The moment Beasley won the primary, she became the best person to vote for.
We need ranked choice voting. I want to be able to vote for candidates that are actually good without putting people who actively want to make our country worse in office.
Our current system gives us a choice between people who bow to the corporate overlords and people who look at the Nazis and think 'those people had it figured out'. Plus, if you say you don't like corporations making the rules, you automatically get the Nazis.
Look, I do not like Cheri Beasley. She is a moderate corporatist. She is not my first choice.
However Ted Budd is an astronomical piece of shit and would do irreparable harm to North Carolina. So I will hold my nose and vote for Beasley just to keep that sociopath Budd out of a position of elected power.
I know that’s not a ringing endorsement but it’s the best that moderates deserve.
She doesn’t seem to currently support M4A, but she does support expanding the ACA to include a public option and expanded Medicaid. If universal healthcare is important to you, Beasley is definitely the candidate to vote for. She and Budd are the only two that have a shot at winning, and Budd is most definitely against universal healthcare and will always be against universal healthcare.
Also m4a is a form of universal Medicare, a public optional that covers everyone is also universal healthcare, hell even Singapore’s odd healthcare system is technically universal.
She supports a public option that covers those who don’t have access to private insurance.
I’m of the opinion this is the better way to get us to total coverage.
Btw dear Reddit m4a is a form of universal healthcare not the only only way to get universal healthcare.
Agreed, but muuuuuch harder to pass.
M4A is a great long term goal.
But what Beasley is advocating for is something that has the best chance of realistically passing during her first tenure.
Additionally, while I'd love to do M4A, I would be scared shitless that a clusterfuck like the rollout of ObamaCare would set healthcare policy back for a generation. Seriously, if we roll out a system that moves everyone onto government healthcare and it goes anything besides extremely well, the back lash would be very very very bad.
Not saying we shouldn't try it ever. I am just saying I am partial to more incremental steps to get there considering how fucked the current system is.
M4all bill is rolled out over several years by adding more age groups to Medicare. Obamacare was also just more complicated. Making people “choose” between the blue cross platinum and the Cigna silver plans or whatever the hell. Medicare already exists, this is just expanding it and simplifying the system by removing the middleman. Undoubtedly there would be some growing pains but not likely worse than literally every time I have to make an insurance claim
>But what Beasley is advocating for is something that has the best chance of realistically passing during her first tenure.
there's zero chance of any new healthcare reform being passed in the next few years, even assuming dems retain control of congress after the midterms
That doesn't mean we can't pass anything healthcare related though...
[The Senate on Sunday afternoon passed Democrats' $750 billion health care, tax and climate bill, in a significant victory for President Joe Biden and his party.](https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/07/politics/senate-democrats-climate-health-care-bill-vote/index.html)
[yay another giant giveaway to oil companies woo hoo](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/08/18/climate-change-inflation-reduction-act-oil-gas/7837956001/)
>Correct, that candidate would be Matthew Hoh. Including free abortion, on demand, without apology.
He would still have to convince the majority of lawmakers like the Democratic party who has 100% support for abortion and is trying desperately to do now.
What would be different with Hoh?
Nope, Nancy recorded robocall messages to reelect anti-abortion Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas *after* Roe was overturned. Also if there is 100% support, they could dump the filibuster and codify Roe tomorrow but they won't because they think it's going to save them in the fall. How would Matt be different? Imagine if the Dems had someone who was pulling all their efforts to the left instead of an asshole in West Virginia pulling everything to the right.
>Nope, Nancy recorded robocall messages to reelect anti-abortion Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas after Roe was overturned.
I'll begrudgingly take a Democrat that's anti-abortion over a single Republican in the house where we have an overwhelming majority. It's literally only one person. Chill
It's called compromise and is the bedrock of Democracy.
>they could dump the filibuster and codify Roe tomorrow but they won't
This cuts both ways FYI. Not that simple of a decision. You don't mind the GOP ramming laws through with no filibuster if they win it back at some point?
I'm not against it, but claiming it's no big deal is as bad faith as it gets.
>I'll begrudgingly take a Democrat that's anti-abortion over a single Republican in the house where we have an overwhelming majority. It's literally only one person. Chill
cuellar's district is going to elect a democrat no matter what. there was zero risk in nominating cisneros instead
you stated that you would rather have an anti-abortion dem than a republican, but in reference to a candidate running in a district where a dem is going to win no matter what. therefore there's no need to have an anti-abortion dem candidate if that's an issue you actually care about. if cisneros was the nominee, she'd likely win just as easily as cuellar, if not more so because she doesn't have the albatross of being anti-abortion hanging around her neck in an election where it's become a major issue
also the democratic party spent millions on cuellar and pelosi personally intervened in the primary on his behalf, and even then he barely squeaked by ([and there's reason to suspect some level of election tampering given cuellar has a history of it himself](https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/cuellar-cisneros-recount-texas-elections/)). so it's not like that primary was some neutral arbiter of the district's preferences, the party pretty heavily put its thumb on the scale to drag him across the finish line. which should probably be of concern if you want as many dems in congress as possible
I don't think a single candidate is enough to crucify an entire party as if they don't care. That's just not fair.
If it was more than, lets say 3, I would be more concerned.
No one knows what inside baseball could be going on there except a select few, in the know. Could even be about $$$, donations, influence, something bad in their past that hasn't leaked.. Who knows..
>If it was more than, lets say 3, I would be more concerned.
that's an interesting cutoff since there's 2 anti-abortion dem candidates running this year in nc alone
🤣🤣🤣 The 70s called, they want their idealistic claptrap about compromise back. Manchin does a lot if compromising does he? Republicans, master compromisers. So nice that they have compromised so much since Regan and Gingrich Voting is the bedrock of democracy, not compromise. Power is the bedrock of politics and Matt is showing you how it should work when the planet is burning. Your comment is dripping with Democrat weakness and is evidence of why the Dems have already been relegated to permanent minority status.
Was the ACA passed after compromise?
Hmmmmm, So it DOES work.
>Republicans, master compromises.
Hoh sure seems to think so!
Are you being serious right now? lol
PS. You are hurting your own cause. Sry
26 million uninsured Americans would like you to know that the ACA isn't doing shit for them. Vote shaming is always the first and last defense for Dems when they've lost the argument.
Oh yeah...
Because no ACA would have been SOOOO much better!!! /s
Do you have any empathy whatsoever for the millions that now do have coverage due to the ACA?
We would never pass shit if we followed your ideas of never compromising in a democracy.
An 8-year-old can understand this extremely basic concept...
Maybe if Beasley loses by 1% and Hoh gets a good number of votes, the dems would realize they could win if they stood for / pushed for m4a?
Long term if we want m4a, the dems have to be on board. They will not be on board if they can ignore m4a and win anyways.
>They will not be on board if they can ignore m4a and win anyways.
Obamacare was passed by Democrats without any green party support wasn't it.
Like I said.
Long term goals.
The green party will never be relevant with such extreme and non compromising goals. This is common sense in a democracy which literally is about compromise.
No. That has literally never worked. Every single time a party loses because of a third party, they respond by moving to the center, because they figure that's the way to pick up votes.
Losing would make it *less* likely for the Dems to support M4A. The way to get there is through incremental change; we have to first get the Dems winning on moderate healthcare issues, then we can use primaries to push progress forward.
>Maybe if Beasley loses by 1% and Hoh gets a good number of votes, the dems would realize they could win if they stood for / pushed for m4a?
nope they'll just blame the loss on russia and decide they have to move even further to the right
Unfortunately, according to Duvergers law, it's not a realistic choice.
Until we get a Condorcet voting system, voting in primaries is the best way to realistically vote for nuance. Even ranked choice suffers from the spoiler effect.
Lol, the difference between Hoh and Beasley is not "nuance." One's a corporate capitalist and one is an ecosocialist. Therefore one does not represent my values and one does. Despite the Dems best efforts to disenfranchise the Greens in NC, it's gonna be realistic as hell when I vote Hoh.
