Of course it was a much better chance of bernie winning than anything else. Thats the only reason we got behind him but it was all or nothing. Not winning has dealt a death blow to the revolution. I only know a few progressives who had the foresight to see this coming. The rest of us got way too excited about the possibility of winning and put everything on the line now we are left with absolutely nothing. In hindsight, maybe we should've had better judgement to foresee the DNC doing everything necessary to steal the primary.

I am too ashamed to even talk to the few people i know who stayed put in the green party and never got behind bernie. They said all along that this would happen and now they have to pay the price for what all of the bernie bros have done to let the movement fall into the wrong hands.

7/26/2016 10:44:23 AM

What exactly did you "put on the line?"

7/26/2016 1:25:47 PM

Quote :

"lol, at this rolling people into the democratic party"

Why is this absurd to you? I think we both know that most progressives (especially those in swing states) will pinch their noses and vote for Hillary. The lesser of two evils strategy has been slowly working for decades, now.

Quote :

"i'm under no illusion that they will stick, but any small influence he may make was more than he would have as a 3rd party candidate (none influence)"

Perhaps. But had he dropped out of the race and joined Jill Stein on the green ticket (#BernSteinBears), he could have forced the Democrats even further to the left during the general election. The minute he endorsed Hillary, he ceded any political influence he had. He's endorsed her, so all the noise he made during the primaries have been effectively wiped out.

Now, if you're a Democratic loyalist (ala Shrike), then you'll view his endorsement as rational and good for the party. If you actually have strong principled positions on policy (economic reform, trade, foreign policy, healthcare, civil rights, etc), then you have to acknowledge that Bernie is no longer going to influence the way Democrats govern.

You can't be anti-establishment and support an establishment candidate at the same time. The mere fact that Democratic supportera (again, Shrike) criticize Bernie for not being firmly entrenched with the Democratic party in order to win the primary supports my claim.

Democrats are no longer progressive populists. They take corporate money and wall street bribes just as eagerly as the republicans. If you're firmly against this practice, then there's no reason to support them anymore.

Unless, of course, you still subscribe to the lesser of two evils strategy.

7/26/2016 1:30:47 PM

Anti-establishment is a bullshit ideal to vote on anyway because it's meaningless. If your candidate wins he becomes the establishment, rendering the main tenet of your ideals worthless.

7/26/2016 3:22:54 PM

It's only bullshit if you completely ignore all the issues I highlighted in parenthesis. I'm referring to establishment politicians as establishment politicians because of their respective policy positions, not because of their title.

7/26/2016 4:36:58 PM

Guy is all class..

7/26/2016 6:50:30 PM

Quote :

"Anti-establishment is a bullshit ideal to vote on anyway because it's meaningless. If your candidate wins he becomes the establishment, rendering the main tenet of your ideals worthless."

The funny thing is, Sanders was part of the establishment. Like Clinton said in the debate, "You've been in Washington for 25 years. You are the establishment." People like Sanders are the problem with Washington, they get there and don't want to leave. We don't need the same people on capitol Hill for 20+ years. I am not a big fan of his, but I like seeing new blood in Washington like Paul Ryan. The problem is Paul Ryan's kind is going to also stick around too long. I'm just thankful it isn't going to be Sanders. He's way too left for the good of the nation.

7/26/2016 7:35:36 PM

Bernie's positions on a lot of ideas didn't bother me, because at the end of the day I felt like he had the best interest of Americans in mind. He wasn't a globalist and he understood that free trade with countries that have shit labor laws doesn't benefit workers here. He also didn't preach the guns are evil narrative that many on the left do. There were a lot of ideas he expressed that would be great for us to be heading towards, even if some of them would take decades to get right and would probably be robbed blind by his successors.

I would have had a lot more respect for him if he'd pulled the Ted Cruz "Fuck you, I'm out" speech at the end though.

7/26/2016 8:44:13 PM

Quote :

"What exactly did you "put on the line"?"

Do you understand how politics work? More specifically, do you understand how grassroots non pac funded politics work? Do you understand what it takes to campaign against all corporate interests?

What did we put on the line?

1.All of our money
- Bernie out raised hillary as recent as California. Most of those 27 dollar donations came from progressives.
-the premise was money was the only advantage hillary had so we poured more money into this than anything ever. We all thought if we did that we would win the white house for sure and turn the country around.

