R
robertmidwest
Guest
Last edited:
- Status
T
Theo520
Guest
I posted this quote in another thread, but it bears repeating.
The current state of the Dem party is Obama’s real legacy
The current state of the Dem party is Obama’s real legacy
R
robertmidwest
Guest
Last edited:
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
and yet the Pew Poll says he is the greatest U.S. president. go figure.
somebody is being hoodwinked.
somebody is being hoodwinked.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
AND Pew is extremely left-wing.
[If the Democrats keep this up, they will start claiming the Republicans planted those seditious emails.]
C
Caldera
Guest
What Are Democrats Running On?
The 2018 midterms are fast approaching, and Democrats are still crowing about the coming “blue wave.” If past is precedent, I suspect that this is just media-fueled propaganda. (Remember Hillary Clinton’s 98 percent certainty of winning the presidency?) There has been recent news about how Democrats lead Republicans in voter registrations by a significant margin. But the larger question is not whether Democratic voters will turn out, but what it is they are being asked to vote for. What does the Democratic Party stand for these days?
We can look at the headlines for clues.
The latest Democratic wunderkind is 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” (emphasis on “socialist”) who has stretched the truth about her background, is explicitly anti-capitalism, and who has displayed remarkable ignorance about unemployment and about Israel despite degrees from Boston University in economics and international relations.
Then there’s the left’s comic darling, Michelle Wolf, who recently celebrated the Fourth of July with a vile video “Salute to Abortion.” Bye, bye “safe, legal and rare,” hello “baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and D&C.” Her shtick plays right into the Democrats’ slobbering love affair with abortion giant Planned Parenthood, and their manufactured hysteria about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Democrats – once a reliable bastion of support for First Amendment rights – have largely abandoned them. (At least for conservatives.) In place of litigation and legislation to protect speech, Democrats now use their political power to silence speech they don’t like and compel that which they do. You don’t approve of gay marriage? Too bad. Democrats would – if they controlled the Supreme Court – force you to bake that wedding cake or arrange those flowers. Morally opposed to abortion and trying to offer pregnant women one of those much-heralded choices? Alas, you’d be forced to promote and advertise for abortion. Dare to stand up for your rights of free speech or free exercise of your religion? You’ll find yourself accused of “weaponizing the First Amendment.”
And the left has long since given up on the Second Amendment, which they now call to be repealed.
The left’s callous disregard for the ability to defend one’s self brings up Democratic positions on crime, homelessness and immigration. San Francisco is a bastion of leftist governance; the news is filled with headlines about its exploding homeless population, and corresponding problems with trash, used drug needles, and human urine and feces and all over the streets.
more…
The 2018 midterms are fast approaching, and Democrats are still crowing about the coming “blue wave.” If past is precedent, I suspect that this is just media-fueled propaganda. (Remember Hillary Clinton’s 98 percent certainty of winning the presidency?) There has been recent news about how Democrats lead Republicans in voter registrations by a significant margin. But the larger question is not whether Democratic voters will turn out, but what it is they are being asked to vote for. What does the Democratic Party stand for these days?
We can look at the headlines for clues.
The latest Democratic wunderkind is 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” (emphasis on “socialist”) who has stretched the truth about her background, is explicitly anti-capitalism, and who has displayed remarkable ignorance about unemployment and about Israel despite degrees from Boston University in economics and international relations.
Then there’s the left’s comic darling, Michelle Wolf, who recently celebrated the Fourth of July with a vile video “Salute to Abortion.” Bye, bye “safe, legal and rare,” hello “baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and D&C.” Her shtick plays right into the Democrats’ slobbering love affair with abortion giant Planned Parenthood, and their manufactured hysteria about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Democrats – once a reliable bastion of support for First Amendment rights – have largely abandoned them. (At least for conservatives.) In place of litigation and legislation to protect speech, Democrats now use their political power to silence speech they don’t like and compel that which they do. You don’t approve of gay marriage? Too bad. Democrats would – if they controlled the Supreme Court – force you to bake that wedding cake or arrange those flowers. Morally opposed to abortion and trying to offer pregnant women one of those much-heralded choices? Alas, you’d be forced to promote and advertise for abortion. Dare to stand up for your rights of free speech or free exercise of your religion? You’ll find yourself accused of “weaponizing the First Amendment.”
And the left has long since given up on the Second Amendment, which they now call to be repealed.
The left’s callous disregard for the ability to defend one’s self brings up Democratic positions on crime, homelessness and immigration. San Francisco is a bastion of leftist governance; the news is filled with headlines about its exploding homeless population, and corresponding problems with trash, used drug needles, and human urine and feces and all over the streets.
more…
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Democrats used to pose with Putin.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The ouster of Joe Crowley is part of a pattern that goes way beyond Obama and the Democrats and even the US. The pattern is best exemplified by the election of Donald Trump, Brexit, and any number of anti-establishment and populist moves around the world. It is simply the rejection of establishment politicians. The Democrats are caught up in it just like everyone else.
