I'm back

[Santander]

Welcome back, boo! We missed you so much!! When someone with your name was arrested the day after the election, we thought the worst. (though it was obviously not you)

LOL! Hey! Good to see you're still around. What were they arrested for?

Theft of thousands of dollars worth of candy from an elementary school

Are we sure that wasn't Grumps?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

[IceSpear]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

IMO it depends. If they're pro-life but are otherwise a reliable Democrat on most/all other issues, then sure. But party resources should never be squandered on Republicans in drag/Dixiecrats like Jim Justice and Parker Griffith, many of whom, like those two, end up switching parties anyway.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

IMO it depends. If they're pro-life but are otherwise a reliable Democrat on most/all other issues, then sure. But party resources should never be squandered on Republicans in drag/Dixiecrats like Jim Justice and Parker Griffith, many of whom, like those two, end up switching parties anyway.

How about Tim Kaine?

[IceSpear]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

IMO it depends. If they're pro-life but are otherwise a reliable Democrat on most/all other issues, then sure. But party resources should never be squandered on Republicans in drag/Dixiecrats like Jim Justice and Parker Griffith, many of whom, like those two, end up switching parties anyway.

How about Tim Kaine?

Oh, hi jfern. I bet you missed me.

What about him?

[Green Line]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

IMO it depends. If they're pro-life but are otherwise a reliable Democrat on most/all other issues, then sure. But party resources should never be squandered on Republicans in drag/Dixiecrats like Jim Justice and Parker Griffith, many of whom, like those two, end up switching parties anyway.

How about Tim Kaine?

He's not pro-life so..

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

To get you up to speed, a few months ago, Bernie Sanders endorsed the democratic nominee for Mayor of Omaha, NE, despite the fact that the Nominee was pro-life. The Abortion Lobby fiercely criticized him, saying that while Dems can be "personally pro-life", they must vote 100% pro-choice. Sanders defended himself by saying the party shouldn't divorce itself from candidates who disagree with it on one issue. The Mayoral Candidate lost over the controversy, but in the aftermath there has been a fierce divide.

On One side, you have Dick Durbin, Tom Perez, NARAL, Daily Kos, and the ACLU saying that democratic candidates must have a 100% pro-choice voting record and that the party should refuse to campaign for any pro-life dems that are nominated for public office.

On the other side, you have Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Ben Ray Lujan (DCCC chair) saying that if a pro-life candidate gets the nomination for a particular office, they should receive full funding as a means of keeping the republicans out.

[IceSpear]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

To get you up to speed, a few months ago, Bernie Sanders endorsed the democratic nominee for Mayor of Omaha, NE, despite the fact that the Nominee was pro-life. The Abortion Lobby fiercely criticized him, saying that while Dems can be "personally pro-life", they must vote 100% pro-choice. Sanders defended himself by saying the party shouldn't divorce itself from candidates who disagree with it on one issue. The Mayoral Candidate lost over the controversy, but in the aftermath there has been a fierce divide.

On One side, you have Dick Durbin, Tom Perez, NARAL, Daily Kos, and the ACLU saying that democratic candidates must have a 100% pro-choice voting record and that the party should refuse to campaign for any pro-life dems that are nominated for public office.

On the other side, you have Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Ben Ray Lujan (DCCC chair) saying that if a pro-life candidate gets the nomination for a particular office, they should receive full funding as a means of keeping the republicans out.

I'm a bit confused still. So this just spontaneously arose in 2017 for no reason? I don't seem to recall Durbin, Perez, Daily Kos, etc. having any problems with supporting/funding pro-life candidates in the past. In fact, they didn't even have any problem with supporting/funding literal right-wing-in-nearly-all-aspect Democrats like Parker Griffith, Walt Minnick, etc.

But it sounds really stupid to me anyway. Democrats shouldn't be wasting their time with pointless bickering and ideological purity tests while in the political wilderness. Sure, don't sell out your entire belief system to support a Republican with a (D) after their name, but it's unrealistic to expect everyone to agree with you 100% of the time on 100% of issues.

[Green Line]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

To get you up to speed, a few months ago, Bernie Sanders endorsed the democratic nominee for Mayor of Omaha, NE, despite the fact that the Nominee was pro-life. The Abortion Lobby fiercely criticized him, saying that while Dems can be "personally pro-life", they must vote 100% pro-choice. Sanders defended himself by saying the party shouldn't divorce itself from candidates who disagree with it on one issue. The Mayoral Candidate lost over the controversy, but in the aftermath there has been a fierce divide.

On One side, you have Dick Durbin, Tom Perez, NARAL, Daily Kos, and the ACLU saying that democratic candidates must have a 100% pro-choice voting record and that the party should refuse to campaign for any pro-life dems that are nominated for public office.

