I'm repulsed to say: we need more conservative Democrats

[TTQ64]

I'm still having trouble with your idea. It might get some disenfranchised fence sitting Republicans to vote Dem, but it does nothing to correct the problem that Dems now have. Key Dem demographics...youth/minority/blue collar tend to get complacent unless they are truly inspired to vote. Contrast that with the Nazi/wealthy/uneducated class who all have a vibrant desire to change society as it now exists, or simply line their pockets ever further.

The Dem message, albeit watered down by Clinton (because she thought the election was a lock) is valid. I think the problem in this last election was that Sanders touched a large part of the Obama coalition, and they decided to teach the DNC a lesson.

We'll see what happens in the mid terms. By all accounts, the Dems are much more vulnerable than Reps, due only to the number of seats up for grabs. We're going see if those who chose to stay home last year, regret the results.

IMO, as far as the minorities not coming out to vote is not because they are complacent or not inspired, it's because their votes are being suppressed. Besides that, the numbers are low in red state because they cheat then blame their win on minorities not coming out to vote. Black women come out to vote every election every cycle and Black men, well most cant vote if they wanted to.

This all boils down to cheating. The only thing republicans are good at.

 

[TTQ64]

Play the victim.



Like tt, you are lacking reading comprehension. I didn't say one word about "the Democratic Party" doing those things. I said the party should NOT do them and elect people who don't do them whenever it can.

I'm talking about races where it can't. Where the voters demand something else. Your answer is, give all those races to Republicans and let them keep majorities in al branches. I disagree.



You're right. So how does it help them to ELECT REPUBLICANS as you want to?



What there is to gain is that in those districts that ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR THOSE THINGS NO MATTER WHAT, it's better for the party who is AGAINST those things to be strengthened than the Republican Party who is FOR them. For plutocracy to be weakened instead of strengthened.

Listen, can you understand one simple statement?

Our democracy is threatened by allowing wealthy interests to take it over, and a big part of that are the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court whose main job is to wrongly interpret the constitution to allow that. If you want the people to win elections, if you want those groups protected, you need to stop allowing Republicans who are destroying democracy to put their people on the Supreme Court (and approving them as they now have 52 Senators), and givign all the money in the country to a few people.

Of course this message is too late now because they've ALREADY DONE IT and control the Supreme Court for years to come at least.

Political power comes with economic power. Martin Luther King understood that as he fought for economic justice along with equal rights.



Stop misrepresenting what I said. trump lost the popular vote. Republicans have lost the popular vote for the House yet controlled it. Those are their own problem.s

I'm not talking about those issues. I'm talking about how Republicans are able to win elections by only caring about one issue, plutocracy, and pandering to voters on any other issues they want, while Democrats refuse to give bad voters anything they want, and
lose the elections, creating the disaster we have now where Republicans control the Supreme Court, came within one vote of repealing the ACA, and are about to pass a plutocracy bill redistributing $6 trillion to the rich.



Ya, you can sleep well at night scolding them and having no power while they destroy the country. Fight for those things - but try to win an election once in a while in the meantime.[/QUOTE]

We won just last election cycle. President Obama was President for 8 years. Where have you been?

You sound more and more like your from the right.

 

[Craig234]

I'm still having trouble with your idea. It might get some disenfranchised fence sitting Republicans to vote Dem, but it does nothing to correct the problem that Dems now have. Key Dem demographics...youth/minority/blue collar tend to get complacent unless they are truly inspired to vote. Contrast that with the Nazi/wealthy/uneducated class who all have a vibrant desire to change society as it now exists, or simply line their pockets ever further.

The Dem message, albeit watered down by Clinton (because she thought the election was a lock) is valid. I think the problem in this last election was that Sanders touched a large part of the Obama coalition, and they decided to teach the DNC a lesson.

We'll see what happens in the mid terms. By all accounts, the Dems are much more vulnerable than Reps, due only to the number of seats up for grabs. We're going see if those who chose to stay home last year, regret the results.

I'll reply about the topic to your next post, but the problem was not Bernie's great leadership for the right policies.

You say the problem was Democrats who liked his policies who decided to 'teach Democrats a lesson' - something I argued with them not to do - but more Bernie supporters voted for Hillary, than in 2008 Hillary supporters voted for Obama. Only 10% didn't.

 

[TTQ64]

He's a little rough around the edges, for sure.

I had trouble following along with the concept, but he seems to call for a localized gimmick aimed at seats that are historically out of reach. I see a number of problems with that idea. I live in a Red region of a true Blue state. I don't see the idiots I walk among, falling for a scheme like this...mainly because they would NEVER vote for anyone with a D before their name.
And they use fear to incite the under educated to vote. GOP ideology is a clear minority in this country.

Again...this election should not be viewed as something that will ever happen again. In fact, this administration will guarantee that it never happens.

This can all be traced back to Clinton being vulnerable to empty propaganda, the perception that Sanders got screwed, and a large swath of Independents who simply got turned off by the Jerry Springer atmosphere.

Over 1 million Americans voted for Clinton over dump. She did what she was suppose to do. The racist EC is why dump is in office. We need to stop blaming ourselves and put the blame where it belongs and, that's solely on the racist EC.

 

[Craig234]

Please clarify. You are suggesting that Dem candidates in these areas just lie? If not, you need them to gain a segment of Republicans, and all the Dems. What happens if you simply distance yourself from all Dems in the region?

If the candidates you suggest aren't lying, then what happens if they do get into office? They're actually the Blue Dogs that you don't want.

I think a better idea would be for Dems to covertly run a third party candidate who can steal 1/4 of the Republican voters via the methods you suggest, and let the Dem steal a seat.

No, I'm not suggesting anyone lie. Let me try to spell this out.

Imagine in a district there are 100,000 voters. Imagine 100 of them are very wealthy and want selfish plutocrat policies that will take from the poor and give to them - Republican policies.

If democracy was working, if voters were informed, they'd lose horribly, getting only their own 100 votes.

Now imagine the polls show that the top issues for the voters are social conservative issues. 80% don't like gay marriage. 90% think their gun rights are under attack. 65% don't like the NFL protests.

Now these voters, if asked whether they like the plutocrat policies, might say; perhaps probably say no. But they're not what they're concerned about.

The choice at the ballot for them:

A Republican who cares about nothing but their wealthy donors and voting for plutocracy, but has a campaign that talks about nothing but what the voters want to hear on gays, on guns, any any other issues polls show they care about.

Their opponent is a Democrat who shares the national Democratic views - pro-equality, pro-saving lives in urban areas with more gun control, and so on. Because of the social issues, the Republican gets 80% of the vote - and passes plutocracy.

What if instead, there was a Democrat who ran giving the voters what they want on social issues - while a minority within the Democratic Party - but would NOT support the Republicans' plutocrat agenda (or the corporate Democrats for that matter)?

THAT Democrat might have a better chance to win the election, and while we keep fighting to change the minds of those voters on the social issues, Republicans AREN'T taking $6 trillion and healthcare away from the people.

Instead, we're just handing the district for free to the say-anything Republican who will use social issues to get elected - the wolf in sheep's clothing who will vote for plutocrat policies but run on social issues.

I'm not saying for the national party to change its policies to those views. I'm not saying not to TRY to get a progressive elected instead if they can be. I'm not saying not to try to get the voters to change their opinions.

I *am* saying to recognize that while voters DO have the wrong views on social issues, it'd be nice to not let that hand the election to the plutocrats who will destroy the country - to try to actually win some elections.

The Republicans are building a massive political machine, built on the right for unlimited money in politics, billionaire donors, a propaganda industry of 'think tanks' that create lies to sell the American people on false opinions, a massive media machine to
dominate what the people hear, Gerrymandering and voter suppression, a massive lobbying industry that offers politicians a pay raise if they are voted out so they don't have to listen to voters.

We need to fight that with better than losing a majority of seats and letting Republicans destroy the country. And if that means in the short term giving voters what they want in order to not let plutocrats use social issues to win, it's a price we need to pay.

 

[Craig234]

We need less extremists on either side, and should hope for more people who are capable and willing to sit down and talk...calmly and factually.

With no offense, that is a very naive view and has NOTHING to do with what wins elections, and NOTHING to do with bought and paid for Republicans who serve only their donors and don't have nay interest in listening to anyone else.

 

[Craig234]

If the candidates you suggest aren't lying, then what happens if they do get into office? They're actually the Blue Dogs that you don't want.

They're not my first choice - but my #1 issue is plutocracy. If I can't get a progressive, I want a social issue blue dog who opposes plutocracy over a Republican who is wrong on social issues AND plutocracy.

I think a better idea would be for Dems to covertly run a third party candidate who can steal 1/4 of the Republican voters via the methods you suggest, and let the Dem steal a seat.

