Occupy Reality

Yes... perfect IMO :)

You were the exception that emphasized the rule...

People around here were talking about NOT-45's "Fifty State Sweep"...

Other Left Wingery outlets gave Trump a less than 1% chance of winning...

What? What? I me-- you're the one who made it possible. The footsteps I'm following -- they're yours. What you did, stopping the big plan, the prize fight? You did more than rebel. You tore up the whole script and burned the pages for all of us. It's a new era. No rules, no destiny. Just utter and complete freedom.
-Balthazar, SUPERNATURAL

It's a whole new world.....

no, they weren't. donald's odds might have been lower than hillary's, but you may recall i was in the minority that maintained it was a very real possibility. one in three is not the same as one in a hundred million.

the point i'm making to don isn't that it's a bad idea or not worth trying, just that there must be some kinks in the implementation, since no one seems to be buying it. what market researchers do is first try to pilot a program on a small scale to see whether or not it can work, then worry about whether or not it can be replicated on a larger scale.

JL

So were the odds of a President Trump...

I think that's the point that Don and CW et al is making..

The rule book has been chucked out the window.. Public opinion polls are meaningless if the public is not sharing or being honest with the pollsters... Fake news has been exposed, it's attempt to shape or create public opinion rendered impotent..

What was once impossible actually happened...

I have noticed that many Weigantians don't want to entertain "what if" scenarios because entertaining those scenarios puts the validity of the argument in peril...

Personally, I like to throw people who put up such "what if" scenarios a bone...

Something along the lines of "Yea if, by some miracle of fate, "A" was to occur, then yes... "B" would be the natural by product.."

But that's just me...

russ tried to explain it to you; even posing that question is putting the cart before the horse. tens of millions of people participating in something is not a reasonable condition upon which to base an inquiry, since that's the biggest problem one needs to solve. putting an idea out there and hoping it becomes the next occupy is not a strategy, it's wishful thinking, and has lower odds than a lottery ticket.

JL

Mr. Trump is demonstrating in office what was apparent from the day he announced his candidacy: He lacks experience, knowledge and governing temperament. But he deserves the same chance to govern that his predecessors were afforded. The manufactured rage in the media and political opposition is taking us to even angrier polarization in the country, and it will last longer than four years.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fellow-democrats-your-effort-to-destroy-the-president-is-abnormal-1487894450?mod=e2two

Yep, yep, yep...

Ya'all are acting much worse than ya'all accused the Right of acting when Obama was elected...

MUCH worse...

I wish ya'all could take a step back from yerselves and see ya'all's actions thru the prism of logic and objectivity..

It would be an eye opener for ya'all...

Yep, yep, yep....

Liberals, stuff thy selves..

Just shut the frak up and do your jobs....

"And the TRUTH is, the winner of BEST PICTURE OSCAR goes to LA-LA LAND!!!! No!! Wait!! The TRUTH is, the winner of BEST PICTURE OSCAR goes to MOONLIGHT!! THAT is the REAL truth!!!"

BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Which proves perfectly what I have always said.. TRUTH is subjective and is contingent on any single person's belief structure or any Left Wingery screw-up....

The "TRUTH" is that LA-LA LAND won BEST PICTURE...

The FACT is that MOONLIGHT won BEST PICTURE...

Now that ya'all have listened to my point of view, let's conduct a *rational* exploration regarding the viability of my point... :D

And THEN tell them why they are wrong.. :D

But, I like your advice, JL.... :D

Your sad because there were no 3am tweets??

Or are you sad because President Trump is learning tweet-control???

:D

Irregardless, the ONLY thing sad here was the dismal cluster-frak that was The Oscars..

I tell ya, hysterical Hollywood Left Wingers could screw up an iron football!! :D

Typical of the Left Wingery...

Blame anything and everyone else..

NEVER take responsibility... :^/

"When I don't know what objections or reservations people may have then I can't explain to them why they are wrong. listen to their point of view and conduct a rational exploration regarding the viability of my strategy."

try this on for size: my plan is to win the powerball jackpot and use it to fund cancer research. i can rightly say that it's possible. selfish individuals win it all the time for themselves, and there's even evidence that regular people can win it. wouldn't people like it better if they got to choose who won it? if 20% of the country bought me a powerball ticket every week, i'd win multiple times and could use it all to fight cancer. sign up at TicketThrowdown.com, and join the movement to overthrow the powerball establishment and beat cancer.

99% of the country supports fighting cancer, so it's a slam dunk, right? if not, what's missing from this plan?

none of this is to say that voters can't or shouldn't be organized to vote for candidates with small donation strategies. however, just because an idea polls well in popular opinion doesn't motivate twenty-five million people to donate money to someone claiming to represent that idea.

JL

No, it was the management consultants that screwed up - really embarrassing for the "private outsourced" works better than "government" crowd.

45 was made a fool of. The staff must have shut down the wifi or hidden his phone for the night. And no 3am I'm having a dump and a brain fart at the same time tweets. Sad.

I think they {the Oscars} were focused so hard on politics that they didn’t get the act together at the end. It was a little sad.

Morons.. Maybe they should DO THEIR JOBS and not worry about politics so much...

I'm just sayin'....

Your problem is that you, and practically everyone else here, defines "trolling" as A> something you don't like and 2> something you can't address...

Using YA'ALL'S definition, I troll every day... :D (There's a nice juicy tidbit you can quote out of context as ya'all are wont to do.. :D)

Because I am constantly commenting things that ya'all simply can't address...

Comment #115 is a perfect example... :D

But, of course, that's only in YA'ALL'S fantasy world where trolling is defined as that.. :D

You mean, like your Democrats are going to do at President Trump's SOTU speech??

Funny how you don't mind trolling when it's a DEMOCRAT who's doing it..

That's painfully obvious here.. :D

Regardless, you make my point for me..

"Big Money" is corruption.

And Democrats who take "Big Money" are corrupt..

YOUR OWN WORDS...

And YOU voted for those kinds of Democrats..

Fait accompli'

Remember, friends, the candidate that most resonated with the Democratic Party’s base was the independent socialist from Vermont, Bernie Sanders. Yet, throughout the 2016 primaries, the party’s leadership did everything in its power to tilt the the process to favor the elite’s preferred candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

No beating around the bush there.. :D

Not what I was saying at all. "Big Money" is corruption. Corruption doesn't have a specific monetary value as an indicator! I didn't say a candidate should accept any money, regardless of the amount, that has strings attached to it. Do not try to put words in my mouth that I did not say. Run along and get back under your bridge.

Don,

And VV DOES take into account how much it takes to get elected.
With just 20% national participation (approx. 125 million 2016 voters) that's about 25 million participants. Just half of those participants investing 100 dollars is 1.25 billion dollars.

Based on your comments, VV DOES NOT take into account the actual budgets needed by each candidate... Not if your answer relies on you having 25 million participants!

You are touting what a great idea this is while providing me with numbers that are not based in reality.

How many million have already committed to this plan?

How is VV going to be successful prior to achieving 25 million participants? Is it even possible to be successful on a smaller scale?

Who determines how much each candidate receives?

If VV doesn't require you to donate, how do you know you that you'll get 12.5 million who will be willing to donate $100 or more?

Are people donating to VV instead of directly to the candidate of their choice?

How will it be successful in communities where it has only a handful of members?

If VV's success is dependent on reaching that 25 million mark, then it is not realistic.

And damn well too!!! :D

condescending surrender? i can do condescending, but not so much surrender. how's this:

[condescending]20% nationally. nationally? you've been at it for nearly a decade and don't even have 20% of this website. good luck with that. [/condescending]

JL

"Look, do you wanna play blind man? Go walk with the shepherd. But me, my eyes are wide f*cking open.”
~pulp fiction

My top suggestions, for what they're worth:

1. repair obamacare - even the most die-hard of republicans must know that a full repeal would be out of the frying pan and into the fire. thousands would die - possibly tens of thousands - and as the party in power they'd be held responsible for those deaths. so keep all the patient protections, fix a few broken financial parts and call it a win.

