tommyGunZ

Someone married Jets94?????

Someone can have my spot.

Surprisingly, there are liberals on this board who don't agree. It's mind boggling.

This. Is. EXACTLY. Right.

I thought Trump voters hated "PC" culture, and liked people who "tell it like it is". Are you suggesting that's not true, and that we should be careful of what words we use to describe their actions?

I agree with your overall point that Democrats should go big and prioritize choosing the candidate that best reflects their beliefs over the candidate they think is most likely to win. I can't speak for Roosevelt, Truman, or Kennedy, but I do think that Obama (the best President of my lifetime IMO) made concessions due to political expedience. Specifically, I think Obama personally is far more progressive on issues of race and LGBT than he articulated. FWIW - I'm supporting Liz Warren the primary, but will support anyone/anything (including a jar of mayonnaise) in the general election.

I disagree. I understand the Squad's principled stance, and yet we all agree that there is immediate additional funding needed to better the conditions and processes of those seeking asylum. IMO, it worked out almost exactly as it should have - the spending package, while far from ideal, was better than no additional spending package, so passing it was the right decision, while allowing the Squad their protest votes.

Pelosi's job as speaker - literally the most important function of being the political leader of a caucus - is maintaining solidarity in order to maximize power. I tend to reflexively agree with AOC's hot twitter takes and her general position on most issues, but making progress isn't about winning the moral high ground on twitter, it's about getting good legislation passed and blocking bad stuff. Pelosi is unquestionably a master at that art, and I while I hope AOC's squad continues to advance the national discussion progressively, I can certainly understand why the manager of the team would prefer teammates settle their differences internally in furtherance of higher goals.

I think my favorite anti-healthcare shtick is “it’s going to cost 10s of trillions” followed by the “it’s going to cause tons of hospitals to shut down”. The “RATIONING!!!” boogie man is a close 2nd. That scare tactic is always employed by folks who are currently on the receiving side of the current manner in which health care is rationed, with obviously little to no empathy for those who are currently on the wrong side of the rationing divide.

:crickets:

Tea Party Republicans must be seething and ready to revolt. Mass protests on the Mall on the way, right?

You support a corrupt, incompetent, reality TV President. He literally auditioned for the job on television. Yet you’re critical of a grassroots candidate like AOC. It like bizarro-world. I can’t tell if you are serious, or if I’m being fished.

Oh the irony.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi was the left wing boogie man the right used to scare voters? Her and her “San Francisco values”? Now she’s becoming the moderate while Fox News creates a new Godzilla. What a brilliant way to move the party and the conversation to the left without changing anything.

Why does it say about the current state of conservatism that the foremost experts hand chosen to enact conservative policies are con men and economic clowns like Peter Navarro? And if you want to say these people aren't really the foremost experts on conservative economic policy (I would agree), how do you wrestle with the current evidence that debt levels aren't nearly disaster that conservative (and many liberal) economists have been warning about for decades? In essence, don't current interest rates and bonds yields suggest that monetary policy in our lifetime has been far too tight, and that economic growth has thus been negatively impacted for decades due to prevailing conservative economic thought?