The Quotable Reich

@revelette1,

Quote:

What would constitute a liberal friendly platform enough to have Sanders or Stein's supporters join in with the DNC to stop the Trump agenda?

Neither one of those people or groups is going to get it done, the only way they can go is farther to the left. Do you really think a more liberal platform is going to bring people to your side? More free stuff for other people to pay for?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

I am not asking a far right person, no offense. I think the DNC should even accept moderate republicans as well without having to become democrats. I am interested in edgar's answer, have been for a long time. He may have answered it, but I haven't really understood it if he has.

However, if we do have non democrats in the DNC, it would make sense to change the primaries rules in the individual states to reflect the new DNC.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

Until Democrats adopt a liberal friendly attitude, I can't see them getting a lot of our help. I don't say they can't regain the presidency and possibly the senate, but they are not likely to take back the country from conservative Republicans as they currently operate.

You're losing it.

The democratic party IS liberal friendly.

You have your head in the sand. Only corporate elitists make it with the Democrats these days.

3 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Are the folks I asked maporsche about true liberals, Edgar?

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

maporsche wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

Until Democrats adopt a liberal friendly attitude, I can't see them getting a lot of our help. I don't say they can't regain the presidency and possibly the senate, but they are not likely to take back the country from conservative Republicans as they currently operate.

You're losing it.

The democratic party IS liberal friendly.

You have your head in the sand. Only corporate elitists make it with the Democrats these days.

I'm interested in your answer to Rev's question too.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

You have your head in the sand. Only corporate elitists make it with the Democrats these days.

What does it mean to be a corporate elitist?

2 Replies

@camlok,

Not any that I know of.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

What does it mean to be an American liberal like Johnson, Kennedy, Obama, Clinton, Kissinger, ... who murders innocents?

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

What about Kennedy, Kennedy, Clinton, Jefferson, ... ?

0 Replies

@maporsche,

According to this site

Quote:

CORPORATE ELITE

Corporate elite are the owners, directors and senior executives of the largest and most important of a nation's business corporations. Corporate elite can be variously defined according to criteria of corporate size and type of enterprise.

Sociology Index

I suppose edgar is saying the DNC accepts money from the elite of the corporation world therefore they can't really be for the middle class or workers/poverty stricken despite their liberal platform.

I find that attitude very intolerant and self defeating, but perhaps I could be wrong. It would not be a bad thing to get money out of elections. On the other hand, having the other side such as Trump have all the money is rather defeating as well.

3 Replies

@revelette1,

Now we are getting somewhere, I think.

The US has never been a democracy. It's only a facade, where people get to vote in their "liberal" or conservative representatives who take their money and feed it to big business, war mongers, terrorists to further the flow of money to big business, war mongers, terrorists. Wash, rinse, repeat.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

According to this site

Quote:
CORPORATE ELITE

Corporate elite are the owners, directors and senior executives of the largest and most important of a nation's business corporations. Corporate elite can be variously defined according to criteria of corporate size and type of enterprise.

Sociology Index

I suppose edgar is saying the DNC accepts money from the elite of the corporation world therefore they can't really be for the middle class or workers/poverty stricken despite their liberal platform.

I find that attitude very intolerant and self defeating, but perhaps I could be wrong. It would not be a bad thing to get money out of elections. On the other hand, having the other side such as Trump have all the money is rather defeating as well.

I have a problem with that being the mindset here. I work for a financial institution. I just donated $500 to the DNC yesterday. They asked me for my employers name and type of company I work in. I make between $100,000 and $130,000...I'm not some fat cat executive in a fancy office with limo service or a private jet. But my $500 donation gets logged in under "Wall Street money" when these reports are published.

I'm just a 37 year old liberal leaning guy with a good income who is trying to help the party that I feel does the most good in this country. I'm not getting any kickbacks. I've never met a politician.

But to Edgar, I'm a corporate elitist because I sit in a cubicle and work for a banking institution.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

Quote:

On the other hand, having the other side such as Trump have all the money is rather defeating as well.

How can you say/type this with a straight face? Are you living in some bubble? Look at the stats on campaign spending and donations and tell me again Trump had all the money? Hillary broke the $1 billion, with a B billion, record set by Obama in the last 2 election cycles. She pulled in a total of 1.5 billion dollars, a vast majority which came from DNC coffers, which are filled by some of the richest people in the US. In fact of the 5 richest people in the world right now, the US has 4 of the 5. Bill Gates at #1, Jeff Bezos #2, Warren Buffet #3 and Mark Zuckerberg at #5. In fact you don't even hit a GOP donor until you get the the Koch brothers who are tied for #8.

Campaign funding and spending for 2016:https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/raised-summ

Hillary led the pack with $1.5Billion and Trump pulled in $957Million.

So be honest, who has the big money involved in politics? For the last 3 Presidential Elections, the DNC has led the pack in a big way!

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Read carefully Baldimo.

She said that she'd love to see the democrats refuse money from 'elitists' (read: millionaires). But that they cannot do that realistically because nothing is going to make the republicans follow suit and she doesn't want to see them with all the millionaires money and the democrats have none (in her hypothetical).

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

She said that she'd love to see the democrats refuse money from 'elitists' (read: millionaires). But that they cannot do that realistically because nothing is going to make the republicans follow suit and she doesn't want to see them with all the millionaires money and the democrats have none (in her hypothetical).

The problem is she wasn't dealing with reality to start with. The biggest money takers in the last 10 years of elections have been the DNC, the very foundation of the party relies on the wealthiest people in the US. It's the myth she is trying to push that the DNC wouldn't do this if the GOP didn't, but we know that is a bold face lie, this false sense of altruism you guys seem to project on the DNC. Obama was the one who first denied Federal election funds back in 2008, in exchange for his supposed ethics...

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

All you gangsters, arguing about who is the worst.

Howlywood couldn't write this.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
She said that she'd love to see the democrats refuse money from 'elitists' (read: millionaires). But that they cannot do that realistically because nothing is going to make the republicans follow suit and she doesn't want to see them with all the millionaires money and the democrats have none (in her hypothetical).

The problem is she wasn't dealing with reality to start with. The biggest money takers in the last 10 years of elections have been the DNC, the very foundation of the party relies on the wealthiest people in the US. It's the myth she is trying to push that the DNC wouldn't do this if the GOP didn't, but we know that is a bold face lie, this false sense of altruism you guys seem to project on the DNC. Obama was the one who first denied Federal election funds back in 2008, in exchange for his supposed ethics...

I'm not going to bother to look at your statement to verify it's truth. I'll take it for what you said right now.

But that's not her point. She, and many liberals, want to take 'big money' out of politics for both sides, including democrats. It's not what the DNC would do, it's what she's saying she wants to have happen or maybe what Edgar wants to have happen.

I'm trying to show them that 'wall street money' often includes middle class Americans like me who are donating more than $200 per year who have to declare their employer and industry. My $500 donation is lumped into the 'wall street money' and that's fine, but it shouldn't be demonized...should it?

3 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

My $500 donation is lumped into the 'wall street money' and that's fine, but it shouldn't be demonized...should it?

It supports US war crimes and terrorism, so yeah, it very likely should.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

I'm not going to bother to look at your statement to verify it's truth. I'll take it for what you said right now.

Thanks?

Quote:

But that's not her point. She, and many liberals, want to take 'big money' out of politics for both sides, including democrats. It's not what the DNC would do, it's what she's saying she wants to have happen or maybe what Edgar wants to have happen.

Sounds like they will have to forge their own party or hitch their wagons to Bernie and his ilk. The DNC isn't going to change a damn thing.

Quote:

I'm trying to show them that 'wall street money' often includes middle class Americans like me who are donating more than $200 per year who have to declare their employer and industry. My $500 donation is lumped into the 'wall street money' and that's fine, but it shouldn't be demonized...should it?

It shouldn't be, you are an American citizen and welcome to donate what you wish. Left to me, I would say you could donate as much as you wanted and reporting it would be an option, not a requirement. If you wanted to donate your money to the US Communist party it's your right, I won't hold you back. I might mock you for your foolishness, but I wouldn't make it illegal or try and stop you.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

My $500 donation is lumped into the 'wall street money' and that's fine, but it shouldn't be demonized...should it?

No it shouldn't be demonized, there is nothing wrong with having money and donating it to a political party. (Gee, the very fact we have to say it. Kind of reminds of the time of Helter Skelter and being against the "establishment." Before your time.) Perhaps it should be wrong for corporations to donate to political causes? Isn't that what citizens united is about and those against it want changed? If it is, I agree.

0 Replies

The Quotable Reich

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know