Sounds like the Dems might be Weak on Impeachment?

[tomhagen]

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Timing is everything.

It makes sense to wait until Mueller's investigation totally has the goods on him. That's how they got Nixon - they issued articles of impeachment based on the crimes uncovered by the special counsel investigation -
so they didn't even have to impeach him.

[George II]

2. Gosh, Cenk bashing Democrats. What a surprise!

[Snoopy 7]

7. Jenc is right

For proof let’s look at what the new dnc/dcc rules for 2018, and future, if you need their financial help.

1- you can’t criticize your democratic opposition, blue dog democrats, and if you do they will pull your financial backing. But, the blue dog democrats can criticize their democratic opponents all they want since they already have money and don’t need dnc/dcc money

2- dnc/dcc also stipulates that 75% of what they give you has to be spent on TV, even though social media is much cheaper and a lot more effective, therefore the corporate media gets the money instead of the more progressive social media.

The dnc/dcc has decided, like the republicans, they want mana over party so they are going to play ball with the fatcats that will make them rich. People use to say they got into politics to help the people. Now they spend millions to get into an office that pays thousands. Because they know once the fatcats get you in you will get paid to do their bidding.
Don’t get me wrong there are great dems in office it’s just that they are few and don’t have power in the democratic party. Those who hold the reign right now are the corporate blue dogs.

[George II]

8. Where are these "new rules" you're talking about?

[KPN]

11. Here. This doesn't prove anything definitively but does give the DCCC

wiggle room to withhold funding based on "shared values", focusing on "holding Republicans accountable", and not engaging "in tactics that do harm to our chances of winning a General
Election".

Given the stuff that has been perceived to occur in the past, I can see how this agreement template might cause some concerns regarding things like discouraging debate within the party re: values, giving candidates who have and take super PAC backing an edge over grassroot campaigns via the "no "tactics that do harm" clause, etc.; super-PACS can engage in those tactics directly while candidates can't.

Again, nothing definitive, but cause for concern among progressives who eschew corporate and Wall Street campaign contributions. Question is: are the concerns legitimate? I'm inclined to say let's not over-react to this stuff, but the party needs to be aware of the potential concern.

[link:https://mic.com/articles/186648/is-the-democratic-congressional-campaign-committee-stifling-dissent-within-the-party#.Rm29QX3jO|

[lapucelle]

13. I think it's good policy to withhold funding

from candidates who won't "agree not to engage in tactics that do harm to our chances of winning a General
Election."

[KPN]

15. Well, yeah. But the question is really

WHAT causes harm to our chances of winning the GE, and WHO decides that.

There's a lot of gray area.

[lapucelle]

12. I can't find the part

where the DCCC "stipulates that 75% of what they give you has to be spent on TV"

Here's what the document actually says:

The Candidate agrees to have a campaign budget completed six months prior to their primary
and to focus on preserving at least 75% of funds raised for paid communications.

[NNadir]

3. I'm sure when Jill Stein and her running mate Susan Sarandon are elected...

...they'll get it done.

Why doesn't this asshole Cenk stick to being a member of the Matt Lauer misogyny club?

What an ass.

[Cicada]

4. President Trump drives Dems to polls, Pence less so

Of course Trump May start wwiii. Or jail the Pope or something.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. If this is Cenk, please DO NOT DIVIDE Democrats with his garbage.

He did it during the election too.

I'm not watching this because another post title mentioned this is by Cenk.

[lapucelle]

14. He claims to have a source who leaked the document to him.

I wonder who that could be?

[jimlup]

9. Well he's right

but the case may at some point soon become overwhelming

[RussBLib]

10. Dems made a huge mistake by not attempting to impeach Bush II

How many times have I heard from the Dems: "We want to look forward and not backward."

And then the GOP gets back into office and misbehaves even worse than before.

Oops, I said something not totally flattering to the Dems. Does this mean that my post will be removed and I could be banned from the site?

[rwsanders]

17. Even if it had to be done after he was out of office

People forget that there was a democratic majority for the first 2 years of Obamas presidency and they sat on their hands because there wasn't a republican majority in the house or senate to blame for getting nothing done.
So I'll go with you I guess. Especially if a certain someone or 2 finds our posts.

[mcar]

18. I need to get this straight

There was a thread yesterday saying Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein were not in favor of impeachment at this time. They primarily got praise in the thread for being smart and strategic.

A few days earlier,and now here, are threads roundly criticizing Dems for the same stance.

Can you explain? Seems like quite a double standard.