what is up with Bloomberg? seems to spending a lot of money but is he gaining any traction?
Just another carpet bagger that will eventually run as an indie and siphon more votes from the eventual dem nominee. Billionaires looking out for billionaires, yo!
what is up with Bloomberg? seems to spending a lot of money but is he gaining any traction?
He's not registered for any primary until super Tuesday. So he's flooding the airways for those primaries.. Interesting strategy and seems to be a play for a sure fire brokered convention.
In what way did he lied about what he said to Warren?
And:
After a Sanders campaign newsletter continued the attack on Biden’s Social Security record, the Biden campaign complained to fact-checkers at Politifact that his comments were being taken out of context. Placed in context, however, Biden’s record on Social Security is far worse than one offhand remark. Indeed, Biden has been advocating for cuts to Social Security for roughly 40 years.
And after a Republican wave swept Congress in 1994, Biden’s support for cutting Social Security, and his general advocacy for budget austerity, made him a leading combatant in the centrist-wing battle against the party’s retreating liberals in the 1980s and ’90s.
“When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well,” he told the Senate in 1995. “I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.” (A freeze would have reduced the amount that would be paid out, cutting the program’s benefit.)
In what way did he lied about what he said to Warren?
And:
After a Sanders campaign newsletter continued the attack on Biden’s Social Security record, the Biden campaign complained to fact-checkers at Politifact that his comments were being taken out of context. Placed in context, however, Biden’s record on Social Security is far worse than one offhand remark. Indeed, Biden has been advocating for cuts to Social Security for roughly 40 years.
And after a Republican wave swept Congress in 1994, Biden’s support for cutting Social Security, and his general advocacy for budget austerity, made him a leading combatant in the centrist-wing battle against the party’s retreating liberals in the 1980s and ’90s.
“When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well,” he told the Senate in 1995. “I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.” (A freeze would have reduced the amount that would be paid out, cutting the program’s benefit.)
And ofc you are more to the right. Aint surprised.
You quote an opinion piece from the Intercept, the leading Bernie organ. Okay buddy, that's very compelling. It's like Trump supporters dumping Breitbart articles in here.
In what way did he lied about what he said to Warren?
And:
After a Sanders campaign newsletter continued the attack on Biden’s Social Security record, the Biden campaign complained to fact-checkers at Politifact that his comments were being taken out of context. Placed in context, however, Biden’s record on Social Security is far worse than one offhand remark. Indeed, Biden has been advocating for cuts to Social Security for roughly 40 years.
And after a Republican wave swept Congress in 1994, Biden’s support for cutting Social Security, and his general advocacy for budget austerity, made him a leading combatant in the centrist-wing battle against the party’s retreating liberals in the 1980s and ’90s.
“When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well,” he told the Senate in 1995. “I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.” (A freeze would have reduced the amount that would be paid out, cutting the program’s benefit.)
And ofc you are more to the right. Aint surprised.
You quote an opinion piece from the Intercept, the leading Bernie organ. Okay buddy, that's very compelling. It's like Trump supporters dumping Breitbart articles in here.
Keep on "pounding the table".
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
My SO, a liberal voter, firmly believes that America will not elect a woman president as the country currently exists.
She staunchly thinks it is impossible. Is she as bad as Bernie?
Actually, we already did once, by vote count anyway.
And had she been a male with all else equal, I wonder if she would have won.
I think we’ll get a female president soon; Ivanka. Even if that’s not the case, I think the first female president is going to be a Republican. America doesn’t like (perceived) liberal women...they might even be accused of being “feminists.”
Nikki Styx is being groomed. Might even replace Pence on the ticket.
Why not go with Sixx!
no, cuz he and his bandmates are proven fucking liars......
Sadly, that's what a certain current president does.
Damn good thing some posters on this site cant vote here.....
soundbites and memes do not make an informed voter.
To bad a large percentage of American voters will vote based on soundbites, memes, mainstream "news", and whatever it is they have been brainwashed into believing without doing any research or suing critical thinking on their own. I mean, how else could we have ended up with Trump? It a sad state of affairs.
Well said, Brian.
It's more than a bit frustrating, isn't it?
That brings up the question of what to do about it- how to not only get more people out to vote, but how to get them to vote in a more informed manner. Better education and parenting come to mind, but education in the U.S. seems to be a low priority and better parenting cannot be made mandatory. I don't know how or if things will get better that way.
Less single issue voting helps.
but the whole system is set up for single issue voters. Just watch CSPAN and all the single issue voter speeches the candidates have to go and do.
In what way did he lied about what he said to Warren?
