Bernie is gonna win 49.9% of pledged delegates

After the first round of voting Booty supporters and Bernouts are gonna start screaming at each other. Probably a few dozen supporters on each side are killed.

Biden's eye explodes at the convention and he dies, giving all his delegates to Booty

Superdelegates who planned on supporting Bernie are bribed by the cabal and their families threatened

All of Boomerberg, Pocahontas, and Klob's delegates go to Booty. Booty wins on second ballot, with Boomerberg planning to be Booty's director of CIA and Hillary as VP

Milwaukee is berned to the ground by Bernouts

Bernie cucks out as usuaul and stumps for Booty. Buys 4th house (no refunds)

Daddy wins in november

Is that iowa thing not over yet ? It's been like a week now and theres like 12 people in that whole state what's taking them so long ?

They announced the full results, but the DNC ordered a """recount""" for accuracy

So who won ? Butt or Bernie?

They tied for pledged delegates (the only thing that matters). Bernie won the popular vote and Butt won some state delegate thing, but both those metrics are purely for bragging purposes.

Edit: actually it seems like the AP is calling it a Butt win by 1 delegate, but has not allocated the last one so Bernie can possibly still tie. This whole thing is a clusterfuck lol

Lmao what how. Is that after the recount?

No the recount hasn't happened yet. The AP is holding off on calling the race until after a recount because the NYT exposed that Iowans are too retarded to allocate delegates correctly based on their own archaic caucus rules.

Iowa looks really bad this year because they didn't used to report the popular vote so everyone had to take their word for it when the final results came out. Now everyone has the numbers + the rules and can see that Iowans are innumerate.

Corn country is full of dumb hicks? Hoo boy I'm shocked.

So what happens if there's a tie ? Another coinflip? Lmao

Why can't they just make people vote and whoever has the most votes wins.

What? You think the democrats actually use democracy in there primaries?

Nothing happens if there is a tie. They just tie and get +13 delegates at the national convention. It's a national race, so ties are allowed in individual states.

So what happens if there's a tie ? Another coinflip? Lmao

It doesn't really matter if there's a tie in national delegates, both contribute votes to the decision in the national contest. National delegates are basically certainly going to be tied, and that's the only practically meaningful statistic. The only real question is concerning state delegates, which Buttigieg has a small lead in. Due to stupid specifics of the caucus system, like coin flip based delegate allocation, that allows someone to win more state delegates despite having fewer actual voters.

Regardless, again, national delegates are all that matter. If they were allocated proportional to the popular vote, they would tie. If allocated proportional to state delegates, they'd also tie.

Why can't they just make people vote and whoever has the most votes wins.

If they did that, it would be a primary, and they wouldn't be allowed to hold it first. Also most primaries these days allocate delegates proportionally. Which slightly reduces the tendency of leads early in the primary season to snowball and render all the later contests immediately meaningless. There are varying implementations depending on state, some have thresholds, others have some winner take all bonus delegates, but the national party rules do take a proportional system of some sort.

Without such rules of course, for any individual state, winner take all would of course be game theory dominant because it magnifies the voice of that states majority. Which means it nothing is specified pretty soon everyone is using winner take all. This is actually the entire reason that basically every state does winner take all allocation of electoral college votes despite there being no such requirement in the constitution. The founders didn't really think about it long enough, oh boy we'll let everybody pick whatever they want, that will make everybody happy right. Except if one guy uses winner take all and everyone else uses proportional, he has an outsize voice, and if everyone uses winner take all, choosing proportional is basically like choosing to just straight up take all the ballots of your states voters and burn them.

Tbh "they didn't think about that enough" is a pretty good description of basically every individual element in the design of the electoral college, just a bunch of half baked brain farts thrown together, yep this is good enough, this is how we'll elect the damn president, on to the next point. Nobody thought the next day after the hangover had subsided, oh wait, that method of electing the president we came up with, that's like clearly any obviously completely retarded, let's revisit that a bit and come up with, like any other conceivable method would be better. Good thing they decided they'd done such a good job they could top off their work by making it take an act of God to amend basically, literally the first codified constitution in human history, first attempt at creating a democratic republic in history, nah we're good, nobody's gonna ever want to change this, and if they want to, they shouldn't be allowed to. Choice is suddenly a bad thing here, although it was a good thing when they came up with the electoral college, and unknowingly more or less implemented winner take all because that was the natural long term outcome of many self interested, free choices, that anybody with a luck of sense probably could have told you from the beginning.

It's a good thing we don't honestly even pay attention to the constitution half the time anyway, that's the only reason this country actually works.

You can type 10,000 characters and you decided that these were the one's that you wanted.

I am a bot. Contact for questions

😴

Butt won the coin tosses or some bs like that. They literally were voting with coin toss.

Their method of apportioning delegates depending on votes involves coin tosses. Like if votes and delegates don't cleanly divide, they need a fucking coin toss. That's why you hear about coin tosses a lot more than you'd think would be the case if it were just a tiebreaker. It's the most retarded system of apportioning delegates I can think of honestly. Like if one guy has enough voters for 4.01 delegates, and the other guy has enough for 4.99, literally they flip a coin, the guy with 4.01 delegates of voters gets a full 50% shot at the additional delegate in return for that .01 delegates worth of voters. Like even if you were going to do random allocation, the chance of being allocated the delegate should be proportional to the size of your remainder!

But, Iowa DNC, let me save you 5 minutes of fucking research on the apportionment methods Wikipedia article: use fucking D'hondt. It's not random, and the math is simple enough that even iowans should be able to do it. It's what is usually used for proportional allocation of seats to parties in nations with proportional representation, I know middle America is basically allergic to any concept in democracy outside of those that existed when we basically froze our constitutional development in place sometimes in the mid 19th century and decided that we're done and any concepts beyond this is the voice of Satan.

But really, there are good reasons they use D'hondt.

You wouldn't understand them because your still trying to figure out how to not gerrymander, like you inherited a barely post feudal electoral system from the British and were like yeah that's basically perfect, this is all a democracy can conceivably be. Literally an inherent part of the system is that half of the voters votes basically get thrown away, and this is just grand of course, no problem at all, that's just how you do a democracy. No you just want to go back to the innocent old days where half of the peoples votes were thrown away more or less at random, instead of the system being rigged so that most of the votes that get thrown away are those of your political opponent. And this is tough for America, like half of you are like "Rigging the game is part of the game crybaby! Win the rigged game so you can rig the game for yourself like a real man." And that's the level of debate, that's the limit of our imagination.

