Exclusive: Democrats lose ground with millennials - Reuters/Ipsos poll

ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I'm not arguing a small group of elites, you say that, not I. I'm arguing that Sanders and his cult are inept politicians and being told so by experienced leadership in Congress. Also they have found better candidates who can win while your can't in most districts of this country. You don't like the message. I get it.

The DCCC is trying to get as many Democrats as possible elected in November and beyond.
Sanders "Progressives" are behind some really stupid bills that are not helpful in districts less liberal than San Francisco.

For example: Sanders health care plan is a disaster as is that very strange guaranteed jobs thing he introduced a few weeks ago. The healthcare plan by itself would sink any candidate outside of maybe San Francisco because it would force 60 Million people out of drop health care coverage they say they like and into Medicare that they don't know much about. And then there is that guaranteed jobs thing. It's some weird dystopian public works thing that I'd oppose, much less somebody who is suspicious of massive government programs.

You're saying that the DCCC MUST give Tillerson money even if he supports shit like that. They are making the right choice to cut Sanders and Cult of Sanders out from their support. Not because of some plot to gain power but because Sanders and his follower-candidates are politically naive, inept and losers in most districts of this country.

Start your own PACs. If your policies are so good it should be easy.
Click to expand...
If the DCCC really wants to get Democrats elected, maybe they should try choosing them the old fashioned way; by having actual Democrats choose their own fucking candidates in primaries, as opposed to choosing for them and then shoveling money at those most likely to toe the line of graft.

Ever heard of Tammany Hall? That was a Democratic organization, too. Look how well it's worked out for Chicago politics.

Your logic is blind or bought. It's getting hard to tell the difference.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
These orgs get special privileges and have charter they turned into the federal government which they must follow or no longer enjoy their privileges.

There’s still something called Rule of Law.

It’s been my experience at Corporate leadership is always hesitant on EM to confirm conversation; they prefer phone.

Fill in the blank:

Because if it were written down there would be a _____________.
Click to expand...
The rule of law requires enforcement, something America has increasingly refused to do when the defendants are wealthy and powerful.

The Republicans killed Justice in America in return for influence and profit and the Democrats went along for the money.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
If the DCCC really wants to get Democrats elected, maybe they should try choosing them the old fashioned way; by having actual Democrats choose their own fucking candidates in primaries, as opposed to choosing for them and then shoveling money at those most likely to toe the line of graft.

Ever heard of Tammany Hall? That was a Democratic organization, too. Look how well it's worked out for Chicago politics.

Your logic is blind or bought. It's getting hard to tell the difference.
Click to expand...
Maybe Cult of Sanders members who want to run as the Democratic Party's candidate should win the primary instead of expecting it to be handed to them

Your Cult is being told by experienced politicians that your candidates are shit and they won't waste resources on them. Instead of crying here about it, go out and prove them wrong.

But then again, those so-called Progressive candidates are weak candidates in most districts of the country.

Tammany Hall was in New York, not Chicago. In any case, equating Tammany Hall with the DCCC is another histrionic melt down, not to mention another logical fallacy.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
The rule of law requires enforcement, something America has increasingly refused to do when the defendants are wealthy and powerful.

The Republicans killed Justice in America in return for influence and profit and the Democrats went along for the money.
Click to expand...
Like it or not we are now our generations’ enforcer..and yes it means we must not stand idle; work will be involved. There’s no turning back.

We are woke.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I'm not arguing a small group of elites. I'm arguing that Sanders and his cult are inept politicians and being told so by experienced leadership in Congress. Also they have found better candidates who can win while your can't in most districts of this country.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what you're arguing; that a small group of elites within the Democratic party have the right to choose the Democratic nominee in their respective primaries against progressive challengers. And you have the audacity to claim that these races are fair when 95% of federal elections go to the candidate that spent more on their race.

