Here are the rats that are fucking Democrats

[whereisjustice]

In no particular order.

1. NSA, CIA, FBI spying on Americans.

2. Corporations helping NSA, CIA, FBI spy on Americans.

3. A Congress and White House as corporate proxies.

4. Militarized police force.

5. Wealth disparity on par with the 3rd world.

6. Education and health care inflation.

7. Education and health care policy written by corporations.

8. Over educated, under employed workforce.

9. Fracking pollution.

10. Trade deals sending millions of jobs to Asia.

11. Immunity for Wall Street crime.

12. Endless war on drugs.

13. Endless war on terror.

14. Taking minorities for granted.

15. Taking the middle class for granted.

16. Considering social security cuts and increased retirement age as economic stimulus.

17. The third way and blue dogs.

[lonestarnot]

1. Your list is out of order. 5 should be at the top and it is not stated correctly.

[whereisjustice]

2. It's in no particular order - but how would you state #5?

[lonestarnot]

3. The income disparity is worse than 3rd world. Where is the richest country in the world on the list

? Do you know. I did and have forgotten because it is appalling. I am tired of appalling.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. No, it's not worse than 3rd world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

The map is the easiest to see at a glance:



Some 3rd world countries are better, but many are worse.

[lonestarnot]

89. Double speak. "No it's not worse than 3rd world. Some 3rd world...are better."

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. Not 'double speak'; some are better, some are worse

The world is more complicated than your simplistic claim. The OP, which said "on par with the 3rd world" was more accurate than your 'correction'.

[lonestarnot]

93. Some?

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. Yes, 'some'; do you need the word defined for you?

"Not all, but more than none". "Not every instance, but above zero". "Some".

[reddread]

4. "overeducated"?

hate to pick nits.
buuuuut, fraid not.

[whereisjustice]

10. yes, over educated. Minority and youth college grad unemployment is nearing 3rd world

But they'll bring in another 100,000 unskilled H1Bs from India and train them on the job. The problem is - we haven't learned the most important lesson of our education - loving $7/hr without benefits.

SAN FRANCISCO – Top universities turn out black and Hispanic computer science and computer engineering graduates at twice the rate that leading technology companies hire them, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

Technology companies blame the pool of job applicants for the severe shortage of blacks and Hispanics in Silicon Valley.

But these findings show that claim "does not hold water," said Darrick Hamilton, professor of economics and urban policy at The New School in New York.

"What do dominant groups say? 'We tried, we searched but there was nobody qualified.' If you look at the empirical evidence, that is just not the case," he said.

As technology becomes a major engine of economic growth in the U.S. economy, tech companies are under growing pressure to diversify their workforces, which are predominantly white, Asian and male. Leaving African Americans and Hispanics out of that growth increases the divide between haves and have-nots. And the technology industry risks losing touch with the diverse nation — and world — that forms its customer base.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/10/12/silicon-valley-diversity-tech-hiring-computer-science-graduates-african-american-hispanic/14684211/

[reddread]

16. no.

overstupified and underfed factual information makes a mockery of
what education and freedom should present to everyone.
our notion of education is pretty savage.

[whereisjustice]

18. different discussion, the fact is - we are importing cheap from India and if you think these people

have the education you believe Americans are lacking, you are most definitely wrong. From first day to last at school, Asia teaches compliance and memorization of carefully manufactured propaganda. Yu don't get ahead in these cultures by being creative.

Right now, we have a workforce, they have skills, they are being sold out to India and China on the cheap.

[JDPriestly]

33. True, true, true.

Americans do not understand what is going on there.

I might add that living in Silicon Valley is incredibly expensive because of housing costs.

[reddread]

46. who is we?

im not h1bllary.

[sabrina 1]

88. Very true. American workers ARE being sold for cheaper labor, who are also being victimized for

profit, from other countries.

I believe the goal is to level the working class Globally to create cheap labor now in the formerly First World. Iow, to impoverish Western workers to the point where they were settle for less and less pay, as has already happened, until the Predatory Corporations have their choice of workers from any country in the world, at the least amount of pay.

[reddread]

92. its important to remember- we are POST abolition.

as far as I can tell.
if thats "off the table"
what scraps could be left?

[Maedhros]

102. We need the IWW now, more than ever. [n/t]

[Jackpine Radical]

11. My thought exactly.

Over-trained, at best. Educated people don't do what this country just did to itself.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

56. He's just saying for the jobs they hold.

Ie, too many PhD's pumping gas, or college grads flipping burgers.

Being educated in itself is not a bad thing, the bad thing is when educated people can't find work that actually uses their education.

[VanillaRhapsody]

5. no what fucked democrats

Was low voter turnout because of lack of support by so called Democrats....Good job.

With friends like these who needs enemies...

[whereisjustice]

8. The list I posted could also be called The Democratic Party Poll Tax, better than ID laws

at suppressing turn out. There are few smart, young, working families who can afford the high price of membership.

[noiretextatique]

14. given the successful voter suppression schemes

It is odd that a contingent of democrats prefer to blame voters instead.

[JDPriestly]

35. Si why didn't Democrats get out and vote and support party candidates?

The lowest voter turnout was among young Democrats. Do you suppose the pile-on of student loan debt, low wages, miserable job market, trade agreements, police brutality against minorities, etc. discourage young voters?

Because I do.

People buy products that appeal to them.

If the Democratic brand does not appeal to young voters, they don't buy it.

It's the Democratic Party that is at fault if it is not attracting voters and unable to excite its voters about voting.

I just spent some days with my children who struggle with the demands of raising children today. They voted. But I can sure understand why a lot of young people struggling as hard as they are just don't think it worth their time to vote for yet another loudmouth who does nothing to help them with the practical problems like getting decent health care, making ends meet, etc.

[markpkessinger]

109. Thank you . . .

. . . Exactly the point I tried to make a few days ago.

[NRaleighLiberal]

6. somewhere in there belongs

A public anesthetized by reality/garbage TV (and its endless ads) but possessing a total aversion to science and reasoning

[RufusTFirefly]

22. +1! We have to stop being a country where ignorance is worn as a badge of honor

Forty years ago, running (aka jogging) became very popular. Most people didn't do it because it made them healthier. They did it because it was a fad.

We need to turn critical reasoning and intellectual curiosity into a fad.

We need clever, quick-thinking role models motivated by a desire to make the world a better place, who solve problems not with violence and greed, but by arriving at ingenious, peaceful, compassionate solutions.

[Dont call me Shirley]

30. Well said!

[antigop]

38. +1000. Spot on. nt

[woo me with science]

7. Add: The propaganda state, including online campaigns of propaganda, disinformation and smear,

Suppression of dissent, including assaults on, surveillance of, and intimidation of whistleblowers, journalists, and protesters. Refusal to protect net neutrality.

Secrecy. Secret laws, secret courts, secret trade agreements, secret budgets, secret kill and no fly lists, secret lists of citizens under suspicion, ignoring or thumbing nose at FOIA requests, redacted releases, fabricated evidence trails, and lies.

[whereisjustice]

9. Good points, deportations, attacking whistle blowers, idiotic refusal to move

forward with immigration reform which would have put Republicans on the spot.

The Democratic Party went dead nuts conservative, now they are scratching their heads wondering why the US wasn't energized and turnout was so low.

[Scuba]

19. +1

[ballyhoo]

12. Agree with all of these...although I wouldn't

strictly blame only Democrats for any of these. I blame low-info, not caring voters. At this point, without a revolution, things will only grow worse because there are no real fighters of yesteryear. Except for maybe 40 people the entire House and Senate are paid puppets. We go forward by inertia sinking a little with each mile, like the Titanic of old.

[SidDithers]

13. You forgot 3rd party advocates...nt

Sid

[Electric Monk]

15. and let's not forget those nefarious Canadians... nt

[SidDithers]

17. How are Canadians ratfucking Democrats?...

It's the "not a dime's worth of difference", and their "both parties are the same" message that is repeated over and over and over and over and over that discourages voting.

I don't think Canadians had any sort of influence on the events of last night.

But I'll gladly listen to your explanation of how they did.

Sid

[Electric Monk]

23. Do you really expect me to believe that you've never heard of David Frum?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum

He has arguably done far more damage to the American political discourse, convincing Democrats (big D) to chase that elusive middle (and lose) instead of standing up for something on issues that matter.

[Electric Monk]

36. I'll gladly listen to your explanation of why you chose Bernie Sanders for your avatar, too.

Please, do elaborate on how you are somehow sincere with your posts and not just here to troll.

[L0oniX]

27. +1

[JDPriestly]

37. What 3rd party advocates?

Did the polls show that people voted for 3rd parties? I missed that. Is there a link?

[Rex]

40. News to me too.

When did that happen?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

60. Maine gov I guess.

Not that anyone here advocated for Cutler.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. 3rd party advocates can help suppress the Democratic vote

They have a message of "the Democrats aren't good enough to vote for; only vote if you have a candidate who fits your ideals perfectly".

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

61. That's such a silly thing to say I can't believe you said it.

Find me even one post anywhere where a '3rd party advocate EVER said 'Only vote if you have a candidate who fits your ideals perfectly'? I'll wait. Forever, because you won't find it, unless it's a troll post by someone trying to smear third parties.

The ONLY people who EVER talk about 3rd party people wanting 'perfect' candidates are people saying the same silly thing you just did. People who actually believe in third parties only ever say 'vote for the best candidate', and it's up to you to decide who the best candidate is.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. Reply #45 is an example

Someone joins DU to say "vote Green if the Dem isn't perfect'. You really think that's an effort to smear third parties? The point about 3rd parties is they say "don't vote Dem (or Repub)". That's what makes them 3rd parties. It's not a 'smear' for them to state the fundamental point of their existence.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

63. Now you're blatantly lying.

Here's the part of the post you're pretending to quote.

Dems need a fighter in 2016 or I am voting Green Party again.

Here's what you lie and say it says

vote Green if the Dem isn't perfect

Why do you keep lying and saying people demand 'perfect' candidates when no one actually is?

You can't just claim that anything people says is what you say it is, unless you are simply trying to smear them with lies you put in their mouth.

You want to complain about what people say, complain about what THEY say. Not whatever lie you want to put in their mouth.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. That person's entire DU history, right here:

anti-Hillary:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4047307
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=196620
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5549512

pro-Warren, anti-Hillary:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=160180

pro-Warren:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=159810

pro-dog:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=660764

pro-Green:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5767683

That is someone who has joined to denigrate the likely Democrat presidential candidate, say there's one Dem that satisfies them, and that they will vote Green if they aren't the candidate (and, let's remember, Warren has said she's not running, so they are effectively just saying 'vote Green').

I'm not smearing them; I am pointing out they are a Green - as they said. They're a 3rd party supporter. It's not smearing 3rd party supporters to say they don't support Dems. It's reality.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

66. If you actually read the posts you linked, you might notice

he actually listed 3 dems as possibles he would support. In the first link, he suggests Howard Dean.

A few links later, he suggests Bernie Sanders. And yes, he also suggests Elizabeth Warren.

So no, yet again, you're saying something that doesn't appear to be true when you claim he says 'there's one Dem that satisfies them, and that they will vote Green if they aren't the candidate '.

Again, you're trying to put words in his mouth, rather than actually reading what he really says.

Given those 3, and his comment about a 'fighter', I would suggest that Barbara Lee, Sherrod Brown, Alan Grayson, and probably dozens of other Dem choices would pass muster in his desire for a 'fighter'. The Dem party does have fighters, and more than just 'Elizabeth Warren'.

Really, just read what people write, don't make up things you want them to have said.

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. Sanders isn't a Dem; Dean is not standing for anything

and the purpose of the threads and their posts is to be anti-Hillary.

"Given those 3, and his comment about a 'fighter', I would suggest that Barbara Lee, Sherrod Brown, Alan Grayson, and probably dozens of other Dem choices would pass muster in his desire for a 'fighter'."

Now that's/ putting words in their mouth. Naming random Dems and assuming they'd support them, when they say they vote Green, is ridiculous. Remember, that's all they've ever said on DU, in a whole year. Nothing about Lee, Brown or Grayson.

Why is it so important for you to try to paint a self-admitted Green party supporter as a Democrat? I don't get why anyone - Democrat or Green - would want to do that. And of course 3rd party supporters, whether that one or any other, often say "don't vote for Democrats or Republicans". Ralph Nader, for instance.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

71. Sanders has said if he runs, he'll run as a Dem.

And if you want to say 'Dean is not standing for anything' then you'd also have to admit neither is Hillary. Just because you want her to run doesn't mean she actually is. She might or might not. So might a dozen other people.

I've voted Green in the past too. And I might again in the future. But that doesn't change the fact that 95% of the time I vote for Dems. That I voted for Obama, gave money for him, pounded the pavement for him. Simply painting someone as 'A Green', because they say they voted that way in the past and might well again (in one race) in the future, is a silly way to describe anyone.

Heck, I've voted twice in the last few decades for a Republican county auditor. Does that make me 'a Republican' to you?

It's the same flaw I see again and again - a desire to throw away people who will vote with Dems in the vast majority of races, simply because they vote in a few races for someone else. Shrink that tent, then pretend your losses are because of the very people you want to get rid of.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. The person you're defending has attacked a Dem in more than half of their posts on DU

That alone makes them a non-Dem troll. They offered support to people who are either not Dems, or have said they won't run. I don't believe for a moment that you don't understand that Dean is orders of magnitude less likely to run for office than Hillary. And they only dropped that name while attacking Hillary.

That person is a disruptive troll. You really don't need to defend them. They put themselves outside the tent by using their 7th DU post to suggest voting against the Dems.

[woo me with science]

94. Every Third Way talking point dispenser here is attacking the Democratic Party,

at least, any part of it that still remains that could still possibly help Americans and this country.

There's your malignancy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. There are no Third Way advocates on DU threatening to vote for another party

if someone 'too progressive' is chosen. It's a false equivalence. No-one posts on DU attacking Democrats from the right. The 'right-most' posters here are mainstream Democrats.

[JDPriestly]

79. But would a voter who would vote Third Party really bother to get out and vote for a Democrat?

That's what I question.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. Some might; some will will stick to the other party or nothing

But coming to a Democratic site to talk trash about a Democrat and then say they're thinking of voting for a Green, again, does look like a 3rd party supporter trying to discourage Democratic voters.

[MADem]

76. 70k votes in MA went to a third party asshole who ran on a platform of "Let's show 'em they

don't have the power." A real "Fuck the PTB" campaign.

Coakley lost by 40k.

[JDPriestly]

78. But I can't picture anyone who might possibly vote Democratic voting for a real "Fuck the PTB"

campaign. Democrats are angry at the PTB, but not in that way. Besides, Coakley wasn't that bad. Probably Republicans who voted for that party.

Do you have a link that might suggest otherwise?

[MADem]

81. His one idiotic commercial was lefty touchy feely. His target audience was well left of center.

He took votes from her. There were two other candidates as well. One was a right-wing, gay hating asshole who got about 18K votes, the other an economic scold who got 15K votes and was a small government freak.

Most MA voters call themselves independents, for whatever reasons.



http://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_gubernatorial_and_lieutenant_gubernatorial_election,_2014

[JDPriestly]

82. Please note that the liberal Democrats won: Jeff Merkely and Jerry Brown to name to of them.

We need a new management at the top of the Democratic Party. Fortunately, the ratio of liberal Democrats to conservative Democrats is increasing in favor of the truly liberals.

I do not expect Landrieu to pull off a victory in Louisiana although I could be mistaken. Another Diet Democrat about to fall, I suspect. Hate to be so negative, but I don't want to be dishonest either.

[MADem]

96. Excuse me--Brown was an incumbent. So was Merkely.

One a governor incumbent, the other a Senatorial incumbent.

Incumbents ALWAYS have an advantage unless they are fuckups or their opponent plays them as fuckups and has a ton of money to back them up.

If Deval had been running, he would have won in a walk. You can't compare MA - Gov race to those two examples you proffered.

[JDPriestly]

97. True, but even some of our Third Way incumbents lost.

Under your theory, they should have won easily. They did not.

[MADem]

101. What "theory?" Stop putting theories on me. I'm the one on this board who repeats,

incessantly, it would seem, that "all politics is local." It''s not a "theory" that a guy running to the left of Martha took votes from her. Look at his platform. No Republicans voted for that guy.

Here's a theory for you. When one party spends 120 million bucks more than another across the nation, the odds are good that might influence the races. The issues in Kentucky (where the candidate ran from Obama) are different from the issues in MA (where no one ran from Obama, and all save Martha won).

[JDPriestly]

104. The candidate in Kentucky ran to the right of Obama.

As many DUers have pointed out, in some states, like Colorado, voters voted in favor of progressive policies but against DLC, Third Way Democratic candidates.

Voters like progressive policies. We don't offer enough progressive candidates who really believe in progressive values.

It's about values. Policies grow out of values. Too many of our candidates are not value-oriented but rather are merely party oriented. Some of them want to win something to prove something personal. Some of them are, as Eisenhower said of the French at the beginning of the North African campaign in WWII, just about "ME."

Democrats are unclear about the economic values they hold. That really hurts our party.

We need at this time Democrats who will run for office not only on social issues although those are important but on truly progressive economic values. We need to explain to the American voters why it is that the traditional Democratic values of "we are in this together and need to work together to make an economy that puts us all to work and builds better lives for everyone" work and why we will, as a party stand for them. So far, too many of our candidates are willing to negotiate or compromise those values.

And that is an important difference. A politician can compromise when it comes to specific programs or policies, but must stand firm on values and relate the rationale behind the compromise to the strong values of our party that put working people first.

[MADem]

105. Those wingnuts are "values oriented" too. I don't care much for their values, but

they do seem to win the day in some parts of the country.

I think running far to the left in wingnut enclaves simply ensures that the margin of victory for the wingnuts will be greater.

The fact that our candidate in KY obviously supported Obama, was a delegate, in fact, and yet ran from him didn't mean she was rejected for not being "progressive" enough. She was rejected because she came off as INSINCERE, a panderer. No one likes a LIAR, and she was pretty much lying.

She should have said "Yeah, I supported the President--I'm a DEMOCRAT, not a Republican, not a Libertarian, not a Romulan. That's how it works. I don't really 'get' why you're trying to play some kind of lame 'GOTCHA!' game in that regard. My opponent supported Bush, and McCain, and Romney--that is how politics works, so grab a clue, there, Skippy, and join the real world!"

What people rejected weren't her policies--it was her integrity (or lack thereof) that did her in.
Pity, because she would have been very effective, but she made a boneheaded calculation and paid for it by a hemorrhaging of support when she reached the finish line.

[JDPriestly]

107. She lied out of fear and because she was not sure that she shared Obama's values.

If we had had a strong Democrat who could stand up with pride and sincerely say, "I voted for Obama because I support his values: working people over bankers, jobs over cheap imports, the environment and peace, and here is how we Democrats plan to validate our values and then discussed specific policy points, she would have won. She ran to the right of Obama. Could it be that in beautiful Kentucky (I remember it from the 1950s when it truly was beautiful and I traveled through it frequently), people would vote to save their environment if they had a candidate courageous enough to tell them the truth about what Republican policies and lack of value will mean for our environment?

When I talk about candidates with traditional Democratic values, the values of Eleanor Roosevelt to name one Democrat who was clear on them, I am talking about the same thing you are talking about when you say honesty.

When a person speaks from the basis of well considered values, he or she will speak the truth.

When people speak about policies and lists of policies that can be negotiated and compromised, those people will come across as liars even if they don't mean to lie.

Yes. You negotiate and compromise, but you do not justify your negotiations and compromise. You clearly state that you are not abandoning your values and that you don't like the outcome, but you will compromise just for peace while still advocating your values. The Democrats defend the outcomes of their compromises and come across as liars.

Alison Lundergan Grimes should have said she voted for Obama because while she did not agree with every policy he is associated with, she agrees with his stands on justice, equality, a fair chance for American working people and working together as a nation. There is a lot more she could have said.

But there is no point in a Democratic Party if it does not fight tirelessly for economic justice. No point at all.. All the other issues, the specific constituency issues are important because they are aspects of economic justice. But the central issue for the Democratic party has to be economic justice.

Voters who don't primarily care about economic justice are going to vote Republican, and there is nothing you can do about it.

[MADem]

108. Your subject line says it all--she was a fearful liar.

She blew it by being afraid, and by lying. She should have "womaned up" and told the questioner to go shit in his hat.

People vote their GUT, and their gut said she was a fearful liar. THAT's why she lost, not because she didn't run left enough, or didn't say this or do that.

They voted for the insincere bastard with EXPERIENCE, rather than insincere candidate without it.

She came off as a fake, a bullshitter, a panderer. Like I said, too bad, because she had "it." She just made a fatal mistake and sadly, it was near the end so she couldn't recover from it.

[sabrina 1]

87. Of course there isn't a link to that. But I'll be interested too to see this 'new' information

about this latest disaster, caused by the actual Third Party within OUR PARTY who have no managed to lose yet another election for Democrats.

[MADem]

99. Wow. Rude much? "Of course there isn't a link to that."

You want a link? Here ya go. You might have asked, instead of snarking. OR...you could have used the Google, and imparted the information to everyone discussing the topic here, if you were that interested.

But oh-- you want links. You're INTERESTED in this not so "new" information. Here, let's accommodate you.

I'll give you links -- a "tutorial" to explain it all.

Here's the candidate (who is rich and invested his own money in his candidacy) and his reason for running: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/11/04/how-evan-falchuk-can-win-even-when-loses/aCOHmA06UwZ10Hui2yBWrI/story.html

http://www.masslive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/11/viewpoint_dont_overlook_evan_f.html

Here's Falchuk's party platform: http://www.falchuk2014.org/whatwebelieve

Affordable housing? Free college? Tax the rich? Invest heavily in public transportation? Yeah, the GOP are going to vote for that--not.

Here's his "Let's show 'em all" commercial--he showed 'em, all right--he showed 'em PHoney Boo Hoo in the corner office:

Hope that provides you with the clarity you were so interested in, but didn't ask for.

[Blue_In_AK]

83. Sid, you are so f'ing predictable.

[SidDithers]

95. It's part of my charm...nt

Sid

[zeemike]

21. I thought the rat fuckers were the ones who noticed and complained about those things.

Because if you have a D in the white house everything must be great...and even if it is not we must act like it is.

[turbinetree]

24. The List you Presented........

Is spot on, what more can be said it was and is a total failure by Reid and Israel, we gave them the votes and they failed, they were always saying we need to work with the other side our friends-----really, they are not your friends, it was right in front of there face and they knew it and they did nothing, nothing

[lpbk2713]

25. Cable & Telecomms wanting to take over the internet.

They see mountains of money to be made there and nothing will stop them.

[reddread]

91. the real Octopus behind EVERYTHING in America

absolutely right

[ChiciB1]

26. Oh, You Forgot To Mention Ed Rendle (sp) Who Said

last night that Bush would be a GOOD candidate for Repukes! I can't sit here on PC and make arguments today, so pissed and need to go outside and do some trimming of my plant/bushes!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

28. Caving to the NRA.

[Historic NY]

29. Seems to work for Republicans, don't they.

[JDPriestly]

31. Add

18. Trade agreements that have decimated our job market.

19. Student loan debt.

20. The long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, vacationless, maternity-leaveless American work year.

21. At-will employment.

22. Federal arbitration laws that leave consumers without access to the courts in disputes with big corporations.

23. Too much money spent on our military.

24. Clinton's Telecommunications Act which has permitted right-wing wealth to buy and monopolize our communications industries.

25. Citizens United.

Much more. Democrats in Congress and especially in the leadership of the Democratic Party have failed us for years. They recite slogans that make us vote for them, but they appoint bankers and rich people who ignore the needs and aims of the middle class once they are on in office.

We need candidates with proven records of defending the interests of the middle class and the poor. We need candidates who will pledge to build an economically strong America. The guys we have now are building economically strong investment accounts and futures for themselves and not for ordinary Americans.

[JEB]

41. Citizens United was huge.

They have us down, working frantically to scrape by, then they flood the already propagandized airwaves with nonstop Koch commercials. People don't have a fucking chance and neither does the Democratic Party unless it starts fighting back instead of searching for the illusive nonexistent middle ground.

[hughee99]

32. Who fucked the Democrats?

1. Republicans
2. Democrats

[Veganhealedme]

34. WTF do Dems stand for nowadays? knr nt

[Amonester]

42. Eating their own?

I look around and it's like historical...

[leftstreet]

39. DURec

[certainot]

43. you forgot the rat that enables most of that by creating the alternate reality

in which tens of millions live and vote while insulated from any challenge to it from the left/dems/liberals

there is still NO organized challenge to the right's best weapon: republicon radio

[wreq]

45. Best List on the Internet

Awesome list. Dems need a fighter in 2016 or I am voting Green Party again.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. See, everyone, this is the problem with lists like this - 3rd party advocates use them

to advocate voting for 3rd parties. wreq has voted against Dems in the past, and is threatening to do so again. That is ratfucking the Democrats - using a Democratic board to attack Democrats.

[Luminous Animal]

65. Ahem... DU's Terms of Service.

When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them.

[Bobbie Jo]

68. Death by a thousand cuts.

Demoralized into oblivion.

When some members do NOTHING BUT express utter disappointment, it has a cumulative effect.

Carry on......

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. They suggest voting for the Greens

TOS: "advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. "

"Never" means never. By their 7th post, they are advocating voting Green. In 4 of their other posts, they've attacked Hillary (viciously - calling her a fascist).

[Luminous Animal]

74. Who is the 3d party candidate that they are advocating for?

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. Whoever the Greens put up for president

That's what makes it worse; they'll accept any Green, without qualification. That's why they look like a Green, not a Dem.

[reddread]

84. what Democrats?

Last edited Wed Nov 5, 2014, 07:12 PM - Edit history (1)

reminds me of how people like to discuss (or ignore) water issues in California,
AS IF there was water to talk about.

let's solve the actual problems and not the ones that change nothing.
priorities straight and people have something to vote FOR?
then you will have turnout.
thats all the Democratic Party needs,
and they should be willing to offer those reasons, shouldnt they?
blacklisting lists sounds

COMPLETELY

unDemocratic.

[Autumn]

47. Can't recommend this enough. And I agree with JDPriestly's list in

his post that should be added to the ones you listed.

[joshcryer]

48. People saying the parties are the same.

[SidDithers]

49. +1...

When that drum is beaten over and over and over, voters take notice, and stay home.

And when voters stay home, Republicans win.

Sid

[joshcryer]

55. It certainly causes apathy.

People still don't get it.

It's why Hillary Clinton is trying to bring up a "we're too down on ourselves" narrative.

2016 will be fun.

[Bobbie Jo]

69. Over, and over and over again... nt.

[LovingA2andMI]

50. K/R!

By the way....we lost the Maryland Governor's seat too. MARYLAND for Pete's Sake. WOW! Oh and Illinois. Formerly "Blue/Purple" Michigan is ALL RED, again along with (Drumroll in the Midwest): Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois (again) and Michigan (again) -- WOW!!!

We are IN TROUBLE. We have to change the strategies! Period. If not, we are DONE|.

The Morning After - Outsmarted, Outspent, Outlast, Frankly Plain Smoked - Michigan Elections 2014
Read more: http://www.reachoutjobsearch.com/2014/11/oped-morning-after-outsmarted-outspent.html#ixzz3IDMCOxpJ

[upaloopa]

51. Good list

[Cha]

52. Your "list" is full of disingenuous hogwash. There's all kinds of "Ratfucking" but you're just

making shit up..

[840high]

54. kr very good list

[swilton]

58. I would

edit number 5 and replace 'on a par with' to 'exceeding that of' the Third World. Michael Parenti pointed out (I think the book was Black Shirts and Reds that the wealth disparity in the US exceeded that of even of the communist cronies in the former Soviet Union. This book was obviously written before 1991 and now things are much worse....

http://www.michaelparenti.org/BlackShirts.html

[sabrina 1]

67. That is an excellent list, and you are absolutely correct. Notice how when Dem voters

mention these issues, they are told to 'stfu'.

Why would any Dem want voters to 'stfu' about ANY of those issues? My guess, they wouldn't. So, who are these people who are trying to shut Dem voters up about these issues? THAT is what we need to know imo and get them out of our party. Those are Republican issues and only a Republican would support any of them.

[swilton]

77. Besides stfu

they're also told 'perfection is the enemy of good enough' .......

[sabrina 1]

85. Oh yes, they LOVE that ridiculous talking point and repeat it over and over again:

'Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'! Really? And just who are they talking to, who has ever demanded perfection? This is how you KNOW these are Think Tank Talking points.

What does it mean? I have asked, and was more or less told to 'stfu'. Because it has no meaning.

How about 'if you aim for the sky you may hit a tree'? THAT is what people should be told, aim as high as you can because if you aim low, you will get even lower.

No, there is a concerted effort to suppress enthusiasm for Liberal values and to discourage, especially the Left and the young and left leaning Independents from voting. We've all seen it.

[wavesofeuphoria]

103. "to suppress enthusiasm for Liberal values"

"there is a concerted effort to suppress enthusiasm for Liberal values and to discourage, especially the Left and the young and left leaning Independents from voting."

Spot on!!!!

[grahamhgreen]

86. It's shicking how many of them troll this board.

[JEB]

106. Excellent list.

[adirondacker]

110. +1000. The multinationals are turning this country into a wasteland. nt