On that note, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't she forced to sign a statement saying the events she described didn't happen? ...which would only happen because she signed an NDA. ...which actually means it's true.
So, there is no good reason for the pages and pages of videos that proport to compare Warren and Sanders, but really are varying degrees of mud slinging, against one of the better candidates, that you've posted? I don't recall a single one you've posted slinging mud at Biden, or any other candidate. Now, considering there are other candidates that are women, then it would indicate, your real issue is that Warren is the best chance against Sanders, and so instead of actually pointing out all the reasons why Bernie would be a good choice, you're too busy focusing on attacking another candidate.
I'm not saying it was all bad. I am saying that the legacy is much more complex and a lot of people are in denial about it. There are things where he did have decisive power - namely the wars, but also ICE - that deserve more critique. People have been crying about press freedom under Trump but gloss over what Obama was doing. Same thing with the border. Although he wasn't separating families, those facilities were terrible and overpriced and kids were still sleeping on the floors. And we were just hoodwinked into giving them MORE money!
Translation: la la la la sticking fingers in your ears. Because you haven't paid attention to anything I've said anyway.
Nice twist of my words. I never said "too much ambition". I said "reflect on more than ambition". There's a difference.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is really uncalled for. I was an early supporter of Harris, who you guys didn’t like anyway, and was talking about Warren because she’s one of the two front runners left who can compete with Biden.
I haven’t been watching all those YouTubes you’re posting. I really don’t have the hours it would take. There are other, readable articles that succinctly outline what Sanders wants to do.
Nothing I have cited in my own words is a "conspiracy theory." I've cited her votes for the bloated military budget. Her crazy vote for Ben Carson. Her failure to address Standing Rock. Her waffling on Medicare for all. That's her record. It's not "mud." There's no perfect politician, but this is a primary and now is the time to put forth the best person.
I missed Cristalle's (or anyone's) posts about Tulsi. I don't know where she stands on a lot of issues. The one issue I am more than a little impressed with of hers is to majorly scale down the military and work for world peace. If that is on the radar at all with Bernie or Elizabeth it is minimal.
That's really disappointing, Beebo. I like to think that I've made my policy choices and biases pretty clear but they're constantly interpreted through some other lens, and dismissed. To me, this explains how the Democrats lost and could lose again. I feel that "Whatever it is you're looking for" is not going to address the underlying reasons as to why we got Trump in the first place. I don't want Trump, and I don't want worse than Trump to win later on because we elect another feel-good president who doesn't do anything to address the underlying malaise that is in the undercurrent of our economy and our politics.
Not sure if you're talking about Obama, but if you are, he was hardly a feel-good president. He took our economy from the toilet and brought it to the point where even Trump couldn't fuck it up, and he brought health care to the forefront. True, he didn't really tackle a lot of social issues, but considering what he was working against - a Congress that didn't want him there - he did alright. And he was honestly the most personable, down-to-earth president's we've had in a long time, if ever.
Katheryne, I've said it before, that it's mixed. It's not the social issues I'm talking about. The economy's headline numbers are good, but it's much more complex. The recovery was grindingly slow and took too long to benefit the people at the bottom. Health care was an improvement but it took too long to fully implement, allowing Trump space to screw with it, and it's still largely inaccessible for a lot of people because of high deductibles. If things were so great, why did we get Trump? It wasn't Russia. Obscure racist memes with frogs didn't give Trump the win.
You want a candidate who will turn the country around by implementing perfectly reasonable solutions that the population as a whole considers to be radical left wing crazy talk. Whereas I don't believe that the faults in this country can be fixed by a president, no matter how idealistic; we are fighting the character flaws of a nation, not the person who steps into the oval office every four years.
Look what Obama had to work with. For most of his time as President, he faced a hostile Congress. A President alone can't get very much accomplished, he or she needs a cooperative Congress. Given what he had to work with, Obama accomplished a lot.
