Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Democratic Party Going Forward
#71
Quote:

Originally Posted by JustAncient View Post
 

El ahrairah,



Here's a quote from you, back in January:



"American's should have zero fear of this happening. Me person i feel we should allow every single refugee into the country (To quote Lebron. Not 3, 4, or 5, 6.....  Every single one of them). Our country was founded on people escaping religious persecution and that is whats happening here. "



Do you still believe that? Is that belief of yours going to have a better chance of happening under Clinton or Trump?



And from another post, it says you live in Florida. Have you heard of Tim Canova? He's the guy running to unseat Debbie Wasserman Schultz from her seat in congress. You can research him and maybe donate money or phonebank or canvass. He's an intelligent and progressive lawyer who'll be a great addition to congress.




1. Neither.


2. Yes, we all know of Tim. But thanks to our corrupt system that Clinton helped create and is currently... pretty much in control of, he has no real chance. But i gladly support his efforts.

Reply
#72

Here's 8 new people Bernie Sanders is asking his supporters to raise money for. https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/bernie-for-state-candidates?refcode=reddit



Those people, true progressives, will need a democratic president if they have any hope of making a difference. Those people, who don't just sit here and argue like us on messageboards, but are actually trying to go into the belly of that corrupt beast and make a difference.



Do those people want Clinton to be president, of course not, they would prefer Bernie. But if he's not on the ballot, and it's between Clinton and Trump, who do you think they're voting for? Who do you think they'd have a better chance of working with?



If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, that's the only decision left to make. Who do progressives in congress and the senate have a better future with? They all know Clinton is horrible and corrupt, just like we do. But they'd still be able to find common ground with her on a number of issues. And if Clinton doesn't want to work with them, then that progressive coalition can actually block bills that Clinton wants. So they'll be able to negotiate, and get concessions. They'll be their own little amendment kings and queens like Bernie Sanders.



Is that everything we could hope for? Not at all. But it's something. It's the beginning of an actual political revolution. It's working to change the democratic party from within, and take power away from corporate democrats like Clinton, and bring it back to the people.

Reply
#73
Quote:

Originally Posted by El ahrairah View Post

 

Why do you keep wanting to go this route without addressing the fact that Trumps disgusting rhetoric is imperially better than Clinton's political record?



I'm guessing its' because this is neither a fact nor imperial (nor empirical).  It's an opinion based on a conjecture.

Reply
#74
Quote:

Originally Posted by JustAncient View Post



Is that everything we could hope for? Not at all. But it's something. It's the beginning of an actual political revolution. It's working to change the democratic party from within, and take power away from corporate democrats like Clinton, and bring it back to the people.



Its not even near everything, its not 1% of what we need. Hillary Clinton in office does absolutely nothing but reinforce and confirm a corrupt democratic structure.


You can pretend that her being in office will some how lead to more progressives in the senate, house and bills or blah blah blah (because that's what has happened with Obama right? And happened with Clinton right? Its not like you're making this suggestion with zero basis to think this right?). But fact is we know nothing we need to address as a nation, will be addressed under Clinton.



Lets say that Clinton takes office for 8 years. Who do you think would be more likely to follow her: Warren or DWS? A real progressive or a shill who because of the previous democratic president, has a corrupt power structure working with her? Which one do you think is more likely to happen?


Tell me, is our government any more progressive after Obama? Did we pass progressive acts because of him being in office?


Did he lead to us getting Sanders or because of a corrupt system in place, is Sanders going to be screwed out of the nomination by someone who should be in prison?

Reply
#75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 


I'm guessing its' because this is neither a fact nor imperial (nor empirical).  It's an opinion based on a conjecture.



Didnt pay attention to spell correct, sorry.... my bad.



And no, its not.


Within the confines of things happening in the real world, Hillary's political support, legislation, etc. has devastated (not simply affected, but devastated) our own country, other countries and countless lives. The absolute worst you can say about Trump right now, is he says things you disagree with, that is the extent of his political career thus far.

Reply
#76

So under Clinton you think we're going to be stuck with just another eventual corporate democrat like DWS in 2024?



Okay.



But please clarify this. Is Trump going to be the biggest disaster ever, so terrible in fact, that America decides to elect a true progressive in 2020?



