• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2020: Most Diverse Democrats Ever

Surrealistik said:
I've learned not to trust people who talk about incrementalist alternatives, especially when they have no clear, laid out roadmap to their supposed endgame, taking it essentially on faith that they will pull through and ultimately deliver; it rarely ends well. Since Obama, there is no faith left here: you're either for something, or you're not, and if you are, you better have the history to prove it, full stop. What I do know is the man has dubbed, and stridently at that, MFA to be unfeasible and unworkable, which is a pretty insurmountable red flag, and he has only really gone so far as Clinton's painfully unambitious 'Medicare at 55'. On this issue he is essentially a Hillary analogue, which is unacceptable as a primary candidate goes.




When I see compelling evidence that it's a back door as opposed to a can kick, or half-hearted attempt at compromise, I might be more inclined to agree with this take. You might be right that it broadens the appeal/popularity of MFA and further shifts the Overton window on it, but MFA is already popular enough with even a solid majority of polled Republicans supporting it at this time, and I unfortunately see no proof or meaningful insinuation that full MFA adoption is the end game, and this is really some form of 3-d chess.



Yeah, I remember what happened to the public option: insurance shill blowhard and snake Joe Lieberman stopped it dead cold as he was handsomely paid to do, and neither Obama nor anyone else in the Dem party really tried to compel him to change his vote, whether by stick or carrot; it was both embarrassing and infuriating and one of the pivotal moments that forever changed how I view the interest driven cesspit Washington has become.

As anyone will tell you in any relevant field, and as I experience daily in my profession, in any negotiation, you start strong, aim high, and go from there, not at what you can expect to get, even if you feel it's as modest as Medicare at 55. Best to keep this MFA momentum going, demand the world, and receive something far better in return than if we had asked for relative crumbs in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yes I believe you on the roadmap thing, plus I agree with you about START STRONG.
Last time I had to haul a client into Small Claims for a one thousand dollar debt, I sued for five thousand.
I had a good case to illustrate the validity of my numbers but got stopped cold about a third of the way through. I was awarded 1400 dollars and actually collected 500 of it. Beats Hell out of collecting nothing. So your point is well taken, however all that said, I'm still going to listen to see if he really DOES have a roadmap.
Remember, politics is the art of the possible.
 
NeverTrump said:
Better than a group of Fox News watching, red capped, racist idiots all walking in lock step to exactly the same tune all repeating one mindless mantra:

Trump is God Emperor of the United States and can do no wrong. Build the Wall! MAGA!!!

This passes for conservative in the minds of conservatives?

Interesting...
Click to expand...

So far, 60 house members and 6 of the Dem Presidential Candidates have endorsed the AOC call for idiocy.

THAT is lock step.

I am a Conservative.

If you would like to test your prejudices regarding my views on issues, you could ask me.

If you are content to wallow in your hate, you can do that as well. It's your choice.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
1. I don't believe anything Tulsi Gabbard says, her background is horrifying.
It's not that I am gay, I'm straight, but her celebrated work on anti-gay measures lingers and her father's ultra-Right background and weird mixture of Hare Krishna gives me the heebie jeebies.

Iran is a bad actor, everyone knows, but it was in compliance with the terms of the Iran Deal, nevertheless Ms. Gabbard couldn't wait to applaud a pullout. Now there's no deal, therefore no need for compliance.

2. Cory Booker is big on heavy handed law enforcement and loves to protect Big Pharma drug price extortion, no thanks.

3. Pete Buttigieg might be great but he can't win, sorry.

4. I'll never ever forgive Kirsten Gillibrand for supporting the Roger Stone setup of Al Franken, because that is what it was.

5. Liz Warren - Excellent positions, lousy candidate, gets mixed up in the very kind of tar baby rhetorical nonsense Trump loves to dish out. She'll spend 90 percent of her time battling empty BS and lose, because you cannot out-BS a BS master.

6. Julian Castro - ?? I just don't know enough...yet. It would be hilarious to have "President Castro" though...a Democrat.

7. Kamala Harris - She might just do it.

8. Sherrod Brown, watch this space. He is definitely growing on me. He'll grow on a lot of you, too.
Click to expand...

100% agree with your Warren take. She's the best candidate on policy, and the worst candidate for handling dirty politics. Harris is definitely weaker on policy but a super strong political candidate. I don't have any memory of her succumbing to stupid political jabs from the right.

I just wish Warren had a tougher skin because nobody can touch her policy resumé. I wanted to scream when she ****ing apologized to a Native American tribe for saying she had Native American heritage which was true.
 
Crovax said:
Seems like diversity is still on the back burner. Right now Biden, Sanders, and Beto are 3 of the top 4 on the oddsmakers board
Click to expand...

Diversity in background doesn't equate in diversity in political positions. On that, seems to me that they are all walking in lock step with each other for the most part. Most having signed up to AOC's New Green Deal lunacy.

Since these are politicians, wouldn't their diversity in positions be the more important than their background?
The color of their skin? Which seems rather racist to me - measuring someone on the basis of the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character.
 
Gabbard is far too soft on the Putin and Assad regimes.

Beto has some policy positions that are Trumpian and that really annoys me.

The RNC says Trump is the GOPs "best candidate"... but they refuse to allow anyone in the Republican party to primary him :shrug:
 
NeverTrump said:
Here are my very basic thoughts on the 2020 race so far.

  • Elizabeth Warren- older woman adapting Bernie Sanders talking points/ Holding Trump accountable
  • Kirsten Gillibrand- Middle age woman, NY Senator, working class platform
  • Sen. Cory Booker- single middle aged African American man, 420 platform, Is he still Spartacus?
  • Kamala Harris- African American Woman, biggest glass ceiling ever, prosecutor, most impressive media blitz/campaign speech so far.
  • Julián Castro- Latino male. Southwest. my dark horse candidate.
  • Tulsi Gabbard- Hawaiian. Hindu. But campaign is a mess
  • Pete Buttigieg- Married Gay Man. Youngest candidate. Message geared towards Millennials. Future leader of Democratic Party. VP/Whip?

There's something to be impressed about with each candidate that has officially entered the race in 2020. Each candidate brings something new and different and fresh to the table. And most importantly, according to all the polls, each one can beat Trump.

But what astounds me is that there are NO old straight white guys in the race yet. And in fact, another crazy billionaire (Schultz) has made the other old white guys take notice in their own party that maybe this should be the make-up of the race. A makeup that more represents our country than a bunch of old white guys talking about things that are out of touch with the majority of Americans.

I'm really proud of the lineup at this point in time and would be very angry with the Republicans who don't even seem to want anybody to attempt to primary Trump.

Maybe Conservatives would be less angry if they joined our party??? :mrgreen::peace
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO!! This country wasn't built on their values or yours as all would try and destroy the strongest country on the face of the earth with socialist programs that destroy incentive and economic activity. All candidates promote class warfare, envy and jealousy even though most gained their wealth on the economic policies they now want to destroy. All appeal to people with no drive, no work ethic, no ability to compete and all with that entitlement mentality the radical left has been promoting for years.

What a surprise another anti Trump/Anti Private sector thread designed to further take this country down the road to that wonderful European economy of high taxes, high social spending, and poor economic results

Can someone explain to me how any of those candidates will promote strong economic growth, individual wealth creation, and equal opportunity NOT equal outcome?
 
NeverTrump said:
Here are my very basic thoughts on the 2020 race so far.

  • Elizabeth Warren- older woman adapting Bernie Sanders talking points/ Holding Trump accountable
  • Kirsten Gillibrand- Middle age woman, NY Senator, working class platform
  • Sen. Cory Booker- single middle aged African American man, 420 platform, Is he still Spartacus?
  • Kamala Harris- African American Woman, biggest glass ceiling ever, prosecutor, most impressive media blitz/campaign speech so far.
  • Julián Castro- Latino male. Southwest. my dark horse candidate.
  • Tulsi Gabbard- Hawaiian. Hindu. But campaign is a mess
  • Pete Buttigieg- Married Gay Man. Youngest candidate. Message geared towards Millennials. Future leader of Democratic Party. VP/Whip?

...

I'm really proud of the lineup at this point in time and would be very angry with the Republicans who don't even seem to want anybody to attempt to primary Trump.

Maybe Conservatives would be less angry if they joined our party??? :mrgreen::peace
Click to expand...

You should understand history as to why republicans wouldn't want anyone to challenge Trump. Five times since FDR a sitting president has been challenged in the primaries. All five times either the sitting president withdrew and that party's nominee went on to lose in the general election or the sitting president lost his reelection bid. When a sitting president is challenged, he and or his party loses.

It still very early, but I think Warren would or could be another Hillary Clinton. History shows that on average 90% of Republicans vote for their candidate, 90% of Democrats for theirs. It's independents who decide national elections. Although with the democratic party still being the larger of the two major parties, having the larger base, they don't have to win the independent vote, just come close. I pay particular attention to independents when doing my forecasts knowing how the Republicans and democrats will go.

That being said, looking at independents with Warren. Warren is the one candidate at this point that could let Trump back into the race. Among independents, only 7% view Warren very favorably, 26% very unfavorably. A minus 17. With Trump, 23% of independent view him very favorably, 36% very unfavorably, minus 13. History shows those who view a candidate very favorably will vote for that candidate, those who view a candidate very unfavorable will vote for someone else. Now Warren does have a huge 42% of independents in the don't know category. So her number could change quite a bit, one way or the other.

We also have the wishy washy somewhat favorably and somewhat unfavorably which is usually added with the very favorable and very unfavorable to come out with the total favorable/unfavorable ratings. But the somewhats changes quite a lot over time, where the very remains fairly constant. Adding the numbers together you come up with for Warren 21% favorable/37% unfavorable, minus 16. Trump total is 41% favorable/47% unfavorable. minus 6.

Bottom line, Warren will have a hard time winning the independent vote. But with 42% yet to make up their mind on Warren, depending on how they come down, that could be reversed at sometime in the future. Warren could be the Hillary Clinton type candidate Trump beat in 2016 in 2020. One other thing, whereas most independents see Trump obnoxious, uncouth, they see Warren as nerdy. Neither one has a persona, personality to attract independent voters in the way an Obama, Bill Clinton or a Ronald Reagan could. Warren comes across as a policy wonk. Hillary came across as being aloof, elitist, a wonk along with having a personality of a wet mop. Warren comes across as nerdy, wonkish personality. Clinton didn't excite and I don't think Warren is capable of producing any excitement either. I mean among independents.

One has to remember that for quite a lot of folks, the presidential race is a beauty contest. The candidate with the most charisma usually wins. Obama had it, he beat both McCain and Romney who didn't. G.W. had a bit more than the statue Gore and Kerry. Although G.W. didn't have much, but he came across as being the down home candidate. Bill Clinton had charisma by the bucket full, the elder Bush and Dole didn't. Reagan, another one who shouted charisma. remember I'm talking about winning the independent vote here.
 
I really hope Brown runs instead of Bernie. He would be the prime candidate for Bernie to pass the torch to and cheer on. I just hope that he can make it through the primary process, lest 2016 superdelegate shenanigans occur and cause mass-stupidity and gutter politics with both sides tearing each other apart and handing Trump another victory (like last time).

A Brown/Harris or Brown/Williamson ticket would ROFLMAOSTOMP (but I'm confident anyone not named Bloomberg could handily defeat Trump).
 
Last edited:
NeverTrump said:
Here are my very basic thoughts on the 2020 race so far.

  • Elizabeth Warren- older woman adapting Bernie Sanders talking points/ Holding Trump accountable
  • Kirsten Gillibrand- Middle age woman, NY Senator, working class platform
  • Sen. Cory Booker- single middle aged African American man, 420 platform, Is he still Spartacus?
  • Kamala Harris- African American Woman, biggest glass ceiling ever, prosecutor, most impressive media blitz/campaign speech so far.
  • Julián Castro- Latino male. Southwest. my dark horse candidate.
  • Tulsi Gabbard- Hawaiian. Hindu. But campaign is a mess
  • Pete Buttigieg- Married Gay Man. Youngest candidate. Message geared towards Millennials. Future leader of Democratic Party. VP/Whip?

There's something to be impressed about with each candidate that has officially entered the race in 2020. Each candidate brings something new and different and fresh to the table. And most importantly, according to all the polls, each one can beat Trump.

But what astounds me is that there are NO old straight white guys in the race yet. And in fact, another crazy billionaire (Schultz) has made the other old white guys take notice in their own party that maybe this should be the make-up of the race. A makeup that more represents our country than a bunch of old white guys talking about things that are out of touch with the majority of Americans.

I'm really proud of the lineup at this point in time and would be very angry with the Republicans who don't even seem to want anybody to attempt to primary Trump.

Maybe Conservatives would be less angry if they joined our party??? :mrgreen::peace
Click to expand...

You are obviously blind to all the knee jerk, mamby pamby, and other whiny assed liberal posts on here.

Ya'll couldn't start a thread without "white men" or "racists" being your battle cry.

What a joke! :lamo
 
eohrnberger said:
The color of their skin? Which seems rather racist to me - measuring someone on the basis of the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character.
Click to expand...

BINGO!


It's better, for example, to have 435 competent and honest Representatives of the same ethnicity than to have a "diverse" House that includes some incompetent and crooked members.
 
TheParser said:
BINGO!


It's better, for example, to have 435 competent and honest Representatives of the same ethnicity than to have a "diverse" House that includes some incompetent and crooked members.
Click to expand...
Competent and honest. Not sure such a thing exits in Congress, from either political party.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
digsbe said:
Here's the problem with "your party." They want diversity over merit because someone's genetic background somehow makes them more qualified than an "undesirable" white male with merited experiences? I'll vote for the best candidate, which at this time does not appear to be anyone in the Democrat party.
Click to expand...


Thank u, next.

There is no illusion that white folks will vote for the Democratic party. Statistics from the last 5 election cycles back this up. We are only expecting 39% of the white folk to vote for Democrats and that's OK. We don't want your vote and we're sure as hell not pandering to you white supremacists to get it. Monster is as monster does. The party of white supremacy would rather vote for a Russian agent than an American. We're not playing Sammy David Jr. trying to tap dance to get a few extra percentage points from white voters. And, for what? White folks don't even have a platform. People of color have asked for "Justice, Jobs, and Peace" since the Civil Rights Movement. What's the platform for white folks? "Build the wall" or "Law and Order" or some other inane talking point. Besides, white folks stand behind the President after he's thrown children in "day care" camps, separated families from one another, affirmed that his own daughter is a "piece of ass", claimed that there was "bad people" on "both sides" after a white supremacist ran over an innocent woman, the man who supported a pedophile for Senator, the man who smeared a survivor of sexual abuse as a liar, and the list goes on and on. We literally need a website to keep track of the idiocy that Trump does. Yet, the majority of white folks still back him. Democrats could nominate Jesus Christ and you people would smear him. We're not trying to impress Republicans or moderates, we're here trying to impress other Democrats. I'll never understand the one-sided infatuation that Republicans have with Democrats. I just don't understand it.
 
Last edited:
eohrnberger said:
Diversity in background doesn't equate in diversity in political positions. On that, seems to me that they are all walking in lock step with each other for the most part. Most having signed up to AOC's New Green Deal lunacy.

Since these are politicians, wouldn't their diversity in positions be the more important than their background?
The color of their skin? Which seems rather racist to me - measuring someone on the basis of the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character.
Click to expand...


I love how white folks parrot the MLK line when it suits them. By the way, did you know MLK recanted that speech? A year before he was murdered by white folks, he said that his dream had become "a nightmare". He realized that being nice to white folks, begging, pleading, groveling, doesn't work. He learned, the hard way, that Malcolm X was right.

Cite: YouTube
 
Huey Freeman said:
Thank u, next.

There is no illusion that white folks will vote for the Democratic party. Statistics from the last 5 election cycles back this up. We are only expecting 39% of the white folk to vote for Democrats and that's OK. We don't want your vote and we're sure as hell not pandering to you white supremacists to get it. Monster is as monster does. We're not playing Sammy David Jr. trying to tap dance to get a few extra percentage points from white voters. And, for what? White folks don't even have a platform. People of color have asked for "Justice, Jobs, and Peace" since the Civil Rights Movement. What's the platform for white folks? "Build the wall" or "Law and Order" or some other inane talking point. Besides, white folks stand behind the President after he's thrown children in "day care" camps, separated families from one another, affirmed that his own daughter is a "piece of ass", claimed that there was "bad people" on "both sides" after a white supremacist ran over an innocent woman, the man who supported a pedophile for Senator, the man who smeared a survivor of sexual abuse as a liar, and the list goes on and on. We literally need a website to keep track of the idiocy that Trump does. Yet, the majority of white folks still back him. Democrats could nominate Jesus Christ and you people would smear him. We're not trying to impress Republicans or moderates, we're here trying to impress other Democrats. I'll never understand the one-sided infatuation that Republicans have with Democrats. I just don't understand it.
Click to expand...

1. I am not a Trump supporter, so let's get that out of the way up front.
2. As for the Civil Rights Movement, please keep in mind that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by "white folks" and by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both the House and Senate.
3. Your post reeks of hate. Is it any wonder many "white folks" band together in the face of that?
4. I could not vote for either major party candidate in 2016. I hope to have a better choice in 2020.
 
NeverTrump said:
Here are my very basic thoughts on the 2020 race so far.

  • Elizabeth Warren- older woman adapting Bernie Sanders talking points/ Holding Trump accountable
  • Kirsten Gillibrand- Middle age woman, NY Senator, working class platform
  • Sen. Cory Booker- single middle aged African American man, 420 platform, Is he still Spartacus?
  • Kamala Harris- African American Woman, biggest glass ceiling ever, prosecutor, most impressive media blitz/campaign speech so far.
  • Julián Castro- Latino male. Southwest. my dark horse candidate.
  • Tulsi Gabbard- Hawaiian. Hindu. But campaign is a mess
  • Pete Buttigieg- Married Gay Man. Youngest candidate. Message geared towards Millennials. Future leader of Democratic Party. VP/Whip?

There's something to be impressed about with each candidate that has officially entered the race in 2020. Each candidate brings something new and different and fresh to the table. And most importantly, according to all the polls, each one can beat Trump.

But what astounds me is that there are NO old straight white guys in the race yet. And in fact, another crazy billionaire (Schultz) has made the other old white guys take notice in their own party that maybe this should be the make-up of the race. A makeup that more represents our country than a bunch of old white guys talking about things that are out of touch with the majority of Americans.

I'm really proud of the lineup at this point in time and would be very angry with the Republicans who don't even seem to want anybody to attempt to primary Trump.

Maybe Conservatives would be less angry if they joined our party??? :mrgreen::peace
Click to expand...
If you measure diversity in looks. The Democrat Party has never been more indistinguishable. Far left vs far far left. I listened to Joe Lieberman the other day. What a breathe of fresh air. Joe's Democrat Party is dead.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
1. Doesn't matter. Your tone has Matthew 7:16 written all over it.
2. What does that have to do with anything? NORTHERN Democrats voted for the CRA, SOUTHERN Democrats did not. The following election year in 1968, SOUTHERN Democrats abandoned the party altogether. Did they not teach history in those rural or suburbian counties? Here, let me help: 1968 United States presidential election - Wikipedia
3. Two things. First, I don't care about your tone-policing. Really, I don't. White folks don't positively respond to kindness or nonviolence - just ask Mr. Kaepernick who engaged in nonviolent, nonmotile, nonvocal protest and was repeatedly smeared and effectively kicked out of the NFL due to promises of white-led boycotts. Second, you may not get this in the real-world but let me tell you that you and only you are responsible for your own actions. If white folks want to side with a man who affirmed his daughter is a piece of ass, that's on them. You can't blame your decisions and actions on the actions and decisions of others. What's next? Will you beat your wife or loved one to an inch of her life and say "It's your fault I beat you because you kept talking about diversity" or "I would beat you because you wouldn't shut up"? It's the complete abdication of responsibility and it's something only white folks can do.
3a. I don't mind white folks banding together, I just wish you had a platform other than tax cuts. Or inane bull**** talking points like "liberty" and "freedom" which mean nothing.
4. That's on you. Don't look to the Democratic party for a "better choice". The primary isn't for Republicans, it isn't for moderates, it really isn't even for undecideds, it's for the Democrats.
 
If you measure the Republican party in looks, it does not represent the demographics of the United States. The Democratic party does and white folks hate it with a passion.
 
Huey Freeman said:
If you measure the Republican party in looks, it does not represent the demographics of the United States. The Democratic party does and white folks hate it with a passion.
Click to expand...

Tim Scott, Republican Senator from South Carolina

 
Huey Freeman said:
1. Doesn't matter. Your tone has Matthew 7:16 written all over it.
2. What does that have to do with anything? NORTHERN Democrats voted for the CRA, SOUTHERN Democrats did not. The following election year in 1968, SOUTHERN Democrats abandoned the party altogether. Did they not teach history in those rural or suburbian counties? Here, let me help: 1968 United States presidential election - Wikipedia
3. Two things. First, I don't care about your tone-policing. Really, I don't. White folks don't positively respond to kindness or nonviolence - just ask Mr. Kaepernick who engaged in nonviolent, nonmotile, nonvocal protest and was repeatedly smeared and effectively kicked out of the NFL due to promises of white-led boycotts. Second, you may not get this in the real-world but let me tell you that you and only you are responsible for your own actions. If white folks want to side with a man who affirmed his daughter is a piece of ass, that's on them. You can't blame your decisions and actions on the actions and decisions of others. What's next? Will you beat your wife or loved one to an inch of her life and say "It's your fault I beat you because you kept talking about diversity" or "I would beat you because you wouldn't shut up"? It's the complete abdication of responsibility and it's something only white folks can do.
3a. I don't mind white folks banding together, I just wish you had a platform other than tax cuts. Or inane bull**** talking points like "liberty" and "freedom" which mean nothing.
4. That's on you. Don't look to the Democratic party for a "better choice". The primary isn't for Republicans, it isn't for moderates, it really isn't even for undecideds, it's for the Democrats.
Click to expand...

1. Late in the 1968 campaign, as Wallace's polling numbers began to erode, his voters went to Humphrey, not Nixon.
2. If any NFL GM thought CK could help them win he would be on a roster.
3. People almost always vote for less-than-ideal candidates; your rant demonstrates nothing but your own intolerance.
4. If you think "liberty" and "freedom" mean nothing then you're going to have a tough time winning any election.
5. If the Democrats want to win rather than merely signal their virtue then they will consider who offers the best chance to win.
 
Jack Hays said:
1. I am not a Trump supporter, so let's get that out of the way up front.
2. As for the Civil Rights Movement, please keep in mind that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by "white folks" and by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both the House and Senate.
3. Your post reeks of hate. Is it any wonder many "white folks" band together in the face of that?
4. I could not vote for either major party candidate in 2016. I hope to have a better choice in 2020.
Click to expand...

Hence why I wrote in for Bernie.
 
Jack Hays said:
Tim Scott, Republican Senator from South Carolina

Click to expand...

A photo of one senator hardly proves a point - in fact holding him up makes it look like they have a 'token black'. On balance and across both houses there are far more people of color on the Dem side of the aisle and have been for some years now.

Don't expect it to change either when republicans rail against 'diversity' every chance they get. They've managed to turn that - or their version of it - into a dirty word for white voters. And when the Republicans finally start electing more people of color that will show their demographics are shifting away from Trumpism.
 
Last edited:
Huey Freeman said:
Thank u, next.

There is no illusion that white folks will vote for the Democratic party. Statistics from the last 5 election cycles back this up. We are only expecting 39% of the white folk to vote for Democrats and that's OK. We don't want your vote and we're sure as hell not pandering to you white supremacists to get it. Monster is as monster does. The party of white supremacy would rather vote for a Russian agent than an American. We're not playing Sammy David Jr. trying to tap dance to get a few extra percentage points from white voters. And, for what? White folks don't even have a platform. People of color have asked for "Justice, Jobs, and Peace" since the Civil Rights Movement. What's the platform for white folks? "Build the wall" or "Law and Order" or some other inane talking point. Besides, white folks stand behind the President after he's thrown children in "day care" camps, separated families from one another, affirmed that his own daughter is a "piece of ass", claimed that there was "bad people" on "both sides" after a white supremacist ran over an innocent woman, the man who supported a pedophile for Senator, the man who smeared a survivor of sexual abuse as a liar, and the list goes on and on. We literally need a website to keep track of the idiocy that Trump does. Yet, the majority of white folks still back him. Democrats could nominate Jesus Christ and you people would smear him. We're not trying to impress Republicans or moderates, we're here trying to impress other Democrats. I'll never understand the one-sided infatuation that Republicans have with Democrats. I just don't understand it.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can back everything you said here up with actual studies. I'll wait for it, but I won't hold my breath.
 
uptower said:
A photo of one senator hardly proves a point - in fact holding him up makes it look like they have a 'token black'. On balance and across both houses there are far more people of color on the Dem side of the aisle and have been for some years now.

Don't expect it to change either when republicans rail against 'diversity' every chance they get. They've managed to turn that - or their version of it - into a dirty word for white voters. And when the Republicans finally start electing more people of color that will show their demographics are shifting away from Trumpism.
Click to expand...

I'm not here to defend the Repubs. I left the party long ago. But that doesn't mean I have to accept Dem virtue signaling as the truth either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom