Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

AOC, Sanders, and Warren Are the Real Centrists Because They Speak for Most Americans

 

.............“It’s easy to call what AOC is doing as far-lefty, but nothing could be farther from the truth,” Nick Hanauer, the venture capitalist and progressive activist, told MSNBC in January. “When you advocate for economic policies that benefit the broad majority of citizens, that’s true centrism. What Howard Schultz represents, the centrism that he represents, is really just trickle-down economics.”

“He is not the centrist,” continued Hanauer. “AOC is the centrist.”

Hanauer is right. And Bernie Sanders is centrist too — smeared as an “ideologue” (The Economist) and “dangerously far left” (Chicago Tribune). So too is Elizabeth Warren — dismissed as a “radical extremist” (Las Vegas Review-Journal) and a “class warrior” (Fox News).

The inconvenient truth that our lazy media elites do so much to ignore is that Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, and Warren are much closer in their views to the vast majority of ordinary Americans than the Bloombergs or the Bidens. They are the true centrists,.....

 

“When we say moderate what we really mean is what corporations want. Within both parties there is this tension between what the politicians who get more corporate money and tend to be part of the establishment want — that’s what we tend to call moderate — versus what the Tea Party and more liberal members want”? ........

The center of 2019 is not the center of 1999 or even 2009. You want to know where it is right now? You want to find the moderate middle? Then ignore the right-wing hacks, the conventional wisdom-mongers, and the donor class .........

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/26/democratic-party-centrism-aoc-sanders-warren/

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, mr6666 said:

AOC, Sanders, and Warren Are the Real Centrists Because They Speak for Most Americans

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/26/democratic-party-centrism-aoc-sanders-warren/

 

Remember this when Trump cruises to re-election in Nov. 2020.  While they may speak for most Americans (and that is arguable), they do not speak for most VOTERS.  The 2016 and 2018 Senatorial races proved that.  A lot of Dem candidates also lost House races.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr6666 said:

Ilhan OmarVerified account @IlhanMN 5h5 hours ago

 
 

This week, we:

- Passed universal background checks

- Introduced #Medicare4All

- Introduced major voting reform

- Held Trump accountable

And today, we introduced the WATER Act to invest in clean drinking water. This should and will be a key component of the Green New Deal. 💪🏽

:)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

1.  Will die in the Senate or be vetoed by Trump.

2.  Will die in the Senate (if not the House) or be vetoed by Trump.

3.  What major voting reform?  Will it pass the House, the Senate, Trump, the courts?

4.  How did they hold Trump accountable?  Some hearings that have not caused him or the GOP dominated Senate to alter their actions.  Accountable means behavior is changed or the person goes to jail.  Neither has occurred.

5.What "Water Act?"  Will it pass the House, the Senate and Trump?

Introducing legislation does not mean a thing.  It is just braggadocio; thousands of bills are introduced each year that die.  Linking it to the Green New Deal is more likely to cause it to die.

I am glad they are doing these things, but hardly worth crowing about until something happens.  On the other hand, it plays into the hands of the GOPers plan to retain/convert independents and conservative Dems. to vote GOP in 2020.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This should elect a few more Republicans in 2020.

Behind closed doors, freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatened to put those voting with Republicans “on a list” for a primary challenge in the 2020 election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/house-democrats-explode-in-recriminations-as-liberals-lash-out-at-moderates/2019/02/28/c3d163fe-3b87-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1&noredirect=on

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the above article more carefully as regard's Pelosi's position.  She sort of supports forcing the moderate Dems. to agree with the radicals (including her) in the Dem party.  Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn, no. 2 & 3 in Dem House leadership, disagree with her and AO-C.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.  The Dems have a majority because moderate Dems from purple states were elected to House.  Forcing them to vote for liberal/socialist ideas will result in them being replaced by Republicans in 2021 and gaining control of House, as well as keeping Senate and White House.  Count on it.

This country is not just San Francisco, the Bronx or Queens.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, TheCid said:

I read the above article more carefully as regard's Pelosi's position.  She sort of supports forcing the moderate Dems. to agree with the radicals (including her) in the Dem party.  Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn, no. 2 & 3 in Dem House leadership, disagree with her and AO-C.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.  The Dems have a majority because moderate Dems from purple states were elected to House.  Forcing them to vote for liberal/socialist ideas will result in them being replaced by Republicans in 2021 and gaining control of House, as well as keeping Senate and White House.  Count on it.

