Are the Democrats Finished?

[BluesLegend]

This seems to go in cycles. For years the Democrats couldn't get out of their own way. They were the party of nutjobs, fruitcakes, and guilty white men. The GOP reigned supreme as the party that defeated the Soviet Union, gave us the peace divididend and about 20 years of economic growth and prosperity.
Then the GOP screwed up and tried to out-Dem the Dems. That didnt work.
SO the Dems came in on fairness, equality, and other issues that appeal to their not very bright base.
The results have been, um, sub-par to say the least. Stagnation. Poverty. Dependence. Debt.
So the GOP looks like it will kick butt in the midterms and if 2006 is any indication will go on to take the presidency as well. Democrat policies and programs look to be thoroughly discredited for the failuires they are.
But can the Dems come back? What can they do to junk the special interest gravy train, the whack jobs, the nutcases, the Stalinists that have taken over their party? Do the Dems need to stage the equivalent of the Beer Hall Putsch to cleanse the party of the toxic elements that are costing them elections?

No, the Dems are not dead. But I think they need a bit of house cleaning. The problem is, with the moderate Reps getting beat up pretty bad by their own party and overlooked, we are headed for some rough years with them in charge. The Radicals are driving both parties.

Lest you forget it was the moderates and liberals who brought us to the state we're in, not the conservatives. When was the last time we saw spending reduced? That's a key conservative position.

If that's the case, when was the last Republican administration to cut spending? When was the last Republican administration to balance the budget? So called conservatives are always claiming fiscal responsibility, but never deliver. Instead, they do stupid crap like cut taxes during war.

You are confusing Republicans with Conservatives, that's like comparing a liberal to a normal person.

Liberals are normal people. Who do conservatives vote for? What party do conservatives identify with? Republicans, that's who.

Right, libs passed a law protecting trees from evil homeowners who own the trees that's normal. /sarcasm

 

[JoeB131]

Joe has always been this way..........Just trying another futile attempt to make him actually take a position on a subject one way or the other........Which of course he refuses to do............

I've taken a clear position. The problem is the abuse of the working class, not that some of them aren't here legally. The problem is, Cleetus, you really need to believe you are better than Juan who is taking your job.

 

[JoeB131]

It's completely expected actually. The Republican race-neutral and anti-racist message can't compete with the Democrat's pro-racism messages and policies which dole out race-based goodies. For minorities to come to the Republicans they'd have to give up getting race-based benefits and why would anyone rationally give up free things that are given to them based on race?

The Republicans strategy should be to peel whites away from the Democrats by continually pointing out that the Democrats are extracting wealth from whites and redistributing that wealth to their minority clients. The Democrats don't actually do anything for whites, they harm whites, so why on earth are whites actually supporting a party focused on harming them?

Guy, the bottom 40%, which is where most of the minorities reside, have less than 1% of the wealth, while the mostly white 1% has 43% of the wealth.

Also, I'm curious about what these "Race-Based Benefits" are when most welfare recipiants are in fact- white!

White People Make Up 42 of the Poor But Take in Whopping 69 of Government Benefits Your Black World

Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.

White non-Hispanics, who make up 42 percent of the poor, receive 69 percent of government benefits – again, much closer to their 64 percent population share.

 

[JoeB131]

.AND STATE CLEARLY YOUR EXACT OPINION ON WHERE YOU STAND ON IMMIGRATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES.

Repeated for clarity............Tell me clearly what it is you believe should be done in regard to immigration in the United States. and stop flip flopping BS as you are doing now.

I already have. It's completely irrelevant to the conversation. The problem is not immigrants, it's wealth disparity and the decline of working class wages.

But I'm sure the rich will talk you into that fence, that people will beat much quicker than you put it up.

 

[JoeB131]

FINALLY, FINALLY, you've admitted this. So, now as part of your 12-step program, call for all the illegal infiltrators to be deported because they're taking jobs away from Americans and UNDERMINING WORKING PEOPLES' WAGES.

Uh, no. What we need are mandetory unions in every workplace with a real minimum wage.

It isn't the illegals who are undermining working people's wages, it's the people who pay the wages. If by some miracle you actually managed to seal off the border, they'd just outsource to poor countries. They are doing it now.

 

[JoeB131]

Okay....No, of course you are wrong. Most people immigrated legally, I don't worship rich people (an odd accusation) and they don't want "illegal" labor (dumbshit). What the employers want is cheap labor as it pertains to the global market. Labor is an economic factor as much as it is a political one. I focus on the economic factor. If we ran our economy as an economy, and not as a political fight, then we'd already have the needed labor and an effective and secure boarder.

Of course they want illegal labor. From the cheap labor at the plant to Lupe who is just like a member of the family because she's cleaning up after the kids you are too lazy to raise, rich people are the main reason we have illegals.

Maybe we need to ban rich people.

 

[toxicmedia]

A sealed border is 10 years off even if we could afford it.

I think we really need to prioritize the importance of this situation

If we can afford to study why lesbians are so grossly obese, give massages to rabbits and tubal ligations to deer, then we can afford to build a wall.

Oh stop...those studies didn't cost the trillion dollars a truly secure border would

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Finished with what? Beating the living crap out of Republicans? Gonna be another Democrat administration next. Republicans don't even have a presumptive nominee yet. Until their get their crap together they're just little Oliver Twist beginng for more.

"Please Ma'm, we want some more."

 

[Mac1958]

.

A Tea Party nominee would scare the bejeezus out of too many voters.

A more moderate Republican would either (a) not get the nomination or (b) get the nomination but be too damaged by his own party.

I dunno. Rock and a hard place.

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

.

A Tea Party nominee would scare the bejeezus out of too many voters.

A more moderate Republican would either (a) not get the nomination or (b) get the nomination but be too damaged by his own party.

I dunno. Rock and a hard place.

.

This is the point I have been hammering home repeatedly for 6 years now.

In order to secure the GOP nomination, a candidate who might even be very smart and very sane is literally forced to say some stupid shit to throw red meat to the ultra-conservatives (47%, self-deportation, bomb bomb bomb Iran, the blahs....) and then those very things, which are of course recorded on audio and video, become poison pills for said candidate during the GE campaign. Boom!

And this is a problem that the GOP has created for itself.

Through it's words and deeds, the GOP is telling pretty much every kind of minority to go fuck off (see: Ann Coulter, just 5 or 6 days ago) and then that confused elephant scratches it's head and wonders why the closest it could come to a relatively unpopular president during hard economic times was roughly 5,000,000 votes.

So, for me, the calculus is simple: the harder to the Right that the GOP banks now in order to secure the Senate will just mean more of a landslide loss to Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Alone, the stagnation over the immigration debate, caused ENTIRELY by the GOP, will cost them New Mexico and Nevada for a good long time, maybe even also Colorado, maybe not. That means that the DEMS start with at least 89 if not 98 EV west of the Mississippi, not even thinking of their strength in the NE and Acela states and at least 1/2 of the Midwest. That leaves the GOP with only also 89 (or 98) EV west of the Mississippi, where in the past, the GOP had the majority of EVs west of the great river.

If Republicans think that only appealing to older, White ultra-conservative voters is going to win elections, then,well...

 

[Mac1958]

.

A Tea Party nominee would scare the bejeezus out of too many voters.

A more moderate Republican would either (a) not get the nomination or (b) get the nomination but be too damaged by his own party.

I dunno. Rock and a hard place.

.

This is the point I have been hammering home repeatedly for 6 years now.

In order to secure the GOP nomination, a candidate who might even be very smart and very sane is literally forced to say some stupid shit to throw red meat to the ultra-conservatives (47%, self-deportation, bomb bomb bomb Iran, the blahs....) and then those very things, which are of course recorded on audio and video, become poison pills for said candidate during the GE campaign. Boom!

And this is a problem that the GOP has created for itself.

Through it's words and deeds, the GOP is telling pretty much every kind of minority to go fuck off (see: Ann Coulter, just 5 or 6 days ago) and then that confused elephant scratches it's head and wonders why the closest it could come to a relatively unpopular president during hard economic times was roughly 5,000,000 votes.

So, for me, the calculus is simple: the harder to the Right that the GOP banks now in order to secure the Senate will just mean more of a landslide loss to Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Alone, the stagnation over the immigration debate, caused ENTIRELY by the GOP, will cost them New Mexico and Nevada for a good long time, maybe even also Colorado, maybe not. That means that the DEMS start with at least 89 if not 98 EV west of the Mississippi, not even thinking of their strength in the NE and Acela states and at least 1/2 of the Midwest. That leaves the GOP with only also 89 (or 98) EV west of the Mississippi, where in the past, the GOP had the majority of EVs west of the great river.

If Republicans think that only appealing to older, White ultra-conservative voters is going to win elections, then,well...

Seems to me the party really painted itself into a corner when it essentially merged (whether it wanted to or not) with Libertarians, who are now the absolutist wing of the GOP. And more, they have all the energy.

When you have people in one of the two "major" parties talking about literally closing half the government agencies, speaking out against social security and Medicare -- whether they represent the views of the party or not -- you're painting a big target on your back.

I don't think the Democrats have much to be proud of, but I'm pretty sure of this -- the Libertarian end of the GOP is making it easy for them to just point and say "holy SHIT, look at THAT". And that also makes it easier for the Democrats to successfully move Left.

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

.

A Tea Party nominee would scare the bejeezus out of too many voters.

A more moderate Republican would either (a) not get the nomination or (b) get the nomination but be too damaged by his own party.

I dunno. Rock and a hard place.

.

This is the point I have been hammering home repeatedly for 6 years now.

In order to secure the GOP nomination, a candidate who might even be very smart and very sane is literally forced to say some stupid shit to throw red meat to the ultra-conservatives (47%, self-deportation, bomb bomb bomb Iran, the blahs....) and then those very things, which are of course recorded on audio and video, become poison pills for said candidate during the GE campaign. Boom!

And this is a problem that the GOP has created for itself.

Through it's words and deeds, the GOP is telling pretty much every kind of minority to go fuck off (see: Ann Coulter, just 5 or 6 days ago) and then that confused elephant scratches it's head and wonders why the closest it could come to a relatively unpopular president during hard economic times was roughly 5,000,000 votes.

So, for me, the calculus is simple: the harder to the Right that the GOP banks now in order to secure the Senate will just mean more of a landslide loss to Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Alone, the stagnation over the immigration debate, caused ENTIRELY by the GOP, will cost them New Mexico and Nevada for a good long time, maybe even also Colorado, maybe not. That means that the DEMS start with at least 89 if not 98 EV west of the Mississippi, not even thinking of their strength in the NE and Acela states and at least 1/2 of the Midwest. That leaves the GOP with only also 89 (or 98) EV west of the Mississippi, where in the past, the GOP had the majority of EVs west of the great river.

If Republicans think that only appealing to older, White ultra-conservative voters is going to win elections, then,well...

Seems to me the party really painted itself into a corner when it essentially merged (whether it wanted to or not) with Libertarians, who are now the absolutist wing of the GOP. And more, they have all the energy.

When you have people in one of the two "major" parties talking about ending half the government agencies, speaking out against social security and Medicare -- whether they represent the views of the party or not -- you're painting a big target on your back.

I don't think the Democrats have much to be proud of, but I'm pretty sure of this -- the Libertarian end of the GOP is making it easy for them to just point and say "holy SHIT, look at THAT". And that also makes it easier for the Democrats to successfully move Left.

.

Yes, the GOP has banked harder to the Right than I have ever seen in my life. And certainly there are some elements of the Democratic Party that go hard left, but when you actually sit-down and analyze the Obama adminstration's actions, were an alien come down to do a historical analysis and compare Obama's overall record with past administrations, without knowing that he has a (D) next to his name, I bet that said aliens would list him as a moderate Republican on many, many issues.

Not raising taxes on the middle class = moderate Republican issues.
Individual mandate = moderate Republican issues.
Stark treaty extension = moderate Republican and national security issue, a direct continuation of Reagan, a Republican.
Programs like no child left behind = moderate Republican issue.

Were said alien to do the same with JFK, I bet he would come to the same conclusion.

And to be quite honest, were he to do the same experiment with Nixon, I bet he (she, it) would list Nixon as a moderate DEMOCRAT. But believe me, we Democrats don't want Nixon in our column....

Titles and deeds are not the same thing, as you and I and many others well know.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

[
You can thank Barney Frank and the democrats for your underwater mortgage.

Right, because Barney was having the Butt-Sex with someone who worked at Fanny Mae 20 years ago.

Not that the banksters were selling sub-prime loans as derivatives and crashed the market.

The government [barney frank] forced the banks give loans and then told the banks to sell the loans to Fannie Mae who would guarantee them. Of course the banks are going to take that deal. The government perverts when it gets involved with the private sector in the name of fairness.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

. This is rich. You as a member of the party who founded the KKK sayIng the GOP is "unwilling to accept people who are not white" is laughable coming from the party who wrote Jim Crowe laws. Hell, even uber-liberal FDR put Klansman Hugo Black on the Supreme Court. Who really doesn't accept non-whites? It's not the GOP.

The facts are the GOP never enslaved a black, never hung one from a tree, never prevented him from voting. That is your party's heritage. And if you think times have changed, the only difference now is your methods have changed to keep blacks on the plantation.

The Dixiecrats left the Democrats along time ago.. The reminisce of their ideology is the GOP now...

The truth is demographics are against the GOP in its present form and the GOP is just going further to the right not trying to win the middle.

The GOP is on the wrong side of a lot of issues from the majority, strangely I think they are doing well considering that.. You can only rely on getting people to voting against there own interests for so long.

