WOW! Still divided 50/50.

[SlowSpyder]

Can't get over brown women having power, huh?



Fake news.

I love how your go to move is to make it about racism and sexism. Par for the course with the left today. I don't care about brown women being in power, I care about what those congress women stand for. And as it is, I disagree with their politics. That's all I care about.


Also, real news.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The decriminalized part is what needs definition.
You will not find anyone who has any potential to be elected say there should be open boarders.

If a border isn't enforced, and many people freely cross it without repercussion, what is it? An open border. I don't care what terminology they use, that is what it is.

 

[ewdotson]

If it crossing the border illegally is decriminalized, if we're not enforcing our border (combine that with free education and health care as a human right if the liberals have their way) and what do you think you'll get? That is an open border with encouragement to cross it.

I know you know this but just don't care, but unauthorized border crossings would still be a civil offense. No one of any note is talking about not enforcing the border. On the contrary, Democrats talk about effective border control rather than a boondoggle of a wall.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I know you know this but just don't care, but unauthorized border crossings would still be a civil offense. No one of any note is talking about not enforcing the border. On the contrary, Democrats talk about effective border control rather than a boondoggle of a wall.

A ticket isn't enforcing the border effectively. That would make it an open border.

 

[ch33zw1z]

A ticket isn't enforcing the border effectively. That would make it an open border.

Opinions are like assholes.

 

[Starbuck1975]

767 libertarian votes out of close to 190,000 in that district.
As I said in another thread, Starbuck has to get off his ass and get people voting.

I suppose that would make sense if I considered myself a libertarian. I agree with them to the extent that neither party nor the government has my best interests in mind.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Somehow being a Democrat and almost overcoming a double digit vote percentage in a really red district doesn't mean anything because the candidate was a moderate Democrat.

All it means is that in swing districts or those becoming increasingly competitive, the voting public tends to vote for slightly left or slightly right candidates.

I'm guessing if Biden wins the presidency Johnny "both sides" will claim it as a win for Republicans because Biden is a moderate.

In some regards it would be because Biden is more aligned with the GOP on some issues near and dear to progressives.

If you think there isn't a difference between any Republican and a moderate Democrat then I don't know what to tell you.

I see candidates like McCready and Lamb and Moulton as reflective of my values. At one time, they would have had an R next to their names. Now they have a D.

 

[ewdotson]

A ticket isn't enforcing the border effectively. That would make it an open border.

People can be (and frequently have been) deported for civil violations.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I love how your go to move is to make it about racism and sexism. Par for the course with the left today.

If conservatives would stop being mostly about racism and sexism Democrats would not have to keep bringing it up. But of course you think the problem is with the people pointing it out, not he people doing it. Par for the course with a conservative.

 

[theeedude]

NC Court has ruled the current gerrymandered district lines illegal. We'll see what this district looks like next year.
I think trend in NC is good for Democrats. Lots of techies moving to Research Triangle, etc, and GOP has been turning educated people off with it's anti-intellectual streak lately.

 

[Bitek]

I love how your go to move is to make it about racism and sexism. Par for the course with the left today. I don't care about brown women being in power, I care about what those congress women stand for. And as it is, I disagree with their politics. That's all I care about.


Also, real news.

You and Trump are the ones focusing on 4 brown women out of 235 Democrats. If you don't like their politics, don't move to their district. Conner Lamb has a nice district even if their NFL team is a dumpster fire.

We can call your "squad" and raise you Steve King, Gohmert, Nunes and Duncan Hunter (or one of the other gop congressmen under federal indictment). I don't think any are child molesters, but you never know with the gop, esp the religious ones.

Racists, idiots, and corrupt sycophants vs a brown woman from Queens pushing to fight climate change with green jobs, and fixing sky high medical costs bankrupting working families.

 

[Bitek]

I may have missed it, but was this still on the gerrymandered map?

 

[woolfe9998]

Not really. The Democrat candidate is a Marine veteran, former consultant and entrepreneur. He is what Republicans used to look like. His platform echoes things important to GOP voters: trade, immigration and national security.

Run someone like AOC in that district, and you’re probably right back to historic polling.

The vast majority of the D candidates who run in red districts are that way, just as R's tend to run more moderate candidates in blue districts. Yet historically, this district has gone to R's every time, and by wide margins, with R's sometimes winning by over 30 points. The two neck and neck results we saw this year and last in that district do not portend well for the GOP, to the extent that they reflect the national mood.

The only other explanation would be shifting demographics in the district. But demographics couldn't have shifted that much since 2016 when the R won the district by 16 points.

https://ballotpedia.org/North_Carolina's_9th_Congressional_District

I agree that AOC couldn't get elected anywhere but a blue leaning district but then the D's don't run AOC type candidates in red districts.

 

[glenn1]

If you think there isn't a difference between any Republican and a moderate Democrat then I don't know what to tell you.

The difference between any Republican and a moderate Democrat is several percentage points in my marginal income tax rate.

 

[ivwshane]

The difference between any Republican and a moderate Democrat is several percentage points in my marginal income tax rate.

Yeah and?

 

[Bitek]

The difference between any Republican and a moderate Democrat is several percentage points in my marginal income tax rate.

Interesting, with hints of citrus flavors, perhaps even some...nutmeg?....hmmm

 

[dainthomas]

Not really. The Democrat candidate is a Marine veteran, former consultant and entrepreneur. He is what Republicans used to look like. His platform echoes things important to GOP voters: trade, immigration and national security.

Run someone like AOC in that district, and you’re probably right back to historic polling.

The candidate running against Moscow Mitch is a former Marine pilot who retired as a lieutenant colonel, and she'll still get destroyed.

The fact that the incumbent does nothing to fix the issues of his state when he has all that power means nothing to his constituents. He has the 'R' next to his name.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The candidate running against Moscow Mitch is a former Marine pilot who retired as a lieutenant colonel, and she'll still get destroyed.

The fact that the incumbent does nothing to fix the issues of his state when he has all that power means nothing to his constituents. He has the 'R' next to his name.

Apples and oranges. A moderate Democrat running for a Senate seat in a deep red state without the name recognition of holding prior state office is an exercise in futility. A moderate Democrat running for a traditional Republican Congressional district that exhibits some favorable demographics is feasible.

 

[dainthomas]

Apples and oranges. A moderate Democrat running for a Senate seat in a deep red state without the name recognition of holding prior state office is an exercise in futility.

Should it be, though? Last time I saw, the guy polled in the 20s-30s in his own state. I can't imagine voting for someone based solely on the fact that I recognize their name (or them having a D or R).

Apparently even the Supreme Soviet had a higher turnover rate than the US congress does. That's effed.

 

[SlowSpyder]

People can be (and frequently have been) deported for civil violations.

I listened to the Democrat debates so far. Not many of them sounded like enforcing the border was a big issue with them. In fact, they seem quite interested in the opposite to pander to their base. I mean, they're outright trying to buy vote now, it is pathetic. Basic income if they win, forgiven debt if they win (Democrats and that pesky personal responsibility again), doctors bills a thing of the past if they win, strict border enforcement? Nope. They are trying to take the easiest pandering path to victory. We REALLY dodged a bullet in 2016.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Should it be, though? Last time I saw, the guy polled in the 20s-30s in his own state. I can't imagine voting for someone based solely on the fact that I recognize their name (or them having a D or R).

Apparently even the Supreme Soviet had a higher turnover rate than the US congress does. That's effed.

It’s not a good thing, and the electorate does occasionally throw a curve ball, like Governor Terminator or Scott Brown winning Kennedy’s seat. In a healthy democracy, Mitch would be on the chopping block.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I listened to the Democrat debates so far. Not many of them sounded like enforcing the border was a big issue with them.

That is because Democrats ideas of enforcing the border does not look like genocide, so conservatives obviously think it is not enough. Conservatives only feel safe when they are pointing a gun at everyone different then them.

They are trying to take the easiest pandering path to victory. We REALLY dodged a bullet in 2016.

Trump is the one buying votes, mostly from Russians. Democrats are just proposeing solutions to the problems of our day, something Republicans can't be bothered to do.

 

[SlowSpyder]

That is because Democrats ideas of enforcing the border does not look like genocide, so conservatives obviously think it is not enough. Conservatives only feel safe when they are pointing a gun at everyone different then them.


Trump is the one buying votes, mostly from Russians. Democrats are just proposeing solutions to the problems of our day, something Republicans can't be bothered to do.

The right view of border control does not look like genocide either. Cut the melodrama.

Also, not sure if you saw, but there was an extensive investigation into the Russian issue. As I correctly called, it smelled like a political witch hunt, it looked like a political witch hunt, and it turned out to be, a political witch hunt. No impeachment, no charges. If they had something certainly it would have come to light. Your entire argument is built on lies, political talking points. That's yuck, that's ugh. Gross man.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Your entire argument is built on lies, political talking points. That's yuck, that's ugh. Gross man.

Now you know what your every post sounds like.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I listened to the Democrat debates so far. Not many of them sounded like enforcing the border was a big issue with them. In fact, they seem quite interested in the opposite to pander to their base. I mean, they're outright trying to buy vote now, it is pathetic. Basic income if they win, forgiven debt if they win (Democrats and that pesky personal responsibility again), doctors bills a thing of the past if they win, strict border enforcement? Nope. They are trying to take the easiest pandering path to victory. We REALLY dodged a bullet in 2016.

So how do you feel about "building a wall will solve all our problems and Mexico will pay for it" sort of pandering? Or do you feel that's a solid and effective policy?