Gillum’s miraculous night
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
It's possible, sure, in the same vein that anything is possible. It's not plausible, and there's no evidence to support it
So all that remains is a conspiracy theory until actual verifiable evidence is presented
No it's not. The idea is that economic inequality affects all races. People in poverty all across America face injustice specifically because of the way political campaigns are financed; through corporate PACs and corporate donations. People of color, females, and other minorities are affected the worst through this system.
What we are proposing is making the system more equal to people in poverty, African Americans, and other minorities, and females by refusing to accept corporate money that influences the decisions politicians make in congress so that there can be no mistake made about who said politician actually represents while governing. It's not even a question who they support, so the cop out that Democratic politicians have been using since Dodd-Frank, that they have to accept corporate money otherwise they'll lose, can't be used. If they can't win, why are Sanders backed candidates who don't accept corporate money winning?
The economic policies proposed by politicians supported by the PCCC, Brand New Congress, Our Revolution, and Justice Democrats are already largely supported by most Americans across the political spectrum according to polls. Given the fact that usually less than half of Americans vote in presidential elections because of political apathy, distrust of government, etc., there is an entire field of potential voters, more than 150 million Americans, to tap into. These are people who support progressive issues who don't vote. Even Republicans that do vote support many progressive issues. A majority of Republican voters now support Medicare-for-all, the most "Socialist economic policy" of all! How can that be?!
Not at all. We want to affect racism head on first through the economic barriers that mainly prevent people of color, minorities, and women from gainful employment that lends them a living wage and a viable future. You want to address racism by screaming at racists when they decide to protest, which yields no results in actually affecting racism or racial injustice issues, it's just good for PR. You want to affect racism while supporting Joe Crowley, an old white guy, against Ocasio-Cortez, a young latina female. You want to affect sexism by supporting Andrew Cuomo, an establishment Democrat, over Cynthia Nixon, an actual progressive. Tell us more about how you oppose racism and sexism..
If the strategy was some kind of fabricated "tippy toe around racism", Gillum wouldn't have supported Sanders.. Sanders has addressed racism head on and been supported by the African American community. You keep trying to paint Sanders as someone out of touch with the black community while the entire black community has already embraced Sanders as their next Democratic nominee..
No you don't. You wish to take credit for progressive wins while denigrating their chances while they run against establishment candidates.
you better be careful..you're falling into their psycho trap.
bravo +rep
your parents did a great job in raising you and i've watched through the years here, the man you've become. hope you're considering a career in political life- we need leaders like you.
srh88
Well-Known Member
Still no answer on this. Lol
srh88
Well-Known Member
This is bullshit. Most sane people can support someone even if they don't agree with everything 100%. If barnie would of beaten Hillary most of us would of supported him too. Right now its Republicans vs everyone else. If I had a chance to vote gillum I would.
His parents are still raising him until he moves out. It's tough out there for him because as a white.. more is expected from him. (His words)bravo +rep
your parents did a great job in raising you and i've watched through the years here, the man you've become. hope you're considering a career in political life- we need leaders like you.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Unclean... Unclean.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
That space is already occupied by Sanders supporters. I'll stick to the facts, you can channel Bannon through Jimmy Dore.
Your feigned shock about crackers reverting to tried and true race baiting tactics against Gillum is truly a marvel in the exercise of fakery.
Tell us again about how you wouldn't hire somebody named Shaquan.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Florida's red necks outnumber liberals and I don't think enough will vote for Gillum. I hope I'm wrong.
Sanders' economic policies were color blind and basically swept race issues under the carpet. He repeated his tactic of coddling weakly racist whites after the election through his rhetoric and behavior. Raising wages and universal healthcare isn't going to change institutional racism. Bernie's avoidance of race issues was called out early and often but he didn't listen and he lost the 2016 primary because of that. You still haven't gotten it.
Gillum and Occasio Cortez, on the other hand are better than Sanders in civil rights issues. I'm glad to see the movement move past the racist old white guy. That said, there isn't much future for your movement if Progressives(TM) don't run and win in red and purple states. Florida is a good test of your theory that going farther left will attract rednecks and I wish Gillum all the best. Will you revist your theory and change your mind about it's validity if Gillum and the majority of the Progressive(TM) candidates lose in less than liberal states in the fall?
Or are you going to hide from reality through fake conspiracy theories and are already planning to say that if Gillum loses, the election was rigged?