Last edited:
C
Caldera
Guest
Kevin McCarthy: Democrats Now ‘The New Socialist Democratic Party’
Democrats have abandoned the center of American politics, ceding that ground to Republicans, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News Saturday on SiriusXM Patriot 125. McCarthy said he no longer refers to them as the Democratic Party, but as the “The New Socialist Democratic Party.”
McCarthy’s comments, laying out the leftward lurch of the Democratic Party, come in the wake of a historic vote this week on the floor of the House of Representatives in which only 18 Democrats voted in support of a measure that admonishes efforts to “Abolish ICE” and destroy the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency that handles interior immigration enforcement.
“I’ve never seen anything like this on the floor of the House,” McCarthy said. “What the resolution simply does is it honors all those who work for ICE and it simply states what they do: One, stopping the million pounds of drugs, stopping those who become human traffickers—those people who are preying on our children, two thousand of those they’ve been able to stop. And saving like 900 kids who have been put into human trafficking. And it honors the lives of those six who have been killed in the line of duty, made the ultimate sacrifice in their job. One was even murdered from a cartel in Mexico. And it has one provision in there where it denounces any talk about abolishing ICE.”
On the floor of the House, Democrats split three separate ways on the resolution which was offered by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) and championed by McCarthy. Eighteen voted for it, 34 voted against it, and 133 Democrats voted “present”—effectively ensuring the measure’s passage because the procedure through which it was brought to the floor, a “suspension calendar,” requires two-thirds of the members voting one way or another on the resolution to support it for it to pass. Nonetheless, the fact that 167 Democrats in total either voted against supporting ICE—thereby voting to abolish ICE—or voted present, and thereby casting their lot with those in opposition, is astonishing when it comes to Congress standing with a federal law enforcement agency.
more…
Democrats have abandoned the center of American politics, ceding that ground to Republicans, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News Saturday on SiriusXM Patriot 125. McCarthy said he no longer refers to them as the Democratic Party, but as the “The New Socialist Democratic Party.”
McCarthy’s comments, laying out the leftward lurch of the Democratic Party, come in the wake of a historic vote this week on the floor of the House of Representatives in which only 18 Democrats voted in support of a measure that admonishes efforts to “Abolish ICE” and destroy the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency that handles interior immigration enforcement.
“I’ve never seen anything like this on the floor of the House,” McCarthy said. “What the resolution simply does is it honors all those who work for ICE and it simply states what they do: One, stopping the million pounds of drugs, stopping those who become human traffickers—those people who are preying on our children, two thousand of those they’ve been able to stop. And saving like 900 kids who have been put into human trafficking. And it honors the lives of those six who have been killed in the line of duty, made the ultimate sacrifice in their job. One was even murdered from a cartel in Mexico. And it has one provision in there where it denounces any talk about abolishing ICE.”
On the floor of the House, Democrats split three separate ways on the resolution which was offered by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) and championed by McCarthy. Eighteen voted for it, 34 voted against it, and 133 Democrats voted “present”—effectively ensuring the measure’s passage because the procedure through which it was brought to the floor, a “suspension calendar,” requires two-thirds of the members voting one way or another on the resolution to support it for it to pass. Nonetheless, the fact that 167 Democrats in total either voted against supporting ICE—thereby voting to abolish ICE—or voted present, and thereby casting their lot with those in opposition, is astonishing when it comes to Congress standing with a federal law enforcement agency.
more…
A
abucs
Guest
It will be interesting to see who the next Democratic Party Presidential nominee is and also who the people putting themselves forward for the primaries will be. It should give a clearer picture of where the Democratic Party sits at the moment.
Also, without a stand out Democratic challenger atm Bernie Sanders is looking quite hard to beat.
I think most people would acknowledge that Hillary was given an inside run last time and yet Bernie generated a great deal of support with many of them feeling ‘cheated’.
Do people think it is likely that it will be Democratic socialist Bernie’s turn next time or is more likely there will be a more right leaning nominee who will eventually emerge and triumph at he DNC?
Also, without a stand out Democratic challenger atm Bernie Sanders is looking quite hard to beat.
I think most people would acknowledge that Hillary was given an inside run last time and yet Bernie generated a great deal of support with many of them feeling ‘cheated’.
Do people think it is likely that it will be Democratic socialist Bernie’s turn next time or is more likely there will be a more right leaning nominee who will eventually emerge and triumph at he DNC?
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
Bernie Sanders would be 79 or 80 when he was sworn in if he ran and won.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
I agree and he is looking old which won’t be helpful. On the other hand, I think he could have taken the last election.
If he chooses to run again, I think it will be hard for the democratic party to derail him a second time without antagonizing their voters. He will need to be very strategic in his choice of v.p. candidates.
If he chooses to run again, I think it will be hard for the democratic party to derail him a second time without antagonizing their voters. He will need to be very strategic in his choice of v.p. candidates.
I
Inisfallen
Guest
Elizabeth Warren may seek the nomination (although I don’t think she will).
There are other Democrats who are at least talked about as candidates (whether or not they’re actually thinking of running, I don’t know). Kamala Harris, Sherrod Brown (a long shot candidate who I like, but who has said he’s not interested), Joe Biden (who I hope stays out of the race), Kirsten Gillebrand, Cory Booker, and, of course, Bernie Sanders. Maybe Deval Patrick, about whom I don’t know much at all.
Other very long shots for 2020 – Tulsi Gabbard, Tammy Duckworth. Very, very long shots – maybe Julian or Joaquin Castro.
Get your Racing Form here, folks – post time is almost upon us.
There are other Democrats who are at least talked about as candidates (whether or not they’re actually thinking of running, I don’t know). Kamala Harris, Sherrod Brown (a long shot candidate who I like, but who has said he’s not interested), Joe Biden (who I hope stays out of the race), Kirsten Gillebrand, Cory Booker, and, of course, Bernie Sanders. Maybe Deval Patrick, about whom I don’t know much at all.
Other very long shots for 2020 – Tulsi Gabbard, Tammy Duckworth. Very, very long shots – maybe Julian or Joaquin Castro.
Get your Racing Form here, folks – post time is almost upon us.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The Dem presidential candidate will be a white guy about 50 years old, possibly with a Hispanic last name, who is not clearly a socialist or an overt “open borders” guy.
A Marco Rubio further to the left, but nowhere near as far as Sanders.
A Marco Rubio further to the left, but nowhere near as far as Sanders.
M
marybobo
Guest
Do you really think Sanders could have won last time. Do you really think the majority of the country is ready for Socialism?
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
The majority of the country supports medicare and social security and nobody can say those aren’t socialist programs.
M
marybobo
Guest
Yes they are. But how does one plan to pay if the whole country is on Medicare plus the “free” college for all. And where, exactly, has Socialism worked?
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Hi marybobo,
I do think he could have won, not because of the socialism word, but because of the strong populist sentiment which seemed to pervade much of the populace.
Generally, I only run into the socialist word on CAF and in very conservative radio shows. In the case of the radio, I think of it as preaching to the choir: most of the audience will have a shared negative response to the word. On CAF I anticipate greater differentiation of response. Media coverage of the presidential campaign was terrible (very emotional, very shallow) in the press which I followed-mostly Seattle newspapers/radio stations of varying stripes/ NPR and Catholic radio/the Atlantic and other national magazines.
In general, the word progressive seems to have replaced socialism and the left over the past decade or two and this word seems to sit more comfortably with the public.
The challenge we face is to actually share information about issues in great depth so that voters have something to work with. Name calling is not enough (nor should it be) and it filled the airwaves last election. In my area, the newsmedia was very strongly pro Mrs. Clinton and gave short shrift to positions in opposition to her candidacy. However, I experienced very little in-dept coverage of her positions and I roll between news stations (and classical and Catholic radio) during a daily 2 hour commute. It was mostly “of course everyone -except for that problem group- will vote democrat sort of news” with lots of adjectives and little information.
I hope that in the future there will be pressure to elevate political discourse with more information and calmer rhetoric.
I agree with the poster who spoke of the value many voters place on social security and medicare/healthcare. Very strong arguments are needed if a politician hopes to discourage people from supporting programs which provide material benefits, even if aspects of these programs are problematical. For many of us, abortion is the strong argument in regard to socialized medicine. For those who are pro-abortion, other arguments will be important-opportunity costs might be an example, or, in a discussion on S. security, describing its history and whom it was meant to help, accompanied by a discussion of why capping benefits at a certain level of wealth might honor this ideal, could make sense to a portion of the voting public.
A nervous public may find some of the material offerings of democratic socialism comforting and the label of progressive makes it seem like a natural evolution in our political process.
One way to reach out to the nervous might be to prioritize issues of crumbling infrastructure as an investment in future growth and prosperity. This offers jobs to people of varying levels of education while increasing the productive capacity of our nation.
It is an issue which speaks to voters from both parties and to independents as well.
May God bless you and all who visit our thread.
Amen.
Last edited:
I
Inisfallen
Guest
I don’t know who that would be.
From what I know at this point in time, I could get behind Sherrod Brown, but he’s, what, early sixties? Not sure.
Otherwise, he fits your description.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Probably not somebody we know a whole lot about right now or to whom anybody pays a lot of attention. Some governor from somewhere or representative.
- Status