A Message to the Democracy hating Republicans

[Pluvious]

Last edited Sun Jun 21, 2020, 01:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Even though this message is from last Fall, it's even more relevant today.

Note his prediction of how we'll take to the streets

Published on Nov 27, 2019
An explainer for democrats and independents. Why they're so anti-science, anti-truth, anti-law and order and turn everything upside down. The mask is off. I suspect many of their adherents don't understand what they've become. Sometimes things are hard to see.

Please don't take this piece to mean I think the democratic establishment are democratic. Most are not. Those in power are not. That's what allowed Trumpism to rise in the first place. But we're taking our power back. The mask is off.

( excerpt is the video's "more" meta info )

My friend said about this soliloquy from Matthew Cooke :

Now this is the kind of thing that should be played outside a Frump rally.

[Budi]

1. Who's words highlighted in your OP are these?

"Please don't take this piece to mean I think the democratic establishment are democratic. Most are not. Those in power are not. That's what allowed Trumpism to rise in the first place. But we're taking our power back. The mask is off."

[jalan48]

2. K & R

[Baked Potato]

3. Yep!

[Budi]

4. Asking again. Anyone?? Who's words highlighted in your OP are these?

Are these the words of Matthew Cooke?


Who's words highlighted in your OP are these?

"Please don't take this piece to mean I think the democratic establishment are democratic. Most are not. Those in power are not. That's what allowed Trumpism to rise in the first place. But we're taking our power back. The mask is off."

[Budi]

5. "..the democratic establishment are democratic. Most are not."

Who's words are these?

Democrats aren't Democrats?

"Please don't take this piece to mean I think the democratic establishment are democratic. Most are not. Those in power are not."

Care to explain these words?
Who's words are these?

[Pluvious]

6. I'll update the excerpt with attribution n/t

[Budi]

7. Are these Matthew Cooke's words?

All I want to know.

[Pluvious]

9. Based on my knowledge of...

Using the publication tools of YouTube, the meta info is provided by the account's administrator at the time of uploading the content. Or edited after the fact.

So from what we have available, we can only surmise the quoted text was authorized by the account owner.

[Budi]

11. So are those the words of Matthew Cooke or someone other than him?

It's an ugly divisive message. That's why I am asking who said these words.

Someone said it. Who?

That's all I want clarified.


"Please don't take this piece to mean I think the democratic establishment are democratic. Most are not. Those in power are not. That's what allowed Trumpism to rise in the first place. But we're taking our power back. The mask is off."

Who said this? Matthew Cooke?

[lapucelle]

18. Matthew Cooke

[George II]

8. Why is something like that posted here anyway, with or without attribution? Especially a year later!

[Budi]

10. Democrats aren't Democrats?? Who says this divisive stuff.

ick

[George II]

12. Certainly not Democrats

[Budi]

13. So why is it here on a Democratic site?

Just asking.

[BunnyMcGee]

14. A clear message

Sometimes my thoughts come too quickly to fully comprehend, or there are so many facts to place in a coherent order. This speaker fully describes my thoughts and feeling in the way I'd like to share with others who do not comprehend what's going on in this country.

Thanks for sharing

[BunnyMcGee]

15. As far as Democrats as go

I think the speaker is saying that some who call themselves D's, get sucked into trying to win reelection by appealing to the most people in their constituency. Example, Rahm Emmanuel as Chicago mayor, touting Democratic and President Obama ties, while giving the wealthy control of Chicago schools through charter schools. Rahm gave some attention to ordinary people, but the wealthy made out better.
Didn't Boeing get incentives to move their HQ to Chicago?
Wasn't Amazon getting a lottery going on between many cities and states to build regional HQ's? Rahm tried.

Another example is the trend to the right over the last 40+ years in politics.

[Budi]

16. Yes. Some call themselves D's because of the political advantage of having a massive base ready.

Surprising how many instant D's there are come election season.

However the quote in the OP doesn't elaborate as you generously did.

He made it pretty black & white in labelling certain D's against other D's.

That was unfortunate in that it imnediately diminishes his point to the Republicans, by adding his opinion of Dems in glaring division

That really sucks.

I'd like to ask him who is in the D Establishment column & who is in the regular D column.

Since he made a point of id'ing Democrats with a divisive label.

How does he draw the line between 'his 2 divisions' of the D Party?

[George II]

17. .."some who call themselves D's, get sucked into trying to win reelection....

....by appealing to the most people in their constituency."

Isn't that how to win elections, but appealing to the most people in their constituency? Is that how a legislator REPRESENTS his/her constituency, by acting in their best interests/in accordance with their wishes?

I guess I should have paid more attention in Junior High Civics classes.

[BunnyMcGee]

20. I see, but to clarify..

I simply meant that some D's will go too far and actually take R's positions. Dan Lipinski, a Chicago D member of the house, took the position against Roe v. Wade against the majority of constituency. Some make judgement errors, others, who knows?

[burrowowl]

19. Kick, kick and kick!