29
   

Why I left the Democratic Party

 
 
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2017 06:43 am
@Real Music,
I agree with Real Music on this one.

Edgar's repeated use of the term "slightly better" gets more and more ridiculous every day now.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2017 03:17 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Save your thanks for the DNC, for cheating voters out of their primary choice.


'cept they didn't do that in the slightest. Bernie lost fair and square, no cheating required.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2017 11:40 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

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".


Well you're right about that which is why she would have made a horrible president.

There was violence committed by both sides. Is it wrong to condemn violence on every side or is some violence OK? As long as no one is killed, violence is OK? Violence unaccompanied by racist rhetoric is OK? How did condemning the violence on both sides condone the worst act of violence? Was it somehow an insult to the young woman who lost her life?
Help me out here max. Other than providing the Resistance with a reason to criticize Trump, what precisely was the significance of condemning violence on both sides. Since it was such an egregious act by Trump it should be pretty easily explained.

Oh I know that the Resistance assumes Trump did it so that he wouldn't offend his white supremacist base, but how does including Antifa violence in his condemnation let the white supremacists off the hook? Or was he trying to appeal to people like me who believe the violence on both sides should be condemned, and if so, what's wrong with that? Am I wrong in my condemnation?

Obviously none of the violence on the Antifa side resulted in someone losing their life, but it could have. You keep tossing bottles and M-80s into crowds, setting off tear gas grenades, starting fires and pulling people out of cars and beating them and sooner or later someone is going to get seriously hurt or killed. We can't allow left-wing brown shirts to run amok at demonstrations simply because they didn't come with the intention of killing anyone. I don't believe the Hate Groups did either.

From all of the videos I've seen, the rest of the violence, and there was plenty, was at least equally distributed. None of it should have happened and it all should be condemned.

Tragically, two volatile group of violent thugs came in close proximity and a young woman paid a terrible price for wanting her voice to be heard condemning racism. Why is it that the people who deserve to die far more than the ones who do, always seem to skate?

There were numerous villains in that city this weekend, but chief among them, I believe, were the city officials who, from the outset didn't properly plan for or react to the growing tension and turmoil and, far far worse, gave the police the word to run for cover and abandon their posts once the pot began to boil over.

Do you agree, and if so why do you think it went down this way? Same question if you don't agree.

Neo-Nazis and the KKK have marched in the streets of American cities before, and if I'm not mistaken, the Klan previously marched through Charlottesville at least once before. Whenever these group gather and march, the police usually spend most of their time protecting the KKK or Neo-Nazis from the counter-demonstrators, but aside from perhaps a couple of Klansmen getting hit with a thrown rock or rotten cabbage, what we saw this weekend (even excluding the heinous vehicular attack) has not happened. Perhaps combining the hate groups somehow made them more volatile and/or the presence of Antifa shock troops fresh from triumphs in Berkeley and Portland did so. Still, to me the biggest reason is the way the police responded, which is to say not responding.

The city police and state troopers were not likely to turn tail and run of their own volition and in defiance of orders, and if they were motivated to give preference to one side over the other you would expect to see them joining forces with the white supremacists to fight the Antifa or visa versa.

The city knew from experience how to handle an event involving both a demonstration and a counter-demonstration. Charlottesville may not be a major city, but it's not a rural one horse town either. It certainly looks like someone deliberately chose not to handle the situation as the city could have and should have. Why might that be so? Who had something to gain from a demonstration turning into a riot, and what did they have to gain?





Lash
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2017 05:53 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I agree.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2017 06:06 am
I'll also tell you why a Hillary Clinton presidency would be worse than this idiot we have currently.

She was warhawk talking against Iran and Russia, among others. She was pushing boots on the ground in Syria.

She's the unadulterated darling of the military industrial complex.

I know everything you think about Trump. I agree with 90% of it it. Even so, a great many of his ills are aesthetics, optics, unfashionable rhetoric. Before you wet your pants, some are legitimately dangerous. I agree.

When I compare his worst to the worst of Hillary Clinton, a clear winner emerges in the danger sweepstakes. Clinton was hellbent on using our military to destroy the dollar-threatening alliance between Russian and Iran, and Syria is connected to that alliance.

What would result from her War stance might be the end of all of us.