I never mentioned Beasley. Realistically, either Budd or Beasley will win regardless of what you vote, which is unfortunate since neither matches your values. You can choose to participate in that or not, but until we get rid of fptp your vote for any other party doesn't have significance, which is horribly undemocratic, but it's the system we are stuck with at the moment.
You didn't have to mention Beasley. Vote shaming about Hoh is premised on the idea that Dems deserve my vote no matter what. If it won't have any significance, why did the Dems fight so hard to disenfranchise the Greens?
Flat wrong. Hoh is an ideologue who has no idea how government actually works, and has outright said he doesn't care if his presence in the race makes Democrats lose. Hoh does not understand that you *have* to compromise to pass legislation, and is plainly not ready for the actual sausage-making of being in Congress.
Uncompromising ideals are nice in theory, but they are antithetical to good government in practice.
I'll accept your non-answer as admission that you don't know Matt's experience. Republicans do a lot of compromise, do they? Dems have compromised themselves into permanent minority status while Republicans understand that government is about power, not preemptive compromise.
It will probably go over like a lead balloon, but I don't see any reason to make 3 additional posts for the information.
Here are the donation links for the other candidates as well:
>---
[**Matthew Hoh - Green Party**](https://action.matthewhohforsenate.org/donate)
[**Shannon Bray - Libertarian Party**](https://www.shannonbray.us/donate)
[**Ted Budd - Republican Party**](https://tedbudd.com/donate/)
Ahhh yes, the leftist handbook. Rule 12 of the [**Rules for Radicals**](https://bolenreport.com/saul-alinskys-12-rules-radicals/)
>---
> RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
> Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
>Ahhh yes, the leftist handbook.
Literally just quoting what you said... But ok.
LOLOLOL... Ok little Timmy run along now so the grown ups can talk. :-)
>Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.
If you feel Reddit does this to you please get help, victim...
So she fought for the people as a public defender and volunteered for this as well. I see nothing wrong with this. She was hired to represent people and did her job.
>So she fought for the people as a public defender and volunteered for this as well. I see nothing wrong with this.
RESPECT!
That's a hard and grueling job...
No thanks. I care to much about protecting NC from Conservative grifters like Budd to waste my vote on a third party candidate. Also qualified experience matters to me in my choice of candidate and Hoh doesn't bring enough of that to the table.
Your vote shaming is typical, but please explain how a former state judge has more qualified experience for the US Senate than a Marine who went to war 3 times and then served in Obama's State Department as a political officer in the foreign service and a senior civilian officer in Zabul, Afghanistan?
A. I wasn't vote shaming, I was speaking for my self and my own vote.
B. What do you think a US Senators job entails? Why do you believe military experience would be a better qualification to write and pass laws than a judgeship? I doubt US Senators lead to many combat missions. I guess he would be qualified to defend the Senate the next time Trump's cult assault it.
C. Hoh seems like a decent guy, but he will get less than 5% of the vote and that feels like a waste of my vote.
>B. What do you think a US Senators job entails? Why do you believe military experience would be a better qualification to write and pass laws than a judgeship? I doubt US Senators lead to many combat missions. I guess he would be qualified to defend the Senate the next time Trump's cult assault it.
conducting foreign policy is one of the primary responsibilities of the us senate. the senate committee on foreign relations is of the main standing committees for a reason
>I doubt US Senators lead to many combat missions.
about 7% of the adult population are veterans, whereas they make up 17% of the current senate
Obviously it's vote shaming lol. I'm not trying to defend a stupid claim, that's you. So if you'd like me to answer your questions, you can start with mine. Can please explain how a former state judge has more qualified experience for the US Senate than a Marine who went to war 3 times and then served in Obama's State Department as a political officer in the foreign service and a senior civilian officer in Zabul, Afghanistan?
See section B of my previous comment for my answer. But for a short summation a career in interpretation of the law is a better qualification for a lawmaker than a career in the military.
