Obama never sent people mean tweets after droning weddings.yeah but was obama being uncivil when he did warcrimes? checkmate trumptards
really, how can you be against someone this eloquent and handsome putting children in cagesObama never sent people mean tweets after droning weddings.
Yes, the two people he has told this to should go vote for whoever they please.Biden has already told multiple people during this campaign to go vote for other people if they disagree with him. Who are his supporters to tell people otherwise?
That's really remarkable! Since he only told 2 people to their face to not vote for him, only those two shouldn't. So, the only people who are voting for him should be the ones he requests a vote from face-to-face. It's not like hes a candidate for president and his public statements are acutally a message to all voters, that would be ridiculous.Yes, the two people he has told this to should go vote for whoever they please.
It worked well for Trump, so why not give it a shot.That's really remarkable! Since he only told 2 people to their face to not vote for him, only those two shouldn't. So, the only people who are voting for him should be the ones he requests a vote from face-to-face. It's not like hes a candidate for president and his public statements are acutally a message to all voters, that would be ridiculous.
Bold strategy hope it works out.
He also told several voters who asked him tough questions they were never going to vote for him anyway. He generally says what he wants. As for Biden, he shouldn't waste his time with powerless squealers from the fringes, since they too wouldn't vote for him in any case. It would be a waste of time, especially as there are more votes to be gained among center leaning independents than on the political fringes.I don't remember Trump telling people to vote for Hillary. So I googled and I found
'You have no choice but to vote for me,' Trump tells N.H. rally
Dunno man, this sounds eerily similar to Schumer's "for every blue collar democrat..." plan.He also told several voters who asked him tough questions they were never going to vote for him anyway. He generally says what he wants. As for Biden, he shouldn't waste his time with powerless squealers from the fringes, since they too wouldn't vote for him in any case. It would be a waste of time, especially as there are more votes to be gained among center leaning independents than on the political fringes.
I agree, though I wouldn't call people fighting for immigration rights "squealers". But of course, lack of respect for life is part and parcel of being among the "centre leaning independents".He also told several voters who asked him tough questions they were never going to vote for him anyway. He generally says what he wants. As for Biden, he shouldn't waste his time with powerless squealers from the fringes, since they too wouldn't vote for him in any case. It would be a waste of time, especially as there are more votes to be gained among center leaning independents than on the political fringes.
Come again? What does that phrase mean to you, exactly?I agree, though I wouldn't call people fighting for immigration rights "squealers". But of course, lack of respect for life is part and parcel of being among the "centre leaning independents".
squealers? or centre-leaning indps?Come again? What does that phrase mean to you, exactly?
My favorite is when he screwed over public schools with no funding, more standardized testing and onslaught of charter schools.yeah but was obama being uncivil when he did warcrimes? checkmate trumptards
Aside from what eboue pointed out, the part I underlined. How do you come across centrist Independents as having a lack of respect for life?squealers? or centre-leaning indps?
If one is tends towards the centre of the 2 parties, the position on Iraq would be something like: I want the war, and I'd like to continue the war, but I'd like to spend less money on the war. The 1st point is GOP with major Democratic support, the 2nd point is fully bipartisan, and the 3rd point is Dem with some light GOP support. Similar applies to Vietnam and also to drone strikes. So the centist foreign policy has no respect for foreign life.Aside from what eboue pointed out, the part I underlined. How do you come across centrist Independents as having a lack of respect for life?
They often consist of people wary of the government and both parties, but okay with things like improved healthcare coverage.
Centrist independents here refers to normal people who don't really get carried away by political fights on twitter and cable news.Aside from what eboue pointed out, the part I underlined. How do you come across centrist Independents as having a lack of respect for life?
They often consist of people wary of the government and both parties, but okay with things like improved healthcare coverage.
You’re conflating ‘centrist’ with geometry; projecting personal beliefs on war and immigration as though it is a school test problem where it simply divides two in half.If one is tends towards the centre of the 2 parties, the position on Iraq would be something like: I want the war, and I'd like to continue the war, but I'd like to spend less money on the war. The 1st point is GOP with major Democratic support, the 2nd point is fully bipartisan, and the 3rd point is Dem with some light GOP support. Similar applies to Vietnam and also to drone strikes. So the centist foreign policy has no respect for foreign life.
The position on healthcare would be, I don't want medicare for all (bipartisan), I don't want a public option (GOP with Dem support), I don't want expanded medicaid coverage of poor people (GOP), I do want some type of expanded subsidy, directly or indirectly, to insurance companies (bipartisan).
The position on immigration would be, I want a border fence but a wall is too expensive (bipartisan), I want more money for ICE (bipartisan), more deportations (bipartisan), I want fewer kids in cages (Democrat) but the concept is ok (bipartisan), and that some immigrants are econoimcally valuable (bipartisan).
And so on.
But then centrism is meaningless. What is it at the centre of? Anarchists, libertarians, Communists and Nazis are also uncomfortable with both parties and government over-reach.You’re conflating ‘centrist’ with geometry; projecting personal beliefs on war and immigration as though it is a school test problem where it simply divides two in half.
Someone not trusting either party but not comfortable with full government overreach is a perfectly valid opinion that does not entail voting for war or being okay with refugees of the drug war dying.
It can be people at the the center of being liberal on social issues but selectively conservative fiscally. Far too many Americans claim this when they’re trying too hard to be woke when they aren’t, to be fair, but it is a real position.But then centrism is meaningless. What is it at the centre of? Anarchists, libertarians, Communists and Nazis are also uncomfortable with both parties and government over-reach.
