^^All of this. All day long.

Clearly stated and exactly right. You represent the Democrats I know & love.. Back in Oregon during the presidential primaries of 16, I stood in line with my daughter for 3 hours (having traveled to a neighboring state) to see Bill Clinton speak. The banter in line was ..beautiful; those people represented our nation's best. We made friends with a retired police officer and his still ‘teaching’ wife; yes, the best.

A contingent of aggressive college students harassed the line supporting Bernie, it was gratifying to watch my college senior respond with dignity & accuracy.. I suspect 90% of us there (an overflow crowd) want the same thing Bernie's supporters did/ do, it’s just we were/ are far more aware of what it will take to bring along the rest of the nation … including a congress and supreme court willing and capable of making it happen. But again, your statement above reminded of those ‘in line,’ right on - and from the right place ~

The Russians have been blamed for all of our systems ills since at least the 50s. You can't honestly blame all of the inequality and everything else on them, can you?

What is "the first thing the Democrats plan"? Getting money out of politics? That's laughable. And just when will they start on this new endeavor? They sure as hell haven't tried it in the past.

@Varn Talk about propaganda. Like a bug attracted to the light. Did you support Bill Clinton when he was bombing numerous countries? Or when he repealed Glass-Steagal at his masters orders? Or when he signed into NAFTA? I can go on.

Reading your words leads me to believe that you are of the mentality of if it's pretty, you approve. You are so enlightened.

@Piece2YourPuzzle I do not, nor did I at the time, support the gutting of Glass Steagle. It can rightfully be blamed for much of the 2008 recession. NAFDA or something like it had to be enacted, it created as many jobs as it cost and lowered consumer prices. No it is not perfect, nor was TPP , but we need that too. I would have liked an expansion of Medicaid and Medicare instead if the ACA but that wasn't possible. Democrats are not perfect but we did have the economy, the car industry and created millions of jobs under Obama. No, I do not like war and bombing. I also don't have a reasonable alternative plan. Nor do you.

@Piece2YourPuzzle that is their stated plan. You can support it or just snivel. I don't mindlessly blame the Russians, their memes and tweets we're captured and pubically disclosed. The also funded many organizations that were right wing, also documented. When the Russians (and the right wing) aren't firing up their base with fear, they fire people like you up to blame the left for all your problems. It really wouldn't matter, no person, group, party or movement would satisfy you, you don't believe in people.

@clarkatticus No reasonable alternative plan to bombing countries? What? Lol

Did you even read about NAFTA and TPP? I don't think you did. The TPP was even worse than NAFTA, and the only people it really benefits is corporations. People like you let these people throw crumbs so they can take the whole loaf of bread, but they threw you crumbs so we "needed it".

You wanted expansion of Medicare and Medicaid, but that's not possible? Who told you that? Nancy Pelosi? The ACA was a Republican creation. [politifact.com] Pelosi said we have to focus on protecting the ACA and not expanding Medicare and Medicaid. [washingtonpost.com] What bullshit! If she or the Dems are that incompetent to where they can't work on two things at once or have two thoughts in their head at once then they need to be gone, but people like you support them. Pelosi was advocating for Medicare for All since the 90s. As soon as legislation was proposed in Congress for Medicare for All, her opinion changed and that's when she said we can't do it and we have to focus on protecting the ACA. She's a fake corporate whore. Dem donors have said if Pelosi wasn't the speaker that they would withhold funding from the Dem Party. Pelosi has received over $2.5m in donations from the health care industry. In 2018 alone, the Dems have received over $4.8m from the health care industry in donations. [truthout.org]

Why would I support the Dems when all they do is take corporate money? Snivel? Is that what you call it? When I say I don't like the Republicans either, do you call that sniveling? Or do you call that being a good Democrat? I am a registered Democrat for primary voting reasons in NY, but I lean more Green or Independent. Since I have been following politics (early 90s, as I was born in 79) the Dems had no intention of getting rid of corporate money. When you talk about it's the Dems plan to get money out of politics, you are surely talking about a fringe part of the Dem party. Dems who aren't really Dems, but are progressives/liberals who are new politicians or Independents like Bernie Sanders whose stated purpose was to run on no corporate support. Nobody that is the leadership of the Dem party is getting corporate money out of politics so forget about that naive pipe dream.

When did I blame "the left" for all the problems? First of all the Dems are not "the left" (people like ME are the LEFT), and second of all, the U.S. is an oligarchy and until you figure out that the Russians are just a created side issue in terms of colluding to fix the 2016 election then there is no hope for you. The Russians have done nothing to "fire me up". The Republicans and your Democrats are so far up the 1%'s ass that they can taste what they had for lunch.

