CDZ How did the Ds lose control of the Ds?

[usmbguest5318]

Obama and Hillary both being from Chicago saw nothing wrong with filling up the voting rolls with non-citizens, the dearly departed and voters who only exist on paper. I think that is the key problem that has led to the many other problems the Ds have:

With ANTIFA and MS-13 as friends and allies you do not need enemies. The RICO trials of D complicity in the crimes of their para-military arms will become epic if Trump continues to campaign for populist Conservatives.

The illegal butterfly ballot that made the 2000 election so contentious led to legislation that, if enforced, will basically dismember the Democratic party as a national party. Sessions intends to enforce those laws.

Are there other major problems I missed?

Obama and Hillary both being from Chicago saw nothing wrong with filling up the voting rolls with non-citizens, the dearly departed and voters who only exist on paper. I think that is the key problem that has led to the many other problems the Ds have....Are there other major problems I missed?

I really don't know. I can see that a lot of what you missed is credible substantiation of your assertion that there are voting rolls "filling up" with non-citizens. Of course, I realize why you missed that: while there is plenty of conjecture about the matter, not one state that's examined its voter participation has found that ineligible individuals in anything resembling material quantities voted in any presidential election.

• Voter Fraud: The Research and Findings
  
• Voter fraud is rare, Ohio secretary of state tells Trump's election integrity commission
  
• Trump supporters claim an academic study shows proof of hundreds of thousands of illegitimate votes for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election
  
• Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth
  
• The Tangled Story Behind Trump’s False Claims Of Voter Fraud

Also, it's strange that Trump supporters and other Republicans even advance the notion of rampant fraudulent voting insofar as they have been the overwhelming beneficiaries of the past two or three elections.

​

If there's rampant voter fraud, it's benefitting Republicans!

 

[FA_Q2]

It is not an "anti-democratic technicality." It is the very basis of this nation. We are not and have never been a democracy. We are a republic with democratically elected representatives.
I know this ^^^ is a fashionable idea in conservative circles but taxonomy is really a small part of understanding American history. Our "republic with democratically elected representatives" has changed radically several times over the centuries. We started out as a loose federation of slave plantations. The average guy didn't get to vote for a couple of generations, Our federation became a nation state, Slavery was abolished. Women got the right to vote and, finally, so did Native Americans. We went from an agricultural economy to an industrial giant, from a British seaboard society to a multi-cultural continent. All of these profound changes occurred under that banner of "a republic with democratically elected representatives," so the fine-sounding words on the banner clearly weren't calling the shots. The real drivers have been technology, economics and demographics. Those fancy categories really don't tell the story.

What does that have to do with anything? You put out there that Trump was elected in a democracy because of "an anti-democratic technicality" and that is utter bs. We are not a democracy - period. We were not one before and we have not become one. You refer to the right to vote being established and expanded to more people as though that means the fundamental properties of the government have been altered. They have not. There are extremely few instance of actual direct democracy in this nation when compared to the how much the government operates under the representatives we have appointed - a republic.

Had we truly been a democracy there is no way we would have made it as far as we have or been as prosperous - hell we are horrible at electing representatives ala Trump, Hillary and the 90% re-election rate of a congress with single digit approval rating. Imagine if we were to have the public voting on more intricate matters.

You seem to understand the term "democracy" as applicable only to the Athenian style in which the mass of voting citizens passed legislation, Anything else you call a republic. That's fine with me. You can define "democracy" and "republic" as you wish. The reality that no nation other than the Vatican still use the mechanism of ancient Athenian democracy has cause historians and political scientists to use these terms differently for well over a century.
Debates are not won by taxonomy. What is your point?

My point was clear - Trump did not win on an anti-democratic technicality. He won based on the fundamentals of the system we use.

Democracy is "rule by the 'demos'" that is, the voters. Three million more voters chose Hillary than chose Trump. Trump won in the EC, a voting block in which the number of voters represented by college members varies wildly, with voters in dink states like Wyoming have far more power to elect than voters in states like California. This is not a democratic process. It is an obsolete technicality that dates back to the days before the USA became a nation-state and in which federal government was a mere confederacy of sovereign states.

*sigh*

That is right - it is not a democrat process that elects the president because we are a republic and you continue to dance around fact and write paragraphs of content that have nothing to do with any points raised at all.

 

[Picaro]

It is not an "anti-democratic technicality." It is the very basis of this nation. We are not and have never been a democracy. We are a republic with democratically elected representatives.
I know this ^^^ is a fashionable idea in conservative circles but taxonomy is really a small part of understanding American history. Our "republic with democratically elected representatives" has changed radically several times over the centuries. We started out as a loose federation of slave plantations. The average guy didn't get to vote for a couple of generations, Our federation became a nation state, Slavery was abolished. Women got the right to vote and, finally, so did Native Americans. We went from an agricultural economy to an industrial giant, from a British seaboard society to a multi-cultural continent. All of these profound changes occurred under that banner of "a republic with democratically elected representatives," so the fine-sounding words on the banner clearly weren't calling the shots. The real drivers have been technology, economics and demographics. Those fancy categories really don't tell the story.

What does that have to do with anything? You put out there that Trump was elected in a democracy because of "an anti-democratic technicality" and that is utter bs. We are not a democracy - period. We were not one before and we have not become one. You refer to the right to vote being established and expanded to more people as though that means the fundamental properties of the government have been altered. They have not. There are extremely few instance of actual direct democracy in this nation when compared to the how much the government operates under the representatives we have appointed - a republic.

Had we truly been a democracy there is no way we would have made it as far as we have or been as prosperous - hell we are horrible at electing representatives ala Trump, Hillary and the 90% re-election rate of a congress with single digit approval rating. Imagine if we were to have the public voting on more intricate matters.

You seem to understand the term "democracy" as applicable only to the Athenian style in which the mass of voting citizens passed legislation, Anything else you call a republic. That's fine with me. You can define "democracy" and "republic" as you wish. The reality that no nation other than the Vatican still use the mechanism of ancient Athenian democracy has cause historians and political scientists to use these terms differently for well over a century.
Debates are not won by taxonomy. What is your point?

My point was clear - Trump did not win on an anti-democratic technicality. He won based on the fundamentals of the system we use.

Democracy is "rule by the 'demos'" that is, the voters. Three million more voters chose Hillary than chose Trump. Trump won in the EC, a voting block in which the number of voters represented by college members varies wildly, with voters in dink states like Wyoming have far more power to elect than voters in states like California. This is not a democratic process. It is an obsolete technicality that dates back to the days before the USA became a nation-state and in which federal government was a mere confederacy of sovereign states.

Rubbish; while Wyoming has the same two Senators everyone else has, they have few in the H of R, while states like California have a lot, and have far more influence, over domestic policy in particular.

If California were to lose criminal illegal aliens and those whose ancestors came here illegally, it would lose almost a dozen seats in the House, Texas would lose at least two, so that's why we see California trying to peddle such nonsense as 'Dreamers' and the like.

 

[Chuz Life]

How did the Ds lose control of the Ds?

It's been an incremental unfolding, I'd say it started in the early 1960's

 

[FA_Q2]

Obama and Hillary both being from Chicago saw nothing wrong with filling up the voting rolls with non-citizens, the dearly departed and voters who only exist on paper. I think that is the key problem that has led to the many other problems the Ds have:

With ANTIFA and MS-13 as friends and allies you do not need enemies. The RICO trials of D complicity in the crimes of their para-military arms will become epic if Trump continues to campaign for populist Conservatives.

The illegal butterfly ballot that made the 2000 election so contentious led to legislation that, if enforced, will basically dismember the Democratic party as a national party. Sessions intends to enforce those laws.

Are there other major problems I missed?

Obama and Hillary both being from Chicago saw nothing wrong with filling up the voting rolls with non-citizens, the dearly departed and voters who only exist on paper. I think that is the key problem that has led to the many other problems the Ds have....Are there other major problems I missed?

I really don't know. I can see that a lot of what you missed is credible substantiation of your assertion that there are voting rolls "filling up" with non-citizens. Of course, I realize why you missed that: while there is plenty of conjecture about the matter, not one state that's examined its voter participation has found that ineligible individuals in anything resembling material quantities voted in any presidential election.

• Voter Fraud: The Research and Findings
  
• Voter fraud is rare, Ohio secretary of state tells Trump's election integrity commission
  
• Trump supporters claim an academic study shows proof of hundreds of thousands of illegitimate votes for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election
  
• Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth
  
• The Tangled Story Behind Trump’s False Claims Of Voter Fraud

Also, it's strange that Trump supporters and other Republicans even advance the notion of rampant fraudulent voting insofar as they have been the overwhelming beneficiaries of the past two or three elections.

​

If there's rampant voter fraud, it's benefitting Republicans!

Aside from the partisan back and fourth about voter fraud, your graphic brings up a FAR greater political issue: the division of the nation into an ever increasing divide over politics. The image shows an ever decreasing dialogue in politics in general as people become more 'sorted' with those that agree with them.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Obama and Hillary both being from Chicago saw nothing wrong with filling up the voting rolls with non-citizens, the dearly departed and voters who only exist on paper. I think that is the key problem that has led to the many other problems the Ds have:

With ANTIFA and MS-13 as friends and allies you do not need enemies. The RICO trials of D complicity in the crimes of their para-military arms will become epic if Trump continues to campaign for populist Conservatives.

The illegal butterfly ballot that made the 2000 election so contentious led to legislation that, if enforced, will basically dismember the Democratic party as a national party. Sessions intends to enforce those laws.

Are there other major problems I missed?

Obama and Hillary both being from Chicago saw nothing wrong with filling up the voting rolls with non-citizens, the dearly departed and voters who only exist on paper. I think that is the key problem that has led to the many other problems the Ds have....Are there other major problems I missed?

I really don't know. I can see that a lot of what you missed is credible substantiation of your assertion that there are voting rolls "filling up" with non-citizens. Of course, I realize why you missed that: while there is plenty of conjecture about the matter, not one state that's examined its voter participation has found that ineligible individuals in anything resembling material quantities voted in any presidential election.

• Voter Fraud: The Research and Findings
  
• Voter fraud is rare, Ohio secretary of state tells Trump's election integrity commission
  
• Trump supporters claim an academic study shows proof of hundreds of thousands of illegitimate votes for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election
  
• Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth
  
• The Tangled Story Behind Trump’s False Claims Of Voter Fraud

Also, it's strange that Trump supporters and other Republicans even advance the notion of rampant fraudulent voting insofar as they have been the overwhelming beneficiaries of the past two or three elections.

​

If there's rampant voter fraud, it's benefitting Republicans!

Aside from the partisan back and fourth about voter fraud, your graphic brings up a FAR greater political issue: the division of the nation into an ever increasing divide over politics. The image shows an ever decreasing dialogue in politics in general as people become more 'sorted' with those that agree with them.

To the extent you mean "policy" rather than politics, I agree with you. As best as I can tell, there's been no decrease in political dialogue. Indeed, I think there's too much political, political posturing and political strategy chatter and not nearly enough about the policy.

• Politics/political discourse --> statements made to market policy ideas and/or secure political superiority with regard to party representation in government and among the electorate
• Policy discourse --> conversation about the actual (as supported by sound research, rather than speculated) merits and demerits of a policy.

 

[miketx]

Trump is going after the Dem base: Illegals, non-living and multiple voters. CA and NY will be in play in 2018.

Yet Obama deported more illegals than any sitting President.....EVER. Based on average monthly deportation under Obama, Trump hasn't even come close. So who are illegals going to vote for?

There have been just four documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election

The frauds vote for whom?

Obama told illegals that voting made them citizens

Lie

FALSE: Obama Encouraged 'Illegal Aliens' to Vote

Oh no, Here it is for all to see. A ile huh? LOL!

 

[FA_Q2]

Obama and Hillary both being from Chicago saw nothing wrong with filling up the voting rolls with non-citizens, the dearly departed and voters who only exist on paper. I think that is the key problem that has led to the many other problems the Ds have:

With ANTIFA and MS-13 as friends and allies you do not need enemies. The RICO trials of D complicity in the crimes of their para-military arms will become epic if Trump continues to campaign for populist Conservatives.

The illegal butterfly ballot that made the 2000 election so contentious led to legislation that, if enforced, will basically dismember the Democratic party as a national party. Sessions intends to enforce those laws.

Are there other major problems I missed?

Obama and Hillary both being from Chicago saw nothing wrong with filling up the voting rolls with non-citizens, the dearly departed and voters who only exist on paper. I think that is the key problem that has led to the many other problems the Ds have....Are there other major problems I missed?

I really don't know. I can see that a lot of what you missed is credible substantiation of your assertion that there are voting rolls "filling up" with non-citizens. Of course, I realize why you missed that: while there is plenty of conjecture about the matter, not one state that's examined its voter participation has found that ineligible individuals in anything resembling material quantities voted in any presidential election.

• Voter Fraud: The Research and Findings
  
• Voter fraud is rare, Ohio secretary of state tells Trump's election integrity commission
  
• Trump supporters claim an academic study shows proof of hundreds of thousands of illegitimate votes for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election
  
• Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth
  
• The Tangled Story Behind Trump’s False Claims Of Voter Fraud

Also, it's strange that Trump supporters and other Republicans even advance the notion of rampant fraudulent voting insofar as they have been the overwhelming beneficiaries of the past two or three elections.

​

If there's rampant voter fraud, it's benefitting Republicans!

Aside from the partisan back and fourth about voter fraud, your graphic brings up a FAR greater political issue: the division of the nation into an ever increasing divide over politics. The image shows an ever decreasing dialogue in politics in general as people become more 'sorted' with those that agree with them.

To the extent you mean "policy" rather than politics, I agree with you. As best as I can tell, there's been no decrease in political dialogue. Indeed, I think there's too much political, political posturing and political strategy chatter and not nearly enough about the policy.

• Politics/political discourse --> statements made to market policy ideas and/or secure political superiority with regard to party representation in government and among the electorate
• Policy discourse --> conversation about the actual (as supported by sound research, rather than speculated) merits and demerits of a policy.

I actually disagree in the political discourse. Policy discourse is severely lacking, yes, but political discourse is as well. We longer have a discourse - what we have are echo chambers. It has become more of a mud slinging argument rather than an actual meaningful debate.

There is more discussion about how horrible the other side is between their own members than there actually is discussion with the other side. See Hillary for a wonderful example of this.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Obama and Hillary both being from Chicago saw nothing wrong with filling up the voting rolls with non-citizens, the dearly departed and voters who only exist on paper. I think that is the key problem that has led to the many other problems the Ds have:

With ANTIFA and MS-13 as friends and allies you do not need enemies. The RICO trials of D complicity in the crimes of their para-military arms will become epic if Trump continues to campaign for populist Conservatives.

The illegal butterfly ballot that made the 2000 election so contentious led to legislation that, if enforced, will basically dismember the Democratic party as a national party. Sessions intends to enforce those laws.

Are there other major problems I missed?

Obama and Hillary both being from Chicago saw nothing wrong with filling up the voting rolls with non-citizens, the dearly departed and voters who only exist on paper. I think that is the key problem that has led to the many other problems the Ds have....Are there other major problems I missed?

I really don't know. I can see that a lot of what you missed is credible substantiation of your assertion that there are voting rolls "filling up" with non-citizens. Of course, I realize why you missed that: while there is plenty of conjecture about the matter, not one state that's examined its voter participation has found that ineligible individuals in anything resembling material quantities voted in any presidential election.

• Voter Fraud: The Research and Findings
  
• Voter fraud is rare, Ohio secretary of state tells Trump's election integrity commission
  
• Trump supporters claim an academic study shows proof of hundreds of thousands of illegitimate votes for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election
  
• Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth
  
• The Tangled Story Behind Trump’s False Claims Of Voter Fraud

Also, it's strange that Trump supporters and other Republicans even advance the notion of rampant fraudulent voting insofar as they have been the overwhelming beneficiaries of the past two or three elections.

​

If there's rampant voter fraud, it's benefitting Republicans!

Aside from the partisan back and fourth about voter fraud, your graphic brings up a FAR greater political issue: the division of the nation into an ever increasing divide over politics. The image shows an ever decreasing dialogue in politics in general as people become more 'sorted' with those that agree with them.

To the extent you mean "policy" rather than politics, I agree with you. As best as I can tell, there's been no decrease in political dialogue. Indeed, I think there's too much political, political posturing and political strategy chatter and not nearly enough about the policy.

• Politics/political discourse --> statements made to market policy ideas and/or secure political superiority with regard to party representation in government and among the electorate
• Policy discourse --> conversation about the actual (as supported by sound research, rather than speculated) merits and demerits of a policy.

I actually disagree in the political discourse. Policy discourse is severely lacking, yes, but political discourse is as well. We longer have a discourse - what we have are echo chambers. It has become more of a mud slinging argument rather than an actual meaningful debate.

There is more discussion about how horrible the other side is between their own members than there actually is discussion with the other side. See Hillary for a wonderful example of this.

Policy discourse is severely lacking, yes, but political discourse is as well. We longer have a discourse - what we have are echo chambers.

Okay....I understand what you mean. I agree with you. People do indeed spend too much oral energy "echoing." They also, instead of conversing with one another, talk at one another.

I have my own opinion of what those things be, but the short of them boils down to the emergence of platforms like Facebook and Twitter giving voice to people who never before had one, and having that voice, they construe themselves and their expressed notions as having the merit equal in merit to those of people who have always had a voice. That just isn't so, no matter how much one may think it so.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-- Isaac Asimov​

The ideas of "the average man on the street" quite simply are not borne from, thus do not have, the assiduousness of, say, those of James Baldwin, William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and others, but Twitter, Facebook, and venues like USMB feed the bias confirming popularity, thereby serving for many to reinforce the comforting illusion that their "theories" aren't as "looney tunes" as they may once have humbly surmised. The reality is that their notions are indeed absurd and that many other folks merely share those the same inane notions. David Copperfield, Penn & Teller, and others are great illusionists, but, truth be told, FB, Twitter and public forums are the real and best magicians in modern society.


Aside:

• This Article Won’t Change Your Mind

 

[Picaro]

Aside from the partisan back and fourth about voter fraud, your graphic brings up a FAR greater political issue: the division of the nation into an ever increasing divide over politics. The image shows an ever decreasing dialogue in politics in general as people become more 'sorted' with those that agree with them.

Policy discussions have never been common in the general public discourse, mostly confined to academia and among advisors and consultants on the national level, and the kind of people who regularly attend their city council meetings and participate in local govt. and boards. As a nation most never even read the same books any more, and specialization pretty much leave most out such discussions anyway. Know anybody who has read Hugh Davis Graham's The Civil Rights Era, and wants to discuss what went wrong and how to fix policy re his criticisms, for instance? I don't either ... and it wouldn't matter because PC orthodoxy would shut such discourse down long before it got to policy level action and a waste of time to no effect.

No major Party gives a rat's ass how the unwashed masses feel about anything and waste no time on them outside of polling and paying PR people to dream up rhetoric that appeases whatever demographic they're concerned with at the moment.