AOC protests Nancy Pelosi

[PartySick 174,124]

While I'd love to see some new blood in the party establishment, I don't think this is the time to be shaking things up. Pelosi is experienced and extremely well versed. She's been productive and effective, I think she should continue to serve as speaker if only for the time being. She's the best chance we have of being a ruthless check on Trump's power.

After Beto wins in 2020 and the senate turns blue then we can mix a few things up

[Whispering 18,865]

3 hours ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

What are you talking about? Most Democrats have an unfavorable view of Pelosi, and her favorables overall are abysmal (23% positive): https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/gallup-poll-top-four-congressional-leaders-viewed-negatively.html
 

Chuck Schumer barely fares any better: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/chuck_schumer_favorableunfavorable-6674.html

We didn't win seats in the midterms because of their leadership. We won seats despite their involvement with the party. Their polling numbers make that obvious. Now isn't the time to appoint conservative septuagenarians to positions of leadership. We have to move forward, not backward. I'm shocked to see this sort of argument from someone on a Gaga site.

We lost so many seats over the past decade because the Democratic base stopped turning out. They stopped turning out because center-right democrats turned them away, after refusing to hold any of the large banking executives accountable for destroying the economy and defrauding the public, decimating Black wealth in the process, participated and actively supported destroying the Middle East with the countless wars we're now involved in, killing untold numbers of innocent people, etc. etc. Poll after poll shows that the base thinks that the party elite is out of touch with what they want (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/democratic-party-out-of-touch-obama-wall-street-speech/524784/). Voter suppression and gerrymandering weren't invented in 2000. Republicans have been employing that tactic effectively for a century, especially over the last four decades. That excuse makes little to no sense. I can't imagine still believing that moderate, pro-war, austerity capitalists are more electable than leftists in 2018 (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/third-ways-centrism-is-dead-the-left-has-already-won-the-debate-over-the-democratic-party.html). 

We lost because we ran Clinton AND because we ran a moderate.

The midterms showed us that Democratic base has been energized by Trump, not that they want center-right Republicans running in Democratic races. Beto outperformed Clinton by nearly 8 percentage points. How do you get from that that his being a progressive as opposed to a moderate was a hinderance rather than an asset? People were excited about him BECAUSE he was progressive and charismatic rather than just another mediocre, conservative Democrat. Poll after poll shows us that  the Democratic base is far to the left of the politicians who represent them (see above). All the evidence points to the need for a leftward shift.

Moderates don't excite the Democratic base and they don't win over Republicans. Republicans won't ever vote for a Democrat. They weren't the ones voting for the candidates you mentioned; more Democrats turned out to vote because of Trump. Republicans have shown us that they won't vote for our candidates over and over again over the past decade. We now have dozens of socialists in office all across the country.  Socialist Carter Lee won in Virginia after adopting the approach I'm talking about: (https://newrepublic.com/article/145727/socialist-beat-one-virginias-powerful-republicans). A socialist became mayor of Jackson, Mississippi on a socialist platform: (https://www.thenation.com/article/is-this-the-most-radical-mayor-in-america/) This is the way we win. Tepid, third-way austerity destroyed the party. Real leftism is the way forward, electorally and ideologically.

Democrats are split 50/50 on their approval of Pelosi for Majority Leader. They would feel the same about anyone else in a year or so. 

Dems stopped turning out because they are gerrymandered to death and experience voter suppression...and the fact that they have had issues turning out midterms. For years, Republicans, with their hands on the levers in state legislatures and governors’ mansions, have made it incredibly hard for Democrats to make gains in Congress, redrawing congressional boundaries to favor Republicans and passing laws that make it harder for Americans to vote.

Bill Clinton and Obama were moderates. That’s how they won. That’s why Biden is a favorite. He can pull the Independents in Blue Collar Midwest. 

This year they turned out for moderates. 2018 was not the year of the winning progressive Democrat.

Moderate Democratic candidates were the big winners of swing congressional districts in the 2018 midterm elections, flipping most of the 28 key House districts from Republicans’ control and winning key gubernatorial races, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Illinois.

Many of the left-wing candidates who tested the theory of turning out their base, even in more conservative districts, lost on election night. However, that doesn’t mean they aren’t viable in certain areas of the country or they don’t belong in the Democratic Party. 

Mostly, it’s important to remember that you have to run the right people in the right places. West Virginia and Southern California are going to require completely different candidates to appeal to their constituents. 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

I guess republicans won't have to do anything to undermine democrats in the house. They're just sit and enjoy watching democrats tearing each other apart.

