@ivwshane You deflected so badly, but I'll need to summarize the topic lest people buy into whatever diversion you're making.
This is the continuing Democrat Primary thread, New Hampshire edition. And our current line of discussion was:
With the recap out of the way, it should be obvious we're not talking about the General Election. We're talking about choosing the best path for the party. For the Primary Election. And you seem hell bent on defending what
@sandorski warned us about. Those who may not be Republican, yet remain stead fast against M4A, who would oppose Basic Income as "too much" and generally the Wall Street friendly Blue Dogs who make up an uncomfortable percentage of the Democrat Party. Those who would "help" people with half measures or the status quo.
This isn't both sides. This isn't some "bull shit" purity test. This is a question of who do they serve. Wall Street, or the American people? One cannot do both. As demonstrated by the opposition to meaningful change even within the Democrat Party. Those who get cozy with big money donors. Or perhaps more pointedly... those who ARE the big money donor. Enter, Michael Bloomberg. Does he not exemplify the issue
@sandorski spoke of? Is it not a meaningful question and issue to raise, whether someone like that should be promoted... even championed to LEAD the Democrat Party?
We are divided between Left and Center. Progressive and Pragmatist. This is a discussion we should be having, not met with snide remarks attempting to shut it down. You rail against introspection as a purity test. You want us to have numbers, not ideology. Bloomberg would be your guy then, wouldn't he? Seems to be the destination you would have us take. Unless he does not pass your purity test. Why wouldn't he? Careful... if you oppose Bloomberg you might just sound like
@sandorski .