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

Craig234 said:
I'm a progressive Democrat and I want progressives to take over the Democratic Party. But.

The real issues for our country right now are the plutocrats taking over the country.

And they do that by finding issues they can pander to and get votes.

You hate gays? OK. You a sucker who will vote for someone who says your gun rights are under threat? OK. You a sucker for jingoistic patriotism and flag-waving? OK. Religious right pandering? OK. Etc.

What we have is tens of millions of people who vote Republicans over secondary issues - gay, guns, religion, thinking Democrats are communists, and many other such things. They don't understand that what they're actually voting for are plutocrats who are pandering to them to get those votes.

So what Democrats need to do is to worry about plutocracy, and give people Democratic candidates on ANY OTHER ISSUE THEY WANT. So if voters are going to vote for a pro-gun gay-hating candidate no matter what anyway, give them a pro-gun gay-hating Democrat WHO IS ON THE RIGHT SIDE AGAINST PLUTOCRACY.

That's not the Democrat I want. But it's the Democrat we need instead of a Republican.

Republicans are destroying the country. We have squeezed the American people not only of their money but over $20 trillion more in debt to hand it all to the wealthy by undertaxing them. They are implementing election cheating, and appointing a radical takeover of the judiciary to destroy the constitution. The only way I'm seeing to beat that is to create more diverse Democrats.

One problem is, most Democrats don't understand this. They look at the type of Democrat who might win in a red state, and say hell no, that person is a jerk and has wrong positions. And so the Republican wins, over and over and over.

Obviously most Republicans do not understand this issue and think they're voting for whatever nonsense the campaigns feed them. We need the people to unite more - and to elect people who are actually against the 'swamp' instead of con men who are the swamp but say they're against it like donald stain.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I completely disagree. If all that matters is winning by any means necessary, count me out .. as I'm sure a great many others will want out.

I mean, what's the point? Those conservative, right-wing, gun-loving, racist democrats aren't going to support progressive issues, and in fact will join with their republican counterparts to further undermine those progressive issues .. including the plutocrats.

Progressive growth and power does not come from right-wing conservatives and it never will.
 
blackascoal said:
With all due respect, I completely disagree. If all that matters is winning by any means necessary, count me out .. as I'm sure a great many others will want out.
Click to expand...

I agree - and I disagree with you thinking that's what I said. There's a hell of a lot between "absolutely perfect" and "winning by any means necessary" which I do not support and did not advocate.

So take a deep breath and read what I said.

What I'm calling for is strengthening the national Democratic Party - helping it to get a majority for its better platform - and to fight the most important issue in modern history, plutocracy, which threatens democracy.

Those conservative, right-wing, gun-loving, racist democrats aren't going to support progressive issues, and in fact will join with their republican counterparts to further undermine those progressive issues .. including the plutocrats.
Click to expand...

If they support plutocracy - whether they're social conservatives or social liberals or anything else - oppose them.

Progressive growth and power does not come from right-wing conservatives and it never will.
Click to expand...

Progressive growth does not come Republicans being handed massive number of elections and controlling every branch and it never will. And THAT is the alternative that's been happening and will happen if we don't do this until we get more of the country to have more progressive views, which we should also fight for.
 
TTQ64 said:
You are right. She didn't lose. I mistake spoke. I should say he's the reason why she needed 77,00 more votes. Had he and those who think like him had voted for her she would have made up the difference.

But instead, they blame the Black voters who did come out and overwhelmingly voted for Clinton.

They also want to tell the dems what to do when they didn't even vote for the dem ticket. No disrespect, but they don't have a leg to stand on for what the dems should be doing.
Click to expand...
How so? I'm not sure NY votes can be applied anywhere but NY. If you know something that I don't, then by all means....share.
 
evince said:
there are phoney dems aplenty on line


its just another tactic to confuse people


trust no one on the internets until you have seen them speak out on ALL issues.


some are here to gain your trust so they can twist it later
Click to expand...
And therein lies the problem. Clinton erroneously thought that she had we Independents, when in essence...she didn't.

