Get Ya Wig Split
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 2,585
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Interesing times ahead
US Politics
- Thread starter RabzonKhan
- Start date
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
It is quite interesting to note that throughout during his campaign, Trump had criticized Obamacare and had promised to repeal and replace it on his first day in office. Well, it’s crystal clear that all the promises he made during the campaign were FAKE, since it’s been over a month now and it doesn’t look like Trump administration even has a plan to replace it, sad!
Fake news? What about Trump’s fake promises?
BY MIKE PURDY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 02/25/17
After one month in office, President Donald Trump is still experiencing a steep learning curve, as he discovers that the business of governing is far more complicated than campaigning.
There are strong indications that the president has not yet made the transition away from campaigning into acting presidential. On Feb. 18, he delivered his standard campaign stump speech to a crowd of 9,000 adoring fans in Florida. And the president continues to tweet “policy” pronouncements along with vitriolic attacks at all hours of the day — just like he did during the campaign.
Campaign mode enables a candidate to tear down and attack everything and everyone. Once in office, though, a president must proactively produce thoughtful results — not just blame others by whining that “I inherited a mess.”
As Mario Cuomo once said “You campaign in poetry; you govern in prose.” But for Donald Trump, who is not known as a details guy, the details of governing that are part and parcel of the presidency has been somewhat of a shock to him. Of course, the Trump administration has been a shock to many Americans.
For all of President Trump’s dangerous and unsubstantiated attacks on the “dishonest media” for promoting “fake news,” it’s ironic that he has produced one fake deadline after another for his promise to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
His repeal schedule appears to be more bluster than strategy and seems to shift almost daily. Of course, one reason it has shifted so often is because — despite Trump’s branding of the Affordable Care Act as a “total disaster” — he and the Republican Party can’t agree on the details of a replacement plan that will still protect Americans’ healthcare coverage.
Let’s examine Donald Trump’s shifting ObamaCare repeal and replace schedule.
As a candidate, Trump’s website stated that “on day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare.” Fake schedule — perhaps excusable as mere campaign poetry.
Just before the election, Trump proclaimed in Philadelphia on Nov. 1 that “When we win on Nov. 8 and elect a Republican Congress, we will be able to immediately repeal and replace Obamacare. We have to do it.” He continued by declaring that “I will ask Congress to convene a special session so we can repeal and replace” ObamaCare. Fake schedule — and Congress would already be in session.
On Jan. 10, before his inauguration, the president-elect pontificated that there would be a repeal vote “probably sometime next week” and that a replacement of ObamaCare would occur “very quickly or simultaneously, very shortly thereafter.” Fake schedule and a misleading statement.
The next day, the president-elect held a press conference in which he changed the schedule yet again.
This time he tied the introduction of the repeal and replace legislation to the Senate’s approval of Tom Price as his secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. "We're going to be submitting,” Trump said, “as soon as he [Price] is approved, we'll almost simultaneously — shortly thereafter — have a plan. It will be repeal and replace. It will be simultaneously."
Price was confirmed on Feb. 10. Another fake schedule with no sign of actual legislation on the horizon.
In an interview on Jan. 14, the president-elect again said he was waiting for Price’s confirmation, but that the legislation for repeal and replace was essentially done. “It’s very much formulated down to the final strokes. We haven’t put it in quite yet but we’re going to be doing it soon,” Trump said. Fake.
In a Feb. 5 interview on Fox News with Bill O’Reilly, the president backed off from his earlier optimistic schedule and statements that the legislation to repeal and replace ObamaCare was essentially written. He stated that “It statutorily takes a while to get. We’re going to be putting it in fairly soon. I think that yes, I would like to say by the end of the year — at least the rudiments — but we should have something within the year and the following year.”
Just weeks earlier, he’d indicated the legislation was already “formulated down to the final strokes.” But now the schedule had apparently slipped by up to a year. Another fake schedule.
Finally, on Feb. 18, the president noted at a campaign-style rally in Florida that "We are going to be submitting in a couple of weeks a great healthcare plan that's going to take the place of the disaster known as ObamaCare." In less than two weeks, the schedule had shifted from being a year out to being ready in a couple of weeks.
It remains to be seen whether he meets his latest deadline or if it just one more fake schedule based on the president’s wishful thinking rather than on a deliberate plan and strategy. It also remains to be seen whether the replacement legislation to ObamaCare honors his commitment in his November victory speech in which he declared that “I will be president for all Americans.”
