Ombres20

And also while i didn't elaborate who says they'd even work in the private sector after that? They can go on to become public college professors, ambassadors, run for other elected office. Even if they go in the private sector, why would you not open your own business after having name recognition

No, just calling public service a career is the failure of society. Careers are for making money and prioritizing yourself, public service is about prioritizing others. You can't do both withput compromizing and i don't want any politician compromizing on the needs of the people.

Yeah because they could magically predict who'd they work for afterwards. Also who said they'd work in the private sector?

Politics should not be seen as a career, ever

I think Talarico would be a great senator and Crocket would be a great AG in the next dem administration

James for senate, Crocket for AG in the next dem administration

Your point?

Actually, I think AG is the perfect position for Crockett. I hope the next dem president considers her

if the president can have term limits why shouldn't congress?

She also hasn't said she wants weapons to Israel to be ended, she also hasn't said she wants medicare for all

Dude, Crockett is running on pure character(fighter). She hasn't said medicare for all, she has said that calling her pro-Israel is lazy but has not said what measures she proposes. As far as talent goes she'd be a great AG but that's not what she's running for

what is she selling? Genuinely asking because I only have one world for her policy positions - vague. she doesn't say whether she's for M4A, the green new deal, ending weapons to israel.

And then the candidate who receives that donation would be unable to run as a democrat, duh

Right now it's the best option we've got because to do it federally involves constitutional changes. And not doing it helps corrupt candidates

Again theory and practice are different thing. The dnc has a relationship to all these organizations so don't tell me there's no influence

Sorry, my mistake. I meant corporate donations. And don't give me excuses. Arizona dems have actually taken steps towards this

And btw do you know how many leftists were killed during the soviet union? Stalinists absolutely hate democratic socialists and anarchists.

Not true! Nothing AOC has advocated for doesn't exist in nordic countries.

What % of congress has a working class background? 16%

As if that doesn't currently exist

Oh and you claim to know? Based on what? What you were taught on paper?

Not to mention that the dnc has the ability to demand that there are no donations during primaries so by not doing that are they not helping corrupt candidates?

No, corporate donors were involved and the dem establishment made their endorsements. If I see donors and establishment figures, why would I not assume the dnc is involved?

But winning them doesn't guarantee laws will be passed. Why? Because there are too many corrupt dems. And if you can't enact change, you lose the midterms and the next elections we're back to democracy being in danger again. I don't feel like repeating what happened during the Biden years again

sorry wrong years, i meant 2032 would be like 2024(assuming dems win in 2028)

I've seen plenty of liberals who sort of are ok with progressive candidates, but would still help out the corrupt candidates. That's the thing, i don't only care about winning elections. The people that win have to govern well otherwise 2028 will be like 2024

Based on what? I will agree Ken Martin is a bit better than his predecessor but what you said basically implies you know what Martin's interests are.

I am not falling for this propaganda. Am i suppose to believe that dems don't have relationships with their donors and can't call them for favors? And how much more disingenuous can you be to pretend that GOP donors and dem donors are different?

one want everyone to have healthcare, everyone to have a living wage, to promote human rights world-wide, humane immigration policies. the other wants to send people to concentration camps, to take away rights from minorities, to help dictators world wide. Where's the similarity?

The Clintons are the trash that destroyed the democratic party

the dnc doesn't endorse on paper. who did the democratic establishment prefer? Him or cuomo? Who did their donors spend against?