Dems Rebuild

[RedDenver]

Zero Hedge.

 

Here three more:

 

USA Today

Chicago Tribune

Real Clear Politics

 

And here's the interview she did with Recode that the recent reporting is based on (the first few minutes has the part where Hillary can't accept any blame and keeps deflecting):

[zoogs]

Sure. I'm not arguing that Hillary or the Dems should not be criticized for (whatever's your pleasure here). That's a somewhat separate discussion we could have. It's no secret, too, that the left/mainstream is also quite fond of disparaging her in their op eds.

 

I'm arguing against the ludicrousness of going to Lifezette or Zero Hedge. You should know what you're going to get when you go to those outlets.

 

For example, I happen to disagree at least somewhat when the NYT or WaPo posts something like this about Hillary. It doesn't affect my opinion of those papers as a whole. Likewise, defenses such as these does not affect my willingness to view Politico as credible. They are, but their overall body of work is clear -- and IIRC, quite multi-faceted in their views on pols such as Hillary. This is distinct from coordinated bullsh#t mills such as Lifezette, Zero Hedge, et. al.

 

Were you familiar with Zero Hedge before posting that?

[RedDenver]

While the repub party struggles to pass any meaningful legislature, the Dems are still in collapse. Hillary blames everyone including her own party while the party

fails to win elections - even against the 'body slammer'.

Back to what TGHusker said.

 

Yep, both parties are a sh!t show. The Repubs are just an opposition party, and the Dems look to be headed in the same direction. I keep hoping for a new party to emerge or for the existing ones to change, but I don't see any of that as likely. Sadly, I'm becoming more convinced that our country will collapse in my lifetime.

[zoogs]

The Dems are not a sh!t show.

 

They're consolidating everyone reasonable to their side by default. Of course, this produces different camps within the party with very different, sometimes conflicting goals. But the GOP has vacated all premises of reason; our options are to stand on the sidelines or join the efforts to organize against them.

 

Ours is a participatory democracy. One does not sit around waiting for some "new" party with new names and brand appeal to emerge so that we can hop on the train when it does. We participate now or watch the tides turn, griping about it as we do nothing.

[RedDenver]

Sure. I'm not arguing that Hillary or the Dems should not be criticized for (whatever's your pleasure here). That's a somewhat separate discussion we could have. It's no secret, too, that the left/mainstream is also quite fond of disparaging her in their op eds.

 

I'm arguing against the ludicrousness of going to Lifezette or Zero Hedge. You should know what you're going to get when you go to those outlets.

 

For example, I happen to disagree at least somewhat when the NYT or WaPo posts something like this about Hillary. It doesn't affect my opinion of those papers as a whole. Likewise, defenses such as these does not affect my willingness to view Politico as credible. They are, but their overall body of work is clear -- and IIRC, quite multi-faceted in their views on pols such as Hillary. This is distinct from coordinated bullsh#t mills such as Lifezette, Zero Hedge, et. al.

 

Were you familiar with Zero Hedge before posting that?

I'm more interested in the message than the messenger - so I'd rather we discussed why Zero Hedge (or whoever) is right/wrong.

[zoogs]

Does that apply when the messenger is a prop mill pushing out whatever narratives they think will help make the world burn?

 

We can have the Good/Bad Hillary discussion without posting their garbage -- there's plenty of material. There are always costs to casually passing off the ilk of Breitbart and RT as legitimate. Hence my original two comments re: Lifezette, Zero Hedge. "Don't shoot the messenger" cannot apply to outlets such as these.

[TGHusker]

 

While the repub party struggles to pass any meaningful legislature, the Dems are still in collapse. Hillary blames everyone including her own party while the party

fails to win elections - even against the 'body slammer'.

Back to what TGHusker said.

 

Yep, both parties are a sh!t show. The Repubs are just an opposition party, and the Dems look to be headed in the same direction. I keep hoping for a new party to emerge or for the existing ones to change, but I don't see any of that as likely. Sadly, I'm becoming more convinced that our country will collapse in my lifetime.

 

Yes, that is the heart of why I posted this - regardless of the website - if I dug deeper, I'm sure I could have found something similar from Zoog's beloved NYT - Regardless, my concern is that we have two parties - one in control that can't get anything constructive done and also proving to also doing a poor job in many states (like my own Oklahoma) and another that cannot find its identity post Clinton. I too wish for a new coalition party of center right and center left that would abide by the constitution and enact laws that seek the welfare of individuals with reasonable budgetary restraint ( and not just dumping it all on the states - which the repubs are wanting to do wt food stamps - that is kicking the can away from one's responsibility)

[TGHusker]

The Dems are not a sh!t show.

