Where did the left dig this psycho up?

[Pogo]

Oh please. If the Dems didn't rig the primaries, you would have had an admitted Socialist as your presidential candidate. The guy took his honeymoon in the USSR. So what term we Republicans used came to fruition. And now this dingy is another admitted Socialist.

In five years there will be ten admitted Socialists in the Dem part, In ten years maybe 25. So don't tell me it's because Republicans are using the term. The evidence just doesn't pan out.

As I told you, you no longer scare people with that word. You've over-used it into meaninglessness.

Just as I tell the Regressives with "racism".

And you clearly don't understand that YOUR definition of the word is not the same as that of OTHERS.
.

Any definition of the word is taboo to most real Americans.

What? The word is spreading like wildfire, thanks to its over-use by the Right.

Now it scares no one.
.

Indeed, it's right there in the OP's link in post One, along with calling a candidate who's never held office "the new face of the Democratic Party". (And since it was posted the same article now begins with a "correction" about where the money came from.)

This is simply the old word-bending scam, in this case selective hearing -- the candidate described her outlook as "Democratic Socialist" like Sanders, and they choose to drop the proper adjective Democratic, figuring they can morph her own words into what they think is an Emmanuel Goldstein term, via that lexicographical mendacity. They've been playing the same game on Sanders.

It's akin to the McCarthyites trying to pervert the term "Liberal" in the 1940s, it reeks of dishonesty, and as always mendacity has a way of blowing up in the mendacitors' faces. And probably more importantly it speaks volumes about the ethics of those who employ it. To paraphrase a Jack Nicholson character, they can't handle the truth.

You're off on the "new face of the democratic party." If she's not most representative of what the party is, where it's going and what it stands for, then who is? Elected office doesn't really matter in this context, her election is a forgone conclusion so it's just a matter of time. It's a hyperbolic statement of course but it's not too far off.

The "democratic" socialists of America say they want the Nordic model, basically. But part of what defines that model is free markets that are used to pay for a welfare state. They contradict themselves on that when they say they want to tax and regulate businesses to pay for their programs. They can say what they want all day long but it's just not believable. It's like when conservatives say they're for fiscally responsible.

I clicked a thankyou for a well-reasoned and sober post.

The "new face" phrase was secondary of course but used to illustrate the article's overemphasized slant. The fact that they would take somebody unknown three months ago and try to morph her into far far more than she is, demonstrates the paucity of whatever argument will follow and in effect shoots their own text in the proverbial foot from the mendacity factor. Where said party goes in future or how closely she ends up aligning with it all remains to be seen, and conjecture, but clearly they have blown up their subject to be far more important than she is for the purpose of demonizing the greater whole on the basis of a Composition Fallacy -- which in order to execute they'll need a bona fide representative, ergo they "create" one. So that's the point there.

The greater point there of course was the even more mendacious morphing of her term from "Democratic Socialist" into "socialist". These dishonest weasel-words belie a boatload of what the writer's agenda is.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Right can laugh at her all it wants.

I don't think they realize how much more of this is on the way.

We can only hope Mac.........we can only hope.........

No, we really should not be hoping such at all. Do not fall into the hubris that the left did a few years back.

 

[Some Guy]

As I told you, you no longer scare people with that word. You've over-used it into meaninglessness.

Just as I tell the Regressives with "racism".

And you clearly don't understand that YOUR definition of the word is not the same as that of OTHERS.
.

Any definition of the word is taboo to most real Americans.

What? The word is spreading like wildfire, thanks to its over-use by the Right.

Now it scares no one.
.

Indeed, it's right there in the OP's link in post One, along with calling a candidate who's never held office "the new face of the Democratic Party". (And since it was posted the same article now begins with a "correction" about where the money came from.)

This is simply the old word-bending scam, in this case selective hearing -- the candidate described her outlook as "Democratic Socialist" like Sanders, and they choose to drop the proper adjective Democratic, figuring they can morph her own words into what they think is an Emmanuel Goldstein term, via that lexicographical mendacity. They've been playing the same game on Sanders.

It's akin to the McCarthyites trying to pervert the term "Liberal" in the 1940s, it reeks of dishonesty, and as always mendacity has a way of blowing up in the mendacitors' faces. And probably more importantly it speaks volumes about the ethics of those who employ it. To paraphrase a Jack Nicholson character, they can't handle the truth.

You're off on the "new face of the democratic party." If she's not most representative of what the party is, where it's going and what it stands for, then who is? Elected office doesn't really matter in this context, her election is a forgone conclusion so it's just a matter of time. It's a hyperbolic statement of course but it's not too far off.

The "democratic" socialists of America say they want the Nordic model, basically. But part of what defines that model is free markets that are used to pay for a welfare state. They contradict themselves on that when they say they want to tax and regulate businesses to pay for their programs. They can say what they want all day long but it's just not believable. It's like when conservatives say they're for fiscally responsible.

I clicked a thankyou for a well-reasoned and sober post.

The "new face" phrase was secondary of course but used to illustrate the article's overemphasized slant. The fact that they would take somebody unknown three months ago and try to morph her into far far more than she is, demonstrates the paucity of whatever argument will follow and in effect shoots their own text in the proverbial foot from the mendacity factor. Where said party goes in future or how closely she ends up aligning with it all remains to be seen, and conjecture, but clearly they have blown up their subject to be far more important than she is for the purpose of demonizing the greater whole on the basis of a Composition Fallacy -- which in order to execute they'll need a bona fide representative, ergo they "create" one. So that's the point there.

The greater point there of course was the even more mendacious morphing of her term from "Democratic Socialist" into "socialist". These dishonest weasel-words belie a boatload of what the writer's agenda is.

I think they're pretty spot-on with how Ocasio-Cortez is the direction that the democrats are going. She may not be a de-facto leader but she is in terms of her policies and her thought process. Just look at how popular Bernie was/is.

The rest is obvious. It's The Daily Wire. It's a conservative news source. I'm a Ben Shapiro fan but his site is needlessly biased in the way you pointed out.

 

[FA_Q2]

Absolutely nothing.

She wants us all to be equal and end wealth as we know.

Venezuela has the right idea. See, no 1% anywhere to be seen.

She won’t win. All she is is a democrat chick who isn’t old. That’s it. She will lose at election time and be forgotten in about a day after.

I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket. Attractive women have a lot of pull with young horny men, and let's face it, the Democrat party is very short on attractive women.

She ain’t that hot and she is dumb as a rock. Sure, Trump got by with armpit fart sounds, but this chick ain’t got what Donald had and has. Let her run. She will lose. She already is losing every time she does an interview.

I dont' know about that. Look at where she's running. It's what Limbaugh coined as the Uninformed Voter, and there are many in that area.

---- and there it is again. Clevelander wants to tell us all about... Queens.

See what I mean, FA_Q2 ?

No, I don't. I do not see his trolling comment as any more or less productive than complaining that you are not in the right geographical area and, therefore, cannot discuss a politician's platform, position or campaign.

 

[Pogo]

She won’t win. All she is is a democrat chick who isn’t old. That’s it. She will lose at election time and be forgotten in about a day after.

I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket. Attractive women have a lot of pull with young horny men, and let's face it, the Democrat party is very short on attractive women.

She ain’t that hot and she is dumb as a rock. Sure, Trump got by with armpit fart sounds, but this chick ain’t got what Donald had and has. Let her run. She will lose. She already is losing every time she does an interview.

I dont' know about that. Look at where she's running. It's what Limbaugh coined as the Uninformed Voter, and there are many in that area.

---- and there it is again. Clevelander wants to tell us all about... Queens.

See what I mean, FA_Q2 ?

No, I don't. I do not see his trolling comment as any more or less productive than complaining that you are not in the right geographical area and, therefore, cannot discuss a politician's platform, position or campaign.

That's a bit of a non sequitur. I didn't suggest or imply that they "cannot" discuss it. I said they're not related to her constituency -- ergo their analysis of what's going on in not-anywhere-near-their-district makes those comments irrelevant.

The greater point here is the same Composition Fallacy that the title of this thread kicked off the game with. Here's a first-time applicant for office, with as yet no position and no electoral wins, suddenly morphed into the entire "left". That's the pattern I'm really going after. It's not new around here but it is my red meat. In this case they're trying to have it that a local politician, running for a local position, somehow represents something "national". It doesn't.

 

[Pogo]

Any definition of the word is taboo to most real Americans.

What? The word is spreading like wildfire, thanks to its over-use by the Right.

Now it scares no one.
.

Indeed, it's right there in the OP's link in post One, along with calling a candidate who's never held office "the new face of the Democratic Party". (And since it was posted the same article now begins with a "correction" about where the money came from.)