I do hope both parties will adapt to the country's rejection of the status quo, and return to at least a semblance of decency by choosing reasonable people and reasonable platforms for the people -- soon.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2017 06:14 am
Neocon Hillary.

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/

An excerpt:

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s know-nothing isolationism has led many neocons to flee the Republican ticket. And some, like Kagan, are actively helping Clinton, whose hawkishness in many ways resembles their own.

The event raised $25,000 for Clinton. Two rising stars in the Democratic foreign policy establishment, Amanda Sloat and Julianne Smith, also spoke.

The way they described Clinton’s foreign policy vision suggested that if elected president in November, she will escalate tensions with Russia, double down on military belligerence in the Middle East, and generally ignore the American public’s growing hostility to intervention.

Sloat, the former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, boasted that Clinton will be “more interventionist and forward-leaning than Obama’s been” in Syria. She also applauded Clinton for doing intervention the right way, through coalitions instead of the unilateral aggression that defined the Bush years.

“Nothing that [Clinton] did was more clear than the NATO coalition that she built to defend civilians in Libya,” said Sloat, referencing the Obama administration’s overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. That policy, spearheaded by Clinton, has transformed a once-stable state into a lawless haven for extremist groups from across the region, including ISIS.

Kagan has advocated for muscular American intervention in Syria; Clinton’s likely pick for Pentagon chief, Michelle Flournoy, has similarly agitated for redirecting U.S. airstrikes in Syria toward ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Smith told the audience that unlike Trump, Clinton “understands the importance of deterring Russian aggression,” which is why “I’ll sleep better with her in the chair.” She is a former deputy national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden.

Smith left the government to become senior vice president of Beacon Global Strategies, a high-powered bipartisan consulting group founded by former high-ranking national security officials.

When Robbie Martin, a filmmaker who recently produced a three-part documentary on the neoconservative movement, asked how Clinton plans to deal with Ukraine, Kagan responded enthusiastically.

“I know Hillary cares more about Ukraine than the current president does,” Kagan replied. “[Obama] said to me [that he wouldn’t arm Ukraine because] he doesn’t want a nuclear war with Russia,” he added, rolling his eyes dismissively. “I don’t think Obama cares about Putin anymore at all. I think he’s hopeless.”
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2017 06:30 am
@Lash,
Does this 1+ year old article have any relevance to anything going on today or is this just your latest squirrel?
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2017 06:36 am
@maporsche,
If you have read even the last two three posts, you know the answer, but I realize it's vitally important for all the True Believers at A2K to either ignore or obfuscate.

Because you are unable to respond honestly.

Hope you're ok!!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2017 06:42 am
Vote Bernie. Vote often.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Aug, 2017 04:58 pm
There are 194 Democrats in the U.S. House. Just 5 are fully signed onto the People's Platform, which consists of active bills for Medicare for All, abortion rights, a private prison ban and more.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2017 12:25 am
Establishment Scolds Elizabeth Warren for Repudiating Clintonism in Fiery Speech
(Aug 26, 2017)

I hope Elizabeth Warren keeps fighting and never give in.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2017 08:51 am
Just wait for the DWS mess to explode.

Corruption thy name is Debbie...or Hillary.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2017 10:09 am
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/09/massachusetts_sen_elizabeth_wa_1.html
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren signs on to Bernie Sanders' single-payer 'Medicare for All' bill (September 7, 2017)

Quote:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is backing Bernie Sanders' plan for single-payer health care, which also goes by the name "Medicare for All."

"There is something fundamentally wrong when one of the richest and most powerful countries on the planet can't make sure that a person can afford to see a doctor when they're sick," Warren wrote in an email to supporters on Thursday. "This isn't any way to live."

Warren said she is co-sponsoring Sanders' Medicare for All bill, slated to be introduced later this month, and she asked supporters to sign a petition in support of the measure.

"Medicare for All" and single payer health care have been topics of debate within the Democratic Party, as progressives have repeatedly mounted pushes for the measure.

Opponents have criticized government-run health care as a potentially expensive proposal and questioned how effective it would be.

Details of the Sanders proposal were not immediately available.

Warren is up for re-election in 2018. She is considered in some political circles a potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.

Sanders, a socialist from Vermont, ran as a Democrat in the 2016 presidential election, losing the nomination to Hillary Clinton.

