well as they both care zero, yes.

you seem to need 12 posts just to get my basic premise, be done all u want.

they're securing votes from woke whiteys like you convinced you're helping minorities lol.

last good thing they did was the civil rights movement and that was what? 150 years too late in america post slavery which was also 100 years late compared to Europe. lol

This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 7 2019 01:37pm

You would greatly improve your communication by saying more with less. Your message gets muddled and your line of reasoning doesn't come through very clearly. Then sometimes you project that onto the other person and add extra to their arguments.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Nov 7 2019 01:44pm

you have to distinguish between establishment democrats and progressives. bernie has been fighting on behalf of average americans for decades, and there is a whole wave of progressives in the house trying to follow his footsteps, refusing corporate money, and in almost every election you have at least one of those progressives running. do you have ANY of that on the republican side? no, of course not.

that one man alone can't change the entire system is purposefully built into it, that people who refuse corporate donations are at a massive disadvantage during their campaigns is also by design, so to act like the democrats' efforts are merely 'false promises', to suggest it's merely 'signaling' and not genuine, just because the system is designed to keep money in politics, just because their efforts were unsuccessful, is pretty misleading and not reflected in their voting record.

let's not forget that it was republicans who filibustered and voted against SEVERAL disclosure laws introduced by democrats to combat dark money ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISCLOSE_Act ) for example. bothsidesism only gets you so far on this topic.

I dont generally have issues with communicating with anyone. left, right, or center. i've had a back and forth with you a few times in as many weeks. common denominator?

or maybe you're just bored so you chose to ignore my very clear point.

nah, that's not it. i say both sides are bad and you're bound and determined to prove i'm wrong, you have skin in the game. the republicans have to be racist jerks who are wrong about everything, otherwise you'd need to think at the ballot box.



yes as i said in another post Bernie is the only one we could trust to try to fix campaign finance. but imo he'd still fail miserably.

the only way it can be "fixed" is if small contribution politicians start winning more. then business wont bother to "donate" to losers. how can that happen? idk.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 7 2019 01:51pm

yeah Democrats never insult 'flyover' country or the south or even many suburbs. never insult them either. then their party's candidate for 2016 didn't bother campaigning there at all


lmfao!



Civil Rights Acts were passed by bi-partisan efforts. sadly the (D) candidate little fella thor shilled for and worshipped in 2016 was mentored by someone in the kkk - Senator Robert Byrd (D) who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964

This post was edited by excellence on Nov 7 2019 01:59pm

The GOP being the "party of the KKK" is silly. the KKK was the party of the south.

I don't get the last few posts Snipa.

Maybe politicians care, maybe they don't. I happen to believe most of them are semi-normal human beings who care about other people. But it's kind of irrelevant. Whether they pursue policies for the general good or just their own legacies, the outcome is the same.

Second, blacks identify with Democrats for various historical reasons, but also because it's in their self-interest a lot of the time. Democrat politicians support increased social spending and criminal justice reform. Republicans support cutting taxes on the rich and cutting healthcare spending. It's not that complicated.

Third, you've got a couple of the most progressive Democrats among the leaders in the polls in the primary. If Warren could pull it off, I'm sure she would implement all of her policies like M4A, wealth tax, and campaign finance reform. The only cynicism that makes sense is the practical limits on what she can get done politically, not her actual intentions.

This is what bothsidesism breeds though... an unhealthy cynicism towards politics. Or maybe it works the other way around.

This post was edited by IceMage on Nov 7 2019 02:15pm

well to do that you have to start with the basics: TRY. and i see only members of ONE party doing that, so to act like 'both sides' are equally bad, and even commend republicans for at least being honest and openly shitty, describing democrat efforts as disingenuous promises, is simply misleading.

it's just demonstrably false, as i illustrated in my previous post. there's NO senator like bernie on the republicans side, there is NO support for it by house republicans, they don't have ANY candidates rejecting corporate donations, and they REPEATEDLY defied efforts by democrats in congress (including their establishment, who are still admittedly shitty overall on that topic) to make campaign donations at the very least more transparent.

i agree the outcome is the same, corporate bought and paid for legislation. from both sides. the GOP doesnt care about protecting the 2a, they want NRA money. they dont care about being tough on crime, they live in gated communities, they want prison union money. etc. it all leads back to the lobbies, and of course they have bullshit noble excuses to avoid talking about lobbies.

i think there's a slide rule in effect. they come in like AOC and leave like Nanci. but they get closer to Nanci really really quick. and some start like Nanci backed by big corporate donors.

as to the connection between blacks and democrats i'd contest that they just have a large % of voting blacks, not that they have a large approval among blacks generally. they tend to scapegoat unfair voting tactics on the GOP, but look at movements in the black community and you'll see there's a large sector that believe in bothsidesism. a large % that don't think its worth voting. that doesnt strike me as pro DNC.

blacks chose the NFL, not congress, to carry their message. BLM against Bernie wasn't some freak fringe group, no matter how many woke whites share the Bernie pic getting arrested in the 60s.



show me the congressional push for term limits, or campaign finance reform, that has gotten actual votes.

let me be clear, i recognize quite well there has been lots of pandering on campaign finance. it's a buzzphrase. but there's been next to no movement in legislation. Bernie is walking the walk, Biden tried and slipped now he's asking for a corporate handout to get back up. warren is pandering during primaries when she doesnt need corporate donors but will take them in the general. etc etc.

until i see one party put legislation on the floor that has 75%+ of their party vote for it and 75%+ of the other party strike it down my mind wont change.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 7 2019 02:55pm

introducing arbitrary thresholds, while doubling down that the efforts from the left are exclusively 'pandering', in order to justify your bothsidesism to yourself is entirely unnecessary. it's irrelevant if you admit it or not, what i'm saying is that while i agree that most establishment dems are pretty shitty on this topic, it's still a false equivalence, because you have genuine efforts, and even a whole new movement of new democratic lawmakers rejecting corporate donations on one side, while there's absolutely nothing on the republican side.