Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member


Mad_Machine76's Journal
Mad_Machine76's Journal
June 23, 2016

That seems like a pretty idiotic way to run a party

I don't know how to evaluate DWS relative to previous DNC chairpersons (in terms of what they have some modicum of control over) but I've never heard of a political party that purposely sets itself up to fail just because they supposedly don't want to hold power and be on the hook for their votes (and I certainly would not vote for such a party either). What would be the logical point of a party that WANTS to lose and helps ensure that they do?

June 23, 2016

I agree with you that it probably won't result in anything getting passed with THIS Congress

but, hopefully, Democrats will have drawn some much-needed attention (i.e. "publicity&quot to this issue so that people might re-think their votes in the upcoming election and vote to elect a Congress that might actually do something positive in addressing this issue.

This IS politics after all.

June 22, 2016

It sounds like a bad call

to suggest- as I presume you are- that all of Hillary's SCOTUS picks will therefore be awful right-wingers seems a bit of a stretch (never minding the fact that she herself didn't pick him).

June 16, 2016


He doesn't talk s**t and shoot his mouth off making ridiculous proclamations, he doesn't pat himself on the back on Twitter, and he doesn't needlessly bomb/invade countries in response to a tragedy! Instead, he tries to handle things in a measured and rational manner that seeks to extend sympathy for the victims, keep people calm, and considers reasonable solutions to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future- pretty much everything we *should* want from our President. Oh, but hey, he didn't/refuses to say the magic words, "Radical Islam"!

June 14, 2016

Point of order

During the last two Democratic Presidencies over the past 23 years, there has been a Democratic Congress and President working together for a grand total of FOUR (count 'em) years. 19 years of those were either a Democratic President being stuck with a Republican House or Senate (or both) or a Republican President with a Republican Congress (George W. Bush got a Republican Congress for SIX years) or a non-supermajority Democratic Congress that could not overcome a Republican President's vetoes. Tell me again how much liberal progress gets accomplished in four total years (spread out over nearly three decades? Also, tell me WTF happens after the first two years of a Democratic Presidency that loses us the majority for the rest of the Democratic President's term in office? It seems to have been this pattern with the last two Democratic Presidencies. Why?

June 12, 2016

Lots of Republicans don't like Trump

Hillary getting some Republican endorsements doesn't mean much more than that IMHO. Besides, weren't some Bernie supporters arguing that Bernie would do better at drawing some Republican support (and he might be getting the same endorsements if he was going to be the nominee)?

June 9, 2016

It's been a mess since 2010 and the formation of the Republican Tea Party

The Republicans not only let the extreme right-wingers and other fringe elements into their party but they embraced them and their "wrecking ball" philosophy of governance (which they were already sort of predisposed to anyway)- to the point that even the so-called "reasonable Republicans" can't be allowed to be seen as cooperating with Democrats on ANYTHING or risk being attacked and primaried out of their cushy seats by the radicals. Right now, they can rig elections and stack I believe that we will hold on to the WH with Hillary but we will probably have to continue to deal with Republicans being reactionary obstructionists, especially in the House, where they have a stranglehold due to gerrymandering. I firmly hope that we can at least win back the Senate so that Republicans can't insist that we have to hold off on confirming a replacement for the late Antonin Scalia until the American people "speak" on their choice for POTUS in 2020- if the 2016 Presidential Election isn't decided "correctly" (which, sadly, I would not put past them).

June 6, 2016


I never get this talk of "lesser of two evils". For one to choose between two "evils", one must first, of course, define both persons as "evil", which is a hard thing for me to do because I would ascribe the label to very few politicians (McCrory in NC being one) but, as far as politics go, when presented with a choice between a viable Democrat and Republican for POTUS, it's always been pretty clear to me who is going to best represent the agenda I support and it has NEVER been the Republican.

Profile Information

Name: Mara Alis Butler
Gender: Female
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 12:13 AM
Number of posts: 24,196

About Mad_Machine76

Transgender Woman /Social Worker/Case Manager working for State of Indiana. Huge Sci-Fi/Anime Geek and music lover. Hopeless \"political junkie\" and aspiring writer.

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»Mad_Machine76's Journal