General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHere are the rats that are fucking Democrats
In no particular order.
1. NSA, CIA, FBI spying on Americans.
2. Corporations helping NSA, CIA, FBI spy on Americans.
3. A Congress and White House as corporate proxies.
4. Militarized police force.
5. Wealth disparity on par with the 3rd world.
6. Education and health care inflation.
7. Education and health care policy written by corporations.
8. Over educated, under employed workforce.
9. Fracking pollution.
10. Trade deals sending millions of jobs to Asia.
11. Immunity for Wall Street crime.
12. Endless war on drugs.
13. Endless war on terror.
14. Taking minorities for granted.
15. Taking the middle class for granted.
16. Considering social security cuts and increased retirement age as economic stimulus.
17. The third way and blue dogs.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)? Do you know. I did and have forgotten because it is appalling. I am tired of appalling.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)The map is the easiest to see at a glance:
Some 3rd world countries are better, but many are worse.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)The world is more complicated than your simplistic claim. The OP, which said "on par with the 3rd world" was more accurate than your 'correction'.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)"Not all, but more than none". "Not every instance, but above zero". "Some".
reddread
(6,896 posts)hate to pick nits.
buuuuut, fraid not.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)But they'll bring in another 100,000 unskilled H1Bs from India and train them on the job. The problem is - we haven't learned the most important lesson of our education - loving $7/hr without benefits.
Technology companies blame the pool of job applicants for the severe shortage of blacks and Hispanics in Silicon Valley.
But these findings show that claim "does not hold water," said Darrick Hamilton, professor of economics and urban policy at The New School in New York.
"What do dominant groups say? 'We tried, we searched but there was nobody qualified.' If you look at the empirical evidence, that is just not the case," he said.
As technology becomes a major engine of economic growth in the U.S. economy, tech companies are under growing pressure to diversify their workforces, which are predominantly white, Asian and male. Leaving African Americans and Hispanics out of that growth increases the divide between haves and have-nots. And the technology industry risks losing touch with the diverse nation and world that forms its customer base.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/10/12/silicon-valley-diversity-tech-hiring-computer-science-graduates-african-american-hispanic/14684211/
reddread
(6,896 posts)overstupified and underfed factual information makes a mockery of
what education and freedom should present to everyone.
our notion of education is pretty savage.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)have the education you believe Americans are lacking, you are most definitely wrong. From first day to last at school, Asia teaches compliance and memorization of carefully manufactured propaganda. Yu don't get ahead in these cultures by being creative.
Right now, we have a workforce, they have skills, they are being sold out to India and China on the cheap.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Americans do not understand what is going on there.
I might add that living in Silicon Valley is incredibly expensive because of housing costs.
reddread
(6,896 posts)im not h1bllary.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)profit, from other countries.
I believe the goal is to level the working class Globally to create cheap labor now in the formerly First World. Iow, to impoverish Western workers to the point where they were settle for less and less pay, as has already happened, until the Predatory Corporations have their choice of workers from any country in the world, at the least amount of pay.
reddread
(6,896 posts)as far as I can tell.
if thats "off the table"
what scraps could be left?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Over-trained, at best. Educated people don't do what this country just did to itself.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Ie, too many PhD's pumping gas, or college grads flipping burgers.
Being educated in itself is not a bad thing, the bad thing is when educated people can't find work that actually uses their education.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Was low voter turnout because of lack of support by so called Democrats....Good job.
With friends like these who needs enemies...
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)at suppressing turn out. There are few smart, young, working families who can afford the high price of membership.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)It is odd that a contingent of democrats prefer to blame voters instead.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The lowest voter turnout was among young Democrats. Do you suppose the pile-on of student loan debt, low wages, miserable job market, trade agreements, police brutality against minorities, etc. discourage young voters?
Because I do.
People buy products that appeal to them.
If the Democratic brand does not appeal to young voters, they don't buy it.
It's the Democratic Party that is at fault if it is not attracting voters and unable to excite its voters about voting.
