and that answer right there is why this is such a great site - we can ask questions from ignorance and hear different points of view in response and not hate/tear at each other in the process. Thanks for giving me more information to consider :)
YAY! I am hoping that there is a real undercurrent of dissatisfaction with people like Lipinski and that it will only show up at the ballot box and the voter is anonymous. That is why we need to keep pressing the issue that republicans really do not care about the nation and are in it for the revolving door of industry, and a cushy retirement plan. They way they act, it surely cannot be anything else unless it is plain old ability to lord it over people.
Every time the DCCC comes to me looking for donations, I tell them exactly how they can go cram it. Surprisingly they kept coming back for more. I blocked them.
but if they are supporting an incumbent who has proven to be a wolf is sheeps clothing, or a mass murderer or something, are the DCCC really doing what is right for the voters? I'm not talking about an incumbent who is just old fashioned or a bit out of step with the changing electorate - I mean someone who is a republican in disguise or a proven criminal. I get that loyalty is important, but blind loyalty? (not trying to troll, just talking with ya)
which dems though? I remember reading sometime back that he refused to pay anything into DCCC coffers because he didn't want any money going to pro-choice democrats.
Can't be arsed to scroll down my twitter feed, but there was one earlier that mentioned how Warren's people; voters, volunteers, donors, etc. turned out like crazy for her. This is what cooperative politics looks like. None of this, "If my candidate isn't the top dog, I won't vote" bullshit.
Well then, it is perfectly fair to ask where to draw the line, and is there a single line that can apply equally well to all districts.
Or maybe the DCCC figures that the fairest way to figure this out is to let the people of the district decide. And a pretty good way to gauge their opinions is to assume that incumbents speak fairly well to the standards of the electorate, by virtue of their being incumbents at all.
But if we do want to distinguish between "real" Democrats and wolves in sheeps clothing, here are two tests I think apply:
- Support nobody who has expressed opposition to the Democratic Party itself.
- Support nobody who doesn't make the rights of oppressed minorities and women central, since it is minorities and women who form the backbone of the Democratic Party.
By those standards -- which I consider reasonable, if we're in a line-drawing mood -- all of Bernie's acolytes would have to go. So that would include Lipinski for being insufficiently supportive of women, but also Omar for her anti-Semitism, Tlaib for booing Hillary Clinton, and so on.
But fortunately, I don't get to decide who's a "real" Democrat and who's not; nor would I make the call even if empowered to. I'd leave it to the voters to sort out.
See how quickly you can be forgotten Don or Dan or whatever the fuck your Lipenshits name is? Fucking Repuke really.
I didn't know they were private - I thought it was part of the party. Thanks for clearing that up for me - once again I haz learnererd something new!
and that answer right there is why this is such a great site - we can ask questions from ignorance and hear different points of view in response and not hate/tear at each other in the process. Thanks for giving me more information to consider :)
So does OAN run that kind of gibberish 24/7? I don't think that batshit woman even blinked once during that tirade!
YAY! I am hoping that there is a real undercurrent of dissatisfaction with people like Lipinski and that it will only show up at the ballot box and the voter is anonymous. That is why we need to keep pressing the issue that republicans really do not care about the nation and are in it for the revolving door of industry, and a cushy retirement plan. They way they act, it surely cannot be anything else unless it is plain old ability to lord it over people.
Every time the DCCC comes to me looking for donations, I tell them exactly how they can go cram it. Surprisingly they kept coming back for more. I blocked them.
Who called for a mortician?
you should run for prezinent /s
Is that just because his penis is bigger than Tulsi Gabbard's?
I can't even imagine Cruz's dad in that dress.
but if they are supporting an incumbent who has proven to be a wolf is sheeps clothing, or a mass murderer or something, are the DCCC really doing what is right for the voters? I'm not talking about an incumbent who is just old fashioned or a bit out of step with the changing electorate - I mean someone who is a republican in disguise or a proven criminal. I get that loyalty is important, but blind loyalty? (not trying to troll, just talking with ya)
Jesus Effing Christ! I wouldn't trust this guy to babysit a tree.
which dems though? I remember reading sometime back that he refused to pay anything into DCCC coffers because he didn't want any money going to pro-choice democrats.
Can't be arsed to scroll down my twitter feed, but there was one earlier that mentioned how Warren's people; voters, volunteers, donors, etc. turned out like crazy for her. This is what cooperative politics looks like. None of this, "If my candidate isn't the top dog, I won't vote" bullshit.
#ImissSPW
Well then, it is perfectly fair to ask where to draw the line, and is there a single line that can apply equally well to all districts.
Or maybe the DCCC figures that the fairest way to figure this out is to let the people of the district decide. And a pretty good way to gauge their opinions is to assume that incumbents speak fairly well to the standards of the electorate, by virtue of their being incumbents at all.
But if we do want to distinguish between "real" Democrats and wolves in sheeps clothing, here are two tests I think apply:
- Support nobody who has expressed opposition to the Democratic Party itself.
- Support nobody who doesn't make the rights of oppressed minorities and women central, since it is minorities and women who form the backbone of the Democratic Party.
By those standards -- which I consider reasonable, if we're in a line-drawing mood -- all of Bernie's acolytes would have to go. So that would include Lipinski for being insufficiently supportive of women, but also Omar for her anti-Semitism, Tlaib for booing Hillary Clinton, and so on.
But fortunately, I don't get to decide who's a "real" Democrat and who's not; nor would I make the call even if empowered to. I'd leave it to the voters to sort out.
They support candidates who have won. That is not he same as can win. If it was the same, then in 2010 the party would have held the House.
Its interesting that you can predict what I will think. Now tell me which finger I am holding up.