This country is not just San Francisco, the Bronx or Queens.

 

See I told you (ha ha);  Yea,  in my John-Wayne-named-airport county the Dems gained 3 seats by running moderate Dems.   If these Dems go to-far-left they will likely be first-time-but-their-only-time members of the House.

PS:  Also if voters in my county believe Trump is toast (e.g. polling shows him falling way behind the Dem candidate) that will hurt these Dems even more.   Many voted for Dem for the first time because they wanted the Dems to control the House to 'resist' Trump;  I.e. being anti-Trump drove their vote  (this was true for me and my wife).  

But if I know Trump is likely to lose,  we would likely go back and vote for a moderate member of the GOP over a too-far-left Dem.    

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality vs. the Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders/Warren/Others wing of the Dem. Party.

John Anzalone, an Alabama-based Democratic pollster, said the perception that the party’s primary voters are enthusiastically liberal is not based on data.

“There is, without a doubt, a myth that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez somehow represents the narrative of Democratic primary voters in the country,” Anzalone said. “Almost half of them identify themselves as moderates or conservative.”

That appears to be at least somewhat borne out by the midterms, when less-ideological candidates often won when facing purist opponents. Thirty-three of the 40 GOP seats that Democrats picked up were won by candidates who had been endorsed by the moderate NewDem PAC.

A January Gallup poll found a pragmatic streak in the party — 54 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents wanted the party to become “more moderate,” while only 41 percent wanted it to be more liberal. That contrasted with the Republicans and their allies, 57 percent of whom wanted a more conservative party.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/centrist-democrats-push-back-against-partys-liberal-surge/2019/03/01/a6674430-3c38-11e9-a2cd-307b06d0257b_story.html?utm_term=.510ffab4f726&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders, Warren, Ocasio-Cortez, and Other Lawmakers Sign Pledge to End America’s “Forever Wars”

 

........a pledge to work to bring ongoing U.S. global military conflicts to a “responsible and expedient” end, the result of a first-of-its kind lobbying effort by military veterans on Capitol Hill.

The pledge was written and organized by a group called Common Defense, made up of veterans and military families, which advocates for scaling back U.S. military commitments overseas. Common Defense boasts of more than 20,000 veteran members in all 50 states, and it threw its endorsement behind almost 30 candidates in the last midterm election cycle.......

All of the signatories so far are members of the Democratic caucus, and most of them are associated with the left wing of the party: Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren; Omar and other freshmen Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ro Khanna, and Rashida Tlaib; and Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Mark Pocan. ....

 

“The United States has been in a state of continuous, global, open-ended military conflict since 2001. Over 2.5 million troops have fought in this ‘Forever War’ in over a dozen countries – including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Jordan, ****, Somalia, and Thailand,” the pledge reads.

It continues: “I pledge to the people of the United States of America, and to our military community in particular, that I will (1) fight to reclaim Congress’s constitutional authority to conduct oversight of U.S. foreign policy and independently debate whether to authorize each new use of military force, and (2) act to bring the Forever War to a responsible and expedient conclusion.”

 

“Our view on war really is driven by muscle memory, and there has to be a lot of unteaching that needs to take place. For the majority of members of Congress, these are people who are wealthy, who’ve led a life that is comfortable and privileged, or people who have never really left this country. What they know is what they see in the movies or what they read in the briefings and they don’t ever really get to have a conversation that is rooted in peace and justice.”

https://theintercept.com/2019/03/04/common-defense-congress-forever-wars-pledge/

:unsure:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

Sanders, Warren, Ocasio-Cortez, and Other Lawmakers Sign Pledge to End America’s “Forever Wars”

 

........a pledge to work to bring ongoing U.S. global military conflicts to a “responsible and expedient” end, the result of a first-of-its kind lobbying effort by military veterans on Capitol Hill.

The pledge was written and organized by a group called Common Defense, made up of veterans and military families, which advocates for scaling back U.S. military commitments overseas. Common Defense boasts of more than 20,000 veteran members in all 50 states, and it threw its endorsement behind almost 30 candidates in the last midterm election cycle.......