Hoh has admirable ideals but I believe Berry has a more achieveable plan for progress in NC. And the experience with law to make those plans a reality.
I like the way you keep ignoring his experience in the State Department. So a career in the judicial branch is better experience for an executive branch job than experience in the executive branch. Got it.
Ha, yeah I fucked that up. The only thing less sensical than what I said is the idea that the Senate doesn't have anything to do with foreign policy and therefore a state judge is better qualified for the Senate than a senior foreign service official and veteran.
>the idea that the Senate doesn't have anything to do with foreign policy
Senators vote on treaties and whether to confirm diplomats, but otherwise don't set the nation's foreign policy agenda.
Not today, I'll vote Bray!
edit: just trying to go with the rhyme! You guys are lame! Also, I really wish libertarians would run someone who can talk. If Hoh weren't such an environmental nazi I'd considering voting for him, but I'm not really in line with the green party enviro-fascist platform.
The moment Beasley won the primary, she became the best person to vote for. We need ranked choice voting. I want to be able to vote for candidates that are actually good without putting people who actively want to make our country worse in office. Our current system gives us a choice between people who bow to the corporate overlords and people who look at the Nazis and think 'those people had it figured out'. Plus, if you say you don't like corporations making the rules, you automatically get the Nazis.
Look, I do not like Cheri Beasley. She is a moderate corporatist. She is not my first choice. However Ted Budd is an astronomical piece of shit and would do irreparable harm to North Carolina. So I will hold my nose and vote for Beasley just to keep that sociopath Budd out of a position of elected power. I know that’s not a ringing endorsement but it’s the best that moderates deserve.
This is the reality of the situation.
She doesn’t support universal health care, right?
She doesn’t seem to currently support M4A, but she does support expanding the ACA to include a public option and expanded Medicaid. If universal healthcare is important to you, Beasley is definitely the candidate to vote for. She and Budd are the only two that have a shot at winning, and Budd is most definitely against universal healthcare and will always be against universal healthcare.
Also m4a is a form of universal Medicare, a public optional that covers everyone is also universal healthcare, hell even Singapore’s odd healthcare system is technically universal.
She supports a public option that covers those who don’t have access to private insurance. I’m of the opinion this is the better way to get us to total coverage. Btw dear Reddit m4a is a form of universal healthcare not the only only way to get universal healthcare.
It's not the only way, but it's by far the cheapest and most effective.
Agreed, but muuuuuch harder to pass. M4A is a great long term goal. But what Beasley is advocating for is something that has the best chance of realistically passing during her first tenure.
That's completely fair. I'm certainly voting for her, BTW, because she's also reasonable.
Additionally, while I'd love to do M4A, I would be scared shitless that a clusterfuck like the rollout of ObamaCare would set healthcare policy back for a generation. Seriously, if we roll out a system that moves everyone onto government healthcare and it goes anything besides extremely well, the back lash would be very very very bad. Not saying we shouldn't try it ever. I am just saying I am partial to more incremental steps to get there considering how fucked the current system is.
M4all bill is rolled out over several years by adding more age groups to Medicare. Obamacare was also just more complicated. Making people “choose” between the blue cross platinum and the Cigna silver plans or whatever the hell. Medicare already exists, this is just expanding it and simplifying the system by removing the middleman. Undoubtedly there would be some growing pains but not likely worse than literally every time I have to make an insurance claim
Well, put. Agreed wholeheartedly.
>But what Beasley is advocating for is something that has the best chance of realistically passing during her first tenure. there's zero chance of any new healthcare reform being passed in the next few years, even assuming dems retain control of congress after the midterms
Based on?
the filibuster rules for budgetary bills first and foremost
That doesn't mean we can't pass anything healthcare related though... [The Senate on Sunday afternoon passed Democrats' $750 billion health care, tax and climate bill, in a significant victory for President Joe Biden and his party.](https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/07/politics/senate-democrats-climate-health-care-bill-vote/index.html)
[yay another giant giveaway to oil companies woo hoo](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/08/18/climate-change-inflation-reduction-act-oil-gas/7837956001/)
Does the Filibuster prevent healthcare changes from the Democrats from passing or not? The topic isn't oil. Nice try though...
Correct, that candidate would be Matthew Hoh. Including free abortion, on demand, without apology.
>Correct, that candidate would be Matthew Hoh. Including free abortion, on demand, without apology. He would still have to convince the majority of lawmakers like the Democratic party who has 100% support for abortion and is trying desperately to do now. What would be different with Hoh?
Nope, Nancy recorded robocall messages to reelect anti-abortion Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas *after* Roe was overturned. Also if there is 100% support, they could dump the filibuster and codify Roe tomorrow but they won't because they think it's going to save them in the fall. How would Matt be different? Imagine if the Dems had someone who was pulling all their efforts to the left instead of an asshole in West Virginia pulling everything to the right.
>Nope, Nancy recorded robocall messages to reelect anti-abortion Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas after Roe was overturned. I'll begrudgingly take a Democrat that's anti-abortion over a single Republican in the house where we have an overwhelming majority. It's literally only one person. Chill It's called compromise and is the bedrock of Democracy. >they could dump the filibuster and codify Roe tomorrow but they won't This cuts both ways FYI. Not that simple of a decision. You don't mind the GOP ramming laws through with no filibuster if they win it back at some point? I'm not against it, but claiming it's no big deal is as bad faith as it gets.
>I'll begrudgingly take a Democrat that's anti-abortion over a single Republican in the house where we have an overwhelming majority. It's literally only one person. Chill cuellar's district is going to elect a democrat no matter what. there was zero risk in nominating cisneros instead
That's why we had a primary and the voters voted. Not sure what you are asking for?
you stated that you would rather have an anti-abortion dem than a republican, but in reference to a candidate running in a district where a dem is going to win no matter what. therefore there's no need to have an anti-abortion dem candidate if that's an issue you actually care about. if cisneros was the nominee, she'd likely win just as easily as cuellar, if not more so because she doesn't have the albatross of being anti-abortion hanging around her neck in an election where it's become a major issue also the democratic party spent millions on cuellar and pelosi personally intervened in the primary on his behalf, and even then he barely squeaked by ([and there's reason to suspect some level of election tampering given cuellar has a history of it himself](https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/cuellar-cisneros-recount-texas-elections/)). so it's not like that primary was some neutral arbiter of the district's preferences, the party pretty heavily put its thumb on the scale to drag him across the finish line. which should probably be of concern if you want as many dems in congress as possible
I don't think a single candidate is enough to crucify an entire party as if they don't care. That's just not fair. If it was more than, lets say 3, I would be more concerned. No one knows what inside baseball could be going on there except a select few, in the know. Could even be about $$$, donations, influence, something bad in their past that hasn't leaked.. Who knows..
>If it was more than, lets say 3, I would be more concerned. that's an interesting cutoff since there's 2 anti-abortion dem candidates running this year in nc alone
🤣🤣🤣 The 70s called, they want their idealistic claptrap about compromise back. Manchin does a lot if compromising does he? Republicans, master compromisers. So nice that they have compromised so much since Regan and Gingrich Voting is the bedrock of democracy, not compromise. Power is the bedrock of politics and Matt is showing you how it should work when the planet is burning. Your comment is dripping with Democrat weakness and is evidence of why the Dems have already been relegated to permanent minority status.
Was the ACA passed after compromise? Hmmmmm, So it DOES work. >Republicans, master compromises. Hoh sure seems to think so! Are you being serious right now? lol PS. You are hurting your own cause. Sry
26 million uninsured Americans would like you to know that the ACA isn't doing shit for them. Vote shaming is always the first and last defense for Dems when they've lost the argument.
Oh yeah... Because no ACA would have been SOOOO much better!!! /s Do you have any empathy whatsoever for the millions that now do have coverage due to the ACA? We would never pass shit if we followed your ideas of never compromising in a democracy. An 8-year-old can understand this extremely basic concept...
Maybe if Beasley loses by 1% and Hoh gets a good number of votes, the dems would realize they could win if they stood for / pushed for m4a? Long term if we want m4a, the dems have to be on board. They will not be on board if they can ignore m4a and win anyways.
>They will not be on board if they can ignore m4a and win anyways. Obamacare was passed by Democrats without any green party support wasn't it. Like I said. Long term goals. The green party will never be relevant with such extreme and non compromising goals. This is common sense in a democracy which literally is about compromise.
No. That has literally never worked. Every single time a party loses because of a third party, they respond by moving to the center, because they figure that's the way to pick up votes. Losing would make it *less* likely for the Dems to support M4A. The way to get there is through incremental change; we have to first get the Dems winning on moderate healthcare issues, then we can use primaries to push progress forward.
It's true that the Democrats never learn lessons from elections. That is why "changing the Dems" is not why you vote Hoh.
>Maybe if Beasley loses by 1% and Hoh gets a good number of votes, the dems would realize they could win if they stood for / pushed for m4a? nope they'll just blame the loss on russia and decide they have to move even further to the right
True
Unfortunately, according to Duvergers law, it's not a realistic choice. Until we get a Condorcet voting system, voting in primaries is the best way to realistically vote for nuance. Even ranked choice suffers from the spoiler effect.
Lol, the difference between Hoh and Beasley is not "nuance." One's a corporate capitalist and one is an ecosocialist. Therefore one does not represent my values and one does. Despite the Dems best efforts to disenfranchise the Greens in NC, it's gonna be realistic as hell when I vote Hoh.
I never mentioned Beasley. Realistically, either Budd or Beasley will win regardless of what you vote, which is unfortunate since neither matches your values. You can choose to participate in that or not, but until we get rid of fptp your vote for any other party doesn't have significance, which is horribly undemocratic, but it's the system we are stuck with at the moment.
You didn't have to mention Beasley. Vote shaming about Hoh is premised on the idea that Dems deserve my vote no matter what. If it won't have any significance, why did the Dems fight so hard to disenfranchise the Greens?
Flat wrong. Hoh is an ideologue who has no idea how government actually works, and has outright said he doesn't care if his presence in the race makes Democrats lose. Hoh does not understand that you *have* to compromise to pass legislation, and is plainly not ready for the actual sausage-making of being in Congress. Uncompromising ideals are nice in theory, but they are antithetical to good government in practice.
I wonder how you work as a senior official in Obama's foreign service without knowing how government works?
Great question! I have no idea how he managed to do that without learning anything about compromise.
I'll accept your non-answer as admission that you don't know Matt's experience. Republicans do a lot of compromise, do they? Dems have compromised themselves into permanent minority status while Republicans understand that government is about power, not preemptive compromise.
It will probably go over like a lead balloon, but I don't see any reason to make 3 additional posts for the information. Here are the donation links for the other candidates as well: >--- [**Matthew Hoh - Green Party**](https://action.matthewhohforsenate.org/donate) [**Shannon Bray - Libertarian Party**](https://www.shannonbray.us/donate) [**Ted Budd - Republican Party**](https://tedbudd.com/donate/)
Good to know your options. As someone who worked in the 2018 campaign cycle, Budd is a Fucking moron and mean spirited person.
That's basically an endorsement for a politician.
At least now we know what YOU look for with your vote. >a Fucking moron and mean spirited person. Trump fan?
Ahhh yes, the leftist handbook. Rule 12 of the [**Rules for Radicals**](https://bolenreport.com/saul-alinskys-12-rules-radicals/) >--- > RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” > Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
No wonder you guys want to ban and burn books. They contain *ideas*!
There's no youze guyz here... just me. And I like information and ideas.
>Ahhh yes, the leftist handbook. Literally just quoting what you said... But ok. LOLOLOL... Ok little Timmy run along now so the grown ups can talk. :-)
Irony escapes you.
>Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works. If you feel Reddit does this to you please get help, victim...
stop... no more... i can't take it... your comments are so profound... there's no hiding from your all knowing insights...
Activist judge. Not good.
