Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

4,101 to 4,150 of 4,260 << first < prev | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Eric Trump: Democrats aren't people

Wow...literal, explicit dehumanization. That seems to be a new low for U.S. politics.

I don't really think so, I mean, to say about people who might be white, it's a little unusual (but by no means groundbreaking for leadership of the republican party), usually that sort of rhetoric is reserved for people of color.


CBDunkerson wrote:

Kansas Republicans finally turned against Brownback's disastrous 'experiment' with supply side economics. They over-rode his veto and reinstated previous tax provisions.

Problem is... nothing Brownback did was at all out of line with GOP 'orthodoxy' on the economy.

Its Trumps plan for the entire country. Things be looking down.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:


Wow...literal, explicit dehumanization. That seems to be a new low for U.S. politics.

Its an old low that they're trying to go back to, thats the problem..


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not meaning to sound rude, but wasn't this thread about discussing the future of the Democratic Party? I feel things have gotten just a bit derailed, honestly.

There's nothing constructive about complaining about an immutable fact, as in who is president, when it would be more prudent to look towards the future and figure out how next election cycle is not a repeat of the last. That was, I think, the point of this thread, right?

If people want to vent about Trump and company, it should probably be on a separate thread. I was interested in seeing some groundbreaking hypotheses, but found much less than I imagined to due the venting. While I understand the sentiment, it's neither relevant to the thread's purpose, nor is it really different from the attitude that allowed Trump to win last time. You have to give people a reason to vote for you, not against someone else.

Quite honestly, Trump won not because of the usual claims of 'Trump rallied all the bigots to his cause', which is more than a bit misleading, but because his opponent could not rally enough people to her cause. Many people thought she had a massive disconnect with the voter base because she would say things like 'the economy really isn't bad' and laying white guilt on thick. Trump, as much as I don't like to admit, at least acknowledged that a pretty sizeable portion of white people are poor as dirt too. Rather than also recognizing that, Clinton just began bashing Trump for 'saying minorities don't have it bar's, a false equivalency. Things like this caused many who would normally be in favor of a Democratic candidate simply not vote.

I myself did not vote at all in the election because neither candidate had a strong connection to reality, a sense of moral integrity, or a genuine plan that I could get behind. Before the accusation that people like me are simply part of the problem, such as I saw earlier in the thread, surface, let me just say that voting your conscience is not inherently wrong. It seems especially tone deaf when some of the same people were angry because no Republicans voted against Trump due to moral reasons. Saying you can't vote your conscience if your are a Democrat, but Republicans shouldn't have voted for Trump because of sexist jokes is just hypocritical.

Again, hope I didn't sound too rude, but I just feel that there is nothing to be gained from complaining about the current administration. Instead, people should start coming up with new, innovative strategies that would cause people to flock to their cause. Nothing is ever gained from crying over spilt milk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squeakmaan wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Eric Trump: Democrats aren't people

Wow...literal, explicit dehumanization. That seems to be a new low for U.S. politics.
I don't really think so, I mean, to say about people who might be white, it's a little unusual (but by no means groundbreaking for leadership of the republican party), usually that sort of rhetoric is reserved for people of color.

Yeah. Only really reprehensible people say that sort of thing, not a president's adult kid. Scary.

Go to 0:45


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hannibull rektor wrote:
There's nothing constructive about complaining about an immutable fact, as in who is president

Perfectly mutable fact, technically mutable now, not incomprehensibly mutable with a better congress, and muting it in 4 years is.. gasp. the entire goal of the democratic party for the foreseeable future.

Quote:
I myself did not vote at all in the election because neither candidate had a strong connection to reality

I have no idea how to fix the enormous golden mean fallacy that is churning out this result.

Quote:
Saying you can't vote your conscience if your are a Democrat, but Republicans shouldn't have voted for Trump because of sexist jokes is just hypocritical.