2. 14 months of volunteer work
-canvassing phone banking knocking on doors registering (democrat) voters

Of course the biggest loss is the opportunity cost because none of these resources can go towards our cause now but it's more than that. You really have to consider everything we lost and double it because it all goes to hillary now. If Bernie never existed and all of those resources went green we would probably at 15% by now poised to get into the debates which would establish us as a real Player for years to come.

I'd consider it a death blow. I don't think we will ever see a progressive movement again until real disaster happens.

[Edited on July 26, 2016 at 9:02 PM. Reason : Maybe a few congressional seats]

7/26/2016 8:59:42 PM

^^Protectionist policies to keep low paying manufacturing jobs is an awful idea and is not "moving forward". Trump and Bernie are both completely wrong on this issue.

If he had any integrity, he would have told the DNC to go fuck themselves. This guy is a fraud, just like the democrats other candidate.

[Edited on July 26, 2016 at 9:03 PM. Reason : 1]

7/26/2016 9:03:02 PM

Quote :

"I am not a big fan of his, but I like seeing new blood in Washington like Paul Ryan. The problem is Paul Ryan's kind is going to also stick around too long"

Paul Ryan has been a member of congress since 1999.

7/26/2016 9:53:33 PM

^^^ It sucks to put your money and time towards a candidate that loses, but this happens to supporters of all but one candidate in every election so it's hard to feel extremely sorry for Bernie's supporters specifically for this. Should we all feel sorry for Rubio and Cruz supporters also?

As far as opportunity cost goes, raising that much money and that much support for a green party candidate would be impossible. Bernie got as close as he did because he invigorated the progressive part of the Democratic party. That doesn't mean Democrats would switch if only Jill Stein just got a few more $27 donations.

Bernie has done more for the progressive movement by coming close and failing than a green party candidate that cost the democrats the election. Especially if his statements that many of his policies have been adopted by the Democrats aren't complete bullshit.

[Edited on July 26, 2016 at 9:59 PM. Reason : ]

7/26/2016 9:57:05 PM

They would switch to Jill stein if they knew she existed. We aren't upset because our candidate lost. We are upset because our candidate took our resources and gave them to hillary our greatest opposition. Cruz and Rubio went down with honor. I wish Bernie had half of their character

[Edited on July 26, 2016 at 10:06 PM. Reason : ? J]

[Edited on July 26, 2016 at 10:06 PM. Reason : Our plane didn't just crash. It was hijacked and crashed into our interests]

7/26/2016 10:05:20 PM

not sure the year on this but it was back when bernie still had integrity and whatnot

https://www.facebook.com/drjillstein/videos/1229899670383554/

7/26/2016 10:25:19 PM

Like a lot of supporters I was upset with some aspects of the way things went down. But I've taken a bit to ruminate on it, and I think I can accept voting for Hillary now, not happily, but I'll prob end up doing it. I know many will disagree, which is fine, but I wanted to post to open this conversation up beyond some of the hysterical and deluded shit ITT.

1. As I mentioned earlier, I still trust Bernie. Guy has built up credibility over the past 20+ years. Probably more than any other federal politician. That doesn't mean follow him to the gates of hell, it just means you should really be hesitating before you throw him under the bus with talk of "betrayal" and shit like that.

2. There is such thing as a pragmatic long game. We all wanted a Hail Mary to put us in scoring position, but sometimes you've got grind it out with short yardage plays instead. Demographics are in progressive's favor. We NEED Hillary's SCOTUS appointees for the long game. If progressive's can keep getting first downs (growing the progressive congressional caucus) then in 4 years we can be in an even better position. Bernie has been playing the pragmatic long game for basically his entire career. Yes he and some of the progressive caucus have big ideas, but at the end of the day Bernie has been in congress hammering out amendments and trying to find common ground to advance progressive interests. Endorsing Hillary is just a continuation of that, I think.

3. I personally believe that the Right Wing needs to be curb stomped at this very moment in time - right as they start to take the dive into facism. It's dangerous and all these dumbfuck Trump supporters need to go back into hiding if we want our country to continue to function. Intentionally or not, Trump has emboldened some of the absolute ugliest parts of America and taking the wind out of their sails is actually a priority for me. I get that this is just a slight variation of the Giant Douche v. Turd Sandwich (GDvTS) argument, it just feels different this time to me, enough that Hillary will prob get my vote.

7/27/2016 7:58:27 AM

I think there's plenty of reason to believe that voting third party IS playing the long game. If you are worried about the nation's march toward fanatical nationalism/fascism, then strongly opposing them more priority than slightly opposing them.

As it stands, the Democratic establishment has to compromise with the far right because there is not strong enough opposition from the left. If enough people left the D's for a more liberal alternative, Democrats would be forced to move to the left in order to stay politically relevant. Again, I think we disagree on tactics. The R's will always shit out a worthless, "imminent threat" type candidate. If you are waiting for a convenient time for political action, you'll be waiting a long time.

7/27/2016 12:00:00 PM

If you supported Bernie for his policies, please explain the rational upside and downside of not voting for Hillary

7/27/2016 1:29:41 PM

Upside: She doesn't actually support Bernie's policies
Downside: President Donald Trump

Although not supporting his policies may not qualify as an upside.

[Edited on July 27, 2016 at 1:38 PM. Reason : ]

7/27/2016 1:36:36 PM

Midterms usually go to the opposite party, and given how Hillary is hated by Republicans, and incapable of exciting Dems, It seems almost guaranteed there would be a Republican supermajority. On the flip side, maybe Trump would ensure a Dem supermajority.

On top of that, I don't want to continue the trend of allowing Dems to prop up establishment candidates because "the other side is worse". It's their way of removing accountability.

Ultimately, it might be a shitty 4 years if Trump wins, but at some point, progressives need to put their foot down and make a real statement. It's good for the long term.

7/27/2016 1:41:03 PM

^^^^ this is not how you play the long game in politics. Allowing your vote to let a madman win doesn't help anyone.

Look at the 2000 election with Gore/Bush. Bush, for completely idiotic reasons that had nothing to do with national security or 9/11 pre emptively attacked Iraq, leading to trillions of wasted dollars, a complete destabilization of the middle east, the rise of ISIS, the growth of the Tea Party, all because a few hundred votes in Florida. This was 16 years ago now, and we're still deep in the shadows of the Buch era policies, trying to claw our way out.

Trump wants to use ISIS, which is plaguing Europe, but has been losing territory and has a minimal impact on the US itself, to push similarly drastic, sweeping changes to our policies, including ditching long-standing close allies, using torture, targeting civilians, ditching the 5th amendment, etc., etc..

If you're in a state that Trump is on the brink of losing/winning, and you don't use your vote to stop trump, youre complicit in whatever tragic policies we have to deal with for probably another 2 decades or more.

[Edited on July 27, 2016 at 1:45 PM. Reason : ]

7/27/2016 1:45:25 PM

So is the argument that the tiny potential that the Democratic Party would recognize Bernie supporters didn't vote for Hillary as protest they would no longer prop up unpopular candidates that were "elected" with a majority of votes outweighs all of the potential damage Trump could do?

7/27/2016 1:49:07 PM

^^Naw. We are perpetually trapped in the back and forth. Clinton wins this time, another variation of Bush or Trump wins next time. A Clinton presidency has no chance of changing that.

^
I think it would be plainly obvious if she doesn't even garner 40% of the vote, as recent polls are showing.

[Edited on July 27, 2016 at 1:54 PM. Reason : .]

7/27/2016 1:51:27 PM

So nothing ever changes? Parties never drop certain platforms after losing election after election and finally determine that some of their beliefs need to change?

I didn't ask whether they would recognize the reason why or not, I'm asking whether the potential that they actually do something about that and use their power to block someone like Hillary outweighs the potential catastrophe of a Trump presidency

[Edited on July 27, 2016 at 1:56 PM. Reason : asdf]

7/27/2016 1:55:20 PM

The Democratic party appears to be shifting more to the left, so it's possible that Hillary may be more centrist than future Democratic candidates.

That being said, the Democratic voters who prefer centrist candidates will continue to vote for centrist candidates, regardless of whether a protest vote is successful or not.

7/27/2016 1:59:04 PM

^^
That wasnt my only point.

^
If this had been a fair fight, progressives might have won the primary. 5% is not much.

[Edited on July 27, 2016 at 2:01 PM. Reason : .]

7/27/2016 2:00:03 PM

So the other potential positive is that Democrats win the midterms? And that's worth a Trump presidency? I feel like I'm missing something

7/27/2016 2:04:29 PM

I'm trying to explain why Clinton losing isn't the end of the world.

7/27/2016 2:10:07 PM

I feel like the candidates' potential Supreme Court nominations should be a significant factor.

I wouldn't be surprised to see three justices retire in the next four years.

[Edited on July 27, 2016 at 2:20 PM. Reason : ]

7/27/2016 2:19:53 PM

Let me just start over. Please give a best case and worst case scenario for Clinton losing, keeping in mind that a best case scenario for her willing is that we get another 4-8 years of somewhat progressive policies, 1 or 2 (or 3) liberal leaning Supreme Court justices, and the republican party realizing they can no longer win elections while continuing to support all their ridiculous social and racial policies, so they drop or soften them.

Will all that happen? Probably not, but it could, and we'd most likely get at least some of it. I'm failing to see the major likely positive in Clinton losing compared to this

[Edited on July 27, 2016 at 2:23 PM. Reason : a]

7/27/2016 2:23:05 PM

Quote :

"Look at the 2000 election with Gore/Bush. "

Dont blame Nader. If Nader took votes from Gore from his more progressive base, then Gore, by definition, wasn't progressive enough to secure those votes. Those voters were under no obligation to vote for someone they didn't want.

Quote :

"Bush, for completely idiotic reasons that had nothing to do with national security or 9/11 pre emptively attacked Iraq, leading to trillions of wasted dollars, a complete destabilization of the middle east, the rise of ISIS, the growth of the Tea Party, all because a few hundred votes in Florida. This was 16 years ago now, and we're still deep in the shadows of the Buch era policies, trying to claw our way out."

I seem to recall a certain senator from New York agreeing with that preemptive strike.

Hmmmm.....What was her name? Perhaps you can remind me.

Oh, and didn't that senator go on to become Secretary of State? What was the official policy on drone assassinations and military adventurism with her, again?




Nawww, man. You can fuck right off cliff with your shaming little guilt trip. Draw a line in the sand on POLICY, not personality. If a candidate crosses that line, don't vote for them. Full stop.

7/27/2016 2:36:36 PM

Quote :

"Dont blame Nader. If Nader took votes from Gore from his more progressive base, then Gore, by definition, wasn't progressive enough to secure those votes. Those voters were under no obligation to vote for someone they didn't want."

"Blame" is just a word. Call it whatever you want, but the reality is that had he not run and a decent chunk of those people not had the option Bush wouldn't have won. End of story

7/27/2016 2:41:34 PM

I don't blame Ralph Nader, but the reality is that had he not run and a decent chunk of those people not had the option Al Gore been a better candidate (or George W. Bush been a worse candidate?), Bush wouldn't have won. End of story


But a Donald Trump Supreme Court though.

[Edited on July 27, 2016 at 2:44 PM. Reason : ]

7/27/2016 2:41:36 PM

Quote :

""Blame" is just a word. Call it whatever you want, but the reality is that had he not run and a decent chunk of those people not had the option Bush wouldn't have won. End of story"

The reality is that if Democrats gave a shit about progressives, progressives would vote for them.

Victim blaming bullshit itt

7/27/2016 2:48:52 PM

Quote :

"I seem to recall a certain senator from New York agreeing with that preemptive strike. Hmmmm.....What was her name? Perhaps you can remind me. Oh, and didn't that senator go on to become Secretary of State? What was the official policy on drone assassinations and military adventurism with her, again? "

Yeah, this is why she lost in 2008.

Hillary was able to play the DNC to her advantage, she wouldn't be able to maintain this at the national level. She could easily be thwarted and be a 1-term president.

Trump's rhetoric alone is damaging and destabilizing, let alone what he might manage to convince congress to do, or what he might would try to do as leader of the executive branch agencies.

Anyone who follows politics should realize Trump must be stopped, and you fight the good policy fights at the local and state level-- where these battles are often easier anyway.

Get good progressives into congress, they'll set an example for the next Bernie to have an easy win.

7/27/2016 2:56:42 PM

Quote :

"The reality is that if Democrats gave a shit about progressives, progressives would vote for them."

