The Trump DOJ goes "woke" and will target free speech.

[RocksInMyHead]

I’m sure this makes sense to you but it is germane to the conversation.

Again, you're the one who claimed that Harris and Clinton's voting records show them to be "far left". How is explaining how this is faulty logic "not germane" (I'm assuming that's what you meant to say? You may disagree, but disagreement isn't off-topic.

You might want to check out the proposals for far left policies that the Congressional Progressive Caucus has proposed.

I don't see how this is germane to the conversation, considering that Bernie Sanders is the only senator who's a member of the CPC, and Harris and Clinton were never part of it. Their policy proposals are not voted on by the Senate (unless, of course, they pass the House first), and are thus not part of a senator's voting record.

 

[Hentenza]

Again, you're the one who claimed that Harris and Clinton's voting records show them to be "far left". How is explaining how this is faulty logic "not germane" (I'm assuming that's what you meant to say? You may disagree, but disagreement isn't off-topic.

I’ve tried to explain it yo you us a few different ways but you are still stuck in their voting records do not count because they don’t vote for far left legislation. That is faulty logic because they do vote for far left proposals and/or are vociferous about the ones that are not far left enough.

I don't see how this is germane to the conversation, considering that Bernie Sanders is the only senator who's a member of the CPC, and Harris and Clinton were never part of it. Their policy proposals are not voted on by the Senate (unless, of course, they pass the House first), and are thus not part of a senator's voting record.

“The Congressional Progressive Caucus is composed of nearly 100 progressive members from the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.”

Caucus Members | Congressional Progressive Caucus

progressives.house.gov

There are a few more members of the COC than just Sanders.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I’ve tried to explain it yo you us a few different ways but you are still stuck in their voting records do not count because they don’t vote for far left legislation.

I don't say that their voting records "don't count". I said that their voting records are not a reliable way of showing them to be "far left."

That is faulty logic because they do vote for far left proposals

Examples?

and/or are vociferous about the ones that are not far left enough.

Whether or not this is true, this would not be represented in their voting records, since a voting record would require a vote.

“The Congressional Progressive Caucus is composed of nearly 100 progressive members from the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.”

Caucus Members | Congressional Progressive Caucus

progressives.house.gov

There are a few more members of the COC than just Sanders.

Sanders is the only senator on the list. As I said. The House members are irrelevant to this discussion of Senate voting records because they're in the House, not the Senate, and thus have no impact on Senate voting records. Again, Harris and Clinton were not members of the CPC (I'm pretty sure it didn't even exist when Clinton was relevant), and Harris clashed with them repeatedly.

 

[camille70]

From reading this post, I'd say you're a victim of propaganda because of sentiments like --> "In fact the democratic views on immigration, obsessiveness with cultural issues, and soft on crime stances, all progressive and far left stances, lost the party many votes in the last election".

I'm a centrist. My advice is that voters should not give much clout into one side's description of what the other side is all about. Typically, a candidates own words show us who they are and what's in their hearts and minds. @NxNW is correct; Democrats tend to lean left, and Republicans tend to lean right in this dichotomy --> Democracy/autocracy.

A lot of the things people were saying dems were HEAVILY promoting and discussing may have been part of their platform (trans rights, abortion rights, path to citizenship and immigration reform) but dems are always for individual freedoms and equal rights. Abortion rights were a semi big thing because of so many women bleeding out and being negatively impacted, but the majority of Harris' platform centered around economic issues and things that would help ALL Americans.

People on the right, and those who consume primarily conservative news sources, never heard that message though. All they heard was Harris was going to take something from them to give to obviously "undeserving freeloaders" and stuff about trans people because that's the only things THOSE sources emphasized and amplified and then distorted the messaging around.

