Forum Thread

The Left is Energized, but...

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 61 - 75 of 85 Prev 2 3 4 5 6 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: CPAC recognizes Biden as the most formidable Democratic candidate significantly above other possibles.
    No Biden is a sleepyhead; we need fresh dynamic candidates, not the same old losers who bravely go to church and adore the Pope. I would not vote for him.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: CPAC recognizes Biden as the most formidable Democratic candidate significantly above other possibles.
    No Biden is a sleepyhead; we need fresh dynamic candidates, not the same old losers who bravely go to church and adore the Pope. I would not vote for him.

    Dutch, Supposedly the presidency is ours for the asking. That makes running attractive to anybody that can file for it. That would make for an absolutely deviceive contentious campaign. The other choice is to solidify behind a sure candidate presenting a unifying picture to the country. The winning message is a better living for the working class.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    wwjd Wrote: no wonder trump won.

    The reason trump won was because people who would normally vote democrat stayed at home on their couches and watched all in the family instead.

    According to whomever reads Yahoo news, democrat voters are having the largest turnout in 16 years in Texas. I wonder what pissed them off enough for them to get off of their lazy asses?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dockadams Wrote:
    wwjd Wrote: no wonder trump won.

    The reason trump won was because people who would normally vote democrat stayed at home on their couches and watched all in the family instead.

    According to whomever reads Yahoo news, democrat voters are having the largest turnout in 16 years in Texas. I wonder what pissed them off enough for them to get off of their lazy asses?

    Trump.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The left is energized, but maybe the energy is uneven. I attended our Colorado precinct caucus last night expecting a huge crowd of young people because all the UCCS dorms are in my precinct...they house some 1700 students. In 2016 the Bernie people from the university showed up in "yuge" numbers (about 70 percent of the 57 attendees) and pretty well controlled everything. However, last night at our midterm caucus in which we selected our candidates for governor, we had only four retired seniors and one 30 something precinct chair. All the women went for Cary Kennedy and she won 50 percent of the caucus vote state wide. She could be Colorado's first woman governor.

    The Bernie young people from two years ago were a no show. Not one attended. I'm sure they got the message to attend, but in my opinion unless Bernie is on the ballot, they will be no shows.

    Anyway kudos to the Democratic women of Colorado for heavily supporting Cary Kennedy as our front runner for the Primary election in June. She will make an outstanding governor if she wins the general election in November. My guy, Michael Johnston didn't do as well, but I'm happy for Cary.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: No Biden is a sleepyhead; we need fresh dynamic candidates, not the same old losers who bravely go to church and adore the Pope. I would not vote for him.

    I'd hardly call Joe Biden a loser considering he was elected to the Senate seven times in a row and was part of a winning Presidential ticket twice (which happens to be the maximum number of times you can be on the same Presidential ticket).

    You wouldn't vote for him because he believes in God or because he's old? I don't think either are disqualifying factors.

    A solid majority of Americans (and, let's face it, the entire world) believe in some form of God. If I, as an atheist, insisted on voting for an atheist for President, Senator, Congressperson, or any other elected office then I'm going to be disappointed with who represents me for the rest of my life. Joe Biden is a socially liberal politician who simply happens to believe in a higher power. I don't think that's a disqualifying factor.

    I also don't consider any persons age to be an issue as long as they are of sound mind. Nelson Mandela was 76 when he was elected President of South Africa. Winston Churchill was 77 the second time he was elected to serve as Prime Minister of the UK and he was an chain smoking alcoholic. And the worlds third richest person is still running one of the largest companies in the world at the ripe age of 87 with no signs of slowing down.

    Reagan stayed on even though it was obvious he was experiencing early onset Alzheimer's, but that's more a sign of a system that needs to be corrected to make it so leaders must be mentally fit to conduct their duties than excluding potential leaders simply because of their birth date.

    I'm not throwing my hat in the ring for any one candidate (other than being ardently opposed to Bernie) in 2020, but I would be quite happy if Biden jumped in the mix. Another person I'd love to see run for President is Governor Brown of California, but ageism would rear its ugly head against him too.

    It's really quite depressing that people who consider themselves progressives are also willing to discard some of the most progressive politicians simply because of the date they were born.

    But let's focus on 2018 right now because that's our only chance to hold Donald accountable for the remainder of his first (and hopefully only) term. We can fight about the Democratic nominee for President later.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    As a 71 year old, I have been aware about cognitive decline with age. From the various papers I have read there is a strong genetic component. On "average" us seniors all have some cognitive decline -- it varies by individual with both genetics and lifestyle as influencing factors. Thus two 85 year olds could have vastly differently cognitive abilities, one way above average and the other way below average. We should not try stereotype everyone in a 50 percentile when some real life people are obviously much higher or some much lower.

    Furthermore, even if older folks have some cognitive decline in say analytical ability or memory recall, the person's lifelong experiences are a plus in problem solving. In many ways, as we age we reflect more on life and purpose and those critical thinking traits can be invaluable for leadership positions.

    My overall opinion, though is that effective leaders need to be open minded and flexible in thinking. Ideologues, whether 30 or 80, are okay on the fringes but not really suited to lead a highly diverse mass of people.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    As a 71 year old, I have been aware about cognitive decline with age. From the various papers I have read there is a strong genetic component. On "average" us seniors all have some cognitive decline -- it varies by individual with both genetics and lifestyle as influencing factors. Thus two 85 year olds could have vastly differently cognitive abilities, one way above average and the other way below average. We should not try stereotype everyone in a 50 percentile when some real life people are obviously much higher or some much lower.

    Furthermore, even if older folks have some cognitive decline in say analytical ability or memory recall, the person's lifelong experiences are a plus in problem solving. In many ways, as we age we reflect more on life and purpose and those critical thinking traits can be invaluable for leadership positions.

    My overall opinion, though is that effective leaders need to be open minded and flexible in thinking. Ideologues, whether 30 or 80, are okay on the fringes but not really suited to lead a highly diverse mass of people.

    "Ideologues, whether 30 or 80, are okay on the fringes but not really suited to lead a highly diverse mass of people."

    In your case I believe you believe the status quo rules and nothing warrants radical change . It appears you refute anything that challenges or warrants change. In your perception a leader is a manager best suited to maintain the status quo. Your position on college loans was you felt they were good because the loans made students aware because it gave them some skin in the game. That is a long way from free college. College should be free because it improves the value of the greatest resource the country has , the people. When you knock on doors to promote getting people to vote Do you explain to them that college debt actually creates a more aware person that will actually benefit the country more than a freely educated person would?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote: No Biden is a sleepyhead; we need fresh dynamic candidates, not the same old losers who bravely go to church and adore the Pope. I would not vote for him.

    I'd hardly call Joe Biden a loser considering he was elected to the Senate seven times in a row and was part of a winning Presidential ticket twice (which happens to be the maximum number of times you can be on the same Presidential ticket).

    You wouldn't vote for him because he believes in God or because he's old? I don't think either are disqualifying factors.

    A solid majority of Americans (and, let's face it, the entire world) believe in some form of God. If I, as an atheist, insisted on voting for an atheist for President, Senator, Congressperson, or any other elected office then I'm going to be disappointed with who represents me for the rest of my life. Joe Biden is a socially liberal politician who simply happens to believe in a higher power. I don't think that's a disqualifying factor.

    I also don't consider any persons age to be an issue as long as they are of sound mind. Nelson Mandela was 76 when he was elected President of South Africa. Winston Churchill was 77 the second time he was elected to serve as Prime Minister of the UK and he was an chain smoking alcoholic. And the worlds third richest person is still running one of the largest companies in the world at the ripe age of 87 with no signs of slowing down.

    Reagan stayed on even though it was obvious he was experiencing early onset Alzheimer's, but that's more a sign of a system that needs to be corrected to make it so leaders must be mentally fit to conduct their duties than excluding potential leaders simply because of their birth date.

    I'm not throwing my hat in the ring for any one candidate (other than being ardently opposed to Bernie) in 2020, but I would be quite happy if Biden jumped in the mix. Another person I'd love to see run for President is Governor Brown of California, but ageism would rear its ugly head against him too.

    It's really quite depressing that people who consider themselves progressives are also willing to discard some of the most progressive politicians simply because of the date they were born.

    But let's focus on 2018 right now because that's our only chance to hold Donald accountable for the remainder of his first (and hopefully only) term. We can fight about the Democratic nominee for President later.

    No Jared; he's may be a nice guy and a good family man, but that does not cut it nowadays. The only thing which kept him in power was that he made sure " he did not make waves" and stayed out of the "limelight" Obama ordered him to do something about "guns" ; he did nothing; it did not even get attention in the news. Sure he was very capable to "duck" responsibilities. Also "evangelicals/believers" never can think "rational", otherwise they would analyse the lies of the churches. Thus in any "function" they may have, such will "block" their brains from analyzing what is fact or lies. You can't have half your brain "believe" everything what the church tells you, and the other half believing facts of life.

    I agree that "age" does not matter , except if you are "mental" like Trump or Ross as well Pence who has the "evangelical" brain" as I described. Just tell me, why are these "believers" always the biggest liars and "sneaky"?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Chet -- You are the classic person of what psychologists would use the terms "cognitive dissonance" and "confirmation bias". You're not alone...most all people brain's to some degree are afflicted by it including that of Donald Trump. However, many of those on the far left and far right are the worst.

    On that point, nothing I write in this website seems to sway you one iota, but for others that might want to become members of this website I don't want them to think that your views continuously slamming the Democratic Party, the DNC, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are a consensus view of the members on this website. For the benefit of others I'll address your prior posts in this thread.

    First, I checked out Premilla Nadasen's article on "How a Democrat Killed Welfare" published in the Jacobin magazine website that you cited as vindication of your attacks on Democrats. The by-line of the article reads, "Bill Clinton gutted welfare and criminalized the poor, all while funneling more money into the carceral state." Yes that's a headline that certainly would attract you Chet.

    So I can certainly understand why you would choose an article in the Jacobin, which is described by Caroline O'Donovan in NiemanLab as a "Marxist rag run on a lot of petty-bourgeois hustle." You can read about the Nieman Foundation for Journalism if you like in Wikipedia. I don't doubt the sincerity of Premilla Anderson. She sounds very bitter and is lashing out. But if she would have done her homework, she should have realized how the title of her article and it's contents can be so ridiculous and easily debunked. But it was okay for publication in the Jacobin...that "Marxist rag".

    You also cited a March 2014 article by Kevin Drum in Mother Jones by entitled, Democrats Have Done Virtually Nothing for the Middle Class in 30 Years. I like many of the articles I read in Mother Jones, and appreciate David Corn's appearances on MSNBC. Most of the current journalism is directed against Donald Trump and his administration. Kevin Drum I was less familiar with, but I looked him up and read some of his current articles. He's an okay guy, but a self acknowledged avid Bernie supporter. He mostly likes to write about photography. That's okay. And he makes a lot of sweeping generalizations without regard to facts.

    His 2014 article is not one of his better literary pieces (the title is absurd) and exhibits much of the lashing out frustration that Democrats had at the time in 2014, including me, in Democrats' inability to make more inroads into the middle class electorate. And the reason for that is quite simple...Republicans are better at controlling the messaging, although Democrat's accomplishments and proposed programs to help the poor and middle class are far superior to those of the Republicans.

    You also cited an article by Robert Reich with the title, Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more. It was published on November 10, 2016 immediately after Clinton's loss. Now I like Robert Reich and I like the Guardian. So this article caught my attention more than the one in the "Marxist rag".

    Robert Reich served admirably as Secretary of Labor during Bill Clinton's first term in office (1992-1996) and according to Wikipedia, "during his tenure, he implemented the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), successfully lobbied to increase the minimum wage, lobbied to pass the School-to-Work Jobs Act, and to integrate all job-training and job-displacement programs so workers who lost their jobs could get access to all the help they needed to get new ones that paid at least as much as the old." I could not find anything that suggested an acrimonious relationship with Bill Clinton.

    After leaving the Clinton administration, Reich published his memoirs in a book, ''Locked in the Cabinet,'' in which he was criticized by the media for "embellishing events with invented dialogue." Most notably as reported by the New York Times, Reich in his book "described dramatic episodes and dialogue that did not match the record of C-Span tapes and transcripts of Washington meetings". In his later paperback version of the book Reich made revisions, explaining in a foreword that ''memory is fallible.'' Nevertheless, it tarnished his reputation, and I for one do not accept verbatim everything that Reich says because he is also a founding member of the union funded Economic Policy Institute and has to tow the union line.

    Anyway shifting back to the topic of Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It is easy cherry pick in 20:20 hindsight that some of the provisions in the law did not work out as expected in 1994. Yes the law has been a factor in the incarceration of African Americans and some at the time pointed it out. But to be clear the act was much more than a "prison act".

    It also included the Assault Weapons Ban, which "barred the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic firearms classified as "assault weapons", as well as any semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine that has two or more features considered characteristic of such weapons. The list of such features included telescoping or folding stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, grenade launchers, and Bayonet lugs as well as the possession of newly manufactured magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition." Unfortunately, it had a 10 year sunset provision.

    The 356 page act also included such things as a Violence Against Women Act, a Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, and Community Oriented Policing Services and much more that was to the liking of the populace at the time. But the prison and incarceration part of the act has received the most negative publicity of late, and even Bill Clinton regrets how that part of the law turned out different than intended.

    Nevertheless in 1994 the Act had a populist appeal for that time. The act originated with Joe Biden in the Senate and after several rewrites ultimately passed 235-195 in the House with Bernie Sanders one of the "aye" votes. In the Senate it passed 61-38, with Democrats largely supportive and Republicans against because of the assault weapons ban. Notable 'aye' votes included Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone.

    It's fair to say that the votes on both sides reflected less about the prison incarceration part of the legislation and more about the assault weapons ban. That was the popular mood of the nation in 1994. Bill Clinton signed it into law.

    Bill Clinton and Hillary by association have now been attacked repeatedly by the left for Bill Clinton signing the act into law. However, if he would have vetoed it, what would the left be crying now? "Bill Clinton vetoed the assault weapons ban!!" Or perhaps something like "the Clintons don't care about violence against women and children" the part of the act that would have been cut with a Clinton veto. That's how ugly politics can get, but that's why we need clear thinking centrists who do their homework and are not just grabbing headlines to make their case.

    I lived the 2014 election up close knocking on doors, selling the Democratic Party proposed programs, and otherwise trying to educate the electorate on what we stand for...and on paper our view of the issues and practical solutions were far better than anything the Republicans offered at the time. But it was just so hard to change peoples' brains. So I absolutely disagree that Democrats don't care about the middle class or poor as you so often state, but I will agree that we don't know how to message like Republicans. This is what George Lakoff keeps harping about in his articles and I accept his criticism.

    San Francisco Magazine: Rewiring the Democratic Brain With George Lakoff

    We have much to learn, but attacking Democrats is not constructive to winning the 2018 midterm election.

    This is a long winded response to your "dump" of several articles that "proved" your case. I submit that whenever you or the far left writers that you cite state that Democrats do not care about the working class or the middle class or the poor, you have not done your homework. Hating the Clintons is an obsession with you Chet that is not unlike Trump's hatred of Barack Obama. Hate doesn't do anything for the party. It just helps elect people like Donald Trump.

    Schmidt said:

    "On that point, nothing I write in this website seems to sway you one iota"

    Schmidt , I don't need swaying. I came on the sight saying Hillary wasn't in touch with the hurting people and that she would lose the election because she and the DNC weren't in touch with the working class. Eventually by the time of the convention she made movement toward the hurting class but it was too little to late and lacked sincerity. You defended her original position and I haven't seen you move away from it. You were happy with the original platform and appeared to be anti Sanders platform. I haven't seen you sway one iota toward recognizing the problems. You challenged my opposition to the CFMA. A lot of things need changing but the mood of the country appears to be toward status quo and Incrementalism. The Parkwood massacre seems to have energized an awareness of the problem of change but unfortunately the solutions are from the anti gun group and there doesn't seem to be an anti killing of kids in school faction. Movement is incremental and status quo. Since the no more Parkwood statement there has been another school shooting. Status quo rules.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Lamb won in Pennsylvania because he was conservative and he put distance between himself and Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is a target for Fox news and a target for conservative trash talk. They seem to always belittle and doubt women. Hopefully that will be remembered by an important sector of voters.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt said:

    "Hating the Clintons is an obsession with you Chet that is not unlike Trump's hatred of Barack Obama"

    Schmidt You are closer to Trump than anybody. Because I point out what caused Hillary to lose the election you say hate her. Because you can't stand the truth you just like Trump exaggerate and fabricate to make it look like your thinking is correct. You can't find one hateful thing I said about Hillary. On the contrary I was talking to you about her congessional testimony and expressed to you my admiration for her. I also said she was handicapped in the campaign because she had to show support for Obama. I have expressed many times how she is and has been a victim of circumstances. The only hate in this forum is yours for my support for wanting to help the lower classes. So unless you can sight something hateful I said about Hillary you need to reflect on your position as a Democrat. Schmidt stop the Trump smearing tactic and deal with the facts.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    This is getting awfully close to violating the community rules, Chet. Keep your disagreements cordial and not personal.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote: This is getting awfully close to violating the community rules, Chet. Keep your disagreements cordial and not personal.

    Schmidt gets a pass? He claims I hate Hillary and can't sight anything hateful I said about Hillary. He claims I have abnormal personality disorders but can't substantiate his claim. He initiated the unsubstantiated personal attacks. Including comparisons to Trump. What about it ?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Looking at these replies, I'm shaking my head. If we (members) can't get along, how about the whole country? This exactly shows what is wrong with this country; no one gets along, unless you follow the Trump doctrine and promise 100% loyalty. Thus, I certainly am not "loyal" for the Democrats, nor the GOP, let alone the "dickhead" Trump. Therefore it is healthy to have different opinions. Thus Jared be nice to Chet. (and me)