How Democrats Feel About the Democratic Party

[TC_Nole_OX]

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Did they provide a timeline of when those trades were made in relation to Trump announcements or EOs? I imagine the proof would be pretty clear.

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

 

[WDDT]

I asked several times if any of the reasonable dems would stand up and tell the vocal minority to sit down and shut up...and they dont get to use the credit card any more......

Nope...


Apparently the 60 year old dems that should be leading through this process have decided to sit in the corner and watch something they love get phucked...per usual.


All because you didnt have the balls to tell your kids to shut up and try harder and life doesnt owe them dick.

Lulz.

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

Yep



The Democratic Party’s goal was to stop Hong. They don’t care what happens next because their donors already won. They’d rather have a Republican in office than a socialist because both parties serve the same corporate donors. All the party cares about is stopping the left. It’s wild how many people haven’t figured this out yet.

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

Neera Tanden lives to elect republicans. It’s what she does



There were 10 general election polls conducted in Michigan between January 1 and June 30.

Seven of them had El-Sayed leading Rogers (including three that had him leading by a bigger margin than my poll had). One of them had a tied race. Two had Rogers ahead. My poll was not an outlier.

It’s abundantly clear that you’re far more interested in saying “I told you so” and trying to settle scores with people you dislike within the party than actually defeating Republicans in November, but the rest of us are going to focus on the latter.

We’d love to have you whenever you’re ready to join us.

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

 

[WDSMHawk]

And for the 'it's not free you'll have to raise taxes crowd"....

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

More Perfect Union


How Democrats Abandoned The Working Class with More Perfect Union's John Russell

 

[magaboy]

As a former democrat, I point and laugh at any market research paid for by the Democrats.

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

The populist Democratic faction is helping the party’s moderate nominees against the GOP in the general election.

Some in the corporate Democratic faction are trying to sabotage the party’s populist nominees against the GOP in the general election.

The corporate faction is willing to sabotage their party’s chances of winning back Congress if that is the price of the corporate faction retaining internal party power.

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

This guy blows


Hakeem Jeffries says ‘I don’t support’ the Democratic Socialists of America agenda: Full interview

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

Republican pretending to be a democrat

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

Hakeem Jeffries Makes FATAL ERROR & INFURIATES Dem Voters!! | The Kyle Kulinski Show

 

[Palmerhawk]

Sorry, call me the enemy if you want,( I have voted for Democrats every election since George mcgovern vs nixon in 1972) but I do not agree with the excoriation of every dem who is not promoting DSA policies like this gent.

Jeffries talked of eliminating the tactics this guy is screaming about.
ICE has been around since 2003.
Until 2025, the agency was quietly doing their appointed duties.
Trump militarized them.
Trump is the problem.
I guess I miss where Haley Stevens did not support Abdul...I heard her promoting unity.

Jeffries said he did not support some DSA policy stances.
You want him to support abolishing the senate?
Or refund police or abolish prisons?
That would constitute a fatal mistake for a democratic party leader.

 

[WDDT]

Sorry, call me the enemy if you want,( I have voted for Democrats every election since George mcgovern vs nixon in 1972) but I do not agree with the excoriation of every dem who is not promoting DSA policies like this gent.

Jeffries talked of eliminating the tactics this guy is screaming about.
ICE has been around since 2003.
Until 2025, the agency was quietly doing their appointed duties.
Trump militarized them.
Trump is the problem.
I guess I miss where Haley Stevens did not support Abdul...I heard her promoting unity.

Jeffries said he did not support some DSA policy stances.
You want him to support abolishing the senate?
Or refund police or abolish prisons?
That would constitute a fatal mistake for a democratic party leader.

He is a child, let it go.

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

 

[scotchtiger]

And for the 'it's not free you'll have to raise taxes crowd"....

It's easy to say you would be willing to pay more in taxes. Especially if nearly all tax proposals have targeted people other than yourself. And also if you pay a relatively low rate today, so an increase would be a nominal amount. The vast majority of voters fall into these categories.

It's quite different when you're in the small group that pays the majority of the country's federal income taxes (about 3% of us pay >50% of federal income taxes). And this is the group who will be disproportionately targeted for additional taxes to fund all of these new entitlements, even though we already pay at least our "fair share," and likely quite a bit more than our fair share.

 

[baltimorened]

It's easy to say you would be willing to pay more in taxes. Especially if nearly all tax proposals have targeted people other than yourself. And also if you pay a relatively low rate today, so an increase would be a nominal amount. The vast majority of voters fall into these categories.

It's quite different when you're in the small group that pays the majority of the country's federal income taxes (about 3% of us pay >50% of federal income taxes). And this is the group who will be disproportionately targeted for additional taxes to fund all of these new entitlements, even though we already pay at least our "fair share," and likely quite a bit more than our fair share.

In our society today, we refer to that 3% as the "new rich" because in the world of the 50% who pay so little, everybody else is rich and should be willing/obligated to pay "just a little" to support them

 

[fskillet]

And for the 'it's not free you'll have to raise taxes crowd"....

I wonder what happened between 2021 (when Hakeem was a co-sponsor on the M4A bill) and now that he’s against it

 

[jimneffer]

It's easy to say you would be willing to pay more in taxes. Especially if nearly all tax proposals have targeted people other than yourself. And also if you pay a relatively low rate today, so an increase would be a nominal amount. The vast majority of voters fall into these categories.

It's quite different when you're in the small group that pays the majority of the country's federal income taxes (about 3% of us pay >50% of federal income taxes). And this is the group who will be disproportionately targeted for additional taxes to fund all of these new entitlements, even though we already pay at least our "fair share," and likely quite a bit more than our fair share.

the number of commenters on this website that are in the top 3% of earners in the country is amazing

or to use another word...unbelievable.

 

[scotchtiger]

the number of commenters on this website that are in the top 3% of earners in the country is amazing

or to use another word...unbelievable.

Top 3% is $236K for an individual and $368K for a household. We’re not talking about a crazy high bar.

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

 

[baltimorened]

Top 3% is $236K for an individual and $368K for a household. We’re not talking about a crazy high bar.

and, I wouldn't necessarily consider everyone in that category to be rich..If you're making $350k/year you have federal/state/FICA taxes, making max contributions into 401k, have 2 or 3 kids in college, have reasonable house and car payments....you're likely more comfortable than someone in bottom 50% but not rich....

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

F this guy

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

I wonder what happened between 2021 (when Hakeem was a co-sponsor on the M4A bill) and now that he’s against it

Charlemain asked this and commented the other day



Charlamagne tha God: "One of the most confusing people in American politics -- Hakeem Jeffries. If you follow the corporate money, there's a reason they call him AIPAC Shakur, there's a reason they call him AIPAC Rocky.

I have a question for Hakeem in regards to Medicare for all. What changed? In 2019, you became a cosponsor to Medicare for All Act. In 2021, you were an original cosponsor for Medicare for All Act. Now in 2026, he says Medicare for all is not a legislation he cosponsors or supports. What changed? You appear to be with corporate America not the people."

 

[scotchtiger]

and, I wouldn't necessarily consider everyone in that category to be rich..If you're making $350k/year you have federal/state/FICA taxes, making max contributions into 401k, have 2 or 3 kids in college, have reasonable house and car payments....you're likely more comfortable than someone in bottom 50% but not rich....

Not even close to rich. Government takes a huge bite. Saving for retirement. Mortgage to live in a nice area with good schools. Couple of kids. A family vacation. Etc. That’s gone before you know it.

 

[jimneffer]

Top 3% is $236K for an individual and $368K for a household. We’re not talking about a crazy high bar.

sure. and yet, in any collection of 100 people, statistical probability tells us there should be 3 of these people (and that's assuming everyone in that collection is an "earner")

somehow, on this site, it seems about half of the people are part of that 3%. if anything, i'd think people who are on a message board, bickering about politics during the work day would be less likely to be high earners, not more (but maybe that's a incorrect assumption)

like i said...it's almost unbelievable

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

 

[scotchtiger]

sure. and yet, in any collection of 100 people, statistical probability tells us there should be 3 of these people (and that's assuming everyone in that collection is an "earner")

somehow, on this site, it seems about half of the people are part of that 3%. if anything, i'd think people who are on a message board, bickering about politics during the work day would be less likely to be high earners, not more (but maybe that's a incorrect assumption)

like i said...it's almost unbelievable

Maybe. But you're also dealing with a lot of people who have college degrees from the university they support on the board and have white collar jobs with the flexibility that allows them to bicker on a message board. 36-38% of people have a college degree. 3-5% have a degree from a D1 school like Clemson, Iowa or FSU. It screens out the unwashed masses.

I suspect there is some BS for sure. But many of the Clemson posters have been around long enough that there is credible evidence that they are who they say they are.

An exact statistic tracking the precise percentage of the total U.S. population with a degree from an NCAA Division 1 institution does not exist in federal databases, but it is reliably estimated to be roughly 3% to 5% of the total population.

 

[baltimorened]

sure. and yet, in any collection of 100 people, statistical probability tells us there should be 3 of these people (and that's assuming everyone in that collection is an "earner")

somehow, on this site, it seems about half of the people are part of that 3%. if anything, i'd think people who are on a message board, bickering about politics during the work day would be less likely to be high earners, not more (but maybe that's a incorrect assumption)

like i said...it's almost unbelievable

one way to find out, just ask posters to come forward if they DON'T make that much...