Why I left the Democratic Party

Just because i am not blocking you out and can talk to you and all sorts of other folks without throwing a tantrum à la the Push does not mean I believe everything you or anybody else say. You're not credible in my book. Too much RT bullshit, too much Putin ass licking. Too much hatred, too much war mongering, too much blood on your hands.

All you did was string together several incendiary accusations that have nothing to do with me. Yet, you consider yourself to be superior to Izzy.

You have nothing on him.

Olivier, you really have zero credibility left. You support and you supported the liars who used 9/11 as their Pearl Harbour, both US false flags of sorts, the vicious murderers who illegally invaded I and A, all based on nothing but USA lies about 9/11.

No evidence for OBL involvement, no evidence for Arab hijackers, no evidence for any part of the USGOCT fable.

Tons of evidence against the USGOCT, evidence that shows it wasn't remotely possible as per the US government story.

How do all the "adults" reconcile the impossible to the US government story, molten and vaporized WTC steel, the "unique WTC 9/11 dust signature described by RJLee Group, the 6% of WTC dust as iron microspheres, one of the main by products of the US government/military nanothermite also found in WTC dust?

Oh yeah? Did you or did you not support the Iraq war? If you did, you have blood on your hands (metaphorically of course). Your hatred of 'liberals' is obvious as well. You're not that hard to size up...

Olivier, for god's sakes, you fully support the liars who perpetrated 9/11 so they could illegally invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

I haven't heard Lash lying her ass off denying science, denying the factual evidence, being delusional about the events of 9/11. Guess you I have heard and seen doing that!

Thank you.

I have some awesome fun relationships with progressives. I am a liberal, so hardly hating my own tribe.

Can't stand millionaire establish politicians who make ghemselves rich cutting services for regular people, though. Sign me up for that hate club.

I can't believe edgar hasn't scolded you for hijacking his thread.

Edgar is usually very fair and balanced, Finn, unlike you.

I am also a liberal.

You mean, people like Trump and the US Republicans, or Putin and his oligarchs, right?

For the record, I didn't hijack this thread, but found it already on a tangent about the phrase "democratic socialism" a few pages back.

I saw that Nimh had researched and provided ample evidence that the phrase was in frequent use within the UK Labour Party and scores of other European leftist parties and people, contrary to what Izzy was pretending. I raised that a correct factual answer had been provided by Nimh. That messed with Izzy's hairdo... Nothing out of ordinary in the mental assylum.

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/02/21/first-day-early-voting-texas-primaries-numbers-are-especially-among-de/amp/



more at the link

Yes. I don't lump all Republicans and Democrats in the same shitpile, but the majority, yes. Those people.

No sweat off my nose; I'm just surprised edgar hasn't objected as he so often has in the past.

He would have no ground to complain, and neither have you.

The Democrats have generally fought for keeping social programs and tax the rich to pay for them. You would know and respect that if you were a liberal.

“Have generally”

Your family dog may ‘have generally’ been a good, loyal pet, but when he eats your kid, suddenly he loses favor.

They stopped protecting people and began enjoying kickbacks in return for abandoning several groups of people who used to count on them. The Democrats’ power came from wide swaths of votes of lower class people they championed: union members, farmers, Black and brown people, gay, etc. All of those groups are leaching away, desperate for representation that really works for them.

Why haven’t the Dems taken on big Pharma?? Why did the Dems fight universal healthcare? Democrats had practically reduced their policy to identity politics—and to hell with meaningful change that would benefit real working people.

They sold out.

They became as corporate-minded as the Republicans. You saw the reaction to that.

Americans became conditioned to believe it couldn’t get any better. Bernie sort of slapped everybody across the face, and woke us up to what it possible. The Democrat just aren’t good enough to be the party of the people anymore. They should just join the republicans. They’re very close to being there already.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/10/democrats-working-class-americans-us-election

Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more
Robert Reich
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama helped shift power away from the people towards corporations. It was this that created an opening for Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton

Thu 10 Nov 2016 07.00 EST Last modified on Fri 14 Jul 2017 14.20 EDT

View more sharing options
What has happened in America should not be seen as a victory for hatefulness over decency. It is more accurately understood as a repudiation of the American power structure.

At the core of that structure are the political leaders of both parties, their political operatives, and fundraisers; the major media, centered in New York and Washington DC; the country’s biggest corporations, their top executives, and Washington lobbyists and trade associations; the biggest Wall Street banks, their top officers, traders, hedge-fund and private-equity managers, and their lackeys in Washington; and the wealthy individuals who invest directly in politics.

