What political issues are you unwilling to compromise on?

[redivider]

For me, those issues are;

-ending the war on drugs
-campaign finance reform
-universal healthcare
-ending the for profit private prison industry
-getting out of the current offensive wars, and avoiding further ones
-enacting a living wage for all Americans by law
-pledging to not accept corporate or PAC donations

I won't vote for a politician who disagrees with any of these issues

I'm curious, what are yours?

shit like this is why we have trump. you can't find a politician that fits your exact 'periscope' of perfection.

it's not going to happen.

Living in a community means compromise, when people refuse to compromise - we get Trump....

That's the thing, now a compromise which benefits everybody is an attack on freedom. it devolves into philosophical nonesense while people suffer..... compromise is no longer an option and 'holding the line' has become common.... a compromise is seen as a loss, a compromise is a sign of weakness....

all the while we get corrupt, lying, inept and embarrassing leaders making policy and dictating how we should go about our lives.....

 

[schuylaar]

shit like this is why we have trump. (Lack of compromise)

all the while we get corrupt, lying, inept and embarrassing leaders making policy and dictating how we should go about our lives.....

And your saying this JUST happened..?

 

[Padawanbater2]

shit like this is why we have trump. you can't find a politician that fits your exact 'periscope' of perfection.

it's not going to happen.

Living in a community means compromise, when people refuse to compromise - we get Trump....

That's the thing, now a compromise which benefits everybody is an attack on freedom. it devolves into philosophical nonesense while people suffer..... compromise is no longer an option and 'holding the line' has become common.... a compromise is seen as a loss, a compromise is a sign of weakness....

all the while we get corrupt, lying, inept and embarrassing leaders making policy and dictating how we should go about our lives.....

We got Trump because people were too willing to compromise with accepting bribes to finance political campaigns. Trump is a symptom of the larger problem. If Clinton had won, the problems that resulted in Trump winning the election would still have been there, maybe they would have gotten worse and we would have ended up with someone worse than Trump. Without addressing the actual problems, this cycle just continues through administrations. Corporate Democrats can't/won't address them because the solutions to them affect their donors interests, so, obviously the solution to that is to not vote for corporate/establishment Democrats. Maybe while you're at it, don't tip the scales for the only candidate in the world who could lose to Trump. People don't seem to like it when you subvert democracy, who knew?

 

[Fogdog]

We got Trump because people were too willing to compromise with accepting bribes to finance political campaigns. Trump is a symptom of the larger problem.

^^^This is a good example of the logical fallacy know as False Cause.

You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other. We got Trump due to another cause.

 

[Fogdog]

And your saying this JUST happened..?

naive

 

[Padawanbater2]

^^^This is a good example of the logical fallacy know as False Cause.

You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other. We got Trump due to another cause.

The voters in swing states who voted for Obama voted for Trump. There's no way you can attribute his win to racism. You can't blame 3rd party voters because there's no way to know who they would have cast their vote to in a two party system. Hillary Clinton lost the rust belt because she supported establishment policies. People voted for Trump because they thought he would upturn the status quo, just like Obama campaigned on, then spent 8 years ignoring.

These progressive races are showing progress, regardless of the losses. Nobody who supports progressive positions believes it will happen over night, and we've said that from the beginning. Changing the electoral outcome is a process that will take a lot of time. But winning 30% of the vote and only spending 5% of your opponent when the previous Democratic challenger who ran to the right of Manchin in 2012 only garnered 20% is undoubted progress. Swearengin earned 10% more than her previous challenger counterpart without spending a fraction of what she did against Manchin in 2012. She also earned more votes against Manchin in the Democratic primary than any Republican did in the Republican primary. She came in 2nd behind Manchin on her first shot at public office, with zero name recognition and no corporate or PAC financial backing.

30% to 70% is a huge loss. Nobody is denying that. But it's an undeniable improvement over past election cycles, and it's one of the signs of the beginning of a trend nationwide.

 

[Fogdog]

These progressive races are showing progress, regardless of the losses. Nobody who supports progressive positions believes it will happen over night, and we've said that from the beginning. Changing the electoral outcome is a process that will take a lot of time. But winning 30% of the vote and only spending 5% of your opponent when the previous Democratic challenger who ran to the right of Manchin in 2012 only garnered 20% is undoubted progress. Swearengin earned 10% more than her previous challenger counterpart without spending a fraction of what she did against Manchin in 2012. She also earned more votes against Manchin in the Democratic primary than any Republican did in the Republican primary. She came in 2nd behind Manchin on her first shot at public office, with zero name recognition and no corporate or PAC financial backing.

