Why do dems continue to lose?

I have been saying this for months now.

They look really bad and are losing a lot of support.

Someone on here said they have noticed CNN toning down the attacks and 24/7 Russia coverage as of late. I am curious if this is true and if they are seeing the smae

 

What was the last estimate by the CBO? There are still something like 30M people in the US that don't have any health insurance at all. And the number is probably higher than that because it doesn't include illegal aliens and those who didn't have insurance but claimed they did on their tax return.

There are *still* businesses that offer health insurance to their employees with no employee contribution. There is nothing taken out of the employees paycheck and they will be hurt terribly when you raise their FICA taxes another 30%.

If you have employer provided insurance what makes you think that is going to show up in anyone's paycheck under single payer? Are you going to *force* employers to raise wages. Are you going to implement some new kind of Price/Wage control? I asked you this once already and you ignored it.

I told you why other nations spend less. Because they don't provide the same level of care. They ration care. The US doesn't. Do you *really* think the AMerican people are going to accept rationed care on the level of England, France, and Germany?

And, yes, we *do* have better cancer survival rates, at least for breast cancer and prostate cancer!



[quote[https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/articles/concord-2.htm

Look at Canada, we have 2%-3% more survivability compared with them... is that worth spending 6% (a trillion dollars a year) more of our GDP to achieve; also at the cost of having massive amounts of uninsured?

For me; it's not.[/quote]

Tell that to your wife when she gets breast cancer!

How is anyone going to afford supplemental insurance when you are already taking 30% of their wages in FICA taxes.

If you are going to tell poor people that they are going to have less covered than the rich, or even under Obamacare, you'll never get it passed in Congress. You are fighting a windmill.

Again, the American people will *never* accept being told grandma can't have a pacemaker, or that they will have to wait for six months for a knee replacement, or that they will not be able to get a cancer drug that will save their life but costs too much.

Uhhhhh, inflation *is* how cost of living is determined. I can give you *all* kinds of reasons as to why the costs of college has gone up. Brand new administration buildings everywhere. Skyrocketing salaries for administrators. New dormitories with all kinds of amenities (cable, internet, single resident rooms, etc). I just visited my old campus last week. While enrollment is not significantly higher than when I was there the campus is more than twice as large with associated buildings.

Nah, college is *less* necessary than ever. One of my youngest son's friends makes over $50K AS A WELDER. Now he *is* good at it and is willing to travel to where the work is but he makes double the money than my son does. And he is buying a house and has a nice truck. He's not married yet but when he does get married I'm sure his wife will contribute as well.

Incentive? You mean *MONEY*? The federal government didn't provide money to build 99% of the infrastructure we have today. Why do you think it would be necessary today?

The *real* problem is that when most of our infrastructure was built, in the 50's thru the 70's, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE WELFARE LOAD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS SADDLED US WITH. The local and state governments could afford to build the infrastructure. All that money now goes into Medicaid and social programs.

The Marxist tenets of class warfare, redistribution of wealth, and central planning of the economy *ARE* extreme positions to most of America, even today. It's a big reason why Trump won. The American people are *tired*, just plain wore out from being told the government needs to take more of our money and control our lives to an even greater extent.

And make no mistake, socialized medicine will represent control of the people to an extent America has never seen.

The Marxist Democrats created the housing bubble and blew it up till it exploded. And now they are going to whine that they had to deal with the problems it caused and they couldn't figure out how to fix it?

That's exactly what is happening with Obamacare today. It's failing, the Marxist Democrats are doing NOTHING to fix it and are whining about the GOP trying to fix it!

For the third time! It isn't the impact on the rich that is the issue! THE ISSUE IS THAT THE INCOME TAXES DON'T TOUCH INTEREST, DIVIDENDS, AND CAPITAL GAINS! The rich get most of their money this way. You simply won't get the amount of money you expect. What you get will be peanuts!

They do it by rationing care and by not covering procedures that Americans expect. You'll *NEVER* get America to accept the level of care in England.

