Democrats 2020

[PyramidHead]

You and other baby boomers like you love to say you support people like Sanders. But then you turn around and say "but Sanders isn't realistic", and vote for people that believe the opposite of Sanders. And tell the Sander's wing: what other option do you have other than voting for <insert corporate democrat>?

And that is where we are now.


But, I posit, the popular sentiment has moved significantly since the 1990s.

Anyway, your "reasons" essentially boil down to "I don't think he would be good at governing, nor would he be appealing to minorities". The latter, I think, is easily dispensed with, in the polls, he is consistently the most popular political figure out there, and he does particularly well among women and people of color.

As to the former, well, something asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Bingo. The race is not between a diverse array of liberal progressives, each with pros and cons, all of which would be fine if we could all just agree to pick one. The race is between a field of candidates who are committed to capitalism and market solutions to every problem from climate change to health insurance to charter schools (and coincidentally all receive large financial donations from these players), and Bernie. Now is the right time to throw our weight behind the person who actually represents something we want for ourselves, even if he ends up butting heads with Congress like Carter did for opposite reasons; Carter didn't get much done legislatively, but he ushered in the modern economic era of neoliberalism that replaced the politics of the New Deal with deregulation, austerity, and the modern police state. Changes don't happen overnight, and aren't restricted to official legislation. This is a unique moment where the options available are so clearly delineated, with so much to gain and nothing to lose by supporting a candidate with actual integrity, flaws and all, over yet another elitist meritocratic ghoul who wants our permission to take a massive dump on Palestine while live-streaming from their kitchen.

Again, the problem here is that you aren't listening. Bernie isn't listening. You just assume that what you want, everyone else wants.

I'll keep that in mind when responding to your next few sentences, friendo.

Most democrats want a vibrant economy that provides well paying jobs and benefits. Most want a larger safety net.

Just wow. Out of all the candidates, who has been a more consistent and passionate advocate for higher pay, benefits, and economic prosperity for working people, other than Bernie?

What makes you think that even a small majority wants true socialism?

Now who isn't listening? Nobody in the presidential race is offering whatever you believe (or whatever you believe that I believe) to be "true socialism". Not Bernie, not even AOC if she were old enough to run. So that was never on the table, and I never said it was.

Bernie is a social democrat, which is someone who is critical of capitalism and wishes to aggressively constrain it for the benefit of those who are otherwise harmed by it: poor people, workers, women, minorities, students, trade unions, and sovereign countries who want to get on with their lives in peace. For Bernie, unregulated market capitalism enriches a small minority of oligarchs at the expense of all these other interests; he is partly right, in my opinion, but I would say that even regulated capitalism does this eventually. But that doesn't matter! What matters is that most Democratic voters agree with him. Here's the kicker on this poll:

-47% of Democrats view capitalism positively, down from 56% in 2016
-57% of Democrats now view socialism positively, little changed from 2010

In other words, Democratic voters have been fine with socialism, "true" or otherwise (Bernie), for almost a decade now. In less than two years, the population who had an equally favorable view of capitalism has dropped by 10%. Can you and Toni really keep saying, in light of this and other trends, that fucking Beto O'Rourke represents the future of our politics?

I would vote for Bernie over Trump. However, I'm not sure that he's running. He's too old!

I won't dispute that he's old, but so is Biden and nobody cares about that. Trump is the oldest president we've ever had and unlike Bernie is actually very probably senile, and nobody who wants 4 more years of Trump holds that against him. You take what you can get in American politics.

Secondly, who the heck is a "elitist meritocratic ghoul who wants our permission to take a massive dump on Palestine while live-streaming from their kitchen."??

Every other candidate, dude. Julian Castro's opening salvo, his first broadcast to the electorate in an era of massive discontent and insecurity about the future, was basically "in the future, having a big brain will help you make more cash". It's the same old shit! The whole slew of them are all corrupt, out-of-touch slugs who think people who can't feed their families or afford health care just need to learn how to code. And they all cozy up to Israel without question because it's expected of anyone who wants a future in the White House, not for any moral reasons. Simultaneously, to beat back this entirely accurate conception from their opponents, they've settled on the humanizing and totally-not-a-robot behavior of posting videos of them doing normal people stuff in their kitchen.

 

[Elixir]

Nobody in the presidential race is offering whatever you believe (or whatever you believe that I believe) to be "true socialism". Not Bernie, not even AOC if she were old enough to run. So that was never on the table

The fact that Harry - who seems to be a reasonable person to me - has fallen into the "Bernie = Socialism" trap of the right wing, is an indicator of just how effective and insidious the right wing propaganda machine has become. Between Faux Nooz and Sinclair broadcasting, they have made their messages to the right so pervasive in media in general, that the effect bleeds over to the center and even the "moderate left".
Just ... wow.

 

[southernhybrid]

After reading the comments on this and a few other threads, I've come to the conclusion that Democrats/liberals are their own worst enemies. It's really sad.

 

[poster]

After reading the comments on this and a few other threads, I've come to the conclusion that Democrats/liberals are their own worst enemies. It's really sad.

That's because they don't share the same principles. Today's Democrats are more like Republicans in the 90s and progressives haven't really changed much at all. We progressives still believe in independence and freedom from authoritarian systems, including corporatism. We still abhor war. And we still believe in our convictions, unlike moderates who don't appear to care what gets done as long as it's something/anything.

They belong in separate parties.

 

[Toni]

Nobody in the presidential race is offering whatever you believe (or whatever you believe that I believe) to be "true socialism". Not Bernie, not even AOC if she were old enough to run. So that was never on the table

The fact that Harry - who seems to be a reasonable person to me - has fallen into the "Bernie = Socialism" trap of the right wing, is an indicator of just how effective and insidious the right wing propaganda machine has become. Between Faux Nooz and Sinclair broadcasting, they have made their messages to the right so pervasive in media in general, that the effect bleeds over to the center and even the "moderate left".
Just ... wow.

Not everybody who doesn't love the Bernster is a dupe. Harry certainly is not. I'm not, I don't think. Sure, I'd vote for Bernie over Trump but as I've written before, I'd vote for what comes out of my dog's ass over Trump.

Bernie isn't a Democrat. It is unreasonable for anyone in the world to expect the Democrats to nominate him. Bernie seems unwilling or unable to mount a campaign as an Independent. This calls into question his ability to actually win a presidential election.

I agree with many/most of Bernie's stated positions. I disagree with some of them. I think that Bernie (and Biden and probably Warren and Hillary) are too old to run as President. I think Trump is too old as well but that doesn't even crack my top 10 reasons for thinking he's unfit to be president.

There's no big huge right wing conspiracy that is blinding everyone to the Universal Truth of the Supremecy of Bernie Sanders as Candidate for POTUS! I've listened to the guy. I've read his positions. I've done research on his background. He's better than Trump (as is the shit that comes out of my dog's but) which is an extremely low bar (shit/dog's butt) but not better or more competent than Warren by a long shot nor is he better or more competent than Hillary. I like Biden better, to be honest and I think that Biden is both too old and too flawed a candidate to be viable.

Bernie has a good place in the party and in national politics as a (mild) provocateur but mostly because he comes across as the grumpy old uncle or grandpa you don't really have to live with but can enjoy at the occasional holiday gathering or family reunion. You love him, he makes some really good points but he's a lot more bark than he is substance.

 

[Elixir]

Nobody in the presidential race is offering whatever you believe (or whatever you believe that I believe) to be "true socialism". Not Bernie, not even AOC if she were old enough to run. So that was never on the table

The fact that Harry - who seems to be a reasonable person to me - has fallen into the "Bernie = Socialism" trap of the right wing, is an indicator of just how effective and insidious the right wing propaganda machine has become. Between Faux Nooz and Sinclair broadcasting, they have made their messages to the right so pervasive in media in general, that the effect bleeds over to the center and even the "moderate left".
Just ... wow.

Not everybody who doesn't love the Bernster is a dupe. Harry certainly is not. I'm not, I don't think. Sure, I'd vote for Bernie over Trump but as I've written before, I'd vote for what comes out of my dog's ass over Trump.

