Anger grows at Democrats' weakness

Forums: Politics, Democrats
Email this Topic • Print this Page

An update at the end of this post on Trump's SCOTUS nominee, which is reportedly coming early next week, expanded on the frustration in some quarters with how Democrats -- mostly of the upper chamber variety -- have responded to the Trump agenda. I wrote there I could have made that its own post; now it is. A summary of reading since then:

-- Nathan Hevenstone, for one, is hyper-ventilating about Elizabeth Warren's tortured defense via Twitter of her vote to confirm Ben Carson as chief of HUD.

-- Angry Bear, for another, in regard to an old e-mail crime/coverup in the W administration that went unprosecuted by Obama's.

-- And Osita Nwanevu at Slate doubles down on irritation at the senators:

As anyone who has been awake for the past eight years should be well aware, the notion that the Republican Party will reward Democrats in the future for their deference now is utterly laughable.

So just what the hell is going on in the Senate?

Her answer: "The broader truth is this: the Democrats, unlike the Republican Party, haven’t a clue how to build and wield power." And then publishes the names of all the Democrats who have voted 'aye' on Trump's nominees so far. It is a remarkably disgraceful list, in particular those senators who occupy safe blue seats. The most appalling of all is Bernie Sanders voting to confirm John Kelly as director of Homeland Security ...

... even though (Kelly) has pledged to go after sanctuary cities and declined to give a clear answer as to how he would deal with DREAMers(.)

Sanders' statement on his votes:

“We must vigorously defend DACA and the young people in that program. We must continue the fight for comprehensive immigration reform and a path toward citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants. General (James) Mattis (who is now Secretary of Defense) and General Kelly may not be the nominees I would have preferred for the departments of Defense and Homeland Security, but in a Trump cabinet likely to be loaded up with right-wing extremists, all of whom I will oppose, I hope General Mattis and General Kelly will have a moderating influence on some of the racist and xenophobic views that President Trump advocated throughout the campaign. ..."

So. Hope for a moderating influence overcomes the hypocrisy of his votes contradicting his 'vigorous' beliefs. Wish I could be as hopeful. Of greater encouragement, though, is the remarkable legal interpretation that Trump's anti-Muslim immigration policy -- poorly disguised as an anti-refugee executive order -- crashes on the rocky shoals of Justice Samuel Alito's vaguely worded anti-abortion decrees, also known as SCOTUS majority opinions. So there's that.

And according to Al Franken, we should take solace that all Senate Democrats will oppose Betsy DeVos for education secretary, even Joe Lieberman Manchin. I'll believe it when I see it.

For readers attending or watching the livestream of today's DNC Future Forum, keep all of this in mind as you hear the candidates discuss their views, policies, and plans of action.
Posted by PDiddie at Saturday, January 28, 2017
http://brainsandeggs.blogspot.com/2017/01/anger-grows-at-democrats-weakness.html?spref=fb

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 9 • Views: 2,288 • Replies: 29

My link to PDidie's blog shows embedded links to further information throughout the presentation.

0 Replies

Below viewing threshold (view)

Democrat weakness exacerbates liberal progressive democrat death spiral to irrelevance.

America is happy to see this happening.

0 Replies

I have no answer either, but I do agree with you, Edgar - they're as spineless as a jellyfish. I was already completely flabbergasted when they did not proceed with a supreme court justice nomination and practically gave the nomination into Republican hands now. This to me was the biggest defeat the Democratic party has had so far.

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

CJ, Obama nominated Garland for the SC. The republicans who are in control of the vote chose not to have one. Aside from bitching about it or shutting down government (would that have been good right before an election? I'm not sure) what could they have done?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Nothing. That's why Obama and Holder are going to concentrate on capturing the statehouses like the Republicans did a few years ago, with such spectacular results. the Democrats will have the advantage of that the groups which support them are growing in population percentage, the groups which support Republicans are shrinking in population percentage.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Nothing. That's why Obama and Holder are going to concentrate on capturing the statehouses like the Republicans did a few years ago, with such spectacular results.

That'll be futile. 2020 will be when Mr. Trump wins a landslide reelection. The Republicans will still be in charge of redistricting after the next census.

Blickers wrote:

the Democrats will have the advantage of that the groups which support them are growing in population percentage, the groups which support Republicans are shrinking in population percentage.

I wouldn't count on that either. The Democrats are pretty good at duping African Americans, but other groups are open to voting for Republicans.

1 Reply

The democratic senators need to be changed to younger men who arnt bought and paid for by the 1%. The ones there now have no balls, and we need some that know how to fight and tell the republicans screw you.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

The Democrats are pretty good at duping African Americans, but other groups are open to voting for Republicans.

Ah, the old conservative cry: Get off the Democratic plantation. Virtually every civil rights bill or executive order reversing discrimination since 1936 has been pushed by the Democrats. Republicans have voted for some, opposed many others. However, they never originate anything. Under Bill Clinton black crime cratered and black Full Time employment zoomed up-not surprisingly, these two factors are related. Under Obama, blacks gained Full Time jobs at a much higher rate after the recession than than the general population. The Democrats have earned black support.

3 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Virtually every civil rights bill or executive order reversing discrimination since 1936 has been pushed by the Democrats.

This is so demonstrably false as to be laughable.

Quote:

Finally, in 1957, after a long hiatus, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was passed and signed into law by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower....The Democrat opposition in the Senate created the longest filibuster on record, stretching over 24 hours of non-stop speaking by Strom Thurmond. This bill also established the Commission on Civil Rights which was in large part responsible for the famous bill in 1964.

Before that famous legislation, however, there was yet another bill in 1960 that was passed to further strengthen voting rights for blacks. This bill, as is the case with every other that preceded it, enjoyed near unanimous support from Republicans

Republicans never blocked a major civil rights bill, but not one single time have major civil rights bills enjoyed a higher support from Democrats than they did from Republicans, regardless of the era in which they were passed.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/a-brief-history-of-civil-rights-legislation/

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Youre sorta correct except for the dates. The SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS (Dixiecrats), hung on as the pro-slavery political faction that defined the party in the 1800's and carried on monolithically as the KKK party until, in about 1948,Pres HArry Truman began desegregating fed jobs and the military. Strom Thurmond began his run for president as a force against Truman , while the growing " Identity Switcheroo" between the two parties was
beginning in earnest in 1948. Thurmond represented the "States Rights Democrats" (It was formed with a title that the racists herein would use to try to convince us that the Confederacy was NOT about preserving slavery as an institution ). The GOP of that time was actually supportive of civil rights (or at least they were silent about being against it and the Senate GOP was most in favor of such an Act during Eisenhowers years)
Eisenhower didnt have the savvy to pass an effective Civil Rights ACt and Kennedy(While he realized that full equality for all was where we had to go as a a modern nation. I really believe that Kennedy was ill equipped to make it happen and he hated Lyndon Johnson (his Vice President) so he didnt want to hve Jounson get any credit
Well Johnson, when he became president after Kennedy was assasinated was a true Dixiiecrat, but he also was a believer in Civil Rights. He said to his staff (after he ascended to office)that

"Im gonna Fight the Civil Rights Act (of 1964) with everything thats in me, right up to the day I sign it"

When the CRA was enacted, the exchange of brains between the Dems and GOP began in earnest. Guys like STrom Thurmond became GOPers and the entire "Southern States Rights Dems" became Southern GOPers.
Sorta Overnight, as Johnson often said,

"Now that we have a Civil Right LAw , The Democratic Party has lost the South for several generations."

Today, most of the SOuthern Dems are black .
Republicans will love to take "credit" for Civil Rights but it was more like a rooster's crow being responsible for the sunrise.The GOP is opportunistic about the CRA but the southern folks dont live there anymore. What did happen is that the two parties switched much of thir iidentities, The party of Lincoln morphed into the party of David Duke and Strom Thurmond

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Now the Democrats are undergoing a new split. Toadies to corporate money versus liberals (sometimes calling themselves progressives).

1 Reply

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3VfjUXUkAAYKdf.jpg

1 Reply

@Frugal1,

Our constitution's Bill of Rights forbids ANY theocracies. I think you have no idea how stupid many of your bumper stickers are.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Democrat weakness is real, and it is well deserved because they have acted stupidly for far too long.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Our constitution's Bill of Rights forbids ANY theocracies. I think you have no idea how stupid many of your bumper stickers are.

No...They are pretty much on the mark.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

theblaze.com
TheBlaze is a multiplatform conservative news and entertainment network available on television, radio and the Internet founded by conservative talk radio personality and entrepreneur Glenn Beck, based in Irving, Texas.

Founder: Glenn Beck

0 Replies

@giujohn,

So you believe that the Bill of Rights is not a FAKE document??

You should read the 1st Amendment
"Free Expression clause"
and the
"Establishment clause"

Unless revoked and substituted by a counter amendment, still is the law of the land

1 Reply

Save your breath.

Quote:

Without union votes, cash and volunteers the democrats are a party without an army. A party without a vision. And one heading for oblivion.

Source <

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Virtually every civil rights bill or executive order reversing discrimination since 1936 has been pushed by the Democrats. Republicans have voted for some, opposed many others. However, they never originate anything.

Politicians don't waste their time helping groups who will not vote for them. People have finite resources, and Republicans need to devote their energy to people who will actually vote for them.

Blickers wrote:

Under Bill Clinton black crime cratered and black Full Time employment zoomed up-not surprisingly, these two factors are related.

No good deed goes unpunished. Many (most?) African Americans now condemn the Clinton Administration for their anti-crime measures, even though they were the ones who were insisting on it at the time.

0 Replies

Anger grows at Democrats' weakness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know