[FRIAM] is it possible that ...

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Heh, good game, ranking as enablers. From most enabling to least, I'd go with:

1) Buttigieg
2) Klobuchar
3) Warren
4) Sanders

(3) and (4) are really a toss-up. Sanders seems light on specifics and long on rants. And the devil is always in the detail. So Warren might be less enabling than Sanders by using corral fences with fewer unfilled holes. But she seems very Trumpian in her confidence that any of her plans would survive contact with the battlefield. Sanders may well end up with better plans if he turns out to be more adaptive, relaxing *into* the landscape rather than trying to out-think it. In the end, I think it'll be easier for deeper thinking Evildoers(TM) like Thiel to game Warren than Sanders, which is why I'd rank her as more enabling than Sanders. Buttigieg's Moderate Rhetoric looks to me like a red meat buffet, waiting to be gobbled up by the Evildoers ... like so many octogenarian Casino-goers. If he's the nominee, here's hoping that deep down he's a 3D foam of camouflaged steel traps waiting to lop off the fractal tendrils of our squidlike Leviathans.

On 2/13/20 8:13 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I do wonder about Warren, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Buttigieg and their rhetoric trying to pin blame on the divider-in-chief rather than on those that voted for him.  It seems like crypto-partisanism to me.   They have to be different things to different people, that’s politics.   I would love to have an option, at least in ranked choice voting, who had the basic agenda to finish the culture war by any means necessary and to severely punish bad-faith actors as you describe.


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