You make a lot of fucking assumptions about me. I believe in good people who want to lead this country, but they aren't allowed to. There are groups, parties, people, and movements that have and would satisfy me. The Greens, Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, Cynthia McKinney, Dennis Kucinich, Occupy Wallstreet, and for now Alexandria Ocasio-Ortez to name a few, but guess what? What leadership roles are they allowed to hold? They've all been smeared by the Republicans and YOUR party. The party that claims to be a big tent that embraces and accepts all ideas, unless you disagree with them or don't show that you're a part of THEIR team (corporate whores). Ask your savior Hillary Clinton if Bernie was allowed to even have the nerve to call himself a Democrat. Hillary was anointed the Dem candidate in 2016. Why? Because she was singlehandedly funding the Democratic Party. [npr.org] You are blind to these things though because you're a lemming. That's the point I made in my initial OP below where that asshole was insulting me, just like how you're pretty much doing. That's all you establishment sheep have though. Insults.

The mentality of Reps and Dems is disturbing. Tribalism is ugly and antithetic to progress among other things. Try going by facts and not media and establishment propaganda.

Here are your memes and tweets and collusion that brought down the mighty American election system lol:

Damn, some people will believe anything!

The 1950s called and wants it's establishment propaganda back Mr. McCarthy!

@Piece2YourPuzzle Actually, yes, I have read them. I am retired Teamster and NAFDA definitely affected me. But I regress. Any Trade Treaty will leave some out in the dark, NAFDA killed the corn industry in Mexico when ours boomed. I saw Bernie in Los Angeles at UCLA, I donated to him, passed out fliers, phone banked and made a case for him in my local Democrat Club. He lost, I voted for Hillary, why? Because I'm not blind or stupid. TPP opens up trade to several nations in the Pacific giving us "most favored trading status" and made it more difficult for other blocs like the EU to dominate. We would have lost whatever was left of the steel industry for sure except for certain specialized metals and fabrication.We would rule the world in agriculture, technology, entertainment and other industries I cannot remember (it's been awhile). Since NAFDA our biggest trading partners are 1. Canada 2. Mexico 3. The EU. We did well after a slow start. The Dems have every reason to end Citizens United and rewrite the Campaign Rules. Hillary wasn't "anointed" the candidate in 2016, she was anointed in 2012 when she tied up the superdelegates for 2016. All by the rules. They are changed now. Everything you wimpier about is a Republican talking point. I am not prepared for another 4 years of Trump, wake up and smell the coffee, whoever the Dems nominate is better than him. If he is re-elected it will be because of people like you that pine for that "perfect" candidate. BTW, Jill Stein is a joke and always has been. Up to me? Bernie of Liz Warren. Likely? Biden or Kamala.

@clarkatticus The whole 3rd party bullshit again. Have fun with that!

@clarkatticus You and the other guy on here will love this. It fits in with the Russia narrative. Eat it up:

[twitter.com]

Maybe this is more fitting:

[twitter.com]

They're starting their smear campaigns towards Bernie and Jill early this election. Merry Christmas! Lol

@Piece2YourPuzzle Oh look, first bill Pelosi puts forward is a transparency bill limiting funding for elections, ending gerrymandering, ending voting suppression, and making candidates show all their donors. Many more anti-corruption parts, but there it is, just like I said. HR1.

@clarkatticus This is nothing but an election ploy. You're going to hear about this bill until and after the election about how the Democrats are bastions of transparency now to try and get the Democrat nominee elected president. It will fail to pass the senate before the election. So then you and the Democratic Party politicians can crow on about how the Republicans thwarted it. The Democrats know it's not going to pass. They are playing the blame game already and trying to get elected. Both parties play off of each other. You think people like you would see that by now. I wonder why the Democrats didn't pass any meaningful legislation when they had complete control of government in Obama's first few months. And don't say the ACA because that passed 2 years after Obama was president. They didn't have total control of the government then, but in his first few months they did.

[en.wikipedia.org]

"The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes."

...and by the way, let's see the actual details in this bill when the time comes.

@Piece2YourPuzzle the bill is out there, look it up. Nothing anybody does will please you. Everyone is against you. Yes, the Senate will not pick it up. Possible some parts will try to be passed separately, but not likely. Pelosi will force them so say no and be specific as often as possible. In two years she will use this against the GOP. Hopefully then America will elect a Dem president and Senate and the bill will pass. This is how it works. This is because people like you elect Trump.

@clarkatticus Nothing will please me, but you go on to agree it won't pass lol

People like me elect Trump. Yep. What a wonderful political analysis lol. You are in the "inclusive" party under the "big tent" so long as voters agree with you. I vote for progressives and liberals and I'm the one that elected Trump!

Wanker. Do me a favor and just ignore me from now on.

@Piece2YourPuzzle why? You don't ignore me. Trump was elected by sniveling cowards that hate other Americans and whining brats that look for the worse in everyone. I didn't say it wouldn't be passed, just not with this Senate. It will be passed if we can get a Dem Senate and president. That sir, is the difference between the parties. Oh, yeah, and I also said it would be the first bill the Dems brought up, you said it wouldn't. Also, I don't wank as much as I used to.

@clarkatticus You're the one that rehashed this argument, not me. You're the one who wrongfully labels me and what I believe and support. You're the one who whines about people exercising their right to vote. Why do you hate Democracy and an individuals right to choose? You're the one who does nothing but insult. I just throw it back at you. I would have been fine having a civilized conversation, but you had to run your mouth. Why is that? Because you aren't tolerant. Because you are an elitist. Because you are a fake liberal. You are an ignorant fool who doesn't care about other's opinions, but you try to act like you do.

When did I say they wouldn't bring it up? This is what I said, "Nobody that is the leadership of the Dem party is getting corporate money out of politics so forget about that naive pipe dream.". That's a whole hell of a lot different than saying they wouldn't introduce a bill. You aren't able to tell the difference, just like with a lot of other stuff. It's not going to pass, and then it's going to die. Even if it doesn't, I'm sure there is language in there that lacks teeth. There are SuperPAC RESTRICTIONS in this bill, not elimination. It's breadcrumbs and incremental change (which is no real change).They wouldn't be "getting big money out of politics". That would be the major part of the bill. All the rest is just side stuff that still benefits Democrats because yes, Republicans try to block people from voting and they do try to suppress votes. If that part of the bill about corporate money has no real teeth, then nothing will really change, but your ego will be stroked because your side might win more. They will still employ the same corporate bullshit. That would make you feel better though so it's worth it. McConnell won't support the bill because it disadvantages his side when it comes to getting voted in because they suppress votes etc., not because of the soft stance against corporate money. The campaign finance portion is lip service.

If anything passes both sides, then you better believe it's not going to get rid of corruption. Let's see what actually changes lol

The bill that I would love to see pass would be Elizabeth Warren's bill against corruption.

Now get outta here kid, you bother me!

@Piece2YourPuzzle You know, I'd like world peace too, but what is offered in this bill is transparency, the ability to know where the money comes from and some new restrictions. An entirely new amendment is needed to overcome citizens united or for the court to reverse itself. Right now most campaign law requires states or actual civil action to attack campaign violations, this law will change that. The hardest part of any law is taking the politics out litigation. It has to be done in such a way that elected officials cannot use the law to unfairly attack someone in the other party (frivolous litigation)-tying up the official being charged with bills and actions he cannot possibly defend. This is the problem with Warren's bill along with the fact it might be turned over by SCOTUS. It can be fixed, I would love for her bill to be passed just after she is elected president (not likely). The bill now offered, like Warren's, is imperfect, but a giant step. I'll take what I can get and keep pushing for more. Again, nothing is perfect, candidate or law, let's just try and move in the right direction.

@clarkatticus

[consortiumnews.com]

...but the Democrats promise it's going to be different this time lmao

@Piece2YourPuzzle and we are. Manchin is a dino from a conservative state that depends on fossil fuel to run the economy. I never said the Dems we're perfect in every issue, they simply align with most of mine. Yes, Hillary has many connections to the financial and fossil industries, that's why I voted for Bernie first. He lost so I voted for Hillary. Wanna compare Trump to Hillary?

@clarkatticus Compare Trump to Hillary? You mean compare one corporate militant establishment stooge to the other? You wouldn't care what I post about her hawkish ways anyway. No fly zones in Syria, hawkish rhetoric on Iran, supporting invading Iraq, the Haiti coup, the Honduran coup, and on and on. Do you really want to go there? Lol

@Piece2YourPuzzle so somehow Trump and Hillary are the same. You are insane.

@clarkatticus Did I say they are EXACTLY the same? He's a crude asshole that doesn't speak "pretty". She's got that over him. Do you forget her "super predator" comments on young black males though? Or her being against gays before she was for them until her 60s? They're both for corporations and the same U.S. foreign policy. Why do people like you constantly put words in people's mouths or mis-characterize what they say? Would you like to go down that road about Hillary being a hawk? I can say plenty about her past. If not, this conversation is over. I also have better things to do than post about her again being that she isn't relevant anymore. Why the hell did you bring up comparing her and Trump anyway? Nothing in that article was of the context of comparing both of them. The article names plenty of people. Should we compare all of them too?

That is cynical, and wrong. But unfortunately, it plays well, and is promoted by the current party in total power … because if they can get just ..enough potential voters to sit on their hands, they still win.. So, as their shock-troops are marching lock-step to the polls … folks believing it’s not worth ‘their effort’ get what we’ve got - and deserve it.

You earn your influence within a party; in fact, ‘the party’ is the instrument for you to do just that. If your message - and ability to promote it - resonates as well as you might think, I know one party that would allow you in. But if this garbage is your message, I understand why you’ve opted out..

If you’re outside a party, only ‘caucusing with them’ because the other party will have nothing to do with you - then decide to run a fringe campaign within a party you’ve done nothing for … don’t expect their loving cooperation.. And Bernie didn’t, he played the ‘ted kennedy’ to President Carter -- Attempting to pull the mainstream candidate to the left in the primaries… while weakening them in the general..

And please, list the Green Party Presidents for me (I’ll wait) ….. then tell me voting for them (as I once did) didn’t simply usher in the worst of all choices, because it did. And that works both ways; it’s How Bill Clinton became president..

Yours is a lazy man’s excuse for doing jack shit And, Exhibit A for the mess we’re in! So keep it up, spreading crap like that may be the Republicans last hope ~

@motrubl4u Like what?

@Varn If you believe the 2 major parties are legit then I have a bridge to sell you. You can continue to promote crooks all you want. I vote. I just don't vote for your bullshit fake lords. You are exactly the reason why the country is in the shape it is with the corrupt system we have. You can also continue to make all the excuses you want for why YOUR team doesn't win.

@Varn As to Bernie Sanders...why would he have to pull the Dems to the left if they are such bastions of all that is good for the working man? Bernie has been in politics for decades working with Dems and Reps. He has enough political capital to be respected by a party that claims what they claim. Why would a party that promotes itself as a "big tent" be so non-accepting of an actual liberal/progressive that goes against their corporate ass kissing? He wasn't a part of their "team". Thanks for partially proving my point and all that is wrong with our corrupt political system.......with both main parties.

@Varn ...but continue to insult people. I'm sure you will influence them. Also, that bullshit about 3rd parties "costing" the Dems the vote is complete and utter horse shit that has been debunked every time an establishment boot licker like you has uttered it. Take responsibility for your parties short comings instead of promoting your "lazy man's excuse for doing [winning] jack shit".

@Piece2YourPuzzle Same as below … an instant insult deserves neither my time nor a response ~

@Varn Pot meet kettle. You can't take the heat? You started this whole insult thing. Hypocrite. Don't fucking insult people when they haven't insulted you, and you won't have to be a coward and shrivel up when they throw it back at you. I welcome any conversation if you want to actually talk about politics.

Spoken like a true propagandist establishment man. What's this "deep party activity" that you have been privy to? Maybe we just need smarter citizens. I won't hold my breath though. We need to become active within the better of the two parties? Half believe their party is the better of the two parties, and they and the people spoke about who they thought their best candidates were (sans the Democrats working against Sanders). Each party pushed who they wanted, and both candidates were the most hated candidates in the history of politics. But please tell me how your wonderful strategy of voting for the lesser of two evils will work again, and how it's the "candidate" and not the party. Hey, let's have the parties prop up their most loved corporate candidates and support them! YEAH!!! That will get the change we need!!! Some of you are so naive and then call US crazy!

You don't even understand the "propaganda" that you claim is a false equivalency either. There are some differences between the two main parties, but there is very little to NO difference in their corporate policy and foreign policy. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Just look at modern times where all the Dems are lockstep in continuing and expanding wars and draconian policy, and also in benefiting the 1%.

I welcome you twisting my words now...

@Piece2YourPuzzle Ya know ...that doesn't deserve finishing.. Let alone an answer; mine was meant for the healthy - and my suspicion is, they got it ~

@Varn Well go ahead and finish every thought and comment you have like that. You can never lose that way. Now that's the epitome of propaganda. Don't be a fucking hypocrite! Way to slime out of the conversation though.