One or two lines in a 90 minute rally, basically discussed and played on repeat as though that was the only thing mentioned or discussed, was all they got

All the economic impacts we are having now, military in American cities, international fallout etc was foretold, but people, even some who often vote for democrats, were either willing to put single issues (Gaza, reparations) over the whole or said dems were fear mongering because the USA would never do xyz or xyz was illegal. It doesn't matter what is or isn’t illegal if you have someone who doesn't plan to follow the law unless it aligns with their wanted outcome, who doesn't think they are required to follow it in the first place, who has a military whose leadership they've purged under their command and who has a congress willing to relinquish their own power and cede to whims and demands of said person. By the time they get reined in, IF they get reined in, the damage is done.

Hillary and Kamala both were like American versions of the princess Cassandra. Everything they've predicted was ignored and has come, or is in the process of becoming, true. Hopefully ignoring their warnings won't lead to the same end Troy had.

 

[Hentenza]

I don't say that their voting records "don't count". I said that their voting records are not a reliable way of showing them to be "far left."

I stated that I disagreed with you opinion.

Examples?

Here is Hilary Clinton voting record. Her vote in social issues is primarily progressive not center left.

Hillary Clinton on the Issues

www.ontheissues.org

Whether or not this is true, this would not be represented in their voting records, since a voting record would require a vote.

There are votes. See above list.

Sanders is the only senator on the list. As I said. The House members are irrelevant to this discussion of Senate voting records because they're in the House, not the Senate, and thus have no impact on Senate voting records. Again, Harris and Clinton were not members of the CPC (I'm pretty sure it didn't even exist when Clinton was relevant), and Harris clashed with them repeatedly.

Why does this matter? My premise was that the progressive left is running the Democratic Party. Both houses play a role.

Btw there are 2 senators that are members of the CPC with the other one being Lisa Rochester.

 

[DaisyDay]

The Democrat party lost some long term credibility and has been floundering ever since Obama's decision to bail out the banks in 2009, but cultural issues weren't a major reason for Harris's loss (most Americans ignore cultural issues when it comes to voting, and vote based on perception of the economy).

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 aka "bank bailout of 2008" or the "Wall Street bailout" (Wikipedia) and TARP were Bush programs that carried over but TARP II was passed in 2009. Bush did the right thing to stabilize the economy.

 

[childeye 2]

I don’t fall for propaganda. If you think it is not true then argue the point.

I'm a centrist. Therefore, I apply the left/right dichotomy to denote the objective view as being at the abstract center of two subjective yet equally valid opposite points of view. So, I will be arguing that what is on the left is Democracy and that autocracy is on the right; so as to denote the objective view of the delegation of power, or in other words the centralizing and decentralizing of power to set policy for all, reasoned n a true dichotomy. --> Democracy/Autocracy.

This was your statement: "In fact the democratic views on immigration, obsessiveness with cultural issues, and soft on crime stances, all progressive and far left stances, lost the party many votes in the last election". <-- As a centrist I would argue that this statement connotes a negative spin and that it's subjective.

What are the Democratic views on immigration? You don't actually say, but nonetheless, as it stands, your statement qualifies as a subjective negative view/imagery of the Democrats view. What is "obsessiveness" doing there in front of cultural issues? Would I find this term on the Democratic platform? Not likely. I am forced to ask myself whether this is pretextual.

The objective view would see cultural "obsessions" from both sides, without pretext. An obsessive cultural issue can also be observed in these sentiments from the autocratic side, "They're poisoning the blood of our country", and, "They're eating the dogs and the cats". <-- These are based in negative prejudice.

Finally, the "soft on crime" sentiment. <-- I don't think I will find this on the Democratic party platform either.

The fact is that the autocrat says he will be tough on the far-left radical groups who got Charlie Kirk killed. <--I'd say this is wacko and is far more serious an issue than "soft on crime".

These days democrats seem to lean far left and republicans seem to lean far right. Communication is hardly possible.

People are easily deceived, I'm sorry to say. Social media makes money causing mayhem and Power is for sale in the marketplace.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I stated that I disagreed with you opinion.

And?

Here is Hilary Clinton voting record. Her vote in social issues is primarily progressive not center left.

Hillary Clinton on the Issues

www.ontheissues.org

I dunno, looks pretty center-left, verging into center-right in places (criminalizing flag burning?), to me. Anything specific in there that you want to call out as "far left"?

Why does this matter? My premise was that the progressive left is running the Democratic Party. Both houses play a role.

That may be your initial premise, but I was specifically addressing your claim about Harris and Clinton being "far left" based on their voting records in post #101.

Btw there are 2 senators that are members of the CPC with the other one being Lisa Rochester.

Is she? She's not on the list of members on their website. Regardless, still not Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton.

 

[Hentenza]

I'm a centrist. Therefore, I apply the left/right dichotomy to denote the objective view as being at the abstract center of two subjective yet equally valid opposite points of view. So, I will be arguing that what is on the left is Democracy and that autocracy is on the right; so as to denote the objective view of the delegation of power, or in other words the centralizing and decentralizing of power to set policy for all, reasoned n a true dichotomy. --> Democracy/Autocracy.

I am a centrist also and I dont think of left and right the way you do. Both sides argue for democracy and no side argues for autocracy since autocracy is not consistent with the US tricameral form of government. There is no dichotomy just issues which are argued by their individual twists.

This was your statement: "In fact the democratic views on immigration, obsessiveness with cultural issues, and soft on crime stances, all progressive and far left stances, lost the party many votes in the last election". <-- As a centrist I would argue that this connotes a negative spin and it's subjective.

It is not a negative spin but actually true. Do some research on what policies and stances caused the democrats the last election.

What are the Democratic views on immigration? You don't actually say, but as it stands your statement qualifies as a subjective negative view/imagery of the Democrats view. What is "obsessiveness" doing there? Would I find this term on the Democratic platform? Not likely.

It is widely known that the left policies on immigration lean toward open borders compared to the right which lean toward closed borders. This is old news.

The objective view would see cultural "obsessions" from both sides. An obsessive cultural issue can also be observed in these sentiments from the autocratic side, "They're poisoning the blood of our country", and, "They're eating the dogs and the cats". <-- These are based in negative prejudice.

The obsessiveness as I stated it related to cultural issues such as parental rights, LGTBQ policies, and soft on crime policies. There is no objective view per se since individual perspective are ymmv.

Finally, the "soft on crime" sentiment. <-- I don't think I will find this on the Democratic party platform either.

Again, look at the criticism of DA’s from dark blue cities such as San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Portland, etc. for allowing violent criminals back on the street with little to no bond, for example. Again, this has been on the news constantly for a few years now. Maybe keep up with the news?

The fact is that the autocrat says he will be tough on the far-left radical groups who got Charlie Kirk killed. <--I'd say this is wacko and is far more serious an issue than "soft on crime".

There is no autocrat. The form of the US government is composed of the executive, Supreme Court, and congress.

People are easily deceived, I'm sorry to say. Social media makes money causing mayhem and Power is for sale in the marketplace.

Here we agree.

 

[Hentenza]

And?

I wrote it in English so it should be easy to understand.

I dunno, looks pretty center-left, verging into center-right in places (criminalizing flag burning?), to me. Anything specific in there that you want to call out as "far left"?

That may be your initial premise, but I was specifically addressing your claim about Harris and Clinton being "far left" based on their voting records in post #101.

Is she? She's not on the list of members on their website. Regardless, still not Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton.

She does not look center left to me. You dismissed all of her votes for the left and honed in one that looks from the right. That’s ok you are obviously stuck on your believes and not willing to learn. Your objective seems to just want to win the argument. Not interested anymore.

Have a great day.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

She does not look center left to me. You dismissed all of her votes for the left and honed in one that looks from the right.

I didn't dismiss them - it's just that nothing jumped out at me as "far left". Again, are there any that you'd like to highlight as being particularly extreme?

That’s ok you are obviously stuck on your believes and not willing to learn. Your objective seems to just want to win the argument. Not interested anymore.

Repeating dogma doesn't teach me anything. Support your arguments - you claim they're far left. Okay. Why? What is your evidence? Convince me.

