Politics The Donkey in the room...the Democrats today

I'm not saying that Gore would have a good chance at winning, I'm saying that to bring up environmental problems, the people who are benefiting from causing the pollution, and that the solutions will work, it wouldn't be a bad idea to get the media attention and crowds that will talk to a Presidential candidate.

Now, Gore is not perfect, and he has some credibility issues with the wasteful lifestyle he has, so it wouldn't be all that great. But, this is the debate that the Democrats need to have. On who is going to donate to campaigns, and what their plans would be. Along with showing that things they have done in the past actually work.

 

Gore is not a great candidate, but the Internet thing wasn't a gaffe. It was somebody else's joke about him, like half the dumb things Dan Quayle is supposed to have said.

Nor is his lifestyle "plutocratic" compared to other politicians and business leaders at his level. Rather, because he advocated changes that might be painful to the oil and coal industries, they take any opportunity to slam him for not living like a monk.

I say this, not to defend Gore, who for other reasons wouldn't be a good candidate or president, but because this kind of misleading bullshit will be thrown at anyone who runs.

 

Inventing the Internet. Did Al Gore Invent the Internet?

I'm pretty sure Gore buys carbon offset credits, which many rich people could afford, yet don't buy. But, he does have a problem with image and showing people how to live good while being sustainable.

 

It looks like the Democrats might start making some news and getting a debate going. Which is exactly what they need to do.

5 Great Things That Have Happened for Bernie Sanders Since He Announced | Alternet

Obama: Warren 'wrong' on free trade claims

 

Like I said in the election thread: Hillary is the best Republican candidate the Democrats have ever fielded. She's an anti-sex, pro-censorship, pro-1%, corporatist bigot that will jump into bed with anything she thinks will get her power and influence. She jumped in bed with Jack Thompson during the First Videogame Panic, she panders to the 1% and corporations, and she uses the feminist angle to further bolster her social influence while simultaneously dividing up the 99% and pitting them against each other.

She's a different flavor teabag. Same censorious sexually repressive moralistic authoritarianism, same deluge-upwards economic policies, same utter disregard for the bill of rights, same corporate socialism, but where the teaparty ineptly tries to pit the 99% against itself via partisanship she plays up femsploitation and identity politics to do the same far more effectively.

And I hate how I feel like a flipping marxist every time I point these tactics out, and a bloody neocon every time I need to go to breitbart or Reason to get decent reporting on her instead of church sermons.

Thank god Sanders is running, we finally have a real liberal candidate for the first time in a good while. He doesn't stand a chance of winning but he's sure as hell going to make the entire election look like the dog and pony show it is while he's up there. It's going to be beautiful watching everyone else, left and right, hate him for going off-script.

 

The only quibble I have with the above is going to breitbart for anything.

 

It's like I'm stuck in the Twilight Zone!

 

So have the Democrats learned anything over the past year? There are elections this Tuesday, and, even with a GOP controlled government, many races are still too close to call. The Democrats haven't changed very much, and I couldn't name one thing. The individual groups are still pushing their issues, I don't think many Republicans have changed their minds in the past year, the candidates seem to appear out of nowhere to run, and they aren't involved at the local political level ahead of time. Most of them seem to be rich and don't want to get their hands dirty.

And the split between the progressives and the centrists is probably bigger now than it was last year at this time. The DNC removed a bunch of progressives from the board, and Donna Brazille came out and said what everyone already knew, that the DNC and Debbie Wassermann Schultz wanted Hillary to win and manipulated the party to ensure that had the best chance of happening. Hillary didn't want a repeat of 2008, and I have a feeling that there were some agreements made back then that she would be the next candidate, but it was either done verbally or not on a computer.

Do you think that anything will change in the media, activist groups, the poor who should vote, or the rich who want control of the party in the next year for a better outcome? Or even if Democrats get 5 million more votes, that it won't matter and the outcome will be more Republicans in the Congress due to gerrymandering and people moving to blue states?

 

Her former campaign chair became the DNC chair and the then-DNC chair became her running mate, that alone was enough of a giveaway.

Going by the fact people are still trying to pin Seth Rich's leaks on Commies Russians and playing the Her Turn/Misogyny card, and excommunicating Brazille for her crimes against the Church of Socjus and its anointed Queen Hillary, I very much doubt they've learned. I mean remember these are people who responded to more than half of the National Convention delegates walking out to join >10,000 protestors outside by paying seat fillers and having the media pretend nothing was happening.

The thing is academic and media elites have overplayed their institutional control of the discourse and lost their ability to make a false narrative into reality, the vast majority of the country now trusts and approves of mainstream media even less than they do Congress and the Social Justice movement's military wing (Antifa) is utterly repugnant to a majority of mainstream America... to the point Antifa managed to offer legitimacy and sympathy to literal fucking Nazis simply by being so shitty people sided with the other guys.

If anything I'm expecting the next election or two to be an even more brutal rebuke of the DNC than this one. People hate Trump but they know they can criticize him without someone glassing them in the face with a broken bottle or beating their skull in with a bike lock and throwing M80s at them. Michael Moore was right: Donald Trump is a brick through the window of the establishment, both left and right. He's causing both parties to completely implode.

 

I'll just focus on this for now:

Are you seriously promoting the Sean Hannity/Alex Jones conspiracy theory blaming Seth Rich for the hacking of the DNC?

When Trump's own DoJ is now seriously considering charging six Russian government officials (despite Trump suggesting it might have been a fat 14 year old in his parent's basement).

From last week:

U.S. authorities identify six Russian officials in DNC hack: WSJ

I'll get to the larger topic tomorrow.

 

Case in point about the Dems having not learned anything and instead doubled down on blind fanaticism, the previous two posts. Also since Rogue brought it up can we please stop pretending that the two parties are just "private organizations" and not integral parts of the electoral process nowadays since even Teddy Freaking Roosevelt couldn't win as a third party? The entire electoral system is utterly captured by these organizations.

 

The parties are integral to the electoral process as any two parties have been since the beginning of this country.
Not these two parties per se, just two parties.
As my grandfather liked to say, unfortunately it's baked into our system and doesn't give third parties much of a chance.
They do change, switch, and evolve, though.
Read John Lewis' autobiography about how they forced the Democrats to pretty much become a completely different party for an interesting take on that process.

The cool part is you can do make those changes yourself too if you have the gumption (probably not to the Republicans, I think they are boned).