 

Dems are in disarray.

 

I'm a democrat. Our party has ineffective leadership and doesn't manage its resources well. If we had spent 10% of what was spent on the GA house on the SC house race we probably could have won it.
Tulsi Gabbard for Minority House Leader now and Speaker of House after 2018 elections. Sanders or Franken for Minority leader in Senate.

We also need a clear alternative to Trump's health care and trade policies. Just defending the Status Quo isn't good enough.

 

Murdoch, Clear Channel....part of MSM for a LONG time now. So are they discredited also?

Precisely what, where and when is this "widespread leftist violence" you speak of? Last time I checked, white kids on dope are NOT being shot dead in the streets or arrested en masse.

I agree that the Dem party is a clown show, as they continually repeat the SOS instead of endorsing new ideas and approaches (case in point, Hillary over Sanders).

 

Clear channel has been leaning left for years. Even Salem was against Trump. Fox had its folks who were simply pro establishment.

If you aren't aware of the widespread lefty violence, look no further than antifa or the bernie supporters who have attempted to assassinate Trump, or Republicans playing baseball. They have killed people.

"White kids on dope being stop dead en or arrested en masse" is an arbitrary way to define widespread violence.

 

Sadly you're right. They also coincidently raise a tremendous amount of money for their respective parties through fundraisers too and that gives them a lot of leverage and influence.

Although Pelosi looks like she could really get the boot soon. After the loss in Georgia this week its more than painfully obvious how toxic she is. If the Democrats have any chance of digging themselves out of this hole they need to distance themselves from her. If she is still House Minority Leader by the end of mid-terms, then I think the party will reach a point of no-return. They will lose the mid-terms if she isn't gone, and they can say goodbye to any chance of taking 2020. And if they can't find a way to fundamentally change, then the party will be a lost cause and beyond redemption, IMO.

 

Democrats continue to lose because they have become radical left, and want huge government and huge taxes.

 

She gave a bizarre press conference this week. Kind of a "Im still here and in charge" thing, but it was rambling and incoherent.

Maybe she thought it would help-I dont think it will.


http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-pelosi-repeats-words-garbles-speech-asks-want-sing-praises/

 

Then why isn't that text there?
http://www.fulltextarchive.com/page/The-Communist-Manifesto/
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-tools/the-communist-manifesto-original-text-t3022.html

Don't pretend to lecture me. I first studied Marx 45 years ago.

And so when republicans advocate those things they're Marxists too? And you want to claim I'm ignorant of this??? LOL!!!

Gawd, that is SO screwed up. And all this distortion of Marx without an links to your sources. I wonder why. LOL!!!

So! Another subject you know little about but yak yak yak anyway. You're wrong on this. COMPLETELY wrong. And again, you have no links to your right wing lying sources.

They apparently think they don't need to post links either.

LOL!!!!!!!!! YOU'RE the one who makes the absurd extremist claim that the Democratic Party is "Marxist". So clearly, it is you who knows nothing about Marxism.

Correct (finally!!) With most new income going to the top, yes, it is class warfare, -not in words but in deeds.

If you think a minimum wage is "central planning of the economy" then America has nothing to worry about regarding your brand of "Marxism".

Yes, but the "right to work" laws are not just "central planning" but are yet another example of class warfare of the right against workers and capital against labor.

You listed nothing. I said "with evidence of them being 'Marxist' " and you provided no evidence. Be brave. Show me your right wing source.

And it doesn't matter that you *say* you're not a fascist. What matters is the policies you push. And you are pushing right wing extremist fascist policies. you can run but you cannot hide!

Speculation backed by nothing but cherry-picked "maybes".

If you understood why it is offshore and there is an argument over "repatriating" those profits and taxing them, you wouldn't by spewing such uninformed nonsense. But come to think of it, that is typical of your entire post.

The remainder is like the previous: unsubstantiated ravings.

 

Perhaps you need to read up on what the word "and" means along with the use of comma's?

Well, it's pretty obvious you didn't learn much. We discussed it pretty well in my PoliSci classes 37 years ago! BTW, you didn't address my assertion. You just punted and deflected. Why am I not surprised?

Republicans do *NOT* advocate class warfare, redistribution of wealth, and central planning of the government. They advocate for smaller government, less government spending, less regulation on people and business, and more individual freedom.

Now you are using the typical tactic of a Marxist Democrat, the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Dismissal. You don't actually show *where* my assertion is wrong. You just claim it is and walk away. WHERE IS THE DISTORTION?

Both Hitler and Mussolini started out as Socialists. In the case of Mussolini he was a *rabid* socialist. Then along the way they both figured out that Fascism gave them far more power with far less responsibility than Socialism. If the trains didn't run on time it was the railroad managers fault, not the governments fault. The bad things they did had nothing to do with the form of government they instituted or their economic control over business and capital.

You say you studied all this? It's not obvious at all that you did!

Are you totally unable to use Google?

go here: www.ohe.org/news/cost-qaly-us-and-britain

"In his OHE Annual Lecture Professor Milt Weinstein compares the use of cost-per-QALY approaches to health care resource allocation in the UK and the US. He notes that the Affordable Care Act prohibits the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute from using the QALY in a threshold for determining access to care. He explores ten common reasons used in the US to justify the exclusion of cost-effectiveness analysis from the US decision-making process."

Your continued use of the Argument by Dismissal fallacy only shows that it is *YOU* that knows nothing about the subject matter at hand!

And yet you simply cannot point out where my assertion is wrong. All you can do is *claim* that it is wrong. Another use of the Argument by Dismissal fallacy.

Income goes to those that earn it. Either through earned income or by providing capital investment. It is Marxist Democrat policies that are suppressing the income growth of the bottom half of the country by limiting economic growth to historically low figures. You can whine about the rich getting richer but trying to fix it by tearing down the rich doesn't help the poor in any manner. It just creates shared misery.

Minimum wage is a Price and Wage control applied across the economy. It is a *perfect* example of central planning of the economy by government.

Right to work laws keep unions from instituting closed shops - which were first employed to keep blacks migrating from the South after the Civil War from working in the north. Closed shops are *still* used to keep minorities from working even today. It is the Marxist Democrats, in collusion with the labor unions, that are actually imposing class warfare on the poor and minorities.

I provided you quotes right out of the Democrat Party Platform! What do right wing sources have to do with the Democrat Party Platform? Are you lost in the thread forest again?

Fascism is government control of business and capital. It's a little difficult to cast beliefs in smaller government, less government spending, fewer regulations, and more individual freedom as being "fascist". To the Marxist Democrats the term of "fascist" has become like the term "racist". Neither have a actual meaning to a Marxist Democrat today, they are just perjoratives meant to end conversations when the Marxist Democrats can't defend their positions!

Speculation backed by nothing but cherry-picked "maybes".[/quote]

You can't refute the assertion, proved by the fact that there *is* waste water disposal going on that doesn't cause problems, so again you just use the Argument by Dismissal fallacy. Pathetic!

Let me say it again! THE MARXIST DEMOCRATS HAVE NO DIVINE RIGHT TO ANY PORTION OF THE MONEY EARNED OFFSHORE!

Money earned from a dirt farmer in Thailand by Monsanto should only be taxed by Thailand. The US provides *NO* government services to that dirt farmer in Thailand and so has no right to any of the money extracted from him.

The Marxist Democrats of today, which you continue to show that you are, would fit right in sitting beside the Kings and Queens of Spain in the 1600's raping the rest of the world of their riches via Divine Right. Well I'm sorry, but you and the Marxist Democrats have no Divine Right to any of the riches from the rest of the world to build your Marxist Utopia.

