(CNN)- Last Thursday, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) announced her plan to raise money to help victims of the extreme weather -- and power grid failure -- in Texas.
On Sunday night, her office confirmed that she had raised almost $5 million for that effort in less than 96 hours.
Obviously, the most important thing here is that millions more dollars will go to Texans still struggling to find potable water and deal with the damage from last week's deep freeze. (Ocasio-Cortez also traveled to the state over the weekend to see the situation firsthand.)
But it's also extremely important -- in terms of AOC's political future -- to note how incredible it is for a second-term House member to be able to raise so much money so quickly for a cause she chose to advocate for.
Many politicians -- especially in the House -- don't (and can't) raise $5 million in the course of a two-year election cycle. That AOC can do so by simply saying she wanted to help Texans who were hurting speaks to not only her immense national donor base but also the level of allegiance those people feel for her.
Remember this: For all the bad press money in politics gets, it remains one of the best ways to gauge loyalty and passion for a candidate. If you can get lots of people to open their wallets for you, it means they truly believe in you and what you are doing in the public space.
When you can raise $5 million for a cause -- and not even one in your state or having anything to do with you -- in the space of four days, well, that's real power.
It's that power that has even Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (New York) bending over backward to make nice with AOC -- and court the liberal left -- in hopes of keeping her from primarying him in 2022. (She hasn't ruled out a bid yet.)
It's that power that makes every Democrat ambitious for national office -- whether in 2024 or beyond -- acknowledge that AOC is a prime mover in any presidential primary race she decides to compete in. (AOC will turn 35 just before the 2024 election, which makes her technically eligible to serve as president.)
And it's that power that, in the near term, makes AOC her own power center within the House. Because when you can raise money in the millions over a few days, every single member of the Democratic-controlled House wants to be on your good side.
To be clear: Of course AOC didn't raise this money to show her fundraising and political might. But that's what it showed anyway.
The Point: No one seems to have a good grasp on what AOC wants to do next. But her ability to raise lots of money very quickly means there is very little that is out of her reach, politically speaking.
You're just a hater. You can't be her so run her down... very unbecoming look for you. She just went out of her way to raise 5 million for a red state after being stalked in the capitol insurrection... She's a better person than both of us.
Kind of hard for a public figure to raise 5 million online in a few days and nobody know... I have no idea why you would post a partial bible verse in this thread unless it was meant to somehow degrade her for doing a good deed. smh, I hope that wasn't what you meant.
You're just a hater. You can't be her so run her down... very unbecoming look for you. She just went out of her way to raise 5 million for a red state after being stalked in the capitol insurrection... She's a better person than both of us.
Stalked at the Capital?
That's laughable. You're showing the same brainwashing you showed for Bernie. It's scary how much the left is a bunch of brainless lemmings. You'll believe anything. If she said she washes her butt with brillo pads because it saves water, you'd go out and buy some lol.
Don't take it wrong... loud ladies have never been a problem for me. Ever. I actually married one, and still dig our backs&forths, after 38 years.
I can enjoy me some AOC and some Eve.
Know what I could really enjoy? -A mic-to-mic cage match between the two of you.
Old-time Jazz players used to have 'open mic night.' Young studs would come onstage, take their best solos... and try to take down the old Masters. They were called; "Cutting Contests." Rap battles are the most recent version of this.
This would be the first (and probably only) pay-per-view I'd pony up cash for.
I already wash my butt with Brillo. It's made in my hometown and we all know it's beauty secrets. But don't ever try to use it as a bowl filter, words of wisdom.
Don't take it wrong... loud ladies have never been a problem for me. Ever. I actually married one, and still dig our backs&forths, after 38 years.
I can enjoy me some AOC and some Eve.
Know what I could really enjoy? -A mic-to-mic cage match between the two of you.
Old-time Jazz players used to have 'open mic night.' Young studs would come onstage, take their best solos... and try to take down the old Masters. They were called; "Cutting Contests." Rap battles are the most recent version of this.
This would be the first (and probably only) pay-per-view I'd pony up cash for.
Yeah, boy-
Eve v. AOC. With mics. Or mud.
Where do I send my cash?
I've seen angry fighting women of almost every race. I would not bet against an angry latina or black woman in this sort of contest. Ever.
Don't take it wrong... loud ladies have never been a problem for me. Ever. I actually married one, and still dig our backs&forths, after 38 years.
I can enjoy me some AOC and some Eve.
Know what I could really enjoy? -A mic-to-mic cage match between the two of you.
Old-time Jazz players used to have 'open mic night.' Young studs would come onstage, take their best solos... and try to take down the old Masters. They were called; "Cutting Contests." Rap battles are the most recent version of this.
This would be the first (and probably only) pay-per-view I'd pony up cash for.
Yeah, boy-
Eve v. AOC. With mics. Or mud.
Where do I send my cash?
I've seen angry fighting women of almost every race. I would not bet against an angry latina or black woman in this sort of contest. Ever.
Just pointing that out is all...
Pretty sure I can take her. Book her for UFC 260 Girl Fight Main Card.
Don't take it wrong... loud ladies have never been a problem for me. Ever. I actually married one, and still dig our backs&forths, after 38 years.
I can enjoy me some AOC and some Eve.
Know what I could really enjoy? -A mic-to-mic cage match between the two of you.
Old-time Jazz players used to have 'open mic night.' Young studs would come onstage, take their best solos... and try to take down the old Masters. They were called; "Cutting Contests." Rap battles are the most recent version of this.
This would be the first (and probably only) pay-per-view I'd pony up cash for.
Yeah, boy-
Eve v. AOC. With mics. Or mud.
Where do I send my cash?
I've seen angry fighting women of almost every race. I would not bet against an angry latina or black woman in this sort of contest. Ever.
I could see how 99% of our politicians would be confused about how she did what she did. For human beings, though... it's not hard to understand.
As much as I despise her politics, I have no doubt that she believes what she says, and thinks it's the best thing for this country. People can tell if you believe what you're saying, and same for the opposite. Explaining that to the likes of Ted Cruz, McConnell, Pelosi in Schumer would be... difficult. They would think I'm speaking a different language when trying to explain authenticity and doing things to support others in need.
I've thought that, too, and it's led me to a lot of internal conflict. I think my core views differ from people like AOC, but I also believe her to be one of the more altruistic, genuine politicians.
Do I feel like she is at times misguided or does not fully think things through? Of course. But when you juxtapose her against other representatives (Jordan, Pelosi, Gaetz, etc.) there seems - at least to me - to be a glaring difference in conviction.
I feel the exact same way about Bernie. Even though my politics are pretty much polar opposite of him, I respect his authenticity and care and, regardless of your political leanings, I think there will always be room in government for people that have that.
Isn't that the way it used to be? Many people disagreed on political issues but for the most part we didn't question the sincerity of those disagreeing with us. We may have had different visions for our country or had different ideas of how to go about accomplishing our untended goals, but by and large we knew those on the other side had the best of intentions for our nation whether we found it misguided or not.
When people start electing people who spew hate, labels and lies, willing to spread division as best they possibly can. When those are the very things people start to rally behind as the message for our nation at the highest level, we have turned a corner we may never return from.
As for "the stunning political power of AOC"?
Hell, that old stoner Willie Nelson raises more money than that at Farm Aid.
Isn't that the way it used to be? Many people disagreed on political issues but for the most part we didn't question the sincerity of those disagreeing with us. We may have had different visions for our country or had different ideas of how to go about accomplishing our untended goals, but by and large we knew those on the other side had the best of intentions for our nation whether we found it misguided or not.
When people start electing people who spew hate, labels and lies, willing to spread division as best they possibly can. When those are the very things people start to rally behind as the message for our nation at the highest level, we have turned a corner we may never return from.
As for "the stunning political power of AOC"?
Hell, that old stoner Willie Nelson raises more money than that at Farm Aid.
All true, but the publics distrust in those making the decisions, goes back long before Trump, yet we don't seem to be able to turn those seats over to new blood nearly quick enough.
From reading the responses to this thread I don't actually see that many people questioning her sincerity. Sure there are some and there always will be.
I attribute it to the political climate that has been carefully orchestrated and nurtured. It's been fed and even been given steroids. What we may see differently is that I think you can apply that to both sides.
It's certainly a terrible thing to watch and it's an infection that seems to be trending towards Sepsis. The only thing I can think of is that it helps us to see "who they are". Once again, I'm saying this about both sides.
As we can see by the responses a lot of people disagree with her political views but do not question her sincerity. Then there are those that have tried to stoop to the level of questioning her honesty and sincerity.
I actually like to see that. What it actually shows me is that we still have a lot of people who simply disagree on political ideology. What we seem to be spoon fed is that everyone who votes differently than us hates and attacks everyone on the other side of politics.
What the responses in general to this topic shows us is that this is not as wide spread as some politicians and the media make it out to be. The squeaky wheel gets greased first. What we base a lot of our opinions on seem to be the squeaky wheel. Those who scream the loudest and have the news coverage to be heard.
When you can actually get a conversation started between just a bunch of voters, which is what we do here, come to find out many of us do not seem to follow what we are being told is the status quo.
For sure, and I wish I could identify the root causes more easily, but respect has completely gone out the window. It's like a cyclical fight where the anger and spite of one just ramps up the anger and fight in the other.
There's no doubt this all started out long before Trump. Adding the HGH only sped up the process.
And I certainly don't disagree with you about the trust issue. Which makes your last point even more confusing. It seems as though most voters will tell you they distrust congress. They distrust our government. Until it comes to "their guys" who they elect. Then suddenly it isn't a problem. I have to try and look at that from a comical standpoint or it would be terribly upsetting.
I can't really blame anyone of having mistrust in our government. Even if it's only from an efficiency standpoint. I certainly feel a vast majority of people would agree with that coming from both parties.
Sadly that doesn't change the options we've been left with. And yes, it's mainly our own damned fault. We have two very different political parties with what seem to be starkly different ideologies. One claims they want smaller government. Yet while making such claims spend as much or more than their opponents. Then we have the other side which seems to be trying to put the federal government in charge of everything. That's where we are.
I'll use the stimulus as an example. One side wishes to put a band aid on a bullet wound while the other side wants to make it rain. In the end it turns out to be a political football rather than actually addressing the pressing need.
And it's also created a system where votes pass or fail based on the "who" and not on the "what"?
Sometimes it feels like if Congress had a bill to save 100 people from a burning building, it would still pass or fail on party lines based on who proposed it.
I don't think the two sides are really all that different, to be honest.
Other than that minor point, I completely agree with you. I think one of the main reason this sepsis is allowed to continue is because the vast majority of the voting population succumbs to whatever fear their side is spreading. I think that's a (or the) main root cause of why you can have such wildly unpopular people lock down their elected positions (sometimes for decades). I could be wrong, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find CA Dems that would go to bat for Nancy Pelosi based on her record and just her as a candidate. Same thing for McConnell, Graham, Cruz, Schumer. I think those people rake in the votes because they weaponize fear and people vote for them because they are afraid of the candidate from the other main party and third parties don't get any airtime whatsoever.
IMO, the only way we can actually drain the swamp is churn. As a rule, every voter should NOT vote for the incumbent, ever. It sounds nuts, but we start doing that as voters, politicians will take notice... and I think people are so fed up with this group of clowns, as a whole, I wouldn't be shocked to see something like this happen (basically, give Congress a sortof WallStreetBets treatment).
I wish I could share your optimism on the future churn rate. I do agree with you that both sides try and use the fear factor to generate support.
Where we may disagree is that when you elect a man who wields more power than anyone in our nation who claims anyone who disagrees with him is the enemy of the United States and and will end America as you know it, the heat was turned up to a level the likes of which we have never seen before.
Where we may disagree is that when you elect a man who wields more power than anyone in our nation who claims anyone who disagrees with him is the enemy of the United States and and will end America as you know it, the heat was turned up to a level the likes of which we have never seen before.
We do not disagree. I understand/understood the painful decision many had to make. I've voted 3rd party in every pres election I've participated in until this one.
Where we may disagree is that when you elect a man who wields more power than anyone in our nation who claims anyone who disagrees with him is the enemy of the United States and and will end America as you know it, the heat was turned up to a level the likes of which we have never seen before.
We do not disagree. I understand/understood the painful decision many had to make. I've voted 3rd party in every pres election I've participated in until this one.
Isn't that the way it used to be? Many people disagreed on political issues but for the most part we didn't question the sincerity of those disagreeing with us. We may have had different visions for our country or had different ideas of how to go about accomplishing our untended goals, but by and large we knew those on the other side had the best of intentions for our nation whether we found it misguided or not.
When people start electing people who spew hate, labels and lies, willing to spread division as best they possibly can. When those are the very things people start to rally behind as the message for our nation at the highest level, we have turned a corner we may never return from.
As for "the stunning political power of AOC"?
Hell, that old stoner Willie Nelson raises more money than that at Farm Aid.
But willie couldn't put a 1000 pink hat wearing angry women on your yard in half an hour with a single tweet, AOC could. Truth told, maybe 10,000.
I think the level of pain, disgust and repulsion varies from person to person. I know the vast majority of the time when I vote I certainly don't get a warm, fuzzy feeling.
My vote really doesn't matter. Trump won Tennessee with 66% of the vote in 2016 and by 61.9% of the vote in 2020.
Which accomplishes nothing except to promote ugly looking hats.
She is successful in getting elected in an extremely liberal part of the country.
I don't think you have a clue how powerful she really is. She could tweet at 5 pm that she will be live streaming at 8pm to address an issue and have a million viewers watching the stream at 8, and NOT just in her district. She is truly loved on the left. If and when she runs for a higher office, you will see. That's why Schumer is crapping his pants over the thinly veiled primary threat. She would destroy him in a primary.
Where we may disagree is that when you elect a man who wields more power than anyone in our nation who claims anyone who disagrees with him is the enemy of the United States and and will end America as you know it, the heat was turned up to a level the likes of which we have never seen before.
We do not disagree. I understand/understood the painful decision many had to make. I've voted 3rd party in every pres election I've participated in until this one.
Really? Was it that painful? Really?
Voting for Biden was painful, yes. Voting against Trump was not (I assume that's what you're getting at).
I'm sure if you did a little digging on this board (on account I don't post much) I have said it before that I think of all the folks in Washington I think her hearts in the right place. Politically I rarely see her point of view. I think politically she is more wrong than right but she fights the good fight. Same with Bernie Sanders. I think deep down he is who he is. Most of these other folks in Washington are POS's left, right and all points in between. Cruz, Schumer, McConnel, Pelosi=all garbage.
But here's the thing. She has everyone's attention. She knows how to use social media. She tweets, the right has fit, the left has an orgasm. She gets quoted by the mainstream and has her name dropped so often you'd think she's the only one on capital hill. The media pushes her like a drug. 435 members of congress to choose from and it seems they all run to the usual suspects AOC included.
But you all can say what you want. I'm reading the tea leaves and I think she's the future of the Democratic Party. That's either a good thing or the worst thing. Depends upon perspectives and boy do we got those!
So yeah, heart's in the right place, brain lags a bit behind at times, but if she can shake things up, all the power to her!
Which accomplishes nothing except to promote ugly looking hats.
She is successful in getting elected in an extremely liberal part of the country.
I don't think you have a clue how powerful she really is. She could tweet at 5 pm that she will be live streaming at 8pm to address an issue and have a million viewers watching the stream at 8, and NOT just in her district. She is truly loved on the left. If and when she runs for a higher office, you will see. That's why Schumer is crapping his pants over the thinly veiled primary threat. She would destroy him in a primary.
That's what I'm thinking too. Remember, when Justice Ginsberg died he put on a show in front of the camera with a cardboard sign with Ginsberg's dying words written on it and he was asking if we should honor her dying words and of course who was standing next to him? AOC.
And he's doing that a lot now I've noticed, with her.
Chuck Schumer is a tool and other four letter words. So I hope she does run against him.
If she bends him to her will over the next two years, she won't. If he moves right one iota she will. Simple as that. I think she has her eye on 2024 or 2028. She's just deciding if she needs a stint in the Senate on her resume first.
If she bends him to her will over the next two years, she won't. If he moves right one iota she will. Simple as that.
And that right there is why she'll never be a Dem Pres nominee. She'd get Bernie'd straight out the gate. Part of her shtick is incumbent Dems out for Progressives... you think the DNC won't keep a grudge over that?
Sure, as long as they have that power. This will just get laughed at in here but if you haven't noticed, progressive numbers across the country are on a steep rise.
If you look at AOC and the Dems - she's sort of like the Republican version of Trump. Forget the actual policies and personalities - just look at the support they garner and where the support comes from.
They are both 'extreme' or hard left/right - they garner some of the most passionate and vocal supporters of the 'party' .... but their 'base' is a relatively small % of the whole party. As we saw vs Hilary - the GOP would vote for anyone including Satan rather than allow Hilary to be POTUS. They'd probably feel exactly the same way about AOC. Dems would probably vote for anyone other than Trump. But if either party put up a Centrist against AOC / Trump ... I think the Centrist wins easily.
Trump / AOC are the fringes. They get loud vocal and passionate support ... that does not mean they garner overwhelming support from the party they allegedly represent. Just my take.
That may be, but shifts like what you're talking about don't happen very quickly... or anywhere near quick enough for an AOC run within the next 2 or 3 elections.
More to the point, though... in spite of her political views, she'd actually give me a long pause about who I vote for (especially considering the duds the Republicans (and even many 3rd parties) have been pushing out there lately).
If you look at AOC and the Dems - she's sort of like the Republican version of Trump. Forget the actual policies and personalities - just look at the support they garner and where the support comes from.
They are both 'extreme' or hard left/right - they garner some of the most passionate and vocal supporters of the 'party' .... but their 'base' is a relatively small % of the whole party. As we saw vs Hilary - the GOP would vote for anyone including Satan rather than allow Hilary to be POTUS. They'd probably feel exactly the same way about AOC. Dems would probably vote for anyone other than Trump. But if either party put up a Centrist against AOC / Trump ... I think the Centrist wins easily.
Trump / AOC are the fringes. They get loud vocal and passionate support ... that does not mean they garner overwhelming support from the party they allegedly represent. Just my take.
That may be, but shifts like what you're talking about don't happen very quickly... or anywhere near quick enough for an AOC run within the next 2 or 3 elections.
More to the point, though... in spite of her political views, she'd actually give me a long pause about who I vote for (especially considering the duds the Republicans (and even many 3rd parties) have been pushing out there lately).
I'll give you that under normal (old) circumstances, but people are pissed in this country and looking for a people first government for a change, so we will see. I think it's more plausible than you think, MAYBE less than I think.
Just like 888s comment, the "extremes" seem to have the most popular policies right now. Bernie's platform on the left along with AOC's GND are driving the left... Biden will attempt to derail that support, but he's not denying it.
And the GOPers can't get past Trump because his followers want what he wanted. I hate his platform, but his supporters are rabbid for it.
Name a centrist platform that enjoys this support... the country might have more moderate voters, but even moderates like many of these ideas much more than the status quo of the last 40 years.
Name a centrist platform that enjoys this support...
Biden. 84 Million Votes.
You and pit act like progressives didn't support Biden. MANY supported Biden to get rid of Trump, not because they like anything about Biden's platform. But I can see you are incapable of seeing this.
The only thing the centrist moderate left did was get Biden the nomination over Bernie with the overwhelming help of MSM, a cheating DNC, and Corps. That's real popular. Try winning with that again.
'The Game' for politicians is gathering and keeping as many votes as possible... so the fact that DNC Dems really couldn't care less about keeping Progressives happy says a lot, IMO.
Louder doesn't always equal more popular/larger group of people. Many times (especially in politics) it just means you have people that have really big mouths.
'The Game' for politicians is gathering and keeping as many votes as possible... so the fact that DNC Dems really couldn't care less about keeping Progressives happy says a lot, IMO.
Louder doesn't always equal more popular/larger group of people. Many times (especially in politics) it just means you have people that have really big mouths.
Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and look at it after the next POTUS election.
2016 was really eye-opening for me. Watching the fervor for Bernie get pushed aside like it was nothing for Hillary was incredible and revealed a lot about the DNC. My two (boiled down) takeaways are the following...
1. Loudest support doesn't always mean most support 2. The nomination truly comes before the vote... meaning the DNC keeps tight control of their party, and you better be in good with them.
Here is an example of where Joe is at and how his platform is doing a month in...
Americans satisfaction with US more than doubles since January: poll
Americans’ satisfaction with the U.S. has more than doubled since January, according to a Gallup poll released Friday.
Gallup found that 27 percent of U.S. adults are satisfied with the way things are going in the U.S., up from just 11 percent that said the same in January.
Satisfaction with the U.S. fell late last year as the coronavirus pandemic raged and former President Trump sought to dispute President Biden’s victory, Gallup noted.
The poll also found that Democrats are driving national satisfaction. Forty-five percent of respondents that identified as Democrats said they are satisfied, up 40 points from January. This survey is the first since Democrats took control of the White House and both chambers of Congress
By comparison, 27 percent of independents said they were happy with the U.S., compared to 14 percent last month. However, only six percent of Republicans are satisfied now, compared to 14 percent in January.
The poll also found that the coronavirus pandemic has passed government leadership as the most important issue facing the country.
Twenty-six percent of Americans say that the coronavirus pandemic is the most important problem facing the country, while 19 percent said the government and poor leadership is the most pressing issue.
Gallup surveyed 1,021 adults aged 18 and older between Feb. 3-18. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Although it's a significant increase over Trump, it's still only 27%. I imagine it will top out at 35-40% and stay there for the duration of his term... I can say this because I don't think Joe Biden himself or his leadership really inspires anybody. I just hope it doesn't drop to Trump levels thereby opening the door for another Trump term or worse.
Name a centrist platform that enjoys this support...
Biden. 84 Million Votes.
You and pit act like progressives didn't support Biden. MANY supported Biden to get rid of Trump, not because they like anything about Biden's platform. But I can see you are incapable of seeing this.
The only thing the centrist moderate left did was get Biden the nomination over Bernie with the overwhelming help of MSM, a cheating DNC, and Corps. That's real popular. Try winning with that again.
You are deliberately missing the point.
If AOC / Bernie ran in the last election ... do they get 84 million votes? No. Do they win the election ... maybe - maybe not.
Claiming you have the most support is in correct. The most support is for a Centrist. The rate of change to progressive policies is NOT as fast as you believe. No where near.
We disagree on that. IF (<- big if), Bernie had been the nominee, I think it would have been the same or greater win IMHO. He's very popular, and like the choice progressives were given, Bernie or Trump, I think most of the center would have held their nose and voted Bernie. But it's all moot now anyway and there will never be an answer to the question of "what if?" after the fact.
So, just because you believe that, it in no way makes it true. That's just years of anti socialist rhetoric giving you that bias confirmation. And that rhetoric came from centrist just like you and the alt right. Bernie is more popular than Biden and will most likely always be more popular.
We disagree on that. IF (<- big if), Bernie had been the nominee, I think it would have been the same or greater win IMHO. He's very popular, and like the choice progressives were given, Bernie or Trump, I think most of the center would have held their nose and voted Bernie. But it's all moot now anyway and there will never be an answer to the question of "what if?" after the fact.
So, just because you believe that, it in no way makes it true. That's just years of anti socialist rhetoric giving you that bias confirmation. And that rhetoric came from centrist just like you and the alt right. Bernie is more popular than Biden and will most likely always be more popular.
There is a VAST - ENORMOUS difference between popularity and electability. Clearly something you fail to acknowledge or grasp. Carry on.
You and Pit with your fail to grasp... I don't give a rat's ass if you think it's 'vast' and I don't fail to grasp anything. You carry on.
This is just the centrist way of silencing the left... it's a pattern that shows up all over the web, not just in DT. It's been pointed out and talked about in depth by progressives. We see it as a tactic, you see it as gospel. That's why I scoff at y'all so much when you spew garbage like this.
I wouldn't go as far as to argue that point, but I do think that argument is a tool that they used to get Hillary and probably even Biden into the nomination. I'm more than willing to put that argument to the test.
And you pretend you wouldn't need every moderate vote you could get your hands on to elect someone like AOC. It's a two way street. And attacking and pizzing off everyone in your path in the meanwhile is not going to bode well for your kind when the time comes.
What a crock you offered up. Biden's approval rating is over 20% better than what Trump's were. I understand why that's something you wouldn't show people.
What a crock you offered up. Biden's approval rating is over 20% better than what Trump's were. I understand why that's something you wouldn't show people.
Is that what you took away? lmao... 27% is not something to gloat about. And now he's breaking his word on the amount of stimulus, $15 minimum wage, and he bombed syria... Biden is just a centrist dem tool for the donor class... same ole same ole with a new old white face. lmao, he didn't even tell his VP he was bombing syria.
I voted for him because Trump, told you I didn't like him much then and that still applies. BUT I'm giving him every opportunity to live up to his words and to be a president of the people... He actually said he the most progressive president since FDR. We'll see, but he's not off to a good start and losing support fast on the left.
Still you keep reaching. What do you propose a president does when a force attacks American troops? Sit by and do nothing? Or did you even know that there had been bombings on American troops in Iraq lately? If you wish to elect a coward who permits the bombing of our troops while doing nothing, by all means help elect one.
And minimum wage? Who said anyone had given up on minimum wage? Can you explain to me what minimum wage has to do with a Covid stimulus package? I'll help you out with that. Nothing. It's a separate issue.
You've already stated on no uncertain terms you would never vote for a centrist candidate again. You would rather help someone like Trump win by withholding your vote. So don't expect anyone to try and "persuade" to into having any common sense.
Sure, as long as they have that power. This will just get laughed at in here but if you haven't noticed, progressive numbers across the country are on a steep rise.
It’s good that you’ve found a new candidate to have your political fantasies about, the Bernie era was getting stale. You’ll be wrong, once again, but at least it’s with a fresh face.
It’s good that you’ve found a new candidate to have your political fantasies about, the Bernie era was getting stale. You’ll be wrong, once again, but at least it’s with a fresh face.
Sure, as long as they have that power. This will just get laughed at in here but if you haven't noticed, progressive numbers across the country are on a steep rise.
Communism is the word you were looking for.
Right there. Progressives in America are fighting for the exact same programs they have in Europe. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that trying to enact the same programs they have in Europe is communism without claiming that Europe isn't communist. Denying such means your math isn't adding up.
It’s good that you’ve found a new candidate to have your political fantasies about, the Bernie era was getting stale. You’ll be wrong, once again, but at least it’s with a fresh face.
At least she didn't cut and run like Cruz
What does that have to do with her being a viable candidate for President?
What does that have to do with her being a viable candidate for President?
And this is where the rubber meets the road. Let's face it, they see how you have to win a presidential election. They can make all these claims about progressive values and how progressives are becoming greater in numbers.
The problem is when you ask them to show you how a progressive candidate can win the electoral college. As of now they simply can't. Will that change at some point in the future? Maybe, but it's a lot further off than they make it sound.
I'm not against many progressive ideas and programs they support, but that's not really the point here. The point is they need to realize that's not a package you can sell on a national level to win the presidency.
If the worst thing that Pit is a centrist dem, that’s okay. A centrist dem is a lot better than being someone who endorses misogyny and advocates for poll taxes.
If you want, I can pull receipts from when you’ve made misogynistic statements and talked about how only tax payers should be able to vote.
So again, feel free to tell me I’m wrong. I have receipts to support my statements.
I am sure I have, I probably remember many to some degree of accuracy. Lot's of things have been said in this forum and I have said my fair share. It isn't so important to me to keep notes.
Sure, as long as they have that power. This will just get laughed at in here but if you haven't noticed, progressive numbers across the country are on a steep rise.
Communism is the word you were looking for.
Right there. Progressives in America are fighting for the exact same programs they have in Europe. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that trying to enact the same programs they have in Europe is communism without claiming that Europe isn't communist. Denying such means your math isn't adding up.
It’s the Cold War ingrained defense mechanism I referred to in another thread.
It’s good that you’ve found a new candidate to have your political fantasies about, the Bernie era was getting stale. You’ll be wrong, once again, but at least it’s with a fresh face.
At least she didn't cut and run like Cruz
What does that have to do with her being a viable candidate for President?
What? Ask yourself this,, Did you or anyone you know that Obama was a Viable Candidate until he was? Nope.
So you totally wish to dismiss the ideology of the candidates as a part of the equation when it comes to what helped make them viable? The viability of a candidate has a lot to do with their platform which is what attracts voters. It wasn't a magic song or their picture that made them viable.
When you are a virtually unknown candidate the #1 method of garnering support is your political platform.
So you totally wish to dismiss the ideology of the candidates as a part of the equation when it comes to what helped make them viable? The viability of a candidate has a lot to do with their platform which is what attracts voters. It wasn't a magic song or their picture that made them viable.
When you are a virtually unknown candidate the #1 method of garnering support is your political platform.
Now, why would you put words in my mouth... I was speaking to the viability of candidates...
Then let's discuss what makes a candidate viable. There are reasons why unknown candidates become viable. It isn't due to some magic spell. What you did was bring up two very centrist candidates with totally different political leanings than an AOC or Bernie to make such a comparison.
I pointed out the huge contrast between your examples and AOC. Bernie wasn't a viable candidate until he was.... And then he wasn't.
The two you brought up as a comparison have totally different platforms than AOC. If you wish to discuss how an unknown candidate becomes viable, you can't just say that it's happened before and make no comparison between the candidates.
Well I guess you can because you seem to think so.
Some people just say, "It's happened before" and leave it at that. Then there are those who say, "Let's look at why and how it happened."
Then let's discuss what makes a candidate viable. There are reasons why unknown candidates become viable. It isn't due to some magic spell. What you did was bring up two very centrist candidates with totally different political leanings than an AOC or Bernie to make such a comparison.
I pointed out the huge contrast between your examples and AOC. Bernie wasn't a viable candidate until he was.... And then he wasn't.
The two you brought up as a comparison have totally different platforms than AOC. If you wish to discuss how an unknown candidate becomes viable, you can't just say that it's happened before and make no comparison between the candidates.
Well I guess you can because you seem to think so.
Some people just say, "It's happened before" and leave it at that. Then there are those who say, "Let's look at why and how it happened."
What ever,,, someone that wasn't considered viable until they became viable....you can dress it up anyway you want.
What does that have to do with her being a viable candidate for President?
And this is where the rubber meets the road. Let's face it, they see how you have to win a presidential election. They can make all these claims about progressive values and how progressives are becoming greater in numbers.
The problem is when you ask them to show you how a progressive candidate can win the electoral college. As of now they simply can't. Will that change at some point in the future? Maybe, but it's a lot further off than they make it sound.
I'm not against many progressive ideas and programs they support, but that's not really the point here. The point is they need to realize that's not a package you can sell on a national level to win the presidency.
Farce.
When polls steadily show progressive platform ideas have 50-60-70-80 percent national support, the problem isn't the platform. The real problem is the "red scare" tactics used by the establishment corporatists on both sides to continue selling out America for donation bribes. American socialism is part of the fabric of our society dating back to Ben Franklin's fire department and public libraries. Yet the corporatists, MSM, and far right (because they've been lied to) decry socialism at every turn. Even solid American centrist corporatists ideas like a quality infrastructure can't get done in that atmosphere.
And the crazy anti education movement in this country kills any actual good ideas that ANYONE tries to get done. If the political landscape isn't super emotionally charged, most americans ignore it. Decent things like treating those with different sexual preferences the same as hedrosexuals is somehow taboo? Turning that into an attack on religion... smh. I bet Jesus never worried about who loved who in his world. His relationship and probable secret marriage to Mary Magdalene would have been scoffed at today too. smh. And you can't tell me none of his followers were gay. I don't recall him refusing them food, housing, medical care, or a seat in church for that... Oh and Jesus was a huge socialist if he was real at all... but that fact gets overlooked too. An educated electorate would be able to see things as they are and not as they are told they are... hence the dumbing down of America and the increasing extreme tribalism in our politics. If people understood how the draconian rules (not laws) in the Senate are used to stop popular legislation, they would not stand for it. If they understood that many of these rules were created to ensure white dominance in our society, they would not stand for it. If they understood how much money we give to corporations and spend to protect corporate interest while allowing them to struggle to make ends meet, they would not stand for it. And all of this plus many more ridiculous reasons from both sides are why we can't have a government and systems that work for all of us instead a select few.
So no Pit, it has little to do with platform and much more to do with sheep following their corporate masters and regurgitating the lies embedded in the political landscape to atack and to prevent those in power from losing their grip on that power. Any idiot can see the polls showing how popular progressive ideas are and how they are gaining traction into the mainstream but most can't see why those popular ideas don't become American realities because they can't connect the facts and mindlessly swallow the BS they are fed by the powers that be, PERIOD.
You want to know how Progressives have to win? By fighting like hell everywhere this sheepish ignorance rears its head and telling it like it is. Unlike Bernie, AOC does that in spades. I don't know if it will happen in your lifetime boomer, but she will most likely be POTUS in mine.
Wow, about ten minutes after my rant this was published:
Democrats near pressure point on nixing filibuster
The Senate is threatening to box in President Biden and congressional Democrats, who pledged to enact a bold agenda if given power.
With the House passing a slate of big bills and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) vowing to give them a vote on the floor, Democrats are quickly barreling toward a pressure point on whether to nix the legislative filibuster.
Without structural changes in the Senate, progressives warn that many of Biden’s big campaign promises are effectively doomed.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), asked about the progressive criticism, acknowledged, “There’s truth to it.”
“Unfortunately, we've reached that point. And if enough members in the Senate agree, we’ll change the rules,” Durbin said.
The filibuster has come back in the spotlight after the parliamentarian ruled recently that an increase of the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour didn’t comply with rules governing what could be included in the coronavirus legislation.
But there are bigger tests awaiting Senate Democrats as the House sends them a growing number of bills that likely can’t pass with the filibuster intact and wouldn’t meet the requirements of being squeezed into reconciliation.
Just this week, the House passed a sweeping election and ethics reform bill and police reform legislation — neither of which can get 60 votes in its current form. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has lambasted the first, known as H.R. 1, and the second gets rid of a legal shield for police officers, known as qualified immunity. That’s considered a non-starter for most Republicans.
Schumer has also put the Equality Act — a sweeping civil rights bill that expands protections in education, housing, employment and more to LGBT people— on the Senate calendar, a first step to giving the bill a vote.
Schumer, during a weekly press conference, pledged that the Senate would no longer be a “graveyard,” but asked if he was willing to nix the legislative filibuster if Republicans blocked bills, he demurred.
“The bottom line is ... we're going to come together as a caucus and figure out a way to get the bold action the American people demand. But we will put bills on the floor. That's the huge difference between McConnell and us,” Schumer said.
Part of the problem for supporters of nixing the filibuster is that they don’t currently have the votes among Senate Democrats to do it.
A handful of others senators are viewed as wary of nixing the legislative filibuster. Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) are on the record against getting rid of it, positions they both reiterated as recently as this week.
But Democrats are betting the calculus within the caucus changes as they bring up big priorities for the party and Republicans block them from getting the 60 votes needed to overcome initial procedural hurdles.
“When they come to understand the futility of what we're engaged in. We can't even consider serious issues because of the Senate rules, and they have a different point of view,” Durbin said, asked what it would take to get Manchin and Sinema to a different position.
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who is viewed as a key vote on potentially nixing the filibuster, told HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” that the filibuster was now being used to “stonewall” legislation rather than promote bipartisanship.
“I think we do need to go back and take a look at it. But I think we ought to give this Congress a chance to screw up before we change it,” he said.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who hasn’t explicitly come out in favor of gutting the legislative filibuster, predicted that if Democrats try to bring up bills and Republicans routinely block them, that will change the dynamic within the caucus.
“I think if you have an abstract discussion about should we change Senate rules, there’s a lot of people that just aren’t particularly passionate about that discussion. But if we start to get faced with a situation that bills we have repeatedly promised to our voters ... and then we find that Republicans want to block it, then we’ll have to ask ourselves what’s more important, keeping the promises that we made or some artificial Senate rule?” Kaine said.
Kaine added that if the bills were blocked and never passed because of GOP opposition and the Senate rules, it would be Democrats who would face backlash from voters in 2022.
“I think voters — I think they will hold it against the majority, if the majority doesn’t do what we said we would do,” he said.
There’s growing support within the caucus, even as recently as this week, for nixing the legislative filibuster in order to pass key priorities, building pressure on Schumer and Biden.
“I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this, and to be honest I started out believing we should keep the filibuster. ... But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the filibuster has long been the enemy of progress. In fact, it’s been a highly effective tool to thwart the will of the people,” Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) wrote in a Facebook post this week.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who had previously expressed an openness to cutting the filibuster, also told Mother Jones after the House’s passage of H.R. 1 that “I would get rid of the filibuster.”
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who has long supported filibuster reform, said during an MSNBC interview that while the caucus didn’t currently have the votes to get rid of the filibuster, it could potentially reform it.
“One of the reforms we’re thinking about when it comes to the filibuster is just going back to the old days and saying if you want to stop something from passing then you actually have to sit on the floor, you actually have to give speech after speech,” Murphy said.
But to nix or reform the filibuster, Democrats would need every senator in their 50-member caucus and Vice President Harris. It’s not clear if growing support from colleagues or even the prospect of entrenched opposition will sway the caucus’s biggest opponents to getting rid of the rule.
Manchin, during a series of interviews on Sunday, reiterated his opposition to getting rid of the filibuster altogether.
But in remarks that quickly caught the attention of reform advocates, Manchin signaled an openness to making it more “painful” to use the procedural roadblock, including potentially looking at talking filibusters that require opponents to be physically on the floor.
“If you want to make it a little bit more painful, make them stand there and talk. I'm willing to look at any way we can,” Manchin told “Meet the Press.”
"But I am not willing to take away the involvement of the minority," he added. "I've been in the minority."
"But I am not willing to take away the involvement of the minority," he added. "I've been in the minority."
That sums it up right there.
At one time in the past, and at some point in the future, each party has been or will be in the minority. If you totally eliminate their voice, there is no reason to even show up for votes.
I have been against this in the past when some republican tried to float the idea.
What policy has 70-80% support? You could offer people a free cheeseburger with zero financial, environmental, etc negative impact and you probably still couldn't get a 2/3 majority vote.
That's because that cheeseburger would have to have been genetically modified and we don't know the long term consequences of eating GMO food. Plus that wrapper. Made in China. This is going to worsen the trade deficit with them increasing their power. And don't get me started on the free part. All you people want is free handouts. Get a job and quit being so lazy.
I'll be curious to see where AOC's career goes. I do think she's riding a wave of support with policies that have become more popular with the younger half of Gen Y, of which she is a part of, and largely across the board with Gen Z.
As the generations begin to shift, I could see more progressive ideologies weave their way into the mainstream of the Democratic party IF (and that's a big if) the Democratic powers that be stop trying to pull a full court press to contain it. Not saying that I agree with progressives here, but looking at 2016's primaries, and looking at how Pelosi works, Dems, and specifically the DNC have employed a top-down approach to button up their side. A mutual enemy in Trump has helped at that.
If they keep trying to make progressives fall in line, I could eventually see a hostile takeover like the RNC experienced in 2016, where the "expected" candidate(s) were steamrolled. I think some of that depends on whether the Republicans - Trump supporters specifically - stop galvanizing the left.
My memory could be off, but 20 years ago, I felt like it was Ralph Nader and not much else driving a very progressive agenda, and he was never really considered viable. Now, you have Sanders - who I think has more of a voice than Nader - along with a rising number of Progressives in the House of Reps. I imagine at some point they - probably AOC first - will make an attempt to cross over into a Senate seat. If they can pull that off, and still keep their presence in the House - or grow it, even - then I think they could change the landscape.
I agree with you that, right now, they are not viable candidates because they are not centrist enough. As times and generations change though, I think "centrist" might change as well, but I can't even pretend to have foresight into that.
The funny thing to me is that I do see this huge youth movement on the left, but don't really see much on the right, in terms of viable candidates in their 30's. Kinzinger is 43, which surprised me. Dan Crenshaw is the only one I see - who doesn't disgust me and/or scare the hell out of me, at least.
I can't really think of too many centrist Democrats that are up-and-coming either. Tulsi Gabbard, I suppose.
"But I am not willing to take away the involvement of the minority," he added. "I've been in the minority."
That sums it up right there.
At one time in the past, and at some point in the future, each party has been or will be in the minority. If you totally eliminate their voice, there is no reason to even show up for votes.
I have been against this in the past when some republican tried to float the idea.
That's a convenient position after showing unwavering support for Trump as he was blatantly partisan for his entire presidency. GOPers always expect dems to do the right thing while they cheat like hell... they count on it because they think being fair and decent is a dem weakness. I say steamroll the GOP insurrectionists and fix America for working people.
I'm not one for steamrolling, and I get the logic of preserving the filibuster.
However, I do have to say that after the way McConnell conducted himself as majority leader, it would be hard to pass judgment on the Dems for "stepping up the shrewdness" so to speak.
I think throwing the filibuster out isn't a good move, but more to your point it definitely needs to be looked at and adapted. It's clearly being abused and warped into something bad and not what it was intended to be.
One thing to keep in mind with AOC is her district. Where she is now, she and her platform are relatively safe as she was elected from a very progressive area of NY. In terms of 'electability' (however we decide to define that), I think that needs to be taken into account when she tries to advance beyond her house seat and start to represent a broader swath of people.
Someone in office said it has to be more "painful" and I agree with that. I'd be all for the following procedure being put into place:
If it's a Republican filibuster, the member must take the podium and read the script of "The Birdcage" while doing accurate impersonations of each character's voice.
If it's a Democrat filibuster, the member must take the podium and recite arguments about which pickup truck is best for off-roading in Mississippi and why.
I think goal posts are already moving, based on her being elected at all (she took out a bigtime Dem). But expanding beyond a notoriously progressive district to a larger seat (much less the presidency) is a whole 'nother ballgame.
Someone in office said it has to be more "painful" and I agree with that. I'd be all for the following procedure being put into place:
If it's a Republican filibuster, the member must take the podium and read the script of "The Birdcage" while doing accurate impersonations of each character's voice.
If it's a Democrat filibuster, the member must take the podium and recite arguments about which pickup truck is best for off-roading in Mississippi and why.
There's only a couple of years difference between us. She will most likely never be president in your lifetime either.
You may not be a boomer but you are very boomeresque.
You sound like the lefts version of a crazy conspiracy theorist.
As per usual OCD rather than man up and admit a progressive can't even win the Democratic nomination for president much less the general election, you make excuses and rant.
I think throwing the filibuster out isn't a good move, but more to your point it definitely needs to be looked at and adapted. It's clearly being abused and warped into something bad and not what it was intended to be.
I don't know. Both parties have use the filibuster for a long time. I think it is being used exactly as it was intended.
I don't think it is being abused. It's not like every bill that hits the senate floor dies a filibuster death.
What may not happen as much is both side trying to cut a deal.
There's only a couple of years difference between us. She will most likely never be president in your lifetime either.
You may not be a boomer but you are very boomeresque.
You sound like the lefts version of a crazy conspiracy theorist.
As per usual OCD rather than man up and admit a progressive can't even win the Democratic nomination for president much less the general election, you make excuses and rant.
Time will tell how right I am... Then I'll post "wish you were here" for my reply to you and this post.
There's only a couple of years difference between us. She will most likely never be president in your lifetime either.
You may not be a boomer but you are very boomeresque.
You sound like the lefts version of a crazy conspiracy theorist.
As per usual OCD rather than man up and admit a progressive can't even win the Democratic nomination for president much less the general election, you make excuses and rant.
I'm sidetracking this thread because of that video. Some time in the mid 80's, a friend of mine drug me to a Bruce Hornsby concert at Pine Knob in Detroit. It's a really nice outdoor venue. The backup was Melissa Etheridge. Not a big fan of either, but both put on a fantastic show. Talented artists pouring their souls into their music on a beautiful summer evening is a good way to describe it.
You seem to keep trying to say that I'm against progressive ideas. Yet as we've discussed in the past that's simply not true. The only actual difference between us is I don't think the country is ready to elect a president as of now that promotes some of that platform. I do however think it will come in time.
The thing is I understand much progress can be made in the meantime. You seem to say you're willing to derail that progress and actually help assist our nation in going backwards by withholding your vote until a progressive candidate that gives you everything all at once wins the nomination.
Somebody is trippin'. jfan didn't mention any of that that I could find. But I see you are still stuck on that incrementalism lie from the corporatists. The country is not ready for a Progressive POTUS because characters like you bad mouth the hell out of any that run. I've witnessed you calling Bernie a socialist in the bad way when he was ahead. I've witnessed you more than once admonishing any progressive ideas as radical and extremist while dismissing them as ridiculous. I've seen you belittle anybody that doesn't tow the centrist dem line when you think they should and to do your damnedest to demean anyone who would speak or fight against those beliefs. We have been boys on here for years and you frame many comments to me (and others) as if we are mentally handicapped, insane, or incompetent when we don't see things just like you. You have been under fire all over the board for always wanting to attack and I used to defend you, but not any more because I'm seeing that much of it you earn.
AND don't try to compare me to you because I don't say crap like "I don't think you are capable of comprehending how it works"... crap like that is how you talk to the other side of the aisle, not people who vote with you... But I'm sure this will offend you and I'll get a long winded blah blah blah post in response. So don't bother, because I don't care anymore. You are who you are and I am who I am, we will never see eye to eye on politics because I can't support many of the things you think are just fine.
No, they're not ready for a progressive because if a progressive can't even win the Democratic nomination they sure as hell aren't going to win the general election.
I admonish people who keep claiming this nation is ready for a progressive president because a progressive can't even win the democratic nomination for president.
Somehow you claim you understand how things work but still can't figure out that if Manchin refuses to vote for a bill the Democrats lose 50 to 49. In case you missed it, that's not "about me".
Get this through your thicker than normal head, you can't expect progressives, green party, libertarians, or anybody not towing the Dem establishment or Republican party lines to win a nomination in rigged elections. But I know you can't see that with your corporatist blinders on.
And Manchin only refuses because they allow him to refuse. If you think for a second Biden couldn't change that in the backroom dealings then you are super naive.
Rigged elections? So now you're saying trump is our legitimate president?
I know you think everyone but bernie and AOC work back room deals. According to you they're the only politicians in The United States who would never stoop to such a thing and never ever compromise for the better good of the American people.
lmao, show me where I said anything about Trump being legit... I'll wait.
AND YES, the primaries are rigged. That was established in court when the DNC said it didn't matter how people voted, it was their party and they pick the nominee. But you probably missed that because they put up a centrist in the popcorn slayer.
I know you think everyone but bernie and AOC work back room deals. According to you they're the only politicians in The United States who would never stoop to such a thing and never ever compromise for the better good of the American people.
Again, show me where I ever said that. You like to put words in my mouth that I never uttered. I love Bernie and AOC because they are not fake, not because I don't think they ever compromise. There is nothing wrong with compromise as long as you put in the work to fight for what you want, and that goes for all politicians. You can't see that Joe and Kamala pulled up short of actually fighting for minimum wage can you? smh
What the DNC said in court doesn't really change the fact that Bernie lost the vote. I think that's part of your problem. Rather than look at what someone actually does or the actual results, you're too busy listening to what someone says.
You're the one who said the election was rigged. And for future reference, when someone ends a sentence with a question mark, that indicates it's a question, not a statement. You're welcome.
Just an opinion here... Far Left is just as bad as Far Right. Neither speak for the majority of US citizens.. But they do like to divide us.
BULL!
Show me where the left tried to overthrow the government. Show me where the left banned people for their race or religion. Show me where the left turns their backs on the working class. Show me where and when the left tried to install a dictator. Show me the fascist and racists on the left.
You can't because there is no comparison and this thing you just said is a pure garbage talking point put out by the corporatists centrists to hold onto power. Sorry you fell for that.
Get this through your thicker than normal head, you can't expect progressives, green party, libertarians, or anybody not towing the Dem establishment or Republican party lines to win a nomination in rigged elections. But I know you can't see that with your corporatist blinders on.
And Manchin only refuses because they allow him to refuse. If you think for a second Biden couldn't change that in the backroom dealings then you are super naive.
So it was a rigged election? Hmmmm
You are right. Fascists aren't on the left. That is where the communists live.
There is no "Big lie" only some have a foolish perception. There's three years and eleven months to pass a minimum wage bill and Biden beat Bernie outright for the nomination. Anything said contrary to that is a big lie.
Just an opinion here... Far Left is just as bad as Far Right. Neither speak for the majority of US citizens.. But they do like to divide us.
BULL!
Show me where the left tried to overthrow the government. Show me where the left banned people for their race or religion. Show me where the left turns their backs on the working class. Show me where and when the left tried to install a dictator. Show me the fascist and racists on the left.
You can't because there is no comparison and this thing you just said is a pure garbage talking point put out by the corporatists centrists to hold onto power. Sorry you fell for that.
I was speaking in general.. the Far Right is no better than the Far Left.. Neither has the best interest of the majority of Americans.
I honestly can't think of a time when the far Left tried to overthrow the government...
I think to reconcile the dispute between you two, I think the "far left" you are referring to is different than progressives, which may be who OCD is defending.
Yes. I get called far left and radical left all the time for being progressive in here. Then Daman says the far left and far right are the same. BS. Further to the left of me would be full on socialists, anarchists, and communists/marxists. And I don't think any of them are as bad as the far right militias, nazis, nationalists, and hate groups at all. As a matter of fact I think the "center" in American politics is right wing. I think the true left starts between non-moderate libs and progressives.
Just an opinion here... Far Left is just as bad as Far Right. Neither speak for the majority of US citizens.. But they do like to divide us.
BULL!
Show me where the left tried to overthrow the government. Show me where the left banned people for their race or religion. Show me where the left turns their backs on the working class. Show me where and when the left tried to install a dictator. Show me the fascist and racists on the left.
You can't because there is no comparison and this thing you just said is a pure garbage talking point put out by the corporatists centrists to hold onto power. Sorry you fell for that.
I was speaking in general.. the Far Right is no better than the Far Left.. Neither has the best interest of the majority of Americans.
I honestly can't think of a time when the far Left tried to overthrow the government...
Jane Fonda, Black Panthers, Abby Hoffman and late 60's political unrest because of the Vietnam war would be the closest thing. Democrats were labeled after that a being anti-American commies and socialists...
So anything left of being a moderate is a moderate?
And there you have it.
? There you go feeling butt hurt and chirping something ridiculous when I didn't even mention you. I think other countries see both American Ds and Rs as right wing, at least I've heard that. America doesn't have a true left major party... I can see how that confuses you Pit, but it's not an attack on moderates, it's just a fact. Heck, in your lifetime you have seen the center move right and if you haven't then you were not paying attention.
NOPE. You are definitely obsessed with me like a stalker. You have to rag on every progressive post I make on here and on FB. I used to call arch a stalker, but you are way worse than him about it. Get this, you do not have to comment on my every post for your political philosophy to survive. As long as there are sheeple in the world, it will thrive.
You obviously do not understand how "social media" works. I'll comment where I want, when I want. Watching you rant and complain about everything that doesn't go your way is comical.
You obviously do not understand how "social media" works. I'll comment where I want, when I want. Watching you rant and complain about everything that doesn't go your way is comical.
I have an older neighbor that does that too. She is always out at the gossip fence talking about crap that is none of her business because she thinks she is so important that people will hang on her every word, while what we really do is roll our eyes at her idiotic petulance and outdated world views. She's a boomer too.
I don't know, I turned it from crap my pants to your brains... all I'm saying. And what does that make you, a first grade bully talking turds anyway? smh. You should just quit bro, a battle of wits against me is not a winning proposition for you. It's like snap pops vs. nukes.
Nice going. You triggered all the women and children hating trump supporters once again. 
