Anonymous
02/09/2017 16:25
Subject: Re:This latest Time magazine cover pretty much summarizes the state of the Democratic party
Jeff didn't like my opinion on the Democratic Party. So he deleted my entire s/o thread.
Was this opinion really so bad? I'm trying to help you here:
"The thread on the Time magazine cover got sidetracked.
The the reality is: over the last 8 years, you blew it, democrats.
You held the WH and both houses; you had it all. But your win came during the worst financial crisis in decades, when our already out-of-control debt skyrocketed.
-your response? Ram through a massive expansion of the biggest part of deficit spending: entitlement spending through Medicare/Medicaid under the ACA. Really?? Then there were Gruber's "stupid voters" comments and "if you like your plan. . ."
After that fiasco, you failed to close Guantanamo as promised. Worse, you paid the Taliban (ok, you technically paid Quatar, who paid the Taliban) millions and exchanged 5 really aweful Guantanamo terrorists for - Bowie Bergdahl??!?
Follow those dumb moves by championing the dumbest, least-important issues and making them priorities: toilette laws and gun control (which, in 1992, lost you both houses).
On top of that, the U.S. experienced the worst spike in heroin deaths in decades and you responded by: needlessly releasing convicted drug/gun offenders? Really??
How can you be surprised at your lack of popularity?
Was this opinion really so bad? I'm trying to help you here:
"The thread on the Time magazine cover got sidetracked.
The the reality is: over the last 8 years, you blew it, democrats.
You held the WH and both houses; you had it all. But your win came during the worst financial crisis in decades, when our already out-of-control debt skyrocketed.
-your response? Ram through a massive expansion of the biggest part of deficit spending: entitlement spending through Medicare/Medicaid under the ACA. Really?? Then there were Gruber's "stupid voters" comments and "if you like your plan. . ."
After that fiasco, you failed to close Guantanamo as promised. Worse, you paid the Taliban (ok, you technically paid Quatar, who paid the Taliban) millions and exchanged 5 really aweful Guantanamo terrorists for - Bowie Bergdahl??!?
Follow those dumb moves by championing the dumbest, least-important issues and making them priorities: toilette laws and gun control (which, in 1992, lost you both houses).
On top of that, the U.S. experienced the worst spike in heroin deaths in decades and you responded by: needlessly releasing convicted drug/gun offenders? Really??
How can you be surprised at your lack of popularity?
Anonymous
02/09/2017 16:22
Subject: Re:This latest Time magazine cover pretty much summarizes the state of the Democratic party
Anonymous wrote:Seriously, the Democratic party is not the party of Clinton or Carter or even JFK. It most resembles the party of McGovern in 1972 and McGovern was destroyed by Nixon in that election.
We are headed in the same direction.
BS.
Anonymous
02/09/2017 15:59
Subject: Re:This latest Time magazine cover pretty much summarizes the state of the Democratic party
Seriously, the Democratic party is not the party of Clinton or Carter or even JFK. It most resembles the party of McGovern in 1972 and McGovern was destroyed by Nixon in that election.
We are headed in the same direction.
We are headed in the same direction.
Anonymous
02/09/2017 15:52
Subject: Re:This latest Time magazine cover pretty much summarizes the state of the Democratic party
Hillary got almost 3 million more votes than Trump. Unfortunately for her, they were mostly clustered in urban areas and on the coasts. Liberals need to get over their collective geographic snobbery and move to flyover country. Get out of the cities and move to wide open spaces of Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, etc. Don't worry, you can find a latte in those places.
Anonymous
02/09/2017 15:04
Subject: Re:This latest Time magazine cover pretty much summarizes the state of the Democratic party
Anonymous wrote:One difference between Trump and Bill Clinton: Clinton did not say he wanted to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it!
Maybe not in those words, exactly. But here's Bill Clinton, in his own words, talking about illegal aliens taking our jobs, taking our welfare benefits, stressing out public services, and how we, as Americans, need to stop illegal aliens from entering the U.S.:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7AXizmhgi0
On C-Span. He recieved a standing ovation for his comments on stopping illegal aliens entering the U.S.
Anonymous
02/09/2017 14:43
Subject: This latest Time magazine cover pretty much summarizes the state of the Democratic party
Anonymous wrote:Yes, we can march and send letters to members of Congress and oppose Trump's nominees but the Democratic party today is flailing, leaderless, demoralized and impotent.
We are led in the House by several septuagenarians who have presided over the decline of the party to its current state. And with at least ten Democratic senators who are up for reelection in 2018 from states that Trump won we may not have hit bottom.
This is why Democrats must band together and find new, younger, more energetic Democrats to fill those Democratic Senate seats. Otherwise, they will turn red.
Nancy Pelosi? Puhleeze! The woman can raise money, so she needs to retire to a fundraising job and step aside for the good of the country! Schumer, not much better, but at least he's been opening his mouth at the urging of his loud-mouthed New York constituents. He'll be out too if he's shows the slightest signs of bending to the Republicans.
Everyone needs to work to put fighting Democrats in office. We have to unseat the old guard now!
Anonymous
02/09/2017 14:43
Subject: Re:This latest Time magazine cover pretty much summarizes the state of the Democratic party
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How about this graphic from the Daily Kos showing the decline of the Democratic party? Not a pretty sight:
[img]http://images.dailykos.com/images/362596/story_image/State_Legislatures.png?1486423946[img]
There's really not much you can do about that since the state houses are largely based on counties. Young people and democrats don't live in counties. As cities continue to fill up with democrats there's really nothing you can do.
Given what you state above how come Democrats were in a dominant position after the 2008 election?
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JQI2zVG_R20/ValgOoj5rPI/AAAAAAAAFGc/Dtl4MNrue3I/s1600/state%2Bparty%2Bcontrol%2Bin%2B2008.png[img]
Because historically, party control in State governments goes the opposite way of party control in Federal government.
So after 8 years of Bush we had it one way, and after 8 years of Obama, the other way.
Even now, there are many >60% Americans that *still* say we are "on the wrong track". After switching track completely!
According to Americans, we are always on the wrong track no matter who is in charge, and so we flip back and forth in political parties without ever having a clue of what's really going on economically and socio-politically. Similar craziness to the fact that after voting in people campaigning on repeal of Obamacare people are now "liking it more"- flipping polls from before the election- or don't know it's the same think as ACA (approximately 50% of Republicans).
No matter which party or worldview you espouse, this is crazy!
+100 you know what blame the media
I'm being serious. Most of the coverage about Obamacare was negative (mostly higher premiums less choice than promised etc) up until Trump came in and then all of a sudden all this positive media coverage about what would happen if Obamcare went away. The irony is that both sets of facts are still true its just that the media decided to focus on one set vs the other
Anonymous
02/09/2017 14:39
Subject: Re:This latest Time magazine cover pretty much summarizes the state of the Democratic party
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How about this graphic from the Daily Kos showing the decline of the Democratic party? Not a pretty sight:
[img]http://images.dailykos.com/images/362596/story_image/State_Legislatures.png?1486423946[img]
There's really not much you can do about that since the state houses are largely based on counties. Young people and democrats don't live in counties. As cities continue to fill up with democrats there's really nothing you can do.
Given what you state above how come Democrats were in a dominant position after the 2008 election?
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JQI2zVG_R20/ValgOoj5rPI/AAAAAAAAFGc/Dtl4MNrue3I/s1600/state%2Bparty%2Bcontrol%2Bin%2B2008.png[img]
Because historically, party control in State governments goes the opposite way of party control in Federal government.
So after 8 years of Bush we had it one way, and after 8 years of Obama, the other way.
Even now, there are many >60% Americans that *still* say we are "on the wrong track". After switching track completely!
According to Americans, we are always on the wrong track no matter who is in charge, and so we flip back and forth in political parties without ever having a clue of what's really going on economically and socio-politically. Similar craziness to the fact that after voting in people campaigning on repeal of Obamacare people are now "liking it more"- flipping polls from before the election- or don't know it's the same think as ACA (approximately 50% of Republicans).
No matter which party or worldview you espouse, this is crazy!
No the wrong track is a meaningless statistic. Only idiots use it to blame one party or another.
Let us say you are a progressive who wants universal healthcare and you don't like the current healthcare system, you will say the country is going in the wrong direction from universal healthcare. Let us say you are a staunch conservative and you don't like that LGBTQ rights are now the law of teh land, you will also say the country is on the wrong track. So you add these two the statistic will always have a majority saying the country is going in the wrong track no matter which party is in power.
Anonymous
02/09/2017 14:34
Subject: This latest Time magazine cover pretty much summarizes the state of the Democratic party
Anonymous wrote:The democratic clown-car hear driven over a cliff; where it lands is anyone's guess.
Says the party rep whose party won ONLY 1/7 past elections and even that one win by one state. The most recent EC win is by all of 0.5% in 3 states and 80K votes. Oh don't your remember the party is 3 million vote deficit in popular vote not even talking majority vote here. Keep living in your delusions of dem party loss. It was supposedly a loss year for the dems because the same party winning 3 times in a row doesn't happen often. Its the year of the GOP but yet they lost 2 senate seats, 6 house seats and the election by 3 million votes.
Anonymous
02/09/2017 14:13
Subject: Re:This latest Time magazine cover pretty much summarizes the state of the Democratic party
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How about this graphic from the Daily Kos showing the decline of the Democratic party? Not a pretty sight:
[img]http://images.dailykos.com/images/362596/story_image/State_Legislatures.png?1486423946[img]
There's really not much you can do about that since the state houses are largely based on counties. Young people and democrats don't live in counties. As cities continue to fill up with democrats there's really nothing you can do.
Given what you state above how come Democrats were in a dominant position after the 2008 election?
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JQI2zVG_R20/ValgOoj5rPI/AAAAAAAAFGc/Dtl4MNrue3I/s1600/state%2Bparty%2Bcontrol%2Bin%2B2008.png[img]
Because historically, party control in State governments goes the opposite way of party control in Federal government.
So after 8 years of Bush we had it one way, and after 8 years of Obama, the other way.
Even now, there are many >60% Americans that *still* say we are "on the wrong track". After switching track completely!
According to Americans, we are always on the wrong track no matter who is in charge, and so we flip back and forth in political parties without ever having a clue of what's really going on economically and socio-politically. Similar craziness to the fact that after voting in people campaigning on repeal of Obamacare people are now "liking it more"- flipping polls from before the election- or don't know it's the same think as ACA (approximately 50% of Republicans).
No matter which party or worldview you espouse, this is crazy!
Anonymous
02/09/2017 14:08
Subject: Re:This latest Time magazine cover pretty much summarizes the state of the Democratic party
One difference between Trump and Bill Clinton: Clinton did not say he wanted to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it!
Anonymous
02/09/2017 14:04
Subject: Re:This latest Time magazine cover pretty much summarizes the state of the Democratic party
The Republican party is not the party of Reagan and the Democratic party is not the party of Bill Clinton.
Can you imagine these views being stated by a Democratic leader today?
Can you imagine these views being stated by a Democratic leader today?
Anonymous
02/09/2017 14:01
Subject: Re:This latest Time magazine cover pretty much summarizes the state of the Democratic party
Looking good Chuck: Gotta keep those hair plugs in the front in good shape because that's what the camera captures.
Anonymous
02/09/2017 13:47
Subject: This latest Time magazine cover pretty much summarizes the state of the Democratic party
Kochs and ALEC.
Anonymous
02/09/2017 13:25
Subject: Re:This latest Time magazine cover pretty much summarizes the state of the Democratic party
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How about this graphic from the Daily Kos showing the decline of the Democratic party? Not a pretty sight:
There's really not much you can do about that since the state houses are largely based on counties. Young people and democrats don't live in counties. As cities continue to fill up with democrats there's really nothing you can do.
Given what you state above how come Democrats were in a dominant position after the 2008 election?
