Skip to main content

View Diary: Winning the shutdown battle wasn't enough. Democrats must stand united to win the budget fight (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is a serious question. (10+ / 0-)

    If you are convinced that Democrats will do that, then why do you bother coming here and talking about Democratic politics on a Democratic site?

    Now, if you want to be part of the fight to encourage them to stick to their progressive principles, then great. I'm hoping that's where your thinking is at.

    •  Progressive principles? (5+ / 0-)

      I'll believe it when I see it. Has Obama rescinded his offer for chained CPI to cut Social Security yet? Is any Democrat in a position of leadership even trying to prepare the public to support a positive idea, like say a green New Deal? Or is a slightly less worse sequester slashing of our shared prosperity and the continuation of deficit fever the best we can hope for in order to seem "reasonable?" But hey, at least we're still united!

      Conservative Republicans instill fear in the rest of their party. Liberal Democrats instill derision in ours. How do we change that?

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 02:13:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I find it very interesting (6+ / 0-)

      That apparently the only thing worth talking about in Obama's budget is chained CPI. No mention of universal pre-k education, no mention of the minimum wage increase, no mention of the investments in clean energy and infrastructure, and no mention of progressive reforms in the tax code.

      Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

      by MrAnon on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 02:24:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because those things are not enough (0+ / 0-)

        I think there's such an ingrained two-party mentality that many people can't understand that some people oppose Obama not because they are rightwingers but because Obama is not liberal enough.

        •  What specific solutions do you have (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fcvaguy, Ian Reifowitz

          And what are your main plans for bringing them about?

          Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

          by MrAnon on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 02:53:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Expecting someone (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RobertSF

            to come up with a detailed, comprehensive plan to save the world, at a moment's notice, just so he can prove to you his commentary is worthy enough for DailyKos, is not reasonable.




            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

            by DeadHead on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 03:41:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  MrAnon didn't ask for a detailed, comprehensive (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ian Reifowitz, MrAnon, petral

              plan to save the world. I read his comment as trying to helpfully steer RobertSF from purely negative commentary to more positive thoughts he might have on solutions.

              And, MrAnon never said RobertSF's commentary wasn't worthy of DailyKOS.

              •  Exaggerating (0+ / 0-)

                to make a point isn't the same as putting words in someone's mouth, which, judging by your reply to me, is what you seem to think I was trying to do.

                I've seen these types of responses before. Someone makes a general comment that people consider to be, using your word, "negative," and it's met with some variation of...

                "Why don't you run for office if you think you can do better," or, "you complain, but never offer us any alternatives."

                That's how I read it.




                Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                by DeadHead on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 05:18:37 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, I know how you read it (0+ / 0-)

                  that was obvious.

                  There's little daylight between "exaggerating" and "putting words in someone's mouth". They both have the same effect - a tendency to enflame a discussion. People are pretty good at conveying their points in clear language. They don't need help translating their comments and twisting their meaning.

                  •  I'm glad you feel that way (0+ / 0-)

                    And I'll keep it in mind next time I see people claiming a person is himself a Nazi because he supposedly called someone a Nazi, even though he didn't actually do so.

                    Or when people write diaries claiming a person got a diary on the rec list because of a comment they made, even though the diary hit the rec list before the comment was posted.

                    Things like that. Consistency is important if we hope to maintain the quality of discussion around here, I would agree.

                    And since we appear to be united in this goal, I hope I can count on you to help me remind others about the detrimental effects of such inflammatory mischaracterizations.




                    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                    by DeadHead on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 07:37:06 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not sure what you're implying (0+ / 0-)

                      are you saying I've done those things? calling people nazis? or are you trying to make some other point by dragging other unrelated stuff into this diary?

                      I responded to your unfair comment to MrAnon because from what I've seen, he's a very nice person, non-confrontational. What you did to him in this diary was unfair. Frankly, you owe him an apology.

                       

                      •  No (0+ / 0-)

                        I assumed you would get the references to a diary you commented in and to a diary you both recommended AND commented in.

                        Using those diaries as examples of why I don't take your scolding of me seriously isn't "unrelated," because you decided to make my comment a big deal.

                        And since you decided to make it a big deal, even going so far as to suggest an apology, I want to make sure you'll be making a big deal over comments that actually ARE made with malicious intent, like many found in the above-linked diaries, in the future.

                        I regret to inform you that the only thing I will be able to apologize for at this time is for any inconvenience my refusing to apologize for my comment to MrAnon might cause you.




                        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                        by DeadHead on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 11:31:27 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I see (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Larsstephens

                          Thanks, but aside from the fact that these are unrelated discussions, and my commentary on them was very limited, I don't think talking about those diaries will contribute much to this dialogue.

                          The one thing that stood out for me was the diarist saying that Protective Services should take the President's children away.  I think alot of people were really put off by that and will probably affect their view towards diarist for quite some time, especially since it went unanswered.

                          More important, if I came across as scolding in my dialogue with you, my apologies. I thought this was a civil discussion/debate from my perspective.

            •  How about the progressive caucus' 2013 budget? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DeadHead

              The one that would tax billionaire at 49%? And other wealthy individuals in the low 40 percentile? And, like the Senate close many corporate loopholes and fund over $700 billion in infrastructure repairs? That budget which might allow a small surplus within 10 years? The plan is in place but we are not forcing member of congress to talk much about it.

              Write or call or fax members of the progressive caucus to bring that budget forward again, but this time to not simply say nothing about it when the 'pubs won't bring it to a vote. Ask the president why, when looking at those two Democratic proposals he won't get behind them. If he won't we need them to demand an answer from him why not. And TO NOT STOP promoting it.

              Are they likely to pass these bills. No. Not now. But if we demand a public year long conversation about this with the people who want us to help them get re-elected next year, it might put the discussion into the living rooms of most Americans who had no idea such a proposal has been on the table. And per the president, Sir, even though it will make the GOP scream bloody murder, compromise at all on it, they would have to allow for revenues. We might only get 1/4 of what is asked for. Even 1/8th would still be increases in revenues. But then again, with defense cuts coming up, if they want them scaled back at all they can bloody well pay for it with revenues and it may cost them dearly.

          •  There's only one solution: revolution (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Simplify, Ian Reifowitz, petral

            I'm serious. Only a revolution will bring meaningful change to America. I don't mean an armed revolt against the Federal Government, of course. That would never succeed, and the only result would be criminal charges against the participants. But I do mean a national uprising with mass civil disobedience, demonstrations, and nationwide strikes and boycotts.

            We will need a new Constitution. Even though we may copy much from the current one, the current one several flaws that must be corrected. The Electoral College must go, of course, and we will need proportional representation instead of winner-take-all, but most importantly, we will need absolute separation of wealth and state.

            Lobbying must be abolished, and no person may have political influence beyond his or her ability to sit down and write a letter. No private monies may be used to fund campaigning politicians, not even the politicians' own funds.

            We need USA v.2.0

            •  Your views are shared by others here (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ian Reifowitz

              So far as I can tell from your comments in this thread.

              As long as you don't advocate for a third party or otherwise work against the Democratic Party, you'll likely find common ground with a lot of people on DailyKos.

              Despite the impression you might be getting from a couple of other people, there exists on DailyKos a normal tension between Democrats and liberals. They aren't the same, obviously, and many of our more heated sitewide "battles" center around issues that lay bare this distinction.




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

              by DeadHead on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 04:19:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  tension between Democrats and liberals? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ian Reifowitz

                My impression is that this site is about 95% of this site are Democrats and the vast majority of those are liberals. I'd say the split amongst the 95% is 80% liberal, 10% moderate, and 5% conservative.

                The other 5% are closeted 3rd party types.

                To say that on DailyKOS - liberals and Democrats is not the same is simply ridiculous. They are virtually the same.

                The labels are ridiculous in themselves. If someone self-identifies as a liberal, I take their word for it. I know others believe its in their personal purview to assign labels.

                I've seen some long term Kossacks, stalwart liberals, get trashed as milquetoast centrist because amongst 50 litmus test liberal issues, they failed one or two.

                •  I'm not the only one who sees the distinction... (0+ / 0-)
                  Democrats ≠ liberals. n/t

                  Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                  by Meteor Blades on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 07:31:56 PM PST

                  This site has a lot of Democrats who are not liberal, despite their self-identification as such.

                  What are the rox/sux fights all about?

                  People either supporting/defending the president or people criticizing his policies from the left. They can't both be liberal, at least in regards to the issue being fought over.

                  Though I do realize that one can be liberal on some issues and not in others.

                  However, those who like drones strikes because Obama, "adjustments" to "entitlements" because Obama, spying because terrorists and because Obama, or military intervention because Obama, are not liberals as far as I'm concerned.

                  YMMV




                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 06:09:53 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Of course they can. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fcvaguy, ArcticStones

                    They can simply take different approaches to the question of how best to help liberals succeed. Or, they may just have different temperaments (glass half full/half empty). Point is, liberals can disagree on how and whether to criticize the President, and still be liberals.

                    •  very good point (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Ian Reifowitz

                      it is indeed much about temperament oftentimes.

                    •  True, or they can... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...approve of missile strikes, because chemical weapons.

                      Or approve of drone strikes, because terrorism.

                      Or yawn at NSA surveillance, because there's a Democrat in the White House.

                      Or accept Chained CPI, because the president really doesn't want it and republicans will never agree to new revenue increases and because of all the good things in the budget that supposedly make up for it.

                      Those are clearly liberal positions we all hold, and ones about which we differ only in our respective approaches. :)




                      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                      by DeadHead on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 09:07:23 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Context Context Context (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Ian Reifowitz

                    Meteor Blades comment was made in a diary about the Virginia election where diarist falsely claimed liberals didn't show up to vote, not about DailyKOS.

                    Meteor Blades was spot on in the context of the Virginia election. Democrats do not equal liberals. Anyone who knows Virginia knows that.

                    Exit polls showed 20% of the electorate was liberal, 37% were  Democrats. So obviously, especially in Virginia, not all Democrats are liberals or vice versa.

                    However, DailyKOS is another matter. There's no poll data to prove one way or the other, but anecdotally it surely seems overwhelmingly liberal to me.

                    This site has a lot of Democrats who are not liberal, despite their self-identification as such.
                    I alluded to this problem earlier. If someone says they are liberal, who are you to decide they aren't? Do you have some litmus and/or purity test you subject them to where you ultimately decide who is a liberal and who isn't? Who made you Liberal God?

                    What if I were to say you're not a Democrat despite you having said you are? I bet you could rally more than a few HRs on my comment as a result.

                    •  I'm aware of the context in that diary (0+ / 0-)

                      I posted the third comment in it.

                      In my view, MB did not constrain his comment to the same Virginia-specific context you seem to think he did.

                      His was a top level comment, clearly referring to the title of that diary, because the title was the only place where the word "liberal" was used in the text of diary itself.

                      As I said, that's my take on his comment. I don't want to speak for him, so I'll leave it at that.

                      As for "who am I to decide" if someone is a liberal or not, well, I get to make whatever determinations I want.

                      That doesn't mean I expect others to adhere to my definition, just as you, I would hope, don't expect others to accept your redefinition of the term to include center-right policy positions.

                      In regards to your "what if [you] were to say [I] wasn't a Democrat," well, I wouldn't care. My comment and diary history say otherwise. And no, I wouldn't rally anyone to HR you for something as stupid as that.

                      :)




                      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                      by DeadHead on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 08:25:31 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well that settles that !! (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Ian Reifowitz, Larsstephens
                        I get to make whatever determinations I want.
                      •  Food for thought (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Ian Reifowitz, Larsstephens

                        Probably the most famous leftist authoritarian in history, Maximilien Robispierre, a student of Rousseau, one of the most famous leftist writers in history, said something very similar when he set up the Committee for Public Safety which spawned the Reign of Terror after the French Revolution - 25,000 people, ordinary people, people who actually supported the Revolution, condemned to death without evidence, without trial if he deemed them sufficiently impure.

                        I get to make whatever determinations I want.
                        •  The difference being... (0+ / 0-)

                          I'm just some dude on a blog.




                          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                          by DeadHead on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 11:39:53 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  We all are just some dudes and dudettes (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ian Reifowitz, Larsstephens, MKSinSA

                            I just think we should take people at their word for what they are. I don't think slapping labels on them based on some arbitrary set of litmus tests does much to promote dialogue.

                          •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

                            We should take people at their word for what they are, based on the comments they post.

                            Saying "I'm a liberal" when their commentary indicates they espouse views that aren't liberal, as the term is commonly defined and understood, is applying a label to oneself, too. Inaccurately.

                            So I guess you're right, we should eschew labels.




                            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                            by DeadHead on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 10:33:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Right back to where we started (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MKSinSA

                            Yes, you support Social Security and Medicare, Yes, you support massive infrastructure investment to improve our roads etc and create jobs. Yes, you support keeping public education under the purview of government. But, you support the President on issue xyz. Therefore, you are not a liberal. You're not even a centrist. You're a right wing Democrat to the right of Sean Hannity. Because, I said so. I'm the decider. I'm the authority. Off to the gallows with you. Signed, Maximilien Robispierre.

            •  right now there is no mass army of satyagrahis (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ian Reifowitz

              to carry out your program.  Doing the best for the least among us and sustaining some sort of widespread prosperity as far as possible is the best we can do to maintain an environment which makes such a movement at least imaginable.

            •  Lobbying has its place. Paid lobbying doesn't. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ian Reifowitz, a2nite

              If you are responsible for getting lots of poor people in lots of places fed, Congressman Robert SF, you still need the people who work to make these things happen on large scales to help you to determine the logistics. Do you know specifically how to do that? And if you need to have various roads and bridges fixed or even replaced, do you have the first idea how to do that efficiently and (hopefully) within budget Robert? Can you write us a letter on the best budgets and practices and people available to do that? I doubt it, nor could 99% of us reading this diary. Government representatives and their staff do need specialized expertise to carry those jobs out from start to finish. That's what lobbyists are intended to do. A letter writer cannot provide those kind of details.

              What's happened is that lobbyists grease hands and while they are necessary we must make it illegal to lobby and provide contributions or gifts to politicians. Yes, we need to get the money out of the hands of politicians as much as possible. But trying to get a new constitution written in any short order will not happen. Over time perhaps, but not until we are a much less divided nation. But you are correct in that we need a wall of separation between wealth and state.

        •  Its not even ideology (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RobertSF, Simplify, petral

          Some of Obamas policies are just really bad ideas. Taking money frompoor elderly and disabled people who paid into SS for no discernible reason is just fvcking cruel and dishonest. Partisanship has nothing to fo with it.

          If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

          by Betty Pinson on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 03:16:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  One of those, based on the reent history of the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DeadHead

        Democratic party, is far more likely to be part of any final deal than any of the rest, and most of us who've been paying attention know which one it is.

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 03:36:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  They're nice things, but they're half-measures (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DeadHead

        that Pres. Obama will allow to be eroded into tenth-measures. $10 minimum wage when it should be at least $15 with automatic inflation increases as an endpoint, not as an opening gambit. Clean energy investments while hyping "clean coal," while not ending fossil fuel subsidies, and while letting BP have its way with the disaster of its own making. Stimulus that aimed too low and is gone now, with little political prospect of revival. The continuation of charter school support. The turning of what looked like a good way to cut out student loan corporate leeches into a giant sucking of student debt via the federal government to colleges via inflated tuition. Corporacare made up of Republican ideas when nary a single Republican voted for it in the end.

        How do political leaders work with us to bring about progressive change? Liberal populism. Make a real, unapologetic case for reining in corporate fat cat (yes, "fat cat") power. Make some people upset. "I welcome their hatred." "You have the power."

        The problem with liberal populism is that it means more power for us, the people, system-wide, and less power for them, the political leadership, within their part of the established system. It would mean letting go some of their control. It would take a truly brave leader who has some basic faith in real democracy for that, not someone who argues from the ever-rightward shifting 50-yard-line in order to seem "reasonable." Show us the end zone.

        Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

        by Simplify on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 04:48:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I thought this was a liberal site. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Betty Pinson

      Are you saying it's actually a partisan site, a site that requires loyalty to the Democratic Party itself?

      If that's actually the case, then I'll stop visiting. I'm not here to antagonize anyone, but I see the Democratic Party not as the solution but as part of the problem.

      •  Yes (4+ / 0-)
        This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together. We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Liberal? Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory. And since we haven't gotten any of that from the current crew, we're one more thing: a reform blog. The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable.
        http://www.dkosopedia.com/...

        Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

        by MrAnon on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 02:52:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, there's this quote, too (3+ / 0-)

          That appeared just after the one you reproduced above:

          Daily Kos will be what Daily Kos is, and that oftentimes evolves. I know everyone wants their clearly defined rules, but nothing is that simple. [...]
          From your same link.




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

          by DeadHead on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 03:02:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  and then this one from 2 days ago (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ian Reifowitz
            Not tough (18+ / 0-)
            this is a Democratic site. That's my party, and that's what I'll work with.

            You want third party shit, I'm sure there are other places for that.

            by kos on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:54:12 PM EST

            [ Parent | Reply to This ]

            •  And, of course, this one... (0+ / 0-)
              Honestly

              I don't understand why it's hard to ignore someone you don't like.

              by kos on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:02:34 PM PST




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

              by DeadHead on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 06:29:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  ??? (0+ / 0-)

                how's that relevant to third parties on DailyKOS? Are you saying you don't like me? LOL

                •  And how are third parties on DailyKos (0+ / 0-)

                  relevant to whether or not this is a liberal site or not? That's what the conversation was originally about in this thread.

                  My quote was to illustrate that Markos seems more tolerate of dissenting views, at least nowadays, and as far as I've personally seen, than some of the above "partisan democratic site only" previous quotes of his mentioned above would imply.

                  It was not in any way directed towards you personally.




                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 08:38:30 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  third parties? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Larsstephens

                    You'd have to ask RobertSF who sort of brought it into the discussion towards the top of this thread.

                    My quote was to illustrate that Markos seems more tolerate of dissenting views, at least nowadays, and as far as I've personally seen, than some of the above "partisan democratic site only" previous quotes of his mentioned above would imply.
                    No doubt, he's very tolerant of dissenting views. However, just two days ago (which I guess would count as "nowadays") he was pretty clear. There doesn't appear to be much wiggle room in this comment:
                    Not tough (18+ / 0-)
                    this is a Democratic site. That's my party, and that's what I'll work with.

                    You want third party shit, I'm sure there are other places for that.

                    by kos on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:54:12 PM EST

                    [ Parent | Reply to This ]

                    •  I'm not seeing... (0+ / 0-)

                      any "sort of brought [third parties] into the discussion" in this comment:

                      I thought this was a liberal site.

                      Are you saying it's actually a partisan site, a site that requires loyalty to the Democratic Party itself?

                      If that's actually the case, then I'll stop visiting. I'm not here to antagonize anyone, but I see the Democratic Party not as the solution but as part of the problem.

                      by RobertSF on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 02:27:08 PM PST

                      I think that's you doing precisely what you just got done telling me I supposedly did to MrAnon.




                      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                      by DeadHead on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 11:47:40 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No, next comment (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Larsstephens

                        where he bemoans the two party system:

                        I think there's such an ingrained two-party mentality that many people can't understand that some people oppose Obama not because they are rightwingers but because Obama is not liberal enough.
                        •  Still not seeing it. (0+ / 0-)

                          Bemoaning the two existing parties isn't the same as suggesting a third one.

                          You're reading too much into it.




                          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                          by DeadHead on Mon Nov 11, 2013 at 10:38:23 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

      •  Depends on the diary (6+ / 0-)

        But "more and better Democrats" is the overall mission of the site.

        Some are hyper-partisan, while others tend to put principle before party. As long as expressing it doesn't violate the site's rules, it's allowed.




        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

        by DeadHead on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 02:56:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  We come here to stop stupid policy decisions (5+ / 0-)

      And because we are Democrats who wish to save our party from someclueless corrupt people in DC

      If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

      by Betty Pinson on Sun Nov 10, 2013 at 03:06:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (64)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Culture (32)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Texas (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Economy (27)
  • Environment (26)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Health Care (20)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • International (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site