Your ignorance is stunning. Your entire knowledge of Al Gore is that he was pro-environment, and, “environment = left-wing,” but you have no understanding of his role within the Clinton administration, like promoting NAFTA or Welfare reform. I don’t even know why this is a debate, as you’re just factually wrong; here’s the NY Times calling him fiscally conservative in 2000. Here’s the LA times reflecting on his centrist platform in 2004. The idea that he ran as a progressive is nonsense.
I have no idea what your point is about the Obama administration. You seem to be saying, yes, all of his policies were progressive, but they don’t count because Bush was unpopular. Not sure what the logic is there, but at least you’re tacitly admitting you were wrong when you claimed he his campaign was vague, so that’s something.
You also seem to think that bringing up people’s past policy positions is some kind of dirty trick I’m playing (which would explain why you have such a poor understanding of history), but for the record, yes, Hillary Clinton’s 25 year record as a centrist was relevant to her 2016 campaign. I don’t know what to tell you, if you have a decades long record as a centrist, then run as a centrist with a centrist running mate, people will think you’re a centrist (true of Gore and HRC).
I went back and read the bits I skimmed, and yeah, I was right, you just repeated yourself. Maybe edit yourself a bit, especially when you don’t know what you’re talking about. But, for the record, your premise is obviously faulty; if you vote for them when they move to the center, the takeaway isn’t going to be that it’s safe to go to the left, it will be that it’s safe to go to the center. But either way, it doesn’t matter, because the geriatrics that run the party are so haunted by Regan’s legacy that they will never go left, no matter how often they lose trying to gain the center.
Anyway, still very telling that you won’t address the fact that Ross Perot played a huge part in the 1992 election, but I’m sure you’d have to Google, “Who is Ross Perot?” first. But thanks for, “today’s explanation,” really funny stuff!
Ah you open with an attack, always a good way to start a nice productive conversation huh! Skimming first you are rife with attacks (just like your last message) so this will be my last reply. There’s little productive discussion when I see someone acting like that.
Yeah environmentalism is pretty left wing. And it wasn’t just environmental like anti smog that pretty much everyone agreed on. It was climate change. You know CO2, the new thing.
Your first article is paywalled. But to address your text: Fiscally conservative? You can be relatively fiscally conservative and still implement left policy. It’s a common mistake to think left policy is wildly expense. But the first articles actual title: “Top goals is steady reduction of nation’s debt”. Debt reduction? That’s what you’re saying defines him as not left? Yeah you can reduce the debt while doing left things. Especially not so difficult to do when Clinton left a surplus.
Second article: “What has gone mostly unnoticed, however, is a change in the man’s voice. It is often now that of an unapologetic populist.” Tone of voice? That’s what you’re linking? This isn’t a deep analysis, this is a feeling story time piece. “Then he lit into almost every aspect of the Bush administration. “I think this is the worst foreign policy that any president has ever made in the history of the United States,” Gore said.” Yeah after the wars you might speak a little bit louder. I’m only skimming this because of the next point:
I see you’re still demanding people read your links (long ones at that) when you openly said you “skim” people’s replies and don’t reply to what’s said. Hypocritical much? Shows how you operate. You demand people do things that you take great glee in not doing, while attacking that they even wrote anything at all.
I have no idea what your point is about the Obama administration.
Obama? I already explained. He ran center and won. Your list of things bailing out homeowners? Not exactly far left lol, that’s just reactionary to oh I don’t know the subprime mortgage crisis that tanked people. I already explained each point.
So Obama. He ran center. And he won. Aka he learned from Gore to not rely on the left that doesn’t show up.
all of his policies were progressive,
I already explained this. When in office, he acted left. He ran center relying on hope and yes we can. But when he got in after the election, he acted left. And the thanks for acting left was to lose Congress. Aka: the left never shows up.
You also seem to think that bringing up people’s past policy positions is some kind of dirty trick
It’s not a “dirty” trick that works like you’re trying to suggest. Well I already explained it, you’re trying to suggest that no one ever changes their platform, changes their thinking, to adjust to information on the ground. Your argument is that if Gore did a center thing 12 years ago, or for Hillary 2016-1965 = 51 years prior that that person is now set in stone forever. It’s a ludicrous “trick” that might sound good on the surface. But when you think about it, it makes no sense - unless you think that people are set in stone and can never, never, never change anything they ever think.
, I was right, you just repeated yourself.
You mean I went through each candidate, and then summarized? But you have to attack lol. The summary was a little long because I both summarized and responded to you.
especially when you don’t know what you’re talking about. But, for the record, your premise is obviously faulty; if you vote for them when they move to the center, the takeaway isn’t going to be that it’s safe to go to the left, it will be that it’s safe to go to the center. … Anyway, still very telling that you won’t address the fact that Ross Perot played a huge part in the 1992 election, but I’m sure you’d have to Google, “Who is Ross Perot?” first. But thanks for, “today’s explanation,” really funny stuff!
