YES! Pelosi and Schumer and so many others are just shills for their corporate masters. I know this reads like a cliche but it’s true.
Yes. The first thing we need to do is get rid of Feinstein, Pelosi, Schumer and the rest of the deadwood. We need to make Biden a one term president and get someone who can do something in the way of moving things much more in a progressive direction.
We all get into our political groove at different times. My journey jumped into second gear with the 2000 debacle.
Next was the evil empire of the Bush - Cheney magical mystery tour.
Most recent (before trump) is the flat out denial of any kind of cooperation with Obama’s presidency.
Now we have the abuse of the senate, and the hypocrites in the majority, virtually stealing a Supreme Court Justice making it three in a row.
As Ted Kennedy harshly asked his republican senators:
“Where does the greed stop?”
Yes, that was way too many bargaining chips.
I can’t count the number of years I’ve heard that and they are all still in their positions. Just so you know, “we” have nothing to do with Pelosi going anywhere. Her district is the City and County of San Francisco. Only San Franciscans can vote for her and she will have her job as long as she wants it, even with people running against her (as they are in 2020). She doesn’t even campaign here. She knows she doesn’t need to. The D-partisans vote for her no matter what she does for the Republicans. I know because I live here. San Francisco has shifted to the right in recent years. It’s quite a conservative and conformist City today, but every election cycle Pelosi clocks in at roughly 78-82% of the vote, regardless of voter turnout, according to the San Francisco Department of Elections. So she has her job as long as she wants it. Period. As for Feinstein, only the state of CA can vote for her (not “we” on CD), but she keeps her job no matter what. Name-recognition. And senators serve 6 year terms, so she has her job until 2025. She’s not going anywhere unless she dies in office. So, the people on this forum have nothing to do with Pelosi or Feinstein keeping their jobs, unless the voter lives in California (Feinstein) or San Francisco (Pelosi). Those are two examples I chose from your list. I just wanted to point that out.
Why wait until “post election?”
This drama has not even begun yet, people are pretty much oblivious about what’s at stake and what can be done to resolve it. If anyone thinks that popular protests or congressional actions or even voting will have even a slightly positive effect, they are living in a dream world. In a few months the reality of the current events might become more apparent to some, but for most Americans even watching the act of our government murdering millions of civilians, possibly 50 million or more, wont in any way break their faith in the “American System” of government. The fact is the US government, ironically, is the problem, not the solution. It’s as if Reagan was right, (except that he was always on the wrong side of our history), but Reagan only said such things to motivate people to follow his agenda; an agenda which in no way was serving America, but was instead serving the 1%, and only the 1%. Good luck pleading with your rapist to stop, Americans, (they wont) - you have to stop them yourselves, or be raped, that’s just the way it is.
The democrats in the house meekly keeping pelosi as speaker IS a mortal sin.
She has their votes because she doles out the democratic campaign dollars.
If we judged our employees and employers based on ‘results’.
She would have been out, retired a long time ago.
She has embarrassed us with her spagetti string impeachment using
a NSC leaker and pentagon stooge to convict a president who had already
committed much, much worse and she previously let him stay in office.
There was enough in the Mueller report to solidly convict Trump in an
impeachment and most of his campaign stooges.
At least you “get it.” I think you’re about the only person on this site that does. One has to come to this conclusion on their own, I know from experience. It can’t be forced on people because they put up a wall of denial, which is impermeable. They want to believe in The Status Quo (corrupt) System, whether it be the corrupt voting system – which most people absolutely refuse to talk about because it will shatter their delusions of “democracy” – or any of the rest of it.
Asking Amy Coney Barrett to lie to you and say she is a patriotic American wont make her one, it will make her a liar in addition to being a traitor. Then again, as a lawyer, she’s already a liar isn’t she, just like most of her colleagues.
Well said! I applaud you. I too have little use for the “Blue no matter who” crowd. The corporate sponsored Duopoly that has a stranglehold on us must be broken.
you have 13 votes up for ‘cult’.
The cult is the lie.
The folks are an inter denominational Christian group that focus on
getting along. It is not the hard a$$ idea that ladies are
subservient to their husbands that is on the internet, including here on CD.
South Bend, Indiana has the same racial tension problems as south Chicago, east side of Cleveland, Louisville,St. Louis, etc.
Membership, leadership in this local group of 3,000 indicates progress, not white supremacy at all. Interesting that former mayor of South Bend ran for prez with a worser racial record than Amy and he is an applauded progressive here at CD, usually.
Therefore, Amy is not your enemy, your childrens or grandchildrens worry.
The same idea is in southeast Michigan where meetings, lunches, listening
occurs between white people and black people, usually Christian with everybody
welcome to come on in.
Historically speaking, most Christian-ish religions once they develop a hierarchy, exhibited the same cynical self-serving agenda. Any large power structure can be co-opted by leaders with bad intentions, and the longer they last the more certainty that they will be corrupted. After all you can’t be running a great cathedral, and live like you’ve taken a vow of poverty, it just wouldn’t look right to follow Christ that closely.
What about shutting down the gov until the election------this could stop Trump from using the gov for his reelection-----and it might put this nomination on hold. Most of all don’t fund the court------there are cards to play the question is do they use them???
Which cult? Trump or the Catholic Church?
Let’s not forget that Tim Kaine voted with Republicans to appoint Barrett to the Appeals Court.
I dunno, but I think real radicalism is the election its self, and Trump and his henchmen are the ones bringing it.
They just don’t make jurists like William O. Douglas anymore.
Perhaps some people aren’t understanding my point about bigotry – which is not okay, okay?
When I associate something bad with a people, that’s called prejudice, bigotry, hatred, savvy?
Examples: I no longer use the word Gypsy to describe the people who prefer to be called Roma. You shouldn’t accuse someone of being an Indian Giver. Nobody should refer to the novel coronavirus as the Chinese Flu. Why? These are all crystal clear examples of xenophobic hatred.
Then why oh why is it okay with some folks to smear Moscow with our inhuman, repulsive Senate leader? Explain that in terms a human being can understand, if you would, please.
That is a very complex question. Using this scale, European Social Survey (ESS), there are more factors than visible differences. There has to be a negative connotation or stigmatism to the context.
Indian Giver is not necessarily a bad thing.
" The purpose of this study is to answer the following overarching question: *how does ethnic diversity among immigrant and native populations impact xenophobia? *Many studies answer this question by examining the effects of relative immigrant group size. Instead, I argue that group size increases xenophobia when immigrants are ethnically visible, crossing salient linguistic, religious, or racial boundaries. In three investigations I look at the effects of the following factors on xenophobia: ethnic diversity in the immigrant population, ethnic diversity in the broader society, and being cultural marginal. Analyzing multilevel models using cross–national data from the European Social Survey (ESS), I examine the effects of regional and national contexts of immigrant visibility on xenophobia. I define xenophobia as the perception of immigrant threat. I also test the hypothesis that average xenophobia is higher among individuals living in more ethnically diverse countries. In the second investigation, I reexamine immigrant visibility, this time using Swiss ESS data to compare across municipalities. I also consider the effects of living adjacent to rather than in an immigrant–rich community. In a final investigation, I again analyze cross–national ESS data to determine the effects of being different from the cultural majority on xenophobia.
I find that xenophobia is higher among individuals living in more religiously diverse countries. Also, for those living in communities with few to no immigrants, the presence of immigrants in surrounding areas amplifies xenophobia. Comparing across countries and regions within those countries, I find that the size of the ethnically visible population does not affect xenophobia. However, immigrant visibility *does *increase xenophobia in the Swiss context. All other things equal, cultural minority and majority members do not appear to differ in their levels of xenophobia. However, individuals who *perceive *marginality tend to be *more *xenophobic than those who do not. The interesting exception is religious minority members, who are least xenophobic, but only when they perceive marginality.
The findings cast doubt on the size argument of group threat theory, which predicts that xenophobia is higher where there are more immigrants. Even when measured in terms of the most ethnically visible and potentially most culturally threatening, immigrant group size does not explain cross–national differences in individual xenophobia. It seems to explain attitudes in some national contexts, but not others. Group size may only evoke perceptions of immigrant threat under certain necessary conditions as an interaction effect. Living adjacent to immigrant–rich communities amplifies xenophobia, but in a way that is partly attributable to contact. Counter to the predictions of cultural marginality theory, being culturally different does not universally lead one to espouse more tolerant views toward immigrants. The religious exception may stem from increased contact with immigrants, rather than simply the increased sympathy for other marginalized peoples implied by cultural marginality theory."
In this example there are definitely places where there is overlap, especially, when all participants where at one time immigrants.
While it is both admirable and desirable to tell Schumer and other power-wielding Dems that “we have our eyes on you”, there is little in corporate-led Democrat history that shows that, as a party, they CARE.
Do they care enough about America’s future to make a serious and bold political stance?? For THAT is what it IS at this moment to RECOGNIZE a true impasse being set up by Trump and friends, and face it.
THIS … is WAR, and we must see the consequences of replacing Judge Ginsburg by a young right-wing woman so close to the election and so soon after Kavanaugh has already soiled the court, likely for decades!
Perhaps the dems can file lawsuits, injunctions, and of course hollow threats.