This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

The DNC contributed nothing towards last night's wins . . .

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

The democratic wins were all votes against Trump and gang -- and they portend absolutely nothing in relation to the 2018 national elections. Despite these wins, the democratic party is in total disarray. Not unlike their counterparts, the democrats are also badly divided. The disenfranchised progressives (Sanders and Warren) supporters don't trust the DNC and probably won't vote a DNC ticket unless the progressive agendas are fully endorsed.

And right now, the DNC appears locked into not losing their cozy relationships with the Unions, Wall Street, and the oligarchs. One thing for sure, with the media as rapid and astute as it is today, there's no way for the DNC -- led by Schumer and Pelosi -- to again tell the people and workers one thing while telling their major contributors another. That's what all this fuss about Donna Brazile's new book is about.

Nothing the DNC has done in the recent past contributed in any major way to any of the wins of yesterday's election. Here's the problem:

The progressives have enfolded the millenials -- with them the DNC can win, and without them, they can't. Brazile's right -- we need new and younger leadership in the party, and we must excise super-delagates and the other corruptions which undermine true democracy.

The real good from yesterday's elections is the warning fired across the republican bows -- keep supporting Trump and you're guaranteed to lose power.

The 2018 national elections will be won by whichever party is able to mend their wounds. At the moment, that doesn't seem likely -- not for either party. As a staunch Sanders or Warren supporter, I won't vote for a democratic candidate at any office, unless we progressives are enfolded by the DNC, for REAL.

At the moment, unless you're a millionaire, nobody should trust either of the two major parties, the Pentagon, or the State department. They're all bought and owned and operated by the oligarchs.

Reality.

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote: The democratic wins were all votes against Trump and gang -- and they portend absolutely nothing in relation to the 2018 national elections.  Despite these wins, the democratic party is in total disarray.  Not unlike their counterparts, the democrats are also badly divided.  The disenfranchised progressives (Sanders and Warren) supporters don't trust the DNC and probably won't vote a DNC ticket unless the progressive agendas are fully endorsed.  

And right now, the DNC appears locked into not losing their cozy relationships with the Unions, Wall Street, and the oligarchs.  One thing for sure, with the media as rapid and astute as it is today, there's no way for the DNC -- led by Schumer and Pelosi -- to again tell the people and workers one thing while telling their major contributors another.  That's what all this fuss about Donna Brazile's new book is about.

Nothing the DNC has done in the recent past contributed in any major way to any of the wins of yesterday's election.  Here's the problem:

The progressives have enfolded the millenials -- with them the DNC can win, and without them, they can't.  Brazile's right -- we need new and younger leadership in the party, and we must excise super-delagates and the other corruptions which undermine true democracy.

The real good from yesterday's elections is the warning fired across the republican bows -- keep supporting Trump and you're guaranteed to lose power.

The 2018 national elections will be won by whichever party is able to mend their wounds.  At the moment, that doesn't seem likely -- not for either party.  As a staunch Sanders or Warren supporter, I won't vote for a democratic candidate at any office, unless we progressives are enfolded by the DNC, for REAL.  

At the moment, unless you're a millionaire, nobody should trust either of the two major parties, the Pentagon, or the State department.  They're all bought and owned and operated by the oligarchs.

Reality.

While I agree with most of your comments, the right of workers to organize--the Wagner Act--has been a major component of the progressive agenda since FDR. What's your beef with unions?

