Fogdog
Well-Known Member
or you will forfeit.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee opposes progressives
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
How come you subscribe to the fake conspiracy theory that Hillary cheated and rigged the primary to steal the nomination from Bernie, when the only way that theory works is if white men were immune and black, Hispanic and women voters were susceptible to Hillary's nefarious plot. .
Addreffff THIFFFFFF!!!!!!!!
PCXV
Well-Known Member
It is going to be difficult to reform/tear down the Democratic establishment without suffering considerable collateral damage. When we equate the establishment with Republicans we are divided and playing into the rhetoric of eqauting the parties and framing Democrats as equally corrupt and undesirable. When we ignore our own corruption, faults, weak points and avoid reform we are in practice no better than Republicans in that one way which is also working in favor of Republicans. Catch 22.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The next time there is an opportunity, let's not accept anything other than reform of campaign finance laws to make large donations illegal regardless of source and only donations from individuals would be legal.
But really, the hype of the propaganda machine against Democrats is the fault of the liberals that swallow it. As long as that crap is effective to influence liberals against Democrats, we are going to hear it.
I've heard so much fake news about corrupt Democrats I can't remember any that was true. Refresh my memory, what corruption are we ignoring?
Please don't say Democrats are corrupt for accepting legal campaign donations. That would be disappointing. Unilateral disarmament by rejecting legal campaign donations to Democrats but not Republicans plays into the hands of the 1%.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You call those moderate I call those conservative. Everything about the Democratic Party is to the right of the Republican Party.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Whoops- change the subject quick!
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Since the Democrats are already just as corrupt the Republicans, the decision has already been made.
I'm not voting for either one of them until they reform. And I'm far from alone.
The progressives are coming, and they're the only ones who even want to stop the next Great Crash, let alone try.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
PCXV
Well-Known Member
Well said. Corruption was used loosely. I just think there is a fine line between the appearance of holding Democrats accountable/admitting faults and working against Democrats politically.
It is hard for me to discuss things like the repeal of glass-steagall, Obamacare, militarization/military spending, deficits, bailouts, etc. and walk the line between "well democrats are still better and they were in a tough negotiating position" vs "they didn't try hard enough and let Republicans win" or something along those lines. I don't feel like I am articulating my point well. But you add in the campaign contributions and the policy that gets put in place and it isn't a stretch to understand why people don't feel well represented. Are we working in Republicans favor by criticizing Democratics and asking more of them, even if we know how tough that is for them?
PCXV
Well-Known Member
But by dividing aren't we handing the win to the greater evil?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I don't know how to say it other than the country is not as liberal as we are. There is the reality that some states are more conservative and a Democrat from that state who represents those people will be more conservative. There are tons of issues where the "moderate" or even right of center "conservative" Democrats and liberal Democrats can agree. Organized labor, progressive taxation, most environmental issues including reduction of carbon emissions, social justice issues. For example, a Senator from a coal state will be pro-coal whether they are a Democrat or a Republican, so, don't expect him or her to side with Democrats on coal issues.
Regarding Obamacare, recall that Democrats only had 7 1/2 weeks where they had fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate and control of the House. What they got done in that period was historic, including launching a subsidized health care program that helped 20 million who had no care, kept healthcare costs down until the Republicans took full control of government in 2018. It's true that they didn't enact universal heathcare coverage in that 7 1/2 weeks. The handful of moderate or conservative Democrats that gave the 111th congress the ability to pass 32 important liberal peices of legislation stood in the way of universal healthcare.
Criticize Democrats for not getting enough done according to what you wanted but I submit that corruption wasn't the problem. It's easy to say "becuz corrupt". If corruption can be proven, then I'd like to see the proof. I've looked and all I can see is that when Democrats had control of Congress for a mere 7 1/2 weeks the got a shit ton done. What I hear is complaints that it wasn't enough. OK, so then let's try again only let's give them four years instead of less than two months.
PCXV
Well-Known Member
Right, and so I wonder how practical hard lining is but also ponder the consequences of not hard lining.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I don't quite understand the "all Democrats corrupt" line that @ttystikk bleats on about. Nor can I fault all Democrats for the failure to pass a much needed bill such as universal healthcare. I ask, were any of your reps responsible? I know for a fact that my reps, the ones I voted for, favored universal healthcare in 2010. As it was, the ACA barely cleared the house with 34 Democratic representatives and every Republican representative voting against it. Was one of your representatives one of them? Mine is DeFazio and he voted for it. Am I supposed to vote against DeFazio because other Democrats prevented enacting universal healthcare? I simply don't understand this line of logic.
I also celebrate that Democrats enacted the ACA which accomplished many things if not the whole package of universal healthcare coverage. Two that I can name right away are: 20 million people were covered who were not before then and they put in place funding for subsidized healthcare for the general public that Republicans failed to dislodge. The ACA remains intact because the American public decided they actually liked it after all. Republicans are now defeating the measure by defunding it. I don't think this will go well with the public this fall.
This is an example of practical legislation that moves society forward. The 111th Democratic Congress let the social medicine genie out of the bottle and Republicans can't get it back into the bottle. The ACA did a lot of good and it created a path towards universal healthcare. If the 111th Congress had committed to universal healthcare or bust then no good would have come from it other than another defeat which would be good only for Republicans.
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I don't think our side is the one that's dividing anything. It's the people who tacitly accept it as normal and uncorrupt and who tell us to just fall in line or the Republican will win. Having Republican light win isn't any better when it comes to the things you listed earlier. To those people, I would say get behind us and back actual progressives, you're not entitled to anything. 3 Justice Democrats just won their primaries in Texas, we are done fucking around.
(This isn't directed at you PCXV)
PCXV
Well-Known Member
Does equating establishment democrats with republicans help reform the democratic party? Will it hurt us in the short term? Or is it better to maintaining the slow, gentle progress with Democrats towards progressivism by persuading the various democratic constituencies, which seems to be working, while focusing our firepower on the more pressing problem of the Republican party?
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
100%. I'm not sure what else will. We have to call out the corruption of Democrats exactly like we do Republicans
I think ignoring or worse, denying corruption is even taking place harms democracy far more in the long run. The "slow, gentle progress with Democrats" has shifted the party to the right since Reagan, against Democratic constituents interests. Establishment Democrats obstruct progress.
It's easy to defeat the Republican party, all you have to do is actually represent progressive values.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
If we continue to vote for them, we continue to justify investment.
Corruption does not require that an activity be specifically illegal to be corrupt. America has legalized lots of things that are corrupt.
PCXV
Well-Known Member
Is there a better, more tactful way to do that than simply equating them? Doesn't the action of holding Democrats accountable already separate the parties? Republicans sure as hell aren't holding elected Republicans accountable.
Interesting argument. I think you are right in a way, but if you ask any conservative they will say the democrat/liberal constituency is further left than ever. Within the context of your argument, I guess you could say that while the constituency of Democrats has moved left, the Democratic party has moved right as a political maneuver. Right?
I want to hold Democrats accountable to my ideals, but I also don't want to aid Republicans whose ideals are the exact opposite of mine on many issues.
PCXV
Well-Known Member
Do you think there are instances where a district might only go for a moderate democrat at best and that running a more progressive candidate would be unwise as it would assure the win of an even greater evil (Republican)?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
The number of voting age Americans who aren't registered with either party outnumbers those registered to both parties combined. This, along with other evidence that's easy enough to see once you get over your critical case of confirmation bias, speaks volumes about how ready the country is for a Progressive direction.
I simply don't agree with your assessment and I notice you love to throw it out there without a shred of supporting evidence.