30% to 70% is a huge loss. Nobody is denying that. But it's an undeniable improvement over past election cycles, and it's one of the signs of the beginning of a trend nationwide.

Our Revolution went 0 for 6 yesterday. In 2018 they are 2 for 16. If you want to cast bones and read them go ahead. Bernie lost in 2016 too. Winning 30% of the vote is a loss.

What have we been discussing lately?

That the DCCC is getting involved early and they are telling us quite clearly they are providing support to the candidates they think have good chances to win. The first milestone is to beat back the weaker candidates like yours.

Swearingen had zero chance at winning the election in the fall. It was for the best that she lose, even though I preferred her over Manchin. I would have voted for her if I lived in West Virginia. But still, I'd vote for Manchin in the fall if I lived in West Virginia.

"winning 30% of the vote and only spending 5% of your opponent when the previous Democratic challenger who ran to the right of Manchin in 2012 only garnered 20% is undoubted progress."

This is a very slim reed if you are grasping at it to claim the DCCC is wrong about the candidates it is backing. The whole point is to win elections not make the margin of loss better. The Democratic Party has it's objective set at winning the House. Anything less would be considered a failure. Not because Democrats are my team as you like to say but because of all the harm that Republicans will do if they get two more years of total control of government. People's lives are at risk and you are nattering on about improving from 20% to 30% on a teensy campaign budget.

 

[Fogdog]

The voters in swing states who voted for Obama voted for Trump. There's no way you can attribute his win to racism. You can't blame 3rd party voters because there's no way to know who they would have cast their vote to in a two party system. Hillary Clinton lost the rust belt because she supported establishment policies. People voted for Trump because they thought he would upturn the status quo, just like Obama campaigned on, then spent 8 years ignoring.

You believe what you want about voters in swing states. I'll stick to published peer reviewed reports. There is very good information that tells us the people who voted for Trump were strongly attracted by his racist and misogynist rhetoric. Racism and misgyny were the underlying causes for Trump's win. Not your fantasy about how people were as you say: "people were too willing to compromise with accepting bribes to finance political campaigns." Hillary Clinton lost in the rust belt and swing states BECAUSE enough voted for Trump to maintain the status quo of white male entitlement.

Make America Great Again is all about maintaining the social status quo and racially insecure white people bought in to it.

Here is a very good report that very clearly shows how much racism and misogyny played a role in 2016.

Explaining White Polarization in the 2016 Vote for President: The Sobering Role of Racism and Sexism
http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf

 

[ttystikk]

You believe what you want about voters in swing states. I'll stick to published peer reviewed reports. There is very good information that tells us the people who voted for Trump were strongly attracted by his racist and misogynist rhetoric. Racism and misgyny were the underlying causes for Trump's win. Not your fantasy about how people were as you say: "people were too willing to compromise with accepting bribes to finance political campaigns." Hillary Clinton lost in the rust belt and swing states BECAUSE enough voted for Trump to maintain the status quo of white male entitlement.

Make America Great Again is all about maintaining the social status quo and racially insecure white people bought in to it.

Here is a very good report that very clearly shows how much racism and misogyny played a role in 2016.

Explaining White Polarization in the 2016 Vote for President: The Sobering Role of Racism and Sexism
http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf

False cause; you're stuck on the racism explanation when it fails to fit the facts.

America has been compromising in terms of their votes for high office for decades and look where it's gotten country?

More and more people are refusing to vote for the 'not as bad' candidate. That's going to change things.

How about the Democratic Party starts running candidates who will work to earn the votes of We the People, instead of childishly demanding them just because they point at the opposition and say things like, 'but look how bad he is!' Too much effort?

 

[Fogdog]

False cause; you're stuck on the racism explanation when it fails to fit the facts.

America has been compromising in terms of their votes for high office for decades and look where it's gotten country?

More and more people are refusing to vote for the 'not as bad' candidate. That's going to change things.

How about the Democratic Party starts running candidates who will work to earn the votes of We the People, instead of childishly demanding them just because they point at the opposition and say things like, 'but look how bad he is!' Too much effort?

sorry man.

your belief isn't very important compared to reality.

The data is very compelling. You have a bad habit of avoiding the truth.

Regarding that bit about We the People. Well, let me just say 0 for 6.

 

[ttystikk]

sorry man.

your belief isn't very important compared to reality.

The data is very compelling. You have a bad habit of avoiding the truth.

Regarding that bit about We the People. Well, let me just say 0 for 6.

The notion that you have a solid grasp of reality is belied by any critical reading of your posts.

Rome wasn't built in a day and the idea that the current powers that run our political system would just hand it over without a fight is as wrongheaded as the rest of your politics.

 

[Fogdog]

The notion that you have a solid grasp of reality is belied by any critical reading of your posts.

Rome wasn't built in a day and the idea that the current powers that run our political system would just hand it over without a fight is as wrongheaded as the rest of your politics.

Democrats are doing just fine without Bernie. It's Bernie who should be doing the listening.

0 for 6

 

[Padawanbater2]

Democrats are doing just fine without Bernie. It's Bernie who should be doing the listening.

0 for 6

The Democratic party has been completely decimated over the past decade because they didn't deliver on Obama's hope and change. Sanders is the most popular politician in the country, working to rebuild unions and get 30+ million Americans access to healthcare

 

[UncleBuck]

Sanders is the most popular politician in the country

no he isn;t, he's polling at 13% in third place in new hampshire right now

 

[travisw]

Sanders is the most popular politician in the country,

IS BERNIE SANDERS'S 2020 SUPPORT SLIPPING? A SURVEY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE VOTERS SAYS YES
http://www.newsweek.com/are-bernie-sanderss-2020-polling-numbers-slipping-survey-new-hampshire-voters-908766

Is Nikki Haley the most popular politician in America?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/nikki-haley-approval-rating/index.html

Nikki Haley is America's most popular politician, and Donald Trump isn't the most unpopular: Poll
http://www.oregonlive.com/expo/erry-2018/04/3f2ad5a5145584/nikki_haley_is_americas_most_p.html

 

[Fogdog]

The Democratic party has been completely decimated over the past decade because they didn't deliver on Obama's hope and change. Sanders is the most popular politician in the country, working to rebuild unions and get 30+ million Americans access to healthcare

You idealistic liberals have been pulling Democrats down. What you can't understand is that most districts in the US are not convinced by your all or nothing big government policies. The ACA is a small bite compared to Bernie's heavy handed forcing all Americans into Medicare and even that took 8 years for people to come around to it. The dystopian guaranteed minimum wage jobs program you idealistic liberals love so much is a loser too.

Democrats are doing much better by listening to people in each district and shaping policies to their liking while staying true to universally appealing policies of supporting unions, universal access to healthcare, good environment, education, competitive industries and so forth.

How can you be satisfied with Our Revolution only winning two out of seventeen races this year? It's a good thing that Bernie is an Independent.

 

[Fogdog]

The race: Ohio House of Representatives District 10 Democratic primary election

Kyle Earley, Our Revolution's candidate

Our Revolution's description of their candidate: Kyle Earley, is a minister, motivational speaker, artist, writer, political advisor and community leader who is a voice of peace, love, and reconciliation for this generation and generations to come. through positive, and life transforming messages, Earley promotes empowerment and change through serving others and reminding us that change is not a Moment, It’s a movement. Min. Earley is an advocate for saving social service programs, fair funding for public education, resources for youth programming and funding to help uplift the poor in our communities.

result: 617 votes out of 6,781 cast or 8% of the vote

Kyle's big thing was universal Medicare for all. The state was to provide it. No price tag included.

The winner of the contest:

Terrence Upchurch, 30.04% of the vote, 2,307 votes
His description of his policies:
I understand the importance of having partnerships at the State House and will use this office as a platform to fight for working class families. In District 10 and all across Ohio, we have felt the impact of a of a state legislature that continues to cut resources. In Cuyahoga County alone, over 100 million dollars has been stripped from our local governments at the hands of the state, making it more difficult for municipalities to meet the basic needs of the people and provide simple services such as; Police and Fire.

Endorsed by Cuyahoga County Democrats among other established Democrats.

 

[Sativied]

no he isn;t, he's polling at 13% in third place in new hampshire right now

Maybe that’s why Padawan said country and not New Hampshire. Ask your dog to look up the difference between “country”, “state”, “some”, “all”, and “many”, concepts that seem to confuse you.

 

[Fogdog]

Maybe that’s why Padawan said country and not New Hampshire. Ask your dog to look up the difference between “country”, “state”, “some”, “all”, and “many”, concepts that seem to confuse you.

since when was New Hampshire not part of the US?

Pad said most popular in the US. Well, not in New Hampshire. Not in a lot of states.

Bernie is pretty popular in Oregon. Does that make you happier?

 

[UncleBuck]

Maybe that’s why Padawan said country and not New Hampshire. Ask your dog to look up the difference between “country”, “state”, “some”, “all”, and “many”, concepts that seem to confuse you.

new hampshire is next door to his own state, it is where he should be doing the best