View user profile
Agree. My grandfather was a railroad engineer in Birmingham Alabama. His union kept all the members working through the depression. At the worst of the depression some of the union members were only working one or two days, but all the members had jobs. As union membership rose, Americans enjoyed real gain in wages. As unions have been attacked and reduced, real wages for Americans have declined. The heart of the democratic party has always been looking out for the American working man and woman. I have never felt better turning off MSNBC for a year and not hearing off the wall progressive drivel, just as I have never been happier turning off Fox News and not hearing off the wall reactionary drivel. Progressives and reactionaries are the problem in America today. The idea of middle of the road politicians from both parties working for the American middle class has become the exception not the rule. F ideology, how about a little common sense governance and not the radical and reactionary cable news dichotomy of how to out stupid the other side while the country suffers. This zero sum politics is on the face the problem.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:Agree.  My grandfather was a railroad engineer in Birmingham Alabama.  His union kept all the members working through the depression.  At the worst of the depression some of the union members were only working one or two days, but all the members had jobs.  As union membership rose, Americans enjoyed real gain in wages.  As unions have been attacked and reduced, real wages for Americans have declined.  The heart of the democratic party has always been looking out for the American working man and woman.  I have never felt better turning off MSNBC for a year and not hearing off the wall progressive drivel, just as I have never been happier turning off Fox News and not hearing off the wall reactionary drivel.  Progressives and reactionaries are the problem in America today.  The idea of middle of the road politicians from both parties working for the American middle class has become the exception not the rule.  F ideology, how about a little common sense governance and not the radical and reactionary cable news dichotomy of how to out stupid the other side while the country suffers.  This zero sum politics is on the face the problem.

My point is that Unions and the right of workers to organize and negotiate with bosses IS and always has been part of any rational progressive agenda and the progressive agenda has ALWAYS included protecting and advancing the interests of the middle class. If I recall it USED to be part of the Rockefeller Republican agenda as well until that party was hijacked by ultra-conservative reactionaries.

I don't know about you, but intelligent adults who still retain their discriminatory faculties--a group to which you apparently do not belong--can listen to various media and discern bias well enough to discard the bathwater and still retain the baby. The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the media but in YOU!

You gotta get your mind right...

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
Wordslinger wrote: The democratic wins were all votes against Trump and gang -- and they portend absolutely nothing in relation to the 2018 national elections.  Despite these wins, the democratic party is in total disarray.  Not unlike their counterparts, the democrats are also badly divided.  The disenfranchised progressives (Sanders and Warren) supporters don't trust the DNC and probably won't vote a DNC ticket unless the progressive agendas are fully endorsed.  

And right now, the DNC appears locked into not losing their cozy relationships with the Unions, Wall Street, and the oligarchs.  One thing for sure, with the media as rapid and astute as it is today, there's no way for the DNC -- led by Schumer and Pelosi -- to again tell the people and workers one thing while telling their major contributors another.  That's what all this fuss about Donna Brazile's new book is about.

Nothing the DNC has done in the recent past contributed in any major way to any of the wins of yesterday's election.  Here's the problem:

The progressives have enfolded the millenials -- with them the DNC can win, and without them, they can't.  Brazile's right -- we need new and younger leadership in the party, and we must excise super-delagates and the other corruptions which undermine true democracy.

The real good from yesterday's elections is the warning fired across the republican bows -- keep supporting Trump and you're guaranteed to lose power.

The 2018 national elections will be won by whichever party is able to mend their wounds.  At the moment, that doesn't seem likely -- not for either party.  As a staunch Sanders or Warren supporter, I won't vote for a democratic candidate at any office, unless we progressives are enfolded by the DNC, for REAL.  

At the moment, unless you're a millionaire, nobody should trust either of the two major parties, the Pentagon, or the State department.  They're all bought and owned and operated by the oligarchs.

Reality.

While I agree with most of your comments, the right of workers to organize--the Wagner Act--has been a major component of the progressive agenda since FDR. What's your beef with unions?

I'm a union guy myself. I have no problem with Unions donating to the DNC, as long as they don't press for legislative responses the same way a lobbyist does. I'm against anyone who contributes believing they now have ownership.

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:I'm a union guy myself.  I have no problem with Unions donating to the DNC, as long as they don't press for legislative responses the same way a lobbyist does.  I'm against anyone who contributes believing they now have ownership.

