A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 256 of 725
Quote:Are the Democrats Too Stupid to Beat Donald Trump?
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
I’m struck at how many people have come up to me recently and said, “Trump’s going to get re-elected, isn’t he?” And in each case, when I drilled down to ask why, I bumped into the Democratic presidential debates in June. I think a lot of Americans were shocked by some of the things they heard there. I was.
Dear Democrats: This is not complicated! Just nominate a decent, sane person, one committed to reunifying the country and creating more good jobs, a person who can gain the support of the independents, moderate Republicans and suburban women who abandoned Donald Trump in the midterms and thus swung the House of Representatives to the Democrats and could do the same for the presidency. And that candidate can win!
But please, spare me the revolution! It can wait. Win the presidency, hold the House and narrow the spread in the Senate, and a lot of good things still can be accomplished. “No,” you say, “the left wants a revolution now!” O.K., I’ll give the left a revolution now: four more years of Donald Trump.
That will be a revolution.
More at www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/opinion/trump-2020.html
Great article from someone I tend to agree with all the time, Thomas Friedman. He would be my Consigliere if I were president - at least on speed dial. He points out many of the problems that come from Trump that aren't even caused directly by him. Namely, hating him so much people want to go to opposite extremes to balance things out.
I don't know how any rational person could argue with:
"I was shocked that so many candidates in the party whose nominee I was planning to support want to get rid of the private health insurance covering some 250 million Americans and have “Medicare for all” instead. I think we should strengthen Obamacare and eventually add a public option.
I was shocked that so many were ready to decriminalize illegal entry into our country. I think people should have to ring the doorbell before they enter my house or my country.
I was shocked at all those hands raised in support of providing comprehensive health coverage to undocumented immigrants. I think promises we’ve made to our fellow Americans should take priority, like to veterans in need of better health care."
Unless it's because Trump. I do it sometimes myself because he's such a loathsome pos. It might take half dozen presidents before we get past the Trump Effect.
by Martin Longman July 17, 2019
Policies like free health care for undocumented people or abolishing all private health insurance are going to do damage. These things are not popular in general and are especially unpopular with the Democrats’ suburban base. A lot of the Democrats’ rhetoric on border issues is toxic not just in the sticks but also in the communities ringing our cities.
So, yes, the Democrats really could blow this election by running a non-strategic campaign based on abstract values against a campaign that is laser-focused on just the voters it needs to win.
This isn’t an argument for changing values, but it is an argument for not being too stupid to beat a man like Donald Trump.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/07/17/are-the-democrats-too-stupid-
to-beat-donald-trump/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
America Is Living James Madison’s Nightmare
The Founders designed a government that would resist mob rule. They didn’t anticipate how strong the mob could become.
James Madison traveled to Philadelphia in 1787 with Athens on his mind. He had spent the year before the Constitutional Convention reading two trunkfuls of books on the history of failed democracies, sent to him from Paris by Thomas Jefferson. Madison was determined, in drafting the Constitution, to avoid the fate of those “ancient and modern confederacies,” which he believed had succumbed to rule by demagogues and mobs.
According to classical theory, republics could exist only in relatively small territories, where citizens knew one another personally and could assemble face-to-face. Plato would have capped the number of citizens capable of self-government at 5,040. Madison, however, thought Plato’s small-republic thesis was wrong. He believed that the ease of communication in small republics was precisely what had allowed hastily formed majorities to oppress minorities. “Extend the sphere” of a territory, Madison wrote, “and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.” Madison predicted that America’s vast geography and large population would prevent passionate mobs from mobilizing. Their dangerous energy would burn out before it could inflame others.
Of course, at the time of the country’s founding, new media technologies, including what Madison called “a circulation of newspapers through the entire body of the people,” were already closing the communication gaps among the dispersed citizens of America. The popular press of the 18th and early 19th centuries was highly partisan—the National Gazette, where Madison himself published his thoughts on the media, was, since its founding in 1791, an organ of the Democratic-Republican Party and often viciously attacked the Federalists.
But newspapers of the time were also platforms for elites to make thoughtful arguments at length, and Madison believed that the enlightened journalists he called the “literati” would ultimately promote the “commerce of ideas.” He had faith that citizens would take the time to read complicated arguments (including the essays that became The Federalist Papers), allowing levelheaded reason to spread slowly across the new republic.
James Madison died at Montpelier, his Virginia estate, in 1836, one of the few Founding Fathers to survive into the democratic age of Andrew Jackson. Madison supported Jackson’s efforts to preserve the Union against nullification efforts in the South but was alarmed by his populist appeal in the West. What would Madison make of American democracy today, an era in which Jacksonian populism looks restrained by comparison? Madison’s worst fears of mob rule have been realized — and the cooling mechanisms he designed to slow down the formation of impetuous majorities have broken.
The polarization of Congress, reflecting an electorate that has not been this divided since about the time of the Civil War, has led to ideological warfare between parties that directly channels the passions of their most extreme constituents and donors — precisely the type of factionalism the Founders abhorred.
More at www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/james-madison-mob-rule/56
8351/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Are the Democrats Too Stupid to Beat Donald Trump?
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
I’m struck at how many people have come up to me recently and said, “Trump’s going to get re-elected, isn’t he?” And in each case, when I drilled down to ask why, I bumped into the Democratic presidential debates in June. I think a lot of Americans were shocked by some of the things they heard there. I was.
Dear Democrats: This is not complicated! Just nominate a decent, sane person, one committed to reunifying the country and creating more good jobs, a person who can gain the support of the independents, moderate Republicans and suburban women who abandoned Donald Trump in the midterms and thus swung the House of Representatives to the Democrats and could do the same for the presidency. And that candidate can win!
But please, spare me the revolution! It can wait. Win the presidency, hold the House and narrow the spread in the Senate, and a lot of good things still can be accomplished. “No,” you say, “the left wants a revolution now!” O.K., I’ll give the left a revolution now: four more years of Donald Trump.
That will be a revolution.
More at www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/opinion/trump-2020.html
Great article from someone I tend to agree with all the time, Thomas Friedman. He would be my Consigliere if I were president - at least on speed dial. He points out many of the problems that come from Trump that aren't even caused directly by him. Namely, hating him so much people want to go to opposite extremes to balance things out.
I don't know how any rational person could argue with:
"I was shocked that so many candidates in the party whose nominee I was planning to support want to get rid of the private health insurance covering some 250 million Americans and have “Medicare for all” instead. I think we should strengthen Obamacare and eventually add a public option.
I was shocked that so many were ready to decriminalize illegal entry into our country. I think people should have to ring the doorbell before they enter my house or my country.
I was shocked at all those hands raised in support of providing comprehensive health coverage to undocumented immigrants. I think promises we’ve made to our fellow Americans should take priority, like to veterans in need of better health care."
Unless it's because Trump. I do it sometimes myself because he's such a loathsome pos. It might take half dozen presidents before we get past the Trump Effect.
by Martin Longman July 17, 2019
Policies like free health care for undocumented people or abolishing all private health insurance are going to do damage. These things are not popular in general and are especially unpopular with the Democrats’ suburban base. A lot of the Democrats’ rhetoric on border issues is toxic not just in the sticks but also in the communities ringing our cities.
So, yes, the Democrats really could blow this election by running a non-strategic campaign based on abstract values against a campaign that is laser-focused on just the voters it needs to win.
This isn’t an argument for changing values, but it is an argument for not being too stupid to beat a man like Donald Trump.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/07/17/are-the-democrats-too-stupid-
to-beat-donald-trump/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
Yup. That just about sums up the main reason the Dems are going to lose a lot in 2020, including but not limited to another run for president.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nope. A few days ago you misinterpreted what AOC means. To the Independent voter, AOC is the Democratic Party, and she is the perfect reason to vote for Republicans. Your comment:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Yup. That just about sums up the main reason the Dems are going to lose a lot in 2020, including but not limited to another run for president.
Quote:6ix, you really have fallen for the ridiculous idea that AOC is the future of the Democratic Party. AOC believes it, but her beliefs are as ridiculous as yours. If AOC was the future of Democrats, even I would be voting for Republicans. But she is not. But the GOP really, really wants you to think AOC (or Bernie) are. On the other hand, Trump definitely is the future of the GOP. He has infected the party and it won't recover from his disease.
Or, yanno, it's their ridiculous Socialist views that are getting them the attention they deserve.
But no... That would mean that women in America, particular minority women in positions of power, have a voice. That goes against everything that the Democrats stand for.
They're victims because they're women. They're victims because they're not white. They're victims even though they hold great positions of power and get paid the same as every old white male colleague.
They're eternally victims.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Fox News mentioned AOC more than 3,000 times in a six-week span. Watch this supercut. It’s dizzying:
There’s a reason conservative media focuses relentlessly on Ocasio-Cortez, and to a lesser but still disproportionate extent, Tlaib and Omar. Vilifying nonwhite, female members of Congress electrifies their audience is a way that vilifying, say, Rep. Richard Neal, the powerful but bland chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, does not. The strategy of Fox News and much of the conservative media is to activate white threat in a browning America. Elevating and demonizing extremely liberal, nonwhite, young, female politicians is one way they do it.
This is what House Democratic leadership fears: that Ocasio-Cortez and the Squad, through their dominance of social media and their centrality on conservative media, will become the faces of the House Democratic majority. Centering American politics on the rising power of unapologetically liberal, young, nonwhite politicians is the right’s best hope for holding power: As reams of research show, when white Americans believe themselves losing demographic and political control of the country, they become far more conservative.
More at www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/16/20695031/trump-ocasio-cortez
-omar-pressley-tlaib-pelosi-squad
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
lol... no.
I have not fallen for the notion that AOC is the future of the Democratic party. Look at my other posts around here recently saying that this is a fluke and AOC is on her way out the door during the next election after making zero mark, other than to fracture the Democratic party while she was there.
You've got a broken house. No pun intended, but there it is...
Half the time I think that AOC is on Trump's payroll. He's certainly pitting them all against each other like a pro just by putting out a few stupid tweets per day.
At one point it seemed like the hoopla surrounding AOC had died down and Pelosi was reining everything back in to tow the Corporatist Democrat line, but then last week happened and he's actually put Pelosi in the position where she's got to come out and defend politicians like AOC and Omar. I'll bet she saw what was happening and said "oh fuck!" behind closed doors. Would have loved to have been a fly on that particular wall. She's caught in the middle and she's likely to have a stroke.
Barring the beginning of the 2nd Great Depression or World War III in the next year and a half, the Democrats are dead in the water in 2020.
If Pelosi can't get the AOC's and the Omar's to shut their fucking mouths until then and they keep getting worse, you might even be looking at a GOP supermajority in the house in 2020.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You could be right, because most voters don't want to even hear multiple ideas for solving problems, let alone think about the ideas. It disturbs them. Worries them. They feel better with simple ideas. And what could be more simple than Trump's ideas?
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
If Pelosi can't get the AOC's and the Omar's to shut their fucking mouths until then and they keep getting worse, you might even be looking at a GOP supermajority in the house in 2020.
Unlike Trump, Democrats have ideas for multiple solutions to problems. Trump mocks them. Democrats argue about which are better. Not Trump. His ideas are the "best" ideas. That is also how it goes with the Republicans I know.
Have you noticed that the GOP speaks with one voice? The "best" idea is the only idea that gets spoken. A vast majority of Americans are like that, you know, that there must be only one "best" way. They want with all their heart simple ideas. Those ideas might have gotten people into trouble, but do they try other ideas, ones that aren't so simple? No, they do not. There is no reason to try a different idea because the GOP already has the "best" ideas.
Solving a problem using two or three or four unusual ideas, like you find in Democratic Party, are too many ideas for the typical Republican or "Independent" voters, who really like simplicity. Maybe if Democrats copied the GOP strategy of only having one idea at time, it would make voters more comfortable. Wouldn't want voters to feel uncomfortable because they will just vote for the GOP.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
lol
Nope.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see SECOND is still on a soapbox.
Hey, SECOND, has the irony of you posting about "factionalism" escaped you? If it has, I just want to point it out.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Remember what you wanted from Trump? You won't get it for an obvious reason: There is the Trump Show and then there is the Mulvaney administration.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I see SECOND is still on a soapbox.
Hey, SECOND, has the irony of you posting about "factionalism" escaped you? If it has, I just want to point it out.
“We’re not going to let Donald Trump dismantle the Bill of Rights,” Mick Mulvaney, a far-right House member from South Carolina said in 2016. “For five and half years, every time we got to the floor and try to push back against an overreaching president, we get accused of being partisan at best and racist at worst. When we do it against a Republican president, maybe people will see it was a principled objection in the first place.”
Today, Mulvaney is White House chief of staff, and people can clearly see that there never was a principled objection at all.
But what many people miss about this turnaround is it’s not a case of Trump over-awing or hypnotizing once-skeptical Republicans. What changed is that conservative movement leaders used to be afraid that Trump would be disloyal to their priorities.
They feared, in short, that his rhetorical gestures of economic populism — he promised a higher minimum wage, a big infrastructure bill, a universal health care plan, and even higher taxes on the rich — would be real. It turns out, however, that Trump was just lying about almost all of that stuff.
In exchange for deciding that he doesn’t care whether or not Trump shreds the bill of rights, Mulvaney now, according to an excellent team of Washington Post reporters, “has built what one senior administration official called ‘his own fiefdom’ centered on pushing conservative policies — while mostly steering clear of the Trump-related pitfalls that tripped up his predecessors by employing a ‘Let Trump be Trump’ ethos.”
Mulvaney stays away from the trade, national security, and immigration portfolios and in exchange has carte blanche to run the bulk of domestic policy for the administration — largely free of any kind of public scrutiny. And imbued with strong ideological convictions while encumbered by few constrains, he’s free to enact consequential and unpopular decisions on a strikingly broad range of topics — from overruling the Health and Human Services secretary’s ban the use of fetal tissue in medical research, to the looming anti-labor agenda at the Labor Department, to reviving a proposal to enact a gigantic tax cut for rich stock market investors through administrative fiat.
The upshot of Trump administration policymaking — beginning with Paul Ryan’s speakership, continuing under Mulvaney’s operation of the executive machinery now that Democrats run the House, and of course extending into the Federalist Society domination of the judiciary — is to completely neuter or dismantle the institutions of government that are supposed to check the ability of the wealthy and powerful to run roughshod over the rest of us. Polluters can pollute more, scamsters can scam more, bankers can go back to running the risks that blew up the global economy, and no legislation that would impair the privileges of the powerful can pass.
More at www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/18/20699176/donald-trump-ilhan-
omar-white-collar-crime
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nobody takes anything at Vox seriously.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME