If Donald Trump were to become a registered Democrat, would you support him?

[Dem4Life1102]

If Lindsey Graham were to become a registered Democrat, would you support him?

If Jeff Sessions were to become a registered Democrat, would you support him?

If Mitch McConnell were to become a registered Democrat, would you support him?

If you answered no, then ask yourself why would any Democrat support Michelle Caruso-Cabrera?

She was a life long conservative Republican who only left the GOP in 2015. She only became a Democrat and moved to Queens a year ago. She has publicly voiced many right wing opinions on issues in her book, for years as a CNBC host as well as on other TV shows and venues including privatizing both Social Security and Medicare. Opinions that she has never publicly reversed. And her campaign is being funded by Wall Street CEOs.

So why are so many supporting her?

[SlogginThroughIt]

1. If she wins the primary she boosts our numbers.

Politics is math.

[unblock]

5. By replacing aoc? How does replacing a staunch lefty with a dino help us?

This is a very democratic district we're talking about.

[SlogginThroughIt]

152. Read. Go back and read it again.

If she wins the primary then yes we have to support her keeping the seat. Sucks but thats what we will have to do.

[unblock]

155. *if* she wins the primary *then* she'd be better on the margins than a republican

The op asked why *are* people supporting aoc's opponent.

[SlogginThroughIt]

157. Some people just don't like AOC's tactics.

At times I am not a fan of hers either. Some people seem to think she is a detriment to the party. What I was saying is that if she does win the primary (she won’t/didn’t) unfortunately we will have to carry the turd. Meaning that if she win the primary we would have to support her in order to hold the seat.

[unblock]

160. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Aoc is pretty popular in a solidly democratic district

Best to keep a lefty voice and vote in the house, better than to hand it over to a right-wing voice and vote, regardless of party.

The right will always find a liberal to attack, if aoc loses they'll just attack someone else.

Also, while we really need every senate seat we can get, we we're not so desperate in the house. If aoc loses, we can decide if Dino and possible spy who could conceivably win multiple term is better or worse than a one-term Republican.

Hopefully we don't have to ask that question.

[SlogginThroughIt]

161. I absolutely agree that she is best for us.

There is no questioning that. And she damn well should win the primary handedly. She is a rockstar to her constituents.

[Autumn]

7. A Democrat already hold the seat she is running for. How does a Democrat in name only

replacing a real Democrat boost "our" numbers?

[Celerity]

72. +100000

[Autumn]

73. She would be more of a boost to Republicans IMO. nt

[Blue_true]

111. Correct. nt

[SlogginThroughIt]

153. No she wouldn't in terms of holding a majority she would not.

[SlogginThroughIt]

154. Also I want to make it clear. I do NOT support her at all.

I purely talking about if she wins the primary she is a boil on our ass that we have to carry.

[Autumn]

159. AOC is a Democrat. We already hold the majority with AOC remaining in that seat.

Cabrera was running for Wall Street and to knock out a progressive. Looks like she failed.

[SlogginThroughIt]

151. Read what I wrote again.

Do it twice if you have to. I said if she wins the primary.

[Towlie]

56. No, she wouldn't necessarily boost our numbers regarding votes. She could still vote with the GOP.

[NurseJackie]

76. I wonder if she'd vote against any sort of Coronavirus Relief Package...

I wonder if she'd vote against any sort of Coronavirus Relief Package... if something like that ever came up.

[PTWB]

86. What about voting to abolish Medicare and social security?

You know, positions which she has recently advocated for.

[NurseJackie]

88. Haaaaa! The whatabout game!

Define recently.

[PTWB]

97. Oh I'm sorry, I took you for someone who was interested in intellectual discussion.

I didn't realize you had no intention of comparing the positions of two politicians. My mistake!

[melman]

90. Unlikely she'd be brave enough to make such a courageous and correct stand

Very unlikely.

[NurseJackie]

91. Ha!

a courageous and correct stand

[melman]

92. It was

100%

[NurseJackie]

94. Ha!

[melman]

96. Another delightful gif

How...delightful.

[NurseJackie]

99. I know.

[melman]

100. Oh you just never run out of them

I love it!

[NurseJackie]

102. I know.

[melman]

103. Another gem

Wonderful!

[NurseJackie]

104. I love how easily they entertain.

[melman]

105. They just get better and better

Fabulous!

[SlogginThroughIt]

150. Yes she would.

As far as holding committees she would.

[Bettie]

115. The seat is already held by a lifelong Dem

the other primary challenger is a Dem as well.

The one in question is likely to vote with Republicans most of the time as her views align with theirs.

The criticism is about her running as a Dem when by all accounts she isn't even on the same page as the party in some very important areas.

[SlogginThroughIt]

149. Right.

If she beats the dem in the primary we will need her to boost numbers. Clearly I want the incumbent Dem to win. But if she wins in the primary then yeah we kind of have to support her in so much as keeping the seat. This isn’t rocket surgery.

[Bettie]

156. She doesn't boost anything but the base count

if she's voting with Gym Jordan and his group.

[SlogginThroughIt]

158. And that's true. We have seen that with other Dino's Re: Manchin

But having the seat counting towards the majority does help. It certainly helps more than it being a legit republican right?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. If someone switches parties, the question is why.

If they don't change their underlying principles it doesn't matter how they label themselves or which party they register with. Sometimes people do have genuine conversions; at other times they're just being opportunists. Trump used to be a registered Democrat, but that's only because that's the dominant party in New York and he needed some pull with local politicians. He became a Republican when he decided to run for president because if he has any principles at all they're based on racism and greed, so the GOP was a better fit. I don't know anything about Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, but clearly she needs to explain exactly why she changed parties and whether she still holds the same political opinions that she expressed previously.

[marlakay]

3. Sounds like she was hand picked to take

AOC down.

[George II]

4. What's the point of asking that question? If that question were asked of supporters.....

....of another "Democrat" there certainly would be hell to pay.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Good point.

I guess the voters in that district will have to look very closely at both candidates and make up their minds as to which one is most likely to keep the district Democratic.

[George II]

14. What concerns me is that many people refer to the incumbent as a "woman of color", as though....

....she's unique in that characteristic, acting as though the other two* active candidates aren't "women of color" as well.

*there's also a white male on the ballot, too, but he hasn't been campaigning and most likely will get about 100 votes.

[JonLP24]

38. Why does that concern you?

It seems that the people close to Biden's campaign are advocating for a woman of color.

[George II]

48. What I said, and will now using different words, is people are using her "WOC" status....

....as a reason to vote for her, totally ignoring (perhaps intentionally) the fact that the other two active candidates are also "women of color".

If being a "WOC" is a determining factor, and for some it is, why not MCC or Badrun Khan?

Of the three Khan is probably the best for a number of reasons, but she hasn't been seeking the limelight, just running a solid neighborhood campaign. In today's day and age, that doesn't win elections, qualifications notwithstanding.

PS - I say "active" because Sam Sloan is also on the ballot, and he's running for President, too. He's one of those perennial candidates who run every two or four years just for the sake of running. In 2016 he got 227 votes in the primary.

[JonLP24]

49. Khan supports Yang's UBI

Andrew Yang wants to sell you universal basic income. Beware if you have disabilities.

Andrew Yang’s success, however, demands that Americans take him seriously as a candidate. Unfortunately, he and his campaign make this task difficult, particularly when it comes to disability policy. Every major candidate has addressed the issue of care for disabled and elderly Americans. And while no platform is perfect, most candidates have a basic understanding of the social safety net, or at least their advisers do. Except maybe Yang’s.

On Monday, Yang finally released his health care policy plan, with a section on people with disabilities. I read it. I also read his book, The War on Normal People, combed his website on details about disability programs, and asked his campaign for comment. And as a disabled person who has relied on various social safety net programs in the past, I am still left confused as to how disability benefits would be affected by the centerpiece of Yang’s policies, universal basic income, or what he calls the Freedom Dividend. His health care policies for disabled people also raise more questions than answers.

How Yang’s Freedom Dividend affects disability benefits
With the Freedom Dividend, the government would pay every American $1,000 per month, no strings attached. This is unlikely to ever make it through Congress. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it did. Then what would happen to disability benefits?

It is difficult to analyze the impact of the Freedom Dividend on other social safety net programs like Social Security, Medicaid, or food stamps. Andrew Yang’s new health care plan and the “Care for People with Disabilities” section say absolutely nothing on the matter. When Vox contacted Yang’s campaign for clarification, his national press secretary insisted that Yang’s plan “touches on aspects” of disability benefits, but did not explain how or in what way. I was repeatedly given answers and sent links to parts of the website that were totally irrelevant to the questions I’d asked.

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/12/19/21026925/andrew-yang-disability-policy

I support a strong & expanded safety net not UBI. I support a UBI for homeless people but not everyone needs UBI. I don't need UBI.

[demosincebirth]

57. Isn't white a color, too?

[George II]

65. Actually in physics neither black nor white are considered colors.

[demosincebirth]

79. Well, I guess we we got this color crap all wrong.

[TheFarseer]

64. I think it's different

If you switched from an independent and have long held almost exclusively liberal positions as opposed to switching from a Republican that has long held far right positions - and has not as far as I know, changed those positions.

[PTWB]

87. I'm assuming it is to point out the blatant racism and misogynistic views

That some of AOC’s detractors hold. Not all, of course, but many.

[George II]

89. Interesting. The first three are white men, the fourth a WOC. How do "blatant racism and...

....misogynistic views" come into play?