The common thread in all of Donald Trump’s schedule announcements about the repeal and replacement of ObamaCare is the use of simple words: immediately, quickly, soon, in a couple of weeks. These and other simple words are a hallmark of his rhetoric.
All new presidents have a steep learning curve. But, to be effective, President Trump must recognize that he is an apprentice — more so than any previous man who has ever assumed the office of the presidency — and he must apply himself to understanding the subtleties of complicated issues. He must pivot from being a bombastic campaigner to doing the challenging, intellectual work of governing based on facts and not gut impulses.
Perhaps hardest of all for this president, who generally speaks only using very simple words, he must realize that words make a difference in articulating and explaining policies, and that governing is far more nuanced than reciting poetry.
Cheers!
Fake news? What about Trump’s fake promises?
BY MIKE PURDY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 02/25/17
After one month in office, President Donald Trump is still experiencing a steep learning curve, as he discovers that the business of governing is far more complicated than campaigning.
There are strong indications that the president has not yet made the transition away from campaigning into acting presidential. On Feb. 18, he delivered his standard campaign stump speech to a crowd of 9,000 adoring fans in Florida. And the president continues to tweet “policy” pronouncements along with vitriolic attacks at all hours of the day — just like he did during the campaign.
Campaign mode enables a candidate to tear down and attack everything and everyone. Once in office, though, a president must proactively produce thoughtful results — not just blame others by whining that “I inherited a mess.”
As Mario Cuomo once said “You campaign in poetry; you govern in prose.” But for Donald Trump, who is not known as a details guy, the details of governing that are part and parcel of the presidency has been somewhat of a shock to him. Of course, the Trump administration has been a shock to many Americans.
For all of President Trump’s dangerous and unsubstantiated attacks on the “dishonest media” for promoting “fake news,” it’s ironic that he has produced one fake deadline after another for his promise to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
His repeal schedule appears to be more bluster than strategy and seems to shift almost daily. Of course, one reason it has shifted so often is because — despite Trump’s branding of the Affordable Care Act as a “total disaster” — he and the Republican Party can’t agree on the details of a replacement plan that will still protect Americans’ healthcare coverage.
Let’s examine Donald Trump’s shifting ObamaCare repeal and replace schedule.
As a candidate, Trump’s website stated that “on day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare.” Fake schedule — perhaps excusable as mere campaign poetry.
Just before the election, Trump proclaimed in Philadelphia on Nov. 1 that “When we win on Nov. 8 and elect a Republican Congress, we will be able to immediately repeal and replace Obamacare. We have to do it.” He continued by declaring that “I will ask Congress to convene a special session so we can repeal and replace” ObamaCare. Fake schedule — and Congress would already be in session.
On Jan. 10, before his inauguration, the president-elect pontificated that there would be a repeal vote “probably sometime next week” and that a replacement of ObamaCare would occur “very quickly or simultaneously, very shortly thereafter.” Fake schedule and a misleading statement.
The next day, the president-elect held a press conference in which he changed the schedule yet again.
This time he tied the introduction of the repeal and replace legislation to the Senate’s approval of Tom Price as his secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. "We're going to be submitting,” Trump said, “as soon as he [Price] is approved, we'll almost simultaneously — shortly thereafter — have a plan. It will be repeal and replace. It will be simultaneously."
Price was confirmed on Feb. 10. Another fake schedule with no sign of actual legislation on the horizon.
In an interview on Jan. 14, the president-elect again said he was waiting for Price’s confirmation, but that the legislation for repeal and replace was essentially done. “It’s very much formulated down to the final strokes. We haven’t put it in quite yet but we’re going to be doing it soon,” Trump said. Fake.
In a Feb. 5 interview on Fox News with Bill O’Reilly, the president backed off from his earlier optimistic schedule and statements that the legislation to repeal and replace ObamaCare was essentially written. He stated that “It statutorily takes a while to get. We’re going to be putting it in fairly soon. I think that yes, I would like to say by the end of the year — at least the rudiments — but we should have something within the year and the following year.”
Just weeks earlier, he’d indicated the legislation was already “formulated down to the final strokes.” But now the schedule had apparently slipped by up to a year. Another fake schedule.
Finally, on Feb. 18, the president noted at a campaign-style rally in Florida that "We are going to be submitting in a couple of weeks a great healthcare plan that's going to take the place of the disaster known as ObamaCare." In less than two weeks, the schedule had shifted from being a year out to being ready in a couple of weeks.
