• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

bickieditches

Member
Aug 5, 2018
546
Sad. I suppose you were one of the ones that fell for the disingenuous right wing anti semitism attacks on Omar.

If you give AOC the benefit of the doubt on her gaffs you sure as shit should with Ilhan. Otherwise, I might be a little suspicious of what kind of views you have of black Muslims. Might want to examine those unconscious biases.

Believe it or not, I don't dislike her because she's a black Muslim. I don't even dislike HER as a person. I 90% agree with her stances on Israel and I'm glad she's bringing it up.

That said, there's a time and a place to rock the boat. In my preferred world, she'd remain relatively off-the-radar until Trump is defeated. Because until then, every controversial thing she says is ammo used against the Democrats. She has to be self-aware enough to recognize that. If you disagree with that notion, that's fine, but please don't assume everyone who doesn't conform to your view is a racist or has bad intentions.

And if your questioning why I like AOC, it's because she largely sticks to economic issues. Those are issues that transcend parties, and despite trying their hardest, it's a lot harder for Republicans to use that message to harm Democrats.
 

TheModestGun

Banned
Dec 5, 2017
3,781
Believe it or not, I don't dislike her because she's a black Muslim. I don't even dislike HER as a person. I 90% agree with her stances on Israel and I'm glad she's bringing it up.

That said, there's a time and a place to rock the boat. In my preferred world, she'd remain relatively off-the-radar until Trump is defeated. Because until then, every controversial thing she says is ammo used against the Democrats. She has to be self-aware enough to recognize that. If you disagree with that notion, that's fine, but please don't assume everyone who doesn't conform to your view is a racist or has bad intentions.

And if your questioning why I like AOC, it's because she largely sticks to economic issues. Those are issues that transcend parties, and despite trying their hardest, it's a lot harder for Republicans to use that message to harm Democrats.

I can respect the idea of being intentional and targeted with the controversies you create, but I also find it highly suspect that we expect a different level of discretion from Omar than basically anyone else in Congress.

I'm sorry, just don't believe anything she has said has ACTUALLY been that controversial. I'm fairly certain if she were a white man, no one would bat an eye at anything she has said. At least not in a giant media outcry. It is in the specific context that she is a black Muslim that she is derided and given attention.
 

bickieditches

Member
Aug 5, 2018
546
I can respect the idea of being intentional and targeted with the controversies you create, but I also find it highly suspect that we expect a different level of discretion from Omar than basically anyone else in Congress.

I'm sorry, just don't believe anything she has said has ACTUALLY been that controversial. I'm fairly certain if she were a white man, no one would bat an eye at anything she has said. At least not in a giant media outcry. It is in the specific context that she is a black Muslim that she is derided and given attention.

I agree, in the sense that she hasn't said anything that is actually worth getting worked up over (I personally wasn't a huge fan of the Benjamins comment, but I'm also not going to act as if it was the worst comment in the world.) And I also agree that if she was non-Muslim the media definitely wouldn't take as much offense. But we live in a country where we KNOW that kind of speech will have negative repercussions, so why say it in an extremely tense time? I understand that she may feel very passionately about the issue and I respect that, but at the same time, nothing is going to change in the next 2 years, so why make your own life and the lives of your allies harder? Especially if those negative repercussions help the man/party that EVERY Democrat should be trying to stop?

I think it largely comes to down to philosophy. I understand that people may not agree, but IMO, it's better to keep your cards close to your chest, not rock-the-boat in times like these, and only speak up when you're capable of making a difference. You don't harm your own side that way and it seems to have the least negative effects. But I'm obviously open to hearing other arguments.
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,482
I agree, in the sense that she hasn't said anything that is actually worth getting worked up over (I personally wasn't a huge fan of the Benjamins comment, but I'm also not going to act as if it was the worst comment in the world.) And I also agree that if she was non-Muslim the media definitely wouldn't take as much offense. But we live in a country where we KNOW that kind of speech will have negative repercussions, so why say it in an extremely tense time? I understand that she may feel very passionately about the issue and I respect that, but at the same time, nothing is going to change in the next 2 years, so why make your own life and the lives of your allies harder? Especially if those negative repercussions help the man/party that EVERY Democrat should be trying to stop?