[PTWB]

95. The fact that you don't see how they come into play should tell you all you need to know.

[George II]

106. No it shouldn't. If anything it is the opposite of blatant racism and misogyny...

...i.e., race and gender have nothing to do with it.

[PTWB]

108. Answer the questions posed in the OP and we will find out.

[George II]

121. When it becomes a fact yes, you will. This is now at least five threads.....

....over the course of six days that you've been following me around, hounding me to answer a question the premise of which is not even based in fact.

So, once more, when it becomes a fact you'll get your answer. Before that it's just a whimsical, speculative question the answer to which is moot.

[PTWB]

126. Don't flatter yourself.

You chose to participate in this thread. You can't complain that after choosing to participate in a thread where you're asked a specific question, one you've been asked before, your refusal to answer that question is brought up.

That's like if I jumped into a thread about opposing MCC and then getting mad when you showed up supporting her.

[George II]

130. Your last sentence isn't true at all, and isn't even relevant to this. You've been badgering me....

...since THURSDAY, demanding that I answer a poorly conceived question based on fictional speculation. Probably asked me twenty times now over the last six days.

Time to stop following me around the site.

[PTWB]

131. Do you know what thread you're in?

It seems strange to voluntarily participate in a thread that is asking the same question which you're getting upset at me for asking you. It is almost as if you are trying to illicit a response so you can pretend to be some sort of victim.

Do you know the best way to avoid being asked that very simple, very easy to ask question that no one else has had an issue answering?

Just answer it!

[For anyone else late to the party, George II was asked in another thread whether he would support Donald Trump if Donald Trump switched parties. The context was about a right-wing conservative running as a Democrat (he supports that right wing conservative 'Democrat). He refused to answer the question about Donald Trump. Now he's jumped into this thread, which asked the same question, and is feigning outrage. Draw your own conclusions.]

George, I believe there is an ignore function. You're free to use it.

[George II]

132. The question being asked is: "So why are so many supporting her?", not yours.

[George II]

135. "For anyone else late to the party..."

This person has been following me from thread to thread over the course of SIX days now (began on Thursday) repeatedly asking me that hypothetical question that has no basis in fact. He/she was told that when trump becomes a Democrat the question would be answered.

Also saying "Now he's jumped into this thread", but a reminder to him/her, I "jumped in" mid-morning, about six hours before he/she "jumped into this thread" with the sole purpose of continuing the harangue of asking that same question yet again, and again.

It's now been asked of me roughly twenty times over that time, and I'm sure it's not going to end here.

[PTWB]

136. Imagine joining a thread where the premise is

Asking whether you’d support Trump and other conservatives if they ran as Democrats and then complaining about being asked if you’d support Trump if he ran as a Democrat.

You are aware of the forum’s ignore function, aren’t you? If I’m that big of a bother to you, please, by all means, put me on ignore.

[George II]

137. No sir, or madam, the premise is asking why people support MCC.

[PTWB]

138. You read it here first, folks!

In a thread titled, “ If Donald Trump were to become a registered Democrat, would you support him?” George is trying to claim it to be off topic when he is asked if he’d support Donald Trump if Trump registers as a Democrat.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

6. No.

It's rare, but I just don't vote when a local Democratic politician seems as stupid as Trump.

[JonLP24]

39. Which local Democratic politician seems as stupid as Trump?

AOC has an economics degree and she was very impressive in high school. I took economics myself but didn't graduate but I feel AOC is correct when it comes to economic issues. A variety of other issues.

I think a lot of criticism comes from young woman stereotypes especially from the right.

I'm smarter than Trump, AOC is smarter than me. I think AOC is brilliant.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

74. I think AOC is very smart.

I live in SW Ohio. There's only been a couple times in my 30+ year voting history that I didn't vote for either candidate, and it's been a long time since it happened. I don't recall the names.

[Jirel]

8. You are dead-on.

This is why supporting anyone with a -D doesn’t work. There are DINOs who do not stand for what we believe in, even (and quite possibly in this situation) Trojan DINOs run by people who mean damage to the party and the platform.

[Doremus]

52. There's a local guy running for a state Dem party position.

Trouble is, he's a dyed in the wool Libertarian who has a history of infiltrating local Dem politics to cause havoc.

No, not every (D) is worthy of our support. Too bad there are so many people who blindly defend/vote for anybody with a (D) without researching what they stand for. Bloomberg is another example.

[octoberlib]

10. Elizabeth Warren was a registered Republican until she was 47, so were many other

Democrats. I don't live in NYC , so don't know much about Caruso but the used to be a Republican crap is meaningless. I'd probably vote for AOC , btw.

[LizBeth]

15. You are right and Warren was the first I thought of. She is Dem because she believes in Democratic

values. If Caruso-Cabrera moved to an area and the only way elected is to run as a Dem, then damn straight I am going to fight for AOC. If CC has seen the light like Warren, then it is up in the air.

[Lancero]

24. Hell, lets not forget where she moved from.

Fun fact, but before moving to run against AOC... She lived in fucking Trump Tower.

Seriously, she lived in Trump Tower, she moved out and decided to live in AOC's neighborhood, she decided to run against her, she's being financed by a lot of people who (rather conveniently) also donated to Trumps campaign...

I would not at all be surprised if Trump encouraged her to run, especially given the amount of rants he went on against AOC.

To anyone supporting Caruso-Cabera... Donald Trump thanks you for your support.

[LizBeth]

29. This is what this is sounding like. I agree. I have a problem with some of AOC stances, and her

comments. She ahs not earned respect from many in the Democratic party, I get that. AOC has also done well in areas and a strong voice. But ya, CC sounds ot be bullshit and that is with very little information.

[womanofthehills]

70. Elizabeth Warren switched 20 yrs ago - MCC recently switched

No comparison. Plus Warren didn’t recently move out of Trump Towers.

[zipplewrath]

11. Around here, it's the rule

It would turn this place on its head, but dems da rules.

[brooklynite]

12. Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Charlie Crist...

I'll make my judgements individually, thanks.

As for Caruso-Cabrera, what's your data for "so many" supporting her?

[George II]

16. Hillary Clinton was never a registered republican.

[brooklynite]

20. Whether registered or not, she was a supporter of Barry Goldwater in her youth...

I respect the ability of people to mature in their thinking.

FWIW - nobody has stated an objection to any actual position that Caruso-Cabrera has taken in her campaign.

I have not expectation that Ocasio-Cortez will lose, but it will be interesting to see how much the "no" vote (split between three opponents) will be. My feeling is that, like Bill De Blasio, she's become more interested in a national message than in the issues of her district.

[Blue_true]

116. You seem to harbor so much animus toward AOC.

I remember when she won the primary, you seemed beyond enraged.

AOC can keep her mouth shut and learn at times, but she embodies more democratic core principles than MCC appears to.

[Voltaire2]

166. well you lost that slim hope too.

The people of the 14th were not fooled at all. Better luck next time.

[brooklynite]

167. What hope did I have?

I didn't support Caruso-Cabrera and I never expected AOC to lose. I was just challenging the "anyone who once was a Republican can't be trusted" assertion.

[Voltaire2]

168. As it turns out, none.

[muriel_volestrangler]

173. What did Caruso-Cabrera say about Medicare, social security, and "less government" in her campaign?

When someone has so much invested (maybe that's literal in her case, given her finance background) in right wing positions that they write a book advocating them, they need to disown them, and demonstrate how they have seen they were wrong, before being taken seriously as a Democrat. What did she say, and did she say it before others noticed the book, or did she hope no one would notice?

In the book, Caruso-Cabrera calls Medicare and Social Security “the country’s biggest pyramid schemes,” and wrote that she would end both programs in favor of a privatized voucher system. Medicare, Caruso-Cabrera wrote, “is another pay-as-you-go Ponzi scheme” that should be replaced with a health savings account that gives “seniors $1,000 or $2,000 a year to start.” Social Security, she notes, should be replaced with a private account system, in which Americans are incentivized to invest in the stock market.

Caruso-Cabrera devotes an entire chapter to the many policy successes of the Reagan administration, and writes that she favors tax cuts and deregulation, including eliminating entire federal agencies such as the Labor Department.

Some of the most strident language in the book is reserved for the Obama administration’s attempts to crack down on wealthy individuals who had taken advantage of offshore tax havens. The push to force Switzerland to hand over the names of U.S. nationals using secret bank accounts to dodge taxes, she wrote, put America on a “dangerous path” that would enable foreign dictatorships to similarly seize wealth kept abroad.

“Freedom and democracy are best secured when banking secrecy and tax havens exist,” Caruso-Cabrera wrote.

https://theintercept.com/2020/04/15/aoc-primary-challenger-cabruso-cabrera-wall-street/

Choice, eh? The campaign response to this criticism was bland Republican: "MCC has said from the very beginning she got into this race to bring jobs and opportunity back to the working people of the Bronx and Queens. When she’s elected, her office will be ‘open for business.’ Now, more than ever we need jobs". No "I have grown out of that sophomoric libertarian nonsense" or anything.

[Baltimike]

53. Yes, she was...and the head of the Young Republicans at her college. nt

[George II]

66. She worked for/with the republican party when she was a teenager (and maybe at 20?) but...

...she was never a registered republican. Much of it was to become experienced in the workings of politics. Had she exposure to Democrats in politics at that time there's a good chance she would have been a Democrat back then.

Her biography says that she walked away from the republican party in 1968. At that time there were only four states with voting ages less than 21, none of which she ever lived in.

She turned 21, voting age, in October 1968.

[Blue_true]

113. People like to use her being a Goldwater Girl against Hillary.

As if a young teen trying to please her very republican Dad is the same person that Hillary turned into. The fact is at college, Hillary became a liberal and never looked back.

[LizBeth]

17. People haev got to let the HRC one go. She picked up her father's politics. Once old enough to own

her own opinions she went and stayed and has always been a Democrat. This HRC was a Republican is old.

[brooklynite]

23. But that's my point...

Her opinions changed. I'll judge each person by their positions, not what they used to be.

[LizBeth]

28. And my point is you can hardly claim a child a party when as an adult they choose their party.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I think the point is valid, but not with HRC. It sounds like Caruso-Cabrera has not changed her belief system but merely walked into the Democratic party to get elected, not represent its views.

[brooklynite]

33. Clinton was 17 when Goldwater ran; she wasn't a "child".

[LizBeth]

41. And she was not an adult out of home and its influence. This is a silly argument and you want to

hold onto it for whatever reason, ok. But, you know better and just sound silly arguing a 17 year old political position when it changed 180 as soon as out in real world. I was a Reagan Democrat in '80. By 84 I saw the air of my ways. The home I grew up in. No way can I own "being a Republican" but hey, if at 17 (as I was at that time not even able to vote) then whatever. Literally.

[not_the_one]

45. Yes, we all had our shit together while still in high school.

I know I certainly did...

I didn't know Ms CC moved from Turd Tower, nor had republican donors. It sure helps to focus on intentions.

[brooklynite]

58. I could hold my own in a discussion on Watergate with any adult when I was 15....

[Blue_true]

123. You mean you didn't have your shit together at 17?

Goodness, I wasn't the only one. That is good to know.

[Baltimike]

54. She became a Democrat when she was asked to give a speech endorsing the Viet Nam War...

ior, rather, she was set to give a speech when some man gets to the podium talking about how real patriots support the war, and she was all fuck that, and told him so right then and there.


It's awesome, and so is she. I think aoc will be fine.

[TheFarseer]

67. I'm not a huge HRC fan but

I can definitely tell you, you don’t know jack at 17. I only knew what my dad told me about politics in high school. I’ve got to give her a pass on this one.

[Blue_true]

122. You are really getting desperate in your argument.

A 17 year old person knowing exactly what he or she is? Heavens!!!!!!!

[Autumn]

71. I don't believe Hillary or Liz ever advocated privatizing SS and cutting Medicare.

I've seen no evidence that Michelle Caruso-Cabrera has changed her opinion on those things. Even her web site doesn't mention much at all, almost like she doesn't want to state her opinion.

[Blue_true]

118. Your argument is obscene.

There is no way to compare a teenaged girl whose politics changed as soon as she became independent to a woman who as little as two years ago was advocating for drastic alterations of SS and Medicare.

Your claim about Warren is also a cad, Warren became a comitted liberal twenty years ago after doing research on bankruptcies and seeing that the people trapped in them were not deadbeats.

If you want to keep defending MCC, then name ten core democratic principles that she is solid on.

[betsuni]

13. If someone said "The business model, if you will, of the Democratic Party for the last 15 years

or so has been a failure" and about the Democratic Party: "They have no ideology. Their ideology is opportunism" and "My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt" and "Certainly, there are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo, they would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first class seats" and calling Democrats elites and establishment and other nonsense insults instead of going after the real enemy, Republicans, would you support him?

[sheshe2]

18. +1

[LizBeth]

19. Good point.

[NurseJackie]

27. And...

[DenverJared]

31. +1,000,000

[R B Garr]

32. There it is! It's not complicated.

Thank you.

[JonLP24]

44. When Centrists Sounded Like Bernie

The reason Dukakis lost was because he had no message. Good jobs at good wages is not a message. Saying that the election is not about ideology but about competence is a joke.

Elections are about ideology. They’re about values and what you stand for. We didn’t offer any vision for the future, any argument for change. The kind of change we were offering said, “We’ll get rid of their hacks and put our hacks in.”

The Democratic Party has become the other Inside party. In 1988 there was an incumbent inside party and a challenger inside party. There was no candidate that got up and said we must have a crusade to save America.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/mainstream-democrat/

Anyways MCC called for the end of Medicare & Social Security.

[Blue_true]

125. If those things were stated in reference to us having not been bold enough

progressives, I would just role my eyes.

AOC making those statements is a lot different than MCC wanting to privatize SS, a stalwart republican position for decades. Name ten core democratic principles that MCC is for.

[Eliot Rosewater]

142. Yeah, I am with you...I have never felt fully comfy with AOC because it seeems

she thought she had it all figured out and was gonna show Nancy and others how to do it, while in reality had a ton to learn.

But if her opponent has said those things and has not aggressively loudly come out and denounced them, then I dont know what the discussion is about in the first place.

I would rather have a loud mouth know nothing pain in the ass who is FOR our issues than a calm, seemingly reasonable person against them.

I am NOT saying AOC is that or her opponent is that, just making a point that the issues is all I care about and not a wit about personality and these issues are hardcore basics of our party.

I get mainstream democrats not liking AOC but to come after her with this person? Makes no sense to me at all. To come after her with someone like this is like saying they dont care how bad the other person is, they dislike AOC that much...I dont get it.

ps

AOC anti D party comments over the years have been counterproductive to what we want to accomplish...but worse would be a republican

[Blue_true]

146. AOC is rough around the edges and she intervenes in too many

Democrat versus democrat races, but her core values are basically those of a democrat, with the socialist extra (that I pass on) thrown in.

I know that when I was young, I was absolutely sure that I was right about anything that I cared passionately about. I look back on some of that stuff now and hang my head. But I have remained true to my core values, of that I am proud.

I just don't know what the gent's issues with AOC are. I remember that when she won that primary two years ago, he was absolutely bullshit. From what I see of him, he is a sound democrat, so other than demanding that he explain how MCC is acceptable, he deserves to be cut some slack. But like I said, I just don't understand the hard anti-AOC position of him and a few other solid DUERS.

Now, if a solid and proven democrat was challenging AOC with a chance to win, then I would be in that person's camp. MCC simply is not that person by a longshot.

[Eliot Rosewater]

147. No, doesnt appear MCC is that at all.

[jalan48]

21. For some, it's all about the uniform.

[marmar]

22. I definitely don't support her.

I don't live in the district, so I can't vote, but I donated to AOC's campaign. This is not a district where we have to worry about a Republican opponent, so supporting the more progressive candidate is a no-brainer.

[brooklynite]

25. At the end of today, Ruben Diaz, Sr is far more likely to become a Member of Congress...

I haven't seen anything approaching the criticism that Caruso-Cabrera receives applied to him.

[JonLP24]

46. I criticized him too

[NurseJackie]

26. This post serves no good purpose.

Stop it.

[DenverJared]

30. False equivalence

I supported Senator Warren and she was a republican.

Using extreme cases doesn't help because then it becomes rhetoric.

It is like asking "if god shows up at your door, would you have a wish for him to fulfill?"

[H2O Man]

34. Recommended.

[Ms. Toad]

35. Nonsensical question.

The first 4 support policies that are completely antithetical to my deeply held values. Their political party is completely irrelevant to whether i support them or not.

I know nothing at all about the last person, but whether i would support her depends on her political agenda, not the party she belongs to, and certainly not whether i support anyone else who switched parties.

[melman]

42. It's not a nonsensical question

The last person is every bit as odious as the first four yet we have people here shilling for her. That's the point.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

55. The AOC stalker gang. Lol

[Ms. Toad]

81. Making decision about whether to support a specific person

based on a hypothetical that you would not support 4 identifiably evil people if they magically became democrats is illogical and irresponsible.

Evaluate each politician on their own merits. What any other politician believes or does, which party they belong to, or whether those other candidates have switched parties is completely irrelevant to evaluating whether this 5th politician is or is not evil.

[melman]

82. Okay

Whatever. Some people seem really determined not to get this. Kind of strange if you ask me..but whatever.

[Ms. Toad]

139. A significant portion of my education is directly or indirectly in logic.

Your argument was structured as a logical argument, but your premises were flawed.

It isn't a matter of "getting" it. It is a matter of rejecting logical arguments that are based on flawed premises.

She may well be evil - but if there is reason for me to do so, I'll evaluate it on the merits - not on the basis that 4 other people would still be evil regardless of their party affiliation. Some people switch because they have decided their views align more with the Democrats than with the Republicans. You've been given examples of several in this thread.

[melman]

140. I didn't say you didn't get it

I said 'determined not to get it'. Meaning you don't want to. You want to make into some complicated thing..

But the question here is very simple. "If you wouldn't support these awful people why would you support this one?"


It's relevant not at all nonsensical. In my opinion. And that's the last I'm going to say about it.

[Ms. Toad]

141. Your relevancy problem is including "If you wouldn't support these awful people."

Support for any individual person who switches from being Republican to being Democrat depends SOLELY on the character of that person.

It is completely unrelated to whether you support any other awful (or even good) people who hypothetically switch parties.

[SidDithers]

36. If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle...nt

Sid

[LeftInTX]

37. I don't support crazy people!!!

Dems included and we've had a few...Trump is crazy.....

[JonLP24]

47. She is not crazy

Like Hasan Minhaj said I'm normal, politics is crazy. AOC is one of the few normal ones.

[LeftInTX]

69. Trump is crazy...original post asked if we would support Trump if he switched to Democratic

[Blue_true]

129. AOC is very idealistic.

There are older women in Congress who were the same. Nancy Pelosi and a few others came to Washington to burn the damed place down, over time they realized that to get the things done that they wanted done, they couldn't crap on other people's cornflakes. AOC at 40 is unlikely to be like the AOC at 30, people mature and gain insight.

[Autumn]

40. Hell no to supporting Trump, Graham, Sessions, and McConnell. They could become registered Dems,

registered Gods and I would still never support them. They don't have a quarter of a brain between them all. As for why so many support Michelle Caruso-Cabrera? She's running for AOC's seat. If she decided to primary any other Dem, like Pelosi for instance, she would be hated with the heat of a 1000 suns. Your OP hit a lot of nerves.

[melman]

43. No

I would not support Donald Trump, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Sessions or Mitch McConnell. Ever.

A very easy question to answer. And yet some are reluctant/unable/unwilling to answer it.


Odd. Very odd.

[Polybius]

50. No

But in Kentucky, running her might be the the best shot. I'd certainly vote for her over Mitch. But I'm torn because I really love Booker. But will Kentucky give him a chance?

[yellowdogintexas]

51. Not just NO but HELL!!! NO!!!!

I would not vote for any of them, because I could never bring myself to support someone with the lack of values shown by each of them.

I could not trust them to vote for anything a real Democrat would propose. I would expect each of them to vote with Republicans or abstain.

Would I vote for the opposition Republican? No because they would essentially be worse than any of these guys.

I'd have to do something I have never done in my entire voting life: skip a contest on the ballot.

None of those bastards deserve to return to their current offices anyway, regardless of party.

If Mango Menace should suddenly switch parties he would never make it out of the primary

[arthritisR_US]

59. That's a good question. I think she's a

Bannon plant because her entry rings through and through of his playbook.

[Kaleva]

60. I would not support them in a primary but would if they became the nominee.

To not do so would be a violation of TOS and is a banable offense.

[Marrah_Goodman]

62. I would just not speak of her on DU

But I would not i n any way support someone who thinks like her.

[Kaleva]

68. The contest between the two is irrelevant to me.

As I'm not a resident of the district and do not presume to know what is best for them.

[Marrah_Goodman]

61. Because the ones that do have a visceral hate for AOC.

[brooklynite]

75. Am I to understand that the ONLY reason one would vote against AOC is "visceral hate"?

[Marrah_Goodman]

78. The only reason a progressive would vote for a Dino like her, yes, In my opinion.

[progressoid]

63. Other than being anti-AOC, what are her positions?

Her website is strangely devoid of policy positions.

https://michellecc2020.com/

[brooklynite]

77. If Bernie Sanders were to become a registered Democrat, would you support him?

How someone was previously registered is meaningless. There are former Republicans whom I support as Democrats. There are lifelong Democrats whom I would never support (one will be likely be winning a House seat in a Safe D district this evening). I'll judge each Democratic Primary candidate on their merits (or lack thereof).

[melman]

80. Kind of seems like you are deliberately missing the point here

[Dem4Life1102]

83. Yes judge each by their merits

So when someone who has publicly advocated right wing positions for years including privatizing Social Security & Medicare and has yet to publicly reverse those prior positions, how should that person be judged, regardless if they have a (D) after their name or not?

[ismnotwasm]

84. *snort*

[Autumn]

85. Bernie has never been a Republican, registered or otherwise. Nor has he ever advocated doing away

with Social Security and Medicare. He also caucuses with Democrats.

[NurseJackie]

93. Of course he's not a Republican...

[Autumn]

98. Yes he is a socialist. And a damn fine consistent one at that. You will never hear him advocating

cuts to SS or Medicare.

[NurseJackie]

101. Consistency isn't always a virtue.

The ability to reflect and change is a personal quality that I value more. The ability to seek common ground and find compromise for the sake of making progress is a virtue. A consistent "take it or leave it" and a consistent "my way or the highway" and a consistent "all or nothing" attitude really doesn't impress me much, and it's certainly not a way to make progress.

And a damn fine consistent one at that.

I'm a loyal Democrat not a Socialist. I don't support Socialists or Socialism.

[Autumn]

109. It all depends on what one is constant about. nt

[NurseJackie]

112. Thank you for agreeing with me. I appreciate your honesty.

[Autumn]

114. That word "agreeing" you accuse me of doing?

[NurseJackie]

117. And thanks again for helping to prove my point.

I haven't insulted your intelligence. Why are you insulting me? What good purpose does that serve? I can only surmise that based on your overreaction, it's obvious that I've struck a nerve.

