Jump to content
markstanco

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 

Recommended Posts

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

If the far left had not backed the ACA, we would have had no healthcare reform whatsoever. That Trumpists with an actual majority tear the ACA apart means very little regarding what was needed just to pass the ACA in the first place. 

B-Ts progressives are gearing up to be the left wing freedom caucus. In the end, you get nothing but a no vote and you get no legislation, either progressive or center left. 

But the ACA is a poor excuse for progressive legislation.  So were the Clinton years.   If progressives like b_t are "the reason we are incapable of having progressive legislation in this country," and the best moderates can do for progressive legislation is recycled Republican bullshit, how do we get actual progressive legislation in place? 

And the freedom caucus-type folks will be more successful in the long run than you think.  They are hard at work tearing apart the administrative state from the inside and having a real impact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

The moderation of the Clinton campaign was necessary to win the 92 election.  Mondale lost 49 states to Reagan, and Dukakis didn't do a whole better against HW Bush.  Bill Clinton then made HW Bush a one-term President even though he presided over the most successful and painless major war effort ... well, pretty much ever.   Bill Clinton is a resounding success story for the Democrats.  A far left candidate that checks all the ideological purity boxes would have been massacred again, just every other Democrat since 1972 except for the one time when Carter BARELY beat post-Watergate Gerald Ford.

The moderation of the policies during the Clinton Presidency was because Republicans took Congress, so what else was going to happen?   

No man. Progressives should have no voted left leaning legislation forcing the center left to caucus with the center right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Skyline said:

And this is why we're seeing a shift in language from the Progressives. It's not "reform ICE", it's "ABOLISH ICE". It's not "shore up the ACA" it's "SINGLE-PAYER." They realize what worked for the GOP, and it's currently the only way of getting any part of your agenda passed. Compromising sounds nice until you realize the other side will never reciprocate. 

Plus, it's negotiation 101 to start from a hard line and move towards the compromise to get more of what you want.   The Dems always seem to start from a fair compromise and then move towards the Republican hard line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

But the ACA is a poor excuse for progressive legislation.  So were the Clinton years.   If progressives like b_t are "the reason we are incapable of having progressive legislation in this country," and the best moderates can do for progressive legislation is recycled Republican bullshit, how do we get actual progressive legislation in place? 

And the freedom caucus-type folks will be more successful in the long run than you think.  They are hard at work tearing apart the administrative state from the inside and having a real impact. 

The ACA is a poor excuse. But it's a move leftward. You could have no voted it and you would have gotten nothing instead. 

The freedom caucus are an anti government group where no votes and congressional disruption can often achieve their goals.  So they can vote to not fund things. Progressives need to pass actual legislation so they need a coalition.  If you dont like a weak PBS funding package, but the alternative is no PBS funding, progressives have to vote yes. If they vote no, they get nothing, and unlike the freedom caucus they actually desire more than nothing. 

Edited by FondrenRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the way you get actual progressive legislation passed is to slow move the center to the left. The B-T plan of alienating the center wont work. 

In actuality, Europe and Japan are leftist countries because a large portion of their male population were killed when they moved left. It was nearly entirely female led. We need to convince a voting working man that a robust welfare state is a good thing because they are around to vote on it right now as we want to implement it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

The ACA is a poor excuse. But it's a move leftward. You could have no voted it and you would have gotten nothing instead. 

The freedom caucus are an anti government group where no votes and congressional disruption can often achieve their goals.  So they can vote to not fund things. Progressives need to pass actual legislation so they need a coalition.  If you dont like a weak PBS funding package, but the alternative is no PBS funding, progressives have to vote yes. If they vote no, they get nothing, and unlike the freedom caucus they actually desire more than nothing. 

You're missing the point, which is that the left did get behind the ACA.  More so than many moderates, actually, who pretty much sold out the left and ran away from it for years instead of owning it and selling it to voters. The left got behind Bill Clinton, too, and ate shit because it was better than the alternative.   And the left held their nose and voted for a Goldwater girl.  I certainly did. 

But what was necessary in the 90s or ten years ago isn't necessarily the only path now.   Trumpism is the end of the road for this era of Republican policies.   The pendulum is ready to swing back, and the left needs to adjust to this reality and actually stand up for their vision.  Progressives haven't held back the left, and the only thing that will hold the left back going forward is failing to seize the moment. 

Edited by Mojo Hand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I know you dont work with Brisket or GOLL types.  You made that clear. I know you need them. 

What would that entail, specifically? Going to Republican fundraisers with GOLL or find Brisket's suicide dungeon for nihilist centrists?

You have no idea what you're talking about. Tell me everything you know about the people in my congressional district. Idiot.

Quote

House seats are not nationwide elections. Grassroots are made up of actual constituents. But overall my biggest beef is that O-C claimed to run "local" but actually isnt local at all. Had she not done that, I could accept the nationwide stumping. Instead shes a hypocrite already. 

So let me get this right.

In your mind, if a candidate for local office gets support from outside the district they should... do what? Reject the help? Is this something you seriously believe?

Quote

I fucking hate the tea party, but the people they bused all over to canvass were true believers.  Koch or not, it's the same shit as the DSA. We need local campaigns for local elections. 

Fondren is a VERY LEFT guy who thinks billionaire funding of political movements is the same as grassroots funding of political movements. Super left. Very progressive. Fucking brain worms.

27 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

If the far left had not backed the ACA, we would have had no healthcare reform whatsoever.

Weird, it's almost like the far left you fucking hate are actual allies unlike the Republicans you want to taint-tickle. The Republicans the Dems BEGGED for help and cooperation on only to get cucked again and again and again.

But keep punching left. lol

Quote

B-Ts progressives are gearing up to be the left wing freedom caucus. In the end, you get nothing but a no vote and you get no legislation, either progressive or center left. But for sure, O-C will vote more pragmatically than B-T desires. Sometimes you need to give something to the center to get them to vote for DACA. Otherwise you get no DACA at all. 

Look around you. Are you fucking serious right now? We've got children in concentration camps and DACA people are getting deported.

SO. TIRED. OF. WINNING.

32 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

There's nothing wrong with getting out loudly and pushing an agenda and trying to win people over to progressive policies.

It's how everything gets done. Tell the voters a simple, easy-to-follow story about what needs to happen. Be specific. Be passionate. It's just basic persuasion.

 

Edited by bad_teammate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans are way more open to single payer healthcare now than before the ACA, and single payer healthcare is almost assuredly going to happen in the not too distant future.  Incrementalist strategy on the left actually almost always works, eventually, in terms of obtaining the real policy changes they want.  The line in the sand mentality of the far right leads to spectacular failure at getting any of their big policy ideas ever implemented, and really is only good for lib tears.  But they've convinced themselves that's all that matters.

Edited by longhornmatt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mo Horn said:

She may be too far left for the present, but i think she's a bridge to the future. From everything I read the majority of under 30 year olds are supportive of her beliefs and their numbers will continue to grow i think. That's why Bernie was such a hit with younger crowds. They are much more globally focused and want equality for everyone. They are much more open to policies that give free healthcare, college education, and the like and are willing to pay higher taxes for it.

I think that in 10 or 20 years all the things the right are fighting so hard to hang onto will be long gone. Bernie got things started and she'll push it further.

Those under 30 are starting to realize how easily they will get fucked over by various things (loans, healthcare, etc.).

And thanks to the internet and social media, they are also realizing how things work in other countries, for better or for worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

You're missing the point, which is that the left did get behind the ACA.  More so than many moderates, actually, who pretty much sold out the left and ran away from it for years instead of owning it and selling it to voters. The left got behind Bill Clinton, too, and ate shit because it was better than the alternative.   And the left held their nose and voted for a Coldwater girl.  I certainly did. 

But what was necessary in the 90s even ten years ago isn't necessarily the only path now.   Trumpism is the end of the road for this era of Republican policies.   The pendulum is ready to swing back, and the left needs to adjust to this reality and actually stand up for their vision.  Progressives haven't held back the left, and the only thing that will hold the left back going forward is failing to seize the moment. 

They haven't held up the left because they have never no voted center left legislation. Progressives aren't in a better voting position. You can act like center and right districts dont exist, but they do, and progressives aren't winning either one. So then what?  The only thing we can do is chip away til we get things where we want them. Saying no to the minor moves means you're never going to end up at the big move. 

Take pointers from the movements modern leader. Bernie voted for the ACA and he got some things he wanted in the bill because of it.  He didn't no vote it because he prefers single payer. He has also worked to save it under Trumpist attacks. Had he not done both of those things, we'd have the pre ACA shitshow instead. So you can desire something better, but in the end you need 51 to 69% support and 51% are not progressive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mo Horn said:

She may be too far left for the present, but i think she's a bridge to the future. From everything I read the majority of under 30 year olds are supportive of her beliefs and their numbers will continue to grow i think. That's why Bernie was such a hit with younger crowds. They are much more globally focused and want equality for everyone. They are much more open to policies that give free healthcare, college education, and the like and are willing to pay higher taxes for it.

I think that in 10 or 20 years all the things the right are fighting so hard to hang onto will be long gone. Bernie got things started and she'll push it further.

This is always a seesaw...some of the far left policies will be implemented then things will go back a bit further right.  Yes, the overall trend will be for us to slowly migrate left (especially socially) but we got a LONG ways to go before we get shit like Bern's free college shit done.  As a fiscal conservative, I won't knock the left as the R party is doing the same stupid shit with money...except blowing it on even more worthless shit...tax cuts for major corporations and the military. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

Take pointers from the movements modern leader. Bernie voted for the ACA and he got some things he wanted in the bill because of it.

Is there someone saying progressives should always vote "NO" in Congress on everything that isn't ideologically pure? Because you seem to be boxing some shadows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team b_t and Mojo

republicans have been able to enact regressive policies by requiring party purity. Fuck the moderates. Either support or go vote for a rapist, Russian stooge party 

Edited by Washpark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

They haven't held up the left because they have never no voted center left legislation. Progressives aren't in a better voting position. You can act like center and right districts dont exist, but they do, and progressives aren't winning either one. So then what?  The only thing we can do is chip away til we get things where we want them. Saying no to the minor moves means you're never going to end up at the big move. 

Take pointers from the movements modern leader. Bernie voted for the ACA and he got some things he wanted in the bill because of it.  He didn't no vote it because he prefers single payer. He has also worked to save it under Trumpist attacks. Had he not done both of those things, we'd have the pre ACA shitshow instead. So you can desire something better, but in the end you need 51 to 69% support and 51% are not progressive. 

I don't accept that center and right districts are set in stone and can't be moved to the left.  What you're talking about is relevant on the day of the vote for legislation and the period leading up to it.   But that's a different thing from getting folks elected and getting voters behind you.

I mean, have Bernie and AOC been going around selling this absolute freedom caucus no-compromise strategy you keep coming back to?   Maybe they have, I don't follow them closely.   But all I've heard is progressives getting more vocal and organized, and I think that's a good thing.   That's how you make moderate districts less moderate towards the left, and right districts more moderate, and really get shit done. 

Edited by Mojo Hand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What would that entail, specifically? Going to Republican fundraisers with GOLL or find Brisket's suicide dungeon for nihilist centrists?

You have no idea what you're talking about. Tell me everything you know about the people in my congressional district. Idiot.

So let me get this right.

In your mind, if a candidate for local office gets support from outside the district they should... do what? Reject the help? Is this something you seriously believe?

Fondren is a VERY LEFT guy who thinks billionaire funding of political movements is the same as grassroots funding of political movements. Super left. Very progressive. Fucking brain worms.

Weird, it's almost like the far left you fucking hate are actual allies unlike the Republicans you want to taint-tickle. The Republicans the Dems BEGGED for help and cooperation on only to get cucked again and again and again.

But keep punching left. lol

Look around you. Are you fucking serious right now? We've got children in concentration camps and DACA people are getting deported.

SO. TIRED. OF. WINNING.

It's how everything gets done. Tell the voters a simple, easy-to-follow story about what needs to happen. Be specific. Be passionate. It's just basic persuasion.

 

Yes, all funding and "help" from outside a district should not only be refused, but should also be illegal. An organized nationwide group is not grass roots. Grass roots are the people. Actual constituents getting up and doing something in their own district. 

Koch is worse, but the DSA is also wrong. 

And yes we've got people in internment camps right now. Both my current and future Congresspeople want them out and vote/will vote according. But you dont want to build a coalition to get them out in your district. You're going to reelect Culberson because you cant bother to go talk to GOLLs who also want them out. Instead, you'll talk to them about things they dont want. Moving them all the way down the left field line where they may never want to go. So you'll get Culberson again and he will vote for kid jails. Good job you're doing down there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I don't accept that center and right districts are set in stone and can't be moved to the left.  What you're talking about is relevant on the day of the vote for legislation and the period leading up to it.   But that's a different thing from getting folks elected and getting voters behind you.

I mean, have Bernie and AOC been going around selling this absolute freedom caucus no-compromise strategy you keep coming back to?   Maybe they have, I don't follow them closely.   But all I've heard is progressives getting more vocal and organized, and I think that's a good thing.   That's how you make moderate districts less moderate towards the left, and right districts more moderate, and really get shit done. 

Bernie has not sold a purity strategy. He has always been a compromise voter. AOC has somewhat campaigned on no compromise, but the jury is still out.  I expect she will compromise. B-t is a no compromise guy though and hes the one canvassing a center right district with that message. That message ain't gonna sell in his district. 

Edited by FondrenRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Washpark said:

Team b_t and Mojo

republicans have been able to enact regressive policies by requiring party purity. Fuck the moderates. Either support or go vote for a rapist, Russian stooge party 

Except they haven't really enacted anything except a tax law. But they're an anti government party, they dont need to enact anything. It's harder to pass a funding bill than it is to kill one. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FondrenRoad said:

Yes, all funding and "help" from outside a district should not only be refused, but should also be illegal.

OK, let's work with this.

Let's say we introduced a law saying that local election funding and help can only come from people who live within that district. OK?

Now: Who would more likely vote for that, a DSA candidate or a traditional power Dem?

Quote

Koch is worse, but the DSA is also wrong. 

Both sides, ya know?

Quote

But you dont want to build a coalition to get them out in your district.

I don't? Why am I giving all this money to Lizzie Fletcher? Are you telling me she's not DSA? lol

Quote

 Good job you're doing down there. 

You're full of righteous anger for someone who lives in a district that thinks like he does and always will talking to someone who has organized for years for progressive causes in a tough district. Weird stuff. Brain worms.

Quote

B-t is a no compromise guy though and hes the one canvassing a center right district with that message.

I am? That's happening? How intricate is your fantasy world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

Except they haven't really enacted anything except a tax law. But they're an anti government party, they dont need to enact anything. It's harder to pass a funding bill than it is to kill one. 

 

Exactly.  Republicans lower the tax rates every 10 years or so.  Every other domestic policy they campaign on ends in spectacular failure.  They will be talking about privatizing Social Security and appointing conservative justices to overturn Roe v. Wade in perpetuity.  Meanwhile, the Democrats actually get what they want, just not immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

The majority of young people are always more likely to support of those beliefs until they get older and aren't so supportive anymore.

This argument needs to die. Generations are different and society changes. I'm more liberal in my 40s than I was in my 20s. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Except they haven't really enacted anything except a tax law. But they're an anti government party, they dont need to enact anything. It's harder to pass a funding bill than it is to kill one. 

 

They have systemically disenfranchised people so the left / right paradigm is just shades of right. By saying this in the only range of positions, we limited the conversation allowing republican to win the debate before it began. 

If the left can create a voting block as passionate and dedicated to the party as evangelicals then the left won’t need fake moderates 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Exactly.  Republicans lower the tax rates every 10 years or so.  Every other domestic policy they campaign on ends in spectacular failure.  They will be talking about privatizing Social Security and appointing conservative justices to overturn Roe v. Wade in perpetuity.  Meanwhile, the Democrats actually get what they want, just not immediately.

How many Supreme Court justices?

the right has been systemically eroding liberties for decdes so I would argue their strategy has worked very well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's the concern from Bad Dems like jimmyjazz and Fondren.

They're worried that if a bunch of people start saying, "Hey, we should have universal healthcare, kids should be able to go to college for free, and women should get paid time off when they have a kid", that reasonable-moderate people will be so terrified of this insane leftism that those reasonable-moderate people will vote for this...

Do I have that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So here's the concern from Bad Dems like jimmyjazz and Fondren.

They're worried that if a bunch of people start saying, "Hey, we should have universal healthcare, kids should be able to go to college for free, and women should get paid time off when they have a kid", that reasonable-moderate people will be so terrified of this insane leftism that those reasonable-moderate people will vote for this...

Do I have that right?

Exactly, this logic led to candidates like John Kerry, John Edwards, Hilldog, etc.  

the establishment left loses when they moderate.  

Edited by Washpark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So here's the concern from Bad Dems like jimmyjazz and Fondren.

They're worried that if a bunch of people start saying, "Hey, we should have universal healthcare, kids should be able to go to college for free, and women should get paid time off when they have a kid", that reasonable-moderate people will be so terrified of this insane leftism that those reasonable-moderate people will vote for this...

Do I have that right?

You have it wrong. Theyll vote for this. 

455077e4c3ec00033e6a49f89382b3fe.jpg

Which was around 15 years before Trump. Yet he will be right there in 2019 to deny science and block DACA or ICE reform. Because you dont understand that the center in your district wants to end internment camps, bring DACA back, and reform but not abolish ICE.  You could possibly get them on board with universal healthcare and paid family leave later.

Follow the Doug Jones model and move left. You dont live in a progressive district. 

BTW, leftists like me understand that paid family leave is important for fathers as well as mothers, you sexist.  And my state already has it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dems ought to steal some Republican music for a change.

You've got to stand for somethin' or you'll fall for anything...You've got to be your own man not a puppet on a string 
Never compromise what's right and uphold your family name 
You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

This argument needs to die. Generations are different and society changes. I'm more liberal in my 40s than I was in my 20s. 

 

 

Not to mention there's a huge difference in the economies millennials and Gen Z (or whatever they're called) know and what Boomers and X'ers inherited.  

The Great Depression led us towards The New Deal.  The economic anxieties today's young adults face could easily influence them to continue to push for a much larger social safety net even as they get older.

 

https://www.axios.com/one-big-thing-being-30-then-and-now-1531229570-b03dd961-0c1e-4734-a577-78c28ae346d9.html

 

Quote

Being 30 then and now

In the mid-to-late-20th century, the American economy and culture were ripe for 30-year-old men, who — more than European and Japanese — typically landed well-paid careers, bought homes, and supported large families. But since then, getting ahead has become much harder.

What's going on: Today, 30-year-old millennials are more likely to be still living with their parents and, while earning about the same or less than boomers, are typically saddled with college debt.

One consequence: Possible trouble for an older generation that will rely on them doing better.

The background: Millennials now comprise almost a quarter of the population and are the largest generation participating in the workforce. But their median salaries are lower than the prior generation of 30-year-olds, and the financial burdens they carry are heavier, limiting how much their lifestyle can mirror that of their parents

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

You have it wrong. Theyll vote for this. 

455077e4c3ec00033e6a49f89382b3fe.jpg

Which was around 15 years before Trump. Yet he will be right there in 2019 to deny science and block DACA or ICE reform. Because you dont understand that the center in your district wants to end internment camps, bring DACA back, and reform but not abolish ICE.  You could possibly get them on board with universal healthcare and paid family leave later.

Follow the Doug Jones model and move left. You dont live in a progressive district. 

BTW, leftists like me understand that paid family leave is important for fathers as well as mothers, you sexist.  And my state already has it. 

Has Fletcher come out in favor of abolishing ICE, or was she the the center-left moderate candidate who crushed Moser in the runoff while making no promises other than she was notCulberson? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Washpark said:

They have systemically disenfranchised people so the left / right paradigm is just shades of right. By saying this in the only range of positions, we limited the conversation allowing republican to win the debate before it began. 

