All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[TheInvisibleMan]

1500 children are still missing

I gather some of them are in the hands of human traffickers

I hope the people who put that orange shitgibbon in office understand the pain of those children is on their heads

[PaulBullion]

1500 children are still missing

I gather some of them are in the hands of human traffickers

I hope the people who put that orange shitgibbon in office understand the pain of those children is on their heads

But they felt really good standing up for their impossibly high standards in the voting booth.

[TheInvisibleMan]

But they felt really good standing up for their impossibly high standards in the voting booth.

or the ones who wanted to "own the libs"

[Duskman]

1500 children are still missing

I gather some of them are in the hands of human traffickers

I hope the people who put that orange shitgibbon in office understand the pain of those children is on their heads

Sacrifices must be made for progress. I mean, it's not their kids at risk. Why should they care? They aren't white. They should have stayed in their Third World sweatshops, picking coffee beans for their lattes.

[JCAll]

Sacrifices must be made for progress. I mean, it's not their kids at risk. Why should they care? They aren't white. They should have stayed in their Third World sweatshops, picking coffee beans for their lattes.

Maybe they'll even be in favor of it! Knowing that children will be kidnapped and sold to human traffickers is a sure fire deterrent to people that might illegally cross the border. We could even put up a statue. "Bring us your tired, your poor, your innocent children yearning to be raped and murdered and buried in the desert."

[Tami]

Headline that sum-up Trump's insanity


Trump Blames Democrats for His Most Horrifying Immigration Policy

[JCAll]

Headline that sum-up Trump's insanity


Trump Blames Democrats for His Most Horrifying Immigration Policy

Huh, it looks like ICE has been beating and raping children since they were founded. @#$%ing fantastic! *sigh*
But now we've found out thanks to Trump's remarkable ability to shine his horrible spotlight on all the evils we never even realized were there, while totally endorsing them/blaming someone else. There's going to be a lot of sorting out to do one day.

[numberthirty]

How have you determined that most people think a Sex and the City actress is a good candidate compared to the incumbent Governor (a former Cabinet secretary)?

I dont think Nixon is in any way qualified, for the record

- Mets, folks have said she is a good candidate in this thread. I could quote those posts.

- As for "In Any Way Qualified...", I'm sure there was someone there saying this when women(heck, people) who went on to do some good in politics were running for their first office. Not calling you a sexist. Just saying that if we waited for forward thinking people to be "Qualified", we'd probably be waiting longer than we should be to actually move things in the right direction.

[Gray Lensman]

Headline that sum-up Trump's insanity


Trump Blames Democrats for His Most Horrifying Immigration Policy

And he also blames Obama for not stopping him from colluding with Russia.

[numberthirty]

One issue with the Democratic challengers of incumbents is that they tend to be nobodies and it is hard to elect then to any office.

Republican challengers have credible backgrounds. Mike Lee, who defeated Bob Bennet, was a former Assistant US Attorney and served in Governor Huntsman's administration. McCain's challengers included a former congressman and a state senator.

Seriously, this guy is one of the best reasons not to do what folks have been talking about.

[Tazirai]

I really would like to know why the people on these boards who keep saying that "Trump bad! Sad!" isn't enough of an argument for the Democrats think that "Hillary sucks!" or "Pelosi sucks!" is enough of an argument to convince people to vote for more progressive candidates. Take your own advice. Tell us what makes the progressive candidates so great.

I have MANY times Literally if you go bakc a few pages you can see the candidates I have posted, and the ones that have won. But my POSITIVE posts are always ignored by several of you. But then when I post about Hillary, or Pelosi or Manchin. THEN you want to notice it.

So we see Manchin's name, but not the name of a progressive running against him in a primary. How is "Vote for Not-Manchin!" any better than "Vote for Not-Trump!" ?

I've posted about Paula Jean MANY MANY MANY times. You chose to igore it. I can't help that.

That would probably have something to do with that Manchin's state already held it's primary.

As for the posts where Paula Jean Swearengin's name was clearly mentioned, I could dig a couple of them up if you'd like.

This...

Also...

"The Strength Of A Progressive Candidate Is That They Will Likely Be A "Left" Vote." is not the same as "Not Manchin". There is a difference.

and this.

Trump Bad Sad is not an election winner. I'm sorry you and soupy think it is. People want actual Policy. Policy I have posted OVER AND OVER, but is ignored because some of you get triggered and think I'm bringing up 2016, when I'm actually bringing up last week.

Democrats need to run on Policy. You can only cry about something so much before people ignore it. You can only put fear into peoples hearts so much before they becom immune to that particular stimulus.
Once they are, you need o give them an idea of what you intend to do to help them.

If we're in a horror movie and Jason is chasing us, we KNOW he's going to kill us and most likely how. But trying to tell people fleeing him we're going to do if we don't do something. Eventually, everybody running wants to know what we plab to do. Then you pop up with "I have a better idea." Then those people want to know okay what do we do, but you don't tell them. So they come up with their own ideas.

[Tazirai]

And if the progressive loses the seat in the general for being too far ahead of their constituency? A progressive candidate is only a 'left vote' if they can get elected.

Nevermind, of course, that Manchin won more votes in his primary than the entire GOP field combined. Seems to me he's the right kind of politician for West Virginia. Dislike his votes as many of us must, but never forget he's a reliable vote for a Democratic Senate Majority leader and cloture.

Also nevermind the post I made about WHY he won, and not the "He's the right kind of Politician for West Virginia." Trope so many of you keep pushing out there.

Paula Jean had NO advertising form any mainstream outlets. She spent 600k to his millions, she had ZERO support from Party Democrats, and STILL took 30% of the vote with only grassroots support.

Next time she'll not only have the name recognition but a background in politics to get even more of the vote.

Also, Manchin is probably going to lose the election, because he's a reliable vote for Republicans.

But yeah let's keep these lefty are too left for Places trope running, and wonder why people don't show up to vote for Establishment types or get excited and vote just to get it out of the way, because they know nothing will change or change with many of you guys favorite word "Incrementally"

[Tazirai]

Quoting myself on why Manchin won, because even if they dislike him, some seem to think he won, because the people of West Virginia love him, they don't.

So some of the people that post here seem to think that ONLY CENTRISTS can win a red state. But I've been doing some research on the West Virginia Election and the follow the money trail. Not the VOTE trail, but the money trail.


So before that, let me post this about Joe Manchin and him being a "Democrat". When is Joe actually good for us?




Manchin becomes first Democrat to back Haspel


OF COURSE, But hey! He's a Democrat at least... /eyeroll

She Lost the Media battle: So Looking at the Lose by Paula Jean vs Joe Manchin. Not only did he receive more media coverage than she did, NO National Network Interviewed her at all. Not CNN, MSNBC, or even FOX. She was interviewed by a wide variety of online News sites. She's not one of them so they ignored her.

She lost the money war: Joe Manchin raised 6 MILLION dollars, that had nothing to do with the voters, that was Corporate donations. Paula Jean raised 160 thousand in comparison and spent 125 thousand.

No Backing from the Democrats Paula Jean was 100% Ignored by the DNC, they don't like Progressives, we know this. It's not even an ideological fight, they wanted Manchin, because he could get that Corporate money.

She won 30% anyway: Even with the deck stacked against her in Media, Money, and DNC support she took 30% of the vote, that's not bad for someone with no facial recognition. She runs again I think that number doubles and she'll do it taking more money and get media coverage.

She got MORE votes than the Republican that won But she would have lost to him right?

So let's not name her being Far Lefty McLefty for her loss, but look at ALL underlying statistics.
I get it. I can come across as being Pie in the Sky, but man you have to look at all the numbers and not just assume people lose because they aren't centrist enough.
We're moving left, the party isn't. I don't get how people don't see it, yet want us to keep hoping people like Manchin and Donelly win.

http://www.wdtv.com/content/news/Man...482120951.html

https://ballotpedia.org/Paula_Jean_Swearengin

[numberthirty]

Trump Bad Sad is not an election winner. I'm sorry you and soupy think it is. People want actual Policy. Policy I have posted OVER AND OVER, but is ignored because some of you get triggered and think I'm bringing up 2016, when I'm actually bringing up last week.

Democrats need to run on Policy. You can only cry about something so much before people ignore it. You can only put fear into peoples hearts so much before they becom immune to that particular stimulus.
Once they are, you need o give them an idea of what you intend to do to help them.

If we're in a horror movie and Jason is chasing us, we KNOW he's going to kill us and most likely how. But trying to tell people fleeing him we're going to do if we don't do something. Eventually, everybody running wants to know what we plab to do. Then you pop up with "I have a better idea." Then those people want to know okay what do we do, but you don't tell them. So they come up with their own ideas.

On this...

I think that most of the candidates who are leaning on that "Not Trump" angle are absolutely missing an opening.

Lots of GOP voters that wanted something better than the ACA didn't get it. Trump folded like Puffs on actually addressing the cost of prescription drugs.

Democrats could certainly take that pair to the voters. While it's not a lock, you can give them a reason to vote for what you are running on.

[numberthirty]

Quoting myself on why Manchin won, because even if they dislike him, some seem to think he won, because the people of West Virginia love him, they don't.

On that thirty percent she walked away with?

That a woman running for the first time with no backing took three out of ten voters points to that "Love" is probably not what is actually happening there.