Where is our Democratic leadership?

[Ex Lurker]

They should be shouting from the rooftops demanding Musk substantiate his wild fraud accusations.

[NewHendoLib]

1. I've been wondering that since the day after election day.

Seems like what happened was a scenario that was not planned for in the least.

[rich7862]

2. Absolutely Right

No One could believe any one would really vote for the criminal Russian rapist, called trump.

[DJ Synikus Makisimus]

3. Either that or they like being the loyal opposition.

Don't have to make any decisions or pass legislation, and get lots of face time on MSNBC to express outrage.

[Kid Berwyn]

59. Echo chamber emptied of echoes.

Nothin'. Not even wondering out loud where the heck 7 million votes went.

[berkerly6240]

4. Schumer came out and told us Guac comes from avocados..

this is our leadership right now..old and disconnected. Otherwise there would be clear pushback..

[DSandra]

5. Dems had years to prepare, and they just shrug now?

Sure is making the Democratic Party look good...

[Blue Full Moon]

10. Made fun of anyone warning them

[bigtree]

7. they are. Why aren't you amplifying their voices?

I have been doing that here all week.

Where have you been?

We don't need this kind of anti-party disinfo.

We need people to go and look at what they reps and Senators have been saying and doing and use this platform for more than just uninformed apathy or hyperbolic sophistry about what Dems are doing.

[Cirsium]

20. Ridiculous

Why aren't we amplifying those voices? Are you kidding? They are there to amplify our voices. We are not here to represent their career ambitions, as you keep demanding we do, they are there to represent us and protect our lives.

[KPN]

23. Agreed.

[quakerboy]

30. it's a two way street

They need to be putting our message out.

And many of them are.

But all the branches of federal government are under republican control. The majority of state governments are. The major news outlets are all owned and run by accomplices. As are the social media networks.

So.. how does that message they are trying to put out get out?

[Oopsie Daisy]

37. Why would they want to "amplify" the false narrative that Democrats are feckless and incompetent cowards??

That's not how it works.

[Cirsium]

44. What?

Not sure what that is supposed to mean. Who is suggesting amplifying the message that "Democrats are feckless and incompetent cowards?" No one.

[Oopsie Daisy]

46. "Who's suggesting it?" Seriously? People who pay attention can easily spot it. It's everywhere. Even here, sadly.

But let me ask you this... who is demanding that we "represent their career ambitions"? That's an odd interpretation and bizarre extrapolation.

We are not here to represent their career ambitions, as you keep demanding we do...

How would any reasonable person arrive at that conclusion?

They are there to amplify our voices.

Not the voices of anti-Democrat and anti-party disinformation... not the false narratives espoused in the OP. Our elected representatives are under no obligation amplify the myth that our leaders are absent, cowards, feckless. The media and other willful and treacherous saboteurs are doing a good enough job of that, thank you very much.

[Cirsium]

47. Right

It is a representative democracy. The people we send to Congress represent us.

You don't agree with that? Your concept is more like cheering for a sports team than engaging in real politics.

Historically all of the great wins came as a result of pressure brought on the elected officials by militant groups working outside of the electoral process. Emancipation, Women's Suffrage, workers' rights. Civil Rights...

Demanding blind loyalty, saying that we all operate as uncritical fans cheering on our team, short circuits that important political process.

[Oopsie Daisy]

48. Times have changed and so has the paradigm. Today's politics are a blood sport.

I cannot answer for, nor fully understand, anyone who wants to live in the past and deny the reality that faces us. I do not understand why anyone would believe that kneecapping and undermining our party and elected representatives holds any value.

I'll continue to advocate for loyalty and supporting our party and our Democratic leaders. Others are free to be anti-party "militant groups" who seek to sabotage the party in some misguided belief that the party must be "destroyed" and rebuilt (or some silly something like that.)

The only thing that "short-circuits" the political process when Democrats are undermined and denigrated with toxic lies by certain groups who seek to weaken the party. This, of course, benefits only the GOP and Trump (and Russia.)

