General Discussion

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts) Sun Dec 28, 2014, 10:50 PM Dec 2014

If Dems can ONLY win the White House by appeasing Wall Street, is it worth trying to win it at all? [View all]

Obviously, the Dems who got and get Wall Street money always ended up putting the rich before the people except on non-threatening, non life-altering side issues. Workers and the poor are always left out in the cold in that deal.

So is "winning" with Wall Street money really preferable to losing at all, other than for people who want to say that at one point they were in a Democratic administration?

Corollary: should we accept the idea that we can only win the White House by appeasing Wall Street at all? Or that being a "corporate liberal" really means anything at all?

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If Dems can ONLY win the White House by appeasing Wall Street, is it worth trying to win it at all? [View all] Ken Burch Dec 2014 OP

Unfortunately yes, elleng Dec 2014 #1

Winning the White House and the Congress Agnosticsherbet Dec 2014 #2

Well said. Basic LA Dec 2014 #6

UNREC brooklynite Dec 2014 #3

He also appointed plenty of former wall street guys to serve as the cops el_bryanto Dec 2014 #4

Indeed, many friends in Wall Street on the Potomac, as some refer to it. appalachiablue Dec 2014 #5

His Supreme Court picks he been very good. Who would McCain, Romeny appoint.... Agnosticsherbet Dec 2014 #18

That has nothing to do with Wall Street el_bryanto Dec 2014 #19

Running the goernment is more than just Wallstreet. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2014 #20

Except that Wall Street and what it represents underlies nearly every other issue. nt el_bryanto Dec 2014 #21

No, no it dosn't. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2014 #22

OK - so fair enough. You on record as wanting to let Wall Street go on as before el_bryanto Dec 2014 #23

Go back reread my posts. I did not say that. Don't put words in my mouth. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2014 #24

Yes, it is worth winning quaker bill Dec 2014 #7

+1 0rganism Dec 2014 #30

Here's the thing: how many normal people will vote for their abuser? closeupready Dec 2014 #8

It's worth trying. We need more than one party that represents Big $ and not US. nt RiverLover Dec 2014 #9

Sure, things will change this time! TampaAnimusVortex Dec 2014 #10

I'd argue there HAS been real change. We just need more. Adrahil Dec 2014 #14

Maybe I'm not seeing it TampaAnimusVortex Dec 2014 #17

Fine...work to flip Congress... Ken Burch Dec 2014 #35

You should ask if one only elects Democrats mmonk Dec 2014 #11

Carlin agrees! TampaAnimusVortex Dec 2014 #12

Of course it is. Adrahil Dec 2014 #13

In which direction do you want to move the needle? Orsino Dec 2014 #15

The GOP wants to raise the country, and most of our party's leaders don't even try to stop them. Ken Burch Dec 2014 #34

It all depends on if people care about leaving a stable climate to future generations. raouldukelives Dec 2014 #16

Winning is always better than losing. lumberjack_jeff Dec 2014 #25

Are you suuggesting we should not vote? hrmjustin Dec 2014 #26

No...we should vote...but under the understanding that the outcome would simply be Ken Burch Dec 2014 #33

You learned nothing from the Bush years Renew Deal Dec 2014 #27

The Bush years did NOT teach that "electing a Democrat" is anything, in and of itself. Ken Burch Dec 2014 #31

I wouldn't waste too much.. sendero Dec 2014 #41

Does the Democratic base care about anything other than "Wall Street"? Recursion Dec 2014 #28

it means corporate and financial power. Ken Burch Dec 2014 #32

I'm guessing "dems" are HOPING fredamae Dec 2014 #29

Unless we keep Wall St money out of politics bigwillq Dec 2014 #36

Apparently you can't get pregnant. KittyWampus Dec 2014 #37

Biologically no. I am just as pro-choice as you are, however. Ken Burch Dec 2014 #40

This thread ignores the final answer: LWolf Dec 2014 #38

Well, hell. Let's just unilaterally disarm Skidmore Dec 2014 #39

History proves that elections won with Wall Street money aren't a foothold at all. Ken Burch Dec 2014 #42