The Democratic Party is Falling Apart. Is this the end of the DNC?

Look at the emails that are out there.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) party leaders clearly rigged the system against Bernie.

They not only used his religion against him, but they did it in a way that, if the RNC used the same language would be labelled anti-Semitic.

In 2008 the Democrats held 25 debates. But year there was only six debates because fewer debates favors the front runner!!!

The chairman of the DNC is booed off the stage by her own party and is forced to resign in disgrace.

PBS cameras are showing, and reporters are testifying, that there are more pro-Sanders signs at the Dem's convention than Hillary.

Hillary Clinton's name is booed when it is first mentioned at the convention.

There is new outrage as I write this that the Lamestream Media is not only ignoring the scathing email scandal, but is manipulating the convention audio to soften the booes and chants for Sanders.

The DNC's anointed candidate, Hillary Clinton, is caught red-handed using a very illegal private email server and deleted 33,000 emails in defiance of a subpoena.

Bernie Sanders wimps out and tries to support Hillary, only to be booed by his own supporters. Polls are showing mass defections of Dems willing to vote for Trump out of spite.

In two weeks Hilary's presidential election polls have dropped so much that Trump leads her by almost 20 points.

Calls for unity by the DNC are being interpreted as "Shut up and do as you're told!"

The Dem faithful is now seeing how seething the corruption of their party leaders is, and by Wasserman's own admission fairness was a complete and total sham. Polls are showing Sanders supporters are pledging to vote for Trump out of complete and total spite.

Is this the beginning of the end for the Democratic Party?

 

As long as Democrats promise free stuff to buy votes, they will always have supporters. Look at Bernie Sanders. That 74-year-old wrinkled prune got a whopping 80% of the 18-30 Democrat support in Iowa. Why did he win the youth segment? Maybe because he was promising a free college education to buy their votes? Not many 20-year-olds can identify with someone who is older than their grandfather. But if grandpa is promising free stuff, well, that's different.

 

It comes down the takers versus the makers. There have always been more makers in the U.S. than takers, but the liberals have done everything that they could have over the past 50 years to change this demographic. With the re-election of Obama in 2012, many observers worried that we had reached that tipping point and there were now more takers than makers who re-elected an obviously horrible president just to keep the free stuff flowing. One famous quote is goes something like this: "The end of democracy occurs when the majority realizes that they can take away money and/or assets from the minority." The problem, of course, is that eventually you run out of other people's money you can abscond with and that is why socialism always end up failing or only held together by totalitarianism.

 

Exactly. When you look across society, those dependent on government money generally vote Democrat and those who are not dependent on it generally vote Republican. That is why every "idea" Democrats have is to steal money from those who earn it and give it or steer it to those who did not earn it. That is why Hillary is promising trillions of dollars in "infrastructure" projects to be worked on by union workers with many billions in minority set-asides for wealthy construction company owners and why Bernie Sanders was promising a free college education. Nothing more than vote buying.

Funny thing is that while Obama captured 95% of the black vote, black households have seen the biggest drops in incomes and wealth (now down to almost nothing) under his presidency. And this just furthers the class envy and makes them even more loyal Democrat voters.

 

To be fair, you can't blame some Dem voters based on selfishness, it's a lack of education the Dems exploit. I have met people that were down on their luck, and desperate, but could not find work to keep them afloat. They voted for Bill Clinton for President only because he told them what they wanted to hear. They were so DESPERATE that they voted for anyone that would pretend to throw them a lifeline - remember "I feel your pain"? The Dems learned to take advantage of desperate people.

Contrast that to Ronald Reagan who improved the economy to such a degree that many people classified as "poor" pulled themselves up into the middle class. To the shock of the Dems, these people stopped voting Democrat and became Republicans. To the Dems the lesson was clear - it is a political advantage to tell the poor you will help them do better but not do it. It is political suicide to actually help them do better.

 

The liberals knew this long before Reagan. Think of the 1960's and their ghetto-ization of the black community. They took folks who had a culture of strong core family ties and a solid work ethic and offered them free housing and welfare money only as long as there was no father living with a mother and her children. They instituted a forced culture of broken families which has resulted in the inner city gang culture from which many now feel they have no hope of escape. This was intentional and is why a big portion of the black community remains locked in poverty and misery.

Few people know that the first leader of the KKK was a delegate to the Democratic Convention in the 1800's. They also likely do not know that the KKK faded away decades later until Woodrow Wilson, a noted "progressive" reinvigorated the KKK when he screened a movie lauding the group in the White House. They even do not know that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed because of the Republicans in Congress voting for it. It was the Dixie Democrats who fiercely fought the bill.

The liberals have been able to say one thing and do another because for many decades they have had co-conspirators in the lamestream media and academia. It takes a fair amount of intelligence, experience, and clear-thinking to see past their "big lies."

 

Have you seen the disgusting and fraudulent "lamestream" media hit pieces against Trump? This is one of the worst:

Trump's failed Baja resort fits pattern in candidate's business record

Only at the bottom of the article does the reader get the truth:

So the press creates the impression that Trump is a swindler and finally it is revealed that this isn't Trump's project, that the developer just licensed the Trump name. But most of the readers will think what? That this fits the "pattern" of fraud for Trump. Sadly, most people will not read to the bottom of the article, and if they do, won't do so until after they have formed the opinion the "lamestream" media wants them to form.

And you may notice how none of those rich liberals like Obama or Hillary ever give their own money away. Obviously, they do not oppose the garbage notions of income inequality and wealth inequality because they represent it. And they don't care about anything other than buying votes because if they did, they would give their own money away.

And Trump did not "bankrupt his casino" as Hillary lies about. In fact, he was the one who rescued it from bankruptcy originally according to the Wikipedia article about it. Not mentioned by Hillary is that 3 other casinos closed with more expected to follow because of high union wages and benefits. The unions are bankrupting the casinos, not Donald Trump, who is just a shareholder in the project and does not run the daily operations.

 

The liberal, lamestream press has been a lying, fraudulent organ of the Democratic Party for decades. There are two differences this time: first, there is a small, but growing countercheck to them on the Internet, talk radio, and Fox News. The lamestream press is still stronger, so their lies still work on the low information voters, but not quite as effectively because there are actually groups with voices that can call out their lies. The second difference is Trump, himself, who knows how to strike back at the press and deflect their hysterics and false storylines.

It will be interesting to see if it is enough, this time. There is no way that Obama should have gotten a second term except for Romney's inability to deal with the lying, lamestream press.

 

Democrats have not had two consecutive terms with less than 200 seats in the House since the 1920's.

In the 2018 midterm elections Democrats are defending seats in 10 states that went to Trump, five of those states Trump won by more than 10%.

The Democrats have lost the working class. Obama has ignored them in favor of his friends on Wall Street. Polls have shown the blue collar voters have fled the Democratic party, never to return. They saw Trump as someone who works for a living, just like them, and Hillary as a career politician with nothing to show for it. Democrats were shocked to see that Trump won 53% of white women, 62% of working class white women, and about one-third of Latinos. He won Christians by overwhelming margins.

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

 

You are right in that the leftists are about as weak as they have been politically in a loooong time. However, much like a wounded/cornered animal, they are as dangerous as ever. They would cut off their nose to spite their face right now. When control freaks lose power, they will do ANYTHING to try to keep some or all of it and that includes selling out their own country, burning it down, etc.