Support NeoGAF

[royalan]

Why isn't Bernie doing better with the american public? I'm in dental school on scholarship, so ideas like free public education and healthcare aren't particular important for me. I'll have the funds to pay my own way through life if things go smoothly.

Has he been negative lately? Sure, but not any more than Hillary in my opinion. Just haven't been much of a fan of her foreign policy ideas. And flip flopping on some important rights like gay marriage don't particular have me jumping up and down for her. And she runs against a competitor that doesn't take wall street donations, and still continues on her methods?


People say he won't be able to pass what he's proposing. That may be true, but thats only because we have some dysfunctional leaders representing our "best" interest. So we just continue on with the status quo and allow business to continue on like usual?

1) Until Hillary Clinton starts insinuating that Bernie Sanders is inherently corrupt in every campaign speech, and calling him unqualified, Bernie Sanders will continue to hold the medal for most negative campaign on the Democratic side. When Weaver's out on the trail claiming that Hillary's made a deal with the devil, and Bernie has people opening his rallies by calling Hillary and people who support her "Democratic Whores", this is no contest.

2) Bernie also flip-flopped on gay rights

3) Hillary's current methods not only raise money for her own campaign, but for down ticket democrats, and the democratic party itself.


As far as the status quo goes, you don't want to run a "revolution" campaign when people are largely happy with the status quo. And no, the status quo isn't always a bad thing. Believe it or not (and really, with the way this race has panned out, you should believe it), Democrats are mostly happy with the job Obama has done, and the path to progressive change he has put us on. Someone in here said this a few days ago and I wholeheartedly agreed: the biggest mistake Bernie Sanders made with his campaign, besides not taking black constituents seriously, was running a "down with the status quo" campaign as a Democrat that put him at odds with the current and very popular Democratic president.

 

[Box of Kittens]

But I was just about to start a spirited discussion about the 1840 presidential election. Oh well.

Honestly I find the 1840 election fairly uninteresting, although the Harrison/Tyler campaign was considered somewhat revolutionary at the time. Now 1836, that was a fascinating election.

Spoiler

The sad part is that I'm serious. 1836 featured one of the most bizarre strategies ever attempted by a major party in a presidential election. Instead of running a national ticket, the Whigs ran a bunch of regional candidates with the hope of sending the election to the House of Representatives. They failed.

 

[ivysaur12]

Is there one major politician on the left who hasn't changed their mind of marriage equality? That includes Bernie Sanders.

 

[danm999]

And the negatives I listed just aren't important? I guess its just too much of a character issue for me, and the way she responds sometimes during the debates just emphasizes those feelings.

It depends. Some of those things you view negatively may be not so negative for others. Some things like her change in position on same sex marriage (something Bernie evolved on too TBH), aren't strikes against her because they reflect where the voters were too. Lots of people only changed their minds on that issue in the past few years.

 

[B-Dubs]

And the negatives I listed just aren't important? I guess its just too much of a character issue for me, and the way she responds sometimes during the debates just emphasizes those feelings.

Bernie doesn't have a good record on the history of gay marriage either (he said Vermont shouldn't legalize in the mid-2000's it because it was too divisive of an issue). Most people just see her as a continuation of Obama, who they are perfectly fine with. Bernie attacking Obama just drives those voters away.

Also, that Daily News interview was a dumpster fire for him and just confirmed what a lot of people already thought about him.

Is there one major politician on the left who hasn't changed their mind of marriage equality? That includes Bernie Sanders.

Barney Frank? Everyone's evolved on the issue, as the country and their various positions have allowed. Acting like anyone was perfect on the issue is just silly.

 

[Paskil]

I grew to dislike Bernie for many reasons. I would still vote for him if he were the GE candidate, because fuck the Trumpster fire on the right. I'm a major policy person. Hell, I'm literally a policy analyst for work. Bernie has no real policy ideas. Sure, he has broad 'ideas' but no real substance behind them. His answers specifically on foreign policy in the earlier debates really bugged me. No one really pressed him though. Then that NYDN interview came out and Jesus, dude is practically incompetent.

I don't really want that man anywhere near the oval office.

 

[Trancos]

tbh can we just ban the word "Tyler" from this thread for the forseeable future?

#NotAllTylers
#FreeOurTyler
#StopTylerDisenfranchisement

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Hmm, I wonder if elites should take anything from the fact that Jackson getting the election "stolen" from him in 1824 (by having a strong plurality and losing) just made him stronger.

