The Democratic Party of the USA

[potatoradio]

One of the things that makes me so sad about this election is the proof that ideas and intellect are second to memes and impressions and "charisma." Gross. 

But, fine. Let's use it. Let's figure out who can rally AND unite and worry about the details of policy later. The bench is awfully short right now, but there are bright spots still out there and we can dig for more. Let's tap the far left and the center for unity and stop bickering about ideals. We have to survive first. 

I'm a long time Dem, but I'd happily unite with the Greens and the RINOS and form a new alliance that focuses on delivering change that people want and that really listens to the people it represents. 

[DkNNy79]

2 hours ago, potatoradio said:

One of the things that makes me so sad about this election is the proof that ideas and intellect are second to memes and impressions and "charisma." Gross. 

Co-sign.  I don't need my leader to be charismatic, that's a nice to have.  I would rather they be smart and compassionate with sound policies.

[windsprints]

I'm shuddering thinking anyone finds him charismatic. He rants, is one of the most inarticulate politicians (used loosely) and appears angry and sullen all the time. His tweets sound like they're written by a 9 year old writing home from camp.

[stormy]

His mood swings aren't normal.  Either he needs meds or he has them and doesn't take them regularly.

The dems need a strong personality as DNC chair.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz was not strong or a leader.

Edited November 14, 2016 by stormy

[NewDigs]

Keith Ellison  has thrown his hat into the DNC-chair ring.

That might raise some Republican bp's.

Good!

[Danny Franks]

4 minutes ago, NewDigs said:

Keith Ellison  has thrown his hat into the DNC-chair ring.

That might raise some Republican bp's.

Good!

He's got the backing of Sanders, Warren and Chuck Schumer, so I'd say the job is as good as his.

The Democrats need to get moving quickly, and Ellison seems to have a lot of ideas ready to go. I just hope they don't go on some stupid 'purge' of moderates and those with corporate ties. They'll need a range of political views in the party to appeal to as many demographics as possible. Just ensure the leadership is progressive and the clear goal is to help fix the country.

[windsprints]

Since Trump voters apparently responded to catchphrases such as "Crooked Hillary!" and "Drain the Swamp!" I propose "Dickhead Donald!" and "Pump the Cesspool" for 2020.

[potatoradio]

14 hours ago, windsprints said:

"Pump the Cesspool"

I love this one - thanks for the laugh!

[Danny Franks]

14 hours ago, windsprints said:

Since Drumpf voters apparently responded to catchphrases such as "Crooked Hillary!" and "Drain the Swamp!" I propose "Dickhead Donald!" and "Pump the Cesspool" for 2020.

This comment may have been in jest, but the Guardian had an op-ed the other day about why the Right always comes up with the best slogans. These little soundbites can, and have, influenced elections. In this case, I do think that 'make America great again' and 'drain the swamp' had an impact. A simple message, short words, punchy. We can mock people for being drawn in by it, but it did happen.

The left needs to find a simple, catchy, unifying call to arms, and they need to make it take hold in the national (and international) consciousness.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Danny Franks

[dougfir]

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/502041497/was-clinton-loss-the-worst-case-scenario-for-democrats-no-probably-not

Quote

Democrats simply cannot expect to move legislation again until they can regain control of Congress. And all signs are that it will take a Republican president, and voter dissatisfaction with a Republican president, to make the Democrats truly competitive in congressional races again.

(bolding mine)

[Constantinople]

1 hour ago, Danny Franks said:

This comment may have been in jest, but the Guardian had an op-ed the other day about why the Right always comes up with the best slogans. These little soundbites can, and have, influenced elections. In this case, I do think that 'make America great again' and 'drain the swamp' had an impact. A simple message, short words, punchy. We can mock people for being drawn in by it, but it did happen.

The left needs to find a simple, catchy, unifying call to arms, and they need to make it take hold in the national (and international) consciousness.

I don't think "It's the economy, stupid" was the official campaign slogan for the 92 Clinton campaign, but it was catchy, memorable and no one disagreed with it.

[Serena]

3 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

The left needs to find a simple, catchy, unifying call to arms, and they need to make it take hold in the national (and international) consciousness.

There's a reason why "Yes, we can" is iconic, and it's not because it's Pulitzer-level writing. But it gets people going. "Stronger Together", otoh, was bland.

[Deanie87]

Quote

 

 1 HOUR AGO, HUMBLEPI SAID:

And on CNN, Jeffrey Lord made light of any attacks on blacks or Trump detractors as petty and trivial. Well there's more to come.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/15/video-anti-trump-protester-shoved-down-stairs-during-rally-on-ohio-state-campus/

If you watch the video, please notice the girls who help the "perpetrator" and the calls of "Shane."  Then read the comments...it sounds like he is a special needs student (not a Trump supporter) who may have been agitated from the noise and wanting to come down the stairs.  The person who held the megaphone is asking for charges to be dropped.

 

I'm bringing this over from the Donald Trump thread.  Warning:  here comes a possibly unpopular opinion.  I am as disheartened and angry as anyone about Donald Trump being elected and as a Democrat, I am committed to do hard work to make sure that he is limited to one term, if that.  But over the last week I have read a lot of icky stuff from both political sides and to say that it isn't helpful is an understatement.  It turns out that the above video most likely isn't actually a Trump supporter knocking someone down the stairs, and yet I have seen this video repeatedly retweeted under anti-Trump captions (HumblePi, I am not singling you out at all, clearly, the Washington Post is in the wrong and this was just one of the latest things that I have seen).  It also turns out that as craven and disgusting as Steve Bannon is (and he is), he is not actually a Nazi.  Also, Mike Pence didn't force women to hold funerals for their aborted fetuses. And yet I have seen FB post after FB post and tweet after retweet stating these things as fact.  I just don't think that any of that is helpful, and in fact, I think that it just weakens the credibility of the Democrats and makes their "truth" just as suspect as that of Fox News. (And truthfully, I have been guilty of believing and spreading this stuff as anyone.)  Trump and his compatriots are bad enough  as are the threats and injustices that actually have occurred, that hyperbole and exaggeration simply isn't necessary and really does more harm than good.  Along those lines, I was listening to a podcast featuring a Republican who was a NeverTrumper and was struck by something that he said. He said that is many on the Left have called so many people racists, sexists, fascists and homophobes over the years that when one finally showed up, no one listened, like the Boy Who Cried Wolf.  Now, I don't necessarily agree with all of that, and I do think that politicians who legitimately propose and lobby for legislation that hurts women and minorities should 100% be called out for it.  But I also know that I have probably used those labels for politicians who I would give anything to have as incoming president now.  This election has really given me some perspective.

So, for myself, I am going to try leave my echo chamber once in awhile (I just can't do it all the time LOL!) and thoroughly check out a story before repeating and giving it traction.  If a story sounds too crazy to actually be true, it probably is.  We have seen that most media outlets can't be completely trusted, so it really is up to us to filter out what isn't useful and to vigorously highlight what is.  Trump's candidacy and his apparent presidency have been, and are going to be unprecedented, and I"m sure that a lot of crazy stuff will be reported that does turn out to be true.  But I just don't think that it does anyone (or their sanity) any good to perpetuate the stuff that isn't.  Just my 2 cents about that.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Deanie87

[sistermagpie]

9 minutes ago, Deanie87 said:

Along those lines, I was listening to a podcast featuring a Republican who was a NeverTrumper and was struck by something that he said. He said that is many on the Left have called so many people racists, sexists, fascists and homophobes over the years that when one finally showed up, no one listened, like the Boy Who Cried Wolf.  Now, I don't necessarily agree with all of that, and I do think that politicians who legitimately propose and lobby for legislation that hurts women and minorities should 100% be called out for it.  But I also know that I have probably used those labels for politicians who I would give anything to have as incoming president now.  This election has really given me some perspective.

Here’s what makes me wary about this, though. It’s agreeing with a narrative that blames the Left for racism. As you said, people have been called out for advocating against minorities—but what should they have been called? Sure I’d rather than a Mitt Romney than a Donald Trump, but I honestly don’t see that much of a difference in a lot of their policies. Isn’t that the reason many are even more scared of a presidency led by bland, upright Mike Pence?

 

 I’ve heard many say that the word “racist” has no meaning for them now because the Left uses it so often, but I honestly think the reason it has no meaning isn’t because the Left uses it so much, it’s because they don’t actually mind being racist. Once they flipped the script and came up with reasons for why Democrats are really racist (social safety nets “train” minorities to live off the government instead of working!) and sexist (giving a woman the right to choose means you don’t respect her biological superiority as a person who can give birth!) they were happy to use them against others while also talking about how Jim Crowe wasn’t so bad etc.

 

I mean, you can say that the left was so hysterical and now they’ve cried wolf too many times. But I’d say it’s possibly more accurate to say they’ve cried wolf and now they’ve been proved right. This isn’t the first election they’ve been using fears about “voter suppression” to make it harder for many minorities to vote, the voting rights act was gutted before this election, they were already using religious freedom arguments to give bosses authority over their employees’ birth control.

