Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 295: Bern After Reade-ing

(+) Yeah! (+)

Drop out Biden
---

Stand up all victims of oppression
For the tyrants fear your might

---

man, you totally know biden probably would have dropped out if the direct answer wasn't "well i guess we'll have bernie."


---

Plot Twist: Bernie supporters get themselves elected as around 20 of the Democratic Party's electors. Biden "wins" and the Bernie electors announce they refuse to support Biden, which would throw the election to the House, voting one vote per state. On the day of the EC vote, Trump and Bernie announce a deal where Trump will be President and Bernie VP. The Bernie electors and the Republican electors vote for Trump/Bernie and America is made great again!

---

red sox 777 posted...

Plot Twist: Bernie supporters get themselves elected as around 20 of the Democratic Party's electors. Biden "wins" and the Bernie electors announce they refuse to support Biden, which would throw the election to the House, voting one vote per state. On the day of the EC vote, Trump and Bernie announce a deal where Trump will be President and Bernie VP. The Bernie electors and the Republican electors vote for Trump/Bernie and America is made great again!

Then Hillary has Trump killed, and Bernie announces Hillary as his VP.

---

Ashethan posted...

Then Hillary has Trump killed, and Bernie announces Hillary as his VP.

That would be high treason.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

I 100% believe that Bernie implied a woman couldn't win because Trump would employ sexism against them. Especially with how Bernie also railed against "Identity Politics". Bernie just comes short of admitting it.

I said I could see Bernie saying a woman would have a harder time, but the accusation wasnt Trump will be tough for a woman, the accusation was literally Bernie said a woman cant be elected President.

The former is Bernie saying what everyone knows is true (the people saying Warren lost because of sexism are literally saying that), and the latter is way way worse.

Even you are giving Bernie the benefit here, this is not the same issue as Bidens.

---

red sox 777 posted...

That would be high treason.

Who's arresting her.

---

Then you aren't arguing about the argument the women have with men over pay, Wang. You are arguing about something different on a different tangent, which I don't think others may have realized that.

---

red sox 777 posted...

That would be high treason.

Luckily Bernie can pardon her then!

---

Wanglicious posted...

man, you totally know biden probably would have dropped out if the direct answer wasn't "well i guess we'll have bernie."

100% he drops out if he could throw the nomination to fucking Mayor Pete.

---

Part 2: The Green New Deal

President Trump and Vice President Sanders announce a new Green New Deal for the country that will be paid for by confiscating and redistributing the wealth of class traitors. A constitutional amendment permitting redistribution of wealth for political purposes is swiftly ratified by 38 states with Republican legislatures.

The Trump/Bernie administration then begins the Green New Deal confiscating all property owned by anyone who donated to Hillary's 2016 campaign or Biden's 2020 campaign and redistributing it to Republicans and socialists. Next, the government uses social media to track down everyone who is determined to have probably supported Hillary or Biden. Their wealth is all seized and used to pay for universal healthcare, free gourmet food for the poor, free guns for everyone, subsidies for tuition at private colleges run by Betsy Devos, and of course, handouts for billionaires.

Of course after having seized 50% of the country's wealth, these people need to do work to survive, and therefore the government accomodates their needs by sending them to reeducation camps where they will learn how to be good citizens so that they may one day be rehabilitated. To save money, the country signs a treaty with Russia to use the existing reeducation camps in Siberia. Also, the FBI is disbanded and replaced with the reconstituted KGB.

With the temporary dramatic decline in GDP that occurs due to 50% of the workforce being sent to be retrained, carbon emissions are dramatically cut. Meanwhile, the government touts the dramatically increased per capita GDP among Americans who are not in reeducation camps.

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

100% he drops out if he could throw the nomination to fucking Mayor Pete.

If he thought Mayor Pete could win. But I don't think he could. And I don't think Biden thought he could.

---

should've called that the Greed New Deal


---

Man, redsox has some really weird sexual fetishes.

---

Ashethan posted...

If he thought Mayor Pete could win. But I don't think he could. And I don't think Biden thought he could.

As soon as the country realized Mayor Pete was gay he'd lose in a landslide.

While still possibly winning the popular vote...

masterful thread title

---

Just a totally normal tweet from our totally normal president

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1256711660787695616

---

I like that he's humble enough to give props to Lincoln but not so humble that he'd rank himself below him. A close second though, that's respectable.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I like that he's humble enough to give props to Lincoln but not so humble that he'd rank himself below him. A close second though, that's respectable.

Well, Lincoln was racist by definition. Lol.

---

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/woman-claims-biden-sexually-harassed-her-when-she-was-14-years-old-by-complimenting-her-breasts/

These are gonna keep coming all election cycle aren't they? Can't wait to see the Trump ones.

---

https://sports.yahoo.com/joe-biden-gives-us-soccer-204553580.html

---

the capitalization in that tweet is really throwing me for a loop

---

Corrik7 posted...

These are gonna keep coming all election cycle aren't they? Can't wait to see the Trump ones.

we went through all of that in 2016, it's old hat

---

Corrik7 posted...

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/woman-claims-biden-sexually-harassed-her-when-she-was-14-years-old-by-complimenting-her-breasts/

These are gonna keep coming all election cycle aren't they? Can't wait to see the Trump ones.

So it turns out that Biden was not even physically at that event during the year Murry says this occurred, making a video appearance (thread):

https://twitter.com/SashaPezenik/status/1256779429956780033

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

So it turns out that Biden was not even physically at that event during the year Murry says this occurred, making a video appearance (thread):

https://twitter.com/SashaPezenik/status/1256779429956780033

...So the first tweet, which is the only one a majority of people will see, only states the allegation. And then the debunking with "he wasn't even there" doesn't come until the third post in the thread.

Excellent journalism.

---

Hopefully so many people come out with ridiculous claims that the movement dies this election cycle.

---

The reporter debunks the claim and then continues reporting on it as if its true.

---

Deleted, but holy hell that was awful. Buried the part that completely debunked the story between messages of things trying to push the story and back the accuser that was confirmed to be lying.

---

They don't even have the nerve to leave a story up of any kind pointing out the people making false claims because "liberal" media sucks and all they care about is money and protecting their own asses. Just pure delete and pretend it didn't happen.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Hopefully so many people come out with ridiculous claims that the movement dies this election cycle.

You mean the MeToo movement? Why would you want that to die?
---

You have to ask lol

Jakyl25 posted...

You mean the MeToo movement? Why would you want that to die?

Because ruining people over cases with literally no evidence was always dumb.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Because ruining people over cases with literally no evidence was always dumb.

yeah you're right this is all the metoo movement has accomplished

---

Corrik7 posted...

Because ruining people over cases with literally no evidence was always dumb.

But youre actually hoping more of those cases happen to, hopefully, kill the movement

Why not just wish for the movement to be more discerning?
---

Corrik7 posted...

Hopefully so many people come out with ridiculous claims that the movement dies this election cycle.

Ahh yes, let's hope that more people come out with ridiculous claims so that people won't believe people when they say they were sexually assaulted! Just what we want. A climate where sexual assault survivors won't feel comfortable coming forward. Man what a thing to say.

---

I agree with Corrik. Women should go back to keeping their mouths shut and never speaking up about their experiences with sexual assault. I mean, we ALL know that the vast majority of those women are NEVER going to get justice because most instances of assault are a "he said/she said" situation, and our justice system works under the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, rendering any sort of criminal conviction extremely difficult.

So, you see, these women are ALREADY victims; why should we then make MORE victims by "ruining" the lives of their attackers? Ruined lives live like...*reads through a stack of papers* the current president of the United States, who was elected AFTER said assault claims were revealed And...*flips to a new page* the newest member of the Supreme Court, who was confirmed to his position, again, AFTER said assault claims were revealed. And...*flips yet another page* the current Democratic nominee for president of the United States, who, fair enough, didn't get accused until after he'd secured said nomination, but likely will still be the nominee come November.

Really, the world would be a better place if Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein were still on the streets as well, don't you think, Corrik?

---

Jakyl25 posted...

But youre actually hoping more of those cases happen to, hopefully, kill the movement

Why not just wish for the movement to be more discerning?

The movement to wreck people's lives. Not the movement to expose people who actually have done things with legitimate proof.

Like, if the movement was say your case, and people to say, well, that sounds harrowing but I have to consider the person innocent without their being any evidence is one thing.

The OMG an allegation that person is a rapist. Cancel them. Shut down their life. Etc. Is just a mockery of the movement and makes it radical.

Nobody should be treating someone differently based on claims without evidence. No matter how charismatic or convincing the person appears to be claiming it against them.

I think the metoo movement turned into an assume they are guilty movement due to the radical nature in which it unfolded.

---

I seriously get the feeling there would be no metoo movement if Trump doesn't get elected. Mostly because he and Weinstein remind me of each other so much.

---

these corrik posts are pretty funny when you take into account that recently he was trying to act all morally superior to me, claiming i'd "defend bernie if he got accused of being a rapist."

---

Ashethan posted...

Ahh yes, let's hope that more people come out with ridiculous claims so that people won't believe people when they say they were sexually assaulted! Just what we want. A climate where sexual assault survivors won't feel comfortable coming forward. Man what a thing to say.

Yes, I hope people come out with ridiculous claims so people realize claims shouldn't literally be believed without evidence.

People should be taking every claim with a critical eye. That is exactly how our judicial system works. We presume the accused is innocent until proven otherwise. The metoo movement has too much been the opposite. That needs to change if the movement wants to actually succeed.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

these corrik posts are pretty funny when you take into account that recently he was trying to act all morally superior to me, claiming i'd "defend bernie if he got accused of being a rapist."

You obviously missed the point of what I said. Surprising.

---

you didn't have a point

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

you didn't have a point

Let's hold Lasa's for the 10,000th time as usual.

You would defend Bernie if he had an accusation against him. You would condemn others you didn't politically support in the same situation.

Called being a hypocrite. What the fuck does that have to do with moral superiority.

I have consistently stated that all these claims without evidence should be viewed critically because they lack evidence.

Liberals have proven their hypocrisy through and through on this matter already. They have been skeptical of Reade. Which is good! Yet they were blind lemmings hopping to and fro when it was someone they didn't support.

---

Honestly I don't believe Biden's accuser. But it's a very complicated situation.

I might be mostly pro-metoo because none of my favorite actors have gotten caught up in the movement (although one was accused of sexual misconduct on the past, coincidentally also in the run-up to an election he won), while one of my favorite actresses is one of Weinstein's accusers. So to me it seems like all you have to do is not act like an idiot around women and you won't give them any room to ruin your life. You shouldn't act like an idiot around anyone, really.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Let's hold Lasa's for the 10,000th time as usual.

You would defend Bernie if he had an accusation against him. You would condemn others you didn't politically support in the same situation.

Called being a hypocrite. What the fuck does that have to do with moral superiority.

I have consistently stated that all these claims without evidence should be viewed critically because they lack evidence.

i like how you ask me a question and then answer it yourself in the very next sentence.

you accuse me (with 0% actual evidence) of not giving a shit about rape if it was someone i agree with politically getting accused (i.e. bernie). you, on the other hand, are completely impartial. you approach rape cases neutrally and fairly while i'm completely unfair about them because i'm blinded by partisanship. that's why you're saying you're morally superior to me.

---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

I might be mostly pro-metoo because none of my favorite actors have gotten caught up in the movement

This sure is an LMS take, let it be said

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i like how you ask me a question and then answer it yourself in the very next sentence.

you accuse me (with 0% actual evidence) of not giving a shit about rape if it was someone i agree with politically getting accused (i.e. bernie). you, on the other hand, are completely impartial. you approach rape cases neutrally and fairly while i'm completely unfair about them because i'm blinded by partisanship. that's why you're saying you're morally superior to me.

I accused you of being skeptical of claims and defending allies of your causes in relation to claims made with zero evidence.

I accused you of blindly believing claims and supporting consequences to be had in relation to claims made with zero evidence against people you view as a foe, enemy, or "evil".

Yes.

You can take that where you want to. Not a single person is going to defend their ally if there literal ally is caught raping someone or something.

But, if there is not proof and plausible deniability, many in this topic would take it and run with it when convenient and the opposite vice versa.

No one said you support rape. News at 11 a liberal in this topic twisted an argument to the nth degree to make it sound radical.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I accused you of being skeptical of claims and defending allies of your causes in relation to claims made with zero evidence.

I accused you of blindly believing claims and supporting consequences to be had in relation to claims made with zero evidence against people you view as a foe, enemy, or "evil".

Yes.

You can take that where you want to. Not a single person is going to defend their ally if there literal ally is caught raping someone or something.

But, if there is not proof and plausible deniability, many in this topic would take it and run with it when convenient and the opposite vice versa.

yes. and again, you are not like this. you are completely impartial, fair and neutral, unlike me. so do you get why you're saying you're morally superior to me now?

No one said you support rape. News at 11 a liberal in this topic twisted an argument to the nth degree to make it sound radical.

how else am i supposed to interpret "if bernie got accused of rape, you would defend him"? according to you, if a woman accused bernie, my response would be "lol obviously she's lying bernie agrees with me politically so he's automatically a saint and he would never rape anyone."

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

yes. and again, you are not like this. you are completely impartial, fair and neutral, unlike me. so do you get why you're saying you're morally superior to me now?

how else am i supposed to interpret "if bernie got accused of rape, you would defend him"? according to you, if a woman accused bernie, my response would be "lol obviously she's lying bernie agrees with me politically so he's automatically a saint and he would never rape anyone."

Pick your best friend in life. If they were accused of something without evidence, you would defend them and support them yes?

Now think of your most hated enemy being accused of the same thing without evidence. You would cheer the allegation and push it as being true because you 'know the sort of person they are".

This is where many liberals are on things in acting. It is a hypocritical stance.

The stance should be consistent regardless of who is accused. You shouldn't be picking and choosing when to apply your stance on allegations.

---