With the filibuster of Gorsuch, are the Democrats the party of "Group Think"?

[shockedcanadian]

With absolutely no democrat daring to "cross the line" (A Canadian political term as parties here are purely Group Think) on the voting for the Healthcare replacement, and the absolute disdain for anything related to small government, state powers and individual rights as expressed in the Constitution, are the Democrats simply the Groupthink Party? We see it now with the unprecedented filibuster against the Supreme Court nomination...democrats call it "banding together" I call it "Groupthink Lemmings".

I don't say this to be offensive, I genuinely mean this. Look at how many didn't attend the inauguration, or how many went to the well of "stolen election" because they lost to an outsider. It seems the diversity that Democrats espouse is not within their own party. Nothing exposes this more than their system in the Primaries in which they had Superdelegates who single handedly can basically make voters choices inconsequential. CNN was in the bag so deep for Clinton they actually included the Superdelegate numbers in their projections!

I agree that there should be a general philosophy of a party, but there should be some variation within a particular policy or Bill as it were. Zero votes for a Bill? That's batting better than Saddam Hussein and his 98% election voting results...

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Democrats think?

 

[gallantwarrior]

With absolutely no democrat daring to "cross the line" (A Canadian political term as parties here are purely Group Think) on the voting for the Healthcare replacement, and the absolute disdain for anything related to small government, state powers and individual rights as expressed in the Constitution, are the Democrats simply the Groupthink Party? We see it now with the unprecedented filibuster against the Supreme Court nomination...democrats call it "banding together" I call it "Groupthink Lemmings".

I don't say this to be offensive, I genuinely mean this. Look at how many didn't attend the inauguration, or how many went to the well of "stolen election" because they lost to an outsider. It seems the diversity that Democrats espouse is not within their own party. Nothing exposes this more than their system in the Primaries in which they had Superdelegates who single handedly can basically make voters choices inconsequential. CNN was in the bag so deep for Clinton they actually included the Superdelegate numbers in their projections!

I agree that there should be a general philosophy of a party, but there should be some various within a particular policy or Bill as it were. Zero votes for a Bill? That's batting better than Saddam Hussein and his 98% election voting results...

It's tough to stand up to the bullies. Most party hard-liners have no backbone, no guts, no balls...and most certainly no intention to truly represent their constituents once they get into office and have to face the party apparatchik gestapo.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Democrats think?

Only what they are ordered to think.

 

[Nosmo King]

Democrat 'group think'? Gee! I wonder where they learned that? Could there be an example of a party locking arms and acting intransigent over policy or personality? Let's ask Merrick Garland if he's ever heard of such a thing.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Democrat 'group think'? Gee! I wonder where they learned that? Could there be an example of a party locking arms and acting intransigent over policy or personality? Let's ask Merrick Garland if he's ever heard of such a thing.

I disagreed with the GOP doing that. They did have a strong argument based on the fact that Obama was leaving office and that such an important decision should be decided by the election which was less than a year away. Furthermore, the country at the time had a nearly 70% agreement that the country was "going in the wrong direction". Regardless, it was a bad decision.

When you consider how much disagreement and debate occurs within the GOP and the GroupThink that occurs within the Democratic Party, it's no contest.

 

[Nosmo King]

Democrat 'group think'? Gee! I wonder where they learned that? Could there be an example of a party locking arms and acting intransigent over policy or personality? Let's ask Merrick Garland if he's ever heard of such a thing.

I disagreed with the GOP doing that. They did have a strong argument based on the fact that Obama was leaving office and that such an important decision should be decided by the election which was less than a year away. Furthermore, the country at the time had a nearly 70% agreement that the country was "going in the wrong direction". Regardless, it was a bad decision.

When you consider how much disagreement and debate occurs within the GOP and the GroupThink that occurs within the Democratic Party, it's no contest.

According to our constitution, the president serves a term of four years. Not three. Garland's never minarion happened in March, not October. The GOP acted extraconstittutionally when The refused hearings.

 

[NYcarbineer]

With absolutely no democrat daring to "cross the line" (A Canadian political term as parties here are purely Group Think) on the voting for the Healthcare replacement, and the absolute disdain for anything related to small government, state powers and individual rights as expressed in the Constitution, are the Democrats simply the Groupthink Party? We see it now with the unprecedented filibuster against the Supreme Court nomination...democrats call it "banding together" I call it "Groupthink Lemmings".

I don't say this to be offensive, I genuinely mean this. Look at how many didn't attend the inauguration, or how many went to the well of "stolen election" because they lost to an outsider. It seems the diversity that Democrats espouse is not within their own party. Nothing exposes this more than their system in the Primaries in which they had Superdelegates who single handedly can basically make voters choices inconsequential. CNN was in the bag so deep for Clinton they actually included the Superdelegate numbers in their projections!

I agree that there should be a general philosophy of a party, but there should be some variation within a particular policy or Bill as it were. Zero votes for a Bill? That's batting better than Saddam Hussein and his 98% election voting results...

How many GOP votes against Gorsuch?

 

[shockedcanadian]

With absolutely no democrat daring to "cross the line" (A Canadian political term as parties here are purely Group Think) on the voting for the Healthcare replacement, and the absolute disdain for anything related to small government, state powers and individual rights as expressed in the Constitution, are the Democrats simply the Groupthink Party? We see it now with the unprecedented filibuster against the Supreme Court nomination...democrats call it "banding together" I call it "Groupthink Lemmings".

I don't say this to be offensive, I genuinely mean this. Look at how many didn't attend the inauguration, or how many went to the well of "stolen election" because they lost to an outsider. It seems the diversity that Democrats espouse is not within their own party. Nothing exposes this more than their system in the Primaries in which they had Superdelegates who single handedly can basically make voters choices inconsequential. CNN was in the bag so deep for Clinton they actually included the Superdelegate numbers in their projections!

I agree that there should be a general philosophy of a party, but there should be some variation within a particular policy or Bill as it were. Zero votes for a Bill? That's batting better than Saddam Hussein and his 98% election voting results...

How many GOP votes against Gorsuch?

Touche.

However, the GOP don't have Superdelegates...

 

[BluesLegend]

Dem's threatened to primary anyone who broke ranks and voted for Gorsuch.