I mean, there was literally never a better man to steal an election from than Andrew Jackson! And people were still outraged.

 

[Paskil]

#NotAllTylers
#FreeOurTyler
#StopTylerDisenfranchisement

#Tylerlivesmatter

 

[brainchild]

I grew to dislike Bernie for many reasons. I would still vote for him if he were the GE candidate, because fuck the Trumpster fire on the right. I'm a major policy person. Hell, I'm literally a policy analyst for work. Bernie has no real policy ideas. Sure, he has broad 'ideas' but no real substance behind them. His answers specifically on foreign policy in the earlier debates really bugged me. No one really pressed him though. Then that NYDN interview came out and Jesus, dude is practically incompetent.

I don't really want that man anywhere near the oval office.

This is objectively false. The man has drafted actual legislation for most of his ideas; substantively.

Bernie 'the public speaker' and Bernie 'the legislator' are virtually two very different people. When he's speaking to the general public, or making statements for the general public, he tries his best to speak in Laymen's terms. In congressional hearings, he speaks as a policy wonk.

I've been heavily exposed to both sides of Bernie, though I could understand if that isn't the case for most people who basically just started paying attention to him in the last 10 months.

 

[Armaros]

I grew to dislike Bernie for many reasons. I would still vote for him if he were the GE candidate, because fuck the Trumpster fire on the right. I'm a major policy person. Hell, I'm literally a policy analyst for work. Bernie has no real policy ideas. Sure, he has broad 'ideas' but no real substance behind them. His answers specifically on foreign policy in the earlier debates really bugged me. No one really pressed him though. Then that NYDN interview came out and Jesus, dude is practically incompetent.

I don't really want that man anywhere near the oval office.

Worse for me.

He came out of the NYDN, went full blown "she is unqualified".

THEN he basically did a repeat of that NYDN interview at every other place he went. So it was not just some one off thing that blindsided him, He went and repeated it again and again.

And one after another every single one of those editorial boards went for Hillary. He cant learn from a loss, how long did it take for him to even think about getting foreign policy people? Does he even have any still? Multiple newspaper editorial board interviews, still no specifics on just about anything. And you want to be President, Bernie?

 

[B-Dubs]

This is objectively false. The man has drafted actual legislation for most of his ideas; substantively.

Bernie 'the public speaker' and Bernie 'the legislator' are virtually two very different people. When he's speaking to the general public, or making statements for the general public, he tries his best to speak in Laymen's terms. In congressional hearings, he speaks as a policy wonk.

I've been heavily exposed to both sides of Bernie, though I could understand if that isn't the case for most people who basically just started paying attention to him in the last 10 months.

Have you not see the Daily News interview? They tried to ask him for specifics, he had none. The guy isn't a policy wonk.

 

[Macho Madness]

Comic Book Villain Hillary

lol Cruz

 

[Paskil]

This is objectively false. The man has drafted actual legislation for most of his ideas; substantively.

Bernie 'the public speaker' and Bernie 'the legislator' are virtually two very different people. When he's speaking to the general public, or making statements for the general public, he tries his best to speak in Laymen's terms. In congressional hearings, he speaks as a policy wonk.

I've been heavily exposed to both sides of Bernie, though I could understand if that isn't the case for most people who basically just started paying attention to him in the last 10 months.

I would wager a significant sum that any legislation that was proposed by Bernie was drafted by his staff and interns.

Ideas, he's got 'em. Real substantive policy? Nothing.

 

[perfectchaos007]

#NotAllTylers
#FreeOurTyler
#StopTylerDisenfranchisement

#WhoIsTyler

?

 

[Slayven]

A true revolution won't happen until there are more democrat governors. Cause most of the ways people are getting fucked are on a local level. Washington can't do everything

 

[ivysaur12]

Comic Book Villain Hillary

lol Cruz

This is amazing.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Is there one major politician on the left who hasn't changed their mind of marriage equality? That includes Bernie Sanders.

I have to wonder how many of the people who criticize Hillary for "flip-flopping" on marriage equality are new to politics and don't understand how quickly public opinion has changed on that question. There's a reason Republicans were using it a decade ago as a wedge issue (it delights me that now even their attempts to dog whistle on the issue get them in trouble). I remember voting in 2006 on an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution that would not only ban same-sex marriage but also civil unions. It passed. With over 59% of the vote. In a blue state. During a Democratic wave election.

