• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats, you have one real job...and you are screwing it up

bongsaway said:
You guys on the right do realize you're only blowing around a lot of hot air telling the dems who their standard bearers are, don't you?
Click to expand...

It's CLEAR you folks on the left don't have a standard bearer. We are just trying to help you make up your minds, much like you folks did when we had 17 or so candidates in the primaries.
 
smallvoice said:
It's CLEAR you folks on the left don't have a standard bearer. We are just trying to help you make up your minds, much like you folks did when we had 17 or so candidates in the primaries.
Click to expand...

Don't kid yourself, most dems did not watch the republicans debates. Further, we not only don't need your 'help' in picking our nominee, we don't want it. We see how the right did with their last nominee. He may be sitting in the white house but it's far from a 'win' for america. Thanks for the offer but no thanks.
 
Mycroft said:
How much is it?
Click to expand...

I don't claim to be an expert...but if you were working age in the New Deal era, (1947-1980) you got a pretty square deal even if you were on the bottom.
The bottom was still very much the bottom and no one wanted to stay there, but it was a square deal, meaning you could reach the next rung on the ladder if you had enough ambition.

I don't think that this generation today is getting the same square deal starting out that the previous generations did (like mine, for instance).
It's like the bottom two rungs on the ladder have been sawed off for them, that's all.

So...how much? That's something we all have to try to figure out. This isn't about giveaways and free stuff, it's not some "leftist" thing, it's just about giving people at the bottom a fighting chance, a square deal. That's what previous generations got. This generation deserves it, too.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I don't claim to be an expert...but if you were working age in the New Deal era, (1947-1980) you got a pretty square deal even if you were on the bottom.
The bottom was still very much the bottom and no one wanted to stay there, but it was a square deal, meaning you could reach the next rung on the ladder if you had enough ambition.

I don't think that this generation today is getting the same square deal starting out that the previous generations did (like mine, for instance).
It's like the bottom two rungs on the ladder have been sawed off for them, that's all.

So...how much? That's something we all have to try to figure out. This isn't about giveaways and free stuff, it's not some "leftist" thing, it's just about giving people at the bottom a fighting chance, a square deal. That's what previous generations got. This generation deserves it, too.
Click to expand...

The problem now is that members of Congress think this SHOULD be a giveaway. That's why I was asking how much they think our government should be giving away to people.
 
bongsaway said:
Don't kid yourself, most dems did not watch the republicans debates. Further, we not only don't need your 'help' in picking our nominee, we don't want it. We see how the right did with their last nominee. He may be sitting in the white house but it's far from a 'win' for america. Thanks for the offer but no thanks.
Click to expand...

You say. I say Trump is a ****, but he's better for America than the DNC's choice was.

OBTW, I was merely bringing up how adamant you libs were to know who the R candidate was going to be. It was a question asked multiple time daily. Who would have thought that Trump would ours, and I really hope yours is better than the last one, but your track record is not positive.
 
smallvoice said:
You say. I say Trump is a ****, but he's better for America than the DNC's choice was.

OBTW, I was merely bringing up how adamant you libs were to know who the R candidate was going to be. It was a question asked multiple time daily. Who would have thought that Trump would ours, and I really hope yours is better than the last one, but your track record is not positive.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I've asked that question, run who you wish.
 
Mycroft said:
The problem now is that members of Congress think this SHOULD be a giveaway. That's why I was asking how much they think our government should be giving away to people.
Click to expand...

"...that members of Congress..."

Which members? Are there specific members, or is this just a generalized opinion?


"...think this SHOULD be a giveaway."

Is this in reference to specifics, or are you commenting on statements? I'd like to know if this is just another vague reference to Republican tropes about "free stuff" and "big government" or if you're focused on actual bills being moved through the legislature right now.

I ask because I am making a long term observation about long term changes in the last forty years which have influenced the quality of life for the generations of young people that came after my own generation when they were coming up and just starting out.

We have had "trickle down economics" for the last forty years.
Trickle down and Reaganomics and a general campaign that all government is evil have DOMINATED the economy ever since Reagan took office.

After forty years, people should be able to look back on what the average working family just starting out had in terms of quality of life and cost of living and they should be able to make COMPARISONS to the New Deal Era, which lasted approximately the same amount of time.

