No wonder the Democratic party polls so low in approval
-
With all due respect to Franks, in my humble opinion, he has lost the plot.
I respect the fact that he intends to show the sincerity of his views, given the facts and circumstances.
I have no ill will toward him, and wish for him what I would wish for any good person-- a painless transition from this world to the next.
However, I can not agree with his politics, in general.
It's been de rigueur to attack the left for as long as I can remember.
It's not productive. It's counter-productive, and, considering the numerous, various sources over the years-- it's a sad, if not a pathetic phenomenon akin to Stockholm Syndrome.
Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, Franks will go down in history as something of milquetoast politician.
The American people want the New Deal as much as they have always wanted it, no matter the wrecking balls that have been taken to it.
Democrats should 1. stop their internecine warfare; 2. stop supporting these foreign wars and; 3. truly focus on the need the American people have for a functioning society.
-
@bernard I would say definitely Jeffries, and, I would say, anyone else, including Fetterman, who has been bought and paid for by AIPAC, and is doing the bidding of a foreign country.
@Daniel I suspect AIPAC is probably one of the reasons Ken Martin isn't releasing the report. This will hurt the party. There are way too many Democrats who want to see big money out of politics. Martin, as a fundraiser is obviously kissing a** to raise funds which will, in turn, require Democratic candidates to bend the knee to the moneyed interests sending in checks. This is no longer a viable approach for Democrats. I hear a lot of acquaintances saying they will no longer give to the DNC and prefer to send checks directly to the candidates themselves. I think this is a good idea. DNC money is as dirty as GOP money when it comes to politics and it steals politicians away from the average voter's interest. Not always, of course, but way too often.
-
-
@bernard Wasn't it Citizens United (the irony and sarcasm can't be lost on many) that declared corporations are people and can give whatever they want to candidates?
I could be conflating two SOTUS cases but I don't think so. I'm thinking of a case (the same?) when they ruled corporations have free speech.
As far as AIPAC not being required to register as a foreign agent when it is a foreign agent, Lewis Carroll would have had a field day with it.
-
@bernard Wasn't it Citizens United (the irony and sarcasm can't be lost on many) that declared corporations are people and can give whatever they want to candidates?
I could be conflating two SOTUS cases but I don't think so. I'm thinking of a case (the same?) when they ruled corporations have free speech.
As far as AIPAC not being required to register as a foreign agent when it is a foreign agent, Lewis Carroll would have had a field day with it.
@bernard Wasn't it Citizens United (the irony and sarcasm can't be lost on many) that declared corporations are people and can give whatever they want to candidates?
Not quite. There are still campaign law limits that cap the amount any person (corporate or natural) can give to a candidate. But they can spend an unlimited amount supporting that candidate via their own messaging or other efforts.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better đŸ’—
Register Login