Debbie Wasserman Schultz Has Allowed Corporations To Take Over DNC

[GoLeft TV]

If you have any doubt that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the worst leader that the Democratic Party has had in modern history, just look at the corporations that she’s allowing to call the shots for this year’s conventions. And that doesn’t even begin to touch on the anti-Bernie actions coming directly from the Party, which could cost Democrats the White House this year.

Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins discusses this.

[yuiyoshida]

1. K&R

Tweeted

[yourout]

2. She did not just "allow" it. She rammed it down our throats.

[lewebley3]

77. No DWS has done nothing of the Kind: Stop the bulling of DWS

[shakedown1970]

87. Obviously you have not been paying attention.

[arcane1]

3. Allowed. Enabled. The Plan all along n/t

[rhett o rick]

4. We desperately need to throw the corporatist bastards out of our "People's Party". nm

[Cary]

33. Your "we" is who, exactly?

[rhett o rick]

34. The Progressive Wing of our Party. Conservatives need to go back to the Republicon Party

where they belong. We need two viable parties not this mess we have now.

[Cary]

37. Really?

Who decides who these "progressives" are?

And that's just the beginning of your problems.

[rhett o rick]

40. Here's a test.

You aint progressive if you supported the Iraq War.

You aint progressive if you love the Patriot Act, Torture, Indefinite Detention, and cluster bombs.

you aint progressive if you support fracking for oil profits over clean drinking water for the masses.

You aint progressive if you want to hold down the min wage below $15 per hour.

You aint progressive if you embrace the Corp-Media and Citizens United.

You aint progressive if you deny medical marijuana to those suffering.

You aint progressive if you like tough drug laws and sentencing to fill the Prisons For Profits

You aint progressive if you support job killing "Free Trade" Agreements.

[Cary]

41. Focus, Rhett

I didn't ask how. I asked who.

I guess you're saying here it's you who gets to decide. Ok, I'll accept that as an answer but I don't agree that you get to decide. And I'm pretty sure that 90% of us, or better, wouldn't cede that power to you.

And therein lies another huge problem for your "solution."

[rhett o rick]

42. I don't want to be the decider and didn't ask for such. The progressive wing of our party

know who is progressive and who isn't. They accept Warren and Sanders and reject Clinton. Warren and Sanders would pass the test and Clinton would fail.

Curious, but do you agree with my list?

[Cary]

44. It doesn't work that way.

Never has. Never will.

We have coalition parties. Do you understand what that means?

[rhett o rick]

45. Hey you support the rich and powerful at the expense of those suffering. I am sure you can

rationalize it away, but I am tired of your condensation.

[Cary]

46. Yes of course it's all about me personally

That's the ticket. Right? You can't muster a majority so start telling people they're defective.

Maybe it's you? Maybe you can't muster a majority because of your own behavior? Have you ever considered that possibility? Is it possible for you to be accountable?

[chwaliszewski]

47. I believe Rhett is being passionate about his allegiance

and you're being condescending. Just my opinion.

[Cary]

50. Rhett changed the subject to me, personally

But that's my fault. Of course that's my fault.

Come on. You can do better than "condescending."

[chwaliszewski]

52. Actually, I believe...

acting like a jackass to a fellow DUer when it isn't warranted is your fault. There, is that better?

[Cary]

57. Nope.

You can do much better. You're holding back.

[Hiraeth]

60. Actually, I think you are trying to goad someone into posting something remotely alertable.

Just watching the progression here.

[Cary]

59. I find it fascinating that the radical left will not listen

You all can't pass up a pointless ego play against an anonymous poster on a meaningless internet board in favor of perhaps learning something that could actually further your agenda.

I mean it's not like what you all are doing is getting you anywhere. So why do you keep trying so hard to alienate people like me? In what alternate universe does that behavior make sense?

I swear it's like Ayn Rand's stupid architect who refused to give clients what they wanted and drove the love of his life into the arms of his arch enemy just to prove his own superiority to himself.

[Hiraeth]

61. I find it fascinating that you have not posted anything in this thread that is worth listening to.

[Cary]

62. And how is that Howard Roarke attitude working out for ya?

[Hiraeth]

64. Ayn called. Wants her book back.

[Cary]

65. What's that supposed to mean?

Some kind of strange attack on me, no doubt.

[fbc]

70. You are actually using Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged to make your argument?

I'm sorry, but I don't think most people here know Rand's work well enough for you to use it as the basis of your arguments like some sort of scripture. I imagine most of use read it once, if at all, and that was enough to expose it as worthless.

[Cary]

72. I can be "actually using" whatever I want to be "actually using."

You aren't "exposing" anything.

You don't have to ever read anyone else's perspective. You can certainly refuse to listen. You can mock. You can play whatever game you want to play, but to what end?

My end is simple. I want to elect Democrats and I'm pretty sure we Democrats can do that with or without the radical left. So I could easily play your game and not engage you at all and I will have my success. You, on the other hand, are doing what? Trying to convince me that I suck?

Why?

[fbc]

73. You can be doing anything you want.

Last edited Tue May 17, 2016, 02:55 PM - Edit history (1)

"You can certainly refuse to listen. You can mock. You can play whatever game you want to play, but to what end?"

I do refuse to listen to people who feel the need to express themselves through the works of Ayn Rand. I also think they are worthy of mockery. To what end? Mockery of objectivist thinking helps demonstrate that it is a bunch of tripe that shouldn't be taken seriously.

[Cary]

76. There you go again changing the subject to Cary sucks

It's what you all do, and it's why you go nowhere.

[fbc]

81. Do you intentionally craft absurd arguments to play the victim?

I don't really see how you can expect to support your arguments using examples from the libertarian bible and not be called on it.

[Cary]

86. There you go again with your changing the subject to "Cary sucks"

You're not very good at this are you?

[puffy socks]

84. condensation?

condensation is the change of water from its gaseous form (water vapor) into liquid water. Condensation generally occurs in the atmosphere when warm air rises, cools and looses its capacity to hold water vapor. As a result, excess water vapor condenses to form cloud droplets."

and no, Bernie's supporters don't get to decide who's a Progressive...and that's precisely what your post tries to do. so don't pretend you don't want to be "the decider and didn't ask for such. "

[ReasonableToo]

49. I agree with your list. We get what we condone.

I don't condone any of those actions. Nor should any Democrat - progressive or otherwise.

[shakedown1970]

88. You are a proud apologist for corruption. Congratulations.

[Cary]

96. And what exactly do you have to show for that sanctimonious blather?

Nothing. Zero. Nada.

Nice "revolution."

[Ferd Berfel]

79. agree, but here's the problem

Among the Elite that are running the Party, the only progressive that I'm aware of has already resigned ( I forget her name). Those that remain are bought an paid for corporate puppets. They control the apparatus. They aren't going to let you play in their sandbox. How do you get past THAT?
I suppose over a period of years (decades?) you can vote them out. Absent that, what is there?

Open to ideas............

[stillwaiting]

5. She made it so. She gave them the keys gladly. nt

[Progressive dog]

6. The plan of the majority of party

has always been to nominate a Democrat, but they let Bernie run-under Democratic party rules. His supporters get to change those rules, if they win the most delegates. They don't get extra delegates by louder or more frequent complaints
Most Democrats believe in free enterprise, which means people can join together to form a business corporation. That's part of living in the USA and in fact in the developed part of the world.

[AlbertCat]

7. The plan of the majority of party has always been to nominate a Democrat,

...even if they are conservative.

Riiiight.... got it.

[TryLogic]

10. Even if she is a Democrat in name only.

[GoneOffShore]

20. I thought she was a corporation - HRC-WJC, Inc. with the CVC-Mevinsky PLC subsidiary

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

31. Hey...

... I like that explanation!

[Progressive dog]

91. I'm glad you understood,

[Trajan]

11. Party membership is not the Holy Grail

Political philosophies mean so much more ...

Bernie, as an independent, held more 'Democratic Party positions' than the party itself ...

And now? ... Well? ... Look at this mess ....

As a lifelong Liberal Democrat, Bernie is automatically NUMBER ONE on my list ...

[Progressive dog]

90. So Bernie should run under his "political philosophy", not as a Democrat

Bernie, as an independent, held more 'Democratic Party positions' than the party itself ...