[PoshLife 17,019]

Speaker Pelosi shepherded a cap and trade (carbon tax) bill through the House in 2009, back when such a bold idea was even less popular than it is today. It didn't become law because it didn't have the votes in the Senate. She is way ahead of any of these protestors in terms of concrete action on climate change. But I don't think any of these people are actually familiar with her record, I think they just hate her because she's been around for a while.

Governing is much harder than complaining. Some of these newcomers are in for rude awakenings. It's going to be cathartic to watch them come face-to-face with the reality of policymaking in a divided government.

[Othon 34,299]

1 hour ago, Whispering said:

Democrats are split 50/50 on their approval of Pelosi for Majority Leader. They would feel the same about anyone else in a year or so. 

Dems stopped turning out because they are gerrymandered to death and experience voter suppression...and the fact that they have had issues turning out midterms. For years, Republicans, with their hands on the levers in state legislatures and governors’ mansions, have made it incredibly hard for Democrats to make gains in Congress, redrawing congressional boundaries to favor Republicans and passing laws that make it harder for Americans to vote.

Bill Clinton and Obama were moderates. That’s how they won. That’s why Biden is a favorite. He can pull the Independents in Blue Collar Midwest. 

This year they turned out for moderates. 2018 was not the year of the winning progressive Democrat.

Moderate Democratic candidates were the big winners of swing congressional districts in the 2018 midterm elections, flipping most of the 28 key House districts from Republicans’ control and winning key gubernatorial races, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Illinois.

Many of the left-wing candidates who tested the theory of turning out their base, even in more conservative districts, lost on election night. However, that doesn’t mean they aren’t viable in certain areas of the country or they don’t belong in the Democratic Party. 

Mostly, it’s important to remember that you have to run the right people in the right places. West Virginia and Southern California are going to require completely different candidates to appeal to their constituents. 

1) A majority of Democratic voters dislike one of the supposed leaders of their own party, per the poll I cited above. She's more unpopular among Democrats than she's been in a decade. They're not split. It is absolutely not normal for a party to dislike someone that supposedly represents them. It's absolutely not true that "they'd feel that way about anyone" and I don't know why in the world you think that. They dislike her because she's a multi-millionaire who doesn't represent their interests. Honestly, I don't think you do believe that. It just sounds like you're making an excuse.

2) You just reiterated that gerrymandering and voter suppression are problems when they've been a problem for a century and the Democrats have had sweeping victories at various intervals despite that fact. You repeating what you've already said doesn't make it any more compelling/more effective of an excuse for the fact that the Democrats lost control of literally every branch of government over the last decade with their losing moderate approach as well as 1,000 seats at every level of government. 

3) Bill Clinton was an extremely charismatic moderate. President Obama absolutely did not run as a moderate. He ran as a leftist (which is why people were so excited about him, in part - did you really not know that?) and governed as a moderate, which Democratic voters were unhappy about which is why the party lost so much electoral ground under his presidency. Those two won because they were charismatic, not because they were more moderate than the Democratic electorate voting for them. That doesn't make any sense. Biden is popular now because, again, he is charismatic and because he's been on talk shows over the past few years talking about the death of his son, which endeared him to the public for the time being. He was popular before he ran in the 2008 primaries and he ended up losing to both Clinton and Obama because he was to the right of both of them politically. Not to be rude, but it doesn't seem like you really know what you're talking about. This is all relatively well-known information.

4) Again, that's empirically false, per everything that I listed above that you just ignored.

5) Most of the Democrats running for office were moderates because those are the candidates that the party apparatus and the corporatist party leadership choose to get behind. They won because of anti-Trump sentiment; more Democrats voted in this election because of that. That's literally it. The party has deliberately sabotaged leftists that won Democratic primaries in countless races, even running candidates against them or backing their Republican opposition, and dozens of socialists have been elected to office over the past couple of year anyway, and are among the most popular members of the party. Are you saying dozens of socialist victories (in red states like Virginia and Mississippi and in New York districts that went overwhelmingly for Trump) over the last year are completely irrelevant, or are you just ignoring them because they aren't convenient? 

6) Many of the leftist candidates that were running won and those that lost were running in ridiculously conservative districts, and nearly all of them significantly outperformed Clinton and other moderate Democrats who've run in their districts in the past. They were MORE popular than the moderates that ran there in the past. You've left out all of the context because it undermines your point.

7) It's important to remember that there is no evidence to support that Democrats in Virginia are somehow more conservative than Democrats in New York. Several solidly red states like Virginia/West Virginia were Democratic strongholds just a few decades ago because the Democrats ran on a pro-labor, pro-union platform before the Democrats adopted third-way conservatism and the Democrats in those states stopped voting.