Gotcha. Personally, I think contributions should be limited to people, no corporations or organizations. Corporations--including Unions--are NOT people, no matter what Romney says.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
2seaoat wrote:Agree.  My grandfather was a railroad engineer in Birmingham Alabama.  His union kept all the members working through the depression.  At the worst of the depression some of the union members were only working one or two days, but all the members had jobs.  As union membership rose, Americans enjoyed real gain in wages.  As unions have been attacked and reduced, real wages for Americans have declined.  The heart of the democratic party has always been looking out for the American working man and woman.  I have never felt better turning off MSNBC for a year and not hearing off the wall progressive drivel, just as I have never been happier turning off Fox News and not hearing off the wall reactionary drivel.  Progressives and reactionaries are the problem in America today.  The idea of middle of the road politicians from both parties working for the American middle class has become the exception not the rule.  F ideology, how about a little common sense governance and not the radical and reactionary cable news dichotomy of how to out stupid the other side while the country suffers.  This zero sum politics is on the face the problem.

My point is that Unions and the right of workers to organize and negotiate with bosses IS and always has been part of any rational progressive agenda and the progressive agenda has ALWAYS included protecting and advancing the interests of the middle class. If I recall it USED to be part of the Rockefeller Republican agenda as well until that party was hijacked by ultra-conservative reactionaries.

I don't know about you, but intelligent adults who still retain their discriminatory faculties--a group to which you apparently do not belong--can listen to various media and discern bias well enough to discard the bathwater and still retain the baby. The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the media but in YOU!

You gotta get your mind right...



Both of you are right. Unions have always represented workers to employers, in pursuit of better working conditions, medical care, fair wages, retirement benefits, etc. Unions have always represented workers. Employers, of course, hate Unions. As congress became corrupted by campaign financing, more and more laws and other rules were approved that restricted Union rights and led to massive loss of Union representation in the American workplace. Guess who congress represents ... yeah. You got it. Fer sure.

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:
Both of you are right.  

ACK! You wound me, sir!

The difference is that Seaoat thinks that perfectly reasonable ideas like universal health care and free college are extreme progressive ideas. I, and I believe you as well, know that they are ideas whose time has come in the same way that Women's Suffrage, Social Security and Medicare were in their respective times.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Both of you are right.  

ACK! You wound me, sir!

The difference is that Seaoat thinks that perfectly reasonable ideas like universal health care and free college are extreme progressive ideas. I, and I believe you as well, know that they are ideas whose time has come in the same way that Women's Suffrage, Social Security and Medicare were in their respective times.



Heck, the right still thinks it's TOO soon to talk about those things. Check back in 2100 and maybe then it will be time.

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote: As congress became corrupted by campaign financing...

Congress has been corrupted by other stuff as well. ALEC (the corporate legislation-drafting group), trade and industry lobbyists, local appropriations/pork barrel issues, social issues and just the sheer economic power of Goliath corporations all contribute.

Part of the problem is the inherent flaw in grow-or-die, laissez faire capitalism: Once a corporation reaches critical mass in any industry, competition stops and corrosive rent-seeking activities and regulatory-capture efforts take over. The solution is to break up corporations once they reach a certain size. We haven't had any real anti-trust action in decades.

The ironic thing is that breaking up giant corporations is actually good for business--Standard Oil and AT&T being two examples. After each of those mammoth enterprises was broken up into smaller parts, the parts competed with each other and they grew. The Fortune 500 could be busted up into the Fortune 2500 and it would do wonders for the economy and might even reduce destructive inequality.

I won't even mention the ruinous effect Wall Street is having on our nation--I get too pissed just thinking about it and don't want to stroke out before I hit Enter. Wall Street is Obama's biggest fail.

View user profile
Free college is not a solution. I believe that medicare for all is the solution, and is not progressive but an efficient and conservative method to lower the cost of medical care for Americans. Medicare has been a great success.

There are many smart ways to make college affordable, but free college is not a wise investment for society when six million technical jobs go unfilled in America where special employment visas bring qualified applicants to fill our jobs. I would prefer more investments in vocational training and working to fill those jobs with American graduates.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:Free college is not a solution.  I believe that medicare for all is the solution, and is not progressive but an efficient and conservative method to lower the cost of medical care for Americans.  Medicare has been a great success.

There are many smart ways to make college affordable, but free college is not a wise investment for society when six million technical jobs go unfilled in America where special employment visas bring qualified applicants to fill our jobs.  I would prefer more investments in vocational training and working to fill those jobs with American graduates.

