Progressives (Liberals)

@hightor,

Yes. People are rejecting party affiliation like hot cakes. Parties have ruined our country.

@maporsche,

People have the constitutional right to vote for everyone and anyone in November.

@maporsche,

...after political machines and their smug sycophants have cheated the people’s choice candidates out of the election.

No deal.

1 Reply

@Lash,

1 Reply

Reaction to Kamala’s entry is mixed with establishment types saying a black woman can beat Trump and progressives saying this:

Jennifer🌹#HConRes142
@teddy_cat1
·
2m
Replying to
@EdKrassen
Hard pass. She won't get the progressive vote she needs to beat Trump because of her voting record and her history as a prosecutor and a tool for the 1% (see below). Dancing in a chair and pretending to be in touch with the 99% is not going to cut it.

As a prosecutor, she has a really bad dossier against poor and black people. I’m sure the establishment probably has a game plan. Will be interesting to see.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

Riveting, well-considered response, as I’ve come to expect from you.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

Parties have ruined our country.

Maybe it'd be better then not to vote for party-affiliated candidates at all? And as maporsche points out, if people are voting for the person, not the party, they can write in the candidate's name in November. That would shake up the parties more than swelling their voting numbers with people who don't have any intention of supporting the party itself.

Or would it be better to make political parties truly representative, ideologically coherent, and effective? (Warning — this requires some measure of party discipline.)

Parties don't ruin countries — people do.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Or would it be better to make political parties truly representative, ideologically coherent, and effective? (Warning — this requires some measure of party discipline.)

The problem is the minute you do this for one faction, you make it less representative of another faction. There is no pleasing everybody.

Not every Democratic person should vote the same as every other democratic person. It shouldn't be a requirement. It shouldn't be expected. It shouldn't be a disqualifier.

You progressives want your ideas to win? Start getting more American people on your side. You'll convince me with your ideas. Your hate will only cause me to smile and shake my head. The hate and attack hinder my ability to like you or your ideas.

Give me bills. Give me a plan. Give me a power point. Just give me something more than "corporate democrats are evil" or some implied connection that because senator X has $10,000 invested in company Y that they can't make good policy.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

Factionalism within parties can be addressed. Usually the goals are similar, it's the method of achieving those ends where party coherence often breaks down. But if the party is seen to have a larger over-arching political philosophy individuals can feel that they are part of the party, even if they might be more to the left or the right of other members. Hell, I nearly always vote for Democrats even though the usual candidates are much more conservative than I'd ideally like to see. Our political system is far from perfect; I don't expect major political parties to accurately reflect my personal political philosophy and I came to terms with that years ago.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

I don't expect major political parties to accurately reflect my personal political philosophy and I came to terms with that years ago.

Nor do I. Nor should anyone.

Progressives, it seems, disagree with us though.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Yeah, we do disagree.

When they have a candidate we want to vote for, we feel that we should be allowed to vote for them—primary or general.

Barriers intended to prevent Americans the ability to vote for our preferred candidate is anti-democratic.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

You just argued your own point in the Progressive Party analogy where people who ‘know better’ swoop in to de-select this candidate WHO THEY THINK is making promises he can’t (they don’t want him to) fund (with their money).

That's the trouble with hypotheticals, I guess. In my analogy I wanted to draw a distinction between loyal and longtime party members and someone who's just using the party as a steppingstone to secure power. (Which is what Trump did.) There are times when a political party needs to exert control over its message. It's not a matter of people who "know better". If there's too big a disjunct between the traditional party and the positions of its candidate it can affect the turnout of party regulars. I mean, how would you feel if we had a real socialist party in this country and someone like Hillary came in, declared her candidacy, and starting attracting all these votes, running on a regressive platform? "Put America to work! Produce more bombs! War = Jobs!"

2 Replies

@hightor,

That’s a fair question and I’m going to give you an honest answer that you may not believe:

If the fight was fair, and the majority of voters in this country were able to hear my side’s policies, methods of realizing those policies, my side wasn’t cheated—and my side was rejected, I’d keep either keep advocating as long as I lived—but I wouldn’t feel the bitterness of being cheated—or I’d try to talk my family into moving to a country that more closely espoused my preferred public policy.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

Well sure. And in states with decent registration procedures and well-run elections it really isn't that difficult to enroll in a party, switch parties, or vote as an independent.

You are absolutely correct.
As far as I know, changing party affiliation is no more difficult than registering to vote.
As far as I know, the process of changing party affiliation is the same process as registering to vote.
Also once someone does change their party affiliation, there is nothing preventing them from keeping that change (permanent). Unless they choose to change their party affiliation (temporarily).

No one is left out of (closed) primaries unless they choose not to register with the party.
It's all about what a person chooses to do.

This last statement is just me speaking from the heart:

Someone who is not part of my party should have (absolutely) no say with what goes on in my party.

That is only fair.

0 Replies

As a registered democrat, I actually do want my party to move more to the left.

0 Replies

@hightor,

You’re leaving a lot of vital truth out.

Superdelegates are, indeed, people who can overturn the will of a popular movement/candidate based on the perception that ‘they know better’.

Because of the #DemExit that followed the cheating of Bern, largely via superdelegates, the DNC has reduced the power of superdelegates, in an effort to attract their losses back.

1 Reply

Superdelegates are the devil's playground. Designed to keep people like Jimmy Carter and Bernie Sanders from winning the nomination, regardless of what the voters want.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

My problem with party politics is that Republicans are too business orentated, too conservative. Democrats are too middle of the road. We haven't had a liberal president since Johnson. Today's democrats are conservative light who are also wedded to big money.

4 Replies

@RABEL222,

Quote:

We haven't had a liberal president since Johnson.

We have not had a traitor president since Obama, that is not a reason to elect another one.

Quote:

Today's democrats are

Anti-American.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

Today's democrats are conservative light who are also wedded to big money.

Fine. This isn't the fault of Democrats though, it's the fault of the inability to get election reform passed because people keep electing Republicans.

Democrats want to take big-money out of politics. It's on their party platform. It's brought up during every primary. They've actually tried to pass bills.

It won't happen if people don't vote for democrats. There is no 3rd party that will save you. You need to get enough democrats in office, nationwide, and then they need to change the rules on election spending. There is nothing suggesting that they won't. All they've ever said is that they won't be the only party to adhere to the rules they want to implement.

Big-money is way more important for Republicans. You really think that Democrats would want to keep big money around?

3 Replies

Progressives (Liberals)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know