General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm damn tired of rich people with ulterior motives trying to hijack the Democratic platform.
They are no friends to the people whom the Democratic Party represents (or claims to represent, at the very least).
If they sincerely want to help with the current American political crisis, they can always try to reclaim the Republican Party from the right-wing fanatics/Tea Party/Trump supporters or whatever the fuck they call themselves these days. But I won't hold my breath on that.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WePurrsevere
(24,259 posts)nikibatts
(2,198 posts)
DFW
(60,179 posts)Since it is apparent to some, why don't they let the rest of us in on just who "they" are? I don't mean vague labels like "corporatists," but names, and not just two or three bad guys whose names we all know.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)
DURHAM D
(33,054 posts)that are under attack.
Here is the platform -
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Rich people helped shape the Democratic platform.
George II
(67,782 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)What people are those? Some examples?
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)of the Democratic party? It makes no sense.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I personally don't agree with using loaded words like "hijack" to describe views one disagrees with.
Nevertheless, that and other such words have been used relentlessly on DU to describe those of us who want to move the party to the left. In that context, I'm giving this post a rec precisely because it does make the analogy.
NYResister
(164 posts)Moving away from civil rights is not moving left, it is moving right.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Somehow, the post I wrote has been caused to appear on your screen with a whole new paragraph added, one making it appear that I called for moving away from civil rights. Somebody should notify the admins.
Sarcasm aside: In one of the threads that prompted this OP, I've been berated for calling for single-payer health care. I suppose there are some who would say "You cannot be a liberal and disagree with single payer," as well as some who would say "You cannot be a liberal and support single payer." My response is "You cannot be a liberal and use the 'You cannot be a liberal' attack every time someone disagrees with you."
For any halfway plausible position you could mention, you could probably find someone advocating it. If you find someone advocating a move away from civil rights, address and rebut that argument by that person. The kind of vague innuendo that we're actually seeing, which attempts to blame progressives for the Trump presidency, is not helpful.
NYResister
(164 posts)You stated the following.
My response is "You cannot be a liberal and use the 'You cannot be a liberal' attack every time someone disagrees with you."
My question. Who are these "progressives" who disagree with civil rights?
Why is there a pushback on discussing the importance of civil rights?
Vague innuendo? Did you listen to Trump? Did you listen to his supporters?
His whole campaign was an attack on civil rights. His supporters applauded it and are now openly vocal in their attacks on civil rights.
Ignoring this is what is not helpful.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write, "My question. Who are these 'progressives' who disagree with civil rights?"
Funny, I was going to ask you the same thing.
You're the one who said that such people weren't liberals. Did you have anyone in mind? I personally don't see any significant bloc of liberals or progressives who claim that title because they're generally supportive of the left's goals but who disagree with civil rights.
(Footnote:There might be a limited exception in the case of abortion. Some Christians, the ones who read the Sermon on the Mount instead of Leviticus, believe in helping the poor and living in peace with other countries. For that reason they support an array of progressive policies. Unfortunately, however, their religious views also lead them to oppose reproductive rights. Senator Bob Casey is on the left on many issues, and even on some civil rights issues (having supported repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, for example), but says that "Roe v. Wade" should be overturned. Frankly, I have little interest in arguing about what label(s) should be applied to him. I'm glad to have his vote against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and against confirming Neil Gorsuch, but, in the unlikely event that he runs for the Democratic nomination for President, I'll oppose him on civil rights grounds.)
As for Trump, I don't see any difficulty. He's not a progressive. I voted against him. I'd guess that everyone on DU voted against him except for the handful of sympathetic foreigners who post here but who can't vote. The "vague innuendo" I referred to wasn't Trump's markedly non-vague statements, but rather the posts on DU that, I'm guessing, prompted the OP in this thread.
NYResister
(164 posts)You are not a liberal if you do not support civil rights.
That is not up for debate, it's just a fact.
So why the pushback?
Why was this OP posted?
I'm happy that you voted against Trump. I'm guessing by the way you worded that, that you also did not vote for the Democratic nominee. You simply voted against trump. Feel free to correct me, if I'm wrong.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In the general election, I voted for Hillary Clinton despite considering her to be a _______ who was too _________ and who was also objectionable on grounds of __________.
Sorry to be coy, but if I give you a complete answer the post will be removed.
As an aside, I used to live in New York. In the 2006 Senate primary I voted for the progressive Democrat who ran against her. In both 2000 and 2006, however, I voted for her in the general election.
You ask, "Why was this OP posted?" My guess is that the OP had absolutely nothing to do with civil rights. The OP targets Wall Street types who don't care about civil rights one way or the other. Given that the OP expressly mentioned rich people, the most obvious interpretation is that it refers to economic policy rather than civil rights.
Ugh.
He's no progressive. There's a reason why he lost so badly.
The OP, in my opinion, was a direct response to my OP regarding civil rights. So once again, why the pushback?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write, "There's a reason why he lost so badly." Well, his opponent was the incumbent, had an enormous advantage in name recognition, outspent him by a big margin, and was endorsed by the Democratic Party establishment. Tasini had virtually no money to get out his message, was largely ignored by the corporate media, and couldn't communicate with the voters in a debate because Clinton refused to debate him. So, obviously, the reason he lost was that, in your opinion, he's no progressive. If only he'd enunciated a set of policies more to your liking he would have picked up many more votes.
Was Tasini a progressive? According to the Wikipedia article about the race, Tasini announced that he was "running as an antiwar candidate, calling for immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, universal health care, expansion in Medicare benefits, the creation of Universal Voluntary Accounts for pensions, and what he termed 'New Rules For the Economy', a more labor-centric as opposed to the corporate-centric approach to economic matters espoused by Clinton." Obviously some people will disagree with his characterization of Clinton, but the rest of what's in that brief summary would generally be considered progressive.
I didn't happen to read your OP about civil rights. I read a different OP, one that smeared Our Revolution and leftists in general. I read the OP in this thread in that context.
If you want an explanation of the pushback on civil rights, you'll have to direct your question to people who are pushing back on civil rights.
NYResister
(164 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I've never lived in that district and I didn't pay much attention to that race. Tasini was again challenging an incumbent (Rangel) who had many of the same advantages Clinton had had in 2006 (incumbency, name recognition, money).
There was also the ethnic/racial factor. The district had originally been mainly black, but over the years the Hispanic population became larger. Rangel, who's black, faced a very tough primary in 2012, when he narrowly defeated a Hispanic challenger, Espaillat. A white guy like Tasini started off at a disadvantage just on that basis. In addition, Espaillat (who's now the Congressmember) had served in the state legislature and had better credentials for voters who look for experience.
There's no set of policies, from extreme left to extreme right to some home-brewed mixture, that Tasini could have endorsed that would have made him the favorite in 2010. His poor showing tells us essentially nothing about anything. If you think there's some kind of important lesson to be learned from the 2010 primary in the CD, please elaborate.
In the 2006 Senate primary, there were two Democrats who sought my vote. I voted for the Democrat who I thought would make the better Senator. The Iraq War was a hugely important issue for me; this was before Hillary Clinton had come around to the view that her vote for the AUMF was a mistake. I didn't vote on the basis that Tasini was perfect, only that he was better.
NYResister
(164 posts)It's that his message, which seems to be primarily just lobbing insults, does not resonate with the base in liberal areas.
He also wanted to primary Kirsten Gillibrand. And again, he had no real message, he just lobbed insults at her and then dropped out.
JI7
(93,614 posts)Response to JI7 (Reply #5)
Name removed Message auto-removed
still_one
(98,883 posts)JI7
(93,614 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)Response to YoungDemCA (Original post)
NurseJackie This message was self-deleted by its author.
superpatriotman
(6,870 posts)Last I checked the party wasn't setting the political world on fire.
Maybe keep the flaps of the big tent open and stop curating and velvet roping the guests who are willing to vote D.
Ninsianna
(1,354 posts)guests are the ones who created that tent and who have been doing all the work to keep this party going. The arsonists are the "guests" who seem to think extortion, abuse and other impolite behaviors entitles them to special treatment by the party they abuse with every breath.
The flaps on the tent are open, and anyone is invited in, they're just asked to not be offensive, foul mouthed arsonists and to mind their manners towards their hosts.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)Thank you for this post.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)
Gothmog
(179,822 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)YoungDemCA
0. I'm damn tired of rich people with ulterior motives trying to hijack the Democratic platform.
They are no friends to the people whom the Democratic Party represents (or claims to represent, at the very least).
If they sincerely want to help with the current American political crisis, they can always try to reclaim the Republican Party from the right-wing fanatics/Tea Party/Trump supporters or whatever the fuck they call themselves these days. But I won't hold my breath on that.
Kathy M
(1,242 posts)"But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter the mainstream. As Friedman remarked, “when the time came that you had to change ... there was an alternative ready there to be picked up”. With the help of sympathetic journalists and political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially its prescriptions for monetary policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter’s administration in the US and Jim Callaghan’s government in Britain"
"After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services. Through the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation, neoliberal policies were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much of the world. Most remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged to the left: Labour and the Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes, “it is hard to think of another utopia to have been as fully realised.”
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
"This has held true in recent decades. After taking office in 1992, Bill Clinton worked to align the Democratic Party with corporate elites and to appeal to white voters at the expense of poor black people. The result was NAFTA, the expansion of mass incarceration, and the destruction of welfare as we knew it. I have nothing nice to say about this policy disaster, or about Hillary Clinton’s participation in it. But what’s also true is that in the late 1990s, the left, after years of defeat and disarray amid post-communist neoliberal triumph, began to put itself back together in the movement against corporate globalization."
"On the electoral front, the Obama years fostered not a milquetoast challenger like Dean but democratic socialist Bernie Sanders’ historic campaign. The anti-war movement is still nowhere in sight. But on so many other issues, Americans on the left are mobilized like never before and winning new people over to the cause."
"One can no more wish third party candidates out of existence than they can close their eyes and make the two-party system go away. Both are longstanding features of American electoral politics"
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/04/the-lefts-best-bet-hillary-clinton-not-trump-in-the-white-house-will-prove-the-necessity-for-a-progressive-agenda/
NYResister
(164 posts)I went to your link and read this
It’s not very important whether the relatively small number of people on the organized radical left vote for Clinton. (And since I don’t live in a swing state, unless Clinton starts to blow it even more than she already has, I won’t be voting for her either.)
Support Democrats.
Kathy M
(1,242 posts)Good luck " democrats " in 2018 and 2020 ...........
NYResister
(164 posts)for people to not vote for our Democratic nominee.
I grew up poor, and was raised by a young widowed mother. I am not a corporate democrat, neoliberal or any of these other inane, bizarre things people attribute to me because I support Democrats, and more importantly, supported our Democratic nominee over the completely unacceptable, disgusting, vile, corrupt, insane, other choice.
Our nominee, was my Senator and she spoke for me. And she spoke for many others. 66 million of us.
66 million of us are not corporate democrats, neoliberals or whatever the hell you want to label us. We are people. We are people who voted.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Wow. No wonder that poster decided to retreat and hightail it out of there.
Kathy M
(1,242 posts)with Hillary and David Brock and democratic party that is all that matters for you .
Like I said good luck in 2018 and 2020 .....
Ninsianna
(1,354 posts)We've seen what havoc is wrought by the fraudsters who pretend to be Dems.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)TBH not reading anything that uses the word.
Kathy M
20. Then you must be okay with neoliberalism ideology
NYResister
(164 posts)Is it people like former Republican Cenk Uygur?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
shenmue
(38,598 posts)We have a winner!
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)FDR signed the Glass-Steagall Act into law. Rubin was one of the prime culprits in its repeal. Many Democrats would like to see it reinstated, but that would be to the economic disadvantage of some major Democratic donors.