You see, it isn't Dems or Reps that decide the elections. It's the Indies. So you can talk about 'fake Dems' until the cows come home, but Clinton simply didn't inspire those who decide the elections to vote. I have the luxury of not voting for POTUS. My state is true Blue, and always will be.
 
Althea said:
How so? I'm not sure NY votes can be applied anywhere but NY. If you know something that I don't, then by all means....share.
Click to expand...

People who believe the right wing talking points about Clinton.

People who voted 3rd party or stayed home.

Those are the people responsible for the shortage of votes the Dems could of had that would have made the difference.

Blaming people who votes were suppressed and still came out to vote for the dem ticket. is disingenuous.

It's repeating what the right has been saying about Black voters for a long time.

All these people talking about what the dems need to do to win, when they didn't even vote for the dem ticket.

Bottom line, stop the cheating and we win.
 
Althea said:
And therein lies the problem. Clinton erroneously thought that she had we Independents, when in essence...she didn't.

You see, it isn't Dems or Reps that decide the elections. It's the Indies. So you can talk about 'fake Dems' until the cows come home, but Clinton simply didn't inspire those who decide the elections to vote. I have the luxury of not voting for POTUS. My state is true Blue, and always will be.
Click to expand...

So they were inspired by the racist right and donald dump.

Got it!
 
Craig234 said:
What I'm calling for is strengthening the national Democratic Party - helping it to get a majority for its better platform - and to fight the most important issue in modern history, plutocracy, which threatens democracy.



If they support plutocracy - whether they're social conservatives or social liberals or anything else - oppose them.
Click to expand...

We have seen threats to our democracy very recently, where appointed, not elected, jurists, negate the will of the people for partisan's sake. Perhaps you could weigh in on that? Please know that I am not naming conservatives or liberals on purpose.
 
Craig234 said:
That's second priority to fighting for the right things to me.



It's hard to say exactly because she was pretty squishy, but she clearly rejected many of Bernie's stronger positions I agreed with. Her foreign policy was a lot more hawkish than I'd like, both in her views and her history. A lot of Obama baggage, she'd bring with her - too much coziness from Henry Kissinger to Goldman Sachs; Obama's failure to prosecute a single important banking figure (even Republicans put a thousand bankers in jail for the smaller Reagan S&L scandal) would continue, etc.



I'm talking about the independents who would not for vote Obama or Hillary, but would for Bernie. Bernie was getting twice as many independent voters as Hillary.



It is a good idea, and it doesn't prevent trade, and I assume trade schools that are public would get free tuition also. Regardless it's a good idea.

Gay marriage wasn't going to get through for decades, but it was a good idea to fight for it. We need single-payer and should be fighting for it. Bernie was, Hillary wasn't. Bernie would not have supported the Republican cuts to the ACA to begin with.
Click to expand...

As a Bernie supporter, I have to agree with you re votes. He rallied and got voters more exited than Hillary could ever dream of. Even if we assume that Hillary's platform was less squishy (I like that), she failed to enthuse independents.
 
Althea said:
And therein lies the problem. Clinton erroneously thought that she had we Independents, when in essence...she didn't.

You see, it isn't Dems or Reps that decide the elections. It's the Indies. So you can talk about 'fake Dems' until the cows come home, but Clinton simply didn't inspire those who decide the elections to vote. I have the luxury of not voting for POTUS. My state is true Blue, and always will be.
Click to expand...

she won the elecction


we were cheated out of the peoples choice



what do you gain by IGNORING those cold hard court documented FACTS?
 
Lovebug said:
As a Bernie supporter, I have to agree with you re votes. He rallied and got voters more exited than Hillary could ever dream of. Even if we assume that Hillary's platform was less squishy (I like that), she failed to enthuse independents.
Click to expand...

by USING the Russian lies to smear Hilary


she still beat him soundly
 
Lovebug said:
We have seen threats to our democracy very recently, where appointed, not elected, jurists, negate the will of the people for partisan's sake. Perhaps you could weigh in on that? Please know that I am not naming conservatives or liberals on purpose.
Click to expand...

I'd be happy to if you were more specific.

Gay marriage? Campaign finance? Basically I view the Republican appointees as radical ideologues groomed by the Federalist Society to attack the constitution for the benefit of plutocracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top