A lot of people have changed their minds on this issue in the past decade. Is it really so unreasonable that some of those people would be politicians?

 

[Bowdz]

Comic Book Villain Hillary

lol Cruz

Lmao, this fukkin guy. Let's bookmark this for November.

 

[brainchild]

Have you not see the Daily News interview? They tried to ask him for specifics, he had none. The guy isn't a policy wonk.

I actually listened to the audio of the entire interview. Not only did he do fine, but people who were actually present with the editorial board thought he did fine as well, and was surprised by the negative reactions (thanks in part to the Clinton campaign).

The notion that he didn't know what he was talking about is false. The truth is that he was confused about a non-sequitur given by the interviewer, and used the words 'I don't know' and the rest practically wrote itself.

 

[Paskil]

I have to wonder how many of the people who criticize Hillary for "flip-flopping" on marriage equality are new to politics and don't understand how quickly public opinion has changed on that question. There's a reason Republicans were using it a decade ago as a wedge issue (it delights me that now even their attempts to dog whistle on the issue get them in trouble). I remember voting in 2006 on an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution that would not only ban same-sex marriage but also civil unions. It passed. With over 59% of the vote. In a blue state. During a Democratic wave election.

A lot of people have changed their minds on this issue in the past decade. Is it really so unreasonable that some of those people would be politicians?

That was a depressing time. I phone banked for Fair Wisconsin to try to prevent it.

 

[Prologue]

1) Until Hillary Clinton starts insinuating that Bernie Sanders is inherently corrupt in every campaign speech, and calling him unqualified, Bernie Sanders will continue to hold the medal for most negative campaign on the Democratic side. When Weaver's out on the trail claiming that Hillary's made a deal with the devil, and Bernie has people opening his rallies by calling Hillary and people who support her "Democratic Whores", this is no contest.

2) Bernie also flip-flopped on gay rights

3) Hillary's current methods not only raise money for her own campaign, but for down ticket democrats, and the democratic party itself.


As far as the status quo goes, you don't want to run a "revolution" campaign when people are largely happy with the status quo. And no, the status quo isn't always a bad thing. Believe it or not (and really, with the way this race has panned out, you should believe it), Democrats are mostly happy with the job Obama has done, and the path to progressive change he has put us on. Someone in here said this a few days ago and I wholeheartedly agreed: the biggest mistake Bernie Sanders made with his campaign, besides not taking black constituents seriously, was running a "down with the status quo" campaign as a Democrat that put him at odds with the current and very popular Democratic president.

Bernie doesn't have a good record on the history of gay marriage either (he said Vermont shouldn't legalize in the mid-2000's it because it was too divisive of an issue). Most people just see her as a continuation of Obama, who they are perfectly fine with. Bernie attacking Obama just drives those voters away.

Also, that Daily News interview was a dumpster fire for him and just confirmed what a lot of people already thought about him.



Barney Frank? Everyone's evolved on the issue, as the country and their various positions have allowed. Acting like anyone was perfect on the issue is just silly.

They may be true about Bernie and his gay marriage vote, but I loved how he stood his ground during the senate meeting and defended gay soldiers. Especially during that time? Thats the kind of leader I want.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I have to wonder how many of the people who criticize Hillary for "flip-flopping" on marriage equality are new to politics and don't understand how quickly public opinion has changed on that question. There's a reason Republicans were using it a decade ago as a wedge issue (it delights me that now even their attempts to dog whistle on the issue get them in trouble). I remember voting in 2006 on an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution that would not only ban same-sex marriage but also civil unions. It passed. With over 59% of the vote. In a blue state. During a Democratic wave election.

A lot of people have changed their minds on this issue in the past decade. Is it really so unreasonable that some of those people would be politicians?

Again, I don't say this to be insulting to these folks, but a lot of them literally barely remember a world before Obama was President and if they do, they don't really remember a world where being gay was seen as this terrible thing as it's fairly likely their high school was far more gay friendly than the average part of America was during the Bush years.

 

[brainchild]

I would wager a significant sum that any legislation that was proposed by Bernie was drafted by his staff and interns.

Ideas, he's got 'em. Real substantive policy? Nothing.

Setting aside the speculation of just how much substance in his legislation he's responsible for, he ultimately still pushes for those substantive ideas. So we could argue about whether the ideas are actually his or someone else's, but those ideas are the foundation of his platform, so it's a moot point when he can articulate them just as easily.

 

[royalan]

Comic Book Villain Hillary

lol Cruz

LOL

But wait, when did Hillary's negatives become higher than Trump's?

 

[HylianTom]

Again, I don't say this to be insulting to these folks, but a lot of them literally barely remember a world before Obama was President and if they do, they don't really remember a world where being gay was seen as this terrible thing as it's fairly likely their high school was far more gay friendly than the average part of America was during the Bush years.

I'm continuning my SNL marathon (approaching the '96 election currently), and it's depressing to still see fag/homo/queer jokes sprinkled throughout the script well into the mid-90s. It sticks out like an incredibly sore thumb.

And I like Bernie's past on gay issues, but not every elected official in the country has had the benefit of having to face a unique Vermont electorate when re-election time arrived. He had considerably friendlier terrain than most, while the rest of the country was still cheering that kind of humor on into the new millenium.

I didn't like a number of Bill Clinton's gay rights positions in the 90s, but I understood his position with respect to the electorate he was facing. I also understood the long game that we were playing for this fight. Most other LGBT voters did also, which is why he overwhelmingly won our votes.

 

[johnsmith]

Comic Book Villain Hillary

lol Cruz

Dead. I'm dead. You're a murderer.


Oh my god. This needs a thread. I can't stop laughing.

 

[Armaros]

Have you not see the Daily News interview? They tried to ask him for specifics, he had none. The guy isn't a policy wonk.

Its not just the NYDN interview. Here is an interview with The Buffalo News

Q: What can you do about China, given that China is in the World Trade Organization? Would you consider tariffs?

A: I think tariffs are something that have existed in this county for many, many years. And it is not acceptable that companies shut down, move to China, pay people there a fraction of the wages they paid in the United States and then they bring their products back. So I think it is clear to me that we need a new approach to trade that demands that corporate America start investing here, not just in low-wage countries.

Q: Critics of tariffs say that what will result is higher prices for consumers for products that are made overseas. Is that a price that the American people should be willing to bear?

A: I think so. I think what we want is a high-wage country. We don’t want a country in which people are working for low wages. So my goal is to create a high-wage economy. We do that not only by reforming our trade policies; we do that by raising the minimum wage nationally to 15 bucks an hour. I’m glad that process is now taking place in New York State. We do that through pay equity for women. We do that by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.

Q: Have you thought about exactly what your tariff scenario would look like?

A: No. All I will tell you is that the status quo, what exists today, is not acceptable.

And the proof is in the pudding in that we have lost millions of decent-paying jobs as a result of these trade policies.

A set of questions on his talk about Tariffs and free trade.

its just a set of his talking points and an 'No i haven't thought about what will exactly happen with more tariffs but I will keep campaigning on it"

You can contrast that with Hillary's interview with them

 

[B-Dubs]

I'm continuning my SNL marathon (approaching the '96 election currently), and it's depressing to still see fag/homo/queer jokes sprinkled throughout the script well into the mid-90s. It sticks out like an incredibly sore thumb.

And I like Bernie's past on gay issues, but not every elected official in the country has had the benefit of having to face a unique Vermont electorate when re-election time arrived. He had considerably friendlier terrain than most, while the rest of the country was still cheering that kind of humor on into the new millenium.

I didn't like a number of Bill Clinton's gay rights positions in the 90s, but I understood his position with respect to the electorate he was facing. I also understood the long game that we were playing for this fight. Most other LGBT voters did also, which is why he overwhelmingly won our votes.

Gay jokes were fairly acceptable through most of the 2000's as well. Hell, Bush used it as a wedge issue to help win reelection. The ground moved fast under everyone's feet, the change happened almost overnight.

 

[royalan]

I have to wonder how many of the people who criticize Hillary for "flip-flopping" on marriage equality are new to politics and don't understand how quickly public opinion has changed on that question. There's a reason Republicans were using it a decade ago as a wedge issue (it delights me that now even their attempts to dog whistle on the issue get them in trouble). I remember voting in 2006 on an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution that would not only ban same-sex marriage but also civil unions. It passed. With over 59% of the vote. In a blue state. During a Democratic wave election.

A lot of people have changed their minds on this issue in the past decade. Is it really so unreasonable that some of those people would be politicians?

Exactly.

Hell, I'm from California -- the state that passed Proposition 22 (defining marriage as between a man and woman) in 2000, AND Proposition 8 in 2008 (which WENT FURTHER THAN PROP 22 by actually amending the state constitution). And this is CALIFORNIA - the state that is apparently so liberal that people actually think Bernie Sanders could win it in a landslide!

It was not that long ago that popular opinion on gay marriage was MUCH different than it is today.

 

[danm999]

I actually listened to the audio of the entire interview. Not only did he do fine, but people who were actually present with the editorial board thought he did fine as well, and was surprised by the negative reactions (thanks in part to the Clinton campaign).

Is this true?

I mean the same editorial board that interviewed him wrote a pretty savage assessment of his interview with them when they endorsed HRC.

As a basic premise, Sanders calls for enormously expanding the federal government’s role in American life, supported by equally huge tax increases — most of them falling on the wealthy but also hammering average middle-income earners to the tune of $4,700 a year.

On that score, he assumes that wage earners would happily shell out big bucks year after year because, trust him, health care would be free.

And trust him, raising government spending by 40%, perhaps by more than 50%, would be a boon to America — never mind that the prospect of smothering the economy frightens even left-leaning experts.

And trust him, the government would have enough money to provide free public college education to all — never mind that credible studies say he would fall short of financing all of his ideas by more than $3 trillion over 10 years.

And trust him, he would arrive in Washington as leader of a “revolution” powerful enough to bulldoze congressional Republicans — even in a time-wasting drive to replace the Obamacare they hate with a still more hated full government takeover of health insurance.

And trust him, he would end income inequality by launching an all-out assault on America’s largest banks — never credibly explaining how forcibly breaking up the likes of JPMorgan Chase and Citibank would add a dime to a single paycheck.

As would happen with any ideological phenomenon, close inspection of Sanders’ thinking clarifies that trust is misplaced. So it was when he appeared before the Daily News Editorial Board.

Although Sanders has vowed a shock-and-awe bank-busting campaign that would risk global financial chaos, he was at a loss to show how he would execute the assault or to cite legal authority for such sweeping and unprecedented exercise of presidential power.

 

[HUELEN10]

Comic Book Villain Hillary

lol Cruz

I... I like this ad, a lot. I don't like Clinton or Cruz, but I really like this ad.

 

[Paskil]

Setting aside the speculation of just how much substance in his legislation he's responsible for, he ultimately still pushes for those substantive ideas. So we could argue about whether the ideas are actually his or someone else's, but those ideas are the foundation of his platform, so it's a moot point when he can articulate them just as easily.

Not really, the problem is that past the shiny wrapped surface surrounding his ideas, he can't clearly communicate methods through which he would pass legislation, or even what the content of said legislation would be. It isn't surprising how frequently he pivots to his stump speech.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Gay jokes were fairly acceptable through most of the 2000's as well. Hell, Bush used it as a wedge issue to help win reelection. The ground moved fast under everyone's feet, the change happened almost overnight.

It really is incredible how fast public opinion changed on the issue. I remember seeing celebratory posts on Facebook after the Obergefell decision came out from people I remember being adamantly opposed to marriage equality back in the previous decade. But if you come of age politically in a world where attempts to use "religious liberty" dog whistles result in massive backlash even in states like Indiana, it can be hard to understand how different the landscape was just a decade ago.

 

[Armaros]

I actually listened to the audio of the entire interview. Not only did he do fine, but people who were actually present with the editorial board thought he did fine as well, and was surprised by the negative reactions (thanks in part to the Clinton campaign).

The notion that he didn't know what he was talking about is false. The truth is that he was confused about a non-sequitur given by the interviewer, and used the words 'I don't know' and the rest practically wrote itself.

Really?

The NYDN editoral board thought he did well?

On April 19, New York Democrats will have unusual say over the party’s nominee. They have in Clinton a superprepared warrior realist. They have in opponent Bernie Sanders a fantasist who’s at passionate war with reality. By choosing Clinton, Empire State Dems would powerfully signal that the party has gotten real about achieving long-sought goals.

This was in their article when they endorsed Hillary. Its just a fraction of their criticism on Bernie's performance in their interview.

 

[metalslimer]

Nope people definitely don't understand just how dramatic the shift was on gay marriage/rights. I remember discussing whether or not some southern states would have it before the 2030s when Obama was first elected. I didn't expect a possible Supreme Court nationwide decision until at least the 2020s.

I'm extremely hopeful for the next decade in terms of trans rights and trans acceptance.

