DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Democrat lying through his teeth for a house seat

But you are hoping they see things Bernie's way and so do I.

Republicans will then rule for the next 20 years.

Move Left young man! Keep moving Left Dems!

Careful what you wish for 40...

I heard two women (both fairly liberal and very close to politics, one was a White House reporter) on the radio yesterday debating the effectiveness of Obama.. not as a President but for the democratic party.. both seemed to think that during his 8 years, he did a horrible job of raising up the next set of leaders in the party and that he was far more concerned about himself and his personal legacy than the democratic party continuing to succeed. It was almost like this natural thought that Hillary would just slide in and assume that role.. a role she really seemed to want a lot more than Obama did, to grow the democratic party...

Curious what my friends on the left think.. and you can blast those thoughts and take exception if you like, just know they were not my thoughts.. I can honestly say I had never thought about it, but when they discussed it they made a pretty compelling case...

It was part of a larger conversation that both parties are actually somewhat "leaderless" at the moment.. Trump is, kind of by default, the leader of the republican party but he doesn't have the broad appeal that you would want that leader to have and as soon as he doesn't sit in that chair any more, whenever that is, he will immediately cease to be the leader of the republican party... so who is the next leader?

In response to the overall point of leadership.

I often wonder if people actually know what leadership is, who and what is effective leadership, and how it pertains to the overall progression of society.

Whatever, he did what he could for the party. It can be spun anyway anyone wants to now. I'm pretty sure he just had enough with the obstructionist party and their do nothing congress that he was very happy to move on.

I'm not sure it's the job of a president of either party to be responsible to grow a party. It would seem to me that their job is to lead the country. I think being the president would be a full time job and that putting country over party should be your priority.

I think the liberals you heard are just frustrated than nobody stepped up to fill the void that Obama left when he fulfilled his terms. It was after all the Democratic voters who nominated Hillary. It was the Democratic party who favored Hillary. Sounds like sour grapes to me now that they're looking to blame anyone and anything for their failure.

Like what? I mean, do you actually know or are you just kind of blindly jumping to Obama's defense? Or do you plan to do a quick Google search to try to come up with something?


Of course.. anything that Obama might have done less than perfect obviously couldn't have been his fault.. it had to be the Republicans fault..

I'm curious about the name of the reporters. To me they sound like classic Clintonites. I don't think HRC has ever done anything to expand the democratic party voting base. I think she has historically only cared about her legacy in the world. I would also say that the Democrats base is very small. They think it's large because people live in the city happen to vote democrat and they see a lot of people in the city and just assume that popularity carries. When it doesn't. Quite frankly I don't I don't think Obama wins if he isn't black. Democrats wished they could get that turnout from minorities, but don't do anything for them. It's no surprise that they keynote speaker of the DNC during Obama's years were Julian Castro. Again DNC playing ID politics. While the DNC has a proactive message to minorities, I don't see a lot of political moves that could help minorities. It's no surprise that they didn't turn out for HRC like they did Obama.

HRC is trying to expand the party, but in the wrong way. She's trying to recruit more globalists to lead (Ossoff, Jim Webb, O'Malley), this time from the Conservative isle than the liberal isle. She did try to expand the DNC base and it cost her the election. She tried to flip Nevada, Georgia and Arizona and ignored the real democratic base in the midwest. I could see how someone could say she tried to grow the base, because she did. But like many things HRC tries she fails. Mainly due to her own hubris. Anyway, that's my thoughts.

I'll take a shot at this. Personal take:

I'm not certain it is ever any POTUS' responsibility to "raise up the next set of leaders" while serving at 1600. In fact, I don't recall any of our presidents doing much for their parties' 'new talent while in office. I already take issue, because I think her initial premise is flawed.

As far as O himself is concerned: I think he's keenly concerned with his legacy, but I'm not convinced that his tenure as POTUS was for burnishing his personal image at the expense of party. I think he mainly stuck to doing the job because that was more than enough.

I'm from that 'division of labor' camp when it comes to subjects like these. It's the RNC's and DNC's job to develop talent, and the talent's job to perform in office. So I'd come at it from this POV/premise: what will 44's role be now that 1600 is in his rear-view mirror? To me, THAT would be when to start measuring.

My guess is that after a significant vacation from daily public eye, he'll return to what he truly enjoyed: community organizing. The difference: I think this time, he'll choose the D party as his community. Just a guess, but I don't think he's done just because he's out of public office. His first initiative is already public record: to energize organize youth to become more involved in the political process.



I agree with that. Both are reaching the end of their respective generational incarnations. It shouldn't surprise me, tho- McConnell and Pelosi are of the same vintage, and both parties have a big donut hole in their ranks.

GOP suffers because their 'youth' element came in as Tea Party outsiders, which blew up the training machine they'd had in place since the Early 80's. Dems have been fractured for at least 8-10, but it only came to widespread public light when Berniefolk refused to get behind HRC in 2016. So Dems' hole comes from NOT HAVING A FARM SYSTEM AT ALL.

Both have some serious navel contemplation in their futures. IMHO, it's good for both parties to feel a little taste of urgency. John Q is still restless, and nothing's been resolved since our 'peaceful transfer of power.'

In both cases, I think "the next leader" won't be one person from each party. I think it will be a small cadre of young, like-minded talent with a message tailored for the realities of the 2020's. Most likely, we don't yet know their names.

Part of this problem for both parties is actually a bigger issue for the country as a whole. The first 2 decades of the 21st c has been spent floundering, looking for a set of guiding principles to rally behind. The kind of principles that can sustain and unite a generation or two down a path that winds in a general direction. Since Y2K, we haven't really found that direction. This country is in a very real state of 'existential flux' right now- and that's never a good place to be stuck.

Sometimes I wish I'd become more politically aware/active earlier. I was too busy trying to feed myself and pay off the mortgage to look up from my personal grindstone. If I had, maybe I'd have taken a different path. I love complex problems that require creative, multi-faceted solutions. But then, I think again and say:

"Yep. I chose right the first time."

I don't understand why it's any president's responsibility to do good for the party.

Them doing a good or bad job for the COUNTRY ends up reflecting on the party itself. And obama did right by the country. His responsibility is to the American people. IMO, that's on congress and the DNC/RNC if they aren't molding future leaders. Presidents don't have time for all that. Same thing with Trump. It's not his responsibility to mold future republican leaders.

It's why I said before that clearly nobody wants to challenge: a lot of people in this country have no idea what leadership is, or how to be an effective leader.

I posted my first thought when I saw this thread pop up, but today, I have to say, Trump lied at every turn and for what reason? To become the President.

Which is worse?

Never said that but two can play that game.


Of course.. anything that Trump will do less than perfect obviously won't be his fault.. it will be the Dem's fault..

Dems? There are Dems in Washington?

Oh yea, they are the ones who swore to oppose Trump and the Republicans "Tooth and Nail".
Then they took their ball and went home.

Why do we pay them, anyway?

No, Trump has done a lot that is his fault.

Lawsuit seeks to void Georgia congressional election results


ATLANTA — Georgia's electronic touchscreen voting system is so riddled with problems that the results of the most expensive House race in U.S. history should be tossed out and a new election held, according to a lawsuit filed by a government watchdog group and six Georgia voters.
The lawsuit was filed Monday in Fulton County Superior Court by the Colorado-based Coalition for Good Governance and voters who are members of the group. It seeks to overturn the results of the June 20 runoff election between Republican Karen Handel and Democrat Jon Ossoff in Georgia's 6th Congressional District. Handel was declared the winner with 52 percent of the vote to Ossoff's 48.



The named defendants include Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, members of the State Election Board, local election officials in Fulton, Cobb and DeKalb counties and the Center for Election Systems at Kennesaw State University.
The lawsuit claims Georgia's touchscreen voting system has severe security problems, lacks verifiable paper ballots and cannot be legally used for elections.
A judge in June threw out a related lawsuit earlier that attempted to force Georgia to use paper ballots.

The new lawsuit comes weeks after the publication of a classified National Security Agency report describing a sophisticated scheme, allegedly by Russian military intelligence, to infiltrate local U.S. elections systems using phishing emails.

The suit cites the work of private cybersecurity researcher Logan Lamb, who discovered last August that a misconfigured server had left Georgia's 6.7 million voter records and other sensitive files exposed to hackers. The complaint also notes that seven months after Lamb made that discovery, another researcher was able to do the same.

A spokeswoman for Kemp did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday. But in a column Sunday in USA Today, Kemp blamed the news media for developing "false narratives about Russian hacking and potential vulnerabilities in the system. The prevailing plot line is that states like Georgia can't provide suitable security for elections."

Kemp asserted that states are doing enough to keep elections secure, and he said, "Anything to the contrary is fake news."
Marilyn Marks, executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance, said the lawsuit was filed hours ahead of a deadline at midnight Monday to contest the election. She says the group does election integrity work in multiple states.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lawsuit-seeks-to-void-georgia-

Same old tired excuse....it's the Russians!

I have no doubt if they held the election over again, the Democrats would pump in tens of millions of dollars and the Republican would win by and even larger margin than the first time.

Like Trump said, "You will beg me, please Mr.President, we are tired of winning".