Free college is normally taken to mean free post-secondary education which would include technical schools, but I can understand your confusion and make allowances for your debilitating Autism Spectrum inclination to take everything literally.

The only reason you oppose free college is because, as you have mentioned repeatedly and at great length, YOU had to work your way through college with two--or was it three--jobs, so everyone should have to. This is the same reactionary opposition to any program that gives someone a benefit they didn't enjoy.  Of course, back then tuition was roughly 1/10 what it is now. SAD!

Look, if Slovenia, Turkey and the Czech Republic can do it, the richest nation on Earth should be able to manage it. The benefit is obvious: the better educated the populous, the more prosperous the nation. The more prosperous the nation, the lower the social safety net costs. DUH!

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
2seaoat wrote:Free college is not a solution.  I believe that medicare for all is the solution, and is not progressive but an efficient and conservative method to lower the cost of medical care for Americans.  Medicare has been a great success.

There are many smart ways to make college affordable, but free college is not a wise investment for society when six million technical jobs go unfilled in America where special employment visas bring qualified applicants to fill our jobs.  I would prefer more investments in vocational training and working to fill those jobs with American graduates.

Free college is normally taken to mean free post-secondary education which would include technical schools, but I can understand your confusion and make allowances for your debilitating Autism Spectrum inclination to take everything literally.

The only reason you oppose free college is because, as you have mentioned repeatedly and at great length, YOU had to work your way through college with two--or was it three--jobs, so everyone should have to. This is the same reactionary opposition to any program that gives someone a benefit they didn't enjoy.  Of course, back then tuition was roughly 1/10 what it is now. SAD!

Look, if Slovenia, Turkey and the Czech Republic can do it, the richest nation on Earth should be able to manage it. The benefit is obvious: the better educated the populous, the more prosperous the nation. The more prosperous the nation, the lower the social safety net costs. DUH!



Great post! cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote: The democratic wins were all votes against Trump and gang -- and they portend absolutely nothing in relation to the 2018 national elections.  Despite these wins, the democratic party is in total disarray.  Not unlike their counterparts, the democrats are also badly divided.  The disenfranchised progressives (Sanders and Warren) supporters don't trust the DNC and probably won't vote a DNC ticket unless the progressive agendas are fully endorsed.  

And right now, the DNC appears locked into not losing their cozy relationships with the Unions, Wall Street, and the oligarchs.  One thing for sure, with the media as rapid and astute as it is today, there's no way for the DNC -- led by Schumer and Pelosi -- to again tell the people and workers one thing while telling their major contributors another.  That's what all this fuss about Donna Brazile's new book is about.

Nothing the DNC has done in the recent past contributed in any major way to any of the wins of yesterday's election.  Here's the problem:

The progressives have enfolded the millenials -- with them the DNC can win, and without them, they can't.  Brazile's right -- we need new and younger leadership in the party, and we must excise super-delagates and the other corruptions which undermine true democracy.

The real good from yesterday's elections is the warning fired across the republican bows -- keep supporting Trump and you're guaranteed to lose power.

The 2018 national elections will be won by whichever party is able to mend their wounds.  At the moment, that doesn't seem likely -- not for either party.  As a staunch Sanders or Warren supporter, I won't vote for a democratic candidate at any office, unless we progressives are enfolded by the DNC, for REAL.  

At the moment, unless you're a millionaire, nobody should trust either of the two major parties, the Pentagon, or the State department.  They're all bought and owned and operated by the oligarchs.

Reality.

If you're really a progressive, why do you keep trying to divide the Democrats? Do you have any evidence that the DNC didn't contribute to these candidates? Fix the problems, which are overblown, IMHO; don't exacerbate them.