Almost every nation in the world has gone to territorial taxing where taxes are only levied on domestic earnings. Only the US, North Korea, and Albania have not, at least as far as I can determine. Why do you want to keep the US in the company of nations like NK and Albania when it comes to tax treatment of foreign earnings?

 

You're being a smart-azz instead of dealing what the discussion. If I'm wrong and you did provide citations, you could point to them instead of me having to tell you there was nothing but right wing extremist propaganda.

LOL!!! Marxism taught by a capitalist school!! Riiiiiiight. No propaganda there. I'll bet you didn't come away from that class with a sense that Marxism has any value to us.

LOL!!!! Then they have you fooled. Ever hear of the "AHCA"? You really believe their "smaller government" doesn't harm the poor or middle class? And you really believe "smaller government" is needed when your taxes are exceptionally low by historical standards? LOL!!!!!!! You've been had!

Ok fine. You said "My view of Marxism is perfectly in line with Marx and Engels. There are three phases to Marxism
1. Fascism - govt *control* of business and capital
2. Socialism - govt *ownership* of business and captial
3. Communism - collective ownership of business and capital.

All laid out exactly as Marx and Engels said."

First, fascism is a hell of a lot more than govt. control of business and capital. That is so non-specific that it can cover lots of governmental forms that aren't fascism. And fascism can't be Marxist when one of the first thing any fascist, including Hitler and Mussolini, did upon taking power was to ban communist parties, socialist parties, and unions, and then round up their members and jail them, and round up their leaders and execute them. That shows that total falsehood that your claim is.

Secondly, socialism is worker ownership and control of the means of production. In all fairness I need to tell you that there are many different ideas and explanations of what socialism is, and that is because there has never yet been a stable, finished, established socialist country and economy. Socialism is in the development stage. Nobody knows what it will look like in any detail. That is to say, nobody knows how the ownership and control of the means of production will be supported, maintained, and protected by government yet. But progress is being made. And this is worth noting and remembering: many people and sources have based their understanding and explanation and definition of "socialism" on the events in Russia, China, Cambodia, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. etc. etc. But none of those led to a stable, finished, established socialist country and economy. We are most familiar with Russia and China, and both of them failed as those of the Marxist-Leninist tradition warned they could. The relationship of the workers to management and control was never completed. In fact it was barely begun. So the result was described as "state capitalism" in which the state retained the control. And that is what you are relying on when you say socialism is "government control of business and capital". That is what failed. That is what derailed the process toward socialism. So you (2) is out-dated and based on uninformed conclusions that omit the history of the development of socialism to date.

Your third point could be true depending on details.

Right, they both gave up true socialism before or when they came to power. So fascism is not socialism or even similar as we've now established.

You need to stop the personal attacks and insults and the glorification of yourself if you don't want me to put you on "ignore" because it's getting a bit old.

It's not my job to chase down the verification of your claims.

I find nothing in there that says the US medical system does not take the life expectancy of the patient into consideration as we discussed. Try again.

I have pointed it out. You apparently chose to dismiss and forget my words on it.
Once again, the Democratic Party is fully in support of capitalism and opposes socialism.

Oh gosh, you got me! Oh what a powerful statement! I'm convinced! No evidence needed! Gosh, I'm speechless!
not
Try again. Anybody and assemble words into sentences that sound like they may be somewhat convincing. So can even make lies sound like fact. You didn't. You just gave your undeveloped, lop-sided opinion.

The rest is just a repetition of the previous claims.

 

Dems are now reduced to a minor, regional (urban) party.

 

Democrats are first and foremost dishonest. Without their reprehensible, chronic dishonesty, they could not go on lying and cheating with smiles on their faces.
Then they are arrogant, condescending. Pride is the original sin, and they are much too proud to admit they were wrong, much less change their ways.

 

What happens when your own party conspires to keep these new faces out, while Pelosi and Clinton wont go away?

 

This is stunningly clear to anyone observing the dem clown car objectively.

 

I provided you the references. I even gave you a direct quote from Engels. The Communist Manifesto is not the only reference on Marxism out there. That's why I said you need to read Marx's writings, Engel's writings, *and* the Communist Manifesto!

Marxism does *NOT* have any value to us other than as an example we do *NOT* want to follow. We have the examples of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba, North Korea, and now Venezuela to educate us on the problems with Marxism.

Again, willful ignorance is *NOT* a survival technique!

The AHCA *will* begin to wean this nation off of government dependence. When 20% of the country is on Medicaid it is a drag on our economy from which we will never recover. When 50% of the households in the US are receiving some kind of government benefit it is a drag on our economy from which we will never recover.

The *only* way we can restrain health care costs is through free market principles including competition among insurers and providers. The cost of government entitlements *always* grows without bound. Government has no limiter and continually pushes to grow the number of dependents thus costing more and more. Government just raises taxes until the system collapses. That's what happened in Venezuela.

Nor are taxes at historic lows. Half of the population pays no income taxes. Thus we have about 150M people paying out between $3.5T and $4T in taxes. That's about $25K in taxes per person. In 2005 we had just about the same number of taxpayers but they were only shelling out about $2.5T per year in income taxes or about $16K per taxpayer. That's more than a 50% increase in a little over a decade.

Stop repeating Marxst Democrat talking point lies. The Marxist Democrats *are* lying to you. They are doing it every day. When they tell you crap like "taxes are at historic lows" they consider you as nothing but a "useful idiot" as Stalin would say!

It is *NOT* more than government control of business and capital when it comes to economics. I *told* you what happened with Hitler and Mussolini! They figured out fascism gave them more power with less responsibility than Socialism or Communist would! So they viewed the Socialists and Communists as enemies. This is pretty basic history.

Again, you are repeating Marxist Democrat lies. They *want* you to believe that they are not implementing fascism in America by taking control of the economy. Look around. The Marxist Democrats have seized control of the energy sector, determining winner and losers. Only approved energy sources are allowed. The Marxist Democrats have taken control of financial sector through Dodd/Frank and work every day to extend their control even further. The Marxist Democrats have taken control of the health insurance sector, dictating what insurance policies must cover and working feverishly toward single payer. The Marxist Democrats have taken control of the health care sector, dictating what doctors will be paid for what procedures. The Marxist Democrats attempted to take control of the internet sector so they could dictate services and prices. Thankfully Trump has put an end to that! The Marxist Democrats have taken control of what light bulbs you can buy, again determining winners and loser in the lighting sector. The Marxist Democrats have taken control of what toilets you can buy - controlling that sector.

The fascism of the Marxist Democrats is sneaking up on you and you haven't even noticed. You are like the frog in the pot with the gradually warming water!

*NO!*. I gave you the quote from Engels putting the lie to this. Have you forgotten it so soon?

Marxism is that which was defined by Marx and Engels. What others have done is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

What Stalin and Mao instituted is better known as state-directed Socialism where the state was involved in owning the means of production and in centrally planning the economy.

Your third point could be true depending on details.

Now you have been reduced to repeating what I have said. And I never said fascism was socialism. I said fascism is the first phase of Marxism. Go back and read my message again!

I'm sorry the truth hurts. *YOU* are the one that started off telling me I didn't know what Marxism was. And along the way we've found out that it is *YOU* that has no idea of what Marxism is. That's why you claim the Democrats aren't Marxist. You couldn't even stand to address the quotes I gave you out of the Democrat Party Platform!

It *is* your job to actually learn about what you try to discuss. Argumentative fallacies simply don't cut it!

"He notes that the Affordable Care Act prohibits the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute from using the QALY in a threshold for determining access to care."

The QALY IS BASED ON LIFE-EXPECTANCY! AND THE ACA PROHIBITS THAT!

I simply don't know how much more simple I can make this for you! Life expectancy is *NOT* the same thing as determining if a patient can survive a procedure. It is using how long they survive *after* the procedure to determine if they should have access to the care they want. The US health system simply does not use QALY as a metric. Health insurance companies would be sued out of existence if they tried!

I gave you several quotes from just the first five pages of the Democrat Party Platform that proves otherwise. I've dismissed nothing. Your words mean nothing. What matters is what is in the Democrat Party Platform and my guess is that you have never even bother to read it!

Again, more argumentative fallacies. Poisoning the Well and Argument by Dismissal. You can't refute any of my assertions. You aren't alone. Marxist Democrats are singularly unable to defend their positions. When their Marxism is pointed out they just fade away or trot out the argumentative fallacies -- like you've been doing.

There simply isn't any doubt that the past ten years have been the only ten year period in the nations history without a single year of 3% growth. And the Marxist Democrat economists are telling us that we must consider 2% or less growth to be normal in the US from now own. *THAT* is why the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. You can only advance out of being poor if the economy is growing and is providing you a path out.

That's been the problem in Europe for going on 30 years. And it is *still* a problem for them. Their economic growth simply isn't enough to lift the bottom rungs of their citizenry out of the poor house.

That's why *we* need to avoid Marxism in the US like the plague. It is already beginning to drag us down. Hopefully Trump can put us back on the right track - smaller government, less regulation, more individual freedom, and 3% or greater economic growth.

 

Well yes, only second to the Republicans.

Yeah but at least their policies are not as toxic to people as are the Republicans'.

 

I have. You have not. What you claim to be in the Manifesto is not there, and that is evidence you're reading some right wing screed ABOUT the Manifesto with their own bias.

I am fully aware that is the approved capitalist position, and the left disagrees and the public is getting interested in socialism. Certainly no one can be dumb enough to actually believe a capitalist-approved education would be objective about an anti-capitalist analysis.

Then try a different tack.

You have it backward, of course. It has been the capitalist drag on the economy that has resulted in those things.

LOL!!!! Do you want me to forget that the U.S. had a more free market system, and now has a regulated capitalist system, AND STILL our cost per capita is twice what most other countries pay, and their healthcare is comparable. THE PROBLEM is the capitalist profit drive and the greed it entails. I don't expect you to grasp this but profit is in strong conflict with the notion of providing good healthcare at an affordable price. You are all caught up in capitalist "free market solves everything" propaganda.

Uhhhh... how low would you like it to go? LOL!!!!!!!!

No, YOU stop reading right wing insanity. The righties *are* lying to you. They are doing it every day. When they tell you crap like "taxes are not at historic lows" they consider you as nothing but a "useful idiot" as righties would say!

So the arrested and executed communists, socialists, and unionists? That's an absurd joke.

Egad. You must have a steady and intense diet of right wing extremist propaganda. Everything you said is not only a parroted lie, it's absurd!

Yup, that's a right wing extremist story. Good parroting.

No, rather I recognize your nonsense as a right wing item of propaganda. And it's completely wrong. Listen young fella, I was organizing in Marxist-Leninist circles 45 years ago. Don't tell me some half-baked right wing crap about Marx and tell me it's Marxism, as though I wouldn't know the difference.

OK wizard, tell me Marx's description of how socialism would be organized and how government would be engaged.


I gotta say, I'm growing weary of your repetition and spins. You can't let go of your right wing propaganda to be sensible.

 

Point is marxism has been tried across the world and it always fails. If you want to be a marxist take it to pyongyang, comrade.

 

Obama’s liberalism paved the way for Donald Trump
By Michael Goodwin

June 24, 2017

The rapid pace of change in American life does not exempt politics. Witness how fast Democrats are cycling through scapegoats.

First came Hillary Clinton. When she emerged to gripe about all the reasons she lost last year, except herself, party activists told her to be quiet and go away. She has, for now.

Next came Nancy Pelosi. When Republicans won four contested special elections for House seats, disgruntled Dems turned their fire on their minority leader, telling Pelosi it was time to get out of the way. She refuses, for now.

And now comes Barack Obama. The former president, shredding what was left of his promise not to interfere with his successor, is joining the fight against the repeal of ObamaCare. He called the Senate bill an example of “meanness,” and pledged to campaign for the Democrat in the Virginia governor’s race.

For Republicans, luck can’t get much better. While Clinton and Pelosi were hardly innocent bystanders in the historic rout of Democrats at every level of government, the main culprit was Obama.

It was Obamaism, more than Clintonism or Pelosism, that elected Donald Trump and gave the GOP both houses of congress. The former president’s coercive liberalism at home and appeasement abroad led to the greatest upset in American politics.

His two biggest achievements, ObamaCare and the Iran nuclear deal, were sold on the backs of lies. President Trump is Obama’s legacy.

And now Dear Leader wants to “help” Dems again. Let’s see how many Clinton and Pelosi critics have the courage to tell him “No, thanks, you’ve done enough.”

Obama’s desire to re-litigate his tenure comes amid other signs that the siege of the Trump White House is lifting and the political momentum is shifting.

Suddenly, Dems are the fighting, fractured party with no agenda or leader while Republicans finally show signs of uniting their majorities to get big things done.

Indeed, Obama’s return to the fray coincides with a belated congressional focus on his administration’s misconduct on the Clinton investigation and his failure to counter Russian interference in the election.

Most ominously, the Senate Judiciary Committee has opened a probe into whether former Attorney General Loretta Lynch impeded the FBI investigation into Clinton’s private server, with members from both parties raising concerns about her role. They cited accusations by former FBI director James Comey and a published report that Lynch promised a top Dem that she would not let the Clinton investigation go far.

It’s hard to believe Lynch won’t be forced to testify publicly, an event that would revisit all the suspect twists and turns of the Clinton probe, including Lynch’s failure to empanel a grand jury. She also should be asked what, if any, orders she got from a White House invested in a Clinton victory.

The role of politics also surfaced when Obama’s former director of Homeland Security admitted that the administration decided to withhold public discussion about Russian hacking because of its possible impact on the campaign.

“This was a big decision, and there were a lot of considerations that went into it,” Jeh Johnson told the Senate. “This was an unprecedented step.”

He said the White House feared that accusing Russia of interference might have looked like an effort to help Clinton, especially given Trump’s claim that results would be “rigged.”

Obama’s decision to wring his hands and take no action until after the election, when he imposed minor sanctions on individual Russians, might explain his team’s efforts to pin the collusion tag on Trump. Those charges, made mostly by anonymous leaks, are catnip to the Democratic media and distract attention from Obama’s failure to respond to what has been described as a Russian act of war.

Taken together, last week’s extraordinary developments are injecting a dose of reality into the Washington scandal machine. For months, anonymous-sourced reports about various Trump associates having meetings with Russian officials painted a troubling picture and led to the appointment of a special counsel.

But when the Obama team’s role is highlighted, it too, looks very troubling. The implications of the president being paralyzed because he didn’t want to give Trump ammunition are almost as grave as the still-unexplained surveillance, leaks and unmasking of Trump associates.

From here, it all looks like the Obama White House is guilty of playing politics with national security.

The possibility is worthy of special counsel Robert Mueller’s attention, who is so far exclusively focused on Trump’s team. That one-dimensional view must end.

Because Russian interference has been used only as a partisan club against Trump, the seriousness of the issue has not resonated with the public. This was indeed an attack on our democracy, and all Americans have a stake in making sure it doesn’t happen again.

But public trust can be earned only when the partisan mud is scraped away and all the facts given a full and fair examination. That means no sacred cows from either party and either administration.

The Democrats are in implosion mode. They have no message except resistance and hatred. How could any sane person vote for a Democrat today? They have been hijacked by hatefilled radicals who are control freaks. Look at what's happening on college campuses. It's scary. Look at ANTIFA. It's scary. Look at Pelosi and Schumer. They're scary. Look at their violent rhetoric and actual violence. It's scary. Everything they do is scary and normal, sane Democrats are fleeing. Instead of trying to control the nation, they better start controlling themselves. The only person who colluded is when Hillary and the DNC colluded to rob Sanders of a possible nomination. They are a really bad joke now.