It remains to be seen whether he meets his latest deadline or if it just one more fake schedule based on the president’s wishful thinking rather than on a deliberate plan and strategy. It also remains to be seen whether the replacement legislation to ObamaCare honors his commitment in his November victory speech in which he declared that “I will be president for all Americans.”
The common thread in all of Donald Trump’s schedule announcements about the repeal and replacement of ObamaCare is the use of simple words: immediately, quickly, soon, in a couple of weeks. These and other simple words are a hallmark of his rhetoric.
All new presidents have a steep learning curve. But, to be effective, President Trump must recognize that he is an apprentice — more so than any previous man who has ever assumed the office of the presidency — and he must apply himself to understanding the subtleties of complicated issues. He must pivot from being a bombastic campaigner to doing the challenging, intellectual work of governing based on facts and not gut impulses.
Perhaps hardest of all for this president, who generally speaks only using very simple words, he must realize that words make a difference in articulating and explaining policies, and that governing is far more nuanced than reciting poetry.
No doubt, he’s a walking talking disaster. It is nice to see that you have become quite active, keep up the good work, my friend.
Cheers!
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Sen. Bernie just burned Trump.
He reminding Pres. Trump that the rally already happened at his inauguration and it was far smaller than Pres. Obama’s. Super!
He reminding Pres. Trump that the rally already happened at his inauguration and it was far smaller than Pres. Obama’s. Super!
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
I think Democratic party made the right choice.
Tom Perez elected as first Latino leader of Democratic Party
By David Weigel February 25 20017
ATLANTA — Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez was elected as the first Latino chair of the Democratic National Committee on Saturday, defeating Rep. Keith Ellison at a contentious party meeting in Atlanta.
“With hard work and a hell of a lot of organizing, we will turn this party around,” Perez said before he had locked up enough votes to win 235 to 200 votes on a second ballot. Read more
Tom Perez elected as first Latino leader of Democratic Party
By David Weigel February 25 20017
ATLANTA — Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez was elected as the first Latino chair of the Democratic National Committee on Saturday, defeating Rep. Keith Ellison at a contentious party meeting in Atlanta.
“With hard work and a hell of a lot of organizing, we will turn this party around,” Perez said before he had locked up enough votes to win 235 to 200 votes on a second ballot. Read more
LA se Karachi
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,672
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
I don't. It seems like the Democratic Party still hasn't learned its lessons....
Keith Ellison would have been the first Muslim head of the Democratic Party (though that's not why I supported him, obviously).
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
I’m not a Democrat my friend, it’s your party and you should know better, but don’t you think Keith Ellison was little controversial figure, he used to work for black-racist Louis Farrakhan, who called Judaism as a “gutter religion”, and never misses an opportunity to demonize whites.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Perez appoints Ellison deputy DNC chair
BY JESSE BYRNES - 02/25/17
Tom Perez used his first motion as chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Saturday to appoint his top rival for the position, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), as deputy chair of the DNC.
"I would like to begin by making a motion, it is a motion that I have discussed with a good friend, and his name is Keith Ellison," Perez said during his acceptance speech, announcing the appointment.
"Did I hear a second?" asked Perez, the former Labor secretary during the Obama administration.
"Second!" the DNC audience shouted.
Ellison and Perez embraced. When Ellison took to the mic, he congratulated Perez for "successfully passing his first motion" and called on his supporters to back the new DNC chairman.
“We don’t have the luxury to walk out of this room divided,” Ellison said during his speech. “If we waste even a moment of going at it over who supported who, we are not going to be standing up for those people." Read more
LA se Karachi
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,672
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
That is an outright lie. Most of his district is White too. Where are you getting this from?
Louis Farrakhan said those things, not Keith Ellison.
"CNN's KFile reviewed Ellison's past writings and public statements during the late 1980s through the 1990s, which revealed his decade-long involvement in the Nation of Islam. However, none of the records reviewed found examples of Ellison making any anti-Semitic comments himself, and Ellison disavowed his early comments in 2006 after it became an issue during his run for Congress."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/politics/kfile-keith-ellison-nation-of-islam/
Here's what Keith Ellison himself said about Farrakhan in a letter he wrote to the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota & the Dakotas in 2006:
"I wrongly dismissed concerns that they [Farrakhan's remarks] were anti-Semitic. They were and are anti-Semitic and I should have come to that conclusion earlier than I did."
"I have long since distanced myself from and rejected the Nation of Islam due to its propagation of bigoted and anti-Semitic ideas and statements, as well as other issues. I have a deep and personal aversion to anti-Semitism regardless of its source, and I reject and condemn the anti-Semitic statements and actions of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, and Khalid Muhammed."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3Ds-8NoJgE1TkhUOVpKbE1lam9hbjJYdm8xb0pEcmZrSnN3/preview
Many Jewish Leaders endorsed him too:
"Some 300 Jewish community leaders have signed a letter in support of Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., who is running to serve as head of the Democratic National Committee.
About 100 rabbis are among the signatories, most of them noted liberals, to the letter that was issued ahead of the DNC-sponsored regional candidate forum in Phoenix on Saturday. The letter states that it is not an endorsement of Ellison for DNC chair, but rather “a call to reject the unfair and baseless accusations some have leveled at him.”
http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/300-Jewish-leaders-sign-letter-supporting-Rep-Keith-Ellison-478580
So did Chuck Schumer, the Jewish (and very pro-Israel, establishment Democratic) Minority Leader of the Senate.
Also, remember Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who said things like this?
"The government gives them [African Americans] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
"After September 11, 2001, he said: "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4443788&page=1
Here's how the Obama campaign responded at the time:
"In a statement to ABCNews.com, Obama's press spokesman Bill Burton said, "Sen. Obama has said repeatedly that personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they're offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church. Sen. Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees. But now that he is retired, that doesn't detract from Sen. Obama's affection for Rev. Wright or his appreciation for the good works he has done."
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4443788&page=1
Do you think Obama was so "controversial" too?
F-22Raptor
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2014
- Messages
- 16,980
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
I'd like nothing more than to see Trump succeed as our President, but when he and his administration lie to the American people almost on a daily basis and this Trump-Russia connection gets dirtier by the day, it's hard to.
An he needs to drop the "fake news" and "enemy of the American people" crap, because it's stupid as all hell. It's only fake to Donald because his massive ego can't take the heat, and everyone except his worshippers know it.
Hopefully we won't have to listen to another campaign speech on Tuesday night when he addresses Congress.
cloud4000
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2015
- Messages
- 4,862
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
Keith Ellison is perceived to be anti-Israel and pro-Palestinean , which caused a lot of consternation for some Democrats. Law Professor Alan Dershowitz threatened to leave the Democrats if he was chosen. In fact, the progressive wing of the Democrats, led by Bernie Sanders, are considered anti-Israel...actually anti-Zionist.
Interesting how even among Democratic circles there are splits along racial and s religious lines.
LA se Karachi
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,672
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
That wasn't the main the issue here. It was more about the establishment vs. the younger (under 55) and more progressive, economically-focused wing of the party that supported Bernie Sanders in the primary (younger people, rural voters, independents, the working and middle class, etc.).
Keith Ellison endorsed Bernie Sanders in the primary, and shared a similar outlook on the issues and the future of the party. Tom Perez supports the TTP, for example (Ellison does not).
So, who cares?
Less pro-Israel, yes. However, both Keith Ellison and Bernie Sanders have declared Hamas to be a terrorist organization, and called it the biggest obstacle to peace in the conflict. Look up some videos of Bernie Sanders. They are just also very insistent on a Palestinian state too, and don't overlook Israel constant settlement-bulding.
Also, Chuck Schumer (along with many Jewish leaders) endorsing Ellison over Perez was a pretty big deal. He is the second most powerful Democrat in Washington now, and an experienced establishment (and less liberal) figure from New York City who is Jewish himself and very pro-Israel.
I'm not quite sure what this means. Democrats are pretty united, ideologically:
A bit more united than Republicans, in fact:
http://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/5-views-of-parties-positions-on-issues-ideologies/
Polls have also consistently shown ethnic minorities (all of them) to be significantly more liberal than the population as a whole. If you are referring to the Democratic Primary, the biggest dividing factor by far was age, not race. The average age of a Sanders supporter was about 45. While the average Clinton supporter was well into their 60s. Age was the single biggest predictor of how someone would vote.
As for religious division in the Democratic Party, there isn't much of one. Even with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the dividing factor is again age.
F-22Raptor
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2014
- Messages
- 16,980
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Check out Trump and his administrations "First 100 Lies."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-administration-lies-100_us_58ac7a0fe4b02a1e7dac3ca6
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-administration-lies-100_us_58ac7a0fe4b02a1e7dac3ca6
cloud4000
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2015
- Messages
- 4,862
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
That wasn't the main the issue here. It was more about the establishment vs. the younger (under 55) and more progressive, economically-focused wing of the party that supported Bernie Sanders in the primary (younger people, rural voters, independents, the working and middle class, etc.).
Keith Ellison endorsed Bernie Sanders in the primary, and shared a similar outlook on the issues and the future of the party. Tom Perez supports the TTP, for example (Ellison does not).
So, who cares?
Less pro-Israel, yes. However, both Keith Ellison and Bernie Sanders have declared Hamas to be a terrorist organization, and called it the biggest obstacle to peace in the conflict. Look up some videos of Bernie Sanders. They are just also very insistent on a Palestinian state too, and don't overlook Israel constant settlement-bulding.
Also, Chuck Schumer (along with many Jewish leaders) endorsing Ellison over Perez was a pretty big deal. He is the second most powerful Democrat in Washington now, and an experienced establishment (and less liberal) figure from New York City who is Jewish himself and very pro-Israel.
I'm not quite sure what this means. Democrats are pretty united, ideologically:
A bit more united than Republicans, in fact:
http://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/5-views-of-parties-positions-on-issues-ideologies/
Polls have also consistently shown ethnic minorities (all of them) to be significantly more liberal than the population as a whole. If you are referring to the Democratic Primary, the biggest dividing factor by far was age, not race. The average age of a Sanders supporter was about 45. While the average Clinton supporter was well into their 60s. Age was the single biggest predictor of how someone would vote.
As for religious division in the Democratic Party, there isn't much of one. Even with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the dividing factor is again age.
You make good points, as usual. You are so much smarter than I am.
You are right that the Israel-Palestinian issue was not the main issue, but it was a litmus test for some. This is the reason I raised the name of Alan Dershowitz, who represents many who want the Democrats to be clearly pro-Israel. I think this could be a contributing, but not decisive, factor in Perez being chosen instead of Ellison.
As for the Democrats being ideologically united, I don't know given what we've saw in 2016 elections, from primary to general election. Sanders' and Clinton's supporters were really fighting it out and many Sanders voted to stay home than vote for Clinton. I personally think there are deeper issues within the Democratic Party.
The election of Perez says to me that the party is, for the moment, in the hands of Clinton supporters, but their hold is tenuous, at best. Unless the make advances in mid-term elections, I believe Perez will fall and Ellison will be given the chance. That Perez is head of DNC and Ellison as deputy, will show a united front, but there will be plenty of friction behind the scenes, especially on certain policy issues.
I may be wrong. Nevertheless, I'm old enough to remember that Democrats were controlled by progressives, especially during the 1980s. But the fall of communism, and the discrediting of socialism, the Clintons made the Democrats lurch to the right with pro-business, pro-trade policies. Now we are seeing a lurch back to the left.
LA se Karachi
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,672
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
You made me blush
. I wouldn't say I'm smarter than you. Just more knowledgeable about US politics, perhaps. I think you're one of the smarter people on this forum.Well, you are right that there is a bit of disagreement within the Democratic Party on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Younger Democrats tend to be more "pro-Palestine", and older Democrats tend to be more "pro-Israel". However, even among older Democrats, there has been a noticeable shift on the issue as it becomes increasingly clear that Israel isn't really interested in a two state solution.
As for the DNC race, it was a minor factor. But both the narrative, and the maneuvering behind the scenes, suggested that this was an establishment vs. grassroots contest.
Well, you're absolutely right about that. Note the North-South divide in the primary (Green=Sanders, Gold=Clinton):
As for the issues, there is mostly agreement. However, the problem seems to be one of emphasis. The "Sanders-wing" of the party is focused most on economic issues, strongly emphasizing income growth for the middle and working classes. This movement has proven very popular with political independents, Midwesterners, Westerners, swing voters, younger votes, working-class whites, and less political voters.
It's no coincidence that Hillary performed worst in the areas that Bernie performed best in during the primaries. This platform gives the party the most support. Both for President, and down-ballot.
Correct. If Democrats do not emphasize economic issues enough (and take the right positions), or do not do an effective enough of a job of communicating their message, they will not be able to fully utilize the political gift that is Trump.
Correct, the changing economic situation that began in the 1980s has resulted in a shift in the political outlook on economic issues by many Americans.
This is what happened:
And this is how people feel about it:
Minimum wage increase:
The path of victory for the Democratic Party is very clear, but they have to choose it.