If the left can create a voting block as passionate and dedicated to the party as evangelicals then the left won’t need fake moderates 

Progressives have always been that voting bloc for the Dems. You do realize that evangelicals dont get their tent pole desires, right? The rest of us still have freedom of religion, abortion is legal, gay marriage is legal. In spite of their reliable vote, they get tax cuts and ridiculous gun rights which arent in their wish list top 10.

I agree on disenfranchisement, but I fail to see how drumming up the progressive vote in already progressive districts helps that. You need to be hammering your state officials for that, and lead registration drives in moderate districts focusing more on state elections than federal at first. 

Edited by FondrenRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

But she's already a hypocrite before she has even won the general election. 

Maybe you're right.

According to this article she criticized Crowley, saying: 

Quote

“Not all Democrats are the same,” she said in her May campaign video, adding — her voice rising with emotion — that a Democrat who “doesn’t send his kids to our schools, doesn’t drink our water or breathe our air cannot possibly represent us.”

But evidently her parents decided that "our schools" weren't good enough for her. From the same article:

Quote

As a child, she was sent to school in Yorktown in Westchester County because of the dearth of quality schools in the Bronx.

Also,

Quote

She attacked Mr. Crowley for taking corporate money, for not living in the district and for looking increasingly unlike the constituents of the Bronx and Queens he was elected to represent

How is it possible to ignore her not-so-subtle reference to Crowley’s skin color? Race is certainly a factor in some races but most politicians would be castigated for referencing an opponents skin color.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

While I disagree with b_t on shutting out moderates, I disagree with Fondren that progressives have held back progressive legislation by their insistence on purity.  The far left has bit the bullet for years and gotten behind compromise bullshit like the ACA, and what has it gotten them?  Not even the ACA, which is getting torn apart before our eyes.  The moderation of the Clinton years was a disaster for the left in many ways.

The alternative was continued Republican control of the White House. Clinton took the party toward the center because Republicans held the presidency for 12 years. What they needed was for Gore to win in 2000. He would've moved the party to the left, but not Bernie left, and may have halted the GOP's descent to the far right. Likewise a Hillary victory in 2016 may have forced some moderation on the Republican Party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cacti said:

But evidently her parents decided that "our schools" weren't good enough for her. From the same article:

I hate hypocritical children who go to the schools their parents send them to. What a bitch.

22 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Which was around 15 years before Trump. Yet he will be right there in 2019 to deny science and block DACA or ICE reform. Because you dont understand that the center in your district wants to end internment camps, bring DACA back, and reform but not abolish ICE.  You could possibly get them on board with universal healthcare and paid family leave later.

Who the hell do you think the Dem candidates running against Culberson have been? Do you think the Dems have been going after him with progressive leftism?

Tell me more about how my red district works. I am so glad that a dark-blue-district Dem is 'splaining red state politics because he is mad that someone was mean to his Online friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The alternative was continued Republican control of the White House. Clinton took the party toward the center because Republicans held the presidency for 12 years. What they needed was for Gore to win in 2000. He would've moved the party to the left, but not Bernie left, and may have halted the GOP's descent to the far right. Likewise a Hillary victory in 2016 may have forced some moderation on the Republican Party. 

The funny thing is that Al Gore is still 6 years younger than Bernie and 2 younger than Trump and the same age as Hillary.  He ran in 2000. They ran in 2016. Dems need someone the age of Obama or Gore when they ran. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aqua Buddha said:

People like the poster above are obsessed with her, know everything about her, but can't tell you one thing about their own Congressman.

So, basically, she's Nancy Pelosi 2.0. 

Lamar Smith has been very helpful whenever I've needed...and I know he's not a POS Socialist. 

So in my book, he's doing the Lords work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I hate hypocritical children who go to the schools their parents send them to. What a bitch.

Who the hell do you think the Dem candidates running against Culberson have been? Do you think the Dems have been going after him with progressive leftism?

Tell me more about how my red district works. I am so glad that a dark-blue-district Dem is 'splaining red state politics because he is mad that someone was mean to his Online friends.

She didnt go to local schools and doesnt have kids. What does she know about them? And its hypocritical because if/when she does have kids, they will absolutely go to school in the DC area so they can be near their mom. Even Barron moved to DC and Donald is hardly there.  And the schools are fine in her district where Crowley has residence. If he lived there most of the time, I'm sure he would send them there.   Anyway, I hope he doesn't come back full time because his interference in city politics is irritating. Hopefully, she doesnt make the same mistake and pretend she is on the city council from time to time. 

As for your district, you're the one saying you're pushing universal healthcare and free college. Maybe you're just a liar. That's fine. 

Edited by FondrenRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

The funny thing is that Al Gore is still 6 years younger than Bernie and 2 younger than Trump and the same age as Hillary.  He ran in 2000. They ran in 2016. Dems need someone the age of Obama or Gore when they ran. 

Dems need someone like Gore ASAP.  I would gladly vote Gore to restore the balance alone and I think he'd be a better President than Bush/Obama.  It would also pull the party away from this flirting with overt socialism stunt and that would be a good thing.  Going too far left really weakens the party and by extension the entire US government. 

1 hour ago, relapse98 said:

2, 3, 1

2,1,3

Edited by udaydanceparty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, markstanco said:

 

Curious on how the leftsist and righties on here think about her.

 

There are a lot of righties who are SUPER concerned about her, but have no idea who their Congressperson is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

Dems need someone like Gore ASAP.  I would gladly vote Gore to restore the balance alone and I think he'd be a better President than Bush/Obama.  It would also pull the party away from this flirting with overt socialism stunt and that would be a good thing.  Going too far left really weakens the party and by extension the entire US government. 

2,1,3

No overt socialists are running for Dem offices. Bernieists are looking for universal healthcare like the rest of the modern world. They're also looking for fair and just labor laws. Nobody wants to nationalize industry. 

Gore's top issue is climate change. I cant imagine youd ne happy with him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Health insurance should be decoupled from employment. 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Am I the only one left who still opposes Single Payer Healthcare? I like my amazing employer healthcare that is $400 for my entire family with low copay. I think people should choose better employers if they want better healthcare, or at the very minimum it should be part of their calculus when weighing where and for whom they work, is that wrong? Am I wrong here?

Not sure if serious. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Progressives have always been that voting bloc for the Dems. You do realize that evangelicals dont get their tent pole desires, right? The rest of us still have freedom of religion, abortion is legal, gay marriage is legal. In spite of their reliable vote, they get tax cuts and ridiculous gun rights which arent in their wish list top 10.

I agree on disenfranchisement, but I fail to see how drumming up the progressive vote in already progressive districts helps that. You need to be hammering your state officials for that, and lead registration drives in moderate districts focusing more on state elections than federal at first. 

It hasn't been binary. Conservatives have had incremental legislative wins in erosion of women's rights, expansion of fun laws, etc. They use the emotional issues to drive their voters to the polls but still implement broadly conservative policies while making incremental successes on the emotional issues. 

I'd argue that conservatives have been extremely successful at implementing their policies but just haven't had to pass sweeping legislation that does it in one act. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

Given the track record of epic failure of progressive legislation I cannot fathom anyone wanting more of it. 

You mean like Kansas? Oh, wait. That is exactly the policies Republicans advocate and has been an catastrophic failure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Yea I'm serious. Maybe it's my capitalism showing ,but I feel that way with other things too. I don't like the idea of luck and foresight and risk and hard work and gambles being taken out the decision calculus of things and instead forcing people to pay for others to have these things. "Free" college education, "free" healthcare, free this, free that.

And before anyone accuses me of not understanding how taxes work or how much our military budget is or any other quasi-non-sequitur, I'm for being taxed the least and minimally viably much as possible. 

You dont understand capitalism too much if you think your premium is 400 a month. Your employer subsidizes the rest of it. And in doing so, prevents you from maximizing your own potential in a capitalist system. Perhaps you arent so good at what you do. I dont know you. But if you are good, you should live in environment where you can maximize your potential for your own gain and compete with your current employer. But if you or someone in your family have an expensive preexisting condition, you are stuck.  Youd be much better off as a capitalist with single payer or at least with insurance portability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...