It's time for everyone to support the "team" (as you put it) because greasing the court, deflating the balls, and tying our shoelaces together isn't helping one bit.

[Cirsium]

55. Holy sh*t

In other words, party loyalty above all and those who disagree with you are disloyal.

What an ugly insulting post.

[Oopsie Daisy]

56. Actually, this isn't about me. It has nothing to do with whether someone agrees or disagrees with me.

What I'm actually saying is that anyone engaging in treacherous behavior with the clear intention to denigrate, sabotage, or undermine the Democratic party equates to disloyalty. Any actions aimed at suppressing the vote, discouraging support for Democrats, or advocating for third-party voting ultimately play into the hands of the GOP, which is truly reprehensible.

I have faith in your ability to discern the nuances of this situation. I also recognize that the distinctions I'm drawing make it challenging to justify and defend the false narrative being propagated by the OP and elsewhere. Consequently, the typical response is to sidestep my valid arguments entirely and shift focus by launching an offensive and pretending to feel "insulted," even though no such offense actually happened.

[Cirsium]

60. Whatever

I think that what you are doing is extremely divisive and destructive. That is what discourages people - your determination to insult, attack and run off anyone who doesn't agree with your very narrow views.

What percentage of the population do you think could ever pass your partisan loyalty test? 10%? Maybe. If that. Everyone else you see as the enemy and viciously attack. That is a formula for defeat, and in my opinion that attitude - my way or the highway - is a big reason why the party does not do better than it should.

Talk about denigrating, sabotaging, and undermining the Democratic party! Suppressing the vote, discouraging support for Democrats, and leading people to look for third-party solutions! That is exactly what you are doing with this hostility and with your purity tests, with your demands for party loyalty, with the insults and attacks.

[Oopsie Daisy]

61. That's the opposite of what I'm doing. In reality, I am not imposing any form of "purity test *

In reality, I am not imposing any form of "purity test," nor am I engaged in denigrating or shitting on our party and its elected representatives. Rather, I am advocating for strengthening the Democratic party despite its imperfections. It's about focusing on the positives. Increasing support and voter turnout for Democrats is crucial to combating the Republicans.

As I mentioned earlier, the landscape has evolved. The paradigm has changed. We are facing perilous times where party loyalty holds significance. Those who seek to "punish" or "teach the Democrats a lesson" by abstaining from voting or endorsing third-party candidates inadvertently aid the GOP.

Let's dial down the theatrics. No one has been subjected to "vicious attacks." While I refrain from branding anyone as "the enemy," I do regard actions deliberately detrimental to the party as disloyal and treacherous. This approach, as you aptly put it, is the "formula for defeat," benefiting only the GOP.

I'm afraid that I must let you know that feigning outrage and false offense is not an effective persuasion tactic. Personally, I find it unconvincing. When someone feigns offense over perceived slights, it often signals a recognition of the fragility of their stance and weakness of their arguments.

It appears we have reached an impasse in our discussion, and I see little value in continuing further dialogue on this matter. Goodbye.

[Cirsium]

62. I am not trying to persuade you

I am not trying to persuade you nor to convince you about anything. I don't think that would be possible. I am posting for the benefit of others.

I am not "feigning" outrage. I find your posts outrageous. Nor do I feel personally slighted.

[Oopsie Daisy]

63. So... you find it to be "outrageous" that I dare to suggest people be loyal to the party?

So... you find it to be "outrageous" that I dare to suggest people be loyal to the party? Fascinating.

Is it also "outrageous" that I'm opposed to not-voting for Democrats, and that I speak forcefully in opposition to voting for third-party candidates? Oh my! How DARE I?? I'm a monster!

And this "benefit of others" you speak of... clearly that's because I'm to be perceived as a heretic for wanting to support and strengthen the Democratic party in spite of its flaws (because I know that there's no such thing as perfection... and because I understand that even the worst Democrat is always better then the Republican?)

Does that sum it up? Did I miss anything?

Again, goodbye.

[Cirsium]

64. Lots of projection in your posts

No, I don't find it outrageous that you suggest people be loyal to the party. I find it outrageous that you accuse others of disloyalty simply because they don't agree with you about party strategy and leadership.

No, I don't find it outrageous that you are opposed to not voting for Democrats, nor that you speak forcefully in opposition to voting for third-party candidates. You are arguing against things I didn't say.

I find your suggestion that those with whom you disagree are trying to tear down the party, discourage voters, or are disloyal to be outrageous. As I said. Your mischaracterization of what I said it is yet another example of your destructive and divisive rhetoric. I say that approach is what is hurting the party's chances. I understand that you disagree with that, though you haven't made much of a case, you just throw around insults and misrepresent the points of view of others.

[Oopsie Daisy]

65. Wrong.

No, I don't find it outrageous that you suggest people be loyal to the party.

My response to that is to let your words speak for themselves. "Demanding blind loyalty, saying that we all operate as uncritical fans cheering on our team, short circuits that important political process." That certainly sounds to me like someone arguing against party loyalty, or defending those who engage in smearing and denigrating the party and our leadership. And sadly, it just gets worse from there. The entire exchange devolves.

I find it outrageous that you accuse others of disloyalty simply because they don't agree with you about party strategy and leadership.

Wrong. I have never said, nor done such a thing. It has nothing at all to do with "agreeing with me about party strategy." People can disagree with me all day long, what do I care? — Instead, I'm pointing out that people are being "disloyal" when they shit on the party and our party's leaders by engaging in, and promoting the LIE that Democrats are (pick one) too old / corrupt / cowards / absent / incompetent / etc. (As this OP is engaging in.)

No, I don't find it outrageous that you are opposed to not voting for Democrats, nor that you speak forcefully in opposition to voting for third-party candidates. You are arguing against things I didn't say.

It's clear that anyone who's arguing in favor of promoting the aforementioned lies, or anyone who defends people who engage in such treachery, is also promoting and defending actions that result in the suppression of support for our party, and the suppression of votes for our candidates. The most recent example of this are the lies of "Genocide Joe" and "Killer Kamala". (Remember?) Those lies suppressed the vote and turned many voters toward third-party candidate/s. And to this very day, we have folks defending and making excuses for people who promoted those lies.

Of course nobody here literally said "let's vote third party." I never made that accusation, did I? — But the consequence of defending those who promote the lies (like the ones described above) rather than calling-out the lies and being truthful — is that it allows those lies to become accepted as being the truth. Anyone who remains silent in the face of the lies and smears hurled at our party, is IMHO, complicit. The same goes for anyone who defends or makes excuses for those who engage in the lies and smears.

I find your suggestion that those with whom you disagree are trying to tear down the party, discourage voters, or are disloyal to be outrageous.

That's a disingenuous statement and clearly it's not what I've said. Instead, by reversing the order it completely changes the meaning of what I've actually done/said. I have never said that people who disagree with me are disloyal. Instead, what I'm saying is that I disagree with —and disapprove of— people who are disloyal to the party by engaging in the aforementioned lies. See the difference?

It is a mistake for anyone to frame this as "disagreeing with me" but (once again, I repeat) the reality is that it's not about me. It's about someone's treachery and disloyalty to the party. When someone tries to redefine actual attacks and smears of Democrats as merely "disagreeing with me" they are promoting a false narrative.

Personally, I find it contemptible for anyone to wrongfully characterize my strong defense of Democrats as being "divisive rhetoric." On the very face of it, it's ridiculous to suggest that wanting unity (by encouraging others to refrain from continually shitting on the party) somehow "hurts the party's chances." The opposite is true.

Frankly, I figure that I may as well be talking with an electric toaster or a chat-gpt bot. I cannot take the contrarian replies seriously any longer. It's like I've fallen into a rabbit hole into some through-the-looking-glass alternate reality where shitting on Democrats is "good" (or just a disagreement with me) and defending Democrats is "bad" (or "divisive rhetoric'').

you just throw around insults and misrepresent the points of view of others.

Oh, spare me, please. Now, that is an example of projection. It's time for everyone to fall-in-line. This is an all-hands-on-deck moment. Do better! We must all rise to the challenge and support the party.

Have a nice day.

[Cirsium]

67. Good grief

"Demanding blind loyalty, saying that we all operate as uncritical fans cheering on our team, short circuits that important political process" does not equal "smearing and denigrating the party and our leadership." That is pretty obvious.

You say "people can disagree with me all day long, what do I care?" and then in the next sentence say that people are being disloyal and shitting on the party and our party's leaders when they disagree with you about the quality of the leadership and tactics and strategy. Clearly, you do very much care that people disagree with you.

I never said "Genocide Joe" nor "Killer Kamala" and did not agree with the people who did. If anyone said that here I didn't see it. Yes, many people in the Arabic community in Michigan voted against Harris/Walz over Gaza. That was completely misguided and cost us the state. Tragic, really. The Trump administration is much worse for the Palestinians, of course. The general election is the wrong time to cast protest votes.

I don't believe I have engaged in any lies, nor defended any lies. If you are going to make that accusation, you need to point out specifically what these lies are.

You think that my opinions are hurting the cause, I think that yours are. That is because we disagree about a few things, about the leadership we need, the approaches we should take, etc. That doesn't mean that either one of us is lying, or engaging in treachery, and so on. I agree with you about protest votes in the general election being a bad mistake. Wrong time, wrong action. That means in my view that now would be the time to hammer out differences, and that is what people are trying to do. You think that leads to third party voting, if I understand you correctly. We have an honest disagreement about that. It isn't the end of the world. It mirrors a long standing disagreement in the party between two broad factions.

"It is a mistake for anyone to frame this as 'disagreeing with me' but (once again, I repeat) the reality is that it's not about me. It's about someone's treachery and disloyalty to the party. When someone tries to redefine actual attacks and smears of Democrats as merely "disagreeing with me" they are promoting a false narrative."

But we are disagreeing, and you are accusing me of treachery and disloyalty, of promoting a false narrative. That obviously is divisive.

How have I thrown around insults or misrepresented your point of view?

[Oopsie Daisy]

68. I have done no such thing. Only those who shit on the Democratic party are the treacherous ones *

* is that what you're doing? Only those who defend and encourage said "shitting on Democrats" are put into the same category. Are you defending them?

Anyone who lies about Democrats, anyone who defends those lies, anyone who promotes those lies (see previous list of sample lies) is promoting the false narrative. It's that simple. Are you doing any of those things?

Anyone who claims that I'm attacking people simply for "disagreeing with me" is also promoting a false narrative. My harsh comments are directly at those who denigrate, undercut, weaken, harm and sabotage Democrats. Why would anyone have a problem with that? I guess the only people who would object to my stance are the ones who engage in such behavior, or whose who defend and cheer on such behavior. --- Do you have a problem with that? Do you object to that?

Nobody accused you of the "Genocide Joe" etc comments. But I am opposed to people who try to sabotage our party and candidates in that way. But my opposition to that behavior seems to cause great consternation with you. Why? You characterize it as being vital to democracy (or words to that effect) and that I should just let them continue on unchallenged. Why? I'm also opposed to anyone who is dismissive of that type of toxic behavior, or who tries to excuse it, or who tries to blame people for defending the party and for defending our leaders and candidates.

Yet in my defense of Democrats, I'm accused of "hurting" Democrats. Wierd. And in my efforts to dissuade people from lying about Democrats, I'm accused of being "divisive." --- Again, weird.

As I've said before... it's an all-hands-on-deck moment. We do not have the luxury of taking time to "re-arrange the chairs" or "polish the brass bells" and put fresh linen and crystal on the table. I get the feeling that some here want to take their sweet time and re-hash old arguments and disagreements... and air dirty laundry. But that would be a mistake THAT would be the most divisive.

The time to act is now. Rally support. Stop with the attacks and nitpicking. Stop defending and making excuses for the attackers and nitpickers. It's really that simple. I don't know what else I can say to help you understand.

[Cirsium]

69. OK

I am not attacking you ffs. I guess I am hitting a nerve somehow.

My previous post was a respectful attempt at discussing this with you in a calm and civilized manner. You are completely misrepresenting what I wrote, while denying that you wrote the things that you most definitely did write. It could well be that I don't understand what you are trying to say. I did my best to understand it and have spent a lot of time on it, and I tried not to react in anger to what seemed to me to be provocations.

I don't see any way forward. I wish you no ill.

[Oopsie Daisy]

70. Okay, goodbye again.

[Cirsium]

72. Good luck

Wishing you the best. Sorry that it didn't go well.

[Oopsie Daisy]

73. Goodbye again.

[Cirsium]

71. Deleted

Wrong place.

[bigtree]

39. this is a political problem

..it's your problem because it affects you.

Why wait for politicians we didn't manage to elect in numbers that would give them the power and authority, pretending they have for the political action we should have produced months ago, and bashing them for not doing what they're not equipped to?

It's not ridiculous to expect people complaining about politicians not doing anything, to do more than just promote that sophistry. I mean, what they're saying about Democrats is provably untrue.

People claiming Democrats aren't speaking up and fighting back aren't doing anyone a service with that lie. Moreover, we have a platform right here to do more than just complain that someone else isn't saying this or that.

Pointing that out isn''t ridiculous, it's a taste of reality.

What's ridiculous is coming onto a site which promotes what Dems say and do DAILY, and claiming it isn't happening.

[Cirsium]

45. That is not responsive

That doesn't address what I wrote.

I reject your insinuations of disloyalty against those with whom you disagree.

[bigtree]

52. but it addresses the op

...which you diverted from.

"I reject your insinuations of disloyalty..."

[Oopsie Daisy]

54. That one made me chuckle too! 😂🤣

[betsuni]

53. +1

[DSandra]

8. The more accurate answer is: "We did all what we could before the election, we will just watch as America burns..."

The party has shouted on and on about the dangers of Trump for months before the election, and America just rolled their eyes and voted for him. Democrats in Washington don't feel like putting their lives on the line when they (as they feel) did all they could to prevent this fate, and yet voters gave them the middle finger.

Dems however should be doing all they can to protect the ones that DIDN'T vote for Trump. We all are damn innocent and don't deserve the fate that is being bestowed onto America.

[Silent Type]

9. Officials/leaders shouting right now won't wok, IMO. Voters might, though.

Don’t have an answer, but I know shouting, reading statements in empty chambers, etc., just makes us look pitiful, and I don’t like looking pitiful/weak.

We need to shake things up, somehow. Hold a big convention this summer, write our own Project 2026/2028, kick off mid-terms early, etc. if nothing else comes to mind.

Also, need to prepare to respond to Musk’s DOGE report which will bash Democrats for so-called inefficiencies and poor management. It was likely much worse in trump’s first term, but that will be ignored.

[Lunabell]

11. Here's two! No, three!

Progressive women!

https://bsky.app/profile/aoc.bsky.social

https://bsky.app/profile/repjasmine.bsky.social

And good old Pete!!

https://bsky.app/profile/petebuttigieg.bsky.social

[Lancero]

29. Pity that the gerontocracy decided to cut AOC off at the legs.

[Celerity]

31. +1

[usonian]

12. My Suggestions. Please read.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1324&pid=2094

Copied here.

Dump anyone not pounding the table right now.

Silence is complicity.

SHORT LIST

• Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock
• Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Both gave Obama-like convention speeches.

Others to complement these powerful leaders:
• Senator Sanders
• Senator Warren
• Mark Cuban

Current governors and others
What an outstanding group of governors!
https://democraticgovernors.org/governors/ (DGA)

• Pete Buttigieg
• Armed forces top leaders

Voices which have been strong on DU include
• AOC
• Bernie Sanders
• Elizabeth Warren
• Jasmine Crockett

We need a Dr. Martin Luther King, John Lewis kind of leader.

Or else the country is toast.

Time has just about run out.



007, 006, 005 ...

[BannonsLiver]

13. I'm starting to feel a little disgusted.

And Cory Booker going on a fucking MSNBC panel show isn’t “fighting back.” That’s not making news. That’s not disruptive. At all.

[SCantiGOP]

14. And asking:

Why wasn’t all of this fraud discovered during trump’s first term, or by the GOP Congressional Oversight Committees?

[valleyrogue]

15. They had better be working with the courts and even the

military, for it may be necessary to force removal of this administration. Impeachment will not do.

[Baron2024]

16. Words

Unfortunately, I do not think words alone are going to stop Trump Musk. I think we are on a precipice where it will be a Civil War or otherwise a Police State. A well crafted argument might motivate some people to some kind of action, but action is what is necessary. The normal political system is not working because Trump Musk is disregarding that constitutional system entirely. The only answer might be the justified use of force.

I do not think that the country will survive to the next election, and Trump Musk would just cancel or rig the next election anyway. I hope that I am wrong but the only solution that I can see is some sort of mass uprising. Lawrence O'Donnell has reported tonight that Musk and DOGE are in the Social Security Administration now. If they kill the upcoming Social Security payments for the next cycle, I imagine that might create some sort of large scale mass reaction, if nothing else will. It is obviously a terrible situation.

[Orrex]

17. They're waiting for Garland's final report. Then you'll see!

[Cirsium]

18. Archibald Cox

I'm still waiting on the report from Archibald Cox.

Forty years ago, when President Richard M. Nixon fired Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox on October 20, 1973 in the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre,” seeking to shut down Cox’s criminal investigation before it proved Nixon’s complicity in the Watergate cover-up, the nation’s system of laws hung in the balance.

At issue was whether the President of the United States, by dint of sheer force, could overpower the rule of law and halt an investigation of his own conduct as Chief Executive, thus defying the Special Prosecutor’s office, the courts, Congress, and 19 ordinary citizens of the federal grand jury who had directed Nixon to turn over nine White House tapes that would prove or disprove his involvement in a criminal cover-up.

The Saturday Night Massacre
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-saturday-night-massacre-40-years-later-how-our-constitution-trumped-a-r

[KPN]

24. Right?!

[orleans]

28. this:

[Diraven]

19. Talking a lot

But they don't have the power to stop anything.

[betsuni]

21. Yet another "Why didn't/don't Democrats stop _____ ?" "Leadership" is the new "establishment" as an insult

for Democrats (who are doing their jobs of course -- but yet another "If I don't know something it doesn't exist" ).

[KPN]

25. I disagree. People are expressing their legitimate angst. There is

clearly for many people an apparent lack of strong leadership or they wouldn't be saying so. Personally, I think the party needs to hear this … it’s the only thing that will create it. Defending the status quo and recent party failure is certainly not going to do it. Our success depends on inspiring mass support of and action by the people.

[Lunabell]

34. Yes.

I don't know what Schumer is up to in private, but his public posts are tone deaf and milquetoast about the state of emergency we're in. Maybe he's just a great actor and behind the scenes he's all Terminator, but I doubt it.

[mr715]

42. He needs a Pelosi

to keep him stalwart.

[Oopsie Daisy]

66. Bye!

[Oopsie Daisy]

49. Glance around... the "geriatric" insults are still a favorite (even in this thread.)

Or, that the "establishment" are cutting off the legs younger representatives. I've observed a tendency among some who exhibit a form of epistemic arrogance, in an eagerness to dismiss or disregard concepts or information that fall outside their current knowledge, observations or beliefs. Sometimes that behavior reminds me of one of Bill Maher's self-serving rants. (Maddening, isn't it?) Ugh.

I guess it's time for me to update my BINGO card.

[betsuni]

50. A few are trying to make "gerontocracy" as an insult for Democrats happen. Creating a fictional enemy

of Democrats, as usual.

[awesomerwb1]

22. What leadership?

The House dude, the Senate dude?

[CentralMass]

26. Hiding in fear ?

[Wanderlust988]

27. Our leaders are either too old or too cerebral

Getting on TV and talking calmly and very measured. That's not going to cut it. We have no one that is a flame thrower. AOC and Crockett are fighters, but they are newbies and no one really pays attention to them.

[mr715]

43. Agree

They need to break out by being willing to ruffle feathers. Both Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Crockett have demonstrated a keen capacity for this.

They may need to surrender short-term political ambitions, but they will be instrumental for heralding in a new era of democratic politics.

The people that pay attention to AOC and Crockett are the Republicans, because they can tell these women are going to be problems for them in the future. Welp, we're in that future. Time to make some good trouble.

[elocs]

32. These are the people that Democrats have voted into office for election after election for decades.

So you get the leadership you have voted into office.

[Lunabell]

35. Those were the candidates we were dealt.

The up and comers don't control the purse strings.

[KPN]

40. Lol. So the party structure itself and the DNC, the DCCC, the

DSC, etc., had no influence over which candidates voters could vote for politically or financially. Thank God the DLC no longer exists.

I get that we live in a real world, but lets at least acknowledge the role played and inertia provided by the sheer existence of party structure.

[GreenWave]

33. Check your local stations today to see if the mention the protests.

If not, they are dis-informing people.

[IcyPeas]

36. I know all the chickenshit republicans fear being primaried but

The dems in power should be calling them out too.... LOUDLY. Ridicule them... shame them.... call them nasty names... DO SOMETHING. fuck "if they go low we go high" bullshit.... it's beyond that.

Trump is doing things by executive order that are supposed to go through congress... what he is doing is not lawful

YET HE AND ELON ARE DOING IT AND NO ONE CAN OR WILL STOP THEM.

Who knew it would be so easy to take over this country that Donald Trump would be able to do it. FFS

Meanwhile over on fox news they are laughing at dems for freaking out.

Dems should call them out too.... throw it back in their faces. This is a fight!

[techzeel]

38. Hell

Yes, it is in hell indeed.

[mr715]

41. Who is leadership?

Are you limiting the claim to refer to the party-annointed leadership?

[Peregrine Took]

51. I heard that' no specific person wants to be the

Point man in this debacle I.e. the guy out in front. If all our politicians are too scared how about James Carville?
Last night he was fiery and seemed to have some ideas as to how we can gain traction on this nightmare I’ll see if I can find the link snd be right back

https://www.aol.com/news/carville-democrats-play-possum-now-135410946.html

[senseandsensibility]

57. I find it hard to believe that Chris Murphy doesn't want to be out front

He has been harshly criticizing his fellow Dems for weeks now. He's not afraid, but perhaps other Dems are not willing to coalesce behind him?

[lees1975]

58. Where, indeed!

We seem to be the party that can't see around the next corner.

Republicans planning this for years, in some cases laying the groundwork through media pigs like Rush Limbaugh, stacking courts with unqualified judges, and they've been telling us all of the populist crap they believe. But our guys go on making speeches, running for office, protecting their own turf.

I am sick of American politicians who want to hang on to their office as long as they can to collect the check and the benefits. I will only vote for those who serve the people and are willing to speak truth to power and sacrifice, their own position if they have to, to make the point and get something done.

If we had term limits and a $100,000 cap on the total amount of campaign funds anyone can raise for any office, we wouldn't have this problem now.