Thus making it the reality that if the crazy right wingers are more willing to hold their nose and vote for a less favorable candidate, it will always be more likely that a republican, who the progressives hate more than moderates, will always have a leg up

I'm not blaming anyone for anything, but that's the reality. You can continue to be angry that the Democratic party doesn't listen to you, but being angry about it and voting third party doesn't seem to be sending a message. Could Trump win because the democratic party doesn't listen to progressives, or because the progressives are trying to send a message and stay home or vote third party? It doesn't really matter, all that matters is that Trump wins and gets to pick supreme court nominees

7/27/2016 3:03:25 PM

Once again, you demonstrate that you don't actually give a shit about policy.

You just blamed 90% of today's issues on the decision to go to war almost two decades ago. Yet, you completely give the person who agreed with that decision a total pass.


Pick one. Either it was a horrible decision and those responsible should not be allowed in the white house. Or you don't really care about that decision as much as you're pretending to.

Don't come at me like you're the only adult in the room.

7/27/2016 3:04:57 PM

Quote :

"and the republican party realizing they can no longer win elections while continuing to support all their ridiculous social and racial policies, so they drop or soften them. Will all that happen? Probably not, but it could, and we'd most likely get at least some of it. I'm failing to see the major likely positive in Clinton losing compared to this"

This would be terrible for progressives because a moderate republican party would gain power for years and still be slightly left of the democrats we have now. democrats would move left but they would be viewed like today's gop. It would take a while to reach equilibrium again. We don't have time for that.

Quote :

""Blame" is just a word. Call it whatever you want, but the reality is that had he not run and a decent chunk of those people not had the option Bush wouldn't have won. End of story"

if gore didn't run and all of his voters went with nader, bush wouldn't have won. Whats that? You don't like crazy hypotheticals?

Quote :

"Anyone who follows politics should realize Trump must be stopped,"

Why do democrats suddenly hate democracy? Politics is supposed to be about supporting your candidate but all democrats are doing is campaigning against trump. If more people support trump than any other candidate, then he should be president under our current system. In democracy, you shouldn't blame politicians who are straight forward, you should blame the people who knowingly support the policies that "must be stopped"

7/27/2016 5:50:18 PM

Quote :

"Nawww, man. You can fuck right off cliff with your shaming little guilt trip. Draw a line in the sand on POLICY, not personality. If a candidate crosses that line, don't vote for them. Full stop."

[Edited on July 27, 2016 at 7:53 PM. Reason : .]

7/27/2016 7:52:41 PM

^^ FYI, you're a fraud.

[Edited on July 27, 2016 at 7:54 PM. Reason : Wtf, did you just call trump straight forward without irony? I hope I misread that]

7/27/2016 7:53:56 PM

Quote :

"Bernie's positions on a lot of ideas didn't bother me, because at the end of the day I felt like he had the best interest of Americans in mind. He wasn't a globalist and he understood that free trade with countries that have shit labor laws doesn't benefit workers here. He also didn't preach the guns are evil narrative that many on the left do. There were a lot of ideas he expressed that would be great for us to be heading towards, even if some of them would take decades to get right and would probably be robbed blind by his successors."

He is not what we need. He is the total opposite of what we actually need. The numbers didn't add up. Taxing the crap out of the rich and giving everyone free college and healthcare is not the way to go. We need a fiscally conservative government who doesn't want to control everything. The problem is there aren't many politicians on either side, or citizens left who feel that way. I think Trump is a little more fiscally conservative and I like his ideas on reforming healthcare, but he also wants to increase military spending while lowering taxes. That's fine as long as some cuts are made in other departments. I doubt that happens no matter who gets in.

7/27/2016 8:26:04 PM

^The only conservative in the race is gary johnson. End of story. You may have been able to argue about paul a year ago but not anymore.


^^His major positions have not really shifted and they are why people are voting for him


Its not like he is secretly against islam or immigrantion or trade and his voters don't know. It all seems pretty straight forward to me. Its the people who want this that you should be angry towards. If he gets in office and starts saying things that are worse, then fine, its not their fault for those things but they are electing these policies just like you are electing fraud.

[Edited on July 27, 2016 at 8:34 PM. Reason : i]

[Edited on July 27, 2016 at 8:58 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on July 27, 2016 at 8:59 PM. Reason : koch can't stand him]

7/27/2016 8:34:29 PM

Quote :

"^The only conservative in the race is gary johnson. End of story. You may have been able to argue about paul a year ago but not anymore."

