Frank Spencer, DNC Deputy Vice Chair of Civic Engagements, Better Deal Outline

[Fogdog]

I did a little digging in to this. Roemer and TYT do appear to be strange bedfellows indeed. There are quite a few articles like the one linked below, which suggest that the common thread here is removing corporate campaign cash from politics. Apparently Roemer was a staunch advocate of this during his political career, and his run for potus. Obviously TYT advocates for this as well. Is there more to it than that? I'm not able to find anything, but I will continue looking. Please let me know if you find anything more sinister...

I happen to agree with the both of them about CU, and campaign finance reform fwiw.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/04/buddy-roemer-firm-invests-4-million-in-young-turks-network-186934

The funding of TYT by Roemer is nothing new in media. It's cause for concern. It's completely out in the open and so, not a secret conspiracy theory. Not sinister, just a flag that gives me pause whenever Cenk is in the dialogue. He's also been caught out posting fake news. Always negative about Democrats. Why not the same attention given Republicans who in fact stopped initiatives we both care about that had been sponsored by Democrats?

Kyle Kulinski, in my opinion is a right wing propaganda artist that preys on the anger of St Bernard's followers after losing the primary.

I don't understand what you mean by your last line: "I happen to agree with the both of them about CU, and campaign finance reform fwiw."

Do you mean agree with them on the issues or agree with the assertion that Democrats are the reason we don't have campaign finance reform in place and CU repealed?

 

[st0wandgrow]

I don't understand what you mean by your last line: "I happen to agree with the both of them about CU, and campaign finance reform fwiw."

Do you mean agree with them on the issues or agree with the assertion that Democrats are the reason we don't have campaign finance reform in place and CU repealed?

The issue. I agree with both of them (Cenk and Buddy) about getting big money interests out of politics. Both parties are guilty of it. For me, I'm harder on the dems because I hold them to a higher standard. Maybe unfairly so, but that's how I feel. I expect the Republicans to be knee deep in the mud, so I'm not surprised when I see it. I'm disappointed when I see dems playing the same game.

 

[Fogdog]

The issue. I agree with both of them (Cenk and Buddy) about getting big money interests out of politics. Both parties are guilty of it. For me, I'm harder on the dems because I hold them to a higher standard. Maybe unfairly so, but that's how I feel. I expect the Republicans to be knee deep in the mud, so I'm not surprised when I see it. I'm disappointed when I see dems playing the same game.

I completely agree with them on the need to get corporate and large contributions from wealthy out of politics. Also agree that the repeal of Citizen's United would remove an impediment to this.

This is the bit where I wonder if you have been caught by propaganda: "I'm disappointed when I see dems playing the same game."

I'm not aware of Democratic sponsored bills or legislation to protect corporate or high dollar donations as Republicans have done.

 

[SneekyNinja]

I did a little digging in to this. Roemer and TYT do appear to be strange bedfellows indeed. There are quite a few articles like the one linked below, which suggest that the common thread here is removing corporate campaign cash from politics. Apparently Roemer was a staunch advocate of this during his political career, and his run for potus. Obviously TYT advocates for this as well. Is there more to it than that? I'm not able to find anything, but I will continue looking. Please let me know if you find anything more sinister...

I happen to agree with the both of them about CU, and campaign finance reform fwiw.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/04/buddy-roemer-firm-invests-4-million-in-young-turks-network-186934

This is the thing, most of us agree with the Bernie crowd's policies. It's enacting them in a meaningful and progressive (lower case p) way that we call for.

However the Bernie people you associate with repeatedly say "Well get the fuck out of the way then, youre not Progressive enough, we want it NOW!" or "Maybe you should fuck off to Cuba, faggot" or "Trump was the best thing to happen to the Progressive movement"...

Can you not see how Democrats might be objectionable to those people?

 

[st0wandgrow]

I completely agree with them on the need to get corporate and large contributions from wealthy out of politics. Also agree that the repeal of Citizen's United would remove an impediment to this.

This is the bit where I wonder if you have been caught by propaganda: "I'm disappointed when I see dems playing the same game."

I'm not aware of Democratic sponsored bills or legislation to protect corporate or high dollar donations as Republicans have done.

It's fair to say that the dems aren't as culpable when it comes to campaign cash and the roadblocks that have been put in place to end it. Sure. BUT, they still do accept the cash, and court the donors. I have a hard time believing that any politician will do right by their constituents when they have had their palms greased. The corporate cash comes with strings attached, no matter who it's given to. We've been over this topic before. It's your position that the dems can't compete on a level playing field when the other side can outspend them due to the corporate cash in their coffers. I get that, and don't completely disagree with you. I'm just wary of any politician that's in the pocket of these jackals. It's probably my biggest bugaboo in politics right now. These big money interests pervert every single issue you can think. It needs to end, and I will support pretty much any politician that is willing to take it on (preferably a democrat).

 

[SneekyNinja]

It's fair to say that the dems aren't as culpable when it comes to campaign cash and the roadblocks that have been put in place to end it. Sure. BUT, they still do accept the cash, and court the donors. I have a hard time believing that any politician will do right by their constituents when they have had their palms greased. The corporate cash comes with strings attached, no matter who it's given to. We've been over this topic before. It's your position that the dems can't compete on a level playing field when the other side can outspend them due to the corporate cash in their coffers. I get that, and don't completely disagree with you. I'm just wary of any politician that's in the pocket of these jackals. It's probably my biggest bugaboo in politics right now. These big money interests pervert every single issue you can think. It needs to end, and I will support pretty much any politician that is willing to take it on (preferably a democrat).

Well McCain just defacto supported Obamacare, so you never know when a Republican might get it right.

 

[Fogdog]

It's fair to say that the dems aren't as culpable when it comes to campaign cash and the roadblocks that have been put in place to end it. Sure. BUT, they still do accept the cash, and court the donors. I have a hard time believing that any politician will do right by their constituents when they have had their palms greased. The corporate cash comes with strings attached, no matter who it's given to. We've been over this topic before. It's your position that the dems can't compete on a level playing field when the other side can outspend them due to the corporate cash in their coffers. I get that, and don't completely disagree with you. I'm just wary of any politician that's in the pocket of these jackals. It's probably my biggest bugaboo in politics right now. These big money interests pervert every single issue you can think. It needs to end, and I will support pretty much any politician that is willing to take it on (preferably a democrat).

There is a difference between accepting corporate money to stay competitive and defending corporate donations from campaign finance reform, isn't there?

That's the difference I'm speaking about. I think it's completely legitimate to make one of your criteria for choosing a candidate be "doesn't accept corporate money". The Justice Democrats effort at getting candidates to sign a pledge is fine with me. I object to a party wide litmus test that would disenfranchise voters by forcing an issue that may or may not be important to them down their throats. Let the primary election be the time to test that theory, rather than the main election. The objective is to win seats back in districts that are conservative. Not to sell out the Democratic party but to unseat extremely right wing politician who are never going to support campaign finance reform or other important legislation we both want to get done.

Here is the Sandernista thought guide of choice on the subject. Pay close attention to Kyle's use of name calling, emotional appeal, tone of voice and the rapid fire use of opinion poll numbers to conceal rather than reveal. He's good. Actually, he's very good at what he does. Jerry Brown makes an intellectual appeal for reason and Kyle calls him names, mischaracterizes his positions and disrespects his ability to govern. California is doing quite well under Brown, by the way. Better than it has in decades. I think using one's intelligence is great advice too.

 

[UncleBuck]

Saying that they are funded by a right wing billionaire is one thing (I do find that odd as well), but not definitive proof of anything untoward imo.

you bernie babies cry like a little bitch at obama getting a book deal, but a republican millionaire's hedge fund supporting your TYT channel is no big deal?

jesus christ.

 

[st0wandgrow]

you bernie babies cry like a little bitch at obama getting a book deal, but a republican millionaire's hedge fund supporting your TYT channel is no big deal?

jesus christ.

I've never once mentioned, let alone bitched about Obamas book deal buckles.

Strike two

 

[UncleBuck]

I've never once mentioned, let alone bitched about Obamas book deal buckles.

Strike two

fair enough, but your "progressive" buddies do.

badmouthing the first black president with ridiculous conspiracy theories is not exactly a good way of going about winning a democratic primary.

 

[st0wandgrow]

fair enough, but your "progressive" buddies do.

badmouthing the first black president with ridiculous conspiracy theories is not exactly a good way of going about winning a democratic primary.

I liked Obama! I've said plenty of times that I would have voted for him again if a third term was possible. He's the best potus we've had in my lifetime

 

[Justin-case]

I liked Obama! I've said plenty of times that I would have voted for him again if a third term was possible. He's the best potus we've had in my lifetime

Yet you didn't respect Obama enough to vote for Hillary, derp.

 

[UncleBuck]

I liked Obama! I've said plenty of times that I would have voted for him again if a third term was possible. He's the best potus we've had in my lifetime

and all he had to do was be a good man who cared.

 

[st0wandgrow]

There is a difference between accepting corporate money to stay competitive and defending corporate donations from campaign finance reform, isn't there?

That's the difference I'm speaking about. I think it's completely legitimate to make one of your criteria for choosing a candidate be "doesn't accept corporate money". The Justice Democrats effort at getting candidates to sign a pledge is fine with me. I object to a party wide litmus test that would disenfranchise voters by forcing an issue that may or may not be important to them down their throats. Let the primary election be the time to test that theory, rather than the main election. The objective is to win seats back in districts that are conservative. Not to sell out the Democratic party but to unseat extremely right wing politician who are never going to support campaign finance reform or other important legislation we both want to get done.

Here is the Sandernista thought guide of choice on the subject. Pay close attention to Kyle's use of name calling, emotional appeal, tone of voice and the rapid fire use of opinion poll numbers to conceal rather than reveal. He's good. Actually, he's very good at what he does. Jerry Brown makes an intellectual appeal for reason and Kyle calls him names, mischaracterizes his positions and disrespects his ability to govern. California is doing quite well under Brown, by the way. Better than it has in decades. I think using one's intelligence is great advice too.

There are certain regional issues that should be left up to the candidates. Gun rights issues may be important for a dem running in Texas, but not so much for someone running in California.

I do agree with the guy in the video about certain things though. The dems should have a nation wide platform of Medicare for all, raising the minimum wage, environmental protection, overturning CU, equal pay, etc. I don't view those as regional issues, so I don't see why they can't make them the foundation of their platform? Especially considering that they are all popular ideas.

 

[st0wandgrow]

Yet you didn't respect Obama enough to vote for Hillary, derp.

Bernie told me to vote for Hillary too. Unlike you, I prefer to make up my own mind on things.

Derp

 

[st0wandgrow]

and all he had to do was be a good man who cared.

He was a good man. I was always proud to see him representing the country. Michelle too

 

[UncleBuck]

There are certain regional issues that should be left up to the candidates. Gun rights issues may be important for a dem running in Texas, but not so much for someone running in California.

I do agree with the guy in the video about certain things though. The dems should have a nation wide platform of Medicare for all, raising the minimum wage, environmental protection, overturning CU, equal pay, etc. I don't view those as regional issues, so I don't see why they can't make them the foundation of their platform? Especially considering that they are all popular ideas.

those are already part of the platform, but instead of single payer (too controversial right now), they state that "healthcare is a right, not a privilege". i for one think this is smart messaging.

 

[Justin-case]

He was a good man. I was always proud to see him representing the country. Michelle too

A good man that asked you to protect his legacy. You ignored him, you don't get to pretend like you respected the Obama's.

 

[st0wandgrow]

those are already part of the platform, but instead of single payer (too controversial right now), they state that "healthcare is a right, not a privilege". i for one think this is smart messaging.

I'll take that if it ends up leading to single payer. I don't care how we arrive at it. This retarded right wing "free market" notion just needs to be put to bed.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'll take that if it ends up leading to single payer. I don't care how we arrive at it. This retarded right wing "free market" notion just needs to be put to bed.

i don't even care about single payer. medicare for anyone who wants it, private insurance for anyone who wants it. no profit in the health insurance sector. guaranteed coverage between jobs, no COBRA. no pre-existing conditions, no lifetime caps, etc.

doesn't need to be one way or the other to fix what needs fixing.