We decided we were perfect and ceased evolving a century back, when foreigners come to our shores and talk about strange ways to do what they call a democracy thing in which the necessary half of votes are not thrown in the trash, we respond by chanting U S A in unison until the foreign devil gets creeped and leaves. The more of a relict we become, the more stubborn we get about being a relict. The more of an impractical absurdity an element of our system becomes, the more we cling to it, no this absurd feudal relict is what it means to be an American I say! When in reality, we were just a comfortable and powerful nation that didn't change because our power insulated us from evolutionary pressures. Now we're not so powerful as we once were, suddenly we feel the evolutionary pressures again. And like many fading powers, we respond by throwing a temper tantrum. Just double down on the feudal relicts, insist those anachronisms are the things that made you great. But it's not, it's garbage that everyone else long ago abandoned because their nation would've died otherwise, and they were not comfortable enough to be proud. And it's garbage that will eventually kill us if we insist on dwelling forever in the poisonous nostalgia of when we never had to change anything.

Anyway, D'Hondt, yeah, don't worry about the details, if you have a calculator that can divide by small integers and a piece of paper, your good, and it will do the thing where you need to apportion a certain number of voters to a certain number of seats or whatever. And it will do this much better than flipping a fucking coin the minute you see a remainder like a goddamn tard who didn't graduate elementary school. Actually now that I think about that I'm 99% certain that that's probably who came up with this a hundred years back, probably wore a coon cap and wrote the Iowa caucus rules in his buds log cabin back when they were the only two Iowans, before he got killed by a Buffalo or one of Elizabeth Warren's based af ancestors or something. Anyway, don't worry about it, just stop doing it, D'hondt.

This is a really long way of saying you don't fuck.

I am a bot. Contact for questions

I'm filing this under shit I will never read, but seems like a pasta, where is it from?

Good 'ol D'Hondt.

Not just any coin...they used a penny. A PENNY!

Hi. The short answer, as of today, is that Buttigieg won Iowa.

Basically, the caucus has three major parts: 1). a popular vote, 2). State Delegate Equivalents, and corresponding 3). National Convention delegates.

Basically, whenever you vote in a caucus, you're not actually voting for a candidate; you're voting for delegates, who promise to cast a vote in favor of the candidate with whom they campaigned. If, after the first round of voting, the candidate the delegate pledged to vote for DID NOT meet the threshold for viability (~15% of the total vote), that delegate is allowed to break away and vote for somebody else (usually a higher-polling candidate). Then, the popular vote is counted, the State Delegate Equivalents are tallied, and a national delegate count is assigned to the winners.

The final count, according to the Iowa Democratic Party, is as follows:

https://imgur.com/a/p94PLBE

Bernie won the popular vote, but narrowly lost the delegate vote to Pete Buttigieg. As such, Pete appears to have won the Iowa Caucus.

The DNC may order a recanvassing of the results, but so far, it appears that these results will stand.

but electoral college bad amirite

Primaries are run by their own parties and have nothing to do with the electoral college process. If the party wanted, they could just name their nominee outright tomorrow.

So, with this information in mind, how much does this really count towards the overall nonimation picture?

Good question.

Literally, not much. Iowa is only worth 49 delegates, out of 4,750 total delegates. In a highly literal sense, Iowa is only worth 1.03% of the total delegates that will be allotted.

However, Iowa is historically very important for improving candidates' chances for winning their party's nomination. According to 538.com, 8 of the last 9 democratic nominees won either Iowa or New Hampshire. Iowa also tends to provide a "launching pad" for candidates, and serves as the first real test for electability. Barack Obama was viewed as a long shot before he won Iowa, and look how he turned out.

Now, according to the most recent batch of polls, since Buttigieg's surprising win in Iowa Joe Biden's polls have absolutely plummeted in New Hampshire. Buttigieg's rise in New Hampshire seems to have come entirely at the expense of Biden, and it appears to have coincided with the former's win in Iowa.

To answer your question, yes, I do believe Iowa was important. Joe Biden was projected as the winner going into Iowa, but he now seems to be fading, fast, in both the polls and public opinion. At the same time, it appears that Bernie Sanders has now solidified his place as the democratic frontrunner, and Pete Buttigieg has an opportunity to present himself as the moderate alternative to Bernie Sanders. In a field of so many candidates, Iowa could be the impetus to a drastic winnowing of the field.

Tl;dr: Yes, Iowa could potentially matter a lot in the next few weeks.

Ok. So now a more important question. Do you think that any of these currently polling Democratic nominees have much of a chance of winning the general election with trump? There's obviously no republican who would oppose, unless Romney decides to try.

I, unfortunately, don't see anybody but Biden or Bloomberg being able to win the general election.

I really don't know.

Trump has a lot of advantages. He's polling at ~92% approval from registered republicans, which is very, very high. The economy is stupendous. He hasn't gotten us into a war. Median household income has hit the highest level ever recorded. His re-election campaign raised 740 million dollars, compared to the 680 million the democrats raised, spread out over 27 candidates. And Trump just recorded his highest approval rating to date: 49%.

Recent history would suggest that, with a strong economy and lack of egregious foreign intervention, he should have no trouble winning a second term.

Given Trump's propensity to become embroiled in conflict, it is possible that things will change, and as the election date draws nearer, I imagine the democrats will get ugly with him. They may attempt to relitigate the Brett Kavanaugh fiasco, or they may press him on his tax returns. I don't know. Given the facts, however, I think his chances of winning are greater now than they were in 2016.

Of the current democratic candidates, I do not believe Biden, Yang, Gabbard, Steyer, Bennet, or Patrick will make it past Super Tuesday, and as such, have no real chance of becoming their party's nominee.

Of the "serious" candidates, I believe Sanders and Warren will compete for the progressive lane in the field, and--based on current polling averages--Sanders will likely win. So, she probably won't be the nominee either.

I think Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg and Klobuchar will all compete for the "moderate" lane of the party. I believe Biden will fall precipitously out of contention. I also believe Klobuchar will become the choice du Jour of upper-class elitist neoliberal dems, who will try to promote her chances vicariously in print. I think she'll be getting a lot of support from the DNC soon, and they will try to bolster her chances; ultimately, though, I believe she will lose to Buttigieg.

Bloomberg's the wild card, because there is simply no precedent for a presidential candidate to skip Iowa AND New Hampshire in favor of the Super Tuesday states. It has literally never happened. I don't know how effective his strategy will be.

In the end, I think the serious candidates for president will be, summarily: Bernie, Buttigieg, Bloomberg and--maybe--Klobuchar. I think the problem with the latter three candidates is that they simply won't motivate enough people to actually vote. In the end, I believe Bernie will be the democratic nominee.

Unless there's a brokered convention, of course, in which case God help us.

If it comes to a Sanders/Trump election, I believe Trump will win, simply because 1). The economy is going well, and 2). Sanders may alienate the independent voters who simply refuse to vote for a "socialist". Should one of those two things change, so too will my prediction.

Tl;dr: Sanders might have the best chance, but only if the DNC supports his cause, and Trump's economy experiences a downturn.

relitigate the Brett Kavanaugh fiasco

I'd like to hear your take on this, more information please.

Aside, I'm still up in the air about Sanders. I feel like I like the guy, personally and politically, except for subsidized university, but he's just not presidential material.

He's too old, too short and has bad posture.

:)

So much of this election depends on Donald Trump. He will generate controversy everywhere he goes, and I don't expect that to change in November.

I think the press, to raise the chances of whoever is running against him, will have to smear him. That means they will either 1). wait for him to do something stupid and blow it out of proportion, or 2). manufacture outrage.

Assuming October rolls around and Trump hasn't done anything extraordinarily untoward, the DNC or the press will have to "manufacture" a crisis out of something that already happened. This would entail bashing him, again, over something that was previously settled.

(i.e., the Central Park Five, Charlottesville comments, Access Hollywood)

I was making the point that the democrats will do everything in their power to stop Trump from winning re-election. If they can't find a current issue to bash him over, they will go back and hit him with attacks over shit he did in the past. It is impossible to say whether any of these particular attacks will ignite the country's zeitgeist and influence the election or not.

With regards to Kavanaugh, they may try to attack Trump--on the debate stage--by accusing him of protecting sexual abusers. Trump, after all, was friends with Jeffrey Epstein for years, hired a staffer who was convicted of domestic violence, endorsed Roy Moore, and has his own sexual assault allegations against him.

I don't have much to say about Brett Kavanaugh, in particular; all I'm saying is, on the debate stage, they will have to attack him over something, and if they can't find something obvious, the democrats will have to reach into their playbook.

Wow, you must be a JP fan

I am a bot. Contact for questions

JP can clean my room any time 👅

Just pay him in xannies

No way. Sharing’s for commies.

I'm the only one allowed to do addie longposts here

I believe you have mistaken me for Dr. Peterson 🤑

Wow, you must be a JP fan

I am a bot. Contact for questions

He is rather dreamy 🤔

I stopped reading upon skimming your comment and seeing 538

Nate Silver’s pretty cute though 😋

This is a really long way of saying you don't fuck.

I am a bot. Contact for questions

Your mother would disagree 😜

What other state do we give a single flying fuck about state level delegates? You're either talking about votes or your talking about national delegates or your talking a bunch of nonsense (so likely a msm journo).

What other state do we give a single flying fuck about state level delegates?

None, actually. Of the four democratic caucus sites (Iowa, Texas, Colorado and Nevada), Iowa is the only location that still uses State Delegate Equivalents. Texas used to do the same, but they switched in 2008.

I find it somewhat baffling that SDEs are not proportional to post realignment vote totals

Agreed. Iowa is confusing, plain and simple. This year there were a lot of unique rule changes in Iowa that complicated matters. The app was a first, the satellite caucusing was new, and the Iowa Democratic Party changed the way they assigned SDEs.

As far as I know, the reason SDEs are not exactly proportional to the vote totals (on either the first or second alignment) is analogous to the electoral college in the general election (e.g., some votes are simply worth more than others, depending on the geography.)

whoever the DNC decides duh

I wonder if Biden actually thought he had this in the bag. The way he acted was if he already won the primaries by telling anyone who asked him a question he does not want to answer to vote for someone else. Funny thing is, they are and he's become a low tier candidate.

Biden does. He’ll lose in Iowa and NH and dominate the south like Hillary did and the Berniebros will cry again.

Then the Bernie bros will probably vote Trump again too.

WHY WON'T THOSE GOD DAMN BLACKS JUST VOTE FOR BERNIE 😤 😤 😤

That's going to be one of the best parts of this primary.

Here’s another copy of Bernie protesting in the 1960s! WHY IS THAT NOT GOOD ENOUGH?

They are tho.

That was Iowa right? It doesn't differentiate between black, Latino and Asian, but yea, if that number of black support holds up in the south, Bernie wins. I'm not sure if it will though. I think blacks in Iowa and New Hampshire have very different circumstances from Southern blacks. We'll see. I'm finding it more and more difficult to believe Biden's overall numbers will hold up.

It's Iowa, the non-whites are probably Mexicans.

Bernie is pretty close to to Biden in SC. And that was pre Iowa, getting mopped in Iowa is probably going to hurt him a bit too say the least, by the time we actually get to SC we're going to be having a totally different conversation.

No one is talking about the actual results, just the problems getting the results.

I unironically don't get why anyone supports Buttjug. I haven't done much research on the guy but it seems pretty goddamn blatant that he's corrupt as hell and that his victories are obviously fraudulent. If Bernie were losing to the hee-a-hoya rain dance bitch or Biden then I could buy it, but there's no way literally anybody is actually voting for some random-ass Buttjug man nobody has ever heard of and whose whole platform is just "man I sure do love Israel, don't you my fellow whites?"

whatever you say, homophobe.

A man goes home and masturbates to his typical fantasy. Hillary on her knees, Hillary tied up, Hillary abused.

*Booty boy

[removed]

This is by far going to be the most dramatic election season ever. If trump wins 2024 will be even better tho because both sides will have a primary. Can you imagine what kind d if candidates are gonna run on the right if trump has a successful 2nd term? Alex Jones 2024 would not surprise me and him getting the nomination wouldn't surprise me either

every day moves us closer to the glorious future of the West/Kardashian Dynasty

A black conservative running for president . I can’t wait for the drama when that day arrives.

They already can barely resist the urge to call him a house nigger. Would be great.

Black people can call him that, but I'll probably choose to stick with the good old Uncle Tom.

We should pass a law legally changing Clarence Thomas's name to Uncle Tom. And also requiring Supreme Court justices to sign all of their opinions personally with their legal name for them to be valid.

You want to join the Klan, brother?

wait until he's the white house nigger

Ben Carson 2024

Lol Ben Carson is on Xanax every day. He would have to stay awake way too long

If he falls asleep we can sneak up on him and use his limp hands to sign the recreational cocaine 4 all bill I'm working on.

