Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Totally agree about Bloomberg. The DNC has changed its rules for him. I wonder if anyone will defend that.
https://theintercept.com/2020/02/12/dnc-tom-perez-congressional-progressive-caucus-meeting/
-
Features
The DNC is the problem. Or is it?
- Thread starter Rhea
- Start date
Totally agree about Bloomberg. The DNC has changed its rules for him. I wonder if anyone will defend that.
https://theintercept.com/2020/02/12/dnc-tom-perez-congressional-progressive-caucus-meeting/
I mean the GOP voters. The fact that the GOP is in power.
Gun anarchy is very popular with enough GOP voters that the GOP wields it like a cudgel.
No, the GOP and the Dems are absolutely not going down the same path. There is no evidence at all for that.
The Dem voters do want the good things. And when we actually get the gavels, we get the good things.
I understand the argument that the lobbyists are the way big money has an influence in congress, but it is definitely not equally done by the two major parties. The GOP is so much more corrupt that it is worth stopping.
But you just made that argument above, I thought.
.......... “ but in an effort to competemoney wise they are going down the same path.”
And yes, I agree that argument has no supporting evidence and it does help the GOP.
Yes, agree. I will vote with my heart in the primary, and I will vote to help people on the edge in the general by voting blue to stop Trump.
Very well said. And some observations to go along with that:
1. When the public is polled on policy preferences, with actual descriptions of the policies and without parties being attached to them, many many policies of the progressive left are favoured but neither party aparatus will push them forward.
2. The biggest group of voters isn't Democrat or Republican, but Independent, and its also the fastest growing group.
3. The Democrat party poses as the party of the left, but acts more like a barrier for liberals from gaining power, with the first past the post voting and otherwise entrenched 2 party system.
4. Bernie represents the first (in a long time) potential party nominee to completely break the DNC system of corporate and donor based funding and operation. It isn't surprising that the party insiders are terrified of him winning. It would do more damage to their own personal interests (though would be much better for the country itself) than Trump as President, so I am very curious how they will behave if Bernie wins the nomination and goes up against Trump.
Medicare for all (universal single payer) is one of those programs that the corporatists will stop at nothing to stop from happening in the USA because it is a program that once enacted will be nigh impossible to retract. You can scare people out of wanting it before they have it, but once they have it, you will have a much much harder time finding anyone who opposes it. Just look north to Canada. Even the Conserative hard liners don't dare campaign on getting rid of the universal single payer health care system here. They get scolded and lose elections even for suspicion of moving to a two tiered system (what Pete and others want to put in place).
Bloomberg's rise is a sad commentary on how money can truly buy votes. And he's a conservative, not a liberal.
Do you see what you did there? Yes, they are going down the same path. That doesn't mean the Democrats have gone as far down it as the Republicans have. Hence the nickname "Republican-LITE".
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
I'm willing to bet that Mayor Bloomberg will be a better advocate for taking down the influence of money in politics than will Mayor Butigieg. No chance any serving senator present or past will do so including most notably Sen. Sanders. He's way to confrontational and narrow belief driven. Billionaire Steyer might succeed hes' saying the right things about the right problems.
Sometimes one has to have been successful in some arena to have the strength to bring corruption in that arena down effectively.
DNC can be bought. So the billionaires will buy it as a first step to eliminating financial corruption in government. Saviors come in strange clothes sometimes.
Sometimes one has to have been successful in some arena to have the strength to bring corruption in that arena down effectively.
DNC can be bought. So the billionaires will buy it as a first step to eliminating financial corruption in government. Saviors come in strange clothes sometimes.
Why does anyone believe that a billionaire who buys an election would then want to do anything to curtail money in politics?
marc
Veteran Member
The anarchists vote GOP, but even among all republicans the majority support red flag laws and universal background checks.
I believe there is plenty of evidence that donors matter more than voters.
Within limits. Instead of UHC or a public option we got the Heritage Foundation’s old health care plan.
I agree. The GOP fully embraces the corruption, and seeks to increase it. The DNC goes with it because they feel they have to for the money to run. But doing corrupt things for noble reasons does not make it suddenly not corrupt.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
He's a benevolent oligarch?
Last edited:
Elixir
Made in America
Probably not. But in the case of Bloomy, it's possible that along with the presidency he wants to purchase the legacy of a cultural hero.
southernhybrid
Contributor
No, he's not at all a conservative. I just read a long article about where he gives his money. In the 2018 midterms, he gave an enormous amount of support to the Democrats, and most of them were females. Sure, he has baggage, but people do change. He's given a huge amount of money to Emily's list, which is certainly not a conservative group. He's given away more money than most in his class. He wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, something conservatives think is vile. He supports female reproductive rights, gay marriage, gun control, etc. He has also given large sums of money to groups that are trying to do something about climate change. None of these things equate with conservative. You don't have to like him, but he is certainly not a conservative, regardless of some of his past "sins".
I also heard one of the Black Congress critters on MSNBC this morning, who has endorsed him explain that Bloomberg has given a lot of money to charities that support black youth etc. He also mentioned that most black folks are very sophisticated voters, and a high percentage of them are switching from Biden to Bloomberg due to their belief that he may be the only candidate who can beat Trump. You certainly could make a case that he's trying to buy the election, but sadly that's how the US works since Citizens United. And, in this particular election, I'd be happy to vote for a powerful, wealthy Democrat instead of a powerful, wealthy unhinged, racist asshole.
I have not decided who to support in the primaries. I'm waiting to see how things are moving along after Super Tuesday. And, like most people who's primary goal is to get rid of the most dangerous man that we've ever had in the WH, I will support gladly the nominee come November, regardless of who that may be.
I 100% support this, but also recognize it as an incredibly low bar. I think you can do much better for your country than just beat the Trump.
Nope, that's not what happened there. Lobbyists getting to any particular lawmaker is not something that is laid at the feet of "The DNC". So there is nothing about the lobbying business, for which I have several ideas to mitigate, that reflects directly on the question of "The DNC is the problem with electing presidents".
So no. But do you see what you did there?
I agree that many republicans support the red flag laws, but they vote in GOP who does not. Hence, even though they want gun control, it is THEIR VOTE, not corporate money, that is the lever that enables. Corporate money could not do it without their vote.
Thanks for the article - looks interesting, will read it.
The first step is the Heritage Foundation’s old health care plan. Second step will go further.
Well - let's noodle over that. They are doing corporate things to a much lesser degree, and the way they are doing them is distasteful to us, but not actually corrupt like the GOP. I say let's trample the GOP first, then change laws to make those activities that the dems do actually illegal, then we'll have made a real difference. But it requires a dem majority to get there.
My proposal is that ALL meetings with a legislator must ALWAYS be recorded and public. You don't want to be recored, you don't get to talk to the lawmaker. But again, GOP will never pass that bill. I think the Dems would.
More on this: There is a comment I read today that illustrates my questions well:
And here's the accusation I don't understand...
"watched the Democratic party nominate"
What you mean is the VOTERS CHOSE these candidates.
Let me say that again. The Democratic party VOTERS CHOSE these candidates.
This is not a problem with the DNC. They have not overidden the voters since the changes instituted after 1968. So the DNC did what? Fixed its system. The voters decide.
So your real problem is not with the DNC. It is with the Democratic party VOTERS who (the above argument thinks) are not choosing the right candidate.
If you want to change who the DNC nominates, you need to change the mind of the voters who represent a larger plurality than you.
But you can stop calling the DNC corrupt over its nomination. It is following the will of the voters. That's not corrupt. But it sure helps the GOP for you all to be spreading the story that they are untrustworthy, doesn't it?
This frustrates me - people shouting insults at the DNC when it is the voice of the voters that made the nomination. Shouting insults and destroying trust to the benefit of.... the GOP.
If you can't convince the Dem voters, why should the DNC pick your candidate? Why?
And here's the accusation I don't understand...
"watched the Democratic party nominate"
What you mean is the VOTERS CHOSE these candidates.
Let me say that again. The Democratic party VOTERS CHOSE these candidates.
This is not a problem with the DNC. They have not overidden the voters since the changes instituted after 1968. So the DNC did what? Fixed its system. The voters decide.
So your real problem is not with the DNC. It is with the Democratic party VOTERS who (the above argument thinks) are not choosing the right candidate.
If you want to change who the DNC nominates, you need to change the mind of the voters who represent a larger plurality than you.
But you can stop calling the DNC corrupt over its nomination. It is following the will of the voters. That's not corrupt. But it sure helps the GOP for you all to be spreading the story that they are untrustworthy, doesn't it?
This frustrates me - people shouting insults at the DNC when it is the voice of the voters that made the nomination. Shouting insults and destroying trust to the benefit of.... the GOP.
If you can't convince the Dem voters, why should the DNC pick your candidate? Why?
The DNC does more than count the votes and name the highest vote getter the nominee. If you think that's all it does, you need to pay more attention and maybe listen to why people say the DNC is a problem.
It sets the debate schedule and what bar must be passed to get into each debate, for example. It needed money, so took in significant funding from Hillary and then claimed not to be biased. It had people within it plotting against Bernie in the 2016 primary, which was leaked in that hacking fiasco. It has "Super delegates" (anti-democratic; and irrelevant that they haven't felt the need to use them to overrule the votes).
You really think all it does is count the votes and declare the nominee?
Calls for reform to make it more democratic (which ironically it is less than the RNC despite being called the "Democratic Party") and for more transparency and to root out bias is GOOD. They should be pushing hard to not be corrupt, not to silence critics of their corruption. They should work hard to be transparent so that there can be no question about conflicts of interest, etc.
They shouldn't be picking any candidate. As you said, the voters should be doing that. The DNC should be an unbiased facilitator unaffiliated with anyone running for the nomination, not funded by anyone running for the nomination, not using software funded by somebody running (Pete; Iowa), not changing the rules to get into debates midstream to benefit a favoured candidate, etc.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
The biggest problem for the DNC is the prevalence of false equivalence that has been weaponized by the GOPSSR and taken up by the Sanders bots. That and the fact that the typical Dem voter was the bullied kid growing up while the typical Repug voter was the bully and thus we always have to deal with PTSD triggers (and the unfortunate fact that so many still work).
When Dems step a few inches over any given line, it is the most dire of transgressions against humanity. When Repugs leap miles over nearly every line that exists, it's a joke--locker room talk--and boys will be boys. So what that Trump is openly guilty of dozens of heinous crimes and literally threatened and openly, publicly encouraged to have Hillary Clinton assassinated, she's "Killery" and deleted some personal emails!
As a party, we're the victims of domestic abuse always hoping that this time it will be different and the sociopaths we're unfortunately married to across the aisle will suddenly grow functioning amygdalas. And, of course, the sociopaths take full advantage of that predator/prey relationship and always push those buttons instead of offering any kind of policy alternatives.
We bicker and argue and want significant changes that will benefit everyone, while they anally rape each other and scream for more, while at the same time insisting that what we do is identical to what they do. And we let them set that agenda.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
When Dems step a few inches over any given line, it is the most dire of transgressions against humanity. When Repugs leap miles over nearly every line that exists, it's a joke--locker room talk--and boys will be boys. So what that Trump is openly guilty of dozens of heinous crimes and literally threatened and openly, publicly encouraged to have Hillary Clinton assassinated, she's "Killery" and deleted some personal emails!
As a party, we're the victims of domestic abuse always hoping that this time it will be different and the sociopaths we're unfortunately married to across the aisle will suddenly grow functioning amygdalas. And, of course, the sociopaths take full advantage of that predator/prey relationship and always push those buttons instead of offering any kind of policy alternatives.
We bicker and argue and want significant changes that will benefit everyone, while they anally rape each other and scream for more, while at the same time insisting that what we do is identical to what they do. And we let them set that agenda.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Idiotic. The election is the "unbiased facilitator." That's its whole point and reason for existing.
See you keep repeating these half-baked claims to shout at the DNC, when there's more to it.
It know that there's a feeling that makes you want to shout that DNC "is the problem", but again, that only helps the GOP, and it is not well founded in the evidence.
That's the biggest impact, by far.
And you are here claiming that the timing of the debates cost Sanders THIS MUCH?
I say no. Convince the voters using your campaign. Don't blame the DNC when you fall short by 3 million voters, 11 contests, 12%.
It was not a nail-biter.
4,763 delegate votes to the Democratic National Convention
2,382 delegate votes needed to win
Candidate Hillary Clinton .................... Bernie Sanders
Home state New York .................... Vermont
Delegate count 2,842 .................... 1,865
Contests won 34 .................... 23
Popular vote 16,914,722[a][1] .................... 13,206,428[a][1]
Percentage 55.2%[a] .................... 43.1%[a]
And that is why trying to sow distrust in the party helps only the GOP, not any democratic candidate, including Sanders.