All of the signatories so far are members of the Democratic caucus, and most of them are associated with the left wing of the party: Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren; Omar and other freshmen Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ro Khanna, and Rashida Tlaib; and Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Mark Pocan. ....

 

“The United States has been in a state of continuous, global, open-ended military conflict since 2001. Over 2.5 million troops have fought in this ‘Forever War’ in over a dozen countries – including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Jordan, ****, Somalia, and Thailand,” the pledge reads.

It continues: “I pledge to the people of the United States of America, and to our military community in particular, that I will (1) fight to reclaim Congress’s constitutional authority to conduct oversight of U.S. foreign policy and independently debate whether to authorize each new use of military force, and (2) act to bring the Forever War to a responsible and expedient conclusion.”

 

“Our view on war really is driven by muscle memory, and there has to be a lot of unteaching that needs to take place. For the majority of members of Congress, these are people who are wealthy, who’ve led a life that is comfortable and privileged, or people who have never really left this country. What they know is what they see in the movies or what they read in the briefings and they don’t ever really get to have a conversation that is rooted in peace and justice.”

https://theintercept.com/2019/03/04/common-defense-congress-forever-wars-pledge/

:unsure:

 

Purpose of Common Defense from its website:  "We started Common Defense to oppose Trump's corrupt administration, organize our community into a powerful force, and elect champions our nation deserves."   

This is more proof of where the Dem. Progressives are going in the wrong direction.  This is NOT an objective, non-partisan organization.  It was created to "oppose Trump."

Incidentally, there is no such war as the Forever War.  That is a term that has been applied to Afghanistan and Iraq.  Although it could conceivably include the War on Terrorism.  But then the Cold War was a "forever war."

How many of the signatories served in the military?

More ammunition for the GOPers to successively use against Dems. at all levels in the 2020 election.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Purpose of Common Defense from its website:  "We started Common Defense to oppose Trump's corrupt administration, organize our community into a powerful force, and elect champions our nation deserves."   

This is more proof of where the Dem. Progressives are going in the wrong direction.  This is NOT an objective, non-partisan organization.  It was created to "oppose Trump."

Incidentally, there is no such war as the Forever War.  That is a term that has been applied to Afghanistan and Iraq.  Although it could conceivably include the War on Terrorism.  But then the Cold War was a "forever war."

How many of the signatories served in the military?

More ammunition for the GOPers to successively use against Dems. at all levels in the 2020 election.

Trump's America First talking-points during the 2016 campaign appear to be in line with what these Dems appear to be calling for;  a return to an isolationist POV.       

As for Pledge #1:  For Warren and Sanders what they are saying is that they want to share the responsibility of being commander and chief with Congress.     While I support that it doesn't mean there would be less war.      

Pledge #2 is just empty BS.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Trump's America First talking-points during the 2016 campaign appear to be in line with what these Dems appear to be calling for;  a return to an isolationist POV.       

As for Pledge #1:  For Warren and Sanders what they are saying is that they want to share the responsibility of being commander and chief with Congress.     While I support that it doesn't mean there would be less war.      

Pledge #2 is just empty BS.

 

The part that gets me is the "What they know is what they see in the movies or what they read in the briefings" as if morons like AOC and Cherokee Chief Warren are better experts on these things. :lol: 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

PoliticsVideoChannel @politvidchannel 8h8 hours ago

 
 

BREAKING: Speaker Nancy Pelosi Said She Will introduce a bill on Wednesday

That Would restore net neutrality protections

:)

Just more meaningless BS from the House Speaker.    Unless she knows the Senate will pass said bill (or a similar version),  AND that Trump would sign it,   this is all just a political stunt.    (just like all the BS bills the GOP House passed when Obama was President). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/4/2019 at 5:25 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

Trump's America First talking-points during the 2016 campaign appear to be in line with what these Dems appear to be calling for;  a return to an isolationist POV.       

As for Pledge #1:  For Warren and Sanders what they are saying is that they want to share the responsibility of being commander and chief with Congress.     While I support that it doesn't mean there would be less war.      

Pledge #2 is just empty BS.

 

One of the problems with "warfare" and National Defense now compared to 1783 is the vast number of military actions that are required within hours.  Congress would debate it to death for weeks or months before taking action.  Of course, the reverse is also an issue.  Should we get involved in these types of military actions in the first place.

Per the Constitution, Congress' duty is to declare war.  U.S. has not declared war since 1941.

Agreed Pledge #2 is empty BS as Obama and Trump both discovered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN runs a story about Biden and his comments from 1993 related to crime in America.   I really wonder if some interpret 'beyond the pale' as relating to the skin color of these predators or 'take them out' as meaning they should be executed.

"We have predators on our streets that society has in fact, in part because of its neglect, created," said Biden, then a fourth-term senator from Delaware so committed to the bill that he has referred to it over the years as "the Biden bill."   "They are beyond the pale many of those people, beyond the pale," Biden continued. "And it's a sad commentary on society. We have no choice but to take them out of society."

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

House passes sweeping election reform bill

Democrats had made the proposal a key part of their campaign to win back the House.

",........The legislation includes a national expansion of early voting, redistricting reform, making Election Day a federal holiday, automatic voter registration and stricter disclosure rules for a bevy of political activities. One particular ethics provision would mandate presidential and vice presidential candidates to publicly disclose 10 years of tax returns — a measure taken after Trump has refused to do so despite decades of precedent.

The bill has little chance of becoming law in the face of stiff opposition from the GOP-controlled Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said this week that it would get no floor time “because I get to decide what we vote on.”.......

 

Still, the bill’s passage fulfills a major campaign promise for many House Democrats, who embraced a theme of cleaning up Washington during the midterm elections.

“It is no coincidence that the largest freshman class since Watergate is also the class that is leading and pushing on this critical reform measure,” freshman Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said at a Thursday news conference. “We are the class born of voters’ frustrations with a broken system.”......

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/08/house-passes-sweeping-election-reform-bill-1212693

Link to post
Share on other sites

Column by Cokie and Steve Roberts says its all.  AOC/BS (Bernie Sanders) wing of Dem party are going to hand the 2020 election to Trump and the GOP in House and Senate.

https://snewsi.com/id/19187711143/Cokie-Steven-V-Roberts-The-perils-of-mythmaking

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

:unsure:

How Not to Lose to Donald Trump

A winning 2020 candidate needs three things: authenticity, credibility, and viability.

 

 

"....Republicans are telling you something when they gleefully schedule votes on proposals like the Green New Deal, Medicare for all, and a 70 percent marginal tax rate. When they’re more eager to vote on the Democratic agenda than we are, we should take a step back and ask ourselves whether we’re inadvertently letting the political battle play out on their turf rather than our own. If Trump’s only hope for winning a second term turns on his ability to paint us as socialists, we shouldn’t play to type.

That’s not to say Democrats should abandon our priorities. We should work hard to combat climate change. We should fight to expand health-care coverage and reduce costs. We should find ways to make the tax code more progressive. But we shouldn’t fall for Trump’s sucker punch.

By a margin of 56 to 33 percent, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer us to nominate “someone who would be a strong candidate against Trump even if they disagree with that candidate on most issues.” In other words, this campaign is going to be less about ideological purity and litmus tests, and more about how voters size up the candidates’ personal qualities........

 

Democratic and independent voters are more desperate to win than ever before. They’ll be willing to support a candidate who doesn’t agree with them on every issue—just so long as that candidate is capable of evicting Trump from the White House. So the ideological debates often shroud what voters really want—a nominee capable of standing steady and strong as Trump tries to bully his way into an Election Night victory.

 

The president’s low approval ratings suggest that, if he wins a second term, Democrats will have no one to blame but ourselves. We’re blessed to have a slate of primary candidates capable of making Trump the first one-term president in more than a quarter century. But to get there, we’ll need to put some of our internal disagreements on hold.........

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/how-democrats-can-beat-trump-2020/584512/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_term=2019-03-10T10%3A00%3A05&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR364vt0yBey2eHHBySRYLTNIJ5edzy-Jlpr9J3Nvvw_VmGvn9UMsZICgZQ

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mr6666 said:

:unsure:

How Not to Lose to Donald Trump

A winning 2020 candidate needs three things: authenticity, credibility, and viability.