As long as he sniff it from the Bible as Jesus would want it.

I actually have a business idea where I get a shitload of old testament bibles and make coke straws out of different passages of Leviticus. $30 each. Closet coke addict godcels will gladly present

Someone hasn't watched many Republican primaries

A pro BLM black conservative.

[removed]

Didn't the black Godfather's (((Pizza))) guy run against Trump last time?

That was 2012. Herman Cain aka 999 aka Pizza Daddy.

Are you sure they're different people? Have they ever been photographed together?

I'm voting for Yeast or whatever Kanye's kid is named.

Republican Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson vs Democrat Elon Musk

Republican Kanye West versus Democrat Oprah Winfrey

I won’t be able to cope enough when this happens, what would be the centrist move in this situation be? I’m thinking just walking into the ocean and ending it.

The centrist move is to vote for Jenny McCarthy 👶🔫

Oprah is the ultimate candidate for wine mommies across America.

wine mommies

Mayor Pete-cels BTFO 😎 🍷 👵

vs John ‘the most dangerous game’ McAfee

Pussy wouldn’t even eat his own dick like he swore he would then played the ol’ “just a joke” when called out on it

He still has 10 months

Can I vote for both?

[removed]

HAVE YOU HEARD?! ISRAEL MADE THE DESERT BLOOM!! VIA THE INGENIUS, NEVER BEFORE THOUGHT OF METHODS OF IRRIGATION AND MODERN PUMPING STATIONS! CLEARLY THEY ARE SUPERIOR TO THE SAVAGES WHO DWELT THERE BEFORE, AND DESERVE THE LAND!! THE PRODUCE, SO LARGE, SO HEALTHY, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW MY FRIEND, ISRAELI AGRICULTURE ON THIS STOLEN LAND TRULY IS A MARVEL!!

BTW, 0% OF THE JORDAN RIVER ALLOTMENT WATER IS ALLOCATED TO PALESTINIANS, YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THE INHERENT INFERIORITY OF PALESTINIAN CULTURE BY HOW BROWN AND PATHETIC THEIR FARMS ARE EVEN DESPITE THIS GENEROUS ALLOTMENT FROM ISRAEL, AND STRICT DISCIPLINED LIMITATIONS ON THEIR PRIMITIVE TRADITIONAL PRACTICES OF DRILLING WELLS AND COLLECTING RAINWATER. AND THE NEARBY ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS PROVE ALL THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH WEST BANK LAND MERELY BY INTRODUCTION OF SUPERIOR ISRAELI CULTURE. AS WELL AS UNLIMITED ACCESS TO JORDAN RIVER WATER, AND NO RESTRICTIONS ON WELL LAYING, IN FACT THEY ARE BASICALLY ALLOWED TO DRILL WELLS TO FILL UP THEIR SWIMMING POOLS UNTIL NEARBY, REMAINING, PRE 1968 PALESTINIAN WELLS GO DRY. LUCKILY THE IDF DOESN'T ALLOW THE PALESTINIANS TO BAIL THEMSELVES OUT OF THIS LAZINESS AND POTENTIALLY DISRUPT THE SETTLERS SWIMMING POOL WATER BY WASTEFULLY DRILLING NEW WELLS THAT WILL MERELY BE USED FOR DRINKING, OR ENSURING THEY CAN GROW THIS BARBARIAN WASTE THEY REFER TO AS "FOOD", SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY CAN'T TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR GOD'S DECISION TO BRING ABOUT A GOVERNMENT CAME INTO BEING IN 1968 THAT MADE THE DISINTERESTED, RATIONAL, AND NEUTRAL DECISION THAT PALESTINIANS DON'T NEED TO DRILL WELLS ANYMORE, BUT SETTLERS DO. ANYWAY THIS HAS A DECIDEDLY MINOR EFFECT ON THE PRODUCTIVITY OF ISRAELI AGRICULTURE, TRULY WATER IS A SECONDARY FACTOR IN ALL OF THIS, IT'S ALL CULTURE MY FRIEND. CULTURE, CULTURE, CULTURE.

ONE CURIOUS THING ABOUT ISRAEL, THEY REALLY LOVE DEMOLITIONS. LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION IN THE WEST BANK, I'M PRETTY SURE THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD THAT FINDS ITSELF GENERATING SUCH A PLETHORA OF REASONS TO DEMOLISH SOMETHING. BARELY A DAY GOES BY WHEN SOMETHING IN THE WEST BANK ISN'T SUDDENLY IN NEED OF DEMOLITION. DO NOT DWELL ON THE POLITICAL AFFILIATION OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAD THEIR STUFF DEMOLISHED, NOR THAT OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE IMMEDIATELY AND WITHOUT QUESTION GRANTED A BUILDING PERMIT ON THAT LAND AFTERWARD. THESE DEMOLITIONS ARE PURELY NEUTRAL AND APOLITICAL, UTTERLY GUILLESS ACT WITHOUT ANY GOAL AT ALL.

BY THE WAY, THIS IS WHY ISRAEL SHOULD ANNEX THE WAY BANK. 50 YEARS OF TOP NOTCH, WORLD CLASS IDF ADMINISTRATION AND THE PALESTINIANS CAN'T EVEN GROW CROPS WITH THE REMAINING PRE 1968 WELLS THE IDF HAS GENEROUSLY ALLOWED TO CONTINUE EXISTING, OR FIGURE OUT HOW TO NOT BE CURRENTLY LIVING IN A PLACE THAT A SETTLER WANTS TO LIVE, SUCH THAT THE IDF HAS TO LABORIOUSLY WASTE SECONDS PULLING A REASON STRAIGHT OUT OF THEIR ASS TO DEMOLISH IT. LIKE, SAY, THEIR ANCESTOR FORGOT TO GET A PERMIT FROM THE IDF TO BUILD THEIR HOUSE WHEN THEY BUILT IT DURING THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. THERE ARE ALWAYS WAYS THAT YOU LACK THE NECESSARY IDF PERMITS, AND THERE ARE NEVER WAYS TO ACTUALLY GET ANY OF THESE PERMITS GRANTED (ASIDE FROM TAKING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY BY BEING A SETTLER INSTEAD OF A PALESTINIAN). BUT THAT'S JUST THE LAW, AND THE PALESTINIANS CAN'T EVEN FOLLOW BASIC LAWS.