And:
After a Sanders campaign newsletter continued the attack on Biden’s Social Security record, the Biden campaign complained to fact-checkers at Politifact that his comments were being taken out of context. Placed in context, however, Biden’s record on Social Security is far worse than one offhand remark. Indeed, Biden has been advocating for cuts to Social Security for roughly 40 years.
And after a Republican wave swept Congress in 1994, Biden’s support for cutting Social Security, and his general advocacy for budget austerity, made him a leading combatant in the centrist-wing battle against the party’s retreating liberals in the 1980s and ’90s.
“When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well,” he told the Senate in 1995. “I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.” (A freeze would have reduced the amount that would be paid out, cutting the program’s benefit.)
And ofc you are more to the right. Aint surprised.
You quote an opinion piece from the Intercept, the leading Bernie organ. Okay buddy, that's very compelling. It's like Trump supporters dumping Breitbart articles in here.
Keep on "pounding the table".
"pounding the table"? The facts, as determined by Politifact, are that the Sanders campaign is deceptively editing and representing quotes from 25 years ago. 25 years ago...let's see...interest rates were 3x to the fed government than they are today. Doing some back of the envelope math, that means the expected future borrowing against social security benefits would have been 600 billion per year in interest.. These are in 1995 numbers. So not only is Sanders campaign lying again (like they did on Warren's record and Sanders statement on women), but they are also using information from a time and place of an extraordinarily different economic environment. Now maybe you had the clairvoyance to see the 10 year Bull market we're on, and that the Fed would lower the overnight borrow rates to the depths they have during this bull run. And maybe you knew that the Fed would pump 80 billion in liquidity into the market every single week, but most people did not see that in 1995.
And yeah, I'm to the right of most Democrats on economic issues. OFC I am. You'll have to forgive me if I don't find your jabs insulting, but I know TNSTAAFL. It would be wise for all of our politicians to remember it.
In what way did he lied about what he said to Warren?
And:
After a Sanders campaign newsletter continued the attack on Biden’s Social Security record, the Biden campaign complained to fact-checkers at Politifact that his comments were being taken out of context. Placed in context, however, Biden’s record on Social Security is far worse than one offhand remark. Indeed, Biden has been advocating for cuts to Social Security for roughly 40 years.
And after a Republican wave swept Congress in 1994, Biden’s support for cutting Social Security, and his general advocacy for budget austerity, made him a leading combatant in the centrist-wing battle against the party’s retreating liberals in the 1980s and ’90s.
“When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well,” he told the Senate in 1995. “I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.” (A freeze would have reduced the amount that would be paid out, cutting the program’s benefit.)
And ofc you are more to the right. Aint surprised.
You quote an opinion piece from the Intercept, the leading Bernie organ. Okay buddy, that's very compelling. It's like Trump supporters dumping Breitbart articles in here.
See people don’t hate liars, they hate other people’s liars. They love their liar.
In what way did he lied about what he said to Warren?
And:
After a Sanders campaign newsletter continued the attack on Biden’s Social Security record, the Biden campaign complained to fact-checkers at Politifact that his comments were being taken out of context. Placed in context, however, Biden’s record on Social Security is far worse than one offhand remark. Indeed, Biden has been advocating for cuts to Social Security for roughly 40 years.
And after a Republican wave swept Congress in 1994, Biden’s support for cutting Social Security, and his general advocacy for budget austerity, made him a leading combatant in the centrist-wing battle against the party’s retreating liberals in the 1980s and ’90s.
“When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well,” he told the Senate in 1995. “I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.” (A freeze would have reduced the amount that would be paid out, cutting the program’s benefit.)
And ofc you are more to the right. Aint surprised.
You quote an opinion piece from the Intercept, the leading Bernie organ. Okay buddy, that's very compelling. It's like Trump supporters dumping Breitbart articles in here.
See people don’t hate liars, they hate other people’s liars. They love their liar.
Yeah, that's about right. And Warren is deceptive as well, in many ways. You knew this was going to come to a head, that they would clash since they occupy the same lane. And you knew it would be right at Iowa and NH, two states where white voters mean everything, and these two appeal to the white more than minorities. But I didn't think it would be this personal.
mrussel1 said: And you knew it would be right at Iowa and NH, two states where white voters mean everything, and these two appeal to the white more than minorities.
Who in the race doesn't?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
In what way did he lied about what he said to Warren?
And:
After a Sanders campaign newsletter continued the attack on Biden’s Social Security record, the Biden campaign complained to fact-checkers at Politifact that his comments were being taken out of context. Placed in context, however, Biden’s record on Social Security is far worse than one offhand remark. Indeed, Biden has been advocating for cuts to Social Security for roughly 40 years.