 

They're consolidating everyone reasonable to their side by default. Of course, this produces different camps within the party with very different, sometimes conflicting goals. But the GOP has vacated all premises of reason; our options are to stand on the sidelines or join the efforts to organize against them.

 

Ours is a participatory democracy. One does not sit around waiting for some "new" party with new names and brand appeal to emerge so that we can hop on the train when it does. We participate now or watch the tides turn, griping about it as we do nothing.

yes, agree we have to participate now - with the cards given to us (the 2 major parties) but history has shown that there can be an evolution of new parties over time and the fading of the old. Work the best we can wt what we got now but push for something better.

Our 2 party system is failing us right now - it is too partisan. Unfortunately wt the Repubs holding most of the state govts, it would be hard to manufacture a change (via amendment) in which the repubs weren't the center of it. However, I'm old enough to remember when the Dems had the same strangle hold on the states and Congress and the Presidency that the repubs have now. If the repubs fall in greater disfavor and still overplay their hand, they could see a reversal of their fortunes. If that were to happen, then 2020 would be the crucial year - when new census is completed and district lines could possibly be redrawn to be more equitable..

[RedDenver]

The Dems are not a sh!t show.

 

They're consolidating everyone reasonable to their side by default. Of course, this produces different camps within the party with very different, sometimes conflicting goals. But the GOP has vacated all premises of reason; our options are to stand on the sidelines or join the efforts to organize against them.

 

Ours is a participatory democracy. One does not sit around waiting for some "new" party with new names and brand appeal to emerge so that we can hop on the train when it does. We participate now or watch the tides turn, griping about it as we do nothing.

I disagree - the Dems are a sh!t show. Not as bad as the Repubs, but still bad.

 

I reject your premise that the only options are to stand on the sidelines or with the Dems against the Repubs. I think a large part of our issues are due to the influence of money in politics, so I also work with Wolf-PAC to get a Constitutional amendment saying that corporations are not people and they do not have the right to spend money to buy our politicians. And I am opposed to the current establishment in both parties. So I work with Brand New Congress to get incumbents out of office and get new blood into the government. And if a new party emerges (like the Draft Bernie people hope will happen), I'd be more likely to vote for them than the status quo because I think we need major changes in our political system.

[RedDenver]

Does that apply when the messenger is a prop mill pushing out whatever narratives they think will help make the world burn?

 

We can have the Good/Bad Hillary discussion without posting their garbage -- there's plenty of material. There are always costs to casually passing off the ilk of Breitbart and RT as legitimate. Hence my original two comments re: Lifezette, Zero Hedge. "Don't shoot the messenger" cannot apply to outlets such as these.

I literally did what you wanted - found other sources. Maybe I should have just posted the interview from the beginning - mea culpa. Can we focus on the issue now?

[TGHusker]

 

The Dems are not a sh!t show.

 

They're consolidating everyone reasonable to their side by default. Of course, this produces different camps within the party with very different, sometimes conflicting goals. But the GOP has vacated all premises of reason; our options are to stand on the sidelines or join the efforts to organize against them.

 

Ours is a participatory democracy. One does not sit around waiting for some "new" party with new names and brand appeal to emerge so that we can hop on the train when it does. We participate now or watch the tides turn, griping about it as we do nothing.

I disagree - the Dems are a sh!t show. Not as bad as the Repubs, but still bad.

 

I reject your premise that the only options are to stand on the sidelines or with the Dems against the Repubs. I think a large part of our issues are due to the influence of money in politics, so I also work with Wolf-PAC to get a Constitutional amendment saying that corporations are not people and they do not have the right to spend money to buy our politicians. And I am opposed to the current establishment in both parties. So I work with Brand New Congress to get incumbents out of office and get new blood into the government. And if a new party emerges (like the Draft Bernie people hope will happen), I'd be more likely to vote for them than the status quo because I think we need major changes in our political system.

 

An term limit amendment would help to speed the process up. Again - it would have to pass a majority of repub state legislatures which may be a hindrance while they are the party in control. An amendment or judicial ruling that would prevent gerrymandering would be beneficial. And yes, getting big money (corporations and union money) out of the 'election business' would be a step in the right direction.

[Danny Bateman]

Let me say this as someone who follows the dynamics of the Dems much more closely than that of the Republicans, whom I view as completely out-of-touch and dysfunctional:

Since Bernie made his push last year, I've seen an increase in the number of "Berniecrats" who run on a platform similar to his and reject PAC money in politics.

 

Thus far, we've seen several special elections in which they came close, but no cigar. A lot of that has to do with the demographics of the districts in which they're running. We're talking deep red KS, MT, and GA. Ossoff may yet pull it off it GA, but Quist in MT and a rather moderate Dem in KS both lost by much slimmer margins than were expected. I know for a fact Quist was a Berniecrat and didn't want dark money, and he got absolutely SWAMPED in GOP donor money in his race. I'm assuming the candidate in KS did as well. Here's an article on the challenges Ossoff faces in GA:

 

Democrat Jon Ossoff, whose $8.3 million war chest has made him a contender for Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, is under siege. The National Republican Congressional Committee is up with ads claiming Ossoff “lied” about his national security clearance. The pro-President Smushed up Caterpillar Your 6-Year-Old Brother Set On Fire With a Magnifying Glass group America First Policies is priming $1.6 million of ads about Ossoff’s national security clearance. The Congressional Leadership Fund has spots linking Ossoff to comedian Kathy Griffin — and about his national security clearance.

 

Republican-aligned outside groups funded mainly by large donors have swamped their Democratic counterparts, led by the Congressional Leadership Fund, a Paul D. Ryan-aligned super PAC that has announced plans to pump $7 million into the race. The main Democratic super PAC aimed at House races, in comparison, has announced only $700,000 in spending ahead of a June 20 runoff.

 

Apologies for my extensions changing some of the verbiage. But you get the point. We're at an impasse. Ossoff's war chest is largely from individual donations.

 

What is the correct choice? Take the Bernie approach and swear off big money or take the money to try to stay afloat for the massive amounts they'll have spent against them?

[TGHusker]

Let me say this as someone who follows the dynamics of the Dems much more closely than that of the Republicans, whom I view as completely out-of-touch and dysfunctional:

 

Since Bernie made his push last year, I've seen an increase in the number of "Berniecrats" who run on a platform similar to his and reject PAC money in politics.

 

Thus far, we've seen several special elections in which they came close, but no cigar. A lot of that has to do with the demographics of the districts in which they're running. We're talking deep red KS, MT, and GA. Ossoff may yet pull it off it GA, but Quist in MT and a rather moderate Dem in KS both lost by much slimmer margins than were expected. I know for a fact Quist was a Berniecrat and didn't want dark money, and he got absolutely SWAMPED in GOP donor money in his race. I'm assuming the candidate in KS did as well. Here's an article on the challenges Ossoff faces in GA:

 

Democrat Jon Ossoff, whose $8.3 million war chest has made him a contender for Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, is under siege. The National Republican Congressional Committee is up with ads claiming Ossoff “lied” about his national security clearance. The pro-President Smushed up Caterpillar Your 6-Year-Old Brother Set On Fire With a Magnifying Glass group America First Policies is priming $1.6 million of ads about Ossoff’s national security clearance. The Congressional Leadership Fund has spots linking Ossoff to comedian Kathy Griffin — and about his national security clearance.

 

Republican-aligned outside groups funded mainly by large donors have swamped their Democratic counterparts, led by the Congressional Leadership Fund, a Paul D. Ryan-aligned super PAC that has announced plans to pump $7 million into the race. The main Democratic super PAC aimed at House races, in comparison, has announced only $700,000 in spending ahead of a June 20 runoff.

 

Apologies for my extensions changing some of the verbiage. But you get the point. We're at an impasse. Ossoff's war chest is largely from individual donations.

 

What is the correct choice? Take the Bernie approach and swear off big money or take the money to try to stay afloat for the massive amounts they'll have spent against them?

Well you cannot play until you get in. So on one side you say "I'll take the money now but commit to working towards changing the laws that govern money in politics". You will get attacked for not being consistent. Or You run your campaign as pure as the driven snow (where did that phrase come from , but I digress) don't take the money and get hammered. Part of me says the former - play by the rules as they now exist and then try to do something about them. Don't do what the 2nd district congressman in Okla is about to do: He campaigned on term limits, committed to running for only 3 terms. Now that he is about to be voluntarily 'termed out' he is reneging and thinking strongly of running for the 4th. It has a lot of people's blood boiling. But if he gets the endorsement of the Indian tribe, he'll probably be able to pull it off.

[TGHusker]

Eric Trump has an opinion of the Dems. This is full of hypocrisy - Pretty rich:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eric-trump-fathers-critics-theyre-not-even-people-131415414.html

 

While on the other hand:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/eric-trump-funneled-cancer-charity-money-businesses-associates-100206357--abc-news-topstories.html

[Fru]

Eric Trump has an opinion of the Dems. This is full of hypocrisy - Pretty rich:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eric-trump-fathers-critics-theyre-not-even-people-131415414.html

 

While on the other hand:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/eric-trump-funneled-cancer-charity-money-businesses-associates-100206357--abc-news-topstories.html

 

Eric Trump funnels cancer charity money to his businesses. Where's all those people worried about "heartbeats"?