Democrats believe in Democracy, not intimidation (like Nevada) when they don't get their way. That is mob rule and it appears to be the entire "political philosophy" of many Bernie supporters.

[Trajan]

92. What a bunch of hooey

Most all Bernie supporters I know are pacifists, and you are full of hooey ...

Pure, unadulterated hooey ...

Don't bother replying ... You are gone ...

Go spend your Brock money ....

[Progressive dog]

95. Most are pacifists,

I'm trying to fit that into the obvious aggression displayed by Bernie supporters at the convention and the threats still being made. Maybe they're just pacifist after intimidation fails.

[TryLogic]

12. "The Majority of Today's Elected Democrats Are Moderate Republicans" -- Chomsky

[Progressive dog]

89. Chomsky-that says it all

The majority of anarcho syndicalists (Chomsky) are dangerous radicals.

[elleng]

8. along with her 'mentor.'

[Enthusiast]

9. It is going to stop. One way or another.

[notemason]

13. Corporations believe

they have more on the line in this election than the 99% who they perceive as having less on the line. And so with their money and power they make sure the moreons win.

[ananda]

14. "allowed"

Probably more like encouraged, courted.

[Omaha Steve]

15. FIRE DWS! Donate to Democratic Underground for Tim Canova FL-23 here

Donate here: https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/du4timcanova

[Duval]

93. Thanks, OS!

Will get right on it!

[zeemike]

16. DWS will stay until her job is done.

And that job is getting HRC the nomination.
After that it won't matter...even if she loses her seat in congress her future is secure...

[Human101948]

18. i thought it was insuring that payday lenders get to enslave the lowest income workers...

The bill backed by Wasserman Schultz would delay the new regulations for two years. And it would exempt from the regulations any state with its own payday lending law similar to one passed by Florida in 2001. That law was backed by the payday lending industry and described by supporters as a compromise approach. As a state lawmaker, Wasserman Schultz helped push it through.

Wasserman Schultz has taken in more than $68,000 from the payday lending industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics — more than all but 18 members of Congress.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/warren-wasserman-schultz-clash-over-payday-lenders

She should be tarred and feathered, ridden out of town on a rail.

[zeemike]

21. They can pass it without her.

Votes come cheap in the house...If her replacement won't take the money some other one will.
Bribery is now legal.

[lewebley3]

78. DWS has been very fair: Sanders has been rejected by the voters not DWS

[Duval]

94. Oh, right! Hence none came to hear him speak in your HO?

Maybe you've forgotten?

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

97. DWS - chief of staff?

I can just see it, now.

And even though Hillary loves everything DWS does, I bet she isn't stupid enough to make DWS her press secretary!

That woman is an epic fail with the press!

[zeemike]

98. Probably shooting for something higher than that.

A cabinet post perhaps...But no matter there will always be positions on the BOD of several corporations to keep her busy.

[randr]

17. The loss of House and Senate seats

across the nation alone warrants her dismissal.
I think she is a Republican mole and has done her job well.

[RiverNoord]

19. What a bombshell!!

Astounding!

Someone actually spoke truth on television!

[jalan48]

22. My Gawd, this woman is awful!

[Thinkingabout]

23. At least she did not allow the oligarchy to take over, and doubtful she allowed corporations

To take over. The DNC is run by Democrats, some have been here for years.

[TIME TO PANIC]

24. .....And people say the G.O.P. is imploding! n/t

[Vincardog]

69. Republicants in BOTH parties are in deep do do. Long past time too.

[TIME TO PANIC]

74. Amen! n/t

[billhicks76]

25. DISGUSTING...Kick Her OUT!!!!

[Jackie Wilson Said]

26. Not news, not at all. This is why we support Bernie. What DWS has not done is turned the DNC over

to racists who hate POC and want to deport millions and so on.

[dlwickham]

67. You mean like our half black president?

That racist?

[Rafale]

27. Yet a Dem Administration is deporting more people than Bush.

Seems like the Dem conversion to GOP values is very much underway and close to the harbor of cray cray. What's really amazing is the number of "Dems" passively letting it happen.

[99th_Monkey]

28. Why do the rest of the DNC executives --who know better-- allow this shit to continue?

Telse Gabbard comes to mind ... oops she had to step down to OPENLY support Bernie,
but for some odd reason DWS does NOT need to resign to so brazenly support Hillary.

This Primary has been rigged from the get-go by these kinds of YUGE double standards
at every turn. And whenever Bernie peeps dare to notice and speak up, we're slandered
as paranoid kooks,

[whathehell]

39. Gabbard's first name is "Tulsi"

not "Tease". Please tell me that was an honest mistake.

[Babel_17]

29. Was going to post that it was more than "allowed",

but I see that's already been covered.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

30. Debbie and the Debbies...

..."The only daughter of George and Pristine Klimer, and sister of Jared. She is the leader of "The Debbies" and is considered the most beautiful and popular girl in school, even though all of her friends are identical. Like most Hill residents, she often treats the people in the Valley with cruelty. She is the only Debbie with her last name known, besides Debbie Bledsoe."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oblongs


Sorry, couldn't help but draw comparisons.

[Gman]

32. Got news for ya

That happened many years ago now.

[hsergott]

35. give me a break

So does everybody that is under 60 think Truman was elected by the "non-corporate" democratic party....what about the newsreels of the convention...this was man that only had met FDR once...money and influence has ALWAYS been part of the Democratic party ..compromise has always been part of the Democratic party.,..winning the majority is when we realize compromise is what we stand for...1968 showed us how to lose...I hope 2016 is not a 1968 relived...been there done that

[blackspade]

55. Your grasp of history is...underwelming

[Gman]

58. Your lack of perspective is atrocious

[blackspade]

63. Really. Do tell....

[dchill]

36. K&R

[ReRe]

38. I just hope to hell....

... the Old Democrats are connected and paying attention to all the shenanigans that the Corporate wing of the party has pulled off since this Primary begun. We are so damn close.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

43. The DNC, Schultz, and a few other assorted items on my mind.

You've got the head of the DNC leading the Democrats on a questionable path. She was very likely put into her position based on her ties to Clinton. So many democrats (particularly moderate) are protective of the Clintons for various reasons, but Debbie isn't putting us on a path we should be on in my opinion. So... What's to say Clinton will do any better when she enters the White house?

As of right now Clinton is for continuing the Obama legacy, but what parts? Obamacare? Okay, that's nice, but Obamacare isn't perfect. We should strive for something better, a la Sanders' single payer. A lot of the fight over single payer is that it is unfeasible for various reason and yet it is implemented in many countries. I think it is more a matter of trying to protect the insurance industry and all the lobbying money that comes with it.

Remember: Insurance companies are in it to turn a profit. If that means capping your coverage or not allowing you the best course of treatment because it's too expensive... well, then it's probably not a good system.

Last I heard Hillary wanted to put Bill in control of fixing the economy (link). The 90's were great in a lot of aspects, but having Bill kowtow to republicans on deregulating wallstreet wasn't one of them. Stocks can only go up so long before it all comes crashing down, taking everyone with it.

Also, haven't a lot of people been saying Bill just doesn't have 'it' nowadays? Why would she want to put his name at the forefront of an economic recovery when he seems to be losing his touch a bit as of late. My best guess: Name recognition and nostalgia.

Most of all, I'm tired of people scraping by a meager living with less hope for building a better life for their families. I don't feel that Clinton is empathetic to their plight. That's just my opinion. Parading people up on stage with stories of woe then giving them a hug is nice, but it doesn't fix anything. Clinton doesn't seem to want to fix anything so much as keep the status quo.

Politicians lie and pander all of the time, but Clinton seems to more than most. I'm sorry. It's truth. Sometimes the truth does hurt.

Yeah... I'm angry with how this election cycle has gone and want more liberal, people-minded folks in government. Not just those looking for an ego stroke and power. I'm glad that Sanders seems to have woken up some of the liberal contingent into running for office. It'll be good for the democratic party in the long run, you know, actually fighting for people.

[me b zola]

83. That was a wonderful post

Welcome to DU!

[PoliticalMalcontent]

99. Thanks.

I worry that I go overboard occasionally, but it comes from a place of passion.

I look forward to seeing you around the forum.

[eridani]

48. Number of voters identifying as Dems is at a record low

Massive losses at the local, state and national level. It's what you would expect of someone who endorses Republicans over Democrats in her own state.

[fbc]

71. Maybe they are staring to go back to the republican party.

They polls/studies show that the democratic party has been becoming more and more progressive over the last 15 or so years. Maybe they've had enough.

[bunchofpenguins]

51. The plan was in place long before DWS.

Howard Dean started it by opening the floodgates to your Manchin's and all your other conservadems in the name of quantity over quality. Once that happened, it was easy to complete the corporate takeover.

And while this was happening, DWS was basically a complete failure who allowed the GOP to dominate in Congress in what should have been easy wins for the Democrats (kind of like what she's doing now in 2016; it should have been an easy election for President yet she's deadset on coronating an unpopular pol under federal investigation instead of realising the Democratic party needs to embrace the roots of FDR and liberalism (especially since more young people associate with socialism over capitalism than ever before) with Bernie.

[SmittynMo]

53. I am just about done with the party

Just as in the GOP's destruction, the democratic party is following right behind them. But why? Has this been all planned?

The party has been lead down a dark path. Between the DNC, DWS, HRC and her oligarchy, the corruption, the slanted primary, I am very close to saying "fuck all of this shit". I have been a democrat all my life, and what I see today, is nowhere near where I had hoped this party would be by now. And to make matters worse, it seems that the establishment politicians are in it for themselves and fuck the rest of us. This applies to both sides.

Yep maybe it's time to take a long, long timeout from politics. As for this election? It's sooooo fucked up now, why show up? I am actually sick thinking about what we've done to our country.

[freebrew]

66. I was disgusted by a thread yesterday..

where long-time posters here were celebrating the fact that
our party(Democratic) has been taken over by the moderate repubs.

Admitting HRC was one of them and for us 'far-leftists' to basically give it up.

Our state used to be majority Dem. Now it's a laughing stock - this side of Kansas!

[blackspade]

54. Not 'allowed.' Facilitated would be a better word.

[Gore1FL]

56. At least someone besides her is running it... nt

[stupidicus]

68. becoming corporatist/fascist-lite was what the DLC was all about

and it's well past time dem voters realized this en masse

obviously many HC supporters know and approve

[L. Coyote]

75. Dem bashing again. Maybe go over to, you know, that other place, the dark side

Wow, who knew DWS was so powerful ....

[zentrum]

80. She sought them out.

She's a New Democrat. Created by the Clintons, Joe Lieberman, Gore, Rahm Emanuel, Frum, who together formed the DLC. Funded in part by the Koch Brothers.

They wanted this civil war. They wanted progressives out of the party. The plan was to get us used to greater austerity and used to little tweaks, called "incremental change"--- so we'd shut up. The New Democrat is the Old Republican.

The New Republican is a Bagger. And Trump.

DSW is to the right of Dwight Eisenhower.

[quakerboy]

82. Allowed is not the right word

"led in the continuing movement of" would probably be more accurate. Politics done got sold a long time, she is but one in a proud lineage of heavily financially influenced politicians.

[bjo59]

85. You know what else is going to happen if Clinton is rammed through as the Dem

nominee and then loses the general election? The corporate media, (which has been giving Trump far and away the most coverage) is going to report that the Democratic party lost the election because it worked overtime to make sure Sanders didn't get the nomination. Online Clinton supporters may not understand that just because the corporate media does not want Bernie Sanders as president does not mean that it is loyal to HRC. If Trump is elected, you can be absolutely sure the media will suddenly be more than willing to talk about Democratic party vote fixing, rule bending, and all the rest of it. It will be more than willing to do what it should have been doing during the primaries once Sanders is out of the race. HRC supporters on here may blame Sanders and his supporters for a Clinton loss to Trump but nobody will hear them make that excuse because the corporate media will be laying a Trump win at the feet of the Democratic party. HRC supporters may feel happy that the corporate media is their "friend" now but don't understand that the corporate media is "friend" to nobody but its bottom line. The Democratic party screwing itself over will make much better copy than boring articles about how Sanders should have dropped out of the primary race. Anyone who thinks Comcast co-hosting the Democratic National Convention means that this will not happen does not understand how the corporate media works.