Agreed. That is the problem. Our country is screwed, if we don't get a fiscally conservative government in place. I don't think Trump will save us any money, if he goes nuts on military spending. Some of his other policies don't sound too promising either. I do really like his healthcare plan that is on his website. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform I wish someone would get in there and actually do that. I don't want to ever see the Bernie plan of getting rid of private health insurance. Anytime the government gets involved it seems to become a mess. I would like to see the next president use the Sanders war policy no matter who it is. I saw Sanders say on TV that the Muslim nations need to stand up for themselves against radical Islam and that we could maybe support them, but it has to start from within.

7/27/2016 8:53:56 PM

you people are getting Earl'd

7/27/2016 8:59:27 PM

Quote :

"Anytime the government gets involved it seems to become a mess. I"

This is the correlation and this is what people believe because anytime government gets involved, its been the corrupt democratic politicians somehow funneling money away from the program and into the pockets of their buddies. This is why, despite democrats saying they will do good things. We cannot give them the keys to big government again. We'd be better off with someone like johnson not spending any money than spending money on corporatism. It harms the image of big government as you can see from the quote above which is what many americans beleive

[Edited on July 27, 2016 at 9:03 PM. Reason : they start thinking the progressive policies democrats talk about are whats bad]

7/27/2016 9:02:26 PM

Earl and the rest of the Bernie Bros have given a master class in why the far left never gets taken seriously. It's not just the narcissism or infantile reactions to anything that doesn't kowtow to their demands. They simply can not grasp the fact that all of politics...ALL OF IT...is a compromise.

FFS you had a former head of the CIA on stage demolishing Trump for his traitorous call for Russia to conduct cyber attacks against the United States and the fucking Bernie Bros were booing through it.

Fart-in's. Heckling Elizabeth Warren.

Grow the fuck up.

[Edited on July 27, 2016 at 9:12 PM. Reason : .]

7/27/2016 9:12:11 PM

Pannetta isn't a saint and probably deserves some flak. Hutson didn't and they showed their ass.

And a fart in? That isn't a real thing..

7/27/2016 9:15:27 PM

Quote :

" traitorous call for Russia to conduct cyber attacks against the United States "

he didn't call for them to spy. they already did. he simply asked them to turn over the emails if they have them. everyone spies on everyone and we all know that. If russia has some information about a crime committed in the us, they should turn it over to us. typical democrat spin on words.

Quote :

" And a fart in? That isn't a real thing.."

censoring every opinion that is against yours is a real thing

only allowing one candidate to run in an election is a real thing

[Edited on July 27, 2016 at 9:17 PM. Reason : we're running out of ways to fight this machine]

7/27/2016 9:16:29 PM

he didn't deserve flak during that speech, especially while talking about how dangerous the things that Trump talked about today are

shit's just childish and an awful, awful look

7/27/2016 9:17:45 PM

Quote :

"This is the correlation and this is what people believe because anytime government gets involved, its been the corrupt democratic politicians somehow funneling money away from the program and into the pockets of their buddies. This is why, despite democrats saying they will do good things. We cannot give them the keys to big government again. We'd be better off with someone like johnson not spending any money than spending money on corporatism. It harms the image of big government as you can see from the quote above which is what many americans beleive"

I don't think they always funnel money to friends, but the way the government tries to make things better always backfires, or doesn't turn out like they think it will. The programs started by LBJ are costing more than the government thought, cash for clunkers was a joke, Obamacare has caused a lot of people's premiums to rise, not fall. The current war is costing too much. Trump's policies on China probably won't work well. The last thing I want is for someone like Sanders to get in there and start government funded college and healthcare. There actually have been some states that have offered free college to students and that is fine as long as it is done on a state level. IIRC Georgia uses a state lottery to fund free college for any high school student who finishes with a 3.0 GPA, or higher.

[Edited on July 27, 2016 at 9:22 PM. Reason : .]

7/27/2016 9:18:53 PM

Quote :

"he didn't call for them to spy. they already did. he simply asked them to turn over the emails if they have them"

bull fucking shit. now you're regurgitating the talking points from his handlers doing damage control.

Quote :

"only allowing one candidate to run in an election is a real thing"

yeah, the last 12 months of bernie running was all an illusion. guess we all took the red pill

[Edited on July 27, 2016 at 9:23 PM. Reason : .]

7/27/2016 9:22:50 PM