I read your complaint earlier, then why do we oppose corporate donations? Pretty simple; because if we accept corporate donations like the politicians you support do, then we would be beholden to them and/or their industry. This point remains moot since actual progressives have raised more money than their corporate counterparts and the Democratic establishment has still chosen to back the Democrat that will be kind to corporate interests. It's not about how much money you can raise or what your actual beliefs are.. It's about whether or not you will toe the party line
Fogdog said:
The DCCC is trying to get as many Democrats as possible elected in November and beyond.
Sanders "Progressives" are behind some really stupid bills that are not helpful in districts less liberal than San Francisco.
Click to expand...

The DCCC is trying to get as many corporate Democrats elected as possible...

If you don't believe that, give me one name. A progressive candidate the DCCC backed above a corporate Democrat

The DCCC doesn't back progressive candidates because they don't want progressive candidates to win
Fogdog said:
they don't know much about.
Click to expand...



Fogdog said:
And then there is that guaranteed jobs thing. It's some weird dystopian public works thing that I'd oppose, much less somebody who is suspicious of massive government programs.
Click to expand...
Why are you against a guaranteed job for every American? That's what Republicans rally on, full employment. Who would be against a guaranteed job for every American, complete with full benefits?
Fogdog said:
You're saying that the DCCC MUST give Tillerson money even if he supports shit like that. They are making the right choice to cut Sanders and Cult of Sanders out from their support. Not because of some plot to gain power but because Sanders and his follower-candidates are politically naive, inept and losers in most districts of this country.
Click to expand...
What happened to allowing voters to choose? You support smoke filled back rooms because you know under fair conditions, you would lose. Just like Steny Hoyer knew, which is why he pressured Tillerson to leave the race.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
That's exactly what you're arguing; that a small group of elites within the Democratic party have the right to choose the Democratic nominee in their respective primaries against progressive challengers. And you have the audacity to claim that these races are fair when 95% of federal elections go to the candidate that spent more on their race.

I read your complaint earlier, then why do we oppose corporate donations? Pretty simple; because if we accept corporate donations like the politicians you support do, then we would be beholden to them and/or their industry. This point remains moot since actual progressives have raised more money than their corporate counterparts and the Democratic establishment has still chosen to back the Democrat that will be kind to corporate interests. It's not about how much money you can raise or what your actual beliefs are.. It's about whether or not you will toe the party line

The DCCC is trying to get as many corporate Democrats elected as possible...

If you don't believe that, give me one name. A progressive candidate the DCCC backed above a corporate Democrat

The DCCC doesn't back progressive candidates because they don't want progressive candidates to win






Why are you against a guaranteed job for every American? That's what Republicans rally on, full employment. Who would be against a guaranteed job for every American, complete with full benefits?

What happened to allowing voters to choose? You support smoke filled back rooms because you know under fair conditions, you would lose. Just like Steny Hoyer knew, which is why he pressured Tillerson to leave the race.
Click to expand...
first line. stop.

You have this fixation with insisting you know what I'm thinking. You don't. Read my words. They are much closer to what I'm thinking than your imagination.

I am saying as clearly as I can that the candidates you Progressives are fielding are crap and the DCCC isn't supporting them because they are crap. I base this entirely upon the crappy bills that Sanders has been putting forth. Simply put, anybody who tries to run on those proposals can't win in less than liberal districts, which pretty much makes up the entire US. Are you OK with another round of Republicans holding the House and Senate and Presidency? I'm not.

I'll give you a chance to defend this Tillemann guy. What makes him the better candidate over Jason Crow? I mean, policies, programs, experience, why is he better?
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
That's exactly what you're arguing; that a small group of elites within the Democratic party have the right to choose the Democratic nominee in their respective primaries against progressive challengers. And you have the audacity to claim that these races are fair when 95% of federal elections go to the candidate that spent more on their race.

I read your complaint earlier, then why do we oppose corporate donations? Pretty simple; because if we accept corporate donations like the politicians you support do, then we would be beholden to them and/or their industry. This point remains moot since actual progressives have raised more money than their corporate counterparts and the Democratic establishment has still chosen to back the Democrat that will be kind to corporate interests. It's not about how much money you can raise or what your actual beliefs are.. It's about whether or not you will toe the party line

The DCCC is trying to get as many corporate Democrats elected as possible...

