2019-03-07 Campaign Letter: The race for 2020 starts TODAY -

[Gustav Schuchardt]

The whole video gave off the "woe is me" shit that no one but the lowest of troons care about. No normal person is going to see this and say "omg bullies harassed her?? yaaas vote for Wu!!"

Trump doesn't get bullied. He is the one who bullies!

2 seconds!
John decided to display his snarl just 2 fucking seconds into the video.
View attachment 687810

Preciouss

Dear <<First Name>>.

Like you I care about <<Most Important Issue>> and have a <<Pet Species>> named <<Pet Name>>. Like you I feel that concerns about <<Least Important Issue>> are something the <<Other Political Party>> have hyped up by <<Least Favourite Peer Competitor Nation>> bots and fake news by <<Least Favourite Media>> as exposed very well by reporters for <<Most Favourite Media>>. I also think we need to pay attention to fixing <<Most Important Economic Issue>> at home.

I hope I can count on your vote.

 

[Belligerent Monk]

This needs to happen.
I can just picture Wu and AOC butting heads over who is more progressive and whose ideas are still grounded in reality.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

This needs to happen.
I can just picture Wu and AOC butting heads over who is more progressive and whose ideas are still grounded in reality.

If I were Wu I'd come in hot and play the trans card hard. AOC has no counter for that. She's a woman and a POC but she's kind of pale. She'd crumble under the ruthless bombardment of trans card playing and intersectional one-upmanship and be reduced to tears.

After that well disciplined/dressed TERF agents would offer her a shoulder to cry on and a new cause to support. They'd slowly brainwash her into political lesbianism and a lifetime of TERF activism. Probably she'd end up assassinating Jonathan Yaniv, an action which of course I would disavow.

I'm so fucking stoked for the debate. When does it happen?

 

[Marche]

 

[Belligerent Monk]

If I were Wu I'd come in hot and play the trans card hard. AOC has no counter for that. She's a woman and a POC but she's kind of pale. She'd crumble under the ruthless bombardment of trans card playing and intersectional one-upmanship and be reduced to tears.

After that well disciplined/dressed TERF agents would offer her a shoulder to cry on and a new cause to support. They'd slowly brainwash her into political lesbianism and a lifetime of TERF activism. Probably she'd end up assassinating Jonathan Yaniv, an action which of course I would disavow.

I'm so fucking stoked for the debate. When does it happen?

That could backfire. All Wu really has is the trans card. I was never that.great at Magic the Gathering but if you reeeeeeally needed a counter spell but all you got left in your hand is a single island you don't have much in the way of strategy.

My money would be on AOC in that debate. She snarls less than Wu and, when you get down to it, after the trans card has been played Wu is just another "fucking white male" to use the parlance of an overused meme.

 

[TrippinKahlua]

If Wu was literally at a rally, I would raise my hand for a question and ask her "Who's Wu?"

If my phone rang and I see it's Brianna Wu, instead of the usual "hello" I would answer "Who's Wu?"

 

[NotAWeeb]

You should have your voting rights taken away from you if you're voting for somebody's whose main platform revolves around Gamergate, moon attacks, and the Rottentomatoes score for Captain Marvel.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

If my phone rang and I see it's Brianna Wu, instead of the usual "hello" I would answer "Who's Wu?"

Literally Who.

It's like the fucking commies in China who went from being lead by a Hu (pronounced 'Who') to be lead by a Xi (pronounced 'She').

after the trans card has been played Wu is just another "fucking white male" to use the parlance of an overused meme.

She's married to that Chinese guy who is a gay POC. I think as part of the rules of intersectional theory she's allowed to claim some of his POC points because she uses his name.

Come to think he forced her to use his name, the patriarchal CIS fuck. I reckon that's worth a whole oppression point.

Meanwhile AOC has rich parents and went to an elite college and the media kiss her ass. She's clearly part of the power structure.

As Wu's Oppression Point Consultant I believe I could make the case she's got more than AOC.

Edit: Oh fuck dude, I've forgotten to mention that Brianna Wu was forced to flee her house by Alt Right Neo Nazi Gamergate psychopath Jace Connors.

Now you'll say 'But that was all performance art. Connors was a joke'. Well I have article from the Verge, Jezebel etc that say she was a serious threat. So serious in fact that I just wrote it in bold and in red.

Thus you should acquit my client, Ms Wu, on the grounds that she's an oppressed women of colour by marriage and victim of violent Russian Neo Nazi Alt Right Gamergate bots.