 

The very first sentence in the Communist Manifesto is : "The history of all hitherto existing society(2) is the history of class struggles." Class warfare. The very basic premise of Marx and Engels. And you say you have read them?

From the CM: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." In other words redistribution of wealth. You are wrong again.

And I've already given you Engels' quote about government and ownership of business and capital.

I've backed up *everything* I've said with quotes from Marx, Engels, and the CM. What have you provided other than high and mighty pronouncements that *YOU* are the authority on this subject and not Marx and Engels themselves? What you did is no proof that you understood *anything* about actual Marxism!

Read the writings. I tire of trying to educate you.

Try this: "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."

"Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production."

Engels wrote: "The socialized appropriation of the means of production does away, not only with the present artificial restrictions upon production, but also with the positive waste and devastation of productive forces and products that are at the present time the inevitable concomitants of production, and that reach their height in the crises. Further, it sets free for the community at large a mass of means of production and of products, by doing away with the senseless extravagance of the ruling classes of today, and their political representatives."

Marx and Engels saw production being controlled by the communities at large. Representatives from among the people, elected frequently in order to prevent an accumulation of power, would meet to coordinate production in order to provide for all.

---------------------------------------
Marx wrote in his 1864 address:
"But there was in store a still greater victory of the political economy of labour over the political
economy of property. We speak of the co-operative movement, especially of the co-operative
factories raised by the unassisted efforts of a few bold ‘hands’. The value of these great social
experiments cannot be over-rated. By deed, instead of by argument, they have shown that
production on a large scale, and in accord with the behest of modern science, may be carried
on without the existence of a class of masters employing a class of hands; that to bear fruit, the
means of labour need not be monopolised as a means of dominion over, and of extortion
against, the labouring man himself; and that, like slave labour, like serf labour, hired labour is
but a transitory and inferior form, destined to disappear before associated labour plying its toil
with a willing hand, a ready mind, and a joyous heart."

----------------------------------------

And I am *quite* tired of your professions of authority, a self-aggrandizing attempt to claim the high ground, when it is obvious you know little of what you speak.

It's obvious that you know little of Marxism but only have a hard-on for capitalism. The proof that Marxism doesn't work is legion. And you willfully ignore that proof.

 

Oville and Wilbur failed the first time too. People thought they were nutz. That's the way most new things are. People are afraid of change. Why are you afraid of change?

 

Yes. I read it. But you're making up crap. You're presenting this as though I said somewhere that there's no such thing as class struggle. I didn't. So your posturing and pontificating is manufactured as far as I can see. Your problem is your omission of quotes to verify and clarify what you're saying.

ABOUT WHAT? I never said any particular system doesn't redistribute wealth.

Wrong pally. I have been asking you to post directly from the CM to back up your claims and you post nothing but your own words including claims you're posting from the CM but with no links to prove it. i asked you for your right wing translation and you were too ashamed of your source to post a link. You haven't backed up anything.

Listen, I'm going to cut this short. I don't care what the CM says or what Marx or anyone else wrote. None of that was ever intended as a script to follow or a plan to implement. Experience is the best teacher, and there has been plenty of experience since Marx. Things change. Marx wrote a groundbreaking analysis of capitalism. It stands today. But what to do with that..... that's the question and experience has changed thinking, as it should. So forget Marx since we're getting nowhere. Just focus on "where do we go from here".

 

Your "change" killed 200 million people last century, and still results in the oppression, systematic violence, and tyrannical control of billions.

Go elsewhere and be a commie. Its a discredited idea that has no place in the modern world.


BTW-your lack of knowledge of marxism-all while espousing it is embarrassing for you. Typical idealistic but ignorant lefty, playing with a fire he does not understand.

You are the problem comrade. Its you.