Why did the DEMOCRATIC PARTY put a rich old elitist white person in power?

[ColonelAngus]

Dems are supposed to be "PROGRESSIVE".

NANCY PELOSI???

HUH?

At least we already know the PUBS are al evil old rich white people.....DEMS are not supposed to be like PUBS...at least that's what they tell the world.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear ColonelAngus
If you notice the progressive left who want change weren't for the Clintons or Pelosi and the old DNC chair they demanded step down, but wanted Sanders and now this new DNC chair that everyone else labels Socialist and Marxist respectively.

Since they can't agree, they end up with Pelosi.

Just like the GOP, divided over Cruz Tea Party right and Ryan moderates, ended up with Trump!

If you can't agree on your top choice then everyone gets stuck with the second or third choice as a result. This is another reason we should look into representation by party. If everyone ran their own platforms programs and parties internally by their first choice of reps and officers, then we could separate that part of representation where we all differ including splits within parties. And then after that, organize to represent what everyone agrees should be public policy through states or federal govt. It would be like organizing states using parties, that only apply to their own members and leaders, splitting those into caucuses that are the equivalent of counties or cities within states, and also have a national union between parties to work out what should be federal or what belongs to the states or people. And what belongs locally is where people of each state can decide how much to organize by state or by party lines. Instead of taking political beliefs agenda and propaganda and immediately trying to impose that through state or federal govt. Otherwise where we don't agree by party, such as two versions of ACA that could both be equal options to choose from under the same bill, we end up with compromise legislation neither side really wants.

Like Trump when people really wanted Cruz or Sanders, not Trump or Clinton. And not Pelosi unless you are part of the CA type liberals who would rather be under Clinton and old school Dems and still try to make that work. Maybe Clinton and Pelosi, Sanders and Stein can still unite the divided left. What's going on at the top of the ranks, and what the people need and want at the bottom are separate realities but they have to come together and decide how to handle those different class groups within their own constituents. I thought the Right would figure out how to unite first, but the left has so much more work to do on this they might figure it out first to set up a coalition Parliament of the different factions and quit trying to make it one leader fitting all which varies for each faction. They need all leaders and party factors included equally like states in a union, regardless of size, to serve as a Senate in representing all the diverse interests by groups. Not fight for dominance of one party over others, but equal inclusion letting parties represent their own member base like states having both local sovereignty and equal say in national policy without having to compete or control other states in the union. We have both state and federal laws, why can't parties agree where to separate local party platforms by state, from what is national policy that all agree to endorse without forcing agenda against the will and beliefs of others who agree to the same policy of separating political beliefs by party.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Dear ColonelAngus
If you notice the progressive left who want change weren't for the Clintons or Pelosi and the old DNC chair they demanded step down, but wanted Sanders and now this new DNC chair that everyone else labels Socialist and Marxist respectively.

Since they can't agree, they end up with Pelosi.

Just like the GOP, divided over Cruz Tea Party right and Ryan moderates, ended up with Trump!

If you can't agree on your top choice then everyone gets stuck with the second or third choice as a result. This is another reason we should look into representation by party. If everyone ran their own platforms programs and parties internally by their first choice of reps and officers, then we could separate that part of representation where we all differ including splits within parties. And then after that, organize to represent what everyone agrees should be public policy through states or federal govt. It would be like organizing states using parties, that only apply to their own members and leaders, splitting those into caucuses that are the equivalent of counties or cities within states, and also have a national union between parties to work out what should be federal or what belongs to the states or people. And what belongs locally is where people of each state can decide how much to organize by state or by party lines. Instead of taking political beliefs agenda and propaganda and immediately trying to impose that through state or federal govt. Otherwise where we don't agree by party, such as two versions of ACA that could both be equal options to choose from under the same bill, we end up with compromise legislation neither side really wants.

