• 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!

A thread for Democrats: let's face it, there's no common ground with modern Republicans

I'm just saying, predicting current events isn't exactly miraculous.

Well I'm definitely not claiming to be Nostradamus. But it will increase as their desperation increases. And in GA... it's going to reach a fevered pitch.
 
It is curious to hear the Democratic candidates vowing their total opposition to bi-partisanship. To them, it's everything - they have absolute total power and don't care what anyone else thinks - or nothing.

Gee, I wonder why they would do that?
 
I wouldn't go that far given that there are many Republican citizens who support MFA for example. Generally the only Republicans who are 'irredeemable' and cannot be reasoned or negotiated with are hardest core of Trump supporters and the politicos.

90% of Republicans support trump. That's all that's needed to know that that is the percent of Republicans who pretty much fit this, it's not the 'most extreme'.
 
End gerrymandering, keep the EC.

Mob rule is not what anyone wants.

People in larger states are not a "mob". The trump cultists in smaller states fit "mob" better.

It might not be practical to get rid of the EC, but you don't get to pretend it's anything other than an anti-democratic theft by the smaller states of more than their share of votes.
 
The country is basically split down the middle. That's the source of 'polarization.' One might as well say the Democrats are polarizing for failing to go along with Republicans.

No, you don't understand what polarization is, and what you said is the effect, not the 'source'. The republicans are behind the extreme polarization, as they have been taken over by an agenda of plutocracy; by Libertarians and pandering to any bigotry they have, not only pandering it but encouraging it to build their loyalty.
 
The popular vote is no more mob rule than letting acreage decide who gets into the oval office is. And good luck ending gerrymandering without at least one or two of the conservative justices croaking.

They prefer minority rule...thus the reasoning behind gerrymandering, voter suppression, birther conspiracies etc.
Mob Rule = anyone but them.
As someone that's been to rural areas (actually helping my fellow American brothers and sisters) the indoctrination is serious. They have no water they can actually drink, their teeth are falling out, they pray for their kids to get out and have better then are angry with them when they do.
Rural America is a 3rd world country so of course their angry but they have been led to believe their anger should be about everyone that does not look, speak or act like them.
I'm off to Puero Rico in the next few days (a conservative christian couple) is tagging along I asked them to leave their politics on the mainland, their religion will be welcomed but not their politics. I hope they learn something.
Boots on the ground everyone, everywhere.
 
They prefer minority rule...thus the reasoning behind gerrymandering, voter suppression, birther conspiracies etc.
Mob Rule = anyone but them.
As someone that's been to rural areas (actually helping my fellow American brothers and sisters) the indoctrination is serious. They have no water they can actually drink, their teeth are falling out, they pray for their kids to get out and have better then are angry with them when they do.
Rural America is a 3rd world country so of course their angry but they have been led to believe their anger should be about everyone that does not look, speak or act like them.

Well said. But it's not that they prefer minority rule, it's that they prefer what they think is 'their side' rule, whether they're the minority or not.
 
No, you don't understand what polarization is, and what you said is the effect, not the 'source'. The republicans are behind the extreme polarization, as they have been taken over by an agenda of plutocracy; by Libertarians and pandering to any bigotry they have, not only pandering it but encouraging it to build their loyalty.

Yes. They 'oppose' progressives. That's the source of polarization from the perspective of a progressive.
It's not clear why conservatives should accept that interpretation of polarization ( though to be fair conservatives often state that polarization is caused by progressives opposing conservatives).
 
The fact that repubs are against both of these show how they have no desire to represent people and want to carve up the United States so that they only have to appeal to the same fewer and fewer people while holding their jobs.

The EC requires a president to have broad support across the country, geographically and socially-- Trump doesnt get elected in 2016 if Clinton holds on to those white workers in the rust belt. The effort to rid the country of the EC is about an effort to appeal to only a certain group of people.
 
Honestly, our big concern at this point should be getting enough people in the house & senate to take gerrymandering away from the Republicans. Or even better, end the electoral college. Preferably both.

Out of curiosity, do you really think that the Electoral College can be ended by an Act of Congress?
 
I am not sure about what we will do. But it’s what they SHOULD do. And they are the only ones fighting against it and trying to get rid of it right now.

When the Republicans were not the party that controlled the majority of the state houses, the Republicans were fighting against Gerrymandering.

The only differences between a pair of paper bags filled with steaming crap and a Democrat and a Republican arguing is the bags and the steam.

If you are placing your trust in a politician because he is affiliated with either party, you are lying to yourself.

As the late Ross Perrot was fond of repeating, "Words are cheap. Deeds are precious." With our lying a-holes that we elect to lie to us, there is NO DIFFERENCE in the outcomes they produce.

Trump is the first honest dealer we've had in this little casino and the regular thieves are doing everything they can to run him out of town. You need to ask, "Why?".
 
No, I'm living under the bitter acceptance that the right will never stop their vote suppression efforts, so the least we can do is repay the favor and reunite democratic voting blocks against your manipulations.

My manipulations?

I've never been in a position to do anything about Gerrymandering one way or the other.

Since I accept that all politicians are lying a-holes interested only in self enrichment, which party's lying a-holes are stealing from me loses importance.

Gerrymandering does not result directly the theft of my money so, as a matter of concern, it rates pretty low for me. I'll soon be moving out of Indiana 7 so I'll no longer be afflicted by Andre Carson.

This is about as close to Gerrymandering as I will ever come. Getting rid of Andre seems impossible. I'll just move. A sort of personal Gerrymander.
 
Is that copied and pasted from Mark Levin's website? "Pretending to be diplomats," that's not something that would fit somebody by the name of Donald Trump, would it? Diplomacy between the United States and the rest of the world was quite good until Trump came along. You can choose to believe the lie that he's made great strides with one or really any country, but we're the most hated country in the world right now. All it took was electing a prick.

You think that people did not hate the USA BEFORE Trump? WOW! I'll have what you're having!

To help with your reading comprehension, I'll repost what I posted:

"People like Trump who are from outside the circle are terrifying to these political party entertainment professionals pretending to be diplomats and domestic statesmen."

Trump is the guy that is terrifying the folks pretending to be the statesmen. The folks in Congress are the pretenders just enjoying the free ride while they rob us.

Trump is like the disciplinarian teacher and the idiots like Kerry are like the pushover substitute bent on being liked by the delinquents.

Electing a prick? Is Trump the only prick that ever got elected?

I've examined your case and it's pretty much empty.
 
If you cannot find common ground with fellow Americans, the problem is with you, not them.

I am guessing you've missed the last decade of complete slash and burn, scorched earth warfare the right wing has been waging against progressivism, haven't you?

Mitch McConnell, the Nordquist Pledge, Newt Gingrich's "No quarter"; Merrick Garland, the hundreds of Obama appointees now filled with Federalist Society Judges thanks to Mitch's unprecedented obstruction; the "My only job is to make Obama a 1 term president"; Citizens United; the ACA; all of these things have been -massive- wins for the right wing.

So no, I disagree with you. There is common ground here, but not politically. The right wing has been slowly crushing the left with its decades long strategy and its long vision. It's about time the left woke up to this insanity and said the same in response.
 
People in larger states are not a "mob". The trump cultists in smaller states fit "mob" better.

It might not be practical to get rid of the EC, but you don't get to pretend it's anything other than an anti-democratic theft by the smaller states of more than their share of votes.

Vice versa is also true. Without the EC, everyone who doesn't live in California or Illinois, or NY, loses their voice.
 
The EC requires a president to have broad support across the country, geographically and socially-- Trump doesnt get elected in 2016 if Clinton holds on to those white workers in the rust belt. The effort to rid the country of the EC is about an effort to appeal to only a certain group of people.

Just the exact opposite actually. The EC requires very targeted support in only the same battleground states and them only while the rest of the country is ignored every election.
 
Vice versa is also true. Without the EC, everyone who doesn't live in California or Illinois, or NY, loses their voice.

They DO NOT LOSE THEIR VOICE. Supporting a candidate who doesn't have enough votes to win is NOT LOSING YOUR VOICE. Expecting to put the candidate in office who does not have the votes at the expense of other voters, lessening the value of their votes, THAT is losing their voice.
 
Out of curiosity, do you really think that the Electoral College can be ended by an Act of Congress?

Not an act, an amendment. Of course, by the time you've got enough votes in enough states for that, it would be fairly pointless for either party to protect or remove it, given that there's no combination of states that will get someone into the Presidency with a quarter of the states, but it's still important to rail against that aspect of our government & point out the irreconcilable flaws inherent to it.
 
Let's try Republican logic on the EC.

I say that voters in big cities in red states should get 2 votes each. I mean, it's not fair that the rural voters have more votes and win elections. That totally silences the city voters from having any voice.
 
Nothing but projection. The right does nothing but obstruct and filibuster, and even when the Democrats bring a bipartisan bill to the floor, you guys never accept a fair and balanced compromise.
The left is currently the party of NO but please continue to sell your fantasy

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
What other than eliminating has the Democrat party been toward Trump and by extension those who voted for him in the last 2 1/2 years?
Really? Let's see...just off the top of my head....Didn't both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh receive votes from Democrats? Of course they did, even though Gorsuch would assume a seat that rightfully belonged to Merrick Garland...and even though Kavanaugh was manifestly unfit and disqualified (from perjury, to multiple credible accusations of sexual assault, to his professional accounts and his own demonstration of a very poor temperament) be elevated to the USSC (or, to even maintain a seat on the federal circuit court.

I could give more examples, but I have a better idea. Tell me...what, exactly, has Trump proposed that you can HONESTLY say was deserving of bi-partisan support in Congress?

Lemme guess....you watch and read predominantly (if not exclusively) "conservative news", right? :roll:


I guess there is no commonality. I admired the Democrats abilities hold the party line during Obama and hate that there were those like McCain and now Romney who are Compromised from the get go.
What did McCain do to "compromise" with Obama from the "get go"? Anything, in particular, you had in mind? Or is that just a blanket excuse you use, as a loyal Trump acolyte, to justify hating McCain?

In your post you talked about new blood; I took that as a nick against Pelosi, Hoyer, Schumer Aka the old guard.
This is largely (though not completely) accurate. It's time for the Democrats to transition to the next generation. And, to their credit, House Democratic leadership agrees and has already taken major steps in that direction. By 2022, the entire House Democratic Leadership will have turned over, by design. It's already in the works. The Senate Democrats still need a collective come-to-Jesus talk.


Why does everyone bring up race. I love conservatives; hate (or rather do not like) liberals. I could give a s#%$ what color they are.

Odds are, you're not telling the truth about the race issue (or you're not being truthful with yourself). Studies have demonstrated, over and over, that the single strongest predictive factor in support for Trump in 2016 was highly levels of racial/religious resentment...primarily among conservative white Christian voters.

But regardless, the reason "everyone brings up race" is because race (specifically white racial resentment and atagonism toward black and brown people) has been at the forefront of this president's agenda. To contend otherwise is to be dishonest.

For context....I hated McCain ( long before Trump), starting to hate Romney. Traitors are different than opponents.
Right. So this (among other things) just clearly and convincingly identifies you as a far-far-rightwing extremist. But let's find out:

1. What was your position on the Charlottesville Unite the Right event?
2. What is your position on all of the self-identified white nationalist/alt-righties within (and in support of) the Trump campaign/administration?
3. What is your view on the treatment of asylum-seeking migrants being held in concentration-like camps along the southern border?
4. What was your position on Birtherism? Fast and Furious? Jade Helm? Benghazi?
5. Do you wish or believe that a "race war" is coming?
 
They DO NOT LOSE THEIR VOICE. Supporting a candidate who doesn't have enough votes to win is NOT LOSING YOUR VOICE. Expecting to put the candidate in office who does not have the votes at the expense of other voters, lessening the value of their votes, THAT is losing their voice.

Its exactly losing your voice. You would allow candidates to only have to campaign in 3, maybe 4 states. And the rest of the entire country be damned.

I'm talking lesser of 2 evils. Under the EC, yeah, each voice is weighted differently, and that's not fair. But,,.under that system (assuming no gerrymandering BS), everyone has a voice.

Without it, we may as well just call ourselves the united tri states of America, cuz 3 states determine our entire political future.

No thanks!
 
Sure there is common ground with Republicans. Infrastructure, revising punitive drug laws, foreign policy, even illegal immigration. First, you have to be willing to talk instead of demonize.
 
Back
Top Bottom