2018 Democrats thread

[Dam8610]

20 minutes ago, Reddy said:

So you're fine with real people getting hurt as long as it gets you closer to the economic policy you'd prefer.

Also:

See, I instead view it as I'm willing to endure what's necessary to make change happen rather than be okay with the extensive problems that society already has. Medical care is unaffordable for most, College is unaffordable for most, and the prison industrial complex continues to incentivize states to keep more of their citizenry locked up for longer, in some cases for "crimes" that would make them billionaires in other states. You may be okay with a society that functions like this. I'm not.

[Reddy]

1 hour ago, Dam8610 said:

See, I instead view it as I'm willing to endure what's necessary to make change happen rather than be okay with the extensive problems that society already has. Medical care is unaffordable for most, College is unaffordable for most, and the prison industrial complex continues to incentivize states to keep more of their citizenry locked up for longer, in some cases for "crimes" that would make them billionaires in other states. You may be okay with a society that functions like this. I'm not.

BUT YOU DON'T ENDURE IT. OTHER PEOPLE DO. THAT'S THE FUCKING WHOLE POINT.

The privilege of your statement is disgusting.

[Dam8610]

13 minutes ago, Reddy said:

BUT YOU DON'T ENDURE IT. OTHER PEOPLE DO. THAT'S THE FUCKING WHOLE POINT.

The privilege of your statement is disgusting.

You have no idea what I endure. Furthermore, the system you're okay with keeping in place hurts those people worse than a temporary worsening followed by an elongated period of betterment would. The privilege of believing that staying the course is a viable option is disgusting.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Dam8610

[Reddy]

5 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

You have no idea what I endure. Furthermore, the system you're okay with keeping in place hurts those people worse than a temporary worsening followed by an elongated period of betterment would. The privilege of believing that staying the course is a viable option is disgusting.

You're a young white man, right? You're fine. This shit hardly affects you - if at all - and if it DOES, you have a way out of it. Others aren't as privileged as you are, but you're willing to throw them under the bus because of YOUR political ideals, and every fiber of my being thinks that's awful.

[southsider2k5]

11 minutes ago, Reddy said:

You're a young white man, right? You're fine. This shit hardly affects you - if at all - and if it DOES, you have a way out of it. Others aren't as privileged as you are, but you're willing to throw them under the bus because of YOUR political ideals, and every fiber of my being thinks that's awful.

So the guy who is telling others to give up their beliefs to preserve power for his group isn't the one who privileged,  but the one who is being told to shut up and quit asking for more is.

This is why the modern GOP is destroying the Democrats.  They are too busy eating their own.

[Dam8610]

14 minutes ago, Reddy said:

You're a young white man, right? You're fine. This shit hardly affects you - if at all - and if it DOES, you have a way out of it. Others aren't as privileged as you are, but you're willing to throw them under the bus because of YOUR political ideals, and every fiber of my being thinks that's awful.

I can't throw them where they already are. They're ALREADY under the bus. How do you not see that? This is the result of 40 years of the Democratic party moving to the right. Insanity is trying the same thing and expecting a different result. All we get out of tolerating moderate Republicans in the Democratic party is more poverty, systemic injustice, and corporate welfare. Of course, all of that is easy for you to ignore. I'm not the only white male in this conversation, and judging by "[your] dad's book", I'd wager you come from a wealthier background than I. You don't see the poverty and systemic injustice in the ritzy suburbs, and corporate welfare is imperceptible unless you look for it. I live near Gary. I have friends from Gary. I don't have the privilege to be able to ignore the poverty and systemic injustice like you do. So no, I'm not happy about the moderate Republicans that hide behind the word "Democrat" while doing everything in their power to enrich their corporate overlords while fucking their constituents over, and I'm not supportive of any plan that doesn't find the quickest and most effective way to replace all Republicans, including the ones masquerading as Democrats, with representatives that will stand for the people.

[Jack Parkman]

On 10/4/2018 at 3:27 PM, Reddy said:

BUT YOU DON'T ENDURE IT. OTHER PEOPLE DO. THAT'S THE FUCKING WHOLE POINT.

The privilege of your statement is disgusting.

 

On 10/4/2018 at 9:20 PM, Dam8610 said:

I can't throw them where they already are. They're ALREADY under the bus. How do you not see that? This is the result of 40 years of the Democratic party moving to the right. Insanity is trying the same thing and expecting a different result. All we get out of tolerating moderate Republicans in the Democratic party is more poverty, systemic injustice, and corporate welfare. Of course, all of that is easy for you to ignore. I'm not the only white male in this conversation, and judging by "[your] dad's book", I'd wager you come from a wealthier background than I. You don't see the poverty and systemic injustice in the ritzy suburbs, and corporate welfare is imperceptible unless you look for it. I live near Gary. I have friends from Gary. I don't have the privilege to be able to ignore the poverty and systemic injustice like you do. So no, I'm not happy about the moderate Republicans that hide behind the word "Democrat" while doing everything in their power to enrich their corporate overlords while fucking their constituents over, and I'm not supportive of any plan that doesn't find the quickest and most effective way to replace all Republicans, including the ones masquerading as Democrats, with representatives that will stand for the people.

Reddy, Believe me I sympathize with racial minority groups getting a raw deal, but Dam has a point here. The Mainstream Dem=Moderate Republican. The whole political discourse in this country is almost entirely right of center. Bill Clinton sold out racial minorities to the for-profit prison industry. 

Personally, I am not too stupid to see that voting for a Democrat, even if the person I voted for didn't win the primary, is better than the alternative. 

However, it is getting harder and harder to do, and I'm getting more and more cynical about the process being completely busted, when I see more and more corporate Dems winning primaries, especially here in IL. 

I will again argue for the term Socioeconomic, because you can't fix the social problems without fixing the economic problems, and vice versa. 

They are not two mutually independent issues, far from it. You have to work on both simultaneously. 

Reddy thinks that you fix the social issues and economics will take care of itself, or you have to work on the social issues first. Dam thinks that you work on the economic issues first and the social issues will take care of itself, or work on economics first. 

I think both should be worked on simultaneously, and working on only one or the other will lead to almost no progress. If I had to choose one though, I'd choose economics because money=power. 

It is my opinion that a lot of the ills of urban racial minorities comes from the following: 

Underfunded, crowded schools

Generational Poverty

Lack of decent opportunity as an adult because of 1) and 2)

And the cycle starts again. 

I understand the following feelings:

1. Lack of progress toward upward mobliity

2. Lack of being given a fair opportunity to prove oneself as a capable, reliable employee

3. Lack of access to a job that pays a living wage

4. Lack of access to full time employment

5. Being discriminated against in job interviews. I have evidence of this. I did an experiment where I applied for 10 jobs where I filled out the EOE section on 5 of them and didn't on the other 5. I got 3 interview requests. Guess what? They were all from the group of 5 that I didn't fill out the EOE section. I immediately emailed those people, told them that I was autistic, and asked them if they still wanted to interview me. I got no response to my emails. 

This happens to so many people because they are a minority in some way or another. How is one supposed to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" when they don't have access to boots? Serious question. 

The economy is rigged so that "undesireables" stay that way and it takes a really special person to get out of it. There are success stories here and there to keep the facade believable by the masses. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[caulfield12]

Manchin and Bredesen (TN candidate) are having their funding cut off by some liberal PAC’s after expressing their cases for Kavanaugh.

[Dam8610]

10 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

 

Reddy, Believe me I sympathize with racial minority groups getting a raw deal, but Dam has a point here. The Mainstream Dem=Moderate Republican. The whole political discourse in this country is almost entirely right of center. Bill Clinton sold out racial minorities to the for-profit prison industry. 

Personally, I am not too stupid to see that voting for a Democrat, even if the person I voted for didn't win the primary, is better than the alternative. 

However, it is getting harder and harder to do, and I'm getting more and more cynical about the process being completely busted, when I see more and more corporate Dems winning primaries, especially here in IL. 

I will again argue for the term Socioeconomic, because you can't fix the social problems without fixing the economic problems, and vice versa. 

They are not two mutually independent issues, far from it. You have to work on both simultaneously. 

Reddy thinks that you fix the social issues and economics will take care of itself, or you have to work on the social issues first. Dam thinks that you work on the economic issues first and the social issues will take care of itself, or work on economics first. 

I think both should be worked on simultaneously, and working on only one or the other will lead to almost no progress. If I had to choose one though, I'd choose economics because money=power. 

It is my opinion that a lot of the ills of urban racial minorities comes from the following: 

Underfunded, crowded schools

Generational Poverty

Lack of decent opportunity as an adult because of 1) and 2)

And the cycle starts again. 

I understand the following feelings:

1. Lack of progress toward upward mobliity

2. Lack of being given a fair opportunity to prove oneself as a capable, reliable employee

3. Lack of access to a job that pays a living wage

4. Lack of access to full time employment

5. Being discriminated against in job interviews. I have evidence of this. I did an experiment where I applied for 10 jobs where I filled out the EOE section on 5 of them and didn't on the other 5. I got 3 interview requests. Guess what? They were all from the group of 5 that I didn't fill out the EOE section. I immediately emailed those people, told them that I was autistic, and asked them if they still wanted to interview me. I got no response to my emails. 

This happens to so many people because they are a minority in some way or another. How is one supposed to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" when they don't have access to boots? Serious question. 

The economy is rigged so that "undesireables" stay that way and it takes a really special person to get out of it. There are success stories here and there to keep the facade believable by the masses. 

 

 

 

 

Great post, but I want to clarify my thinking a bit. I believe that the economic issues I want to fix will also help social inequality. For example, making college free and available to everyone increases the access for minority communities to that level of education and reduces a glaring social disparity. Guaranteeing a basic standard of care to every citizen for free will give many citizens, including quite a few in minority communities, access to health care they've previously been unable to afford. Guaranteed housing will give some of our most vulnerable citizens, many of which are in minority communities, an address which will allow them to access services they are currently unable to access due to not having an address. Things like Medicaid and food stamps require an address, for context. Abolishing private prisons will deincentivize states from locking up their citizenry for minor crimes, establishing a more rehabilitation focused mindset toward crime, and minorities are disproportionately affected by both imprisonment and imprisonment for minor crimes.

 

Beyond this, both income and wealth studies show that the median white individual or family has more of both than the median minority individual or family, so any reform that makes access to income or wealth more equal by necessity must help minority communities disproportionately to any help it would provide white communities.

 

Don't try to tell any of this to Democrats, though, they seem to be just as allergic to facts that don't fit their narrative as Republicans are.

[caulfield12]

33 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

Great post, but I want to clarify my thinking a bit. I believe that the economic issues I want to fix will also help social inequality. For example, making college free and available to everyone increases the access for minority communities to that level of education and reduces a glaring social disparity. Guaranteeing a basic standard of care to every citizen for free will give many citizens, including quite a few in minority communities, access to health care they've previously been unable to afford. Guaranteed housing will give some of our most vulnerable citizens, many of which are in minority communities, an address which will allow them to access services they are currently unable to access due to not having an address. Things like Medicaid and food stamps require an address, for context. Abolishing private prisons will deincentivize states from locking up their citizenry for minor crimes, establishing a more rehabilitation focused mindset toward crime, and minorities are disproportionately affected by both imprisonment and imprisonment for minor crimes.

 

Beyond this, both income and wealth studies show that the median white individual or family has more of both than the median minority individual or family, so any reform that makes access to income or wealth more equal by necessity must help minority communities disproportionately to any help it would provide white communities.

 

Don't try to tell any of this to Democrats, though, they seem to be just as allergic to facts that don't fit their narrative as Republicans are.

Paragraph 2 is no longer a viable or winning political strategy...it’s simply going to be spun as taking money/opportunity from hard working Americans (whites) and redistributing it to Muslims/immigrants/undeserving/lazy/blah (Balta’s phrase) people.  Of course, it won’t be spelled out quite so explicitly...it will just be intimated.   At any rate, there are more adamantly opposed to affirmative action/redistributionist policies than in favor.

In fact, you can’t even get Dems winning on a consistent national basis arguing that the Top 80% should benefit from taxing the Top 10-20% at considerably higher rates...as a way to pay for all those things you want to provide in Paragraph 1 without going trillions more into debt.

 

Edited October 6, 2018 by caulfield12

[Jack Parkman]

Maybe this is radical, but I don't believe that programs like Medicaid and food stamps are necessary. You know what is necessary though? People getting paid a living wage and benefits for an honest day's work. If companies like Amazon and Walmart can't afford to pay their employees a living wage with benefits, then maybe it is their business model that is the problem. Exploiting labor should not be a viable business model, and it should be illegal. Busting union organizers should come with a hefty fine. 

Nobody should need to be on public assistance in the United States. To argue otherwise is an insult to my intelligence. 

If you can't treat your employees humanely, you shouldn't be in business, period.

That tax money that goes into these programs should be used to to expand Social Security into a national pension program. 

Nobody talks about the burden that  a single payer health care system takes off business either. It would save them a ton of money they could use to increase wages. Expansion of Social Security and Single Payer health insurance takes a huge burden off of business. Imagine how much more productive employees are when they don't have the stress of saving for retirement and paying for their health care on their plate. They get more disposable income to spend on consumer products too. It is an incredible win-win but greedy people who want to hoard money prevent it. 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[Dam8610]

4 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Maybe this is radical, but I don't believe that programs like Medicaid and food stamps are necessary. You know what is necessary though? People getting paid a living wage and benefits for an honest day's work. If companies like Amazon and Walmart can't afford to pay their employees a living wage with benefits, then maybe it is their business model that is the problem. Exploiting labor should not be a viable business model, and it should be illegal. Busting union organizers should vome with a hefty fine. 

Nobody should need to be on public assistance in the United States. To argue otherwise is an insult to my intelligence. 

If you can't treat your employees humanely, you shouldn't be in business, period.

That tax money that goes into these programs should be used to to expand Social Security into a national pension program. 

Nobody talks about the burden that  a single payer health care system takes off business either. It would save them a ton of money they could use to increase wages. Expansion of Social Security and Single Payer health insurance takes a huge burden off of business. 

There are people with such severe mental and/or physical disabilities that they are actually unable to work. Do you believe that these people should starve and die?

[Jack Parkman]

20 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

There are people with such severe mental and/or physical disabilities that they are actually unable to work. Do you believe that these people should starve and die?

Those people are few and far between though. They can be put in the SSA syatem and can be covered to as part of the single payer program. 

Anyone who can work, should and there is work to be done even for the intellectually disabled. I'm pretty active in the disability rights movement. The problem isn't that work isn't available. The problem is that the law is too loose on what is and isn't a "reasonable accomodation" under current law, an employer can claim pretty much any non-mobility related accomodation as unreasonable. If it costs them any money whatsoever, they cry ridiculous. Most intellectually disabled people have the ability to do basic jobs and most paraplegics or others in wheelchairs have the ability to work in certain roles with adaptive technology. Companies are unwilling to invest into untapped labor markets like these. It is my opinion that it should be law that companies do so. There is zero excuse for disabled people who can hold a job with accomodations to be shut out of the mainstream labor market. 

I have never held a decent job in the mainstream labor market. I've been working in the HFA niche market  since i graduated from IIT, and in HS I bagged groceries and worked as a telemarketer. Those are the only jobs I've ever held for more than a week or two. 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[Dam8610]

23 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Those people are few and far between though. They can be put in the SSA syatem and can be covered to as part of the single payer program. 

Anyone who can work, should and there is work to be done even for the intellectually disabled. I'm pretty active in the disability rights movement. The problem isn't that work isn't available. The problem is that the law is too loose on what is and isn't a "reasonable accomodation" under current law, an employer can claim pretty much any non-mobility related accomodation as unreasonable. If it costs them any money whatsoever, they cry ridiculous. Most intellectually disabled people have the ability to do basic jobs and most paraplegics or others in wheelchairs have the ability to work in certain roles with adaptive technology. Companies are unwilling to invest into untapped labor markets like these. It is my opinion that it should be law that companies do so. There is zero excuse for disabled people who can hold a job with accomodations to be shut out of the mainstream labor market. 

I have never held a decent job in the mainstream labor market. I've been working in the HFA niche market  since i graduated from IIT, and in HS I bagged groceries and worked as a telemarketer. Those are the only jobs I've ever held for more than a week or two. 

Oh, you're talking about a hypothetical future with a single payer system and stronger labor rights. Carry on.

1 hour ago, caulfield12 said:

Paragraph 2 is no longer a viable or winning political strategy...it’s simply going to be spun as taking money/opportunity from hard working Americans (whites) and redistributing it to Muslims/immigrants/undeserving/lazy/blah (Balta’s phrase) people.  Of course, it won’t be spelled out quite so explicitly...it will just be intimated.   At any rate, there are more adamantly opposed to affirmative action/redistributionist policies than in favor.

In fact, you can’t even get Dems winning on a consistent national basis arguing that the Top 80% should benefit from taxing the Top 10-20% at considerably higher rates...as a way to pay for all those things you want to provide in Paragraph 1 without going trillions more into debt.

 

Then the Democrats need to start using the language of wealth redistribution to their advantage. Point out that there is massive upwardly mobile wealth redistribution in the current system, and Democrats are the ones to change that (then follow through by actually doing it). Also, this "temporarily embarrased millionaire" thought pattern that pervades the middle and working class of whites in America needs to be dispelled.

[Jack Parkman]

4 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

Oh, you're talking about a hypothetical future with a single payer system and stronger labor rights. Carry on.

Then the Democrats need to start using the language of wealth redistribution to their advantage. Point out that there is massive upwardly mobile wealth redistribution in the current system, and Democrats are the ones to change that (then follow through by actually doing it). Also, this "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" thought pattern that pervades the middle and working class of whites in America needs to be dispelled.

This x infinity. 

With regard to the first comment, it doesn't have to be fantasy if those in their 20s and 30s are willing to fight for it. It will be hard, long and nasty but we have to swing the pendulum back the other way. It is our responsibility to future generations to do so. 

[Dam8610]

Just now, Jack Parkman said:

This x infinity. 

With regard to the first comment, it doesn't have to be fantasy if those in their 20s and 30s are willing to fight for it. It will be hard, long and nasty but we have to swing the pendulum back the other way. It is our responsibility to future generations to do so. 

I never said it had to be fantasy, it's just not reality right now. I 100% agree that it's our responsibility to future generations to fight for those rights. It's the people like Reddy that you and I need to convince.

[Jack Parkman]

24 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

I never said it had to be fantasy, it's just not reality right now. I 100% agree that it's our responsibility to future generations to fight for those rights. It's the people like Reddy that you and I need to convince.

Basically what I wrote earlier I realize those in their 20s and 30s will be fighting their entire working lives for. When we retire, I want to leave those entering the workforce with that kind of environment. I realize we're fucked. It is our responsibility to unfuck it for future generations. 

Anyway, the only reason why most disabled people are considered a burden on society is solely because the owners of the world make it so. It doesn't have to be that way, but it is. I worked with people with Downs in a couple jobs I had. They could do their job just fine, with a little coaching. 

There is a difference in the words autonomy and independence. While the latter will remain elusive, if not impossible for most disabled people, the goal should be to give them as much autonomy as they can handle. 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[caulfield12]

4 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

Maybe this is radical, but I don't believe that programs like Medicaid and food stamps are necessary. You know what is necessary though? People getting paid a living wage and benefits for an honest day's work. If companies like Amazon and Walmart can't afford to pay their employees a living wage with benefits, then maybe it is their business model that is the problem. Exploiting labor should not be a viable business model, and it should be illegal. Busting union organizers should come with a hefty fine. 

Nobody should need to be on public assistance in the United States. To argue otherwise is an insult to my intelligence. 

If you can't treat your employees humanely, you shouldn't be in business, period.

That tax money that goes into these programs should be used to to expand Social Security into a national pension program. 

Nobody talks about the burden that  a single payer health care system takes off business either. It would save them a ton of money they could use to increase wages. Expansion of Social Security and Single Payer health insurance takes a huge burden off of business. Imagine how much more productive employees are when they don't have the stress of saving for retirement and paying for their health care on their plate. They get more disposable income to spend on consumer products too. It is an incredible win-win but greedy people who want to hoard money prevent it. 

The biggest problem in the current system is small businesses/entrepreneurs/freelancers/independent contractors/(gig economy) can’t afford health care costs.  That logical risk aversion...the tendency to look for the security of a bigger company or even public sector work like government employment or teaching...is really throttling what should be a dynamic element of the economy.  

Of course, it’s also much harder for the “small people” to compete for loans, or venture capital investment, for that matter.  Trump might have wiped out a lot of regulations, but business loans are going to be more and more expensive with interest and bond rates rising.

Naturally, the pool of investment money tends to be controlled by the biggest and most successful corporations...with the inequality/concentration of wealth continuing to worsen.   Of course, America currently has no strategic plan for grand projects (Space Force?), infrastructure, educational reforms, etc.  Some of the many reasons we are becoming increasingly divided.

[Reddy]

18 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

 

Reddy, Believe me I sympathize with racial minority groups getting a raw deal, but Dam has a point here. The Mainstream Dem=Moderate Republican. The whole political discourse in this country is almost entirely right of center. Bill Clinton sold out racial minorities to the for-profit prison industry. 

Personally, I am not too stupid to see that voting for a Democrat, even if the person I voted for didn't win the primary, is better than the alternative. 

However, it is getting harder and harder to do, and I'm getting more and more cynical about the process being completely busted, when I see more and more corporate Dems winning primaries, especially here in IL. 

I will again argue for the term Socioeconomic, because you can't fix the social problems without fixing the economic problems, and vice versa. 

They are not two mutually independent issues, far from it. You have to work on both simultaneously. 

Reddy thinks that you fix the social issues and economics will take care of itself, or you have to work on the social issues first. Dam thinks that you work on the economic issues first and the social issues will take care of itself, or work on economics first. 

I think both should be worked on simultaneously, and working on only one or the other will lead to almost no progress. If I had to choose one though, I'd choose economics because money=power. 

It is my opinion that a lot of the ills of urban racial minorities comes from the following: 

Underfunded, crowded schools

Generational Poverty

Lack of decent opportunity as an adult because of 1) and 2)

And the cycle starts again. 

I understand the following feelings:

1. Lack of progress toward upward mobliity

2. Lack of being given a fair opportunity to prove oneself as a capable, reliable employee

3. Lack of access to a job that pays a living wage

4. Lack of access to full time employment

5. Being discriminated against in job interviews. I have evidence of this. I did an experiment where I applied for 10 jobs where I filled out the EOE section on 5 of them and didn't on the other 5. I got 3 interview requests. Guess what? They were all from the group of 5 that I didn't fill out the EOE section. I immediately emailed those people, told them that I was autistic, and asked them if they still wanted to interview me. I got no response to my emails. 

This happens to so many people because they are a minority in some way or another. How is one supposed to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" when they don't have access to boots? Serious question. 

The economy is rigged so that "undesireables" stay that way and it takes a really special person to get out of it. There are success stories here and there to keep the facade believable by the masses. 

 

 

 

 

For the record - I, too, believe that we should work on both simultaneously.

[Reddy]

4 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

I never said it had to be fantasy, it's just not reality right now. I 100% agree that it's our responsibility to future generations to fight for those rights. It's the people like Reddy that you and I need to convince.

Convince of what? We agree on policy, just not the tactics that will actually GET us those policies.

[Dam8610]

8 minutes ago, Reddy said:

For the record - I, too, believe that we should work on both simultaneously.

Sure, just with no priority whatsoever placed on any economic policy objectives.

7 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Convince of what? We agree on policy, just not the tactics that will actually GET us those policies.

How could you possibly believe the way that has failed for 4 decades will suddenly start to work? Also, you say we agree on policy, but I've yet to see you endorse any candidate that ran on a platform of policies that I support, and one of those was even your personal friend.

[Reddy]

2 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

Sure, just with no priority whatsoever placed on any economic policy objectives.

How could you possibly believe the way that has failed for 4 decades will suddenly start to work? Also, you say we agree on policy, but I've yet to see you endorse any candidate that ran on a platform of policies that I support, and one of those was even your personal friend.

I don't support them if their plan is to undermine and syphon votes from candidates who can actually win. Winning is my priority. You know this. As you say, I live in the real world - not the fantasy world in which I wish we lived.

[Dam8610]

1 hour ago, Reddy said:

I don't support them if their plan is to undermine and syphon votes from candidates who can actually win. Winning is my priority. You know this. As you say, I live in the real world - not the fantasy world in which I wish we lived.

"Winning" with moderate Republicans calling themselves "Democrats" is actually losing. Once you and the other establishment people realize that, the candidates you refuse to endorse will have no problem winning. I assume this will all have to happen in the kicking and screaming fashion, because the establishment certainly showed in the last election that it had no interest in the will of the people.

[Brian]

Guys! We got Taylor Swift!

[Reddy]

Dam you volunteering yet? 30 days.