DNC emails

[JustWinBaby]

(07-23-2016, 02:48 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Enough so that maybe an actual political revolution may result this time around.

Hahahaha Republicans/Libertarians have been saying that for years.  Closest they've had was the TEA Party, which isn't even an actual party AND more or less been hijacked by the right wingnuts.

Remember Occupy Wall Street?  Maybe these are the same kids emerging from mom's basement after 6 years of playing video games.  I don't know.  But they're far more likely either to go back to the basement or get actual jobs rather than starting any kind of revolution.

The problem with Sander's "political revolution" is when most of his next gen supporters start making any kind of real money, they realize socialism is kind of expensive and a lot of liberal entitlement programs become a lot less appealing...at least when you're paying for them rather than receiving benefits.

[treee]

(07-23-2016, 07:02 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Hahahaha Republicans/Libertarians have been saying that for years.  Closest they've had was the TEA Party, which isn't even an actual party AND more or less been hijacked by the right wingnuts.

Funny you mention that though, because they flooded congress after their meteoric rise in popularity, helped along by Ron Paul. We will see a lot of true progressives win seats this year.

Quote:Remember Occupy Wall Street?  Maybe these are the same kids emerging from mom's basement after 6 years of playing video games.  I don't know.  But they're far more likely either to go back to the basement or get actual jobs rather than starting any kind of revolution.

Not many people do remember it because when it was largely misrepresented in the media. There were many people there who understood what caused the recession and wanted it fixed.

Quote:The problem with Sander's "political revolution" is when most of his next gen supporters start making any kind of real money, they realize socialism is kind of expensive and a lot of liberal entitlement programs become a lot less appealing...at least when you're paying for them rather than receiving benefits.

I'll be pretty damn content making sure everyone has the same opportunities I do, and more. If it's expensive to make sure everyone at least has a humane minimum standard of living, then so be it.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-23-2016, 09:22 PM)treee Wrote: Funny you mention that though, because they flooded congress after their meteoric rise in popularity, helped along by Ron Paul. We will see a lot of true progressives win seats this year.


Not many people do remember it because when it was largely misrepresented in the media. There were many people there who understood what caused the recession and wanted it fixed.


I'll be pretty damn content making sure everyone has the same opportunities I do, and more. If it's expensive to make sure everyone at least has a humane minimum standard of living, then so be it.

The TEA Party "rise" mostly had to do with perceived liberal overreach - Obama, Pelosi and Reid those first two years steamrolled Repubs and made practically no attempt to work with them because they thought the Repub party was dead and they wouldn't have to work with them, maybe ever again.  Many candidates who really shared very little in common with core TEA Party principles simply hitched their wagon to a grass roots movement that took off with, as you said, Ron Paul's 2008 campaign.

If the Occupy Wall Street crowd really understood what caused the recession, they would have also been camped outside Washington, the Fed and Freddie/Fannie.  For whatever reason, "Occupy DC" was barely a footnote. Well, actually, I think that reason is pretty obvious.

Really nobody is against a "humane standard of living", although I think there's a pretty reasonable debate to be had of what that standard is.  And being against writing blank checks to the govt and against reckless and wasteful spending doesn't mean one is anti-poverty, or anti-military, or whatever else is used to demonize people that demand fiscal responsibility.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-23-2016, 09:42 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The TEA Party "rise" mostly had to do with perceived liberal overreach - Obama, Pelosi and Reid those first two years steamrolled Repubs and made practically no attempt to work with them because they thought the Repub party was dead and they wouldn't have to work with them, maybe ever again.  Many candidates who really shared very little in common with core TEA Party principles simply hitched their wagon to a grass roots movement that took off with, as you said, Ron Paul's 2008 campaign.

If the Occupy Wall Street crowd really understood what caused the recession, they would have also been camped outside Washington, the Fed and Freddie/Fannie.  For whatever reason, "Occupy DC" was barely a footnote.  Well, actually, I think that reason is pretty obvious.

Really nobody is against a "humane standard of living", although I think there's a pretty reasonable debate to be had of what that standard is.  And being against writing blank checks to the govt and against reckless and wasteful spending doesn't mean one is anti-poverty, or anti-military, or whatever else is used to demonize people that demand fiscal responsibility.

They don't want to hear that their beloved progressive saviors are actually part of what is keeping them down.  Heck, most of the occupy crowd likely doesn't even realize that The Federal Reserve is not part of the US government at all.

[treee]

(07-23-2016, 09:42 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Really nobody is against a "humane standard of living", although I think there's a pretty reasonable debate to be had of what that standard is.  And being against writing blank checks to the govt and against reckless and wasteful spending doesn't mean one is anti-poverty, or anti-military, or whatever else is used to demonize people that demand fiscal responsibility.

I understand, with the general inefficiency of federal spending, why one would hesitate to enhance social welfare. I'm not arguing with you in regards to the fact that there are factions that just want to completely go overboard with govt. spending, just as there are those that want to gut everything except for the military. Almost all discussions of politics, however, will come down to the fact that polarization, the two party system, make it exceedingly difficult to address issues with both conservative and progressive ideologies in mind. I think it can generally be agreed that we need to invest in our society more but that we need to spend that money efficiently.

[treee]

(07-23-2016, 09:50 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: They don't want to hear that their beloved progressive saviors are actually part of what is keeping them down.  Heck, most of the occupy crowd likely doesn't even realize that The Federal Reserve is not part of the US government at all.

This post seems to be a mix of partisan talking points and mild incoherence. 

[JustWinBaby]

(07-23-2016, 11:27 PM)treee Wrote:  I think it can generally be agreed that we need to invest in our society more but that we need to spend that money efficiently.

Absolutely!  Fantastic!

But why do you assume that they need MORE money if they would just use what they get better?!?!?!?!?!?   

Why do you assume that they don't have ENOUGH money....rather than question if they don't have too much?

[JustWinBaby]

(07-23-2016, 11:29 PM)treee Wrote: This post seems to be a mix of partisan talking points and mild incoherence. 

Well....it's partisan in the sense that's it's not partisan liberal BS, but other than that...

[treee]

(07-24-2016, 05:25 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well....it's partisan in the sense that's it's not partisan liberal BS, but other than that...

Let me finish your sentence for you since you couldn't seem to do it,

,but other than that... it's partisan conservative BS.

[treee]

(07-24-2016, 05:23 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Absolutely!  Fantastic!

But why do you assume that they need MORE money if they would just use what they get better?!?!?!?!?!?   

Why do you assume that they don't have ENOUGH money....rather than question if they don't have too much?

Never said any of that. But in all reality we probably would need more money even if everything was perfectly efficient simply due to the things I believe are worth paying for: more accessible/less financially hindering higher education and job training, a public infrastructure system that's not in disrepair, subsidies for technological advancement including but not limited to alternative energy, more accessible and affordable health care (too many people are stuck between being able to afford private health insurance and medicare), as well a big shot in the arm to publicly funded elections on the federal, state, and local level.

[McC]

(07-23-2016, 09:22 PM)treee Wrote: Funny you mention that though, because they flooded congress after their meteoric rise in popularity, helped along by Ron Paul. We will see a lot of true progressives win seats this year.


Not many people do remember it because when it was largely misrepresented in the media. There were many people there who understood what caused the recession and wanted it fixed.


I'll be pretty damn content making sure everyone has the same opportunities I do, and more. If it's expensive to make sure everyone at least has a humane minimum standard of living, then so be it.

Isn't this the definition of the epic failure know as Socialism?

[xxlt]

(07-22-2016, 08:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, this was my problem with Sanders. I would've had much more respect for him had he run as an independent or a 3rd party type. He wasn't, and isn't, a Democrat.

He has caucused with the Dems his whole career as an independent. It is a minor miracle he was elected to senate as an independent. Running for president as an independent or third party candidate is pretty much signing your own death warrant of your political life (see the thread about debate rules, see lack of media coverage of third parties, see the hx of the U.S.) He would have fit squarely within the democratic party in the 1930's on many issue, and in the 1960's and 1970's as well. The Republican party (allegedly "center right") is now so far right that it would not accept Nixon or Reagan or Bush I as a candidate. The Democratic party (allegedly "center left") is now so far right that it would run Nixon, Reagan, or Bush I. (This is why Sanders stopped affiliating completely as a Dem and ran as an independent but still caucused with Dems.) In fact Obama was in many ways the second coming of Ronald Reagan (which explains the contempt so many have for him - the whole Black Jesus thing makes them puke in their mouths since they like their nation's saviors old and white and male). Bernie has done a great job of dragging the Dem party (kicking and screaming) back toward the center. His supporters, standing on the left, are numerous and continue to call the party back across the middle and to the left. If Hillary heeds the call she wins in a landslide. If she runs like Gore did (not quite as far right as Bush) it is conceivable she loses to Trump or wins a close race hence being tagged with the "she does not have  a mandate" label and governing like Obama (stalemates) or worse capitulating to the Republican nuts like Ryan and McConnell.

[Belsnickel]

(07-24-2016, 06:44 AM)McC Wrote: Isn't this the definition of the epic failure know as Socialism?

No.

[Belsnickel]

(07-24-2016, 09:54 AM)xxlt Wrote: He has caucused with the Dems his whole career as an independent. It is a minor miracle he was elected to senate as an independent. Running for president as an independent or third party candidate is pretty much signing your own death warrant of your political life (see the thread about debate rules, see lack of media coverage of third parties, see the hx of the U.S.) He would have fit squarely within the democratic party in the 1930's on many issue, and in the 1960's and 1970's as well. The Republican party (allegedly "center right") is now so far right that it would not accept Nixon or Reagan or Bush I as a candidate. The Democratic party (allegedly "center left") is now so far right that it would run Nixon, Reagan, or Bush I. (This is why Sanders stopped affiliating completely as a Dem and ran as an independent but still caucused with Dems.) In fact Obama was in many ways the second coming of Ronald Reagan (which explains the contempt so many have for him - the whole Black Jesus thing makes them puke in their mouths since they like their nation's saviors old and white and male). Bernie has done a great job of dragging the Dem party (kicking and screaming) back toward the center. His supporters, standing on the left, are numerous and continue to call the party back across the middle and to the left. If Hillary heeds the call she wins in a landslide. If she runs like Gore did (not quite as far right as Bush) it is conceivable she loses to Trump or wins a close race hence being tagged with the "she does not have  a mandate" label and governing like Obama (stalemates) or worse capitulating to the Republican nuts like Ryan and McConnell.

I get this. I guess my problem was truly that if you're not willing to claim the D next to your name and instead caucus with them, then why are you going to jump into the mix just for the structure of the party during a POTUS race. Seems disingenuous to me.

And yeah, the DNC is center-right and has been for a bit now. But, you know, most Americans don't have that perspective that comes from geopolitics.

[GMDino]

(07-24-2016, 10:08 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get this. I guess my problem was truly that if you're not willing to claim the D next to your name and instead caucus with them, then why are you going to jump into the mix just for the structure of the party during a POTUS race. Seems disingenuous to me.

And yeah, the DNC is center-right and has been for a bit now. But, you know, most Americans don't have that perspective that comes from geopolitics.

Agreed.

Whether you liked Bernie or not that the DNC didn't consider him good for their party isn't a surprise.  That they had internal memos saying such isn't a surprise.

The question is did they DO anything to harm him or just talk about not liking him?

We can talk about posters on here being trolls all day long but until someone turns them over to a mod we're just talking and doing nothing to stop their foolishness.  Sometimes they do themselves in.  Same thing happened to Sanders.  He maxed out his voter potential.  And then he had to go away.

[fredtoast]

(07-24-2016, 10:08 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I get this. I guess my problem was truly that if you're not willing to claim the D next to your name and instead caucus with them, then why are you going to jump into the mix just for the structure of the party during a POTUS race. Seems disingenuous to me.

Becauise it is impossible to win any other way.

Bernie actually wanted to get something done.  He was more concerned with reality than "feeling good".

Too many people vote third party and then pat themselves on the back about what an honorable thing they just did.  That is fine of you don't care about reality and who is going to get elected and make actually policy decisions.  

[*bfine32*]

(07-24-2016, 11:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Becauise it is impossible to win any other way.

Bernie actually wanted to get something done.  He was more concerned with reality than "feeling good".

Too many people vote third party and then pat themselves on the back about what an honorable thing they just did.  That is fine of you don't care about reality and who is going to get elected and make actually policy decisions.  

What!?!!? This sounds like something I would say. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-23-2016, 07:02 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Hahahaha Republicans/Libertarians have been saying that for years.  Closest they've had was the TEA Party, which isn't even an actual party AND more or less been hijacked by the right wingnuts.

Yea, I had hope when people adopted some Ron Paul principles after 2008, but then instead of actually supporting small government libertarianism, they just changed it to "liberty" and started promoting big government social regulation as the religious right and "conservatives" flooded the movement. Somehow government bans on gay marriage were "liberty" because it protected your religious freedom...?

The "less spending" was called for only because it was now Democrats spending the money, not Republicans.

Then Ron Paul revealed himself to be a fraud too by supporting Ken Cuccinelli as he advocated for a government ban on anal and oral sex. That's "liberty". 

I would attend local GOP events in my county at the time (the most heavily GOP county in MD) and watch as my choices were a NeoCon, a religious dude, and someone saying he was a "liberty" candidate. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-24-2016, 05:23 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Absolutely!  Fantastic!

But why do you assume that they need MORE money if they would just use what they get better?!?!?!?!?!?   

Why do you assume that they don't have ENOUGH money....rather than question if they don't have too much?

We hitch a ride with Russia to space. We cant get a new I-75 bridge over the Ohio river one of the main corridors of the country. 

We do spend it horribly. Could definitely be better there. But when China is building militarized islands and we cant complete our new jet. I want more dumped into the military too.

We should be building more nuclear power plants too.

[McC]

(07-24-2016, 10:04 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: No.

Pretty sure it is.  That everyone should live the same, even if it means the successful foot the bill.  The only thing guaranteed is equal opportunity.   Equal results are not.