I think it largely comes to down to philosophy. I understand that people may not agree, but IMO, it's better to keep your cards close to your chest, not rock-the-boat in times like these, and only speak up when you're capable of making a difference. You don't harm your own side that way and it seems to have the least negative effects. But I'm obviously open to hearing other arguments.

The onus is not on her to be extra sensitive because of the fact that she's a black Muslim and bigots are going to go out of their way to attack her. What kind of backwards ass logic is that?
 

mutantmagnet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,401
I don't mind religious candidates, but it will always rub me the wrong way when a politician quotes Christian scriptures in public speeches. There are people other than Christians listening, you know?
There will always be a situation where some people won't feel included. When Beto or Castro speak spanish I wouldn't have an idea if they were doing more than repeating what they said in English 1 minute ago.
democrats and republicans being the same isn't an uncomfortable truth

I'm no fan of the Democratic Party but that is just obvious false equivalence bullshit
Dems and Republicans being the same is a lie that blinds people to fundamental differences such as dems believe in government as a functional tool while Republicans see it as something that shouldn't exist.
 

TheModestGun

Banned
Dec 5, 2017
3,781
I agree, in the sense that she hasn't said anything that is actually worth getting worked up over (I personally wasn't a huge fan of the Benjamins comment, but I'm also not going to act as if it was the worst comment in the world.) And I also agree that if she was non-Muslim the media definitely wouldn't take as much offense. But we live in a country where we KNOW that kind of speech will have negative repercussions, so why say it in an extremely tense time? I understand that she may feel very passionately about the issue and I respect that, but at the same time, nothing is going to change in the next 2 years, so why make your own life and the lives of your allies harder? Especially if those negative repercussions help the man/party that EVERY Democrat should be trying to stop?

I think it largely comes to down to philosophy. I understand that people may not agree, but IMO, it's better to keep your cards close to your chest, not rock-the-boat in times like these, and only speak up when you're capable of making a difference. You don't harm your own side that way and it seems to have the least negative effects. But I'm obviously open to hearing other arguments.
I guess I just don't believe that these sort of attacks will ever stop, whether Trump is in office or not. It's also presumptuous he will even be gone.

Is she supposed to spend two years representing Minneapolis (she's my representative by the way) being a stick in the mud and doing nothing?

I don't believe for a moment that she should be apologetic for her identity. The only way forward is to be unashamed and public facing.

It is important to remember that Ilhan is a refugee and is indeed a part of an oppressed class. And to finish, I leave you with this choice quote from MLK about moderates and dictating the timetable of another's speech and freedom.

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice..."
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
"We should shut up about genocide until trump is no longer the president bc racists will be racist"
 
Mar 9, 2018
3,766
If we are going to allow a random Billionaire nobody likes dictate what policies we are allowed to have and who we are allowed to vote for then we may as well cancel the union and accept that our capitalist overlords control us all and give up on the entire voting thing

Notice how no sensibile caring billionaires jumped in to stop Trump.

Seriously if this is how we are going to go about things I don't want to hear anymore about how the "costal elites conspiring against Bernie is a conspiracy" because it's clearly 100% true based on that alone.
Well said!
 

JABEE

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,854
Awe yeah! Why amputate the foot when you can let the whole leg rot off?!
Letting Howard Schultz motivate you to tank the most popular candidate currently running under your party is stupid.

Propping up Schultz as an actual threat to discourage candidates from taking more progressive views is cowardice.

The Democratic Party needs to stop shaping economic policy to appease billionaire egos.
 

bickieditches

Member
Aug 5, 2018
546
The onus is not on her to be extra sensitive because of the fact that she's a black Muslim and bigots are going to go out of their way to attack her. What kind of backwards ass logic is that?

The logic that maximizes the chances of the Democrats winning in 2020. You can dislike that if you want, but can you honestly say that Omar's comments have IMPROVED the chances of Democrats winning? That's all I'm about, and that's my entire point - Democratic members have an obligation to their party. We can go back and forth on litmus tests, and saying the right thing regardless of how controversial it is, but as far as I'm concerned, if someone isn't helping the overall movement, they're hurting it, and should be more conscious of their actions.
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,482
The logic that maximizes the chances of the Democrats winning in 2020. You can dislike that if you want, but can you honestly say that Omar's comments have IMPROVED the chances of Democrats winning? That's all I'm about, and that's my entire point - Democratic members have an obligation to their party. We can go back and forth on litmus tests, and saying the right thing regardless of how controversial it is, but as far as I'm concerned, if someone isn't helping the overall movement, they're hurting it, and should be more conscious of their actions.

It's not about a litmus test, it's about a basic standard of human decency and respect. You're very close to victim blaming her with your rhetoric right now, and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so.
 

SaveWeyard

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,540
The logic that maximizes the chances of the Democrats winning in 2020. You can dislike that if you want, but can you honestly say that Omar's comments have IMPROVED the chances of Democrats winning? That's all I'm about, and that's my entire point - Democratic members have an obligation to their party. We can go back and forth on litmus tests, and saying the right thing regardless of how controversial it is, but as far as I'm concerned, if someone isn't helping the overall movement, they're hurting it, and should be more conscious of their actions.
I really don't give a fuck about winning if we can't condemn people who either twist the words of a brave black Muslim woman to such an extent that she receives death threats, or that enable such behavior.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
17,132
Sydney
The logic that maximizes the chances of the Democrats winning in 2020. You can dislike that if you want, but can you honestly say that Omar's comments have IMPROVED the chances of Democrats winning? That's all I'm about, and that's my entire point - Democratic members have an obligation to their party. We can go back and forth on litmus tests, and saying the right thing regardless of how controversial it is, but as far as I'm concerned, if someone isn't helping the overall movement, they're hurting it, and should be more conscious of their actions.

Here's the thing.

The entire "we have to stop Trump" "we will protect you from Trump" "Trump must be defeated" line of argument for 2020 is going to fall entirely flat if the Democratic leadership are as ambivalent as they have been in defending a young black woman from the midwest from the racist hysteria of the President and the entire right wing media and political apparatus.
 

sugururu

Member
Apr 16, 2019
60
is it too much to ask preemptively that I'm just pleading and begging that it'll be someone who can beat trump so we don't have to face another 4 years of his torment?

I'll probably do more research when 2020 comes around and the amount of candidates whittle down… there's too many of them right now.
 
Last edited:

TheModestGun

Banned
Dec 5, 2017
3,781
Letting Howard Schultz motivate you to tank the most popular candidate currently running under your party is stupid.

Propping up Schultz as an actual threat to discourage candidates from taking more progressive views is cowardice.

The Democratic Party needs to stop shaping economic policy to appease billionaire egos.
I am one hundred percent in agreement. Just in case that wasn't clear.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
Here's the thing.

The entire "we have to stop Trump" "we will protect you from Trump" "Trump must be defeated" line of argument for 2020 is going to fall entirely flat if the Democratic leadership are as ambivalent as they have been in defending a young black woman from the midwest from the racist hysteria of the President and the entire right wing media and political apparatus.
Yeah, I'm getting mixed messages from that poster
 

Chaos Legion

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,923
If we are going to allow a random Billionaire nobody likes dictate what policies we are allowed to have and who we are allowed to vote for then we may as well cancel the union and accept that our capitalist overlords control us all and give up on the entire voting thing

Notice how no sensibile caring billionaires jumped in to stop Trump.

Seriously if this is how we are going to go about things I don't want to hear anymore about how the "costal elites conspiring against Bernie is a conspiracy" because it's clearly 100% true based on that alone.
Are you actually serious?

Tom Steyer
Meg Whitman
Mark Cuban
George Soros
Michael Bloomberg
Warren Buffett

I can keep going on the billionaires who outwardly were against Trump publicly.
 

TheModestGun

Banned
Dec 5, 2017
3,781
Are you actually serious?

Tom Steyer
Meg Whitman
Mark Cuban
George Soros
Michael Bloomberg
Warren Buffett

I can keep going on the billionaires who outwardly were against Trump publicly.
"Against Trump" is not enough. The conditions that provide these people the opportunity to be Billionaires directly contributed to the social rot that helped get Trump elected. We have to fix the system and I'd be very skeptical of how many of these people are genuinely for fixing the system.
 

Deleted member 10551

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,031
The fokls who want Sanders- need to convince every young person to vote in the primaries. Gotta counteract all the old churchlady Boomers.
 

Chaos Legion

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,923
"Against Trump" is not enough. The conditions that provide these people the opportunity to be Billionaires directly contributed to the social rot that helped get Trump elected. We have to fix the system and I'd be very skeptical of how many of these people are genuinely for fixing the system.
...

Ok. Evan Spiegel created a dick pic app and is a billionaire. How did the system fail in that regard? Who did he rob, pillage, steal and harrass to co-found a company that the market values for billions of dollars?
(You can say he robs us of our privacy but I can choose B2B tech billionaires to switch it up).

The system needs to incorporate additional safety nets. I think every reasonable person agreed on that.

But to say no "billionaire" was against a Trump presidency is an outright lie. Truthfully, had the possibility of him beating Hillary actually not be thought of as a joke I think we would have seen a lot more intervention.
 

phazedplasma

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,855
"Against Trump" is not enough. The conditions that provide these people the opportunity to be Billionaires directly contributed to the social rot that helped get Trump elected. We have to fix the system and I'd be very skeptical of how many of these people are genuinely for fixing the system.

holy shit preach

every billionaire is a moral and policy failure
 

TheModestGun

Banned
Dec 5, 2017
3,781
...

Ok. Evan Spiegel created a dick pic app and is a billionaire. How did the system fail in that regard? Who did he rob, pillage, steal and harrass to co-found a company that the market values for billions of dollars?
(You can say he robs us of our privacy but I can choose B2B tech billionaires to switch it up).

The system needs to incorporate additional safety nets. I think every reasonable person agreed on that.

But to say no "billionaire" was against a Trump presidency is an outright lie. Truthfully, had the possibility of him beating Hillary actually not be thought of as a joke I think we would have seen a lot more intervention.

I'm not saying that these people don't care about Trump or are outright bad people. Just that when it comes down to brass tacks, how many of them are willing to give up their fortune or the power it affords them?
 

Soul Skater

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,201
Are you actually serious?

Tom Steyer
Meg Whitman
Mark Cuban
George Soros
Michael Bloomberg
Warren Buffett

I can keep going on the billionaires who outwardly were against Trump publicly.
There's a difference between "rich person said thing against him" vs "billionaire who wants to run to split the vote and stop someone like Bernie Sanders in order to protect his wealth and keep his billions in tax cuts"
 

Chaos Legion

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,923
I'm not saying that these people don't care about Trump or are outright bad people. Just that when it comes down to brass tacks, how many of them are willing to give up their fortune or the power it affords them?
I'm saying I hate when we get dragged into class warfare. The inclusion of additional safety nets, healthcare, education, gun reform, et Al, shouldn't be divisive issues.

But they are. And it's not the billionaires holding us back as is being constantly advertised, be there us, Americans, at all levels. A poll was shown earlier, that people believe we should assist the poor, but not welfare. Another article I read mentioned people don't mind paying taxes, until they realize half of eligible people essentially pay no taxes.

I just think politics have tried to enflame class warfare at the detriment of ignoring what the general populace thinks. It's not helpful.
 

Frozenprince

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,158
Here's the thing.

The entire "we have to stop Trump" "we will protect you from Trump" "Trump must be defeated" line of argument for 2020 is going to fall entirely flat if the Democratic leadership are as ambivalent as they have been in defending a young black woman from the midwest from the racist hysteria of the President and the entire right wing media and political apparatus.
It didn't work in 2016! Literally all the messaging was "we have to stop Trump". And it didn't work.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
For example the biggest obstacles to gun reform are the:

1) Gun industry
2) NRA
3) Gun culture

1) is obviously driven by profit. NRA is driven by rich foreign and domestic donors. 3) is driven by media (which is driven by profit). There is no escape from the push and pull of profit in America or anywhere in the world!

Even the reformists (like Warren) have to fight against anti-reformist politicians who're monetarily backed by the business interests looking to protect their industries from regulations, which is why a lot of us care so much that candidates aren't funded by corporate PACs.
 

phazedplasma

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,855
The logic that maximizes the chances of the Democrats winning in 2020. You can dislike that if you want, but can you honestly say that Omar's comments have IMPROVED the chances of Democrats winning? That's all I'm about, and that's my entire point - Democratic members have an obligation to their party. We can go back and forth on litmus tests, and saying the right thing regardless of how controversial it is, but as far as I'm concerned, if someone isn't helping the overall movement, they're hurting it, and should be more conscious of their actions.

Im sorry but if we're gonna elect a black muslim woman to congress and the NOT let her speak truth to power the what the fuck are we even trying for?

If we're going to give up that easily then we deserve this conservative hellworld.
 

Chaos Legion

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,923
For example the biggest obstacles to gun reform are the:

1) Gun industry
2) NRA
3) Gun culture

1) is obviously driven by profit. NRA is driven by rich foreign and domestic donors. 3) is driven by media (which is driven by profit). There is no escape from the push and pull of profit in America or anywhere in the world!

Even the reformists (like Warren) have to fight against anti-reformist politicians who're monetarily backed by the business interests looking to protect their industries from regulations, which is why a lot of us care so much that candidates aren't funded by corporate PACs.
I appreciate our back and forths, I love being challenged and forced to learn more.

Gun reform is my biggest issue. But as you mentioned, the proponents for the status quo are so powerful, not even the progressive candidates have the stomach to stand up against them.

My friends were at Virginia Tech. Every mass shooting makes my heart sink.

But trying to frame a class warfare discussion bothers me because there are so many things everyone agrees on. A student shouldn't have to fear going to school.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
A student shouldn't have to fear going to school.
I agree with that, but in my eyes, as long as the rich and powerful desire it, or find profit in it, that student will continue living in fear.

Unfortunately there's almost no way to divorce power from class and wealth in my mind.



You want influence, you have to come up through that system of wealth, power and privilege. You grow up in that system and that system acts on you and turns you into an instrument of its perpetuation. The Elizabeth Warrens of the world are far and few in between and outgunned at all levels. Their only saving grace is that their vote (ideally) should count no more and no less than any other person's vote, that's why democracy is valuable.

Unfortunately, you can effectively buy votes and buy politicians with advertisement and lobbying, so the dream of one-man-one-vote falls by the wayside.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
By the way sometimes I get really happy and excited by "extreme" taxation measures (i.e. "high" numbers like 70% to 100%). It's not because I think taxes will magically fix everything or the government will magically know how to spend tax effectively (which they don't, let's be real).

It's because taxation is the most direct and straightforward, non-violent way to deprive the ruling class of their wealth, the wealth they used to suppress the rest of us. If you're allergic to guillotines, taxation, especially directly on non-income wealth or inheritance is the next best thing.
 

GiantBreadbug

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,992
By the way sometimes I get really happy and excited by extreme taxation measures. It's not because I think taxes will fix everything or the government will know how to spend tax effectively.

It's because taxation is the most direct and straightforward way to deprive the ruling class of their wealth, the wealth they used to suppress the rest of us. If you're allergic to guillotines, taxation, especially directly on wealth or inheritance is the next best thing.

Even more than simply depriving them of wealth, it invests that same wealth back into the infrastructural body in such a way that the people who have the least aren't stuck holding the world on their shoulders like some Atlas of society while the people who have the most sit on top getting fatter and fatter (metaphorically speaking).

Right now the people keeping the world turning are the grossly exploited poor, laborers, and minorities. Just taxation allows these intersecting groups of people more opportunity to live dignified, fulfilling lives rather than being doomed to toil for toiling's sake for the entire time they're on this planet.

Like you said, simply enacting the measures doesn't mean the government will know the best way to use the revenue. But even having a government willing to take such measures is a good start and an even better sign.
 
Last edited:

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Even more than simply depriving them of wealth, it invests that same wealth back into the infrastructural body in such a way that the people who have the least aren't stuck holding the world on their shoulders like some Atlas of society while the people who have the most sit on top getting fatter and fatter (metaphorically speaking).
A lot of people who're skeptical of taxation believe the government will spent it all on military or whatever.

But yes, reinvestment needs to be enforced by the state, because companies will only invest in certain cases. Austrians schools think having money is enough to cause investment, Keynesians think it's about market confidence, Marxist economists say it's about the rate of profit. The larger the company, the less they need to reinvest and take risks in expansion because they have alternative financial schemes they can use to enrich themselves, which is why trickle-down is a myth and a scam. Small companies, of course, need to fight for scraps. Even in the world of business there's wealth divide between mega corps and small businesses.

The IMF calculates that American companies made shareholder payouts and buybacks that were worth 0.9 per cent of assets last year, twice the level seen in 2010. Little wonder that equity markets have soared (leaving aside the wobble late last year). Companies have also used this arsenal for a mergers and acquisitions boom: such deals gobbled up cash flows equivalent to 0.4 per cent of assets in 2019, compared with virtually nothing in 2011. But the amount of cash flow spent on capex, in contrast, has flatlined since 2012, running at around 0.7 per cent of all assets — smaller than the cash flow spend on shareholder payouts.
https://www.ft.com/content/960ec8ec...ft?token=1ed6b732-583a-42dd-9e9a-872d9d4c721d

Paywall locked, unfortunately.
 

Iloelemen

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,323
The logic that maximizes the chances of the Democrats winning in 2020. You can dislike that if you want, but can you honestly say that Omar's comments have IMPROVED the chances of Democrats winning? That's all I'm about, and that's my entire point - Democratic members have an obligation to their party. We can go back and forth on litmus tests, and saying the right thing regardless of how controversial it is, but as far as I'm concerned, if someone isn't helping the overall movement, they're hurting it, and should be more conscious of their actions.

So the thing that would help the movement, is it to remain Socially Conservative and Fiscally Conservative?
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
I think the idea is, after 4 years of Trump, people will realize that Hillary and the Dems weren't joking in 2016 about Trump.

Which sounds like a defense of "I'm not Trump, vote for me"ism except that I think if the only way you can win is if everything goes to shit and it scares the absolute fuck out of people, your political platform probably sucks.
 

Entryhazard

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,843
Still the reality of political strategies and generating consensus is that "we're not Trump" is not gonna cut it, because you just end up in his frame again.
You need your own active narrative that, while in values is antithetical to him, does not depend on him.
 

dlauv

Prophet of Truth - One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,513
I don't really see the frontrunners making it all about Trump. Beto, Pete, and Sanders have all said it's bigger than him.
 

Vector

Member
Feb 28, 2018
6,657
When you're running on an "we're against X" campaign you're going to lose, which is why running on "I'm against Trump" is a losing strategy just as much as "SOCIALISM!!" is a losing strategy. Candidates with a cohesive message and platform are in a much better position to win, which is why I think Bernie would be very effective against Trump.
 

dlauv

Prophet of Truth - One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,513
Let's go, Texas. Biden and Sanders are of course #s 1 and 2.
 

PMS341

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt-account
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
6,634


"It's one of these ideas that everybody kind of likes, but it was always important and never urgent," Buttigieg said of a national service program. "How would that ever kind of hold on its own in a policy debate where we deal with kids in cages and we have to deal with climate change and there are all these pressing, burning issues?"

That's one way to be completely out of touch holy shit.
 

JVID

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,196
Chicagoland
Which major candidate is running on "Not Trump"? Sure, It'll be an aspect to any candidate that wins the primary but I haven't seen anyone run it as their platform. This is a silly baseless assumption.
 

Vector

Member
Feb 28, 2018
6,657
Bernie is doing very, very well with minorities, and possibly underperforming with whites now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.