Progressives (Liberals)

But you do know, Baldimo, that Hong Kong is since 1997 officially Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China ?

If you were pro-liberty and pro freedom, you would be rooting for the people of Hong Kong, not wondering how it was going to end.

What else do you think the plan is, to become slaves to communist China?

I'm sure they are willing to fight to the death for liberty and freedom.

They want to be free of influence from China, they want to vote and determine how their country will work without communism trying to silence them. They don't want "social scores" to determine who can fly on a plane and who has to take a train.

Unlike you, whom it seems would choose safety over liberty, they think it's worth fighting and dying for. What about that don't you understand?

China is not a capitalist state, they are a communist state.

From the sounds of it, you would rather they stop protesting and accept the communist rule to save their lives.

Liberty is worth dying for...

How will they enforce it? It is mandatory. That in itself is confiscation.

The strategy is to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination by individually collecting delegates to use as bargaining chips at a contested convention.

But on the “Meet Deval” section of his new campaign website touting his rise “From the South Side to the State House,” Patrick casts himself as a corporate reformer: “Deval has always been called to service, but that service has not always been in the public sector. He led reforms at Texaco, where a court appointed him to create a more equitable and inclusive workplace, and at Coca-Cola, where he stood up for employees and unions.” As for his service at Bain, helping launch Double Capital, Patrick’s website insists: “His life has always been about rejecting false choices, and his new fund was meant to show that private companies can be a force for public good.”

It will be interesting to see what incredible lengths liberals and the media will go to in an attempt to explain how Deval Patrick's involvement in Bain Capital is 180 degrees from Mitt Romney's.

In his remarks, Romney used broad strokes to characterize millions of people who he said solidly support President Barack Obama.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney said in the video. "All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

Has Deval Patrick ever said 40% of the voting public don't work and expect a handout?

What story is Deval Patrick selling?

Former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick has joined the presidential race, a seemingly odd decision at this late date. Patrick is not a universally known and beloved figure, nor someone like Mike Bloomberg with unlimited resources to force his way into the thick of the contest.

Which raises the inevitable question: Why exactly is Patrick running?

I’d like to look at that question in the context of one particular issue and how it shapes not only this race but also the entire future of the Democratic Party and the country: income inequality. Or to put it another way: What do these candidates think the fundamental problem with the U.S. economy is?

This question is particularly acute for Patrick because, although he has long been thought of as a potentially strong presidential candidate, on economic issues his profile is not exactly built to warm the hearts of the Democratic base.

Patrick has spent his career moving between government and corporate positions, including some that are likely to raise uncomfortable questions among Democratic primary voters. After running the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton, he joined the board of Ameriquest, one of the worst offenders among the subprime mortgage lenders who helped create the Great Recession. Patrick also worked as general counsel for Coca-Cola and Texaco — yes, he was an oil company executive.

And after leaving the governor’s mansion in 2015, Patrick went to Bain Capital, the private equity firm co-founded by Mitt Romney. You may remember that in 2012, Democrats absolutely savaged Romney over Bain’s business model, which often involves buying companies, stripping them for parts and then selling off what’s left at a profit. The attack was so brutally effective that “Saturday Night Live” mocked it with a skit.

It just so happens that among Elizabeth Warren’s economic proposals is one directly targeting private equity. It would impose a new set of requirements on firms like Bain, making it somewhat more difficult for them to still make large profits when the companies they buy go belly up. I can’t say what effect her bill would have on the economy as a whole, but it tells a stark morality tale, about vulture capitalists who line their pockets while ruining the lives of middle-class Americans. It would certainly be interesting to hear her and Patrick debate this.

This highlights both the policy and rhetorical difference between candidates like Warren and Bernie Sanders on one side, and candidates like Patrick, Joe Biden, and Pete Buttigieg on the other. All say they want to address inequality and promote the interests of the middle class. On Patrick’s website, his still-vague “Vision” section talks about “growing the economy out to working people and the marginalized, not just up to the well connected.” They all say they want to build an economy that works for everyone.

But when Warren and Sanders talk about inequality, they tell a story with villains. Inequality didn’t just happen, it’s the result of certain people getting their way, people whose power must be curbed and whose wealth must be aggressively taxed. Warren has a new ad going after billionaires, one you can’t imagine someone such as Patrick or even Joe Biden airing.

That’s true even if they have some policy proposals the capitalist class will find unappealing. Biden, for instance, not only wants to raise the minimum wage but would strengthen unions and bar non-compete clauses that strip workers of power. But he also says, “I don't think 500 billionaires are the reason why we're in trouble,” adding that "I get into a lot of trouble with my party when I say that wealthy Americans are just as patriotic as poor folks."

A pessimist (or a cynic) might say that ambitious proposals like a wealth tax will never get through Congress anyway, which means that in the end a President Warren will probably end up where a President Biden would begin, with some relatively modest tax increases on the wealthy used to fund more benefits and services aimed at lower- and middle-class people. That’s an entirely plausible scenario.

But it’s also true that as a political matter, the arguments made by the more moderate candidates either devolve into something anodyne or come off sounding, if not insincere, then at least unconvincing. When Patrick says, as he did on Thursday, “We’ve had a system where we have crowded and hoarded all of the benefits of our prosperity in a very, very few. This is what trickle-down economics looks like,” it’s hard not to respond, “I’m glad you feel that way, but don’t you work for Mitt Romney’s private equity firm? Doesn’t that make you the problem?”

The most passionate candidate isn’t always the one who wins, of course. It’s entirely possible that what the public is looking for is a nice fellow whose heart is basically in the right place and who can calm things down a bit. But at this point it’s hard to see Deval Patrick’s message — whatever it turns out to be — transforming the race.

pitiful