Reactionary Times covered Politicon 2018 and asked attendees for their Midterm Predictions. Here is what voters on both sides of the aisle had to say:
#Politicon2018 The people give their take on the upcoming midterm!
Which party will come out on top in the 2018 Midterm? We went to #Politicon2018 to ask. #MidtermElection #ReactionaryTimes
Posted by Reactionary Times on Sunday, October 21, 2018
Why did you skip over the Lightskin girl? You said you had no idea what she was talking about....but the fact you didn’t even edit it out you just skipped through her entire response. I thought the whole basis of being an independent is to give platform to voices regardless of political party. Why even include her if you didn’t really care what she had to say. Guess it’s another guy exerting his manliness over another fearsome woman. What’re you afraid we’ll hear from her, something more cognitive than what was coming out of your mouth? Hmm I wonder.
I was the only person in the video whose audio was tampered with so let me include what I said in the interview in the comments (these were my actual comments and the examples I provided while I was being recorded):
I believe it is going to be a blue wave because:
1. Millennials are starting to become more politically aware and active. We are a generation that cares about facts, we are constantly on Google and the internet so we often factcheck and Google questions we have in real time. We are also overwhelmingly democratic voters so I think that will contribute to the blue wave.
2. Health care is a major issue currently. Americans deeply disapprove of cuts to Medicare regardless of party, in fact it's so unpopular that when Donald Trump was campaigning he said he would not make cuts to Medicare. Julio then asked if I knew that Medicare for All would increase health spending by $3 trillion to which I replied that a Koch funded study actually found that to be false: Through Medicare for All, Americans would have access to preventative care which would in turn lower the cost of overall spending because illnesses and diseases would be diagnosed earlier instead of when it becomes life-threatening. Additionally, I said even if it is $3 trillion more or equal to what we're spending now, isn't that a worthwhile investment in our country to ensure all Americans, regardless of race or economic status, have affordable access to healthcare. (I did not include this part, but we are currently in the upper 30s according to WHO's World Health System Ranking while European countries are the majority in the Top 10. Shouldn't we want to make reforms to our health sector to match that of the exceptional European countries and become a more competitive nation in the health sector?)
3. Lastly, I said that money in politics is a major issue to me and an increasing amount of Americans because allowing politicians, both Democratic and Republican, to take corporate PAC money influences their choices and does not allow them to solely focus on their constituents because they have an obligation to their donors. (An additional fact that I did not include in the interview is that there are currently 40 candidates in the midterms that do not take corporate PAC money, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are becoming increasingly popular because people see that they are not corrupted by corporate money.)
These were my stated reasonings behind saying it will be a blue wave (obviously verifiable if he decides to show my video in its entirety). Somehow to Julio Rivera, "that absolutely made no sense" and he had "no idea what the fuck (I) was talking about." I'm 100% certain that if what I said REALLY made no sense, he would have loved to include it into his video to portray myself and the left as dumb, uneducated, and lacking real, logical talking points. Instead of cutting out my interview completely or even down to a few seconds, he fast forwarded through all of my interview to make it impossible to know what I was saying and made it seem like I was rambling and didn't make any sense. Julio Rivera, your bias is showing. But it's okay, this only solidifies the fact that my points were not only reasonable but verifiable and factual and goes against the conservative agenda you're trying to push.
This is overwhelmingly biased, and you look and sound ignorant when you post a video of yourself talking to someone for several minutes, having an entire conversation, and then say you don't know what that person you just interviewed said.
If you're an interviewer seeking answers in a supposedly unbiased way, it exposes you as a poor interviewer if you receive answers you didn't want and shape them into fast-forwarded nonsense. But then you use your own free speech to complain about democrats and fake news and eliminate the free speech of others. This is embarrassing.