Are Major DNC Donors Bailing?

[+DieChecker]

Big money usually wants to back the winner. If the DNC isn't winning anymore, their backing money is going to dry up.

I read an article that the DNC was basically bankrupt in 2016 and it was only the Hillary meda funded PACs that funneled money to them. Now that Hillary has lost, will there even be those mega PACs to donate? 

The Dems are now the Party of ME!, and the Republicans are the Party of the Evangelicals. Who is going to donate more... Church goers, or self absorbed hipsters? If you promote people to be self absorbed don't expect them to hand you money.

Unless the Dems somehow take back the House in 2018, they're in for more funding challenges in the future. 

[Alaric]

On 12/28/2017 at 4:42 PM, Michelle said:

A great deal of them don't even bother to vote, much less donate money.

Yep, their big hero (admittedly) does not vote... and (of course) justifies it as “protest”.

“Colin Kaepernick as 'citizen of the year'? Not quite — good citizens vote”

”Kaepernick, 30, has always rejected voting.”

“That makes his past refusal to stand during the national anthem — he called it a protest against America’s oppression of black people — seem hollow and hypocritical.”

“In this country, public policy is decided through voting. The ballot box is where decision-makers are chosen or canned. It’s called democracy...”

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-skelton-colin-kaepernick-voting-20171120-story,amp.html

[Alaric]

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I read an article that the DNC was basically bankrupt in 2016 and it was only the Hillary meda funded PACs that funneled money to them.

Yep, this was covered in depth by Donna Brazile (and she would know)... it’s how Hillary was able to secure (buy) the Democratic nomination. The agreement was on paper even...

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

“My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”

“Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign—and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

[Alaric]

“Hey Donna, give me the debate questions and I’ll make you DNC Chairwoman... how does that sound?”

Imagine her surprise when she took over and found out it was a hollowed out shell with Hillary behind the curtain!

Isn’t that always the way with those Monkey’s Paw deals with the devil? You get your heart’s desire... only to find out it’s empty and meaningless.

[Alaric]

On 12/28/2017 at 2:56 PM, Taun said:

No organization that holds to one extreme or the other will ever truly appeal to more than the "outliers"... This is basic "6-Sigma statistics" for crying out loud...

The vast majority of people in the world fit in the range called "3-Sigma" (99.73% of the population) in regards to their adherence to their social, political and cultural norms ... That is three "bands" from center... The further your organizations "center" is from the peak of the bell curve the more of the population is outside of the area you "cater to"...

A more centrist policy, or organization will just naturally appeal to more people...

Hasn’t anybody told you? Math is racist...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/06/technology/weapons-of-math-destruction/index.html

[Taun]

1 hour ago, Alaric said:

Hasn’t anybody told you? Math is racist...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/06/technology/weapons-of-math-destruction/index.html

It most definitely IS racist... Human racist...

(no other species is silly enough to worry about fractions, formulae or decimal points)...

[Lilly]

No math and we’d all be huddling around a fire in our caves.

[Alaric]

The DNC would be wise to leave the progressives out of their accounting department. If they follow their own fiscal policy, is it any wonder they’re bankrupt?  Postmodernists that believe math is racist are not much good at keeping the ledgers balanced. My advice: hire a CFO that’s Libertarian/ Conservative with a code of ethics and a belief in a higher power.

[Likely Guy]

6 minutes ago, Alaric said:

...and a belief in a higher power¹⁰.

Fixed that for you.

[.ZZ.]

26 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

Fixed that for you.

I don't get it.

[Likely Guy]

6 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

I don't get it.

'Higher power', to the power of 10. It's a math thing, earlier alluded to.

You have to remember that I'm often vague.

[Taun]

12 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

'Higher power', to the power of 10. It's a math thing, earlier alluded to.

You have to remember that I'm often vague.

Vague... Isn't that a fashion magazine?...

[aztek]

do not call it donations, those are investment into future favors, and now investors do not see dnc in position to be worth investing.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

23 hours ago, Alaric said:

Hasn’t anybody told you? Math is racist...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/06/technology/weapons-of-math-destruction/index.html

“I don’t like what the data shows, therefore it’s racist” Ohh ****ity **** right the **** off.

[Alaric]

My point about the higher power thing being that someone who is (truly) afraid of going to Hell for stealing is a lot less likely to engage in shenanigans than someone who believes everything is morally relative and that we are simply a chance mechanical collection of organic substances that goes back to nothingness at death.

Seems to me that people who subscribe to the latter philosophy would actually cultivate a mindset of getting away with the most shenanigans before they shuffled off the mortal coil... all the while peacocking virtue signals to anyone that pays attention (sound just like Hollywood anyone?). That way, they get to do their dirty deeds as they please, all while suffering the least amount of consequences for their actions... and since death is the cosmic “game over” to them, the one who dies after getting away with the most... wins.

[+Hammerclaw]

Donors are concentrating more on politics at the local level, backing candidates more to their liking. They've come to realize the only way to change the DNC is to start at the base and work their way up.

[Paranormal Panther]

4 hours ago, Alaric said:

My point about the higher power thing being that someone who is (truly) afraid of going to Hell for stealing is a lot less likely to engage in shenanigans than someone who believes everything is morally relative and that we are simply a chance mechanical collection of organic substances that goes back to nothingness at death.

Seems to me that people who subscribe to the latter philosophy would actually cultivate a mindset of getting away with the most shenanigans before they shuffled off the mortal coil... all the while peacocking virtue signals to anyone that pays attention (sound just like Hollywood anyone?). That way, they get to do their dirty deeds as they please, all while suffering the least amount of consequences for their actions... and since death is the cosmic “game over” to them, the one who dies after getting away with the most... wins.

Is a person truly righteous if they need the threat of Hell to do the right thing? Evidently, some people need and/or want the threat in order to control themselves. Positive religion should be more than threatening believers with the boogyman. Fear is a very poor substitution for inner transformation.

[Alaric]

20 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Is a person truly righteous if they need the threat of Hell to do the right thing? Evidently, some people need and/or want the threat in order to control themselves. Positive religion should be more than threatening believers with the boogyman. Fear is a very poor substitution for inner transformation.

Oh I agree, everyone else has a problem with needing negative reenforcement and consequences to act right, but not me

But seriously... right action should be performed because to do otherwise would bring about an undesirable state of being... for yourself and everyone and everything around you.  Wrong actions bring about an undesirable state of being... the consequences of which must be suffered in this life or the next... a lifetime (or lifetimes) of which might have you living in something that could be described as Hell.

... but then I’m a Buddhist and believe that we are undying immortal beings made of energy that currently occupy a corporeal form (as opposed to being physical beings with some sort of mysterious energy associated).

[Alaric]

Here’s a question for you... if right actions didn’t have good consequences and wrong actions have bad ones... how would we know what was right and what was wrong? Everybody accepts that a right action can have some negative consequences... but can a right action have, overall, a net negative effect? Can a wrong action have a net positive effect?

I say we only know what’s right because doing those things will eventually bring about Heaven ... and we know what’s wrong, because doing those things will lead us to Hell. 

Isn’t “righteousness” by definition doing the right thing? If you don’t believe in the concepts of right and wrong (or, by extension, Heaven and Hell)... then you can do what’s expedient or what’s best or what makes the most sense to you... but not what’s  “right” or “wrong”. I don’t think the idea of righteousness can be separated at all from the concept of good and evil.

[Paranormal Panther]

20 hours ago, Alaric said:

Oh I agree, everyone else has a problem with needing negative reenforcement and consequences to act right, but not me

But seriously... right action should be performed because to do otherwise would bring about an undesirable state of being... for yourself and everyone and everything around you.  Wrong actions bring about an undesirable state of being... the consequences of which must be suffered in this life or the next... a lifetime (or lifetimes) of which might have you living in something that could be described as Hell.

... but then I’m a Buddhist and believe that we are undying immortal beings made of energy that currently occupy a corporeal form (as opposed to being physical beings with some sort of mysterious energy associated).

I wouldn't rob or steal if it was legal to do so. I don't need threats of punishment to not do things like that. However, picayune laws are another thing. I definitely drive slower in known speed traps, and I buckle my seatbelt when I see a police car. On the other side of the spectrum, I often run red lights if they're too long. I'm talking about late hours and no traffic at intersections where the red lights lasts four times longer than normal. Of course, I wouldn't do that if a cop was around me. I guess that I need cudgels for minor things but not for major things.

[Paranormal Panther]

18 hours ago, Alaric said:

Here’s a question for you... if right actions didn’t have good consequences and wrong actions have bad ones... how would we know what was right and what was wrong? Everybody accepts that a right action can have some negative consequences... but can a right action have, overall, a net negative effect? Can a wrong action have a net positive effect?

I say we only know what’s right because doing those things will eventually bring about Heaven ... and we know what’s wrong, because doing those things will lead us to Hell. 

Isn’t “righteousness” by definition doing the right thing? If you don’t believe in the concepts of right and wrong (or, by extension, Heaven and Hell)... then you can do what’s expedient or what’s best or what makes the most sense to you... but not what’s  “right” or “wrong”. I don’t think the idea of righteousness can be separated at all from the concept of good and evil.

You answered your own question in your first sentence. I also think that one can believe in right and wrong and not believe in Heaven and Hell. I think that all exist, but I, like all people, don't know the Truth. I'll leave it at that.

[Alaric]

14 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

You answered your own question in your first sentence. I also think that one can believe in right and wrong and not believe in Heaven and Hell. I think that all exist, but I, like all people, don't know the Truth. I'll leave it at that.

Don’t get caught up in thinking that Heaven and Hell are actual places, some sort of mystical planes of existence... they’re states of being. Heaven is what you create when you do good things... Hell is what you create when you do bad things... it’s no more complicated than that.

Think that’s a far out idea? Just so happens the Pope agrees with me...

“For centuries the popular image of the wrath of God has been fire, brimstone, and every imaginable - and unimaginable - horror. The modern teaching of the Catholic church does not refer to hell as a place.”

“And just last week he set the record straight about heaven. Not as a place in the clouds but as a state of eternal union with God.”

http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.173448

[Paranormal Panther]

Just now, Alaric said:

Don’t get caught up in thinking that Heaven and Hell are actual places, some sort of mystical planes of existence... they’re states of being. Heaven is what you create when you do good things... Hell is what you create when you do bad things... it’s no more complicated than that.

Think that’s a far out idea? Just so happens the Pope agrees with me...

“For centuries the popular image of the wrath of God has been fire, brimstone, and every imaginable - and unimaginable - horror. The modern teaching of the Catholic church does not refer to hell as a place.”

“And just last week he set the record straight about heaven. Not as a place in the clouds but as a state of eternal union with God.”

http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.173448

The pope is entitled to his opinion, but it contradicts the opinions of past popes, so there's that. You and I don't really know whether or not Heaven and Hell are real places or mental states, and the pope doesn't, either. We *do* know that many of our present beliefs are shaped by past ideas, many of which are based in mythology. We'll likely know the answers one day, but I don't claim to have all of them now.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, Alaric said:

Don’t get caught up in thinking that Heaven and Hell are actual places, some sort of mystical planes of existence... they’re states of being. Heaven is what you create when you do good things... Hell is what you create when you do bad things... it’s no more complicated than that.

Think that’s a far out idea? Just so happens the Pope agrees with me...

“For centuries the popular image of the wrath of God has been fire, brimstone, and every imaginable - and unimaginable - horror. The modern teaching of the Catholic church does not refer to hell as a place.”

“And just last week he set the record straight about heaven. Not as a place in the clouds but as a state of eternal union with God.”

http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.173448

Which has been doctrine, if not practice, for centuries hell was cold, distant from the warmth of God when Dante was writing his Divine Comedy. It was for pure propaganda reasons that we got a burning hell (the reference used to enforce it being the fiery pit for those who defied God in the Last Fight, but it’s clear that only those who fought against God go there). 

Feankly, if Medival people worked out a way to effectively and repeatedly on command freeze people, we’d never have gotten a burning hell.

[Alaric]

You might be surprised at how progressive Catholics are these days... I watched “Religulous” and it struck me that the only one that had a sense of humor about his religion was the Catholic.

The film was made in 2008, and from the priest’s answer, this had already been the updated doctrine for some time even then. As far as past Popes thinking differently, I’m quite sure the opinions of later pontiffs take precedence over earlier ones. If we can’t take the Pope’s word for it, who then is a more final authority on Heaven and Hell than him?