And if these great Republican principles are really so great, it should be easy to point out how much LESS a working family HAD to WORK, and how much MORE they got for their money, and how much more economic security they had, and how much better life would be for their children.

I know what was available to me in MY time, and I know what kind of future MY parents were able to provide for ME in my time, and I know how much they got in exchange for the work that they did. And I know what I was able to take advantage of in MY time. And I look at what working families are able to provide for their kids today, and I do not think it is possible to make comparisons between what kids face today and what my generation had to look forward to back then and claim that kids today have a better future.

So, if you can show me that the typical average family in America today can survive and even THRIVE on the income of ONE WAGE EARNER, who can provide living quarters, health care, higher education, a car or even TWO, vacation time, benefits and enough food to eat, I would like to see that.

Because that IS the standard of living that people in MY time WERE BLESSED WITH.
That was the New Deal, and I guarantee you that you CANNOT top it. No way, no how.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Find a Democrat suitable for OBOROSEN.
Yeah...that's the ticket!!
Click to expand...

That post would've been better spent, if you actually had a point.

Because as of now, one of the only democrats that I know of, who was fully willing to distance themselves from this green deal. Was Nancy Pelosi and by all rights most people in her own party don't really think she is mentally sound anymore. If she isn't having a hard time remembering who is actually president, or what year it is. She spends most of her time on the same tribal bandwagon that most of the DNC is embroiled in.

Kamala was possibly going to be my reason for going back to the democrats this coming election. But she is quickly destroying her chances of not only getting my vote. But everyone I now that left the democrats due to their actions in 2016.
 
Oborosen said:
That post would've been better spent, if you actually had a point.

Because as of now, one of the only democrats that I know of, who was fully willing to distance themselves from this green deal. Was Nancy Pelosi and by all rights most people in her own party don't really think she is mentally sound anymore. If she isn't having a hard time remembering who is actually president, or what year it is. She spends most of her time on the same tribal bandwagon that most of the DNC is embroiled in.

Kamala was possibly going to be my reason for going back to the democrats this coming election. But she is quickly destroying her chances of not only getting my vote. But everyone I now that left the democrats due to their actions in 2016.
Click to expand...

Why do I sense that you are still under the impression that I believe you're anything but an authoritarian on the right?
I do actually read your posts, not a scintilla of anything remotely resembling a Democratic voter.
I was born at night, but not last night, Oborosen.

And the illusion that's troubling you appears to be that you seem to think that the GND is some kind of a bill aimed at becoming law.
It isn't. It's a statement, a proposal, a blueprint, and this is a representative democracy, so at best the authors might expect to get a watered down fraction of each goal represented in the blueprint.

Take, for instance, the goal of greening up all our buildings. I think it was calculated at something like 1600 buildings a week.
Most likely, if they get their way, it would be something closer to a hundred or a couple of hundred buildings put on some kind of a green diet per week.

Eliminating all fossil fuels, never going to happen, but the backers would be thrilled if market incentives helped to make electric cars more affordable.

Socialism, also never going to happen. The market has the potential to be robust and healthy for the working families if capitalism is harnessed better as a tool to serve working families. Not socialism, but a capitalist system with a few minor but essential quasi-socialist tweaks.
Capitalism continues to fuel economic activity but government helps prevent capitalism from turning people and mom and pop businesses into snacks for oligarchs.

But it doesn't matter because in a day or so, or even a few minutes, you'll be back to expressing your admiration for the right.
Democrats were never worried about attracting the Oborosens of the world.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Why do I sense that you are still under the impression that I believe you're anything but an authoritarian on the right?
I do actually read your posts, not a scintilla of anything remotely resembling a Democratic voter.
I was born at night, but not last night, Oborosen.

And the illusion that's troubling you appears to be that you seem to think that the GND is some kind of a bill aimed at becoming law.
It isn't. It's a statement, a proposal, a blueprint, and this is a representative democracy, so at best the authors might expect to get a watered down fraction of each goal represented in the blueprint.

Take, for instance, the goal of greening up all our buildings. I think it was calculated at something like 1600 buildings a week.
Most likely, if they get their way, it would be something closer to a hundred or a couple of hundred buildings put on some kind of a green diet per week.

Eliminating all fossil fuels, never going to happen, but the backers would be thrilled if market incentives helped to make electric cars more affordable.

Socialism, also never going to happen. The market has the potential to be robust and healthy for the working families if capitalism is harnessed better as a tool to serve working families. Not socialism, but a capitalist system with a few minor but essential quasi-socialist tweaks.
Capitalism continues to fuel economic activity but government helps prevent capitalism from turning people and mom and pop businesses into snacks for oligarchs.

But it doesn't matter because in a day or so, or even a few minutes, you'll be back to expressing your admiration for the right.
Democrats were never worried about attracting the Oborosens of the world.
Click to expand...

When facts fail, attribute motive.

It's good to see that you've still the same poster you've always been.
Because if you've looked at the people pushing this whole thing. They don't seem to be worried about anything such as cost, or preparation.

Installing a rail system that would make air travel obsolete. Who the hell thinks that sort of thing is possible today, or within the next ten years for that matter?

Not to mention you just pointed out how even the people who're proposing this idiotic deal, don't have any inclination on how to work in actually achieving it. It's just as likely that simply implementing a quarter of it over the next decade. Would devastate our economy in the process.

Is that enough, or should I also bring up how your past on this site shows you to be a regressive leftist, sociopath?

Oh that's right, just because someone says it. Does not in anyway make it true.
Besides I don't need you to tell me who I am, or what my political stance is. Because I already know it.

So is there any other way you want to try and lie about me, or anyone else on this site, or are you actually done this time around?
 
Oborosen said:
When facts fail, attribute motive.

It's good to see that you've still the same poster you've always been.
Because if you've looked at the people pushing this whole thing. They don't seem to be worried about anything such as cost, or preparation.

Installing a rail system that would make air travel obsolete. Who the hell thinks that sort of thing is possible today, or within the next ten years for that matter?

Not to mention you just pointed out how even the people who're proposing this idiotic deal, don't have any inclination on how to work in actually achieving it. It's just as likely that simply implementing a quarter of it over the next decade. Would devastate our economy in the process.

Is that enough, or should I also bring up how your past on this site shows you to be a regressive leftist, sociopath?

Oh that's right, just because someone says it. Does not in anyway make it true.
Besides I don't need you to tell me who I am, or what my political stance is. Because I already know it.

So is there any other way you want to try and lie about me, or anyone else on this site, or are you actually done this time around?
Click to expand...

Try again...
 
Tanngrisnir said:
You're actually taking for granted that things that have been merely suggested by one individual will become policy of a candidate and a party. Not a good wager.
Click to expand...

I believe the new green deal is way too progressive to be promoted now. I like the goals, but it should wait until a Dem is in the WH and it'll probably need the Dems to control Congress before it ever sees the light of day.

I wish it was only suggested by one, but I've heard more than a few endorse it. The Repubs are going to have a field day with this one...
 
Started this thread almost two months ago, and it still looks the same. Democrats, you're gonna **** this one up...and I have at least one of my "brothers" who agrees with me.

Now, I get it: you don't need an ex-Republican who still votes mostly GOP telling you who you need to nominate. But you actually do, if you want to get those who are sick of Trump amongst our ranks as well as those who are fence sitters among the independents. I realize everyone plays to their base to get the nomination, but if you go too far left, there will be no real way to move back to the center and make it look honest.

How Democrats are losing 2020, already: Trump must not win reelection, but the candidates lining up to beat him are giving a good chance - New York Daily News

GOP consultants and elected officials know that Trump’s secret weapon was weaponizing grievances. They desperately want this to be a culture-war election.

But it doesn’t need to be. Kamala, Bernie, Elizabeth and others: How can you guys not get this?

Your base is so fired up that they’ll kick down doors to vote. They’ll crawl over broken glass. They’re all in, all done, and ready to kick Trump’s orange ass to the curb.

This isn’t about revving up your base. Trump does that for you with every manic tweet and every cruel act and gives you the rarest of luxuries in the American political landscape: the chance to talk to the middle, not the edge, and to do so from early on.
 
Airyaman said:
The most important job Democrats have -- in the view of this ex-Republican -- is to offer up someone who independents and NeverTrumpers can vote for instead of Trump.

Thus far, you are ****ing this up.

Example: the latest cluster **** is the "New Green Deal". Some of the early D contenders have "signed on". Kamala. Cory.

So they are out for this NeverTrumper. Kamala took herself out for me when she said she would eliminate all private health insurance, including that provided by employers.

As much as I've hated Nancy P. in the past, she gained some respect for saying the "New Green Deal" was a "dream deal". IOW, not realistic. She is at least pragmatic.

I will never vote for Trump. I would never normally vote for a Democrat either. But I considered it it as opposition to Trump.

Be careful of letting this pendulum swing too far. You are dangerously close to snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Click to expand...

Run Joe Run !!
 
This thread still has relevance.

Democrats are looking pretty good for snatching defeat out for jaws of victory. AOC and Pelosi are fighting and all of the D candidates raised their hand for giving healthcare to illegal immigrants.

This is a center right country. Recognize dumbasses.

Unless the economy tanks, the USA will get four more years or a lame duck Trump presidency.

I think we deserve it.
 
Airyaman said:
The most important job Democrats have -- in the view of this ex-Republican -- is to offer up someone who independents and NeverTrumpers can vote for instead of Trump.

Thus far, you are ****ing this up.

Example: the latest cluster **** is the "New Green Deal". Some of the early D contenders have "signed on". Kamala. Cory.

So they are out for this NeverTrumper. Kamala took herself out for me when she said she would eliminate all private health insurance, including that provided by employers.

As much as I've hated Nancy P. in the past, she gained some respect for saying the "New Green Deal" was a "dream deal". IOW, not realistic. She is at least pragmatic.

I will never vote for Trump. I would never normally vote for a Democrat either. But I considered it it as opposition to Trump.

Be careful of letting this pendulum swing too far. You are dangerously close to snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Click to expand...

Get over yourself. Just because YOU are happy with 'plutocrat light' over 'full plutocrat' - the 'centrist' wing of the Democratic Party - doesn't mean others are.

While we would very reluctantly take 'plutocrat light' over 'full plutocrat', just as I voted for Hillary who I had a lot of issues with over trump, we are going to fight for a BETTER candidate to win - a progressive, one who will prevent the disasters for the country from both plutocrat lights AND full plutocrats.

The fact you don't like that, because you prefer plutocrat light over progressive, isn't our problem.

And if YOU threaten to choose full plutocrat over a progressive or vote for neither, then YOU are the problem. We'll hold our noses and vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, and expect you to do the same.
 
Airyaman said:
This thread still has relevance.

Democrats are looking pretty good for snatching defeat out for jaws of victory. AOC and Pelosi are fighting and all of the D candidates raised their hand for giving healthcare to illegal immigrants.

This is a center right country. Recognize dumbasses.

Unless the economy tanks, the USA will get four more years or a lame duck Trump presidency.

I think we deserve it.
Click to expand...

If Trump has anyone competent around him his campaign is going to exploit that moment the entire election.

If Trump is the existential risk so many like to claim and that ousting him is the top priority it makes me wonder why someone like Manchin from West Virginia isn't running. If all Democrats, never trumpers, people that just want a return to normalcy all banded together he (or someone like him) would likely be garaunteed a victory against Trump. 4 years of someone viewed as moderate/centrist in exchange for booting Trump should be a good deal if you truly believe Trump to be Hitler.
 
Airyaman said:
This thread still has relevance.

Democrats are looking pretty good for snatching defeat out for jaws of victory. AOC and Pelosi are fighting and all of the D candidates raised their hand for giving healthcare to illegal immigrants.

This is a center right country. Recognize dumbasses.

Unless the economy tanks, the USA will get four more years or a lame duck Trump presidency.

I think we deserve it.
Click to expand...

There is a war between the corporate/centrist half of the Democratic Party, and the progressive half, for who the party will nominate, just as we split on Hillary and Bernie. That's unavoidable. What we need is unity once the war is fought, for both sides to support the nominee.

On the one hand, you're not wrong that a lot of the country is too right-wing, too pro-corporate. For example, even after the disastrous Bush presidency, including the Iraq War and his plutocracy, if not for the 2008 financial crash, it seems probably McCain could have defeated Obama, even with the arguably only person on a ticket in US history worse than trump, Sarah Palin. Should be SHOCKING, but it's the truth that almost half the country preferred McCain/Palin even then.

So, yes, it's an uphill battle. But it's not as simple as saying 'therefore, a sellout corporate Democrat has a better chance to win'. We've watched that faction lose over and over, and giving the people a 'real choice' like Bernie is rather unpredictable, but it's telling Bernie ALWAYS beats trump in polls - more than Hillary did. Who would have looked at trump and said 'that's the guy who can win for Republicans'? Very few had that opinion.

Democrats do NOT have an 'only' role to defeat trump. They also need to get the best president they can who defeats trump. If they nominate a bad candidate needlessly and win, that's a mistake. Of course, the conservative wing of the party doesn't think that's a bad thing, but the progressive wing does. The conservative wing will try to argue they're more 'electable', but I disagree.
 
Nap said:
If Trump is the existential risk so many like to claim and that ousting him is the top priority it makes me wonder why someone like Manchin from West Virginia isn't running.
Click to expand...

Electing the second worst person instead of the worst person is not much of a victory. We need to do better than electing a very bad president instead of an even worse president.
 
Craig234 said:
There is a war between the corporate/centrist half of the Democratic Party, and the progressive half, for who the party will nominate, just as we split on Hillary and Bernie. That's unavoidable. What we need is unity once the war is fought, for both sides to support the nominee.

On the one hand, you're not wrong that a lot of the country is too right-wing, too pro-corporate. For example, even after the disastrous Bush presidency, including the Iraq War and his plutocracy, if not for the 2008 financial crash, it seems probably McCain could have defeated Obama, even with the arguably only person on a ticket in US history worse than trump, Sarah Palin. Should be SHOCKING, but it's the truth that almost half the country preferred McCain/Palin even then.

So, yes, it's an uphill battle. But it's not as simple as saying 'therefore, a sellout corporate Democrat has a better chance to win'. We've watched that faction lose over and over, and giving the people a 'real choice' like Bernie is rather unpredictable, but it's telling Bernie ALWAYS beats trump in polls - more than Hillary did. Who would have looked at trump and said 'that's the guy who can win for Republicans'? Very few had that opinion.

Democrats do NOT have an 'only' role to defeat trump. They also need to get the best president they can who defeats trump. If they nominate a bad candidate needlessly and win, that's a mistake. Of course, the conservative wing of the party doesn't think that's a bad thing, but the progressive wing does. The conservative wing will try to argue they're more 'electable', but I disagree.
Click to expand...

I think the point you are missing is that the person you are quoting isn't a Democrat but a Republican that is practically begging for the Democratic party to put up someone he can stomach just to get Trump out. If you want to garauntee Trump losing put someone out there that will be able to draw in Republicans that despise Trump. Basically the election is going to come down to who Democrats put forward. The closer to the Center the nominee is the better odds of them winning, the further Left they go they risk not only losing would be "never trump" voters but push them to vote Trump.
 
Nap said:
I think the point you are missing is that the person you are quoting isn't a Democrat but a Republican that is practically begging for the Democratic party to put up someone he can stomach just to get Trump out.
Click to expand...

That point wasn't missed at all; it was directly addressed in another post near that one, and largely addressed in this post.
 
Craig234 said:
Electing the second worst person instead of the worst person is not much of a victory. We need to do better than electing a very bad president instead of an even worse president.
Click to expand...

I agree personally which is why I didn't vote in 2016, someone has to earn my vote rather than simply be more tolerable to the alternative. This may change in the future though depending on how the partisan divide continues to grow. My point however was to those that believe Trump is an actual danger and is destroying this country, if he is truly is the danger many pretend him to be then literally any candidate should be considered a victory.
 
Nap said:
I agree personally which is why I didn't vote in 2016, someone has to earn my vote rather than simply be more tolerable to the alternative. This may change in the future though depending on how the partisan divide continues to grow. My point however was to those that believe Trump is an actual danger and is destroying this country, if he is truly is the danger many pretend him to be then literally any candidate should be considered a victory.
Click to expand...

But we disagree - I said it's not much of a victory, but is still is SOME victory, and should be done - that second worst person should be elected over the worst, of those are the only two options who can practically win. To your second point, IF the only options were trump or a horrible Democrat who is still better, I'd have to support the latter, but those are NOT the only options and it would be a disaster for us to nominate that bad Democrat needlessly.
 
Craig234 said:
Electing the second worst person instead of the worst person is not much of a victory. We need to do better than electing a very bad president instead of an even worse president.
Click to expand...

While I dislike much of her domestic policy, the best candidate in my opinion is Tulsi. I think purely off her antiwar stance will draw many of the more libertarian voters alongside both the moderate and progressive wings of the Democratic party. She won't get a legitimate shot though which is sad as I think she would make an excellent President.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom