Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Zaro

Can the dem party be an opposition party?

Recommended Posts

Non-Democrats don't get a say in the direction of our party. Sorry. You are entitled to Trump. Nothing else.

 

Bill

 

No, I'm entitled to an opinion and a say. You're not the boss. :) Although I am surprised that you don't want to grow the party you claim to support. Excluding everyone who's a non-Democrat will only serve to shrink the party, not grow it. Counter productive much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-Democrats don't get a say in the direction of our party. Sorry. You are entitled to Trump. Nothing else.

 

Bill

 

You wish. More impotent words, by a pretend-Democratic-leader were never spoken. This hidebound insistence on blocking the Democratic Party from adapting to current realities will lead to the fate of the Whigs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm entitled to an opinion and a say. You're not the boss. :) Although I am surprised that you don't want to grow the party you claim to support. Excluding everyone who's a non-Democrat will only serve to shrink the party, not grow it. Counter productive much?

The Democratic party can't afford to build its foundation on attracting people who act as traitors in critical moments, as you have done.

 

You're out.

 

Bill

 

You wish. More impotent words, by a pretend-Democratic-leader were never spoken. This hidebound insistence on blocking the Democratic Party from adapting to current realities will lead to the fate of the Whigs.

 

No, we are going to re-build a winning liberal coalition.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democratic party can't afford to build its foundation on attracting people who act as traitors in critical moments, as you have done.

 

You're out.

 

Bill

 

I've done no such thing. To vote for a candidate I see as untrustworthy (and who doesn't represent me) would be traitorous. I don't do blind faith (although they were a pretty good band... :)).

 

Why should I vote for a candidate I can't stand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've done no such thing. To vote for a candidate I see as untrustworthy (and who doesn't represent me) would be traitorous. I don't do blind faith (although they were a pretty good band... :)).

 

Why should I vote for a candidate I can't stand?

 

Because the alternative was (and is) Donald Trump.

 

We could have had a good liberal being inaugurated this month. You—and others like you— failed to prevent a fascist from coming to power. That's a huge failure.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, we are going to re-build a winning liberal coalition.

 

Bill

 

I sincerely hope you are correct.

 

That said, losing the presidency to such an incredibly weak Republican candidate is not a good sign for voter-confidence in the future. And doing it by frittering a away such a large lead in the beginning of the race, reeks of incompetence.

 

And with the executive branch went the congress, supreme court and losses in state governments and governorships.

 

All of the above might prove academic after Jan 20, when Trump actually starts doing stuff in addition to his tweeting. By cleaving to the status-quo, the Democrats have allowed the unthinkable to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because the alternative was (and is) Donald Trump.

 

I won't be fear mongered into voting for a crappy candidate simply because an even crappier candidate exists.

 

I vote "no" on ALL crappy candidates. :D

 

 

 

We could have had a good liberal being inaugurated this month. You—and others like you— failed to prevent a fascist from coming to power. That's a huge failure.

 

Many don't see HRC as a "good liberal." Many don't even see her as liberal. I've always seen her as just another establishment Democrat who's there to make money and exchange political favors. I'm done voting for people like that. So are millions of others.

 

We need a candidate who will work for the working class (not Goldman Sachs, wealthy donors, or rich lobbyists).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I sincerely hope you are correct.

 

That said, losing the presidency to such an incredibly weak Republican candidate is not a good sign for voter-confidence in the future. And doing it by frittering a away such a large lead in the beginning of the race, reeks of incompetence.

 

And with the executive branch went the congress, supreme court and losses in state governments and governorships.

 

All of the above might prove academic after Jan 20, when Trump actually starts doing stuff in addition to his tweeting. By cleaving to the status-quo, the Democrats have allowed the unthinkable to happen.

 

Trump—while an ignorant and reprehensible human being—was not "weak" as his victories over all his Republican rivals and Ms Clinton showed.

 

I do think the American people will experience "buyer's remorse" very quickly. Democrats will need to provide a sane alternative.

 

The Democratic party was damaged this season by false narratives from the far left, including an unnecessarily destructive campaign by Bernie Sanders, that parroted the worst fiction of the far right.

 

HRC was and is a good liberal. The Rolling Rock-type attacks make common cause with extreme right and this lead to a Trump victory.

 

It is just dumb thinking (non-thinking?).

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Trump—while an ignorant and reprehensible human being—was not "weak" as his victories over all his Republican rivals and Ms Clinton showed.

 

He was an extremely weak candidate. Had he been forced to run against the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders, he would have been toast. Instead, he had the good fortune to run against the weakest Democratic candidate since Mike Dukakis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

He was an extremely weak candidate. Had he been forced to run against the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders, he would have been toast. Instead, he had the good fortune to run against the weakest Democratic candidate since Mike Dukakis.

 

HRC beat Bernie Sanders soundly. Let's not engage in revisionist history. And had Bernie's past been raised by opposition research (attacks HRC did not make) Sanders would have been destroyed. He would have been the weakest Democratic candidate ever.

 

At is was he did tremendous damage to a party he (briefly) pretended to join. Not an honest fellow.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think the American people will experience "buyer's remorse" very quickly. Democrats will need to provide a sane alternative.

I agree completely. Planning needs to start NOW.

 

 

 

 

The Democratic party was damaged this season by false narratives from the far left, including an unnecessarily destructive campaign by Bernie Sanders, that parroted the worst fiction of the far right.

Bernie's campaign wasn't destructive - it was one of the most productive campaigns in history. Sanders awakened millions of American activists (of all ages) who otherwise would never have voted (or even taken interest). Bernie made voters realize that elected officials are there to represent us (and it's way past time for them to start doing so).

 

He would have made an incredible president.

 

 

 

HRC was and is a good liberal. The Rolling Rock-type attacks make common cause with extreme right and this lead to a Trump victory.

 

It is just dumb thinking (non-thinking?).

 

Bill

Not. :lol: It's not an "attack," it's my opinion.....one I share will literally millions. I know you love her as a candidate, Bill, but many people simply did not like her or trust her. It's wasn't just me (not by a LONGSHOT). The DNC should have seen this coming.

 

HRC beat Bernie Sanders soundly. Let's not engage in revisionist history. And had Bernie's past been raised by opposition research (attacks HRC did not make) Sanders would have been destroyed. He would have been the weakest Democratic candidate ever.

 

At is was he did tremendous damage to a party he (briefly) pretended to join. Not an honest fellow.

 

Bill

 

Bernie is one of the most honest politicians in Washington (yes, they DO exist). Had he been the nominee, people who have never voted in their lives would have come out to the polls in droves. Those who had never volunteered for anything political would have been offering their time and money. He would have absolutely beaten Trump. I know of several people who aren't wealthy who maxed out their donations to Bernie (myself included). He ignited and inspired a movement that is ongoing, despite his defeat. To deny that is to deny reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democratic party was damaged by party leadership being dishonest, tone-deaf, and stupid. Hillary lost because she did nothing to address the trust issues, and did even less to reach out to Berine supporters. In fact, she seemed determined to drive them away with her appointment of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her choice of Kaine for VP. Furthermore, and probably worst of all, instead of running on and clearly, loudly, enthusiastically endorsing the liberal platform the DNC crafted, Hillary ran on.... being Not-Trump. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough. That, in and of itself, shows how little she understands liberals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having millions of people not vote in the face of a potential Trump presidency is not an "awakening." It is the opposite. The Sanders' movement lead to the worst nihilism, inaction, and self-defeating tactics of modern times.

 

This is destructive on a myriad of levels. Anger, cynicism, false promises, and dishonesty are not foundations on which to build political movements.

 

Bernie Sanders asked his followers for no hard work or any element of self-sacrifice. Instead, he promised people free stuff paid for with other people's money. He had NO PLANS. It was all platitudes and angry appeals to populism (the lowest road in politics).

 

Bernie carried water for the right. It hurt.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

HRC beat Bernie Sanders soundly. Let's not engage in revisionist history. And had Bernie's past been raised by opposition research (attacks HRC did not make) Sanders would have been destroyed. He would have been the weakest Democratic candidate ever.

 

At is was he did tremendous damage to a party he (briefly) pretended to join. Not an honest fellow.

 

Bill

 

Saying that Sanders would have defeated Trump, in a two party race, is not contradicted by Clinton beating Sanders within her own party. Please learn the meaning of "revisionist history" and use it appropriately next time.

 

Unlike Hillary, Bernie was popular, nationally, in both parties. Very much unlike Hillary, the Republicans had no dirt on Bernie except to call him a Socialist. The whole time he ran, he freely touted his belief in Democratic Socialism with no dropoff in his popularity. The Republicans would have yelled "Socialist" until they were blue in the face, without effect.

 

When the "honesty" of Hillary and Bernie is compared, all but the most slavish Hillary followers, would find Bernie the more honest by far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having millions of people not vote in the face of a potential Trump presidency is not an "awakening." It is the opposite. The Sanders' movement lead to the worst nihilism, inaction, and self-defeating tactics of modern times.

 

This is destructive on a myriad of levels. Anger, cynicism, false promises, and dishonesty are not foundations on which to build political movements.

It's not destructive at all. It's today's reality, Bill. Gone are the days when people hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. Message to the DNC: come up with better candidates. Or lose. It's that simple.

 

 

Bernie Sanders asked his followers for no hard work or any element of self-sacrifice. Instead, he promised people free stuff paid for with other people's money. He had NO PLANS. It was all platitudes and angry appeals to populism (the lowest road in politics).

 

Bernie carried water for the right. It hurt.

 

Bill

Bernie did no such thing. And if you think his campaign was all about "free stuff," then it's painfully obvious you weren't listening to a word he said. Bernie had plenty of plans.....all of which he would have fought for tooth and nail. He was the only one who understood that the working class is drowning.

 

HRC has no clue what it's like to be poor.....nor, imho, does she care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying that Sanders would have defeated Trump, in a two party race, is not contradicted by Clinton beating Sanders within her own party. Please learn the meaning of "revisionist history" and use it appropriately next time.

 

Unlike Hillary, Bernie was popular, nationally, in both parties. Very much unlike Hillary, the Republicans had no dirt on Bernie except to call him a Socialist. The whole time he ran, he freely touted his belief in Democratic Socialism with no dropoff in his popularity. The Republicans would have yelled "Socialist" until they were blue in the face, without effect.

 

When the "honesty" of Hillary and Bernie is compared, all but the most slavish Hillary followers, would find Bernie the more honest by far.

Wrong. There was tons of dirt on Bernie, including—but not limited to—his support for totalitarian dictators.

 

A life spent on the dole, stealing electricity, fathering a child out of wedlock, writing rape fantasy, and never holding a job would have hurt him as the bio unfolded.

 

Revisionist history is used correctly in my case. It is a leftist tactic to re-write reality. The Sanders' movement showed no attachment to reality this season. It lead to a scorched earth campaign long after the race was clearly over.

 

Bernie lied to everyone. He claimed he could still win, when it was long over. He promised people free stuff, but could explain no plan of action. He did a good job stirring up anger. But that's the hallmark of demagogues, not statesmen.

 

And in the end, he furthered nihilism, defeat, and the election of Donald trump. Sad legacy.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not destructive at all. It's today's reality, Bill. Gone are the days when people hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. Message to the DNC: come up with better candidates. Or lose. It's that simple.

 

 

Bernie did no such thing. And if you think his campaign was all about "free stuff," then it's painfully obvious you weren't listening to a word he said. Bernie had plenty of plans.....all of which he would have fought for tooth and nail. He was the only one who understood that the working class is drowning.

 

HRC has no clue what it's like to be poor.....nor, imho, does she care.

It is a false narrative (echoing the alt.right) that HRC was the "lesser of two evils," as she was not an "evil" in any measure, but a good liberal who would have advanced liberal causes in this country.

 

You've become part of the "fake news" machine. You are just blowing hot air (and mendacity) from the far-left instead of the far-right. But the wind is hard to distinguish.

 

Liberals will brave assaults from both extremes.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is a false narrative (echoing the alt.right) that HRC was the "lesser of two evils," as she was not an "evil" in any measure, but a good liberal who would have advanced liberal causes in this country.

 

Some see her as incredibly evil. Millions don't consider her liberal. You do realize that, don't you? This isn't just a bunch of b/s I'm dreaming up out of boredom.

 

With Trump looming as the alternative, millions STILL couldn't bring themselves to vote for HRC. What does that say? Seriously.

 

HRC was one of the most unpopular candidates in history. Her trustworthiness has been in the commode for decades.

 

 

You've become part of the "fake news" machine. You are just blowing hot air (and mendacity) from the far-left instead of the far-right. But the wind is hard to distinguish.

 

Liberals will brave assaults from both extremes.

 

Bill

I AM a liberal. :) It's not an "assault." It's the truth as millions see it. The time to represent the working class is here. If a Democrat won't do it, someone else will. My vote will be with that person, whoever it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some see her as incredibly evil. Millions don't consider her liberal. You do realize that, don't you? This isn't just a bunch of b/s I'm dreaming up out of boredom.

 

With Trump looming as the alternative, millions STILL couldn't bring themselves to vote for HRC. What does that say? Seriously.

 

 

 

 

I AM a liberal. :) It's not an "assault." It's the truth as millions see it. The time to represent the working class is here. If a Democrat won't do it, someone else will. My vote will be with that person, whoever it is.

No man. You've described yourself as "far to the left" and you're just trying to play it both ways.

 

Populism is the ugliest ideology of all time. That applies right and left.

 

Liberals stand against demagogery. We don't embrace it.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No man. You've described yourself as "far to the left" and you're just trying to play it both ways.

 

Populism is the ugliest ideology of all time. That applies right and left.

 

Liberals stand against demagogery. We don't embrace it.

 

Bill

Nope, sorry. :D I'm a liberal. Some liberals ARE far left. Really.

 

This may come as a shocker to you, but the political world doesn't adhere to your personal definitions.

 

The day has come for politicians to represent the working class.....or get voted out. It's already begun. If the DNC is smart, they will dredge up come candidates who will represent average Americans.

 

Goldman Sachs, wealthy donors, and Democratic insiders can fuck off. It's time for liberal politicians to represent "we, the people".....or lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, sorry. :D I'm a liberal. Some liberals ARE far left. Really.

 

This may come as a shocker to you, but the political world doesn't adhere to your personal definitions.

 

The day has come for politicians to represent the working class.....or get voted out. It's already begun. It will continue.

I believe your exact self-description is "I'm as left as it gets."

 

Liberals are not far leftists.

 

You left the Democratic party 16 years ago in pursuit of nihilism.

 

You left. Stay out of our party, please.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I believe your exact self-description is "I'm as left as it gets."

 

You left the Democratic party 16 years ago in pursuit of nihilism.

 

You left. Stay out of our party, please.

 

Bill

No, I left the party 16 years ago because the party was starting to represent Wall Street, lousy trade deals, and establishment politics instead of the people who elected them.

 

I'm still hoping they see the light, in time.

 

Plutocracy is not the answer. We desperately need to get big money, lobbyists, and Wall Street influence out of politics.

 

I'll do as a I please. Put up another unlikeable, untrustworthy (albeit "qualified") candidate like HRC, you have no worries about most Bernie supporters coming near the party. That means, most likely, the DNC will lose again. Is that what you seriously want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong on all fronts.

 

Bill Clinton was not on "the right" and, after devistating losses in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988, it was a boon to the Democratic party to win back-to-back elections behind one of the most popular and politically gifted Democrats of the modern era.

 

Democrats should not aim to be an "opposition party," but the ruling party.

 

Bill

 

I was there. I saw it happen. I handed out pamphlets for Hubert Humphrey when I was 13. The party stood for something back then. Clinton moved the party right in order to achieve temporary success, but doomed the party in the long run. Look at it now --- barely bragging a majority in a few state legislatures. As Harry Truman said, "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."

 

Clinton and the DLC turned their back on core principles to "be the ruling party." But their shortsighted lack of ethics and principles gutted the Democratic party and drove away millions of voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was there. I saw it happen. I handed out pamphlets for Hubert Humphrey when I was 13. The party stood for something back then. Clinton moved the party right in order to achieve temporary success, but doomed the party in the long run. Look at it now --- barely bragging a majority in a few state legislatures. As Harry Truman said, "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."

 

Clinton and the DLC turned their back on core principles to "be the ruling party." But their shortsighted lack of ethics and principles gutted the Democratic party and drove away millions of voters.

I worked on Bobby Kennedy's campaign (as a ten-year-old) in 1968.

 

I also remember the far-left idiots who rioted against HHH in Chicago and across the country who called Humphrey a fascist and helped elect Nixon.

 

Nothing has changed with the divisionary and self-defeating tactics of the Left. Humphrey was a good liberal, not my first or second choice, but the Left took him down.

 

This time the Left took down HRC. In 2000 they took down Gore.

 

The Left has a nasty history of treachery and right-wing enabling in this country.

 

I'm done with the destructive tactics of the Left. And I think it is beyond ironic that you'd point to Humphrey as the great liberal hope, when he was killed by the "dump the Hump" leftists in 1968.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democratic party was damaged this season by false narratives from the far left, including an unnecessarily destructive campaign by Bernie Sanders, that parroted the worst fiction of the far right.

 

If the Democratic Party doesn't veer left, it is doomed. This hidebound insistence on blocking the Democratic Party from adapting to current realities will lead to the fate of the Whigs. And they will go down screaming "Bernie Sanders did it to me".

 

 

The definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting the same result.

- Albert Einstein

 

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

- George Santayana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...