[Autumn]

119. jackie jackie

[NurseJackie]

127. Again, I thank you!

[ismnotwasm]

133. Holy shit Did I just read the words "He's a Socialist"????

😆 😆 😆

Game changer

[NurseJackie]

134. You didn't read it anywhere in the post you're replying to...

... but I hardly think it was a "game changer". If it had been a genuine "game changer" then we'd have a different nominee.

[SMC22307]

148. Consistency about not cutting Democratic signature programs of SS and Medicare is ALWAYS a virtue.

[ehrnst]

164. Consistency...

Sanders' Social Security 'adjustments' undercut Biden attack

Democrats are attacking Trump’s Medicare ‘cuts.’ But Bernie Sanders’s ‘Medicare for all’ requires them, too.

[ehrnst]

163. If you call cuts "adjustments..." then it's totally different, I guess.

Sanders' Social Security 'adjustments' undercut Biden attack

Democrats are attacking Trump’s Medicare ‘cuts.’ But Bernie Sanders’s ‘Medicare for all’ requires them, too.

[Humanist_Activist]

169. So the Democratic Party is big enough for the most extreme right wing pro-capitalists...

But not for even the mildest of Socialists? Even though, historicly, Bernie has always caucused with Democrats.

[NurseJackie]

170. Oh, brother.

mildest of Socialists?

Oh, brother.

Bernie has always caucused with Democrats.

It's my understanding that he only votes with the Democrats about 80% of the time, however.

[Humanist_Activist]

171. Bernie calls himself a Socialist but he's at best a milquetoast Social Democrat.

And it's the caucusing that matters when it comes to determining majorities, etc.

[NurseJackie]

172. Heavy sigh.

Bernie calls himself a Socialist but he's at best a milquetoast Social Democrat.

And it's the caucusing that matters when it comes to determining majorities, etc.

So, someone's voting record doesn't matter at all? I do not believe that how one "caucuses" should be a free pass for being able to smear and denigrate the Democratic party with public proclamations that Democrats are "ideologically bankrupt" (that's not true); or that Democrats are "feeble" (that's not true); or that the Democratic party is "corrupt" (that's not true); or that the Democratic party is "an absolute failure" (that's not true); or that the Democratic party is "the party of the elite" (also not true); or that "there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans (another false statement); or that the Democrats are "do-nothings" (completely false); or that the Democratic party "doesn't care about climate change (blatantly false); or that the Democrats "focus too much on diversity" (how absurd!) or that Democrats who "are very big into diversity" aren't "particularly sympathetic" to the working class (heavy-sigh!).

Here's the thing... that type of anti-Democratic-party rhetoric serves NO good purpose. In fact, it hurts the party. The lies and smears and attacks only serve to create an atmosphere of negativity: Negativity generates apathy. Apathy discourages voter turnout. Low voter turnout gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

107. Don't have a real say, since I'm not in that district. But there's no fucking way I'd vote

for Teabagger Karen in a primary.

[Blue_true]

110. Some here are letting their problems (valid in most cases) with AOC

cause them to view Carusso-Cabrera as something that she isn't. MCC doesn't share our core values, AOC actually comes closer in that regard.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

120. Assuming they kept all of their same positions?

Hell no. And I couldn't bring myself to support Donald Trump even if he were a Democrat.

[LanternWaste]

124. Would he pretend Cenyk "makes good points" and is a progressive?

Would he tell us "Biden's not a good guy, but I'm urging people to vote for him..." Would he preach unity in public, but practice divisive politics as a piratical habit? Would he advertise libertarian entertainers who trash Democrats on a progressive board?


If so, I'd suggest Trump's just a simpleton and a trolls, pretending to be smarter than he is for his own benefit.

[melman]

128. That's a lot of words

But it's hard not to notice the word "no" is not among them.

[sakabatou]

143. I have no idea who that woman is.

Nor do I know why so many support her.

[Sapient Donkey]

144. I would really depend on if they can make a convincing case they changed

and would support ideals that I believe in. With exception to Trump. Even if I was convinced he did a total 180, I don't think I could support him because he's just too stupid.

It would really depend on if I believed them, though. I'm not sure what that would take, but I am certain it would be require action to prove it. As for how that applies to Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, I don't know. I simply don't know enough about her to say either way. If she was someone who was vying for my vote, then I would dig in more, but I can't vote either way. So, I would save that in-depth research to those who do have a say in that election. While not as extreme as this lady, I recall Beto had some similar issues brought up against him. I supported Beto because I felt confident in what he believes now.

[struggle4progress]

145. "The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things:

Of shoes — and ships — and sealing-wax — of cabbages — and kings —
And why the sea is boiling hot — and whether pigs have wings"

[ecstatic]

162. I don't know Michelle's story, but the other 4 questions were insulting.

Putin's Puppet Quartet have caused untold pain and terror in this country. All 4 of those individuals belong in prison.