Beanie dems will probably reform the democratic party, Justice dems will make something else

Or take over another party

See the Left likes to say how Trump was a revenge move against the Dems. Even the Beanie likes to say how right wing Trump is
None of that is true
Trump was a life long member of the Dems, a New Yorker.
Trump wasn't supposed to win, and Hillary was, he was revenge against the establishment which has largely failed
Tea Party Failed, OWS failed, all these "populist" movements failed it had nothing to do with US definition of right or left

Seems i can't argue why i disagree or i'm just a contrarian.

But if the Dems win 2020 it will be about revenge

Especially for the progressives

Hillary in 2016 had Obama years, so the base wasn't as "passionate"

@IImploreYouToRemoveYourself You might be right, but I currently can't imagine a Democratic Party that isn't tripping over themselves to appeal to the far leftists in their party. I don't think we can say for sure how things would have gone with Hillary in charge. She is a politicaition at her core, and she would probably appeal to them if she could. Possibly push their agenda even more with her presidencial power.

Yes it is difficult, but we do know she's from the Pelosi pool of the Dem's she'd probably say a lot of stuff but wouldn't do it. I mean look at Pelosi she has the progressives wanting to impeach Drumpf and all that, but Pelosi, Pelosi of all people is like, "yeah no" I think the bigger issue is not what Hillary would have done but what say Warren or Harris would do. Because Warren was a war hawk before, and now she's not etc. It's hard to say how far the new brand would go into the progressive pit. But, they've all been more willing to throw their weight behind it, and unlike with 2016 Hillary, if the dems don't live up, they'll eat their own.
I think the ONLY thing we can take as a given is that the progressives will riot, no matter what happens

Pretty much. They are pushing to the left with no resistance from anyone but conservatives and a few moderates (which they ignore). They see all of their left wing pursuits as morally correct, and are following the "right side of history" mentality.

Actually you know what Bernie might be better. Consider this: He gets a bunch of broke people to give him money people that write "I have 120k in college debt but I'm giving $2000 to Bernie because 'fuck the system'" Bernie could say "Okay guys, you get free college, but I need a really big campaign, because the system is rigged against me" "You just have to raise $20 trillion"

The moderate thing is also a big problem of mine, because in this crazy world the Beanie is considered center left, Trump is considered right, etc Trump allowed bump stock ban and considered silencers, the Beanie is in favor of a lot of equity and redistribution stuff. Trump is center right (now) at best, the beanie is left. The dems are communist yet "oh everyone else is just so far to the right"

I agree with everything you have said and have no contentions with any of it.

At this point, I am just waiting for the Democrat party to collapse. The left is going too far and getting dangerous.

You said you disagreed with Hillary 2016 being better than the current Dem Candidates so agreeing with Bernie being better is at least in line with your previous statement

I was being sarcastic, as i am not allowed to disagree.

Anyway, I don't know if we'll be that lucky. The show discussed what will happen if the Dems win, and they'll rig everything to make it happen. Unlikely since so many people are tired of their corruption. But, if they do you'll probably get people to actually leave, forget about protests. Progressives said they'd flee to Canada and mexico. No one did. But, you'll see the rich move over to Switzerland, or Singapore or other countries if the Dem's win

In other words you're being contrarian towards your own opinion because you've imposed some sort of rule on yourself, fair enough, but look at where that got Skag, Youtube won't even ban him

I didn't impose any rules on myself, you did...
Well other then the ones i normally have.

@Shadows if you follow up your statement of "I wholly disagree" with a counterargument/reasons why you disagree, then ppl may not be so quick to call you a contrarian. give them something to work with.

Cam anyone explain to me why Mitch McConnell is a bogeyman to the dems in as few words as possible?

I think they would say he violates/skirts Senate rules to pass Republican bills and abused the rules he now skirts when he was minority leader

Which I can kind of get but they would have to ignore when they did the same thing

call out your own side? never

he's an old white man in charge of something

I think @micamike45 has it. He is evil because he is doing to the Democrats what they did to the Republicans when they were in control. Assuming he's actually doing that, at least. Color me shocked at the realization that people like San Fran Nan and Chucky Schmucky lie.

Because he's cocaine mitch

@IImploreYouToRemoveYourself she would be worse than Tulsi.

Pretty sure most these Dems (Hillary included) would have started WW3 by bombing the shit out of Iran by now

@Big T
No, @Shadows is just a contrairian. Tell him the sky's blue, he'll find a cloud.

Besides the fact it's impossible to really know that, using that to dismiss an argument deflates debate. If you sense there's a contradiction in someone's views, try and get them on it. Maybe there never was a contradiction

@RoadtoDawn
I've seen him at work. Trust me, he is.
And contrairian means you'll take an oppositional position just to take it.

Then I suppose you're keeping score of every single thing he's ever advocated? It's a prerequisite to have good reason to believe if someone is arguing only to argue. If you see someone contradicting themselves from an earlier argument, ask them about it and maybe you'll score a point if they're going back on what they said arbitrarily

It could be that they disagree with many of your viewpoints, and is the reason you argue a lot

I guess we smoked out the other contrairian...
And no. Of it were "just me" (which is what I assumed at first), it'd STILL be "just me."

There's too much to consider in order to use the word with confidence. And again, it just nukes debate

well-substantiated explanation

@RoadtoDawn, @WisdomVendor;
*"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced... [b]ut I know it when I see it ..."*
-Supreme Court Justice Potter STEWART hen asked to define *'obsenity'" in a porn case in 1964.

2A also got gutted in the same decade

@Mandatory Carry I have no doubt that's how you see things, fam

@Big T I was more then happy to follow up with Why i disagreed. But it wasn't even worth it at that point as he already put me in a position that the only possible reason i have to disagree was just do disagree.

@Shadows I would say to follow up with why in the same response. you are not pidgeon-holed into disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, as a response with a why (even after he calls you a contrarian) would still be something worthy of discussing.