I didn't have "should've" anywhere in my comment. I think you're responding to the wrong person.
MountingSuspicion
Did you respond to the correct comment? I don't see how your comment follows from the one above.
Damn, if only the Dems had the presidency at some point, potentially between his death and now.
I don't think there a list that says "This is all the bad people I did bad things for", but if there was it should've been released already, and if there's not then this is just theater. They're entitled to theatre, but I'm not really sure what your comment is supposed to imply. Is it implying "look the dems want it released!", because this is the weakest attempt at doing that imaginable. If they wanted it released they had years to figure it out and it would've prevented maga from using it as a rallying point.
Unless it'd be outsourced to a party planner, I can't imagine doing this. It's definitely culture dependent, but part of some core party memories were having seen parents jump through hoops to make the day special. Did they drive to the other end of town to get the special cake you like even though they could have gotten some other cake? Did they remember the specific shade of green you said was your favorite? Did they remember to use your nickname on the cake instead of your full name? I know not all families operate like that, but I had a friend whose mom always decorated their cake. She didn't like doing it, and it was never good, but her mother always did hers and she wanted to keep the tradition alive. It was always so sweet and funny and looking back definitely some of the best parts of their parties. This is obviously very specific, but if you do throw parties for your kids, I struggle to see how you wouldn't want to at least make them feel like you put in the effort.
Yea, it helps if they're not two faced or scummy to begin with so that their private events aren't them admitting to lying about their beliefs etc too. See Romney for a great example of exactly the issue, but honestly it's just a quiet part out loud thing. We all know these are the conversations they're having regardless of how much they pay for the plate.
I didn't take them out of context. He admitted he thinks there are some great candidates that we should support but doesn't have the courage to back the one needing it most, or alternatively he doesn't support him. I didn't imply he dissed mamdani, just that he's a coward for not talking about one of the most watched races in the country at the moment. The DNC is actively not supporting the winner of a dem primary. Pointing that out is not "whingeing". I'm also not saying he's mean. He's either a coward or doesn't care. Possibly both.
I also didn't say she didn't have a chance, I'm saying to a certain extent it doesn't matter (though I always tell people to vote at the bare minimum). What are the dems in congress doing to stop Trump right now? Oh, that's right, at best nothing, and at worst voting for his policies. The same old Dems with the same old policies are not going to stop Trump.
You are clearly having a different conversation than anyone else here because no one was attacking you unless your name is Obama. If you want to be indignant, be so at your faves who apparently can't get anyone to like their policies enough to start a grassroots movement, or better yet at the people pushing this country to the right. Leftist are running candidates and raising money and supporting them getting things done, and if you actually cared about that you'd have something to say about the fact that Dems aren't supporting mamdani instead of acting like pointing this out is somehow a dis.
I was definitely using them mockingly here, but I think he actually did want universal healthcare. Congress fucked us over bad. The ACA is unfortunately a huge step up from what a lot of people had. Plenty still fall through the cracks, but the ACA was largely an improvement for people, especially after the federal penalty was removed so people were no longer fined.
Honestly, I don't care too much about this kind of private fundraising. Do I wish we had a system that was different, yes, but he's not actually running for anything. He's getting money for the party in general. If people wanna pay X to have dinner with Obama, I'm pretty indifferent about it. It's like a rent party for people who have no community, no solidarity, and no sense. I wish they would donate directly to candidates that need the support because I don't trust the DNC to make any decisions, but they probably would not be donating to the people I want anyway.
I think town halls are important though and if a candidate only has time for fundraising and not to listen to their constituents then that's a problem. Unfortunately these kind of fundraising events are the way a lot of Dems get funding since they don't actually inspire people with their platform.
I did read the article. I even quoted it. That absolutely does not address the fact that pouring money into races (which he said needs to be done in the article) is useless if the candidates don't actually help people. The NJ race features a 53 year old who's been an office holder since 2018. She's part of the "New Democrat" caucus who are pro business centrists.
He's calling for more of the same. He's not asking for "hope" or "change". I mentioned NY because that is an example of what the future of the party should actually look like.
"You have great candidates running races right now. Support those candidates,”
So he called out Cuomo by name? No? Who's the coward really? He's out there telling Dems/lefties to get shot in the face by "riot gear" his and his VPs admins put in the hands of police, and he can't even grow enough of a spine to tell Dems to honor their own primaries. What a disgrace. Apparently the protesters and activists are the ones he thinks need to toughen up, because he clearly doesn't think any specific politicians need to.
I just saw a post that mentioned how disabled is one of the only minority groups you can become a member of at any time. It's a good reminder that a lot of people in dire straits may have been in a different position prior to that. I know someone with two kids who got cancer. They didn't have any family and they were unable to continue working. Their life changed completely due to no fault of their own. People get laid off, or their kids get sick and they have increased medical costs AND increased parental duties. I know a nurse who was making good money and was in an accident and became partially paralyzed. She's still willing to work but is not able to get the tools or rehab needed to get to a position to do that. You might be able to argue that they should have all planned better, but no one has the buffer needed for so many things. Some people who were planning on being stay at homes take their kids somewhere safe knowing they can't provide for them in order to shield them from abuse.
I know your comment was about people who have kids while not being able to afford them, I just think it's important to point out that not all parents who are struggling started out that way. That's not to mention the issues of access to sex ed, preventative measures, or social pressures. It's important to remember that very few people actually want to raise kids in environments where they're not provided for.
Two were not in attendance and one was in attendance the day prior and today (the day after). With their votes it would've passed, or at least forced some maneuvering out of more Rs. I think it's important to note that.