2. lay off the nativism - boxer muhammad ali's namesake son is not a terrorist. neither is 70-year old australian children's book author mem fox. neither is international football star dwight yorke. somebody put a leash on these border agents and send them to israel to learn how to properly conduct an interview, to prevent the entrance of real terrorists. further, the government entered a contract with DACA, so no threats of deportation unless they're convicted of something significantly worse than a moving violation. suspicion ain't enough, you need to prove it before the claws come out, and remain respectful regardless.

3. start doing some of that "negotiation" that was promised. a lot will be forgiven if he can hammer out some trade agreements that level the playing field, so working people in small-town america can get a legit full-time job.

JL

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

The president is currently in a downward trend.. We'll see what the future holds... :D

Yes! As long as larger contributions CAN be accepted, it would be crazy to refuse them.

I get what you are saying..

And, logically and rationally you are correct..

What you are saying is that Big Money in campaigns is an evil and bad thing and if your chosen candidate must do evil and bad to get elected than so be it..

The ends justifies the means...

No one here gets that more than I do...

But what I am saying is that you need to pick a side..

If you are against Big Money in campaigns but you claim that your chosen candidates must take Big Money to win then you can't claim to be against Big Money in campaigns..

"Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed"
-Austin Powers

:D

I am not trying to be contrary here... I don't HAVE to try as it comes naturally. :D

But seriously, I completely understand what you are saying..

Big Money is a necessary evil and if your candidates must indulge that evil to win, then you're completely on board with that...

But you can't have that attitude and then claim to be against Big Money..

"You gotta pick a lane, dood"
-Metatron, SUPERNATURAL

Oh, I got their point... But I just do not feel that their point is based in reality!

And you would be correct. It isn't based on the reality of the here and now..

It's aspirational.. It's what they hope that Left Wingery candidates would aspire to...

And for those candidates that choose NOT to aspire to that value, the point is that the candidates will lose support from those who think the candidates SHOULD aspire to that value..

And that group, the group that is aspirational is becoming more and more pronounced within the totality of the Democrat Party..

As I said.. Civil War...

Anymore than Russia or the FBI cost NOT-45 the election...

Bernie was simply NOT the candidate that the Left Wingery wanted..

And NOT-45 was simply NOT the candidate that the American people wanted, except for those in California...

"As a Mexican, as a Latin American, as a migrant worker, as a human being, I am against any form of wall that wants to separate us," he said.

Of course, Bernal goes home to a house surrounded by walls... :^/

Apparently, this nimrod thinks, "Walls are to protect me, but not for thee"

:^/

Hard to take advice on politics and leadership from a gaggle of morons who can't even get the BEST PICTURE right...

DH [100]
It fits on a bumper sticker. It's easy to remember. It requires no explanation. It gives a shout-out to the women's and progressive movement (Warren). It gets at what's most important (energy still there 19 months from now).

This is the Friday Talking Points Memo. Get with the program. We're giving talking points, not nuance. Duh!

i do admire your tenacity.

JL

But this is where your argument falls apart.
Bernie raised and spent just as much money in the primaries as Hillary so the "this cycle can't be broken by politicians refusing money" is a complete straw man argument.

The argument doesn't fall apart, as Bernie did not win! Saying that both candidates raised and spent the same amounts means little. Did Bernie need to spend more but didn't have the money to do so? Hillary won by a fairly large margin, so saying that Bernie's campaign was just as successful as hers is ludicrous!

And as to your response the last time I made this claim, the DNC scandal wasn't nearly as scandalous as people try to make it out to be! Yes, people were fired over it. But that doesn't prove that Bernie's campaign would have won had these people not sent those emails! People at the DNC didn't like Bernie, personally. That had what direct effect on how the public voted? I wanted Bernie to win. I wasn't opposed to Hillary, but liked Bernie's positions more. The DNC didn't cost Bernie the election.

The neo-nazi Richard Spencer was in the audience. Afterwards, he went out into the hall and tweeted that no, he invented the term "#alt-right." As far as anyone can tell, he was telling the truth.

He then went on talking to people who recognized him and treated him like a returning conqueror before being removed from the CPAC conference.

So, let me see if I understand this..

Ya hate big money in campaigns, but you think it's idiotic if candidates can't accept large campaign contributions...

