Herochat

General Forums => Debate => Topic started by: Master on February 03, 2017, 10:49:50 AM

Title: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Master on February 03, 2017, 10:49:50 AM
Mondale endorses Keith Ellison for DNC chair - CNN
https://apple.news/AJkjT0r5cSqGmi2bLAi5vcw

Ellis or Perez? Perez is backed by Hillary and Biden. Ellis is backed by Sabders and Mondale.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: scourge on February 03, 2017, 11:03:18 AM
Hillary backing someone is practically a point against them for me at this point. Obv I'm going with Ellis here. I'm glad fucking Dean is out of the running. Now he can get back to what really matters--lobbying for pharmaceutical companies.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: LiquidSailor on February 03, 2017, 11:46:52 AM
And sucking Hillary's dick.


I remember when I used to respect Dean.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Imperial on February 03, 2017, 11:54:25 AM
I guess Dean sold out after losing to Kerry in 2004.

Hopefully Ellison wins the DNC chair position. Perez sounds too much like the next chapter in Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazile. Dems need to get the party leadership as far away from that style of thinking as possible.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 03, 2017, 01:01:36 PM
is there any negatives to perez beside the fact Hillary like him. Heard he was one of the more liberal canidates
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Panthergod on February 03, 2017, 01:18:10 PM
Tulsi Gabbard is the only Democrat worth mentioning at this point. Ellison is a corrupt piece of shit like most of them.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 03, 2017, 01:21:21 PM
Tulsi Gabbard is the only Democrat worth mentioning at this point. Ellison is a corrupt piece of shit like most of them.

what wrong with ellsion now.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Panthergod on February 03, 2017, 01:57:15 PM
Tulsi Gabbard is the only Democrat worth mentioning at this point. Ellison is a corrupt piece of shit like most of them.

what wrong with ellsion now.
He's a corporate House slave like Obama. Fake progressive.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 03, 2017, 03:05:05 PM
Care to elaborate why
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: MTL76 on February 03, 2017, 05:36:13 PM
Tulsi Gabbard is the only Democrat worth mentioning at this point.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: AP on February 03, 2017, 06:33:59 PM
Tulsi Gabbard the party's only hope.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: MTL76 on February 03, 2017, 06:53:48 PM
That Tulsi Gabbard is so hot right now.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: scourge on February 03, 2017, 07:14:19 PM
Guys, no surprise, but I'm also a big fan
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: NeoGreenLantern on February 03, 2017, 07:28:10 PM
Indeed. Politically she hits all the marks. She's also has a lot of new hot liberalness to get the superficial liberals following her. Female, non-black minority, and non-judeo-christian religion. She's also got a military background which make her harder to be attacked by the right. She's also pretty easy on the eyes.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 03, 2017, 08:13:30 PM
Guys, no surprise, but I'm also a big fan

Which one there been 3 mention
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: MTL76 on February 03, 2017, 08:17:40 PM
Looks like she's got the all-important Herochat endorsement.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: NeoGreenLantern on February 03, 2017, 08:28:36 PM
its some crazy bypartisan support
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: MTL76 on February 03, 2017, 08:39:58 PM
But where does she stand on Daredevil vs. Batman? Hulk vs. Doomsday? We need to ask the deeper questions.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: superlurker on February 03, 2017, 09:09:07 PM
Tulsi Gabbard would probably qualify for being good as a lot of other body parts of the Democratic Party than just the face.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: AP on February 03, 2017, 09:13:40 PM
She's like a young, hot, female version of Bernie Sanders.

Not that I wouldn't kick Bernie out of bed, mind you.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Imperial on February 03, 2017, 10:01:27 PM
Hopefully Gabbard is on the ticket in 2020. Either as Bernie's VP or the President herself.

Though knowing this party, they would railroad her candidacy, just as they did Bernie's. If the Dems nominate another corporatist they lose again and are possibly done as a relevant party.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: AP on February 03, 2017, 10:44:11 PM
There are rumors of people splintering off from the Dems and forming their own party, which I fully support.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 04, 2017, 12:56:04 AM
There are rumors of people splintering off from the Dems and forming their own party, which I fully support.

They deffintly lose if they do that. Since the right dont splinter
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Propeus The Fallen on February 04, 2017, 10:03:46 AM
Oh, so everyone's getting on the Gabbard train now, huh? Been waiting a while for you guys. :)

Anyway, I don't mind either of the two top DNC candidates. Both are qualified. I just need to the Dems to not be idiots and pick the only person that Trump can win against...again.

Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: g-train on February 04, 2017, 07:19:12 PM
Oh, so everyone's getting on the Gabbard train now, huh? Been waiting a while for you guys. :)

Anyway, I don't mind either of the two top DNC candidates. Both are qualified. I just need to the Dems to not be idiots and pick the only person that Trump can win against...again.

Yeah; if that happens at that point I might jump on board the conspiracy train with Letters and Panthergod on that one.

They can't be "that" big of idiots to make that unfathomable a mistake.

Especially when they could go with The Rock.

Hm....interesting that two of the best choices are Polynesian, Hawaiian and Samoan.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Panthergod on February 05, 2017, 12:51:20 AM
Oh, so everyone's getting on the Gabbard train now, huh? Been waiting a while for you guys. :)

Anyway, I don't mind either of the two top DNC candidates. Both are qualified. I just need to the Dems to not be idiots and pick the only person that Trump can win against...again.


Pretending to be principled, I see.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: g-train on February 05, 2017, 12:15:31 PM
What's even worse; if the Dems pick Hillary again and Trump's not made the US go broke, turn into a third world country or caused WWIII or some other apocalypse.

It's now Hillary vs a Trump that actually has more experience and all his ducks set up in a row to be President.

On top of that Trump won't have to be as extreme.

And they've already blown their best on all the crazy and weird stuff Trump's done.

Presuming of course Trump even bothers with running again.  Guy will be getting pretty old and it's nice to quit on a high point.


Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Propeus The Fallen on February 05, 2017, 06:32:15 PM
Oh, so everyone's getting on the Gabbard train now, huh? Been waiting a while for you guys. :)

Anyway, I don't mind either of the two top DNC candidates. Both are qualified. I just need to the Dems to not be idiots and pick the only person that Trump can win against...again.


Pretending to be principled, I see.

Pretending?

Let's see...

I'm pro choice
Support capital punishment
Think the Kennedys were awful save for Robert
Nixon was weird but okay until his lose to JFK warped him.
Bill Clinton was a horrible person but a good president
Carter was a good person but a horrible president
George was intervals of lucky and not lucky. (Lucky he went up against Ducakuas and Saddam suddenly stopped in the middle east) (Not lucky up against a charismatic hillbilly and his "no new taxes")
Dubya seems like a nice guy who was in over his head and surrounded himself with greedy evil idiots.
Obama is a great person and a great president.
Hillary was horrible, but so was everyone and she was the only one in the last election who was qualified. PERIOD.
Used to really love John McCain until he became a cranky ass old man since Obama trounced him.


I know it seems like I'm just Dem for life but the thing is--Republicans right now are really freakin' evil! I mean wow!


Anyway, another thing that hurts the Dems. Nancy Pelosi. She's a horrible leader. I don't care if she gets big money--that hasn't helped the Cowboys win a playoff game in decades!
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: g-train on February 05, 2017, 06:49:00 PM
I don't know; Bernie was reasonably qualified as far as being a politician goes.

McCain voted against MLK's birthday so that's kind of suspect.

Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Propeus The Fallen on February 05, 2017, 08:20:57 PM
Oh, I mean the sucky four we were stuck with in the main election. I voted for Bernie in the Democratic Primary. Damn do I wish he had gotten a better campaign manager. That guy was f'in' horrible.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: AP on February 05, 2017, 08:21:53 PM
What's even worse; if the Dems pick Hillary again and Trump's not made the US go broke, turn into a third world country or caused WWIII or some other apocalypse.

It's now Hillary vs a Trump that actually has more experience and all his ducks set up in a row to be President.

On top of that Trump won't have to be as extreme.

And they've already blown their best on all the crazy and weird stuff Trump's done.

Presuming of course Trump even bothers with running again.  Guy will be getting pretty old and it's nice to quit on a high point.

I could see Trump running again if his ego gets bruised.  There is some speculation that the only reason he ran to begin with was because Obama made a crack at Trump about never being president during the whole "birther" thing.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest the Dems have not learned their lesson, though.  They still blame everyone but themselves and they're still talking about donors helping them get elected.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Propeus The Fallen on February 05, 2017, 08:36:37 PM
Yeah, but Trump is peeving off everyone and he has four years to do that. And I think either Perez or Ellison are smart enough to not fall under the same trap. Nancy Pelosi wouldn't. She's an idiot. Freakin' idiot.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: AP on February 05, 2017, 08:42:14 PM
Ellison seems pretty keen on keeping the corporate Democrat/Donor-schmoozing/Big Bank loving model.  Not sure about Perez.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Imperial on February 05, 2017, 09:15:21 PM
Ellison seems pretty keen on keeping the corporate Democrat/Donor-schmoozing/Big Bank loving model.  Not sure about Perez.

Unlike Ellison, Perez supports TPP. Which as we discussed here before, is full of favors to big pharma, as well as copyright and patent holders.

Perez comes off as another "If I rail hard enough on social issues, maybe people won't notice that I am selling them out economically" type.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: AP on February 05, 2017, 11:12:32 PM
Ellison seems pretty keen on keeping the corporate Democrat/Donor-schmoozing/Big Bank loving model.  Not sure about Perez.

Unlike Ellison, Perez supports TPP. Which as we discussed here before, is full of favors to big pharma, as well as copyright and patent holders.

Perez comes off as another "If I rail hard enough on social issues, maybe people won't notice that I am selling them out economically" type.

In other words... he's a typical Democrat.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Master on February 06, 2017, 11:57:56 AM
Ellison seems pretty keen on keeping the corporate Democrat/Donor-schmoozing/Big Bank loving model.  Not sure about Perez.

Unlike Ellison, Perez supports TPP. Which as we discussed here before, is full of favors to big pharma, as well as copyright and patent holders.

Perez comes off as another "If I rail hard enough on social issues, maybe people won't notice that I am selling them out economically" type.

In other words... he's a typical Democrat.

AP just scorched the earth!
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 25, 2017, 08:58:30 PM
Ellison seems pretty keen on keeping the corporate Democrat/Donor-schmoozing/Big Bank loving model.  Not sure about Perez.

Welp perez got it
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Imperial on February 25, 2017, 09:40:19 PM
And already Trump is mocking him and the Dems

(https://image.ibb.co/gBCjOv/rsz_clipboard01.jpg)
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Imperial on February 25, 2017, 09:43:44 PM
(https://image.ibb.co/hCcjOv/C5j_Hv8d_Uo_AAvw3_J.jpg)

(https://image.ibb.co/g1PnbF/C5hm_5k_U0_AAHe4d.jpg)

(https://image.ibb.co/mdP9qa/C5ij5_OPUo_AAmb_V2.jpg)



Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: XerxesTWD on February 25, 2017, 09:44:10 PM
Trump is right on the money with that remark.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: LiquidSailor on February 25, 2017, 10:01:10 PM
So they elected the corporate shill Perez who was also a Hillary whore. 

How am I not surprised.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 25, 2017, 10:11:06 PM
ok what exactly wrong with Perez beside Hillary liking him. Like what did he do.

And what did Keith have. Because heard people not likeing them both
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 25, 2017, 10:19:19 PM
also what does the vice chair do

apparently Ellison said Perez would be vice chair. is that a real position. or just a a pat on the head.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Imperial on February 25, 2017, 10:34:56 PM
Tulsi Gabbard felt the need to resign due to her support of Bernie Sanders. That tells all one needs to know about the Vice Chair being a fluff position. Ellison is there to try and fool progressives.

Screwing Bernie, then picking Kaine, then going for Perez tells the story of what the DNC establishment really thinks about it's everyday supporters.

Those people want candidates who are not beholden to large donor and lobbyist interests. Democrats serve up exactly that. But try to rail on common decency social issues as a way of fooling people into believing they are not Republican lites.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: LiquidSailor on February 25, 2017, 10:40:31 PM
Explain it to rock as much as you want.  We've been down this road before.  He won't comprehend it.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 25, 2017, 10:45:50 PM
Nothing was really explain what wrong with Perex. Wasnt be a wise ass. Dont know much about Elison or  Perez. Like what did Perez do to show he beholden to corparate interest or a corpartist.

Let me put it in a more diplomatic way. Lets just assume Perez bad.  Bernie back Ellison. Whats GREAT about Ellison that he would of been a good leader for the DNC
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Snake-eyes on February 25, 2017, 10:48:59 PM
Explain it to rock as much as you want.  We've been down this road before.  He won't comprehend it.

rock turned his brain off once you said that Perez was a Hillary supporter.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 25, 2017, 10:59:30 PM
Explain it to rock as much as you want.  We've been down this road before.  He won't comprehend it.

rock turned his brain off once you said that Perez was a Hillary supporter.

Well hillary gone. So dont care either way, becasue dont know much about either of them. Heard both were pretty progressive

But Ellison could be better..far as i know. He could be the best DNC ever. Havent heard an argument for him that much. Again lets assume Perez..the worst..the absolute worst. What makes Elison great and a good pick for the future leader of the DNC
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Imperial on February 25, 2017, 11:16:09 PM
I'm not saying Ellison is perfect. I have some reservations myself. But overall I think he was the more enlightened choice.

Ellison supports single payer healthcare. Is against NAFTA And TPP. Supports shareholder voting on executive compensation. Supports worker retraining for those displaced by trade agreements. Wants automatic public disclosures about lead in water. Wants to initiate paid parental leave. Supports a higher federal minimum wage. Is a war skeptic, and supported the notion of impeaching Dick Cheney. He also seems fairly supportive of public infrastructure commitment. Even if he does not trust Trump's plan. For examples.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 25, 2017, 11:22:14 PM
I'm not saying Ellison is perfect. I have some reservations myself. But overall I think he was the more enlightened choice.

Ellison supports single payer healthcare. Is against NAFTA And TPP. Supports shareholder voting on executive compensation. Supports worker retraining for those displaced by trade agreements. Wants automatic public disclosures about lead in water. Wants to initiate paid parental leave. Supports a higher federal minimum wage. Is a war skeptic, and supported the notion of impeaching Dick Cheney. He also seems fairly supportive of public infrastructure commitment. Even if he does not trust Trump's plan. For examples.

Thanks for answering.

And does Perez disagree with those things. Know people said he was for TPP
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: g-train on February 26, 2017, 11:48:45 AM
Tulsi Gabbard felt the need to resign due to her support of Bernie Sanders. That tells all one needs to know about the Vice Chair being a fluff position. Ellison is there to try and fool progressives.

Screwing Bernie, then picking Kaine, then going for Perez tells the story of what the DNC establishment really thinks about it's everyday supporters.

Those people want candidates who are not beholden to large donor and lobbyist interests. Democrats serve up exactly that. But try to rail on common decency social issues as a way of fooling people into believing they are not Republican lites.

That and the DNC well has been so poisoned that if she really wants a chance to win Presidency and support of the people, distancing herself from it for the next four years might be a good idea.

Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 26, 2017, 01:04:05 PM
actully wonder trump may sour them on the idea of an outsider

Since he might so "No you might need some exprence in goverment to run government well"

or the sweet...sweet taste of libtards tears may not be worth the country going to shit. Then add in the fact some voters regreeting their vote for Trump that he might actuly carry out his insnaer plans. So all the dems got to do is not be assholes about "Of course he was going to take your health care...he said he would YOU DUMB FUCKS!!!"

Now granted thats a hard thing to resit. Or go 3rd party. But they got to start building that now. Start voting in these out brand election and getting out and vote. Dont wait till the general election and be surprise when you lose. Even people who hate the 2 party system got to admit that not the best stragedy. Actully hope they do have a strong 3rd party so 2018 will show it. if they come out then you have a strong one. if not their doom.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Imperial on February 27, 2017, 10:12:47 AM
I'm not saying Ellison is perfect. I have some reservations myself. But overall I think he was the more enlightened choice.

Ellison supports single payer healthcare. Is against NAFTA And TPP. Supports shareholder voting on executive compensation. Supports worker retraining for those displaced by trade agreements. Wants automatic public disclosures about lead in water. Wants to initiate paid parental leave. Supports a higher federal minimum wage. Is a war skeptic, and supported the notion of impeaching Dick Cheney. He also seems fairly supportive of public infrastructure commitment. Even if he does not trust Trump's plan. For examples.

Thanks for answering.

And does Perez disagree with those things. Know people said he was for TPP

He's somewhat harder to pin down on certain issues given he does not have a high profile related voting record to examine. But from what we can gather thus far :

He supports a $15 minimum wage.
As you said, was for TPP.
Supports expanded paid family leave.
Wants to protect the ACA.
But is not enthusiastic about single payer insurance.
Onboard with two years of community college tuition free education, but apparently not more. Seems to support income considerations for eligibility.
For a path to citizenship for all illegals currently in the nation.
Is quite bank and finance cozy. (This is the biggest problem. And he is far from the only new Dem to act this way. CA Senator Kamala Harris is another that gives off these vibes.)
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 27, 2017, 10:55:45 AM
I'm not saying Ellison is perfect. I have some reservations myself. But overall I think he was the more enlightened choice.

Ellison supports single payer healthcare. Is against NAFTA And TPP. Supports shareholder voting on executive compensation. Supports worker retraining for those displaced by trade agreements. Wants automatic public disclosures about lead in water. Wants to initiate paid parental leave. Supports a higher federal minimum wage. Is a war skeptic, and supported the notion of impeaching Dick Cheney. He also seems fairly supportive of public infrastructure commitment. Even if he does not trust Trump's plan. For examples.

Thanks for answering.

And does Perez disagree with those things. Know people said he was for TPP

He's somewhat harder to pin down on certain issues given he does not have a high profile related voting record to examine. But from what we can gather thus far :

He supports a $15 minimum wage.
As you said, was for TPP.
Supports expanded paid family leave.
Wants to protect the ACA.
But is not enthusiastic about single payer insurance.
Onboard with two years of community college tuition free education, but apparently not more. Seems to support income considerations for eligibility.
For a path to citizenship for all illegals currently in the nation.
Is quite bank and finance cozy. (This is the biggest problem. And he is far from the only new Dem to act this way. CA Senator Kamala Harris is another that gives off these vibes.)

Now sure some people might think this tbe the corpatist neo con shillary lover in me. But  all thay said doesnt seem that bad. Least as bad as some make him out be

Seem ok
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Imperial on February 27, 2017, 11:10:49 AM
Problem is, that last one is kind of like having a good team but a bad QB in football. It's the essence of problems with neoliberalism, and frequently make or break.

Big banks, investments firms, and corporate movers effect everything from why the nation goes to war to how healthcare is administered to rules governing  the environment and employment. And it is often the case that equity and insurance firms and wall street have interests that are in rather direct conflict with most of the country.

Special interest money motivates America to fight never-ending wars and give away or waste trillions on corporate welfare. While being more critical with spending on things that are actual drivers of increasing life standards. Like education, infrastructure, and healthcare.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 27, 2017, 11:30:59 AM
Problem is, that last one is kind of like having a good team but a bad QB in football. It's the essence of problems with neoliberalism, and frequently make or break.

Big banks, investments firms, and corporate movers effect everything from why the nation goes to war to how healthcare is administered to rules governing  the environment and employment. And it is often the case that equity and insurance firms and wall street have interests that are in rather direct conflict with most of the country.

Special interest money motivates America to fight never-ending wars and give away or waste trillions on corporate welfare. While being more critical with spending on things that are actual drivers of increasing life standards. Like education, infrastructure, and healthcare.


Depends on the speacial interest. Unions and environmental groups technical speacial intests as well as some progressive groups

Has he made any bills the f people over but help the banks
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Imperial on February 27, 2017, 12:39:44 PM
Some examples of his record that troubles quite a few people:

https://patrick.net/1303398/2017-02-26-yet-another-democrat-bankster-stooge-tom-perez

Quote
DNC Chair Candidate Tom Perez’s Bank-Friendly Record Could Kneecap the Democratic Party

“WHY DOES NOBODY ever go to jail?” asked Mandy Grunwald, a messaging guru for the Hillary Clinton campaign, in an email in 2015 to eight other top campaign officials.

She was responding to a settlement announced by the Department of Justice with several large banks that had manipulated foreign exchange markets. Though the banks pled guilty as institutions, no individual banker was punished.

Grunwald’s email thread petered out with no response to her question, which is not surprising.

A few months later, Clinton campaign manager John Podesta was having an email discussion about why Clinton’s platform on banking reform didn’t really resonate with voters. “People don’t get it,” he said. “It’s not like sending people to jail which people really love.”

There are many reasons why Hillary Clinton lost the election last November, but one significant factor was that Clinton suffered from a perceived closeness with Wall Street — a closeness that consistently worried the campaign.

Clinton Democrats were, of course, not in charge during the aftermath of the financial crisis; the Obama administration was. And what happened to Clinton was not isolated to her, or even to 2016. The reluctance to take on Wall Street has been a hallmark of the modern Democratic Party — and has served as an electoral headwind up and down the ticket.

Democrats are currently debating how to structure themselves as an opposition party. And Tom Perez, a leading candidate for the Democratic National Committee chairmanship, has an established record of not taking on the banks; both at the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor.

Soldier Suicides and Foreclosures

In February 2010, a JP Morgan vice president, Stephanie Mudick, told the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on behalf of her bank, “I would like to express to the men and women serving our country, and to the members of this committee, Chase’s deepest regret over the mistakes we made in applying these protections.”

Mudick confirmed allegations that J.P. Morgan had foreclosed on active duty soldiers in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The SCRA was first enacted during the Civil War and is designed to cap interest rates and prevent foreclosures for active duty troops. Violations can potentially be charged as misdemeanors, punishable by up to a year in prison.

Both Democrats and Republicans at the hearing lambasted Mudick, with Rep. Bob Filner suggesting the bank was responsible for “homicide” against soldiers who killed themselves after being foreclosed on. “Shouldn’t someone go to jail for that?” he asked. “And who should? Who is responsible? Are you, as the executive VP who was given us from the bank to answer for this stuff, should you go to jail?”

Mudick pledged to find out who at her bank was responsible and would be held accountable. But her performance didn’t impress attorneys defending soldiers against illegal foreclosures. Richard Harpootlian, a foreclosure defense attorney, echoed Filner at the hearing. “Put somebody in jail, then banks will stop doing it,” he said.

The SCRA is rarely used for jail time, and other parts of the government were more well-suited for pursuing criminal charges against bank executives. Yet the foreclosure crisis, with the ensuing mortgage documentation fraud, was also unprecedented. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency documented 1,622 SCRA violations, including over 1,000 completed foreclosures of active duty troops.

No one ever did get convicted of a crime. And the person who was running the division of the Department of Justice with jurisdiction over the SCRA at the time was Tom Perez. From 2009 to 2013, he was assistant attorney general for civil rights.

Perez himself continually touted his division’s work on the SCRA. But in 2011, Congressmen Brad Miller and Walter Jones wrote to the Justice Department about these violations, noting: “The continued failure to pursue criminal charges in the face of flagrant violations of the criminal law is destroying Americans’ faith in their government and democracy.”

http://onrabble.com/tom-perez-big-banks-dnc/

Quote
President Obama’s former Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez, may have just stumbled in his bid to become the next Democratic National Committee Chair. The Intercept’s Matt Stoller is reporting that Tom Perez “has an established record of not taking on the banks” which may trouble some democrats as they seek to contrast themselves against a pro-business Trump administration. Stoller’s expose examines Perez’s record and decision-making as both Assistant Attorney General and Secretary of Labor, describing his tenure as “finance-friendly status quo.”

Dating back to February 2010, Tom Perez was the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. During this time, many banks raised interest rates on deployed soldiers. This is a direct violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The foreclosures took a toll on the veterans, with some even turning to suicide.

According to statute, violations of the SCRA should have resulted in criminal charges of the individual bankers who committed them. However, under Perez’s watch, no individual within the banks was held responsible for their violations.

Old habits don’t die. In 2013, when Perez left the Department of Justice to become Secretary of Labor, he took those very same policies with him, records show.

The Department of Labor has the ability to grant waivers to certain banks that have been found guilty of crimes. These waivers act as a pardon of sorts. Perez chose to grant waivers to big banks, even when they had pled guilty to conspiring in foreign exchange markets. Because of Perez’s decision to grant the waivers, the big banks were able to return to unlawfully handling pensions.

http://observer.com/2016/12/dnc-chair-candidate-tom-perez-gives-tax-breaks-to-clinton-donors/

Quote
In 2014, the hedge fund Renaissance Technologies asked Perez’s Department of Labor for permission to use a 401(k) to invest in Medallion, a profitable fund set up by billionaire James Simons—who donated $11 million to pro-Clinton Super PAC Priorities USA during the 2016 presidential election. Bloomberg reported in 2015 that the exemption granted by Perez’s Labor Department was the second afforded to Medallion, enabling the fund to skirt millions of dollars in taxes on investments. The hedge fund is in fact notorious for its tax-evading practices: In 2014, Renaissance Technologies was criticized by a bipartisan senate committee for disguising short-term profits as long-term capital gains to avoid $6 billion in taxes.

Despite pleas from several leading Democrats in Congress, in 2015 the Department of Labor granted waivers to Credit Suisse to continue managing billions of dollars in pension fund assets. The waivers were required due to Credit Suisse pleading guilty to tax evasion. “When the Department simply waives the disqualification provisions on a seemingly automatic basis, it undermines firms’ incentives to obey the law,” wrote Reps. Maxine Waters, George Miller, and Stephen Lynch in a 2014 letter to Perez. In 2015, Sen. Elizabeth Warren called for public hearings on whether such waivers should be granted to big banks that violate the law. On December 21, the Department of Labor granted one-year exemptions for money managers from several big banks convicted of currency price fixing to continue serving their clients.
Even though several Democrats attacked the Department of Labor in 2014 and 2015 for automatically granting waivers to bankers after they were found guilty of financial crimes, they are now seriously considering placing the person who presided over this immunity for big banks in charge of the party.

(https://patrick.net/content/uploads/2017/02/un3fal611.jpg)
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 27, 2017, 02:50:52 PM
Ok that parts troubling

Was Ellison for prosecuting banks and wall street
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: AP on February 27, 2017, 10:03:15 PM
Perez is just as much of an establishment Dem as Ellison.  Nothing has changed.

Bernie seems to be trying to make things work, but every time he defends the Dems, I can't help but picture a battered wife sobbing to the police that "He's really a good person.  I can change him."  Everyone on this board knows how much I like Bernie, but he needs to grow a spine and leave that party for good.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 27, 2017, 10:14:28 PM
Perez is just as much of an establishment Dem as Ellison.  Nothing has changed.

Bernie seems to be trying to make things work, but every time he defends the Dems, I can't help but picture a battered wife sobbing to the police that "He's really a good person.  I can change him."  Everyone on this board knows how much I like Bernie, but he needs to grow a spine and leave that party for good.

But isnt Ellsion kind of hand picked by Bernie. Look at it this way no matter who they pick they may of have something or did something i staight up dont like.  But it depends on how the are as a whole

Ellison seem pretty good as  whole. Perez seem ok but then again not as harsh on Trade.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 27, 2017, 10:17:43 PM
that said they should of picked Ellison just to bring the party together. Because...why not. Not that much to lose. i really no good reason not to, since Perez probally would be vice chair anyway. Sure Ellsion has some controvery with Farkan. But the republican going to call whoever put in charage a radical anyway. So minus well get radical

if they were to then boo anyway..then they have some leeway to say "Shit we tried..we gave them the bernie guy. And they booed anyway."
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Imperial on February 28, 2017, 12:20:57 AM
Ok that parts troubling

Was Ellison for prosecuting banks and wall street

He's more of a critic of them than most modern Dems are anyway. For examples :

http://www.robinhoodtax.org/media/nurses-applaud-keith-ellison-renewed-bill-set-fee-wall-street-speculation

Quote
NURSES APPLAUD KEITH ELLISON ON RENEWED BILL TO SET FEE ON WALL STREET SPECULATION

Date of press release:
2/17/2017
Robin Hood Tax Could Raise $300 Billion a Year in Needed Funds

National Nurses United today welcomed the re-introduction of federal legislation from Rep. Keith Ellison with 17 House co-sponsors, that could raise hundreds of billions of dollars annually to fund critical social needs with a small tax on Wall Street speculation.

Economists estimate that a tiny surcharge of no more than a nickel on every $10 in trades of stocks, bond, and derivatives —a tax that is proportionally smaller than what most Americans pay for a pair of shoes – could increase revenues collected by the Treasury Department by as much as $300 billion annually.

Ellison’s HR 1144, the Inclusive Prosperity Act, is patterned after financial transaction taxes that exist in other global major economic markets. NNU has joined with Ellison and health care and community activists in campaigning for a similar levy, also known as the Robin Hood tax, for several years.

“Nurses are proud to support Rep. Keith Ellison’s Inclusive Prosperity Act,” said NNU Co-President Jean Ross, RN. “This small tax on Wall Street would go a long way to raising the revenue for our most vital needs, including living wage jobs, healthcare for all, student debt relief, and fighting climate change.”

“At a time when austerity budgeting is so popular among many in Washington, the Robin Hood tax is the perfect antidote for a fundamental change in direction,” Ross continued. “We can always count on Keith Ellison to be with us in fighting for every day American families,” Ross said.

“America’s working families need their country to invest in them again,” Rep. Ellison said. “The money raised from a wafer-thin tax on Wall Street’s high frequency trades could raise hundreds of billions of dollars to invest in our families, protect our environment and increase opportunity for all Americans. If the United States joins the dozens of other nations already benefiting from a financial transaction tax, we can create millions of jobs, while also reducing dangerous market volatility.”

HR 1144 would not affect households earning less than $75,000 annually. Instead, its principal targets are the wealthiest Americans whose reckless speculation fueled the 2008 recession: bankers, brokers, and rich investors who own most of the nation’s stocks and bonds.

The Robin Hood tax would also slow the growth of automated high frequency trading, which makes the stock market more dangerous. A small tax would make risky HFT unprofitable, and help reduce the excess speculation on commodities like food and gas that drives up prices, which will protect the economy from computer-generated collapses and market manipulation.

Almost 30 nations have some form of a financial transaction tax and the U.S. had a similar tax from 1914 until 1966. The United Kingdom has had a tax on stock trades for decades -- the same rate proposed in HR 1144 and their volume of trading has grown robustly. Eleven nations in the European Union will implement one soon.


https://www.boldprogressives.org/2013/05/protesters-arrested-outside-of-department-of-justice-protesting-lack-of-bank-prosecutions/

Quote
Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) issues statement in support of the protesters:

“I see the devastation of the foreclosure crisis every day in towns across the Minneapolis metro area, and I stand with the millions of struggling homeowners in Minnesota and across the country seeking justice after unfairly being kicked out of their homes. Banks have paid less than half the payments they owe to homeowners since 2008, and have yet to pay a dime of the latest settlement from 2011.
“It’s time we had real accountability for the bankers who deceived the American people and wrecked our economy in 2008.”


http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Keith_Ellison_Corporations.htm

Quote
Sponsored enforcing against corporate offshore tax haven banking.

Ellison co-sponsored Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act
Congressional Summary:Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act: to impose restrictions on foreign jurisdictions or financial institutions operating in the US that are of prime money laundering concern or that significantly impede US tax enforcement.

treat foreign corporations controlled primarily in the US, as domestic corporations for tax purposes

require tax withholding agents and financial institutions to report certain information about owners of foreign-owned financial accounts,

treat swap payments sent offshore as taxable US source income,

increase penalties for promoting abusive tax shelters and for aiding and abetting the understatement of tax liability

prohibit tax advisor contingent fee agreements for obtaining a tax savings or benefit

requires corporations registered with the SEC to report annually, on a country-by country basis, on employees, pre-tax gross revenues, and payments made to foreign governments

authorizes a fine of up to $1 million for failure to disclose any holding or transaction involving a foreign entity that would otherwise be subject to disclosure requirements

publishes a rule requiring investment advisors to establish anti-money laundering programs and submit suspicious activity reports

Extends anti-money laundering requirements to persons engaged in the business of forming new businesses or other legal entities.

Proponent's argument for bill: (by Jubilee USA Network, a religious antipoverty organization):

"The religious community couldn't be more pleased with this vital legislation that protects poor people inside and outside our borders. This legislation means that corporations can't rob billions of dollars from poor people across the globe. A critical piece of the legislation is country-by-country reporting of corporate payments to governments. Reporting at this level sheds light on the tax dodging that hurts all of us."
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Imperial on February 28, 2017, 12:31:33 AM
Perez is just as much of an establishment Dem as Ellison.  Nothing has changed.

Bernie seems to be trying to make things work, but every time he defends the Dems, I can't help but picture a battered wife sobbing to the police that "He's really a good person.  I can change him."  Everyone on this board knows how much I like Bernie, but he needs to grow a spine and leave that party for good.

I guess he figures he is in a tough spot given his age and the inherent biases in the system against anything but the two major parties.

I kind of agree with Cornel West here though

https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/1/cornel_west_bernie_sanders_is_wrong

CORNEL WEST: Well, I think there’s going to be a lot of different responses. I have a deep love and respect for Brother Bernie Sanders. I always will. I don’t always agree with him. I’m not convinced that the Democratic Party can be reformed. I think it still has a kind of allegiance to a neoliberal orientation. It still has allegiance to Wall Street. The very victory of Nancy Pelosi is a sign that neoliberalism is still hegemonic in the party. I hope that Keith Ellison is able to present a challenge to it. But my hunch is—
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 28, 2017, 12:39:02 AM
reading that makes me wonder why the fuck was so many progressive bitching about Ellison




looking up Perez now, he seem to actully have some good stuff under his belt
http://prospect.org/article/subtle-force-tom-perez
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/why-tom-perez-strong-competitor-against-keith-ellison-democratic-party

exapnded overtime pay
Addined new regulation Just as safety regulations. 195 different ones
gave home care worker protection
made a rule that retirmenet adivsers had to put clinets best interest first. Something Im shock wasnt a rule which I think trump overturn
Rules agaisnt Wage Theft
faught for paid leave
seem to have a good record on civil rights fights
Seem pretty progressive on immigrations
had a bunch of succest running organazxation


Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: AP on February 28, 2017, 02:09:24 AM
Perez is just as much of an establishment Dem as Ellison.  Nothing has changed.

Bernie seems to be trying to make things work, but every time he defends the Dems, I can't help but picture a battered wife sobbing to the police that "He's really a good person.  I can change him."  Everyone on this board knows how much I like Bernie, but he needs to grow a spine and leave that party for good.

I guess he figures he is in a tough spot given his age and the inherent biases in the system against anything but the two major parties.

I kind of agree with Cornel West here though

https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/1/cornel_west_bernie_sanders_is_wrong

CORNEL WEST: Well, I think there’s going to be a lot of different responses. I have a deep love and respect for Brother Bernie Sanders. I always will. I don’t always agree with him. I’m not convinced that the Democratic Party can be reformed. I think it still has a kind of allegiance to a neoliberal orientation. It still has allegiance to Wall Street. The very victory of Nancy Pelosi is a sign that neoliberalism is still hegemonic in the party. I hope that Keith Ellison is able to present a challenge to it. But my hunch is—

The Democrats are looking at low approval ratings that are almost as bad as the approval ratings of the Republicans.  It's a failing party and it seems like the leaders of the party want to continue the status quo, which shows out of touch they are with reality.  It seems that they are trying to groom Chelsea Clinton to run in 2020.  If not her, it will be someone who totes the party line.  Meanwhile, Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders are pariahs within the party despite the fact that they could save it (and Sanders isn't even a Dem).

I wouldn't be surprised if some third parties aren't going to take their place soon.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Master on February 28, 2017, 11:05:22 AM
The GOP had the Tea Party... strong grass roots organizing that almost made the leap to third party... but was ultimately assimilated back into the Establishment GOP. The pissed off sentiment of GOP voters led to Trump squeaking his way through the primaries against his many Establishment opponents. He's unfortunately a poor candidate, but the GOP voters took a shot.

The Dems are now facing similar circumstances where the voters are tired of the Establishment, but the corporate lobbyists and those in their pockets are fighting tooth and nail to keep the Establishment running. The DNC getting caught rigging the primaries was just a marker on the long road that has led to this unease among Dem voters. And now the Dems have a grassroots movement of pissed off voters.

Unfortunately, Dem voters are more fracturered than GOP voters. If this movement can't get some solid organization, it will turn into another Occupy Wallstreet or BLM: a group of protesters who don't take any political action to back up their words. If your group cannot put forth candidates to run for local and state offices (or garner strong support from those already in office), then your group has no political power and cannot bring about any real change.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: AP on February 28, 2017, 07:00:09 PM
The GOP had the Tea Party... strong grass roots organizing that almost made the leap to third party... but was ultimately assimilated back into the Establishment GOP. The pissed off sentiment of GOP voters led to Trump squeaking his way through the primaries against his many Establishment opponents. He's unfortunately a poor candidate, but the GOP voters took a shot.

The Dems are now facing similar circumstances where the voters are tired of the Establishment, but the corporate lobbyists and those in their pockets are fighting tooth and nail to keep the Establishment running. The DNC getting caught rigging the primaries was just a marker on the long road that has led to this unease among Dem voters. And now the Dems have a grassroots movement of pissed off voters.

Unfortunately, Dem voters are more fracturered than GOP voters. If this movement can't get some solid organization, it will turn into another Occupy Wallstreet or BLM: a group of protesters who don't take any political action to back up their words. If your group cannot put forth candidates to run for local and state offices (or garner strong support from those already in office), then your group has no political power and cannot bring about any real change.

Yeah, with the whole Social Democrats movement, the DNC do seem to be in a bit of a panic mode.  They have been trying to get Bernie Sanders' email list (as if emailing those people asking for donations for an establishment shill is gonna work) to try to reel people back in.  I think the main difference between the two is that the GOP played ball with the Tea Party and shifted gears for them at least enough to keep them on board.  They hated Trump, but at least they didn't rig the primaries against him and went with who the people chose.  The Dems seem far more stubborn and oddly antagonistic toward progressives.  They rigged the primaries, then looked at the Bernie supporters and said, "Do something, faggot".  Not a smart move.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Imperial on February 28, 2017, 07:36:57 PM
Trump is an oligarch himself, and the tea party was largely fanned by oligarchs. They are movements whose true goals and intended results favor big money.

Bernie's is not. It's why the Democrats kept pounding away at social wedge issues that do not offend rich people, or upset their money machines. But were largely unwilling to tackle economic issues that would have won the election for them.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: g-train on February 28, 2017, 08:24:01 PM
The GOP had the Tea Party... strong grass roots organizing that almost made the leap to third party... but was ultimately assimilated back into the Establishment GOP. The pissed off sentiment of GOP voters led to Trump squeaking his way through the primaries against his many Establishment opponents. He's unfortunately a poor candidate, but the GOP voters took a shot.

The Dems are now facing similar circumstances where the voters are tired of the Establishment, but the corporate lobbyists and those in their pockets are fighting tooth and nail to keep the Establishment running. The DNC getting caught rigging the primaries was just a marker on the long road that has led to this unease among Dem voters. And now the Dems have a grassroots movement of pissed off voters.

Unfortunately, Dem voters are more fracturered than GOP voters. If this movement can't get some solid organization, it will turn into another Occupy Wallstreet or BLM: a group of protesters who don't take any political action to back up their words. If your group cannot put forth candidates to run for local and state offices (or garner strong support from those already in office), then your group has no political power and cannot bring about any real change.

Yeah, with the whole Social Democrats movement, the DNC do seem to be in a bit of a panic mode.  They have been trying to get Bernie Sanders' email list (as if emailing those people asking for donations for an establishment shill is gonna work) to try to reel people back in.  I think the main difference between the two is that the GOP played ball with the Tea Party and shifted gears for them at least enough to keep them on board.  They hated Trump, but at least they didn't rig the primaries against him and went with who the people chose.  The Dems seem far more stubborn and oddly antagonistic toward progressives.  They rigged the primaries, then looked at the Bernie supporters and said, "Do something, faggot".  Not a smart move.

That's because the third parties are what The Democrats claim to be.

Also having some one honestly trying to get those platforms done instead of jobbing out for big money donor's kind of goes against their game plan.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 28, 2017, 09:26:26 PM
For a 3rd party to be strong people got to come out in mid terms and local elections and just wait till general elections and be surprise when you lose

Tea party was good at obstructing but at time there uncompromising stop them from getting bills that would be good for them

I be interesting to see whay happen when both parties go far to their own sides
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Panthergod on February 28, 2017, 10:08:54 PM
Trump is an oligarch himself,
he's new money white trash, not an oligarch. this is proof that fake leftists dont remotely know that they are utterly controlled by actual oligarchs, like the Rothchilds.

Quote
and the tea party was largely fanned by oligarchs.
It was co-opted by the Christian Right. it was originally a libertarian Ron Paul uprising. they arent oligarchs.

again, fake leftists are too self centered to be able to accurately assess their opposition.


Quote

They are movements whose true goals and intended results favor big money.

Bernie's is not. It's why the Democrats kept pounding away at social wedge issues that do not offend rich people, or upset their money machines. But were largely unwilling to tackle economic issues that would have won the election for them.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on February 28, 2017, 11:03:02 PM
Trump dad was a rich buisness owner who gave him milion throughout his life and gave him a big inheritance. He is not new money. He was born rich
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Panthergod on February 28, 2017, 11:14:28 PM
Trump dad was a rich buisness owner who gave him milion throughout his life and gave him a big inheritance. He is not new money. He was born rich
That's new money.  His grandfather was a immigrant crinimal pimp.  at the time of the 60s the Kennedys were new money at that point as well. Old money traces its legacy in more than three generations.
That is new money.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on March 01, 2017, 01:00:20 AM
Trump dad was a rich buisness owner who gave him milion throughout his life and gave him a big inheritance. He is not new money. He was born rich
That's new money.  His grandfather was a immigrant crinimal pimp.  at the time of the 60s the Kennedys were new money at that point as well. Old money traces its legacy in more than three generations.
That is new money.

That just means his grand dad new money. He on the other hand is not
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: g-train on March 01, 2017, 01:23:08 PM
Trump dad was a rich buisness owner who gave him milion throughout his life and gave him a big inheritance. He is not new money. He was born rich
That's new money.  His grandfather was a immigrant crinimal pimp.  at the time of the 60s the Kennedys were new money at that point as well. Old money traces its legacy in more than three generations.
That is new money.

That just means his grand dad new money. He on the other hand is not

Eh....he has some of the cultural ways of "New Money".

Grandiose about showing it off; bit of a braggart, garrish etc.....

Old Money tends to be more subdued about their wealth, they don't need to show it off because they know their rich.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on March 01, 2017, 02:01:38 PM
Trump dad was a rich buisness owner who gave him milion throughout his life and gave him a big inheritance. He is not new money. He was born rich
That's new money.  His grandfather was a immigrant crinimal pimp.  at the time of the 60s the Kennedys were new money at that point as well. Old money traces its legacy in more than three generations.
That is new money.

That just means his grand dad new money. He on the other hand is not

Eh....he has some of the cultural ways of "New Money".

Grandiose about showing it off; bit of a braggart, garrish etc.....

Old Money tends to be more subdued about their wealth, they don't need to show it off because they know their rich.

The hiltons of the world show a different idea

Being an asshole tracends social class
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Panthergod on March 01, 2017, 04:51:48 PM
Trump dad was a rich buisness owner who gave him milion throughout his life and gave him a big inheritance. He is not new money. He was born rich
That's new money.  His grandfather was a immigrant crinimal pimp.  at the time of the 60s the Kennedys were new money at that point as well. Old money traces its legacy in more than three generations.
That is new money.

That just means his grand dad new money. He on the other hand is not

Eh....he has some of the cultural ways of "New Money".

Grandiose about showing it off; bit of a braggart, garrish etc.....

Old Money tends to be more subdued about their wealth, they don't need to show it off because they know their rich.

Exactly. He's white ghetto trash by cultural inclination from an actual elitist perspective. No different from corporate media sterotypes of most hood dudes wo get rich via athletics or music; which is why rappers shouted him out so much back in the day. He's Scrooge McDuck circa Ducktales. He tried to get in with the elite and they rejected him.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on March 01, 2017, 05:07:01 PM
Only different between him an the elite is he WANTS fame and to be known as powetfull. He need to let u know he ia king shit. And does petty shit to prove it. While other prefer not to be shown
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: AP on March 01, 2017, 07:37:48 PM
Only different between him an the elite is he WANTS fame and to be known as powetfull. He need to let u know he ia king shit. And does petty shit to prove it. While other prefer not to be shown

It's the difference between Dr. Doom and Lex Luthor, essentially.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: Panthergod on March 01, 2017, 08:01:13 PM
Only different between him an the elite is he WANTS fame and to be known as powetfull. He need to let u know he ia king shit. And does petty shit to prove it. While other prefer not to be shown
That, and he seemed to be trying to counter the elites necon agenda on the campaign trail re: supporting known Deep State CIA operatives Al Qaeda/ISIS terrorists to take down Assad to set up  a pipeline for Big Oil; he seems to be being coopted by the neocons to antagonize Iran due to their corporatist medias pressure, though.
Title: Re: The future face of the Democratic Party?
Post by: therock on March 01, 2017, 10:39:36 PM
Only different between him an the elite is he WANTS fame and to be known as powetfull. He need to let u know he ia king shit. And does petty shit to prove it. While other prefer not to be shown
That, and he seemed to be trying to counter the elites necon agenda on the campaign trail re: supporting known Deep State CIA operatives Al Qaeda/ISIS terrorists to take down Assad to set up  a pipeline for Big Oil; he seems to be being coopted by the neocons to antagonize Iran due to their corporatist medias pressure, though.

Counter the elites? his cabinet filled with billonstes, wall stree, oil tycoons and goldman sacs. Did it straight of the bat