Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Redbirds Fan View Post
    So you don't think people with a lot of money can be good Democrats? If I won the Lotto tomorrow, would you be ready to toss me out?
    You need to re-read what I wrote, I didn't even come close to saying what you mention above.

    I think I've been consistent as long as I've posted here that politicians accepting large amounts of money from groups can create a conflict of interest. You can look up the stats if you care, but I am confident in saying a huge majority of Americans agree with me, and are concerned by it. If you think your political party should just dismiss this point of view, fine. It's not like it could cost you an election or anything serious like that.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
    ---------------------------------------------
    The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
    George Orwell, 1984

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Redbirds Fan View Post
      This guy cracks me up. He decided to no longer be a "progressive" once the tide had turned in the bloody fight for gay men to marry.

      The video is more sloganeering by the right. He's no more a 'classic liberal' as he claims than my wife's morkie. Peel back the veneer and you can see what he's selling. A defense of hate speech. The idea that religious liberty means imposing Christian values on others. He's Tomi, but not as shrill.
      So should people be judged by their skin color or their character?

      MLK wanted to see a time when all people were judged based on what they did and NOT the color of their skin. Yet here we are 50 years later and here we are appearing more interested in identity politics than actual looking at the soul of the man.

      He isnt sloganeering for the right - hell he was a member of the Young Turks for about 2 years.
      Last edited by baldgriff; 02-21-2017, 01:59 PM.
      It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must stop it.
      Bill Clinton 1995, State of the Union Address


      "When they go low - we go High" great motto - too bad it was a sack of bullshit. DNC election mantra

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by baldgriff View Post
        MLK wanted to see a time when all people were judged based on what they did and NOT the color of their skin. Yet here we are 50 years later and here we are appearing more interested in identity politics than actual looking at the soul of the man.
        thats sig material right there.
        "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." -NY Times

        "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts" - Joe Biden

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by cardboardbox View Post
          thats sig material right there.
          Thank you!
          It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must stop it.
          Bill Clinton 1995, State of the Union Address


          "When they go low - we go High" great motto - too bad it was a sack of bullshit. DNC election mantra

          Comment


          • #35
            Here's the issue, not just for Democrats but Republicans, as well. 20-30 years ago, people were boxed in very simple packages. White collar, blue collar, college-educated, high school-educated, black, white, union member, non-union member and it was easy to see where people fell politically. Parties had a better idea of how to corral their base.

            Today, people don't self-identify in those terms, people have become more complex and don't have identity politics.

            Two cases in point, which I think bear this out:

            My neighbor is late 40's. He's a plumber by trade. Talking with him 10 years ago, he voted straight Democratic ticket as the union was his biggest concern, and they informed his voting. Today, he is still a hard-core union member, but he is also one of the biggest 2nd Amendment rights people I know. Those two concerns are pretty much diametrically opposed to each other. The Republicans will never be union-friendly. He will never see Democrats as gun friendly.

            My sister-in-law (now I have to say to start with, she is bat shit crazy, but leaving that aside) is in her mid 50's. 10 years ago, she was a flag waving conservative, military and low taxes were her mantra. Now, her youngest daughter has come out of the closet, and she is a gay rights, military and low taxes person. Again, she doesn't fit into a box.

            In some ways, what is happening today is no different than 16th Century Church. People are waiting for someone to come and nail their theses to the Capital doors. I think Bernie was someone who did that, but he was snuffed out.

            It's hard to move a party that is entrenched in decades of held belief. Perhaps there is hope to have some of the "fringe" parties actually make some headway.
            "Looks like I picked a bad day to give up sniffing glue.
            - Steven McCrosky (Lloyd Bridges) in Airplane

            i have epiphanies like that all the time. for example i was watching a basketball game today and realized pom poms are like a pair of tits. there's 2 of them. they're round. they shake. women play with them. thus instead of having two, cheerleaders have four boobs.
            - nullnor, speaking on immigration law in AZ.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Redbirds Fan View Post

              Slasher's last sentence (actually a question) suggests there is something wrong with "corporate ties". This is just sloganeering. Everybody on this board has corporate ties. They either work for one, or they own stock in one, or they have a bank loan, or some relationship with a corporation, unless they are agrarians living out in a National Park. Without context it's meaningless. Here's an example. I heard many Bernie fans say would vote for Trump before Hillary because of her corporate ties. Let that sink in a minute, and then think about Trump's cabinet appointments.
              The article below is from March of last year. So if I read that right 91% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats were unsatisfied or "mad as hell" about the amount of money in politics. So, knowing this, the Democratic Party chose Hillary Clinton to be their candidate for President. And now we have a Trump presidency. And now I'm the one who is supposed to go think about things and let them sink in ?



              Politicians are speaking about this now because the system needs a course correction and the people know it. Three-quarters of the American people believe their government is corrupt, according to Gallup. To take one key state example, 91 percent of likely Republican Iowa caucus-goers reported in September that they were unsatisfied or "mad as hell" about the amount of money in politics, just 3 percentage points shy of Democrats who said the same thing
              ---------------------------------------------
              Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
              ---------------------------------------------
              The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
              George Orwell, 1984

              Comment


              • #37
                Nahhh - it is just sloganeering.
                It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must stop it.
                Bill Clinton 1995, State of the Union Address


                "When they go low - we go High" great motto - too bad it was a sack of bullshit. DNC election mantra

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by The Feral Slasher View Post
                  The article below is from March of last year. So if I read that right 91% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats were unsatisfied or "mad as hell" about the amount of money in politics. So, knowing this, the Democratic Party chose Hillary Clinton to be their candidate for President. And now we have a Trump presidency. And now I'm the one who is supposed to go think about things and let them sink in ?



                  Politicians are speaking about this now because the system needs a course correction and the people know it. Three-quarters of the American people believe their government is corrupt, according to Gallup. To take one key state example, 91 percent of likely Republican Iowa caucus-goers reported in September that they were unsatisfied or "mad as hell" about the amount of money in politics, just 3 percentage points shy of Democrats who said the same thing
                  Yeah, I'm calling bullshit until you show me the poll question. Until then I will assume it was something like "How do you feel about all the corruption in Washington?" a) mad as hell, b) don't care, c) pleased as punch.

                  I've asked many times on this board what posters mean by 'money in politics' and nobody has an answer. I'll ask you. What, specifically, do you mean? Saying you are against money in politics is like saying you are against meat in food.

                  Bernie's campaign spent more than Hillary's spent. Is that okay? Should campaigns be limited in what they spend in the primary? In the general? What should campaigns do about non-campaign spending? How do they prevent it? Do you want a list of who you can take contributions from? What is your plan to fight money in politics other than to complain about it? If you can't answer any of these questions, then you are doing no more than sloganeering...using something which sounds vaguely bad to drum up negative feelings against a person or institution, in this case Hillary Clinton. That's cheap politics. Everyone does it to some extent, but it has become the meat and potatoes of GOP politics.
                  If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - Karl Popper

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Redbirds Fan View Post
                    Yeah, I'm calling bullshit until you show me the poll question. Until then I will assume it was something like "How do you feel about all the corruption in Washington?" a) mad as hell, b) don't care, c) pleased as punch.

                    I've asked many times on this board what posters mean by 'money in politics' and nobody has an answer. I'll ask you. What, specifically, do you mean? Saying you are against money in politics is like saying you are against meat in food.

                    Bernie's campaign spent more than Hillary's spent. Is that okay? Should campaigns be limited in what they spend in the primary? In the general? What should campaigns do about non-campaign spending? How do they prevent it? Do you want a list of who you can take contributions from? What is your plan to fight money in politics other than to complain about it? If you can't answer any of these questions, then you are doing no more than sloganeering...using something which sounds vaguely bad to drum up negative feelings against a person or institution, in this case Hillary Clinton. That's cheap politics. Everyone does it to some extent, but it has become the meat and potatoes of GOP politics.
                    Ok, you win, most Americans don't care about this, and I'll admit I was just practicing cheap politics and sloganeering. Best of luck to the Democrats going forward !
                    ---------------------------------------------
                    Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
                    ---------------------------------------------
                    The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
                    George Orwell, 1984

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by The Feral Slasher View Post
                      Ok, you win, most Americans don't care about this, and I'll admit I was just practicing cheap politics and sloganeering. Best of luck to the Democrats going forward !
                      It's not about winning. It's about change. You say you want more change than I do. But you won't tell me exactly what it is you want to change. I don't want new faces just for the sake of having new faces. Losing with new cast is losing just the same. We need a new plan. Your input is as valuable as anyone else's, but without specifics it is hard to evaluate.

                      I wasn't trying to be churlish. That Rubin guy, to me, is a hypocrite. And I've worked in enough campaigns to really hate push polls. Sorry.
                      If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - Karl Popper

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        So for oh about most of the Presidential race and in discussion of HRC there was specifically discussion regarding the Clinton Foundation and where all of the money comes from (special interests, foreign countries, etc...) This is "Money in Politics". Big businesses spending tons of money to get representatives and senators to ensure various government policies are either implemented or maintained to their benefit.

                        Here is a question to consider? Why is that someone would spend multiple millions of dollars to get a job that only pays $400k annually? Writing your memoirs later is not the primary reason....

                        Yes - limit the amount of money they can spend. Also, term limits will also get rid of big money by minimizing the relationships between reps/senators and the lobbyists. Get rid of PAC spending.

                        Why is it always a question of "what are you going to do to fight (in this case) money in politics? Why can’t we have a conversation pointing out and discussing serious problems that we see in the current system? Why is it that if you dont see it - well it’s just sloganeering.

                        Personally - I believe that a large segment of the elected official in Federal Government are likely receiving some type of compensation from various companies and countries in order to keep their seats and their fund backing. These guys spend tons of time on the phone raising money - that is their full time job. John Oliver covered how much time is spent regarding how much time they spend raising funds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk


                        My apologies for a bit of a ramble there.
                        It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must stop it.
                        Bill Clinton 1995, State of the Union Address


                        "When they go low - we go High" great motto - too bad it was a sack of bullshit. DNC election mantra

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by baldgriff View Post
                          So for oh about most of the Presidential race and in discussion of HRC there was specifically discussion regarding the Clinton Foundation and where all of the money comes from (special interests, foreign countries, etc...) This is "Money in Politics". Big businesses spending tons of money to get representatives and senators to ensure various government policies are either implemented or maintained to their benefit.

                          Here is a question to consider? Why is that someone would spend multiple millions of dollars to get a job that only pays $400k annually? Writing your memoirs later is not the primary reason....

                          Yes - limit the amount of money they can spend. Also, term limits will also get rid of big money by minimizing the relationships between reps/senators and the lobbyists. Get rid of PAC spending.

                          Why is it always a question of "what are you going to do to fight (in this case) money in politics? Why can’t we have a conversation pointing out and discussing serious problems that we see in the current system? Why is it that if you dont see it - well it’s just sloganeering.

                          Personally - I believe that a large segment of the elected official in Federal Government are likely receiving some type of compensation from various companies and countries in order to keep their seats and their fund backing. These guys spend tons of time on the phone raising money - that is their full time job. John Oliver covered how much time is spent regarding how much time they spend raising funds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk


                          My apologies for a bit of a ramble there.
                          Right, there was a lot of discussion about the Clinton Foundation. If you want to make any kind of claim that there was any wrongdoing whatsoever, I would be happy to refute it. That's the problem, though. You suggest there was a serious problem, but you don't come out and say what it was.

                          And I know of very few people who have spent multiple millions in self-financing. Trump did. Perot did. I think Romney did. Bloomberg did. I don't know how much Hillary spent. I know Trump chided her at one debate because she wasn't spending her own money.

                          The last figures I looked at, Hillary's largest single contributor chipped in 2% of her campaign budget. I suppose someone might do backflips for someone who gave you 2% of your war chest, but it doesn't seem to me like a good percentage play for a smart operator. I know that when I was elected judge if someone had come up and said, 'Hey judge I gave your campaign $500, I need you to fix this case', it wouldn't have taken long to say 'no, thanks'. How about you guys?

                          So you are against the Citizens United decision? Glad to hear it. Will term limits stop the bribery you say is going on, or make the payoffs bigger and faster because there will be less time to take them? I'm fine with getting rid of PACs, too.

                          Which elected officials might be accepting money from foreign countries? That is most serious.

                          Doing away with Citizens United, soft money, PACs, and other serious campaign finance reform would be a great thing. I think the Democrats would go for it, but it would have to be all or nothing, and I don't think the GOP will give up the Citizens case now that they will have SCOTUS forever.

                          There are public offices that people run for even if it means less money, more work, and poorer conditions, just so they can support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I don't know if that is why Trump or Hillary ran. Some people seek public office to feed their massive egos or to enrich themselves. Some people, I guess, have mixed motivations. You see all kinds.
                          If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - Karl Popper

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Warren trails Trump by 6 in 2020 poll:

                            a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows that Democrats could be in trouble — and Trump could triumph — if they continue their lurch to the left.

                            Despite the public’s increasing misgivings about Trump’s behavior and tactics in the White House, he still beats Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in a hypothetical matchup, 42 percent to 36 percent — a fairly impressive margin for a less-than-popular president against the prominent senator.

                            "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." -NY Times

                            "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts" - Joe Biden

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Redbirds Fan View Post
                              It's not about winning. It's about change. You say you want more change than I do. But you won't tell me exactly what it is you want to change. I don't want new faces just for the sake of having new faces. Losing with new cast is losing just the same. We need a new plan. Your input is as valuable as anyone else's, but without specifics it is hard to evaluate.

                              I wasn't trying to be churlish. That Rubin guy, to me, is a hypocrite. And I've worked in enough campaigns to really hate push polls. Sorry.
                              I clearly want more change than you do, but that wasn't what I really meant this thread to be about. I was curious who people were supporting for head of the DNC, how they think Sanders and his supporters fit in with the party, and if there are any lessons/learned from the election or serious changes that are called for. And I think I received enough feedback, so thanks.
                              ---------------------------------------------
                              Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
                              ---------------------------------------------
                              The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
                              George Orwell, 1984

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by The Feral Slasher View Post
                                I clearly want more change than you do, but that wasn't what I really meant this thread to be about. I was curious who people were supporting for head of the DNC, how they think Sanders and his supporters fit in with the party, and if there are any lessons/learned from the election or serious changes that are called for. And I think I received enough feedback, so thanks.
                                Here's the issue as I see it from here...you didn't get the answers that you wanted. I suspect that you wanted more outrage, and there simply isn't, at least not directed towards the party ideals. People come and go, there are good and bad on both sides of the aisle. We want to defend the Constitution, we'd like the playing field to be more equitable, we'd love for tired old saw, Justice for all. You seem to have wanted that rage that would tear the part apart, I don't see any point in that.

                                Sanders has decided that he's in the party, for good or bad. His supporters? Who knows? And the head of the DNC is fairly irrelevant at this point, DWS kind of took the power out of that position, IMO.

                                The GOP is doing everything in it's power to make sure that the Democrats not only survive, but eventually thrive again. Things will change, they always do...I do find it interesting that the people that are more interested in the Democratic party are those that claim not to be Democrats...
                                "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
                                - Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

                                "Your shitty future continues to offend me."
                                -Warren Ellis

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X