Moderates are not more electable than leftists. They've been losing ground for decades, conceding more and more to the Republicans, allowing the Overton window to shift towards fascism at every turn, selling out workers and other marginalized people, and Democrats just don't come out to vote for them anymore (with the exception of this election, given the fact that Democrats are furious about Trump). The party was in complete and total shambles after 2016, after they went all-in on a moderate and lost everything. Pro-war, capitalist, austerity-pushing, anti-drug legalization, pro-fracking centrism isn't popular. None of those positions are popular among Democratic voters. Look at literally any poll of Democrats on those issues. Centrism means more dead bodies in the Middle East, half-hearted attempts at environmental legislation that won't save us, deregulation, increased military spending, anti-labor policy, more Black and Brown people in jail for BS drug charges. It also means more losses. Third-way centrism destroyed the Democratic party. It won't save it.

[Othon 34,299]

48 minutes ago, PoshLife said:

Speaker Pelosi shepherded a cap and trade (carbon tax) bill through the House in 2009, back when such a bold idea was even less popular than it is today. It didn't become law because it didn't have the votes in the Senate. She is way ahead of any of these protestors in terms of concrete action on climate change. But I don't think any of these people are actually familiar with her record, I think they just hate her because she's been around for a while.

Governing is much harder than complaining. Some of these newcomers are in for rude awakenings. It's going to be cathartic to watch them come face-to-face with the reality of policymaking in a divided government.

I've seen this talking point repeated all over middle-aged Democratic social media and it's... completely ridiculous. Cap and trade certainly wasn't a "bold" idea. It's a significant compromise with business interests. It barely addresses the problem of climate change, only taxing for them for their carbon output (which they'll gladly just pay rather than adopting the changes needed to curb carbon emissions) and never even became law. She whipped votes and got her own party to support one bill in one chamber of Congress a decade ago. That's not a stunning record of success. The staggering losses the party has endured under her leadership certainly outweigh such a meager non-accomplishment.

Protests are action. Direct activism is action. Activists have always, always had to drag politicians to the moral position all throughout American history, which is exactly what these protesters are doing. Offering up tepid compromises with fascists (like Pelosi and the rest of the old guard of the party have been offering up) is just collaboration. Dismissing climate activists calling for direct action on climate change, bold proposals to save all of us from certain death instead of the non-action the Democrats have been engaging in for decades under Pelosi's leadership (often times actively promoting harmful activities like fracking that make the whole situation worse), as "complaining" is ridiculously condescending and outright insulting and comes from a place of insane privilege. If you find it "cathartic" to watch radical activists trying to save all of us from extinction be worn down by the grueling DC circuit, hoping that they learn to accept crumbs instead of fighting for real change, you're sort of a masochist. I can't believe I had to read something this cruel and regressive on this site.

[Whispering 18,865]

38 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

1) A majority of Democratic voters dislike one of the supposed leaders of their own party. per the poll I cited above. She's more unpopular among Democrats than she's been in a decade. They're not split. It is absolutely not normal for a party to dislike someone that supposedly represents them. It's absolutely not true that "they'd feel that way about anyone" and I don't know why in the world you think that. They dislike her because she's a multi-millionaire who doesn't represent their interests. Honestly, I don't think you do believe that. It just sounds like you're making an excuse.

2) You just reiterated that gerrymandering and voter suppression are problems when they've been a problem for a century and the Democrats have had sweeping victories at various intervals despite that fact. You repeating what you've already said doesn't make it any more compelling/more effective of an excuse for the fact that the Democrats lost control of literally every branch of government over the last decade with their losing moderate approach as well as 1,000 seats at every level of government. 

3) Bill Clinton was an extremely charismatic moderate. President Obama absolutely did not run as a moderate. He ran as a leftist (which is why people were so excited about him, in part - did you really not know that?) and governed as a moderate, which Democratic voters were unhappy about which is why the party lost so much electoral ground under his presidency. Those two won because they were charismatic, not because they were more moderate than the Democratic electorate voting for them. That doesn't make any sense. Biden is popular now because, again, he is charismatic. He was popular before he ran in the 2008 primaries and he ended up losing to both Clinton and Obama because he was to the right of both of them politically. Not to be rude, but it doesn't seem like you really know what you're talking about. This is all relatively well-known information.

4) Again, that's empirically false, per everything that I listed above that you just ignored.

5) Most of the Democrats running for office were moderates because those are the candidates that the party chooses to get behind. They won because of anti-Trump sentiment; more Democrats voted in this election because of that. That's literally it. The party has deliberately sabotaged leftists that won Democratic primaries in countless races, even running candidates against them or backing their Republican opposition, and dozens of socialists have been elected to office over the past couple of year anyway, and are among the most popular members of the party. Are you saying dozens of socialist victories over the last year are completely irrelevant? 

6) Many of the leftist candidates that were running won and those that lost were running in ridiculously conservative districts, and nearly all of them significantly outperformed Clinton and other moderate Democrats who've run in their districts in the past. They were MORE popular than the moderates that ran there in the past. You've left out all of the context because it undermines your point.

7) It's important to remember that there is no evidence to support that Democrats in Virginia are somehow more conservative than Democrats in New York. Several solidly red states like Virginia/West Virginia were Democratic strongholds just a few decades ago because the Democrats ran on a pro-labor, pro-union platform before the Democrats adopted third-way conservatism and the Democrats in those states stopped voting.

Moderates are not more electable than leftists. They've been losing ground for decades, conceding more and more to the Republicans, allowing the Overton window to shift towards fascism at every turn, selling out workers and other marginalized people, and Democrats just don't come out to vote for them anymore (with the exception of this election, given the fact that Democrats are furious about Trump). The party was in complete and total shambles after 2016, after they went all-in on a moderate and lost everything. Pro-war, capitalist, austerity-pushing, anti-drug legalization, pro-fracking centrism isn't popular. None of those positions are popular among Democratic voters. Look at literally any poll of Democrats on those issues. Centrism means more dead bodies in the Middle East, half-hearted attempts at environmental legislation that won't save us, deregulation, increased military spending, anti-labor policy, more Black and Brown people in jail for BS drug charges. It also means more losses. Third-way centrism destroyed the Democratic party. It won't save it.

The latest polling numbers show a fifty fifty split with Dems. That’s why I believe what I stated.

Gerrymandering has become an enormous problem in the last couple of decades. So much so, that Obama made it his #1 issue to confront as an X-President. 

I’ve more than likely been around longer than you and voted in more elections. I’ve followed politics for decades. I’ve watched it happen in real time...not just read talking points on left leaning sites. How many Presidential elections have you followed and voted in?

 A group of a half-dozen political scientists has come up with something called DW-Nominate, a ranking system for the relative liberalism/conservatism of members of Congress, that they have extrapolated to presidents using publicly stated support or opposition for legislation. Judging from the DW-Nominate scores, Obama's closest analog, ideologically speaking, is Lyndon Johnson. The rankings also suggest that both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were more liberal than Obama.

You are ignoring facts. 23 New Democrat-backed candidates flipped House seats to help gain the majority, while not a single Our Revolution-endorsed candidate captured a red seat. Despite talk about how “all the energy is on the left,” progressive populism and democratic socialism underwhelmed in the primaries and were close to shut out in competitive general elections. The actual voting energy in the midterms propelled mostly mainstream Democrats who closely matched their purple and red districts or states.

There is tons of evidence to support the levels of conservative to moderate to liberal constituencies in different areas of the country. Democrats are not the same in every state. That’s basic knowledge. Politics 101.

Lol, that moderate won the popular vote. Centrism doesn’t mean what you think it means. Moderates and moderate leaning liberals aren’t wanting increased military spending, fracking and POC thrown in jails. That’s ridiculous. They are more likely to align with Obama or Biden, who are moderates who lean more liberal on some issues. 

[Othon 34,299]

37 minutes ago, Whispering said:

The latest polling numbers show a fifty fifty split with Dems. That’s why I believe what I stated.

Gerrymandering has become an enormous problem in the last couple of decades. So much so, that Obama made it his #1 issue to confront as an X-President. 

I’ve more than likely been around longer than you and voted in more elections. I’ve followed politics for decades. I’ve watched it happen in real time...not just read talking points on left leaning sites. How many Presidential elections have you followed and voted in?

 A group of a half-dozen political scientists has come up with something called DW-Nominate, a ranking system for the relative liberalism/conservatism of members of Congress, that they have extrapolated to presidents using publicly stated support or opposition for legislation. Judging from the DW-Nominate scores, Obama's closest analog, ideologically speaking, is Lyndon Johnson. The rankings also suggest that both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were more liberal than Obama.