 

[Hentenza]

I didn't dismiss them - it's just that nothing jumped out at me as "far left". Again, are there any that you'd like to highlight as being particularly extreme?

Repeating dogma doesn't teach me anything. Support your arguments - you claim they're far left. Okay. Why? What is your evidence? Convince me.

I supported my argument with evidence. Look back to my posts. You continued posting your opinion, which differs from mine, without evidence. I don’t need to convince you nor was I even trying.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I supported my argument with evidence.

You provided a link to an anti-Hillary hit piece listing a selection of her votes. I asked you to point out some that you thought were "far left," and that's where you got huffy. That's the extent of your evidence.

Look back to my posts. You continued posting your opinion, which differs from mine, without evidence.

Is there something that I said that you feel needs to be supported? Ask me to back something up and I'll do my best.

I don’t need to convince you nor was I even trying.

If you're not trying to convince me of anything, why would you care that I'm "not willing to learn"?

 

[mark46]

From reading this post, I'd say you're a victim of propaganda because of sentiments like --> "In fact the democratic views on immigration, obsessiveness with cultural issues, and soft on crime stances, all progressive and far left stances, lost the party many votes in the last election".

I'm a centrist. My advice is that voters should not give much clout into one side's description of what the other side is all about. Typically, a candidates own words show us who they are and what's in their hearts and minds. @NxNW is correct; Democrats tend to lean left, and Republicans tend to lean right in this dichotomy --> Democracy/autocracy.

I strongly disagee that a candidate's words show who they are and what is their hearts and minds.

Much, much, much more important is what a candidate has done. Action do indeed speak much louder than words.

I do agree with your point that we shouldn't allow an opponent's statements to define a candidate. However, I think that many times it is the candidate's own failures in actions and in responding words that result in the real problem.

 

[mark46]

Yes, I agree that to 2025 Republicans, Hillary is far left as is Obama. I cannot help but laugh. One might ask Sanders about this. Hillary was as centrist as her husband, and much more allied with the inside party regulars. Obama was the darling of the bankers and the deporter-in-chief. He refused to push universal health care (the Clinton solution). Instead, he pushed the MA Republican idea of Romney (I know, left-of-center-Romney).
His views were so centrist that he easily reelected.

But then, for the 2025 Republicans, McCain, Romney, Dole, the Bush's, and anyone who disagrees with the policies of the current administration is far left.
===========
There are really no centrists in today's politics. That simply isn't allowed by Trump, his MAGA base, and those who he forces to follow him (well, follow him or lose their positions).

If Hailey were running against Vance, is there any question with regard to her being attacked as unacceptably too far left?

 

[Hentenza]

You provided a link to an anti-Hillary hit piece listing a selection of her votes. I asked you to point out some that you thought were "far left," and that's where you got huffy. That's the extent of your evidence.

Is there something that I said that you feel needs to be supported? Ask me to back something up and I'll do my best.

If you're not trying to convince me of anything, why would you care that I'm "not willing to learn"?

Tell you what, I provided evidence for my opinion but you have not. Why don’t you try to convince me that your opinion is right.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Trump says TV networks 'against' him should 'maybe' lose licence,​

Trump says TV networks 'against' him should 'maybe' lose licence after Kimmel suspension - BBC News

"Maybe their licence should be taken away," Trump said of broadcasters that he argued covered him unfairly.

www.bbc.com

Everyone ok with this?

 

[Hentenza]

I’m not.

 

[Bradskii]

Trump says TV networks 'against' him should 'maybe' lose licence,​

Trump says TV networks 'against' him should 'maybe' lose licence after Kimmel suspension - BBC News

"Maybe their licence should be taken away," Trump said of broadcasters that he argued covered him unfairly.

www.bbc.com

Everyone ok with this?

I'm not even sure that the question needs to be asked.

 

[perplexed]

Wow, I though agreement was impossible here but nobody supports a government crackdown on comedians.