CDZ Democrats need to regroup

[oldsoul]

This election has been a HUGE wake up call for both major parties.

We've been hearing about the Republicans for several years now. It's like an impending divorce that is messy, stuff gets thrown and broken and there are calls for "we have to stay together for the kids". It's been loud and public, like celebrity marriage. It's been analyzed and reanalyzed.

But what about the Democrats? Their midlife crisis has been much more quiet. Lots of behind closed doors bickering and presenting a happy face for the kids. Bernie kind of opened the door on that. Hillary's loss cemented it.

What is the Democrat Party going to do, from here on in? It can't continue as the party of "identity politics". And what does it/should it represent? We have major demographic changes which offer hope to both parties IF they can grasp them?

Hispanics: this is a demographic that is growing, hugely. It's a demographic the Dems have largely attracted because of immigration issues. Yet it's a demographic that is, by and large, socially conservative and Catholic. It should be prime picking for Republicans EXCEPT another big part of their party is a strong anti-immigrant contingent.

Blacks: another demographic that is growing but and could easily be exploited by the Republicans. Like white voters, they are diverse outside of racial issues. A high proportion of them are religious and socially conservative.

If the Republican's hang on the politics of fear - they're going to to take your guns away, discriminate against your religion, flood this country with foreigners, and whites will be a minority - the Democrats hang on to the politics of identity - black, female, hispanic, lgbd. This strategy works only as long as the OTHER side, opposes identity. Essentially, each side has become a house of cards.

But we don't hear much about the Democrat's implosion and I think we need to.

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party? What principles can they promote that can resound in a way that reaches everyone - not selected groups who are actually fairly diverse and might not always be counted on for support across the board?

So they select a Muslim from Michigan to head the DNC?

Is that a problem?

Not if you don't mind more fleeing from the xxxxxxx Party.

Muslims are as much entitled to be a part of the political process as everyone else. If you're going to be about inclusion you don't start by excluding.

All this democrat inclusion and trying to flood this country with third worlders who have nothing to offer but cheap labor to drive down wages, and more voters at election time, is what put Trump in office. We don't even have enough jobs here for our workforce anyway, and the safety nets here are now underfunded. This is what put Trump in office. And lay off the lgtb stuff too. They're not getting hassled and harassed like they were in the '50s anymore, and they're a fairly small minority. Stop trying to push them and their lifestyle on America. Dems lost a lot of working class to the republicans for some of these reasons.

Agreed, but you bring up only symptoms of the real problems. The real problems are that the Dems, and more specifically Liberals, are playing identity politics, thus dividing our country into groups, then they play one group against another saying "they are the reason your life is not what you want it to be." Then they position themselves as the "solution", yet they solve nothing.
Don't get me wrong, some people are doing everything they can to marginalize certain groups, however, they are the minority, not the majority. Is there systemic racism? No, but there are aspects of our society that disproportionately affect certain demographics. This is not because of racism or any other "ism", it has to do with the fact that most demographics tend to have commonality. Take Hispanics for example. They tend to be under-educated, lower on the economic scale and Christian (mostly Catholic). Therefore, any aspect of society that affects those who are under-educated, lower income, and Christian, will, by default, disproportionately affect Hispanics as a whole. It's really that simple, it has nothing to do with the fact they are Hispanic, it has a lot to with the commonality of the demographic.
If, and only if, there is some kind of leadership in this country that unites us in the things that make us the same (ie. we all want a better tomorrow for our children), we will never get out of this divisive rut we are in. We ALL have far more in common than not, and we, as a nation, need to start focusing more on what we agree on, that which makes us the same, and stop playing this stupid "us vs. them" crap that is dragging this country down. I have hope that that will happen, I just hope I am around to see it.

 

[Coyote]

This election has been a HUGE wake up call for both major parties.

We've been hearing about the Republicans for several years now. It's like an impending divorce that is messy, stuff gets thrown and broken and there are calls for "we have to stay together for the kids". It's been loud and public, like celebrity marriage. It's been analyzed and reanalyzed.

But what about the Democrats? Their midlife crisis has been much more quiet. Lots of behind closed doors bickering and presenting a happy face for the kids. Bernie kind of opened the door on that. Hillary's loss cemented it.

What is the Democrat Party going to do, from here on in? It can't continue as the party of "identity politics". And what does it/should it represent? We have major demographic changes which offer hope to both parties IF they can grasp them?

Hispanics: this is a demographic that is growing, hugely. It's a demographic the Dems have largely attracted because of immigration issues. Yet it's a demographic that is, by and large, socially conservative and Catholic. It should be prime picking for Republicans EXCEPT another big part of their party is a strong anti-immigrant contingent.

Blacks: another demographic that is growing but and could easily be exploited by the Republicans. Like white voters, they are diverse outside of racial issues. A high proportion of them are religious and socially conservative.

If the Republican's hang on the politics of fear - they're going to to take your guns away, discriminate against your religion, flood this country with foreigners, and whites will be a minority - the Democrats hang on to the politics of identity - black, female, hispanic, lgbd. This strategy works only as long as the OTHER side, opposes identity. Essentially, each side has become a house of cards.

