What Does the Democratic Party Stand for Now? Good Question.

[Disir]

I spent the past week in Philadelphia, in the halls and in the stadium of the Wells Fargo Center, for nearly every hour of the Democratic National Convention. I heard more than a hundred speakers, and spoke to dozens of people in the halls. After four days, I am not certain that I know what, precisely, the Democratic Party wants to be.

For the past two days, I put this question specifically to delegates and staffers, to the people who ought to know: “What, at core, is the Democratic message coming out of this convention?”

I got no shortage of answers.

“Justice for all,” said Chad Lupkes, a Bernie Sanders delegate from Washington state.

“A party of inclusion that addresses the issues that families are struggling with,” said Susan McGrath, a Florida delegate for Hillary Clinton.

Calvin McFadden, a delegate from Massachusetts, suggested “equality and opportunity for all,” a fight “for the middle class.”

“What I’ve heard over and over is a party that brings us together, that doesn’t divide us, that’s a forward looking party of inclusion,” said Seth Hahn, a Sanders supporter from New Jersey.

These answers were not all issued with confidence. The delegates I spoke to paused, backed up, rephrased. In each case, they settled on general virtues: justice, inclusion, progress, the idea that the party was not so much associated with a particular program but with goodness itself, with a progressive sensibility that will, on the whole, produce virtuous outcomes.
What Does the Democratic Party Stand for Now? Good Question.

The answer is nothing. It's intentional.

They stand for nothing. Rubinomics came along and over about a decade the Democrats began to be ran by Wall Street. Now, you don't even have to have an agenda and then you don't have to do anything. Empty rhetoric is what we saw.

 

[Trump.Stamped]

Black criminals and Muslims

 

[Lumpy 1]

I spent the past week in Philadelphia, in the halls and in the stadium of the Wells Fargo Center, for nearly every hour of the Democratic National Convention. I heard more than a hundred speakers, and spoke to dozens of people in the halls. After four days, I am not certain that I know what, precisely, the Democratic Party wants to be.

For the past two days, I put this question specifically to delegates and staffers, to the people who ought to know: “What, at core, is the Democratic message coming out of this convention?”

I got no shortage of answers.

“Justice for all,” said Chad Lupkes, a Bernie Sanders delegate from Washington state.

“A party of inclusion that addresses the issues that families are struggling with,” said Susan McGrath, a Florida delegate for Hillary Clinton.

Calvin McFadden, a delegate from Massachusetts, suggested “equality and opportunity for all,” a fight “for the middle class.”

“What I’ve heard over and over is a party that brings us together, that doesn’t divide us, that’s a forward looking party of inclusion,” said Seth Hahn, a Sanders supporter from New Jersey.

These answers were not all issued with confidence. The delegates I spoke to paused, backed up, rephrased. In each case, they settled on general virtues: justice, inclusion, progress, the idea that the party was not so much associated with a particular program but with goodness itself, with a progressive sensibility that will, on the whole, produce virtuous outcomes.
What Does the Democratic Party Stand for Now? Good Question.

The answer is nothing. It's intentional.

They stand for nothing. Rubinomics came along and over about a decade the Democrats began to be ran by Wall Street. Now, you don't even have to have an agenda and then you don't have to do anything. Empty rhetoric is what we saw.

Thanks for your post...Democrats can't really speak of justice, inclusion, opportunity, equality, honesty, integrity or much else that includes high morals or ethics without being hypocritical.. They are the Party of lies, delusion and corruption etc. as evidenced by their candidate.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Black criminals and Muslims

Criminals, tyrants, terrorists, perverts, illegal aliens, and other degenerate scum. Not decent, law-abiding Americans.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Hillary Clinton on the issues

 

[Tehon]

I spent the past week in Philadelphia, in the halls and in the stadium of the Wells Fargo Center, for nearly every hour of the Democratic National Convention. I heard more than a hundred speakers, and spoke to dozens of people in the halls. After four days, I am not certain that I know what, precisely, the Democratic Party wants to be.

For the past two days, I put this question specifically to delegates and staffers, to the people who ought to know: “What, at core, is the Democratic message coming out of this convention?”

I got no shortage of answers.

“Justice for all,” said Chad Lupkes, a Bernie Sanders delegate from Washington state.

“A party of inclusion that addresses the issues that families are struggling with,” said Susan McGrath, a Florida delegate for Hillary Clinton.

Calvin McFadden, a delegate from Massachusetts, suggested “equality and opportunity for all,” a fight “for the middle class.”

“What I’ve heard over and over is a party that brings us together, that doesn’t divide us, that’s a forward looking party of inclusion,” said Seth Hahn, a Sanders supporter from New Jersey.

These answers were not all issued with confidence. The delegates I spoke to paused, backed up, rephrased. In each case, they settled on general virtues: justice, inclusion, progress, the idea that the party was not so much associated with a particular program but with goodness itself, with a progressive sensibility that will, on the whole, produce virtuous outcomes.
What Does the Democratic Party Stand for Now? Good Question.

The answer is nothing. It's intentional.

They stand for nothing. Rubinomics came along and over about a decade the Democrats began to be ran by Wall Street. Now, you don't even have to have an agenda and then you don't have to do anything. Empty rhetoric is what we saw.

Thanks for your post...Democrats can't really speak of justice, inclusion, opportunity, equality, honesty, integrity or much else that includes high morals or ethics without being hypocritical.. They are the Party of lies, delusion and corruption etc. as evidenced by their candidate.

And yet Clinton was fiscally responsible and republicans hate him. You are the last person who should be lecturing on integrity.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I spent the past week in Philadelphia, in the halls and in the stadium of the Wells Fargo Center, for nearly every hour of the Democratic National Convention. I heard more than a hundred speakers, and spoke to dozens of people in the halls. After four days, I am not certain that I know what, precisely, the Democratic Party wants to be.

For the past two days, I put this question specifically to delegates and staffers, to the people who ought to know: “What, at core, is the Democratic message coming out of this convention?”

I got no shortage of answers.

“Justice for all,” said Chad Lupkes, a Bernie Sanders delegate from Washington state.

“A party of inclusion that addresses the issues that families are struggling with,” said Susan McGrath, a Florida delegate for Hillary Clinton.

Calvin McFadden, a delegate from Massachusetts, suggested “equality and opportunity for all,” a fight “for the middle class.”

“What I’ve heard over and over is a party that brings us together, that doesn’t divide us, that’s a forward looking party of inclusion,” said Seth Hahn, a Sanders supporter from New Jersey.

These answers were not all issued with confidence. The delegates I spoke to paused, backed up, rephrased. In each case, they settled on general virtues: justice, inclusion, progress, the idea that the party was not so much associated with a particular program but with goodness itself, with a progressive sensibility that will, on the whole, produce virtuous outcomes.
What Does the Democratic Party Stand for Now? Good Question.

The answer is nothing. It's intentional.

They stand for nothing. Rubinomics came along and over about a decade the Democrats began to be ran by Wall Street. Now, you don't even have to have an agenda and then you don't have to do anything. Empty rhetoric is what we saw.

Apparently, they will stand for anything and simply walk out. I wonder if we will ever find out what percentage of those occupying the delegate's seats for Hillary's lecture, I meant speech, were actually delegates or paid chair fillers?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Hillary Clinton on the issues

those are hilarious.....things like campus sexual assault...... 3 items.....ok....you find the guy, then what?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I spent the past week in Philadelphia, in the halls and in the stadium of the Wells Fargo Center, for nearly every hour of the Democratic National Convention. I heard more than a hundred speakers, and spoke to dozens of people in the halls. After four days, I am not certain that I know what, precisely, the Democratic Party wants to be.

For the past two days, I put this question specifically to delegates and staffers, to the people who ought to know: “What, at core, is the Democratic message coming out of this convention?”

I got no shortage of answers.

“Justice for all,” said Chad Lupkes, a Bernie Sanders delegate from Washington state.

“A party of inclusion that addresses the issues that families are struggling with,” said Susan McGrath, a Florida delegate for Hillary Clinton.

Calvin McFadden, a delegate from Massachusetts, suggested “equality and opportunity for all,” a fight “for the middle class.”

“What I’ve heard over and over is a party that brings us together, that doesn’t divide us, that’s a forward looking party of inclusion,” said Seth Hahn, a Sanders supporter from New Jersey.

These answers were not all issued with confidence. The delegates I spoke to paused, backed up, rephrased. In each case, they settled on general virtues: justice, inclusion, progress, the idea that the party was not so much associated with a particular program but with goodness itself, with a progressive sensibility that will, on the whole, produce virtuous outcomes.
What Does the Democratic Party Stand for Now? Good Question.

The answer is nothing. It's intentional.

They stand for nothing. Rubinomics came along and over about a decade the Democrats began to be ran by Wall Street. Now, you don't even have to have an agenda and then you don't have to do anything. Empty rhetoric is what we saw.

What a load of shit.

 

[depotoo]

Globalization, just as Angela Merkel. And anyone really wants to know what is up can read this article and also read agenda 21 from the UN.
Merkel Uses the I Word in Pointing Finger at Terrorist Refugees

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And yet Clinton was fiscally responsible and republicans hate him. You are the last person who should be lecturing on integrity.

Does nobody remember the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, when he pursued all sorts of fiscally-reckless, Obamaesque policies, so extreme that even a Congress dominated by Democrats couldn't stomach most of them? In spite of the frightened, frantic efforts of Democratic senators and congresscritters to distance themselves from Clinton's policies, record numbers of them were voted out in the next election cycles, giving control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans for the first time in forty years.

Mr. Clinton spent the remainder of his time in office bending over and caving in to the policies pushed by the now Republican-dominated Congress, and taking credit for the results.

And now, a couple decades later, Democrats still point to the Republican policies that Mr. Clinton no longer had it in him to oppose, and praising Mr. Clinton for the results of these policies rather than giving credit where it is due, to the Republican-dominated Congress.

That's Democratic “integrity” for you.

 

[Tehon]

And yet Clinton was fiscally responsible and republicans hate him. You are the last person who should be lecturing on integrity.

Does nobody remember the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, when he pursued all sorts of fiscally-reckless, Obamaesque policies, so extreme that even a Congress dominated by Democrats couldn't stomach most of them? In spite of the frightened, frantic efforts of Democratic senators and congresscritters to distance themselves from Clinton's policies, record numbers of them were voted out in the next election cycles, giving control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans for the first time in forty years.

Mr. Clinton spent the remainder of his time in office bending over and caving in to the policies pushed by the now Republican-dominated Congress, and taking credit for the results.

And now, a couple decades later, Democrats still point to the Republican policies that Mr. Clinton no longer had it in him to oppose, and praising Mr. Clinton for the results of these policies rather than giving credit where it is due, to the Republican-dominated Congress.

That's Democratic “integrity” for you.

Does nobody remember the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, when he pursued all sorts of fiscally-reckless, Obamaesque policies, so extreme that even a Congress dominated by Democrats couldn't stomach most of them?

Are you speaking of the fiscally reckless '93 Deficit Reduction Act, the one that passed without a single republican vote. The one that the Congressional Budget Office credited with shaving $160,000,000,000 off the deficit that the previous republican administrations had run up.

 

[yiostheoy]

I spent the past week in Philadelphia, in the halls and in the stadium of the Wells Fargo Center, for nearly every hour of the Democratic National Convention. I heard more than a hundred speakers, and spoke to dozens of people in the halls. After four days, I am not certain that I know what, precisely, the Democratic Party wants to be.

For the past two days, I put this question specifically to delegates and staffers, to the people who ought to know: “What, at core, is the Democratic message coming out of this convention?”

I got no shortage of answers.

“Justice for all,” said Chad Lupkes, a Bernie Sanders delegate from Washington state.

“A party of inclusion that addresses the issues that families are struggling with,” said Susan McGrath, a Florida delegate for Hillary Clinton.

Calvin McFadden, a delegate from Massachusetts, suggested “equality and opportunity for all,” a fight “for the middle class.”

“What I’ve heard over and over is a party that brings us together, that doesn’t divide us, that’s a forward looking party of inclusion,” said Seth Hahn, a Sanders supporter from New Jersey.

These answers were not all issued with confidence. The delegates I spoke to paused, backed up, rephrased. In each case, they settled on general virtues: justice, inclusion, progress, the idea that the party was not so much associated with a particular program but with goodness itself, with a progressive sensibility that will, on the whole, produce virtuous outcomes.
What Does the Democratic Party Stand for Now? Good Question.

The answer is nothing. It's intentional.

They stand for nothing. Rubinomics came along and over about a decade the Democrats began to be ran by Wall Street. Now, you don't even have to have an agenda and then you don't have to do anything. Empty rhetoric is what we saw.

The Democrats stand for diversity, tolerance, and coalition building.

And also no more tax cuts for the rich.

And no more tax hikes on the poor and middle class.

Same as always since Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren -- just add the Negroes, LGBT, Mexicans, Asians, Muslims, etc.

 

[yiostheoy]

And yet Clinton was fiscally responsible and republicans hate him. You are the last person who should be lecturing on integrity.

Does nobody remember the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, when he pursued all sorts of fiscally-reckless, Obamaesque policies, so extreme that even a Congress dominated by Democrats couldn't stomach most of them? In spite of the frightened, frantic efforts of Democratic senators and congresscritters to distance themselves from Clinton's policies, record numbers of them were voted out in the next election cycles, giving control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans for the first time in forty years.

Mr. Clinton spent the remainder of his time in office bending over and caving in to the policies pushed by the now Republican-dominated Congress, and taking credit for the results.

And now, a couple decades later, Democrats still point to the Republican policies that Mr. Clinton no longer had it in him to oppose, and praising Mr. Clinton for the results of these policies rather than giving credit where it is due, to the Republican-dominated Congress.

That's Democratic “integrity” for you.

Does nobody remember the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency, when he pursued all sorts of fiscally-reckless, Obamaesque policies, so extreme that even a Congress dominated by Democrats couldn't stomach most of them?

Are you speaking of the fiscally reckless '93 Deficit Reduction Act, the one that passed without a single republican vote. The one that the Congressional Budget Office credited with shaving $160,000,000,000 off the deficit that the previous republican administrations had run up.

You probably don't remember that Clinton (Bill) is the only president who had budget surpluses.

 

[yiostheoy]

So I was able to weed out a bunch more spam bots with this thread and put them on the ignore list.

 

[owebo]

Destruction of America....

 

[BluesLegend]

Well Obama is pushing TPP in spite of what Dems told their drones at the convention. Now that the drones have been programmed Dems will quietly to back to the status quo.

 

[BluesLegend]

I spent the past week in Philadelphia, in the halls and in the stadium of the Wells Fargo Center, for nearly every hour of the Democratic National Convention. I heard more than a hundred speakers, and spoke to dozens of people in the halls. After four days, I am not certain that I know what, precisely, the Democratic Party wants to be.

For the past two days, I put this question specifically to delegates and staffers, to the people who ought to know: “What, at core, is the Democratic message coming out of this convention?”

I got no shortage of answers.

“Justice for all,” said Chad Lupkes, a Bernie Sanders delegate from Washington state.

“A party of inclusion that addresses the issues that families are struggling with,” said Susan McGrath, a Florida delegate for Hillary Clinton.

Calvin McFadden, a delegate from Massachusetts, suggested “equality and opportunity for all,” a fight “for the middle class.”

“What I’ve heard over and over is a party that brings us together, that doesn’t divide us, that’s a forward looking party of inclusion,” said Seth Hahn, a Sanders supporter from New Jersey.

These answers were not all issued with confidence. The delegates I spoke to paused, backed up, rephrased. In each case, they settled on general virtues: justice, inclusion, progress, the idea that the party was not so much associated with a particular program but with goodness itself, with a progressive sensibility that will, on the whole, produce virtuous outcomes.
What Does the Democratic Party Stand for Now? Good Question.

The answer is nothing. It's intentional.

They stand for nothing. Rubinomics came along and over about a decade the Democrats began to be ran by Wall Street. Now, you don't even have to have an agenda and then you don't have to do anything. Empty rhetoric is what we saw.

The Democrats stand for diversity, tolerance, and coalition building.

And also no more tax cuts for the rich.

And no more tax hikes on the poor and middle class.

Same as always since Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren -- just add the Negroes, LGBT, Mexicans, Asians, Muslims, etc.

Well they have owned the White House for the last 8 years, when exactly are they planning to do something?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You probably don't remember that Clinton (Bill) is the only president who had budget surpluses.

Yes, of course, I remember. But that didn't happen until after the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in 1994, and Bill Clinton just rolled over and let Congress set policy, while he took credit for the results.

I also remember many of his policies from his first two years, many of which even the Democrat-dominated Congress wouldn't go along with. Extreme wrongist policies, very much in line with those that Obama would try to put forth sixteen years later. I particularly remember some of his creative ideas for new taxes. He wanted a European-style Value-Added Tax, for one thing. Even the Democratic-controlled Congress wouldn't touch that, nor would they touch his proposed “BTU tax”[/b]—a tax on fuels and energy sources relative to their energy content. He put Hillary in charge of a plan for government to take over the medical industry. I remember that as one of the things that Republicans made great hay over, in the 1994 campaign.

One thing he did get passed was his crime pork bill, mostly stuffed with ridiculous spending on ill-thought-out programs with little or no connection to any plausible effort to address crime. It also contained his fraudulent “assault weapon” ban. He later admitted that he thought it was this one bill, and probably the “assault weapon” ban within it, that was the biggest reason for the Democrats losing control of Congress, and Republicans gaining full control of Congress for the first time in forty years.

When Bill Clinton was actively pursuing his own policies, the results were disastrous. The successful policies during his time in office came from the Republican-controlled Congress, and his lack of will to oppose them.

 

[yiostheoy]

I spent the past week in Philadelphia, in the halls and in the stadium of the Wells Fargo Center, for nearly every hour of the Democratic National Convention. I heard more than a hundred speakers, and spoke to dozens of people in the halls. After four days, I am not certain that I know what, precisely, the Democratic Party wants to be.

For the past two days, I put this question specifically to delegates and staffers, to the people who ought to know: “What, at core, is the Democratic message coming out of this convention?”

I got no shortage of answers.

“Justice for all,” said Chad Lupkes, a Bernie Sanders delegate from Washington state.

“A party of inclusion that addresses the issues that families are struggling with,” said Susan McGrath, a Florida delegate for Hillary Clinton.

Calvin McFadden, a delegate from Massachusetts, suggested “equality and opportunity for all,” a fight “for the middle class.”

“What I’ve heard over and over is a party that brings us together, that doesn’t divide us, that’s a forward looking party of inclusion,” said Seth Hahn, a Sanders supporter from New Jersey.

These answers were not all issued with confidence. The delegates I spoke to paused, backed up, rephrased. In each case, they settled on general virtues: justice, inclusion, progress, the idea that the party was not so much associated with a particular program but with goodness itself, with a progressive sensibility that will, on the whole, produce virtuous outcomes.
What Does the Democratic Party Stand for Now? Good Question.

The answer is nothing. It's intentional.

They stand for nothing. Rubinomics came along and over about a decade the Democrats began to be ran by Wall Street. Now, you don't even have to have an agenda and then you don't have to do anything. Empty rhetoric is what we saw.

The Democrats stand for diversity, tolerance, and coalition building.

And also no more tax cuts for the rich.

And no more tax hikes on the poor and middle class.

Same as always since Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren -- just add the Negroes, LGBT, Mexicans, Asians, Muslims, etc.

Well they have owned the White House for the last 8 years, when exactly are they planning to do something?

Get real.

ACA was accomplished while Obama, Pelosi, and Reid owned the Government.

After Boehner took over nothing got done.

So go figure.

I predict Hillary, Pelosi, and Durbin will own it again starting in January when the new Congress takes over.

Then Hillary will have 2 years to do whatever she wants -- replace Scalia and Ginsberg -- pass a Federal assault weapons ban again -- tax hikes on corporations shipping jobs and profits overseas -- etc. She listed her action items.

 

[yiostheoy]

Well Obama is pushing TPP in spite of what Dems told their drones at the convention. Now that the drones have been programmed Dems will quietly to back to the status quo.

I don't think either party likes TPP anymore.

But it does not matter what the GOP thinks.

They will shortly be history for at least the next 2 years.

The DNC convention showed that.