I just spent some days with my children who struggle with the demands of raising children today. They voted. But I can sure understand why a lot of young people struggling as hard as they are just don't think it worth their time to vote for yet another loudmouth who does nothing to help them with the practical problems like getting decent health care, making ends meet, etc.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . Exactly the point I tried to make a few days ago.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,019 posts)A public anesthetized by reality/garbage TV (and its endless ads) but possessing a total aversion to science and reasoning
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Forty years ago, running (aka jogging) became very popular. Most people didn't do it because it made them healthier. They did it because it was a fad.
We need to turn critical reasoning and intellectual curiosity into a fad.
We need clever, quick-thinking role models motivated by a desire to make the world a better place, who solve problems not with violence and greed, but by arriving at ingenious, peaceful, compassionate solutions.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Suppression of dissent, including assaults on, surveillance of, and intimidation of whistleblowers, journalists, and protesters. Refusal to protect net neutrality.
Secrecy. Secret laws, secret courts, secret trade agreements, secret budgets, secret kill and no fly lists, secret lists of citizens under suspicion, ignoring or thumbing nose at FOIA requests, redacted releases, fabricated evidence trails, and lies.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)forward with immigration reform which would have put Republicans on the spot.
The Democratic Party went dead nuts conservative, now they are scratching their heads wondering why the US wasn't energized and turnout was so low.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)strictly blame only Democrats for any of these. I blame low-info, not caring voters. At this point, without a revolution, things will only grow worse because there are no real fighters of yesteryear. Except for maybe 40 people the entire House and Senate are paid puppets. We go forward by inertia sinking a little with each mile, like the Titanic of old.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)It's the "not a dime's worth of difference", and their "both parties are the same" message that is repeated over and over and over and over and over that discourages voting.
I don't think Canadians had any sort of influence on the events of last night.
But I'll gladly listen to your explanation of how they did.
Sid
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)He has arguably done far more damage to the American political discourse, convincing Democrats (big D) to chase that elusive middle (and lose) instead of standing up for something on issues that matter.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Please, do elaborate on how you are somehow sincere with your posts and not just here to troll.
Response to SidDithers (Reply #13)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #20)
Electric Monk This message was self-deleted by its author.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Did the polls show that people voted for 3rd parties? I missed that. Is there a link?
Rex
(65,616 posts)When did that happen?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Not that anyone here advocated for Cutler.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)They have a message of "the Democrats aren't good enough to vote for; only vote if you have a candidate who fits your ideals perfectly".
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Find me even one post anywhere where a '3rd party advocate EVER said 'Only vote if you have a candidate who fits your ideals perfectly'? I'll wait. Forever, because you won't find it, unless it's a troll post by someone trying to smear third parties.
The ONLY people who EVER talk about 3rd party people wanting 'perfect' candidates are people saying the same silly thing you just did. People who actually believe in third parties only ever say 'vote for the best candidate', and it's up to you to decide who the best candidate is.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)Someone joins DU to say "vote Green if the Dem isn't perfect'. You really think that's an effort to smear third parties? The point about 3rd parties is they say "don't vote Dem (or Repub)". That's what makes them 3rd parties. It's not a 'smear' for them to state the fundamental point of their existence.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Here's the part of the post you're pretending to quote.
Here's what you lie and say it says
Why do you keep lying and saying people demand 'perfect' candidates when no one actually is?
You can't just claim that anything people says is what you say it is, unless you are simply trying to smear them with lies you put in their mouth.
You want to complain about what people say, complain about what THEY say. Not whatever lie you want to put in their mouth.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)anti-Hillary:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4047307
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=196620
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5549512
pro-Warren, anti-Hillary:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=160180
pro-Warren:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=159810
pro-dog:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=660764
pro-Green:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5767683
That is someone who has joined to denigrate the likely Democrat presidential candidate, say there's one Dem that satisfies them, and that they will vote Green if they aren't the candidate (and, let's remember, Warren has said she's not running, so they are effectively just saying 'vote Green').
I'm not smearing them; I am pointing out they are a Green - as they said. They're a 3rd party supporter. It's not smearing 3rd party supporters to say they don't support Dems. It's reality.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)he actually listed 3 dems as possibles he would support. In the first link, he suggests Howard Dean.
A few links later, he suggests Bernie Sanders. And yes, he also suggests Elizabeth Warren.
So no, yet again, you're saying something that doesn't appear to be true when you claim he says 'there's one Dem that satisfies them, and that they will vote Green if they aren't the candidate '.
Again, you're trying to put words in his mouth, rather than actually reading what he really says.
Given those 3, and his comment about a 'fighter', I would suggest that Barbara Lee, Sherrod Brown, Alan Grayson, and probably dozens of other Dem choices would pass muster in his desire for a 'fighter'. The Dem party does have fighters, and more than just 'Elizabeth Warren'.
Really, just read what people write, don't make up things you want them to have said.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)and the purpose of the threads and their posts is to be anti-Hillary.
"Given those 3, and his comment about a 'fighter', I would suggest that Barbara Lee, Sherrod Brown, Alan Grayson, and probably dozens of other Dem choices would pass muster in his desire for a 'fighter'."
Now that's/ putting words in their mouth. Naming random Dems and assuming they'd support them, when they say they vote Green, is ridiculous. Remember, that's all they've ever said on DU, in a whole year. Nothing about Lee, Brown or Grayson.
Why is it so important for you to try to paint a self-admitted Green party supporter as a Democrat? I don't get why anyone - Democrat or Green - would want to do that. And of course 3rd party supporters, whether that one or any other, often say "don't vote for Democrats or Republicans". Ralph Nader, for instance.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)And if you want to say 'Dean is not standing for anything' then you'd also have to admit neither is Hillary. Just because you want her to run doesn't mean she actually is. She might or might not. So might a dozen other people.
I've voted Green in the past too. And I might again in the future. But that doesn't change the fact that 95% of the time I vote for Dems. That I voted for Obama, gave money for him, pounded the pavement for him. Simply painting someone as 'A Green', because they say they voted that way in the past and might well again (in one race) in the future, is a silly way to describe anyone.
Heck, I've voted twice in the last few decades for a Republican county auditor. Does that make me 'a Republican' to you?
It's the same flaw I see again and again - a desire to throw away people who will vote with Dems in the vast majority of races, simply because they vote in a few races for someone else. Shrink that tent, then pretend your losses are because of the very people you want to get rid of.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)That alone makes them a non-Dem troll. They offered support to people who are either not Dems, or have said they won't run. I don't believe for a moment that you don't understand that Dean is orders of magnitude less likely to run for office than Hillary. And they only dropped that name while attacking Hillary.
That person is a disruptive troll. You really don't need to defend them. They put themselves outside the tent by using their 7th DU post to suggest voting against the Dems.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)at least, any part of it that still remains that could still possibly help Americans and this country.
There's your malignancy.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)if someone 'too progressive' is chosen. It's a false equivalence. No-one posts on DU attacking Democrats from the right. The 'right-most' posters here are mainstream Democrats.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That's what I question.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)But coming to a Democratic site to talk trash about a Democrat and then say they're thinking of voting for a Green, again, does look like a 3rd party supporter trying to discourage Democratic voters.
MADem
(135,425 posts)don't have the power." A real "Fuck the PTB" campaign.
Coakley lost by 40k.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)campaign. Democrats are angry at the PTB, but not in that way. Besides, Coakley wasn't that bad. Probably Republicans who voted for that party.
Do you have a link that might suggest otherwise?
MADem
(135,425 posts)He took votes from her. There were two other candidates as well. One was a right-wing, gay hating asshole who got about 18K votes, the other an economic scold who got 15K votes and was a small government freak.
Most MA voters call themselves independents, for whatever reasons.
http://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_gubernatorial_and_lieutenant_gubernatorial_election,_2014
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We need a new management at the top of the Democratic Party. Fortunately, the ratio of liberal Democrats to conservative Democrats is increasing in favor of the truly liberals.
I do not expect Landrieu to pull off a victory in Louisiana although I could be mistaken. Another Diet Democrat about to fall, I suspect. Hate to be so negative, but I don't want to be dishonest either.
MADem
(135,425 posts)One a governor incumbent, the other a Senatorial incumbent.
Incumbents ALWAYS have an advantage unless they are fuckups or their opponent plays them as fuckups and has a ton of money to back them up.
If Deval had been running, he would have won in a walk. You can't compare MA - Gov race to those two examples you proffered.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Under your theory, they should have won easily. They did not.
MADem
(135,425 posts)incessantly, it would seem, that "all politics is local." It''s not a "theory" that a guy running to the left of Martha took votes from her. Look at his platform. No Republicans voted for that guy.
Here's a theory for you. When one party spends 120 million bucks more than another across the nation, the odds are good that might influence the races. The issues in Kentucky (where the candidate ran from Obama) are different from the issues in MA (where no one ran from Obama, and all save Martha won).
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)As many DUers have pointed out, in some states, like Colorado, voters voted in favor of progressive policies but against DLC, Third Way Democratic candidates.
Voters like progressive policies. We don't offer enough progressive candidates who really believe in progressive values.
It's about values. Policies grow out of values. Too many of our candidates are not value-oriented but rather are merely party oriented. Some of them want to win something to prove something personal. Some of them are, as Eisenhower said of the French at the beginning of the North African campaign in WWII, just about "ME."
Democrats are unclear about the economic values they hold. That really hurts our party.
We need at this time Democrats who will run for office not only on social issues although those are important but on truly progressive economic values. We need to explain to the American voters why it is that the traditional Democratic values of "we are in this together and need to work together to make an economy that puts us all to work and builds better lives for everyone" work and why we will, as a party stand for them. So far, too many of our candidates are willing to negotiate or compromise those values.
And that is an important difference. A politician can compromise when it comes to specific programs or policies, but must stand firm on values and relate the rationale behind the compromise to the strong values of our party that put working people first.
MADem
(135,425 posts)they do seem to win the day in some parts of the country.
I think running far to the left in wingnut enclaves simply ensures that the margin of victory for the wingnuts will be greater.
The fact that our candidate in KY obviously supported Obama, was a delegate, in fact, and yet ran from him didn't mean she was rejected for not being "progressive" enough. She was rejected because she came off as INSINCERE, a panderer. No one likes a LIAR, and she was pretty much lying.
She should have said "Yeah, I supported the President--I'm a DEMOCRAT, not a Republican, not a Libertarian, not a Romulan. That's how it works. I don't really 'get' why you're trying to play some kind of lame 'GOTCHA!' game in that regard. My opponent supported Bush, and McCain, and Romney--that is how politics works, so grab a clue, there, Skippy, and join the real world!"
What people rejected weren't her policies--it was her integrity (or lack thereof) that did her in.
Pity, because she would have been very effective, but she made a boneheaded calculation and paid for it by a hemorrhaging of support when she reached the finish line.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If we had had a strong Democrat who could stand up with pride and sincerely say, "I voted for Obama because I support his values: working people over bankers, jobs over cheap imports, the environment and peace, and here is how we Democrats plan to validate our values and then discussed specific policy points, she would have won. She ran to the right of Obama. Could it be that in beautiful Kentucky (I remember it from the 1950s when it truly was beautiful and I traveled through it frequently), people would vote to save their environment if they had a candidate courageous enough to tell them the truth about what Republican policies and lack of value will mean for our environment?
When I talk about candidates with traditional Democratic values, the values of Eleanor Roosevelt to name one Democrat who was clear on them, I am talking about the same thing you are talking about when you say honesty.
When a person speaks from the basis of well considered values, he or she will speak the truth.
When people speak about policies and lists of policies that can be negotiated and compromised, those people will come across as liars even if they don't mean to lie.
Yes. You negotiate and compromise, but you do not justify your negotiations and compromise. You clearly state that you are not abandoning your values and that you don't like the outcome, but you will compromise just for peace while still advocating your values. The Democrats defend the outcomes of their compromises and come across as liars.
Alison Lundergan Grimes should have said she voted for Obama because while she did not agree with every policy he is associated with, she agrees with his stands on justice, equality, a fair chance for American working people and working together as a nation. There is a lot more she could have said.
But there is no point in a Democratic Party if it does not fight tirelessly for economic justice. No point at all.. All the other issues, the specific constituency issues are important because they are aspects of economic justice. But the central issue for the Democratic party has to be economic justice.
Voters who don't primarily care about economic justice are going to vote Republican, and there is nothing you can do about it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)She blew it by being afraid, and by lying. She should have "womaned up" and told the questioner to go shit in his hat.
People vote their GUT, and their gut said she was a fearful liar. THAT's why she lost, not because she didn't run left enough, or didn't say this or do that.
They voted for the insincere bastard with EXPERIENCE, rather than insincere candidate without it.
She came off as a fake, a bullshitter, a panderer. Like I said, too bad, because she had "it." She just made a fatal mistake and sadly, it was near the end so she couldn't recover from it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)about this latest disaster, caused by the actual Third Party within OUR PARTY who have no managed to lose yet another election for Democrats.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You want a link? Here ya go. You might have asked, instead of snarking. OR...you could have used the Google, and imparted the information to everyone discussing the topic here, if you were that interested.
But oh-- you want links. You're INTERESTED in this not so "new" information. Here, let's accommodate you.
I'll give you links -- a "tutorial" to explain it all.
Here's the candidate (who is rich and invested his own money in his candidacy) and his reason for running: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/11/04/how-evan-falchuk-can-win-even-when-loses/aCOHmA06UwZ10Hui2yBWrI/story.html
http://www.masslive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/11/viewpoint_dont_overlook_evan_f.html
Here's Falchuk's party platform: http://www.falchuk2014.org/whatwebelieve
Affordable housing? Free college? Tax the rich? Invest heavily in public transportation? Yeah, the GOP are going to vote for that--not.
Here's his "Let's show 'em all" commercial--he showed 'em, all right--he showed 'em PHoney Boo Hoo in the corner office:
Hope that provides you with the clarity you were so interested in, but didn't ask for.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Because if you have a D in the white house everything must be great...and even if it is not we must act like it is.
turbinetree
(24,720 posts)Is spot on, what more can be said it was and is a total failure by Reid and Israel, we gave them the votes and they failed, they were always saying we need to work with the other side our friends-----really, they are not your friends, it was right in front of there face and they knew it and they did nothing, nothing
lpbk2713
(42,766 posts)They see mountains of money to be made there and nothing will stop them.
reddread
(6,896 posts)absolutely right
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)last night that Bush would be a GOOD candidate for Repukes! I can't sit here on PC and make arguments today, so pissed and need to go outside and do some trimming of my plant/bushes!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Historic NY
(37,453 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)18. Trade agreements that have decimated our job market.
19. Student loan debt.
20. The long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, vacationless, maternity-leaveless American work year.
21. At-will employment.
22. Federal arbitration laws that leave consumers without access to the courts in disputes with big corporations.
23. Too much money spent on our military.
24. Clinton's Telecommunications Act which has permitted right-wing wealth to buy and monopolize our communications industries.
25. Citizens United.
Much more. Democrats in Congress and especially in the leadership of the Democratic Party have failed us for years. They recite slogans that make us vote for them, but they appoint bankers and rich people who ignore the needs and aims of the middle class once they are on in office.
We need candidates with proven records of defending the interests of the middle class and the poor. We need candidates who will pledge to build an economically strong America. The guys we have now are building economically strong investment accounts and futures for themselves and not for ordinary Americans.
JEB
(4,748 posts)They have us down, working frantically to scrape by, then they flood the already propagandized airwaves with nonstop Koch commercials. People don't have a fucking chance and neither does the Democratic Party unless it starts fighting back instead of searching for the illusive nonexistent middle ground.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)1. Republicans
2. Democrats
Veganhealedme
(137 posts)Amonester
(11,541 posts)I look around and it's like historical...
leftstreet
(36,112 posts)certainot
(9,090 posts)in which tens of millions live and vote while insulated from any challenge to it from the left/dems/liberals
there is still NO organized challenge to the right's best weapon: republicon radio
wreq
(8 posts)Awesome list. Dems need a fighter in 2016 or I am voting Green Party again.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)to advocate voting for 3rd parties. wreq has voted against Dems in the past, and is threatening to do so again. That is ratfucking the Democrats - using a Democratic board to attack Democrats.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Demoralized into oblivion.
When some members do NOTHING BUT express utter disappointment, it has a cumulative effect.
Carry on......
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)TOS: "advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. "
"Never" means never. By their 7th post, they are advocating voting Green. In 4 of their other posts, they've attacked Hillary (viciously - calling her a fascist).
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)That's what makes it worse; they'll accept any Green, without qualification. That's why they look like a Green, not a Dem.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 5, 2014, 07:12 PM - Edit history (1)
reminds me of how people like to discuss (or ignore) water issues in California,
AS IF there was water to talk about.
let's solve the actual problems and not the ones that change nothing.
priorities straight and people have something to vote FOR?
then you will have turnout.
thats all the Democratic Party needs,
and they should be willing to offer those reasons, shouldnt they?
blacklisting lists sounds
COMPLETELY
unDemocratic.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)his post that should be added to the ones you listed.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)When that drum is beaten over and over and over, voters take notice, and stay home.
And when voters stay home, Republicans win.
Sid
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)People still don't get it.
It's why Hillary Clinton is trying to bring up a "we're too down on ourselves" narrative.
2016 will be fun.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)By the way....we lost the Maryland Governor's seat too. MARYLAND for Pete's Sake. WOW! Oh and Illinois. Formerly "Blue/Purple" Michigan is ALL RED, again along with (Drumroll in the Midwest): Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois (again) and Michigan (again) -- WOW!!!
We are IN TROUBLE. We have to change the strategies! Period. If not, we are DONE|.
The Morning After - Outsmarted, Outspent, Outlast, Frankly Plain Smoked - Michigan Elections 2014
Read more: http://www.reachoutjobsearch.com/2014/11/oped-morning-after-outsmarted-outspent.html#ixzz3IDMCOxpJ
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)making shit up..
840high
(17,196 posts)swilton
(5,069 posts)edit number 5 and replace 'on a par with' to 'exceeding that of' the Third World. Michael Parenti pointed out (I think the book was Black Shirts and Reds that the wealth disparity in the US exceeded that of even of the communist cronies in the former Soviet Union. This book was obviously written before 1991 and now things are much worse....
http://www.michaelparenti.org/BlackShirts.html
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)mention these issues, they are told to 'stfu'.
Why would any Dem want voters to 'stfu' about ANY of those issues? My guess, they wouldn't. So, who are these people who are trying to shut Dem voters up about these issues? THAT is what we need to know imo and get them out of our party. Those are Republican issues and only a Republican would support any of them.
swilton
(5,069 posts)they're also told 'perfection is the enemy of good enough' .......
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'! Really? And just who are they talking to, who has ever demanded perfection? This is how you KNOW these are Think Tank Talking points.
What does it mean? I have asked, and was more or less told to 'stfu'. Because it has no meaning.
How about 'if you aim for the sky you may hit a tree'? THAT is what people should be told, aim as high as you can because if you aim low, you will get even lower.
No, there is a concerted effort to suppress enthusiasm for Liberal values and to discourage, especially the Left and the young and left leaning Independents from voting. We've all seen it.
wavesofeuphoria
(525 posts)"there is a concerted effort to suppress enthusiasm for Liberal values and to discourage, especially the Left and the young and left leaning Independents from voting."
Spot on!!!!