Or, is he just a guy who so far has said some stuff we don't like. In which case he might actually be a popular president. In which case he could get re-elected in 2020, and then since we are so happy with how not bad he is, maybe the republicans can run on his record of job growth in 2024 and win again and again?

Reply
#77
Quote:
Originally Posted by El ahrairah View Post
 


WOW, you took that one pretty far.


Hey tell me, of Trump and Clinton, which one voted for every recent war and helped with a coup that has devastated a country?


Again, not supporting Trump, but this argument youre making is horse shit. You seem to really want to ignore reality and pretend that Trumps rhetroic some how matches Clintons history, doing the things, youre claiming youre terrified of Trump doing. In what world does this make sense?



I get not wanting to vote for Trump but it makes no sense to then suggest Clinton is some how a better option, when your list of fears of what Trump would do, are things Hillary Clinton has already actively done and continues to do.


It really does not even matter what the topic is either. War? Hillary is a war hawk.


Race issues? Hillary has contributed to some of the worst crime bills we've ever seen. Gay rights? Until the nation was 60%+ supportive of gay rights, this woman did everything in her power to stop it.


Schools and educators? Screwed them.


Bankruptcy laws? Fucked the middle class.


Sold the democratic party to wall street? Check.


Secretly helped to overthrow a government, while publicly refusing to remove their funds, so said corrupt government could simply stomp out anyone opposing them. Done.



This may be an issue of semantics due to the fact that Trump has never held public office, but we know 100% what Hillary has done and will do and as much as i dislike Trump and absolutely hate to see the billionaire class get its first peer in the white house, at least a 10% chance he is a wild card. Which is more than the best GOP representative, Hillary. Its a horrible truth, but your worst fantasies of Trump is Hilary's reality.



You want me to keep going on and on about Clinton and the things we know she has done and brings to the table?


I dont want to hear shit from you about being concerned with people, while you support this horrible excuse for a human being, a human being who has actively arranged a set up and "disposal" of anyone opposing a corrupt government. And who actively supported that Iraq war you hate so much.



It's pointless arguing. I don't like Sanders either but the same answer you'll get from people here is "well, I don't want someone to make a stand against the problems within the system, just little changes are enough for me". Mainly it's because Clinton is a woman and, like Obama, they'll accept whatever faults just as long as their social justice priorities are satisfied first and foremost. I had these same arguments with people on CHUD during Obama's first six months when his excuse was "oh, we'd like to push through all this progressive legislation but we don't have the votes" which was bullshit since GWB got whatever evil fascist shit he wanted through with even less political capital.



The Republican party came out and stated that their main priority was to make sure that Obama A: couldn't get anything done and B: wasn't given a second term yet he still played nice with them as they have refused to budge on anything and gridlock the system. I'd rather have someone elected who fought out against Conservative scum, attacked them publicly for being the cowardly slithering monsters they are and who isn't a corporate whore, didn't vote for wars, didn't work for Wal-mart which benefits from Free-Trade/NAFTA which is killing the manufacturing base which is the reason why the USA had the greatest economy on the face of the Earth. CHUD's answer to that? "Tough shit because it's mostly white people who worked those jobs".



So don't waste your time because the people here will do what Devin Faraci did; condescend and bait you so that when you talk back, no matter how reasonable or logical your argument is, they can use it as justification to ban you which is why this sites numbers are in the toilet and Nick can't be bothered to run it anymore.  

Reply
#78
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBeyond View Post
 



So don't waste your time because the people here will do what Devin Faraci did; condescend and bait you so that when you talk back, no matter how reasonable or logical your argument is, they can use it as justification to ban you which is why this sites numbers are in the toilet and Nick can't be bothered to run it anymore.  



Let go.



Please.



Let go.

Reply
#79
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAncient View Post
 

So under Clinton you think we're going to be stuck with just another eventual corporate democrat like DWS in 2024?



Okay.



But please clarify this. Is Trump going to be the biggest disaster ever, so terrible in fact, that America decides to elect a true progressive in 2020?



Or, is he just a guy who so far has said some stuff we don't like. In which case he might actually be a popular president. In which case he could get re-elected in 2020, and then since we are so happy with how not bad he is, maybe the republicans can run on his record of job growth in 2024 and win again and again?



I have no idea if Trump is going to be a huge disaster. I think he will be a bad president, but there is a chance he surprises us. He has been a.. eh.. semi-progressive for much of his life and seems to only be pandering to the gerrymandered group that can get him elected. And he definitely has the ego to take corporate money and then tell them to fuck off.


There are a handful of differences and potential outcomes here and myself, while im incredibly disturbed by his rhetoric, i dont live in this echo-chamber that equates Trump to Satan. Its not one or the other, things are far more complicated then that, there are degree's we have to consider and evaluate.



I would say we have a better chance of getting a real progressive in office after Trump, rather than after Hillary. Just look at presidential trends recently and how people are voting. Its not a trend to hang your hat on, but its more viable then this idea that Clinton will lead to actual progressives.



And again i want to make it clear that i do think Clinton would do a better job than Trump. But we simply cannot keep verifying this system of corruption and supporting the lesser of two evils and Clinton is the apex of this. We're running out of time to fix this situation, some think we already have ran out of time. But its quickly getting to a point where we wont be able to change things peacefully at all. And its ridiculous to think that we can move forward some how by putting a person in office, that helped to create this problem to begin with and has done nothing but continued the corruption to an unfathomable degree. Im sorry, but that's no the answer.



As mentioned before one of the things that confuses and bothers me the most is this extremist application of fantasy when discussing Trump. As if there is no room for reality in attempting to determine what a Trump presidency would be like. And in this process the criticisms levied against him and the fantastical imaginary future people feel he may bring to the table, the examples of this future being mostly things that Hillary has actually participated in as a politician. This is why i keep mentioning fantasy versus reality with Trump and Clinton. It would make sense if you listed concerns A, B, C, D and said you refuse to vote for Trump. But to then say that Hillary, a person who actively participates in those concerns and then worse, has made a career out of backstabbing progressives, is this some how better choice or worthy of vote, is super confusing and makes no sense. You have to do some big time mental gymnastics to really reach this stance where you're willing to ignore reality and replace it with fantasy.

Reply
#80
A.
Reply
#81
Quote:

Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

"But its quickly getting to a point where we wont be able to change things peacefully at all."

?


?

Reply
#82
Quote:

Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

"But its quickly getting to a point where we wont be able to change things peacefully at all."

?


El ahrairah fancies himself as V.

Reply
#83
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 


El ahrairah fancies himself as V.



Or its just a simple fact.... and something that probably wouldn't happen in our lifetimes.


But this is not a new story, we've seen it before, over and over and over again. We know how it starts and we know how it ends and it never ends peacefully unless its nipped in the bud right away.


Ask Honduras.

Reply
#84
Quote:

Robert Reich
Last week I suggested Bernie supporters do three things: (1) fight like hell for Bernie until he either gets or loses the nomination, (2) if Hillary gets the nomination, fight like hell for her, and (3) regardless of who wins the nomination or the election, continue to build a powerful progressive movement.

Several of you disagree with (1), saying Bernie has no chance, and his continuing candidacy is just hurting Hillary, so he should bow out of the race. I’ll get back to this point in a subsequent post.

Here I want to address those of you who disagree with (2). As I understand your arguments, they fall into four categories:

1. Some of you say that by refusing to fight for Hillary (if she gets the nomination) you’ll show the political establishment you want the changes Bernie has been advocating. The problem with this logic is the “political establishment” is nothing but a bunch of people in comfortable and often privileged positions who will continue doing what they’re doing because they like the status quo, and won’t even be aware you’re not fighting for Hillary – unless, that is, Hillary loses to Trump. Which leads to the next argument.

2. Some of you say there’s no real difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The problem with this logic is it's wrong. Regardless of what you may think of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump is a true menace to this nation and to the world. He’s a narcissistic, xenophobic, hatemonger who, if elected, would legitimize bigotry, appoint Supreme Court justices with terrible values, and have his finger on the nuclear bomb. Need I say more? Which brings us to the third argument.

3. Some of you say a Trump presidency would be so horrible it would galvanize a forceful progressive movement in response. The problem with this argument is twofold. First, Trump could do huge and unalterable damage to America and the world in the meantime. Second, rarely if ever in history has a sharp swing to the right moved the political pendulum further back in the opposite direction. Instead, it tends to move the “center” rightward, as did Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

4. Finally, some of you say that even if Hillary is better than Trump, you’re tired of choosing the “lesser of two evils,” and you’re going to vote your conscience by either writing Bernie’s name in, or voting for the Green Party candidate, or not voting at all. I can’t criticize you for voting your conscience, of course. But your conscience should know that a decision not to vote for Hillary is a de facto decision to help Donald Trump.


What do you think?



https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1224386530907274

Reply
#85

Shocking.


Someone who worked for the Clinton's disagree's with people who absolutely refuse to support Hillary's corrupt career and future.



You always have to love the attempt at forced decision making for other people. "But your conscience should know that a decision not to vote for Hillary is a de facto decision to help Donald Trump."



"Im not saying you like to murder children, but if you dont donate to us, 1000 more kids will die."

Reply
#86
Quote:
Originally Posted by El ahrairah View Post
 

Shocking.


Someone who worked for the Clinton's disagree's with people who absolutely refuse to support Hillary's corrupt career and future.



So in that Reich piece, which number did you identify with more, #3 or #4....I'm guessing a little of both with a dash of #2



Is this you? (from the FB responses)






...and FWIW-


Quote:


I endorse Bernie Sanders for President of the United States. He’s leading a movement to reclaim America for the many, not the few. And such a political mobilization – a “political revolution,” as he puts it -- is the only means by which we can get the nation back from the moneyed interests that now control so much of our economy and democracy.



This extraordinary concentration of income, wealth, and political power at the very top imperils all else – our economy, our democracy, the revival of the American middle class, the prospects for the poor and for people of color, the necessity of slowing and reversing climate change, and a sensible foreign policy not influenced by the “military-industrial complex,” as President Dwight Eisenhower once called it. It is the fundamental prerequisite: We have little hope of achieving positive change on any front unless the American people are once again in control.



I have the deepest respect and admiration for Hillary Clinton, and if she wins the Democratic primary I’ll work my heart out to help her become president. But I believe Bernie Sanders is the agent of change this nation so desperately needs.



https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1161639723848622

Reply
#87
A[quote name="VTRan" url="/community/t/155122/the-democratic-party-going-forward/60#post_4072083"][/quote]
Was going to bring up #3. I think there is a good chance that in 2020 the electorate will be so sick of a radical "outsider" as POTUS that the Dems go for safe "traditional" candidates. Meaning a move closer to the center. This goes for the GOP in 2024 if Trump gets re-elected.

Also, you all assume that Trump if elected will be defeated in 2020. There is no guarantee he loses again if he gets in there. Remember, America was stupid enough to give Nixon, Regan and GWB a 2nd term. In this hyper partisan environment, Trump being a 2 termer is not too far fetched. I mean after the 2000 election and how it went down, who expected W to get 4 more years.
Reply
#88

Demographics within the democratic and liberal base suggest otherwise when you think about establishment vs outsider. Or more importantly, progressive vs moderate.

Reply
#89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul755 View Post

Also, you all assume that Trump if elected will be defeated in 2020. There is no guarantee he loses again if he gets in there. Remember, America was stupid enough to give Nixon, Regan and GWB a 2nd term. In this hyper partisan environment, Trump being a 2 termer is not too far fetched. I mean after the 2000 election and how it went down, who expected W to get 4 more years.


I wouldnt put Bush jr. on the list of "stupid enough to vote for second term". Most voters vote based on whats happening currently, and Bush jr at the time had signed a bunch of tax breaks for everyone and we had not crashed yet. So the vast majority of people simply saw that they had more money in their pockets, we had the housing bubble and things were okay, if you didnt know better or recognize the housing bubble, then you'd think Bush was actually doing good things.



Now, the problem with trickle down economics when taken to the extreme Bush took it to was it will provide a boost for your average person, but that boost is not concrete, it wont last. Eventually things will fall apart and they did. But for your average American voting who has a 60 hour a week job and two or three kids, you cant expect them to dive very deep in political issues.


RR was a similar issue as well, he provided a false economic boost.



I bring that up because most likely Trump would be another Bush and right now our economy has fallen so much for the average person, he couldn't do what Bush did. Even if he tried 30 tax breaks, we would still a temporary boost of like... a week, at best.


When the economy is this bad, its hard to fake a boost. Look at Obama and his half-assed boost, hoping it would do more by simply providing bad jobs when the bigger issue is actually wages. But when you increase the job market, and instead of fully and properly funding those jobs you send the money to corporations to put in their pockets, then those jobs are rather useless to the economy.

Reply
#90
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post
 


So in that Reich piece, which number did you identify with more, #3 or #4....I'm guessing a little of both with a dash of #2




1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.



Why does it matter?

Reply
#91

This State Department situation with the edited video pertaining to the Iran nuclear deal has become a sore spot:



http://www.mediaite.com/online/jake-tapp...ensorship/



Quote:

State Department spokesman John Kirby made a major admission on Wednesday when his investigation concluded an omission in a 2013 Iran negotiation press briefing was not, in fact, a “glitch.” Jen Psaki implied that State Department policy allowed officials to lie to reporters in order to keep diplomatic negotiations secret, but Kirby says that briefing clip’s mysteriously disappeared afterwards occurred on purpose.
Reply
#92

This is precisely why I was thrilled to see John Bel Edwards win the governorship in Louisiana:



http://acasignups.net/16/06/01/louisiana...t-11-hours



So, in about 11 hours, 47% of those eligible for Medicaid expansion have already enrolled.  Edwards has a really hard road ahead of him, thanks to the state's economic woes.  He's going to have to make cuts with a Republican legislature more inclined to hurt the poor and the middle class.  He just did this, though, and it's great.  Every Democrat should praise him right now.

Reply
#93

Bernie Sanders is almost tied with Clinton in California, but in a sense he's already won in the long run:



https://newrepublic.com/article/133945/b...california

Reply
#94

I wasn't sure which of the existing threads on Democratic politics would be appropriate for this.  Bill Clinton was publicly asked about the execution of Ricky Ray Rector for the first time since 2000 (I think...if anyone wants to correct me on this minor historical point, I would appreciate it), and the response he offered speaks volumes.  His refusal to grant Rector clemency and subsequent decision to fly back to Arkansas to witness the execution was either political opportunism, a sincere desire to see justice done, or both, depending on where you stand.  In any case, it's one of the darker episodes in Clinton's record on criminal justice issues, and I suspect it will continue to come up.



It makes me wonder if Clinton might make criminal justice reform his signature issue as First Man.





(Fang is a reporter for Glenn Greenwald's The Intercept website.)

Reply
#95

That'd be awesome. Maybe Bill can get it back to what it was Pre-Bill as president.



Sadly i dont have much faith in a person who flew back to Arkansas to watch a retarded man die OR did this to avoid answering questions in one of his many sex scandals cases..... classic republican move.... avoid criticisms and questioning of potential infidelity by overseeing the murder of a mentally retarded death row inmate.. Texas style at its best.

Reply
#96
AEl ahrairah is the picture of compassion.
Reply
#97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

El ahrairah is the picture of compassion.


Aww, thank you so much!


all i ever wanted was your approval and am always seeking your praise.

Reply
#98
AWho on this site isn't?
Reply
#99
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

Who on this site isn't?


I'm not.



Drop dead.

Reply

Well, you did ask.

Reply
AAt least I know where I stand.
Reply
A[IMG ALT=""]http://www.chud.com/community/content/type/61/id/223430/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
Reply

A write-up on an up-and-comer:



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/opinio....html?_r=0



South Bend's not far from me, so this isn't the first I've heard of Buttigieg, but even I didn't know the extent of his talents.

Reply

My least favorite Chicago Democrat continues to use the city to fund his family:



http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/mih...ur-county/



Quote:

The county ethics board failed in its legal efforts to curtail nepotism in Berrios’ office. And Boss Berrios clearly doesn’t care if you feel what he’s doing is wrong.


He once said he’s just following in the footsteps of President John F. Kennedy, noting how JFK appointed brother Robert F. Kennedy as his attorney general.
Reply

Abs excellent article in the New Republic on the splits within the Democratic Party



https://newrepublic.com/article/133776/split

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)