But we don't hear much about the Democrat's implosion and I think we need to.

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party? What principles can they promote that can resound in a way that reaches everyone - not selected groups who are actually fairly diverse and might not always be counted on for support across the board?

So they select a Muslim from Michigan to head the DNC?

Is that a problem?

Not if you don't mind more fleeing from the xxxxxxx Party.

Muslims are as much entitled to be a part of the political process as everyone else. If you're going to be about inclusion you don't start by excluding.

Anyone who swears an oath of support the Constitution of the United States of America is welcomed with open arms.

Those who live or want the rest of us to live by Sharia Law should be deported.

Can we say the same for those who want to live by Biblical law and Jewish law as well? Or, maybe we can just leave them alone as long as they follow the law of the US, which is after all - the goal. Isn't it?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

This election has been a HUGE wake up call for both major parties.

We've been hearing about the Republicans for several years now. It's like an impending divorce that is messy, stuff gets thrown and broken and there are calls for "we have to stay together for the kids". It's been loud and public, like celebrity marriage. It's been analyzed and reanalyzed.

But what about the Democrats? Their midlife crisis has been much more quiet. Lots of behind closed doors bickering and presenting a happy face for the kids. Bernie kind of opened the door on that. Hillary's loss cemented it.

What is the Democrat Party going to do, from here on in? It can't continue as the party of "identity politics". And what does it/should it represent? We have major demographic changes which offer hope to both parties IF they can grasp them?

Hispanics: this is a demographic that is growing, hugely. It's a demographic the Dems have largely attracted because of immigration issues. Yet it's a demographic that is, by and large, socially conservative and Catholic. It should be prime picking for Republicans EXCEPT another big part of their party is a strong anti-immigrant contingent.

Blacks: another demographic that is growing but and could easily be exploited by the Republicans. Like white voters, they are diverse outside of racial issues. A high proportion of them are religious and socially conservative.

If the Republican's hang on the politics of fear - they're going to to take your guns away, discriminate against your religion, flood this country with foreigners, and whites will be a minority - the Democrats hang on to the politics of identity - black, female, hispanic, lgbd. This strategy works only as long as the OTHER side, opposes identity. Essentially, each side has become a house of cards.

But we don't hear much about the Democrat's implosion and I think we need to.

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party? What principles can they promote that can resound in a way that reaches everyone - not selected groups who are actually fairly diverse and might not always be counted on for support across the board?

That's not true. The Democrats have refused to listen for many years. It's called denial. The Democrats have surpassed "midlife crisis" and are now in the burn it down stage.

What specifically isn't true? I'm seeing the Pubs and Dems at the same stage - not sure it's "burn down" though. Neither has been listening to the people.

I agree neither have listened to the people. There are two primary issues. They feed into each other.

Howard Dean started the 50 state strategy. Progress is being made.
Looking Back at Howard Dean's 50-State Strategy

And then came Rahm who hated Dean Howard and screwed him as hard as he could. The reason I mention Rahm is because Rahm destroyed the Chicago Public education system. Not a word was spoken about it. In fact, Obama and other Democrats were in the process of destroying the public education system. They were willing to lie to the public, destroy a middle class occupation and continue to finger point at the Republicans. Registered Democrats said nothing.

The Democrats were involved in destruction of the US Post Office. Not a word was spoken about it. They were willing to lie to the public, destroy a middle class occupation----and one that has been dominated by African Americans----and continue to finger point at the Republicans. Registered Democrats said nothing.

The Democrats pay lip service to unions at the same time they are stabbing them in the back under a Democratic President. Offshoring and outsourcing jobs. The Registered Democrats said nothing.

The Democrats support the H1B program that devastated another industry and they support unlimited immigration. Registered Democrats said nothing.

Under a Democrat President, multiple attempts (and some success) to overthrow South, Latin and Caribbean governments occurred. When it was discovered the Democrats had been involved in the numerous "Springs", registered Democrats said nothing.

After orchestrating Libya and thousands of people dying to reach the shores of Italy under a Democrat president, registered Democrats said nothing. In fact, after orchestrating Syria nobody says anything until a picture of a dead child shows up. Oh, the love.............and the desire for the American public to show support and seriously fund the continuation of creating refugees. Then the desire to bring refugees..............that the Democrats (and Clinton) created...........into the US is met with the resistance the Democrats came out with all kinds of crappy memes but nobody said anything. Registered Democrats didn't.

Drone anyone? How about whistle blowers?

Wasserman-Shultz managed to focus on nothing but blaming Republicans and fearing Republicans rather than focus on the issues. She didn't want anyone focusing on the issues. "Identity politics" was about making sure that no one focused on the issues. Divide and conquer strategy. In part, it worked out well to hide her poverty pimp status. Then there is the Fracking. Etc., The Democrats are corporate whores. The vast majority of Bush's policies were continued under Obama. They absolutely would have been continued under Clinton. But the great "evil" is always the other guy.

Surpassed mid-life crisis and well into burn that shit down. The Democrats don't have any principals so there really isn't anything for them to rally around and create at this point. They made it clear they support neoliberal policies and an oligarchy.

Thanks Dis, for putting this all together.

