NationStates

G-Tech Corporation wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Yes. Eat yourself Democratic Party.

+1

I'm looking forward to when the competition actually heats up. The knives are going to come out, and it is going to be glorious.

Shrillland wrote:And this is why people don't like Pelosi, we just keep her around because we have no one else to lead: https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-warns-democrats-liberal-menace-ahead-2020-vote-211900281.html

Hediacrana wrote:

Shrillland wrote:And this is why people don't like Pelosi, we just keep her around because we have no one else to lead: https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-warns-democrats-liberal-menace-ahead-2020-vote-211900281.html

First Obama, now her.

She is also trying to make sure that the Israeli government isn't criticized too harshly, in a time that finally, at least someof the Dems are at long last starting to move beyond blind support for whatever crimes against humanity it commits. That alone makes me want Sanders to win - at least he's not scared to distinguish between antisemitism and criticizing a far right government.

Ngelmish wrote:

Page wrote:I find it quite amazing how many people, most of them conservatives but some liberals too, are pushing this narrative that only a centrist Democrat has a chance against Trump and that the further "left" candidates would fail. When given the choice between Republican or Republican Lite, voters will choose the Republican, or just stay home.

Hillary Clinton didn't lose in her "firewall" states because she was too far left. Quite the opposite. She lost because she didn't offer the people anything of substance. The people who are rationing medicine and checking the status of a GoFundMe hoping they'll raise enough money to literally avoid dying didn't vote for Hillary because she thought Obamacare was enough and that single payer isn't necessary. Because those people realize neither Trump nor Clinton would do anything about the travesty of the American health care system. She lost because the people who lost their jobs to outsourcing realized she wasn't going to do a damn thing about it while Trump played populist - and although Trump's a liar and those people working for employers like Carrier had their jobs outsourced anyway, Hillary didn't even bother with the issue, she didn't even go to Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. She lost because people who remember their homes being foreclosed upon found out she gave paid speeches absolving the vile usurers of the mortgage industry and blamed the Great Recession on the victims of predatory lending. She lost because she supported the endless wars in countries that never attacked us cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars, while a great majority of Americans no longer want to spill blood and treasure in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and Libya. Don't forget Libya! She was convinced it was a great accomplishment to have overthrown Gaddafi. Now Libya is in a state of perpetual civil war, Islamist extremists operate with impunity, and slaves are sold in open markets.

If the nominee in 2020 makes a real commitment to single payer, a living wage, rebuilding infrastructure, creating renewable energy, absolving student loan debt, free college, and ending the wars, that nominee will win. If the nominee is a neoliberal centrist who thinks "America is already great", then say hello to 4 more years of spray tan stains on the White House furniture.

You do realize that your personal disagreements with the substance of what Clinton offered is literally the opposite of Clinton offering no substance?

I understand that the point of this canard is politics, and that politically you're incentivized to deploy hyperbole, but there's a point at which blatant dishonesty runs counter to the premise of offering ethical politics.

Duhon wrote:

Shrillland wrote:And this is why people don't like Pelosi, we just keep her around because we have no one else to lead: https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-warns-democrats-liberal-menace-ahead-2020-vote-211900281.html

I fail to see what's wrong with her statement.

Shrillland wrote:

Duhon wrote:
I fail to see what's wrong with her statement.

To say that the Progressive message could be seen as a menace by voters is a little much when plenty of voters support those policies in the abstract, at least.

Duhon wrote:

Shrillland wrote:And this is why people don't like Pelosi, we just keep her around because we have no one else to lead: https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-warns-democrats-liberal-menace-ahead-2020-vote-211900281.html

I fail to see what's wrong with her statement.

San Lumen wrote:

Duhon wrote:
I fail to see what's wrong with her statement.

So do I. Some of the people on the left dont get that you can't take someone like AOC and expect to win in Missouri

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Hediacrana wrote:First Obama, now her.

She is also trying to make sure that the Israeli government isn't criticized too harshly, in a time that finally, at least someof the Dems are at long last starting to move beyond blind support for whatever crimes against humanity it commits. That alone makes me want Sanders to win - at least he's not scared to distinguish between antisemitism and criticizing a far right government.

Sanders has some super shitty views on Israel too. Some Dems are starting to move in the right direction about that country, but Sanders isn't one of them.

Hediacrana wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Sanders has some super shitty views on Israel too. Some Dems are starting to move in the right direction about that country, but Sanders isn't one of them.

What statements by Sanders are you referring to? As far as I know, he's one of the preciously few American politicians who called the Israeli government out for its war crimes against Palestinian citizens.

If a two-state solution fails, Takruri asked Sanders, would he support “one-state with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians alike, and equal citizenship?”

“No, I don’t,” he said. “I mean, I think if that happens, then that would be the end of the state of Israel, and I support Israel’s right to exist.”

Hediacrana wrote:And are any of those Democrats who, in your words, are moving in the right direction on Israel among the 2020 contenders? Because I have a hard time coming up with anyone doing a better job than Sanders. Apart from Buttigieg and Booker, who are simply pro-Israel, all others have avoided taking a clear position, just sharing platitudes about the special relationship between Israel and the States and about a two state solution.

San Lumen wrote:

Duhon wrote:
I fail to see what's wrong with her statement.

So do I. Some of the people on the left dont get that you can't take someone like AOC and expect to win in Missouri

Liriena wrote:Tucker Carlson is horny on main

Liriena wrote:Tucker Carlson is horny on main

Liriena wrote:Tucker Carlson is horny on main

Liriena wrote:Tucker Carlson is horny on main

Shrillland wrote:

Duhon wrote:
I fail to see what's wrong with her statement.

To say that the Progressive message could be seen as a menace by voters is a little much when plenty of voters support those policies in the abstract, at least.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:

Zurkerx wrote:Oh, here's also what the candidates have raised, spent, have on hands: All Broken Down For You

Oh grateful Eternal Lotharia, please link this in the OP so we can track and scrutinize everyone's campaigns, por favor.

*leaves plate of cookies with chocolate milk.

Done.

Thank you, I love Choco Chip with Chocolate Milk.

If you need me though, leaving Burgers, Chicken Wings, or Fried Chicken are your best choices.

Shrillland wrote:

Duhon wrote:
I fail to see what's wrong with her statement.

To say that the Progressive message could be seen as a menace by voters is a little much when plenty of voters support those policies in the abstract, at least.

Shrillland wrote:

Impaled Nazarene wrote:"But he rebuilt South Bend"
At the expense of the minority populations.

A black Police Chief revealed racism and corruption in the SBPD. Buttigieg threw him under the bus.

Allows gentrification to go ham across the city.

Has done nothing to meaningfully help the black communities in South Bend.

Actually thinks he can use his sexuality to make people think he's not bigoted. Gay people can't be racist you know?

Source: Living in South Bend, Working with politicians in South Bend, being a campaign worker in South Bend, having good friends who have been harmed by Buttigieg's policies.

Well, he wasn't on my top list anyway.

Telconi wrote:

Shrillland wrote:
To say that the Progressive message could be seen as a menace by voters is a little much when plenty of voters support those policies in the abstract, at least.

"Plenty" of people can support something (especially in the abstract) and yet the rest can still find it menacing.

Shrillland wrote:

Telconi wrote:
"Plenty" of people can support something (especially in the abstract) and yet the rest can still find it menacing.

Yes, but I mean that a lot of Democratic voters will still support Progressive candidates as long as they show that their policies will help them rather than just the "Militant Tendency" wing of the party that stays in its cities.

Hakons wrote:

Shrillland wrote:

Well, he wasn't on my top list anyway.

If I remember right, he sees court-packing as a viable option, which is just constitutionally horrendous.

Ism wrote:

Hakons wrote:
If I remember right, he sees court-packing as a viable option, which is just constitutionally horrendous.

It’s more like court reform than court packing, I don’t know why they call it that. The idea he supports is focused on depoliticizing the Supreme Court, rather than stuffing it full of yes men.

Telconi wrote:

Ism wrote:
It’s more like court reform than court packing, I don’t know why they call it that. The idea he supports is focused on depoliticizing the Supreme Court, rather than stuffing it full of yes men.

How could you do that?