 

Which is not to say I don’t advocate for truthfulness on the left. I don’t want to resort to exaggerated stories to throw at the otherside. I want to be totally accurate about everything that’s actually happening and be worried about that. Like with Steve Bannon, I’ve read articles about him. I don’t know exactly what it means to say he is or isn’t really a Nazi. But I think the alarm over his appointment is very reasonable. To me the “but it’s not really a Nazi-Nazi” is going in the wrong direction emotionally. 

The fact that this election is even more horrible than what we have seen before does not give me the perspective that I should have shut up and been grateful for what I had before. I don’t think that would have helped anything, frankly. I think this is the trajectory the right was on. Maybe with Romney in the White House it would have been a statelier progression, or one that was less clearly ugly, but that doesn’t make it not unfair and harmful. Bush, imo, did tremendous damage to the country too.

[Duke Silver]

4 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Here’s what makes me wary about this, though. It’s agreeing with a narrative that blames the Left for racism. As you said, people have been called out for advocating against minorities—but what should they have been called? Sure I’d rather than a Mitt Romney than a Donald Trump, but I honestly don’t see that much of a difference in a lot of their policies. Isn’t that the reason many are even more scared of a presidency led by bland, upright Mike Pence?

[snip]

Please keep repeating this.

[choclatechip45]

I don't really know who the future of the Democratic Party. In 2004 no one would thought Obama would be president in '08. The person I see compared most to the Obama is Kamala Harris who I like a lot. I can definitely  see the republicans going after her views on the second amendment and the the fact she didn't try the death penalty when she was Attorney General. I really like Corey Booker and Michael Bennet. Cory's marital status will come up plus his Wall Street connections. I knows  Bennet supported TPP so he's probably out. I like most of these suggestions except for Tulsi Gabbard her views on LGBT rights will make her unelectable for national office on the Democratic Party ticket. If people had an issue with Hillary's views Gabbard's have recently changed. 

I am a millennial I am not a Bernie fan. I liked him in the beginning the more I learned about him the less I liked. I like Warren. I just hope because Hillary lost the party isn't run on Bernies viewpoints just to appeal to millennials. 

Edited November 15, 2016 by choclatechip45

[Deanie87]

51 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Here’s what makes me wary about this, though. It’s agreeing with a narrative that blames the Left for racism. As you said, people have been called out for advocating against minorities—but what should they have been called? Sure I’d rather than a Mitt Romney than a Donald Trump, but I honestly don’t see that much of a difference in a lot of their policies. Isn’t that the reason many are even more scared of a presidency led by bland, upright Mike Pence?

 

 I’ve heard many say that the word “racist” has no meaning for them now because the Left uses it so often, but I honestly think the reason it has no meaning isn’t because the Left uses it so much, it’s because they don’t actually mind being racist. Once they flipped the script and came up with reasons for why Democrats are really racist (social safety nets “train” minorities to live off the government instead of working!) and sexist (giving a woman the right to choose means you don’t respect her biological superiority as a person who can give birth!) they were happy to use them against others while also talking about how Jim Crowe wasn’t so bad etc.

 

I mean, you can say that the left was so hysterical and now they’ve cried wolf too many times. But I’d say it’s possibly more accurate to say they’ve cried wolf and now they’ve been proved right. This isn’t the first election they’ve been using fears about “voter suppression” to make it harder for many minorities to vote, the voting rights act was gutted before this election, they were already using religious freedom arguments to give bosses authority over their employees’ birth control.

 

Which is not to say I don’t advocate for truthfulness on the left. I don’t want to resort to exaggerated stories to throw at the otherside. I want to be totally accurate about everything that’s actually happening and be worried about that. Like with Steve Bannon, I’ve read articles about him. I don’t know exactly what it means to say he is or isn’t really a Nazi. But I think the alarm over his appointment is very reasonable. To me the “but it’s not really a Nazi-Nazi” is going in the wrong direction emotionally. 

The fact that this election is even more horrible than what we have seen before does not give me the perspective that I should have shut up and been grateful for what I had before. I don’t think that would have helped anything, frankly. I think this is the trajectory the right was on. Maybe with Romney in the White House it would have been a statelier progression, or one that was less clearly ugly, but that doesn’t make it not unfair and harmful. Bush, imo, did tremendous damage to the country too.

Considering how much I agree witch your post, I clearly didn't get across what I meant in mine LOL!  Of course, all of this is true and I don't mean that I think that we should pick and choose only the most blatant and egregious types of misogyny or racism or anything like that.  I guess I just feel that so much of what are real issues and actual, terrifying possibilities, can so easily devolve into name calling, spite and "one upmanship" type of things, which just isn't helpful.  I"m not trying to promote any kind of false equivalency and I"m certainly not saying that we should be grateful that for what we had before (I certainly wouldn't want to put Bush back in the White House), but for myself, I want to make sure that I am sure in what I am repeating because it is so important.  The truth is most likely not to be found on facebook or in the retweets of actors and actresses, however good their intentions and effective change isn't either. And THAT is what I'm trying to avoid for myself.

ETA - Long story short, social media is a drug and it's bad for me!

Edited November 15, 2016 by Deanie87

[kokapetl]

On 14/11/2016 at 10:17 AM, lordonia said:

As much as I think he's a bombastic egomaniac, I would have seriously considered voting for Marc Cuban if he had been running instead of Trump. I've departed party lines twice since 1972 to vote for one Republican and one Independent, so there is precedent. ;)

I wonder what would happen if George Wallace and David Duke had been running now. Hey, the latter might be able to resurrect his political career in the current climate.

I'd also be interesting in hearing arguments for or against raising the voting age to 21 again.

There's a way to change that. Make voting compulsory. 

[stormy]

Nancy Pelosi announced today she's running for house minority leader.

[Duke Silver]

**I'm not a Democrat, am a registered Independent**

I just watched Congressman Tim Ryan from Ohio being interviewed by Chris Matthews.  Apparently, Ryan is mulling over running against Nancy Pelosi as House Minority Leader (he seems to have been the chief engineer behind getting that vote delayed; was supposed to be held Thurs, Nov 17).

Anyway, his "platform" is clearly focused on trying to re-acquire Obama voters who voted for Trump (he didn't say it that way, but that is necessarily what he meant).  ****I continue to think it's a huge (yuuuuuge!) mistake for the Dems to wast time on that demographic.****

He even explicitly said that demographic should not be expected to re-train for jobs.  Is he fucking serious?  He's actually using Trump's talking point that he seriously thinks old economy jobs (that have been disappearing for 2+ decades) will be magically brought back????  I sincerely hope Democrats don't think this is the way to go.  I have many more thoughts/arguments about this, but this just isn't the place for it.  A college buddy (an unapologetic Liberal, heh) & I are organizing monthly dinner parties, the focus of which will be fund-raising for a handful or organizations.  I'm sure he & I will be debating this ad nauseum, LOL.

[NewDigs]

I don't know anything about Jaime Harrison but he sounded energized on whichever the heck channel I had the teevee on earlier.

How much time and energy does Ellison need? Or have? Do we need him in the House full-time ?

[Keepitmoving]

36 minutes ago, stormy said:

Nancy Pelosi announced today she's running for house minority leader.

I hope she wins, again.

I hope Jaime Harrison wins, but I guess I'd be fine if Ellison won as well for DNC chair.

[Nysha]

On 11/15/2016 at 1:08 PM, Deanie87 said:

 It also turns out that as craven and disgusting as Steve Bannon is (and he is), he is not actually a Nazi.  

He may not be, but he uses the same rhetoric as one and US Nazi's & Neo-Nazi's have adopted him as one of their own, so he might as well be. I had an argument with a white male Trump supporter who, when someone said he was a white supremacist, said he couldn't be because he had half-Mexican kids and the group doesn't allow anyone in who has mixed race children. My argument was the same, if he spouts of the same shit as a white supremacist, he may not be a member of the group, but he still believes in their agenda.

[Duke Silver]

2 minutes ago, Nysha said:

He may not be, but he uses the same rhetoric as one and US Nazi's & Neo-Nazi's have adopted him as one of their own, so he might as well be. I had an argument with a white male Trump supporter who, when someone said he was a white supremacist, said he couldn't be because he had half-Mexican kids and the group doesn't allow anyone in who has mixed race children. My argument was the same, if he spouts of the same shit as a white supremacist, he may not be a member of the group, but he still believes in their agenda.

That + affinity for an individual or individuals in one's daily sphere does not preclude one from being a racist (also regardless of the lack of any official membership in any given hate group).  Look up anti-semitic Jews in Nazi Germany; anecdotes all over the [lace of known racists w/ people of color in their daily lives; "benevolent" slave owners, etc. etc., etc.

[scriggle]

I came across this essay delving into the argument that "coastal elites" don't understand rural America.  It's long but a very good read.

I wasn't sure where to post this but I figure this thread is the best fit.

On Rural America: Understanding Isn’t The Problem

Quote

As the aftermath of the election of Donald Trump is being sorted out, a common theme keeps cropping up from all sides-”Democrats failed to understand white, working class, fly-over America.”  Trump supports are saying this.  Progressive pundits are saying this.  Talking heads across all forms of the media are saying this.  Even  some Democratic leaders are saying this.  It doesn’t matter how many people say it, it is complete bullshit.  It is an intellectual/linguistic sleight of hand meant to throw attention away from the real problem.  The real problem isn’t east coast elites don’t understand or care about rural America.  The real problem is rural America doesn’t understand the causes of their own situations and fears and they have shown no interest in finding out.  They don’t want to know why they feel the way they do or why they are struggling because the don’t want to admit it is in large part because of choices they’ve made and horrible things they’ve allowed themselves to believe.

[MulletorHater]

25 minutes ago, scriggle said:

I came across this essay delving into the argument that "coastal elites" don't understand rural America.  It's long but a very good read.

I wasn't sure where to post this but I figure this thread is the best fit.

On Rural America: Understanding Isn’t The Problem

I'm glad someone had the cheek to say this.  One of the reasons I've backed away from cable news shows is that they all parrot this bullshit as if I'm expected to be cowed or feel guilty for not "understanding" the problems of rural America.  I'm also supposed to feel some guilt because I expect my president to be smarter and more educated than me.  Apparently, that makes me elitist.  As someone succinctly said upthread, who in the world goes to a doctor for surgery (or anything else) that doesn't have a medical degree or some expertise in his/her area of practice?

For once, I wish someone would remind us that for over 30 years, these same people continually voted against their own economic interests to their own detriment.  They didn't let things like facts or reason dissuade them from doing so.  They consistently sent people to Washington whose philosophy was to cut taxes (which are needed for infrastructure and services) and to dismantle the safety net.  They've often sneered at those in need of services because they mistakenly bought into the notion that it was "those people" who was taking money out of their pockets.  Even when "those people" started to look increasingly more like them, particularly after the crash in 2008, they sent those same representatives to Congress and grimly cheered when they shut the government down.  Bill Moyers attributed this quote to President Lyndon Johnson, which sums it up perfectly for me:

"I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

[DollEyes]

On 11/13/2016 at 11:09 PM, Keepitmoving said:

Exactly, he didn't connect with me. I wasn't inspired by him.  But then I'm a small doses, practical Hillary voter, so I would have dragged my ass to the polls early just like I did for my girl Hillary and voted for Bernie, to keep Trump the fuck out of office. You can be damn sure of that. Because there is no equivalency of evil in my world when Trump is in the mix. Unless you count Pence, and Ted Cruz because THEY are equally as evil.  I also don't need to be excited to want to come out and vote to keep a racist, klansman from winning the oval office. 

Bingo. I always resented Bernie and his followers getting the special snowflake treatment, especially at the Democratic convention. Who is Bernie to tell the Democrats what to do when he's not a Democrat himself? I also don't buy that if Bernie was the nominee instead of Hillary, he would have won. A Jewish, socialist atheist vs. Trump, the Republicans and the alt-right? Trump would have kicked Bernie's ass IMO. 

[Nidratime]

Quote

The real problem is rural America doesn’t understand the causes of their own situations and fears and they have shown no interest in finding out.  They don’t want to know why they feel the way they do or why they are struggling because the don’t want to admit it is in large part because of choices they’ve made and horrible things they’ve allowed themselves to believe.

I agree with this. As conservatives are fond of saying, people have to take responsibility for themselves. They have to own their choices and recognize that they put their trust in the wrong people. In the same vein, I am sick and tired of hearing about how Hillary or the Democratic Party didn't try hard enough to get their voters out or to reach voters who *used* to be open to a progressive message. Perhaps Dems *do* bear some responsibility, but I also blame the voters themselves who apparently need to be wooed and cajoled to vote. It's not enough to be a citizen of a democratic republic with a duty to do a little work yourself, learn about the candidates and issues, and vote. You have to be convinced -- not to vote for one person or another -- but convinced to vote at all! Hillary won the popular vote and yet received less votes than Obama did in 2008. Trump won the electoral college and yet received less actual votes than Obama, Hillary, McCain, and Romney. What does that say about our people? To me, it says they're damn lazy and take no responsibility as citizens. It's easier to just skip the election than to show up and make some sort of mark, whether for or against, or even none of the above.

[partofme]

14 minutes ago, DollEyes said:

Bingo. I always resented Bernie and his followers getting the special snowflake treatment, especially at the Democratic convention. Who is Bernie to tell the Democrats what to do when he's not a Democrat himself? I also don't buy that if Bernie was the nominee instead of Hillary, he would have won. A Jewish, socialist atheist vs. Trump, the Republicans and the alt-right? Trump would have kicked Bernie's ass IMO. 

I agree.  I resented them too.  I was disappointed when Obama won in '08 over Hillary, I thought he was more conservative than Hillary, but that didn't stop me from voting for him.

[Ohwell]

3 hours ago, DollEyes said:

Bingo. I always resented Bernie and his followers getting the special snowflake treatment, especially at the Democratic convention. Who is Bernie to tell the Democrats what to do when he's not a Democrat himself? I also don't buy that if Bernie was the nominee instead of Hillary, he would have won. A Jewish, socialist atheist vs. Trump, the Republicans and the alt-right? Trump would have kicked Bernie's ass IMO. 

Well, that Jewish, socialist atheist gave Hillary a run for her money.  Plus, she had the DNC machine totally behind her.  I do think Bernie would have kicked Trump's ass because more people would have come out to vote for him, instead of just saying home. 

[choclatechip45]

It's easy to say Bernie would have won because he was never attacked during the primaries because Hillary never really went after him. Which was smart of her after how bitter the primaries were in '08. Considering Trump told people that Ted Cruz's father killed  JFK who knows what he would have said about  Bernie.

Kurt Eichenwald writes half way down the page in this article some of the attacks Bernie would have faced. 

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

[Deanie87]

2 hours ago, choclatechip45 said:

It's easy to say Bernie would have won because he was never attacked during the primaries because Hillary never really went after him. Which was smart of her after how bitter the primaries were in '08. Considering Trump told people that Ted Cruz's father killed  JFK who knows what he would have said about  Bernie.

Kurt Eichenwald writes half way down the page in this article some of the attacks Bernie would have faced. 

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

Yep I just posted that article in another thread. 

[Keepitmoving]

Jesus, Harry Reid, don't leave, love this man. He's saying on Chris Hayes exactly my sentiment, we do not work with white supremacists period. You don't meet with him, unless it's in court with the ACLU for some shit he's done against the constitution.  We don't even attend his state of the union, we have the fucking klan in the White House Chuck Schumer, it can not be any business as usual, none.  If they don't get their shit together I will be voting them the fuck out. Get a goddamn back bone.  Let Obama and Hillary do their graceful dance, I wouldn't have them exit any other way. But Obama is on his way out the door and once he's gone I want war from the progressive left in the trenches. Fuck that we accept, not gracefully we don't. The first state of union address, I want to see that entire democratic side empty. You remember when they shouted out "liar" to Obama during his SOTU, Nancy Pelosi standing there with her what the fuck look. Forget the what the fuck look, Dems need not show up at all for this klansman's SOTU.  The union is busted as long as the klan is running it.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Keepitmoving

[crowsworks]

I would really like the news networks to report – oh you know – the facts. Apparently Donald Trump thinks reporting the facts is a bias.

Like the fact that most American manufacturing jobs were lost to robots not foreign countries. Like the fact that immigrants commit no more crimes than Americans. Like the fact that many manufacturing in telecom jobs are being done in for-profit prisons. Where mostly minor drug offenders earn $.25 a day to make everything from lingerie to credit card calls.

They have become the new plantations – with the added bonus of taking away the right to vote of millions of black men mostly due to minor marijuana charges in southern states.

Ya know...slaves

[stormy]

Nancy Pelosi will have a challenger in Rep Tim Ryan (D  Ohio).

Nancy says she has 2/3 of the votes so she will prevail.

I don't know if this is good or not.  Nancy's one tough cookie but isn't it time to get some new blood and while she's there so she can guide this new leader?  This is going to take more than one person to put on the gloves and go to battle these the crazies everyday.

[partofme]

6 minutes ago, stormy said:

Nancy Pelosi will have a challenger in Rep Tim Ryan (D  Ohio).

Nancy says she has 2/3 of the votes so she will prevail.

I don't know if this is good or not.  Nancy's one tough cookie but isn't it time to get some new blood and while she's there so she can guide this new leader?  This is going to take more than one person to put on the gloves and go to battle these the crazies everyday.

I've never been Nancy's biggest fan, but I want her to win.  I read this guy is someone who wants to accommodate all of the white working class idiots in the rust belt who voted against their own interests when they voted for the orange one.

[DollEyes]

18 hours ago, Ohwell said:

Well, that Jewish, socialist atheist gave Hillary a run for her money.  Plus, she had the DNC machine totally behind her.  I do think Bernie would have kicked Trump's ass because more people would have come out to vote for him, instead of just saying home. 

I respectfully disagree. For one thing, the primaries are one thing; a general election is another. As Kurt Eichenwald's  brilliantNewsweek article pointed out, the Republicans had enough dirt on Sanders to at least slow him down, if not stop him altogether.

[Danny Franks]

3 hours ago, partofme said:

I've never been Nancy's biggest fan, but I want her to win.  I read this guy is someone who wants to accommodate all of the white working class idiots in the rust belt who voted against their own interests when they voted for the orange one.

His district is right in the middle of that rust belt, so I guess it's hardly surprising that he wants to be accommodating to them. But lying to them about their jobs coming back, as everyone is, does them no favours. It will just hurt more, with each year when those promises don't come true. 

Tell them the truth. They need to retrain, and the government will do whatever it can to bring new employment to the area (unless it's a Republican government, in which case, they only help themselves). But the jobs they want simply do not exist any more. If they can't handle that, and vote him out of office because they want to keep living in a fantasy world, then fuck 'em.

[potatoradio]

2 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

His district is right in the middle of that rust belt, so I guess it's hardly surprising that he wants to be accommodating to them. But lying to them about their jobs coming back, as everyone is, does them no favours. It will just hurt more, with each year when those promises don't come true

I agree. I mean, don't "they" ultimately want someone to have enough respect for them to tell them the truth? It's what I want from my politicians and I'm a liberal elitist. I don't think pandering is the way to go. Honest, thoughtful dialog is. Key thing is for the Dems in those areas to go level with these people and treat them like any other citizen - I don't expect politicians to be Santa Claus and I always want to know what I can do to address my problem instead of having someone solve it for me. Why not talk to these people about how what you're doing to help them rebuild their economy and ensure their freedom? Help them understand what we have in common - that we all want our lives pretty much left the fuck alone and not be at the mercy of one party gaining power?

[Duke Silver]

3 hours ago, partofme said:

I've never been Nancy's biggest fan, but I want her to win.  I read this guy is someone who wants to accommodate all of the white working class idiots in the rust belt who voted against their own interests when they voted for the orange one.

Yep, I've posted about his (Tim Ryan's) "platform" a couple times.  Trump voters will only be prompted to blame others (foreign governments, Libuuurals, minority neighbors, etc.) when Trump & the GOP hacks predictably fail to bring back a single old economy job.  There will be no self-examination; only further recriminations.  It's pathetic, and Ryan should not be supported by Dems to further act as an enabler to Trump or his supporters.  I get that Ryan represents such a district, but he does no good as part of Dem leadership if he is going to remain so out of touch with reality.

[Jordan27]

On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 0:11 PM, potatoradio said:

One of the things that makes me so sad about this election is the proof that ideas and intellect are second to memes and impressions and "charisma." Gross. 

But, fine. Let's use it. Let's figure out who can rally AND unite and worry about the details of policy later. The bench is awfully short right now, but there are bright spots still out there and we can dig for more. Let's tap the far left and the center for unity and stop bickering about ideals. We have to survive first. 

I'm a long time Dem, but I'd happily unite with the Greens and the RINOS and form a new alliance that focuses on delivering change that people want and that really listens to the people it represents. 

That's what this election was...change.  From the big gov't and liberal ideas that have plagued this country.

And what ideas did Hillary have?

Basically, her campaign was higher taxes, socialized medicine, a big gov't and Trump sucks.  Not exactly and uplifting message.  

All the ideas were on Trump's side, but the LW media didn't want to talk about them because they knew Hillary had none.

On ‎11‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 11:39 AM, Danny Franks said:

This comment may have been in jest, but the Guardian had an op-ed the other day about why the Right always comes up with the best slogans. These little soundbites can, and have, influenced elections. In this case, I do think that 'make America great again' and 'drain the swamp' had an impact. A simple message, short words, punchy. We can mock people for being drawn in by it, but it did happen.

The left needs to find a simple, catchy, unifying call to arms, and they need to make it take hold in the national (and international) consciousness.

How about "Up with Socialism?"  That should bring in the votes. 

[Danny Franks]

2 minutes ago, Jordan27 said:

That's what this election was...change.  From the big gov't and liberal ideas that have plagued this country.

Of course it was. All that change. About 90% of the same congressmen and senators put back in office. But you know what? Things might change if Trump is allowed free rein. You know, with him bringing in bigots who hate pretty much all minorities. If that's the kind of change you're looking for, I can see why you might be happy.

[Jordan27]

The Democrat Party is in huge trouble. 

They are behind 52-48 in the Senate.  They are behind over 35 seats in the House.

Republicans picked up three more Governors last Tuesday.

And they lost the Presidency.

And here's an interesting item you may not know...

...the states with Dem Governors and a Dem legislature are only five.   Yep, I said five. 

It might be one of the low points in history for that party. 

And it warms my heart. 

 

1 hour ago, Danny Franks said:

Of course it was. All that change. About 90% of the same congressmen and senators put back in office. But you know what? Things might change if Trump is allowed free rein. You know, with him bringing in bigots who hate pretty much all minorities. If that's the kind of change you're looking for, I can see why you might be happy.

As long as liberals keep on with their nonsensical racist charges, they are never going to get anywhere. 

I'm not racist, no one in my family is racist, none of my friends are and never saw any at any of the Republican events I've been to.  What is racist is accusing people of being racist who aren't.  Plus, I despise racism.

I did see racism during the campaign.  The BLM chanting let's burn white cops like bacon.  Didn't see a lot of liberals complaining about that.

But, I'm going to help you out and tell you our real complaint...

We didn't like Obama because he was a liberal.  We didn't like Hillary because she was a liberal. 

We don't like the Dem Party because they espouse liberal policies.

WE DON'T LIKE LIBERALISM. 

...so ends the lesson.

[Ceindreadh]

33 minutes ago, Jordan27 said:

As long as liberals keep on with their nonsensical racist charges, they are never going to get anywhere. 

I'm not racist, no one in my family is racist, none of my friends are and never saw any at any of the Republican events I've been to.  What is racist is accusing people of being racist who aren't.  Plus, I despise racism.

I did see racism during the campaign.  The BLM chanting let's burn white cops like bacon.  Didn't see a lot of liberals complaining about that.

But, I'm going to help you out and tell you our real complaint...

We didn't like Obama because he was a liberal.  We didn't like Hillary because she was a liberal. 

We don't like the Dem Party because they espouse liberal policies.

WE DON'T LIKE LIBERALISM. 

...so ends the lesson.

I'm sure you don't believe you're a racist. Personally though, I tend to use the KKK as a racism detector. If they say something is good, then more than likely it's racist. So maybe you and Trump and all his supporters aren't actually racist, but guess what, you're racist enough for one of the most racist organisations in your country so it amounts to pretty much the same thing. 

[potatoradio]

1 hour ago, Jordan27 said:

WE DON'T LIKE LIBERALISM

And we don't like fascism. 

Nuff said.

[Ohwell]

8 hours ago, DollEyes said:

I respectfully disagree. For one thing, the primaries are one thing; a general election is another. As Kurt Eichenwald's  brilliantNewsweek article pointed out, the Republicans had enough dirt on Sanders to at least slow him down, if not stop him altogether.

I read the Eichenwald article, and I'm pretty certain that Sanders and his people would have been prepared for the Republican onslaught.  I believe he would have survived it, just as Trump survived his scandals.  In that regard, that's where I think they were both similar because they had enough enthusiastic people to vote for them, despite the bad news and scandals, and I think that Bernie would have had more of those enthusiastic voters than Trump.  

So to sum up, I still think that Bernie would have kicked Trump's ass, but I also recognize that arguing about this is truly a moot point now because Hillary fucked up and Trump won.  Game over.

[Blergh]

Ohwell,

   Technically, I agree . However, IMO, what we need to do is to find means to survive these times (as our nation and world has survived for millenia) then consider exactly what went wrong and LEARN from the mistakes  instead of clinging to sentimental attachments to those who proved unworthy. Then we can start rebuilding from the ground up, emphasizing the need to consider each person's voice and imput to be valuable not because of background, shape, etc. but because we are all human and there are saints as well as monsters among every group imaginable.

 

 Yes, some may say this is pie-in-the-sky but we need to aim UPWARDS not wallow in defeat or consider the challenges unobtainable - whilst acknowledging how TOUGH they may be.

[Ohwell]

If you're referring to Bernie Sanders, I'm not "clinging to sentimental attachments."  I just stated my opinion of what might have been.  

[Duke Silver]

<shrug>  I know nothing; hell, I'm not even a Democrat, but I'm able to envision any viable Dem candidate, not named Hillary Clinton, beating Orange Hitler. (Disclaimer:  I DID vote for Hillary in the general election; I'm a registered Independent)

I know...false equivalency, BUT, the truth is, and ugliness of the campaign bore this out: Hillary came with so much baggage, real & made-up, that it just made it even easier for the loony tunes element of the GOP to fight against the Democratic nominee even more stridently.  Sure, those twits would've come hard after anyone, that's the rough game of politics.  But the special hatred they have for Hillary goes beyond the pale.  

Edited November 19, 2016 by Duke Silver
typos

[Blergh]

Oh Well,

 

Despite my entirely not agreeing with Senator Sanders, I DID vote him in my state primary because I thought he was FAR more worthy with more initiative and gumption than the one foisted upon the  us due to the sentimental attachments.  However; for the sake of our nation and world I did my duty while literally holding my nose to vote for Senator Clinton in the Presidential election. I  hope that clarifies things.