ChrisWeigant.com

Democrats Offer Up "A Better Deal"

[ Posted Monday, July 24th, 2017 – 16:15 UTC ]

It's really tough these days for Democrats to break into the news cycle. Today, for instance, we had the president's son-in-law testifying behind closed doors to a congressional committee, a new White House communications director staring his first full work week, and Senate Republicans desperately trying to figure out what particular bill they're going to bring up for a vote this week on healthcare (the one that kicks 23 million off their insurance, or the one that kicks 32 million off their insurance?). Plus, as always, there is Donald Trump's Twitter account -- which is always good for at least two or three distractions per day. So it's tough to get noticed, with everything else that's going on in Washington. But this maelstrom of Republican chaos isn't likely to get any better any time soon, so Democrats have to forge ahead in their efforts to gain some political attention.

Which is why today, in coordinated fashion, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer both began the rollout of the Democratic Party's 2018 campaign platform. Harking back to the sloganeering of F.D.R., Democrats announced they will be offering "A Better Deal" for Americans. The full title, according to Pelosi, is: "A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future." This was either tweaked at the last minute, or the preparatory leak was wrong, since last Thursday it was reported to be: "A Better Deal: Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Wages." Last-minute change or not, I have to say "a better future" certainly sounds more all-inclusive (and less judgmental) than "better skills."

Before I get into the specifics, a few general comments on the overall strategy are worth making. Both Pelosi and Schumer did a pretty good job of outlining why Democrats are launching this effort. Schumer's article in the New York Times begins with:

Americans are clamoring for bold changes to our politics and our economy. They feel, rightfully, that both systems are rigged against them, and they made that clear in last year's election. American families deserve a better deal so that this country works for everyone again, not just the elites and special interests. Today, Democrats will start presenting that better deal to the American people.

There used to be a basic bargain in this country that if you worked hard and played by the rules, you could own a home, afford a car, put your kids through college and take a modest vacation every year while putting enough away for a comfortable retirement. In the second half of the 20th century, millions of Americans achieved this solid middle-class lifestyle. I should know -- I grew up in that America.

But things have changed.

Today's working Americans and the young are justified in having greater doubts about the future than any generation since the Depression. Americans believe they're getting a raw deal from both the economic and political systems in our country. And they are right. The wealthiest special interests can spend an unlimited, undisclosed amount of money to influence elections and protect their special deals in Washington. As a result, our system favors short-term gains for shareholders instead of long-term benefits for workers.

Pelosi, writing in the Washington Post, was more succinct and to the point:

For the first time in a decade, the GOP had the White House, Congress and complete control of the legislative process to advance its agenda. But instead of creating good-paying jobs, or rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure, or advancing tax reform, Republicans have spent six months trying to raise Americans' health costs to fund tax breaks for billionaires.

It is no coincidence that both Schumer and Pelosi are loudly echoing many of the refrains from Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Democrats seem to have gotten the message that most Americans simply don't pay that close attention to politics, because for the most part, it is exceedingly rare that anything that happens in Washington ever makes their lives better in any measurable way. Voters listen to politicians promising to "fight for them, every day," but after the votes are counted, this meaningless phrase is retired until the next electoral cycle, no matter who wins.

The new agenda for the Democratic Party will, therefore, focus on economics and families. As Schumer puts it:

In the last two elections, Democrats, including in the Senate, failed to articulate a strong, bold economic program for the middle class and those working hard to get there. We also failed to communicate our values to show that we were on the side of working people, not the special interests. We will not repeat the same mistake. This is the start of a new vision for the party, one strongly supported by House and Senate Democrats.

Pelosi goes further, identifying some problems that need fixing:

Prescription drug prices are jacked up, and Americans have fewer options at increased costs. Large communications companies merge, and families see fewer options and higher bills. Agriculture giants consolidate, while farmers struggle and prices in Americans’ shopping carts rise. The price of gas goes down, but plane tickets become more expensive and airlines keep adding fees.

This is pretty specific, with not a single word of "identity politics" at all. Democrats are going after pocketbook issues and problems all American families have with their household budgets. Schumer identifies three previous Democratic priorities that will continue: a $1 trillion infrastructure plan, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and providing family and sick leave to all. Those are all indeed good places to start.

Three new initiatives were added for the rollout. First: strengthen antitrust laws so that huge corporate mergers don't send costs "skyrocketing for everything from cable bills and airline tickets to food and health care." Second: "fight for rules to stop prescription drug price gouging," as well as allowing "Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for older Americans." Third: "We propose giving employers, particularly small businesses, a large tax credit to train workers for unfilled jobs. This will have particular resonance in smaller cities and rural areas, which have experienced an exodus of young people who aren’t trained for the jobs in those areas."

All three of these new ideas sound pretty good, I have to say. The first two send a clear signal that Democrats are going to stand with the little guy against Big Business. The third is a great idea which could incentivize new-industry employers to actually invest the time to train new workers from older industries that have disappeared. Just because a former factory worker doesn't know how to operate a high-tech, computerized manufacturing machine doesn't mean he or she can't learn to do so in a few months. If tax breaks were available for such training in rural areas, it could spur investment in those areas, which could be a fantastic solution to an entrenched problem.

Already the new Democratic agenda is getting some complaints, but I am taking a longer view, personally. Pelosi and Schumer have both said that this isn't the whole plan, it is just a beginning. More initiatives will be added to the platform in the coming weeks. But so far, I have to say it's a pretty good start.

Disaffected Americans want one basic thing -- the restoration of what used to be the social contract. Instead of a rigged system, they want a country where if you work hard you can make a good life for your family and provide a good start in life for your children. Government handouts for people working full-time didn't used to be necessary because your paycheck used to be enough to live on -- and even buy a house, a new car, and a vacation every so often. People want a living wage to become the norm once again, in other words.

Democrats need to show that they're for this ideal too. Focusing on pocketbook issues helps everyone in America. It will even help corporate bottom lines, because if people had enough money to live on, they'd spend it on lots of things they can't currently afford.

There is nothing in the Democrats' new agenda that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown couldn't forcefully advocate for, and strongly defend against Republican attacks. It is a progressive agenda for all.

Of course, some will complain that it doesn't go far enough. They're right -- it doesn't. But it's a healthy first step in the right direction, and it is not meant as any sort of final draft. These are but the first initiatives to build "A Better Deal" for working Americans, after all.

Importantly, this will also force Republicans into attempting to defend the indefensible. Who isn't against cheaper drug prices and holding the profiteers in the industry accountable? Donald Trump even used to say he was for this, after all. Who in their right mind is going to try to defend the airlines' customer service these days? And how could any Republican be against tax breaks for businesses that would result in more and better jobs in rural areas? By choosing issues with almost universal appeal, Democrats make it very hard indeed to make the case for the status quo.

So, all in all, I consider today's Democratic Party agenda rollout to be a good start. Democrats need to start pushing these ideas every chance they can get, to try to break through all the GOP chaff in the news. As Pelosi pointed out, Republicans have wasted six months in a gigantic effort to take hundreds of billions away from poor and sick people and give it to billionaires. That's all they've got, apparently. That's a pretty raw deal for tens of millions of American voters. Maybe they're ready to listen to someone offering them a better deal instead.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

169 Comments on “Democrats Offer Up "A Better Deal"”

  1. [1] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: As Pelosi pointed out, Republicans have wasted six months in a gigantic effort to take hundreds of billions away from poor and sick people and give it to billionaires.

    Republicans are busy "draining the swamp."

    That's all they've got, apparently. That's a pretty raw deal for tens of millions of American voters.

    Tens of millions of American voters who are victims of a bait-and-switch, having no idea that Republicans' idea of "draining the swamp" would be to remove the social safety net which many of them depend on just to stay above water. Sad.

  2. [2] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    I don't think Schumer or Pelosi are the right ones to sell this, but the message is slightly better and stronger than the preview suggested.

    Schumer was weak when discussing being "open to Single Payer" on Sunday.
    All the problems in health care are addressed by Single Payer, so listing it as one option rather than the central focus falls short. Way short.

    "First: strengthen antitrust laws so that huge corporate mergers don't send costs "skyrocketing for everything from cable bills and airline tickets to food and health care.""

    Enforcing current anti-trust laws to deal with the price gouging that is already occurring is what is needed. Possibly stopping negative effects from future mergers is weak... it even implies they will keep condoning those mergers.

    "Second: "fight for rules to stop prescription drug price gouging," as well as allowing "Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for older Americans.""

    Single Payer would cover both.
    As is, it sounds like lip service due to the track record of Dems showing divisions on even partial attempts to address price gouging, and complicity on Medicare price negotiation becoming illegal... not to mention for example the referendum in CA which the new chair of the CA Democratic party actively fought against.

    "We propose giving employers, particularly small businesses, a large tax credit to train workers for unfilled jobs."

    "particularly" not exclusively.
    So, mega corporations can get the tax cuts too?
    Noooooo.
    They've abused the heck out of similar tax cuts, without creating new jobs.

    "The first two send a clear signal that Democrats are going to stand with the little guy against Big Business."

    I think your characterization is too optimistic given the built in loopholes in the language.

    "The third is a great idea which could incentivize new-industry employers to actually invest the time to train new workers from older industries that have disappeared."

    Eliminating the tax benefits that currently incentivize the offshoring of good jobs, rather than allowing that to continue, would be a solid policy to embrace.
    This is an approach to deal with the consequences rather than prevent the problem, and again, will be abused by large corporations.

    "Already the new Democratic agenda is getting some complaints"

    A prime opportunity to include a helpful link or two CW.
    Thanks.

    A

  3. [3] 
    altohone wrote:

    BTW CW

    If you or somebody else would be kind enough to provide an excerpt from Schumer's NYT piece that covers what he wrote about the $15 minimum wage, I would greatly appreciate it as I've already hit my limit for free articles for the month and would like to see how he put it.

    If you have an column in mind about suggestions for additional new policies that the Democratic party should adopt, please push for a full embrace of Single Payer, the elimination of the tax benefits for offshoring good jobs mentioned above, indexing the higher minimum wage to inflation so the fight doesn't need to be repeated over and over, and the adoption of at least major portions of the Green New Deal which the Green party detailed in 2016.

    I'm sure we can come up with others, so I hope you get a lot of comments along those lines and push any other good ones.

    Thanks again
    A

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    Hey, Punk. Here is the excerpt you asked for from NYT. :)

    First, we’re going to increase people’s pay. Second, we’re going to reduce their everyday expenses. And third, we’re going to provide workers with the tools they need for the 21st-century economy.

    Over the next several months, Democrats will lay out a series of policies that, if enacted, will make these three things a reality. We’ve already proposed creating jobs with a $1 trillion infrastructure plan; increasing workers’ incomes by lifting the minimum wage to $15; and lowering household costs by providing paid family and sick leave.

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    The "Mooch" did his homework.

    https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/889617883466153985

    Detailed observation from @TheDailyShow. :)

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    altohone [2] -

    I've been reserving judgment on the whole deal, personally. I'd give their efforts today about a B. Maybe a B+. Hearts in the right place, steps towards the right direction, and all of that.

    As I said in the article, I think Bernie, Elizabeth, or others would be better spokesfolk, but give it time. I saw Tom Perez on PBS NewsHour, and he did a pretty good job with it, have to say.

    If Schumer had just gotten the words "public option" out, his interview would have been fine. Don't know why he's resisting this label, personally.

    I agree with the "forward-looking" aspect of the antitrust stuff. Thought the same thing myself -- what are you guys going to do about the crap people have to put up with NOW from megacorps??

    I do think focusing on something Trump championed (taking on big Pharma) is actually a good tactic, for now. Sure, single-payer could fix it all, but even CA senators couldn't put all their cards on the table, so we'll have to wait for that. For now, Medicare getting cheaper drugs is worth the effort (and do-able).

    I do think offering positive solutions for rural areas can bear fruit for Dems, since Trump's promises are so quickly going to be revealed as nothing short of smoke and flim-flam. Having a plan (even if flawed) which addresses rural people's concerns is FAR better than having no plan other than "retrain everyone for jobs that are far-off, in cities." But maybe that's just me.

    As for the complaints, I've only heard them second-hand, so I had no links. The rollout has to percolate, and I'm watching the reaction closely, so links will follow later, promise.

    :-)

    [3] -

    Here you go:

    First, we’re going to increase people’s pay. Second, we’re going to reduce their everyday expenses. And third, we’re going to provide workers with the tools they need for the 21st-century economy.

    Over the next several months, Democrats will lay out a series of policies that, if enacted, will make these three things a reality. We’ve already proposed creating jobs with a $1 trillion infrastructure plan; increasing workers’ incomes by lifting the minimum wage to $15; and lowering household costs by providing paid family and sick leave.

    He just kind of mentions it in passing, as "Dems already support this", in other words...

    I know what you mean about NYT. I have to switch browsers to even get pages to load. I've found searching for them on Google and then clicking sometimes works...

    Kick [4] -

    Whoops! You beat me to it!

    :-)

    -CW

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    To whomever complained about BDS last Friday -

    I've read all the comments, but haven't gotten around to answering them individually yet. But for this particular comment (on the absence of a MDDOTW), here's my earlier position, from FTP 395 (see Andrew Cuomo, winner of MDDOTW award section):

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/06/10/ftp395/

    These bills are a travesty, I fully agree. Just didn't see anything last week to raise it to the award level, that's all...

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:
  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    Democrats Offer Up "A Better Deal"

    No... Democrats are offering a pizza... :D

    As far as Schumer???

    "When you lose to somebody who has 40% popularity, you don't blame other things -- Comey, Russia -- you blame yourself. So what did we do wrong? People didn't know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that."
    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer

    :D

    It is no coincidence that both Schumer and Pelosi are loudly echoing many of the refrains from Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign.

    Ahhh yes...

    Move FURTHER to the Left... THAT will win over middle-class Americans.. :D

    Anyone wanna put down some quatloos for 2018?? :D

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    But hay... Fair is fair..

    Ya'all haven't had ANYTHING constructive coming out of the Democrat Party since Nov 2016...

    I won't pee on your parade..... Much... :D

  11. [11] 
    michale wrote:

    Democrats' new slogan like bad pizza slice slathered with 40-year-old ingredients and almost no meat
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/07/24/democrats-new-slogan-like-bad-pizza-slice-slathered-with-40-year-old-ingredients-and-almost-no-meat.html

    heh :D

    But, in my spirit of pee-less parades, I will give the Dumbocrat Party credit..

    Their new slogan is better than, "Have You Seen The Other Guys!?"

    :D

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    Here's a very good commentary about the Democrat's new slogan...

    Opinion: Can Democrats Deliver Like Papa John’s?
    Better ingredients needed, at least something in the box

    http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/democrats-trump-message

  13. [13] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [11] "Have you seen the other guys!?" is kind of growing on me, actually, particularly after watching Trump spend the week trying to figure out how to fire his own AG.

    And Ryan and McConnell can't move any legislation, even choking on Obamacare repeal, which was considered once to be the 'easy lift' of their agenda.

    Meanwhile, Tillerson continues the administration's March to Irrelevance in the Middle East, and has taken a back seat in the ongoing Saudi-UAE dispute. So much for the great deal-maker.

    Good thing Trump didn't say, I'll Make America Great Again, because by now that would be laughable.

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I'd say the dems are making the same error trump made. Bold goals, no real plan to achieve them.

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    [11] "Have you seen the other guys!?" is kind of growing on me...

    So you have NO problem with DEMOCRATS: AT LEAST WE'RE NOT CHILD MOLESTERS type slogans... :^/

    And ya'all wonder why Dumbocrats can't win elections.. :^/

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    I'd say the dems are making the same error trump made. Bold goals, no real plan to achieve them.

    DING, DING, DING, DING!!!

    WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

    Tell 'im what he's won, Johnny!!! :D

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    And Ryan and McConnell can't move any legislation, even choking on Obamacare repeal, which was considered once to be the 'easy lift' of their agenda.

    I know, right!!??

    Meanwhile, Tillerson continues the administration's March to Irrelevance in the Middle East, and has taken a back seat in the ongoing Saudi-UAE dispute. So much for the great deal-maker.

    As opposed to your hero, Odumbo, who crowed and bragged about "Leading From Behind" and not only taking a back-seat but actually being thrown out of the car...

    Good thing Trump didn't say, I'll Make America Great Again, because by now that would be laughable.

    That's your problem. You are so use to Odumbo's narcissism, that you can't see that, with President Trump, it's ALL about *WE*.... Not *I*...

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Republicans are busy "draining the swamp."

    And Dumbocrats are busy....... doing what exactly??

    Oh yea... Doing everything they can to show that they are ONLY about "RUSSIA!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!! TRUMP!!!!!!"

    Tens of millions of American voters who are victims of a bait-and-switch,

    "You can PROVE that, right??? Oh yea, that's right.. I forgot.. You were absent the day they taught Law at Law School."
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Heh....

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    POTUS Trump RIPS Obama – Scouts Chant “We Love Trump!” at National Jamboree
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/potus-trump-rips-obama-scouts-chant-love-trump-national-jamboree-video/

    Despite all the lies coming from the Left, it sounds to me like 10s of millions of patriotic Americans are firmly behind their President Trump..

    I mean, honestly.. We have the hysterical hate that is just oozing from the Left, Victoria/Veronica etc etc..

    And then we have the facts and reality... :D

  20. [20] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. :)

  21. [21] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And Dumbocrats are busy....... doing what exactly??

    Oh yea... Doing everything they can to show that they are ONLY about "RUSSIA!!! TRUMP!!!! RUSSIA!!!! TRUMP!!!!!!"

    And that's Working! Lookee -

    MSNBC Makes Network History With Stretch Of No. 1 Cable Ratings

    You're welcome.

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:
  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    And that's Working! Lookee -

    Depends on how you define "working"..

    If you mean "working" as in turning out the Left Wingery masses, yes it's "working"...

    If you mean "working" as it's going to turn patriotic Americans against Trump???

    Yer delusional... And I mean that in a nice way.. :D

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. :)

    Translation: RUN AWAY!!!! RUN AWAY!!!! RUN AWAY!!!!

    BBBBWWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D

  25. [25] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    POTUS Trump RIPS Obama – Scouts Chant “We Love Trump!” at National Jamboree

    Nope. More like:

    Trump’s ‘Embarrassing Spectacle’ At Boy Scout Jamboree Panned By Former Scouts

    hehe

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    You can spam the forum with the same lame exactly worded bullshit all you want..

    It simply proves to EVERYONE who is unarmed and who is not.. :D

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump’s ‘Embarrassing Spectacle’ At Boy Scout Jamboree Panned By **Former** Scouts

    'nuff said... :D heh

    Face it, Balthasar.. Patriotic Americans LOVE President Trump...

    Terrorists, criminals, scumbags and those of lesser intelligence are the ones who hysterically hate President Trump...

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.. :)

  29. [29] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    M: [23]

    1. yep

    2. Trump will do that all on his own, doesn't need our help.

  30. [30] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Terrorists, criminals, scumbags and those of lesser intelligence are the ones who hysterically hate President Trump...

    Isn't that who voted for Trump?

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    2. Trump will do that all on his own, doesn't need our help.

    Yea.. There are a couple flaws in that theory..

    1. If you TRULY believed that, you would can the hysteria and let it happen.. It's the Left Wing's hysteria and incompetence that makes President Trump look good.. Look like the SANE one... That's why President Trump's approval numbers are BETTER than the Dumbocrat's and BETTER than the media's and BETTER than Congress'....

    B. You have been saying that exact same thing for OVER a year now... And it STILL hasn't happened... So, to be honest... Yer credibility in things President Trump is totally in the basement...

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    Isn't that who voted for Trump?

    Nope.. That's who voted for NOT-45... That's why she lost and patriotic Americans won.. :D

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    Nope. More like:

    Your "proof" is HuffPoop!!!????

    No WONDER you hid that in a hyperlink...

    Even YOU were embarrassed to post HuffPoop in an open forum.. :D

  34. [34] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    M: If you TRULY believed that, you would can the hysteria and let it happen.

    I'm not the one typing in ALL CAPS all the time.
    And yes, as we discussed last week, it's happening.

    Yer credibility in things President Trump is totally in the basement...

    I dunno, we said he'd be a hot mess, and he is.

  35. [35] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Your "proof" is HuffPoop!

    And yours was "The Gateway Pundit".

    At least someone's heard of mine.

  36. [36] 
    michale wrote:

    I'm not the one typing in ALL CAPS all the time.

    Neither am I, as this comment shows.. What's yer point??

    And yes, as we discussed last week, it's happening.

    Is it?? President Trump has resigned or been impeached??

    Ahhhh I see... The fantasy world you live in. :D I get it now... :D

    I dunno, we said he'd be a hot mess, and he is.

    Only in your opinion and those who share your deluded opinion..

    For patriotic Americans, President Trump is doing great...

    Illegal immigration is WAY down, stock market is WAY up and Americans are PROUD to be American again...

    But, by all means.. Continue your attacks on America....

    That will ensure another Dumbocrat shellacking in 2018... :D

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    At least someone's heard of mine.

    Considering it's HuffPoop, that is NOT something you want to brag about.. heheheheheh :D

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    I also noticed how you didn't address the FACT that President Trump's approval numbers are BETTER than your Dumbocrats' approval numbers..

    I can understand why ya want to ignore that..

    The facts hurt, don't they... :D

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    "You can't win!! I've got god on my side!!!!"
    -Leland Gant, NEEDFUL THINGS

    :D

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    The Democrats latest try at assembling an agenda for the future was released to little enthusiasm Monday in ex-urban Virginia. Bearing a slogan that sounds like it was stolen from a pizza chain (whose founder and spokesman happens to be a Republican), party luminaries including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer – both of whom hail from major American cities – tried to persuade voters in the suburban, ex-urban and rural areas that Democrats are in sync with their interests.

    It won't work. The Republicans may look like they're in chaos right now, but dollars to doughnuts they'll eventually get things straightened out, maybe after the 2018 election when they have a few more members in the GOP conference in the Senate. The Democrats, on the other hand, have come up with a concoction that includes several parts Bernie Sanders, a few parts Obama and a generous helping of Clinton that's supposed to present a coherent vision of the future.

    It probably does – the whole thing is a bit muddy – but only if your vision of the future is one in which the government keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger. It's almost as if Democrats are handing the American electorate a balloon and expect no one will realize it will eventually pop!

    "Today's recycled Democrat talking points do nothing to change the fact that the far-left has taken hold of the party and continues to push a message of more resistance and obstruction," said Republican National Chairwomen Ronna Romney McDaniel in a statement. "Until Democrats make a real effort to work with Republicans and President Trump on the priorities voters supported last November, they are going to continue to be lost in the electoral wilderness."

    That may be overstating the case just a bit. It may be congenitally impossible for the current crowd of Democrats to work with Trump – coming together to stop him may be the only thing (besides the idea they should be in charge instead of him) they can agree on. Still, it takes a lot of chutzpah to say you're offering the American people "A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future" when the evidence as well as our collective experience says otherwise. Things under Obama got a lot worse before they started to get better – and they only started to get better after the GOP took over half of Congress and put the brakes on spending.

    The Democrats do not understand why they lost. They may be in touch with the special interests that keep their party afloat, but they're out of touch with America. The "Better Deal" – which isn't anything of the kind – proves it.
    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2017-07-24/the-democrats-better-deal-shows-why-they-keep-losing

    The Democrats do not understand why they lost.

    That says it ALL about ya'all AND the Dumbocrat Party..

    Ya'all STILL don't get why ya'all got yer asses handed to you....

    And, until ya'all do, ya'all will CONTINUE to lose elections and lose debates... :D

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    Youngstown voters know they didn't vote for Trump because Vladimir Putin wanted them to. They voted for Trump because he promised them jobs, and they believed him. When Trump mentions Youngstown, as he did at the end of his speech withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, they know he hasn't forgotten them.

    So when Trump arrives to speak in Youngstown on Tuesday, the Democrats will protest outside, but some of their former members will be inside, cheering on the President. Unless they can figure out how to win those voters back, the future is not bright for them in the Youngstowns across the US.

    And, unfortunately for the Democrats, there are many of them.
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/24/opinions/youngstown-voters-opinion-sracic/index.html

    Ya'all just don't get it... Until Dumbocrats can EMBRACE Trump voters and give them the kind of confidence that President Trump has given them, Dumbocrats will CONTINUE to lose election after election after election...

    Dumbocrats need to BACK UP their allegedly "catchy" slogans with deeds...

    To date, Dumbocrats have been an insipid failure at that...

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    MLB,

    Michale

    I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.. :)

    Your cut-and-paste standard bullshit argument isn't exactly a big secret around here. *LOL* :)

    The "witless" person you are battling with is YOURSELF, Veronica!!!!!

    BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

  43. [43] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Please forgive me if I have no sympathy for the Democrats not being able to break into the news cycle.

    I think you summed up the most important point about the Democrats "plan" with "Voters listen to politicians promising to "fight for them, every day", but after the votes are counted, that meaningless phrase is retired until the next electoral cycle, no matter who wins."
    It seems out of place as the rest of the article seems to ignore this most important point.

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Illegal immigration is WAY down, stock market is WAY up

    Uh huh. Both were true before Trump took office.

    you didn't address the FACT that President Trump's approval numbers are BETTER than your Dumbocrats' approval numbers..

    And Drumpf's numbers are miserable, compared to those of his predecessors, including Obama. Let me guess: Republicans don't approve of Democrats...

    For patriotic Americans, President Trump is doing great...

    If, by "patriotic Americans" (desperate branding!) you mean "sycophants", yeah he can do no wrong. He even made fun of the gullibility of his followers - remember: "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters" - that hasn't changed.

    What has changed is that he now has the job, and is making hash of it.

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    Now, at long last, the Democratic establishment has finally pulled itself together, (mostly) stopped blaming the party's significant electoral problems on Russia and James Comey, and begun to formulate a message that it will take into the 2018 midterm elections.

    That's the good news.

    The bad news is that the message — and its accompanying slogan — is anodyne, focus-grouped, consultant-generated pablum.

    Don't get me wrong: The policy proposals that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) lists in his New York Times op-ed announcing "A Better Deal for American Workers" are fine, as far as they go: a minimum wage hike; a $1 trillion infrastructure plan; paid family and sick leave; tax credits to get small businesses to "train workers for unfilled jobs." The problem is that these ideas (and vague talk of beefing up antitrust laws, "rebuilding rural America," and "changing our trade laws to benefit workers, not multinational corporations") are embedded in … precisely the same message that Democrats have run on since Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign in 1992.
    http://theweek.com/articles/713941/democrats-dont-need-better-deal-need-bernie-sanders

    In other words, the Democrat Party is running on NOTHING more than same ol same ol BS platforms that they have run on the last two and a half decades...

    Trying the same schtick over and over again hoping for a different result...

    The VERY definition of insanity.... :D

  46. [46] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    M: From the article posted at [40]:

    "The Republicans may look like they're in chaos right now, but dollars to doughnuts they'll eventually get things straightened out, maybe after the 2018 election when they have a few more members in the GOP conference in the Senate."

    And you're accusing Democrats of wishful thinking?

  47. [47] 
    michale wrote:

    And you're accusing Democrats of wishful thinking?

    Yes I am...

    Which Party has lost over 1000 political seats in the last 6 years and which Party has been shellacked in 2010, 2014, 2016 and, to a lesser extent, 2012???

    So yea.. The Dumbocrat Party is DEFINITELY the Party of wishful thinking..

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I fail to see how providing tax breaks for training former factory workers to run high tech manufacturing machines is going to provide more jobs or better wages. All I see is a tax break for doing something the company was going to do anyway.
    High tech manufacturing machines replace workers. Training one worker to replace 10, 20, 50 or 100 workers is not going to solve the problems for the 9, 19, 49 or 99 other workers. And it won't provide better wages because the company will tell the one worker that there are 9. 19, 49 or 99 others workers without a job that will be happy to replace them for less.

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    High tech manufacturing machines replace workers. Training one worker to replace 10, 20, 50 or 100 workers is not going to solve the problems for the 9, 19, 49 or 99 other workers. And it won't provide better wages because the company will tell the one worker that there are 9. 19, 49 or 99 others workers without a job that will be happy to replace them for less.

    DING, DING, DING, DING

    We have ANOTHER winner!!!

    Tell 'im what he's won, Johnny!!!! :D

  50. [50] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Trying the same schtick over and over again hoping for a different result...

    Ah! finally we get to the meat of it. Who's trying the same schtick over and over? Let's look at the record:

    George Bush I: policy so bad that Clinton beat him with the slogan "it's the economy, stupid".

    Clinton: Balanced the budget, record markets, peace. Left a surplus.

    Bush II: Ouch. Crashed the economy and the markets. Historic deficits, which Cheney said 'don't matter'. Failure began with historic tax cut.

    Obama: Recovered economy, saved Auto makers. Historic high stock markets, low unemployment. Brought down deficits incurred in rescue attempt.

    Trump: currently taking credit for Obama's successes. Hasn't signed any major legislation yet. Planning historic tax cut.

    Republicans are now proposing bringing back the same programs and regulatory schemes that got the Bushes into trouble. Insanity?

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:
  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    Republicans are now proposing bringing back the same programs and regulatory schemes that got the Bushes into trouble. Insanity?

    I'll be happy to discuss the GOP's insanity, but I doubt we will have much to disagree on..

    But right now, we're discussing the lame Dumbocrats "new" slogan....

    If yer ready to concede THAT argument, then we can move on... :D

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    Former Obama Official Calls For Coup
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-24/former-cia-director-calls-coup-if-trump-fires-mueller

    Well, it's about time Dumbocrats started being HONEST about their endgame....

  54. [54] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    The definition of insanity may apply to the people that vote for the Democrats, but the Party doesn't expect a different result. The Party knows if they remain consistent with their bullshit the pendulum will swing back in their favor. This is preferable to the Party then actually changing.
    From my Billy Joel "You May Be Right" song parody on the One Demand website:

    You vote for change and then you wait.
    Well now you can retaliate.
    Let them know you're fed up with their game.
    First the one side lets you down.
    So you turn the seat around.
    Then the other side does just more of the same."

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    The Party knows if they remain consistent with their bullshit the pendulum will swing back in their favor. This is preferable to the Party then actually changing.

    Channeling my inner JAMES T KIRK..

    Well.... Double dumb-ass on them!!!

    :D

  56. [56] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Don: [48] High tech manufacturing machines replace workers.

    True. Soon we'll have machines building factories that make factory-building machines.

    But we're not luddites. We have to adapt. High-tech needn't be a dead end: Elon Musk is presently building a lithium battery factory in Nevada that will employ thousands of workers, as do his electric car factories.

    High-tech 'boutique' industries are popping up everywhere, making everything from custom metals to high-end computer components. But it isn't industrial-era manufacturing, which once hired thousands of untrained workers at high wages. Those days are gone, sent to emergent economies.

    Part of the problem is that Congress is under pressure to 'bring back' old-style manufacturing, which for a variety of reasons is little more than pie-in-the-sky thinking. The mining industry isn't coming back, or ever hiring as many workers as it once did.

    Worse, in a fit of partisanship, Republicans are pulling back on investments that would spur new industries better suited to the 21st century. At this rate, China (which has even greater vested interest in job creation than we do) is likely to be the next leader in alternative energy manufacturing, thanks to the short-sightedness of American politicians.

  57. [57] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    M: I'll be happy to discuss the GOP's insanity, but I doubt we will have much to disagree on..

    But right now, we're discussing the lame Dumbocrats "new" slogan..

    Well then, lets do that, because arguing about a slogan as if it's some sort of policy proposal isn't just stupid, it's a massive waste of time.

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    Well then, lets do that, because arguing about a slogan as if it's some sort of policy proposal isn't just stupid, it's a massive waste of time.

    We're not arguing the slogan as if it was a policy proposal...

    We're arguing what policy proposals will the Democrats come up with that A> are new and innovative and 2> will back up their fancy new Pizza slogan..

    Wouldn't it have made MORE sense to come up with the new and innovative policy proposals FIRST and then create the slogan that supports those proposals??

    I'm just sayin'....

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    The mining industry isn't coming back, or ever hiring as many workers as it once did.

    Ya'all keep saying that..

    But the FACTS keep proving the opposite... :D

  60. [60] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Wouldn't it have made MORE sense to come up with the new and innovative policy proposals FIRST and then create the slogan that supports those proposals?

    The slogan supports policy proposals that are already on the table: improving education opportunities, advancing alternative energy technologies, bringing back equilibrium between work and pay. Making the rich and corporations contribute their fair share to the system that enabled them to become rich in the first place. Investing in the future, rather than longing for a past that never existed.

    Beyond that, Universal Health coverage and free higher education are ideas whose time has come. On those, I agree with Bernie and the Left. While we coddle idiot billionaires, an entire generation is becoming unnecessarily sick and stupid.

    That's a start...

  61. [61] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [59] You're confusing 'talking points' with 'facts'.

    The fact is that mining, like most industries, is rapidly mechanizing. Most mining 20 years from now will be done by robots, not miners. You can't put that genie back in the bottle, no matter how many tax breaks you throw at it.

    Want to discuss a growth industry? Healthcare. It's also labor-intensive. If we want to put millions of folks back to work and improve the lives of millions more, there's a good place to invest our tax revenue.

  62. [62] 
    michale wrote:

    The slogan supports policy proposals that are already on the table:

    In other words, same ol same ol.. Nothing new and innovative..

    OK, so we agree on that point..

    Making the rich and corporations contribute their fair share to the system that enabled them to become rich in the first place.

    Dumbocrats have been saying they are going to do that for 30 years...

    Yet they STILL keep personally taking money from the rich and those corporations and STILL don't enact any policies that benefit the middle class over the rich and the corporations.....

    That's a start...

    It's a "start" that NEVER gets started...

    Funny how that always is the case, eh?? :D

    The fact is that mining, like most industries, is rapidly mechanizing. Most mining 20 years from now will be done by robots, not miners. You can't put that genie back in the bottle, no matter how many tax breaks you throw at it.

    No, the FACT is that President Trump has opened new mines and created thousands of new mining jobs..

    Now THAT is a start...

    Want to discuss a growth industry? Healthcare. It's also labor-intensive. If we want to put millions of folks back to work and improve the lives of millions more, there's a good place to invest our tax revenue.

    Yea.. That was what TrainWreckCare was supposed to do...

    See how well THAT worked out... LESS doctors... LESS healthcare professionals...

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    [59] You're confusing 'talking points' with 'facts'.

    And you are confusing your fantasy with reality...

  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    Yunno... The Fantasy where there would NEVER be a President Trump.. :D

  65. [65] 
    michale wrote:

    Uh huh. Both were true before Trump took office.

    Yea.. You keep making that claim... But with NOTHING to back it up...

    :D

    And Drumpf's numbers are miserable, compared to those of his predecessors, including Obama.

    And, if Odumbo was still in charge, you would have a point... But he's not, so you don't..

    Your problem is that your Dumbocrats are LESS popular than President Trump..

    How do you explain that w/o resorting to Party Slave talking points? :D

    Answer: You can't...

    He even made fun of the gullibility of his followers - remember: "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters" - that hasn't changed.

    Yea.. Odumbo and NOT-45 can make the same claim and it would be just as true..

    So, if your argument is "sycophants" it's a VERY poor argument to make...

  66. [66] 
    michale wrote:

    To sum up...

    The Democrat Party's "bold" "new" and "innovative" platform is simply a rehash of tried and failed platforms that have brought the Democrat Party to the **WORST** position it has been in, in over 100 years...

    A platform that has LOST the Democrat Party over a THOUSANDS political seats in the last 6 years...

    BUT THIS TIME!!!!

    This time, it's gonna work.... Right??? :D

    Whatever ya'all have to tell yerselves to make it thru yer day... :D

  67. [67] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In other words, same ol same ol.. Nothing new and innovative..

    It sure would be to the current Republican leadership, one of whom would return us to the Bush economy, the other who would channel a libertarian author from the '50's.

    Dumbocrats have been saying they are going to do that for 30 years..

    And everytime we start to do it, it gets undone by Republicans, with disastrous results. See post [50].

    STILL don't enact any policies that benefit the middle class over the rich and the corporations

    Nonsense. The Stimulus package that Obama enacted included provisions aimed squarely at the middle class. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which the GOP wants to defund, benefits primarily the middle class.

    Trouble is, the GOP wants to oppose every tax hike on the rich by claiming that it's aimed at the middle class - asserting that folks who make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year are 'middle class' for instance, or asserting that shell companies that make millions in revenue are actually 'small business'. All just a ruse to protect billionaires and millionaires.

    No, the FACT is that President Trump has opened new mines and created thousands of new mining jobs..

    And just how has he 'accomplished' that, when he hasn't signed any legislation? All he's done is signed executive orders removing environmental regulations. Some companies, suddenly free to pollute the local waterways, might have re-started operations, but that hardly counts as 'new mines' or 'new jobs'.

    See how well THAT worked out... LESS doctors... LESS healthcare professionals.

    Tell that to the thousands of rural hospitals that will have to close if Obamacare is repealed.

  68. [68] 
    michale wrote:

    It sure would be to the current Republican leadership, one of whom would return us to the Bush economy, the other who would channel a libertarian author from the '50's.

    Yer STILL not getting it..

    The Dumbocrats have billed this as whaty **THEY** are going to do that will separate them from the GOP...

    And yet, you STILL are stuck in the WELL AT LEAST WE'RE NOT CHILD MOLESTERS way of thinking..

    You think the GOP is a catastrophe.. Fine.. I get that..

    What are the DUMBOCRATS going to do to be better???

    The same tired and failed policies that have failed, failed and failed again for the last 30 years...

    I have a challenge for you..

    I want you to advocate the Dumbocrat Party platform without mentioning Trump or the GOP once..

    ten thousand quatloos says you can't do it...

  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    And just how has he 'accomplished' that, when he hasn't signed any legislation? All he's done is signed executive orders removing environmental regulations.

    That's all Odumbo did when he enacted those lousy regulations..

    Yet ya'all seized on that as the Second Coming....

    What a difference a '-D' makes, eh?? :D

  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:

    Tell that to the thousands of rural hospitals that will have to close if Obamacare is repealed.

    Odumbo and the Dumbocrats should have thought of that before they put out that abysmal abortion that was TrainWreckCare..

    Whatever happens will be on Odumbo and the Dumbocrats. THEY will own it...

  71. [71] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The Democrat Party's "bold" "new" and "innovative" platform is simply a rehash of tried and failed platforms that have brought the Democrat Party to the **WORST** position it has been in, in over 100 years.

    You keep repeating that, as though I should be impressed that the Republican campaign of lies and fear mongering has worked until now.

    But Trump is the metaphorical Toto, revealing the humbug behind the curtain.

    Roger Ailes is gone, rotting in hell no doubt, and MSNBC is kicking Fox's ass in the ratings. The Republicans were very effective in opposition, but only managed to eke out a narrow presidential victory with no mandate, and have since demonstrated that they never actually had a plan to accomplish their lofty promises in the first place.

    It's all falling apart, dude. The lie has been revealed. The GOP has a majority right now, sure, but they're squandering it, and the clock is ticking down to the midterms. Enjoy your pyrrhic victory while you still can.

  72. [72] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The same tired and failed policies that have failed, failed and failed again for the last 30 years..

    You mean the same tried and true policies that have worked each time we've held the White House for the last 30 years. Again, see [50].

    I want you to advocate the Dumbocrat Party platform without mentioning Trump or the GOP once..

    Just did. You owe me a 1000 quatloos.

  73. [73] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Whatever happens will be on Odumbo and the Dumbocrats. THEY will own it...

    That's called 'refusing to take responsibility for your actions' and is a sign of weak character.

    I guess it takes a Democrat to say, "The buck stops here".

  74. [74] 
    neilm wrote:

    If the Republicans do manage to overturn the ACA and put in a weakened replacement, or nothing at all, the burden is going to fall mostly on the rural poor.

    The hospitals that were failing before the ACA expanded medicaid will lose upwards of 30% of their revenue, tipping many into insolvency. This can be already seen in the states that did not expand medicaid.

    We are creating "medical deserts" with our capitalist approach to medicine in this country and it is going to get worse unless we either get single payer or we dramatically strengthen the ACA (refund the parts the Republicans defunded and expand Medicaid to all states).

    The reasons are fairly simple. Medical services, like most products, benefit from scale. There must be a sufficient population of insured patients to support a single GP. A larger pool is required to support specialists and hospitals. Poor, uninsured people are not good customers. A newly qualified doctor with large loans is going to go where the money is, and that increasingly means larger towns and cities.

    Our country is dividing into rural vs. urban, overturning the ACA is going to accelerate this divide, to the detriment of the rural communities and their access to local and affordable medical coverage.

    I've documented the harm in the past (44,000 unnecessary deaths per year by taking 20+ million people's insurance coverage per year), and this harm is going to befall Republican counties more than Democrat's.

    This will be a test of partisanship over personal well being. I expect many to fail this test.

    Frankly, I don't think reaching out to blind partisans is in the Democrats best interest. I think that the money, time and effort invested in increasing the urban turnout will go a lot further than the same investment trying to convince rural Republicans that their leadership isn't looking out for them.

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    You keep repeating that, as though I should be impressed that the Republican campaign of lies and fear mongering has worked until now.

    No.. I am simply pointing out Dumbocrats have nothing better than what has been tried and has failed time and time again..

    You are the one who keeps bringing up the Republicans as if that has some relevance on the FACT that the Dumbocrat Party is in the worst shape it's been in in over a century...

    Just did. You owe me a 1000 quatloos.

    You call THAT an advocacy???

    No wonder ya'all can't win elections...

    Yer ENTIRE defense of the Dumbocrat Party consists of AT LEAST WE'RE BETTER THAN THE REPUBLICANS..

    And HOW has that worked the last 8 elections???

    2010, 2012, 2014, 2016 and FOUR in 2017???

    Answer: It has FAILED and FAILED miserably..

    And it will continue to fail...

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz Peek: Schumer's "better deal": Recycling Obama's failed economic policies won't boost Democrats

    If you don’t succeed at first, fail and fail again. Democratic congressional leaders who seem to be pursuing that strategy trotted out a series of failed solutions Monday to problems that only worsened under the Obama administration. They mislabeled their absurd plan “A Better Deal.”

    If truth-in-labeling laws applied to political slogans, the Democrats would have to rename their new game plan “An Awful Deal.”

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) were joined by other top Democrats at a news conference in tiny Berryville, Va., in a laughable effort to show that big-city Democrats really and truly care about ordinary Americans and not just far-left elites.

    But instead of coming up with effective and workable policies, the mislabeled Better Deal is the same old collection of anti-business, anti-growth, anti-job policies that guided the Obama White House and that resulted in eight years of sluggish economic growth and stagnant family incomes.
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/07/25/liz-peek-schumers-better-deal-recycling-obamas-failed-economic-policies-wont-boost-democrats.html

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    You mean the same tried and true policies that have worked each time we've held the White House for the last 30 years. Again, see [50].

    And, if they have worked so well, WHY is the Dumbocrat Party in the WORST position it's been in, in over 100 years??

    Oh yea... Russians.. :^/

    Do you hear how utterly demented you sound?? :D

  78. [78] 
    michale wrote:

    Frankly, I don't think reaching out to blind partisans is in the Democrats best interest. I think that the money, time and effort invested in increasing the urban turnout will go a lot further than the same investment trying to convince rural Republicans that their leadership isn't looking out for them.

    SO, basically... Frak Trump voters... We're gonna take care of our own..

    Yea...

    THAT will win the Dumbocrat Party more elections. :^/

  79. [79] 
    neilm wrote:

    Just an excerpt from 45's speech to the Boy Scouts:

    “In the end he [William Levitt, a real estate developer 45 decided to tell the Boy Scouts about for some reason] failed, and he failed badly. Lost all of his money. He went personally bankrupt, and he was now much older. And I saw him at a cocktail party, and it was very sad because the hottest people in New York were at this party. It was the party of Steve Ross who was one of the great people — he came up and discovered — really founded — Time Warner and he was a great guy.”

    “He had a lot of successful people at the party. And I was doing well so I got invited to the party. I was very young, and I go in — but I’m in the real-estate business — and I see 100 people, some of whom I recognize and they’re big in the entertainment business …”

    This guy has lost his woggle (FYI for the non-Scouts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woggle).

    45 is telling the Boy Scouts about a Manhattan party with "hot" people he attended decades ago.

  80. [80] 
    michale wrote:

    When all is said and done..

    Democrats need to have a plan to win over Trump voters..

    I see NOTHING that indicates they have learned that lesson...

    Which means they will continue to lose elections..

  81. [81] 
    neilm wrote:

    SO, basically... Frak Trump voters... We're gonna take care of our own..

    You can lead a horse to water ... but yes, I agree, if the Democrats don't actively try to save 45's voters they will be frakked. Maybe once they have been frakked a few more times but their leadership they will get it. Trying to explain reality to them doesn't work.

  82. [82] 
    michale wrote:

    What about when Odumbo said that thing at the Jamboree??

    Oh... wait.. Odumbo never WENT to the Jamboree...

    Whatta moron....

  83. [83] 
    michale wrote:

    You can lead a horse to water ... but yes, I agree, if the Democrats don't actively try to save 45's voters they will be frakked. Maybe once they have been frakked a few more times but their leadership they will get it. Trying to explain reality to them doesn't work.

    A-frakin-men to THAT!!!

    "Detente... A wonderful thing..."
    -Maureen Robinson, LOST IN SPACE

    :D

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    Ya'all want to go after corporations for taxes??

    http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-pay-lowest-tax-loopholes-2011-2

    Fine.. Start with them..

    But how many of those companies buy Democrat politicians???

    How many of those companies use their power to further Democrat agendas???

    Ya'all see yer dilemma??

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, it looks like we have reached a consensus..

    Democrats MUST have a plan to win over Trump voters...

  86. [86] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You can lead a horse to water ..

    I think they want to drink Trump whiskey instead, abuse the children, insult the neighbors, refuse to pay the water bill, then chide the Democrats for not putting milk on the table.

  87. [87] 
    michale wrote:

    Silent on Google, Facebook, and Amazon
    The party criticizes corporate power, but not the powerful tech platforms.

    Fighting corporate power is a big theme of the Democrats' new agenda, but three of the world's most powerful companies aren't feeling the heat, at least not yet. Google, Facebook, and Amazon.com escaped criticism on July 24, when Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer of New York and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California unveiled what the party is calling its Better Deal agenda.

    Like I was saying....

    The Democrats' "Better Deal" is nothing but a better deal for their corporate masters...

    Nothing new... Nothing different...

  88. [88] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    I think they want to drink Trump whiskey instead, abuse the children, insult the neighbors, refuse to pay the water bill, then chide the Democrats for not putting milk on the table.

    Yea.. Insult and attack the voters that ya'all NEED..

    *THAT* will win ya'all elections!!!

    After all, it's worked so well before!!

    {/sarcasm}

  89. [89] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    You see, that is the problem with people like you and Victoria and Paula, etc etc etc..

    Ya'all enjoy attacking and insulting people who think ideologically different than ya'all a *LOT* more than ya'all like winning elections...

    And THAT is why ya'all never win elections anymore...

  90. [90] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Balthasar (73)-
    "I guess it takes a Democrat to say "The buck stops here.""
    If only it meant what it used to mean.
    The problem now is they are talking about the Big Bucks.
    The only way for the Democratic Party to make the buck stops here a positive instead of a warning is if the Party and/or candidates made a commitment to stop taking anything other than small contributions from individuals.
    Short of that there is no point in listening to anything else they are proposing because it will be nothing but a lie.

  91. [91] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As I have said before:
    You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink if he's used to drinking the Koolaid.

  92. [92] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The Democrats new slogan should be:
    "Same old Koolaid in exciting better packaging!"

  93. [93] 
    neilm wrote:

    Democrats MUST have a plan to win over Trump voters...

    No they don't. The Democrats got the most votes in 2016. They need to get the more of their vote out - with the gerrymandering etc. the Democrats need to win about 53-47 to get past the line. Investing in "getting out the vote" and a lively, young candidate, is far more likely to deliver results than convince people to change their minds. Also, I suspect that a lot of switch voters are probably wondering why they did and will figure out for themselves that a party that has focused like a laser on tax cuts for billionaires isn't really on their side after all.

  94. [94] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well at least 45 wished the Boy Scouts "Merry Christmas" - you know unlike those anti-Christians who don't say "Merry Christmas" in July. They say dreadful things like "Happy Independence Day" instead.

    What a @#$%ing clown.

  95. [95] 
    michale wrote:

    No they don't. The Democrats got the most votes in 2016.

    And if the most votes had ANY relevance, you would have a point... But they don't so you don't..

    The simple FACT is that Dumbocrats MUST win over Trump voters if they want to win elections..

    You said so yourself...

  96. [96] 
    neilm wrote:

    And 45 was good enough to thanks the Boy Scouts for their votes:

    "So I have to tell you what we did, in all fairness, is an unbelievable tribute to you and all of the other millions and millions of people that came out and voted for Make America Great Again."

    You can't make this stuff up.

  97. [97] 
    michale wrote:

    but yes, I agree, if the Democrats don't actively try to save 45's voters they will be frakked. Maybe once they have been frakked a few more times but their leadership they will get it. Trying to explain reality to them doesn't work.
    -Neil

    Did I misunderstand what you were saying???

  98. [98] 
    michale wrote:

    "So I have to tell you what we did, in all fairness, is an unbelievable tribute to you and all of the other millions and millions of people that came out and voted for Make America Great Again."

    You can't make this stuff up.

    Of course he was referring to their adult family..

    Jeezus, Neil.. Yer REALLY reaching here... :D

  99. [99] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Do we remember that date? Was that a beautiful date? What a date."

    45 relating to his audience yesterday ... no, not the local Republican Party but a bunch of kids.

    Kids today will not look forward to Christmas or their Birthday's any longer but to November 8th to celebrate 45's win. Just like kids on North Korea look forward to important dates in their delusional leader's life.

  100. [100] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm still stunned at the text of the speech 45 gave yesterday to the Boy Scouts. Seriously, this man is a taco or two short of a combination plate.

  101. [101] 
    neilm wrote:

    an unbelievable tribute to you and all of the other millions and millions of people that came out and voted

    So when he said "you" he meant "your parents"?

    Man you are desperate to worship this clown - this is A++ fanboy level - did you get a badge?

  102. [102] 
    michale wrote:

    I'm still stunned at the text of the speech 45 gave yesterday to the Boy Scouts. Seriously, this man is a taco or two short of a combination plate.

    Yer "stunned" and "serious" when Melania doesn't hold the President's hand..

    That's AAA+++ hysterical hatred... Did you get a badge??

    :)

  103. [103] 
    michale wrote:

    Investing in "getting out the vote" and a lively, young candidate, is far more likely to deliver results than convince people to change their minds.

    I hear NOT-45 is free... Heheheheheheheheheheeh

  104. [104] 
    neilm wrote:

    Jeezus, Neil.. Yer REALLY reaching here... :D

    Frankly I'm almost at the point where is is like laughing at somebody who really should be getting help.

    Let me know when you think that 45 is seriously mentally impaired and I'll stop making fun of him.

  105. [105] 
    michale wrote:

    Let me know when you think that 45 is seriously mentally impaired and I'll stop making fun of him.

    Now THAT is a load of BS.. If Trump get's assassinated, you'll be laughing at him that he didn't duck.. :D

    heh

    Admit it... The idea of Trump getting assassinated put a little smile on your face.. :D

  106. [106] 
    michale wrote:

    Frankly I'm almost at the point where is is like laughing at somebody who really should be getting help.

    And yet, that person who YOU think needs help...

    1> Is one of the most successful businessmen in history...

    2> Defeated some of the most experienced and richest GOP candidates in history...

    3> UTTERLY and TOTALLY devestated the biggest, meanest, most experienced and most well-funded political juggernaut in the history of the planet....

    So, given these FACTS....

    Anyone who thinks that THAT^^^^ guy needs help????

    Probably needs a LOT more help....

  107. [107] 
    neilm wrote:

    Admit it... The idea of Trump getting assassinated put a little smile on your face.. :D

    You don't get it - I don't personally hate the guy - I just think he is unfit to be President and that ridicule is the best way to puncture extreme puffery.

  108. [108] 
    michale wrote:

    I just think he is unfit to be President

    That's your opinion and I respect that..

    Based on the facts, it's also wrong...

    and that ridicule is the best way to puncture extreme puffery.

    Howz that workin so far?? :D

  109. [109] 
    michale wrote:

    You don't get it - I don't personally hate the guy

    No, YOU don't get it.

    Because that is how it comes across...

    That ya'all DO hate the guy.....

  110. [110] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Just when I thought you couldn't be any more disgusting...

    Admit it... The idea of Trump getting assassinated put a little smile on your face.. :D

    The only person here who that would make happy is YOU because it would allow you to spew your bullshit lies that we all WANTED HIM DEAD!!!

    Kick nailed it in describing the type troll you are and you are only proving her right with comments like this. Disgusting!

  111. [111] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Frankly I'm almost at the point where is is like laughing at somebody who really should be getting help.

    I agree with Neil! Just read any transcript of Trump's interviews or speeches where he isn't reading from a teleprompter and see for yourself! The man spews incoherent word salads, jumps from topic to topic wildly, is unable to focus or directly answer a question, and constantly repeats the same sentences regardless of what is being discussed. If you have ever had a family member who has suffered from dementia, you would recognize that Trump needs help!

    And yet, that person who YOU think needs help...

    1> Is one of the most successful businessmen in history...

    Now I have to assume that you, too, are suffering from some mental illness if you believe that line! He is a con man. You have no way to prove that he is as successful as he wants you to believe because he is terrified of releasing his tax returns.

    Trust me, the moment Trump faces criminal charges that will likely come, his attorneys will quickly resort to claiming that he is not mentally able to face charges...and they will be right.

  112. [112] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    "I hear not 45 is free."
    If you consider 225,000 dollars for a speech free.

  113. [113] 
    michale wrote:

    Don,

    Touche :)

  114. [114] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    I call them as I see them. I can think of at least a half-dozen commenters here that would cheer if Trump were assassinated.

    One only has to recall the "Scalise deserved it" comments around here to know that that is true.

    Sorry if the facts disturb you but they are facts none the less.

  115. [115] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    So, if you REALLY want to point fingers at "disgusting"...

    You need only look as far as several Weigantians....

    Or do you deny that there would be MORE than a few Weigantians who would NOT relish Trump's passing...

  116. [116] 
    michale wrote:

    Now I have to assume that you, too, are suffering from some mental illness if you believe that line! He is a con man.

    Yea.. THAT's your story NOW..

    But did you have THAT story when Trump had a -D after his name??

    No you did not..

    Did ANYONE on the Left have that story when Trump had a -D after his name and was showering Democrats with money??

    No they did not..

    So, please... Spare me your righteous indignation...

    Your condemnation of President Trump, in the here and now, is *solely*, *completely* and *unequivocally* based on the fact that he has a -R after his name..

    That's it... That is *ALL* that it is...

    The fact is, Trump is one of the most successful businessmen in history...

    The fact is, Trump obliterated 16+ of the most successful, experienced and well-funded GOP candidates in the country...

    The fact is, Trump *DEVASTATED* the biggest, meanest, most experienced and most well-funded political juggernaut in the history of politics..

    These are all indisputable FACTS...

  117. [117] 
    michale wrote:

    And GOPcare lives to fight another day!!!!

    :D

    Won't ya'all have egg all over your faces when GOPcare ends up on President Trump's desk!!! :D

  118. [118] 
    michale wrote:

    Democrats snoozing through their wake-up call

    Putting aside for a moment the state of ruin in the Trump White House, I’m seeing nothing but chaos coming from Democrats. Granted, it takes a while to recover from a disaster, and it is especially discouraging when the disaster is of your own making, like burning down the house because you left something unattended on the stove.

    But no matter the circumstances, you pick yourself up and move on, maybe even make some improvements.

    But here it is, months after the election, halfway through 2017 with 2018 breathing down their necks, and Democrats have yet to look in the mirror, which actually reflects the past, or to look beyond themselves to a constituency that looks nothing like it did in 2008.

    Where do we start with all the Democrats have gotten wrong?

    First, they did not anticipate the backlash from the party’s greatest achievement. The election of the first African-American president was the straw that broke the back of conservatives and middle-income white Americans who were quickly becoming the minority and not happy about it at all.

    Democrats failed to notice their party’s freefall, as evidenced by the loss of about 900 legislative seats from 2008 to 2016. While it’s not untypical that a two-term presidency starts to lose a little luster during its waning years, these numbers definitely signal a shift in mood among the American people – a shift not quite away from civil rights, but definitely more focused on the right to prosper as an individual, the equivalent of the Republican’s siren song.

    And not to diminish her exceptional public service over many decades, but Hillary Clinton was an entitlement candidate and an unimaginative one at that. If Trump represents a 1950s separatist, Clinton is a bit of a relic of the 1960s, when the Democrats’ whimsical party platform was, “… it is the creation of an enduring peace in which the universal values of human dignity, truth, and justice under law are finally secured for all men everywhere on earth.”

    How do you turn all of that into action?

    Apparently, the Dumbocrat Party is COMPLETELY clueless on how to do it... :D

  119. [119] 
    michale wrote:

    The average age of Congressional GOP leadership is 46...

    The average age of Congressional Dumbocrat leadership is 73...

    And ya'all DON'T see a SLIVER of a problem!??

    Maybe the problem is your eyesight....

    I'm just sayin'....

  120. [120] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    74

    We are creating "medical deserts" with our capitalist approach to medicine in this country and it is going to get worse unless we either get single payer or we dramatically strengthen the ACA (refund the parts the Republicans defunded and expand Medicaid to all states).

    Exactly right.

    Our country is dividing into rural vs. urban, overturning the ACA is going to accelerate this divide, to the detriment of the rural communities and their access to local and affordable medical coverage.

    And exactly right again.

    Frankly, I don't think reaching out to blind partisans is in the Democrats best interest. I think that the money, time and effort invested in increasing the urban turnout will go a lot further than the same investment trying to convince rural Republicans that their leadership isn't looking out for them.

    I think Neil is totally correct here, particularly since a healthy chunk of those "blind partisans" like their coverage under the ACA but think that Obamacare needs to be repealed. Boosting turnout would be the best return on investment by far. IMO, the Democratic Party would be better served by investing in getting apathetic voters to actually show up and vote and winning back those Independent voters who reluctantly voted for Trump... polling shows he's losing them anyway.

  121. [121] 
    michale wrote:

    I think Neil is totally correct here, particularly since a healthy chunk of those "blind partisans" like their coverage under the ACA

    Cite???

    .. polling shows he's losing them anyway.

    Yea... The SAME polling that showed NOT-45 had a 98% chance of winning in a 50-State sweep..

    I just marvel at ya'all's gullibility and continuing to believe ONLY the polls that say what you want to hear..

    Such self-delusion is a marvel to behold.. :D

    and winning back those Independent voters who reluctantly voted for Trump...

    So, in other words, you agree with me that the Dumbocrat Party needs to win back Trump voters...

    I am glad we agree... :D

  122. [122] 
    michale wrote:

    Who would have thought that Democrats would end up being the Grand Old Party?

    Healthcare? If Republicans can be blamed for failing for seven years to put together a decent alternative to the Affordable Care Act, surely Democrats can be blamed for knowing it needed an overhaul and not getting out in front of it before 2016. They had to have seen it coming.

    And Tom Perez, now chair of the Democratic National Committee, states that the top priority is to defeat Trump if he runs for a second term.

    Well, OK. But “How?” is the question.

    And then there are the missteps. Maybe it made sense to throw support, mostly in the form of money, to Jon Ossoff, who competed in a special election against Republican Karen Handel in Georgia’s 6th District. Ossoff did push the race into a run-off and Trump had narrowly defeated Clinton in that district, so Ossoff may have had a shot.

    But Georgia has been red for 20 years. In the end, Democrats should have never presented the contest as do or die for the party, thus making the loss more significant than the win might have been. It was a costly experiment that showed Democrats, once again, playing from a position of weakness.

    A major overhaul is past due for the Democrats. That means taking advantage of the implosion of the Trump administration as a time to finally get their house in order.

    As my Dad used to say if I dawdled over my homework: “You’re going nowhere until you finish, so buckle down.”

    The same can be said of Democrats.

    It's funny cuz it's true.. :D

  123. [123] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Yea.. THAT's your story NOW..

    But did you have THAT story when Trump had a -D after his name??

    No you did not..

    When did Trump EVER have a -D after his name? Find me one article where he was identified as "Trump-D", because I sure as hell NEVER considered him a Democrat. Any association with the Dems was because the rich people that he wanted to impress were Democratic supporters.

    I don't really consider him to deserve the -R after his name, because he doesn't hold any Republican values. He just realized that their voting base was more gullible and would be an easier group to con!

    Going back to doing what I said made you a lying troll, is that it? This false narrative to avoid responding to my comments regarding Trump's mental health.

    I also find it odd that you failed to deny that you would be happy if Trump were killed. You are the only one here who would take joy in his death; most of us would just rather wait til he is charged and forced out....but at least you would do so for reasons that are self-serving....a beautiful tribute to Trump, I guess.

  124. [124] 
    neilm wrote:

    and that ridicule is the best way to puncture extreme puffery.

    Howz that workin so far?? :D

    45 Approval rating: 39.6%
    45 Disapproval rating: 55.9%

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

    You tell me.

  125. [125] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [114] I call them as I see them. I can think of at least a half-dozen commenters here that would cheer if Trump were assassinated.

    One only has to recall the "Scalise deserved it" comments around here to know that that is true.

    I don't know if those can be conflated, but in either case, I'm genuinely shocked by such comments. Thirty percent of the country, give or take, is now tribally aligned on each side.

    Partisanship is going to continue. John McCain's speech included things I'm sure we would have heard in his Inaugural Address, if he had had the opportunity to deliver one. Nobody heard it.

    All most of us heard is that he's still got his Gov's list of amendments he needs, and he's at least the third vote to defeat any of the bullshit currently on the table.

    Personal item, re: AFSC. Number 12 with two Letters. Navigator/ewo-type jobs. In my day, there was precious little electronics needing warlike officiation, and plenty of naviguessing.

  126. [126] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    93

    No they don't. The Democrats got the most votes in 2016. They need to get the more of their vote out - with the gerrymandering etc. the Democrats need to win about 53-47 to get past the line. Investing in "getting out the vote" and a lively, young candidate, is far more likely to deliver results than convince people to change their minds. Also, I suspect that a lot of switch voters are probably wondering why they did and will figure out for themselves that a party that has focused like a laser on tax cuts for billionaires isn't really on their side after all.

    Exactly right. If the health care issue hasn't convinced voters that Trump wants a win at all costs without regard to the people who will be hurt and in direct contradiction to his campaign promise to voters that he would NOT cut Medicaid or Medicare, then there's most likely no amount of money that will convince them.

  127. [127] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Add me to the list here of those endorsing Neil's comments.

    M: [116] But did you have THAT story when Trump had a -D after his name?

    Absolutely, and I can prove it: Behold, Democrat Gerry Trudeau from 1987, presaging events of a decade later.

    Doonesbury went on to do an entire series of cartoons about a fictional Trump run, and absolutely nailed it with eerie precision. You can a lot of it online: google "Trump Doonesbury" for more.

  128. [128] 
    neilm wrote:

    Quit the BS Michale. Weigentia did not celebrate Scalia's death. Here is a typical quote from the time:

    nypoet22 wrote:
    whatever we may think of scalia's legal opinions or partisanship, we can't deny that the man cared deeply about our country and gave himself fully to his work. i think the scalia vacancy is a careful what you wish for situation, for both parties.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/02/12/ftp378/#comment-70133

  129. [129] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick -

    Not sure why the filter began eating your comments. I've approved them all (except a few duplicates).

    My apologies, I'll keep an eye on it for the next few days...

    -CW

  130. [130] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    110

    Kick nailed it in describing the type troll you are and you are only proving her right with comments like this. Disgusting!

    Add to that, the regular trolling and bullying of people using this type disgusting and insinuating language and assigning it to the group can actually trigger constant NSA monitoring of the forum and those who comment here. So it's actually disgusting on more level than one.

  131. [131] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    neilm [79] -

    Trump mentioned Levitt? I gotta read that speech...

    I grew up in a Levitt home, in a Levitt suburb, personally.

    -CW

  132. [132] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LeaningBlue [125] -

    RE: McCain's speech. I'm busily editing today's article, which covers my reaction to McCain's speech...

    should be up in 1/2 hour or so...

    -CW

  133. [133] 
    michale wrote:

    When did Trump EVER have a -D after his name? Find me one article where he was identified as "Trump-D",

    Trump's political party affiliation has changed numerous times over the years. Trump was a Democrat prior to 1987.[279]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

    because I sure as hell NEVER considered him a Democrat.

    As we have well established, your OPINIONS on things really don't have much to do with reality.. :D

  134. [134] 
    michale wrote:

    LB,

    I don't know if those can be conflated, but in either case, I'm genuinely shocked by such comments.

    As was I when Weigantians celebrated SCALISE's shooting..

  135. [135] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Quit the BS Michale. Weigentia did not celebrate Scalia's death. Here is a typical quote from the time:

    If I were talking about Scalia, you would have a point..

    But I was talking about the Scalise shooting to which a few Weigantians felt he "deserved" to be shot..

  136. [136] 
    michale wrote:

    MLB

    Add to that, the regular trolling and bullying of people using this type disgusting and insinuating language and assigning it to the group can actually trigger constant NSA monitoring of the forum and those who comment here.

    BBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    I have to credit you.. That's a really unique accusation..

    MICHALE IS GOING TO BRING THE NSA DOWN ON US!!!!!

    BBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Still having that battle with the witless person that is you, eh?? :D

  137. [137] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    89

    You see, that is the problem with people like you and Victoria and Paula, etc etc etc..

    Ya'all enjoy attacking and insulting people who think ideologically different than ya'all a *LOT* more than ya'all like winning elections...

    What is it exactly you think you do here regularly on this forum if it isn't enjoying the attacking and insulting of people who think ideologically different than you? <-- rhetorical question

  138. [138] 
    michale wrote:

    M: [116] But did you have THAT story when Trump had a -D after his name?

    Absolutely, and I can prove it: Behold, Democrat Gerry Trudeau from 1987, presaging events of a decade later.

    OK, so all you have to do is prove that you are Gerry Trudeau and yer golden..

    DID YOU have the opinion of Trump that you do now when Trump was a Democrat..

    NO, you did not...

  139. [139] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    McCain speech reaction article is now up...

    -CW

  140. [140] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    You tell me.

    Trump is still President..

    There.. ya been told! :D

    heh

  141. [141] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [133] -

    Don't know about anyone else, but I had no idea who Trump was "before 1987," personally... only really paid any attention at all after his teevee show started...

    -CW

  142. [142] 
    michale wrote:

    What is it exactly you think you do here regularly on this forum if it isn't enjoying the attacking and insulting of people who think ideologically different than you?

    Discussions and debates without attacks and insults..

    But that's impossible with people like you around...

    I have proven time and time again that we can all have good, solid and intelligent discussions around here without any name-calling or personal attacks..

    But people like you CAN'T have that, so you gum up the works and make things NOTHING but a Flame War..

    If you won't start shit, there wouldn't be shit..

    This has been proven time and time again.. Even Russ said you are the match that starts everything...

    You don't want name-calling and personal attacks???

    Then QUIT name-calling and making personal attacks on people...

    It's THAT simple.....

  143. [143] 
    michale wrote:

    Don't know about anyone else, but I had no idea who Trump was "before 1987," personally... only really paid any attention at all after his teevee show started...

    But there are those who have stated that their opinion of Trump with an -R after his name is the EXACT same opinion of Trump when he had a -D after his name..

    They make that claim, but can't back it up...

    Surely if Trump was the HUGE "con man" and "fascist" and "imbecile" that ya'all think he is today, back then......

    SURELY it would have been commented upon back then, eh??

    But, it's amazing... The ONLY information we can find is Trump schmoozing with Democrats and Democrats lauding Trump with honor and taking Trump's money and showering praise on Trump..

    Obama wanted his daughters to BE Trump, fer christ's sake...

    The simple fact is, all of the Trump name-calling STARTED when Trump announced his campaign as a Republican...

    It's just like Sarah Palin.. She was loved and respected by Democrats..

    RIGHT up to the point that she accepted the VP nomination.. Then she was Satan in a mini-skirt...

    ALL of the hatred manifested against Trump is SOLELY based on the fact that he is a Republican...

    No other explanation fits all the facts..

  144. [144] 
    michale wrote:

    You don't want name-calling and personal attacks???

    Then QUIT name-calling and making personal attacks on people...

    It's THAT simple.....

    Man up and accept the truce...

    Or it's just going to keep going and going and going and going...

  145. [145] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    142

    But that's impossible with people like you around...

    I have proven time and time again that we can all have good, solid and intelligent discussions around here without any name-calling or personal attacks..

    I'd say there's a decade of comments archived here that prove the fallacy of that statement.

    If you won't start shit, there wouldn't be shit..

    See comment above.

  146. [146] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    121

    Yea... The SAME polling that showed NOT-45 had a 98% chance of winning in a 50-State sweep..

    No, not the same polling. Polling that is compared only to itself over time to reveal trends.

    I just marvel at ya'all's gullibility and continuing to believe ONLY the polls that say what you want to hear..

    Kind of like I just marvel at your gullibility and continuing to believe Donald Trump because he says what you want to hear, but it's not like that at all. You simply compare the same poll to itself in order to identify trends in the data, regardless of whether or not the data "say what you want to hear."

    So, in other words, you agree with me that the Dumbocrat Party needs to win back Trump voters...

    I am glad we agree... :D

    I was actually not addressing that issue or even thinking about it when I responded to Neil. I was agreeing with Neil that he's right that it would be a better investment for the Democratic Party to increase urban turnout versus reaching out to "blind partisans." At the current time, I don't agree that the Democratic Party needs to win back Trump voters to win the 2020 presidential election since Trump won by a fraction of 1% in 3 states, a narrow win in the electoral college.

    From a purely mathematical standpoint and leaving emotional issues out of the equation, the Democratic Party needs a bigger turnout in a few states in order to win in 2020... so appealing to Trump voters in order to win isn't mandatory. I do agree it would make things a whole lot easier if they do win back some Trump voters. Now, if things change in the future... say a third-party candidate becomes viable... then I would certainly agree that Democrats will need to win back some Trump voters.

  147. [147] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Wikipedia isn't an article. Nor did that entry refer to him as "Trump -D" as he was never an elected official. We don't identify individual citizens by their political party. And good luck proving that I ever supported anything Trump has done or said before this past election. You could tell me he's my long lost relative and I would still be repulsed by the man.

    But you accused me of supporting Trump when he had a -D behind his name, which earns you the title of LYING TROLL!!!

  148. [148] 
    michale wrote:

    I'd say there's a decade of comments archived here that prove the fallacy of that statement.

    Yes you can find some flame wars where I responded in kind when I was attacked.

    But you can also find some really great discussions and debates, very friendly ones.

    The fact that you ONLY look at the Flame Wars is evidence of where you WANT things to be..

  149. [149] 
    michale wrote:

    I'd say there's a decade of comments archived here that prove the fallacy of that statement.

    Yes you can find some flame wars where I responded in kind when I was attacked.

    But you can also find some really great discussions and debates, very friendly ones.

    The fact that you ONLY look at the Flame Wars is evidence of where you WANT things to be..

  150. [150] 
    michale wrote:

    But you accused me of supporting Trump when he had a -D behind his name, which earns you the title of LYING TROLL!!!

    You made the claim that your opinion of Trump is the same now as it was back then..

    You can't back it up so that makes you, according to your own litmus test, a LYING TROLL.. :D

  151. [151] 
    michale wrote:

    I was actually not addressing that issue

    IMO, the Democratic Party would be better served by investing in getting apathetic voters to actually show up and vote and winning back those Independent voters who reluctantly voted for Trump...

    Looks like you were addressing the issue perfectly..

    And you totally agreed with me that the Democrat Party needs to win back Trump voters...

  152. [152] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Wikipedia isn't an article. Nor did that entry refer to him as "Trump -D" as he was never an elected official.

    So, you KNEW there wouldn't be any article that identified TRUMP-D yet you asked for one anyways..

    Where is the logic in that??

    The point here is simple.. Ya'all claim that ya'all's opinion of Trump hasn't changed because he went from a -D to a -R...

    This being your claim and given the fact that Trump being such a "fascist" and "incompetent" and "ADD" and all the other names ya'all call him, it should be EASY to find comments ya'all made about President Trump back when he was a Democrat....

    If ya can't back up your claim, that makes you, according to you, a lying troll..

  153. [153] 
    michale wrote:

    Kick,

    And you totally agreed with me that the Democrat Party needs to win back Trump voters...

    Ya know your lips won't turn to fire if ya agree with me.. :D

    As a matter of fact, I have been known to be right on more than one occasion... :D

  154. [154] 
    michale wrote:

    California secession campaign can start gathering signatures
    http://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article163629198.html

    A country without California...

    Dare to dream.. :D

  155. [155] 
    michale wrote:

    This being your claim and given the fact that Trump being such a "fascist" and "incompetent" and "ADD" and all the other names ya'all call him, it should be EASY to find comments ya'all made about President Trump back when he was a Democrat....

    Or, are you saying that President Trump only became a "fascist" or a "con man" when he became a Republican..

    That he WASN'T any of those things when he had a -D after his name..

    Is THAT what you are saying???

  156. [156] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, lookie here..

    Trump Eyes Tax-Code Overhaul, With Emphasis on Middle-Class Break

    WASHINGTON—On the day the Senate moved on long-promised health-care legislation, President Donald Trump signaled his next priority: overhauling the tax code to push corporate rates down and give middle-class taxpayers a break, even if it means some of the wealthiest pay more.

    “The people I care most about are the middle-income people in this country, who have gotten screwed,” Mr. Trump told The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, reiterating that he wants to bring down the corporate tax rate to 15%. “And if there’s upward revision it’s going to be on high-income people.”
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-eyes-tax-code-overhaul-with-emphasis-on-middle-class-break-1501027057

    A welcome break for middle-class Americans.. :D

    And, if required, the rich will pay a little more to give middle-class Americans a break..

    Why, that sounds JUST LIKE what Dumbocrats would do...

    IF Dumbocrats actually CARED about middle-class Americans..

    But Dumbocrats would rather just insult them and attack them...

  157. [157] 
    michale wrote:

    Newly declassified memos detail extent of improper Obama-era NSA spying

    The National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation violated specific civil liberty protections during the Obama years by improperly searching and disseminating raw intelligence on Americans or failing to promptly delete unauthorized intercepts, according to newly declassified memos that provide some of the richest detail to date on the spy agencies’ ability to obey their own rules.
    http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/343785-newly-declassified-memos-detail-extent-of-improper-obama-era-nsa

    And the outcry from the Left???

    {{{cchhhiirrrrpppppp}}} {{{cchhirrrrrrppppppp}}}

    But NOW.... Now the intelligence agencies are the Left Wingery's bestest bosom buddies because they are going after President Trump..

    Yea... NO hypocrisy there... :^/

  158. [158] 
    michale wrote:

    Ya'all want to know what my biggest nightmare is here in Weigantia??

    That ya'all actually think things thru and come back with:

    "Yer absolutely right, Michale.. It IS pure and unadulterated hypocrisy... You called it.."

    I burst awake in a cold sweat at the thought of that actually happening.....

    I would have the same deer-in-headlights look that Tom Cruise had in A FEW GOOD MEN when he got Col Jessup to admit that he (Jessup) did, in fact, order the Code Red..

    Like, "Oh shit!!! NOW what!!!???"

    :D heh

  159. [159] 
    michale wrote:

    Today’s liberal Russia hawks would have us believe that they’ve always been clear-sighted about Kremlin perfidy and mischief. They’re displaying amnesia not just over a single law but the entire foreign policy record of the Obama administration. From the reset, which it announced in early 2009 just months after Russia invaded Georgia, to its removal of missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland later that year, to its ignoring Russia’s violations of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (while simultaneously negotiating New START) and its ceding the ground in Syria to Russian military intervention, the Obama administration’s Russia policy was one, protracted, eight-year-long concession to Moscow. Throughout his two terms in office, Obama played down the threat Russia posed to America’s allies, interests and values, and ridiculed those who warned otherwise. “The traditional divisions between nations of the south and the north make no sense in an interconnected world nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War,” Obama lectured the United Nations General Assembly in 2009, a more florid and verbose way of making the exact same criticism of supposed NATO obsolescence that liberals would later excoriate Trump for bluntly declaring.

    When it abandoned missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic that same year—announcing the decision on the anniversary of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Poland, no less—the Obama administration insisted that the move wasn’t about kowtowing to Moscow but rather more robustly preparing for the looming Iranian threat. Notwithstanding the merits of that argument, perception matters in foreign policy, and the perception in Central and Eastern Europe was that America was abandoning its friends in order to satiate an adversary. That characterizes the feelings of many American allies during the Obama years, whether Israelis and Sunni Arabs upset about a perceived tilt to Iran, or Japanese concerned about unwillingness to confront a revisionist China. Liberals are absolutely right to criticize the Trump administration for its alienation of allies. But they seem to have forgotten the record of the man who served as president for the eight years prior.

    Three years later, in the midst of what he thought was a private conversation about arms control with then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, Obama was famously caught on an open microphone promising that he would have “more flexibility” (that is, be able to make even more concessions to Moscow) after the presidential election that fall. (Imagine the uproar if Trump had a similar hot mic moment with Putin.) Later that year, after Mitt Romney suggested Russia was America’s “No. 1 geopolitical foe,” Obama ridiculed his Republican challenger. “The 1980s are now calling and they want their foreign policy back,” Obama retorted, in a line that has come back to haunt Democrats. An entire procession of Democratic politicians, foreign policy hands and sympathetic journalists followed Obama’s lead and repeated the critique. According to soon-to-be secretary of state John Kerry, Romney’s warning about Russia was a “preposterous notion.” His predecessor Madeleine Albright said Romney possessed “little understanding of what is actually going on in the 21st century.”

    This is EXACTLY why it's impossible to take Democrats seriously when they go on and on about Russia...

    Because if "collusion with Russia" is REALLY the issue here, then it's the Demcorats who are the colluders and it's Democrat collusion that hurt this country immensely..

    Nothing but the facts....

  160. [160] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Quit the BS Michale. Weigentia did not celebrate Scalia's death. Here is a typical quote from the time:

    I accept your apology, in case you were wondering.. :D

    heh

  161. [161] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    But, if you DO want to talk about how some Weigantians raked Scalia over the coals...

    JL: Sorry to offend your sensibilities but his dying doesn't change the fact that he brought shame to the Supreme Court and, through his actions, accomplished a great deal of harm. Notice, I referenced his actions and judicial decisions, I didn't say he was a bad person -- I won't expound on that at this time.

    Of course, that is not quite as bad as saying that SCALISE deserved to be shot for his political beliefs, but it's close enough..

    I stand by my assertion that there are several Weigantians who would cheer if Trump was taken out...

    And I have the facts to back up that assertion...

  162. [162] 
    michale wrote:

    Interesting read from that comment Neil linked..


    MICHALE: Considering how badly Reid mangled Senate rules to favor the Democrat Party with regards to the filibuster, there ain't NO WAY that there is going to be ANY vote on Obama's nominee.

    JOSHUA: that is certainly possible. however, unless the nominee is an absolute flaming liberal, that tactic would be highly likely to backfire on the seven or eight vulnerable senate seats the republicans will be defending in november, as well as the GOP presidential nominee.

    i.e. in that scenario the GOP senate leadership would win the battle but lose the war - especially when there are at least two more justices likely to be appointed in the next president's first term.

    in my view, a wiser strategy on mcconnell's part would be to ultimately confirm the nominee, but arrange the confirmation battle to play out in a way that lulls the liberal base and motivates the conservative base.

    :D

  163. [163] 
    michale wrote:

    But, if you DO want to talk about how some Weigantians raked Scalia over the coals...

    JL: Sorry to offend your sensibilities but his dying doesn't change the fact that he brought shame to the Supreme Court and, through his actions, accomplished a great deal of harm. Notice, I referenced his actions and judicial decisions, I didn't say he was a bad person -- I won't expound on that at this time.

    Of course, that is not quite as bad as saying that SCALISE deserved to be shot for his political beliefs, but it's close enough..

    Just to clarify...

    What is bolded is NOT what JL said but rather someone speaking TO JL....

    Wanted to make sure that was clear...

  164. [164] 
    michale wrote:

    BREAKING NEWS!!!
    CLINTON BOOK WILL BLAME COMEY, RUSSIA, SEXISM AND MISOGNY FOR HER DEVASTATING LOSS TO DONALD TRUMP... **BOMBSHELL**

    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/343755-clinton-book-to-double-down-on-russia-comey-message

    In short, NOT-45 puts the blame everywhere but where it belongs...

    At least Democrats are coming around to reality...

    “When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things — Comey, Russia — you blame yourself. So what did we do wrong? People didn’t know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that.”
    -Chuck Schumer

  165. [165] 
    michale wrote:

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/25/called-fact-checkers-keep-butchering-facts-obamacare/

    This is why it's impossible to believe "fact checkers"... Because their "facts" are nothing more than biased opinions that have no basis in REAL facts...

  166. [166] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    148

    The fact that you ONLY look at the Flame Wars is evidence of where you WANT things to be..

    The fact is, you LIE... constantly, and this lying about others proves nothing more than the fact that you're a prolific LIAR.

  167. [167] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    151

    Looks like you were addressing the issue perfectly..

    And you totally agreed with me that the Democrat Party needs to win back Trump voters...

    Wrong. You are conflating two issues as if they are the same thing.

    Neil was talking about where money would be better invested, and I agreed with him and commented that "IMO, the Democratic Party would be better served by investing in getting apathetic voters to actually show up and vote and winning back those Independent voters who reluctantly voted for Trump."

    You are conflating the fact that I think money would be better spent on getting out the big city/urban vote and flipping those Independent voters who reluctantly voted for Trump to mean that I think the Democratic Party can't win without the Trump voters, and in the process, no offense, but you're actually proving your dearth of critical thinking skills. Just because I think it would be better to invest in winning over certain voters should not be incorrectly conflated to mean that I think the Democratic Party can't win without them. I wrote about where campaign dollars would be better spent, and you conflated it with your own argument. If Democrats can get urban/city voters off their butts to actually go vote, they won't need a single Trump voter in order to win (barring a viable third-party candidate).

    Think McFly, think!

    Looks like you were addressing the issue perfectly..

    I was agreeing with Neil about where campaign dollars would be better invested. We weren't discussing whether or not Trump voters would be a requirement to win a future election.

    And you totally agreed with me that the Democrat Party needs to win back Trump voters...

    No, I didn't. Believe it or not, my statement had nothing to do with you at all. You simply hijacked my comment to Neil about where better to invest and insisted that this meant I agreed with your argument... utter nonsense on your part and illustrates your inability to differentiate separate issues.

    If you can't see the difference between the issues, then seriously... CRACK A BOOK and get an education.

  168. [168] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    153

    And you totally agreed with me that the Democrat Party needs to win back Trump voters...

    Again, wrong. I agreed with Neil regarding where to invest campaign funds, and because I mentioned "Trump voters" along with urban/city voters, you conflated that to mean that I was saying the Democratic Party couldn't win without Trump voters. Trump won the Electoral College by winning 46% of the electorate. A candidate would not necessarily need to win a single one of these voters in order to win a future election. It's not complicated.

    Ya know your lips won't turn to fire if ya agree with me.. :D

    Did you miss the part where I said if there was a viable third-party candidate then I would agree with you? <--rhetorical question. Donald Trump won 46% of the electorate. Do the math, and if you still can't understand why a future candidate wouldn't require a single one of them to win, then CRACK A BOOK. :)

    As a matter of fact, I have been known to be right on more than one occasion... :D

    You're wrong about this. My post to Neil had nothing to do with you or your argument about Trump voters. You hijacked and conflated one issue with another. First, it wasn't about you. Second, you don't seem to be able to discuss political issues without hijacking, conflating and/or fabricating, and all that does is make you appear needy. Everything is not about you.

  169. [169] 
    michale wrote:

    As a matter of fact, I have been known to be right on more than one occasion... :D

    You're wrong about this.

    No, I am not wrong about this.

    I HAVE been known to be right on more than one occasion..

    Everything is not about you.

    Says the person who, eventually, makes EVERYTHING about me.. :D

Comments for this article are closed.