J.C.MacSwell

I never used that term. I'm not trying to twist anything. You are struggling with the interpretation...as well you should...I have no doubt Warren did as well. It's really not that complicated an issue...just a really tough one. Any restrictions on abortion and the state is limiting what females can do inside their own bodies. Putting no limitations means the state is not protecting the fetus. You can't give full rights to each. Regardless of where you decide to draw the line (or choose to avoid drawing one) can you not at least see that allowing abortions is somewhat mainstream/left, and supporting unrestricted third trimester abortions is farther left? And that the candidates for the most part support abortions...most without being able to include any limitations or restrictions?...which leaves them to the left of most Americans, at least in appearance? It's a tough issue but let's not forget... ...you asked

I'm not sure what your position really is other than not accepting my interpretation of what Warren said. The alternative is that she does believe in restrictions on abortion. What Trump is suggesting is infanticide. Warren clearly didn't cover that.

THE FACTS: Federal data suggests that very few U.S. babies are born alive as a result of a failed abortion. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 143 deaths between 2003 and 2014 involving infants born alive during attempted abortions. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/13/trump-executing-babies-after-failed-abortion-fact-check-ap/1186702001/ Stating that a fetus is nonhuman suggests it is of a different species.

I said less than human, and clarified that as less than human under the law (nonhuman is how you described it). It is an accurate interpretation of “I would make certain that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health services” when she was asked whether she would put any limits on abortion. You don't need an Orwellian dictionary to interpret what she meant. Whether you can accept that or not doesn't change her position. Only she can do that. It is a difficult issue. Most candidates have been less clear.

Then why not include those limitations, and not give the GOP that ammo?

Example Elizabeth Warren: Warren was asked point-blank if she would put any limits on abortion, to which she answered, “I would make certain that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health services.” https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/at-dem-debate-elizabeth-warren-wont-say-she-supports-any-limits-on-abortion That would include third trimester abortions...or she is lying. I'm sure she understands what "full range" means in the context of answering on abortion in this manner. LOL at your "evade yet again"...

INow was interested in where I might consider the far left to be and gave some examples...I placed them roughly where I saw them on the spectrum, and added a couple. Treating undocumented border crossings was discussed in the debate (at least Thursday, not sure of Wednesday)

Most aren't doing the accounting. If they care, they often don't care to suggest how it will get paid for, or attempt to keep it as vague as possible. Most of the candidates have positions that amount to considering them less than human under the law...very much contrary to their interests, to put it mildly. Still too common for them to even imply it, even about each other. Bernie is the only one who admits to being a socialist. He is essentially Marxist, with no trust in private enterprise.

A straw man argument could be made by suggesting my caution against moving too far left is a claim they are all (not just Sanders) on the far left. So if one was made on that basis...I would certainly argue against it.

- plus allowing incarcerated felons to vote I didn't suggest any did (though I will suggest Sanders does for the most part, and many agree with much of it without carefully qualifying, and/or adding up the costs and stating how the bill gets paid) "Tread more cautiously to the left" does not equate to stating they've all lemminged themselves off the leftist cliff...yet ...but Sanders of course is trying to lead that charge

Here are some thoughts on how I perceive things (not my personal positions on policy) - Wealth tax on all assets above $50M ...I wouldn't consider this "leftist" or "far left"...depending on how much and how it would be determined - Medicare for All and total elimination of private insurance for anything other than cosmetic surgery (only 4 of the 20 debaters on stage took this position, though... most are offering a public option to buy into, or Medicare for All Who Want It) ...certainly...there seems to be an assumption that the feds can draw a nice line somewhere that is affordable through taxes...and an unstated willingness to disallow services beyond that - Offering medical help as part of those plans to undocumented immigrants ...offering emergency services (which would be later payed for by the recipient if possible) to anyone would be a pretty much a mainstream position...additional services, regardless of whether American or not, and not caring who pays for it...would be leftist - Covering all aspects of women’s reproductive health, including abortions, under those plans (though Bernie and Gillibrand seem to be the only ones openly stating this right now) ...this would certainly be left of centre...considering a late third trimester fetus less than human would be far left. - Treating undocumented border crossings as a civil offense instead of a criminal one ...certainly left of centre... - Finding a path to citizenship for those here undocumented instead of engaging in mass deportation ...fairly mainstream - Deferring action on children brought here across the border without documentation by their parents and through no fault of their own ...fairly mainstream - Providing debt free higher education (again, though, only a tiny percentage support this right now) ...plus forgiving all current student debt...definitely in the far left category of unlimited spending (not that the right controls spending well either) - Eliminating gerrymandering, overturning Citizens United, and making voting easier instead of harder (like this great set of plans from Senator Warren: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/25/18715793/elizabeth-warren-2020-voting-rights-election-security-plan ) ...left of centre in the USA...other democratic countries not so much (not that there aren't elements of it) ...far left would be allowing those incarcerated to vote (something I agree with, but I would want to focus on others getting their votes back first) -Calling everyone with any thoughts that don't agree with their own "alt right" or racist ...far left (not to be confused with liberal...especially not classic liberal)...but all too common right now

No. I really think you are off the mark equating winning strategies with the ones who inspire change. It's great when it happens, but it's rare.

Thanks...that clears up all the Confucius

"83% of quotes fora the internet are dreadfully attributed" Mathatma Ghandi Better?

I hadn't realized you held Trump in such high esteem... I don’t mean this as an insult, but have you actually thought this through?

"83% of quotes used on internet forums are incorrectly attributed" Mahatma Ghandi

For here at least, we might as well accept that the electoral college system that's in place will decide 2020...regardless of how much collusion, or lack of it, takes place. ...and that might mean it would be better for the Democrats to tread much more cautiously to the left than they might otherwise get away with.

I would suggest the "Democratic positions" this is based on are probably closer to Biden's than most other candidates...so my point remains...why mess with such a good position? Surely moving left on these positions would lead to the advantage dropping, if not starting to reverse. Kudos for them at least being honest with the exception of Harris, who now claims she raised her hand in error by misunderstanding the question on universal health care.

Right. So assuming that being true...what makes them think they should run on a platform so far to the left? Why rely on Trump being so unpopular that they can do that successfully?

OK thanks.

Trying to justify why it was rigged isn't much of an argument toward claiming it wasn't. It was rigged, quite significantly, in some candidates favour. You called that BS...then you essentially admitted it was rigged...

Seriously? You think there was no agenda whatsoever in favour of the better known candidates? Did you watch it?

Obviously I was kidding about winning with 13+ minutes, but I thought he did better than expected. Obviously Harris made an impression, as did Sanders, though I think Sanders message is so clearly Socialist it will put limits on his upside. Harris also proved she's pretty far left of most Democrats with her stance on medicare for all. (only Sanders agreed with it, where the other 8 declined to support a single system) Given that, I can't help but think Biden more than held his own. That seemed more like Sanders...an impassioned plea to get off the lawn, put the mower away, and stay in public school til they are 35... In any case...debate was clearly rigged toward certain candidates...

Yep, Biden won with 13+ minutes, and Yang came last with just 3.