Millionaire Donor Threatens Democratic Party: “If They Go Far Left, I’m Out”

londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
So do you actually have anything to say on the topic?

Or have your pathetic talking points been so thoroughly crushed you don't care anymore and just resort to meaningless drivel in its place?

The idea that you think personal attacks have any place in the discussion says much about your own (lack of) character and education.
Click to expand...
I would rather help you get a date. same topic from the Bernie Babies. You seen one you seen them all.
Have you ever thought of moving to Florida. A lot of millionaire donors live there. Maybe you and the crazy chick can convince them to keep donating, or at least give you two a couple of bucks to splurge on an expensive meal. Tell Crazy Sybil not to bring her puppets.
 
travisw

travisw

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Results mean something.

Democrats are STILL down almost 1000 seats since Obama took office.

Maybe they should try not taking corporate money- like Republicans do- or moving to the 'center'- that is between their already moderate Republican position and the right wing fascist positions the Republican Party now inhabits.
Click to expand...


Jesus, you "progressives" love trotting that statistic out. You never talk about why the democrats lost the seats though. You just say Obama lost 1000 seats like you're fucking republicans or something. What about?

The midterms have always been older and whiter.
The decennial census, Tea Party, and all the gerrymandering.
When it comes to elections, democrats aren't evenly distributed.
Democrats have historically under invested in these races.

What's the progressive plan? It isn't just blame Clinton and Obama for everything wrong in the world is it, because the republicans already have that shit covered.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
travisw said:


Jesus, you "progressives" love trotting that statistic out. You never talk about why the democrats lost the seats though. You just say Obama lost 1000 seats like you're fucking republicans or something. What about?

The midterms have always been older and whiter.
The decennial census, Tea Party, and all the gerrymandering.
When it comes to elections, democrats aren't evenly distributed.
Democrats have historically under invested in these races.

What's the progressive plan? It isn't just blame Clinton and Obama for everything wrong in the world is it, because the republicans already have that shit covered.
Click to expand...
Finally, a serious response!

First, stop misquoting me; I said the Democrats have lost 1000 seats since Obama took office; I didn't say he was personally responsible.

Second, with numbers like that it's not a coincidence, it's a trend- one that the party has been remarkably resistant to acknowledging.

Third, Progressives are a grassroots movement- and it's been a long time since that could honestly be said about Dems or Pubs. That might be why I think they have a lot of room to run yet; they do this quaint lil ol thang called 'representing the people'.

You might look into it sometime.

If you'd like to know what progressive candidates and groups are pushing, all ya gotta do is read their websites. You might find their positions pretty amenable to your own.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
I would rather help you get a date. same topic from the Bernie Babies. You seen one you seen them all.
Have you ever thought of moving to Florida. A lot of millionaire donors live there. Maybe you and the crazy chick can convince them to keep donating, or at least give you two a couple of bucks to splurge on an expensive meal. Tell Crazy Sybil not to bring her puppets.
Click to expand...
I hope the weed is good, because none of your comments are.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
travisw said:


Jesus, you "progressives" love trotting that statistic out. You never talk about why the democrats lost the seats though. You just say Obama lost 1000 seats like you're fucking republicans or something. What about?

The midterms have always been older and whiter.
The decennial census, Tea Party, and all the gerrymandering.
When it comes to elections, democrats aren't evenly distributed.
Democrats have historically under invested in these races.

What's the progressive plan? It isn't just blame Clinton and Obama for everything wrong in the world is it, because the republicans already have that shit covered.
Click to expand...
tty doesn't seem to realize that we won the house vote in 2012 by 1.5% - and remained down by 49 seats.

just like we won by 9 points in virginia last week - and it was only good enough for a tie in the house.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
travisw said:
You never talk about why the democrats lost the seats though.
Click to expand...
Sure, you can mark some losses up to the reasons you cited, but more than 1,000 in 8 years is pretty extraordinary. The Democratic establishment promotes corporate candidates that support business interests because that's where the funds that get them (re)elected come from. Corporate interests are diametrically opposed to the working-class and poor. Sure, you can fundraise a grip of money, but if the people you target to get you elected don't believe you're representing their interests, voter turnout and enthusiasm will be low, like we saw in 2016.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
tty doesn't seem to realize that we won the house vote in 2012 by 1.5% - and remained down by 49 seats.

just like we won by 9 points in virginia last week - and it was only good enough for a tie in the house.
Click to expand...
Might be because those Republican Statehouse majorities actually mean something when it comes to redistricting time.

But tell us again about how all those state legislatures don't mean anything when it comes to national politics.

Who's really failing to understand the situation?

If I'm following your standard posting pattern, is this the place where I call you a dullard, or a dolt or some other silly irrelevant name?

Keep with the divisive tactics, though- they win no votes from right leaning Independents, nor do they impress Left leaning voters with anything other than your bloated sense of self importance.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Sure, you can mark some losses up to the reasons you cited, but more than 1,000 in 8 years is pretty extraordinary. The Democratic establishment promotes corporate candidates that support business interests because that's where the funds that get them (re)elected come from. Corporate interests are diametrically opposed to the working-class and poor. Sure, you can fundraise a grip of money, but if the people you target to get you elected don't believe you're representing their interests, voter turnout and enthusiasm will be low, like we saw in 2016.
Click to expand...
Citizens United happened during Mr Obama's first term, as did the Democratic Party's turn to the corporate cash- which also happened to be on the right.

I think that's got an awful lot to do with how and why the Democrats lost those 1000 seats.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Might be because those Republican Statehouse majorities actually mean something when it comes to redistricting time.

But tell us again about how all those state legislatures don't mean anything when it comes to national politics.

Who's really failing to understand the situation?

If I'm following your standard posting pattern, is this the place where I call you a dullard, or a dolt or some other silly irrelevant name?

Keep with the divisive tactics, though- they win no votes from right leaning Independents, nor do they impress Left leaning voters with anything other than your bloated sense of self importance.
Click to expand...
oh, i thought it was all due to elitist corporate democrats taking donations, not gerrymandering.

i'll give you some time to get your story straight.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Citizens United happened during Mr Obama's first term, as did the Democratic Party's turn to the corporate cash- which also happened to be on the right.

I think that's got an awful lot to do with how and why the Democrats lost those 1000 seats.
Click to expand...
Democrats turned to corporate cash with Bill Clinton, after being dominated by Republicans in presidential elections since 1980. The Clinton administration got rid of the banking regulations enacted after the Great Depression that ensured a more stable economy for the 60+ years until the crash in 08 by signing the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999.

Many establishment Democrats acknowledge the way campaigns are funded is bad, but they have to utilize corporate donors in order to be competitive against Republicans, which is a false premise. I've heard Barney Frank, who was the cosponsor on the 'Dodd-Frank' banking regulation enacted after the crash in 2008, that didn't actually solve the problem.. support money in politics for this reason.

I think that if you highlight the fact that one entire political party is taking 100% of the funding from giant multinational corporations and billionaires seeking to influence political policy and the other one is only accepting money from individual American donors, it would be an absolute bloodbath at the polls in favor of Democrats. No race would even be close. I'm sure most Americans would agree..

So why don't they do it?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
if you highlight the fact that one entire political party is taking 100% of the funding from giant multinational corporations and billionaires seeking to influence political policy and the other one is only accepting money from individual American donors, it would be an absolute bloodbath at the polls in favor of Democrats. No race would even be close.
Click to expand...
a pedophile who wants to ban muslims from public service and outlaw homosexuality is about to beat a democrat who convicted KKK murderers right now.

you're naive.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Democrats turned to corporate cash with Bill Clinton, after being dominated by Republicans in presidential elections since 1980. The Clinton administration got rid of the banking regulations enacted after the Great Depression that ensured a more stable economy for the 60+ years until the crash in 08 by signing the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999.

Many establishment Democrats acknowledge the way campaigns are funded is bad, but they have to utilize corporate donors in order to be competitive against Republicans, which is a false premise. I've heard Barney Frank, who was the cosponsor on the 'Dodd-Frank' banking regulation enacted after the crash in 2008, that didn't actually solve the problem.. support money in politics for this reason.

I think that if you highlight the fact that one entire political party is taking 100% of the funding from giant multinational corporations and billionaires seeking to influence political policy and the other one is only accepting money from individual American donors, it would be an absolute bloodbath at the polls in favor of Democrats. No race would even be close. I'm sure most Americans would agree..

So why don't they do it?
Click to expand...

Your belief:
I think that if you highlight the fact that one entire political party is taking 100% of the funding from giant multinational corporations and billionaires seeking to influence political policy and the other one is only accepting money from individual American donors, it would be an absolute bloodbath at the polls in favor of Democrats. No race would even be close. I'm sure most Americans would agree..

Facts that contradict your belief:
In September, 2014, every Democratic Senator was in favor of Sander's bill and it was defeated by universal opposition by Republican Senators. In November, 2014, Republicans gained 6 seats in the Senate

In 2016, Sanders lost by a whopping large margin to Clinton. Sanders was refusing large but legal donations and Clinton gladly accepted them.

Why don't they do it? Because there is no evidence that your theory is true and every recent test of your theory shows it's not that important if at all to the majority of voters. In fact some of the evidence says the opposite is true.

We'll test this theory of yours again in next year's primary. Democrats that swear off legal campaign donations from corporate and wealthy donors will oppose Democrats who don't. This is the perfect opportunity to test your theory again. I predict your theory loses again and you continue to hold to it. I also predict you reply back and use an unproven belief to claim you are still right even when evidence says otherwise.

Before we can change campaign finance laws we have to be able to push legislation through congress and have a president who will sign it. I'm completely satisfied that this will happen when Democrats finally have the votes in congress to make it law. Until then, it's completely up to the candidate regarding what to do about this issue.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
No rebuttal, just brainlessness.

True to form, Stinkydigit.
Click to expand...
Ok, I don't mean to be a dick but here it goes...

I've a job that pays nearly $100k a year in which I primarily work from home at my own hours.

I've a wife and kids and a 5 bedroom house that I own outright...in my 30's.

If I'm so brainless, then how come I'm successful and you're here moaning about getting a better minimum wage and can't even get a second date with a woman even after paying for expensive shit on the first?

Post some YouTube videos and melt down, your tears will sustain me :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top