Democracy Held Hostage
The DNC's hostile funding tactics.
Written by TJ Hyland - December 11, 2020
An email hit my inbox this morning titled, “bad news (re. Electoral College),” but when I opened it up, it read more like a threat, telling me I had better take action now! It’s from the DNC. I always read these to see what tactics they’re using on the sheeple these days. This one is about abolishing the electoral college, and it reads, “This is a hard email to write. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and John Oliver. Everyone warned you… But we’re about to miss our major $15,000 fundraising deadline for the Abolish the Electoral College Fund. And sadly, we just checked… Progressive donations are PLUMMETING!!! If we CAN’T raise the remaining $9,391 for our Abolish the Electoral College Fund, then we will HAND Republicans a HUGE victory. REMEMBER: Republicans NEED the Electoral College to win…”
The email goes on to beg for $5 from everyone who reads the email, and I wonder how many people rush to donate $5 immediately? Because what runs through my mind isn’t taking action to donate a penny. What runs through my mind is a rage that stirs the blood. How dare they?
Whitehouse.gov reported that there are more than half-a-million homeless people in the U.S. who need their representation. There are 17 people out of every 10,000 - homeless. I think about the small northern California town I came from with a population of 60,000 people. That’s 102 homeless people for that one town alone. Childrensrights.org reported that well over half a million kids (over 670K) spent time in Foster Care in 2019, and they need their representation. In July 2020, Forbes reported more than 30 million eligible workers were unemployed during the pandemic, and they need their representation. In total, for these groups alone, we’re talking about more than 32 million people in the United States of America that are not represented by the people who govern them––at all. And now you want to tell us that you’re not going to help the other 81.2 million people who voted blue in 2020 either?
If the Republicans NEED the Electoral College to win, that means the Democrats NEED to abolish the Electoral College to have a fighting chance. So, let me get this straight––if we don’t HAND over more money that we don’t have during a pandemic, they will HAND the Republicans a victory? You can’t bleed a rock! Where’s the stimulus check that without so many people are suffering? Send me the stimulus – I would gladly hand back $20 from it. Why are the American people being extorted for more money? The DNC is holding valuable legislation hostage that will protect the future of democracy for our children until we give them more money. Why are they withholding stimulus funds and sending out emails equivalent to them standing there with a handout begging for money? But worse, they’ve targeted registered Democrats who already donate to them and vote for them because they believe in the cause. They’re now experiencing this hostage situation for all legislation as the DNC holds the proverbial gun to the head of their democracy and screams––if you don’t give us more money, you’re forcing our hand. Don’t make us do it––we’ll kill your democracy!
DNC – If you don’t Abolish the Electoral College, that’s on you. We, the people, will remember your choice. Refusing to act is your choice. We, the people, will remember you cared more about money than representing our interests. The people elected you to represent the people, and if you’re refusing to do that with the money we allocated for you to DO YOUR JOB and instead choose to hold legislation hostage until we give you more money you don’t need, that’s your choice. Just like any other hostage situation, you’re choosing to extort the people. The people aren’t forcing you to do anything, and we will #NEVERFORGET.
References:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/The-State-of-Homelessness-in-America.pdf
https://www.childrensrights.org/newsroom/fact-sheets/foster-care/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2020/07/24/30-million-are-unemployed-and-more-pain-is-on-the-way-here-are-8-numbers-that-sum-up-the-destruction-in-the-us-labor-market/
About the Creator
SNROCINUTAF
Anti-Authoritarian Making Gandhi Sound Like Rush Limbaugh
Keep reading
More stories from SNROCINUTAF and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
The Saddest Thing - The Billionaires Who Rule America Aren't Even Enjoying Themselves
This single post says more about our ruling class than a thousand policy papers. The saddest thing about today's system is that the men robbing the rest of us - sabotaging our economic prospects, our pensions, our access to affordable healthcare - are not even happy.
By Scott Christenson🌴23 days ago in The Swamp
Minister Josh Simons Resigns After Labour Together Claims: A Political Shockwave in British Politics
British politics has once again been thrown into turbulence following the sudden resignation of Minister Josh Simons. The announcement came after controversy surrounding claims linked to Labour Together, a prominent think tank associated with the Labour Party. The development has ignited debate across political circles, raising questions about transparency, influence, and the relationship between political organizations and government officials. Simons’ departure marks another moment of intense scrutiny for modern politics in the United Kingdom. As details continue to emerge, the story highlights the fragile balance between political power, public trust, and accountability. This article explores the background of Josh Simons, the claims that led to his resignation, the response from political leaders, and what this event may mean for the future of the Labour Party and British politics more broadly. Who Is Josh Simons? Josh Simons has been considered one of the rising intellectual voices within Labour politics. Known for his policy expertise and strategic thinking, Simons built a reputation as a policy adviser before entering government. His career has been closely tied to progressive policy development, economic reform ideas, and modernizing the Labour Party’s political message. Before his ministerial role, Simons was involved in policy think tanks and advisory circles that helped shape Labour’s political platform. Many observers believed he represented a new generation of Labour leadership—one focused on practical policy solutions rather than traditional ideological battles. Because of this reputation, his resignation has surprised many political analysts. Understanding Labour Together At the center of the controversy is Labour Together, a think tank that has played an important role in shaping the modern direction of Labour Party policy. Labour Together has been known for providing research, political strategy, and policy proposals designed to help Labour remain competitive in national elections. The organization has worked with a range of Labour politicians and advisers, often serving as a hub for policy discussions. However, the relationship between think tanks and political office holders has long been controversial. Critics argue that such organizations can create blurred lines between independent policy work and political influence. Supporters, on the other hand, say think tanks are essential to developing effective policy ideas and ensuring governments have access to expert analysis. The claims involving Labour Together have therefore raised questions about where those boundaries should lie. The Claims That Sparked the Crisis Reports suggest that allegations connected to Labour Together created a conflict that placed Simons under significant political pressure. While the exact details remain under investigation, the controversy reportedly centers on concerns regarding transparency, political connections, and potential conflicts of interest. Opposition figures and political commentators began asking whether Simons’ relationship with Labour Together could raise ethical concerns for someone holding a government position. Although no criminal wrongdoing has been alleged, the situation quickly became politically sensitive. In modern politics, perception can often be as damaging as proven misconduct. As scrutiny intensified, calls grew for clarification and accountability. Political Pressure Mounts As media coverage expanded, pressure began to build from multiple directions. Opposition parties demanded explanations about the relationship between Labour officials and policy organizations. Questions were also raised in political discussions and public commentary about whether stronger ethical guidelines were needed. Political analysts noted that such controversies can escalate rapidly in the digital age. Social media discussions amplified the story, bringing national attention to an issue that might once have remained confined to policy circles. Within Westminster, discussions reportedly took place about how the situation might affect the credibility of the government. Ultimately, Simons chose to step down from his ministerial role. The Decision to Resign Resignations in politics often follow a familiar pattern: mounting scrutiny, intense media attention, and growing pressure from both supporters and critics. In this case, Simons’ resignation appears to have been aimed at preventing the controversy from distracting the government’s broader policy agenda. Political leaders sometimes step down not because wrongdoing has been proven, but because ongoing controversy risks undermining public confidence. By resigning, Simons may have hoped to allow investigations or discussions about the matter to proceed without his position becoming a constant political battleground. Reactions From the Labour Party The Labour Party’s leadership responded quickly to the resignation. Party officials emphasized the importance of maintaining public trust and transparency in government. Statements suggested that the resignation should allow attention to remain focused on the government’s policy priorities rather than internal controversy. Supporters of Simons have argued that his policy contributions should not be overshadowed by political disputes. Others within the party have acknowledged that public confidence requires strict ethical standards and clear boundaries between political roles and external organizations. The balance between loyalty to colleagues and accountability to voters remains a constant challenge for political parties. Opposition Criticism Opposition parties have used the controversy to question Labour’s leadership and political judgment. Critics argue that the episode raises broader questions about transparency and the influence of policy organizations within government decision-making. Opposition leaders have called for clearer rules governing relationships between think tanks, advisers, and political officials. In parliamentary debates and media interviews, critics have suggested that stronger oversight mechanisms may be needed to prevent similar controversies in the future. Such debates reflect an ongoing concern in many democracies: how to ensure political decision-making remains transparent and accountable. Public Reaction and Media Coverage Public reaction to the resignation has been mixed. Some commentators view the situation as another example of modern politics becoming increasingly sensitive to ethical concerns. Others see it as evidence that political figures are being held to higher standards of accountability. Media coverage has focused not only on Simons’ resignation but also on the broader issue of how think tanks interact with political power. In the age of 24-hour news cycles and social media, political controversies can escalate quickly, shaping public perceptions before all facts are fully known. The Simons case illustrates how rapidly political narratives can evolve. The Role of Think Tanks in Modern Politics The controversy has also reignited debate about the role of think tanks in democratic systems. Think tanks often serve as important sources of policy research and analysis. They help governments explore new ideas, evaluate complex problems, and design long-term strategies. However, critics warn that close connections between think tanks and political figures can create the appearance of insider influence. Many democracies have introduced rules requiring greater transparency around funding, affiliations, and advisory roles. The Simons controversy may lead to renewed calls for similar measures in the United Kingdom. Implications for the Labour Government For the Labour government, the resignation comes at a politically sensitive time. Governments depend heavily on public confidence and stable leadership teams. Even minor controversies can disrupt policy momentum and shift attention away from legislative priorities. Labour leaders will likely focus on reinforcing ethical guidelines and demonstrating that transparency remains a priority. Maintaining political stability while addressing public concerns will be an important test for the party. The Future of Josh Simons Despite his resignation, many observers believe Simons’ political career may not necessarily be over. Political history includes many examples of figures who stepped down during controversy but later returned to public life. Simons’ policy expertise and reputation among some Labour supporters could allow him to continue contributing to political debate, even outside formal government roles. Whether he eventually returns to frontline politics may depend on how the controversy is ultimately viewed by the public and political leaders. A Broader Lesson About Political Accountability The resignation highlights a broader theme in modern politics: the increasing demand for accountability. Voters today expect greater transparency from political leaders than ever before. Ethical standards, financial disclosures, and clear boundaries between public roles and private organizations are becoming central to political credibility. Even situations that involve no legal wrongdoing can create significant political consequences if public trust is questioned. This evolving expectation is reshaping how governments operate. Conclusion: A Political Moment With Lasting Impact The resignation of Minister Josh Simons following claims connected to Labour Together represents more than just a personal political setback. It reflects the ongoing challenges faced by modern governments in maintaining transparency, credibility, and public trust. While the full impact of the controversy remains uncertain, the episode serves as a reminder that political accountability extends beyond legal definitions of wrongdoing. In democratic societies, perception, ethics, and public confidence play equally powerful roles. For the Labour Party, the priority now will be restoring focus on policy and governance. For observers of British politics, the situation offers another example of how quickly political fortunes can shift in an era defined by intense scrutiny and constant public attention.
By Zahid Hussaina day ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.