Why I left the Democratic Party

@edgarblythe,

I'll let my gay, married friends know they've lost it all and can no longer consider themselves to be married.

My cousin who has health insurance for the first time in a decade due to having a pre-existing condition his whole life: he's lost everything. He's going to be devastated to hear it.

My friends whose kids are still on the SCHIP program, I'll let them know their kids aren't covered any longer

All these states legalizing Marijuana, back into the closet with you, stoners

It'll be a severe blow to our Solar and Wind industries to hear that our investment in them was worth nothing at all and has been lost

I'll let our whole country's environment know that soon it'll be as bad as it was in the 70's again, because hey, we've lost it all, right?

I could go on... at length. But why bother?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Why indeed. It is being lost daily. You would have to be blind to not see how much is being lost.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2017/11/02/why_the_belief_in_decline_is_so_dangerous_112612.html

Please read

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You can pick and choose to show progress or decline.

Neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama attempted to challenge corporate and financial interests, and neither did nearly enough to address the lost jobs and wages that led to deteriorating affluence and fed popular cynicism and distrust. Obama, for example, gratuitously appointed General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt to the White House Jobs Council — an odd choice, given that Immelt’s company was a notorious pioneer in offshoring American jobs to foreign nations. Immelt subsequently admitted that he was motivated by GE’s bottom line: American wages were too high, he explained, so he intended to lower them. He succeeded.

1 Reply

I'm no doomsayer. I am saying quit blocking progressives. Either be constructive or get out of the way.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

You should cite your sources for this type of plagiarism.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Yes to that

0 Replies

Warren is at least talking the talk...

http://observer.com/2017/11/elizabeth-warren-says-democratic-party-needs-to-be-held-accountable/

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Are you really such a blind drone for a given political party?

You know you don't have to defend HRC and the DNC against every single allegation.

Tribalism...unless they are paying you.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Warren has gravitated back toward Bernie. Better late than never.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I started to write a bit of a tome about my many years as a democrat, but it started almost immediately to become a book.
Whatever, I'm still a democrat.

0 Replies

Quote:

DNC leaders call for rules reform after 2016 primary revelations

[...] In an email to DNC members this week, [DNC Chairman] Tom Perez said the party had already begun reforming its primary rules to ensure "that 2020 will be a transparent process," and that "even a perception of impropriety - whether real or not - is detrimental to the DNC as an institution." The DNC's charter, he pointed out, required total neutrality in primaries. [...]

"We must heed the call for our party to enact real reforms that ensure a fair, open and impartial nominating process in elections to come," [DNC Deputy Chair] Keith Ellison said. "I'm committed to working with Chairman Perez to make the DNC more transparent and accountable to the American people, whether that's by ensuring that debates are scheduled far ahead of time or by guaranteeing that the terms of joint fundraising agreements give no candidate undue control or influence over the party."

The DNC will meet next month to hear recommendations from a Unity Commission that has met four times, in four cities, to research problems with the primary process and debate reforms. Multiple state Democratic chairs are lobbying specifically for new language in the party bylaws about JFAs, an issue that might be forced at a later meeting.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-dnc-primary-reform-20171103-story.html

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

My definition is that the lower 20% is poor, the top 5% is rich.

What do you base this definition on? And why would one define the word "rich" four times more narrowly than the word "poor"?

1 Reply

@nimh,

I base in my observation of how much purchasing power each group has and the desire to have a concrete value as opposed to a vague one. At the 20th percentile, you don't have enough household income to cover housing, food and basic transportation in most places. You easily qualify for government assistance. At the 5th percentile, you aren't living in a mansion, but you can easily manage sudden expenses, can put significant money aside and can pay for things like cars in cash. (The 80% percentile household is not nearly that comfortable, although it is not hurting.)

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

It's not necessarily a matter of 'gravitating'. She's just saying the truth as she sees it.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

She could have helped Bernie in the primaries but went silent at the most critical time.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

To each his or her own voice and vote.

0 Replies

The increments argument is such bullshit. While Democrats are working for you to get Obamacare and gay rights, they are taking away much more. Bill Clinton was a Democrat in name only. He usurped Republican ideas and was applauded as a political genius, because the Democrats in congress loved him for it. Kill welfare, preside over prisons for profit, take away our bank protections. Obama continuing W's war policies, Bush era tax cuts (his compromise tailored to his donors), actions driving away jobs and wages. It's the old carrot and stick. You can have Obamacare, but I've got to take away other stuff.

2 Replies

15 ways Bill Clinton failed us
https://www.alternet.org/election-2016/15-ways-bill-clintons-white-house-failed-america-and-world

0 Replies

https://able2know.org/topic/174129-1

0 Replies

Why I left the Democratic Party

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know