 

[Paskil]

Comic Book Villain Hillary

lol Cruz

This ad is amazing if for no other reason than because Cruz is only in it for two seconds and he doesn't appear particularly smug, and as a bonus, doesn't say anything.

 

[BotoxAgent]

Not really, the problem is that past the shiny wrapped surface surrounding his ideas, he can't clearly communicate methods through which he would pass legislation, or even what the content of said legislation would be. It isn't surprising how frequently he pivots to his stump speech.

I'm glad NYDN finally dispelled the notion that Bernie knows what he's doing

 

[Piecake]

This is objectively false. The man has drafted actual legislation for most of his ideas; substantively.

Bernie 'the public speaker' and Bernie 'the legislator' are virtually two very different people. When he's speaking to the general public, or making statements for the general public, he tries his best to speak in Laymen's terms. In congressional hearings, he speaks as a policy wonk.

I've been heavily exposed to both sides of Bernie, though I could understand if that isn't the case for most people who basically just started paying attention to him in the last 10 months.

Can you link some some examples of substantial legislation? The only legislation that I have read that he drafted was that 4 page break up the banks thing. I definitely would not call that substantive or serious legislation. The purpose was political

The rest of the legislation he drafted and actually passed certainly was not substantial, so I would be interested in seeing if his failed legislation is actually serious or if it is just a few pages of political protest.

 

[Holmes]

I... I like this ad, a lot. I don't like Clinton or Cruz, but I really like this ad.

Of course you do Huelen.

 

[The Technomancer]

Not really, the problem is that past the shiny wrapped surface surrounding his ideas, he can't clearly communicate methods through which he would pass legislation, or even what the content of said legislation would be. It isn't surprising how frequently he pivots to his stump speech.

Yup

 

[Thequietone]

Why isn't Bernie doing better with the american public? I'm in dental school on scholarship, so ideas like free public education and healthcare aren't particular important for me. I'll have the funds to pay my own way through life if things go smoothly.

Has he been negative lately? Sure, but not any more than Hillary in my opinion. Just haven't been much of a fan of her foreign policy ideas. And flip flopping on some important rights like gay marriage don't particular have me jumping up and down for her. And she runs against a competitor that doesn't take wall street donations, and still continues on her methods?


People say he won't be able to pass what he's proposing. That may be true, but thats only because we have some dysfunctional leaders representing our "best" interest. So we just continue on with the status quo and allow business to continue on like usual?

He laughed at a gun control question, and he also said my vote doesn't matter because I won't vote for him. Sorry, I don't take personal attacks very well.

 

[Thequietone]

Found the perfect shirt for adam.

Haha, which one?

 

[Fenderputty]

Nope people definitely don't understand just how dramatic the shift was on gay marriage/rights. I remember discussing whether or not some southern states would have it before the 2030s when Obama was first elected. I didn't expect a possible Supreme Court nationwide decision until at least the 2020s.

I'm extremely hopeful for the next decade in terms of trans rights and trans acceptance.

I joined this forum in 2008 and remember a hot topic thread in the OT was whether it was acceptable to use the word "gay' as a casual insult.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Haha, which one?

The answer to that question is yes.

 

[HUELEN10]

Of course you do Huelen.

Don't worry, even though I do like the Cruz tax plan a lot, he won't ever got my vote as I don't deem him eligible.

 

[shem935]

Don't worry, even though I do like the Cruz tax plan a lot, he won't ever got my vote as I don't deem him eligible.

The argument for cruz being eligible to run for potus is better than the argument for his tax plan though.

 

[B-Dubs]

It really is incredible how fast public opinion changed on the issue. I remember seeing celebratory posts on Facebook after the Obergefell decision came out from people I remember being adamantly opposed to marriage equality back in the previous decade. But if you come of age politically in a world where attempts to use "religious liberty" dog whistles result in massive backlash even in states like Indiana, it can be hard to understand how different the landscape was just a decade ago.

I mean, we've come incredibly far, incredibly fast on a dozen different issues. A $15/hr minimum wage 8 years ago would have been madness. It was, for lack of a better term, a political revolution.

 

[Fenderputty]

Don't worry, even though I do like the Cruz tax plan a lot, he won't ever got my vote as I don't deem him eligible.

I refuse to believe you're a real person

 

[ampere]

Comic Book Villain Hillary

lol Cruz

This is the saddest shit lol

DisappoinTED!