Ah I’ve seen this trick before too! A common strategy. You sandwich your brief statement in attacks. You attack to throw the person off, then you quickly follow up with the actual point, hoping the person is too distracted by the attack. In this case followed up by some not so relevant stuff, before quickly going to the next attack to continue to throw them off!
Do I address the attacks? So I wear myself out with that? Do I address the point, and let the attacks go? Which makes you feel like I can’t address the attacks. Do I address it all, at which is very long and becomes more me just “defending” myself, which makes me look weak. I see your strategy all the time.
I think calling out your attack strategy addresses that, so I’ll continue to the actual point:
Which the Dems lose, they go to the center to find voters. You’re not rewarding them (to use your parlance). It’s that every time they go left they lose. Every single time, the left does not show up. So the next guy learns to go center to get votes. And they win when they go center. But even then someone will run a left thing, or enact a left thing, and then they lose again. So back to the center to win. You want them to move left? The left needs to reward them when they run left or do left things, but that’s never done. See the history in my previous reply. I’m just repeating myself.
but I’m sure you’d have to Google
And like I said, quickly followed by more attacks! Boy I recognize your structure.
Which I already addressed too! Like before I’m just repeating myself. You openly said you are only skimming what I write, because it’s not worthy of your attention. So I said “So I’ll just hit a few [key] points”. You openly said you didn’t read , but you want people to drill down on every little bit that you grace other people a response to. Fucking lol at the hypocrisy.
So do I respond to Perot, when I’ve already had to repeat myself time and time again. I’m tempted to and actually started writing. but I see no point given what I see. And this is long enough.
So now do I list alllll the things you didn’t respond to? Look how long this is already.
So like I said that’s my last response because you’re gleefully ignoring what’s said (skimming technically) while demanding I go through your links, I’m just repeating myself, and most of all: Your rife reliance on attacks. Have at your next round of attacks. Ciao
I read about half of that. Up until the Obama point. I just don’t care anymore, dude. You’re replying to facts with your opinion. Al Gore was considered a political centrist. I don’t care if you don’t like the article, or you couldn’t get past the pay wall, or you think being environmental made him far-left, it doesn’t change reality. I don’t care if you’ve already explained that, “When in office, [Obama] acted left. He ran center relying on hope and yes we can.” It’s just not true; his platform and his campaign promises were much more progressive than his administration. It’s not debatable. You’re just wrong.
I don’t really care if you read the sources or not. The facts don’t change just because you choose to remain ignorant of them, and I’m not reading 18 paragraphs of your unsubstantiated opinions just so you’ll click a link. Learn to admit when you’re wrong or don’t. I can’t make this my problem anymore.
Your ignorance is stunning. Your entire knowledge of Al Gore is that he was pro-environment, and, “environment = left-wing,” but you have no understanding of his role within the Clinton administration, like promoting NAFTA or Welfare reform. I don’t even know why this is a debate, as you’re just factually wrong; here’s the NY Times calling him fiscally conservative in 2000. Here’s the LA times reflecting on his centrist platform in 2004. The idea that he ran as a progressive is nonsense.
I have no idea what your point is about the Obama administration. You seem to be saying, yes, all of his policies were progressive, but they don’t count because Bush was unpopular. Not sure what the logic is there, but at least you’re tacitly admitting you were wrong when you claimed he his campaign was vague, so that’s something.
You also seem to think that bringing up people’s past policy positions is some kind of dirty trick I’m playing (which would explain why you have such a poor understanding of history), but for the record, yes, Hillary Clinton’s 25 year record as a centrist was relevant to her 2016 campaign. I don’t know what to tell you, if you have a decades long record as a centrist, then run as a centrist with a centrist running mate, people will think you’re a centrist (true of Gore and HRC).
I went back and read the bits I skimmed, and yeah, I was right, you just repeated yourself. Maybe edit yourself a bit, especially when you don’t know what you’re talking about. But, for the record, your premise is obviously faulty; if you vote for them when they move to the center, the takeaway isn’t going to be that it’s safe to go to the left, it will be that it’s safe to go to the center. But either way, it doesn’t matter, because the geriatrics that run the party are so haunted by Regan’s legacy that they will never go left, no matter how often they lose trying to gain the center.
Anyway, still very telling that you won’t address the fact that Ross Perot played a huge part in the 1992 election, but I’m sure you’d have to Google, “Who is Ross Perot?” first. But thanks for, “today’s explanation,” really funny stuff!
Ah you open with an attack, always a good way to start a nice productive conversation huh! Skimming first you are rife with attacks (just like your last message) so this will be my last reply. There’s little productive discussion when I see someone acting like that.
Yeah environmentalism is pretty left wing. And it wasn’t just environmental like anti smog that pretty much everyone agreed on. It was climate change. You know CO2, the new thing.