View user profile
Or even acknowledge them. AmIright? Rolling Eyes

View user profile
I agree with you Texan. It was progressives who did not turn out to vote in 2016 who led to Donald Trump's victory. Purists never believe in compromise, and without compromise, you toss a rock into a spinning wheel and it stops going around. You have to have balance in a party for it to keep winning. And I can tell you what it is about this Democrat that I didn't like about Brazile's book. First of all, she stabbed what used to be a close friend right between the shoulderblades with it. Brazille and the Clintons were known to be close friends, and now she comes out with an unnecessary expose when Hillary has already lost the election. It amounts to kicking someone when they are down, and a friend at that. I will never think of Donna Brazille in the same way again. As for the Warren/Sanders branch of the party being necessary for Dems to win, you have to realize that when you head that direction you lose a lot of more conservative thinking African American voters. And when I say conservative thinking, I'm not talking about crime or health care, I'm talking about church going African American women (the large, large voting block among African Americans) who do NOT want their granddaughters to go into a bathroom with a transgender adult. Democratic Progressivism has gone too far with embracing certain issues and it turns off some African American voters. And I don't care how many Sanders supporters show up, when the Dems lose African Americans, they cannot win elections. Centrism is not a dirty word and the Dems do not need to leave it and fly off into dreamland with Bernie and Liz. When you do that, you elect Donald Trump. So I guess we disagree totally on this one Wordslinger.

View user profile
bigdog wrote:As for the Warren/Sanders branch of the party being necessary for Dems to win, you have to realize that when you head that direction you lose a lot of more conservative thinking African American voters. And when I say conservative thinking, I'm not talking about crime or health care, I'm talking about church going African American women (the large, large voting block among African Americans) who do NOT want their granddaughters to go into a bathroom with a transgender adult. Democratic Progressivism has gone too far with embracing certain issues and it turns off some African American voters. And I don't care how many Sanders supporters show up, when the Dems lose African Americans, they cannot win elections. Centrism is not a dirty word and the Dems do not need to leave it and fly off into dreamland with Bernie and Liz. When you do that, you elect Donald Trump.

Food for thought. Thanks, bigdog.

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
Wordslinger wrote: The democratic wins were all votes against Trump and gang -- and they portend absolutely nothing in relation to the 2018 national elections.  Despite these wins, the democratic party is in total disarray.  Not unlike their counterparts, the democrats are also badly divided.  The disenfranchised progressives (Sanders and Warren) supporters don't trust the DNC and probably won't vote a DNC ticket unless the progressive agendas are fully endorsed.  

And right now, the DNC appears locked into not losing their cozy relationships with the Unions, Wall Street, and the oligarchs.  One thing for sure, with the media as rapid and astute as it is today, there's no way for the DNC -- led by Schumer and Pelosi -- to again tell the people and workers one thing while telling their major contributors another.  That's what all this fuss about Donna Brazile's new book is about.

Nothing the DNC has done in the recent past contributed in any major way to any of the wins of yesterday's election.  Here's the problem:

The progressives have enfolded the millenials -- with them the DNC can win, and without them, they can't.  Brazile's right -- we need new and younger leadership in the party, and we must excise super-delagates and the other corruptions which undermine true democracy.

The real good from yesterday's elections is the warning fired across the republican bows -- keep supporting Trump and you're guaranteed to lose power.

The 2018 national elections will be won by whichever party is able to mend their wounds.  At the moment, that doesn't seem likely -- not for either party.  As a staunch Sanders or Warren supporter, I won't vote for a democratic candidate at any office, unless we progressives are enfolded by the DNC, for REAL.  

At the moment, unless you're a millionaire, nobody should trust either of the two major parties, the Pentagon, or the State department.  They're all bought and owned and operated by the oligarchs.

Reality.

If you're really a progressive, why do you keep trying to divide the Democrats?  Do you have any evidence that the DNC didn't contribute to these candidates?  Fix the problems, which are overblown, IMHO; don't exacerbate them.

I know you agree with me about the economy being rigged for the ultra rich.  And I know you agree with me that the DNC certainly did collude with Clinton to derail Bernie Sanders's candidacy.  Can you face the truth?  The current DNC is still locked into keeping their corporate and ultra rich sponsors happy by promising them legislative loyalty.. and you and I both know, the DNC is simultaneously trying to tell the rest of us they represent our interests more than any other (by "us" I mean the rest of America) ... but you can't be loyal to two masters.  You allege that I'm damaging the party by pointing out its divisive practices.  But I'm tired of compromising when the compromises would continue domination of the party by economic interests. As a socialist progressive, I've no doubt the DNC was telling me one thing and Wall Street another.  And I'm right about the party either embracing the progressive agenda, or continuing to lose power in both houses of congress, and the presidency.  As I see things, the republican and democratic parties are facing exactly the same dilemma: the pubs can't win without achieving unity, and ditto for the democrats.  

Tell me, if you will, how do we get a $15-per-hr minimum wage if the DNC's biggest campaign financers would be turned off by such a push?  How do we achieve medicare for all, if the DNC wants to maintain it's cozy hands-out relationship with Big Pharma? Those are the facts, not illusions. Clinton lost because of the perceptions she was in bed with the ultra rich -- whose main interest is and always has been more profit for them and less for us.  It wasn't the email scandal that murdered her run.  It was the revelations of her and Bill's money grabbing charity and the deals he and she made with big donors -- including unbelievable speaking fees and other under the table deals.  

One and one makes two.  The same party that was so heads and heels in love with the idea of her money grabbing presidency, that they turned over their leadership to her is still running the DNC.  And we progressives are still being rejected.  

I'm pushing because I want to see us win the mid-terms -- and as long as the young, passionate voters in support of Sanders and Warren believe they are being kept outside, we progressives can't win and neither can you.

And you want me to ignore it?

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Wordslinger wrote: The democratic wins were all votes against Trump and gang -- and they portend absolutely nothing in relation to the 2018 national elections.  Despite these wins, the democratic party is in total disarray.  Not unlike their counterparts, the democrats are also badly divided.  The disenfranchised progressives (Sanders and Warren) supporters don't trust the DNC and probably won't vote a DNC ticket unless the progressive agendas are fully endorsed.  

And right now, the DNC appears locked into not losing their cozy relationships with the Unions, Wall Street, and the oligarchs.  One thing for sure, with the media as rapid and astute as it is today, there's no way for the DNC -- led by Schumer and Pelosi -- to again tell the people and workers one thing while telling their major contributors another.  That's what all this fuss about Donna Brazile's new book is about.

Nothing the DNC has done in the recent past contributed in any major way to any of the wins of yesterday's election.  Here's the problem:

The progressives have enfolded the millenials -- with them the DNC can win, and without them, they can't.  Brazile's right -- we need new and younger leadership in the party, and we must excise super-delagates and the other corruptions which undermine true democracy.

The real good from yesterday's elections is the warning fired across the republican bows -- keep supporting Trump and you're guaranteed to lose power.

The 2018 national elections will be won by whichever party is able to mend their wounds.  At the moment, that doesn't seem likely -- not for either party.  As a staunch Sanders or Warren supporter, I won't vote for a democratic candidate at any office, unless we progressives are enfolded by the DNC, for REAL.  

At the moment, unless you're a millionaire, nobody should trust either of the two major parties, the Pentagon, or the State department.  They're all bought and owned and operated by the oligarchs.

Reality.

If you're really a progressive, why do you keep trying to divide the Democrats?  Do you have any evidence that the DNC didn't contribute to these candidates?  Fix the problems, which are overblown, IMHO; don't exacerbate them.

I know you agree with me about the economy being rigged for the ultra rich.  And I know you agree with me that the DNC certainly did collude with Clinton to derail Bernie Sanders's candidacy.  Can you face the truth?  The current DNC is still locked into keeping their corporate and ultra rich sponsors happy by promising them legislative loyalty.. and you and I both know, the DNC is simultaneously trying to tell the rest of us they represent our interests more than any other (by "us" I mean the rest of America) ... but you can't be loyal to two masters.  You allege that I'm damaging the party by pointing out its divisive practices.  But I'm tired of compromising when the compromises would continue domination of the party by economic interests. As a socialist progressive, I've no doubt the DNC was telling me one thing and Wall Street another.  And I'm right about the party either embracing the progressive agenda, or continuing to lose power in both houses of congress, and the presidency.  As I see things, the republican and democratic parties are facing exactly the same dilemma: the pubs can't win without achieving unity, and ditto for the democrats.  

