You are the "moderate", and the fact is, this is you saying those policies do not appeal to you.
I cannot answer for Hieronymus, but I will answer for myself.
I am a moderate, and lefty policies do not appeal to me. I think however, that his argument was that these policies do not appeal to the overall electorate, even if they can play well in Democratic primaries and D+[double digits] districts.
They want more rights for trans people
But not you.
Depends on the right demanded. I do not think biological males competing in female sports is at all fair. For example this:
Trans athlete wins 2 girls events at California track and field finals
On the other hand, why do we separate men and women in sports where it does not matter, like chess or skeet shooting?
Also, while I fully agree with calling, say, a trans-woman who transitioned by her chosen name and use female pronouns, that is very different than somebody just deciding that he wants to be called "they" on a whim. I think the latter just want attention or desperately want to belong to the LGBTQABCXYZ scene. I think the latter is especially the case when far left activists invent a "non-binary" identity for themselves. It's not dissimilar to the feminist idea of "political lesbianism" from the 1970s.
"DEI", no, just acceptance of hiring whoever is actually qualified rather than sticking with a narrow candidate pool. Which implies you think "DEI" is more than that, or that you don't want that and want to call it DEI.
Of course it is more. The 'E' stands for 'equity', which is antithetical to the idea of "hiring whoever is actually qualified rather than sticking with a narrow candidate pool". Equity is all about giving preference to certain people to achieve the politically desired "equitable" distribution in result (such as hiring for a position, or admissions to college or medical schools). DEI means that a black would-be medical student with a 505.7 MCAT has the same chance of admission as a white student with 512.4 or an Asian with 514.3. American Indians are the most DEI advantaged, since they only need 502.2.
Data from AAMC.
No, we want to tax them because taxes are important for stabilizing the economy and ensuring that people are not taken advantage of by the ones who ARE mean.
Taxes are necessary, but a lot of the
taxation rhetoric by the likes of Elizabeth Warren was counterproductive. And it probably helped (along with ketamine abuse) push Elon Musk into Trumpism. Well done!
More, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, *because they kill us and are wrecking the fucking planet*.
Reducing reliance on fossil fuels is good. Fighting any fossil fuel development (such as the Dakota Access Pipeline) or seeking to ban fracking and offshore drilling (as Harris advocated for in 2019) is very different.
The rhetoric against DAPL was very unhinged. "You can't drink oil, keep it in the soil". Well, you can't eat lithium or copper, so keep that in the soil too, and bye bye electric cars, right? Idiots like them do a lot of damage to the environmental movement.
They are the other side of the coin to the idiots who think we should go back to coal.
It's almost like progressives are less focused on "justice" and more focused on stopping doing the things that are going to fucking kill us before they fucking kill us and destabilize our society entirely.
The problem with Fauxgressives is their one-sidedness with regard to supposed "justice" issues - they will yell "Justice for [some hashtag who got himself killed by police] without investigating the case and discovering that, for example, the perp was armed and has shot somebody. They will be against Israel no matter how much violence Palestinians commit.
On environment, they ignore that transitioning the entire US economy away from fossil fuels will take decades, and that in meantime we need oil and gas drilling, and we need pipelines. We cannot just "keep it in the soil". And they ignore that it must be a worldwide effort, that China - the biggest user of coal and biggest CO
2 emitter by far - must be taken to task too.
If it's "moderates" that don't want that, we might as well call them what they really are: doomer Republicans in blue
What?
