conservative vote

Lmao no fucking way. Not a single fucking conservative will vote for Sanders, especially not on that platform.

Not even moderates ? The ones who aren't Ben Shapiro types, never trumpers ?

Moderates or moderate conservatives? For the moderates, maybe some, especially because moderates/independents have pretty damn low approval ratings for Donny.

Actual Republicans? They fucking adore Daddy, he hovers in the high 80s and low 90s with Republicans in approval ratings. He has genuinely made the Republican party into the Trump party, it's pretty undeniable now, it's not like the Republicans in Congress suddenly stopped hating him after the election. Republicans are obsessed with him, which is pretty revealing considering his only consistent policy positions are a stupid wall, stupid tariffs and, most importantly, triggering the libs.

Yes I meant the moderates who dislike Donny but can't quite vote for someone like Bobby O' or some far left type.

Do you think the Republicans will nominate Daddy again ?

I'd say yes, he has very high approval ratings with Republicans. Granted, he isn't particularly noteworthy in terms of his numbers, Reagan, HW and W. Bush all had high approval ratings (Bush being lower than the others by the time he left). Nevertheless, 90% or so are happy with his job, he has an energetic base and the entire Republican party is terrified of stepping out of line. The chances of a legitimate challenger are extremely small, if anything it will be because of a massive scandal regarding Mueller or something. And even still, if Trump turns out to have sucked Putin's dick for Hill-dogs emails what is most likely to happen is that the GOP comes out as pro-LGBT because of it.

That's a.. Coherent answer 👍.

sucked Putin's dick for Hill-dogs emails what is most likely to happen is that the GOP comes out as pro-LGBT because of it.

😁😂

Once you have that, no Europoor or third worlder can criticise you.

We'll still have guns ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yeah that's messed up but can you really buy back the guns ? Seems like it would be damn difficult.

Plus nobody really cares about poor youths in sketchy neighbourhoods shooting themselves. If Europoors don't like it, they can import them.

No universal healthcare is a legit criticism.

They can't buy them back because they can't afford to out bid the buyers in the parking lot. Most of the time they give out $100 gift card to walmart. But lester is going to give you $300 for that $1000+ hand cannon your grandpa really wanted you to have.

I wonder, if you could eminent domain it ?

Gunnanites call that "door to door confiscation" the problem with that is you would need confiscate every gun at the same time or else some people would hide them and other people would organize violently with their guns.

Also we have no clue where they all are. Gun registry on a national level is strictly banned. Federal law only requires you to keep the sale record for a few years.

Damn. Well I guess once the yangbux start rolling in there'll be a reduction in mayos school shootings

After that only sketchy neighbourhood shootings will exist but that won't make international headlines.

It really depends on the tactics employed by the rebel group. If they tried marching on a city or something yeah, they'd get their shit pushed in. But if they blend in with the local populace the government wouldn't be able to tell the difference between some rando and the enemy. So more than likely it would resemble The Troubles in the UK.

That sounds well thought out. Thanks.

Would your govt bomb the shit out if them ? Would the majority of the soldiery assist ?

It would be foolish to outright bomb them cause that would probably mean bombing your own major cities.

As for soldiers assisting, people like to say "the military will be on the side of the people" but I think with the cultural differences between the 4 corners of the US, you could just send troops from the different geological locations and they wouldn't really consider the locals "their people"

foolish to outright bomb them cause that would probably mean bombing your own major cities.

That makes sense. However it could save human lives by bombing them instead of sending troops in ?

Especially if the rebels have these big guns instead of second hand AK 47s.

send troops from the different geological locations and they wouldn't really consider the locals "their people"

Oh yes. Silly me I forgot about this. That's how local disturbance has always been crushed.

Send troops from a different part of the country and rebels get BTFO.

That makes sense. However it could save human lives by bombing them instead of sending troops in no ?

I guess if you're ok with killing a fuck ton of civilians and fucking up your infrastructure and recruiting for the rebels.

Fuck me I meant bombing the rural areas where they have hideouts. Of course you can't bomb cities.

Sorry for the confusion.

I don't know how successful that would be, they're pretty spread out. But also they have militia compounds they could bomb the shit out of those and kill some people.

But there are a fuck ton of people who are pro gun and own guns living in the city and suburbs depending on where you are.

But also they have militia compounds they could bomb the shit out of those and kill some people.

Exactly.

But there are a fuck ton of people who are pro gun and own guns living in the city and suburbs depending on where you are.

Damn, so this gun thing isn't easy huh ?

No, but thinking about it now. The most likely thing to stop it would be something like COINTELPRO where the FBI infiltrated a bunch of political groups in the 50's - 70's to cause internal strife.

The programme targeted KKK and leftist commie organisations.

Is the FBI filled with radical centrists ?

Can the FBI infiltrate and cause strife fast enough if gun confiscation or buy back is announced ?

COINTELPRO when?

I unironically support such things. Reaction and Revolution can BTFO.

They can't even keep or retrieve guns from people in the major cities that shouldn't have them (ie, felons) let alone searching rural areas for guns.

Your nation is very large. I think foreigners don't understand that.

The felon thing is just general problems that other countries face like drugs or weapons.

Felons include many different crimes in addition to drugs and weapons. However, we currently have a system in place to prevent felons from purchasing fire arms through legal channels (although local authorities have a tendency to screw it up and not notify the feds about a prohibited person so that they fail the background check).

Trump proposed the only solution that would have put a dent in the Chicago's version of the problem by sending the national guard in. They would have had to do door to door confiscation and sweeping each house in the process. However, no one wants to go down that path or incarcerate the prohibited people caught with fire arms. Catching a kid (or anyone under 21) with a hand gun would result in jail time.

Trump proposed the only solution that would have put a dent in the Chicago's version

Why wasn't it passed ? Orange Man Bad or unconstitutional ?

However, no one wants to go down that path or incarcerate the prohibited people caught with fire arms.

Why ?

It was never brought up again after the election. While the national guard can be deployed, it's unconstitutional to use the military on US soil against Americans. It also looks very bad to target a poor (ultra violent) minority area. If for some reason, they did do the sweep and round up every prohibited person, there would be a lot of young minorities that would need charged and could end up in jail for a long time. That's bad optics as well since we already have a huge prison population.

We even have a problem getting straw purchases prosecuted. Straw purchases are when you have someone else make the purchase for a prohibited person. You can get up to 10 years in a federal prison for that.

It would be interesting to see prosecutors charging for more fire arm crimes instead of plea bargaining them away. If someone is busted on fire arm and drug charges, it's disingenuous to allow them to accept a plea deal with only take the drug charges.

There really seems to be no solution huh ?

Nothing that won't trample the rights of some while keeping everyone safe. That assumes the government could even execute a full gun confiscation.

So no consensus can be reached without force ?

Peace through force sounds easier than it is.

Not really. You have 2 factions: the first believes in the 2A and it shall not be infringed and the second who believes it's out dated and needs to be removed. Even the second is reluctant to try to remove guns from people who are already banned from having them. So they focus on making legal gun owners (who don't commit most of the crime) and making their life hard.

The American left uses gun control in the same way Evangelical conservatives use abortion laws to torment the other side.

Gosh that's a great explanation.

The American left uses gun control in the same way Evangelical conservatives use abortion laws to torment the other side.

👌

Bomb what in the rural areas?

Their compounds and hideouts.

Any decent insurgency will keep countless stashes and avoid centralization for this very reason. Furthermore, there are enough ex-military people in rural America who are familiar with military procedure that can (and already do) offer extensive advice on how to counter it.

Direct military action on U.S. soil would ruin the U.S. completely. Internationally, the entire planet would immediately lose and remaining faith that the U.S. can maintain it's sociopolical like cohesiveness. The economy would be in complete shit, if not outright collapse. International actors (primarily Russian) would pour into the country to maintain instability while propoganda departments all over the planet would fan the flames. Despite Trump, the U.S. is still looked upon as a beacon of stability. An impending American civil war (which is what rural military action would be precipitating) would shatter international stability.

I guess this is what hearing both sides means. I heard one chap who soundly thought it would be doable to squash a rebellion and that soldiers from different parts of the country won't aid the rebels.

Now you quite soundly make the claim that it would be devastating and that the would be rebels ain't spring chicks. All this would mean, USD deteriorates, your bonds are useless and the fuckin Borschtcels become #1 or share power with General Tso.

Damn it. Now I don't know what to think 😐.

I heard one chap who soundly thought it would be doable to squash a rebellion and that soldiers from different parts of the country won't aid the rebels.

I read that thread before replying. I agree with him that the U.S. military would probably not end up "siding with the people" as a whole, and the strategy of using soldiers from different areas of the country is time-tested (the CCP used this exact strategy to quash the Tiananmen Square protests). However, there are two factors:

*I have no doubt that non-trivial numbers of military members would defect. Just because the military as a whole does not desintegrate does not mean that it will obey in its entirety.

There are already plenty of *ex-military people among rural populations. This, along with the copious amounts of prepper and survivalist material online, means that American civilians already have plenty of material about insurgency and resistance on hand.

I think the other guy is seriously underestimating what it means to truly "squash" an insurgency. The U.S. military "squashed" Al Queda in Iraq and yet it turned around to become ISIS within a few years. That's assuming the U.S. would be able to mount a successful anti-insurgency campaign in the first place.

Now you quite soundly make the claim that it would be devastating and that the would be rebels ain't spring chicks.

Well, even if the initial rebels we're put down easily, the mere act of having to deploy U.S. troops (non-National Guard) domestically to engage in military operations against the U.S. populace would have enormous consequences. Furthermore, there's hardly any garauntee that this would be the only rebellion, and that the next group of rebels would not have learned from their predecessors. No doubt domestic military action would not engender more resentment from the U.S. population that would enkindle even more rebellion.

share power with General Tso.

Another factor to consider: not only would the other world powers be scrambling to fill the new vacuum, but their own internal politics might be at risk. Take the PRC, for example: the loss of a global economy and the ensuing damage that would inflict on the Chinese economy could very well empower the true Maoist elements within the CCP to take power from the current Confucian-aligned faction in power, justified by the fact that the global capitalist system has failed China and led them into domestic recession.

You make good points. I know that not an insignificant number of Americans are well versed with guns and survival training. Plus a lot of the rebels could be soldiers themselves.

Hence Uncle Sam won't be battling haphazardly trained natives. Also a lot of the soldiery like I thought would be sympathetic to the rebels. If they don't defect they will atleast refuse to Tianamen them.

You're right about employing the National Guard. Is using the Army against civilians prohibited by statute or by the constitution ?

Take the PRC, for example: the loss of a global economy and the ensuing damage that would inflict on the Chinese economy could very well empower the true Maoist elements within the CCP to take power from the current Confucian-aligned faction in power, justified by the fact that the global capitalist system has failed China and led them into domestic recession.

Damn, that's a very good point. Would the Chinese really risk aiding this if Maoist crazies exist in their ranks ? Probably not.

Once more you make a compelling case.

After all the progress china made there is still a maiost element in the CCP? That's amazing. Where can i read about that?

Maybe I overstated their presence. There are certainly Maoist political elements within Chinese society. I also feel like I've seen mentions of hardline lefists within the CCP, although they get less coverage than the Xi government and the more liberal-minded reformers. I could only point to Bo Xilai and the recent workers rights protests as solid evidence that Maoism is still kicking about China in some capacity.

I think booker pretending to be christian is the way to go.

Is he a centrist ?

winnable dem

winnable

dem

Pick one 😂🤣😂

Come on, you don't seriously think Daddy can beat Bernard or Bidden do you ?