Last edited:
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Can you even believe this shit? Moe, Larry and Curly we're amateurs compared to these three.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Make sure to pack duct tape.bravo +rep
your parents did a great job in raising you and i've watched through the years here, the man you've become. hope you're considering a career in political life- we need leaders like you.
i'll bet the fvcking russians love reading your shit and pride themselves for someone like you..
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It's the propagandists YOU listen to who think the Russia investigation is a distraction. None of this is particularly hard to understand. You've bought into a theory that rednecks want to vote for liberals but only if they are "Sanders endorsed". That theory was tested in 2016 and it failed. Because you are weak minded, rather than search for cause and try to correct them, you searched for blame. You found blame in a false conspiracy theory lauded by right wing propagandists that was fed to you by Kyle Kulinski, Jimmy Dore and a host of other yt vids funded by "we don't know", and stopped thinking about it. Propaganda works on you.
I've put it out there that I want to be wrong about you and your cult's belief that rednecks will vote for Gillum "because he's farther left than anybody else". It would be fantastic if your cult's theories prove to be true. But I'm pretty sure rednecks don't care about Progressive(TM) policies and will vote to support Trump and racism. A few won't but not in any large numbers.
We are going to see the Progressives'(TM) theory tested. I predict that when Gillum loses you are going to look for blame rather than try to understand causes and think on how to correct them.
After all, Bernie would have won if he hadn't lost because rigged.
Last edited:
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
Harsh reality !
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It's my opinion. I would like their story to be true, though.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
No you don't. You're actively campaigning against Gillum. Because if he wins, you lose. You're doing everything in your power to ensure Gillum doesn't win, and when he does, you're ensuring yourself enough wiggle room to make the claim you always supported him, when everything you've posted since his win shows otherwise.
Neoliberals are attempting to hijack the progressive movement that's currently taking place because they've realized they've lost in the realm of ideas. They've lost on substance.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Again, you have no idea what I'm thinking.
You also misunderstand the meaning of the word neoliberal.
You have so many things wrong.
I sincerely do want to be wrong about conservatives thirsting for a liberal who is left enough for them.
I just think that theory is as crazy as your claim that you know what I'm thinking.
Soooooo, how about Cynthia Nixon taking on Cuomo? Are you going to wrongly accuse me of taking sides in a gubernatorial primary in a state where I don't vote?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Liberal ideas are not far left. The majority of the country supports progressive positions when it comes to the actual issues. 70% of Americans support Medicare for all, including 52% of Republicans. A majority of Americans support raising the minimum wage to a living wage, getting out of the middle east and ending the wars, increasing the amount of taxes corporations and the wealthy pay, gun control, domestic infrastructure programs, etc.
The "far left" positions moderates and conservatives are put off by are the very same ones establishment Democrats push for the most because they're not as bad as the Republican party and it doesn't cost anything from their corporate donors, ultimately ensuring their defeat at the polls
If Gillum wins, everything you've said about progressives winning elections in red districts/states is falsified. Everything we've said about progressives winning in elections in red districts/states is verified.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Beginning with your last statement. Yes, if Gillum wins you would finally have ONE instance where a very liberal candidate won over the party of Trump. Florida is not dark red like Georgia, where the contest is even more interesting as proof of your theory. In Alabama. Moore was defeated by a left-of-center candidate, Doug Jones and do hold him as an example of a Democrat who won by campaigning on Democratic party values but not the liberal that you would endorse.
Regarding your first position, where you claim that because of an opinion poll the vast majority prefers Medicare for all, I'd say your claim hinges on winning an election where that is a key plank in the candidate's platform. Just going back two years, that didn't prove to be true.
If you look as Scott Lamb's set of positions, he's what I'd hold up as an example of a liberal candidate who is not as far left as Gillum. Farther to the right but still to the left of center would be the candidate that Gillum defeated. What I interpret you as saying is that voters who would have voted for DeSantis if Gwen Graham were running because she wasn't liberal enough.
I remind you that I am in support of Bernie's and Gillum's overall policies, I just reject the notion that conservative voters thirst for liberal candidates like that. There is no proof that this is true. Not yet. I will always pull for the candidate who runs on Democratic party values such as pro-labor, women's reproductive rights, supporting public education, universal access to healthcare and others over a Trump-party candidate. Yet, the choice of the candidate is up to the voters of the state. My state is fairly liberal and that's where my vote is cast, not in Florida, New York or other places.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Conservative voters don't "thirst for liberal candidates", they support progressive positions when polled about the actual issues; universal healthcare, raising the minimum wage to a living wage, universal college, a new domestic infrastructure program, etc.