If you don't believe that, give me one name. A progressive candidate the DCCC backed above a corporate Democrat

The DCCC doesn't back progressive candidates because they don't want progressive candidates to win






Why are you against a guaranteed job for every American? That's what Republicans rally on, full employment. Who would be against a guaranteed job for every American, complete with full benefits?

What happened to allowing voters to choose? You support smoke filled back rooms because you know under fair conditions, you would lose. Just like Steny Hoyer knew, which is why he pressured Tillerson to leave the race.
Click to expand...
Now then, about that weird ass jobs bill. Why don't I like it?

First, like the Health Care Bill it is unfinished. No budget and no details on what the people would do or who would run it.

Second, why would anybody bother to show up or do their best for a job that was guaranteed?

Third, If we are going to have a huge federal program to eliminate poverty, a guaranteed minimum income would be better. It would give people time to explore alternatives, education, gain training and better themselves. What Sanders proposes is people show up for a minimum wage public works job that they probably would hate doing. The whole idea sounds awful.

There are a lot of other things wrong with this bill but I've just hit my three biggest criticisms of it.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Maybe Cult of Sanders members who want to run as the Democratic Party's candidate should win the primary instead of expecting it to be handed to them

Your Cult is being told by experienced politicians that your candidates are shit and they won't waste resources on them. Instead of crying here about it, go out and prove them wrong.

But then again, those so-called Progressive candidates are weak candidates in most districts of the country.

Tammany Hall was in New York, not Chicago. In any case, equating Tammany Hall with the DCCC is another histrionic melt down, not to mention another logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
Oh? How is vote rigging and collusion not vote rigging and collusion?

You love to call people names- but when pressed for actual substance you come up empty over and over and over...

So by all means, hide behind the bluster with the rest of your sycophants.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
first line. stop.

You have this fixation with insisting you know what I'm thinking. You don't. Read my words. They are much closer to what I'm thinking than your imagination.

I am saying as clearly as I can that the candidates you Progressives are fielding are crap and the DCCC isn't supporting them because they are crap. I base this entirely upon the crappy bills that Sanders has been putting forth. Simply put, anybody who tries to run on those proposals can't win in less than liberal districts, which pretty much makes up the entire US. Are you OK with another round of Republicans holding the House and Senate and Presidency? I'm not.

I'll give you a chance to defend this Tillemann guy. What makes him the better candidate over Jason Crow? I mean, policies, programs, experience, why is he better?
Click to expand...
Naive
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Oh? How is vote rigging and collusion not vote rigging and collusion?

You love to call people names- but when pressed for actual substance you come up empty over and over and over...

So by all means, hide behind the bluster with the rest of your sycophants.
Click to expand...
tty, you keep bringing up the fake conspiracy theory that the Democratic primary was rigged. There is no evidence of that. The evidence is that your guy lost because he couldn't convince Democratic black, latino and women voters to give him their votes instead they gave their vote to Clinton.

If you want to insist on rigged, then explain to me why only white men voted for Bernie? Why were they not affected by whatever nefarious action Clinton made? What was special about the "rigged election" that made it so that 80% of black democrats voted for Clinton while 60% of white men voted for Bernie? You have a theory that the primary was rigged at the national level. Why weren't effects seen in all demographic groups more or less about the same? Ive asked this before and you've never replied with an answer. Could it be that you don't understand the question? If so, let me know and I'll try to explain.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Naive
Click to expand...
Scott Lamb ran with a policy that was pro-healthcare, his policy was that we should support the ACA.

He won by only 700 votes.

If Scott Lamb had run on Bernie's health care bill, he would have lost.

Bernie's healthcare bill is unpopular in less liberal districts. These are the ones we have to win in order to flip the house to Democratic Party control. Would you prefer we run Progressive candidates in most districts but cede control of Congress yet again to Republicans?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top