Personaly - I don't feel the Republicans are any better. You've confirmed the Dems aren't any DIFFERENT.

Now, I like Obama. I love Obama. And I no longer care if I am castigated for that. But Clinton...the establishment...the big parties - you've given me a lot to mull over.

Thank you.

Well, when you're busy listening to the media instead of examining his policies and their effects, you tend to respond that way... because the Establishment wants you to love their servants.

Hi, Coyote~<3

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So they select a Muslim from Michigan to head the DNC?

Is that a problem?

Not if you don't mind more fleeing from the xxxxxxx Party.

Muslims are as much entitled to be a part of the political process as everyone else. If you're going to be about inclusion you don't start by excluding.

Anyone who swears an oath of support the Constitution of the United States of America is welcomed with open arms.

Those who live or want the rest of us to live by Sharia Law should be deported.

Can we say the same for those who want to live by Biblical law and Jewish law as well? Or, maybe we can just leave them alone as long as they follow the law of the US, which is after all - the goal. Isn't it?

Not really, our laws are already based off of certain Biblical laws. The issue comes when you try to enforce Jewish law, because those were meant to be enforced before the veil was torn.

 

[Coyote]

Is that a problem?

Not if you don't mind more fleeing from the xxxxxxx Party.

Muslims are as much entitled to be a part of the political process as everyone else. If you're going to be about inclusion you don't start by excluding.

Anyone who swears an oath of support the Constitution of the United States of America is welcomed with open arms.

Those who live or want the rest of us to live by Sharia Law should be deported.

Can we say the same for those who want to live by Biblical law and Jewish law as well? Or, maybe we can just leave them alone as long as they follow the law of the US, which is after all - the goal. Isn't it?

Not really, our laws are already based off of certain Biblical laws. The issue comes when you try to enforce Jewish law, because those were meant to be enforced before the veil was torn.

Yes really.

Biblical laws and Jewish law are incredibly similar - punishment for adultery, homosexuals, stoning people etc - it's harsh because they originate from the same cultures. Islam and Judaism differ from Christianity in that their legal system is far more detailed and spelled out. The thing is, people in western cultures know that those laws are archaic and based on an ancient society that existed thousands of years ago. They can follow the aspects that work within a modern culture, and discard or reinterpret those that do not. Sharia law - like Jewish law - includes a lot of stuff on what you can wear, what you can or can not eat. Someone who is "living by" their religion's laws may only be following that. If you insist they should be deported well, you're going to have to deport a lot more then Muslims.

Not to mention the idea of deporting ANY law abiding American citizens for their religious beliefs is utterly revolting.

 

[Coyote]

This election has been a HUGE wake up call for both major parties.

We've been hearing about the Republicans for several years now. It's like an impending divorce that is messy, stuff gets thrown and broken and there are calls for "we have to stay together for the kids". It's been loud and public, like celebrity marriage. It's been analyzed and reanalyzed.

But what about the Democrats? Their midlife crisis has been much more quiet. Lots of behind closed doors bickering and presenting a happy face for the kids. Bernie kind of opened the door on that. Hillary's loss cemented it.

What is the Democrat Party going to do, from here on in? It can't continue as the party of "identity politics". And what does it/should it represent? We have major demographic changes which offer hope to both parties IF they can grasp them?

Hispanics: this is a demographic that is growing, hugely. It's a demographic the Dems have largely attracted because of immigration issues. Yet it's a demographic that is, by and large, socially conservative and Catholic. It should be prime picking for Republicans EXCEPT another big part of their party is a strong anti-immigrant contingent.

Blacks: another demographic that is growing but and could easily be exploited by the Republicans. Like white voters, they are diverse outside of racial issues. A high proportion of them are religious and socially conservative.

If the Republican's hang on the politics of fear - they're going to to take your guns away, discriminate against your religion, flood this country with foreigners, and whites will be a minority - the Democrats hang on to the politics of identity - black, female, hispanic, lgbd. This strategy works only as long as the OTHER side, opposes identity. Essentially, each side has become a house of cards.

But we don't hear much about the Democrat's implosion and I think we need to.

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party? What principles can they promote that can resound in a way that reaches everyone - not selected groups who are actually fairly diverse and might not always be counted on for support across the board?

That's not true. The Democrats have refused to listen for many years. It's called denial. The Democrats have surpassed "midlife crisis" and are now in the burn it down stage.

What specifically isn't true? I'm seeing the Pubs and Dems at the same stage - not sure it's "burn down" though. Neither has been listening to the people.

I agree neither have listened to the people. There are two primary issues. They feed into each other.

Howard Dean started the 50 state strategy. Progress is being made.
Looking Back at Howard Dean's 50-State Strategy

And then came Rahm who hated Dean Howard and screwed him as hard as he could. The reason I mention Rahm is because Rahm destroyed the Chicago Public education system. Not a word was spoken about it. In fact, Obama and other Democrats were in the process of destroying the public education system. They were willing to lie to the public, destroy a middle class occupation and continue to finger point at the Republicans. Registered Democrats said nothing.

The Democrats were involved in destruction of the US Post Office. Not a word was spoken about it. They were willing to lie to the public, destroy a middle class occupation----and one that has been dominated by African Americans----and continue to finger point at the Republicans. Registered Democrats said nothing.

The Democrats pay lip service to unions at the same time they are stabbing them in the back under a Democratic President. Offshoring and outsourcing jobs. The Registered Democrats said nothing.

The Democrats support the H1B program that devastated another industry and they support unlimited immigration. Registered Democrats said nothing.

Under a Democrat President, multiple attempts (and some success) to overthrow South, Latin and Caribbean governments occurred. When it was discovered the Democrats had been involved in the numerous "Springs", registered Democrats said nothing.

After orchestrating Libya and thousands of people dying to reach the shores of Italy under a Democrat president, registered Democrats said nothing. In fact, after orchestrating Syria nobody says anything until a picture of a dead child shows up. Oh, the love.............and the desire for the American public to show support and seriously fund the continuation of creating refugees. Then the desire to bring refugees..............that the Democrats (and Clinton) created...........into the US is met with the resistance the Democrats came out with all kinds of crappy memes but nobody said anything. Registered Democrats didn't.

Drone anyone? How about whistle blowers?

Wasserman-Shultz managed to focus on nothing but blaming Republicans and fearing Republicans rather than focus on the issues. She didn't want anyone focusing on the issues. "Identity politics" was about making sure that no one focused on the issues. Divide and conquer strategy. In part, it worked out well to hide her poverty pimp status. Then there is the Fracking. Etc., The Democrats are corporate whores. The vast majority of Bush's policies were continued under Obama. They absolutely would have been continued under Clinton. But the great "evil" is always the other guy.

Surpassed mid-life crisis and well into burn that shit down. The Democrats don't have any principals so there really isn't anything for them to rally around and create at this point. They made it clear they support neoliberal policies and an oligarchy.

Thanks Dis, for putting this all together.

Personaly - I don't feel the Republicans are any better. You've confirmed the Dems aren't any DIFFERENT.

Now, I like Obama. I love Obama. And I no longer care if I am castigated for that. But Clinton...the establishment...the big parties - you've given me a lot to mull over.

Thank you.

Well, when you're busy listening to the media instead of examining his policies and their effects, you tend to respond that way... because the Establishment wants you to love their servants.

Hi, Coyote~<3

Hello Pumpkin Row

We ALL listen to the media. What's unfortunate is that a lot of media (including rightwing media) is little more than an echo chamber.

You have a right to disagree with my President's policies and their effects. I have a right to disagree with your President's policies and their effects. That's the great thing about a free society.

That doesn't mean though, that we are "busy listening to the media instead of examining his policies and their effects". Maybe it just means we don't see it the same way AFTER a careful examination of those policies and effects.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Not if you don't mind more fleeing from the xxxxxxx Party.

Muslims are as much entitled to be a part of the political process as everyone else. If you're going to be about inclusion you don't start by excluding.

Anyone who swears an oath of support the Constitution of the United States of America is welcomed with open arms.

Those who live or want the rest of us to live by Sharia Law should be deported.

Can we say the same for those who want to live by Biblical law and Jewish law as well? Or, maybe we can just leave them alone as long as they follow the law of the US, which is after all - the goal. Isn't it?

Not really, our laws are already based off of certain Biblical laws. The issue comes when you try to enforce Jewish law, because those were meant to be enforced before the veil was torn.

Yes really.

Biblical laws and Jewish law are incredibly similar - punishment for adultery, homosexuals, stoning people etc - it's harsh because they originate from the same cultures. Islam and Judaism differ from Christianity in that their legal system is far more detailed and spelled out. The thing is, people in western cultures know that those laws are archaic and based on an ancient society that existed thousands of years ago. They can follow the aspects that work within a modern culture, and discard or reinterpret those that do not. Sharia law - like Jewish law - includes a lot of stuff on what you can wear, what you can or can not eat. Someone who is "living by" their religion's laws may only be following that. If you insist they should be deported well, you're going to have to deport a lot more then Muslims.

Not to mention the idea of deporting ANY law abiding American citizens for their religious beliefs is utterly revolting.

I forgot you didn't know the difference. Christian laws are what was enforced for Christians after the death of Jesus, hence the New Testament. As for the deportation comment, I wasn't advocating deporting anyone, only pointing out that you're drawing false parallels.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

That's not true. The Democrats have refused to listen for many years. It's called denial. The Democrats have surpassed "midlife crisis" and are now in the burn it down stage.

What specifically isn't true? I'm seeing the Pubs and Dems at the same stage - not sure it's "burn down" though. Neither has been listening to the people.

I agree neither have listened to the people. There are two primary issues. They feed into each other.

Howard Dean started the 50 state strategy. Progress is being made.
Looking Back at Howard Dean's 50-State Strategy

And then came Rahm who hated Dean Howard and screwed him as hard as he could. The reason I mention Rahm is because Rahm destroyed the Chicago Public education system. Not a word was spoken about it. In fact, Obama and other Democrats were in the process of destroying the public education system. They were willing to lie to the public, destroy a middle class occupation and continue to finger point at the Republicans. Registered Democrats said nothing.