 

 

"....Republicans are telling you something when they gleefully schedule votes on proposals like the Green New Deal, Medicare for all, and a 70 percent marginal tax rate. When they’re more eager to vote on the Democratic agenda than we are, we should take a step back and ask ourselves whether we’re inadvertently letting the political battle play out on their turf rather than our own. If Trump’s only hope for winning a second term turns on his ability to paint us as socialists, we shouldn’t play to type.

That’s not to say Democrats should abandon our priorities. We should work hard to combat climate change. We should fight to expand health-care coverage and reduce costs. We should find ways to make the tax code more progressive. But we shouldn’t fall for Trump’s sucker punch.

By a margin of 56 to 33 percent, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer us to nominate “someone who would be a strong candidate against Trump even if they disagree with that candidate on most issues.” In other words, this campaign is going to be less about ideological purity and litmus tests, and more about how voters size up the candidates’ personal qualities........

 

Democratic and independent voters are more desperate to win than ever before. They’ll be willing to support a candidate who doesn’t agree with them on every issue—just so long as that candidate is capable of evicting Trump from the White House. So the ideological debates often shroud what voters really want—a nominee capable of standing steady and strong as Trump tries to bully his way into an Election Night victory.

 

The president’s low approval ratings suggest that, if he wins a second term, Democrats will have no one to blame but ourselves. We’re blessed to have a slate of primary candidates capable of making Trump the first one-term president in more than a quarter century. But to get there, we’ll need to put some of our internal disagreements on hold.........

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/how-democrats-can-beat-trump-2020/584512/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_term=2019-03-10T10%3A00%3A05&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR364vt0yBey2eHHBySRYLTNIJ5edzy-Jlpr9J3Nvvw_VmGvn9UMsZICgZQ

Should be noted that this is an article by Rahm Emanuel and I agree with it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Vautrin said:

I am always amused by folks making election predictions 20 months before

an election. 

To what are you referring?  Helps when you use the quote feature or just copy the post to which you refer.

Regardless, the posts are discussing how the campaigns should be handled, not necessarily who will win.  Although that is part of determining how to campaign, the issues to address and the viability of each potential candidate.  The articles also discuss how the Dems can blow it again.

The Dems lost in part because they ignored Trump 20 months out.  The other GOP candidates for nomination lost because they did not take Trump seriously 20 months out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TheCid said:

To what are you referring?  Helps when you use the quote feature or just copy the post to which you refer.

Regardless, the posts are discussing how the campaigns should be handled, not necessarily who will win.  Although that is part of determining how to campaign, the issues to address and the viability of each potential candidate.  The articles also discuss how the Dems can blow it again.

The Dems lost in part because they ignored Trump 20 months out.  The other GOP candidates for nomination lost because they did not take Trump seriously 20 months out.

I was referring to the article by Cokie and Steve Roberts just above my post. You'd think

that two old political pros would be careful about predicting things this far away from an

election when who knows what will happen between now and then. I can't blame either

the Dems or the GOP for mostly ignoring Trump 20 months ahead of the 2016 election,

when he was still a very long shot. I doubt many people thought he had a chance at

the time. Who knew that an ignorant buffoon would appeal to so many people. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

I was referring to the article by Cokie and Steve Roberts just above my post. You'd think

that two old political pros would be careful about predicting things this far away from an

election when who knows what will happen between now and then. I can't blame either

the Dems or the GOP for mostly ignoring Trump 20 months ahead of the 2016 election,

when he was still a very long shot. I doubt many people thought he had a chance at

the time. Who knew that an ignorant buffoon would appeal to so many people. 

The Roberts were not trying to predict the future General election but instead influence the Dem Primary to ensure a self described socialist doesn't represent the party.  

As far as Dems ignoring Trump;  nothing could be further from reality.   E.g. the Dems that have declared they are running for the nomination are mostly attacking Trump and saying why they would be a better President than Trump,  instead of saying why they are better than the other Dems.

Note that the Emanual article stresses the same line;   don't attack each other,  don't try to settle major policies differences during the primary campaign.    Of course this is just wishful BS thinking from the DNC.   

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...