In her email to supporters, Warren praised the federal Affordable Care Act, noting that now insurance companies can't deny people with pre-existing conditions and people can stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26 years old.

"But there's so much more we could do right now to bring down the costs of quality health care for every American. We could start by ending health insurance company price gouging - ending high deductibles, surprise bills, and endless fights with insurance companies over coverage for critical medical procedures or out-of-pocket costs," Warren wrote. "We could also cut the cost of prescription drugs by importing drugs from Canada, where the same prescription can sometimes cost far less than in the US."

According to Warren, Medicare for All is "one way that we can give every single person in the country access to high quality health care."

Warren predicted insurance and drug companies will oppose the measure. "The American people have made it clear that they believe health care is a basic human right - but it will be a tough fight," she added
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2017 10:42 am
http://freebeacon.com/issues/schumer-democrats-ready-fight-tax-reform/
Schumer: Democrats Ready to ‘Fight’ Republicans Over Tax Reform (August 30, 2017 )

Quote:
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said Wednesday that Democrats are ready to fight with Republicans over tax reform legislation.

"This is going to be one of the biggest fights of the next three, four months, and Democrats are ready for it," Schumer told reporters on a conference call held by a left-leaning group organized to oppose tax cuts for high earners, according to the Washington Examiner.

Earlier this month, 45 of 48 Senate Democrats signed a letter to President Donald Trump and GOP leaders demanding that they not support any bill that gives new breaks to the wealthiest Americans or adds to the deficit.

Schumer warned Wednesday that if the Republican tax reform plan lowers rates for the wealthy, "the American people are going to rise up against it."


His comments came the same day that Trump is traveling to Missouri to begin a public campaign for tax reform. Trump is expected to describe his plan as a benefit to middle-class workers that will create a more favorable tax system for American businesses to compete with global competitors.

Trump is seeking a simpler tax code, including middle-class tax cuts, to push for more job creation.

But Trump's chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, said that the bulk of the responsibility is on Congress, not the president, to pass tax reform.

"At the end of the day, tax legislation has to happen in Congress and the House," Cohn told the Financial Times last week. "The Ways and Means Committee will be drafting legislation and we will be on the road and holding meetings in Washington and elsewhere explaining why it is so important to have tax reform in America."

Rep. Kevin Brady (R., Texas), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has said that Trump will play an essential role in the legislative process to overhaul the country's tax system.

"You can't do this without presidential leadership," Brady said earlier this month. "My sense of President Trump, he's all in on tax reform."
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2017 06:01 pm
The Florida 26th congressional district tends to lean Democratic, and has been identified as a Mid-term target for national Democratic strategists in 2018. But having prominent local DNC-friendly operatives hosting the event or on the guest list highlights just how much the establishment Democrats seems willing to push back against the surge of progressives within its ranks who supported Bernie Sanders in his 2016 presidential bid.
http://reverepress.com/politics/democrats-hillarys-funders-just-sunk-time-low/
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2017 07:24 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

The Florida 26th congressional district tends to lean Democratic, and has been identified as a Mid-term target for national Democratic strategists in 2018. But having prominent local DNC-friendly operatives hosting the event or on the guest list highlights just how much the establishment Democrats seems willing to push back against the surge of progressives within its ranks who supported Bernie Sanders in his 2016 presidential bid.
http://reverepress.com/politics/democrats-hillarys-funders-just-sunk-
time-low/

It turns out it is some Democrats but not necessarily them all.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2017 07:32 pm
@edgarblythe,
The progressives better start showing up with $
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2017 07:38 pm
@Lash,
That's a very interesting endorsement of Trump.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2017 07:47 pm
@old europe,
You've obviously abdicated your political autonomy.

You have to support one crook to prove you don't support the other.

**** that. I refuse to vote for a piece of **** to beat another piece of ****.

I'm voting for no more ****.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2017 07:52 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

You've obviously abdicated your political autonomy.

You have to support one crook to prove you don't support the other.

**** that. I refuse to vote for a piece of **** to beat another piece of ****.

I'm voting for no more ****.

Why being against Clinton is equated in some minds with supporting Trump is a mystery to me. Nixon and Reagan taught me to never again vote Republican. The corporate Dems have me on the point of making that pledge against their party also.
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 04:35:30