I’m not just insulting them. I’m making it clear that the premise of their argument sounds legitimately bonkers to a person that considers themselves a staunch progressive.
Then articulate that. Because frankly when someone makes a claim like that and all you can respond is with insults it makes me think maybe they’re right. So at this point you have less credibility than that guy does.
On a personal level I’m curious what your arguments would be because I don’t frankly know what to make of David Hogg. Other than his stance on gun control, which do not endear me to him, he seems a little bit vague to me.
His stance on gun control doesn’t really agree with mine these days either, but there’s a reason for it: he is a survivor of the Parkland school shooting, and he was there as a student. That was an absolutely formative event for him, and I respect that he was able to turn that commitment to a single cause into political capital and drive. And I do think that he’s a damn sight more progressive than the vast majority of Democratic politicians in the country, despite my disagreement with him on many aspects of firearms ownership.
Yes I’m familiar with his background. However no matter how he came to those ideals they’re not appealing to me at all. Yet that seems to be the only defining feature of him. Is he even a progressive? I literally can’t tell. Like I said all I get from him is vague rhetoric about winning, but what he wants to do with that winning is what concerns me. Plus he described himself as an entrepreneur and that’s just immediately suspicious to me.
What the actual fuck are you talking about
He’s positioned as the oligarch’s choice for succession. He was groomed for politics by corporate centrists because he’s got a compelling backstory.
The party leadership opposes him because they see he is going to replace them rather than support them. He’s just another part of the problem.
Are you high?
You know just insulting him doesn’t mean your arguments valid right?
I’m not just insulting them. I’m making it clear that the premise of their argument sounds legitimately bonkers to a person that considers themselves a staunch progressive.
Then articulate that. Because frankly when someone makes a claim like that and all you can respond is with insults it makes me think maybe they’re right. So at this point you have less credibility than that guy does.
On a personal level I’m curious what your arguments would be because I don’t frankly know what to make of David Hogg. Other than his stance on gun control, which do not endear me to him, he seems a little bit vague to me.
His stance on gun control doesn’t really agree with mine these days either, but there’s a reason for it: he is a survivor of the Parkland school shooting, and he was there as a student. That was an absolutely formative event for him, and I respect that he was able to turn that commitment to a single cause into political capital and drive. And I do think that he’s a damn sight more progressive than the vast majority of Democratic politicians in the country, despite my disagreement with him on many aspects of firearms ownership.
Yes I’m familiar with his background. However no matter how he came to those ideals they’re not appealing to me at all. Yet that seems to be the only defining feature of him. Is he even a progressive? I literally can’t tell. Like I said all I get from him is vague rhetoric about winning, but what he wants to do with that winning is what concerns me. Plus he described himself as an entrepreneur and that’s just immediately suspicious to me.