Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said policy differences toward Israel between her and President Biden won’t stop her from supporting him in the November general election.
“Of course,” Omar said Tuesday, when asked by CNN’s Abby Phillip on “NewsNight” whether she would vote for Biden if the election were held that day, in a clip highlighted by Mediaite. “Democracy is on the line, we are facing down fascism.”
“And I personally know what my life felt like having Trump as the president of this country, and I know what it felt like for my constituents, and for people around this country and around the world,” Omar continued. “We have to do everything that we can to make sure that does not happen to our country again.”
Ok. If you’re going to play that game, then the obvious answer to what I asked:
… Is No, nobody stopped them from running. Money may help, but is not prerequisite to running. People also get money if they garner support. Hence the success of grassroot organization.
Bullshit. If you stick with word of mouth as a middle class person you might get enough name recognition by the time you’re 80.
It’s probably a good thing that the vast majority of candidates have to get word of mouth recognition by rising through the ranks of government starting small at the local level and going from there. But you’re right: that’s part of the reason why most candidates end up being on the older side.
Yes, name recognition matters in a democracy, no surprise there. But the personal wealth of the majority of presidential candidates is a paltry sum to the total funds needed to be raised simply by running on a platform and getting support from within and outside the party. When we talk about “money in politics,” it’s usually not the candidate themselves but the outsider influence who prop that candidate up.
Still you try to corner me by taking what I said verbatim and so I respond in the same literal way: Nobody stopped them from running. Nobody is stopping them from not voting or writing-in someone else. Sure circumstance can improve one person’s chances over another, but we have more choice than most countries of the world, and again the better choice between these two candidates couldn’t be more obvious.
The pathway of more choice is through the Democratic party and no other viable way. Do you agree?
An effective ban is still a ban. If you’re not in the club you will not win.
Obama was not rich before he ran for public office. Doesn’t seem like a ban to me.
That’s why it’s called a club and not a socioeconomic demographic. He was networked, blessed by the wealthy.
He was also blessed by one of the largest grassroots mobilizations in recent history, let’s not discount that as well.
The point being: someone who came from nothing can rise to something. Obviously a whole range of factors influence odds, from intelligence to external beauty, to charisma, to networks and wealth… Nobody said Democracy is perfect, but that doesn’t change the fact that we have more choice than most.
From nothing? The man went to Columbia and Harvard. His mother was an Anthropologist and Bank Consultant. His father was in the US with financial backing from wealthy celebrities, and went back to a leadership role in Kenya afterwards. His step father was literally an oil executive.
He was absolutely born connected and with plenty of money.
Many poor people go to Columbia and Harvard. His parents weren’t just gifted, they went to school and rose in money themselves. What exactly is wrong with that? This isn’t the Rockefellers, my friend.And you’re referring to the father who left him when he was – checks notes – 2-years-old…?
Per Michelle:
CBS Fact check:
Put another way, how the hell do you advocate to prevent this from occurring? I can see campaign finance/election reform ensuring publicly-funded elections, sure, but now you’re saying because someone’s parents went from rags to strong middle-class (they weren’t basking in millions as far as I can tell), then that’s diminishing choice to such an extent that we no longer have a democracy or… What?