The Democrats were involved in destruction of the US Post Office. Not a word was spoken about it. They were willing to lie to the public, destroy a middle class occupation----and one that has been dominated by African Americans----and continue to finger point at the Republicans. Registered Democrats said nothing.

The Democrats pay lip service to unions at the same time they are stabbing them in the back under a Democratic President. Offshoring and outsourcing jobs. The Registered Democrats said nothing.

The Democrats support the H1B program that devastated another industry and they support unlimited immigration. Registered Democrats said nothing.

Under a Democrat President, multiple attempts (and some success) to overthrow South, Latin and Caribbean governments occurred. When it was discovered the Democrats had been involved in the numerous "Springs", registered Democrats said nothing.

After orchestrating Libya and thousands of people dying to reach the shores of Italy under a Democrat president, registered Democrats said nothing. In fact, after orchestrating Syria nobody says anything until a picture of a dead child shows up. Oh, the love.............and the desire for the American public to show support and seriously fund the continuation of creating refugees. Then the desire to bring refugees..............that the Democrats (and Clinton) created...........into the US is met with the resistance the Democrats came out with all kinds of crappy memes but nobody said anything. Registered Democrats didn't.

Drone anyone? How about whistle blowers?

Wasserman-Shultz managed to focus on nothing but blaming Republicans and fearing Republicans rather than focus on the issues. She didn't want anyone focusing on the issues. "Identity politics" was about making sure that no one focused on the issues. Divide and conquer strategy. In part, it worked out well to hide her poverty pimp status. Then there is the Fracking. Etc., The Democrats are corporate whores. The vast majority of Bush's policies were continued under Obama. They absolutely would have been continued under Clinton. But the great "evil" is always the other guy.

Surpassed mid-life crisis and well into burn that shit down. The Democrats don't have any principals so there really isn't anything for them to rally around and create at this point. They made it clear they support neoliberal policies and an oligarchy.

Thanks Dis, for putting this all together.

Personaly - I don't feel the Republicans are any better. You've confirmed the Dems aren't any DIFFERENT.

Now, I like Obama. I love Obama. And I no longer care if I am castigated for that. But Clinton...the establishment...the big parties - you've given me a lot to mull over.

Thank you.

Well, when you're busy listening to the media instead of examining his policies and their effects, you tend to respond that way... because the Establishment wants you to love their servants.

Hi, Coyote~<3

Hello Pumpkin Row

We ALL listen to the media. What's unfortunate is that a lot of media (including rightwing media) is little more than an echo chamber.

You have a right to disagree with my President's policies and their effects. I have a right to disagree with your President's policies and their effects. That's the great thing about a free society.

That doesn't mean though, that we are "busy listening to the media instead of examining his policies and their effects". Maybe it just means we don't see it the same way AFTER a careful examination of those policies and effects.

The mainstream media, however, is directly controlled by the DNC, and that's why you're not seeing actual news. The people who actually listen to and take seriously the claims of that media are being directly fed DNC propaganda. You've already acknowledged the existence of the Establishment, who's politicians are in it for themselves and their masters. Obama was bought by that Establishment after the primaries, further confirming the negative things we've been pointing out about his Socialist policies. Most of his policies were put in place with the assumption there would never be another Republican in office to repeal his entire poor excuse for an administration.

Sure, we have a right to disagree, but those effects don't change dependent on what you believe. If you agree with them, you're outright ignoring the effects.

I put it that way because if you agree with them, you haven't looked close enough. Logic dictates that if something is causing damage to another thing that you want to protect, that thing must be resisted. Obama is said destructive thing, and he hasn't accomplished a single positive thing for America. He HAS violated our constitution 64 times, though. Hope you don't care about your rights.

 

[oldsoul]

You have a right to disagree with my President's policies and their effects. I have a right to disagree with your President's policies and their effects. That's the great thing about a free society.

There it is. My President vs. Your President. Last I checked the office was President of The United States. Now, if one is not a resident of The United States, then either are your President. However, if one IS a resident of The United States, then BOTH are your President, during their respective terms in office. Why don't we dispense with the language of division for a change?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Not if you don't mind more fleeing from the xxxxxxx Party.

Muslims are as much entitled to be a part of the political process as everyone else. If you're going to be about inclusion you don't start by excluding.

Anyone who swears an oath of support the Constitution of the United States of America is welcomed with open arms.

Those who live or want the rest of us to live by Sharia Law should be deported.

Can we say the same for those who want to live by Biblical law and Jewish law as well? Or, maybe we can just leave them alone as long as they follow the law of the US, which is after all - the goal. Isn't it?

Not really, our laws are already based off of certain Biblical laws. The issue comes when you try to enforce Jewish law, because those were meant to be enforced before the veil was torn.

Yes really.

Biblical laws and Jewish law are incredibly similar - punishment for adultery, homosexuals, stoning people etc - it's harsh because they originate from the same cultures. Islam and Judaism differ from Christianity in that their legal system is far more detailed and spelled out. The thing is, people in western cultures know that those laws are archaic and based on an ancient society that existed thousands of years ago. They can follow the aspects that work within a modern culture, and discard or reinterpret those that do not. Sharia law - like Jewish law - includes a lot of stuff on what you can wear, what you can or can not eat. Someone who is "living by" their religion's laws may only be following that. If you insist they should be deported well, you're going to have to deport a lot more then Muslims.

Not to mention the idea of deporting ANY law abiding American citizens for their religious beliefs is utterly revolting.

You are indulging in several fallacies, here, the main one being false equivalencies. The number of Jewish people who would prefer Judaic law is in this country is absolutely miniscule. The number of Christians who wish to live according to Biblical law (which is not an established set of laws) is small. The percentage of Muslims who wish to be governed by Sharia which IS hard wired into Islam is quite large. More importantly, and beyond that, are the numbers of people who don't simply prefer to live according to religious law, but actually go about following them, anyway. Europe is absolutely riddled with de facto Sharia courts operating under the radar, and that is because Muslims are unique among the three when it comes to the degree with which they resist assimilation.

It appears to me that you actually know quite little about Islam, because you continuously make invalid comparisons to other religions for the purpose of defending it. Islam IS NOT the same as Christianity or Judaism, and if you would learn the differences, you would avoid all these fallacious lines of reasoning.

As to deportation, I have yet to hear even Trump talking about deporting law abiding citizens. It is only those who are not law abiding in question here.

 

[Coyote]

Muslims are as much entitled to be a part of the political process as everyone else. If you're going to be about inclusion you don't start by excluding.

Anyone who swears an oath of support the Constitution of the United States of America is welcomed with open arms.

Those who live or want the rest of us to live by Sharia Law should be deported.

Can we say the same for those who want to live by Biblical law and Jewish law as well? Or, maybe we can just leave them alone as long as they follow the law of the US, which is after all - the goal. Isn't it?

Not really, our laws are already based off of certain Biblical laws. The issue comes when you try to enforce Jewish law, because those were meant to be enforced before the veil was torn.

Yes really.

Biblical laws and Jewish law are incredibly similar - punishment for adultery, homosexuals, stoning people etc - it's harsh because they originate from the same cultures. Islam and Judaism differ from Christianity in that their legal system is far more detailed and spelled out. The thing is, people in western cultures know that those laws are archaic and based on an ancient society that existed thousands of years ago. They can follow the aspects that work within a modern culture, and discard or reinterpret those that do not. Sharia law - like Jewish law - includes a lot of stuff on what you can wear, what you can or can not eat. Someone who is "living by" their religion's laws may only be following that. If you insist they should be deported well, you're going to have to deport a lot more then Muslims.

Not to mention the idea of deporting ANY law abiding American citizens for their religious beliefs is utterly revolting.

You are indulging in several fallacies, here, the main one being false equivalencies. The number of Jewish people who would prefer Judaic law is in this country is absolutely miniscule. The number of Christians who wish to live according to Biblical law (which is not an established set of laws) is small. The percentage of Muslims who wish to be governed by Sharia which IS hard wired into Islam is quite large. More importantly, and beyond that, are the numbers of people who don't simply prefer to live according to religious law, but actually go about following them, anyway. Europe is absolutely riddled with de facto Sharia courts operating under the radar, and that is because Muslims are unique among the three when it comes to the degree with which they resist assimilation.

It appears to me that you actually know quite little about Islam, because you continuously make invalid comparisons to other religions for the purpose of defending it. Islam IS NOT the same as Christianity or Judaism, and if you would learn the differences, you would avoid all these fallacious lines of reasoning.

As to deportation, I have yet to hear even Trump talking about deporting law abiding citizens. It is only those who are not law abiding in question here.

My views on religion and religious law vs our constitution were summed up here: The thing is, people in western cultures know that those laws are archaic and based on an ancient society that existed thousands of years ago.

That applies to all religions in America, including America's Muslim population. It's not in the least invalid since the number of American Muslims who wish for Sharia above Consitutional law is negligable, much like that other religions in this country. Given that - calling for special laws targeting a specific religion, or calling for the deportation of followers of a religion for no other reason then that they follow that faith is certainly unconstitutional and unAmerican and anthetical to western values.

It's even a bit ridiculous because people calling for deportations (and I wasn't talking about Trump specifically, but addressing Pumpkin's statement) don't seem to really understand what Sharia really is.

If a Muslim wants to pray 5 times a day (or what ever the number is called for), adhere to halal and the principles of zakat, he IS following Sharia, and it doesn't necessarily follow that he believes in throwing gays off the roof top or beating women.

How about we just save deportations for non-citizen criminals who have actually broken the law?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

How about we just save deportations for non-citizen criminals who have actually broken the law?

That is what Trump is proposing.

Your other claim is a straw man.

 

[Coyote]

How about we just save deportations for non-citizen criminals who have actually broken the law?

That is what Trump is proposing.

Your other claim is a straw man.

Ok. Once again. I didn't make that claim. I was responding to something Pumpkin Row said. Not saying anything about Trump.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

How about we just save deportations for non-citizen criminals who have actually broken the law?

That is what Trump is proposing.

Your other claim is a straw man.

Ok. Once again. I didn't make that claim. I was responding to something Pumpkin Row said. Not saying anything about Trump.

