5
   

Why I left the Democratic Party

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2017 01:10 pm
The Top 10 Corporate Democrats-For-Hire
They claim to be 'centrists,' but these D.C. Dems -- whose corporate agendas aren't too different from Bush administration policies -- are living proof that the system needs fixing.
http://www.alternet.org/story/40482/the_top_10_corporate_democrats-for-hire/
An oldie but still sheds light
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2017 01:33 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

The Top 10 Corporate Democrats-For-Hire
They claim to be 'centrists,' but these D.C. Dems -- whose corporate agendas aren't too different from Bush administration policies -- are living proof that the system needs fixing.
http://www.alternet.org/story/40482/the_top_10_corporate_democrats-for-hire/
An oldie but still sheds light


10...out of hundreds
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Aug, 2017 02:37 pm
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/16/democrats-lost-in-a-corporate-wilderness/

Over the past quarter century, the national Democratic Party merged with the Clinton pay-for-play money machine and lost touch with American populism. So, what must be done and what are the party’s prospects, asks Lawrence Davidson.


By Lawrence Davidson

You would think that learning from experience is a common thing to do. But, for the Democratic Party’s leadership, this seems not to be the case. After the landslide victory of Trump’s version of the Republican Party in the 2016 national election, it is fair to say that the Democratic Party is in big trouble.


President Bill Clinton, First Lady Hillary Clinton and daughter Chelsea parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 1997. (White House photo)
As Sen. Bernie Sanders has observed, the party needs to reform. Among other things it needs to ensure that whoever is the head of the Democratic National Committee [DNC] is dedicated to growing the party in a pro-civil rights as well as populist way. The party also needs to break free of special-interest money and do away with biased “super delegates” that subvert the nominating process. Sanders suggests a reform commission to look into implementing the necessary changes.

There are millions of local Democratic voters who agree with Sanders. I am sure that their local party officials have heard from a lot from them. However, to date, none of this has transferred over to the party’s national scene. Indeed Democratic power brokers like Chuck Schumer in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House, who should be discredited in the eyes of everyone who identifies themselves with the Democratic Party, are still in place calling the shots.

And, it is almost certain that whoever becomes head of the DNC will be vetted by these obsolete leaders and will follow their lead. It is a formula for repeated political failure, but it has the sense of something inevitable nonetheless.

Contributing Factors

Why have things worked out this way? Here are some of the contributing factors:


Donna Brazile, interim Democratic Party chairperson.
—Both the Democratic and Republican Parties have evolved into bureaucratized organizations at once dependent upon the financial resources of special interests and mainly responsive to those interests’ needs. This has led both parties to pay more attention to the siren calls of powerful lobbies than the needs of local constituencies.

This fits with the fact that the United States is not a democracy of individuals so much as a democracy of competing interest groups. These interest groups range from conservative to liberal, and many play both sides of the ideological field by giving donations to both parties and their major political leaders.

—The concentration on special interests has been facilitated by the fact that, historically, many American citizens care little about politics. They know little or nothing about how the political system works, much less the issues and pressures to which it responds. Many do not vote. Those who do vote are only marginally more knowledgeable than those who do not. This means the party system relies on relatively small populations of avid supporters

The entrenched nature of the party bureaucracies and the traditional indifference of a large part of the citizenry make the system very hard, but not impossible, to reform.

—It is the Republican Party’s structure, and not that of the Democrats, that has experienced the strongest populist assault over the past couple of years. This is so despite the fact the Republicans have paid more attention to capturing state governorships, legislatures and even town councils than have the Democrats.

The assault has come from the so-called Tea Party, which has its own local and regional organizations imbued with a strong sense of mission. That mission is to minimize altogether government involvement in society. The Tea Party had grown disappointed and estranged from the traditional Republican leadership and structure.

—The basis for Donald Trump’s success was partially laid by the Tea Party’s willingness to abandon their traditional support for the Republicans and place their faith in Trump. Ultimately, what now survives of the formal Republican Party are those elements willing to ally with Trump.

—In contrast, the Democratic Party survives intact, having marginalized Bernie Sanders’s liberal effort to restructure it. Ironically, its structural survival is its greatest weakness. As a consequence it will just plod along, stuck in its rut. All things being equal this might condemn the Democrats to minority status for a long time.

—The only thing that might alter this fate is the catastrophic failure of Trump and his Republican allies – failure to such an extent that the Democratic Party, at least temporarily, again appears as an acceptable alternative to a population scared for its future.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  0  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2017 07:16 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

What would you say your single best piece of scientific proof is? Just give me one study to delve deep in and I will.

There won't be a single mocking or snide remark made.

Lash informed me that she will not be taking me up on this challenge and that she will not waste her time on this subject again.

At least that's better than JTT/Camlock who continually post the same consipiracy theory bullshit over and over and over.


I presume that she views her time better spent going after the Clintons until the end of time. She's jumping on the "Seth Rich got murdered by Hillary" conspiracy too.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2017 07:39 am
Not surprised to see a skewed Clintonesque dodge by Maporshe.

I told him I'd already offered three articles--one, a peer-reviewed Reuters piece with scientific data--he's predisposed to protect Monsanto on a strictly political agenda.

I'm not wasting further time on anyone like him.

LOL. I got a laugh about my 'conspiracy theory.' A deluge of personal emails by Hillary Clinton and her cronies in the DNC and the media were made public--& Maporshe and many here immediately ignored it for the preferred conspiracy theory that the evil Russian empire was behind it, desperately trying to beat that valiant American warrior princess, Hillary 'Goldwater Girl' Clinton.

You bought that crazy **** hook, line, and sinker without one scintilla of proof.

That's a crazy ass conspiracy theory.

Recently proven to be a fabrication by the DNC.

It was an internal leak. The DNC knew it. Seth Rich was likely the leaker. I'm happy to stand by that assertion.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2017 07:46 am
@Lash,
Smile Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2017 07:47 am
@Lash,
You have an absolute track record of completely misusing/misunderstanding the words "evidence, proof, and fact."
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2017 07:52 am
@maporsche,
That's something someone says when they don't have a legitimate argument.
Ad hom.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2017 07:53 am
@Lash,
We're not having a legitimate argument Lash. You've disengaged...or at least you've claimed to.


And I'll point out that I did respond to the Reuters article that you posted. You dismissed it if I remember by making an unfounded claim that I'm a shill for Monsanto (ad hom?). I will not be reading your link to foodbabe.com.

My request for your single best piece of evidence was, in truth a 'hope', that you had something more convincing. I guess you don't?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2017 08:07 am
@Glennn,
Thanks, Glennn! I had read this very recently, but I'm appreciative that you brought it.

It's so frustrating that even when they're caught trying to suppress pertinent facts in a court case, it passes from notice. I'm beginning to believe nothing trumps money paid to look the other way.

maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2017 08:14 am
@Lash,
Quote:
peer-reviewed Reuters piece with scientific data


... I think Lash is a little unclear on the concepts of peer review and scientific data.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Aug, 2017 11:17 am
@Lash,
You're welcome. And you're right.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2017 05:01 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
The true believers take the corporate line down to the last gulp of Roundup and will defend it with their last breath.

I have a different take on the use of Roundup. I think it's a great herbicide for spot applications on unwanted vegetation because it doesn't build up in the food chain the way some of the older herbicides like 2,4D did. A patch of poison ivy, invasive buckthorn, or barberry can be very difficult to remove by physical means alone. Many conservation groups approve of using herbicides when no other options are available.

The problem with Roundup is its use in factory farming where it is broadcast up to six times a season on genetically modified food crops
which have been engineered to resist its toxicity. It is this use which has led to glyphosate resistant weeds and the accumulation of glyphosate in food and in the human body.

Same with GMOs — not bad in and of themselves, their negative consequences only emerge when used in industrial-scale farming. With better regulation I would be more likely to support their use.


https://www.poisonpapers.org/the-poison-papers/
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2017 08:05 pm
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/opinion/chuck-schumer-employment-democrats.html

Chuck Schumer: A Better Deal for American Workers
JULY 24, 2017

Quote:
Americans are clamoring for bold changes to our politics and our economy. They feel, rightfully, that both systems are rigged against them, and they made that clear in last year’s election. American families deserve a better deal so that this country works for everyone again, not just the elites and special interests. Today, Democrats will start presenting that better deal to the American people.

There used to be a basic bargain in this country that if you worked hard and played by the rules, you could own a home, afford a car, put your kids through college and take a modest vacation every year while putting enough away for a comfortable retirement. In the second half of the 20th century, millions of Americans achieved this solid middle-class lifestyle. I should know — I grew up in that America.

But things have changed.

Today’s working Americans and the young are justified in having greater doubts about the future than any generation since the Depression. Americans believe they’re getting a raw deal from both the economic and political systems in our country. And they are right. The wealthiest special interests can spend an unlimited, undisclosed amount of money to influence elections and protect their special deals in Washington. As a result, our system favors short-term gains for shareholders instead of long-term benefits for workers.

And for far too long, government has gone along, tilting the economic playing field in favor of the wealthy and powerful while putting new burdens on the backs of hard-working Americans.

Democrats have too often hesitated from taking on those misguided policies directly and unflinchingly — so much so that many Americans don’t know what we stand for. Not after today. Democrats will show the country that we’re the party on the side of working people — and that we stand for three simple things.

First, we’re going to increase people’s pay. Second, we’re going to reduce their everyday expenses. And third, we’re going to provide workers with the tools they need for the 21st-century economy.

Over the next several months, Democrats will lay out a series of policies that, if enacted, will make these three things a reality. We’ve already proposed creating jobs with a $1 trillion infrastructure plan; increasing workers’ incomes by lifting the minimum wage to $15; and lowering household costs by providing paid family and sick leave.

On Monday we are announcing three new policies to advance our goals.

Right now, there is nothing to stop vulture capitalists from egregiously raising the price of lifesaving drugs without justification. We’re going to fight for rules to stop prescription drug price gouging and demand that drug companies justify price increases to the public. And we’re going to push for empowering Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for older Americans.

Right now our antitrust laws are designed to allow huge corporations to merge, padding the pockets of investors but sending costs skyrocketing for everything from cable bills and airline tickets to food and health care. We are going to fight to allow regulators to break up big companies if they’re hurting consumers and to make it harder for companies to merge if it reduces competition.

Right now millions of unemployed or underemployed people, particularly those without a college degree, could be brought back into the labor force or retrained to secure full-time, higher-paying work. We propose giving employers, particularly small businesses, a large tax credit to train workers for unfilled jobs. This will have particular resonance in smaller cities and rural areas, which have experienced an exodus of young people who aren’t trained for the jobs in those areas.

In the coming months, we’ll offer additional ideas, from rebuilding rural America to fundamentally changing our trade laws to benefit workers, not multinational corporations.

We are in the minority in both houses of Congress; we cannot promise anyone that this Congress will begin passing our priorities tomorrow. But we have to start raising our voices to present our vision for the country’s future. We will seek the support of any Republicans willing to work with us, but more important, we must start rallying the American people to support our ideas.

In the last two elections, Democrats, including in the Senate, failed to articulate a strong, bold economic program for the middle class and those working hard to get there. We also failed to communicate our values to show that we were on the side of working people, not the special interests. We will not repeat the same mistake. This is the start of a new vision for the party, one strongly supported by House and Senate Democrats.

Our better deal is not about expanding the government, or moving our party in one direction or another along the political spectrum. Nor is it about tearing down government agencies that work, that effectively protect consumers and promote the health and well-being of the country. It’s about reorienting government to work on behalf of people and families.

Americans from every corner of this country know that the economy isn’t working for them the way that it should, and they wonder if it ever will again. One party says the answer is that special interests should continue to write the rules and that government ought to make things easier for an already-favored few.

Democrats will offer a better deal.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2017 08:32 pm
@Real Music,
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2017 08:49 pm
@edgarblythe,
I am hoping
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 05:43 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/progressives-are-building-outside-of-the-democratic-party-to-win-in-2018/2017/08/12/689ec374-7ed1-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e_story.html?utm_term=.66c3baa6a13c
The evidence from Atlanta suggested that Democrats might march into 2017 and 2018 elections still arguing about how to win — without dividing the party.

The high-profile problems of the Democratic National Committee were part of that discussion, but the larger focus was about what progressives were building outside the party, untainted by the Democratic brand. Just as the tea party complemented the work of the Obama-era GOP, progressives want to build organizations, national and hyperlocal, to turn out voters who might be turned off by Democrats.

“Ninety percent of Americans think that the Republicans put corporations ahead of American citizens, and 80 percent say that the Democratic Party does,” said Tom Steyer, whose political advocacy group NextGen America had already budgeted $8 million for 2018 election turnout operations. “For people under the age of 30, I’ve seen data on how 44 percent of them thought there was no difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on the issues.
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Sun 13 Aug, 2017 07:33 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
For people under the age of 30, I’ve seen data on how 44 percent of them thought there was no difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on the issues.


Are you part of that 44% Edgar?

Every week, the differences between Trump and Hillary Clinton get more and more obvious. Hillary would never have responded to White Supremacist violence by condemning "violence on every side".

Trump is destroying whatever argument you are trying to make.
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2017 12:41 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Are you part of that 44% Edgar?

Every week, the differences between Trump and Hillary Clinton get more and more obvious. Hillary would never have responded to White Supremacist violence by condemning "violence on every side".

Trump is destroying whatever argument you are trying to make.

The Trump administration is virtually dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) while putting the country's biggest polluters in charge of the agency. The Trump administration has weakened the Civil rights divisions in his administration. The Trump administration has actively attacked voters rights. Let's not forget about Trump's Supreme court nominee. We all know his next big agenda is tax reform, which we all know is tax cuts for the wealthy disguised as tax reform. Hillary Clinton agenda would definitely not have been in line with Trump's right wing agenda. That's only a tiny portion of the things the Trump administration has done or plan to do. I don't agree with Hillary Clinton on everything. Yes I do have some problems with the democrat party. I do agree with Hillary Clinton and the democrat party way more than Donald Trump and the republican party. I do believe that neither Hillary Clinton or the Democrat party come anywhere close to Donald Trump and Republican party right wing agenda. It would take me a very long time to break down the many many many many many many differences. The differences between the democrats and republicans are very vast and enormous.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2017 05:57 am
Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon cured me of voting for Republicans. I long considered the Democratic Party our best hope. Bill Clinton made me wary of Democrats. Obama and Hillary Clinton drove me away from the party. They are slightly better than Republicans but not enough to merit any loyalty.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/20/2017 at 12:59:33