Why I left the Democratic Party

@ossobucotemp,

Thanks, and I appreciate that, but two points:

First, I think that's mostly a lack of effort. Just being honest there.

Second, even if that's the case, why would someone knock those who can form these arguments? What would lead someone to believe that they are superior to someone who can do so? Or think that their opinion on an issue is equally valid, or informed?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

First, that is much the way the world is.

Second, they are ordinary people and maybe roll their eyes.

1 Reply

@ossobucotemp,

I'm figuring there are at least two systems working..

0 Replies

Here is an article that gives pretty good insight into why even hurtful crap bills like the current tax reform get passed with the help of Democrats.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/11/07/what-do-republicans-need-to-pass-tax-reform-democrats/?utm_term=.12a2f41e8085

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Now that's funny! I was just agreeing with you on the SCOTUS, that's all.

People like myporshe and you led the party into decline, and keep telling ed and me right here that a rebound is impossible, that there's nothing one can do... And when we say no, Bernie showed the way, you say "nanana he's just a loser"; and when I say you need to retake your democracy from big corporate donors, you say "SCOTUS won't let us"... You keep finding excuse for not changing anything, you bunch of defeatists.

You keep missing the point because you're full of anger. I'm not your enemy. Bernie never was your enemy. We are your ALLIES. Your enemies are the repukes, remember? At least if it's true that you are progressive, and not repukes in dems clothing...

2 Replies

@maporsche,

I doubt there's any super PAC out there paying for climate change awareness and legislation... The essence of influence peddling by corporations is to steer public policies away from the common good and towards catering for their own private financial interest. That's why it is bad, in principle. It's not good in some cases and bad in others.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

I don't see why you would think parties working together to give and take in order to pass bills is a bad thing. If democrats manage to get into the tax bills some relief for the middle and lower class but maybe have to give in to something the republicans want, well, that is what progress looks like in the real world unless there are super majorities in the both House and Senate with same party in the White House. Otherwise, if both sides just stubbornly demand all of their own agenda they up with nothing and government does nothing; which is where we have been at for six years.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

People like myporshe and you led the party into decline, and keep telling ed and me right here that a rebound is impossible, that there's nothing one can do... And when we say no, Bernie showed the way, you say "nanana he's just a loser"; and when I say you need to retake your democracy from big corporate donors, you say "SCOTUS won't let us"... You keep finding excuse for not changing anything, you bunch of defeatists.

Actually, that is the exact opposite of what I said (and I'm sure Cyclops agrees). What I said (and I can find the quote) is that there's nothing we can do to override the SCOTUS decision except elect more democrats to congress and pass laws to limit those donations. That's not us throwing our hands up and giving up, that's what Edgar and Lash (and maybe you if you were a US citizen) are doing. The defeatists are the ones who created this thread or agree with it's main point.

They don't like what some in the party are doing, so they literally take their votes and go home...defeated. They then think that what they're doing is somehow more noble than what others are doing, when in fact is the exact opposite.

They also sit there and critique politicians who eventually come over to their positions after months/years of people pushing the politicians to do what they want...as if that's a bad thing. Like Obama eventually coming over to support gay marriage. Would you rather he didn't support it and pushed to block it? Why is it a bad thing if Clinton eventually was convinced that there was enough public support for a policy to support it herself? It might not be the ideal scenario, but it's certainly better than the alternative; people who can never be convinced that their opinions are wrong or need to change.

Quote:

You keep missing the point because you're full of anger. I'm not your enemy. Bernie never was your enemy. We are your ALLIES. Your enemies are the repukes, remember? At least if it's true that you are progressive, and not repukes in dems clothing...

You literally missed the point that prompted this whole post, so don't project your mistakes on me.

Maybe you need to see the title of this thread and reread the contents to see who's shitting on their allies.

What you won't see me do though is critique productive bipartisanship or resort to childish terms. Repukes is as bad as libtard and neither are worthy in this discussion.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

Rev, it would appear that some people just don't live in the real world. They keep forgetting that there are these things like laws and (at least) 45% of the country's elected officials opposing them.

You don't like all the guns in the USA? You're going to need to elect a whole lot of democrats who support restricting some gun laws...and a whole lot more if you want to repeal or modify the 2nd amendment. And you're going to have to be ready for a whole lot of opposition from the other side.

Instead of doing that, they'd rather just complain about how we don't have a 3rd party in the USA or how they can't just wish for what they want and make it happen.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Now that's funny! I was just agreeing with you on the SCOTUS, that's all.

People like myporshe and you led the party into decline, and keep telling ed and me right here that a rebound is impossible, that there's nothing one can do... And when we say no, Bernie showed the way, you say "nanana he's just a loser"; and when I say you need to retake your democracy from big corporate donors, you say "SCOTUS won't let us"... You keep finding excuse for not changing anything, you bunch of defeatists.

But... This is expressly untrue. I just got done writing a post of no small length outlining exactly what I thought the Dems needed to do in order to put themselves into a position to enact the sort of changes we are talking about. Remember?

How do you reconcile that with the concept that I am a defeatist, and say these things cannot be done?

Quote:

You keep missing the point because you're full of anger.

But, I'm not angry at all. I don't know why you think I am. I do get exasperated with the poor quality of people's argumentation but that's not anger.

Quote:

I'm not your enemy. Bernie never was your enemy. We are your ALLIES. Your enemies are the repukes, remember? At least if it's true that you are progressive, and not repukes in dems clothing...

I don't really like that term. It's not constructive.

Yaknow if we're going to move forward in a healthy manner politically in the US we are going to have to return to Regular Order and compromise. I don't think a govt dominated by Progressives, who don't work with Conservatives at all, would be very healthy for us in the long run. I agree that this is a long way from where are at today, but that isn't going to change for the better business calling people names.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@maporsche,

FYI I strongly disagreed with Ed and Lash during the general election. I supported Clinton against Trump, just like Bernie did. That was a no-brainer. I don't hate Dems, not even the traditional centrist type.

Still, it's the centrist, tepid dems like you who dominated the party over the recent decades, who presided over the party's steady decline, and engineered Clinton's nomination and ultimate defeat to a very weak opponent who's now in the white house and represent a huuuge liability for the country. There ought to be some accountability for that.

An electoral rebound necessarily implies a change of guard in the Democratic party, some dissociation from Clinton and co. and more robust leftist engagement. And this is happening right now: the party is borrowing a page from Bernie's book, because it wants to win again.

Better late than never, i say.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

1) the election following a 2 term president favors the other party for the last 50 years. It was not a slam-dunk and Trump proved much stronger than the media and people gave him credit for. Speak to the other 16 candidates in the Republican primary.

2) when democrats control the presidency, the house and/or senate go to the republicans eventually and vice versa. That's the main cause for the decline over the last 6 years. You'll see it shift the otherway now that Trump is in office, you saw it starting this last Tuesday. The democrats that were elected were not Bernie types.

3) Clinton is done in election-politics. The people who insist in bringing her up are the ones hurting the cause.

4) I doubt you'll find much agreement that the party is adopting pages from Bernie's book. In fact I keep hearing the opposite.

5) they'll win again because politics is cyclical in the USA. Millions of people simply vote for 'the other party'.

6) the accountability falls on people who did not vote to keep Trump out of office. I voted for the only option that had a chance in doing that. Those who didn't, ARE accountable.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Well, you certainly seem to think inside the narrow box of the status quo...

For instance on bipartisanship. This is an obsolete idea. You can't work with this crop of republicans. They are brain dead. Obama tried to work with them for 8 years and couldn't get anything done. They control Congress and white house but can't get any bill passed.... That should tell you something about their ability to compromise. What the Dems should aim for is a total defeat of this particular crop of Republicans. Nothing else you can do.

For instance on single payer. Your idea that it would result in millions of job losses is a "do-nothing" idea typical of Republican discourse.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

1. Trump was one of the most hated candidate ever.

2. Many of the elected people in Virginia are newcomers to politics rather than same-old-same-old, and some of them seem pretty radical.

3. Yes, she did hurt the cause. It's important to understand how, in order to avoid doing the same mistakes again.

4. That's exactly what they are doing, without saying so explicitly. Take a distance from Cliton; rebalance the economic policy towards common folks; push for more transparent primaries.

5. The Dems rarely clinched a majority in Congress in recent times, so it cannot be just a matter of political cycles.

6. In a democracy, leaders are accountable to the people, not vice versa. People seeking office need to convince voters to vote for them. I know, it's annoying.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Well, you certainly seem to think inside the narrow box of the status quo...

I like to call that 'reality.' It's preferable to the realm of fantasy that you guys inhabit, in which everything magically goes your way once.... something unknown happens.

Quote:

For instance on bipartisanship. This is an obsolete idea.

No, it's not.

Quote:

You can't work with this crop of republicans. They are brain dead. Obama tried to work with them for 8 years and couldn't get anything done. They control Congress and white house but can't get any bill passed.... That should tell you something about their ability to compromise. What the Dems should aim for is a total defeat of this particular crop of Republicans. Nothing else you can do.

I agree with this, though. However, what do you think is going to or should happen once this 'current crop' has been defeated, and the Dems take control again. Should the Dems be as dictatorial and reluctant to compromise and work together as the GOP has been? Should we emulate the very behaviors that we have long decried as being destructive to our system of government?

Quote:

For instance on single payer. Your idea that it would result in millions of job losses is a "do-nothing" idea typical of Republican discourse.

See my comments re: reality. I'm starting to think that you're maybe no so up to speed on the actual details of policy.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

1. by left-leaning voters, yes. The republicans are pretty much in love with the guy still. This is evidenced by the amount of support he has among his party.

2. Which candidates are those exactly? And a lot more votes took place than the ones in VA.

3. By all means, lets keep dividing the party for the next 3-7 years. Maybe some of us can call the others in the party names and tell them they aren't 'true-believers'. I'm sure that will help.

4. I've seen the talk for more transparent primaries; haven't seen any economic policies that you're speaking of. Maybe you could point something out.

5. Not only political cycles...cycles are just a very large part of the reason.

6. Voters and non-voters are responsible for their elected officials. No other way around that one. Children need to be convinced to eat their vegetables. Adults make adult decisions and do things that need to be done. I know, that's annoying too.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

1. by left-leaning voters, yes. The republicans are pretty much in love with the guy still. This is evidenced by the amount of support he has among his party.

listened to a fascinating radio interview with a very happy #45 voter last night

she feels he is getting sooooo much done and it would be more if only Congress was more supportive

she's angrier with Republicans who aren't backing up #45 than with Democrats (because they're completely irrelevant)

it made me a bit queasy about the GOP's plans for the next decade or so

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Take a distance from Cliton; rebalance the economic policy towards common folks

Clinton's economic policies were directly aimed at benefiting 'common folks' at the expense of corporations and the wealthy. Do you even know the basic facts of her platform? Why are are you making comments like this, if you haven't done any research?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

I know. I have some friends who are these people (not many). I just don't get it.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I don't get it. The whole democratic party platform does exactly what they're saying they want.

They're mad because there aren't more democrats in office to enact that policy.

They then deride bipartisanship and promote obstructionism, ensuring that nothing they want will get enacted when republicans are in power.

Their solution is to revolutionize the 2 party system and change all the laws they don't like (magically? I think).....instead of working to get more democrats elected the enact the platform that they want.

IF we elect filibuster proof majority democrats and a democratic president and the don't take steps to implement their platform, then I'll be right next to you guys, pissed off and calling for their heads. But until then, and especially with the positions some of you are taking regarding working with the other party, WTF do you think will happen...I mean in the real world?

0 Replies

Why I left the Democratic Party

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know