On the other side, you have Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Ben Ray Lujan (DCCC chair) saying that if a pro-life candidate gets the nomination for a particular office, they should receive full funding as a means of keeping the republicans out.

I'm a bit confused still. So this just spontaneously arose in 2017 for no reason? I don't seem to recall Durbin, Perez, Daily Kos, etc. having any problems with supporting/funding pro-life candidates in the past. In fact, they didn't even have any problem with supporting/funding literal right wing in nearly all aspect Democrats like Parker Griffith, Walt Minnick, etc.

But it sounds really stupid to me anyway. Democrats shouldn't be wasting their time with pointless bickering and ideological purity tests while in the political wilderness. Sure, don't sell out your entire belief system to support a Republican with a (D) after their name, but it's unrealistic to expect everyone to agree with you 100% of the time on 100% of issues.

You're really, really behind the times.  What era did you come out of, 2004?  This is no longer allowed.

[IceSpear]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

To get you up to speed, a few months ago, Bernie Sanders endorsed the democratic nominee for Mayor of Omaha, NE, despite the fact that the Nominee was pro-life. The Abortion Lobby fiercely criticized him, saying that while Dems can be "personally pro-life", they must vote 100% pro-choice. Sanders defended himself by saying the party shouldn't divorce itself from candidates who disagree with it on one issue. The Mayoral Candidate lost over the controversy, but in the aftermath there has been a fierce divide.

On One side, you have Dick Durbin, Tom Perez, NARAL, Daily Kos, and the ACLU saying that democratic candidates must have a 100% pro-choice voting record and that the party should refuse to campaign for any pro-life dems that are nominated for public office.

On the other side, you have Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Ben Ray Lujan (DCCC chair) saying that if a pro-life candidate gets the nomination for a particular office, they should receive full funding as a means of keeping the republicans out.

I'm a bit confused still. So this just spontaneously arose in 2017 for no reason? I don't seem to recall Durbin, Perez, Daily Kos, etc. having any problems with supporting/funding pro-life candidates in the past. In fact, they didn't even have any problem with supporting/funding literal right wing in nearly all aspect Democrats like Parker Griffith, Walt Minnick, etc.

But it sounds really stupid to me anyway. Democrats shouldn't be wasting their time with pointless bickering and ideological purity tests while in the political wilderness. Sure, don't sell out your entire belief system to support a Republican with a (D) after their name, but it's unrealistic to expect everyone to agree with you 100% of the time on 100% of issues.

You're really, really behind the times.  What era did you come out of, 2004?  This is no longer allowed.

lol, I don't even recall this being a "controversy" in 2016.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

To get you up to speed, a few months ago, Bernie Sanders endorsed the democratic nominee for Mayor of Omaha, NE, despite the fact that the Nominee was pro-life. The Abortion Lobby fiercely criticized him, saying that while Dems can be "personally pro-life", they must vote 100% pro-choice. Sanders defended himself by saying the party shouldn't divorce itself from candidates who disagree with it on one issue. The Mayoral Candidate lost over the controversy, but in the aftermath there has been a fierce divide.

On One side, you have Dick Durbin, Tom Perez, NARAL, Daily Kos, and the ACLU saying that democratic candidates must have a 100% pro-choice voting record and that the party should refuse to campaign for any pro-life dems that are nominated for public office.

On the other side, you have Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Ben Ray Lujan (DCCC chair) saying that if a pro-life candidate gets the nomination for a particular office, they should receive full funding as a means of keeping the republicans out.

I'm a bit confused still. So this just spontaneously arose in 2017 for no reason? I don't seem to recall Durbin, Perez, Daily Kos, etc. having any problems with supporting/funding pro-life candidates in the past. In fact, they didn't even have any problem with supporting/funding literal right-wing-in-nearly-all-aspect Democrats like Parker Griffith, Walt Minnick, etc.

But it sounds really stupid to me anyway. Democrats shouldn't be wasting their time with pointless bickering and ideological purity tests while in the political wilderness. Sure, don't sell out your entire belief system to support a Republican with a (D) after their name, but it's unrealistic to expect everyone to agree with you 100% of the time on 100% of issues.

It arose because the abortion lobby, which for obvious reasons has sway in the party, decided to make a big stink about Sanders's endorsement of the mayoral candidate. Had the abortion lobby kept quiet, the controversy wouldn't exist. Actually, before Sanders endorsed that candidate, Perez said pro-life Dems were fine, and seems to have changed his view for the sole reason of placating NARAL.

[Green Line]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

To get you up to speed, a few months ago, Bernie Sanders endorsed the democratic nominee for Mayor of Omaha, NE, despite the fact that the Nominee was pro-life. The Abortion Lobby fiercely criticized him, saying that while Dems can be "personally pro-life", they must vote 100% pro-choice. Sanders defended himself by saying the party shouldn't divorce itself from candidates who disagree with it on one issue. The Mayoral Candidate lost over the controversy, but in the aftermath there has been a fierce divide.

On One side, you have Dick Durbin, Tom Perez, NARAL, Daily Kos, and the ACLU saying that democratic candidates must have a 100% pro-choice voting record and that the party should refuse to campaign for any pro-life dems that are nominated for public office.

On the other side, you have Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Ben Ray Lujan (DCCC chair) saying that if a pro-life candidate gets the nomination for a particular office, they should receive full funding as a means of keeping the republicans out.

I'm a bit confused still. So this just spontaneously arose in 2017 for no reason? I don't seem to recall Durbin, Perez, Daily Kos, etc. having any problems with supporting/funding pro-life candidates in the past. In fact, they didn't even have any problem with supporting/funding literal right wing in nearly all aspect Democrats like Parker Griffith, Walt Minnick, etc.

But it sounds really stupid to me anyway. Democrats shouldn't be wasting their time with pointless bickering and ideological purity tests while in the political wilderness. Sure, don't sell out your entire belief system to support a Republican with a (D) after their name, but it's unrealistic to expect everyone to agree with you 100% of the time on 100% of issues.

You're really, really behind the times.  What era did you come out of, 2004?  This is no longer allowed.

lol, I don't even recall this being a "controversy" in 2016.

Things changed when the barbarians sacked Rome (Debbie).

[IceSpear]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

To get you up to speed, a few months ago, Bernie Sanders endorsed the democratic nominee for Mayor of Omaha, NE, despite the fact that the Nominee was pro-life. The Abortion Lobby fiercely criticized him, saying that while Dems can be "personally pro-life", they must vote 100% pro-choice. Sanders defended himself by saying the party shouldn't divorce itself from candidates who disagree with it on one issue. The Mayoral Candidate lost over the controversy, but in the aftermath there has been a fierce divide.

On One side, you have Dick Durbin, Tom Perez, NARAL, Daily Kos, and the ACLU saying that democratic candidates must have a 100% pro-choice voting record and that the party should refuse to campaign for any pro-life dems that are nominated for public office.

On the other side, you have Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and Ben Ray Lujan (DCCC chair) saying that if a pro-life candidate gets the nomination for a particular office, they should receive full funding as a means of keeping the republicans out.

I'm a bit confused still. So this just spontaneously arose in 2017 for no reason? I don't seem to recall Durbin, Perez, Daily Kos, etc. having any problems with supporting/funding pro-life candidates in the past. In fact, they didn't even have any problem with supporting/funding literal right-wing-in-nearly-all-aspect Democrats like Parker Griffith, Walt Minnick, etc.

But it sounds really stupid to me anyway. Democrats shouldn't be wasting their time with pointless bickering and ideological purity tests while in the political wilderness. Sure, don't sell out your entire belief system to support a Republican with a (D) after their name, but it's unrealistic to expect everyone to agree with you 100% of the time on 100% of issues.

It arose because the abortion lobby, which for obvious reasons has sway in the party, decided to make a big stink about Sanders's endorsement of the mayoral candidate. Had the abortion lobby kept quiet, the controversy wouldn't exist. Actually, before Sanders endorsed that candidate, Perez said pro-life Dems were fine, and seems to have changed his view for the sole reason of placating NARAL.

Oh, so in reality it's just an extension and relitigation of the 2016 primary. Jesus, jfern's post should've clued me in. It's time to move on people.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

IMO it depends. If they're pro-life but are otherwise a reliable Democrat on most/all other issues, then sure. But party resources should never be squandered on Republicans in drag/Dixiecrats like Jim Justice and Parker Griffith, many of whom, like those two, end up switching parties anyway.

How about Tim Kaine?

He's not pro-life so..

He had a mixed record as governor, and would have been next in line for Presidency. But we're supposed to care about some mayoral candidate in Nebraska.

[IceSpear]

IceSpear, which side do you take in the democratic party's debate over whether it's okay to fund pro-life candidates under certain circumstances?

Is that a thing now?

IMO it depends. If they're pro-life but are otherwise a reliable Democrat on most/all other issues, then sure. But party resources should never be squandered on Republicans in drag/Dixiecrats like Jim Justice and Parker Griffith, many of whom, like those two, end up switching parties anyway.

How about Tim Kaine?

He's not pro-life so..

He had a mixed record as governor, and would have been next in line for Presidency. But we're supposed to care about some mayoral candidate in Nebraska.

His record was mixed as governor, but not as a senator which is more relevant for obvious reasons. And regardless, how was it relevant to my initial post you replied to? Even if he was currently pro-life or "mixed" he's a fairly reliable mainstream Democrat on most issues.

[PragmaticPopulist]

You left before I joined, but I've heard a good amount about you, and I find your signature to be hilarious, but also obvious trolling.

Also, I don't get why you think WV is titanium R at all levels. It's that kind of attitude that has brought down the Democratic Party over the last eight years.

Anyway, welcome back.

[LLR]

Welcome back! It's really not worth staying.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

5) Stop creaming your pants about Dems winning in 2020 polls by a landslide. Once the right wing hate machine and propaganda outlets gear up against Biden/Sanders/Warren/whoever, they're going to become just as "polarizing" as Gore, Kerry, Hillary, Obama, etc.

LOL, you are such a delusional hack. Don't you know Bernie is now the most popular politician in the country? That alone makes a +400 victory assured is he runs. I mean, come on, it's not like Hillary had great approvals at the same point back in 2013, right?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If she ran again, would you endorse her? Would she be inevitable in the primary again?

Also, do you agree with the sections in Hillary's book that blame Biden and Bernie for her loss?

[IceSpear]

You left before I joined, but I've heard a good amount about you, and I find your signature to be hilarious, but also obvious trolling.

Also, I don't get why you think WV is titanium R at all levels. It's that kind of attitude that has brought down the Democratic Party over the last eight years.

Anyway, welcome back.

It's not my attitude, it just is what it is. I'm not the one that forced them to start prioritizing other...uh..."issues" over their economic well being.

Thanks!

Welcome back! It's really not worth staying.

Was it ever?

5) Stop creaming your pants about Dems winning in 2020 polls by a landslide. Once the right wing hate machine and propaganda outlets gear up against Biden/Sanders/Warren/whoever, they're going to become just as "polarizing" as Gore, Kerry, Hillary, Obama, etc.

LOL, you are such a delusional hack. Don't you know Bernie is now the most popular politician in the country? That alone makes a +400 victory assured is he runs. I mean, come on, it's not like Hillary had great approvals at the same point back in 2013, right?

lol, remember when Hillary was the most popular politician in the country and Trump was a joke that was not only unelectable but would have a high chance of falling below 100 EVs? Good times. You'd think people would learn the lessons of 2016.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If she ran again, would you endorse her? Would she be inevitable in the primary again?

Also, do you agree with the sections in Hillary's book that blame Biden and Bernie for her loss?

Yes, I'd endorse her. But she wouldn't be inevitable in the primary again, or even close. She might not even be the frontrunner. I do think she'd have a strong chance though, particularly if she continues to be vindicated by Trump and the Russian interference reports. If she doesn't run, I'm pretty much totally undecided and will be watching the campaigns/debates to decide who to vote for, although there's obviously some I'm inclined to be more receptive of (like John Delaney of course literally lol'd when I saw he was running) and others I'm inclined to be less receptive of (COUGH GABBARD COUGH.)

There's a million different reasons why Hillary lost. The intense polarization of the country, politics turning into a reality TV show with Trump being the logical conclusion of such a trend, the Comey letter, Russian interference, the short attention span of Americans, her misjudging the mood of the country, sexism, etc. all among the foremost. I don't think Biden had any impact whatsoever, and I think Bernie had minimal impact. I wouldn't really say she "blamed" anyone either. The media is full of crap about how she "blames everyone but herself blah blah." She does blame herself, along with the countless other external factors out of her control that also undoubtedly affected the outcome.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

"Like what?" Exhibiting a style of smarmy condescension. Perhaps our interests aligned more in the past, when I was an ironic Hillary supporter, but you seem to have cracked upon the outbreak of R-WV-ism.

[IceSpear]

"Like what?" Exhibiting a style of smarmy condescension.

idk maybe

Congrats on becoming a mod btw! Oh, and Virginia as well.

[Xing]

Welcome back, Icespear! I was worried you'd be gone for good after Justice won WV-GOV, and Trump won PA.

[IceSpear]

Welcome back, Icespear! I was worried you'd be gone for good after Justice won WV-GOV, and Trump won PA.

Luckily Justice is a Republican now, so that gave me permission to return.

Btw, remember our chat on Skype about how I wanted to visit the PNW? I actually spent March - July in Seattle living with a friend. It's a great city!

[Mr. Morden]

Congrats on becoming a mod btw! Oh, and Virginia as well.

Cathcon's been a mod since 2015 and you just noticed now? 

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=215915.msg4745565#msg4745565

Virginia is new to the moderatorship though, yeah.  She joined this year, whereas I finally retired myself from the job.