Bernie isn't a Democrat. It is unreasonable for anyone in the world to expect the Democrats to nominate him. Bernie seems unwilling or unable to mount a campaign as an Independent. This calls into question his ability to actually win a presidential election.

I agree with many/most of Bernie's stated positions. I disagree with some of them. I think that Bernie (and Biden and probably Warren and Hillary) are too old to run as President. I think Trump is too old as well but that doesn't even crack my top 10 reasons for thinking he's unfit to be president.

There's no big huge right wing conspiracy that is blinding everyone to the Universal Truth of the Supremecy of Bernie Sanders as Candidate for POTUS! I've listened to the guy. I've read his positions. I've done research on his background. He's better than Trump (as is the shit that comes out of my dog's but) which is an extremely low bar (shit/dog's butt) but not better or more competent than Warren by a long shot nor is he better or more competent than Hillary. I like Biden better, to be honest and I think that Biden is both too old and too flawed a candidate to be viable.

Bernie has a good place in the party and in national politics as a (mild) provocateur but mostly because he comes across as the grumpy old uncle or grandpa you don't really have to live with but can enjoy at the occasional holiday gathering or family reunion. You love him, he makes some really good points but he's a lot more bark than he is substance.

I agree with all of that! (esp the first parag!)
I sincerely hope that Bernie ultimately retains his current position and doesn't remain in the presidential mix long enough to become a Russian tool (again).
I think the ideal candidate to replace Trump would hold a lot of Bernie's positions (on things other than guns), but would come across as energetic, young and upbeat rather than old, tired and angry (Bernie). That candidate or the running mate MUST be a POC I think, to ensure victory.

All that said, there is plenty to be learned from the fact that someone like Harry can be convinced that Bernie is a "full Socialist". He's not. That impression is founded on Bernie's self-adopted label and the Republican propaganda machine's ability to spin it.

 

[southernhybrid]

After reading the comments on this and a few other threads, I've come to the conclusion that Democrats/liberals are their own worst enemies. It's really sad.

That's because they don't share the same principles. Today's Democrats are more like Republicans in the 90s and progressives haven't really changed much at all. We progressives still believe in independence and freedom from authoritarian systems, including corporatism. We still abhor war. And we still believe in our convictions, unlike moderates who don't appear to care what gets done as long as it's something/anything.

They belong in separate parties.

Let me just say, that I respectfully disagree with that. Liberals are on a spectrum, and liberals will never agree completely with all positions. Some are slightly left of center, some are mid left of center and some are far left of center. I always come out as mid left of center whenever I've taken those little questionnaires that assess your political ideology.

Here's the thing that some people who are further to the left than me, don't seem to accept. We have had some very liberal presidents, but when you're the president, you are supposed to represent the entire country, not just your base. Trump is the worst example of someone who only cares about his base. In order to get any legislation passed, you need the support of the majority of Congress. Even if your own party is in control, not all of your party is going to be on the same page as you. That's why compromise in government and in all of human relationships is essential to avoid chaos.

I'm extremely anti war, always have been and always will be. I don't think Obama wanted to continue the dreadful wars that Bush involved us in, but a good president isn't a dictator. Obama had the most obstructionist Congress that I've ever seen in my life time. So, he wasn't able to do many of the things that he might have been able to do, if Congress had worked with him. If someone like Sanders were elected, he/she will also be very limited as to how much he/she can accomplish. For example, Warren wants a 3% wealth tax on those who have over 50 million in assets. I've already read many criticism of this idea, including some that say it might violate the constitution. Even if that's not true, if a wealth tax were to pass, it's probably going to be held up in the courts. As I'm sure you know, conservative currently control SCOTUS as well as many other appeals courts in various places. SCOTUS, as you know is supposedly the third equal branch of government. So, again, it takes all kinds of compromises to move things along. I'm sure you already know all of this, but when some of you talk about being Democratic Socialists, which I have no personal problem with, at least not in theory, it's as if you are ignoring the rest of the citizens who don't agree with you.