Yes! As long as larger contributions CAN be accepted, it would be crazy to refuse them. I hate BIG MONEY's influence (a.k.a., corruption) on politics, but until our elections are funded by our government, BIG MONEY (or some similar group wishing to assert their influence over our political process) will be a problem! And while Al claims "Big Money" is just a metaphor for corruption and doesn't mean he opposes the wealthy or capitalism, it seems that most comments on here aren't able to differentiate between the two.

I think you are missing Don's and CW's et al point..

Oh, I got their point... But I just do not feel that their point is based in reality!

THAT'S the point..

Again, I ran an organization that was 100% funded by donations for almost ten years. People are already giving money WILLINGLY!!! We don't force anyone to give money to campaigns!

You obviously believe someone is just going to wake up one day, out of the blue and say to themselves:

I should send money to that guy. I don't know how much he needs or if he even needs it; I don't know how it will be used; but I will send it anyway!"

As wonderful as that would be for those raising the money, it just does NOT work that way! There will ALWAYS be "begging" involved! If you aren't asking someone to give you something you need, the chances of them giving it to you are very slim!!!

Here's the biggest flaw with VV, from what I can discern: it does not take into account the total amount of money that a candidate actually needs to run a successful campaign. Are campaign's going to have to set their budgets based on the total number of registered voters in their district multiplied by $35?

If a politician can't accept a $100K gift they need, they will have to work to find enough $35 gifts to make up the difference! More time focused on fund raising, less time focused on working for their constituents!

Bottom line: Corruption is bad for our political system and bad for us. Assigning a dollar amount to the definition of corruption is in nobodies best interest.

Now that CA is having legalization, thought you should know a trick that a small group of shops are using to get around the inability to accept credit cards.

Most shops have an onsite ATM, but a few shops also offer gift cards (through a third-party). For a small fee (about the amount of points a rewards card offers), you can put dollars onto a gift card with your credit card and then use that gift card in the shop. You can front load it with more than your purchase, since the fee is fixed, not a percentage.

If/when you have a favored shop, if they don't have this idea going, suggest it.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

of course, you'll notice that there are just as many donors to liberal causes as conservative ones.

In my time on Vulcan, we also faced these same alternatives. We'd suffered devastating wars which nearly destroyed our planet. Another was about to begin. We were torn. But out of our suffering some of us found the discipline to act. We sent emissaries to our opponents to propose peace. The first were killed, but others followed. Ultimately we achieved peace, which has lasted since then.
-Surak Of Vulcan

With respect....

Perez is a NOT-45'ista...

We saw how good "pressure" worked...

The ONLY pressure that works is to make sure that those who employ BIG MONEY tactics, lose their respective campaigns...

Oh.... wait..... :^/

Um, letting banks off the hook for illegally foreclosing on members of the military on active duty is "progressive"?
Oh wait.
That was in my link about Perez.

Look, Perez is in.
The best approach now is constant pressure to force him to change how the DNC has been run, and if or when he fails, to apply pressure to replace him quickly.
Keep him walking on eggshells.

And, posting links about what a great guy he actually is does not qualify.

I'm not telling you what to do... just stating what I hope should be obvious for those unhappy with the status quo.

A

"current laws permit obscene political giving, which combines with historic wealth inequality to make the government deaf to the plight of the 99%"

Yes, but obscene political giving (and taking) has corrupted the government which then enacted the policies that created the inequality.

But this is where your argument falls apart.
Bernie raised and spent just as much money in the primaries as Hillary so the "this cycle can't be broken by politicians refusing money" is a complete straw man argument. It's not about refusing money, and it's not even about only taking $27 donations... that was the AVERAGE donation, not the maximum... I think that is still around $2,700 per person by law for individuals donating directly to campaigns. And the AVERAGE donation amount includes the larger ones.

It does however require fielding candidates who serve the people with integrity and will thus be supported by millions of people willing to give small donations.
And with a DNC that is obedient to Big Money and that actively works against those candidates, like we've had and now continue to have, the likelihood of getting candidates who will bite that hand that feeds them is basically zero.