Bernard would be easier to beat than Hillary. Is creepy uncle joe even in the running?

Bernard would be easier to beat than Hillary.

I highly highly doubt that. Orange Man bad + healthcare + gibs + white guy is strong pull. His Jewness isn't even much of a factor.

uncle joe

I think he will. If he does, Daddy better watch out. Uncle Joe like the OG Uncle Joe seems to be popular in the mainstream.

The people getting gibs are too lazy to go vote. The boomers are all going to go vote because suddenly their retirement plans are worth a lot more.

So you say. This internet makes people more activist. The Blue Wave 🌊🌊 whilst not as successful, did get a lot of people voting.

I'd be worried honestly.

lol Gillibrand and Warren must be seething that even when they start imitating Hillary as much as possible her fanbase still can be herded away from them.

girl power > not electing someone who puts people in cages for personal profit and prestige

Foids seem pretty split on him, but the ones that hate him are really vocal about it

Why do some normal foids dislike him ?

I thought in the States conservativism was a white male thing because they tell me that Republicans hate women thus they try to stop abortion.

I'm not sure if they fit the definition of "normal", but plenty of left leaning foids hate Bernie because of things Bernie bros said about Clinton during the 2016 nomination.

Fuck, the sisterhood doesn't forgive do they ?

Only the christian right gives a shit about baby blending. Non-christian right foids are all about pulling themselves up by their husbands boot straps.

I agree abortion is a silly debate. Birth em and burn em who cares ?

pulling themselves up by their husbands boot straps.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Depends what she looks like.

That's always the caveat with foids.

I don't know where people are getting that normal foids hate Bernie. At my university way more women have Bernie laptop stickers (ew) than men do. Anyway liberal foids will hold their nose and vote Bernie because they hate Daddy for being pro-life.

Exactly. Foids almost always go for the more left wing candidate in the states.

They’re just going to give it to Biden. Then we’ll get to see Trump make pedophile jokes for months, as people scream about how he just wants to fuck Ivanka.

Yeah this is exactly what will happen. You already see the DDF calling him creepy joe and shit. He is also a hardcore centrist who will be seen as the status quo which hasnt been an asset in elections for a few years now.

I mean the guy sniffs kids. That's pretty weird

Eh, I doubt it's anything sexual, I bet he just wants to know how they would taste if butchered (haram of course) and slowly grilled with carrots.

People have been calling him creepy uncle Joe for years. As long as he was keeping it within the Democratic party, it was funny to watch. It's like watching male feminists do there thing with other people on the left.

he is fucking creepy

I only want biden to win for the sake of getting more The Onion articles about him

as people scream about how he just wants to fuck Ivanka.

I mean for fucks sake have you guys seen her?!?!?! Its so good its almost bussy!

Creepy Joe pictures/memes will be Drama gold.

Bernie wins the primaries, promptly turns to dust at the same time trump does because the ancient pact that was keeping them both alive is complete.

If Bernie wants to win this thing he needs to start shitposting hard af. He ought to use the word "niggardly" in every circumstance where it is remotely applicable.

He should also promise to give everyone $1001 a month

He won't react niggardly with UBI.

1001

Bitch this aint the price is right

I'm not so sure anymore.

ONE DOLLAR BOB

Isn’t it drew now?

Just give me free shit Bernie 😊😊👏👏😙😗

Starting to think CNN isn’t as credible as Trump has been saying.

Serious question, are any of these polls true ? I know they're quite easy to manipulate., skip to 00:56.

All CNN wants is a corporate dem flinging idpol platitudes.

I cant really think of anything thats changed surrounding bernie but anything is possible

idpol

Of course. Lockheed is totes great because it has a gussy as CEO. That's all that matters for IDpollers.

A more diverse corporate world. That's why they suck off conglomerates that pander to them even though the same conglomerate may use child labour.

CNN is the JEB! of tv channels.

They really do hate Bernie with a fiery passion though.