The defence rests.

 

[thismanlies]

I didn't notice this before. But holy shit did he age horribly since Gamgergate.

 

[Apteryx Owenii]

What's the backstory on this? Why is John so desperate to pretend he's not a tranny? I thought I remembered at one point that he was trying to latch onto the mentally ill community more directly.

There are so many threads that could start getting pulled with that admission. Right now, because of the media's reluctance to 'out' anyone, pretty much all of Wu's past is unpublishable. Any time you try and run back one of Wu's stories, there's a roadblock where things switch from Brianna to John and your only option is to step all over it and risk being labeled unwoke if you actually do your job.

I do blame the media but she's such a joke that I can understand them not wanting to bother with it.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

To be honest if Wu did manage to get anywhere near the levels of power they'd be the anti-AOC. She'd become an instant lapdog following the DNC line without a second or shadow of a doubt.

Mostly because if Wu did behave like AOC the DNC would nuke her from fucking orbit and find shit even we've failed to get. Wu would go through the gauntlet of her past being definitively exposed, complete with interviews with her parents, siblings, people that knew him as John etc etc etc. Every grubby scam, every failure raked out into the open to be gawked at by the whole of the USA.

Wu might just about get away as a city councillor or something, but never a senator or congressman.

 

[Judge Holden]

View attachment 689515

Wu is no more. There is only
MUUN

 

[Shaka Brah]

To be honest if Wu did manage to get anywhere near the levels of power they'd be the anti-AOC. She'd become an instant lapdog following the DNC line without a second or shadow of a doubt.

Mostly because if Wu did behave like AOC the DNC would nuke her from fucking orbit and find shit even we've failed to get. Wu would go through the gauntlet of her past being definitively exposed, complete with interviews with her parents, siblings, people that knew him as John etc etc etc. Every grubby scam, every failure raked out into the open to be gawked at by the whole of the USA.

Wu might just about get away as a city councillor or something, but never a senator or congressman.

Would the Dems really risk alienating their retarded, insane base by outing a tranny? They can't even figure out how to shun a Muslim immigration fraudster who's biting the hand of their Jewish paymasters. The Coalition of the Ascendant is too powerful for them to buck the ride now.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

Would the Dems really risk alienating their exceptional, insane base by outing a tranny? They can't even figure out how to shun a Muslim immigration fraudster who's biting the hand of their Jewish paymasters. The Coalition of the Ascendant is too powerful for them to buck the ride now.

They're already trying to get rid of AOC. So, yes.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

View attachment 690376View attachment 690377

I didn't notice this before. But holy shit did he age horribly since Gamgergate.

At first I was like

But the I was like

 

[Shaka Brah]

They're already trying to get rid of AOC. So, yes.

They're trying to get rid of her subtly by redistricting her into irrelevance, not by exposing her crimes to the world. She's currently being investigated for massive tax fraud and campaign finance violations so it would be easy to disavow her. Even with AOC, who openly hates the Democrat establishment, they're still pretending to like her while stabbing her in the back because her brand of crazy energizes the base.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

They're trying to get rid of her subtly by redistricting her into irrelevance, not by exposing her crimes to the world. She's currently being investigated for massive tax fraud and campaign finance violations so it would be easy to disavow her. Even with AOC, who openly hates the Democrat establishment, they're still pretending to like her while stabbing her in the back because her brand of crazy energizes the base.

It's going to be pretty fascinating to watch how the establishment Democrats subtly shaft people like her.

I remember watching those BLM wildebeests grab the mike at Bernie Sanders' speech and two things occurred to me that. First he's screwed either way - if he lets them speak he looks weak and if he doesn't he can be portrayed as an old white guy who doesn't understand the new women and POC dominated America. And, second, that whoever set this up - probably the Clinton people - really knew what they were doing.

The woman in the white pantsuit, dude. A worthy fucking adversary.

 

[Next Task]

Would the Dems really risk alienating their exceptional, insane base by outing a tranny?

It being Wu, there's a great deal of stuff you can get into without outing her, if you care to. It's the biggest lie, but there's so much to pick from with SpaceKat, moon rocks, the fucked-up finances they file (which would be the most official way to discredit her)... Even proving how much of her attempts to be a woman of the people is a crock of shit, as the several pieces about her campaign shortly before the primaries all suggested, and the evidence in this thread clearly demonstrates.

You don't have to threaten the narrative by revealing her troonery outright, either - easy enough to get a tip-off to the press about her if she ever comes to enough prominence to bother dealing with. About the only thing they wouldn't touch is likely any of her lies about GamerGate, because it's still a helpful narrative.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

You don't have to threaten the narrative by revealing her troonery outright, either - easy enough to get a tip-off to the press about her if she ever comes to enough prominence to bother dealing with. About the only thing they wouldn't touch is likely any of her lies about GamerGate, because it's still a helpful narrative.

There was quite a bit of very damning coverage of Bernie's Medicare For All policy in the Establishment Democrat media

Virtually every mention of it in these searches is negative -

medicare for all cost - Bing

www.bing.com

medicare for all cost - Google Search

E.g. FactCheck.org, which is about as Establishment Democrat as you can get, ran this article, fact checking AOC and Bernie's claims that 'a Koch brother funded survey accidentally made the case for Medicare For All' on the grounds that even though total government spending increased by $32 trillion over 10 years (for comparison the total US debt to date is $21 trillion) it also predicts total spending on healthcare between 2022 and 2031 to drop from $59.4 trillion to $57.6 trillion.

The Cost of 'Medicare-for-All'

Sen. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez say a "Koch brothers-funded study" shows "Medicare-for-all" would save money. But the study's author say they are misrepresenting his work.

www.factcheck.org

Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are referring to a working paper, “The Costs of a National Single-Payer Healthcare System,” published by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. The Mercatus Center gets some of its funding from the libertarian Koch brothers, but more about that later.

The author of the paper, Charles Blahous, a senior research strategist at the Mercatus Center who once was the deputy director of President Bush’s National Economic Council, says the two proponents of a universal health care system are distorting the findings of his paper.

The study looked at the impact of the Medicare for All Act introduced by Sanders on Sept. 13, 2017. The bill, which has 16 Democratic cosponsors, would expand Medicare into a universal health insurance program, phased in over four years. (The bill hasn’t gone anywhere in a Republican-controlled Senate.)

The top line of the paper’s abstract says that the bill “would, under conservative estimates, increase federal budget commitments by approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation.” According to the paper, even doubling all “currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan.”

But Sanders’ spokesman, Josh Miller-Lewis, told us that presenting only the additional governmental cost of Medicare-for-all — “the scary $32 trillion figure” — leaves out the larger context. Of course the government would spend more on health care under a Medicare-for-all system, he said, but the idea is that it would result in less spending on healthcare in the U.S. overall.

Miller-Lewis referred to figures not highlighted in the report that show that between 2022 and 2031, the currently projected cost of health care expenditures in the U.S. of $59.4 trillion would dip to $57.6 trillion under the “Medicare-for-all” plan. That’s how Sanders arrives at his claim that the study “shows that Medicare for All would save the American people $2 trillion over a 10 year period.” (See Table 2.)

In an email to FactCheck.org, Blahous said he didn’t highlight that figure because he doesn’t think it’s realistic.

As Blahous wrote in the fourth sentence of his abstract, “It is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that health care providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance.”

Blahous used the text of Sanders’ bill to guide assumptions. For example, he said, the bill says health care providers will be reimbursed for patients at Medicare payment rates. Blahous said Medicare payment rates are projected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to be roughly 40 percent lower than those paid by private insurers, so he built those assumed savings into his estimate.

But in the report, Blahous cautions that the assumption is suspect.

FactCheck.org of course regularly 'fact checks' Republicans and finds them to be lying and usually 'fact checks' Democrats and finds them to be telling the truth. Having it find Sanders and AOC to be lying is a pretty devious move - people on the right will assume that FactCheck.org is full of partisan shit. However people on the left have been programmed to think its 'fact checks' actually check facts in an objective way.

I'd predict any Establishment Democrat moves against the New and Diverse Fresh Faces types, which is what Wu wants to be, will be done by proxies like FactCheck.org picking holes in the dire financial consequences of policies they want but the Establishment of the party is terrified by.

All of which leads to the surprisingly optimistic conclusion that, even though the US Establishment factions of both parties probably cannot stop the US's slow drift to sovereign debt crisis they probably can stop any moves that would make that into a fast dash a la Venezuela.

As Margaret Thatcher remarked after the liberation of South Georgia and non peaceful sunsetting of the Argentine occupation forces many years prior to the invention of Minecraft 'Rejoice! Rejoice!'

 

[Francis E. Dec Esc.]

View attachment 690376View attachment 690377

I didn't notice this before. But holy shit did he age horribly since Gamgergate.

He's turning into a Basil Wolverton character:

Spoiler