Not in the least. There is no way that a working conscience returns any result other than "holy cow we need to keep trump out of the white house" or values some platonic association with voting for a candidate over the very real harm their opposition is going to do.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Apology From Gianforte
Greg Gianforte, the incoming Montana Rep., has apologized for his "assault" on Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs on the eve of the election, and donated $50,000 to the Committee to Protect Journalists. He still faces a misdemeanor assault charge.
From his statement: "My physical response to your legitimate question was unprofessional, unacceptable, and unlawful... notwithstanding anyone's statements to the contrary, you did not initiate any physical contact with me, and I had no right to assault you.
<snip>"
I had no right to respond the way I did to your legitimate question about healthcare policy. You were doing your job.

A straight up apology, and a donation of $50,000 to a Journalist Freedom association.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A whack job ALEC Republican taking responsibility for his crime. Rare as hen's teeth.

I've gone from hating his guts to hating his guts 1% less.


BigNorseWolf, I may not have been as clear as I should have been, but I will address your points.

The fact that Donald Trump is president is, barring some sort of impeachment which is unlikely to happen, something that cannot be changed. Hence it is immutable. There is the opportunity to oust him in 4 years, but that changes nothing about the reality of the situation now. That's my point: this thread is about the FUTURE of the Democratic Party. How do you build a better future? By complaining about the present situation that you are powerless to change? Or by making sure that, next time around, things are different by coming up with a better plan?

Choosing to state that neither candidate had a strong connection to reality is not a prime example of the Golden Mean Fallacy at all. I never stated the degree to which each presidential candidate was divorced from reality. Quite honestly, a case could be made either way depending on what evidence is taken as gospel and which is ignored as propaganda.

The notion of a working conscience forcing an individual to pick one candidate assumes much. First, it assumes that there is a set moral standard that a conscience abides by. Second, it implies that each portion of that moral standard are all weighed the same by everyone, that all priorities are the exact same in each conscience. And third, it implies that the individual making the determination is 100% correct. To say that a person does not have a working conscience just because they did not vote is a logical fallacy and is a bit presumptuous, honestly.

This is just proving my point more about the thread derail. Instead of working towards a real solution, we are just throwing out insults and logical fallacies. Nothing is ever gained from doing this.

Ask yourselves this: what is it that can actually be done to make the future different than the present? What exactly can we gain by complaining about the present? And, most importantly, are we being intellectually honest in examining our strategies?

An example of what we should discuss is, perhaps controversially, how to be more inclusive. In recent years, our party has been slowly edging out poor white voters, Christians of all stripes, and men. Yes, I know that statement probably makes some people facepalm, but just take a moment to examine it. Despite popular belief, there is nothing inherently wrong with being white, being a male, or being a Christian. Yet a lot of what you hear from our side is the bashing of each of these things. How can we not expect people from these groups to turn away if all we do is demonize them and behave as if they have some secret evil villain volcano lair they meet in weekly to sip cognac and figure out how to screw everyone over? In a country where at least 50% of the population is white (no citation), over 75% of the country is some denomination of Christian (2007 survey, unlikely to have changed recently), and likely 40%-ish men, why are we choosing to bash on those groups? It is not logical in the slightest.

Another example of something to discuss would be our general politics. Our party is split between several groups: Neoliberals, Soft Socialists, Hard Socialists, Communists, Blue Dog Democrats, Alt-Left Democrats, Center Lefts, and, oddly enough, Anarchists... among others. How do we unify these groups and form a more coherent ideology? How do we not devolve into bickering between all of our factions? We are split on so much ideology that we cannot get much done in many cases. Transgender bathrooms are one example, with parts the party variously saying that there should be: transgender-only bathrooms, the ability for transgender people to use the bathroom of their preference, and, in some cases, forcing them to use the bathroom of the gender on their birth certificate.

These are things that are constructive to discuss. By coming up with ways to form a more cohesive, palatable party and making the decision to put forth candidates for more than their token value, there might be some actual progress towards our goals.

Or we can all just ignore that there were some problems in the last cycle and in some of our policies in general and just get facerolled next election when the Republicans choose to put out someone who is a better candidate. If that's what the plan is, I will exclude myself from that.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Sanders it putting together an "institute". Not sure if it's the base for a new party

The Sanders Institute
The mission of the Sanders Institute is to revitalize democracy by actively engaging individuals, organizations, and the media in the pursuit of progressive solutions to economic, environmental, racial, and social justice issues.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hannibull Rektor wrote:
Quite honestly, a case could be made either way depending on what evidence is taken as gospel and which is ignored as propaganda.

