Democrat Party Civil War Begins
- Thread starter EagleSmack
- Start date
Get used to it, although my opinions are unpopular, they are right on.
the universe is not politically correct. It doesn't give a fu€k about little bitch a$$ feminists like you.
Don't tell me Chillary does that for you. Seriously, even if she doesn't I just don't want to know.
Disarray Within the Democratic Party
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/opinion/disarray-within-the-democratic-party.html?_r=0
*snicker*
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/opinion/disarray-within-the-democratic-party.html?_r=0
*snicker*
I love implosions. Not only is it fun to watch (as long as you aren't part of it) but when the smoke clears the 'victims' are calmer and smarter. Most people are aware that the learning process doesn't have to include the implosion part. You have seen a few on this very board and you have to admit they are fun to watch.
Winter get to your block yet??
Winter get to your block yet??
It is pleasant, when the sea is high and the winds are dashing the waves about, to watch from the shores the struggles of another
- Lucretius
- Lucretius
Democrats Must Go Beyond Mere Opposition to Trump
As the still shell-shocked Democrats try to figure out what went wrong and what to do about it, Hillary Clinton's formal announcement of her candidacy in 2015 would be a good starting point.
The beautifully produced two-minute video was replete with attractive and aspirational Americans. It presented a diversity of color, young, old, gay and lesbian couples, a single mother and immigrant entrepreneurs. The candidate, who appears in only about a third of the video, was comfortable and self-assured. Even though she warned that the deck was too often stacked against average Americans, her tone was upbeat.
It got good reviews for tone and content. The New York Times reported, misleadingly, that it included "plenty of white working-class people," a signal that she would address these voters' concerns in the campaign. A subsequent Times video chat was more insightful:
Top political reporter Maggie Haberman noted that despite the video's high production values "it's not clear what her message is." The theme, she said, seemed to be striking a balance between "things are getting better" and "things are great."
For the economically struggling voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan -- the ones who determined the election -- that didn't seem reassuring. Their unease didn't abate much over the next year and a half.
Democratic polls showed that voters were split almost evenly on the question of which candidates' economic policies would help them the most. But even though the economy is better than four years ago, surveys showed that a wide range of voters had more confidence in President Barack Obama on this score than in Clinton this time.
My theory, based only in part on data and a few interviews, is that late-breaking voters, as the exit polls suggested, went for Donald Trump, despite their doubts about his abilities and character. Clinton wasn't giving them much reason to believe things would change, so they decided to roll the dice -- Trump probably wasn't going to win anyway.
It's easy to forget that Clinton won the popular vote, probably by more than 2.8 million votes when everything is counted. Under normal circumstances, that would be considered a clear-cut victory. And if she had turned out a few more of the Obama flock in urban and suburban communities, she would have won the electoral vote, too.
But the Clinton campaign vested too much trust in its vaunted data and analytics gurus -- the campaign stopped most conventional polling four weeks out and miscalculated how these leaners, or late-breakers, were going.
The Clinton team, including the candidate herself, insists the outcome would been different had FBI Director James Comey not intervened by raising potential issues involving her use of a private e-mail server as secretary of state.
Yet the lack of a coherent compelling economic message was a bigger deal. That's not just Monday morning quarterbacking by the likes of Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. In October, Bill Clinton railed to friends about this danger -- the failure to connect with voters in less urban and working-class areas. The former president was viewed as a relic by some in the campaign.
Instead, the emphasis was on slicing and dicing the electorate -- gays, Hispanics, blacks, unmarried women or younger professionals. This was identity politics. The Republicans attack on this were hypocritical, because they did the same thing, just with different identities: evangelical Christians, white nationalists and nativists.
But Trump had an overarching message, "Make American Great Again," which held these groups together. It gave a rationalization to evangelicals, who should deplore Trump's morality; and while he ran a campaign with blatantly racist tones, struggling non-racist whites could justify their vote on other grounds.
To be sure, the panaceas he offered often were fraudulent: Erecting walls along the border or rounding up millions of undocumented immigrants, slashing taxes for the rich or falsely promising to drain the swamp aren't going to bring back many jobs or raise wages in most distressed areas.
But for these struggling voters his message was easier to comprehend, even if they had doubts, than Clinton's prescriptions, a 17-point program, often thoughtful, that covered almost every imaginable problem.
Democrats face a huge challenge in trying to settle on an economic agenda beyond mere opposition to most of Trump's prescriptions. Can they recapture and modernize the centrist/progressive policies of the Bill Clinton administration -- and much of Obama's -- or will the future be the Warren-Sanders, anti corporate, populist message?
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-11/democrats-must-go-beyond-mere-opposition-to-trump
As the still shell-shocked Democrats try to figure out what went wrong and what to do about it, Hillary Clinton's formal announcement of her candidacy in 2015 would be a good starting point.
The beautifully produced two-minute video was replete with attractive and aspirational Americans. It presented a diversity of color, young, old, gay and lesbian couples, a single mother and immigrant entrepreneurs. The candidate, who appears in only about a third of the video, was comfortable and self-assured. Even though she warned that the deck was too often stacked against average Americans, her tone was upbeat.
It got good reviews for tone and content. The New York Times reported, misleadingly, that it included "plenty of white working-class people," a signal that she would address these voters' concerns in the campaign. A subsequent Times video chat was more insightful:
Top political reporter Maggie Haberman noted that despite the video's high production values "it's not clear what her message is." The theme, she said, seemed to be striking a balance between "things are getting better" and "things are great."
For the economically struggling voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan -- the ones who determined the election -- that didn't seem reassuring. Their unease didn't abate much over the next year and a half.
Democratic polls showed that voters were split almost evenly on the question of which candidates' economic policies would help them the most. But even though the economy is better than four years ago, surveys showed that a wide range of voters had more confidence in President Barack Obama on this score than in Clinton this time.
My theory, based only in part on data and a few interviews, is that late-breaking voters, as the exit polls suggested, went for Donald Trump, despite their doubts about his abilities and character. Clinton wasn't giving them much reason to believe things would change, so they decided to roll the dice -- Trump probably wasn't going to win anyway.
It's easy to forget that Clinton won the popular vote, probably by more than 2.8 million votes when everything is counted. Under normal circumstances, that would be considered a clear-cut victory. And if she had turned out a few more of the Obama flock in urban and suburban communities, she would have won the electoral vote, too.
But the Clinton campaign vested too much trust in its vaunted data and analytics gurus -- the campaign stopped most conventional polling four weeks out and miscalculated how these leaners, or late-breakers, were going.
The Clinton team, including the candidate herself, insists the outcome would been different had FBI Director James Comey not intervened by raising potential issues involving her use of a private e-mail server as secretary of state.
Yet the lack of a coherent compelling economic message was a bigger deal. That's not just Monday morning quarterbacking by the likes of Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. In October, Bill Clinton railed to friends about this danger -- the failure to connect with voters in less urban and working-class areas. The former president was viewed as a relic by some in the campaign.
Instead, the emphasis was on slicing and dicing the electorate -- gays, Hispanics, blacks, unmarried women or younger professionals. This was identity politics. The Republicans attack on this were hypocritical, because they did the same thing, just with different identities: evangelical Christians, white nationalists and nativists.
But Trump had an overarching message, "Make American Great Again," which held these groups together. It gave a rationalization to evangelicals, who should deplore Trump's morality; and while he ran a campaign with blatantly racist tones, struggling non-racist whites could justify their vote on other grounds.
To be sure, the panaceas he offered often were fraudulent: Erecting walls along the border or rounding up millions of undocumented immigrants, slashing taxes for the rich or falsely promising to drain the swamp aren't going to bring back many jobs or raise wages in most distressed areas.
But for these struggling voters his message was easier to comprehend, even if they had doubts, than Clinton's prescriptions, a 17-point program, often thoughtful, that covered almost every imaginable problem.
Democrats face a huge challenge in trying to settle on an economic agenda beyond mere opposition to most of Trump's prescriptions. Can they recapture and modernize the centrist/progressive policies of the Bill Clinton administration -- and much of Obama's -- or will the future be the Warren-Sanders, anti corporate, populist message?
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-11/democrats-must-go-beyond-mere-opposition-to-trump
[FONT=ARIAL,VERDANA,HELVETICA]DEMS TRY TO PUT PARTY BACK TOGETHER AGAIN[/FONT]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/us/democrats-dnc-chairman-trump-keith-ellison-tom-perez.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/us/democrats-dnc-chairman-trump-keith-ellison-tom-perez.html
https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/why-i-left-left
Do you believe in free speech?
Do you believe that people should be judged by their character, not their skin color?
Do you believe in freedom of religion?
If you believe these things, you’re probably not a progressive. You might think you’re a progressive. I used to think I was. My show, “The Rubin Report” was originally part of the progressive “The Young Turks” network.
Progressives struck me as liberals but louder. Progressives were the nice guys; they looked out for the little guy; they cared about women and minorities; they embraced change.
Who wouldn’t want to be a progressive?
But over the last couple years, the meaning of the word “progressive” has changed.
Progressives used to say, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” Not anymore.
Banning speakers whose opinions you don’t agree with from college campuses – that’s not progressive.
Prohibiting any words not approved of as “politically correct” that’s not progressive.
Putting “Trigger Warnings” on books, movies, music, anything that might offend people – that’s not progressive either.
All of this has led me to be believe that much of the Left is no longer progressive, but regressive. This is one of the reasons I’ve spent so much time on my show talking about The Regressive Left.
This regressive ideology doesn’t judge people as individuals, but as a collective.
If you’re black, or female, or Muslim, or Hispanic or a member of any other minority group, you’re judged differently than the most evil of all things – a white, Christian male. The Regressive Left ranks minority groups in a pecking order to compete in a kind of Oppression Olympics. Gold medal goes to the most offended.
Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream that his children would be judged by their character and not their skin color was a liberal idea, but these days, it’s not a progressive ideal.
And what about religious freedom – the idea that no one else can tell you what you have to believe? Surely progressives still support that basic right.
Well, not so much.
I’m a married gay man, so you might think that I appreciate the government forcing a Christian baker or photographer or florist to act against their religion in order to cater, photograph or decorate my wedding. But you’d be wrong. A government that can force Christians to violate their conscience can force me to violate mine. If a baker won’t bake you a cake, find another baker, don’t demand the state tell him what to do with his private business.
I’m pro-choice. But a government that can force a group of Catholic nuns – literally called the Little Sisters of the Poor – to violate their faith and pay for abortion-inducing birth control can force anyone to do anything.
That’s not progressive; that’s regressive!
Today's progressivism has become a faux-moral movement hurling charges of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia and a slew of other meaningless buzzwords at anyone they disagree with.
The battle of ideas has been replaced by a battle of feelings, and outrage has replaced honesty. Diversity reigns supreme, as long as it’s not that pesky diversity of thought.
This isn’t the recipe for a free society, it’s a recipe for authoritarianism.
For these reasons, I can no longer call myself a progressive. I don’t really call myself a Democrat either. I’m a classical liberal, a free thinker, and as much as I don’t like to admit it, defending my liberal values has suddenly become a conservative position.
So, if you think people should be able to say what they think without being punished for it; that people should be judged by their behavior, not their skin color; and that people should be able to live the way that they want to live, without government interference, then there’s not much left on the left for you.
I’ll keep trying to explain that to progressives until I’m totally left out.
I’m Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report for Prager University.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiVQ8vrGA_8&app=desktop
Do you believe in free speech?
Do you believe that people should be judged by their character, not their skin color?
Do you believe in freedom of religion?
If you believe these things, you’re probably not a progressive. You might think you’re a progressive. I used to think I was. My show, “The Rubin Report” was originally part of the progressive “The Young Turks” network.
Progressives struck me as liberals but louder. Progressives were the nice guys; they looked out for the little guy; they cared about women and minorities; they embraced change.
Who wouldn’t want to be a progressive?
But over the last couple years, the meaning of the word “progressive” has changed.
Progressives used to say, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” Not anymore.
Banning speakers whose opinions you don’t agree with from college campuses – that’s not progressive.
Prohibiting any words not approved of as “politically correct” that’s not progressive.
Putting “Trigger Warnings” on books, movies, music, anything that might offend people – that’s not progressive either.
All of this has led me to be believe that much of the Left is no longer progressive, but regressive. This is one of the reasons I’ve spent so much time on my show talking about The Regressive Left.
This regressive ideology doesn’t judge people as individuals, but as a collective.
If you’re black, or female, or Muslim, or Hispanic or a member of any other minority group, you’re judged differently than the most evil of all things – a white, Christian male. The Regressive Left ranks minority groups in a pecking order to compete in a kind of Oppression Olympics. Gold medal goes to the most offended.
Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream that his children would be judged by their character and not their skin color was a liberal idea, but these days, it’s not a progressive ideal.
And what about religious freedom – the idea that no one else can tell you what you have to believe? Surely progressives still support that basic right.
Well, not so much.
I’m a married gay man, so you might think that I appreciate the government forcing a Christian baker or photographer or florist to act against their religion in order to cater, photograph or decorate my wedding. But you’d be wrong. A government that can force Christians to violate their conscience can force me to violate mine. If a baker won’t bake you a cake, find another baker, don’t demand the state tell him what to do with his private business.
I’m pro-choice. But a government that can force a group of Catholic nuns – literally called the Little Sisters of the Poor – to violate their faith and pay for abortion-inducing birth control can force anyone to do anything.
That’s not progressive; that’s regressive!
Today's progressivism has become a faux-moral movement hurling charges of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia and a slew of other meaningless buzzwords at anyone they disagree with.
The battle of ideas has been replaced by a battle of feelings, and outrage has replaced honesty. Diversity reigns supreme, as long as it’s not that pesky diversity of thought.
This isn’t the recipe for a free society, it’s a recipe for authoritarianism.
For these reasons, I can no longer call myself a progressive. I don’t really call myself a Democrat either. I’m a classical liberal, a free thinker, and as much as I don’t like to admit it, defending my liberal values has suddenly become a conservative position.
So, if you think people should be able to say what they think without being punished for it; that people should be judged by their behavior, not their skin color; and that people should be able to live the way that they want to live, without government interference, then there’s not much left on the left for you.
I’ll keep trying to explain that to progressives until I’m totally left out.
I’m Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report for Prager University.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiVQ8vrGA_8&app=desktop
Pathetic: Democrats Still Don't Understand Why They're Wiped Out!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzsaCIky2Bw
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzsaCIky2Bw
And the Democrat Civil War rages on...
Why did Keith Ellison lose the DNC race?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-dnc-race/?utm_term=.912a18cf1158#comments
Why did Keith Ellison lose the DNC race?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-dnc-race/?utm_term=.912a18cf1158#comments
Democrat Party continues to eat itself from within.
'Incredibly Disappointing': Democrats Choose Tom Perez to Head Party | Common Dreams
And that is coming from an alt-left source!
'Incredibly Disappointing': Democrats Choose Tom Perez to Head Party | Common Dreams
And that is coming from an alt-left source!