That's a really weird way to answer that question. It has hints of authoritarian control. What it means to you to be a Democrat is that "I will be voting for the only party that supports America"
It doesn't mean you support social progress, like LGBT rights, or ending the drug war, or fighting for universal healthcare, or supporting legal immigration, or ending the wars, or supporting campaign finance reform, etc. It's purposefully kept vague to ensure if you fail, you're not held accountable for any commitments made.
Maybe, unless you actually thought about the fact that all those groups you listed are part of the 100% of America that the Democrats work to legislate for.
Then (if you actually thought about it and not just regurgitate edgy scripts you are given) you would see, what you said makes no sense.
You support everything the Democratic party does, there are no examples of you swaying from the Democratic position you can cite. You even attempt to justify the worst foreign policy vote this century - the Iraq War
Are you just being a moronic troll? I literally just said that I do not support everything that the Democrats do and you go all 'huh-uh'? I don't support the Iraq war, but I do know the political climate that was the post-9/11 Republican controlled DC. Do you? You never answered that.
"Why" Engel, or anyone else who voted for the war is irrelevant. The best you can come up with is "because they got duped", which exposes their utter incompetence when people like Sanders were able to see through the bullshit and vote against it
So why the guy who is up for election is irrelevant to his election?
Riight. You just don't have any actual interest in this race other than some proxy war with the Democratic party. The Democrat in that district voted with the Democrats 98+% of the time, voted against Russian interests, and has a far deeper record than even Sanders. But you want to pretend that it is a good idea to push that guy out for a freshman congressman.
It's not when the only thing that matters to you is voting along party lines, regardless of the issue. Those that voted for the Iraq War are still right because "their hearts were in the right place".. - forget about the million + Iraqi civilians who lost their lives during that war, at least the Democrats who voted for it, their hearts were in the right place..
There you go again, telling me what I care about in a way that tries to give you some kind of authority on the issue. You are wrong. It is not the only thing that matters to me, but it is important.
And again do you actually remember America in the post 9/11 years? Because you seem very ignorant if you think that the Democrats could have done anything to stop the war. Americans wanted blood, and the Republicans controlled the House and Senate.
You're not for diversity, you're for party elites choosing candidates in deep blue districts despite diversity. You only support diversity when it benefits the Democratic establishment.
The party only weaponizes diversity in candidates when it suits their agenda - more progressive minority candidates get ostracized and shunned by the party over white incumbents, likewise more establishment white candidates - like Engel - get propped up and highlighted and endorsed by party elites over more progressive, minority candidates like Bowman.
Or, people get that the Russian/Right wing (even went pretending to be
left) trolls are pushing that kind of nonsense to remove decades of experience in DC.
It's obvious the party only supports diversity when the candidate supports the Democratic establishment agenda. When they don't, the party supports white male incumbents.
Your troll is just a rehashing of the racist troll on Democrats. If you actually thought about what you said (and were not being disingenuous about your goal) you would realize it is stupid. The Democrats had control in DC for all of about 6 years (in the last 50) before Republicans won back enough control to shut them down using the same basic trolling that you use against the Democrats, and leaving the incoming Democratic party with a complete economic and global mess.
And they did a very good job of it while they could. Now that 'We the People' are learning about how the Republicans have kept the Wealthy White Heterosexual Male Only agenda alive and well by using platforms like Hate radio and Fox News along with every paid internet troll/troll of a news website (like OANN and The Hill) to trick people, I have hope it will get better and we can start to move forward as a nation.
You mean American Corporate Interests, you know, the kind that Americans work at. Corporations is not a evil word, no matter how many times you pretend it is.
Weird how you're claiming only black people were affected
Where is Fogdog to come along and claim that's racist?
I dont recall saying that. In fact I am quite sure I have pointed out many times how the Russians are attacking every community, white, black, latino, muslim, racists, evangelicals, women, men, cops, non-heterosexual people, on and on, all are under a constant barrage of the Russian/Right wing dictators trolling trying to split us up into nice little sections so they can trick people (using the exact shit you seem to only post) to vote the way that does not benefit our country.
And your 'article' is pretty much what I would expect from someone trying to cover up what the Russians did, it is appropriate that you a left-troll would try to point to that as some sort of evidence, I look forward to directing it further, thank you.
I did find this part towards the top
• 2016 Election Content: The most glaring data point is how minimally Russian social-media activity pertained to the 2016 campaign. The New Knowledge report acknowledges that evaluating IRA content “purely based on whether it definitively swung the election is too narrow a focus,” as the “explicitly political content was a small percentage.” To be exact, just “11% of the total content” attributed to the IRA and 33 percent of user engagement with it “was related to the election.” The IRA’s posts “were minimally about the candidates,” with “roughly 6% of tweets, 18% of Instagram posts, and 7% of Facebook posts” having “mentioned Trump or Clinton by name.”
So they are saying that because not every single post that was made by these trolls mentioned Trump or Clinton has to mean that they were not demoralizing/divisive.
That is bullshit. Look at your posts, you use words like
'establishment' to try to convey the messaging the Russians need to have used for Trump to have a chance at winning.
I look forward to reading about how the Russian military used their 1.25 million a month budget to attack our nation but didn't do anything with it, I am sure your propaganda goes into that right?
It must suck to have to pretend to be this stupid to try to get the current moron in the Oval Office re-elected.
