world

Democratic presidential candidates introducing themselves to voters

55 Comments
By ELANA SCHOR

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.


55 Comments
Login to comment

Motley Crew.

Lovin it.

Maga till January 2025, it's a done deal.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Maga till January 2025, it's a done deal.

So you support the president that is meddling in Venezuela against your boy Putin? Odd how inconsistent you are. Praise Trump to high heaven and bash the US. It's quite telling regarding exactly what you are doing.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@burnigbus Motley Crew.

It must seem odd for those who support 'authoritarian democracies' (aka dictatorships) to watch as individuals representing an array of perspectives step forward to campaign

without the dictator's apparatus interfering.

I have NEVER in my life voted for a candidate who I actually believed could possibly reflect even 50% of my personal and political views. I don't expect ever to find one who ever will. But I will be grateful for having at least a semblance of choice in deciding who'll represent me.

I'll take a 'Motley Crew' any day over a dictator. Or a politician like Trump.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

While I'd prefer someone like Bernie, Brown or Warren, Harris is looking increasingly formidable. A ton of endorsements already, including the great Barbara Lee and Dolores Huerta. And it's really hard to see how the 2020 Democratic primaries are going to look favorably on old white guys.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It'll be Harris. And it'll be fun to watch her shred Trump in a debate.

(However, it's possible that Trump will skip debates this time and focus solely on rallies. He's a coward. He needs a cheering crowd to affirm him.)

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Harris/O'Rourke 2020!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Harris is looking increasingly formidable. A ton of endorsements already, including the great Barbara Lee and Dolores Huerta...

Hillary had the endorsement of the president of the United States and his wife, Hollywood and virtually all of the media and she still lost.

It'll be Harris. And it'll be fun to watch her shred Trump in a debate.

Hahahahahaha, oh, that was a good one, plasticmonkey! Trump will destroy her in the first debate, she won't even show up for a second one.

Harris/O'Rourke 2020!

Hahahahaha, oh, man, Harris/O'Rourke would get California, New York, D.C. and... that might be it!

Oh my...

California Sen. Kamala Harris pushes to end private health insurance, faces blowback on 'Medicare for All' platform

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdY2xr4JoEo

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@serano Hillary had the endorsement of the president of the United States and his wife, Hollywood and virtually all of the media and she

got a bit less than 3,000,000 more votes than Trump, meaning more American voters preferred her to Trump. Many who voted for her held their nose while doing so, knowing how odious Trump was.

Harris/O'Rourke 2020!

Just about any pairing would be preferable to a repeat of the 2016 ticket of PutinMbStrumppence. The majority of Americans will most likely once again oppose the 'bound bundle of wooden rods' form of government that team pushes.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Praise Trump to high heaven and bash the US. It's quite telling regarding exactly what you are doing.

The socialists are already bashing the US, AOC is a stark reminder of it, her genius intellect has cost New Yorkers over 25,000 jobs, even DeBozo was taken back by her stunt.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Harris/O'Rourke 2020!

ROFL!

Why? They seem pretty competent people. Remember your track record when it comes to predicting.

Would you describe these two as a ‘lunatic fringe’?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Why? They seem pretty competent people.

Ben Shapiro is competent, doesn’t mean he’ll ever become President.

Remember your track record when it comes to predicting. 

So so far pretty good

Would you describe these two as a ‘lunatic fringe’?

Yes.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

It'll be Harris. And it'll be fun to watch her shred Trump in a debate. 

Yeah, Hillary Who is a lawyer thought so as well and look how that turned out for her. I will say this though, Harris likes to smoke, so on that part, she might score a few points over Trump...even though her recollection of when she heard Snoop and Tupac in College is waaaaaay off, but I forgive her. Oh, that Kush....

(However, it's possible that Trump will skip debates this time and focus solely on rallies. He's a coward. He needs a cheering crowd to affirm him.)

Trump is smart, get the rallies, get the people going, get the people out to vote and let the boring politicians talk and talk and talk....

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Why? They seem pretty competent people. 

Ben Shapiro is competent, doesn’t mean he’ll ever become President.

He’s a bright man who could run for President. Why you would roll over on the floor laughing about it is just silly. Harris and O’Rourke are competent people. Why you would roll over on the floor laughing is just silly.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Trumpophiles are so deeply emotionally invested in Trump that they think he's smart despite the mountains and mountains of evidence built up over several decade so to the contrary.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Trumpophiles are so deeply emotionally invested in Trump that they think he's smart despite the mountains and mountains of evidence built up over several decade so to the contrary.

Manufacutred evidence. But here is the thing as nutty and crazy as these people’s policies are, the only Democrat worth considering and the one that would work with Republicans and the only one that is more normal than these new band of jokes is Joe Biden, the man has more appeal, real ideas a true blue collar Democrat, he could possibly get some traction, but the rest, not a chance. The only few handicaps that Biden has is, he’s old, White and a man......and not socialist enough.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Trumpophiles are so deeply emotionally invested in Trump that they think he's smart...

He's smart enough to get enough funding to get the wall finished despite the Dems, RINOS and the media's opposition. 

Anti-Trumpers are so filled with hate for him, they can't see straight and support policies that cause suffering for Americans.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

This Kamala Harris tweet aged well:

“This was an attempted modern day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate.”

will the liberal media ask her about this now? Nope will pretend it never existed.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Anti-Trumpers are so filled with hate for him, they can't see straight and support policies that cause suffering for Americans.

Yup, that’s why CA and NY people are bailing as fast as they can.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

get the rallies, get the people going, get the people out to vote and let the boring politicians talk and talk and talk....

So for you, entertainment (if you can call Trump entertaining) is more important than facts, policy, or debate.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Trump will destroy her in the first debate, she won't even show up for a second one.

I'll hold you to those words.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@plasticmonkey (!) Ya, I should have said it will take everything she's got to show up for the second debate after getting destroyed in the first one.

This is assuming the DNC nominates her and not Biden or, gulp, Hillary! Or Tulsi which would at least give the Dems a fighting chance.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

So for you, entertainment (if you can call Trump entertaining) is more important than facts, policy, or debate

If I want unabashed non-stop humor about policy, I’ll watch AOC, Spliff, Warren and O’Rourke talk for 5 min. Lol

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

If I want unabashed non-stop humor about policy, I’ll watch AOC, Spliff, Warren and O’Rourke talk for 5 min. Lol

Well, OK. You first posted that you prefer entertainment over wonky policy talk. Now you post that your enemies "the left" are better at entertainment. What's your point?

Just remember, authoritarian regimes prey on people like you who jettison thoughtful discourse for entertainment and easy punch lines, who think a rally is preferable to a debate, and who think calling members of congress names like "Spliff" is clever amusement.

Read some Adorno, or Arendt. Or any book at all.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Just gotta love the MSM. No mention of Tulsi Gabbard? They must be afraid of something. Hmmmm....what could it be? It’s long ways till the election and the MSM has already discredited itself for anyone who can think for themselves.

Democratic presidential candidates visiting New Hampshire

Hopeful presidential candidates, Sen. Corey Booker and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, in New Hampshire Saturday

https://www.wmur.com/article/democratic-presidential-candidates-visiting-new-hampshire/26374926

So they both were in NH. Why do the Wall Street Dems and their MSM lackeys constantly shoot themselves in the foot?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

No mention of Tulsi Gabbard? They must be afraid of something. Hmmmm....what could it be? It’s long ways till the election and the MSM has already discredited itself for anyone who can think for themselves

No mention in this particular article, but I have read about her. She is not totally ignored.

You do have a point, though. Unfortunately, news media focus on shiny objects. That's a side effect of the technological marketplace that makes people more and more stupid, like you said. It's what gave us Donald Trump.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Read some Adorno, or Arendt. Or any book at all.

Tucker Carlson's Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution

OK?

Just gotta love the MSM. No mention of Tulsi Gabbard? They must be afraid of something

She's the mastermind that brought down Building 7. 

Stay off the drugs, dude, lol.

If Biden runs, his campaign slogan will be "Giving America the touch it doesn't want, but needs"

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Well, OK. You first posted that you prefer entertainment over wonky policy talk. Now you post that your enemies "the left" are better at entertainment. What's your point?

Nothing, they just funny.

Just remember, authoritarian regimes prey on people like you who jettison thoughtful discourse for entertainment and easy punch lines, who think a rally is preferable to a debate, and who think calling members of congress names like "Spliff" is clever amusement.

I am so shocked that you’re not alarmed by Marxist socialists that are trying to turn the country into another Cuba.

Read some Adorno, or Arendt. Or any book at all.

“A ship of fools,” excellent read.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

If Biden runs, Hillary's going to either jump in too or call in all her last favors and get him to make her his VP. If that happens, Secret Service around Biden will be tripled.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I am so shocked that you’re not alarmed by Marxist socialists that are trying to turn the country into another Cuba.

This comment is untrue.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I thought you were against name-calling and fake news?

I didn’t call anyone any names. I just said the truth as to what these fine people want. Lol

This comment is untrue.

AOC, wants to tax the upper, super rich 70%, wants to take our planes away, wants us to take a train from the States to Europe, as to how, we don’t know yet, she’s the smart one, Harris wants to take 80% of the countries private healthcare insurance away, they want free, education, free entitlements, the woman just killed 25,000 jobs for NYC. These people want open borders, want to tear down the walls that are already existing, yes, she wants us to become another Cuba.

But the great thing about being rich is, I can always relocate and move my money and many rich people will do exactly that, so these socialists are hurting everyone else, not us. If the people want to become a third world nation, vote for these loose canons.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Trumpophiles are so deeply emotionally invested in Trump that they think he's smart despite the mountains and mountains of evidence built up over several decade so to the contrary.

Obammunists are so deeply tied to their Marxist Socialist ideology that they are willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of jobs in their communities for the sake of ideological purity. For that reason I don’t believe any Dem not hewing strictly to the hard Left line has any chance to get their party’s nomination.

Throw in the relatively new intersectionality dogma and you can rule out any white male from consideration. Biden is well thought of for his lapdog act under Obama's regime, but the importance of race, sex, religious, sexual preferences is so powerful within the Leftist zeitgeist that it is way more important than individual qualifications. Bernie and O’Rourke are also unqualified for the same reason.

I predict that Harris will get the nomination. In the eyes of Dems she is most qualified principally because she isn’t a man and she isn’t white. Dems define themselves by what they are against and they are against these two demographics first and foremost. She is also against traditional American ideals such as equal treatment under the law and the concept that citizens are innocent until proven guilty (see Kavanaugh). Harris has a mean streak and isn’t above expressing her hatred for Americans that oppose her politics. Will make for an entertaining 2020 contest.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

No more centrist, moderate. neo-liberal democrats. The Democratic Party needs to get back to the Democratic Socialist party of FDR and get away from the corporate, Wall Street, vulture capitalist friendly party of Bill Clinton. It has always been radicals that have brought change to the U.S.. The founding fathers like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were radicals who were not afraid to take on the British Empire. Abraham Lincoln was a radical for signing the Emancipation Proclamation. FDR was a radical for implementing the New Deal and Social Security, Martin Luther King was a radical for demanding Civil Rights now. Moderates are only good for keeping the status quo and the status quo means allowing Greedy Corporations and Wealthy Individuals to buy and control politicians.

Conducted by The Hill in partnership with the market research firm HarrisX, a poll found that 59 percent of the U.S. public supports raising the marginal tax rate on the richest Americans to 70 percent. The poll also found a "surprising amount of support" for the proposal among Republicans, with 45 percent backing the idea along with 71 percent of Democrats.

The vast majority of Americans, 70 percent, now support Medicare-for-all, otherwise known as single-payer health care, according to a new Reuters survey. That includes 85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans. Only 20 percent of Americans say they outright oppose the idea.

When Democratic Socialist programs are factually explained to the people of the United States, a majority of the people support them. Don't believe the hype of Establishment Democrats and Republicans. They are one and the same, both Establishment Democrats and Republicans are the slaves of the Wealthy Donors, Greedy Corporations and Military Industrial Complex.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

AOC, wants to tax the upper, super rich 70%, wants to take our planes away, wants us to take a train from the States to Europe, as to how, we don’t know yet, she’s the smart one

None of this is accurate. The 70% tax rate would only apply to earnings over $10 million. The green new deal doesn't call for anything to be taken away, just rendered obsolete by other options.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

trying to turn the country into another Cuba

“Why do we tax labor at twice the rate of capital?"

“Under our current [unfair tax code], an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate as someone who’s living off inherited money and doesn’t work at all. We tax capital at half of what we tax labor. It’s a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of our rich people do.”

“I do not favor cutting tax rates for corporations”

”The biggest problem this country faces is income inequality”

—Tucker Carlson, socialist income redistributor and author of Ship of Fools

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The vast majority of Americans, 70 percent, now support Medicare-for-all, otherwise known as single-payer health care, according to a new Reuters survey.

One of the most liberal polls around. They never say, which demographics, men and women, which States and the income bracket breakdown. Reuters is so well known for this.

When Democratic Socialist programs are factually explained to the people of the United States, a majority of the people support them. Don't believe the hype of Establishment Democrats and Republicans.

I think it’s the other way around. This explains it to a tee that myth.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/millennials-socialism/

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Harris - Jussie smollets friend and supporter/defender during his hate crime scam. That'll help her.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I think it’s the other way around. This explains it to a tee that myth.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/millennials-socialism/

Editorials are not acceptable evidence in critical discourse. HAR!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

One of the most liberal polls around. They never say, which demographics, men and women, which States and the income bracket breakdown. Reuters is so well known for this.

I think we can safely say that it's the 70% of sane, non-extremist Americans, with the 30% being the right-wing moron Trump peons.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I look forward to hearing where each candidate stands on the issues important to me.

As long as they aren't too far left or a "progressive", it is worth hearing their messages and beliefs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As long as they aren't too far left or a "progressive", it is worth hearing their messages and beliefs.

I think you’re going to hear both extreme left positions and more centrist positions. I suspect someone more towards the center will prevail. But I thought that with Trump as well. Maybe the pendulum will swing to the other extreme this time.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

extreme left positions

Define extreme left. Give me a few examples on the issues. Are Bernie or Warren extreme left? Was FDR, LBJ or even Teddy Roosevelt extreme left? As a self-IDing "liberal," I'd say don't adopt right-wing frames. At best, you have someone like Bernie with relatively mild, Social Democratic/Nordic tendencies. There is nothing extreme about any of that.

And for the record, centrists have dominated the Democratic Party since Clinton won his first term. If America is in a ditch, as most of us believe, it sure isn't exclusively a result of GOP venality. Maybe the pendulum in the Democratic Party needs to swing farther left.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

One of the most liberal polls around. They never say, which demographics, men and women, which States and the income bracket breakdown. Reuters is so well known for this.

Actually, the Reuters poll gives detailed demographic information about the respondents: sex, age, region, state, political affiliation. You'll see there's nothing liberal about it. It's entirely balanced. Check it here:

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM1477Y18_1/type/smallest/dates/20180218-20190218/collapsed/true

Still don't believe it?

BTW, about half of Republicans want Medicare for all.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Define extreme left.

Hmm, on a political level, I have to say I don't have a clear definition of that. I do believe however that there is a segment of the left that is for punishment, and don't allow any path for redemption. Anytime there is an accusation of something, they call for the person to be gone, and don't allow for any path to redemption ever. These people are becoming louder, as the extreme right becomes louder. And just as you see politicians who represent the values of the extreme right, I think we will likely see the appearance of politicians who represent the values of the extreme left.

I listened to an interesting observation recently that moderate Republican politicians in staunchly Republican voting areas don't fear losing to the left, they fear losing to the extreme right. This is why you see some of these areas growing further and further right. I suspect we will see the same in staunchly left areas whereby left-of-center candidates will fear losing to candidates who hold more extreme left positions.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Well, let's take policy for starters. Here's the most left-most candidate likely to run next year. How many of these policies would you call extreme left?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders

And are you saying the views espoused here are historically extreme or only in light of the corporate-friendly norms established in recent decades? B/C as a student of US political history, they're pretty mild correctives to decades of policy being determined exclusively by centrists and conservatives. e.g. Obama's ACA being written by the conservative Heritage Foundation or initially put into practice by Romney.

Your second paragraph loses me entirely. Just b/c the right-wing is flat out loony doesn't mean that Sanders or Warren are the equivalent of Josef Stalin, or that investments in Nordic-style taxpayer-funded social safety net measures are the same thing as seizing the means of production. In Europe such "extreme left" American politicians would be considered centrists. Or that b/c the populism we have at present--proto-fascist xenophobes--necessarily invalidates all populism. Every single worthy achievement in American political history was borne of grassroots efforts to improve society--in other words populism. From the revolution to abolitionists to suffragettes to Civil Rights to war protests to Occupy Wall Street, Greens, the BLM movement or even Metoo. These are all people powered social justice movements. Ridiculed by the right but still righteous and clearly on the right side of history.

Otherwise, where would we be exactly, relying on the Davos set, wealthy politicians on the take who really, no, seriously, have our best interests at heart? Sorry, but your visions of health care for all or affordable education must be set aside as pie in the sky fantasies while we funnel trillions to industries right this minute destroying the planet or profiting from endless conflict.

I hear you about the lynch mob mentality in US public discourse and especially online, though again I feel like you're echoing what many conservatives are saying, which should give you pause. That poor Harvey Weinstein is really a victim of extreme feminists or what's wrong with putting on blackface. But it's true that there is a strain of modern social-media liberalism that operates like a mob, taking people out, which seems at times like it's the sum total of their aims or achievements. If only we can prevent Liam Neeson from making another movie then presto racism will cease to exist! Most people shrieking about such things online wouldn't be caught dead at a BLM rally, that's for sure. Not to mention that few of us are likely to survive a thorough examination of our youth. Hashtag hypocrisy. Are there things that are beyond the pale, sure but I think the entire PC-SJW debate is a great way to sidetrack larger discussions about creating a more just world. It's like displacing discussions of climate change by focusing on Al Gore's house.

Here's a great piece on the topic of punishment by the way, by Freddie deBoer:

https://medium.com/@jesse.singal/planet-of-cops-50889004904d

1 ( +1 / -0 )

“Under our current [unfair tax code], an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate as someone who’s living off inherited money and doesn’t work at all. We tax capital at half of what we tax labor. It’s a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of our rich people do.”

The problem with this argument is that the taxes were already paid on this money by the person who earned it. Why is it necessary to tax the same money again? The person who inherited the money is not a criminal. They are likely a spouse, child or other family member. People are just greedy to get their hands on what others have.

I can understand the human inclination towards self interest and greed. I don’t think it is a particularly decent thing for government to seek to take from people simply because a group of officials believe they are too wealthy. Perhaps they should not be giving out tax breaks to big companies like Amazon and Netflix. The problem isn’t that some people are able to become rich. The problem is that the government has the power to give away benefits to some people that aren’t available to all.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

are you saying the views espoused here are historically extreme or only in light of the corporate-friendly norms established in recent decades?

I haven't actually said anything one way or another, nor either of the options presented in the above quote.

Your second paragraph loses me entirely. Just b/c the right-wing is flat out loony doesn't mean that Sanders or Warren are the equivalent of Josef Stalin, or that investments in Nordic-style taxpayer-funded social safety net measures are the same thing as seizing the means of production.

I didn't say anything about Sanders nor Warren, much less equating them to Stalin or any of the other things you've listed.

Sorry, but your visions of health care for all or affordable education must be set aside as pie in the sky fantasies while we funnel trillions to industries right this minute destroying the planet or profiting from endless conflict.

I think you may be confusing me with someone else, as none of this statement matches any positions I've made.

I hear you about the lynch mob mentality in US public discourse and especially online, though again I feel like you're echoing what many conservatives are saying, which should give you pause.

It doesn't give me pause. I've always been clear that I'm left of center. It only stands to reason that I'm going to lean more their way on some things than yours. Now if you want something that should give you pause - the Republicans say things to me like 'you're echoing the left'. Now you're saying the equivalent. Such is how it is when you're not one one of the ends.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Editorials are not acceptable evidence in critical discourse.

But liberals one-sided opinions are? Why?

I think we can safely say that it's the 70% of sane, non-extremist Americans, with the 30% being the right-wing moron Trump peons.

I doubt it, never heard it in any red State except for that blue speck of Austin.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The problem with this argument is that the taxes were already paid on this money by the person who earned it.

Taxes won't have already been paid on capital gains.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The problem with this argument is that the taxes were already paid on this money by the person who earned it.

The problem with your argument is that it ignores the economic and political structures that allow a small number of powerful and privileged people to accrue far more wealth than most others, which ends up having a detrimental effect on upward mobility and overall socioeconomic health. Having progressive codes does not "punish" the wealthy, it is simply a counterbalance to a rigged game.

The so-called "socialism" that the GOP is demonizing is actually supported by most Americans. Medicare has long been the most popular health insurance in America. People love it, and was originally intended to gradually cover everybody. It didn't work out that way because of persistent lobbying by the insurance industry.

The best system would be something like what exists in Canada, where everybody has Medicare, and you can get extra private coverage if you want it. Of course, there would need to be a hammering out of what constitutes "extra", but that would be a far more constructive debate than yammering on about the "socialism" bogeyman.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Still don't believe it?

No, it’s Reuter’s. Again, how many Republicans or independents, which region, how many Blacks or conservative Blacks or Latinos. As much as I travel and interview, I will admit there is a rise among the ignorant young, but when I see people in rural areas or go to diners, bars, business establishments, I hear the opposite.

BTW, about half of Republicans want Medicare for all.

Yes and all millennials believe the capitalist system is the best. Plastic, you funny.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I haven't actually said anything one way or another, nor either of the options presented in the above quote.

See, when you said on a political level, that you didn't have a clear defintion of what it means to be extreme left, I was attempting to offer up some ideas, and history, and context. Thus the mention of Warren and Sanders and Nordic countries and FDR et al. B/C if you aren't able to distinguish between Sanders or AOC, on the one hand, and Cory Booker or the Clintons or Joe Biden, OTOH, then you have a pretty limited understanding of a topic you spend an awful lot of time writing about--American politics and in particular "liberal" democratic politics.

Anyway, your response read like one of Bass' point by point rebuttals, which as you'd imagine, says nothing to me. No worries, just thought you might be interested in going a bit deeper. Carry on, I won't bring it up again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

See, when you said on a political level, that you didn't have a clear defintion of what it means to be extreme left, I was attempting to offer up some ideas, and history, and context. Thus the mention of Warren and Sanders and Nordic countries and FDR et al.

You were putting out arguments as if I had stated a position on these things one way or another, and were arguing against it. But you were arguing against something I had never said.

B/C if you aren't able to distinguish between Sanders or AOC, on the one hand, and Cory Booker or the Clintons or Joe Biden, OTOH, then you have a pretty limited understanding of a topic you spend an awful lot of time writing about--American politics and in particular "liberal" democratic politics.

Interesting that you are questioning my ability to distinguish between a bunch of people I never commented on in the first place.

And I write my opinions, sometimes backed with supporting evidence. I've never claimed to be a political expert, and I'm fine with debating points I've made. But you've gone off on a complete and utter tangent on my comment, questioning things I haven't said, and getting annoyed about comparisons I haven't made.

I think I was pretty clear about how I feel. I started with this:

I think you’re going to hear both extreme left positions and more centrist positions.

And I expanded it into this:

there is a segment of the left that is for punishment, and don't allow any path for redemption. Anytime there is an accusation of something, they call for the person to be gone, and don't allow for any path to redemption ever. These people are becoming louder, as the extreme right becomes louder. And just as you see politicians who represent the values of the extreme right, I think we will likely see the appearance of politicians who represent the values of the extreme left.

Now if you want to talk about the content of what I've said, fine. I'm happy to. But reign it in to things I've actually said please.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

After 8 years of President Harris and a Democratic controlled Congress, the United States is officially a third-world country, with rampant unemployment and crime, out of control inflation and a $40 trillion debt... the final blow to be dealt by president-elect Ocasio-Cortez...

! Oh, it was just a nightmare! Trump is still president - whew!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

--Still don't believe it?

No, it’s Reuter’s. Again, how many Republicans or independents, which region, how many Blacks or conservative Blacks or Latinos.

Again, ALL of that information and more is provided. Political affiliation, region, state, sex, income level, ethnicity . . .

Click the link and see for yourself. Or would you prefer to be thought of as intellectually lazy?

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM1477Y18_1/type/smallest/dates/20180218-20190218/collapsed/true

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

--BTW, about half of Republicans want Medicare for all.

Yes and all millennials believe the capitalist system is the best. Plastic, you funny.

No, you funny. I was citing a legitimate poll. You just blowing hot air like a typical Trumpster.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites