Tell the ex-democrats that lingerie is racist, Charlie. That'll bring 'em home. Go into an expensive retreat in the desert to get back in touch with yourself, Charlie, drink too much wine (snicker), call yourself a human trash can, and tweet the whole thing.
That will work.
Maybe you could offer to sell them baby part's, Charlie. Real cheap.
I forgot to add, Charlie, that all of the above goes over really well when almost everyone you are yelling at is either female, married to a female, born of a female, is some race other than white, is married to, or has dated, and/or has children or grandchildren that are of some race other than white or are mixed race. This is especially true in the Latino community given that Latino, by definition, includes any race whatever, and in the Muslim community, given the same, or in the Catholic, given the same, or to Christians as a whole, given the same.
It's as if the entire Democratic Party ideology is designed to appeal only to people that have little or no life experience (watching TV doesn't count) and little to no education.
I would suggest to you that offering people a 15 dollar minimum wage whilst calling them racist, white supremacist, sexist, bigots, and homophobes and offering to replace them with a lower wage worker from some other place on earth just won't work, especially if you are trying to take away their guns after you have run off all of the police in their neighborhood.
Perhaps you should try telling them that no one but a bigot would believe that the line of men a mile long that speak numerous languages other than English, brought here as children a few weeks ago, all with full beards, need a photo ID to vote. This works especially well when speaking to people that have to use a photo ID to do even the simplest of things, like buy alcohol or cigarettes, or stay in the movie theater after 6pm.
@Charlie Eppes, IMHO, the democratic party needs to be focused on working people. If I was a political consultant, I would recommend the $15 minimum wage out of all your options.
Abstractions, like global warming, gun control, etc. are hard to worry about when one is wondering how the rent is going to be paid.
I agree with your basic premise in that the democratic party on all levels appears to have ADHD.
In my opinion, insisting that all the dirt has to be washed out of the old rug before you throw the thing in the trash is kind of pointless. I think more people are interested in shopping for a replacement for it at this point.
Does Brian Carson have to pay the money back or not? I am assuming since he and his mother are both on the executive committee, and the executive committee encouraged Mancini to terminate the SCDP, the answer is no?
One man one vote is a Democracy. The USA was founded as Representative Republic. Key difference is indirect election of President (Electoral College).
Or Proportional Representation. Spreads out political relationships, and takes more time for the russkies to hack.
So, if we do away with the electoral college, do you want to restructure the Senate as well?
The Senate is structured the way it is under a similar premise.
I still don't get this things>people argument. Land is a thing. People are not. People are what give land value, not the other way around. Antartica doesn't get a vote in the UN because noone lives there. It doesn't matter how much land mass it has.
I wonder about the morals of anyone who values property over people.
@B - Exactly. That's why I agree with Cohen's move here as well.
You are probably right, but if Pelosi and the old guard do try to marginalize him, they will pay a price. Just my opinion, and I don't know the guy personally, but Bernie was pushed aside once and I don't see him willingly going to the sidelines a second time.
I vote blue in a red state. As such, I have very little incentive to go vote in a Presidential election. I do anyway because, well, unicorns.
The way the system is rigged now, if you move the four counties in the panhandle of Florida to Alabama, and adjust the state line between Illinois and Wisconsin and boom! Hillary is president.
I don't buy the urban vs. rural argument. If everybody knew that their vote was going to count for something (unlike mine in the last election), maybe everybody would get off their asses and vote.
It should be one person, one vote. The electoral college has outlived its usefulness, if it ever had any other than to assuage southern slaveholders.
Bernie being an honorable man, probably won't jump ship and go back to being an Independent. But Pelosi and chums will shove him to the side, so at some point, and I hope that is soon, he can come out swinging and be an example of real progressive populism.
And just to get more bitchy, I think that Bernie should be the new face of the Democratic party.
Pelosi+ Bernie + Ellison
Oh, my cup runneth over!
I think the concern that comes with that is that a President could make a bunch of urban-centered promises and win the election. Then he could completely ignore the non-major urban cities and simply govern to those major cities and get re-elected doing it.
That may not have been the original concern when the electoral college was created, but it's a big one now. Believe it or not, those fly-over states are pretty important in this country. That's where a lot of our food and cotton for our clothing is produced. It would be bad if the country was set up in a way where they could just be completely ignored.
It was my understanding the electoral college was put in place to attract the slave holding economies into a union with the North. Same logic behind the Three-Fifths Compromise. Both deals usurped the one man (forget about women, blacks, property-less white and Indians) one vote ideal. So to some degree the intent has flipped (as is common in American politics) and given increased leverage to a few of the parenthesized group.
I think that eliminating the electoral college might force national elections to cater to the majority opinion and in that process force leaders to lead voters into a compromise involving shared interests of the disparate groups.
Or maybe Dianne Feinstein would be President.
Why you bitch!
Raising money is the first step in the government doing anything. Raising campaign funds is great training for government, because you want people to learn how to get supporters to voluntarily give them money before you give them the power to tax people involuntarily.
You'd think if Congress were paid enough money they'd be too rich to be willing to risk their legacies over petty amounts of money, but of course then you'd have to admit their job is difficult and important and give them a justified raise.
But hey, if the veterans of the legislature are given an impossible task and are doing poorly (in your eyes) at it, give the rookies a shot. I mean, if you had cancer, and an oncologist wasn't getting the job done, obviously you'd want to fire him and go see a veterinarian.
By Chris Shaw
download this issue
click here to see more »