I'm failing quite miserably at finding where Pumpkin said Law-abiding people should be deported or mentioned somebody who did.

Can you do me a solid and point it out? I'm getting old and sometimes don't see things.

 

[blackhawk]

My opinion the Democrats need to get back to putting more middle of the road people in positions of power within the party a good example would be Joe Manchin. After the in my view the horrible Harry Reid gave his ugly Trump rant after the election Manchin actually called Reid out over it seeing someone call out a member of their party over stuff like that is refreshing and gets my attention and tells me this might be someone I could consider voting for.

 

[Treeshepherd]

This election has been a HUGE wake up call for both major parties.

We've been hearing about the Republicans for several years now. It's like an impending divorce that is messy, stuff gets thrown and broken and there are calls for "we have to stay together for the kids". It's been loud and public, like celebrity marriage. It's been analyzed and reanalyzed.

But what about the Democrats? Their midlife crisis has been much more quiet. Lots of behind closed doors bickering and presenting a happy face for the kids. Bernie kind of opened the door on that. Hillary's loss cemented it.

What is the Democrat Party going to do, from here on in? It can't continue as the party of "identity politics". And what does it/should it represent? We have major demographic changes which offer hope to both parties IF they can grasp them?

Hispanics: this is a demographic that is growing, hugely. It's a demographic the Dems have largely attracted because of immigration issues. Yet it's a demographic that is, by and large, socially conservative and Catholic. It should be prime picking for Republicans EXCEPT another big part of their party is a strong anti-immigrant contingent.

Blacks: another demographic that is growing but and could easily be exploited by the Republicans. Like white voters, they are diverse outside of racial issues. A high proportion of them are religious and socially conservative.

If the Republican's hang on the politics of fear - they're going to to take your guns away, discriminate against your religion, flood this country with foreigners, and whites will be a minority - the Democrats hang on to the politics of identity - black, female, hispanic, lgbd. This strategy works only as long as the OTHER side, opposes identity. Essentially, each side has become a house of cards.

But we don't hear much about the Democrat's implosion and I think we need to.

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party? What principles can they promote that can resound in a way that reaches everyone - not selected groups who are actually fairly diverse and might not always be counted on for support across the board?

Obama was and is a popular president among Dems. That has kept the infighting from leading to fracture heretofore. The unifying effect of Obama is about to disappear.

I think the public has reached a point where they recognize political theater when they see it, due to collective cynicism. If that's true then changing the optics isn't going to help. Engineering the correct ratio of Hispanics, women, rust belt politicians and so forth isn't going to help. Changing political stances (like being pro or anti TPP) to suit the mood of the day isn't going to help.

The public wants someone who is genuine, even if they don't agree on all the issues. A lot of people supported Bernie even if they didn't agree on free college and a massive increase in the minimum wage.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This election has been a HUGE wake up call for both major parties.

We've been hearing about the Republicans for several years now. It's like an impending divorce that is messy, stuff gets thrown and broken and there are calls for "we have to stay together for the kids". It's been loud and public, like celebrity marriage. It's been analyzed and reanalyzed.

But what about the Democrats? Their midlife crisis has been much more quiet. Lots of behind closed doors bickering and presenting a happy face for the kids. Bernie kind of opened the door on that. Hillary's loss cemented it.

What is the Democrat Party going to do, from here on in? It can't continue as the party of "identity politics". And what does it/should it represent? We have major demographic changes which offer hope to both parties IF they can grasp them?

Hispanics: this is a demographic that is growing, hugely. It's a demographic the Dems have largely attracted because of immigration issues. Yet it's a demographic that is, by and large, socially conservative and Catholic. It should be prime picking for Republicans EXCEPT another big part of their party is a strong anti-immigrant contingent.

Blacks: another demographic that is growing but and could easily be exploited by the Republicans. Like white voters, they are diverse outside of racial issues. A high proportion of them are religious and socially conservative.

If the Republican's hang on the politics of fear - they're going to to take your guns away, discriminate against your religion, flood this country with foreigners, and whites will be a minority - the Democrats hang on to the politics of identity - black, female, hispanic, lgbd. This strategy works only as long as the OTHER side, opposes identity. Essentially, each side has become a house of cards.

But we don't hear much about the Democrat's implosion and I think we need to.

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party? What principles can they promote that can resound in a way that reaches everyone - not selected groups who are actually fairly diverse and might not always be counted on for support across the board?

Obama was and is a popular president among Dems. That has kept the infighting from leading to fracture heretofore. The unifying effect of Obama is about to disappear.

I think the public has reached a point where they recognize political theater when they see it, due to collective cynicism. If that's true then changing the optics isn't going to help. Engineering the correct ratio of Hispanics, women, rust belt politicians and so forth isn't going to help. Changing political stances (like being pro or anti TPP) to suit the mood of the day isn't going to help.

The public wants someone who is genuine, even if they don't agree on all the issues. A lot of people supported Bernie even if they didn't agree on free college and a massive increase in the minimum wage.

I tend to agree.

As Bernie a question, and he says what he thinks. Ask Hillary a question and she says what she thinks will get her elected.

It is a question of authenticity.

 

[theHawk]

This election has been a HUGE wake up call for both major parties.

We've been hearing about the Republicans for several years now. It's like an impending divorce that is messy, stuff gets thrown and broken and there are calls for "we have to stay together for the kids". It's been loud and public, like celebrity marriage. It's been analyzed and reanalyzed.

But what about the Democrats? Their midlife crisis has been much more quiet. Lots of behind closed doors bickering and presenting a happy face for the kids. Bernie kind of opened the door on that. Hillary's loss cemented it.

What is the Democrat Party going to do, from here on in? It can't continue as the party of "identity politics". And what does it/should it represent? We have major demographic changes which offer hope to both parties IF they can grasp them?

Hispanics: this is a demographic that is growing, hugely. It's a demographic the Dems have largely attracted because of immigration issues. Yet it's a demographic that is, by and large, socially conservative and Catholic. It should be prime picking for Republicans EXCEPT another big part of their party is a strong anti-immigrant contingent.

Blacks: another demographic that is growing but and could easily be exploited by the Republicans. Like white voters, they are diverse outside of racial issues. A high proportion of them are religious and socially conservative.

If the Republican's hang on the politics of fear - they're going to to take your guns away, discriminate against your religion, flood this country with foreigners, and whites will be a minority - the Democrats hang on to the politics of identity - black, female, hispanic, lgbd. This strategy works only as long as the OTHER side, opposes identity. Essentially, each side has become a house of cards.

But we don't hear much about the Democrat's implosion and I think we need to.

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party? What principles can they promote that can resound in a way that reaches everyone - not selected groups who are actually fairly diverse and might not always be counted on for support across the board?

Don't expect them to change. They always do this win they lose big. They do some "soul searching" for about 2 weeks, then its right back to their Progressive Agenda and doing anything to push it on America. Their goal is the destruction of "white America", they see it as pure evil. They hate whites, they hate Christians, they hate America's history. The Democrat Party already has become the Party of BLM, La Raza, feminists, enviro-wackos, LGBT and Muslims....all of which are terrorists in one form or another. They will NOT change. Progressives will just dig their heels in and protest everything Repubs/Trump do. The question is how much of the population that identify as "democrats" will wake up and see them for what they are and leave the party for good.

 

[Mac1958]

How about we just save deportations for non-citizen criminals who have actually broken the law?

That is what Trump is proposing.

Well, there ya go.

Common ground.

Is that allowed?
.

 

[Coyote]

This election has been a HUGE wake up call for both major parties.

We've been hearing about the Republicans for several years now. It's like an impending divorce that is messy, stuff gets thrown and broken and there are calls for "we have to stay together for the kids". It's been loud and public, like celebrity marriage. It's been analyzed and reanalyzed.

But what about the Democrats? Their midlife crisis has been much more quiet. Lots of behind closed doors bickering and presenting a happy face for the kids. Bernie kind of opened the door on that. Hillary's loss cemented it.

What is the Democrat Party going to do, from here on in? It can't continue as the party of "identity politics". And what does it/should it represent? We have major demographic changes which offer hope to both parties IF they can grasp them?

Hispanics: this is a demographic that is growing, hugely. It's a demographic the Dems have largely attracted because of immigration issues. Yet it's a demographic that is, by and large, socially conservative and Catholic. It should be prime picking for Republicans EXCEPT another big part of their party is a strong anti-immigrant contingent.

Blacks: another demographic that is growing but and could easily be exploited by the Republicans. Like white voters, they are diverse outside of racial issues. A high proportion of them are religious and socially conservative.

If the Republican's hang on the politics of fear - they're going to to take your guns away, discriminate against your religion, flood this country with foreigners, and whites will be a minority - the Democrats hang on to the politics of identity - black, female, hispanic, lgbd. This strategy works only as long as the OTHER side, opposes identity. Essentially, each side has become a house of cards.

But we don't hear much about the Democrat's implosion and I think we need to.

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party? What principles can they promote that can resound in a way that reaches everyone - not selected groups who are actually fairly diverse and might not always be counted on for support across the board?

Don't expect them to change. They always do this win they lose big. They do some "soul searching" for about 2 weeks, then its right back to their Progressive Agenda and doing anything to push it on America. Their goal is the destruction of "white America", they see it as pure evil. They hate whites, they hate Christians, they hate America's history. The Democrat Party already has become the Party of BLM, La Raza, feminists, enviro-wackos, LGBT and Muslims....all of which are terrorists in one form or another. They will NOT change. Progressives will just dig their heels in and protest everything Repubs/Trump do. The question is how much of the population that identify as "democrats" will wake up and see them for what they are and leave the party for good.

It sounds like you e,pet them to do exactly what the Republicans did.

The party is by no means the party of violent extremism as you imply, that's like saying the Republicans are the party of white supremacists etc.

When the Republicans began THEIR "come to Jesus" self examination, a lot of people were calling get on them to move back to core conservative values, saying they need to move further to the right. Others were saying they need to reach out to a more diverse group of people.

So if what the Republicans need to do is take their message and broaden their base - the Democrats need to RETURN to a message that unifies their base. They have lost their message.