Untrue. All but one Dixiecrat remained democrat until the day they died. Why do we have to keep telling you people over and over? There is no progress with you damn progressives. We are constantly arguing the same points over and over. It's settled science.

If redneck southerners used to vote democrat back in the day because they supported segregation, why are they voting repug now? Did they change their racist stances or did the repug party change to accommodate them?

Sorry to interject, but I must.

First of all, you prove yourself to be highly intolerant and small. Why that is must be a personal thing, none of our business.

Second of all, it is southern democrats that voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Democrats are the party of intolerance and racism, and facts and history proves this in spades. Easy to debate.

Conservatives, which you lamely clump into the Republican Party, have since Lincoln always voted for civil rights, freedom and liberty.

If you wanna talk racism, start a thread. If you want talk political philosophy, start a thread. Otherwise, refrain from making a fool of yourself. I only say this because of your stupid assertion that conservatives are racist.

Yep, back in the day white southerners were against the civil rights movement. A lot of them still are. That's why they vote for Repugs now. Do you think it is just a strange coincidence that minorities don't give much support to the Republican party?

Why shouldn't I lump conservatives with the Republican party? That's the party they support. I am not asserting that conservatives are racist. I'm asserting that southern redneck racists are conservative.

The democrats started the KKK and wrote Jim Crowe laws. The havent changed anything but their methods to keep blacks on the plantation.

Own it!

 

[Steinlight]

I don't know what you are ranting about, but your link doesn't work, and you mentioned nothing about immigration.

But by all means, explain how current laws which allow over a million legal immigrants alone each year benefit the middle class and the working class.

We are on our way to becoming like Barbados and Jamaica though, a society with an unwashed mass of colored people with a low living standard with an economy primarily based on financial speculation and tourism.

So you will get your wish.

The first link does. The second link was to a paygate. The article can be purchased from the American Economic Review, which is why I gave the complete reference.

I find it ironic that you whine that I didn't stick to immigration, when the post of yours that I replied to, didn't either.

So apparently I'm supposed to stick to a narrow topic, when you did not.

Leftist policies never work. There has never been a leftist based economy, that didn't end up ruined.

Now, for the sake of discussion, let's talk about immigration.


This aspect for me is ridiculous, and shows the arrogance and selfishness of leftist policy.

Why is your comfort, and your standard of living, more important than that of any other person?

explain how current laws which allow over a million legal immigrants alone each year benefit the middle class and the working class.

Really?

Let me see if I understand this correctly....

You don't want anyone advancing themselves in our country, unless it directly benefits you or the middle/working class.... and if it doesn't benefit you and the middle/working class, you want to doom them to impoverishment....

Am I getting this right? Isn't that belief system right there, exactly what you accuse the rich and wealthy of doing?

Americans should be put first above immigrants economically speaking yes. Now explain how current immigration laws benefit american workers. Or are you conceding that they don't, but that we have some moral obligation to bring up immigrants standard of living?

 

[blackhawk]

This seems to go in cycles. For years the Democrats couldn't get out of their own way. They were the party of nutjobs, fruitcakes, and guilty white men. The GOP reigned supreme as the party that defeated the Soviet Union, gave us the peace divididend and about 20 years of economic growth and prosperity.
Then the GOP screwed up and tried to out-Dem the Dems. That didnt work.
SO the Dems came in on fairness, equality, and other issues that appeal to their not very bright base.
The results have been, um, sub-par to say the least. Stagnation. Poverty. Dependence. Debt.
So the GOP looks like it will kick butt in the midterms and if 2006 is any indication will go on to take the presidency as well. Democrat policies and programs look to be thoroughly discredited for the failuires they are.
But can the Dems come back? What can they do to junk the special interest gravy train, the whack jobs, the nutcases, the Stalinists that have taken over their party? Do the Dems need to stage the equivalent of the Beer Hall Putsch to cleanse the party of the toxic elements that are costing them elections?

As you said this goes in cycles after so many years of one party being in control the people get sick of them and make the change 2014 is looking so much like 2006 it's almost unreal.

 

[Youch]

. This is rich. You as a member of the party who founded the KKK sayIng the GOP is "unwilling to accept people who are not white" is laughable coming from the party who wrote Jim Crowe laws. Hell, even uber-liberal FDR put Klansman Hugo Black on the Supreme Court. Who really doesn't accept non-whites? It's not the GOP.

The facts are the GOP never enslaved a black, never hung one from a tree, never prevented him from voting. That is your party's heritage. And if you think times have changed, the only difference now is your methods have changed to keep blacks on the plantation.

The Dixiecrats left the Democrats along time ago.. The reminisce of their ideology is the GOP now...

The truth is demographics are against the GOP in its present form and the GOP is just going further to the right not trying to win the middle.

The GOP is on the wrong side of a lot of issues from the majority, strangely I think they are doing well considering that.. You can only rely on getting people to voting against there own interests for so long.

Untrue. All but one Dixiecrat remained democrat until the day they died. Why do we have to keep telling you people over and over? There is no progress with you damn progressives. We are constantly arguing the same points over and over. It's settled science.

If redneck southerners used to vote democrat back in the day because they supported segregation, why are they voting repug now? Did they change their racist stances or did the repug party change to accommodate them?

Sorry to interject, but I must.

First of all, you prove yourself to be highly intolerant and small. Why that is must be a personal thing, none of our business.

Second of all, it is southern democrats that voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Democrats are the party of intolerance and racism, and facts and history proves this in spades. Easy to debate.

Conservatives, which you lamely clump into the Republican Party, have since Lincoln always voted for civil rights, freedom and liberty.

If you wanna talk racism, start a thread. If you want talk political philosophy, start a thread. Otherwise, refrain from making a fool of yourself. I only say this because of your stupid assertion that conservatives are racist.

Yep, back in the day white southerners were against the civil rights movement. A lot of them still are. That's why they vote for Repugs now. Do you think it is just a strange coincidence that minorities don't give much support to the Republican party?

Why shouldn't I lump conservatives with the Republican party? That's the party they support. I am not asserting that conservatives are racist. I'm asserting that southern redneck racists are conservative.

Your assertion is historically wrong, and easy to disprove.

It was white democrat southerners that were against the civil rights movement. Conservatives made that legislation happen. Look it up. As I mentioned before, we can discuss this specific point and I will win.

To your second point, no, that is not why whites vote "repugs now" and not why blacks vote democrat now. We can discuss this specific point, if you want.

To your third point....no, the fact that blacks vote 95% democrat is not "a strange coincidence." It is because of mal-education and the liberal promise (vote buying) that the federal government will subsidize and pay for (vote buying) their basic needs, i.e., welfare, which creates dependency and the socialized state, which includes the rest of the gambit that makes up the socialized and perpetual welfare state.

And libs think that this is all good things. They evangelize a sustainable environment, but are clueless about a sustainable political philosophy. I call that dumb.

In sum, you position does not hold water. AT ALL. Wanna discuss??

 

[JFK_USA]

No. You said the same thing 4 years ago. Democrats still won the presidency.

 

[Youch]

The Dixiecrats left the Democrats along time ago.. The reminisce of their ideology is the GOP now...

The truth is demographics are against the GOP in its present form and the GOP is just going further to the right not trying to win the middle.

The GOP is on the wrong side of a lot of issues from the majority, strangely I think they are doing well considering that.. You can only rely on getting people to voting against there own interests for so long.

Untrue. All but one Dixiecrat remained democrat until the day they died. Why do we have to keep telling you people over and over? There is no progress with you damn progressives. We are constantly arguing the same points over and over. It's settled science.

If redneck southerners used to vote democrat back in the day because they supported segregation, why are they voting repug now? Did they change their racist stances or did the repug party change to accommodate them?

Sorry to interject, but I must.

First of all, you prove yourself to be highly intolerant and small. Why that is must be a personal thing, none of our business.

Second of all, it is southern democrats that voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Democrats are the party of intolerance and racism, and facts and history proves this in spades. Easy to debate.

Conservatives, which you lamely clump into the Republican Party, have since Lincoln always voted for civil rights, freedom and liberty.

If you wanna talk racism, start a thread. If you want talk political philosophy, start a thread. Otherwise, refrain from making a fool of yourself. I only say this because of your stupid assertion that conservatives are racist.

Yep, back in the day white southerners were against the civil rights movement. A lot of them still are. That's why they vote for Repugs now. Do you think it is just a strange coincidence that minorities don't give much support to the Republican party?

Why shouldn't I lump conservatives with the Republican party? That's the party they support. I am not asserting that conservatives are racist. I'm asserting that southern redneck racists are conservative.

The democrats started the KKK and wrote Jim Crowe laws. The havent changed anything but their methods to keep blacks on the plantation.

Own it!

Numb nuts, you are correct. The libs did start it. The libs DO perpetuate it.

The longest seated Senator in history, Robert Byrd (D), was once a Supreme Dragon (or whatever they call themselves), and was a democrat, yet the libs kept voting him in as their political representative and Senator.

I doubt you'll get the above... so,
Wanna discuss keeping blacks on the plantation? What policies do that???????? I'm ready.

 

[bigrebnc1775]