At the start of the 2016 election cycle, this power structure proclaimed Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush shoo-ins for the nominations of the Democratic and Republican parties. After all, both of these individuals had deep bases of funders, well-established networks of political insiders, experienced political advisers and all the political name recognition any candidate could possibly want.

It was the rise of the Davos class that sealed America’s fate | Naomi Klein

But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House. The presidency was won by Donald Trump, who made his fortune marketing office towers and casinos, and, more recently, starring in a popular reality-television program, and who has never held elective office or had anything to do with the Republican party. Hillary Clinton narrowly won the popular vote, but not enough of the states and their electors secure a victory.


Hillary Clinton’s concession speech in full
Hillary Clinton’s defeat is all the more remarkable in that her campaign vastly outspent the Trump campaign on television and radio advertisements, and get-out-the-vote efforts. Moreover, her campaign had the support in the general election not of only the kingpins of the Democratic party but also many leading Republicans, including most of the politically active denizens of Wall Street and the top executives of America’s largest corporations, and even former Republican president George HW Bush. Her campaign team was run by seasoned professionals who knew the ropes. She had the visible and forceful backing of Barack Obama, whose popularity has soared in recent months, and his popular wife. And, of course, she had her husband.
————————-/

Bill triangulated and Third Way’d the Democrats into Republicans.
It’s no surprise that they finally arrived at their destination.

https://www.lawcha.org/2016/11/23/bill-clinton-remade-democratic-party-abandoning-unions-working-class-whites/

Excerpt:

o one expressed the aims of this labor-funded biracial working-class coalition as well as Ernest Green, the oldest of the nine students to integrate Central High, who in 1967 declared, “There is no alternative but that Negroes, white workers, and farmers must unite behind the labor movement in its struggle against unemployment, low wages, discrimination, union-busting, and, ultimately, against poverty….for if we stand divided and separated, big business and big industry will triumph again in the South.”

Labor’s efforts to open up Arkansas’s political system to working-class blacks and whites and get them to the polls ushered in the state’s liberal heyday in the first half of the 1970s, making possible the elections of Bill Clinton and longtime senators David Pryor and Dale Bumpers. During this era, the General Assembly revised the tax code along progressive lines and increased spending on education and other social provisions, and voters approved measures to regulate more aggressively banks, hospitals, insurance companies, and polluting industries.

Bill Clinton, Bumpers, and Pryor—known as the Big Three in Arkansas politics—also relied on labor funds and mobilization efforts early in their political careers. For instance, labor bankrolled Bill Clinton’s first run for elective office—his failed 1974 campaign for U.S. Congress. This money made it possible for him to purchase television airtime throughout the state, helping make him the darling of Arkansas’s political establishment and facilitating his meteoric rise.

(Illustration of Clintonian Triangulation.)

Long before the 1990s, Clinton employed the idea of moving to the right to win elections, thereby gaining campaign contributions; one of his key strategies was moving against labor unions.

But once in office, Clinton and his allies turned their backs on the labor movement that had made their careers possible, largely in hopes of discouraging anti-union companies from funding potential rivals or to undermine potential rivals on the left. Although political commentators date the birth of Clintonian triangulation—i.e. adopting some of your opponent’s policies to distance yourself from your base, move to the center, and broaden your electoral appeal—to the aftermath of the 1994 elections, Bill Clinton along with Pryor and Bumpers began employing it in the 1970s and the Arkansas labor movement was the target.

Do you know how many deportations were done by Obama? Do you know why he slowed that down? He was deporting what was becoming useful to him and the Democrats.

So transparent.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/528678/

Excerpt:

“A decade or two ago,” says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “Democrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.” How did this come to be?

There are several explanations for liberals’ shift. The first is that they have changed because the reality on the ground has changed, particularly as regards illegal immigration. In the two decades preceding 2008, the United States experienced sharp growth in its undocumented population. Since then, the numbers have leveled off.

But this alone doesn’t explain the transformation. The number of undocumented people in the United States hasn’t gone down significantly, after all; it’s stayed roughly the same. So the economic concerns that Krugman raised a decade ago remain relevant today.

A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. “The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,” Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. “If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.”

As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism. While Obama was running for reelection, immigrants’-rights advocates launched protests against the administration’s deportation practices; these protests culminated, in June 2012, in a sit-in at an Obama campaign office in Denver. Ten days later, the administration announced that it would defer the deportation of undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and met various other criteria. Obama, The New York Times noted, “was facing growing pressure from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of his harsh immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who could be crucial voters in his race for re-election