Suppose that, after the 2020 elections, Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress. Will Glass-Steagall be reinstated? At this point, it's impossible to say. It will depend on whether the Democrats then in office agree wtih FDR or with Robert Rubin.
JHan
(10,173 posts)One provision of glass steagall was repealed and it pertained to commercial banks, NOT the investment banks at the heart of the sub prime mortgage crisis. Stieglitz barely makes an adequate case for any direct connection between the crash and GLB but this hasn't stopped progressives repeating the glass steagall canard. GLB left much of glass steagall in place btw.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)One issue is whether Glass-Steagall should be reinstated. The other issue is what role, if any, its repeal (or, if you prefer, partial repeal) played in the 2007-08 financial crisis. My post didn't address the second question.
As for Elizabeth Warren, here's what I find on her website from 2013:
"But in the 1980s, the federal regulators started reinterpreting the laws to break down the divide between regular banking and Wall Street risk-taking, and in 1999, Congress repealed Glass Steagall altogether. Wall Street had spent 66 years and millions of dollars lobbying for repeal, and, eventually, the big banks won.
"Our new 21st Century Glass Steagall Act once again separates traditional banks from riskier financial services. And since banking has become much more complicated since the first bill was written in 1933, we’ve updated the law to include new activities and leave no room for regulatory interpretations that water down the rules."
I agree with all of that.
Incidentally, Warren (as of six weeks ago) still supports separating commercial banking from investment banking. This appears from a truly mind-boggling exchange she had with Steve Mnuchin:
"Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the lead sponsor of the bipartisan 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act of 2017, grilled Mnuchin on his statements.
"'The Republican platform did have Glass-Steagall,' Mnuchin said in response to a question from Warren asking if he was reversing the administration’s previous position. 'We, during the campaign ... had the opportunity to work with on this specifically, came out and said we do support a 21st-century Glass-Steagall. Which is ... there are aspects of it, OK, that we think may make sense. But we never said before that we supported a full separation of banks and investment banks.'
"Warren, incredulous, responded, 'There are aspects of Glass-Steagall that you support, but not breaking up the banks and separating commercial banking from investment banking? What do you think Glass-Steagall was if that’s not right at the heart of it?'”
I hope we can all agree that Mnuchin was being thoroughly disingenuous.
JHan
(10,173 posts)The repeal of one provision in Glass Steagall was conflated with the financial crisis thus giving the wrong impression that if the full act remained the crisis would never have occurred: this is wrong. The crisis was rooted in investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage backed securities, Glass Steagall never prevented such investments.
This article gets to the jist of it better than I could - note her response:
"When I called Ms. Warren and pressed her about whether she thought the financial crisis or JPMorgan’s losses could have been avoided if Glass-Steagall were in place, she conceded: “The answer is probably ‘No’ to both.”
Still, she said that the repeal of the law “had a powerful impact to let the big get bigger.” She also contended that its repeal, brought about by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, “mattered enormously. It is like holding up a sign to regulators to back up.”]
Let’s look at the facts of the financial crisis in the context of Glass-Steagall.
The first domino to nearly topple over in the financial crisis was Bear Stearns, an investment bank that had nothing to do with commercial banking. Glass-Steagall would have been irrelevant. Then came Lehman Brothers; it too was an investment bank with no commercial banking business and therefore wouldn’t have been covered by Glass-Steagall either. After them, Merrill Lynch was next — and yep, it too was an investment bank that had nothing to do with Glass-Steagall.
Next in line was the American International Group, an insurance company that was also unrelated to Glass-Steagall. While we’re at it, we should probably throw in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which similarly, had nothing to do with Glass-Steagall.
Now let’s look at the major commercial banks that ran into trouble.
Let’s first take Bank of America. Its biggest problems stemmed not from investment banking or trading — though there were some losses — but from its acquisition of Countrywide Financial, the subprime lender, which made a lot of bad loans — completely permissible under Glass-Steagall.
What about Wachovia? Its near-collapse was largely a function of its acquisition of Golden West, a mortgage lender that saddled it with billions of dollars in bad loans.
Citigroup’s problems are probably the closest call when it comes to whether Glass-Steagall would have avoided its problems. It gorged both on underwriting bad loans and buying up collateralized debt obligations.
In that case, Glass-Steagall would have done two things: it would have prevented the trading losses and it also would have kept Citigroup from getting so big, which was one of the reasons it required a bailout.
But Citi’s troubles didn’t come until after Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, A.I.G., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fallen or teetering — when all hell was breaking loose.
Why do we have financial crises? Why do banks lose money?
If history is any guide, it hasn’t often been the result of speculative bets. It has been the result of banks making loans to individuals and businesses who can’t pay them back.
Yes, standards became so lax that buyers didn’t have to put money down or prove their income, and financial firms developed dangerous instruments that packaged and sliced up loans, then magnified their bets with more borrowed money.
But it often starts with banks making basic loans. Making loans “is one of the riskiest businesses banks engage in and has been a major contributing factor to most financial crises in the world over the last 50 years,” Richard Spillenkothen, former director of the division of banking supervision and regulation at the Federal Reserve, wrote in a letter to Politico’s Morning Money on Monday. He said that if Glass-Steagall still existed, it “alone would not have prevented the financial crisis.”
Still, Mr. Spillenkothen said: “If banks had been limited to ‘plain vanilla’ lending, notwithstanding its admitted riskiness, the financial crisis may well have been less severe or more easily managed and contained.”
In my conversation with Ms. Warren she told me that one of the reasons she’s been pushing reinstating Glass-Steagall — even if it wouldn’t have prevented the financial crisis — is that it is an easy issue for the public to understand and “you can build public attention behind.”
She added that she considers Glass-Steagall more of a symbol of what needs to happen to regulations than the specifics related to the act itself.
So would Glass-Steagall make things slightly better? Sure.
But the next time someone says that it is the ultimate solution, think again."
https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/reinstating-an-old-rule-is-not-a-cure-for-crisis/
President Obama also realized Glass Steagall would not have changed the dynamic described * . Stilglitz himself could not make a direct case.
A more honest and valuable approach would be to admit that the obsession with short term profit making leading to risk taking was a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.
(Edit - typos )
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)One can readily believe both these things:
(1) As per your source, Glass-Steagall would have made things slightly better in the financial crisis, but would not be the ultimate solution.
(2) Glass-Steagall should be reinstated (or, if you want to be more precise, we should reinstate the provision separating traditional banks from riskier financial services). This argument doesn't depend on the history of the 2007-08 financial crisis. There were reasons for enacting the law in 1933, and for opposing its repeal in 1999, when obviously no one yet had any data about the subsequent financial crisis.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Latching on to a throw away remark in one sentence at the end doesn't change the substance of the piece.
The reason progressives bring up glass steagall is to make a case that a partial repeal caused the crash.
It did not.
And Consolidation had been a concern since the 80's wiith corporations, if the principle concern is business " too big to fail" .
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Concentration is a concern in many sectors of the economy, not just finance. Even if we assume no government bailouts, concentration has pernicious effects that go beyond "too big to fail".
As for Glass-Steagall, it is evidently impossible to get you to think about anything other than the 2007-08 financial crisis. What I note is that, when Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed, it was opposed by several thoughtful progressive Senators (plus a surprising Richard Shelby). In the House, there were 57 votes against it. Here's the point: That was in 1999. Whether you agree with those legislators or not, not a single one of them voted to repeal Glass-Steagall because of their analysis of what caused the 2007-08 crisis. IOW, it is wrong to assume that the case to reinstate Glass-Steagall rests entirely on that crisis.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Once there's evidence to support it
But last year I saw how this meme of glass steagall took on a life of its own.
I'll take hard evidence over myth and many on the left are stuck on the meme of glass steagall - I have my suspicions why. I think it provided some with a way to blame the 90s and directly tie Bill Clinton and by extension paint so called "establishment democrats" - including Hillary - in a particular light. But it's irresponsible and we are much better off being specific in our arguments if we want to learn from our mistakes.
The point of reference has to be the crash since it was the catalyst for the bailout. This shouldn't surprise you, for example you can't talk about FDR without factoring in the late 20s and 30s.
Consolidation "too big to fail" had been a problem since the 80s in banking - Continental Illinois and a few others that don't immediately come to mind. In some instances , there were problems despite the size of assets. The problem with consolidation is that it makes it hard for institutions to self regulate themselves , and self regulation is important since government regulatory bodies can only go so far. Size became something of a buffer which helped nurture a culture dismissive of prudent management in favor of cutting corners and speculative risk taking. Terrible lending practices where conventional wisdom in banking took a nose dive in favor of selling shoddy products and gullible borrowers were eager to line up to make use of these services, artificial interest rates, ineffective regulatory bodies and piss poor credit rating agencies *( yes they existed before the partial steagall repeal) , and even appraisers - I'll lift a great quote from business insider "Appraisers, knowingly, breached their fiduciary responsibility by lying about values. The most common thing they did was to use the market data method, only, and ignored the other two tests. By ignoring fundamental values, prices simply leap-frogged sale after sale. Up and up and up, into a speculative bubble."
The mess is a lot more complicated that many wish to admit to, and I get that politicians always need slogans and "symbols" for voters but in this case the myth distracts from a more fruitful discussion we could have about the pursuit of profit and flaws in the market in existence for over 3 decades.
marybourg
(13,640 posts)he wanted to "one-up" the TR branch of his family. But he was a helluva President anyway.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Now all you need to do is find someone who's making that argument.
NYResister asked for an example of someone who met the OP's description, so I named Rubin. Neither the OP nor I asserted that ALL rich people meet that description.
To refute that straw man, you don't even need to go back to FDR. On the contemporary scene, a hot issue is health care. Warren Buffett is widely considered rich, and he favors single-payer. On that issue, he's to the left of Nancy Pelosi.
lovemydogs
(575 posts)While I am not one to worship the rich or think them better then us, and I have always had a healthy suspicion of Business people in particular, I am not going to condemn someone who is wealthy and a democrat.
The problem is not so much the bank account of someone who supports our party. The problem is when our party ditched its traditional and large tent of average people for groveling over Wall Street and Silicon Valley big shots.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)as a tag stop. What is wealthy ? Eyes of the beholder all that . I agree being rich or wealthy is not exactly the issue.
Willie Pep
(841 posts)FDR was a full-blown patrician and he was probably the most left-wing (on economics) president we ever had. This is also why I am not against political dynasties per se. The Roosevelts, Kennedys and Rockefellers were all very rich but produced politicians that would probably be seen as very liberal or even socialistic by a lot of Americans today.
Politicians should be judged based on their policies not their wealth or background. A person can come from a working-class background but support policies that hurt ordinary people. Ronald Reagan comes to mind since I don't believe that his family was affluent at all.
Response to YoungDemCA (Original post)
Post removed
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
Response to YoungDemCA (Original post)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
NYResister
(164 posts)Manhattan and is wealthy.
Lemme guess, you are one of the wannabe mensa candidates who believe there is no difference between Trump and Clinton. Amirite?
Response to NYResister (Reply #37)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
NYResister
(164 posts)Thank you for coming in to tell me the rules.
1. It's clear, just by reading a few posts here, that there are some people who do not support Democrats.
2. What do you have against women in Manhattan, or in NYS for that matter who support Democrats? Isn't there also a rule about no divisive attacks? I'm pretty sure I read that when I agreed to the TOS.
Response to NYResister (Reply #47)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Eko
(9,993 posts)As far as the ulterior motive everyone has one, kinda like something else. Too funny.
betsuni
(29,073 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)Hardly.
betsuni
(29,073 posts)Corporatist establishment neoliberals at DU are a fantasy.
Squinch
(59,513 posts)what you are talking about? How about you answer the first questions asked in this thread and tell us: which rich people?
Because as it stands, your post seems very manipulative.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)We should keep a close eye on Weaver. Total snake in the grass who tried to hijack the party and is now looking for Republicans to support.