Again just ignoring the challenger who was 201 vote from beating him.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Again just ignoring the challenger who was 201 vote from beating him.
Again conflating a primary runoff with a general election
I stated before and you ignored me. The Pelosi lead house passed an abortion bill. Democrats in more than a dozen states have already codified protections.
The ONLY states where abortion is illegal are Republican controlled states. Cueller has shit to do with abortion rights. So yes you are being disingenuous.
Also "I voted in the recent elections" is quickly becoming "I have a black friend"
Hey, if you have any polls that say otherwise I'll eat that crow.
But him loosing voters every general election coupled with her doing so will in the primary doesn't make that argument make any sense.
And I responded to you in kind. Read the other posts. I'm not going to recycle the same arguments again. We already went quite a bit of back and forth on the house bill. Also, very nice on the black friend analogy. It's exactly being like a racist.
All the polling I need to see is the fact it went from D+20 for Hillary to D+4 for Biden. It's a risky seat to try to change up and going with an incumbent, who has won many times there and won +20 in 2020, seems like a much less risky maneuver in important midterms.
How are you so sure Cuellar will win with an FBI raid on him?
I'm not so sure, I'm just more sure that he'd win over a newcomer who is more progressive than Cuellar in a district and voterbase that has been becoming more conservative.
$2.2M of out-of-district dollars were being spent from PACs to support Cisneros and people like AOC who have nothing to do with the district are campaigning for her, so the party must stay out of it? They should just allow $2.2 million to be spent in a primary with only 22k votes against an incumbent that gives them a chance to hold a narrow majority and just sit out?
Because of San Antonio. That's the only reason it was close.
It's true that the seat can flip as the GOP have made inroads in the area and the RGV is fairly Conservative.
Again, I wanted Cisneros to win but I was fairly certain she wouldn't.
All of this really doesn't matter right now. What matters is folks in my state can't get the essential healthcare that they deserve and the only way to help them right now is outside of the voting process.
Resent away, I call em like I see em.
You repeated your lie again in this post. You are painting the party as not pro-choice at present when they are. They passed a bill. In states controlled by Democrats, abortion is legal. The party has a strong stand on the issue. Stronger than 12 years ago.
I am also happy to point out that you have spent the most energy in the last 24 hours attacking the pro-choice party, judging from the discussion here. Your priorities are clear to me. You would like to inflame the liberal/left divide more than you care about the actual issue.
Who cares if people and groups from round the country sent money to Cisneros. That's different from Party leadership to step in and put their weight behind someone explicitly against the Party platform, and do robocalls for them.
Republicans will 100% nuke the filibuster to ban abortion and elected Dems will shrug their shoulders even though everyone is screaming it from the mountain tops.
I agree. Vast majority of candidates Pelosi backed are pro-choice but *how about this one candidate?* is such a purity test
Blue states will ignore the law and fight back. We've already had CA/WA/OR announce their intention to do that and IL and NY seem to be heading that direction.
If a D doesn't win whatever seat an R will guys. What's the point of discussing the minutiae? you cannot takes risks in our system when catastrophe is the result of you fail. Recent events have proven the only important attribute about a candidate is the D next to their name. Noone has to hold water for them but you can't lose site that the opponent is ever present.
I'm not going to even bother with the policy stuff because it feels like you're too personally involved, for some reason. I dont see any need to make personal attacks. I know you since poligaf days, and if you know me, I have been politically engaged for a good long while as well. I don't cast any aspersions on anyone and in the end we all want the same thing. Just because I'm critical of the leadership suddenly doesn't mean I'm a disingenuous troll.
Can we drop the Cisneros talk? Unless I am missing something, the only connection it has to to prove that Democrats are "weak" on abortion, when any weighing of all the facts shows that isn't true. One outlier congressman doesn't stack up against everything else; a bill passed by the house, laws passed by Dem state governments, or Dem appointed Justices dissenting in this opinion.
Make a thread for it, it's not pertinent here.
Make a thread for it, it's not pertinent here.
User banned (2 weeks): meta commentary and inflammatory accusations
What we need is a leftist/progressive politics OT thread. There's too many liberals & corporate, neoliberal bootlickers on here.
Last edited:
And judging a progressive candidate on how Biden and Hillary did isn't the silver bullet of an argument you think it is.
I'm involved because I care about this fucking issue a lot, and it pisses me off people take the rage bait of attacking the pro choice party over it. And yeah, I haven't been engaged here on political stuff as much because that's pretty much a disease that's set in here.
Also, calling your post disingenuous is not personal. It's an assessment of its content. Don't make disingenuous posts. Don't ignore what was said or what's true.
For sure but they were only able to do that because people were apathetic. Voters just didn't show up like they did in 2008.
You don't have to be any of those things to realize that having more Ds than Rs in the supreme court would have prevented this and that situation would be preferable to the one we are currently in.
Been explained before- have a majority is not the same as have enough pro-choice votes in the House and Senate. Even under Obama, there were not enough pro choice Dems. And the Republicans at that time started their continual block of anything that didn't sever their own election interest.
It's not disingenuous. I'm not spending my morning being a troll. The issue is close to my heart. I care about the issues just as much as you do and you trying to ban people from the thread for being critical of leadership or democrats by calling them divisive/disingenuous and allege that they do NOT care about the issue tells a lot more about you than you think.
There's the Socialism OT. A lot of the people you're talking about fancy themselves as progressives so my guess is if you create a "Progressive/Leftist Politics OT" you'll largely get what you're getting here.
Welcome to the age of Twitter politics. Sigh. Keep your country on the correct side of things and we'll keep doing our best down here.
Feel free to create one! We need more activism in our current Democratic politics.
Woke up this morning and I'm still just baffled at this decision. Simply a loss of words. I want this county to be better and inclusive for all, but we're on a slippery fucking slope.
This must be a record for useless labels in one post :p
If you care about the issue, why do you keep lying? If you care about the issue, why do you keep trying to paint the pro choice party as not truly pro choice?
What is the intent of your criticism other than to deflect blame onto the pro choice party?
Progressivism =! Socialism. Just because we want to talk about progressive politics in US doesn't mean we're Fidel Castro loving socialists.
If the district was D+25 or the House majority was +25 seats, I'd agree with you. It's not and the party cares about holding the majority because it has nationwide repercussions. Same reason why anyone outside of West Virginia cares about Joe Manchin.
One of the most successful campaigns to bring down the Democrats they have ever orchestrated.
Because I fucking expect better from the "pro-choice" party, that dropped the ball on the issue of Roe. Because it's harder for me to explain to somebody to vote for the "pro choice" party when they explicitly back "anti-choice" candidate, and did not codify Roe when they had the chance. We're going in circles now.
I don't understand you americans. It was clear for years that this would happen. Why the outcry now? Republicans push their policies through, democrats don't get shit done, that's how it's been for decades.
Your society is deeply divided and can't even unify on basic rights.
Your society is deeply divided and can't even unify on basic rights.
There is no need for an explanation. The situation we are in now explains it. Unless we somehow think that a Dem controller SCOTUS overturns Roe.
Seems people will get their wish in letting things get completely bad because they didn't get their perfect solution to everything.
We're not immune to it. I live in a conservavite run province (equivalent to you governers) for another 4 years because of the exact voter apathy that led your country down this path. And the province will regress in many ways as a result. But federally at least, enough Canadians realized last election that although our liberal leaders aren't making as much progress on extremely important things like climate change, we've figured that some small/slow progress is better than regression. Until some of y'all realize that, you'll forever be stuck having purity discussions while your rights are stripped away. 2016's consequences are forever unless you all work really hard to get past this kinda nonsense over the next 8 years and improve things. Like the recent gun legislation, small steps are better than no steps and more candidates on the side of those not wanting to regress can lead to even more steps forward. It's just going to take a lot of work/compromise to get there. Baby steps -> walking.
This shouldn't have happened, but a not insigificant portion of the voting population tends to sit out important elections or protest vote for third parties.
They never had the votes to do large scale changes. Look at what Obama went through just to get ACA through.
Obama ran on "Yes we can" but it turned out he couldn't do a lot of those things.