Meet the progressive that's going to hand Joe Manchin his ass in the Democratic primary; Paula Jean

[Padawanbater2]

agreed, i like his positions. i could care less that he takes a ton of wall street money. more power to him.

If Wall Street funds a politician's campaign, don't you think he is beholden to their interests?

Would you honestly support someone being appointed to a committee to regulate the financial industry after having their campaign funded by financial institutions? No conflict of interest?

 

[Fogdog]

why is ro khanna such a foe of wall street if he takes more of their money than anyone else?

Money does affect legislation. You don't deny that, do you?

 

[UncleBuck]

If Wall Street funds a politician's campaign, don't you think he is beholden to their interests?

not necessarily. if i were running, i'd take anyone's money who was willing to give it.

ro doesn't give two shits about what wall street wants.

 

[Padawanbater2]

not necessarily. if i were running, i'd take anyone's money who was willing to give it.

ro doesn't give two shits about what wall street wants.

Sure, but consider incumbents. They rely on these donations to ensure their reelection. They have to keep them happy, right? Otherwise they won't donate next cycle.

 

[UncleBuck]

Sure, but consider incumbents. They rely on these donations to ensure their reelection. They have to keep them happy, right? Otherwise they won't donate next cycle.

we'll see.

either justice democrats are phonies or you can take someone's money while flipping them the bird. i'm betting on the latter.

 

[Padawanbater2]

we'll see.

either justice democrats are phonies or you can take someone's money while flipping them the bird. i'm betting on the latter.

The entire premise of justification for JD is that they don't accept corporate or PAC money. If anyone accepts corporate or PAC money, they are not a JD. Since the leadership at JD has approved of Khanna's membership, I assume he's accepted that pledge.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

Could you clarify what you mean? Why do you think people donate to political campaigns if not to receive something back? I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with that. I just think it becomes wrong when one party can flood the voices of others with the amount of money they donate. That makes it an unfair process.

I've mentioned before that the company I worked for donated to both candidates in senatorial campaigns.

They wanted some influence (presumably) to get what they felt was unfair foreign dumping relief.

There was foreign subsidised dumping (selling below market price forcing domestic prices down) going on.

But they didn't always get what they wanted. Trade cases were often rejected when the arbiter ruled they were profitable and not hurt by the dumping.

Was what my company did a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not? The point is they donated money, they didn't always get what they wanted. Why can't I conclude this happens elsewhere? I know it does.

Is every attempt at 'influence' bad? What if you're trying to 'influence' not destroying the environment?

Every campaign contribution isn't geared toward the 1%. That's not to say that some are.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Is every attempt at 'influence' bad?

It entirely depends on your perspective

But because some influences are, agreeably, not "bad", that doesn't mean that the ones that are bad are any less bad, or should go unnoticed, unregulated, or unpunished when they break the law.

 

[ttystikk]

Well since campaign finance reform doesn't seem to be on the horizon, I wouldn't mind seeing candidates I like getting money.

The last candidate I donated to got crushed, because the republican had a huge budget.

He's currently in the house, keeping it tilted to the right, one of the ACA repeal votes. Nice fucking guy. More money could have stopped him. More TV commercials help.

Let me ask this. If some rich guy died and left the DNC $5 billion, would they win more seats?
Who wins without money these days under the current rules? You're complaint is donated big money buys influence. What if it didn't?

I think big money lobbying is worse. Campaign money is only for election cycles.

The Clinton campaign spent far more money than the Republican challenger.

Honestly, what's wrong with the Democratic Party is more fundamental than cash. They simply aren't supporting the idea their constituents want. I wrote a sizeable post in another thread about this and linked an article from the guardian that discussed this problem;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/17/everyone-loves-bernie-sanders-except-democratic-party

This article eloquently states my position on the Democratic Party; they are refusing to take responsibility for a complete failure to listen to and respond to the needs and desires of their constituents.

Until and unless this changes, I frankly don't think any amount of money will matter, nor should it.

 

[ttystikk]

If money did not buy political influence, there would be no problem with money in politics. The problem is that it does buy influence.

This is a fact that can't be denied, right? I give you $100K, you're going to take my call when the time comes, are you not?

Are we all in agreement that political donations buys political influence?

Jimmy Carter has looked at this situation and declared America an oligarchy instead of a democracy.

 

[ttystikk]

why is ro khanna such a foe of wall street if he takes more of their money than anyone else?

Show me 240 more representatives like him. Until you can, he's an exception for you to use as a convenient smoke screen instead of addressing the real problems.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

The Clinton campaign spent far more money than the Republican challenger.

Honestly, what's wrong with the Democratic Party is more fundamental than cash. They simply aren't supporting the idea their constituents want. I wrote a sizeable post in another thread about this and linked an article from the guardian that discussed this problem;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/17/everyone-loves-bernie-sanders-except-democratic-party

This article eloquently states my position on the Democratic Party; they are refusing to take responsibility for a complete failure to listen to and respond to the needs and desires of their constituents.

Until and unless this changes, I frankly don't think any amount of money will matter, nor should it.

OK, it's an interesting, if very short opinion piece.

I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion, or your similar conclusion that the party is spiraling down the drain.

There's an ebb an flow to politics. 9 years ago the Democrats had both the house and senate plus the presidency. It will happen again sooner than you think.

Trump's regime is alienating people daily. That alone will gain seats and begin to turn the tide.

Are there internal DNC problems that need addressed? Always. Do corporations have too much power? Yes. I'm still optimistic going forward. The current regime may hand it over on a silver platter like W. did in '08.

Be united and ready to take over with a plan. It's coming soon.

 

[ttystikk]

OK, it's an interesting, if very short opinion piece.

I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion, or your similar conclusion that the party is spiraling down the drain.

There's an ebb an flow to politics. 9 years ago the Democrats had both the house and senate plus the presidency. It will happen again sooner than you think.

Trump's regime is alienating people daily. That alone will gain seats and begin to turn the tide.

Are there internal DNC problems that need addressed? Always. Do corporations have too much power? Yes. I'm still optimistic going forward. The current regime may hand it over on a silver platter like W. did in '08.

Be united and ready to take over with a plan. It's coming soon.

The progressive movement is doing just that.

They're gaining strength and will do one of three things;

• Take over the Democratic Party. This is a long shot.
• Force the Democratic Party to take us stiffly and build a platform Progressives can support. This is the best option.
• Stand in opposition to a totally recalcitrant and corrupt Democratic Party and force them to lose to the right. This is the ugly option, but one Democrats should take seriously.

After all, Mr Sanders is still the most popular sitting politician in America and that's not due to his hairstyle or his love for mega corps. We will never forget what Debbie Wasserman Schultz did to him, the Democratic Party or the country and if the Democrats- Tom Perez chief among them- don't get the hint, they won't have support in 2018 or thereafter.

 

[SneekyNinja]

The Democrat Party won the election as far as votes are concerned but got gerrymandered out of the Presidency.

You idiots keep implying they had some "fatal flaw" that doesn't exist because it supports your invented narrative.

 

[Padawanbater2]

The Democrat Party won the election as far as votes are concerned but got gerrymandered out of the Presidency.

You idiots keep implying they had some "fatal flaw" that doesn't exist because it supports your invented narrative.

Even if they did win, it would have been by a hair. That's unacceptable. Average Americans support progressive policies, how is it that the party that's supposed to represent progressives barely wins when people support progressive ideas/values/beliefs more than the Republican counterpart?

Do you know how hard it should be for Republicans to win national elections in this country? The Democratic party is handing them wins by running Republican light candidates with a (D) behind their name.. Run progressives and the margins won't be within the margin of error. They will win with a strong majority of the vote.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

Even if they did win, it would have been by a hair. That's unacceptable. Average Americans support progressive policies, how is it that the party that's supposed to represent progressives barely wins when people support progressive ideas/values/beliefs more than the Republican counterpart?

Do you know how hard it should be for Republicans to win national elections in this country? The Democratic party is handing them wins by running Republican light candidates with a (D) behind their name.. Run progressives and the margins won't be within the margin of error. They will win with a strong majority of the vote.

Don't forget to calculate in a natural ebb and flow (at least in presidential runs) and fierce wing nut resistance.

The majority never seem to get what we want.

And half the people vote against their own best interests.

It actually is depressing at times. (like now.)

 

[Padawanbater2]

Don't forget to calculate in a natural ebb and flow (at least in presidential runs) and fierce wing nut resistance.

The majority never seem to get what we want.

And half the people vote against their own best interests.

It actually is depressing at times. (like now.)

So the natural 'ebb and flow', does that mean you believe since there was a Democratic president for 8 years, the pendulum would naturally begin to swing back in favor of Republicans after Obama?

Why do you think there is an ebb and flow to begin with?

 

[tangerinegreen555]

So the natural 'ebb and flow', does that mean you believe since there was a Democratic president for 8 years, the pendulum would naturally begin to swing back in favor of Republicans after Obama?

Why do you think there is an ebb and flow to begin with?

I think if you would have had 2 'normal' candidates (instead of 2 loaded with negatives), the republican may have had an advantage.

People are never satisfied. They always want more than they got from the last president.
Obama was blocked for 6 years, was that his fault or congresses' fault?
Depends if your republican or Democrat.

The swing voters are fickle. And everybody is self centered today. No more, "Ask not what your country can do for you..."
Some with good reason, some just, 'it's all about me'.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I think if you would have had 2 'normal' candidates (instead of 2 loaded with negatives), the republican may have had an advantage.

Why do you think the republican might have had an advantage?

People are never satisfied. They always want more than they got from the last president.
Obama was blocked for 6 years, was that his fault or congresses' fault?
Depends if your republican or Democrat.

Why do you think voters voted for FDR for 4 consecutive terms?

The swing voters are fickle. And everybody is self centered today. No more, "Ask not what your country can do for you..."
Some with good reason, some just, 'it's all about me'.

Why though? Why has the paradigm switched from 'us' to 'me'?

 

[tangerinegreen555]

Why do you think the republican might have had an advantage?

Ebb and flow and desire for 'change', often based on stupidity.

Why do you think voters voted for FDR for 4 consecutive terms?

FDR had star power. He raised the standard of living for the common man with SS and the NLRB, supporting unions created a strong middle class and a strong tax base.

Why though? Why has the paradigm switched from 'us' to 'me'?

A lot of reasons, less good job opportunity, distrust of gov't., self centeredness, greed, conspiracy theory lovers, crazy people, polarization.