29
   

The new Democratic party. What will it look like?

 
 
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2016 10:40 pm
@revelette2,
You appear a bit rattled and very testy. Grace under pressure should be the goal. What I wrote was simply a realistic assessment of the situation. Republicans were there eight years ago, but they recovered in time more or less as I described above.

I have my own impressions of your post but I'll resist the urge to be petty. You should consider that too.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2016 11:17 pm
@revelette2,
Quote:
Speaking of optimism, I confess I have none at all for the new Democrat party.

It seems that you may be being honest.

Quote:
I mean I see no way to exert any influence in Washington at all, not any in the coming years since Reid employed to nuclear option we now have to live with being powerless


Do you think that the Clinton news network has given up completely on the DNC?
Quote:
I know republicans can now with reason say "we told you so"

This may be true to the degree that you are referencing but what if they told you so about the corruption by Hillary? Could you possibly believe that Hillary could be less than an angle?

0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2016 12:08 am
https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58307a38e4b030997bbfc3cc/amp?client=safari

The Apres--Clinton Fiasco Democrat Party (or everything Bernie said)

Gee. I guess Democrats should've voted for Bernie.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2016 08:28 am
@georgeob1,
I have told you similar things before Hillary lost. However, now you are even more condescending than before Hillary lost and Trump won. You do not know how democrats will recover as it only just happened. My fear I was expressing is the thing with the coming Supreme Court Justice which I know will be horrible and will probably set back civil rights and civil liberties. I don't see how we can recover from that any time soon given how long Supreme Court Justice serve. Who know what they will do to election laws as well? It is a devastating loss because of the timing.


Republicans did lose seats in the house and the senate but they made them up enough to keep the control of both. Trump barely won. Hillary won the popular vote which means there are more people who agreed with her than Trump, just not in the states that mattered.

So I am not sure it is our message so much which lost but we do in fact have to consider states which have manufacturing jobs and coal mining and things like that. I believe that it is where our focus needs to be without losing any of our values and I think we have enough smart people to be able to figure that out.

For instance Ford is happy right now because Trump won because Trump will lessen regulation on emissions (something like that, I have it on the Trump page) which they say is onerous. Well, I happen to think regulations should be the way Obama has them as it is good for the environment. It is those values I don't want to lose in order to court states we lost.
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2016 08:41 am
@revelette2,
You wouldn't happen to have the lottery numbers to share would you? I mean while you are making predictions that seem to be coming from nowhere and all...
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2016 08:45 am
But working with what little power we have, this is the challenger to Nancy Pelosi. (I don't know why she is not liked by people outside of Washington.)

Who is Tim Ryan? A closer look at Pelosi’s challenger

Quote:
But he bears attributes many Democrats say are lacking in the party's top brass: At 43, he's a generation younger than Pelosi and her top lieutenants, all in their mid-70s. And hailing from the Youngstown region of northeastern Ohio, he represents the very type of blue-collar, battleground-state voters who have shifted steadily to the GOP's camp and helped drive President-elect Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress to their landslide victories this month.


Much more before and after the above at the source.

Maybe we do need younger blood.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2016 11:37 am
@revelette2,
I wasn't condescenting at all. I merely provided you a more realistic description of the likely recovery of the Democrat party than the very self-pitying sand depressing one you posted earlier. What I wrote was also a roughly accurate description of the process through which the Republican party passed aftert the 2008 election of Obama. Moreover it is very likely what will indeed occur over the next few years within the Democrat Party - whether, in your present morbid state you believe it or not.

You can wallow in all the self pity, excuse making and doomsday fantasies you want. I don't recommend it, and doubt that it will do you any good. Instead I believe a bit more thoughtful condsideration of the points I made might help you to see the situation more realistically.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2016 12:29 pm
@McGentrix,
What predictions am I making? If Hillary won she would have chosen more progressive picks for the Supreme Court justice. Trump will chose more far right judges if his picks are anything like his cabinet picks have so been. It is not such a leap to imagine what kind of justice Trump will pick and there are election cases coming up before the courts. If we have more far right judges, it is pretty safe to assume, the decisions will not favorable to civil rights and liberties. Going by his pick of Sessions, the future Supreme Court justice do not look promising.

Civil rights advocates brace for radical shift
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2016 12:33 pm
@georgeob1,
Whatever George, you call it what you like.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2016 12:36 pm
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

If we have more far right judges, it is pretty safe to assume, the decisions will not favorable to civil rights and liberties.


I think the issue boils down to just which rights and liberties you are talking about. The right of a woman to end the life of as child she is carrying may well be inhibited. However the rights of citizens to bear arms, to support political speech and action they favor, or to be protected from unwanted government intrusion in their private lives, may be protected or enhanced.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2016 12:43 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I think the issue boils down to just which rights and liberties you are talking about. The right of a woman to end the life of as child she is carrying may well be inhibited. However the rights of citizens to bear arms, to support political speech and action they favor, or to be protected from unwanted government intrusion in their private lives, may be protected or enhanced.


See what I mean? As though progressive judges do not favor the right to bear arms and political speech. Rolling Eyes And you say you are not condescending? Roe vs. Wade is supposedly settled. The rest is too vague to know exactly what you are saying. But it is ridiculous on the face of it because of all the resistance to gay rights by the right which is interfering into people's private lives.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2016 01:33 pm
@revelette2,
You have amply demonstrated your closed mind and inability to see things as they are. The courts operate within the, usually but not always, fairly narrow limits ofered by different interpretations (sometimes stretched a bit ) of the constitution. Nothing in that space is really "settled" as is illustrated by the fact that slavery was once tolerated within it an is now seen (correctly) to be fundamentally antithetical to its basic principles.

Progressive judges do indeed incline to limit political expression by entities and people offering opinions they find "unprogressive" as was amply illustrated in the Citizens United issue.

What are gay rights? The constitution applies rights to individual people, simply because they are human, not to groups, per se.

I think you have the habit of interpreting criticism of your expressed views as condescension. They are not the same, and using this as an excuse for sloppy, ill-informed rhetoric merely limits you.
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2016 03:23 pm
@georgeob1,
You have a closed mind as well. You vote republican because of your beliefs and I vote democrat because of my beliefs. I just don't pretend I am not partisan. I am because I believe in the democrat party platform and I don't want right wing justices on the supreme court for years to come.

In any event, Homosexuals have the right pursue happiness the same as anyone else and if they choose to marry they should be allowed to do so. It is discriminatory to deny them the right pursue their happiness based on religious or moral reasons of others. Which is why allowing homosexual the same rights as heterosexuals is constitutional. We do not use moral or religious reasons to settle our laws or else people would be in jails for having affairs or living with the opposite sex without marriage.

Citizens united treats corporations as people which is clearly not the case.

We will agree to disagree or not as you see fit on your condescension.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2016 05:32 pm
@revelette2,
Quote:
We do not use moral or religious reasons to settle our laws or else people would be in jails for having affairs or living with the opposite sex without marriage.


I do think you may be a little wrong about what you are saying. Many people among us are still using religion and what they think are moral truths to shape the laws of our land.
A few other people are trying to advance an improved moral concept that has logical consistency to it which allows equal rights for all people but the sad truth is that us humans seem to have little to no interest in studying Ethics and axiology.
Without an interest in ethics we ended up with the two choices or dilemma we had to choose to be our president.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2016 05:53 pm
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2016 07:48 pm
I love hearing from great thinkers of all backgrounds.

Let the Madness begin

0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Thu 24 Nov, 2016 07:43 pm
@Lash,
More "pay to play" by George Soros ;-)

George Soros Pledges $10 Million to Fight Hate Crimes

Quote:
Mr. Soros, a Holocaust survivor originally from Hungary, said in a telephone interview this week that he was “deeply troubled” by hundreds of reports of possible hate crimes since the election — including many Nazi swastikas spray-painted on cars and buildings. “We must do something to push back against what’s happening here,” Mr. Soros said [..].

His nonprofit group, the Open Society Foundations, plans to spend at least $5 million in coming weeks to fund grants of as much as $150,000 to community groups and civil rights organizations to develop plans for combating the recent spate of hate crimes and to work with victims.

The group said additional money would go toward national efforts to improve tracking of hate crimes — an effort that law enforcement officials acknowledge is incomplete. The F.B.I. reported last week that there was an increase of nearly 67 percent last year in hate crimes against Muslim Americans — and an increase of 6 percent against all groups.
layman
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 24 Nov, 2016 08:01 pm
@nimh,
I find the whole idea of a so-called "hate crime" to be quite distasteful. That aside, Soros might want to re-think his position on this. Does he really want to see the protesters and rioters that he's financing subjected to special punishment, ya think?
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2016 08:44 am
@layman,
There is no proof other than insinuations to the rumor of Soros financing the protest. He has denied it.

Quote:
The Open Society Foundations says the notion that Soros is paying anti-Trump protesters is fiction, but says — with so many protests organized by so many groups — it's possible some groups the philanthropy supports may have been involved in the protests. 

"There have been many false reports about George Soros and the Open Society Foundations funding the protests that have erupted since the U.S. presidential elections. There is no truth to these reports,"  Foundations President Chris Stone said. "The only initiative we are planning to fund related to the elections is to respond to hate crimes and speech." 


source

But of course if someone baselessly says it and Soros denies it, it must be true.
layman
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2016 09:32 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

There is no proof other than insinuations to the rumor of Soros financing the protest. He has denied it.


Your quote sounds more like an admission than a denial.

Quote:
The Open Society Foundations says...with so many protests organized by so many groups — it's possible some groups the philanthropy supports may have been involved in the protests. 


Since when has paying protesters to block traffic on streets and freeways, access to which was essential to people and emergency vehicles such as ambulances; to riot; beat people, etc. been considered "philanthropy," I wonder?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 12:16:03