What exactly is the democratic party going to stand for in 2026 and 2028?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats should instead of being about total resistance to Trump, show they can work with him. They should support his tariffs, which are opposed by so many Republicans in Congress.

This would help bring back those Obama voters that switched to Trump.

We are watching, in real time on the streets of Los Angeles, what democrats mean by resistance to Trump:

- it means using violence against federal workers and destroying property (public and private).

The Democratic Party is the party of violence.

One city riot doesn't define anything. Just a bunch of idiots screaming. Most aren't Democrats. Just young people looking for camera time.

Democrats are the ones encouraging the “idiots screaming” while the nation watches.

I know a lot of Democrats. None are encouraging "idiots screaming". Go night, night now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats should instead of being about total resistance to Trump, show they can work with him. They should support his tariffs, which are opposed by so many Republicans in Congress.

This would help bring back those Obama voters that switched to Trump.

We are watching, in real time on the streets of Los Angeles, what democrats mean by resistance to Trump:

- it means using violence against federal workers and destroying property (public and private).

The Democratic Party is the party of violence.

One city riot doesn't define anything. Just a bunch of idiots screaming. Most aren't Democrats. Just young people looking for camera time.

So the riots and burning vehicles are just the youths looking for camera time?

President Vance, incoming.

Democrats are purposely gaslighting Americans that this entire nightmare is no biggie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats should instead of being about total resistance to Trump, show they can work with him. They should support his tariffs, which are opposed by so many Republicans in Congress.

This would help bring back those Obama voters that switched to Trump.

We are watching, in real time on the streets of Los Angeles, what democrats mean by resistance to Trump:

- it means using violence against federal workers and destroying property (public and private).

The Democratic Party is the party of violence.

One city riot doesn't define anything. Just a bunch of idiots screaming. Most aren't Democrats. Just young people looking for camera time.

Democrats are the ones encouraging the “idiots screaming” while the nation watches.

I know a lot of Democrats. None are encouraging "idiots screaming". Go night, night now.

mayor bass: “we’re going to fight for all Angelenos, regardless of when they got here, regardless of if they have papers or not” !!!

And Alex Padilla “keep protesting” (see LA times)

“Among the most outspoken California Democrats in recent days has been San Diego Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera, who was pilloried by conservative media outlets over his Instagram post that included a photo labeling ICE agents as “terrorists” in the restaurant raid.”
- Politico

Oh and another, LA council member Hernandez “escalate tactics” (posts on X)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats should instead of being about total resistance to Trump, show they can work with him. They should support his tariffs, which are opposed by so many Republicans in Congress.

This would help bring back those Obama voters that switched to Trump.

We are watching, in real time on the streets of Los Angeles, what democrats mean by resistance to Trump:

- it means using violence against federal workers and destroying property (public and private).

The Democratic Party is the party of violence.

One city riot doesn't define anything. Just a bunch of idiots screaming. Most aren't Democrats. Just young people looking for camera time.

So the riots and burning vehicles are just the youths looking for camera time?

President Vance, incoming.

Democrats are purposely gaslighting Americans that this entire nightmare is no biggie.

But it’s just typical teenage antics. Every generation has its moment.

It really is no biggie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also saddening when puberty blockers are government/state covered but IVF is not covered by insurance. It's saddening when poisonous food dyes and high prescription drug prices are addressed by President Trump instead of the two previous Democrat presidents.

It's not discussed often enough that on some core issues (foreign and domestic), Trump is actually moving the Republican Party to the left.

It's even sadder that men who want their own pair of breasts to fondle get full coverage for their breast implants, but female breast cancer victims can't get even partial coverage for reconstructive surgery. A woman's abusive husband can get full insurance coverage for "facial feminization" surgeries which amount to endless cosmetic procedures, but the woman whose face he beat in will have to come out of pocket to have her nose reconstructed. The greed and freeloading of the trans movement, the sex-based double standards while insisting sex doesn't exist, and the resulting burden on the rest of us to make do with less coverage and bear higher insurance costs is the aspect that turned me against that particular cause.

By law, reconstruction surgery after breast cancer must be covered. I've had several hundreds of thousands of dollars in reconstruction covered.

No, honey. Just no. Allow me to educate you on how America works for women who aren't white with generous insurance plans like you.

First, the only federal law that potentially mandates coverage for breast cancer victims is the WHCRA. Only if the WHCRA applies might an insurance company even potentially be required to cover mastectomy and reconstruction under federal law. Otherwise, you're sh-t outta luck if you don't live in one of only a few states with expansive breast cancer coverage requirements.

Second, all sorts of very common insurance plans are exempt from the WHCRA, including some government plans, religious orgs' plans, Medicaid, and Medicare.

Third, the WHCRA does NOT require health plans or health insurance issuers to cover mastectomies at all. That's right. If an insurance plan opts not to cover mastectomies, it is NOT required to cover anything mastectomy-related such as reconstruction for women.

Fourth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer opts to cover mastectomy, there are still exceptions under which it can decline coverage of reconstruction.

Fifth, even if a health plan/insurance issuer covers both mastectomies and reconstruction, the fine print is key. Even women who "have coverage" are regularly left with out-of-pocket costs that are so high that they cannot afford reconstruction. Insurance companies can and do pull stunts like technically "covering" reconstruction, but then defining this narrowly to carve out all sorts of physical complications that women who aren't upper middle class with family help can't afford to pay for out of pocket. Again, this effectively denies coverage to women with such insurance plans.

In comparison, men who claim to be trans enjoy absurd levels of drama-free full coverage for frivolities because they'll die from hearing the word no. I personally used to handle pro bono matters from a number of LGBTQ nonprofits before I decided these grifters don't need my services to be free with all the other free stuff they get. A typical matter would feature a "trans woman" on Medicaid because the same transgender identity that they claim is not a mental illness nonetheless entitles them to disability and Medicaid. I got really good at spotting the expensive work. There's nothing like having a man sitting in front of you with several hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cosmetic procedures from browbone shaving to lip filler to jaw surgery to lipo to BBLs to breast implants to cheekbone implants to laser hair removal to skin bleaching to even human hair wigs that cost $1,500 each and his next surgeries are already on the calendar. Meanwhile, he hasn't worked in years and he is being referred to me because a shelter "discriminated" against him by asking him to consider leaving in 90 days after he physically assaulted staff repeatedly and walked around with his penis out.

Rapacious trans lobbyists and Democrats have put such ludicrous, excessive federal and state packages of "gender affirming" benefits for men who claim to be trans and taxpayers don't even know the half of it.

PP this really brings home what a male grifters movement the trans movement is. Sex isn't real, but men get everything on their most extreme wish list while women with cancer can just deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats should instead of being about total resistance to Trump, show they can work with him. They should support his tariffs, which are opposed by so many Republicans in Congress.

This would help bring back those Obama voters that switched to Trump.

Those swing voters you are referring too swung away from Trump in 2020 and they'll swing away from him again in 2028. Until one of our parties put forth a legitimate POTUS again, these swing voters will continue to flip flop every four years. Odds of us not being able to do better than Trump and Biden in 2028 are slim so there is reason for optimism.

Oh hi Jeff Bezos. Look, your corporate shill of a newspaper may spout that line but this is not a "both sides" issue at the moment.

[Anonymous]

Dems are unlikely to be capable of it, but what I'd like to see is a "back to democracy" campaign focused on "no king".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats should instead of being about total resistance to Trump, show they can work with him. They should support his tariffs, which are opposed by so many Republicans in Congress.

This would help bring back those Obama voters that switched to Trump.

Those swing voters you are referring too swung away from Trump in 2020 and they'll swing away from him again in 2028. Until one of our parties put forth a legitimate POTUS again, these swing voters will continue to flip flop every four years. Odds of us not being able to do better than Trump and Biden in 2028 are slim so there is reason for optimism.

Oh hi Jeff Bezos. Look, your corporate shill of a newspaper may spout that line but this is not a "both sides" issue at the moment.

Oh Hi, Snuff Bozos. Perhaps you can find enough IQ by 2028 so to know better than to vote for an 80 year old to have the most powerful and demanding job on the planet. Turn off your Fox News and find a brain.

[Anonymous]

The poster citing Biden’s “deportation” numbers thinks people are stupid enough to not know the difference between turning people back at the border and interior removals. The jig is up, find a better argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The poster citing Biden’s “deportation” numbers thinks people are stupid enough to not know the difference between turning people back at the border and interior removals. The jig is up, find a better argument.

Relax, the adults in the room are brave enough to admit Biden's importation tactics and Trump's deportation tactics aren't what the majority of Americans think are best for our country. Ignore the idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster citing Biden’s “deportation” numbers thinks people are stupid enough to not know the difference between turning people back at the border and interior removals. The jig is up, find a better argument.

Relax, the adults in the room are brave enough to admit Biden's importation tactics and Trump's deportation tactics aren't what the majority of Americans think are best for our country. Ignore the idiots.

Lots of people on this forum endorse Biden's immigration policies. Saying it was required by international law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are the Ds out to sea? I LOATHE trump. But where are we in 2024?

The Border?
Tariffs?
Taxes and Spending?
Social Justice?
DEI?
Russia / Ukraine?
Energy?
EV policy?

We should stand against everything Donald Trump has done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the Ds out to sea? I LOATHE trump. But where are we in 2024?

The Border?
Tariffs?
Taxes and Spending?
Social Justice?
DEI?
Russia / Ukraine?
Energy?
EV policy?

We should stand against everything Donald Trump has done.

Yeah. I think at this point saving the country is enough of a party platform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the Ds out to sea? I LOATHE trump. But where are we in 2024?

The Border?
Tariffs?
Taxes and Spending?
Social Justice?
DEI?
Russia / Ukraine?
Energy?
EV policy?

We should stand against everything Donald Trump has done.

Yeah. I think at this point saving the country is enough of a party platform.

So standing for pretty much nothing as usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poster citing Biden’s “deportation” numbers thinks people are stupid enough to not know the difference between turning people back at the border and interior removals. The jig is up, find a better argument.

Relax, the adults in the room are brave enough to admit Biden's importation tactics and Trump's deportation tactics aren't what the majority of Americans think are best for our country. Ignore the idiots.

Lots of people on this forum endorse Biden's immigration policies. Saying it was required by international law.

No, actually Trump and Biden are two of the 3 most unpopular presidents ever and for good reason. Crawl back under your rock.