Like Trump when people really wanted Cruz or Sanders, not Trump or Clinton. And not Pelosi unless you are part of the CA type liberals who would rather be under Clinton and old school Dems and still try to make that work. Maybe Clinton and Pelosi, Sanders and Stein can still unite the divided left. What's going on at the top of the ranks, and what the people need and want at the bottom are separate realities but they have to come together and decide how to handle those different class groups within their own constituents. I thought the Right would figure out how to unite first, but the left has so much more work to do on this they might figure it out first to set up a coalition Parliament of the different factions and quit trying to make it one leader fitting all which varies for each faction. They need all leaders and party factors included equally like states in a union, regardless of size, to serve as a Senate in representing all the diverse interests by groups. Not fight for dominance of one party over others, but equal inclusion letting parties represent their own member base like states having both local sovereignty and equal say in national policy without having to compete or control other states in the union. We have both state and federal laws, why can't parties agree where to separate local party platforms by state, from what is national policy that all agree to endorse without forcing agenda against the will and beliefs of others who agree to the same policy of separating political beliefs by party.

Pelosi is in charge because she is a great fundraiser and has connections to many wealthy people.

That's about all she is good for.

How many Syrian immigrants have been placed in San Francisco? Not many, if any.

I can't wait until Pelosi is out of office. She is an awful human being.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear ColonelAngus
If you notice the progressive left who want change weren't for the Clintons or Pelosi and the old DNC chair they demanded step down, but wanted Sanders and now this new DNC chair that everyone else labels Socialist and Marxist respectively.

Since they can't agree, they end up with Pelosi.

Just like the GOP, divided over Cruz Tea Party right and Ryan moderates, ended up with Trump!

If you can't agree on your top choice then everyone gets stuck with the second or third choice as a result. This is another reason we should look into representation by party. If everyone ran their own platforms programs and parties internally by their first choice of reps and officers, then we could separate that part of representation where we all differ including splits within parties. And then after that, organize to represent what everyone agrees should be public policy through states or federal govt. It would be like organizing states using parties, that only apply to their own members and leaders, splitting those into caucuses that are the equivalent of counties or cities within states, and also have a national union between parties to work out what should be federal or what belongs to the states or people. And what belongs locally is where people of each state can decide how much to organize by state or by party lines. Instead of taking political beliefs agenda and propaganda and immediately trying to impose that through state or federal govt. Otherwise where we don't agree by party, such as two versions of ACA that could both be equal options to choose from under the same bill, we end up with compromise legislation neither side really wants.

Like Trump when people really wanted Cruz or Sanders, not Trump or Clinton. And not Pelosi unless you are part of the CA type liberals who would rather be under Clinton and old school Dems and still try to make that work. Maybe Clinton and Pelosi, Sanders and Stein can still unite the divided left. What's going on at the top of the ranks, and what the people need and want at the bottom are separate realities but they have to come together and decide how to handle those different class groups within their own constituents. I thought the Right would figure out how to unite first, but the left has so much more work to do on this they might figure it out first to set up a coalition Parliament of the different factions and quit trying to make it one leader fitting all which varies for each faction. They need all leaders and party factors included equally like states in a union, regardless of size, to serve as a Senate in representing all the diverse interests by groups. Not fight for dominance of one party over others, but equal inclusion letting parties represent their own member base like states having both local sovereignty and equal say in national policy without having to compete or control other states in the union. We have both state and federal laws, why can't parties agree where to separate local party platforms by state, from what is national policy that all agree to endorse without forcing agenda against the will and beliefs of others who agree to the same policy of separating political beliefs by party.

Pelosi is in charge because she is a great fundraiser and has connections to many wealthy people.

That's about all she is good for.

How many Syrian immigrants have been placed in San Francisco? Not many, if any.

I can't wait until Pelosi is out of office. She is an awful human being.

Maybe Pelosi can take responsibility for adapting ACA to create the OPTION of single payer for CA and any states or people who agree to be under that, while letting Cruz and Ryan set up an equal OPTION of free market health plans with no Govt mandates for people who haven't committed crimes to lose their liberties and who want free choice of which plans to fund.

The more people divide by party, the more clear it becomes how to separate these ranks. Only the people who can mediate policy between the diverse factions should be in charge of what is federal and public policy. If you can only represent one group while others are protesting you don't represent them, we should listen and divide by those lines so we organize jurisdiction according to which people follow which party lines and leaders, similar to religious denominations and quit trying to impose one as one political religion for the whole nation which doesn't work for obvious reasons.

ColonelAngus

 

[SmokeALib]

Fancy Piglosi will cling to the same policies that helped put Trump in office. Should easily keep Trump through 2024. Thank you leftist clowns, and thank you Fancy.