View 19 more replies »
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@BohoBabe You seem to (keep) thinking a pedophile enthusiast, convicted felon, and 79-year-old man on the edge of full scale dementia is the outcome. Instead... Obama, a centrist won (twice). After a taste of incompetent and petty leadership, Biden (promoting a centrist agenda... at least at first) won. Those are the outcomes. Cry-Baby-trump won a second time because Harris was, right or wrong, viewed as left-leaning despite trying to present herself as a centrist and she was a rotten candidate to boot (a super-nice person though).
The problem here is you refuse to acknowledge that Harris lost. Instead you are mesmerized that a fat slob won. The dirty little secret is no matter how much you want to believe that America has changed, under the surface, it's the same as before and all it takes to bring it back to full capacity is someone to tip it back to the center. You think massive, drastic, and colossal change is what people are clamoring for. Like before with Bush leading the way to Obama and Cry-Baby-trump leading the way to Biden, the voting public is exhausted and low on attention. The public is literally crying out for stability... and rest, not more turmoil.
Newsom has already distinguished himself as different from Obama and Biden to the consternation of purity-testing Democrats for sitting down with rightists and challenging some leftist ideology. And he's shown an aggressive fight-back attitude to get back to normal in an entertaining way. That's a winning combination. For all of Obama's skill and legacy, he's mostly all talk. Pritzker has also demonstrated the fortitude to fight from the center and that's refreshing. His biggest weakness is he's more serious, a little less entertaining, but has shown an energy that is charismatic.
It's a centrist attitude that is going to win over the most people that will allow iterative change. For the time being, I don't think anyone has the legislative skills that a TR, FDR or LBJ had to push through transformative change and not for such programs as universal healthcare, 100% forgiveness of student debt, and guaranteed minimum incomes that are a feeding frenzy for the minority who want that no matter the implications. A win is more about restoring vaccines, NOT hating opponents and wishing the worse for them, charging crimes to people on a feeling, and pretending there was a good historical side to slavery. And sadly that is not going to be a slam-dunk point of order. It most likely will take a full first term.
In case you don't know, New York City is not representative of the entire USA. Mandami most likely will win his election and won't have an easy time of implementing government-owned grocery stores, however you want to describe them (he calls them businesses, he wants to open in each section of New York City). If they are losing money and unconcerned with profit, taxpayers will be on the hook. That is literally insane and while it is not necessarily unique (other cities have gone down this route), it is not something national voters will rally around. It is no wonder he is light on details when questioned about "the concept" of it.
Finally, your desire to secure a Democrat stranglehold on all future elections reminds me of George W. Bush, as president, saying to a private audience he (arrogantly) wanted to end the Democrat Party. As you know, Obama (again, a centrist) followed him. If Democrats think they are the default party or that any Democrat will be good enough or that massive change can be shoved down the throats of voters, then they have lost the next election already. The focus needs to be on the next election and that one alone and bringing things back to normal. We call this centrism.
The problem here is you refuse to acknowledge that Harris lost. Instead you are mesmerized that a fat slob won. The dirty little secret is no matter how much you want to believe that America has changed, under the surface, it's the same as before and all it takes to bring it back to full capacity is someone to tip it back to the center. You think massive, drastic, and colossal change is what people are clamoring for. Like before with Bush leading the way to Obama and Cry-Baby-trump leading the way to Biden, the voting public is exhausted and low on attention. The public is literally crying out for stability... and rest, not more turmoil.
Newsom has already distinguished himself as different from Obama and Biden to the consternation of purity-testing Democrats for sitting down with rightists and challenging some leftist ideology. And he's shown an aggressive fight-back attitude to get back to normal in an entertaining way. That's a winning combination. For all of Obama's skill and legacy, he's mostly all talk. Pritzker has also demonstrated the fortitude to fight from the center and that's refreshing. His biggest weakness is he's more serious, a little less entertaining, but has shown an energy that is charismatic.
It's a centrist attitude that is going to win over the most people that will allow iterative change. For the time being, I don't think anyone has the legislative skills that a TR, FDR or LBJ had to push through transformative change and not for such programs as universal healthcare, 100% forgiveness of student debt, and guaranteed minimum incomes that are a feeding frenzy for the minority who want that no matter the implications. A win is more about restoring vaccines, NOT hating opponents and wishing the worse for them, charging crimes to people on a feeling, and pretending there was a good historical side to slavery. And sadly that is not going to be a slam-dunk point of order. It most likely will take a full first term.
In case you don't know, New York City is not representative of the entire USA. Mandami most likely will win his election and won't have an easy time of implementing government-owned grocery stores, however you want to describe them (he calls them businesses, he wants to open in each section of New York City). If they are losing money and unconcerned with profit, taxpayers will be on the hook. That is literally insane and while it is not necessarily unique (other cities have gone down this route), it is not something national voters will rally around. It is no wonder he is light on details when questioned about "the concept" of it.
Finally, your desire to secure a Democrat stranglehold on all future elections reminds me of George W. Bush, as president, saying to a private audience he (arrogantly) wanted to end the Democrat Party. As you know, Obama (again, a centrist) followed him. If Democrats think they are the default party or that any Democrat will be good enough or that massive change can be shoved down the throats of voters, then they have lost the next election already. The focus needs to be on the next election and that one alone and bringing things back to normal. We call this centrism.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
BrandNewMan · M
Moneyonmymind · 31-35, M
@Adrift sadly yes
MasterLee · 56-60, M
For glee barmaids of south america
ididntknow · 56-60, M
How foolish 🙄
Moneyonmymind · 31-35, M