If the Democrats want to win seats next election...

[Adre]

Not being lock step with whatever (D) commands of it's most loyal followers doesn't = maniacal bullshit.


Putting out bullshit polls and statistics can be used in a lot of ways.

Promoting ideas, pushing a narrative to support their party and please their viewers, or to demonize the other party and manufacture outrage further polarizing shit.

People get sucked into that and watch their brand of news rather loyally....loyal viewership is something that is very valuable that every MSM channel sells to all sorts of buyers.

As I vote R just as often as D I wouldn’t know about the lock step you speak of. Interesting that you accuse D of that far more than R. I personally see no difference when it comes to blind loyalties out there.

 

[BotanyBoy]

As I vote R just as often as D I wouldn’t know about the lock step you speak of. Interesting that you accuse D of that far more than R. I personally see no difference when it comes to blind loyalties out there.

LOL

Sure thing.



And right now that's just the cycle.

It will slip back soon enough....of that I have no doubt.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The real problem on the left of course isn't blind loyalty it's a complete lack of it. Democrats don't actually understand that politics is a game and you don't get to leave your own behind, even when they are wrong you have to back them and then deal with it internally when you get a chance. Look at the 2016 elections. Democrats as a whole were luke warm over Hillary despite her being overqualified for the job. By contrast Trump heavily insinuated that Cruz's father had helped kill Kennedy and that fucker fell back in line. On the base level you couldn't find Republicans who weren't behind Trump and buying into the idea that Hillary had killed more people than every war in history combined. On the left we to this day are debating on if we should follow Bernie who isn't even a fucking Democrat.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The real problem on the left of course isn't blind loyalty it's a complete lack of it.
https://pics.me.me/i-find-your-lack-of-faith-disturbing-16786928.png

Yes comrade!!

You must have absolute allegiance for the egalitarian utopia to be realized!!

This is always the leftist problem, even with the most iron of fists.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yes, you must have absolute allegience. Untill we get rid of Trump and anybody who would vote for him we need to have what amounts to a 1 to 10 system and you always vote for the person who is closer to 1 (or 10) and it makes no difference what their short comings are. Dems need to stop listening to people like you who pretend that Obama and Trump are exactly the same. Bengazi is the same as Mueller's investigation. Birtherism is the same as Trump's family being in the government.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes, you must have absolute allegience.

YAH COMRADE!!!!

Fire up the "Re-education" camps!!!

Untill we get rid of Trump and anybody who would vote for him we need to have what amounts to a 1 to 10 system and you always vote for the person who is closer to 1 (or 10) and it makes no difference what their short comings are. Dems need to stop listening to people like you who pretend that Obama and Trump are exactly the same. Bengazi is the same as Mueller's investigation. Birtherism is the same as Trump's family being in the government.

But they are.....People like Obama and the Clinton's LOVE people like the Trumps and they've sold your out to them every chance they've gotten in the last 30 years. How the fuck do you think they went to DC poor and wound up some of the richest people in the country?


ENJOY!!!!

 

[Sean Renaud]

They didn't go to DC poor. Lets start with that lie.

 

[richard_daily]

The real problem on the left of course isn't blind loyalty it's a complete lack of it. Democrats don't actually understand that politics is a game and you don't get to leave your own behind, even when they are wrong you have to back them and then deal with it internally when you get a chance. Look at the 2016 elections. Democrats as a whole were luke warm over Hillary despite her being overqualified for the job. By contrast Trump heavily insinuated that Cruz's father had helped kill Kennedy and that fucker fell back in line. On the base level you couldn't find Republicans who weren't behind Trump and buying into the idea that Hillary had killed more people than every war in history combined. On the left we to this day are debating on if we should follow Bernie who isn't even a fucking Democrat.

By any standards that matter, Clinton would be a republican, and Sanders a democrat.

Unless you've got a plan for anything better than the fuckery of the current 2 party system that we currently have, I'm voting for the guy (or gal) who actually stands for the values of the party they claim to represent.

 

[BotanyBoy]

They didn't go to DC poor. Lets start with that lie.

Some did, and relatively speaking nearly all of them did.

If you want to get super rich....1% rich and do it fast? Federal level elected official is the way to go.

Whore those votes/policy out to the highest bidders and then go collect your "speaking fees" .

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Such as . . . ?

Name one

It's pretty much assumed Dems are pro-gun control in general, but can't think of one who's "run as" either anti-gun or anti-2nd amendment.

Conor Lamb won in deep red PA and he was pro-gun control and pro-2nd Amendment

they need to stop running anti-gun candidates.

Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio all have a huge amount of law-abiding gun-owning folks who do not want to see their rights infringed. These are the battleground states. Now, it might not make as much of a difference in the mid-terms, but people don't just re-set and forget what a political party has done every election. Actions have consequences, and continuously running anti-2nd Amendment candidates is at least a mitigating factor in why we have Trump now.

Name one thing that Donald Trump ever did for the "good of the people," and he's the supposed "populist" president.

So-called populism doesn't have a thing to do with doing things "for the good of the people."

It's simply bitching about so-called "elites" and shitting on immigrants.

Democrats need to run candidates with a history of actually doing actionable good for the people, rather than stuff from 30-40 years ago, before they "got into" politics.

Love it or hate it, populism has a broad appeal, whether it's leftist or right-wing populism.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Such as . . . ?

Name one

Hillary Clinton.

Nancy Pelosi

Keith Ellison

James Clyburn

Robin Kelly ...

I can go on, is this sufficient?

Conor Lamb won in deep red PA and he was pro-gun control and pro-2nd Amendment

He's one of the very very few (D)'s that is.

The vast majority are directly and ardently anti-2A just like you.

Sure, they will say they aren't 2A, but then they will turn around immediately and advocate at least some sort of gun ban....making them anti-2A.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

If that's true it should be easy to name one D candidate who's run as ardent anti-2A

Fuck does it matter what I think. I'm not running for public office.

He's one of the very very few (D)'s that is.

The vast majority are directly and ardently anti-2A just like you.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If that's true it should be easy to name one D candidate who's run as ardent anti-2A

Fuck does it matter what I think. I'm not running for public office.

The last 2 (D) Presidents were anti-2A and so was Hillary Clinton.

From the DNC you have extremely anti-2A leadership from these two....

Nancy Pelosi

Keith Ellison


And I can go on with well over 100 anti-2A congress critters on team (D).

Are you done pretending (D)'s aren't anti-2A yet ?

 

[richard_daily]

Such as . . . ?

Name one

It's pretty much assumed Dems are pro-gun control in general, but can't think of one who's "run as" either anti-gun or anti-2nd amendment.

With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence.

Democratic Party platform. Of course, there's no sense in any of it, and no pro-gun voices left in the Democratic leadership.

It's part of the reason why the Democrats lose in states like PA, MI, WI, and now MN.

If you care about winning elections, don't demonize the people who have supported you for generations (gun-owning working class).

 

[Sean]

Democratic Party platform. Of course, there's no sense in any of it, and no pro-gun voices left in the Democratic leadership.

It's part of the reason why the Democrats lose in states like PA, MI, WI, and now MN.

If you care about winning elections, don't demonize the people who have supported you for generations (gun-owning working class).

I think the GOP pretty much have the terrified white male demographic sewn up.

 

[Taint_mAnn]

If they want to win, they need to do more brainwashing, like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLjYJ4BzvI&sns=tw

 

[richard_daily]

I think the GOP pretty much have the terrified white male demographic sewn up.

So people who like guns are "terrified"?

Well, that attitude is the reason why we have Donald Trump.

Thanks Sean!

 

[cowslinger64]

The last 2 (D) Presidents were anti-2A and so was Hillary Clinton.

From the DNC you have extremely anti-2A leadership from these two....

Nancy Pelosi

Keith Ellison


And I can go on with well over 100 anti-2A congress critters on team (D).

Are you done pretending (D)'s aren't anti-2A yet ?

Wrong again Capt. Braindead.

Obama announces gun control plans: 'I believe in the Second Amendment'

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/05/oba...-plans-i-believe-in-the-second-amendment.html


Many of us on the left are not anti gun. I've owned guns, killed deer with them too. I have no problem with them. I also believe as many believe that there needs to be some sort of discussion on what guns are legal to own. Where is the line drawn on what's acceptable? IMO, that is what needs to be addressed rather than just saying there should be NO guns. I'm not for that at all.

So your histrionics is plain silly.

 

[Sean]

So people who like guns are "terrified"?

Well, that attitude is the reason why we have Donald Trump.

Thanks Sean!

According to Pew, over 90% of gun owners cite "protection" as their reason for owning a gun. So, yeah, terrified. And a large part of Trump's win was down to fear. That's why his campaign hammered the scary brown men message so hard.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So people who like guns are "terrified"?

Well, that attitude is the reason why we have Donald Trump.

Thanks Sean!

And apparently white males.....nothing racist about that.
https://lauramartinez.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/franco.jpg?w=640https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSzlHaOhCBCh8l_d1uee2pTVZc23wjTQ_wrCM0TACpAWp9qgJvbTwhttps://womenintheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/screen-shot-2017-12-19-at-11-47-16-am.png?w=1280https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/afs:Medium:1138650034/800.jpeg

 

[BotanyBoy]

Wrong again Capt. Braindead.

Obama announces gun control plans: 'I believe in the Second Amendment'

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/05/oba...-plans-i-believe-in-the-second-amendment.html

He said!! He said lots of shit. Like "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan." LOL

His behavior however is anti 2A....from Chicago to DC he supported numerous gun bans and called for more after shootings while he was a lame duck.

You can't support 2A and call for gun prohibitions at the same time smart guy.

Many of us on the left are not anti gun. I've owned guns, killed deer with them too. I have no problem with them. I also believe as many believe that there needs to be some sort of discussion on what guns are legal to own. Where is the line drawn on what's acceptable? IMO, that is what needs to be addressed rather than just saying there should be NO guns. I'm not for that at all.

So your histrionics is plain silly.

As opposed to access control and law enforcement practices regarding gun regulation.....because you want to ban shit just like the (D)'s told you to do, don't you?

 

[cowslinger64]

He said!! He said lots of shit. Like "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan." LOL

His behavior however is anti 2A....from Chicago to DC he supported numerous gun bans and called for more after shootings while he was a lame duck.

You can't support 2A and call for gun prohibitions at the same time smart guy.




As opposed to access control and law enforcement practices regarding gun regulation.....because you want to ban shit just like the (D)'s told you to do, don't you?

Thanks for the fox news talking points mr liberal.


And sure you can. Some weapons are really not meant to be owned by the general public. Many of the ones out today weren't even a thought when the 2nd amendment was written. Should we include it being ok to own nuclear weapons? Tanks? Guns shooting a bazillion rounds a second?



because you want to ban shit just like the (D)'s told you to do, don't you?



Just can't help being a dumbfuck, can you?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Thanks for the fox news talking points mr liberal.

That's not a FOX news talking point, it's an obvious reality....if you support policy contrary to 2A, you're anti-2A.

Hurrrrrrrr!!!! Derpa derpa DERP!!!

And sure you can. Some weapons are really not meant to be owned by the general public.

That's a nice opinion but 2A doesn't say anything about that.

Many of the ones out today weren't even a thought when the 2nd amendment was written. Should we include it being ok to own nuclear weapons? Tanks? Guns shooting a bazillion rounds a second?

Irrelevant justifications for being anti-2A that don't change the fact that supporting policy that DIRECTLY infringes upon the peoples right to keep and bear arms is definitively and demonstrably anti-2A.

No matter how justified you or anyone thinks those infringements might be.....still anti-2A.

Just can't help being a dumbfuck, can you?

Says the guy who thinks supporting infringement upon 2A rights is pro-2A....and overpaying for lame HC services by an astro-fucking-nomical amount of money is a GREAT deal.

you don't have any room to insult ANYONES intelligence cupcake.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Being pro-gun safety is not the same thing as "running as" an anti-gun candidate.

None of these people have run for office as "anti-2nd Amendment."

No D has.

Hillary Clinton.

Nancy Pelosi

Keith Ellison

James Clyburn

Robin Kelly ...

I can go on, is this sufficient?



He's one of the very very few (D)'s that is.

The vast majority are directly and ardently anti-2A just like you.

Sure, they will say they aren't 2A, but then they will turn around immediately and advocate at least some sort of gun ban....making them anti-2A.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Being pro-gun safety is not the same thing as "running as" an anti-gun candidate.

None of these people have run for office as "anti-2nd Amendment."

No D has.

They don't give a fuck about gun safety, they want prohibition.

Well no they don't run AS "anti-2nd Amendment"....they all say they TOTALLY support 2A.

But when asked want to ban guns, gun accessories, limit access and otherwise infringe the fuck out of the 2nd Amendment because super good reasons!!!

Making them anti-2A....

No matter how much they say they aren't, as long as they support legislation that infringes on 2A, they aren't pro-2A.

Just like people who say they support free speech, but want to ban/censor all sorts of speech....aren't actually pro-free speech.