This is simply the old word-bending scam, in this case selective hearing -- the candidate described her outlook as "Democratic Socialist" like Sanders, and they choose to drop the proper adjective Democratic, figuring they can morph her own words into what they think is an Emmanuel Goldstein term, via that lexicographical mendacity. They've been playing the same game on Sanders.

It's akin to the McCarthyites trying to pervert the term "Liberal" in the 1940s, it reeks of dishonesty, and as always mendacity has a way of blowing up in the mendacitors' faces. And probably more importantly it speaks volumes about the ethics of those who employ it. To paraphrase a Jack Nicholson character, they can't handle the truth.

You're off on the "new face of the democratic party." If she's not most representative of what the party is, where it's going and what it stands for, then who is? Elected office doesn't really matter in this context, her election is a forgone conclusion so it's just a matter of time. It's a hyperbolic statement of course but it's not too far off.

The "democratic" socialists of America say they want the Nordic model, basically. But part of what defines that model is free markets that are used to pay for a welfare state. They contradict themselves on that when they say they want to tax and regulate businesses to pay for their programs. They can say what they want all day long but it's just not believable. It's like when conservatives say they're for fiscally responsible.

I clicked a thankyou for a well-reasoned and sober post.

The "new face" phrase was secondary of course but used to illustrate the article's overemphasized slant. The fact that they would take somebody unknown three months ago and try to morph her into far far more than she is, demonstrates the paucity of whatever argument will follow and in effect shoots their own text in the proverbial foot from the mendacity factor. Where said party goes in future or how closely she ends up aligning with it all remains to be seen, and conjecture, but clearly they have blown up their subject to be far more important than she is for the purpose of demonizing the greater whole on the basis of a Composition Fallacy -- which in order to execute they'll need a bona fide representative, ergo they "create" one. So that's the point there.

The greater point there of course was the even more mendacious morphing of her term from "Democratic Socialist" into "socialist". These dishonest weasel-words belie a boatload of what the writer's agenda is.

I think they're pretty spot-on with how Ocasio-Cortez is the direction that the democrats are going. She may not be a de-facto leader but she is in terms of her policies and her thought process. Just look at how popular Bernie was/is.

The rest is obvious. It's The Daily Wire. It's a conservative news source. I'm a Ben Shapiro fan but his site is needlessly biased in the way you pointed out.

Bernie's never been a Democrat, so as I said that all remains to be seen. His campaign did show that there are definitely factions of more and less conservative, but where the giant squid of the party goes with that is future unknown.

I'm really not familiar with the Daily Wire or Ben Shapiro. I just judged it on the content I saw.

 

[ScorpioRising007]

WATCH: Ocasio-Cortez Caught Misleading About Her Campaign, Political Issues

My goodness
And she’ll probably win in one of those sheep districts

I hope she does win we need more in Congress who think like she does. Socialism and Communism will make America great again. I believe in Robin Hood economics. Steal from the rich and give all their money to the poor.

 

[Some Guy]

What? The word is spreading like wildfire, thanks to its over-use by the Right.

Now it scares no one.
.

Indeed, it's right there in the OP's link in post One, along with calling a candidate who's never held office "the new face of the Democratic Party". (And since it was posted the same article now begins with a "correction" about where the money came from.)

This is simply the old word-bending scam, in this case selective hearing -- the candidate described her outlook as "Democratic Socialist" like Sanders, and they choose to drop the proper adjective Democratic, figuring they can morph her own words into what they think is an Emmanuel Goldstein term, via that lexicographical mendacity. They've been playing the same game on Sanders.

It's akin to the McCarthyites trying to pervert the term "Liberal" in the 1940s, it reeks of dishonesty, and as always mendacity has a way of blowing up in the mendacitors' faces. And probably more importantly it speaks volumes about the ethics of those who employ it. To paraphrase a Jack Nicholson character, they can't handle the truth.

You're off on the "new face of the democratic party." If she's not most representative of what the party is, where it's going and what it stands for, then who is? Elected office doesn't really matter in this context, her election is a forgone conclusion so it's just a matter of time. It's a hyperbolic statement of course but it's not too far off.

The "democratic" socialists of America say they want the Nordic model, basically. But part of what defines that model is free markets that are used to pay for a welfare state. They contradict themselves on that when they say they want to tax and regulate businesses to pay for their programs. They can say what they want all day long but it's just not believable. It's like when conservatives say they're for fiscally responsible.

I clicked a thankyou for a well-reasoned and sober post.

The "new face" phrase was secondary of course but used to illustrate the article's overemphasized slant. The fact that they would take somebody unknown three months ago and try to morph her into far far more than she is, demonstrates the paucity of whatever argument will follow and in effect shoots their own text in the proverbial foot from the mendacity factor. Where said party goes in future or how closely she ends up aligning with it all remains to be seen, and conjecture, but clearly they have blown up their subject to be far more important than she is for the purpose of demonizing the greater whole on the basis of a Composition Fallacy -- which in order to execute they'll need a bona fide representative, ergo they "create" one. So that's the point there.

The greater point there of course was the even more mendacious morphing of her term from "Democratic Socialist" into "socialist". These dishonest weasel-words belie a boatload of what the writer's agenda is.

I think they're pretty spot-on with how Ocasio-Cortez is the direction that the democrats are going. She may not be a de-facto leader but she is in terms of her policies and her thought process. Just look at how popular Bernie was/is.

The rest is obvious. It's The Daily Wire. It's a conservative news source. I'm a Ben Shapiro fan but his site is needlessly biased in the way you pointed out.

Bernie's never been a Democrat, so as I said that all remains to be seen. His campaign did show that there are definitely factions of more and less conservative, but where the giant squid of the party goes with that is future unknown.

I'm really not familiar with the Daily Wire or Ben Shapiro. I just judged it on the content I saw.

The party is and has been moving further left, as evidenced exactly by Bernie. He's an "independent" because his positions were always considered too far to the left for the democrat party. Now, he and his ideas are pretty mainstream democrat, and if you ask just about anyone who voted democrat if he or Hillary was a better candidate, they'd say Bernie. Tom Perez and Keith Ellison as leaders of the DNC are pretty hard left, Ellison moreso.

Any people who subscribe to an even slightly traditional view of what the parties are have been left behind. Republicans have lined up behind Trump(ism) cause he actually won while democrats have moved rather hard left in the last couple of years but it was happening under Obama as well. That's just reality. I'd like to see those that have been cast out by their respective parties recognize the virtue of promoting everyone's individual rights and get behind the Libertarian party.

 

[Pogo]

Indeed, it's right there in the OP's link in post One, along with calling a candidate who's never held office "the new face of the Democratic Party". (And since it was posted the same article now begins with a "correction" about where the money came from.)

This is simply the old word-bending scam, in this case selective hearing -- the candidate described her outlook as "Democratic Socialist" like Sanders, and they choose to drop the proper adjective Democratic, figuring they can morph her own words into what they think is an Emmanuel Goldstein term, via that lexicographical mendacity. They've been playing the same game on Sanders.

It's akin to the McCarthyites trying to pervert the term "Liberal" in the 1940s, it reeks of dishonesty, and as always mendacity has a way of blowing up in the mendacitors' faces. And probably more importantly it speaks volumes about the ethics of those who employ it. To paraphrase a Jack Nicholson character, they can't handle the truth.

You're off on the "new face of the democratic party." If she's not most representative of what the party is, where it's going and what it stands for, then who is? Elected office doesn't really matter in this context, her election is a forgone conclusion so it's just a matter of time. It's a hyperbolic statement of course but it's not too far off.

The "democratic" socialists of America say they want the Nordic model, basically. But part of what defines that model is free markets that are used to pay for a welfare state. They contradict themselves on that when they say they want to tax and regulate businesses to pay for their programs. They can say what they want all day long but it's just not believable. It's like when conservatives say they're for fiscally responsible.

I clicked a thankyou for a well-reasoned and sober post.

The "new face" phrase was secondary of course but used to illustrate the article's overemphasized slant. The fact that they would take somebody unknown three months ago and try to morph her into far far more than she is, demonstrates the paucity of whatever argument will follow and in effect shoots their own text in the proverbial foot from the mendacity factor. Where said party goes in future or how closely she ends up aligning with it all remains to be seen, and conjecture, but clearly they have blown up their subject to be far more important than she is for the purpose of demonizing the greater whole on the basis of a Composition Fallacy -- which in order to execute they'll need a bona fide representative, ergo they "create" one. So that's the point there.

The greater point there of course was the even more mendacious morphing of her term from "Democratic Socialist" into "socialist". These dishonest weasel-words belie a boatload of what the writer's agenda is.

I think they're pretty spot-on with how Ocasio-Cortez is the direction that the democrats are going. She may not be a de-facto leader but she is in terms of her policies and her thought process. Just look at how popular Bernie was/is.

The rest is obvious. It's The Daily Wire. It's a conservative news source. I'm a Ben Shapiro fan but his site is needlessly biased in the way you pointed out.

Bernie's never been a Democrat, so as I said that all remains to be seen. His campaign did show that there are definitely factions of more and less conservative, but where the giant squid of the party goes with that is future unknown.

I'm really not familiar with the Daily Wire or Ben Shapiro. I just judged it on the content I saw.

The party is and has been moving further left, as evidenced exactly by Bernie. He's an "independent" because his positions were always considered too far to the left for the democrat party. Now, he and his ideas are pretty mainstream democrat, and if you ask just about anyone who voted democrat if he or Hillary was a better candidate, they'd say Bernie. Tom Perez and Keith Ellison as leaders of the DNC are pretty hard left, Ellison moreso.

Any people who subscribe to an even slightly traditional view of what the parties are have been left behind. Republicans have lined up behind Trump(ism) cause he actually won while democrats have moved rather hard left in the last couple of years but it was happening under Obama as well. That's just reality. I'd like to see those that have been cast out by their respective parties recognize the virtue of promoting everyone's individual rights and get behind the Libertarian party.

Insofar as one exists....

Bernie doesn't "evidence" anything. To the degree he finds support among Democrats, it suggests that that contingent would like it to move that way, but you'll also recall that the machine of that part rejected that movement and rigged its selection to favor the old established center-right candidate, so where some sector of its members wish the party to move, and where it actually does move, are two different things, at least thus far.

As anyone who's familiar with world politics knows, we don't have a 'hard left' party. We do, but not any influential ones, just as we don't effectively have a Libertarian party. To the extent these assessments can be generalized we have an entrenched Duopoly that sits with one foot on the right and the other foot on the center-right, and an Electrical College that ensures it stays that way and nobody else gets in. That pretty much guarantees variant swings to either side are kept to a minimum and we get and endless string of mediocrity.

Bernie doesn't fit either foot of that two-poled pillar, which is why he's not affiliated with either, so he took the closest one and tried to drag it out to the side. While his supporters were all for it, the party establishment wasn't, so it didn't happen.

Matter of fact the same thing happened to the Republican Party in 1912, a year with many intriguing parallels.

By the way there's no such thing as a "democrat party". There is however a Democratic Party. The idea that it's 'hard left' is laughable. If you're standing in Philadelphia you can say that Pittsburgh is to your west. You cannot however declare Pittsburgh is "THE West" since there's so much more west beyond it.

 

[karpenter]

And from what I heard she's from an upper-class community in NY and she's college educated.

That Explains Everything....

 

[karpenter]

Because the candidate for in this case a Queens Congressional district has no relationship with a guy in Idaho or a guy in Cleveland....

This Is One Of The Silliest And Most Pointless Rants I've Ever Seen

The Big Picture Completely Escapes This Long-Winded Dunce

"We Have Met The Enemy....And He Is Us"
....POGO

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bernie doesn't "evidence" anything. To the degree he finds support among Democrats, it suggests that that contingent would like it to move that way,

Sanders and Cortez are not hard left......they are not influential?

If Socialism/ Communism is not hard left, then what is it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's quite an admission. What we really need on the left are people with your honesty, and to scream that message as loud as thunder.

Well, just as the Left has over-used the word "racism" into the ground, the Right has done it with "socialist".

I don't think you folks realize it, but the word no longer scares people, and the Right has made more people curious about it by constantly using the word.

Times have changed.
.

Oh please. If the Dems didn't rig the primaries, you would have had an admitted Socialist as your presidential candidate. The guy took his honeymoon in the USSR. So what term we Republicans used came to fruition. And now this dingy is another admitted Socialist.

In five years there will be ten admitted Socialists in the Dem part, In ten years maybe 25. So don't tell me it's because Republicans are using the term. The evidence just doesn't pan out.

As I told you, you no longer scare people with that word. You've over-used it into meaninglessness.

Just as I tell the Regressives with "racism".

And you clearly don't understand that YOUR definition of the word is not the same as that of OTHERS.
.

Any definition of the word is taboo to most real Americans.

What? The word is spreading like wildfire, thanks to its over-use by the Right.

Now it scares no one.
.

Oh, prompted by the right? How many other congressional candidates spent that much time getting Bernie's help?

The Democrat party has always been Socialist/ Communist. It's just that they could never admit it. But slowly and surly it's starting to happen right now. Watch what takes place ten years from now.

 

[Pogo]

Because the candidate for in this case a Queens Congressional district has no relationship with a guy in Idaho or a guy in Cleveland....

This Is One Of The Silliest And Most Pointless Rants I've Ever Seen

The Big Picture Completely Escapes This Long-Winded Dunce

"We Have Met The Enemy....And He Is Us"
....POGO

It's not an acronym actually. Which you should have found out by looking up Walt Kelley's work and coming out with a quote that doesn't even apply to anything here.

The point stands untouched. The subject is running for a Congressional seat in New York, which has zero connection to Cleveland or to Idaho. Check back tomorrow, and it still won't.

 

[karpenter]

The point stands untouched.

Except For You
Who Thinks You Have A Point To Make ??

The subject is running for a Congressional seat in New York, which has zero connection to Cleveland or to Idaho. Check back tomorrow, and it still won't.

Yet Here You Are
10pgs Later
Still Irrelevantly Ranting
About How Irrelevant It All Is To You

OK, Great....Got It
Better Now ??

BTW, The Subject Of The Thread
For Everyone Except You Is:

Socialist Candidates Openly Running As Democrats

What's Irrelevant Is Where They Are
Or, Your Point....

 

[FA_Q2]

The point stands untouched.

Except For You
Who Thinks You Have A Point To Make ??

The subject is running for a Congressional seat in New York, which has zero connection to Cleveland or to Idaho. Check back tomorrow, and it still won't.

Yet Here You Are
10pgs Later
Still Irrelevantly Ranting
About How Irrelevant It All Is To You

OK, Great....Got It
Better Now ??

BTW, The Subject Of The Thread
For Everyone Except You Is:

Socialist Candidates Openly Running As Democrats

What's Irrelevant Is Where They Are
Or, Your Point....

All right, WAY damn funnier than I put it. LOL

 

[Likkmee]

WATCH: Ocasio-Cortez Caught Misleading About Her Campaign, Political Issues

My goodness
And she’ll probably win in one of those sheep districts

Her mother was Newts housekeeper ?

 

[Some Guy]

You're off on the "new face of the democratic party." If she's not most representative of what the party is, where it's going and what it stands for, then who is? Elected office doesn't really matter in this context, her election is a forgone conclusion so it's just a matter of time. It's a hyperbolic statement of course but it's not too far off.

The "democratic" socialists of America say they want the Nordic model, basically. But part of what defines that model is free markets that are used to pay for a welfare state. They contradict themselves on that when they say they want to tax and regulate businesses to pay for their programs. They can say what they want all day long but it's just not believable. It's like when conservatives say they're for fiscally responsible.

I clicked a thankyou for a well-reasoned and sober post.

The "new face" phrase was secondary of course but used to illustrate the article's overemphasized slant. The fact that they would take somebody unknown three months ago and try to morph her into far far more than she is, demonstrates the paucity of whatever argument will follow and in effect shoots their own text in the proverbial foot from the mendacity factor. Where said party goes in future or how closely she ends up aligning with it all remains to be seen, and conjecture, but clearly they have blown up their subject to be far more important than she is for the purpose of demonizing the greater whole on the basis of a Composition Fallacy -- which in order to execute they'll need a bona fide representative, ergo they "create" one. So that's the point there.

The greater point there of course was the even more mendacious morphing of her term from "Democratic Socialist" into "socialist". These dishonest weasel-words belie a boatload of what the writer's agenda is.

I think they're pretty spot-on with how Ocasio-Cortez is the direction that the democrats are going. She may not be a de-facto leader but she is in terms of her policies and her thought process. Just look at how popular Bernie was/is.

The rest is obvious. It's The Daily Wire. It's a conservative news source. I'm a Ben Shapiro fan but his site is needlessly biased in the way you pointed out.

Bernie's never been a Democrat, so as I said that all remains to be seen. His campaign did show that there are definitely factions of more and less conservative, but where the giant squid of the party goes with that is future unknown.

I'm really not familiar with the Daily Wire or Ben Shapiro. I just judged it on the content I saw.

The party is and has been moving further left, as evidenced exactly by Bernie. He's an "independent" because his positions were always considered too far to the left for the democrat party. Now, he and his ideas are pretty mainstream democrat, and if you ask just about anyone who voted democrat if he or Hillary was a better candidate, they'd say Bernie. Tom Perez and Keith Ellison as leaders of the DNC are pretty hard left, Ellison moreso.

Any people who subscribe to an even slightly traditional view of what the parties are have been left behind. Republicans have lined up behind Trump(ism) cause he actually won while democrats have moved rather hard left in the last couple of years but it was happening under Obama as well. That's just reality. I'd like to see those that have been cast out by their respective parties recognize the virtue of promoting everyone's individual rights and get behind the Libertarian party.

Insofar as one exists....

Bernie doesn't "evidence" anything. To the degree he finds support among Democrats, it suggests that that contingent would like it to move that way, but you'll also recall that the machine of that part rejected that movement and rigged its selection to favor the old established center-right candidate, so where some sector of its members wish the party to move, and where it actually does move, are two different things, at least thus far.

As anyone who's familiar with world politics knows, we don't have a 'hard left' party. We do, but not any influential ones, just as we don't effectively have a Libertarian party. To the extent these assessments can be generalized we have an entrenched Duopoly that sits with one foot on the right and the other foot on the center-right, and an Electrical College that ensures it stays that way and nobody else gets in. That pretty much guarantees variant swings to either side are kept to a minimum and we get and endless string of mediocrity.

Bernie doesn't fit either foot of that two-poled pillar, which is why he's not affiliated with either, so he took the closest one and tried to drag it out to the side. While his supporters were all for it, the party establishment wasn't, so it didn't happen.

Matter of fact the same thing happened to the Republican Party in 1912, a year with many intriguing parallels.

By the way there's no such thing as a "democrat party". There is however a Democratic Party. The idea that it's 'hard left' is laughable. If you're standing in Philadelphia you can say that Pittsburgh is to your west. You cannot however declare Pittsburgh is "THE West" since there's so much more west beyond it.

I guess we disagree with what is considered "hard left." In my book, there's not much harder left than a warm embrace of socialism. So while you're right that the democratic party establishment screwed Bernie to push Hillary into the candidacy, they're reaction to losing has been "oh i guess we weren't left enough."

The DNC is now run by people who are more embracing of socialism and more and more open socialists are winning nominations and congressional seats under the blue banner. More and more rhetoric coming from democrats and socialists are aligning quite neatly. To claim that the democratic party is center-right is a flat wrong. A good example is how there's not a single national democrat who's pro-life anymore: they've all been purged from the party. That's just one of many examples.

 

[Pogo]

The point stands untouched.

Except For You
Who Thinks You Have A Point To Make ??

The subject is running for a Congressional seat in New York, which has zero connection to Cleveland or to Idaho. Check back tomorrow, and it still won't.

Yet Here You Are
10pgs Later
Still Irrelevantly Ranting
About How Irrelevant It All Is To You

OK, Great....Got It
Better Now ??

BTW, The Subject Of The Thread
For Everyone Except You Is:

Socialist Candidates Openly Running As Democrats

What's Irrelevant Is Where They Are
Or, Your Point....

All right, WAY damn funnier than I put it. LOL

Meh --- far as I can see he's just whining that he can't touch my point.

That being (again) the simple observation that here's a whole lot of wags from Cleveland and Texas and Idaho melting down like the wicked witch of the west about a Congressional candidate who has zero to do with their own districts.

WHY that's interesting is because it says much about their power trips to control what other people are doing with their own choices. Other people who are nowhere remotely near them and who have no more representation than they have for themselves. That, the power trip, is what I'm observing here.

And they have no answer for it. Just whiny gainsaying about "you have no point", because "they have no counterpoint".

 

[Pogo]

I clicked a thankyou for a well-reasoned and sober post.

The "new face" phrase was secondary of course but used to illustrate the article's overemphasized slant. The fact that they would take somebody unknown three months ago and try to morph her into far far more than she is, demonstrates the paucity of whatever argument will follow and in effect shoots their own text in the proverbial foot from the mendacity factor. Where said party goes in future or how closely she ends up aligning with it all remains to be seen, and conjecture, but clearly they have blown up their subject to be far more important than she is for the purpose of demonizing the greater whole on the basis of a Composition Fallacy -- which in order to execute they'll need a bona fide representative, ergo they "create" one. So that's the point there.

The greater point there of course was the even more mendacious morphing of her term from "Democratic Socialist" into "socialist". These dishonest weasel-words belie a boatload of what the writer's agenda is.

I think they're pretty spot-on with how Ocasio-Cortez is the direction that the democrats are going. She may not be a de-facto leader but she is in terms of her policies and her thought process. Just look at how popular Bernie was/is.

The rest is obvious. It's The Daily Wire. It's a conservative news source. I'm a Ben Shapiro fan but his site is needlessly biased in the way you pointed out.

Bernie's never been a Democrat, so as I said that all remains to be seen. His campaign did show that there are definitely factions of more and less conservative, but where the giant squid of the party goes with that is future unknown.

I'm really not familiar with the Daily Wire or Ben Shapiro. I just judged it on the content I saw.

The party is and has been moving further left, as evidenced exactly by Bernie. He's an "independent" because his positions were always considered too far to the left for the democrat party. Now, he and his ideas are pretty mainstream democrat, and if you ask just about anyone who voted democrat if he or Hillary was a better candidate, they'd say Bernie. Tom Perez and Keith Ellison as leaders of the DNC are pretty hard left, Ellison moreso.

Any people who subscribe to an even slightly traditional view of what the parties are have been left behind. Republicans have lined up behind Trump(ism) cause he actually won while democrats have moved rather hard left in the last couple of years but it was happening under Obama as well. That's just reality. I'd like to see those that have been cast out by their respective parties recognize the virtue of promoting everyone's individual rights and get behind the Libertarian party.

Insofar as one exists....

Bernie doesn't "evidence" anything. To the degree he finds support among Democrats, it suggests that that contingent would like it to move that way, but you'll also recall that the machine of that part rejected that movement and rigged its selection to favor the old established center-right candidate, so where some sector of its members wish the party to move, and where it actually does move, are two different things, at least thus far.

As anyone who's familiar with world politics knows, we don't have a 'hard left' party. We do, but not any influential ones, just as we don't effectively have a Libertarian party. To the extent these assessments can be generalized we have an entrenched Duopoly that sits with one foot on the right and the other foot on the center-right, and an Electrical College that ensures it stays that way and nobody else gets in. That pretty much guarantees variant swings to either side are kept to a minimum and we get and endless string of mediocrity.

Bernie doesn't fit either foot of that two-poled pillar, which is why he's not affiliated with either, so he took the closest one and tried to drag it out to the side. While his supporters were all for it, the party establishment wasn't, so it didn't happen.

Matter of fact the same thing happened to the Republican Party in 1912, a year with many intriguing parallels.

By the way there's no such thing as a "democrat party". There is however a Democratic Party. The idea that it's 'hard left' is laughable. If you're standing in Philadelphia you can say that Pittsburgh is to your west. You cannot however declare Pittsburgh is "THE West" since there's so much more west beyond it.

I guess we disagree with what is considered "hard left." In my book, there's not much harder left than a warm embrace of socialism. So while you're right that the democratic party establishment screwed Bernie to push Hillary into the candidacy, they're reaction to losing has been "oh i guess we weren't left enough."

The Bernie and Hillary saga was only less than two years ago, so that 'reaction' hasn't even played out yet. Far as I know we have no idea who they'll be running next round, and I doubt they do either.

The DNC is now run by people who are more embracing of socialism and more and more open socialists are winning nominations and congressional seats under the blue banner. More and more rhetoric coming from democrats and socialists are aligning quite neatly. To claim that the democratic party is center-right is a flat wrong. A good example is how there's not a single national democrat who's pro-life anymore: they've all been purged from the party. That's just one of many examples.

How exactly did Alexandra Ocasio-Cortéz --- who by my math is still one (1) person --- get transmogrified into the plural? How indeed did a wannabe candidate who hasn't even been in an election yet get morphed into the entire "the left"? Which is where I started on this fallacious bullshit title....

Seems to me when you have to blow up your points like some kind of inner tube ready for a stream, you didn't have much of a point to start with. We've got a single candidate pluralized and expanded into the entire "the left". We've got projections of who a political party nominated in the future. That sort of bloated hyperexaggeration is not exactly solid ground to build on.