You are ignoring facts. 23 New Democrat-backed candidates flipped House seats to help gain the majority, while not a single Our Revolution-endorsed candidate captured a red seat. Despite talk about how “all the energy is on the left,” progressive populism and democratic socialism underwhelmed in the primaries and were close to shut out in competitive general elections. The actual voting energy in the midterms propelled mostly mainstream Democrats who closely matched their purple and red districts or states.

There is tons of evidence to support the levels of conservative to moderate to liberal constituencies in different areas of the country. Democrats are not the same in every state. That’s basic knowledge. Politics 101.

Lol, that moderate won the popular vote. Centicism doesn’t mean what you think it means. Moderates and moderate leaning liberals aren’t wanting increased military spending, fracking and POC thrown in jails. That’s ridiculous. They are more likely to align with Obama or Biden, who are moderates who lean more liberal on some issues. 

That moderate isn't the president. The popular vote is irrelevant and you know that. She lost, as a moderate, to a game show host, a serial sexual assaulter, and a clown. The end. 

"Moderates and moderate leaning liberals aren’t wanting increased military spending, fracking and POC thrown in jails." - They absolutely do and the fact that you don't know that is shocking. Look at literally any vote for increased military spending over the last decade, including the one that passed earlier this year that increased the military budget by $200 billion. Large swaths of Democrats vote for them every single time. Clinton was against even moving marijuana out of the same schedule 1 category as heroine. The direct result of that position is more black and brown people in jail for non-violent drug offenses. Clinton also advocated for fracking all around the world for years before she ran for president in 2016 and her nominees to the DNC commission when drafting the DNC charter refused to take fracking off the table. Lol. What mythical moderates are you talking about?

It's obvious to me that you're probably older than me because you're pushing the same propaganda that the rest of the middle aged democrats push when shouting down the young people that are trying to save them. The fact that I've taken the time to look into these issues, have done more research, and have taken the ethical position on them despite my being younger is pretty sad.

Again, you're ignoring all of the evidence I've provided you because it undermines your case for continued centrism (e.g. distributing wealth to the rich, deregulating the economy, giving bankers a break for crushing the economy, endless war, disaffected democratic voters and furious young people - this is what "moderate" Democrats support when in positions of power, whether you want to admit it or not), so I'm not going to argue with you on that point. You're just repeating the same talking point over and over again. There are dozens of socialists in office. Left-wing populism outperformed moderate records in nearly every state they ran in in the midterms, even with the lack of support from the party apparatus. No, not every democrat is the same in every state, but the idea that every red state has the same Democrats and the one-size-fits-all idea that you appeal to them with right-wing democrats works antithetical to history and only props up Republicans in democratic clothing. You've taken that simplistic Politics 101 concept and flattened it out into something it isn't. 

Look, you've drunk the third-way, Clintonite Kool-Aid. I feel for you, but you're in the way of progress. Move and let the younger generation clean up the mess your generation made before we're all killed.

[Morphine Prince 109,896]

"She lost, as a moderate, to a game show host, a serial sexual assaulter, and a clown."

I-  

Putting it like that made me crack up. This country is insane.

[Whispering 18,865]

32 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

That moderate isn't the president. The popular vote is irrelevant and you know that. She lost, as a moderate, to a game show host, a serial sexual assaulter, and a clown. The end. 

"Moderates and moderate leaning liberals aren’t wanting increased military spending, fracking and POC thrown in jails." - They absolutely do and the fact that you don't know that is shocking. Look at literally any vote for increased military spending over the last decade, including the one that passed earlier this year that increased the military budget by $200 billion. Large swaths of Democrats vote for them every single time. Clinton was against even moving marijuana out of the same schedule 1 category as heroine. The direct result of that position is more black and brown people in jail for non-violent drug offenses. Clinton also advocated for fracking all around the world for years before she ran for president in 2016 and her nominees to the DNC commission when drafting the DNC charter refused to take fracking off the table. Lol. What mythical moderates are you talking about?

It's obvious to me that you're probably older than me because you're pushing the same propaganda that the rest of the middle aged democrats push when shouting down the young people that are trying to save them. The fact that I've taken the time to look into these issues, have done more research, and have taken the ethical position on them despite my being younger is pretty sad.

Again, you're ignoring all of the evidence I've provided you because it undermines your case for continued centrism (e.g. distributing wealth to the rich, deregulating the economy, giving bankers a break for crushing the economy, endless war, disaffected democratic voters and furious young people), so I'm not going to argue with you on that point. You're just repeating the same talking point over and over again. There are dozens of socialists in office. Left-wing populism outperformed moderate records in nearly every state they ran in in the midterms. No, not every democrat is the same in every state, but the idea that every red state has the same Democrats and the one-size-fits-all idea that you appeal to them with right-wing democrats works antithetical to history and only props up Republicans in democratic clothing. You've taken that simplistic Politics 101 concept and flattened it out into something it isn't. 