Your first article is paywalled. But to address your text: Fiscally conservative? You can be relatively fiscally conservative and still implement left policy. It’s a common mistake to think left policy is wildly expense. But the first articles actual title: “Top goals is steady reduction of nation’s debt”. Debt reduction? That’s what you’re saying defines him as not left? Yeah you can reduce the debt while doing left things. Especially not so difficult to do when Clinton left a surplus.
Second article: “What has gone mostly unnoticed, however, is a change in the man’s voice. It is often now that of an unapologetic populist.” Tone of voice? That’s what you’re linking? This isn’t a deep analysis, this is a feeling story time piece. “Then he lit into almost every aspect of the Bush administration. “I think this is the worst foreign policy that any president has ever made in the history of the United States,” Gore said.” Yeah after the wars you might speak a little bit louder. I’m only skimming this because of the next point:
I see you’re still demanding people read your links (long ones at that) when you openly said you “skim” people’s replies and don’t reply to what’s said. Hypocritical much? Shows how you operate. You demand people do things that you take great glee in not doing, while attacking that they even wrote anything at all.
Obama? I already explained. He ran center and won. Your list of things bailing out homeowners? Not exactly far left lol, that’s just reactionary to oh I don’t know the subprime mortgage crisis that tanked people. I already explained each point.
So Obama. He ran center. And he won. Aka he learned from Gore to not rely on the left that doesn’t show up.
I already explained this. When in office, he acted left. He ran center relying on hope and yes we can. But when he got in after the election, he acted left. And the thanks for acting left was to lose Congress. Aka: the left never shows up.
It’s not a “dirty” trick that works like you’re trying to suggest. Well I already explained it, you’re trying to suggest that no one ever changes their platform, changes their thinking, to adjust to information on the ground. Your argument is that if Gore did a center thing 12 years ago, or for Hillary 2016-1965 = 51 years prior that that person is now set in stone forever. It’s a ludicrous “trick” that might sound good on the surface. But when you think about it, it makes no sense - unless you think that people are set in stone and can never, never, never change anything they ever think.
You mean I went through each candidate, and then summarized? But you have to attack lol. The summary was a little long because I both summarized and responded to you.
Ah I’ve seen this trick before too! A common strategy. You sandwich your brief statement in attacks. You attack to throw the person off, then you quickly follow up with the actual point, hoping the person is too distracted by the attack. In this case followed up by some not so relevant stuff, before quickly going to the next attack to continue to throw them off!
Do I address the attacks? So I wear myself out with that? Do I address the point, and let the attacks go? Which makes you feel like I can’t address the attacks. Do I address it all, at which is very long and becomes more me just “defending” myself, which makes me look weak. I see your strategy all the time.
I think calling out your attack strategy addresses that, so I’ll continue to the actual point:
Which the Dems lose, they go to the center to find voters. You’re not rewarding them (to use your parlance). It’s that every time they go left they lose. Every single time, the left does not show up. So the next guy learns to go center to get votes. And they win when they go center. But even then someone will run a left thing, or enact a left thing, and then they lose again. So back to the center to win. You want them to move left? The left needs to reward them when they run left or do left things, but that’s never done. See the history in my previous reply. I’m just repeating myself.
And like I said, quickly followed by more attacks! Boy I recognize your structure.
Which I already addressed too! Like before I’m just repeating myself. You openly said you are only skimming what I write, because it’s not worthy of your attention. So I said “So I’ll just hit a few [key] points”. You openly said you didn’t read , but you want people to drill down on every little bit that you grace other people a response to. Fucking lol at the hypocrisy.
So do I respond to Perot, when I’ve already had to repeat myself time and time again. I’m tempted to and actually started writing. but I see no point given what I see. And this is long enough.
So now do I list alllll the things you didn’t respond to? Look how long this is already.
So like I said that’s my last response because you’re gleefully ignoring what’s said (skimming technically) while demanding I go through your links, I’m just repeating myself, and most of all: Your rife reliance on attacks. Have at your next round of attacks. Ciao
I read about half of that. Up until the Obama point. I just don’t care anymore, dude. You’re replying to facts with your opinion. Al Gore was considered a political centrist. I don’t care if you don’t like the article, or you couldn’t get past the pay wall, or you think being environmental made him far-left, it doesn’t change reality. I don’t care if you’ve already explained that, “When in office, [Obama] acted left. He ran center relying on hope and yes we can.” It’s just not true; his platform and his campaign promises were much more progressive than his administration. It’s not debatable. You’re just wrong.
I don’t really care if you read the sources or not. The facts don’t change just because you choose to remain ignorant of them, and I’m not reading 18 paragraphs of your unsubstantiated opinions just so you’ll click a link. Learn to admit when you’re wrong or don’t. I can’t make this my problem anymore.