Fogdog
Well-Known Member
naive
Democrats on board to roll back banking regulations- again
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
This is exactly what I've been saying here for years now.
The Progressive Movement is easy to understand as a logical response to a system that has failed to listen to the vast majority of its constituents.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
You're naive.
Proof; thinking this isn't corrupt;
https://www.vox.com/2018/3/7/17084808/dccc-laura-moser-texas-democratic-primary-2018
More proof; letting the Democratic Party off the hook for supporting the Republican initiative to roll back Dodd-Frank banking regulations barely 10 years after the worst financial disaster since 1929.
Worse than naive; you're a sucker.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I'm sticking to the subject exactly. The DNC is just an office for coordinating joint efforts between the various state chapters. Perez is a facilitator. The real leadership right now is in the Senate and the House. Each state elects their own representation. Some states are more conservative than others. When there is a Democratic president, they are the figurehead of the party. Clinton (Bill) was an effective leader for the DNC and Obama apparently based upon the financial condition he left the DNC in was not.
When you say "Democrats" you are speaking to me about the Democrats in my state and fuck off when you say they are corrupt and selling out because there is very little that I can find to back you your generalized claim. I hazard to say the same for Washington State's and California's Democrats too.
There are some California representatives who are in hot water right now. One for some charges of paying spouse in a dody manner and another, something else. I don't see anything that backs up your claim of "Damn corrupt Democrats". You repeat the claim without substantiation.
Is this where you repeat the fake conspiracy myth of Democrats stealing the election? If you do, you have to answer for the more than racist whiff that comes off of your claims for that.
too larry
Well-Known Member
Follow the money. Bankers "donate" to both parties. Mark Twain's comment is still true today. We have the best government money can buy.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It is naive to say that Democrats and Republicans are the same. There is no way the Dodd Frank repeal would have seen the light of day in a Democratically controlled Congress or even if one house were controlled by Democrats. Same with the stalled out Dreamer bill, same with the tax cut for the wealthy, same for defunding Medicare, same for defunding the ACA. Millions are facing loss of healthcare insurance because of Republicans. These are facts and all you do is reply back with claims that I'm a sucker. Oh yeah, that is a winning argument. That may be true, I may be a sucker, but you can't possibly say that the list of venal Republican actions over the past year would have happened if Republicans were not in charge.
It is naive to say that Democrats and Republicans are the same. The past four years of Obama in charge and Republican control of Congress is nirvana compared to what we have now with Republicans in charge of all four major houses of power.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
You just tried to conflate national level Democrats with your state party.
Then you tell me to fuck off. Lol
Try to stick with the subject- but if course you won't, because you can't debate me on the merits so you're left with transparent gamesmanship.
Tell us where your high school debate teacher touched you.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
There is no national level Democrats. The leadership of the Democratic party is at the state level. Name a single Senator or Representative who represents the nation and not a state.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
It's naive to watch what Democrats in Congress and the Senate do every day and conclude that they have any interest in representing anyone but the same donors who shovel money at them and the Republican Party.
But you won't address that because you have no answer.
You'll tell us about your statehouse Democrats instead, as off topic as it is.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Oh yeah the Kochs shovel money at Democrats.
Corporate donations are skewed to Republicans.
You speak belief and I speak fact. I'll never convince a true believer and as long as you fail to quote facts, you'll never convince me.
I totally agree that Citizens United must be rolled back and campaign financing laws must be changed to small donations from individuals. I don't understand how this can happen until Democrats control both houses and we have a Democratic president. Until then, what you propose is Democrats unilaterally refusing legal campaign donations on the belief that this will energize a heretofore non-voting base. You speak belief, I speak fact. Your belief isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. The facts say that Democrats won't retake Congress or the White House if they refuse legal donations because they will be outspent by Republicans and it is a fact that the larger spending candidate wins more often than not. I'll stick to facts when making a decision, thank you.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Funny how you never mention any of the dozens of facts and articles I have posted here recently. The Koch smokers aren't the only megabuck donors.Oh yeah the Kochs shovel money at Democrats.
Corporate donations are skewed to Republicans.
You speak belief and I speak fact. I'll never convince a true believer and as long as you fail to quote facts, you'll never convince me.
I totally agree that Citizens United must be rolled back and campaign financing laws must be changed to small donations from individuals. I don't understand how this can happen until Democrats control both houses and we have a Democratic president. Until then, what you propose is Democrats unilaterally refusing legal campaign donations on the belief that this will energize a heretofore non-voting base. You speak belief, I speak fact. Your belief isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. The facts say that Democrats won't retake Congress or the White House if they refuse legal donations because they will be outspent by Republicans and it is a fact that the larger spending candidate wins more often than not. I'll stick to facts when making a decision, thank you.
And you have the gall to call others naive?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Dude, are you really saying that the Dodd Frank repeal would have happened in a Democratically controlled congress? Recall that 16 Democrats voted for it to 32 voting against. ALL 50 Republicans voted for the bill. A Democratically controlled Senate wouldn't even have allowed the bill to the floor.
Are you really saying that the tax cut for the wealthy would have even seen the light of day under Democrats?
I continue to mention facts. You post shit from propaganda websites and I have refuted every one until lately because I see it is a waste of time.
I'm not saying you are naive, I'm saying it is naive to claim Democrats and Republicans are the same. Anybody who says that hasn't been following what has happened over the year. There is no way the ACA would have gone unfunded in a Democratically controlled Congress. These are facts.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Finally.
The ACA was already not getting funded even before Mr Obama left office. The Democrats fought it but were outnumbered.
Why is it okay for 12 it 16 Democrats to vote for crushing Dodd-Frank?
No, but that's why Democrats are in the minority; same donors want tax cuts, so they pay for the party who will do it. Meanwhile, the Democrats still beg for money from the same bunch.
Why did they get kicked out? Because they can't stand up for the 99%.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Where is the Democratic initiative to EXPAND the ACA?
Where's the Democratic initiative to RAISE taxes on corporations and the rich?
Where's the Democratic plan to give Dreamers citizenship, along with those who have served in our military?
The Democrats are the official party of appearance of opposition. They aren't FOR anything that would benefit those they say they represent, so it's no surprise they're losing support from both left and right.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
And exactly who was not funding the ACA? Democrats, you say? Who was in charge of both Houses toward the end of Obama's presidency?
LOL, yeah, Democrats to blame for a republican majority who came into this congressional session with the promise of repealing banking regulation.
The myth of the missing liberals: A heretofore unknown wellspring of radical liberals preferred to have Republicans in charge because Democrats weren't liberal enough.
I have a zirconium diamond you can have for only a 300% mark-up of a price that I'm sworn to keep secret.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
There is no way that Democrats would have passed the tax cut for the wealthy or the Dodd Frank repeal. There is no way that Democrats would have defunded the ACA and Medicare. There is no way Democrats would have let DACA expire. There is no way Democrats would have chosen a union-busting Supreme Court nominee or approved his seating. It is naive to say that Republicans and Democrats are the same.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Did you forget that Republicans are able to pass whatever they want and shelve any bills they don't?
What happened to Bernie's half-baked universal healthcare plan last year? Shelved by Republicans without comment.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Republicans can't pass bills without help from Democrats, they don't have a supermajority.
But you knew that, you're just throwing shit against the wall to try and distract from the truth.
You're better than this. At least you used to be.
On to the second point; the Republicans acted as a bloc to kill the health care plan, as expected. And I'm certainly not voting for any Republicans.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
They affirmed a Supreme Court Justice without a super majority. The tax-cut is another example of how the filibuster was broken. If you are complaining about the Democratic party being more fractious and diverse, I agree that we are.
Republicans have gotten extreme and very radical. In my opinion, they are at their zenith now and with the surprising result of a Democratic Senator elected from Alabama, they are on the way down. By the way, I had it wrong. 17 Democratic Senators voted for cloture to enable passage of a bill to water down the already weak Dodd Frank bill. Still about 2/3 of all Democrats voted against it. It's still a Republican bill, written by a Republican, backed by every Republican senator and a minority of Democrats. The Republican Party will tout this as an achievement and the Democratic Party sees it as a defeat.
Surely you don't maintain the position that the bill would have passed in a Democratically controlled Senate?
If one of those Democrats who voted for that shitty repeal were from my state, I'd be out knocking on doors trying to get somebody else elected when they come up for a vote. As it is, they are from different states than mine. There is nothing I can do other than donate to groups that are trying to primary them. Most, if not all of the turncoat's states voters approve of their Senator's vote or they wouldn't have ditched the Democratic Party. So, what would you have me do? Vote out my Senators because somebody else's senators did something I don't like but their state's voters did?
What I ask of my Senators is that they be effective in supporting issues important to me. I want them to work with all other Senators as best they can to do this. I don't care if it's a Republican or Democrat, the issues important to me are still important. DACA, for example. If Wyden or Merkely can work with Bennet to get something done before too late, I'm all for it.
As far as the Dodd-Frank repeal is concerned, we lost. We'll have to deal with tightening regulations for banking reform when Democrats get back into the driver's seat. Clearly Republicans won't as long as they are in control.
Last edited:
Similar threads
