• 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!

OPINION: "Dems no message, no leader, nothing to brag about. Replaced by Impeach Trump?

Dems no message, no leader, nothing to brag about. Replaced by Impeach Trump?


  • Total voters
    17
Pretty much. When asked: Do you think the Democratic Party currently stands for something, or just stands against Trump? 37% of all Americans answered, "Stands for Something," But 52% of all Americans responded the Democratic Party is just the anti-Trump Party.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/page...uestion_18939.xml?uuid=TwsZhmnbEeeUq1sfD_RZ3w

Even so, I doubt that feeling will have an impact on next year's midterms. The first midterm is almost always a referendum on the president. How the midterms turn out will be more about Trump than the Democratic Party.

True, midterm elections are more so a referendum on the President, his administration. Timing wise, if the potential / probably stock market correct is after the election, it would be better.

The thought I just had, the Dems are going to run on 'we want/are going raise your taxes'? Not so sure that this will gain traction with the electorate.
 
Last edited:
I'm definitely leaning no. The anti-Trump message is the most dominate thing going on right now, but Democrats will use healthcare as a major talking point. In a year it will be opposition to entitlement cuts. They don't have a leader. That much is true.
 
I haven't paid much attention to impeachment talk from dems but I doubt the numbers are much more than those republicans who wanted to impeach Obama.

Maxine Waters is on the news at least once a week chanting 'Impeach 45!', so it kinds tells you who and where that's 'at'.
 
OPINION:"Democrats... have no message, no leader and nothing to brag about. That leaves a vacuum, which is being filled with one idea: impeaching President Trump."

Yes / No
Leaning Yes / Leaning No
Other: Elaborate

Yes. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong, but it does make them a shambles of a party.
 
Hmmmm...let me see here. Under Obama, we had by far the longest stretch of private-sector job growth in ALL American history, never mind the fact that on the day he took the job, he faced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, faced not one, but TWO highly unpopular wars, AND had to deal with the worst degree of political opposition faced by any president since Lincoln. Yet in your world, we never did anything good or right!

Um, yeah, we DO have a message - it's called PROGRESS. Under Obama, we cut the deficit in half (though conservatives seem to not know the difference between "deficit" and "debt" e.g. Cheney's quote: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter")...whereas now that the GOP controls the whole doggone government, you're blowing up the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion dollars over the next decade. Our message is also SCIENCE - you know, the "S"-word that American conservatives are so offended by...since the rest of the planet - every single nation except for America is sticking by the Paris Accords, and the overwhelming majority of scientists (including almost all the climatologists) strongly agree concerning global warming. But then, why should we be surprised since conservatives don't think college is worth it anymore 'cause education isn't toeing the conservative dogma line...

...which, btw, is how we got to the GOP enthusiastically approving department heads with precisely ZERO experience in those departments! WE put in department heads with PhD's and long years of experience in those fields...but YOU put in a brain surgeon in charge of HUD, a billionaire with NO public education experience in charge of our Department of Education, a governor in charge of the Department of Energy who had publicly stated he wanted to get RID of the Department of Energy - and who didn't know that the DOE is what oversees all our nuclear weapons! Oh, and let's not forget the guys that Your Boy Trump nominated for lifetime judgeships who were deemed NOT QUALIFIED by the American Bar Association...including one idiot who literally had LESS courtroom experience as an attorney than I do! Why the heck do you think people are looking at the GOP as the "party of stupid"? Because y'all are being WILLFULLY stupid!

The message of the Democratic party is PROGRESS - work WITH the rest of the planet, and lead by example and by noblesse oblige...

whereas the message of the GOP is "Burn it ALL down!" - get rid of the Paris Accord, get rid of the TPP, get rid of the Affordable Care Act, get rid of the United Nations, and tear down the freaking Statue of Liberty since it represents our tradition as a nation of IMMIGRANTS.

More lies.

Slowest rate of recovery since WWII. :shock:
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welco....google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

Ran up 7 trillion more debt after he attacked the prior president as being unpatriotic for his debt. :shock:

Continued two wars that he promised to end, and added another one? :shock:
https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...o-wars-obama-finds-himself-entangled-in-three

ACA will save families $2400.00 annually. :shock:


You can keep your doctor................OH! You can't keep your doctor. :shock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mqdY-J56DE

I can keep going all night but "libruls" are tone deaf.
 
More lies.

Slowest rate of recovery since WWII. :shock:
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welco....google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

Ran up 7 trillion more debt after he attacked the prior president as being unpatriotic for his debt. :shock:

Continued two wars that he promised to end, and added another one? :shock:
https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...o-wars-obama-finds-himself-entangled-in-three

ACA will save families $2400.00 annually. :shock:


You can keep your doctor................OH! You can't keep your doctor. :shock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mqdY-J56DE

I can keep going all night but "libruls" are tone deaf.


If your only political goal is to anger people of differing political ideologies, that is hardly productive for society
 
Yes. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong, but it does make them a shambles of a party.

All the talk of impeachment still hasn't even bothered to come up with a legitimate charge on which to base the impeachment on, at least from what I heard.

To my thinking, that makes them kinda wrong from the onset.

Of course, opinions differ.
 
Yes, I know. You'd much rather have the federal government staffed with academic theoreticians with no practical experience. :roll:
Like you do in higher education, as ****ed up as it is, being little more than liberal / progressive indoctrination centers. :Grrr

All those people that you've listed, you've discounted and dismissed their real life experiences they bring to the table, so narrow minded are you.

Who do you think Tillerson was negotiating with while as head of Excon? For example.

If you fail to look closer and dismiss out of hand, I'll only return the favor and do the same to you.

Let me see here - I listed several examples of Trump nominees who had NEITHER education in the field nor experience in the field...and your reply is that we want people with education but no experience? If you'll check, sir, you just built a strawman...because Obama (like ALL presidents before Trump - Democratic, Republican, Whig, you name it) DID generally choose those with both education and experience in the field. You assumed we do what you do...and you're flatly wrong.

As far as being "narrow-minded", exactly how many classes has DeVos taught? How many housing projects has Carson managed or inspected? How many nuclear power plants had Perry inspected? YOUR BOY TRUMP didn't care if they had experience or education in the field - all he cared about was that they followed HIS agenda.

Oh, when it comes to Tillerson, dealing with other nations as part of a corporation is NOT the same thing as international diplomacy. Why? Because corporations seek after PROFIT...whereas diplomacy deals with things like national pride, terrorism, patriotism, prevention of wars, religious differences, cultural differences, and so forth. Tillerson's job was to seek after new places to drill, and he had to know who to bribe...and that's about it. But when it comes to REAL diplomacy, you find out that a lot of people can't be bribed, that a lot of people don't give a rat's ass how much money you have. He had lots of corporate experience, but corporate experience is NO substitute for REAL diplomacy.

But YOUR BOY TRUMP didn't care - which is why he thought Kushner could bring peace to the Middle East.
 
Let me see here - I listed several examples of Trump nominees who had NEITHER education in the field nor experience in the field...and your reply is that we want people with education but no experience? If you'll check, sir, you just built a strawman...because Obama (like ALL presidents before Trump - Democratic, Republican, Whig, you name it) DID generally choose those with both education and experience in the field. You assumed we do what you do...and you're flatly wrong.

As far as being "narrow-minded", exactly how many classes has DeVos taught? How many housing projects has Carson managed or inspected? How many nuclear power plants had Perry inspected? YOUR BOY TRUMP didn't care if they had experience or education in the field - all he cared about was that they followed HIS agenda.

Oh, when it comes to Tillerson, dealing with other nations as part of a corporation is NOT the same thing as international diplomacy. Why? Because corporations seek after PROFIT...whereas diplomacy deals with things like national pride, terrorism, patriotism, prevention of wars, religious differences, cultural differences, and so forth. Tillerson's job was to seek after new places to drill, and he had to know who to bribe...and that's about it. But when it comes to REAL diplomacy, you find out that a lot of people can't be bribed, that a lot of people don't give a rat's ass how much money you have. He had lots of corporate experience, but corporate experience is NO substitute for REAL diplomacy.

But YOUR BOY TRUMP didn't care - which is why he thought Kushner could bring peace to the Middle East.

You listed a lot of what you think..............:lamo

Opinions are a dime a dozen.
 
Let me see here - I listed several examples of Trump nominees who had NEITHER education in the field nor experience in the field...and your reply is that we want people with education but no experience? If you'll check, sir, you just built a strawman...because Obama (like ALL presidents before Trump - Democratic, Republican, Whig, you name it) DID generally choose those with both education and experience in the field. You assumed we do what you do...and you're flatly wrong.

As far as being "narrow-minded", exactly how many classes has DeVos taught? How many housing projects has Carson managed or inspected? How many nuclear power plants had Perry inspected? YOUR BOY TRUMP didn't care if they had experience or education in the field - all he cared about was that they followed HIS agenda.

Oh, when it comes to Tillerson, dealing with other nations as part of a corporation is NOT the same thing as international diplomacy. Why? Because corporations seek after PROFIT...whereas diplomacy deals with things like national pride, terrorism, patriotism, prevention of wars, religious differences, cultural differences, and so forth. Tillerson's job was to seek after new places to drill, and he had to know who to bribe...and that's about it. But when it comes to REAL diplomacy, you find out that a lot of people can't be bribed, that a lot of people don't give a rat's ass how much money you have. He had lots of corporate experience, but corporate experience is NO substitute for REAL diplomacy.

But YOUR BOY TRUMP didn't care - which is why he thought Kushner could bring peace to the Middle East.

No, you completely ignore that which doesn't support your position, and completely ignore that which is stated. You completely ignore the real world experiences these people bring with them, and frankly, that's not even remotely honest.

You listed a lot of what you think..............

Opinions are a dime a dozen.

I think RetiredUSN has it spot on.
 
Everything you mention is driven by elections and the victor. Dems are not in any big elections right now, and don't control house, senate, or presidency. This should be obvious.

No national leader because the president is the defacto party leader. Dems lost of course they don't have a national leader, that makes no sense.
Likewise, because most serious candidates aren't foolish enough to declare this early and list out a platform this early, that will have to wait until we near the next presidential election. Again, it would make no sense to see this early on. However, on the state level, you have seen Dems pull big wins, and they ran on a platform, because you know...there was an election.

Republicans are on stage. They are being booed and heckled, tomatoes cover the stage and the actors have had turnover like never seen before. Yelling at Dems for not being on stage getting their due is kind of crazy and sad. Don't worry, when your show is up, they won't have to do much to win the stage.
 
Some are asserting that this is already there. From my view, let them think that. Last time they did, they were 1000% sure Hillary was going to win.



Agreed, and some are already falling into that quicksand all on their own. Well, at least it'll be self-inflicted.



Yep. But then, to be fair, the Repubs also squander a great many opportunities.
Oh, the Reps have absolutely squandered opportunities, as well. In fact, I think it's a huge mistake for them to take their current "successes" for granted and as some sort of mandate from the people. But they seem to be doing just that, because, well, that's what political parties do. (I swear, more than any other profession in the world, politicians take an election win as, "They love me!".)

I firmly believe that, had the Dems put up an even remotely palatable candidate, Trump wouldn't have even sniffed the White House, though they still probably would have made great gains in Congress.
 
Oh, the Reps have absolutely squandered opportunities, as well. In fact, I think it's a huge mistake for them to take their current "successes" for granted and as some sort of mandate from the people. But they seem to be doing just that, because, well, that's what political parties do. (I swear, more than any other profession in the world, politicians take an election win as, "They love me!".)

I firmly believe that, had the Dems put up an even remotely palatable candidate, Trump wouldn't have even sniffed the White House, though they still probably would have made great gains in Congress.

I suppose you have to have narcissistic tendencies to run for public office, so it would seem to be a common fault.

I agree. "had the Dems put up an even remotely palatable candidate, Trump wouldn't have even sniffed the White House".

Not sure I'd agree with their making gains in congress though, but opinions differ.
 
I think the Democratic Party is in a better position than the GOP. The GOP has Trump and GWB. Neither are popular. The Democratic Party has Obama and the Clinton's, and the Obama's seem pretty popular post office. Obama is a democratic party leader, but, of course, he cannot be president again.

The GOP holds a majority but they are not effective at governing.

The Democrats appear to be splitting along establishment and anti establishment lines, so it's hard to say where they are headed as well.

In closing, I would say neither party is popular. Both establishments are out of favor with the general population, but at least the Democrats have a popular former president, whereas, the GOP has none.
My thoughts on the recent Presidents.

Clinton: History will not remember him well, I believe, in spite of the economic successes during his administration. Too many other warts that are starting to catch up with him.

Bush II: His standing will improve with time, but agree he wasn't viewed well at the time, and he will never be remembered as one of the great Presidents.

Obama: Will be remembered reasonably well. Will settle in the middle of the pack. What will have him settle back will be a lack of significant accomplishment. ACA was/is overrated, even he admitted during the last campaign that the "affordable" part never worked out, which was the whole point to making it more accessible. He did exhibit a certain level of dignity, however.

Trump: Will be remembered in a "What were we thinking?" aspect.
 
All the talk of impeachment still hasn't even bothered to come up with a legitimate charge on which to base the impeachment on, at least from what I heard.

To my thinking, that makes them kinda wrong from the onset.

Of course, opinions differ.

Agreed, but to be fair it's not at all unlike the "impeach Obama" rhetoric from not too long ago.
 
Agreed, but to be fair it's not at all unlike the "impeach Obama" rhetoric from not too long ago.

THe party of "No" had no plan except to make up lies about Obama. Now they whine when people point out that Trump lies.
 
Agreed, but to be fair it's not at all unlike the "impeach Obama" rhetoric from not too long ago.

Yes, there was some, and they too didn't have any grounds on which to base that impeachment demand either.

But the impeachment movement for Trump seems to have a great many more people, some in senior political positions, where as I never got that impression from the Obama impeachment movement. Mainstream vs. fringe perhaps?
 
THe party of "No" had no plan except to make up lies about Obama. Now they whine when people point out that Trump lies.

Yet, the Dems are now the "new party of no", and they defend it. By doing so they forfeited any moral high ground the Reps may have given them.
 
Yes, there was some, and they too didn't have any grounds on which to base that impeachment demand either.

But the impeachment movement for Trump seems to have a great many more people, some in senior political positions, where as I never got that impression from the Obama impeachment movement. Mainstream vs. fringe perhaps?

I think it depends on The grounds that are being used to support the arguement for impeachment.
 
Yet, the Dems are now the "new party of no", and they defend it. By doing so they forfeited any moral high ground the Reps may have given them.

And the republicans have done nothing to gain high ground.

Some of the legeslation produced by the congressional Republicans are toxic.
 
True, midterm elections are more so a referendum on the President, his administration. Timing wise, if the potential / probably stock market correct is after the election, it would be better.

The thought I just had, the Dems are going to run on 'we want/are going raise your taxes'? Not so sure that this will gain traction with the electorate.

I think you're dreaming if you think the Democrats are going to run on "We want to raise your taxes." I would assume and everyone knows what assumptions make you. But I would assume the Democrats are going to run against Trump's persona first, then delve into their normal class warfare and group or identity politics pitting one group of voters against another.
 
Yet, the Dems are now the "new party of no", and they defend it. By doing so they forfeited any moral high ground the Reps may have given them.

one huge difference--they don't have to lie about Trump. He does it for them.
 
My thoughts on the recent Presidents.

Clinton: History will not remember him well, I believe, in spite of the economic successes during his administration. Too many other warts that are starting to catch up with him.

Bush II: His standing will improve with time, but agree he wasn't viewed well at the time, and he will never be remembered as one of the great Presidents.

Obama: Will be remembered reasonably well. Will settle in the middle of the pack. What will have him settle back will be a lack of significant accomplishment. ACA was/is overrated, even he admitted during the last campaign that the "affordable" part never worked out, which was the whole point to making it more accessible. He did exhibit a certain level of dignity, however.

Trump: Will be remembered in a "What were we thinking?" aspect.


I don't think we are really gonna know about how Trump will be remembered until after he is done.
 
Back
Top Bottom