Leaked papers show DCCC criticism of Dems: Too 'pro-police'

This excerpt from the recent DNCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) leaks is a good one.

The DNCC is primarily active with the campaigns of candidates running for Congress.

Looks like the Committee is selective (just like the DNC against Sanders).

This time it's about some candidates being a little too "Conservative" minded.

The anti-police narratives are a large part of the Democrat strategy to make voters think they are anti-police when in fact Democrat run cities are actually heavy with the police activities that many are against.

Classic.


Leaked papers show DCCC criticism of Dems: Too 'pro-police'

New internal documents from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that were leaked Monday reveal that the organization is highly critical of some Democratic candidates for Congress, including one that's too "pro-police" for national party officials.

The documents include notes about electoral demographics, fundraising and similar campaign information, but most notably include criticism of at least two of the party's own candidates going into Florida's Aug. 30 primary election.

In the state's 10th district, for example, where four Democrats are vying to replace Republican Rep. Daniel Webster, the DCCC papers single out one candidate: Bob Poe, who the documents note could be viewed as "anti-black lives matter/pro-police" and as "too conservative among other progressive Democrats."

a reply to: xuenchen

This is even weaker than the last release from "Guccifer" but points to you and the author for using vague language to make it sound like a big deal. There were criticisms of two politicians? One for being too conservative and one for being corrupt. It's possible for one to be pro-police to the detriment of being objective just as it's possible for one to be anti-police to the point of being unreasonable.

What's the big deal here again?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: xuenchen

This is even weaker than the last release from "Guccifer" but points to you and the author for using vague language to make it sound like a big deal. There were criticisms of two politicians? One for being too conservative and one for being corrupt. It's possible for one to be pro-police to the detriment of being objective just as it's possible for one to be anti-police to the point of being unreasonable.

What's the big deal here again?

It suggests a few hundred other candidates are going along with the agenda without question.

And millions of voters will again be hoodwinked.

Especially the ones living in an endless loop of controlled poverty and crime in the big cities all run by you know who.

a reply to: xuenchen

This shows in a strong way the two faced DCCC members.
See the DNC writing the msm news headlines...

What ever happened to the journalists?
I guess they were all bought out?

Another document makes clear that the DCCC doesn't support former Democratic Rep. Joe Garcia in Florida's 26th district. The DCCC suggested that Garcia should be referred to as a "scandal plagued former congressman" whose candidacy serves as "a flashback to a corrupt line of politicians."

Flashback to a corrupt line of politicians,
Like DNC pointing fingers directly at itself.

a reply to: xuenchen

It suggests a few hundred other candidates are going along with the agenda without question.

That's a whole big ball of logic fail there. It doesn't suggest anything except that in two instances, the DCCC were critical of two Democratic candidates.

1. I do think it's ironic that you're implying that the Democrats have an actual anti-corruption agenda. If being corrupt is not "going along with the agenda" then hooray for democracy?

2. They could have been equally critical of any number of other candidates and we simply wouldn't know if those documents weren't also discovered and released. Not that it really matters — these might just be two particularly problematic candidates.

And millions of voters will again be hoodwinked. Especially the ones living in an endless loop of controlled poverty and crime in the big cities all run by you know who.

Blah blah. Seems to me that it's easier for a lot of people to believe BS about an "endless loop of controlled poverty" than it is to come to grips with the reality that in free market capitalism, what is good for business owners is often at odds with what is good for society.

Businesses have been steadily phasing out blue collar workers for 40+ years and social safety net programs have been operating as nothing more than a way of filling the gap between labor supply and labor demand and that this is not a trend that can be simply reversed.

We need a new employment paradigm. You're still regurgitating asinine propaganda from the 70s.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Seems to me that it's easier for a lot of people to believe BS about an "endless loop of controlled poverty" than it is to come to grips with the reality that in free market capitalism, what is good for business owners is often at odds with what is good for society.

Endless loop of controlled poverty you say?

Lifer politician runs on a platform against poverty, pro socialism,
then takes a payoff from the biggest establishment capitalistic
politician ever, and cashes out to buy his third house on Lake Champlain.

Bernie and Clinton ....Laughing all the way to the bank....

We need a new employment paradigm.

The Anti Law and Order directives only play to the
end of creating more crime, which in turn serves the
agenda of the Establishment which needs its "criminals"
for the prison populations. This really does not work
towards the end of encouraging gainful employment....

So the dems are now in favour of anarchy?

Good to know.