Look, you've drunk the third-way, Clintonite Kool-Aid. I feel for you, but you're in the way of progress. Move and let the younger generation clean up the mess your generation made before we're all killed.

That game show host beat out thirteen qualified Republican candidates. That game show host still enjoys one of the highest approval ratings in his base since Bush after 9/11. The end.

No, they don’t. Of course she did. Marijuana is a different issue than it was two decades ago. Do you really not know that. The same moderates that align more closely with moderate candidates...the candidates that actually won the majority of their House races this year.

Again, how many years have you followed mid-term and general elections, voted in races, campaigned for candidates? 

No, I’m providing you with facts...facts that obviously you don’t like, so you are trying to spin them. Your spin does not make the facts disappear.  

Nah, I’m an Independent who has watched Republicans become impossible to vote for due to the Tea Party infiltration. I’ve watched bi-partisanship become obsolete. I’m hoping that Democrats will be able to have a party that works for a wide range of voters and in red, blue and purple states. 

If the younger generation would actually get out and vote, their issues would be in the forefront. Instead they spend their time whining online, instead of voting. You want to be heard? Vote! 

I agree with Obama: “Progress isn’t always a straight line or a smooth path.”

[Othon 34,299]

33 minutes ago, Whispering said:

That game show host beat out thirteen qualified Republican candidates. That game show host still enjoys one of the highest approval ratings in his base since Bush after 9/11. The end.

No, they don’t. Of course she did. Marijuana is a different issue than it was two decades ago. Do you really not understand that. The same moderates that align more closely with moderate candidates...the candidates that actually won the majority of their House races this year.

Again, how many years have you followed mid-term and general elections, voted in races, campaigned for candidates? 

No, I’m providing you with facts...facts that obviously you don’t like, so you are trying to spin them. Your spin does not make the facts disappear.  

Nah, I’m an Independent who has watched Republicans become impossible to vote for due to the Tea Party infiltration. I’ve watched bi-partisanship become obsolete. I’m hoping that Democrats will be able to have a party that works for a wide range of voters and in red, blue and purple states. 

If the younger generation would actually get out and vote, their issues would be in the forefront. Instead they spend their time whining online, instead of voting. You want to be heard? Vote! 

You think the fact that the game show host beat out 13 candidates makes him stronger?! It means that he knew how to appeal to the Republican base, who are largely idiots! The fact that Clinton lost to a moron of that magnitude, literally the most unpopular candidate to ever run for president, is even more embarrassing. Oh my god.

Of course they do, and I love how you just ignored the fact that I showed that you were wrong regarding how moderates vote. Just saying "No they don't" to concrete examples of what I'm talking about is hilarious. Clinton opposed marijuana being moved from schedule 1 in TWENTY SIXTEEN. "Of course she did"?! What does that even mean?! She was wrong to have taken that position! There's literally no excuse for her having done so! The election was literally two years ago. What are you even talking about? Black and brown people are still in jail for things they shouldn't be in jail for, just like they were two decades ago. It was wrong to support the criminalization of marijuana then and it's wrong now. Clinton opposed its legalization TWO YEARS AGO. The only thing that has changed are the positions of back-biting, slimy moderate politicians that are only moving towards the moral position on that issue because they think it'll keep them in office. 

I've campaigned for politicians and voted in literally every election I've ever been able to vote in, and the fact that you're older than me only serves to indict you further. Where were you when the Democratic party refused to fight climate change in a real, substantive way? Where were you when the government was saddling me and my generation with hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt? Where were you when the economy crashed that we've been forced to inherit from your incompetent generation and the Democrats let the bankers who caused it get away with it?! Where were you? Why didn't you work to stop this instead of mindlessly supporting the centrist democrats who have destroyed the Middle East and left a burning world for people my age to desperately try to save?

I'm not spinning anything. You've literally ignored all of the information I've given you this entire time to keep pushing your propaganda.

Ahhh. You're an independent, infamously the least knowledgable of all voters who nevertheless feel that they understand the most. That explains a lot.

Young people don't "whine." We demand change. We protest. We voice our contempt for people like you, older people, who are killing us every single day and then turn around and lecture us while you sink the knife a little deeper into our backs. We're suffocating under a broken economy, mountains of debt, crushing anxiety and depression, guilt from the knowledge that our country has killed millions of innocent brown people abroad. Your generation is the cause of it; and then you want to snidely spit in our faces when we don't vote for the same centrist democrats that got us here in the first place simply because they're not as bad as Republicans? I've literally never missed a vote in my life. I didn't get us here. Your generation did. I don't know how you live with that, but for the love of god: let us clean up your mess. Get out of the way and let us save ourselves, because we know you're not going to do it for us. You're the reason we're here.

[Whispering 18,865]

53 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

You think the fact that the game show host beat out 13 candidates makes him stronger?! It means that he knew how to appeal to the Republican base, who are largely idiots! The fact that Clinton lost to a moron of that magnitude is even more embarrassing. Oh my god.

Clinton opposed marijuana being moved from schedule 1 in TWENTY SIXTEEN. "Of course she did"?! What does that even mean?! She was wrong to have taken that position! There's literally no excuse for her having done so! The election was literally two years ago. What are you even talking about? Black and brown people are still in jail for things they shouldn't be in jail for, just like they were two decades ago. It was wrong to support the criminalization of marijuana then and it's wrong now. Clinton opposed its legalization TWO YEARS AGO. The only thing that has changed are the positions of back-biting, slimy moderate politicians that are only moving towards the moral position on that issue because they think it'll keep them in office. 

I've campaigned for politicians and voted in literally every election I've ever been able to vote in, and the fact that you're older than me only serves to indict you further. Where were you when the Democratic party refused to fight climate change in a real, substantive way? Where were you when the government was saddling me and my generation with hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt? Where were you when the economy crashed that we've been forced to inherit from your incompetent generation and the Democrats let the bankers who caused it get away with it?! Where were you? Why didn't you work to stop this instead of mindlessly supporting the centrist democrats who have destroyed the Middle East and left a burning world for people my age to desperately try to save?

I'm not spinning anything. You've literally ignored all of the information I've given you this entire time to keep pushing your propaganda.

Ahhh. You're an independent, infamously the least knowledgable of all voters who nevertheless feel that they understand the most. That explains a lot.

Young people don't "whine." We demand change. We protest. We voice our contempt for people like you, older people, who are killing us every single day and then turn around and lecture us while you sink the knife a little deeper into our backs. We're suffocating under a broken economy, mountains of debt, crushing anxiety and depression, guilt from the knowledge that our country has killed millions of innocent brown people abroad. Your generation is the cause of it; and then you want to snidely spit in our faces when we don't vote for the same centrist democrats that got us here in the first place simply because they're not as bad as Republicans? I've literally never missed a vote in my life. I didn't get us here. Your generation did. I don't know how you live with that, but for the love of god: let us clean up your mess. Get out of the way and let us save ourselves, because we know you're not going to do it for us. You're the reason we're here.

He knew how to appeal to disenfranchised voters and to the whitelash that was happening at the time. The fact that Bernie lost to someone who lost to a moron makes him an embarrassment then. Beto is an embarrassment because he lost to the highly unlikable Cruz. 

I was referring to decisions made back when Hillary was a Senator. She didn’t vote for anything in 2016. She did, however, state throughout this campaign that we should make it easier to study marijuana so that we can better understand its potential benefits, as well as its side effects.

"As president, Hillary will build on the important steps announced today by rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule II substance. She will also ensure Colorado, and other states that have enacted marijuana laws, can continue to serve as laboratories of democracy."

I’ve actually been present to follow politics to know what has changed. I’m not repeating talking points. 

Facts are not Propaganda. You sound like Fox News now. 

Independents are the largest group of voters. The fact that you don’t even know that shows how clueless you are on the actual facts.

See...you are whining. The economy is good, much better than it was ten years ago. If you have mountains of debt, that’s on you. If you have depression and anxiety, go to a psychologist. If you have guilt that controls your life over something that was completely out of your control, give back to society in a meaningful way. Volunteer! Be an advocate! Demanding change is voting. Whining will get you nowhere. Get out, get involved and vote. Stop making excuses. Every generation has had to deal with ****. That’s life. Get out and do something about the **** you don’t like! 

 

[Othon 34,299]

19 minutes ago, Whispering said:

He knew how to appeal to disenfranchised voters and to the whitelash. The fact that Bernie lost to someone who lost to a moron makes him an embarrassment then.

I was referring to decisions made back when Hillary was a Senator. She didn’t vote for anything in 2016. 

I’ve actually been present to follow politics to know what has changed. I’m not repeating talking points. 

Facts are not Propaganda. You sound like Fox News now. 

Independents are the largest group of voters. The fact that you don’t even know that shows how clueless you are on the actual facts.

See...you are whining. The economy is good, much better than it was ten years ago. If you have mountains of debt, that’s on you. If you have depression and anxiety, go to a psychologist. If you have guilt that controls your life over something that was completely out of your control, give back to society in a meaningful way. Volunteer! Be an advocate! Demanding change is voting. Whining will get you nowhere. Get out, get involved and vote. Stop whining and making excuses. Every generation has had to deal with ****. That’s life. Get out and do something about the **** you don’t like! 

 

You... cannot be serious. That's a genuinely monstrous thing to say. My generation is going to be paying off the student loans that we were told we HAD to take on in order to find a job (we can't now, by the way; thanks again for all you've done for us) while universities upped their tuition rates by hundreds of thousands of dollars since you went to college (if you did). We were robbed. You just dismissed the generational trauma and real world political disasters that millennials deal with on a daily basis as "whining." That is unforgivable. The benefits of the economic "improvement" over the last few years went to the wealthy, not marginalized people or young people, and you'd know that if you had any idea what you were talking about. You really have absolutely no understanding of the historical context of our modern political crisis, nor the insane privilege that generation x was born into after the economic boom following WWII. You really don't understand that future generations have to deal with the repercussions of the policies that the prior generation implemented. You sound exactly like a Republican.

Arguing with you is a complete waste of time. I'm politically active, I always vote, I've fought as a part of political campaigns. You're just another bitter, middle-aged scold with nothing to offer the generation that your own destroyed but contempt and condescension. I know that independents are the largest voting block and nothing in my last post indicated that I didn't; you're making sh*t up again and it's embarrassing, proving (again) what I actually said, which was that independents largely don't know anything about politics.

I'm not kidding when I say this: don't interact with me again. Ever. I have absolutely no interest in engaging in any sort of discourse with someone like you. You're a lost cause. And please, for the love of god: Do not vote. Stop voting. I'm begging you. Stop voting for the candidates that subscribe to the capitalist, imperialist ideology that got us here in the first place. Stop killing my generation. You've already done enough damage.

[Whispering 18,865]

20 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

You... cannot be serious. That's a genuinely monstrous thing to say. My generation is going to be paying off the student loans that we were told we HAD to take on in order to find a job. The benefits of the economic "improvement" went to the wealthy, not marginalized people or young people, and you'd know that if you had any idea what you were talking about. You really have absolutely no understanding of the historical context of our modern political crisis, nor the insane privilege that generation x was born into after the economic boom following WWII. You really don't understand that future generations have to deal with the repercussions of the policies that the prior generation implemented. 

Arguing with you is a complete waste of time. I'm politically active, I always vote, I've fought as a part of political campaigns. You're just another bitter, middle-aged scold with nothing to offer the generation that your own destroyed but contempt and condescension. I know that independents are the largest voting block and nothing in my last post indicated that I didn't; you're making sh*t up again and it's embarrassing. 

I'm not kidding when I say this: don't interact with me again. Ever. And please, for the love of god: Do not vote. Stop voting. I'm begging you. Stop voting for the candidates that subscribe to the capitalist, imperialist ideology that got us here in the first place. Stop killing my generation. You've already done enough damage.

Did you get scholarships? Did you go to a community college? Did you live at home while you went to school? Not everyone has crippling college debt. There are ways to manage college costs. I’m not even going to comment on the rest of that.

This last paragraph alone points out exactly why experience and wisdom are needed in the party along with energy. Telling someone not to vote shows that passion alone doesn’t work. 

 

BTW,  during a South Carolina stop, Hillary took a step forward by adding, “I would like to move it from what is called Schedule I to Schedule II so that researchers at universities, National Institutes of Health can start researching what is the best way to use it, how much a dose does somebody need, how does it interact with other medications.”

In an interview with Jimmy Kimmel, Hillary stated “Look, I think what the states are doing right now needs to be supported, and I absolutely support all the states that are moving toward medical marijuana, moving toward absolutely legalizing it for recreational use, but I want to see what the states learn from that experience, because there are still a lot of questions that we have to answer at a federal level. What I’d like to do is take it off of Schedule I and put it on a lower schedule so we can actually do some research about it.”

Your information was incorrect. 

[FATCAT 60,909]

7 hours ago, giskardsb said:

Beto O'Rourke is going to be the guy in 2020, he's the only one that can take on Trump and will call him out on his BS instead of just letting Trump talk over him.  Hillary was horrible in the debates.

 

 

Kamala Harris could be a great candidate too. Andrew Gillum could be great.