And after a Republican wave swept Congress in 1994, Biden’s support for cutting Social Security, and his general advocacy for budget austerity, made him a leading combatant in the centrist-wing battle against the party’s retreating liberals in the 1980s and ’90s.
“When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well,” he told the Senate in 1995. “I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.” (A freeze would have reduced the amount that would be paid out, cutting the program’s benefit.)
And ofc you are more to the right. Aint surprised.
You quote an opinion piece from the Intercept, the leading Bernie organ. Okay buddy, that's very compelling. It's like Trump supporters dumping Breitbart articles in here.
Keep on "pounding the table".
"pounding the table"? The facts, as determined by Politifact, are that the Sanders campaign is deceptively editing and representing quotes from 25 years ago. 25 years ago...let's see...interest rates were 3x to the fed government than they are today. Doing some back of the envelope math, that means the expected future borrowing against social security benefits would have been 600 billion per year in interest.. These are in 1995 numbers. So not only is Sanders campaign lying again (like they did on Warren's record and Sanders statement on women), but they are also using information from a time and place of an extraordinarily different economic environment. Now maybe you had the clairvoyance to see the 10 year Bull market we're on, and that the Fed would lower the overnight borrow rates to the depths they have during this bull run. And maybe you knew that the Fed would pump 80 billion in liquidity into the market every single week, but most people did not see that in 1995.
And yeah, I'm to the right of most Democrats on economic issues. OFC I am. You'll have to forgive me if I don't find your jabs insulting, but I know TNSTAAFL. It would be wise for all of our politicians to remember it.
On the topic of liers -- 2018 was not 25 years ago. So, that's a lot of words to use to pound the table.
And no one is saying lunches are free. But that things can be fair and humane. Now I can't argue this point anymore, because I don't want to risk giving reasons, I can't see exist beforehand, to ban me. Thank you.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
mrussel1 said: And you knew it would be right at Iowa and NH, two states where white voters mean everything, and these two appeal to the white more than minorities.
In what way did he lied about what he said to Warren?
And:
After a Sanders campaign newsletter continued the attack on Biden’s Social Security record, the Biden campaign complained to fact-checkers at Politifact that his comments were being taken out of context. Placed in context, however, Biden’s record on Social Security is far worse than one offhand remark. Indeed, Biden has been advocating for cuts to Social Security for roughly 40 years.
And after a Republican wave swept Congress in 1994, Biden’s support for cutting Social Security, and his general advocacy for budget austerity, made him a leading combatant in the centrist-wing battle against the party’s retreating liberals in the 1980s and ’90s.
“When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well,” he told the Senate in 1995. “I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.” (A freeze would have reduced the amount that would be paid out, cutting the program’s benefit.)
And ofc you are more to the right. Aint surprised.
You quote an opinion piece from the Intercept, the leading Bernie organ. Okay buddy, that's very compelling. It's like Trump supporters dumping Breitbart articles in here.
Keep on "pounding the table".
"pounding the table"? The facts, as determined by Politifact, are that the Sanders campaign is deceptively editing and representing quotes from 25 years ago. 25 years ago...let's see...interest rates were 3x to the fed government than they are today. Doing some back of the envelope math, that means the expected future borrowing against social security benefits would have been 600 billion per year in interest.. These are in 1995 numbers. So not only is Sanders campaign lying again (like they did on Warren's record and Sanders statement on women), but they are also using information from a time and place of an extraordinarily different economic environment. Now maybe you had the clairvoyance to see the 10 year Bull market we're on, and that the Fed would lower the overnight borrow rates to the depths they have during this bull run. And maybe you knew that the Fed would pump 80 billion in liquidity into the market every single week, but most people did not see that in 1995.
And yeah, I'm to the right of most Democrats on economic issues. OFC I am. You'll have to forgive me if I don't find your jabs insulting, but I know TNSTAAFL. It would be wise for all of our politicians to remember it.
On the topic of liers -- 2018 was not 25 years ago. So, that's a lot of words to use to pound the table.
And no one is saying lunches are free. But that things can be fair and humane. Now I can't argue this point anymore, because I don't want to risk giving reasons, I can't see exist beforehand, to ban me. Thank you.
You're quoting a quote that is from 1995, according to intercept. And it's interesting that you are arguing for 'fair and humane' but against means testing for social security?
mrussel1 said: And you knew it would be right at Iowa and NH, two states where white voters mean everything, and these two appeal to the white more than minorities.
Who in the race doesn't?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
The New York Times' utterly confusing 2020 endorsement
At its most basic level, the 2020 Democratic primary process is about which one candidate distinguishes herself (or himself) as the person voters most trust to take on and beat President Donald Trump in November.
The one candidate. Because, obviously, you can't nominate two people. That's not the way it works.
Which brings me to the much-ballyhooed endorsement decision of The New York Times editorial board -- announced at the end of "The Weekly," a TV show that brings viewers behind the scenes of the paper.
On Sunday night, the Times announced it was endorsing Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts ...
... and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.
Uh, yeah.
"The radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration," wrote the Times by way of explanation. "If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it. That's why we're endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar."
You can see the logic. Klobuchar represents pragmatic centrism, Warren liberal idealism. One represents the Democratic Party's head, the other its beating heart. And the Times is right that there are major questions within the Democratic Party which of those two approaches is the right one to beat Trump and to turn the country around.
But an endorsement isn't about effectively laying out the arguments within a party. It's about choosing an argument -- and a candidate who embodies that argument -- and then explaining to readers why that argument is superior.
Which is unfortunate, because there's lots to praise the Times for in all of this. They took what is usually a totally secret process and made it remarkably transparent -- releasing not only videos of their conversations with each of the candidates but also the deliberations of the editorial board after the interviews.
And it was great! Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' candid admission that he is "not good at pleasantries" was a genuine moment of self-reflection in a candidate for national office. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker's answer to the question of who has broken his heart -- he said the deaths of young black men in his hometown of Newark -- was hugely powerful and important (despite the fact that Booker dropped out of the race earlier this month.)
But the decision not to endorse a single candidate is what will be remembered here. Because when faced with the two competing visions within the Democratic Party to both beat Trump and lead the country, the Times decided not to choose. Which is, of course, a choice -- and not a good one.
My SO, a liberal voter, firmly believes that America will not elect a woman president as the country currently exists.
She staunchly thinks it is impossible. Is she as bad as Bernie?
Actually, we already did once, by vote count anyway.
And had she been a male with all else equal, I wonder if she would have won.
I think we’ll get a female president soon; Ivanka. Even if that’s not the case, I think the first female president is going to be a Republican. America doesn’t like (perceived) liberal women...they might even be accused of being “feminists.”
Nikki Styx is being groomed. Might even replace Pence on the ticket.
Why not go with Sixx!
no, cuz he and his bandmates are proven fucking liars......
Sadly, that's what a certain current president does.
Damn good thing some posters on this site cant vote here.....
soundbites and memes do not make an informed voter.
To bad a large percentage of American voters will vote based on soundbites, memes, mainstream "news", and whatever it is they have been brainwashed into believing without doing any research or suing critical thinking on their own. I mean, how else could we have ended up with Trump? It a sad state of affairs.
Well said, Brian.
It's more than a bit frustrating, isn't it?
That brings up the question of what to do about it- how to not only get more people out to vote, but how to get them to vote in a more informed manner. Better education and parenting come to mind, but education in the U.S. seems to be a low priority and better parenting cannot be made mandatory. I don't know how or if things will get better that way.
It's freaking maddening!
I think the majority lacks the attention span to read anything beyond Twitter feeds and news headlines. Obviously, this oversimplifies real politics.
Maybe it starts with the parents discussing politics with their children before they turn 18. But that could result in stronger party lines.
"A smart monkey doesn't monkey around with another monkey's monkey" - Darwin's Theory
honestly, i don't blame people for not being highly informed. the amount of effort it takes to wade through the bullshit and get the real deal is infuriating. most people are way too busy for that.
honestly, i don't blame people for not being highly informed. the amount of effort it takes to wade through the bullshit and get the real deal is infuriating. most people are way too busy for that.
That's why I'm liking Yang more and more these days- less bullshit, more straightforward ideas based on good thinking. And he's the only one who has avoided all the usual mudslinging bullshit and stuck to the issues- one very big reason I can't no longer get behind the front runners.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
honestly, i don't blame people for not being highly informed. the amount of effort it takes to wade through the bullshit and get the real deal is infuriating. most people are way too busy for that.
That's why I'm liking Yang more and more these days- less bullshit, more straightforward ideas based on good thinking. And he's the only one who has avoided all the usual mudslinging bullshit and stuck to the issues- one very big reason I can't no longer get behind the front runners.
Perhaps im wrong but I don't recall Pete, Joe or Amy launching any attacks on Democrats either. Bernie, Warren, Booker, and Kamela all did so. I admittedly haven't taken Yang seriously, but I enjoyed him on Maher this week.
honestly, i don't blame people for not being highly informed. the amount of effort it takes to wade through the bullshit and get the real deal is infuriating. most people are way too busy for that.
That's why I'm liking Yang more and more these days- less bullshit, more straightforward ideas based on good thinking. And he's the only one who has avoided all the usual mudslinging bullshit and stuck to the issues- one very big reason I can't no longer get behind the front runners.
Perhaps im wrong but I don't recall Pete, Joe or Amy launching any attacks on Democrats either. Bernie, Warren, Booker, and Kamela all did so. I admittedly haven't taken Yang seriously, but I enjoyed him on Maher this week.
honestly, i don't blame people for not being highly informed. the amount of effort it takes to wade through the bullshit and get the real deal is infuriating. most people are way too busy for that.
That's why I'm liking Yang more and more these days- less bullshit, more straightforward ideas based on good thinking. And he's the only one who has avoided all the usual mudslinging bullshit and stuck to the issues- one very big reason I can't no longer get behind the front runners.
Perhaps im wrong but I don't recall Pete, Joe or Amy launching any attacks on Democrats either. Bernie, Warren, Booker, and Kamela all did so. I admittedly haven't taken Yang seriously, but I enjoyed him on Maher this week.
I shouldn't generalize- some for sure have done much less negative campaigning than others. I hadn't taken Yang very seriously either but after spending a lot more time listening to him, I'm stoked. I really like this guy and what he says. For example, Yang a said he believes "the American people are looking for a commander-in-chief with the right temperament, judgement, and values."
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
mrussel1 said: And you knew it would be right at Iowa and NH, two states where white voters mean everything, and these two appeal to the white more than minorities.
mrussel1 said: And you knew it would be right at Iowa and NH, two states where white voters mean everything, and these two appeal to the white more than minorities.
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://apple.news/AwbiAHl4BR2WCY8npGUHYYQ
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
And:
After a Sanders campaign newsletter continued the attack on Biden’s Social Security record, the Biden campaign complained to fact-checkers at Politifact that his comments were being taken out of context. Placed in context, however, Biden’s record on Social Security is far worse than one offhand remark. Indeed, Biden has been advocating for cuts to Social Security for roughly 40 years.
And after a Republican wave swept Congress in 1994, Biden’s support for cutting Social Security, and his general advocacy for budget austerity, made him a leading combatant in the centrist-wing battle against the party’s retreating liberals in the 1980s and ’90s.
“When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well,” he told the Senate in 1995. “I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.” (A freeze would have reduced the amount that would be paid out, cutting the program’s benefit.)
And ofc you are more to the right. Aint surprised.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mike-bloomberg-presidential-run-cheap-rates-anti-trump-ads-2019-11
but the whole system is set up for single issue voters. Just watch CSPAN and all the single issue voter speeches the candidates have to go and do.
So not only is Sanders campaign lying again (like they did on Warren's record and Sanders statement on women), but they are also using information from a time and place of an extraordinarily different economic environment. Now maybe you had the clairvoyance to see the 10 year Bull market we're on, and that the Fed would lower the overnight borrow rates to the depths they have during this bull run. And maybe you knew that the Fed would pump 80 billion in liquidity into the market every single week, but most people did not see that in 1995.
And yeah, I'm to the right of most Democrats on economic issues. OFC I am. You'll have to forgive me if I don't find your jabs insulting, but I know TNSTAAFL. It would be wise for all of our politicians to remember it.
And no one is saying lunches are free. But that things can be fair and humane. Now I can't argue this point anymore, because I don't want to risk giving reasons, I can't see exist beforehand, to ban me. Thank you.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/20/politics/new-york-times-klobuchar-warren-2020/index.html
The New York Times' utterly confusing 2020 endorsement
At its most basic level, the 2020 Democratic primary process is about which one candidate distinguishes herself (or himself) as the person voters most trust to take on and beat President Donald Trump in November.
You can see the logic. Klobuchar represents pragmatic centrism, Warren liberal idealism. One represents the Democratic Party's head, the other its beating heart. And the Times is right that there are major questions within the Democratic Party which of those two approaches is the right one to beat Trump and to turn the country around.
But an endorsement isn't about effectively laying out the arguments within a party. It's about choosing an argument -- and a candidate who embodies that argument -- and then explaining to readers why that argument is superior.
I think the majority lacks the attention span to read anything beyond Twitter feeds and news headlines. Obviously, this oversimplifies real politics.
Maybe it starts with the parents discussing politics with their children before they turn 18. But that could result in stronger party lines.
www.headstonesband.com
That's why I'm liking Yang more and more these days- less bullshit, more straightforward ideas based on good thinking. And he's the only one who has avoided all the usual mudslinging bullshit and stuck to the issues- one very big reason I can't no longer get behind the front runners.