The idea that politicians will be just as corrupted by donations of a few thousand dollars as they are by the obscene donations seems ridiculous to me (I know you weren't arguing that point, I'm just pointing it out for context).

You lost me on the last sentence... not sure what you're trying to say there.

A

Bill Paxton died!

"GAME OVER, MAN!!!"

Rhetorical question, there... :D

I am also constrained to point out that Obama lied to America and insulted citizens and no one here seemed to mind then...

How come??? :D

I am trying.. But considering the smugness over the "disintegration" of the Republican Party this time last year???

Well, I am only human.. Sorta :D

The fact that the Democratic base is getting engaged in this level of detail is an indication of the passion building out there

The problem is, we have seen this level of engagement every time the Democrats got their asses handed to them..

Yet, they continued to get their asses handed to them...

How many times is the Left going to say, "THIS TIME, it will be different"???

The fact that Perez won proves that it WON'T be different...

As long as 45 keeps lying to America and insulting citizens it only makes the progressive reaction stronger.

The progressive reaction couldn't prevent President Trump...

Apparently, the progressive reaction is nothing to fear...

:D Pass the popcorn....

I'd hold off on the smugness. If this had happened 12 months ago today just about nobody would have cared, and for sure the number of print inches would be close to zero.

The fact that the Democratic base is getting engaged in this level of detail is an indication of the passion building out there - I saw it last week at a Town Hall - the last one I went to had about 20 people, this had more than that who couldn't get in to the much, much larger venue.

As long as 45 keeps lying to America and insulting citizens it only makes the progressive reaction stronger.

true, we don't know the specifics in real time. however, it's pretty well-known who the main donors are at this point. whether it's the kochs, the waltons and adelson or gates and soros, it's perfectly possible to know which companies are the most involved in political meddling.

JL

The problem is that the politicians are doing everything they can to hide who their donors are.

I'm all for sunlight as the ultimate disinfectant, but if there is no sunlight we are voting blind.

DEMOCRAT CIVIL WAR

:D Pass the popcorn....

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tom-perez-isnt-as-liberal-as-keith-ellison-but-hes-still-pretty-progressive/

JL

https://hbr.org/ideacast/2017/02/globalization-myth-and-reality.html

https://hbr.org/.../02/globalization-myth-and-reality.html

Obviously, her secret assignment is to make Democrats look like idiots. She deserves a raise.
-Michael Goodwin

:D heh

The Left Wingery STILL doesn't get it.... :D

"If we have one hand on the wheel, we can still steer."
-Black Widow CAPTAIN AMERICA-Civil War

There is a certain logic to that position...

See Don's response.
It's spot on.

The decline has continued.

And, if you set aside the cheating that prevented an honest comparison of the Big Money versus a small donor approach at the presidential level, the small donor approach remains unproven.

What has been proven is the corrupting influence of Big Money on policies.
Inequality has gotten worse and worse.
It is nonsense to claim incremental progress when the facts saying otherwise are perfectly clear.
I hope it's ignorance and not dishonesty at work there.

It's funny that you mentioned Buffett, because I think he's the one that said there is class warfare going on and that the rich are winning.

Well, they aren't winning without plenty of help from the Democrats corrupted by Big Money.

A

Yes.
It is a recurring pattern that the Democratic establishment coopts progressive outlets and organizations.

Nice to see that you recognize this reality.

Was there a point in there that somehow makes this corruption positive?

A

Considering that President Trump is hated by both Democrats and Republicans alike.... Bout even...

But, as Neil pointed out above, since President Trump is hated by BOTH the Right and the Left, then the odds are good he is doing SOMETHING good.. :D

http://images1.tickld.com/live/articles/a_905_20151001103110.jpg

:D

But, of course, THAT will be perfectly acceptable around here because, after all, it's a person with a '-D' after their name doing it. :D

The fact that it's true, that President Trump DOES lie is completely beside the point!! :D

But, of course, THAT will be perfectly acceptable around here because, after all, it's a person with a '-D' after their name doing it. :D

How ironic.... :D

http://nypost.com/2017/02/25/the-next-womens-march-is-co-organized-by-a-terrorist/

Violence, intimidation, hatred, intolerance, bigotry...

That is what the Democrat Party is about these days...

So, let me see if I understand this..

Ya hate big money in campaigns, but you think it's idiotic if candidates can't accept large campaign contributions...

They are literally telling politicians, "I don't want you representing me to the best of your ability -- I want you begging for money!"

I think you are missing Don's and CW's et al point..

If a candidate is good at their job with respect to representing people, then the people will give money WILLINGLY...

No begging involved...

THAT'S the point..

(Hit the submit button too soon)

As for the "any donation over $35 dollars turns a candidate into a zombie" line of thinking, I am in complete agreement with you. Our politicians already spend far too much of their time focused on fundraising! Not allowing them to accept larger gifts from those who want to support them is nothing short of idiotic, in my opinion!

They are literally telling politicians, "I don't want you representing me to the best of your ability -- I want you begging for money!"

The cooption of previously progressive outlets and organizations by Third Way corporatists is one of Obama's true legacies.

I thought that was considered to be one of Bill Clinton's true legacies, and before that to be one of J. Carter's true legacies, and so on..

You were correct with Clinton; not so much with Carter.

And what happens to your "route" when President Trump shellacks the Dem candidate in 2020??

I mean, you HAVE been wrong before on that, eh? :D

For that matter.. WHO do you think the Dems can field in 2020???

Ya'all gonna drag out NOT-45 again??? :D hehehehehehehe

Now THAT would be hilarious... :D

The fact that you compare President Trump's 4 weeks in office to DiFi's reign sinced 1992 shows how weak your argument is..

You and the Left have had ample time to get rid of DiFi. The fact that ya'all haven't proves that NOTHING matters more than the '-D' after her name..

Perez was a tone deaf choice for DNC Chair.

On this, we agree..

The only WORSE choice for DNC Chair was Ellison...

The fact that both are in charge indicates that Democrats haven't learned SQUAT from their many shellackings...

I thought that was considered to be one of Bill Clinton's true legacies, and before that to be one of J. Carter's true legacies, and so on..

The left has always complained that the Democratic establishment accepted money from folks that (gasp!) had pockets deep enough to fend off GOP billionaires. If Warren Buffet and Bill Gates want to donate to get a Democratic candidate out of the starting gate, why shouldn't they be allowed to, particularly at a time when (as we're all aware) the GOP have Adelman and the Kochs doing exactly the same thing for their side, and when a tiny percentage of change can mean the difference between winning (and getting your agenda furthered) or losing (and fighting a rear-guard action to keep the other side from dismantling your programs)?

The premise that a candidate who demonstrates that their campaign is more untainted by 'filthy lucre' garners more votes for their side than good old political tit-for-tat is an unproven theory, akin to the Right's insistence that lower taxes for rich men generates more personal revenue for the lower middle class. Most of the empirical evidence says 'no'. Liberals with self-imposed donation caps usually lose, and lower taxes for already rich folks doesn't do squat for lower middle class taxpayers.

I think Perez is a tone deaf choice not because of his position (fairly to the left of the country) but because the last DNC chair was implicated in the defeat of Bernie, so it would have been a good idea to put in a very well qualified Bernie supporter who would have been pretty much indistinguishable in the ability to deliver results than Perez.

My own choice was Pete Buttigieg so I was disappointed to see him drop out before the first round of voting. I'm trying to figure out his route to the White House in 12 years (after eight years of whichever Democrat trounces 45 in 2020).

He has a hard road becoming Governor or Senator of Indiana (I'm sure he won't run against Donnelly in 2018, and Young isn't up until 2022), but he could get the 2nd congressional seat there (he could win back Joe Donnelly's seat from Jackie Walorski). A couple of terms in the House - a win in the Senate and he is looking good for President in 2028.

I've never been a fan, but DailyKos was Hillary central... banning countless progressives starting about half way through the primaries for posting factual comments about her.

Everything our resident trumpling claims about this place, while oddly noting exceptions that outnumber the "rule", is true of DailyKos.

In other words, the source of the funding raises more issues than the amounts.

The cooption of previously progressive outlets and organizations by Third Way corporatists is one of Obama's true legacies.