ANNEXATION WOULD SOLVE THIS, PALESTINIANS WOULD BE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO AS THEY RIGHTFULLY SHOULD HAVE DONE IN 1948, AND COLLECT THE KEYS TO THEIR HOUSE SO THAT THEY CAN GIVE THEM TO A SETTLER, BEFORE PRESENTING THEIR NECKS FOR A QUICK AND PAINLESS BEHEADING BEHEADING, PREFERABLY WITH THEIR BODIES PREPOSITIONED IN A DUMPSTER ALREADY SO THAT NO PREVIOUS SETTLER TIME MUST BE WASTED DISPOSING OF THEIR CARCASS AND THAT OF THEIR WIFE AND LITTLE CHILDREN. THIS WAS LITERALLY THE ONLY WAY THEIR WOULD BE PEACE AFTER 1948, AND IT TRULY IS SAD THAT THE PALESTINIANS COMMITTED AN ANTISEMITIC ACT OF AGGRESSION BY SELFISHLY CONTINUING TO LIVE RATHER THAT TAKING THESE BASIC, SIMPLE STEPS, WHICH THE ZIONIST COLONISTS WERE OWED BY VERSES IN ANCIENT SCRIPTURE, AND THE UNWILLINGNESS OF WESTERN GOVERNMENTS AT THE TIME TO TAKE IN ANY OF THE REFUGEES CREATED IN THE HOLOCAUST, THUS NECESSITATING THE DECISION TO INSTEAD PAWN THE ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY AND ALL THE SACRIFICES OFF ONTO THE MIDDLE EAST.

BRILLIANT DECISION, THEY GOT RID OF THE JEWS AND TURNED THEM INTO THEIR EVER LOYAL IMPERIAL ENFORCERS AND RUNNING DOGS IN ONE FELL SWOOP.

BTW, THE 1968 WAR WAS LITERALLY THE MOST DEFENSIVE WAR IN ALL OF HISTORY, AND THE NAKBA SIMULTANEOUSLY DID NOT HAPPEN AND WAS A GOOD THING.

That degree finally paying off

I am a bot. Contact for questions

Daddy provides levels of drama unique in US history. He needs an opponent who can try to match it.

Ivanka, but running as a Democrat.

It's whomever trump wants to be president. He can have a cabinet position. Probably ted, trump jr or someone out of no where. This way the trumpers can have 12 years of trump without actually breaking any rules.

I'm curious if they'll let him slide after he's out of office or if they'll use the justice system to go after him. It would be a lot easier to get a judge willing to convict or to convince 12 poc jurors in nyc to. I'd wager that's what they'll do so they can tarnish any potential legacy

for what? he hasn't committed a crime

Come on now, it's a lot easier to manufacture crimes in the justice system. If the Senate had a dem majority he'd have been found guilty

no...? a dem majority would only be 51 assuming a dem wasn't president. That isn't enough to remove him.

Let me rephrase that, if they had enough people to convict. Do you really think they wont pull some shit when he's out of office? I'm not saying he deserves it, I'm saying it will be much h easier for them to make it happen than it is now

Theoretical scenarios are useless for real life. It doesn't even make sense how did they get 70 senators but trump is president?

Oh you are retarded, nevermind. What, are you a dog? Theoretical scenarios are extremely useful when thinking about/planning for the future.

Your scenario is physically impossible. The country is 50/50 straight down the middle according to gallop. DUR WHAT IF THE SENATE SUDDENLY TOOK 25 DEMOCRAT SPOTS OUT OF FUCKING NO WHERE CUZ TRUMP STARTED KILLING BLACKS IN THE STREET.

Nigger shut the fuck up

Look how retarded you are, cant even follow a simple train of thought. The scenario I presented was after trump is done with his 1st/2nd term. Sheesh, you flyover faggots sure are dumb

I will not allow you to address Tulsi Gabbard without the title "Lioness of Damascus"

Mashallah, brother

Gabbard/Assad 2024

Then there is trump who republicans crowned a king. They know he is guilty, many of them have said it publicly. They know that he will do it again, as he has said explicitly many times. And moreover they know they are wrong. Which is why they have to lie and project and grandstand. Today was a dark day for democracy the likes of which im not sure we will be able to grapple with fully until decades from now. Make no mistake: this is not a failure of partisanship (considering this is the first bipartisan vote for removal in OUR HISTORY). No. This was a failure of the republicans. They simply do not care. They do not care about fairness, they do not care about equality and they certainly do not care about democracy. They want to win and thats it. Including those republicans who hate the president but thumb their noses because they are "winning". In many ways, they are perhaps even worse because they KNOW BETTER and still chose a trumpocracy. This was a mistake that will haunt our entire history. In not even sure the next election will be enough to remove him now that trump will never be removed by republicans. We officially have a trumpocracy folks. Its time to hit the steets until this shitstain on history is gone

Every time a peach mint is made, an independent gets his MAGA hat. The dims going after Trump via impeachment and FAILING HARD is like the political equivalent of Pearl Harbor, they awakened a sleeping giant. This is nothing but BAD for them and a great boon for GEOTUS. I hope they try it a few more times, actually.

All this talk of peach mints and freeze peaches is making me hungry. Dairy Queen 2020.

Finland has you covered(this is NOT photoshopped, she just hides them usually)

😳 Suomi Mommy 😳

I’d vote for socialism 10 times out of ten if I knew the government cheese was being made with her milk

finna slurp them titties mmmm yes *breathes deeply* FAPFAPFAPFAPFAP AGHHHHHHHHHHHH YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

I'd stand in line all day for my milk ration

Lol

https://cdn.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/768x768/public/d8/images/methode/2020/02/09/6392b082-4b04-11ea-befc-ef9687daaa85_image_hires_142454.JPG?itok=V1BXuZKu&v=1581229503

stunning and brave

Nice

Tulsi because I love when an attractive woman makes decisions for me. And when I say attractive, I mean the most attractive candidate in literally the history of planet earth. Do you think she’d cuck me?

My fave candidate is Tulsi because she’s the hottest

She'll never win because she is like 100 pounds underweight than an average American foid. Americans can never identify with a fit candidate like her.

That's my reasoning for Daddy.

She isn't hotter than Hillary though.

Michael (((Bloomberg)))

Originally, I assumed that Biden would get the nomination and be the best candidate for winning the election.

However, as time has progressed, I'm starting to think that Bloomberg may have the best chance. For numerous reasons, his platform and his money. Bloomberg is recorded (with actual records, unlike our current fraud president) as being the 14th richest person in the world with 61 billion dollars net worth, and is spending his own money on his campaign, and he has stated even if he doesn't get the nomination he is and will be spending/will spend billions of own money on furthering the causes that he's platforming on.

He's a little younger than the other front runners, and has reasonably decent track record. One to watch.

At this point, I'm leaning towards a vote for him.

He's a manlet, America will never vote him into office

imagine being such a cuck that you actually need to seek the consent of burgers to be the president

Gerald Ford's gang whatsup

One of the best presidents the US has ever had was FDR, and he in was in a wheelchair the whole time.

Over half the presidents the us has elected have been manlets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States

From the page you linked, the very first graph shows that presidential manletism has declined over time. As for your FDR point, his team tried their hardest to hide that he was wheelchair bound because they knew the American public would not vote for a cripple if they knew about it.

American public would not vote for a cripple if they knew about it.

Explain Donald Trump.

Mental cripples don't count as the average American is mentally crippled as well

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

George Carlin

Wow I've literally never saw this quote before

It's a great thing when voters can identify with the candidate.

[deleted]

I'd rather be in a wheelchair than be a manlet

FDR was a tyrant you mong. He rammed his shit through by threatening a constitutional crisis, and interned japanese Americans.

Tough times call for tough measures.

He is rated by scholars as one of the three greatest U.S. presidents, along with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, but has also been subject to substantial criticism.

Bloomberg/Big Igloo 2020 the accelerationist choice

Bloomberg and pete sounds great. Both would make the commies seeth the fuck out.

Also they are pro israel which is the most dramatic country in the world.

the funniest part of all of this is the DNC is capable of imagining a scenario where Pete Buttigegig wins a debate with Donald Trump.

Trump just needs to call him a queer or a faggot on stage and it’s over

Our vets, our gay vets. I love them. We love them don't we? Just not this one. real scummy guy. Indiana? No. No.

I mean memes aside I think trump’s pretty chill with gay people considering his track record with other groups

But that wouldn't keep him from calling the guy queer on live TV.

Pete needs to go full ready mode to take on the Donald.

Yang is based for being the least wingcucked of any candidate outside of maybe Bloomberg.

Also anti porn so that's based.

"why not 2000$ ?"

This kills the Yangbro

yang addressed that on his site

Send a link please i can't find it.

Bloomberg is one of my favorites because he’s basically trump without the sauce.

The other is Warren because she has trouble saying bllaaack and instantly bursts into treats when racial or trans shit gets brought up.

Bloomberg is an actual competent businessman though its like saying Paris Hilton and Elon Musk are the same because they both are rich and hate africans.

Trump is a successful businessman.

It depends how you measure success, if by success you mean "didnt blow daddys inheritance" Then i guess so.

Bloomberg terminal is a grift, change my mind.

Paris Hilton and Elon Musk are the same because they both are rich and hate africans.

Musk is literally an african american lol

self hatred is a thing bong brain.

Bloomberg is probably the most pro China candidate.

Burger politics are hilarious. 250 years ago a bunch of guys designed a legitimately good and democratic system for that time. In the meantime they've barely changed their outdated system and now they're completely fucked because they can only choose between neocon boomers and faux-woke neolibs. This week I learned what a caucus is. You're literally voting by standing on a specific side of the room? That shit was designed for cowboy times. It's current year, just vote like civilized people.

Like parliamentary democracy exists you retards. In my country I can choose between 5 types of rightoid, 4 types of leftoid and a bunch of centrist parties without worrying that my vote goes to waste. Why does nobody want to change this fucked up system?

0 karma

Amerimutts mad x24

[removed]

I can choose between 5 types of rightoid, 4 types of leftoid and a bunch of centrist parties

Unironically how Nazi Germany started. Cope more Weimarcel.

Dividing your population in 2 along political lines to own the 1930s German fascists.

Cope harder Europoor

Get shot Amerifat

I’ll have you know I built up a tolerance against bullets after I survived my first school shooting

Look at this amateur not shooting himself with progressively larger caliber bullets to build his immunity.

wasn't it more because of the proportional representation in parliament, leading to gridlock and their delegations of powers to the executive?

the president, even pre-Hitler had the constitutional power to convict anyone of treason and send him to prison without due process, that shit was so badly designed it was it was going to be either nazis, commies, or better yet nazbols eventually

It seems kind of strange in retrospect that they made such a powerful president. Was this the first example of a semi presidential system? The semi presidential system in France has been much more successful. But there the stability of parliament is supported by a majoritarian electoral system. And the terms of office align, so what usually (and is intended) to occur is a president and parliamentary majority of the same party governing together.

The Weimar system created an inherent system of basically dueling president and parliament. The president had incredible powers to rule by decree, appoint the government, and dismiss Parliament. At the same time the extreme system of proportional representation with no threshold lead Parliament naturally to fracture its power, so that the president and Parliament were basically never directly aligned and on board with the same program. The president often had to withhold his puke and asking governments he disliked. While the chancellor could be sacked at any time from two directions and was constantly in the difficult position of desperately trying to keep both the president and Parliament happy regardless of the fact that neither agreed on much.

Systems of proportional representation, especially ones with no threshold, don't seem to mesh well with a strong figures, head of state of government, with their own independent electoral mandate. Like even without a threshold, a typical parliamentary system has a stabilizing factor in that people will have a tendency to vote for one of the large parties simply because they want to influence who ultimately becomes leader after the election. With the leader instead being an someone with their own independent mandate, this pressure disappears. Thus people are freed to vote responsibly for a president, and then for Parliament vote more friviously for their own specific interest, or single issue parties, leading to a large multiplication in the number of effective parties, and fragmenting the power of parliament.

Modern semi presidential systems tend to have majoritarian elements, either pure majoritarianism like in France or half majoritarian half positional system like in Russia. But I know Israel had a brief experiment with what they termed a "semi parliamentarian" system with a directly elected prime minister, and that was more or less a disaster. There was significant fragmentation in the political landscape during this period, from which Israel only recently began to recover from. Also the very first election produced a divided government, labor won more seats but Netanyahu barely eaked out the prime minister position, with a slick American presidential style campaign that bushwacked Labor, who were unfamiliar with how to play the game. A divided Parliament and prime minister is, to say the least, an awkward situation. Netanyahu of course immediately proceeded to basically do everything in his power to undermine the recently signed Oslo treaty and help rip up the peace process. We are still dealing with the aftereffects of this today. It was maybe one of the single biggest political own goals of all time. Like not only would they're ill thought out reform give Netanyahu the opportunity to intentionally undermine and destroy Oslo to discredit Labor, who had attached themselves to it, the fragmentation would eventually end with Labor not even being a major party. In the least election it was neck and neck with Meretz, who in earlier times was basically Labors slightly lefter poodle and a fraction of the size. In the 60s Labor would regularly pull 40%, more it pulls like 4.

I don't have enough spoons to read this shit

I am a bot. Contact for questions

The US was intentionally designed to produce gridlock in the federal government.

The Weimar Republic had fundamental constitutional and other problems beyond just its electoral system. For one, as part of a cucked agreement the SDP made after WWI, the Wehrmecht was basically a deep state and the civilian branches of government didn't have control over it. There were plenty of elements in the Wehrmecht that seemed determined to use their independence to undermine the Republic, as they were to a large extent reactionaries and bitter monarchists. Like the stab in the back theory was huge in those circles. They interfered in politics and played a direct role in undermining democracy in the early 30s. It cannot be overstated how foolish it was of them to make this agreement out of expediency to crush some left wing rebellions, the military is the most inherently powerful part of any government, it can at any time use force to take down the government, a government without a loyal military that is obedient to civilian control is not government at all.

Notably there was General Ludendorff, who during WWI rose in power such that he was essentially military dictator. Eventually though, he lost the war, the allies irreparably broke his lines, and he knew he was done for. How did he respond? He handed over leadership and power to the civilian government, which was headed by the SDP, and informed them of the situation. Then he split and basically left them holding the bag, knowing that the civilian leadership would take all the blame for the resultant peace treaty after he lost the war. Once this was done, he entered far right politics and immediately began undermining the new government by helping to spread the stab in the back myth, where the military was apparently just in the verge of victory before traitorous jews in the SDP leadership undermined them and surrendered for no reason. It was especially vile because he had essentially lost the war himself, instead of accepting the responsibility he took it as an opportunity to dodge blame and undermine democracy. Also, as if anyone in the utterly cucked SDP would ever have the balls to do that. The prevalence of the myth anyway in all likelihood has a great deal to do with someone at such a high and respected position directly involving himself in spreading it. Later in he would be a conspirator in both the Kapp putsch and Beer Hall putsch. He would receive no punishment in either case. And after that he joined up with the Nazi party in 1925, when they were nothing, and became one of their most critical and important early supporters.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebert%E2%80%93Groener_pact

Anyway, as part of the Ebert Groener pact, the SDP massively empowered the friekorps right wing paramilitary groups. They used them to hunt down and murder dissident leftists like Rosa Luxembourg. Later on the members of these groups would become the bread and butter of Nazi paramilitary groups. They also learned that they could basically summarily execute people and as long as the reactionary establishment agreed there would never be any consequences. This had far reaching effects on the outbreaks of violence in the later republic.

Furthermore the use of brutal violence by the friekorps and army, with the support of the SDP, against left wing post war movements, created a fundamental schism in the left that to some extent still exists even to this day (the SDP still to this day would rather join a coalition with the CDP than the Left, I can't really imagine that in any other nation). The SDP has taken part in literally murdering many of the leaders of the far left, in what was then the independent SDP but would with time reform into the Communist party. This Communist party was inherently distrustful of the SDP for obvious reasons, and spent as much of its time undermining the SDP and the center as it did the right. They had seen the bourgeois Weimar Republic, to them, all it meant was death squads for the left and endless indulgences for the right. They were having none of it. They retrenched into themselves, elected an arch stalinist as leader by 1928, and gradually grew more and more popular, as the only force besides the nazis that couldn't be associated with the extremely unpopular center. In the last free election the were only four points behind the SDP itself. But the SDPs early betrayal and schism naturally meant there could be no cooperation between the far left and center left, the SDP had spilled blood, it would not be forgiven. They had killed all the leaders of the far left that may have forgiven them, in exchange for props from reactionaries who would later undermine them and bring about the nazis, what got pushed into the leadership of the communists on the other hand was bitter paranoids like Thalmann. This is course meant throughout the Weimar Republic, when the SDP was in power, it was always as a reluctant front for a largely right wing coalition. And during the late republic, that could not cooperate to stop the rise of the nazis.

Another fundamental problem was the arch reactionary nature of the judiciary. Again, if you murdered a trade unionist or left wing activist, there's would be no punishment from these people. You would be more likely to be punished for being a journalist who revealed the murderers, than doing the murder. On the other hand right wing reactionaries who plotted a violent overthrow of the government, again, no death squads for them, endless sympathy and naked indulgement from a judiciary which didn't even pretend at neutrality. Most notably Hitlers trial, where, again, he literally attempted a violent overthrow of the government and was given one year in prison. If he had been given 10 it would've been a slap in the wrist and would have entirely killed his political career. But no, just one. He was just a misled and overly enthusiastic patriot at all who just loved his country too much, right?

There was also the Kapp Putsch earlier on, again, another attempt to literally overthrow the government. They actually occupied Berlin. I can only find one example of someone actually being sent to prison for it, he was given the minimum sentence of five years (later he was pardoned in 1924 by, who else, the first and only SDP Weimar president). Many simply had their cases dropped, or went in to have successful careers in the Wehrmecht. The putsch only failed in establishing a military dictatorship in 1920 due to a successful general strike called by left wing forces, which paralyzed the government which was powerless to do anything besides make hysterical threats to put strikers to death that couldn't be distributed because all those people were on strike. In the Ruhr, a workers army was raised which successful managed fight off the pro coup military faction that had taken control there. After the fall of the coup, immediately Wehrmecht and Friekorps forces were turned on them. After their defeat in battle, 9 days followed, during which there were over 1000 summary executions. The SDP German President had ordered a stop to this on the first day, but of course, the Wehrmecht did not take orders from that guy. After day 9, a mild reprimand of "illegal behavior" was issued by a Wehrmecht General, after which the executions cease. No one was ever published for the thousand murders. Unlike the participants in the Kapp putsch, most of the surviving members of this force were given lengthy prison sentences.

You can read the German Wikipedia on this (English Wikipedia has much less useful information on these subjects, use Google translate) :

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsgericht

There are some truly baffling decisions in here, again, there was basically no attempt at neutrality or to seriously follow the law, they were basically playing calvinball and would make whatever decision necessary to push their right wing political beliefs. It's notable that this Supreme Court was continuous until the Nazi period, where they more or less fit right in and became good and loyal enforcers of nazism. Barely a hitch. Color me shocked.

The electoral system was poorly formed. It was all one single national district with no threshold. This is literally the most unstable kind of proportional representation possible and did lead to problems for obvious reasons. I would recommend that a threshold of at least 5% be in place to prevent too much fragmentation (in this case preferably with mixed member single member districts), or that the country be broken into smaller multi member STV districts of roughly 5 members each. Both systems are relatively stable while wasting much fewer votes and allowing for a broader scope of opinion (I think a huge problem with modern congress is that they are very narrow in opinion, it becomes a masturbatorium and echo chamber).

You need to lay off the addy watermark, I'm getting worried.

Sorry ma'am, looks like his delusions have gotten worse. We'll have to admit him,

I am a bot. Contact for questions

I truly, truly admire the dedication of you chapos to the bit. The evidence of stab in the back is completely and utterly IRREFUTABLY a proven Jewish conspiracy. A two year old with Down Syndrome could understand how the Jewish betrayal ultimately lead to Balfour. It was always about the jewish state. They conspired with the British jews to get the US involved in the war and the UK promised them Palestine in return. Germany was stabbed in the back by the Jewish community and there's nothing unique about that because this is how the jews have always operated and still do. They are loyal citizens right up until the point that they are not. Always a nation within a nation, never assimilating, always scheming and subverting. The Germans were utter fools to have trusted them and so is everyone else. I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming us. I mean you are probably a Jew yourself. Look at this wall text of lies. This dedication to evil is unmatched and you fully deserve the crown that goes with being the greatest demons of world history. The undefeated world champions of destruction. It never even began for goycels

If only white boys didn’t have such embarrassingly small penises, then we wouldn’t have all these problems.

im a grower

[removed]

cope

Yes I'm obviously the one coping here

no i am

Damn europoors are dumb. Caucuses has nothing to do with official election for the actual elected positions. They are only done for primaries. Yeah it’s retarded but all of Iowa is retarded. But the DNC could literally just pick Biden and call it a say and give zero day to anyone. It’s nothing to do with the election system the founders made.

I knew euros were dumb but not this dumb.

Only reason Iowa does caucuses is so they can go first. New Hampshire has a state law that they get the first primary so Iowa is stuck doing retarded caucases. This is the only time theses states are relevant so we just let it happen I guess.

Yeah that’s why I said Iowa is retarded in everything.

Iowa should pass a state law that they get the first primary then. Problem solved.

Caucuses are in theory one of the most democratic forms of voting but they’re implemented very poorly

Caucuses are what you would get if a civilization invented ranked choice voting before they invented a writing system.

Honestly sounds like king shit, get rid of the coin flip bullshit and make the delegate distribution more even and it would be awesome

a bunch of guys designed a legitimately good and democratic system

I see you haven't been (((Hamilton))) pilled yet. The American revolution was betrayed in 1787.

Good.

What the fuck is a caucus?

all u need to know is it's actually pronounced "cock-ass"

It involves cowboy boots

A group of mayos

[deleted]

Imagine a group of 20 clinically retarded mayos in a room, but all of them wear cowboy boots.

It’s the plural of ‘Caucasian’

Do any of those parties actually not suck though?

Yea some are pretty based.

Politicians have as many ways to get our hopes up and then disappoint us as there are gains of sand in the sea

Being watermark you should rejoice over the fact that there's a pretty big party here called the workers party with red logo's all over, and an even more based party called the "socialist party" who refuse to condemn mao and want free ipads for every citizen.

I feel an urge to denounce them as reactionaries, but surely there is no truer mark of a leftist than other leftists trying to outmaneuver them to the left by denouncing them as reactionaries. Like on the left even if you're to the right of other leftists, you just pull something out of your ass about how they're the true rightists and revisionists, it's always the safest play.

your system is so great but your country doesn’t have gun rights or freedom of speech

You're missing the 17^th Amendment, which really changed how Senators are elected. Instead of being bought and sold by local big businesses, their campaigns are now bought and sold by national-scale big businesses.

Also, gerrymandering and any other situation where the primary is the "real" election causes rampant batshit results.

Bloomberg wasn’t on stage he just runs stupid commercials

Where's Salad Comb Mommy Amy Klobuchar???

You make Joe Biden sound like Left's Donald Trump.

He kinda is though

Biden isn’t even left lmao

Yanggang ride or die

Looks like you'll be dying

im voting for pete butigeg because we need a president who sucks cock and eats ass and gets fucked in his ass with cocks and eats cum

Fuck it. I’m going Chink/Mommy 2020.

Lmao probably has the corona virus. The only known cure is to suckle at Hilldogs tits and drink her sweet calcium fluid.

2 Jewish capitalists, 1 Jewish communist, 1 math, 1 rat, 1 guyrishman, 1 white woman, 1 PAHG and 1 Casino American

pahg? whats that?

Phat Ass Hawaiian Girl. Surfer Mommy.

Thanks for bringing that word into my life. Have a cookie on me!

Hell yeah brother. We here on are slash drama love our PA*Gs

Yang because NEETBux are my God given right

Tulsi is tied with Yang because she is the only Gussy I would put up with

The good thing about this community, is it’s still based on consent, as no one is fattened against their will. In a way it’s admirable seeing these women do this to themselves, as it shows a real dedication to work against the grain of society and become the sizes they do.

Snapshots:

1. I just wanna point out how amazing ... - archive.org, archive.today

I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

I put it here so it won't end up in anybody's inbox, but my comment higher in the thread is copied from T_D if you're interested, so it wasn't even satire originally: https://old.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/ezsksy/acquittedbitches/fgp771k/?context=3

Kept new York safe by stopping and frisking basketball Americans as mayor.

Wasn't that rudy?

It was both

Well OK, but despite that fact there still seems like a pretty big difference considering the circumstances. Seems like blaming the war on drugs on Clinton. He's definitely responsible for not stopping it, but...

literally FUCK amy klobuchar she is the absolute worst candidate i have ever seen on stage.... everything she says is pandering to appeal to white 23 y/o liberal arts students who think voting for warren bc she’s a female is too mainstream

Whose your favorite candidate and why

Hillary goddamn Rodham Clinton

and why

She's the nominee for 2020, seizing it in a daring display come July.

Imagine voting for anyone other than Aloha mommy. As soon as she enters the office, she will enact a law that requires burgers to lose at least 100 pounds each.

I like how Sanders abandonned his first kid and got kicked out of the only hippie commune he joined

Kind of disgusting that you're erasing Steyer's Jewish heritage.

#YangGang