Lol
People would rather destroy capitalism than even attempt to tackle gun violence because reasons.
Full video
published May 7, 2017
Israel Palestinian part of the interview between 5:00 - 8:30
He does offer no advice or direction for what the Palestinians can do if not BDS in his answer to the follow up question after saying he doesn't support BDS. 7:04 .
That what almost 2 years ago and he might have something by now.
Criminal justice.
Healthcare.
Guns.
Donors.
It's like she's 3 decades behind.
But of course a hyper partisan such as yourself can't recognize flaws in party annointed nominees.
After taking away the option of BDS and not advising anything to replace it that's basically saying to them to do nothing until an external force does something to save them. That's got to be a tough thing for them to accept as it doesn't appear that the US decreasing monetary and military support for Israel will ever happen. It just seems like more talk and stall as the walls close in on them.His solution is to change US policy, not put the onus on Palestinians to change Israel and current US position. He criticizes the US policy of giving one-sided support to Israel with unlimited monetary and military support.
I'd probably agree with plenty of what you have to say about the Dems as they are deeply flawed. However, it's difficult to have that conversation when political threads become polarising by simply being an openly loyal Democrat. When that's been a normal pastime for Americans, among other nations, for centuries.
You're going to have be more specific because that describes millions of Democrats.
I agree she's done bad shit as a prosecutor, but how does that measure up to GOP prosecutors?
Her gun stance is being pro-gun control, banning assault weapons and universal background checks. And she happens to own a gun. How is that like a Republican?
Politicians having wealthy donors has been partisan for a long, long time. As in 1896.
And how "old" are you talking?
This too vague, can you be more specific?
Sure I can, unless you've ignored my posts about the various candidates. "Party annointed"? You think centrists and liberals shouldn't be able to run for president in their own primaries now?
I'd probably agree with plenty of what you have to say about the Dems as they are deeply flawed. However, it's difficult to have that conversation when political threads become polarising by simply being an openly loyal Democrat. When that's been a normal pastime for Americans, among other nations, for centuries.
No one wants to take away shotguns/rifles/etc. The idea that people are trying to "ban all guns" is a right wing nonsense talking point.
The least you could do is pretend you live in a different timeline and placate people who want to have discussion on their terms and not the terms that that most realistically emulate the coming election. Not doing this is the problem in the first place and nothing else could possibly be.
Criminal justice.
Healthcare.
Guns.
Donors.
Protection of status quo and white supremacy
It's like she's 3 decades behind.
But of course a hyper partisan such as yourself can't recognize flaws in party annointed nominees.
No, they're insignificant.While it's not a leftist agenda, a not insignificant portion of the electorate wants to ban all guns, so saying "no one wants to" is just untrue.
However, it's difficult to have that conversation when political threads become polarising by simply being an openly loyal Democrat. When that's been a normal pastime for Americans, among other nations, for centuries.
Why would I not want to debate abut politics based on our reality, rather than a fantasy time since that would be a waste of time for both of us.
While it's not a leftist agenda, a not insignificant portion of the electorate wants to ban all guns, so saying "no one wants to" is just untrue.
I suppose it is true that NO one would be a stretch.While it's not a leftist agenda, a not insignificant portion of the electorate wants to ban all guns, so saying "no one wants to" is just untrue.
Gop? Strawman. Said right wing.
Shouldn't be allowed to run? Strawman. Never said that
See why it's hard to have a rational discussion with you? :)
And yes. Guns and donors are problematic.
And so are centrists. Not being as bad as insane gop is not good enough. Sorry.
Also. Party loyalty is gross. How about you support actual principles instead?
Intellectual curiosity compels people to have hypothetical discussions all the time. It's how new ideas and solutions develop.
Having said that, this is the 2020 primary thread, so the discussion is rightfully limit to relevant topics.
Even people who want to "ban all guns" don't think farmers in rural Wisconsin shouldn't have a shotgun to shoot coyotes trying to kill their livestock or something.
I suppose it is true that NO one would be a stretch.
But they are insignificant.
Except it wasn't framed as an alternative time line, the framing was that Kamala Harris was a right winger in this reality.
Not much difference, and you know it.
Implied.
I was trying to have a rational discussion with you.
They can be, I agree. But that's not the same as being a right winger.
Then you're in trouble as the centrists dominate politics in the left spectrum in the US.
Then your candidate is going to have a problem running in our primaries, since party loyalty is key to gaining the White House. I do, it's not mutually exclusive.
You're not gonna get much sympathy for Ilhan from the Democratic loyalists here.That would mean agreeing that criticism of Israel should be punishable (absurd and constitutional violation) and decrying Omar, which is so gross I can't even fathom Democratic leadership did this.
Thoughts and prayers isn't exclusive to the right, I guess.Banning all guns is the most contentious policy you could make on top of being the least important in the face of everything else. Sensible gun control is all that should be pushed atm - even among Republican voters who seem to think the phrase "gun control" is a four letter word.
I guess, but you're clearly wrong in assuming my post was anything resembling "thoughts and prayers." I'm for gun control; most of the country is for gun control; gun control is happening in congress as we speak and it's bound go even further. I'm not, however, in support of a fool's errand such as "banning all guns" at this stage of the game; it would have any candidate advocating for it taken for a joke.
He's not taking BDS away from anybody -- he just doesn't support it personally/doesn't think it's productive -- I disagree with that, but it's dumb to lump him with people that literally ban BDS.After taking away the option of BDS and not advising anything to replace it that's basically saying to them to do nothing until an external force does something to save them. That's got to be a tough thing for them to accept as it doesn't appear that the US decreasing monetary and military support for Israel will ever happen. It just seems like more talk and stall as the walls close in on them.
Full video
published May 7, 2017
Israel Palestinian part of the interview between 5:00 - 8:30
He does offer no advice or direction for what the Palestinians can do if not BDS in his answer to the follow up question after saying he doesn't support BDS. 7:04 .
That what almost 2 years ago and he might have something by now.
Perhaps you're not intentionally misreading, so to clarify : taking it away was meant within the confines of the discussion of the the interview. It's what led to the follow up question that without BDS what could they do.He's not taking BDS away from anybody -- he just doesn't support it personally/doesn't think it's productive -- I disagree with that, but it's dumb to lump him with people that literally ban BDS.
He's running for president. US changing their relationship with Israel/Palestine would naturally fall on him and a dem government.
Like, what do you think the Palestinians can do to change the mind of Trump and Bibi...?
Legislation that will die in the senate.I guess, but you're clearly wrong in assuming my post was anything resembling "thoughts and prayers." I'm for gun control; most of the country is for gun control; gun control is happening in congress as we speak and it's bound go even further. I'm not, however, in support of a fool's errand such as "banning all guns" at this stage of the game; it would have any candidate advocating for it taken for a joke.
You're not gonna get much sympathy for Ilhan from the Democratic loyalists here.
Speaking of white supremacy. Please, provide some elaboration on your post about Kamala Harris protecting white supremacy.Challenging white supremacy too uncomfortable for comfy centrists.
Criminal justice.
Healthcare.
Guns.
Donors.
Protection of status quo and white supremacy
It's like she's 3 decades behind.
But of course a hyper partisan such as yourself can't recognize flaws in party annointed nominees.
Please elaborate on these issues that are troubling you about Harris involving criminal justice, health care, donors, guns, protection of the status quo and white supremacy.
These are deep complex issues and it's impossible to know what you're referring to and what troubles you specifically with just these headers.
Funny that when it comes time to defend the most marginalized member of our legislature, all I hear from the woke liberals is equivocation.Challenging white supremacy too uncomfortable for comfy centrists.
I understand the concern but watching Pete talk about and deal with his sexuality is pretty impressive. I think any losses from homophobes would be ameliorated by his Midewestern appeal. I was chatting about my partner about him the other day and we were discussing how Pete feels Obama 08'-like in a way-- a plan so wacky it just might work. And not that I think Obama is wacky but at the time, a black candidate with the name Barack Hussein Obama seemed kind of nuts. But his ability to reach people and to campaign helped transcend that. I think Pete could do the same.I'm getting increasingly nervous that Major Pete could win the nomination. Not because I don't like him or think he'd be a bad president, quite the contrary! But because I'm more and more convinced that if registered Democrats give him the nomination we'd be resigning to 4 more years of Trump.
One thing is to elect a black man but, sadly, I don't think the US is ready to vote for a married gay man. No way in hell. I hope I'm wrong but I don't think I am. You have to bring independents and some moderate republicans to win this. A gay man I'm afraid will never be able to.
Yeah i hate feeling like this. He may be my favorite candidate but I'm sad to say I think his sexuality could be our downfall if nominated. The US is not ready for a gay president, I'm afraid.I understand the concern but watching Pete talk about and deal with his sexuality is pretty impressive. I think any losses from homophobes would be ameliorated by his Midewestern appeal. I was chatting about my partner about him the other day and we were discussing how Pete feels Obama 08'-like in a way-- a plan so wacky it just might work. And not that I think Obama is wacky but at the time, a black candidate with the name Barack Hussein Obama seemed kind of nuts. But his ability to reach people and to campaign helped transcend that. I think Pete could do the same.
All that said, I don't think he'll get the nomination.
Yeah i hate feeling like this. He may be my favorite candidate but I'm sad to say I think his sexuality could be our downfall if nominated. The US is not ready for a gay president, I'm afraid.
Ready or not, the US shouldn't have another war crime denier and anti-whistleblower in command.
If not for his sexuality, Pete would be chumming it up with Pence and the right.
Ready or not, the US shouldn't have another war crime denier and anti-whistleblower in command.
If not for his sexuality, Pete would be chumming it up with Pence and the right.
The dude also wrote an essay in 2000 in praise of Sanders-- fifteen years before he came out.Pete's not my first choice but this is silly.He supports
single payer health care
Increased taxes on the wealthy
Green new deal
Is pro choice
Wants universal background checks for guns
It's ridiculous to suggest only his sexuality is keeping him from being a republican. Why is it always Bernie fans who post like this? Not everyone even slightly to the right of Bernie is a secret Republican
Hm, I need to go back and read the essay myself I guess.Buttigieg's entry into the essay contest was about Sanders being brave enough to work with Republicans despite using the "socialist" label and contained no positive words for Bernie's policies.
Yes, I've read it. He doesn't praise Buchanan in it. That's a lie, much like your assertion that Pete would be an arch conservative if he were not gay. What he says about Buchanan is this: "Republican presidential hopeful George W. Bush uses the centrist rhetoric of "compassionate conservatism" while Pat Buchanan, once considered a mainstream Republican, has been driven off the ideological edge of the G.O.P."Buttigieg's entry into the essay contest was about Sanders being brave enough to work with Republicans despite using the "socialist" label and contained no positive words for Bernie's policies. (Pete praises Pat Buchanan in the essay, too. He's also explicitly started that he wrote the essay in order to get his foot in the door as a politician.) You can read it for yourself at the JFK Library online.
Buttigieg's entry into the essay contest was about Sanders being brave enough to work with Republicans despite using the "socialist" label and contained no positive words for Bernie's policies. (Pete praises Pat Buchanan in the essay, too. He's also explicitly started that he wrote the essay in order to get his foot in the door as a politician.) You can read it for yourself at the JFK Library online.
Buttigieg's book also makes clear that he doesn't subscribe to progressive values, from his description of his college years to his military service (including his incredible position that no one could have known Saddam didn't have nukes) to his time as mayor. He's a white elitist through and through, one who couldn't care less about social activists, the poor, the homeless, brown people, or black people.
Hey, so how about that passage of him "praising Pat Buchanan"?Read his essay. Read his book. Read/watch his interviews from 2017-ish.
Sanders has used his unique position as the lone Independent Congressman to help Democrats and Republicans force hearings on the internal structure of the International Monetary Fund, which he sees as excessively powerful and unaccountable. He also succeeded in quietly persuading reluctant Republicans and President Clinton to ban the import of products made by under-age workers. Sanders drew some criticism from the far left when he chose to grudgingly endorse President Clinton's bids for election and re-election as President. Sanders explained that while he disagreed with many of Clinton's centrist policies, he felt that he was the best option for America's working class.
After numerous political defeats in his traditionally Republican state, Sanders won the office of mayor of Burlington by ten votes. A successful and popular mayor, he went on to win Vermont's one Congressional seat in 1990. Since then, he has taken many courageous and politically risky stands on issues facing the nation. He has come under fire from various conservative religious groups because of his support for same-sex marriages. His stance on gun control led to NRA-organized media campaigns against him. Sanders has also shown creativity in organizing drug-shopping trips to Canada for senior citizens to call attention to inflated drug prices in the United States.