A

No.
Neil is absolutely correct... though "tone deaf" is putting it far too nicely. Yet another self-inflicted, disastrous move is the reality.

Perez was a "liberal" member of Obama's cabinet who coddled banksters just like Obama.

Ellison promised to give up his seat in Congress to run the DNC too. Not sure why you feel the need to use factually inaccurate claims to defend the Big Money status quo that has been maintained.

And there's nothing that screams "experience" and "competence" like backing the only candidate who could lose to Trump.

The only positive in this mess for the Dems is that Ellison remains in Congress.

A

C'mon Neil, you know better than that. Perez was among the most liberal members of Obama's cabinet, is a talented administrator, and is a trained and talented organizer - just like Obama. And, unlike Ellison (who Perez chose to be Deputy Chair), Perez can do the job full-time. Perez is the better pick because he's the more experienced and competent choice, not just a feel-good symbol of tolerance (but if you likes that guy, he's on the team too!).

We can defeat this hateful bigot.

Well we can't dump 45 in four weeks and we are stuck with DiFi. But both are going to feel the heat.

Plus there better be some results in 2018 otherwise we need somebody who can light up the base.

And yet, she is STILL in office...

Seems her being "tight" is less important than the -D after her name. :D

One of my many talents.... :D

Nope - DiFi will have to get her act together if she thinks she is getting another term. People are pissed. She is regarded as being far too tight with the Military Industrial Complex and it is not going to go well for her if she keeps enabling 45.

One of my friends who is a big time SF lawyer tells me she is already feeling the heat and isn't liking it.

Yea, but that gets a pass because they have a '-D' after their name....

A Dem and a GOP'er can do the EXACT same thing and this group (with a few notable exceptions {{cough}}altohone{{cough}}Joshua{{cough}}Liz{{cough}}DonHarris{{cough}}CW{{cough}}) will castigate the GOP'er and cheer and applaud the Dem....

Not all Dems are keen on town halls these days either. DiFi for example.

I find it a little strange that you provided no details about the views or polices of the young Dem winning an award for raising a lot of money.
Why are Dems getting behind him and does he deserve it?

And it's very odd you chose to remain neutral in the DNC race.
When the last two leaders were involved in scandals and the direction the party will take going forward is being decided, remaining silent helps maintain the status quo... of which you have been critical.

A

National geographic reported in 2006 that the chimp/human DNA similarity was 96%, Scientific American in 2014 reported 98.8%.
Whatever.
The point remains, and you didn't dispute it.

Hillary being 80% "more progressive" than other SENATORS, not Congress, means 19 Senators were more progressive.
What "Clinton's actions (voting) showed us" was support for the war in Iraq, the bankruptcy bill, mass surveillance, and, and, and...
... not progressive.
And her public embrace and defense of Big Money (banks, insurers, oil companies, etc.), her actions as SOS, and her personal wealth and campaign funding from Big Money all say the same thing... not progressive.

Big differences that the 93% percent similar talking point was DESIGNED to obscure.
You are aware that was a Hillary primary campaign talking point, right?

"If you try to dismantle the fund raising arm of the DNC, you will completely cripple any hope of getting progressives elected"

The DNC actively used their power and money to prevent and cripple the campaigns of progressives.
You can pretend that the corrupting embrace of Big Money is necessary to win, but you are defending the corruption, and ignoring that Dems aren't winning because of that embrace... in fact, they are losing top to bottom.

"it will require massive amounts of money to successfully run campaigns."

And yet, Hillary outspent Trump 2 to 1 and lost.

"And before anyone responds that Bernie did it, I would simply remind you that I said "to SUCCESSFULLY run campaigns"

Great argument if you ignore the fact that people were fired for corrupting the Democratic primary race. A perfect example of the DNC actively working against progressive candidates in order to maintain Big Money control over the Democratic party.

The Wall Street coddling corporatist warmongers would rather lose than give the left a voice or any control in the Democratic party.
And they will continue to lose for that reason.
Dems need the left in order to win.

Have you seen the figures for how many people have left the Democratic party since November?

A

I can't believe you are on the side of the spooks...

Actually, I can..

PARTY UBER ALLES

Not to be nit-picky but that would be Leeloo.... :D

"Leeloo multi-pass"
-Leeloo

:D

CIA would probably be happier with rendition to a black site and waterboarding. Like I said a few articles back - it's bad idea to declare war on the Spooks.

http://www.vox.com/2014/12/9/7361291/map-cia

"Conspiracy" implies something done in secret, on the sly...

The attacks on REAL science are overt and blatant..

What would YOU call active measures by hysterical Lefties to PREVENT people from questioning science..

The article raises a valid point.. If a scientist cannot replicate the experiments and models and come up with the same result, then the primary theory is suspect...

What are scientists afraid of about making their work completely open and transparent??

We've been thru this - their real journalism is interesting, but, like the WSJ, their opinion pages are whack-a-doodle.

The premise of this argument is that, since a study showed that there are a lot of results that aren't reproducible then nothing can be believed.

Ask yourself this question: which basic scientific findings underpin climate science? Then ask if these have been reproduced. Come back to me when you find key issues with the findings, many of which are over 100 years old and have been tested time and time again.

Do you know the old saying "The exception that proves the rule"?

Most people think that this means if there is an exception, then that proves that the rule is true. This makes no sense on its face, because the saying doesn't mean anything of the sort. This is an old saying when the word "prove" also meant "test" - i.e. the way to stress test a rule is to test it with exceptional values and see if it still holds.

Climate science has been under more stress by desperate deniers than just about anything else, maybe evolution has been also under attack.

If there were any real problems with either science, you'd have to conclude that there is a huge worldwide conspiracy to hide the real science.

Thus, just like with evolution, if you are going to overturn the basic tenets of climate science you have to dive into Alex Jones style conspiracy land.

Are you there?

Yer a stated fan of IBD....

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/is-global-warming-science-just-a-fraud/

I'm not sure the answers will meet his needs.

He tried earlier this week and was swamped by the left wing, so he's trying again to get the answers he wants.

Here it is if you want to take it:

https://action.donaldjtrump.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/

Yep...

The Left Wingery is completely innocent.. They do no wrong.. :^/

Once again, I wish ya'all could step out of the ideological bubble ya'all are in and see how utterly biased ya'all sound... :D

Liz 16 - nicely put.

Have you ever heard of a paid speaker publicizing the message he will give prior to his speech? Milo wanted people to be aware of the extremely controversial claims he would make, posting an article the day before his event outlining his intentions.

Before Yiannopoulos speaks at Berkeley, Breitbart publishes an article saying that Yiannopoulos will call for the withdrawal of federal grants and the prosecution of university officials who endanger their students with their policies.

Here's the reason that I believe the riot was done by Milo's supporters:

No one but Milo thinks that his outrageous rhetoric and baseless accusations will be taken seriously! No one at Berkeley would believe such crap, no matter how stoned they may be. But Trumpets like to make it sound like they are important and should be respected, but they fail to grasp that respect is earned. This was nothing but free publicity for the soon-to-be-outted pedophile.

It was the police that made the decision to cancel the event, not the University. Free speech was never at risk, because he published what he would say prior to saying it. But it made for good TV at least.

U.N. peacekeepers accused of raping civilians
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/africa/united-nations-peacekeepers-sexual-abuse/

That's a better representation of the UN..

Liz,

Going forward, Hillary has a role.

It is to disappear.

Word....

It is to disappear.

Great.

Does that go for her campaign-sabotaging husband, too?

Trump used that line to say that he has no interest in maintaining America's global leadership role.

"There is no global flag."

"Why is that?"

Actually there IS a global flag. The United Nations flag, which is blue and white, is a map of the whole world between two crossed olive branches representing peace. I actually think it's a pretty good representation.

Trumpers

Seemingly following Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", Liberal Progressive Socialists appear to believe, in a Trump world, "the ends justify the means," as evidenced by the farce in Berkeley this week. Any and everything is justified by a lying mainstream media: riots and the destruction of property, assaults on those who disagree with them, and general lawlessness - all in the name of 'virtue signaling'.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-04/truth-about-berkeley-riot

Democrats.....

It works both ways, my friend.. :D