No. They cannot. This is lunacy. This is the golden mean fallacy writ large. This is so far removed from reality that I cannot garner any hope of changing your mind.

Clinton: in the complicated interaction of the economy (as a whole) the economy (for individuals), race and economics made some statements that seem to come down too much on race and not on economics.

Trump: Global warming is a myth, the economy will be fine if we give all the money to the rich, trickle down economics works amazingly well, all every problem needs is better negotiation because there are no difficult underlying issues, healthcare is simple, making beds at NYMA taught him more military than the generals, he has a secret plan to defeat isis, and a born billionaire who made a career out of losing other peoples money is a great person to handle the economy.

Those are the same? Seriously?

You are too far from reality for anything anyone DOES to matter to your actions. There is no point in trying to appeal to you through facts, reason, or evidence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wouldn't it be more fair to say that for some people both candidates based some kind of political or moral threshold that made them in their opinion undeserving of their vote? So it doesn't really matter if Trump is objectively worse than Clinton because she's already in the red as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Delightful wrote:
Wouldn't it be more fair to say that for some people both candidates based some kind of political or moral threshold that made them in their opinion undeserving of their vote? So it doesn't really matter if Trump is objectively worse than Clinton because she's already in the red as well.

Yes, it was said far up thread that the election was a contest between the most unpopular nominee in the history of US elections against the second-most unpopular nominee in the history of US elections.

Pretty sure Cthulu wasn't on the ballot anyway :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As Delightful states above, BigNorseWolf, they both cross a threshold of idiocy that makes them both unworthy of a vote. What you are saying makes about as much sense as the Republican concept of voting for Trump because they believed Hillary Clinton was worse. Were you okay with that logic during the campaign trail? If not, then why is it different here? Double standards are a dangerous thing to start applying to logical arguments. A bad candidate is still a bad candidate, no matter what degree. Reinforcing the notion that these candidates are worthy of a vote is just basically saying 'give me more bad candidates'.

You also took a reductionist approach to all of the things Hillary Clinton has said over the years in your comparison. You may not agree with the interpretations of what she has said, but you cannot deny that there is a bit more than her just making some inaccurate, slightly racist statements about economics.

In the end, this is the type of thinking that is causing problems. One cannot say 'let's fix this because' without getting a kneejerk reaction of 'you must be illogical/Hitler/a lizard person out to destroy the fabric of society'.

Why is it so difficult to admit that maybe we did some things wrong? That maybe we need to unify more as a party? Or that we need to actually have a better strategy than 'oh that guy is ___, don't vote for him'?

In the end, digging yourself into an ideological trench changes nothing. It may be the easy route, because it keeps the human ego intact, but is it the right way to go about things? Are we more worried about feeling better about making questionable choices or about resolving to make better ones down the road?

In the end, this conversation is a microcosm of what is going wrong in our party. We would rather bicker and argue with each other than work towards something better. We would rather sit on our lofty, imaginary thrones and say that everyone that does not believe as we do are illogical, immoral deplorables than try to honestly sway them to our side. And, worst of all, we would rather embrace intellectual dishonesty rather than examine our own double standards and methodology that our detractors use against us. And yes, we do have double standards in our party. Republicans do as well, but for all we bash them for hypocrisy, we do it too.

Sovereign Court

Got some ideas how to reconcile folks under the banner Hannibul?


You mean uniting Democrats into a more cohesive party or trying to get Republicans to swap party lines, Pan? The suggestions I have for both are vastly different.


Quark Blast wrote:


Yes, it was said far up thread that the election was a contest between the most unpopular nominee in the history of US elections against the second-most unpopular nominee in the history of US elections.

And the most unpopular nominee won. Must be like golf...


As far as reaching Republicans at this point I would say there is 30% that are down right unreachable. Fortunately we need considerably less that that.

I don't know I feel like if we got out and voted and got rid of this gerrymandering BS we would be in better shape.

Sovereign Court

What about the electoral collage? Gerrymandering will remove some of the really insane republican strongholds, make elections more competitive, make 2018 a bit better, but the democrats still need to win the electoral collage. That's been problematic.


well I'm opposed to that as well, but one step at a time I suppose.


Does it make any difference? Is any Republican different from any Democrat? Trump has mostly blown hot air. The rich get richer regardless. The system is geared to protect their wealth, which dis-invests the rest from that system. Do the climate accords make any difference? The agreements were actually vague future promises. Surely, the real issue is constant population growth, coupled with constantly increasing use of energy. I can't see any truthful model predicting anything except massive correction and die-back. Technological innovation and minor policy tweaks will do little except push the break-point back a bit. I don't see modern society as capable of any massive course-correction, except after such a die-back and probably not then.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
parsimony wrote:
Does it make any difference? Is any Republican different from any Democrat? Trump has mostly blown hot air. The rich get richer regardless. The system is geared to protect their wealth, which dis-invests the rest from that system. Do the climate accords make any difference? The agreements were actually vague future promises. Surely, the real issue is constant population growth, coupled with constantly increasing use of energy. I can't see any truthful model predicting anything except massive correction and die-back. Technological innovation and minor policy tweaks will do little except push the break-point back a bit. I don't see modern society as capable of any massive course-correction, except after such a die-back and probably not then.

Well I guess we will all just give up and die then. no point in trying anything. were all doomed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's the end of the world


Vidmaster7 wrote:
parsimony wrote:
Does it make any difference? Is any Republican different from any Democrat? Trump has mostly blown hot air. The rich get richer regardless. The system is geared to protect their wealth, which dis-invests the rest from that system. Do the climate accords make any difference? The agreements were actually vague future promises. Surely, the real issue is constant population growth, coupled with constantly increasing use of energy. I can't see any truthful model predicting anything except massive correction and die-back. Technological innovation and minor policy tweaks will do little except push the break-point back a bit. I don't see modern society as capable of any massive course-correction, except after such a die-back and probably not then.
Well I guess we will all just give up and die then. no point in trying anything. were all doomed.

I know right. Trying is like, a lot of work, best to just give up and relax. I mean, by the time climate change really starts to seriously affect places that matter we'll all be dead anyway so why bother?

Yeah, yeah, our grandkids won't be well off but youth is wasted on the young so screw them and the planet.

"Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill."
— CEO Nwabudike Morgan, "The Ethics of Greed"


You Morgan SCUM!!! I will have to get Lady Deirdre Skye to wipe you from this planet before you infect others with your ways!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Hannibull Rektor wrote:

As Delightful states above, BigNorseWolf, they both cross a threshold of idiocy that makes them both unworthy of a vote. What you are saying makes about as much sense as the Republican concept of voting for Trump because they believed Hillary Clinton was worse. Were you okay with that logic during the campaign trail? If not, then why is it different here? Double standards are a dangerous thing to start applying to logical arguments. A bad candidate is still a bad candidate, no matter what degree. Reinforcing the notion that these candidates are worthy of a vote is just basically saying 'give me more bad candidates'.

You also took a reductionist approach to all of the things Hillary Clinton has said over the years in your comparison. You may not agree with the interpretations of what she has said, but you cannot deny that there is a bit more than her just making some inaccurate, slightly racist statements about economics.

In the end, this is the type of thinking that is causing problems. One cannot say 'let's fix this because' without getting a kneejerk reaction of 'you must be illogical/Hitler/a lizard person out to destroy the fabric of society'.

Why is it so difficult to admit that maybe we did some things wrong? That maybe we need to unify more as a party? Or that we need to actually have a better strategy than 'oh that guy is ___, don't vote for him'?

In the end, digging yourself into an ideological trench changes nothing. It may be the easy route, because it keeps the human ego intact, but is it the right way to go about things? Are we more worried about feeling better about making questionable choices or about resolving to make better ones down the road?

In the end, this conversation is a microcosm of what is going wrong in our party. We would rather bicker and argue with each other than work towards something better. We would rather sit on our lofty, imaginary thrones and say that everyone that does not believe as we do are illogical, immoral deplorables than try to honestly sway them to...

I'm pretty sure that whatever we need to do, we won't get there by listening to people who (still!) don't see any meaningful difference between Trump and Clinton and think that Democrats demonize white, Christian males.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I swear Democrats have become the overworked parent of America. The moment they don't give one of their children their full undivided attention the others scream foul.

Sovereign Court

Hannibull Rektor wrote:
You mean uniting Democrats into a more cohesive party or trying to get Republicans to swap party lines, Pan? The suggestions I have for both are vastly different.

The thread is about Dems lets stick to uniting them into a cohesive party. What are your opinions on that?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Pan wrote:
The thread is about Dems lets stick to uniting them into a cohesive party. What are your opinions on that?

I don't see a cohesive party as a plausible, or desirable, outcome. Let them bicker over whether it is better to jump straight to single payer or make incremental progress towards that goal. That's healthy.

It's the, 'those who do not agree my plan is the best approach are just as bad as those advocating diametrically opposite goals' insanity which needs to be driven out.


CrystalSeas wrote:

Sanders it putting together an "institute". Not sure if it's the base for a new party

The Sanders Institute
The mission of the Sanders Institute is to revitalize democracy by actively engaging individuals, organizations, and the media in the pursuit of progressive solutions to economic, environmental, racial, and social justice issues.

Yuck. I can't for the life of me understand the Berniecrats' embracing of Tulsi Gabbard, that anti-Muslim, BJP-connected chauvinist; and Jeffrey Sachs? the former IMF hitman? Yuck, yuck, yuck.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

Sanders it putting together an "institute". Not sure if it's the base for a new party

The Sanders Institute
The mission of the Sanders Institute is to revitalize democracy by actively engaging individuals, organizations, and the media in the pursuit of progressive solutions to economic, environmental, racial, and social justice issues.

Yuck. I can't for the life of me understand the Berniecrats' embracing of Tulsi Gabbard, that anti-Muslim, BJP-connected chauvinist; and Jeffrey Sachs? the former IMF hitman? Yuck, yuck, yuck.

Good news, then. Apparently her popularity in polls is dropping, at least with Hawaiian Dems. Hopefully her plunge continues. (I strongly dislike Gabbard too).


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

Sanders it putting together an "institute". Not sure if it's the base for a new party

The Sanders Institute
The mission of the Sanders Institute is to revitalize democracy by actively engaging individuals, organizations, and the media in the pursuit of progressive solutions to economic, environmental, racial, and social justice issues.

Yuck. I can't for the life of me understand the Berniecrats' embracing of Tulsi Gabbard, that anti-Muslim, BJP-connected chauvinist; and Jeffrey Sachs? the former IMF hitman? Yuck, yuck, yuck.

Perhaps the motivations for which politicians Berniecrats like aren't as simple and obvious as one might think at first glimpse?


Rabbit Update

I discovered two dead bunnies in their hole yesterday.

I know Druid Wolf said it was a myth, but the phrase "Nine times out of ten" from the bunny page I linked kept worming its way through my consciousness and I was seized by self-recrimination and -loathing until Mr. Comrade pointed out that it was probably the unseasonably cold rains and exposure that killed them and convinced me that the true culprit was climate change.

Capitalism killed my backyard bunnies and I will be revenged!


thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

Sanders it putting together an "institute". Not sure if it's the base for a new party

The Sanders Institute
The mission of the Sanders Institute is to revitalize democracy by actively engaging individuals, organizations, and the media in the pursuit of progressive solutions to economic, environmental, racial, and social justice issues.

Yuck. I can't for the life of me understand the Berniecrats' embracing of Tulsi Gabbard, that anti-Muslim, BJP-connected chauvinist; and Jeffrey Sachs? the former IMF hitman? Yuck, yuck, yuck.

Perhaps the motivations for which politicians Berniecrats like aren't as simple and obvious as one might think at first glimpse?

Well, I know I started with "I can't for the life of me understand," but it isn't really much of a mystery: she was the first one to endorse him and Sachs has been making the rounds as a neoliberal shock trooper turned environmentally-friendly trendy liberal since at least Occupy.

Here's an article on a website I've never seen with him and Angelina Jolie


BigNorseWolf wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Wow...literal, explicit dehumanization. That seems to be a new low for U.S. politics.
Its an old low that they're trying to go back to, thats the problem..

True; I suppose I should have at least written "modern U.S. politics."

I also don't dispute that people are routinely dehumanized on the basis of race, gender, etc. I just don't personally recall it be so explicit in the U.S. mainstream in my lifetime.


This is where we had all the debate about universities, free speech and the Bad Man, right?

I don't remember. Anyway, if so, CROSS-POST!:

Commies in the News

DON’T EXPECT LIBERALISM TO COME TO THE DEFENSE OF KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR


CBDunkerson wrote:
Pan wrote:
The thread is about Dems lets stick to uniting them into a cohesive party. What are your opinions on that?

I don't see a cohesive party as a plausible, or desirable, outcome. Let them bicker over whether it is better to jump straight to single payer or make incremental progress towards that goal. That's healthy.

It's the, 'those who do not agree my plan is the best approach are just as bad as those advocating diametrically opposite goals' insanity which needs to be driven out.

What does driving them out actually accomplish? They'll just vote Libertarian or Green party and we'll another Republican in the White House.

Liberty's Edge

Honestly it's the moneyed conservative Democrats in power who need to be driven out. Not the progressive voters who actually want healthcare for everyone.


Gark the Goblin wrote:
Honestly it's the moneyed conservative Democrats in power who need to be driven out. Not the progressive voters who actually want healthcare for everyone.

I don't even want those people driven out. Hopefully they can realize the mutual benefits of more progressive policies or at least we can reach a beneficial compromise with them.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Delightful wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
It's the, 'those who do not agree my plan is the best approach are just as bad as those advocating diametrically opposite goals' insanity which needs to be driven out.
What does driving them out actually accomplish? They'll just vote Libertarian or Green party and we'll another Republican in the White House.

Read again. Drive out insanity. Not people.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Delightful wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
It's the, 'those who do not agree my plan is the best approach are just as bad as those advocating diametrically opposite goals' insanity which needs to be driven out.
What does driving them out actually accomplish? They'll just vote Libertarian or Green party and we'll another Republican in the White House.
Read again. Drive out insanity. Not people.

Right, right. My mistake.

Still though, I think these inane comparisons are largely a product of a generation of voters being fed-up with the notion of voting for lesser of two evils regardless of just how evil the worse candidate is. Giving me socialism or give me death seems to be an increasingly powerful ethos for a lot of left-leaning voters and I doubt its going away anytime soon.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Delightful wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Delightful wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
It's the, 'those who do not agree my plan is the best approach are just as bad as those advocating diametrically opposite goals' insanity which needs to be driven out.
What does driving them out actually accomplish? They'll just vote Libertarian or Green party and we'll another Republican in the White House.
Read again. Drive out insanity. Not people.

Right, right. My mistake.

Still though, I think these inane comparisons are largely a product of a generation of voters being fed-up with the notion of voting for lesser of two evils regardless of just how evil the worse candidate is. Giving me socialism or give me death seems to be an increasingly powerful ethos for a lot of left-leaning voters and I doubt its going away anytime soon.

The catch is, a large percentage if not the majority of the party doesn't necessarily feel that strongly. We've seen that play out both last election and in the various elections post aftermath. We kind of have to all work together if we want anything done.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gark the Goblin wrote:
Honestly it's the moneyed conservative Democrats in power who need to be driven out. Not the progressive voters who actually want healthcare for everyone.

Unfortunately you need money to win an election, hence why big money democrats keep winning elections.

Sovereign Court

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Gark the Goblin wrote:
Honestly it's the moneyed conservative Democrats in power who need to be driven out. Not the progressive voters who actually want healthcare for everyone.
Unfortunately you need money to win an election, hence why big money democrats keep winning elections.

Not for long when the emerging democratic "tea party" starts to lose them elections.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Just chiming in to drop this.

Hope Bernie can change the Democratic Party at least a little.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
Because any reasonable expectation for a party collapsing and being replaced will take at least another couple election cycles and I don't think the country will survive a decade of solid Republican rule. Not with today's Republican party.

I'm still saying that we just need to make it to the 2018 election. There is very little chance of the GOP retaining control of Congress after that... which would give us one branch of government willing to block the worst abuses of the other two.

Of course, the way things are going, there is no guarantee we will make it to 2018. Ten years? Not a chance.

4,101 to 4,150 of 4,260 << first < prev | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards