Dem Party

Go Beavers

BS44325 said:

This is a massive red flag for the dems.

http://www.wbur.org/politicker/2017/01/23/warren-baker-poll

Warren is slightly underwater in Massachusetts

If you know more about Mass. voting history, it's not that big of a red flag. Case in point the Republican gov. Scores well with Dems. They're willing to mix up R's and D's despite the common perception of the state.

Free

benjs said:

Free said:

Benjs, as I've said in other threads I do not belong to the Democratic Party, however, it is my right to call them out on they're performance in recent months as much as everyone should! The Dem party let us down, they could've easily had this election in the bag (Clinton sure thought she did), but in the end their weak candidate and campaign, and they're cheating pre-primaries of squashing Sanders of having any sort of chance, when he clearly had more support than Clinton did. Clinton never won over Sanders supporters.

Now, with Cory Booker showing his true colors with supporting big Pharma, and like you said, those that support supporting corporate interests, what does the den party have to say for themselves? Did you read any of the articles above I posted? The Dem party could easily win people over at this point. But what. are. they. doing.

Either reform and show America that they really are the party of the people, or they don't really much of a chance in 2020. Start anew, and let more progressive and actual democratic principles - The principles that the party is based on - rule.

Once again, how do you get those in power to willingly relinquish their power? The sad reality is that acting in corrupt ways and losing most elections will still yield greater profit for them than winning every election but not acting in those corrupt ways. If we can assume that morality is absent from the party (which its current trajectory suggests), then their primary objective is relegated to not what's best for the people, but what's best for themselves. Party reform to abolish corruption does not support that goal.

Edit: Progressive and democratic principles may have once governed the party, but just as a teenager matures into an adult and changes his or her stances, so has the party. To expect this radical change as quickly as you seem to is not grounded in reality. One person would struggle with this change, so multiply that by the structure of the DNC and you've amplified the difficulty exponentially.

You answered your own question.

However, when you have someone like Trump in power, and the current wave of selfishness and personal corporate interests in the Dem party (which has NOT been this bad in the past if you look at US history), it should be easy to get the people on your side. But they are blowing it big time. When a candidate like Bernie Sanders comes along, and actually sides with the middle and lower income classes, stands for integrity over big banks and special interests, and calls out corruption, a YUGE movement comes about and reawakens people. Then you have the largest protest EVER in the US Saturday, continuing the People's message. We'll see if Washington is taking note, we'll see if the DNC is paying attention. They have two options right now. To either work for the PEOPLE a Democratic Party is supposed to, or work for the special interests that will keep their pockets lined. What they decide will lead to questionability about 2020.

P.s. Schumer is my senator.

Free

Progressives launch ‘Justice Democrats’ to counter party’s ‘corporate’ legislators

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/23/progressives-launch-justice-democrats-to-counter-primary-corporate-legislators/?utm_term=.4b227388cf11#comments

jerparker20

Free said:

Progressives launch ‘Justice Democrats’ to counter party’s ‘corporate’ legislators

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/23/progressives-launch-justice-democrats-to-counter-primary-corporate-legislators/?utm_term=.4b227388cf11#comments

Looks like a fantastic way to complete the full take over of a Republican dominated government at all levels.

Free

jerparker20 said:

Free said:

Progressives launch ‘Justice Democrats’ to counter party’s ‘corporate’ legislators

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/23/progressives-launch-justice-democrats-to-counter-primary-corporate-legislators/?utm_term=.4b227388cf11#comments

Looks like a fantastic way to complete the full take over of a Republican dominated government at all levels.

I think it's a great start.

RoleModelsinBlood31

I havent read the thread at all so excuse me if I'm repeating stuff but I've been thinking the past few days about the modern dem party and being a white guy.

I'm pro choice, pro guns, pro vetting of refugees, pro gay rights, pro women's rights, pro minority rights, non religious, voted dem for every election except obamas second and this one.

My problem with the dem party the last 6 years or so is that when taking the minority, LGBT, etc side, they decided to not include the WMA anymore. I think it's completely plausible to be inclusive of white males and not exclusive. They basically said that if you're with/for blm and LGBT and minority causes, then you're against the white male, which is totally bogus to me. What's with the aggressive hate towards the white guy? You pushed me out, dems, and if you don't want me I'm ok with it.

I think their strategy figured that if they could corral all the minority groups, women and unions they could win the election, but the fact that about 78% of the country is white means that they'll have to stop the attack on the average white guy who isn't a bigot or racist, which is a lot of people. They've lost over 1000 seats in obamas tenure, I feel like they need to stop the attack on the majority if they want to win them back, and myself for that matter.

Go Beavers

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

I havent read the thread at all so excuse me if I'm repeating stuff but I've been thinking the past few days about the modern dem party and being a white guy.

I'm pro choice, pro guns, pro vetting of refugees, pro gay rights, pro women's rights, pro minority rights, non religious, voted dem for every election except obamas second and this one.

My problem with the dem party the last 6 years or so is that when taking the minority, LGBT, etc side, they decided to not include the WMA anymore. I think it's completely plausible to be inclusive of white males and not exclusive. They basically said that if you're with/for blm and LGBT and minority causes, then you're against the white male, which is totally bogus to me. What's with the aggressive hate towards the white guy? You pushed me out, dems, and if you don't want me I'm ok with it.

I think their strategy figured that if they could corral all the minority groups, women and unions they could win the election, but the fact that about 78% of the country is white means that they'll have to stop the attack on the average white guy who isn't a bigot or racist, which is a lot of people. They've lost over 1000 seats in obamas tenure, I feel like they need to stop the attack on the majority if they want to win them back, and myself for that matter.

As a white guy myself, the dems aren't attacking white guys, the problem is the perception that they are attacking white guys. I think this stems from the fact that we're in a sense giving up white privilege as other minority groups gain more equal status. The response by a lot of white people to this is fear. This fear is greater for bigots who feel victimized as a result of their messed up belief system. There is no "average white guy", by the way. But the challenge for the Dems will be to speak to this group of whites who are fearful. Trump spoke to them with bigotry and prejudice, and unfortunately that worked.

HughFreakingDillon

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

I havent read the thread at all so excuse me if I'm repeating stuff but I've been thinking the past few days about the modern dem party and being a white guy.

I'm pro choice, pro guns, pro vetting of refugees, pro gay rights, pro women's rights, pro minority rights, non religious, voted dem for every election except obamas second and this one.

My problem with the dem party the last 6 years or so is that when taking the minority, LGBT, etc side, they decided to not include the WMA anymore. I think it's completely plausible to be inclusive of white males and not exclusive. They basically said that if you're with/for blm and LGBT and minority causes, then you're against the white male, which is totally bogus to me. What's with the aggressive hate towards the white guy? You pushed me out, dems, and if you don't want me I'm ok with it.

I think their strategy figured that if they could corral all the minority groups, women and unions they could win the election, but the fact that about 78% of the country is white means that they'll have to stop the attack on the average white guy who isn't a bigot or racist, which is a lot of people. They've lost over 1000 seats in obamas tenure, I feel like they need to stop the attack on the majority if they want to win them back, and myself for that matter.

I didn't see it as an attack on white america at all. same thing with reconciliation with aboriginals in canada. it's not saying all white people are bad. it's saying we need to move forward together, creating equal footing for all. white people, as much as any group, can acknowledge the sins of the past or even the present without feeling threatened themselves. no different than the men at the women's march. men aren't the enemy, just the ideology of some. (and some women, for that matter).

jerparker20

Free said:

jerparker20 said:

Free said:

Progressives launch ‘Justice Democrats’ to counter party’s ‘corporate’ legislators

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/23/progressives-launch-justice-democrats-to-counter-primary-corporate-legislators/?utm_term=.4b227388cf11#comments

Looks like a fantastic way to complete the full take over of a Republican dominated government at all levels.

I think it's a great start.

So you favor an all Republican government? Seems at odds with your rhetoric.

benjs

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

I havent read the thread at all so excuse me if I'm repeating stuff but I've been thinking the past few days about the modern dem party and being a white guy.

I'm pro choice, pro guns, pro vetting of refugees, pro gay rights, pro women's rights, pro minority rights, non religious, voted dem for every election except obamas second and this one.

My problem with the dem party the last 6 years or so is that when taking the minority, LGBT, etc side, they decided to not include the WMA anymore. I think it's completely plausible to be inclusive of white males and not exclusive. They basically said that if you're with/for blm and LGBT and minority causes, then you're against the white male, which is totally bogus to me. What's with the aggressive hate towards the white guy? You pushed me out, dems, and if you don't want me I'm ok with it.

I think their strategy figured that if they could corral all the minority groups, women and unions they could win the election, but the fact that about 78% of the country is white means that they'll have to stop the attack on the average white guy who isn't a bigot or racist, which is a lot of people. They've lost over 1000 seats in obamas tenure, I feel like they need to stop the attack on the majority if they want to win them back, and myself for that matter.

I'm not sure I've seen the DNC downplaying the value of the WMA. That being said, power in America is finite. With that premise, it's fair to say that all of the power in America resides in two buckets: the majority is in one bucket, held by WMAs. The minority is in another, held by non-WMAs. If you wish to empower non-WMAs then, you will need to take it from the WMAs' bucket. You cannot empower non-WMAs with anything but a net loss of power for WMAs.

RoleModelsinBlood31

I hear totally what you all are saying, but then comes Sally Boynton Brown pretty much confirming what I've been feeling. Thoughts?

mrussel1

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

I hear totally what you all are saying, but then comes Sally Boynton Brown pretty much confirming what I've been feeling. Thoughts?

Who is she and what did she say?

RoleModelsinBlood31

mrussel1 said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

I hear totally what you all are saying, but then comes Sally Boynton Brown pretty much confirming what I've been feeling. Thoughts?

Who is she and what did she say?

Just google her name, there's a lot out there about this right now. Shes the executive director of the Dem party of Idaho running for DNC chair, and made a ridiculous speech the other day talking about what her role as DNC chair will be, and how she's supposed to "shut other white people down when they interrupt." Basically revealing what she feels the Democratic Party wants to have as its chair.

BS44325

Free said:

BS44325 said:

Free said:

BS44325 said:

Free said:

rgambs said:

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

riley540 said:

I thought this year would be the collapse of the Republican Party, but just the opposite happened. Super interesting to watch

Wait two years.

The electoral landscape for democrats in two years is terrible. Many red state senate seats to defend. The current platform of identity politics will not cut it.

Mid terms in the Senate are not promising. But we will see on the House. All depends...

Yeah it depends... on the Dem party.

You could just as easily say it depends on the extremist liberals.
Are they interested in shifting the balance of power back from the extreme right toward the middle, or are they interested in self-congratulatory rejections of the only force that is capable of doing that?

Still unwilling to improve your party and take some responsibility, I see.

It appears from your refusal to answer who you want as the new DNC chair that you are the one unwilling to improve your party. The time has come to take a stand.

Now why would I answer any of your questions when you don't even know what party I belong to?

I don't believe that is why you are not answering.

You can think whatever you would like. And who would you like to see is the DNC chair, since this is such a pressing question of yours.

I don't give a rats tail. I'm a conservative.

BS44325

Free said:

Benjs, as I've said in other threads I do not belong to the Democratic Party, however, it is my right to call them out on they're performance in recent months as much as everyone should! The Dem party let us down, they could've easily had this election in the bag (Clinton sure thought she did), but in the end their weak candidate and campaign, and they're cheating pre-primaries of squashing Sanders of having any sort of chance, when he clearly had more support than Clinton did. Clinton never won over Sanders supporters.

Now, with Cory Booker showing his true colors with supporting big Pharma, and like you said, those that support supporting corporate interests, what does the den party have to say for themselves? Did you read any of the articles above I posted? The Dem party could easily win people over at this point. But what. are. they. doing.

Either reform and show America that they really are the party of the people, or they don't really much of a chance in 2020. Start anew, and let more progressive and actual democratic principles - The principles that the party is based on - rule.

If you are not a member of the party then they didn't "let you down". They owe "you" nothing as you would rather just blather on without really getting engaged. If you think the party needs to be remade to not "let you down" then now is the time to get involved and push it in one direction or another. This begins with the selection of the DNC chair. I push you on this not because I actually think you have an answer but because your avoidance of the question makes it clear that you have very little to contribute on this topic. You are wandering aimlessly at the march shouting meaningless slogans into the air.

BS44325

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

This is a massive red flag for the dems.

http://www.wbur.org/politicker/2017/01/23/warren-baker-poll

Warren is slightly underwater in Massachusetts

If you know more about Mass. voting history, it's not that big of a red flag. Case in point the Republican gov. Scores well with Dems. They're willing to mix up R's and D's despite the common perception of the state.

I'm aware of their voting history but I'm sorry...if Warren's seat isn't safe the dems have a massive problem on their hands.

rgambs

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

I havent read the thread at all so excuse me if I'm repeating stuff but I've been thinking the past few days about the modern dem party and being a white guy.

I'm pro choice, pro guns, pro vetting of refugees, pro gay rights, pro women's rights, pro minority rights, non religious, voted dem for every election except obamas second and this one.

My problem with the dem party the last 6 years or so is that when taking the minority, LGBT, etc side, they decided to not include the WMA anymore. I think it's completely plausible to be inclusive of white males and not exclusive. They basically said that if you're with/for blm and LGBT and minority causes, then you're against the white male, which is totally bogus to me. What's with the aggressive hate towards the white guy? You pushed me out, dems, and if you don't want me I'm ok with it.

I think their strategy figured that if they could corral all the minority groups, women and unions they could win the election, but the fact that about 78% of the country is white means that they'll have to stop the attack on the average white guy who isn't a bigot or racist, which is a lot of people. They've lost over 1000 seats in obamas tenure, I feel like they need to stop the attack on the majority if they want to win them back, and myself for that matter.

The people I know who feel the way you have expressed feeling here are people who have always felt that way. The white race has been under attack for their entire lives, in their minds.

As a WMA myself, I don't feel attacked or victimized because of my white identity, I know that I am not a racist or bigot, and anyone who gets to know me even a little will know it.
Why do you feel you are under attack when you know you aren't those things, and you also know that there is a staggeringly massive number of people who are those things?

Free

Everyone's a fucking victim, wah!

WTF. There's a reason for the song WMA.



"I've seen it all before,..
Bring it on cause I'm no victim"

benjs

Free said:

Everyone's a fucking victim, wah!

WTF. There's a reason for the song WMA.



"I've seen it all before,..
Bring it on cause I'm no victim"

Just like you're a victim of the wrath of the DNC - The Party you don't belong to yet which you put your faith in, in spite of evidence contrary to what you wish they were? No matter how many times you call a dog a cat, it's still a dog - and when it barks and you continue to say "good kitty", I'm at a loss for what to say.

riley540

Both parties suck for their own reasons