|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 23 2017 02:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 02:40 IyMoon wrote:On August 23 2017 02:39 KwarK wrote: A few months ago they sent me an email telling me they really valued my input and my opinions on the direction the DNC should go in with a link to an online survey form. I gave some pretty detailed responses and reasoning regarding the issues I thought were important to me. On the last page, before you could submit, they wanted a donation. They literally filtered out the opinions of anyone who couldn't pay. In fairness to the DNC, this is everyone. I have tried to fill out a ton of trump ones and always get hit with a pay wall Even so, do it up front. Or make donation optional. What they did was invite me under false pretenses to put in enough effort to be slightly invested and then told me to fuck off. It was nothing but a badwill generator. I went in feeling disinterested and left pissed off.
Oh it is shit, I agree. It is just not limited shit "Both sides have some bad actors"
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
This is a call from a donation collector. This is an attempt to collect a donation. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.
Sounds like the DNC, yeah.
|
I see a lot of companies that having nothing to do with politics using envelopes like that for all sorts of offers, including credit cards. Its really bad optics, but there is a chance that someone outside the DNC made that call. I would like to know who made that decision.
|
On August 23 2017 02:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Fund raising by democrats is extremely obnoxious in my experience. Though I imagine republicans have the same shit.
|
I love that people are surprised by such terrible marketing from the DNC. Told you back during the convention they are all about paying consultants and friend's companies, not winning.
When you've completely caved to your corporate class donors but have fallen further behind donations maybe it's time to listen to the people who kept pace with Hillary's fundraising during the primary without a convoluted donation laundering scheme and donations from people like the Waltons, instead of the people who helped blow a $1,000,000,000 intentionally elevating Trump and then losing to him.
But I'm just some crazy leftist, what would I know about the abysmal state of the DNC?
Relevant:
Over the first six months of 2017, the Republican National Committee pulled in $75 million—nearly twice as much money as the Democratic National Committee, which raised $38 million. The predicament isn’t simply that there is a funding gap between the parties; it’s what kind of money they attract. Republicans have quietly taken a decisive edge over Democrats when it comes to small-dollar fundraising.
During that same six-month time span, the RNC raised $33 million in small contributions—money from people who donate $200 or less over an election cycle—while that same class of donors gave the DNC just $21 million.
Source
There was a lot of hubbub about Bernie supporters and "purity tests", as kwark found out, the DNC already has a purity test, it's "Can you get us more money for our consultants to waste?"
|
This is totally an argument we should totally re-litigate until the heat death of the sun.
|
I've said it before, your political parties and voting public have an obsession with elections. Which is no surprise, since they're one of the biggest funded media sensations that happen every 2 years (bigger than the Olympics!).
I get the impression its starting (or has) to outstrip the actual point of the elections.
|
Election and voter’s rights reform should really be a top ticket issue.
|
On August 23 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote: This is totally an argument we should totally re-litigate until the heat death of the sun.
Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees.
EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan.
|
Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton: Now is not the time for Trump to visit my city Greg Stanton, a Democrat, is mayor of Phoenix.
Nearly 50 years ago, moments after learning that an avowed racist had gunned down Martin Luther King Jr., a young presidential candidate took the stage in Indianapolis to break the news to a largely African American crowd.
“What we need in the United States is not division,” Sen. Robert F. Kennedy implored. “What we need in the United States is not hatred. What we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love and wisdom and compassion toward one another.”
It was exactly what the grief-stricken crowd needed to hear. There were riots in many cities that night, but not in Indianapolis.President Trump’s response to Charlottesville reminds us that the words and actions of our political leaders in the wake of tragic events matter.
America is hurting. And it is hurting largely because Trump has doused racial tensions with gasoline. With his planned visit to Phoenix on Tuesday, I fear the president may be looking to light a match.
That’s why I asked the president to delay his visit. It’s time to let cooler heads prevail and begin the healing process.
I’m not optimistic the White House will heed that call.
Just days after Trump confirmed that he was “seriously considering” issuing a pardon for former Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio — who was convicted in July of criminal contempt of court for defying a federal judge’s orders to stop racial profiling — the president’s campaign announced that it will hold a rally at the Phoenix Convention Center. The timing doesn’t seem coincidental.
Let’s be clear: A pardon of Arpaio can be viewed only as a presidential endorsement of the lawlessness and discrimination that terrorized Phoenix’s Latino community. Choosing to announce it in Phoenix — especially in the wake of Charlottesville — would add insult to very serious injury and would reveal that the president’s true intent is to further divide our nation.
For years, Arpaio illegally targeted Latinos in our community because of the color of their skin. Mothers and fathers lived in fear as they dropped off their kids at school. Kids lived in fear of their parents being arrested and taken away.
A federal court ruled Arpaio’s tactics violated the law. After he defied a judge’s orders, he was convicted of criminal contempt. In convicting him, U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton noted that Arpaio “announced to the world and to his subordinates that he was going to continue business as usual no matter who said otherwise.”
Even before his trial and conviction, voters grew tired of Arpaio’s brand of racism and blatant violation of the law. Last year, in an overwhelmingly Republican county, Arpaio lost by nearly 10 points. Although local Republicans helped defeat Arpaio, the white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other racists who shamed our country this month in Charlottesville would surely cheer a presidential pardon.
Our community is moving on and moving forward from Arpaio’s divisive legacy. A pardon won’t change the fact that Arpaio was convicted of a crime, nor will it shake our resolve to keep building a city that is welcoming, is inclusive and provides opportunities for anyone willing to work for them.
In Phoenix, we are working overtime to ensure that everyone will be safe on Tuesday — from the president to those attending his rally and those exercising their First Amendment right to protest. And, like Robert Kennedy, we will remind everyone that we need not division andhatred, but wisdom and compassion.
www.washingtonpost.com
|
On August 23 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote: This is totally an argument we should totally re-litigate until the heat death of the sun. Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees. EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan. fine, we admit your side was wrong and we can be done with the matter. or just be less bitter and more reasonable about it. or just stop trying to relitigate the matter constantly; bringing up the same ol' arguments over and over isn't helpful.
|
On August 23 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote: This is totally an argument we should totally re-litigate until the heat death of the sun. Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees. EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan. Wait until state tickets start firming up during the next 8 months or so before crying defeat; at least here in Michigan, there's reason to hope given the quality of candidates declaring for the AG and governor's races.
|
On August 23 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote: This is totally an argument we should totally re-litigate until the heat death of the sun. Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees. EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan. Sure, the DNC is stupid and you were right, they are stupid. But just a month ago I had to watch progressives threatening to primary a senator in three years as a viable political strategy to get what they want. A plan so deeply stupid it made me want to take a nap. And I will watch them make this mistake again and again, doing everything possible to not be taken seriously. Everyone should just try to keep their own people from being stupid, rather than yelling saying “You are dumber than me, told you.”
|
On August 23 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote: This is totally an argument we should totally re-litigate until the heat death of the sun. Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees. EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan. Sure, the DNC is stupid and you were right, they are stupid. But just a month ago I had to watch progressives threatening to primary a senator in three years as a viable political strategy to get what they want. A plan so deeply stupid it made me want to take a nap. And I will watch them make this mistake again and again, doing everything possible to not be taken seriously. Everyone should just try to keep their own people from being stupid, rather than yelling saying “You are dumber than me, told you.” Counter point : Tea party
|
On August 23 2017 03:28 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote: This is totally an argument we should totally re-litigate until the heat death of the sun. Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees. EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan. Sure, the DNC is stupid and you were right, they are stupid. But just a month ago I had to watch progressives threatening to primary a senator in three years as a viable political strategy to get what they want. A plan so deeply stupid it made me want to take a nap. And I will watch them make this mistake again and again, doing everything possible to not be taken seriously. Everyone should just try to keep their own people from being stupid, rather than yelling saying “You are dumber than me, told you.” Counter point : Tea party Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020.
|
On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 03:28 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote: This is totally an argument we should totally re-litigate until the heat death of the sun. Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees. EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan. Sure, the DNC is stupid and you were right, they are stupid. But just a month ago I had to watch progressives threatening to primary a senator in three years as a viable political strategy to get what they want. A plan so deeply stupid it made me want to take a nap. And I will watch them make this mistake again and again, doing everything possible to not be taken seriously. Everyone should just try to keep their own people from being stupid, rather than yelling saying “You are dumber than me, told you.” Counter point : Tea party Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020. They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really.
|
On August 23 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote: This is totally an argument we should totally re-litigate until the heat death of the sun. Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees. EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan. Sure, the DNC is stupid and you were right, they are stupid. But just a month ago I had to watch progressives threatening to primary a senator in three years as a viable political strategy to get what they want. A plan so deeply stupid it made me want to take a nap. And I will watch them make this mistake again and again, doing everything possible to not be taken seriously. Everyone should just try to keep their own people from being stupid, rather than yelling saying “You are dumber than me, told you.”
Normally you would be right, if the DNC and folks like zlefin understood their mistake, but clearly too many still don't. Putting a Senator through a primary is one of few ways people can counter-influence the money. Having to fight a primary can effectively reduce big-donor influence.
Like if defending a position comes with $200k worth of donations, but they have to spend $500k on a primary if they keep that position, they may just dump the position (or demand more money unfortunately).
But if Democrats recognized why it is they lost 1000+ seats and the white house we wouldn't even need to be talking about a need to primary people.
|
On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:28 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote: This is totally an argument we should totally re-litigate until the heat death of the sun. Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees. EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan. Sure, the DNC is stupid and you were right, they are stupid. But just a month ago I had to watch progressives threatening to primary a senator in three years as a viable political strategy to get what they want. A plan so deeply stupid it made me want to take a nap. And I will watch them make this mistake again and again, doing everything possible to not be taken seriously. Everyone should just try to keep their own people from being stupid, rather than yelling saying “You are dumber than me, told you.” Counter point : Tea party Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020. They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really. Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them.
The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies.
Edit: Primaries are fine if you win it all. But you gotta win it all. Remember it was a progressive primary in CT that doomed any discussion of single payer in 2008-2010. As long as people operate under the “We best not miss” manta, more power to them.
|
On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:28 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote: This is totally an argument we should totally re-litigate until the heat death of the sun. Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees. EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan. Sure, the DNC is stupid and you were right, they are stupid. But just a month ago I had to watch progressives threatening to primary a senator in three years as a viable political strategy to get what they want. A plan so deeply stupid it made me want to take a nap. And I will watch them make this mistake again and again, doing everything possible to not be taken seriously. Everyone should just try to keep their own people from being stupid, rather than yelling saying “You are dumber than me, told you.” Counter point : Tea party Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020. They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really.
and now they can't pass any legislation because their members made promises they can't keep. Is that really a solution?
|
On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:28 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote: This is totally an argument we should totally re-litigate until the heat death of the sun. Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees. EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan. Sure, the DNC is stupid and you were right, they are stupid. But just a month ago I had to watch progressives threatening to primary a senator in three years as a viable political strategy to get what they want. A plan so deeply stupid it made me want to take a nap. And I will watch them make this mistake again and again, doing everything possible to not be taken seriously. Everyone should just try to keep their own people from being stupid, rather than yelling saying “You are dumber than me, told you.” Counter point : Tea party Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020. They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really. Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them. The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies.
You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating.
EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!?
|
|
|
|