That could be an idea - it's not especially noble and not especially reliable and can be exposed, but it might be an idea. But it's a separate issue.

 

[Canceled.2018.1]

With no offense, that is a very naive view and has NOTHING to do with what wins elections, and NOTHING to do with bought and paid for Republicans who serve only their donors and don't have nay interest in listening to anyone else.

Both sides are bought and paid for by their constituents. No one side is guiltless, so lets not kid ourselves. Politicians do what they need to in order to win, and the ones who make the most promises will win the voters' favor. Some don't say it outright, but they leave the potential voters to assume, which is just as misleading.
When we point fingers, we have to point them both ways to start an honest conversation. Anything else is partisan nonsense.

 

[evince]

facts

facts are all we need to fix this


the facts are that the republican party sold its self to russia


the Democratic party has been fighting your asses all the way


ITS YOUR FAULT FOR BEING EVIL



we dont share the blame you lying ass sucks


every time you shits get caught YOUA try to make the Democractic party share your blame

FUCK YOU


its not going to work this time fucking goat balls



YOU are evil


WE FOUGHT YOU ALL THE WAY

 

[TTQ64]

No, I'm not suggesting anyone lie. Let me try to spell this out.

Imagine in a district there are 100,000 voters. Imagine 100 of them are very wealthy and want selfish plutocrat policies that will take from the poor and give to them - Republican policies.

If democracy was working, if voters were informed, they'd lose horribly, getting only their own 100 votes.

Now imagine the polls show that the top issues for the voters are social conservative issues. 80% don't like gay marriage. 90% think their gun rights are under attack. 65% don't like the NFL protests.

Now these voters, if asked whether they like the plutocrat policies, might say; perhaps probably say no. But they're not what they're concerned about.

The choice at the ballot for them:

A Republican who cares about nothing but their wealthy donors and voting for plutocracy, but has a campaign that talks about nothing but what the voters want to hear on gays, on guns, any any other issues polls show they care about.

Their opponent is a Democrat who shares the national Democratic views - pro-equality, pro-saving lives in urban areas with more gun control, and so on. Because of the social issues, the Republican gets 80% of the vote - and passes plutocracy.

What if instead, there was a Democrat who ran giving the voters what they want on social issues - while a minority within the Democratic Party - but would NOT support the Republicans' plutocrat agenda (or the corporate Democrats for that matter)?

THAT Democrat might have a better chance to win the election, and while we keep fighting to change the minds of those voters on the social issues, Republicans AREN'T taking $6 trillion and healthcare away from the people.

Instead, we're just handing the district for free to the say-anything Republican who will use social issues to get elected - the wolf in sheep's clothing who will vote for plutocrat policies but run on social issues.

I'm not saying for the national party to change its policies to those views. I'm not saying not to TRY to get a progressive elected instead if they can be. I'm not saying not to try to get the voters to change their opinions.

I *am* saying to recognize that while voters DO have the wrong views on social issues, it'd be nice to not let that hand the election to the plutocrats who will destroy the country - to try to actually win some elections.

The Republicans are building a massive political machine, built on the right for unlimited money in politics, billionaire donors, a propaganda industry of 'think tanks' that create lies to sell the American people on false opinions, a massive media machine to
dominate what the people hear, Gerrymandering and voter suppression, a massive lobbying industry that offers politicians a pay raise if they are voted out so they don't have to listen to voters.

We need to fight that with better than losing a majority of seats and letting Republicans destroy the country. And if that means in the short term giving voters what they want in order to not let plutocrats use social issues to win, it's a price we need to pay.

I take it you're not minority nor gay. We've been paying the price for 400 years. How much abuse do you think we need to take?

 

[Craig234]

You must think I care if you put me on ignore. Newsflash, I don't.

No, I don't care if you care. I'm informing you of the consequences of being an ass.

Bottom line, 1 million more dems voted correctly in this election. As far as red state voters, they will never vote for a dem even if the dem supported their racist social issues.

No the bottom line is that it wasn't enough (and it was 3 million more voters for Hillary, not 1 million). Actually, many red state voters WOULD vote for a Democrat who sided with them on the issues they care most about - and oppose plutocracy.

Why do you think Republicans run on all these lies they tell pretending they're for workers, for higher taxes on the rich, against 'the swamp', instead of telling the truth that they have the opposite positions?

The only reason they win in the red states is by cheating. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, the EC and fear. Take away those things and perhaps a dem could take that seat. Look how close those races are.

No, they only partly win by cheating. They win more by being the only candidate in the race giving the voters what they want on the issues they care most about and having unlimited money allowed from the wealthy donors they serve to tell voters that.

Your are doing exactly what they want. Stack the dems with republican light politicians so the racist republicans can have their racist views pushed through. They don't have enough voters to win and election for dog catcher without cheating, and you fall for it thinking its the dem politican who needs to change.

No, I'm doing exactly what they don't want - taking away their getting free wins by pandering to voters, You are doing exactly what they want - demanding they get to keep power.

You have a greatly exaggerated idea of the role cheating plays, as big as it is (gerrymandering, voter suppression, and more). But how do you propose, exactly, to get rid of the cheating?

Gerrymandering is done by the states, and Republicans control 2/3 of all the states totally. Not only are you nowhere near changing it - they are wanting to get those gerrymandered districts to be used for PRESIDENTIAL elections, FURTHER giving them a
cheating advantage, and there's nothing you can do to stop them - it's the states' right to decide. If they had done that in 2012, Romney would have won.

The courts are the only limit on Gerrymandering - and guess who now owns the courts, because YOUR approach let Republicans win so much and appoint the judges?

Voter suppression - again, see the courts, and be aware that for decades Republicans have been stacking the courts with judges who will APPROVE their cheating and now they control the Supreme Court.

So how are you going to prevent this 'cheating' other than scolding them in a post? You can't.

So your plan is just to lose elections and let them destroy the country while you say they cheated. Great.

Here's the thing, dems have morals. They get rid of their pedophiles so I wouldn't have to make that choice. We would never nominate a progressive pedophile so your theory is moot.

Democrats' morals aren't so much about that (look how we ignored rape and abuse allegations against Bill Clinton). Democrats' morals are on the policies - we want people to get healthcare, not take it away and give the money to the rich.

 

[Craig234]

I take it you're not minority nor gay. We've been paying the price for 400 years. How much abuse do you think we need to take?

I strongly support better policies for minorities and gays. YOU ARE NOT protecting them AT ALL by letting Republicans win those elections. You are HARMING them.

 

[TTQ64]

I strongly support better policies for minorities and gays. YOU ARE NOT protecting them AT ALL by letting Republicans win those elections. You are HARMING them.

I'm not letting republican win anything. They steal everything they have.

You want to help them suppress, oppress and murder Blacks, gays and other minorities to possible win a seat they cheated to get.

We don't need blue dog dems in the party PERIOD!

 

[Craig234]

Both sides are bought and paid for by their constituents.

No, they're not. Republicans don't give a CRAP about their constituents - they serve their DONORS.

There's an old saying I quote a lot: politicians have to LOOK good to voters, and DO good for donors.

Democrats mostly, and progressives especially, actually DO serve their constituents' interests far more than donors.

The thing to understand here also though is that while all Republicans care about is plutocracy - serving the money - they also adopt the positions right-wing voters want on social issues to get elected. They'd lynch a black man on tv every week if it got them
elected - they don't care, they just want the power for plutocracy.

Democrats are losing those elections and they're a minority, letting the Republicans get away with murder on plutocracy. It's time for the people to fight plutocracy. While they don't agree on social issues - that's why they're called wedge issues, because they
create a wedge and divide the people - some supporting equal rights and some discrimination, some supporting more gun control and some less - they need to unite to fight plutocracy.

You view Democrats and Republicans as a lot more alike than they are. That's a common fallacy for many 'centrist' voters. But there are massive differences that are very important.

 

[Craig234]

I'm not letting republican win anything. They steal everything they have.

You want to help them suppress, oppress and murder Blacks, gays and other minorities to possible win a seat they cheated to get.

We don't need blue dog dems in the party PERIOD!

No, you are HANDING THEM THE ELECTIONS and you are SCREWING GAYS AND PEOPLE OF COLOR AND WOMEN, you are DEMANDING the Democrats stay in the minority. I'm done since you can't read or understand a word said to you.

 

[Craig234]

We won just last election cycle. President Obama was President for 8 years. Where have you been?

Republicans won a thousand more seats while Obama was president. They blocked almost everything he wanted to do (the ACA passed by one vote) and denied him a Supreme Court appointment - and now control every branch.

You sound more and more like your from the right.

You're an idiot, and you are serving the right.

 

[Craig234]

Racist voters in the south will never vote for dems. NO sense in going after them. President Obama didn't go after them and he won. However, we can go after the cheaters in red states so that we can have fair and balanced elections.

Until that happens dems will never win in red states.

Learn a little history: the racist south voted for Democrats for a century. The issue is, what issues are they going to vote on? Race? Gays? Guns? Or 'draining the swamp'?

Because of people like you, Republicans get to have it both ways without any competition, and they rule the south. You can't stop the cheating. We CAN win by doing what I said.

 

[Craig234]

This all boils down to cheating. The only thing republicans are good at.

No, it's not all cheating. That's one big thing. And they're good at a lot more. They're good at fundraising from billionaires, they're good at think tank propaganda, they're good at having a right-wing media empire, and much more.

 

[evince]

No, I'm not suggesting anyone lie. Let me try to spell this out.

Imagine in a district there are 100,000 voters. Imagine 100 of them are very wealthy and want selfish plutocrat policies that will take from the poor and give to them - Republican policies.

If democracy was working, if voters were informed, they'd lose horribly, getting only their own 100 votes.

Now imagine the polls show that the top issues for the voters are social conservative issues. 80% don't like gay marriage. 90% think their gun rights are under attack. 65% don't like the NFL protests.

Now these voters, if asked whether they like the plutocrat policies, might say; perhaps probably say no. But they're not what they're concerned about.

The choice at the ballot for them:

A Republican who cares about nothing but their wealthy donors and voting for plutocracy, but has a campaign that talks about nothing but what the voters want to hear on gays, on guns, any any other issues polls show they care about.

Their opponent is a Democrat who shares the national Democratic views - pro-equality, pro-saving lives in urban areas with more gun control, and so on. Because of the social issues, the Republican gets 80% of the vote - and passes plutocracy.

What if instead, there was a Democrat who ran giving the voters what they want on social issues - while a minority within the Democratic Party - but would NOT support the Republicans' plutocrat agenda (or the corporate Democrats for that matter)?

THAT Democrat might have a better chance to win the election, and while we keep fighting to change the minds of those voters on the social issues, Republicans AREN'T taking $6 trillion and healthcare away from the people.

Instead, we're just handing the district for free to the say-anything Republican who will use social issues to get elected - the wolf in sheep's clothing who will vote for plutocrat policies but run on social issues.

I'm not saying for the national party to change its policies to those views. I'm not saying not to TRY to get a progressive elected instead if they can be. I'm not saying not to try to get the voters to change their opinions.

I *am* saying to recognize that while voters DO have the wrong views on social issues, it'd be nice to not let that hand the election to the plutocrats who will destroy the country - to try to actually win some elections.

The Republicans are building a massive political machine, built on the right for unlimited money in politics, billionaire donors, a propaganda industry of 'think tanks' that create lies to sell the American people on false opinions, a massive media machine to
dominate what the people hear, Gerrymandering and voter suppression, a massive lobbying industry that offers politicians a pay raise if they are voted out so they don't have to listen to voters.

We need to fight that with better than losing a majority of seats and letting Republicans destroy the country. And if that means in the short term giving voters what they want in order to not let plutocrats use social issues to win, it's a price we need to pay.

we tried that


those idiots voted with the republicans most of the time

 

[Canceled.2018.1]

No, they're not. Republicans don't give a CRAP about their constituents - they serve their DONORS.

There's an old saying I quote a lot: politicians have to LOOK good to voters, and DO good for donors.

Democrats mostly, and progressives especially, actually DO serve their constituents' interests far more than donors.

The thing to understand here also though is that while all Republicans care about is plutocracy - serving the money - they also adopt the positions right-wing voters want on social issues to get elected. They'd lynch a black man on tv every week if it got them
elected - they don't care, they just want the power for plutocracy.

Democrats are losing those elections and they're a minority, letting the Republicans get away with murder on plutocracy. It's time for the people to fight plutocracy. While they don't agree on social issues - that's why they're called wedge issues, because they
create a wedge and divide the people - some supporting equal rights and some discrimination, some supporting more gun control and some less - they need to unite to fight plutocracy.

You view Democrats and Republicans as a lot more alike than they are. That's a common fallacy for many 'centrist' voters. But there are massive differences that are very important.

Excuse me while I go and snicker. Nancy serves the people or her rich donors? But yeah, whatever. Like I said, partisan nonsense. Unsubscribing.