8
   

Dems respect diversity but how deeply?

 
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2019 11:03 am
The question this thread poses is whether the Democrats respect diverse opinions (and this question has been fully answered). The more interesting question is this...

Should the Democrats reach out to people with diverse opinions?

I agree with many traditional Democratic positions, but I disagree with what I see as an extreme obsession with an ideology focused on White women.

There are millions of voters like me. I am inclined to vote for Democrats, but I am upset with the extremism in the party. I don't expect the party to agree with me on every point, I do expect them to respect those of us with differences and to stop insulting entire groups of voters.

Should the Democratic party reach out to me to earn my vote? If they tell us all to take a hike, we will.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2019 11:29 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
The present leaders of the democrat party are middle of the road to slightly conservative. There is no liberal party as such. Only a few liberal politicians who are attacked by their own party. No wonder they have been a minority party. Most people can't tell the difference between dems and republicans. With Obama care much of the opposition was from LIBERAL legislators.


word

American liberal is an oxymoron
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2019 12:25 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Should the Democrats reach out to people with diverse opinions?

For example by recognizing all the religions with sexual restrictions of various kinds, and honoring those as more than just systematic discrimination against sexual diversity and reproductive 'choices?'
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2019 12:58 pm
@maxdancona,
It would seem easy enough, if extreme positions on women's issues are the deciding factor for you then figure what offends you less, "an extreme obsession with an ideology focused on White women," or the "grab them by the pussy" faction, and vote accordingly.

If you're wanting the "extreme obsession with an ideology focused on White women" faction to leave the Democratic Party for your sake, don't hold your breath.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2019 02:08 pm
@InfraBlue,
I want the Democratic party to be more accepting of other points of view. This doesn't mean kicking out the ideological White woman wing from the Democratic party. It does mean letting other points of view make a home there.

I am arguing for a diversity of opinion in the party. The Democratic party of 2019 is quite narrow.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2019 04:16 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I want the Democratic party to be more accepting of other points of view. This doesn't mean kicking out the ideological White woman wing from the Democratic party. It does mean letting other points of view make a home there.

I am arguing for a diversity of opinion in the party. The Democratic party of 2019 is quite narrow.

So, you want the Democratic party to be more accepting of the "grab them by the pussy" point of view. That's being covered by the GOP.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2019 04:44 pm
@InfraBlue,
You are going right for the extreme.... you are kind of making my point for me.

Diversity means people within the Democratic coalition can disagree without being insulted. I want to support the Democrats, I am being pushed out by the ideological left. This is a not a good thing for the electoral chances of the Democrats.


neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2019 07:13 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I am arguing for a diversity of opinion in the party. The Democratic party of 2019 is quite narrow.


I guess I'm just not seeing your point. If the Democratic party includes women, specifically white women, and support women's issues of all color, then that narrowness is somehow pushing you out of the Democratic party?

Brand X
 
  6  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2019 07:19 pm
One glaring example of disrespect of diversity in the 2019 Dem Party is the way progressives want to shut down all the moderate voices, and some of the moderates treat some of the progressives like they are not Dems.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2019 07:31 pm
@maxdancona,
You are the one complaining about an extreme on left, "an obsession with an ideology focused on White women." I'm addressing this complaint of yours. Are you saying that this diversity you're arguing for is mere disagreement with this faction of the democratic coalition, and you're being insulted for disagreeing with it? Or is this diversity you're arguing for something along the lines of the tiki torching alt-right that the "deplorable" charge was, rightly, aimed at? The "grab them by the pussy" faction is equally deplorable.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2019 07:48 pm
@Brand X,
Brand X wrote:

One glaring example of disrespect of diversity in the 2019 Dem Party is the way progressives want to shut down all the moderate voices, and some of the moderates treat some of the progressives like they are not Dems.

I don't think the Democratic Party can sustain this rift between its traditional center-right core and the more leftist faction coming into the party. I don't see a candidate coming out the way Trump did with the GOP, imposing his brand of populism that in many ways goes against traditional Republican ideas and getting party members to follow in lockstep.
ehBeth
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2019 08:03 pm
@Brand X,
Brand X wrote:

One glaring example of disrespect of diversity in the 2019 Dem Party is the way progressives want to shut down all the moderate voices, and some of the moderates treat some of the progressives like they are not Dems.


that seems to be more of a forum issue than what is happening on the ground with voters
0 Replies
 
nacredambition
 
  5  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2019 10:34 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
Dems respect diversity but how deeply?


As deeply as Republicans, but the big knee deep in it for you is that both parties will have no truck with schmucks that want to ban fornication and abortion because an imaginary being is against it.

0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2019 11:08 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Real Music has stated clearly that the Democratic party can take their vote for granted. They don't have to worry at all about what Real Music feels about any position or wants as far as policy.
The primaries will determined what kind of candidate will represent the democratic party in the general election. I will cast my vote in the primaries for who I want to represent the democratic party in the general election. There is no one perfect candidate that will be the most acceptable candidate to all democrats. That candidate simply doesn't exist. It is unrealistic for anyone to think such a candidate actually exist. Ultimately there can only be one winner in the primary. As a democrat, I do my part by voting in the primaries. Preferably "closed" primaries. After a candidate has won the democratic party primary, they can surely count on me to show up at the polls to vote democrat in the general.


Quote:
I will insist that the Democrat party earn my vote.
The only time the democrat has to earn my vote is during the primaries.
They are guaranteed to get my vote in the general.


Quote:
They need to convince me that they are listening to my positions.
That's fine.
The democratic party should also be listening to the far left and pro-choice wing of the party.
Especially if the pro-choice wing of the party represents the vast majority of the party.


Quote:
They need to show me that they respect me as an American.
I never thought the democratic party disagreeing with your views was seen as disrespecting you as an American.
Your views are your views. If the democratic party disagree with your views, that simply means the democratic disagrees with your views.
Nothing more, nothing less.


Quote:
I understand that it isn't realistic for them to agree with me 100%, but I want them to avoid positions that I consider extreme and I want to know that they respect my position even if the chosen candidate doesn't agree with it.
The party is never going to please everyone. The best thing to have a "closed" primary and battle out our differences. Then stand behind the winner of the primaries by voting for that person in the general election. The primaries is where you battle out your differences. Not in the general election.


Quote:
The Democratic party has a responsibility to find a candidate who can reach out to a broad portion of the American electorate.
I disagree. The democratic party has the responsibility to pick a candidate who is most acceptable to the democratic party. That is why we democrats vote in our "closed" primaries, so that we democrats can pick our candidates.


Quote:
If the Democrats chose another bad candidate and then tells me to vote for them because Trump... I am not doing that again.

Real Music is giving up the power to insist the party represent their position. Actually I am perfectly fine with that.... it gives me more leverage to get a Democratic candidate that I find acceptable. Because, I will not vote for another unacceptable candidate.
Sometimes the democrats will win in the general. Sometimes the democrats will lose in the general. Sometimes my preferred candidate will win the primaries. Sometimes my preferred candidate will lose in the primaries. I am happy when the democrats win. I am not happy when the democrats lose. The last election is over. I am looking only at the next election. There are no guarantees in politics. There is one guarantee. I guarantee I will be voting democrat.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2019 11:57 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
I don't think the Democratic Party can sustain this rift between its traditional center-right core and the more leftist faction coming into the party. I don't see a candidate coming out the way Trump did with the GOP, imposing his brand of populism that in many ways goes against traditional Republican ideas and getting party members to follow in lockstep.
Like I posted in the other thread, we're at the beginning of a 20 year period of Republican rule. Normally when a party faces an extended period out of power, they resort to extremist nuttiness. So I'm expecting the whacko far left to control the Democratic Party over the next couple decades.

In the end though, moderates will grow sick and tired of being out of power, and will purge the Democratic Party of these nutcase extremists. I'm thinking the purge will begin about 17 years from now. The Democrats will finally nominate a sensible moderate to run in the 2036 election.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2019 11:59 pm
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:
There are no guarantees in politics. There is one guarantee. I guarantee I will be voting democrat.
Why not consider voting for a party that doesn't try to violate the Second Amendment for fun?
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2019 12:43 am
@Real Music,
When you are casting your primary vote, remember that the Democratic primary means nothing if the Democrat doesn't win in the general election. Your vote is already locked up for the Democrats. There is no reason to worry about the people who like you are certain to vote for the Democratic candidate.

When you vote in the primary... think about the candidate who can reach out to the middle Americs. There are tens of millions of people like me who aren't shouting neo-nazi slogans with tiki torches but who are also put off by the angry ideological left screaming at us with pink hats. Infrablue's implication that we have to choose between pink hats or tiki torches is insulting... there is no reason that we can't reject both extremes. Insulting voters is rather bad strategy.

The Democrats have to find a candidate and a message that can reach out to middle America. Yes, they have to also speak to the base (although not too much because they are already in the bag)... but they need to find a way to make a broad majority of Americans with many perspectives feel respected (or at least not insulted).

I will gladly vote for a Democratic candidate with sensible progressive values. I will vote for a Democrat who disagrees with me on certain issues as long as they are strong leader with a sincere desire to understand and unite.

I will not vote for a Democratic candidate that is divisive, who insults other groups of Americans, or who makes arguments based on what I see as ideology over reason. I cast such a vote in 2016 and I felt horrible about it.

Think about this carefully. The 2020 election depends on it. If you are satisfied with a Democrat winning the Democratic primary, I think you are missing the point.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2019 12:54 am
@maxdancona,
I used to vote for pro-gun Democrats in the general election.

Not after those creeps disenfranchised Michigan in the 2008 presidential primary though. Now it's a straight Republican ticket every single time.

I even research which judges are Republicans so I can vote for them.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2019 01:40 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Think about this carefully. The 2020 election depends on it. If you are satisfied with a Democrat winning the Democratic primary, I think you are missing the point.
I disagree. I think you are the one who is missing the point. I know exactly where I stand. Like it or not, we live in a two party system. I know which party is more in line with my views. That party is the democratic party. Third party candidates has absolutely no chance of winning the White House. That leaves me one of four choices:

1. Vote democrat, the party who is mostly in line with my views.
2. Vote republican, the party I am vehemently oppose to.
3. Voting for a third party is an option for some, but it is not an option for me.
4. Staying at home and not voting is an option for some, but it is not an option for me.

The democrat has to earn my vote in the primary. After the primary is over, whoever wins the primary will automatically get my vote in the general. I know exactly where I stand. For the record, I am satisfied with the field of candidates who are expected to run for the democratic nomination.

Let me repeat that last statement, because it needs to be repeated:

I am satisfied with the field of candidates who are expected to run for the democratic nomination.

There is no question to where I stand.
You can either respect where I stand or not respect where I stand.

Just remember, don't ask for respect unless you are willing to give respect.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2019 09:46 am
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:
If the Democratic party includes women, specifically white women, and support women's issues of all color, then that narrowness is somehow pushing you out of the Democratic party?

When the Democrat party claims to support women in all their diversity, how does that translate into respecting women who are pro-life and/or Republicans? My impression is that such women are basically dismissed as 'uncle toms' of sexism or seen as captives of conservatives. Liberals refuse to grasp how some people choose various levels of sexual repression/restriction and are even liberated by it.

They think no right-minded woman would want abortion to be illegal, but they fundamentally miss how personal discipline naturally extends to moral legislation. No one wants to make murder into a personal choice and let individuals decide for themselves whether or not to murder their enemies. No, we want to extend our personal prohibition against murder to legislating it at the state level where that's allowed. Why wouldn't you think that morally-confident women would also want pre-natal infanticide legislated and prohibited in the same way murder is?

Show me how Democrats respect just this basic diversity among women's attitudes toward sexual regulation, and I will start to believe that there is real openness to diversity instead of just lip-service and superficial celebration of aesthetic differences for the sake of corralling in more votes and money.

Really I think the Democratic party should just stop claiming to represent and/or embrace entire categories of people. If there was only one party for women, people of color, LGTBQ, workers, etc. then that is basically saying those people have no right to democracy, i.e. because they have to vote for the only party that represents them. The fact is that anyone can hold any political view. You can be LGTBQ without celebrating pride the same as someone can be heterosexual without having pride in their sexuality. You can be a woman and be against socialism. You can be a person of color and be against socialized health care and/or housing. You can be worker without thinking that collective bargaining is the best way of engaging management.

Political diversity and ultimately democracy itself is about thinking independently and having an open and constructive public discourse/discussion among all different points of view. It is not about corralling diversity into a unified front against the specter of oppression projected onto your rival party.
 

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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/15/2020 at 12:21:08