Tell me, if you will, how do we get a $15-per-hr minimum wage if the DNC's biggest campaign financers would be turned off by such a push?  How do we achieve medicare for all, if the DNC wants to maintain it's cozy hands-out relationship with Big Pharma? Those are the facts, not illusions. Clinton lost because of the perceptions she was in bed with the ultra rich -- whose main interest is and always has been more profit for them and less for us.  It wasn't the email scandal that murdered her run.  It was the revelations of her and Bill's money grabbing charity and the deals he and she made with big donors -- including unbelievable speaking fees and other under the table deals.  

One and one makes two.  The same party that was so heads and heels in love with the idea of her money grabbing presidency, that they turned over their leadership to her is still running the DNC.  And we progressives are still being rejected.  

I'm pushing because I want to see us win the mid-terms -- and as long as the young, passionate voters in support of Sanders and Warren believe they are being kept outside, we progressives can't win and neither can you.  

And you want me to ignore it?

No, I want you to ditch the rants against the Clintons. And I want you to take a positive approach. Nothing gets solved by finding fault, and if you're going to gripe, then propose solutions and ideas to bring them about.

View user profile
He's made himself perfectly clear. Elect actual representatives... reject the establishment.

Careful Word... you'll wake the hive.

View user profile
Careful Word, think about who is backing you up. Laughing

View user profile
Telstar wrote:Careful Word, think about who is backing you up. Laughing


cheers cheers

View user profile
Trump didn't win that election, Hillary Clinton lost it. Her hubris, arrogance and control issues are why we're stuck with Trump for three more years. She has one thing in common with Trump, neither one of them can admit error--it's always someone else's fault.

Good riddance and besides, Trump might be the best thing that's happened to progressive Democrats since Herbert Hoover. All of you guys bleating about centrist this and compromise that should read about FDR's first hundred days. Social Security, the TVA and Fair Labor Standards didn't come about through compromise and centrist capitulation. He was a REAL Democrat!

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Wordslinger wrote: The democratic wins were all votes against Trump and gang -- and they portend absolutely nothing in relation to the 2018 national elections.  Despite these wins, the democratic party is in total disarray.  Not unlike their counterparts, the democrats are also badly divided.  The disenfranchised progressives (Sanders and Warren) supporters don't trust the DNC and probably won't vote a DNC ticket unless the progressive agendas are fully endorsed.  

And right now, the DNC appears locked into not losing their cozy relationships with the Unions, Wall Street, and the oligarchs.  One thing for sure, with the media as rapid and astute as it is today, there's no way for the DNC -- led by Schumer and Pelosi -- to again tell the people and workers one thing while telling their major contributors another.  That's what all this fuss about Donna Brazile's new book is about.

Nothing the DNC has done in the recent past contributed in any major way to any of the wins of yesterday's election.  Here's the problem:

The progressives have enfolded the millenials -- with them the DNC can win, and without them, they can't.  Brazile's right -- we need new and younger leadership in the party, and we must excise super-delagates and the other corruptions which undermine true democracy.

The real good from yesterday's elections is the warning fired across the republican bows -- keep supporting Trump and you're guaranteed to lose power.

The 2018 national elections will be won by whichever party is able to mend their wounds.  At the moment, that doesn't seem likely -- not for either party.  As a staunch Sanders or Warren supporter, I won't vote for a democratic candidate at any office, unless we progressives are enfolded by the DNC, for REAL.  

At the moment, unless you're a millionaire, nobody should trust either of the two major parties, the Pentagon, or the State department.  They're all bought and owned and operated by the oligarchs.

Reality.

If you're really a progressive, why do you keep trying to divide the Democrats?  Do you have any evidence that the DNC didn't contribute to these candidates?  Fix the problems, which are overblown, IMHO; don't exacerbate them.