I knew quite a few Bernie supporters personally during the last election. Many of them voted third party. How did that work out for them? Now instead of having a fairly rational, left of center president who had lots of experience, we have a total incompetent, idiot who doesn't know what he's doing, and is doing great damage to the country. So, please respectfully, explain to me how exactly, a Democratic Socialist, if one is elected, is going to get most or any of their agenda passed? I wouldn't mind someone who identifies as a Democratic Socialist becoming president. I just never thought Bernie was very capable of getting much done, other than stirring up crowds and insulting other Democrats who weren't as far left as him. Just because I like someone's beliefs or desires doesn't mean that I feel that person has the ability to put those ideas into policies that can be supported by the majority.

I'd love to have a really excellent UCH program. But, there are many ways to do it, Medicare for all is just one possibility. I'd love to greatly decrease military spending. I'd love to see college be very affordable for anyone who has the skills to attend. I'd love to see more spending on our own people, and I'd especially love to see the minimum wage raised to where is should be. I'd love to see more effective regulation, and less political influence from large corporations. I'm an extreme social liberal. I'm all for things like gay marriage, legalization or at least decriminalization of all recreational drugs, with rehab offered instead of prison, decreased prison sentences for non violent crimes, government supported family planning services for all women with easy access to abortion, etc. etc. We've accomplished some of those things, but we still have powerful governors and Congress critters who want to take us back to more draconian times. Since, I have lots of experience caring for the mentally ill, I am disgusted with how our country has failed people who suffer form mental illnesses. I'd love to see this changed. Many of them are sitting in prison. That's just the start of my dream wish list. Yet, there have been times when I've been identified as a conservative by some on this discussion board.

Okay. I'm ranting. I'm just trying to explain to you that there is a huge difference between what some people might want and what most people might want. I think that people who insist on having their way are harmful to the country. That goes for those on either end of the political spectrum. It's fine to have ideals. It's not okay to think that everyone else must accept your ideals.

So, I will vote for the most reasonable person, the one that can show me a plan that will enable them to put their plans into action. But, even at that, I realize that nobody gets everything they want. I've seen a lot of praise for FDR. Sure, the man did some wonderful things for the country, but he also locked up Japanese citizens during the war. Every single president we've ever had is flawed, some more so than others. Gee. Could it be because they're humans? Look around the world. It's turning more to the right. It's embracing more autocracy. Autocracy has been found among both the far right and the far left. That's why it's best to come together and make compromises. Sorry for being so wordy. I'm just very discouraged when I see, liberals attacking their own. That's the perfect way to lose elections. I will vote for whoever wins the primaries, regardless if he/she wasn't my first choice. Will you?

 

[Derec]

Bingo. The race is not between a diverse array of liberal progressives, each with pros and cons, all of which would be fine if we could all just agree to pick one. The race is between a field of candidates who are committed to capitalism

Including Sanders as you admit he is not a real socialist.

and market solutions to every problem from climate change to health insurance to charter schools (and coincidentally all receive large financial donations from these players),

That is not true. All presumed and declared Democratic nominees see the state having quite a big role in solving problems.

over yet another elitist meritocratic ghoul who wants our permission to take a massive dump on Palestine while live-streaming from their kitchen.

What's wrong with meritocracy?
And what about so-called "Palestine" anyway? Should Israel not defend itself against people who want to destroy it?
Yes, today a Palestinian was killed in Gaza. But there were not "peaceful protests" as anti-Israel propagandists would want you to believe. No, Gazans engaged in violence including throwing grenades at Israeli soldiers across the border. That is an act of aggression. That is an act of war. And a sovereign country not only has the right to defend itself from foreign aggression, but the absolute duty to do so.

 

[Derec]

Her boyfriend would be surprised.

You and her boyfriend need to take it up with Elixir. He called her a lesbian upthread.

 

[Derec]

She's telegenic. That certainly contributes the the amount of and quality of coverage she gets.

Perhaps. Proximity of her district to news media headquarters in NYC and many of her ideas being out there surely contributes a lot too.

Yes, I'd much prefer that no one's looks were a factor but when it comes to news media, looks matter.

True. I don't really fault you for mentioning her looks, I fault those who attacked me for bringing a different opinion of how she looks but gave you a pass.
If commenting on politicians' looks is ok, then it surely is ok to make both positive and negative comments.

Or at least a woman's looks do. I mean: Trump passes for attractive in some circules.

Male looks matter too. That's 90% of the appeal of β. It played a role in the appeal of Obama as well.
Huckabee's and Christie's weight has been discussed a lot, and so have John Edwards' and John Kerry's expensive hairdos.
Hell, we can go at least as far back as 1960 election and the first televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon, but I am sure it goes farther back than that what with newspapers and photography.

And I'm kind of tired of your habitual and casual sexism and racism. I wish you were better than that. You're not dumb but the racism and sexism sure does make you seem much less intelligent than I suspect you actually are.

There is nothing either sexist or racist about my comment that AOC has "crazy eyes". Both genders and all races have eyes which can look crazy. \
It is actually racist and sexist to say that non-white and non-cis-male people should be exempt form such comments when you would not bat an eye if somebody made a negative comment about the eyes of a white male politician.
I am quite sick of people on here making things about race/ethnicity that are neither. It is Elixir who called her ugly and brown. I did not call her ugly and made no reference to the color of her skin. I merely commented on her eyes.

Given enough photos, some are going to be unflattering, no matter who the subject.

True. But AOC has a penchant of taking 'crazy eyes' photos. I think it's when she gets overly excited during interviews.

For some, one could fill up a lot of SD cards and still not get an attractive shot.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

I don't see any resemblance at all to Bachmann....

They both have a penchant of taking photos that make their eyes look crazy. Sure, Bachmann has blue eyes, but that's irrelevant.
Oh, and the eyes of both have been compared to Charles Manson online.

Of course, he has a youthful exuberance and some formerly cool rocker vibe stuff going for him as well. He's likable for sure. He's articulate and down to earth and comes across as your (better than average)average Joe. I see the appeal---without getting into the particulars of his policy stances, etc. Of course, the fact that he is extremely telegenic and was opposing Ted Cruz--and did quite well against him is what propelled him to the national limelight. Too bad he lost. He'd be head and shoulders and knees and toes above Cruz, but then so would what comes out of my dog's butt....

I think if β had not tried to swerve to the left (the hard Left still hates him, see Pyramidhead) he could have won. Cruz is rather unpopular, but it's still Texas.

He also needs to get some more experience. He is not ready for prime time. Maybe somebody offers him a veep slot, but barring that, he could run against Abbott in 2022. He is young, he has time.

 

[Derec]

Bernie is a social democrat, which is someone who is critical of capitalism

Social democrats are pro capitalism. That's what distinguishes them from socialists.

In other words, Democratic voters have been fine with socialism, "true" or otherwise (Bernie), for almost a decade now. In less than two years, the population who had an equally favorable view of capitalism has dropped by 10%. Can you and Toni really keep saying, in light of this and other trends, that fucking Beto O'Rourke represents the future of our politics?

I really hope that that's because Democratic voters are merely ignorant of what socialism means. Hint: it's Cuba and Venezuela, not Sweden and Denmark.

I won't dispute that he's old, but so is Biden and nobody cares about that. Trump is the oldest president we've ever had and unlike Bernie is actually very probably senile, and nobody who wants 4 more years of Trump holds that against him. You take what you can get in American politics.

Bernie will be 79 at the time of the 2020 election. That's almost a decade older than Trump was when he was elected. And, as you point out, Trump is already the oldest president we've ever had. 70s are much different than 80s in a human lifespan. To put this in perspective, an average man has 48% chance of dying between the ages of 79 and 87 (hypothetical Bernie's two terms). Let's say he is healthier than average and his odds are merely 1/3. That's still a lot, but you have to add things that may not be fatal but still debilitating: heart attack, stroke, dementia, cancer, chances are he will not be able to serve out two terms, especially considering how stressful being president is.
Besides, I do not think Bernie will run, but if he does I think he will not get far in primaries because I think even most his fans understand that while he was marginal in 2016, he is definitely way too old in 2020. And besides, in 2016 he was the only alternative to the Hillary juggernaut.

Every other candidate, dude. Julian Castro's opening salvo, his first broadcast to the electorate in an era of massive discontent and insecurity about the future, was basically "in the future, having a big brain will help you make more cash".

That's the idea behind the knowledge economy. Unskilled labor is getting less and less important due to automation and also illegal migration because Jose from Honduras will do shit jobs for $4/h (and somehow manage to send most of it home, removing those funds from circulation in US economy).

It's the same old shit! The whole slew of them are all corrupt, out-of-touch slugs who think people who can't feed their families or afford health care just need to learn how to code.

Coding is hardly the only job where knowledge is required. Actually healthcare will be one of the growth sectors because it is difficult to outsource. And it requires a lot of schooling and training of course.

And they all cozy up to Israel without question because it's expected of anyone who wants a future in the White House, not for any moral reasons.

Well, it is moral to support Israel. It is immoral to pretend violent attacks at Gaza-Israel border are "peaceful protests" or that the rockets terrorists are firing from there at Israel don't matter.

Simultaneously, to beat back this entirely accurate conception from their opponents, they've settled on the humanizing and totally-not-a-robot behavior of posting videos of them doing normal people stuff in their kitchen.

Reminds me of Isaac Asimov's story "The Evidence"

 

[Derec]

That candidate or the running mate MUST be a POC I think,

Again, why are you so obsessed with race?

All that said, there is plenty to be learned from the fact that someone like Harry can be convinced that Bernie is a "full Socialist". He's not. That impression is founded on Bernie's self-adopted label and the Republican propaganda machine's ability to spin it.

Which raises the question: why has Bernie adopted that label? Given that the word "socialism" has a meaning, misusing it merely causes confusion and opens you to attacks.

 

[Elixir]

That candidate or the running mate MUST be a POC I think,

Again, why are you so obsessed with race?

Because not every voter is a male whitebread racist. Without ethnic minorities favoring the Dems they have no chance in 2020.
DUH!

why has Bernie adopted that label?

Two possibilities:
1) That was and remains a big mistake
2) He never intended to win anything, but has been softening up the electorate to the idea that this society would be better of with a more socialist arrangement than what we have now.

And there are others...

 

[Harry Bosch]

Nobody in the presidential race is offering whatever you believe (or whatever you believe that I believe) to be "true socialism". Not Bernie, not even AOC if she were old enough to run. So that was never on the table

The fact that Harry - who seems to be a reasonable person to me - has fallen into the "Bernie = Socialism" trap of the right wing, is an indicator of just how effective and insidious the right wing propaganda machine has become. Between Faux Nooz and Sinclair broadcasting, they have made their messages to the right so pervasive in media in general, that the effect bleeds over to the center and even the "moderate left".
Just ... wow.

Bernie is a "socialist democrat" who wants a very large safety net. I was referring to Pyramidhead who is what I call a "true socialist". The key difference is who owns the means of production. Under the system that Pyramid advocates, ownership goes to the collective or the blue collar workers.

 

[Harry Bosch]

After reading the comments on this and a few other threads, I've come to the conclusion that Democrats/liberals are their own worst enemies. It's really sad.

That's because they don't share the same principles. Today's Democrats are more like Republicans in the 90s and progressives haven't really changed much at all. We progressives still believe in independence and freedom from authoritarian systems, including corporatism. We still abhor war. And we still believe in our convictions, unlike moderates who don't appear to care what gets done as long as it's something/anything.

They belong in separate parties.

The problem is that your side is too small. You can't win without some moderates. I'm comfortable with the fact that democrats need to be a big tent in order to beat the republicans because their side is so united. Secondly, I don't agree that dems have shifted right. We've moved to the left over the years. We are far more liberal regarding social issues. There have been dramatic moves to the left regarding funding higher education, increasing min wages, favoring higher business regulations, more environmental protection, consumer protection, immigration rights, minority rights, and etc. If you'd like links that support my position, just let me know!

 

[Elixir]

Bernie is a "socialist democrat" who wants a very large safety net. I was referring to Pyramidhead who is what I call a "true socialist". The key difference is who owns the means of production. Under the system that Pyramid advocates, ownership goes to the collective or the blue collar workers.

I apologize for misrepresenting your portrayal of Bernie. I got that you were naming Bernie a "true socialist" ... somehow.

 

[Toni]

Her boyfriend would be surprised.

You and her boyfriend need to take it up with Elixir. He called her a lesbian upthread.

I'm pretty sure that AOC and her boyfriend give less than zero fucks what anyone thinks about their relationship and/or sexuality.

 

[J842P]

Because not every voter is a male whitebread racist. Without ethnic minorities favoring the Dems they have no chance in 2020.
DUH!

Um, why do you think the Dems need to nominate a "person of color" to be favored by minorities?

 

[Toni]

Perhaps. Proximity of her district to news media headquarters in NYC and many of her ideas being out there surely contributes a lot too.

True. I don't really fault you for mentioning her looks, I fault those who attacked me for bringing a different opinion of how she looks but gave you a pass.

If commenting on politicians' looks is ok, then it surely is ok to make both positive and negative comments.

It may be just me, but I see a difference: I wasn't praising her looks so much as pointing out that her good looks ARE part of her appeal for some people, and certainly for the media.

I see that as different than criticizing anything about her looks, which you did, especially when you chose words that are specifically used to criticize women who (some) men disagree with. Loren does it, you do it. You imply that a woman is too emotional or crazy or, (mostly Loren) too religious to be taken seriously. Even when it is the men who are melting down (as in the case of AOC who maintains her cool while others lose their shit big time).
Which would be still different than if you or someone else suggested that she's deliberately capitalizing on her looks or her sexuality.

That's my take.

What I find appealing about AOC is that she's smart, articulate, wicked clever, funny, is able to poke fun at herself--and toss shade right back at those who try to throw shade on her--and I think she's really just herself. She isn't trying to be some media darling prepacked political princess. She ain't nobody's princess....

so have John Edwards' and John Kerry's expensive hairdos.

Had much more to do with the perception that they were/are out of touch rich guys who spend money on trivial things...

Trump is horribly criticized for his hair but more that it seems like a ridiculous failure to accept reality with grace and just get on with life...

There is nothing either sexist or racist about my comment that AOC has "crazy eyes". Both genders and all races have eyes which can look crazy. \
It is actually racist and sexist to say that non-white and non-cis-male people should be exempt form such comments when you would not bat an eye if somebody made a negative comment about the eyes of a white male politician. I am quite sick of people on here making things about race/ethnicity that are neither. It is Elixir who called her ugly and brown. I did not call her ugly and made no reference to the color of her skin. I merely commented on her eyes

How about you find me a quote of you referring to any white male as having crazy eyes or something similar and I'll agree that I wasn't fair.

True. But AOC has a penchant of taking 'crazy eyes' photos. I think it's when she gets overly excited during interviews.

I think she is an expressive person and given a continuous stream of images, it is impossible not to find some that are unflattering. I also think she gives fewer shits about how she looks than does the media.

Can you think of any white male who you would term as taking 'crazy eyes' photos? Or that you would deem overly excited during interviews?

For some, one could fill up a lot of SD cards and still not get an attractive shot.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

Et moi, aussi. C'est la guerre....

They both have a penchant of taking photos that make their eyes look crazy. Sure, Bachmann has blue eyes, but that's irrelevant.
Oh, and the eyes of both have been compared to Charles Manson online.

Maybe stay off of reddit?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Bernie is a "socialist democrat" who wants a very large safety net. I was referring to Pyramidhead who is what I call a "true socialist". The key difference is who owns the means of production. Under the system that Pyramid advocates, ownership goes to the collective or the blue collar workers.

I apologize for misrepresenting your portrayal of Bernie. I got that you were naming Bernie a "true socialist" ... somehow.

Not at all. But it's really Bernie's fault. It drives me crazy how he blurs the definition. By calling himself a socialist and running in the democratic primary, he poisons the well against democrats. Most Americans are social democrats and want a larger safety net. But very few want true socialism and the problems that come with it.