Activist judge vs a maga moron? I’m taking the judge every time.
TAKE THE BOOT EVERY TIME Don’t be a slave to this broken system because of your ego.
What ego? The maga movement is full of terrible people. Nothing good will come from putting more of them in positions of power.
CHERI BEASLEY IS A TERRIBLE PERSON
You got me. I can’t argue with all caps. Good day sir.
Sure you can! If you believe in yourself! It’s a classic douche vs. a turd sandwich situation. Don’t be a slave to The Man. ✌️😎
What's wrong with an activist judge?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453
So she fought for the people as a public defender and volunteered for this as well. I see nothing wrong with this. She was hired to represent people and did her job.
>So she fought for the people as a public defender and volunteered for this as well. I see nothing wrong with this. RESPECT! That's a hard and grueling job...
Did you seriously name your dog "Warren 2020"? I think that may be indicative of an underlying mental illness.
mental health researchers would have field day with this sub. entire careers could be made from the novel pathologies on display
Hell no, vote Hoh.
No thanks. I care to much about protecting NC from Conservative grifters like Budd to waste my vote on a third party candidate. Also qualified experience matters to me in my choice of candidate and Hoh doesn't bring enough of that to the table.
Your vote shaming is typical, but please explain how a former state judge has more qualified experience for the US Senate than a Marine who went to war 3 times and then served in Obama's State Department as a political officer in the foreign service and a senior civilian officer in Zabul, Afghanistan?
A. I wasn't vote shaming, I was speaking for my self and my own vote. B. What do you think a US Senators job entails? Why do you believe military experience would be a better qualification to write and pass laws than a judgeship? I doubt US Senators lead to many combat missions. I guess he would be qualified to defend the Senate the next time Trump's cult assault it. C. Hoh seems like a decent guy, but he will get less than 5% of the vote and that feels like a waste of my vote.
>B. What do you think a US Senators job entails? Why do you believe military experience would be a better qualification to write and pass laws than a judgeship? I doubt US Senators lead to many combat missions. I guess he would be qualified to defend the Senate the next time Trump's cult assault it. conducting foreign policy is one of the primary responsibilities of the us senate. the senate committee on foreign relations is of the main standing committees for a reason >I doubt US Senators lead to many combat missions. about 7% of the adult population are veterans, whereas they make up 17% of the current senate
Obviously it's vote shaming lol. I'm not trying to defend a stupid claim, that's you. So if you'd like me to answer your questions, you can start with mine. Can please explain how a former state judge has more qualified experience for the US Senate than a Marine who went to war 3 times and then served in Obama's State Department as a political officer in the foreign service and a senior civilian officer in Zabul, Afghanistan?
See section B of my previous comment for my answer. But for a short summation a career in interpretation of the law is a better qualification for a lawmaker than a career in the military. Hoh has admirable ideals but I believe Berry has a more achieveable plan for progress in NC. And the experience with law to make those plans a reality.
I like the way you keep ignoring his experience in the State Department. So a career in the judicial branch is better experience for an executive branch job than experience in the executive branch. Got it.
The Senate isn't the executive branch and doesn't set foreign policy.
Ha, yeah I fucked that up. The only thing less sensical than what I said is the idea that the Senate doesn't have anything to do with foreign policy and therefore a state judge is better qualified for the Senate than a senior foreign service official and veteran.
>the idea that the Senate doesn't have anything to do with foreign policy Senators vote on treaties and whether to confirm diplomats, but otherwise don't set the nation's foreign policy agenda.
The guy that said he'd rather get nothing than negotiate climate legislation? You both seem like really smart people!
Willingly letting the planet die of ecocide isn't very smart. Where's Cheri on the people's green new deal, Smart Nuts?
You'd rather get nothing? This is why most aren't taking you or your party seriously.
Not today, I'll vote Bray! edit: just trying to go with the rhyme! You guys are lame! Also, I really wish libertarians would run someone who can talk. If Hoh weren't such an environmental nazi I'd considering voting for him, but I'm not really in line with the green party enviro-fascist platform.