King's popularity began to wane after he received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. Carson said that King began to lose his momentum as he moved his attention from civil rights in the south to the north— to Chicago to tackle segregation and poverty among black Americans. King then went on to take a stand against the Vietnam War in 1967, another unpopular move. King's final unpopular move before his assassination, Carson said, was the Poor People's Campaign of 1968, where King called for a march on Washington to highlight the plight of Americans living in poverty
See, one can claim that, but then one is either wilfully blind or ignorant of the econoimc and political connection between fiscal conservatism and social injustice. And, similar to what you said about my model centrist, this too is some kind of geometric mean, where a deviation on one side is corrected by a deviation on another.It can be people at the the center of being liberal on social issues but selectively conservative fiscally. Far too many Americans claim this when they’re trying too hard to be woke when they aren’t, to be fair, but it is a real position.
Most definitional debates are, but I'm right about all 4. None of them trust the US govt or either party.I‘m not even going to touch on the last sentence, because I’m starting to think this is a worthless debate.
Centripetal force works that way. Or Centrifugal. One of the two, I'm sure.how can you lean towards the center? What the feck? Thats not how leaning works
Do better than this dude. You are doing a Ph.D. after all, you typically show some critical thinking in your posts.If one is tends towards the centre of the 2 parties, the position on Iraq would be something like: I want the war, and I'd like to continue the war, but I'd like to spend less money on the war. The 1st point is GOP with major Democratic support, the 2nd point is fully bipartisan, and the 3rd point is Dem with some light GOP support. Similar applies to Vietnam and also to drone strikes. So the centist foreign policy has no respect for foreign life.
The position on healthcare would be, I don't want medicare for all (bipartisan), I don't want a public option (GOP with Dem support), I don't want expanded medicaid coverage of poor people (GOP), I do want some type of expanded subsidy, directly or indirectly, to insurance companies (bipartisan).
The position on immigration would be, I want a border fence but a wall is too expensive (bipartisan), I want more money for ICE (bipartisan), more deportations (bipartisan), I want fewer kids in cages (Democrat) but the concept is ok (bipartisan), and that some immigrants are econoimcally valuable (bipartisan).
And so on.
how does america end up with their politic if that's the general publics ideological make up
Because that graphic is a load of shite.how does america end up with their politic if that's the general publics ideological make up
I've met hundreds or even thousands of independents/non-partisan registered voters and none of them would fall into Raoul's "centrist independent" rubbish. All the actual centrists I've met in 20 years were either Rep or Dem registered. Independent/non-partisan voters are far more eccentric with opinions like "unions are too powerful and should be less influential but I believe there should be a heavy wealth tax on anyone with assets more than $10 million" or "I think government should stay completely away from most industries and let the markets work but there should be universal government healthcare because the markets can't provide it".In fact, going back to Raoul's original post, the apparent centrist position would be to consider immigrant rights activists squealers, which is definitely a bipartisan position agreed on by both parties - one candidate told them to vote for the other one, the other one would jail them given a chance.
It's from here (paywalled) https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-trump-won-in-two-dimensions-1502320256Because that graphic is a load of shite.
My professor believes that the GOP was a decent party before Trump ruined it; I don't think acadamic qualifications mean good political analysis.Do better than this dude. You are doing a Ph.D. after all, you typically show some critical thinking in your posts.
This is an Eboue-calibre of post.
There's been other studies that legislators consistently think their voters are more conservative than they are in reality, and ones about how public opinion has zero bearing on laws passed. You can probably make an explanation by combining the effect of big money, the effect of media, and the fact that there hasn't been a credible answer to neoliberalism for 40 years, and finally that many voters choose for cultural/racist reasons.how does america end up with their politic if that's the general publics ideological make up
My point was about your absolutist statements in your rant.My professor believes that the GOP was a decent party before Trump ruined it; I don't think acadamic qualifications mean good political analysis.
It's a real position (in the UK 1997 election these were the voters called Essex Man / Mondeo Man that Blair wanted to win back) but post-2008 i think you're far more likely to find the other side of the coin being more decisive in elections (socially conservative, economically liberal).It can be people at the the center of being liberal on social issues but selectively conservative fiscally. Far too many Americans claim this when they’re trying too hard to be woke when they aren’t, to be fair, but it is a real position.
I‘m not even going to touch on the last sentence, because I’m starting to think this is a worthless debate.
There's a very long response to all of this. I'll just say two things:My point was about your absolutist statements in your rant.
Sure, Medicare for all is great and should be the goal (I don't necessarily have a strong option if it should be single-payer or not, but I think that absolutely everyone should be insured and get medical service without going bankrupt). But just because Biden (or Obama) do not endorse M4A, it does not mean that they are same as GOP/Trump. Affordable Care Act ensured that tens of millions get insurance (which they wouldn't have got otherwise), while Trump was a McCain vote away from removing that service to them. A worst-case Biden scenario about health service is that nothing changes (same as a best-case scenario for Trump), while a worst-case scenario for a second Trump presidency is that those people lose their insurance.
Similar to every other issue. If Biden is president he likely won't choose very left-wing judges, but instead, he would choose center-left judges. If Trump is president he will choose right-wing to far right-wing judges. Yet, in your eyes (and many others here), there seems to be not much difference between them.
I find it incredibly disturbing how even after this total mismanagement of pandemic, some people seem to be able to accept only the perfect choice (for them, Bernie). If it is not perfect, then abdicate all the responsibilities, and to hell with the world, it might well crash and burn.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date