I know you agree with me about the economy being rigged for the ultra rich.  And I know you agree with me that the DNC certainly did collude with Clinton to derail Bernie Sanders's candidacy.  Can you face the truth?  The current DNC is still locked into keeping their corporate and ultra rich sponsors happy by promising them legislative loyalty.. and you and I both know, the DNC is simultaneously trying to tell the rest of us they represent our interests more than any other (by "us" I mean the rest of America) ... but you can't be loyal to two masters.  You allege that I'm damaging the party by pointing out its divisive practices.  But I'm tired of compromising when the compromises would continue domination of the party by economic interests. As a socialist progressive, I've no doubt the DNC was telling me one thing and Wall Street another.  And I'm right about the party either embracing the progressive agenda, or continuing to lose power in both houses of congress, and the presidency.  As I see things, the republican and democratic parties are facing exactly the same dilemma: the pubs can't win without achieving unity, and ditto for the democrats.  

Tell me, if you will, how do we get a $15-per-hr minimum wage if the DNC's biggest campaign financers would be turned off by such a push?  How do we achieve medicare for all, if the DNC wants to maintain it's cozy hands-out relationship with Big Pharma? Those are the facts, not illusions. Clinton lost because of the perceptions she was in bed with the ultra rich -- whose main interest is and always has been more profit for them and less for us.  It wasn't the email scandal that murdered her run.  It was the revelations of her and Bill's money grabbing charity and the deals he and she made with big donors -- including unbelievable speaking fees and other under the table deals.  

One and one makes two.  The same party that was so heads and heels in love with the idea of her money grabbing presidency, that they turned over their leadership to her is still running the DNC.  And we progressives are still being rejected.  

I'm pushing because I want to see us win the mid-terms -- and as long as the young, passionate voters in support of Sanders and Warren believe they are being kept outside, we progressives can't win and neither can you.  

And you want me to ignore it?

No, I want you to ditch the rants against the Clintons.  And I want you to take a positive approach.  Nothing gets solved by finding fault, and if you're going to gripe, then propose solutions and ideas to bring them about.


I deal with facts, not fantasies.  Do you trust the republican party or the democratic party, or your government, or big pharma, or the cops, or Exxon, or DuPont or Grumman, or Raytheon, or Lockeed, or General Dynamics?

I've been a democrat for 60 years.  But when the party turned over control to Hillary and gang and made sure Bernie didn't have a chance, it turned on me as surely as a rattlesnake can turn on a Jesus freak who tried to kiss its head. It turned on you too.

Donna's book exposes much of the truth.  Like millions of other progressives, I still see no reason at all to trust the DNC (who, in fact, still reject folks like me).  I'm sorry, but I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and hum Kumbaya.  I love my country and hate my government and the system that's evolved as TV became prevalent and the price of running for office steadily and exponentially increased.  We don't have a representative government, not anymore.  And you want me to think positive?

We need a new Constitution that fits our times and technology and values.
And most of all WE NEED TO END CORRUPT CAMPAIGN FINANCING.  

I have a book that came out in September which exposes the lies behind our invasion of Cuba in 1898, and our double-cross of the Filipino people when we decided to steal their country in 1899.  In both cases, the causes were American greed driven by Big Business and its unholy, inhuman and murderous dedication to exterminating any poor fucker for another dime.  

We started out as a country by the rich, for the rich and of the rich and nothing has changed.  Nothing. The combat strategies and tactics we invented during the Philippine-American War are the ones we used in Vietnam and are still using wherever our troops and planes and rockets go playing in this little world.  Waterboarding began in the Philippine-American War.  Our troops aren't wonderful, brave, patriotic young people dedicated to American ideals.  They're mercenaries hired by evil people and exploited to the hilt in pursuit of political power and trade/resource control. And worst of all, far too many of them and their families become victims. 

Linda, I'd love, really love to think positive, but there has to be a reason to do so.

You want solutions? OK. It's all money. Let's end corrupt campaign financing. That would mean our representatives would be listening to us instead of the oligarchs. Here's my positive stance: When corrupt campaign financing is terminated, I'll put on a tutu and sing the verse to Kumbaya. I promise.  Regards  

View user profile
Term limits too... only 2 terms at each position starting at the local level. If you do a good job you can advance.

Career politicians lead to corruption as certainly as the money.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum