Quote:It’s fine for Democrats to be upset that Donald Trump schlonged Hillary Clinton, but the reality is that they spent the entirety of the Obama years getting their brains beaten in. When Obama first took office, they held the House and 60 seats in the Senate and controlled the majority of governorships and state legislatures. Now, the GOP has a large majority in the House, 52 seats in the Senate, and the majority of state legislatures and governorships.

Democrats went from thinking they were on the verge of a permanent political ascendancy to the worst political bloodbath in American history. Put another way, Democrats are the George Armstrong Custer of political parties, and yet that doesn’t seem to have inspired any soul searching at all. So here are some questions Democrats should be asking themselves right now:

1) Hillary Clinton? Seriously?
2) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The “One Size Of Liberalism Fits All” Party?
3) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The Intolerant Fun Police?
4) Do Democrats Represent Anyone Other Than The Most Liberal Americans?
5) Has The Democratic Party Gotten Too Extreme?
6) Can The Democratic Party Continue To Advocate For More Spending?

Link to the articles answers/thoughts.

7. are the dippos destructive to the majority of the working/supporting class???

that 'aye vote' would pass the 'eye test'

edit: would apply to 4, 5, and 6 also....

(03-25-2017 03:58 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:It’s fine for Democrats to be upset that Donald Trump schlonged Hillary Clinton, but the reality is that they spent the entirety of the Obama years getting their brains beaten in. When Obama first took office, they held the House and 60 seats in the Senate and controlled the majority of governorships and state legislatures. Now, the GOP has a large majority in the House, 52 seats in the Senate, and the majority of state legislatures and governorships.

Democrats went from thinking they were on the verge of a permanent political ascendancy to the worst political bloodbath in American history. Put another way, Democrats are the George Armstrong Custer of political parties, and yet that doesn’t seem to have inspired any soul searching at all. So here are some questions Democrats should be asking themselves right now:

1) Hillary Clinton? Seriously?
2) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The “One Size Of Liberalism Fits All” Party?
3) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The Intolerant Fun Police?
4) Do Democrats Represent Anyone Other Than The Most Liberal Americans?
5) Has The Democratic Party Gotten Too Extreme?
6) Can The Democratic Party Continue To Advocate For More Spending?

Link to the articles answers/thoughts.

I think everything's fine on the left and they should actually double down.

Collusion!!! LOL

1) Hillary Clinton? Seriously? Not me. I have said lock her up along with Trump.
2) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The “One Size Of Liberalism Fits All” Party? No. We need plans that could help everybody. One size fits all does not answer the issues of everybody's problems.
3) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The Intolerant Fun Police? Not everybody. My motto is that nobody should be intolerant of others. That means race, religion, sex, age or the disable. We need to be respectful to each other no matter what views we have.
4) Do Democrats Represent Anyone Other Than The Most Liberal Americans? Yes. If I run for an office as a Democrat? I will Represent everyone. I will produce bills that will benefit everyone no matter what party you belong.
5) Has The Democratic Party Gotten Too Extreme? The Hillary Clinton crowd have gone way too far.
6) Can The Democratic Party Continue To Advocate For More Spending? We need spending, but we need to cut out all the pork. We are spending way too much on pork projects for both parties. If I am President? I would do line item veto on all the pork projects and tell the congress and Senate to present a separate bill for those things that does not belong in the bills.

(03-25-2017 05:36 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  1) Hillary Clinton? Seriously? Not me. I have said lock her up along with Trump.
2) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The “One Size Of Liberalism Fits All” Party? No. We need plans that could help everybody. One size fits all does not answer the issues of everybody's problems.
3) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The Intolerant Fun Police? Not everybody. My motto is that nobody should be intolerant of others. That means race, religion, sex, age or the disable. We need to be respectful to each other no matter what views we have.
4) Do Democrats Represent Anyone Other Than The Most Liberal Americans? Yes. If I run for an office as a Democrat? I will Represent everyone. I will produce bills that will benefit everyone no matter what party you belong.
5) Has The Democratic Party Gotten Too Extreme? The Hillary Clinton crowd have gone way too far.
6) Can The Democratic Party Continue To Advocate For More Spending? We need spending, but we need to cut out all the pork. We are spending way too much on pork projects for both parties. If I am President? I would do line item veto on all the pork projects and tell the congress and Senate to present a separate bill for those things that does not belong in the bills.

But would fellow 'democrats' support you in the endeavor?


If I were president, I would not pass a single bill. Let the system work and see how the country fairs. Also I would want to do a review of all existing bills. Decide whether the bill needs to be repealed, replaced, shored up (fix loop holes) or left alone.

(03-25-2017 03:58 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:It’s fine for Democrats to be upset that Donald Trump schlonged Hillary Clinton, but the reality is that they spent the entirety of the Obama years getting their brains beaten in. When Obama first took office, they held the House and 60 seats in the Senate and controlled the majority of governorships and state legislatures. Now, the GOP has a large majority in the House, 52 seats in the Senate, and the majority of state legislatures and governorships.

Democrats went from thinking they were on the verge of a permanent political ascendancy to the worst political bloodbath in American history. Put another way, Democrats are the George Armstrong Custer of political parties, and yet that doesn’t seem to have inspired any soul searching at all. So here are some questions Democrats should be asking themselves right now:

1) Hillary Clinton? Seriously?
2) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The “One Size Of Liberalism Fits All” Party?
3) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The Intolerant Fun Police?
4) Do Democrats Represent Anyone Other Than The Most Liberal Americans?
5) Has The Democratic Party Gotten Too Extreme?
6) Can The Democratic Party Continue To Advocate For More Spending?

Link to the articles answers/thoughts.

Interesting questions. One thing that struck me was Question #2. It seems to me that the Republican big tent may have some issues governing for the same reason. They created a tent big enough to house enough votes to win the House, Senate, and White House----but that tent has factions that may have trouble passing legislation. The true believer Tea Party group, the Mainstream Conservative, and the Faux Republican Rhino Faction don't seem to agree on much.

One thing I will say about the Democrats. They are smart enough to take what they can get. They play the long game. They are willing to use incrementalism to move the ball ever closer to their goals. They have a great "running game" so to speak. The Republicans, on the other hand, like to throw deep a lot---but they have pretty low completion rate. That lets them "stay true to their principles"--but it doesn't result in much headway.

(03-25-2017 05:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 03:58 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:It’s fine for Democrats to be upset that Donald Trump schlonged Hillary Clinton, but the reality is that they spent the entirety of the Obama years getting their brains beaten in. When Obama first took office, they held the House and 60 seats in the Senate and controlled the majority of governorships and state legislatures. Now, the GOP has a large majority in the House, 52 seats in the Senate, and the majority of state legislatures and governorships.

Democrats went from thinking they were on the verge of a permanent political ascendancy to the worst political bloodbath in American history. Put another way, Democrats are the George Armstrong Custer of political parties, and yet that doesn’t seem to have inspired any soul searching at all. So here are some questions Democrats should be asking themselves right now:

1) Hillary Clinton? Seriously?
2) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The “One Size Of Liberalism Fits All” Party?
3) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The Intolerant Fun Police?
4) Do Democrats Represent Anyone Other Than The Most Liberal Americans?
5) Has The Democratic Party Gotten Too Extreme?
6) Can The Democratic Party Continue To Advocate For More Spending?

Link to the articles answers/thoughts.

Interesting questions. One thing that struck me was Question #2. It seems to me that the Republican big tent may have some issues governing for the same reason. They created a tent big enough to house enough votes to win the House, Senate, and White House----but that tent has factions that may have trouble passing legislation. The true believer Tea Party group, the Mainstream Conservative, and the Faux Republican Rhino Faction don't seem to agree on much.

One thing I will say about the Democrats. They are smart enough to take what they can get. They play the long game. They are willing to use incrementalism to move the ball ever closer to their goals. They have a great "running game" so to speak. The Republicans, on the other hand, like to throw deep a lot---but they have pretty low completion rate. That lets them "stay true to their principles"--but it doesn't result in much headway.

to the bolded, 90+mm no longer seeking employment coupled with a dying boomer generation helps that...

also, your general posit is a fair take on both sides in totality....that's why I lobbied for DJT from day one....

(03-25-2017 05:36 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  3) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The Intolerant Fun Police? Not everybody. My motto is that nobody should be intolerant of others. That means race, religion, sex, age or the disable. We need to be respectful to each other no matter what views we have.

So how do you remedy intolerant people?

(03-25-2017 05:55 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 05:36 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  1) Hillary Clinton? Seriously? Not me. I have said lock her up along with Trump.
2) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The “One Size Of Liberalism Fits All” Party? No. We need plans that could help everybody. One size fits all does not answer the issues of everybody's problems.
3) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The Intolerant Fun Police? Not everybody. My motto is that nobody should be intolerant of others. That means race, religion, sex, age or the disable. We need to be respectful to each other no matter what views we have.
4) Do Democrats Represent Anyone Other Than The Most Liberal Americans? Yes. If I run for an office as a Democrat? I will Represent everyone. I will produce bills that will benefit everyone no matter what party you belong.
5) Has The Democratic Party Gotten Too Extreme? The Hillary Clinton crowd have gone way too far.
6) Can The Democratic Party Continue To Advocate For More Spending? We need spending, but we need to cut out all the pork. We are spending way too much on pork projects for both parties. If I am President? I would do line item veto on all the pork projects and tell the congress and Senate to present a separate bill for those things that does not belong in the bills.

But would fellow 'democrats' support you in the endeavor?


If I were president, I would not pass a single bill. Let the system work and see how the country fairs. Also I would want to do a review of all existing bills. Decide whether the bill needs to be repealed, replaced, shored up (fix loop holes) or left alone.

It depends on what it is. There will be differences between city vs country folks and urban and rural folks. We need bills that represent all groups no matter who they are. There are factions in the Democratic party as well. There are faux Democratic Dinos like Hillary Clinton who is more of a Neocon like John McCain Vs people like in the middle who are more centric vs Progressives like the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren crowd.

There are loop holes and all that in ACA that needs to be fixed, replaced and shored up. Must of the bill is working. Only problem is one size fits all in Medicaid and health insurance. I am on Medicaid because of my disability. There are some things I can't get because ACA will not cover it, but I do get covered for birth control stuff. I do not need birth control and that junk.

(03-25-2017 06:15 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 05:36 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  3) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The Intolerant Fun Police? Not everybody. My motto is that nobody should be intolerant of others. That means race, religion, sex, age or the disable. We need to be respectful to each other no matter what views we have.

So how do you remedy intolerant people?

Reeducate people to be tolerant to others. I like to see no more mean nasty spirited name calling and all that. It hurts when I was a kid when they called me a retard and all that. I will never stoop that low and call people mean spirited names.

(03-25-2017 06:21 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 06:15 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 05:36 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  3) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The Intolerant Fun Police? Not everybody. My motto is that nobody should be intolerant of others. That means race, religion, sex, age or the disable. We need to be respectful to each other no matter what views we have.

So how do you remedy intolerant people?

Reeducate people to be tolerant to others.

We should be sure to do it in a comfortable, safe setting... Kinda like a camp...

A reeducation camp!

Quote:I like to see no more mean nasty spirited name calling and all that. It hurts when I was a kid when they called me a retard and all that. I will never stoop that low and call people mean spirited names.

And if they refuse this generous reeducation?

(03-25-2017 06:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 05:55 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 05:36 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  1) Hillary Clinton? Seriously? Not me. I have said lock her up along with Trump.
2) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The “One Size Of Liberalism Fits All” Party? No. We need plans that could help everybody. One size fits all does not answer the issues of everybody's problems.
3) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The Intolerant Fun Police? Not everybody. My motto is that nobody should be intolerant of others. That means race, religion, sex, age or the disable. We need to be respectful to each other no matter what views we have.
4) Do Democrats Represent Anyone Other Than The Most Liberal Americans? Yes. If I run for an office as a Democrat? I will Represent everyone. I will produce bills that will benefit everyone no matter what party you belong.
5) Has The Democratic Party Gotten Too Extreme? The Hillary Clinton crowd have gone way too far.
6) Can The Democratic Party Continue To Advocate For More Spending? We need spending, but we need to cut out all the pork. We are spending way too much on pork projects for both parties. If I am President? I would do line item veto on all the pork projects and tell the congress and Senate to present a separate bill for those things that does not belong in the bills.

But would fellow 'democrats' support you in the endeavor?


If I were president, I would not pass a single bill. Let the system work and see how the country fairs. Also I would want to do a review of all existing bills. Decide whether the bill needs to be repealed, replaced, shored up (fix loop holes) or left alone.

It depends on what it is. There will be differences between city vs country folks and urban and rural folks. We need bills that represent all groups no matter who they are. There are factions in the Democratic party as well. There are faux Democratic Dinos like Hillary Clinton who is more of a Neocon like John McCain Vs people like in the middle who are more centric vs Progressives like the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren crowd.

There are loop holes and all that in ACA that needs to be fixed, replaced and shored up. Must of the bill is working. Only problem is one size fits all in Medicaid and health insurance. I am on Medicaid because of my disability. There are some things I can't get because ACA will not cover it, but I do get covered for birth control stuff. I do not need birth control and that junk.

what's really funny is how the machine of $$$ is not really being addressed relative to the ones really holding the cards - the boomers

you would be surprised how our two health care facilities in the 'burg have expanded by buying properties and building facilities to support this generation and the entitled subsidized....it's pathetic how dollars are being routed with the burden falling on the Xers....

once the boomers finally die off, all this is going to implode....and uneducated generations will wonder why...

some of yaz think it's simple.....it's not...the intertwining relative to population/wealth gets closer to unsustainable by the day...

The question is; Can Donald Trump cobble together a coalition of centrist Democrats and centrist Republicans so as to finally get things done that desperately need doing? I am talking about a coalition that leaves both liberals and conservatives behind, center right and center left.

(03-25-2017 05:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 03:58 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:It’s fine for Democrats to be upset that Donald Trump schlonged Hillary Clinton, but the reality is that they spent the entirety of the Obama years getting their brains beaten in. When Obama first took office, they held the House and 60 seats in the Senate and controlled the majority of governorships and state legislatures. Now, the GOP has a large majority in the House, 52 seats in the Senate, and the majority of state legislatures and governorships.

Democrats went from thinking they were on the verge of a permanent political ascendancy to the worst political bloodbath in American history. Put another way, Democrats are the George Armstrong Custer of political parties, and yet that doesn’t seem to have inspired any soul searching at all. So here are some questions Democrats should be asking themselves right now:

1) Hillary Clinton? Seriously?
2) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The “One Size Of Liberalism Fits All” Party?
3) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The Intolerant Fun Police?
4) Do Democrats Represent Anyone Other Than The Most Liberal Americans?
5) Has The Democratic Party Gotten Too Extreme?
6) Can The Democratic Party Continue To Advocate For More Spending?

Link to the articles answers/thoughts.

Interesting questions. One thing that struck me was Question #2. It seems to me that the Republican big tent may have some issues governing for the same reason. They created a tent big enough to house enough votes to win the House, Senate, and White House----but that tent has factions that may have trouble passing legislation. The true believer Tea Party group, the Mainstream Conservative, and the Faux Republican Rhino Faction don't seem to agree on much.

One thing I will say about the Democrats. They are smart enough to take what they can get. They play the long game. They are willing to use incrementalism to move the ball ever closer to their goals. They have a great "running game" so to speak. The Republicans, on the other hand, like to throw deep a lot---but they have pretty low completion rate. That lets them "stay true to their principles"--but it doesn't result in much headway.

Throw deep is the faux Republican ultra conservative wing. The ones in Congress include a lot of former Democrats.

(03-25-2017 06:57 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  The question is; Can Donald Trump cobble together a coalition of centrist Democrats and centrist Republicans so as to finally get things done that desperately need doing? I am talking about a coalition that leaves both liberals and conservatives behind, center right and center left.

I would vote for that but it won't happen. Let me tell you why. The congress people that did that would be ostracized from the git-go. Remember, "party over country?"

Besides, Trump doing good would be considered a Republican thing and would hurt the Demons. Another reason it won't happen.

(03-25-2017 06:57 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  The question is; Can Donald Trump cobble together a coalition of centrist Democrats and centrist Republicans so as to finally get things done that desperately need doing? I am talking about a coalition that leaves both liberals and conservatives behind, center right and center left.

that was my premise behind backing him out of the gate....I still have the same concern...however, the rest of the pickled barrel never had a chance....

(03-25-2017 06:21 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 06:15 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 05:36 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  3) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The Intolerant Fun Police? Not everybody. My motto is that nobody should be intolerant of others. That means race, religion, sex, age or the disable. We need to be respectful to each other no matter what views we have.

So how do you remedy intolerant people?

Reeducate people to be tolerant to others. I like to see no more mean nasty spirited name calling and all that. It hurts when I was a kid when they called me a retard and all that. I will never stoop that low and call people mean spirited names.

So, open-mindedness is contingent of people accepting your world view? Re-education of those that you don't deem tolerant. You must be freaking kidding me. Freedom of speech is just that, and I know of no Constitutional right that protects you from being offended by what I say or what I think. You scare me. Boogeyman DavidSt, as your thoughts are dangerous and totalitarian. No thanks.

(03-25-2017 10:46 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 06:21 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 06:15 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 05:36 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  3) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The Intolerant Fun Police? Not everybody. My motto is that nobody should be intolerant of others. That means race, religion, sex, age or the disable. We need to be respectful to each other no matter what views we have.

So how do you remedy intolerant people?

Reeducate people to be tolerant to others. I like to see no more mean nasty spirited name calling and all that. It hurts when I was a kid when they called me a retard and all that. I will never stoop that low and call people mean spirited names.

So, open-mindedness is contingent of people accepting your world view? Re-education of those that you don't deem tolerant. You must be freaking kidding me. Freedom of speech is just that, and I know of no Constitutional right that protects you from being offended by what I say or what I think. You scare me. Boogeyman DavidSt, as your thoughts are dangerous and totalitarian. No thanks.

Hopefully David is using the term "reeducate" in the sense that a discussion would help them see that intolerance isnt a *nice* thing.

Bluntly, I'm pretty much nearly a 1st Amendment absolutist. And while I have a huge problem with using government coersion to silence viewpoints (a form of reeducation), that same 1st Amendment right affords me as a private person the ability to tell the bigot or the person launching hateful or derogatory speech that they are an absolute blooming idiot (another form of reeducation, albeit in a private social sense), right?

Having lived in a state and area for many years that seemed to condone very unfriendly behavior, I have no problems telling people who are being boorish (or worse that they are truly being jackasses (or worse). But that is my right to do with that same right of free speech.

Nothing totalitarian at all in the latter form of reeducation.

(03-25-2017 10:46 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 06:21 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 06:15 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 05:36 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  3) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The Intolerant Fun Police? Not everybody. My motto is that nobody should be intolerant of others. That means race, religion, sex, age or the disable. We need to be respectful to each other no matter what views we have.

So how do you remedy intolerant people?

Reeducate people to be tolerant to others. I like to see no more mean nasty spirited name calling and all that. It hurts when I was a kid when they called me a retard and all that. I will never stoop that low and call people mean spirited names.

So, open-mindedness is contingent of people accepting your world view? Re-education of those that you don't deem tolerant. You must be freaking kidding me. Freedom of speech is just that, and I know of no Constitutional right that protects you from being offended by what I say or what I think. You scare me. Boogeyman DavidSt, as your thoughts are dangerous and totalitarian. No thanks.

Yup.


There's no Constitutional Amendment ensuring your feelings don't get hurt.

David wants thought police like Hitler and Stalin.

(03-25-2017 11:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 10:46 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 06:21 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 06:15 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 05:36 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  3) Do Democrats Really Want To Be The Intolerant Fun Police? Not everybody. My motto is that nobody should be intolerant of others. That means race, religion, sex, age or the disable. We need to be respectful to each other no matter what views we have.

So how do you remedy intolerant people?

Reeducate people to be tolerant to others. I like to see no more mean nasty spirited name calling and all that. It hurts when I was a kid when they called me a retard and all that. I will never stoop that low and call people mean spirited names.

So, open-mindedness is contingent of people accepting your world view? Re-education of those that you don't deem tolerant. You must be freaking kidding me. Freedom of speech is just that, and I know of no Constitutional right that protects you from being offended by what I say or what I think. You scare me. Boogeyman DavidSt, as your thoughts are dangerous and totalitarian. No thanks.

Yup.


There's no Constitutional Amendment ensuring your feelings don't get hurt.

David wants thought police like Hitler and Stalin.

Doesn't mean you should condone or promote actions that hurt feelings either. And there should be no problems in telling the people who state those things that they are idiots. You are automatically assuming that the concept of "reeducation" is solely a governmental issue, and if it were your stating it would be like Hitler and Stalin would be more on point.

Reeducation can also consist of private actions of private individuals to tell those who perform such acts or verbiage that they are idiots -- a type of social reeducation. And with this form your drawing on Hitler and Stalin is completely misplaced.