Next Move for the Democratic Party?

[peach174]

Trump promised to bring jobs, get illegal immigration under control and renegotiate trade deals that we deliberately handicap ourselves with.

I forgot that. We can look at the trade deficit each month and mark his progress (or lack thereof).

When the US economy improves the trade deficit increases. But looking at measures is about all the Dems can do at this point.

That’s true. Whatever happens for the next 2 years is 100% the GOP’s fault. They own the entire government and 3/5 of the State houses and so many legislatures….

Stupid post alert.

The budget is already set for next year.

Stupid post answer…

Things happen that have nothing to do with the budget.

Their first year is still President Obamas policies.
The Repubs agendas will take effect in their 2nd year.
Thus the correctionon the 1st two years.
The policies passed by congress in 2017 will start in 2018.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Change their name to the Fascist Subversive DemocRAT party.... truth in advertising!

uh no.

Probably what they did in 1992. Get someone to triangulate the most acceptable parts of the GOP dogma with some “tough love” for the base and take their chances. Seems to have worked then. I don’t think it will work as much now. People forget; Reagan and GHWB were gentlemen. They were true gentlemen from a different generation. I think that America where it was not seen as a weakness to know how to dance, not cuss, not speak ill of people (at least in public) is largely a bygone generation. Today, the old feminists who are now in their older years are not asking for doors to be held open for them or for someone to pick up the check. Men who grew up as their counterparts don’t find appeal in chivalry or the appearance of being “weak”.

Today, it’s about making the contest as bitter and humiliating as possible. Trump did do one thing; validate hate and anger. And it worked! Too bad.

He’s now pivoting some toward more sensible and moderated positions. It will be interesting to see what happens if it continues.

His choice of cabinet members - at least those noted in the press - are neither moderate nor sensible. My fear is a neo con foreign policy, and a suppression of the Bill of Rights domestically. We are in for a rough ride and need to be ready for anything.

No good will come of extremism.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Lets see Faciasm is all about planned controlled organization.
Trumps campaign was far from that.
His ground troups were very weak and completly nil in other places.
This is one of many reasons Dems thought they would win more States and the Senate.
It's Dems who use a mixture of socialism, communism, and facisim.

Opinion are like asshole, everyone has one; sadly, too many opinions are like this one above, posted by the uneducated who simply echo the bullshit.

 

[peach174]

Lets see Faciasm is all about planned controlled organization.
Trumps campaign was far from that.
His ground troups were very weak and completly nil in other places.
This is one of many reasons Dems thought they would win more States and the Senate.
It's Dems who use a mixture of socialism, communism, and facisim.

Opinion are like asshole, everyone has one; sadly, too many opinions are like this one above, posted by the uneducated who simply echo the bullshit.

I Know political history very well.
I speak of facts and you label with a nasty put down.
I rest my case.

 

[JBond]

Trump promised to bring jobs, get illegal immigration under control and renegotiate trade deals that we deliberately handicap ourselves with.

I forgot that. We can look at the trade deficit each month and mark his progress (or lack thereof).

When the US economy improves the trade deficit increases. But looking at measures is about all the Dems can do at this point.

That’s true. Whatever happens for the next 2 years is 100% the GOP’s fault. They own the entire government and 3/5 of the State houses and so many legislatures….

Stupid post alert.

The budget is already set for next year.

Stupid post answer…

Things happen that have nothing to do with the budget.

Try to contain your bimbo eruptions. You said everything. I simply pointed out that you were wrong again.

 

[Toro]

The stimulus was a failure. All of the Dem's policies on the economy have been failures. Trump has to contend with $20T in national debt and enormous deficits.

Trump is promising up to $1 trillion in infrastructure spending, no cuts in SS or Medicare, and increases in defense spending. Those items account for ~80% of the budget. He also says he's going to cut taxes.

That's stimulus on a greater scale than at any time under Obama.

And it's likely to cause even bigger deficits.

 

[Moonglow]

The Democrats are a moribund party. They have lost the White House, House and Senate. They have a very small number of governships. A small number of state legislatures. Their leadership is ancient. Harry Reid (soon to be out of office anyway) is over 70. So is Pelosi. Schumer and Warren are over 60. Their up and coming Democrats were wiped out by the Obamacare fiasco. Their ideas have been totally discredited.
So now what?

Business as usual...Taxes will increase and not reduced....

 

[JBond]

The stimulus was a failure. All of the Dem's policies on the economy have been failures. Trump has to contend with $20T in national debt and enormous deficits.

Trump is promising up to $1 trillion in infrastructure spending, no cuts in SS or Medicare, and increases in defense spending. Those items account for ~80% of the budget. He also says he's going to cut taxes.

That's stimulus on a greater scale than at any time under Obama.

And it's likely to cause even bigger deficits.

Trump will not double the debt like Obama did.

 

[ding]

Next Move for the Democratic Party? To go even harder left. They believe the reason they keep losing ground is because the people are too stupid to understand what is good for them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Lets see Faciasm is all about planned controlled organization.
Trumps campaign was far from that.
His ground troups were very weak and completly nil in other places.
This is one of many reasons Dems thought they would win more States and the Senate.
It's Dems who use a mixture of socialism, communism, and facisim.

Opinion are like asshole, everyone has one; sadly, too many opinions are like this one above, posted by the uneducated who simply echo the bullshit.

I Know political history very well.
I speak of facts and you label with a nasty put down.
I rest my case.

Good for you, oh, and thanks so much for sharing. Please educate me and post a concise comparison of socialism, communism and fascism so we can all learn what in the hell you are writing about.

 

[HenryBHough]

Whoops!

An Angel of The Lord told a liberal female on Tuesday that she was to give birth to the next Democrat President!

But she kept the appointment with the abortionist.

Hard cheese, that.

 

[Toro]

The stimulus was a failure. All of the Dem's policies on the economy have been failures. Trump has to contend with $20T in national debt and enormous deficits.

Trump is promising up to $1 trillion in infrastructure spending, no cuts in SS or Medicare, and increases in defense spending. Those items account for ~80% of the budget. He also says he's going to cut taxes.

That's stimulus on a greater scale than at any time under Obama.

And it's likely to cause even bigger deficits.

Trump will not double the debt like Obama did.

Is that really your yardstick? Pretty low bar, don't you think.

 

[HenryBHough]

No good will come of extremism.

Exactly!

And to prove it, thaz why God gived us Comrade Barry!

 

[ding]

Lets see Faciasm is all about planned controlled organization.
Trumps campaign was far from that.
His ground troups were very weak and completly nil in other places.
This is one of many reasons Dems thought they would win more States and the Senate.
It's Dems who use a mixture of socialism, communism, and facisim.

Opinion are like asshole, everyone has one; sadly, too many opinions are like this one above, posted by the uneducated who simply echo the bullshit.

I Know political history very well.
I speak of facts and you label with a nasty put down.
I rest my case.

Good for you, oh, and thanks so much for sharing. Please educate me and post a concise comparison of socialism, communism and fascism so we can all learn what in the hell you are writing about.

Let's start with socialism.

"...in early democracies, as in the American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted because man is God's creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the satisfaction of his instincts or whims. Subsequently, however, all such limitations were discarded everywhere in the West; a total liberation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were -- State systems were becoming increasingly and totally materialistic. The West ended up by truly enforcing human rights, sometimes even excessively, but man's sense of responsibility to God and society grew dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistically selfish aspect of Western approach and thinking has reached its final dimension and the world wound up in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the glorified technological achievements of Progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the 20th century's moral poverty which no one could imagine even as late as in the 19th Century.

As humanism in its development became more and more materialistic, it made itself increasingly accessible to speculation and manipulation by socialism and then by communism. So that Karl Marx was able to say that "communism is naturalized humanism."

This statement turned out not to be entirely senseless. One does see the same stones in the foundations of a despiritualized humanism and of any type of socialism: endless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility, which under communist regimes reach the stage of anti-religious dictatorships; concentration on social structures with a seemingly scientific approach. This is typical of the Enlightenment in the 18th Century and of Marxism. Not by coincidence all of communism's meaningless pledges and oaths are about Man, with a capital M, and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, too, that the current of materialism which is most to the left always ends up by being stronger, more attractive, and victorious, because it is more consistent. Humanism without its Christian heritage cannot resist such competition. We watch this process in the past centuries and especially in the past decades, on a world scale as the situation becomes increasingly dramatic. Liberalism was inevitably displaced by radicalism; radicalism had to surrender to socialism; and socialism could never resist communism..."

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn: Harvard Commencement Address (A World Split Apart)

 

[yiostheoy]

The Democrats are a moribund party. They have lost the White House, House and Senate. They have a very small number of governships. A small number of state legislatures. Their leadership is ancient. Harry Reid (soon to be out of office anyway) is over 70. So is Pelosi. Schumer and Warren are over 60. Their up and coming Democrats were wiped out by the Obamacare fiasco. Their ideas have been totally discredited.
So now what?

This happens to each party from time to time.

Just a few weeks ago everyone was talking about the demise of the GOP.

Now they/you are talking about the demise of the DEM's.

The GOP has had complete control of Congress and The White House before.

The DEM's have also had complete control of it all.

There is nothing new under the Sun.

But to answer your question, for the next 2 years at least the DEM's will be relegated to filibustering in the Senate, that's all. Maybe the next 4 years. Maybe the next 8 years. Maybe even the next 12 years if Trump gets re-elected and Pence follows in his footsteps, like GHW did in Reagan's, or Truman in FDR's.

 

[LaDexter]

Next move for the Dems....

LOL!!!

We are going to find out soon why O campaigned so hard for Hillary.

He had a LOT of things to HIDE, including things about his very own racial BIGOTRY.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Democratic party needs to become the labor party. The anti-free trade party. The protectionist party.

 

[LaDexter]

My advice to the Dems. Ditch your four core "values.."

Stop STEALING
Stop LYING
Stop HATING
Stop DISCRIMINATING


In other words, dissolve the party and start over...

 

[deltex1]

The Democrats are a moribund party. They have lost the White House, House and Senate. They have a very small number of governships. A small number of state legislatures. Their leadership is ancient. Harry Reid (soon to be out of office anyway) is over 70. So is Pelosi. Schumer and Warren are over 60. Their up and coming Democrats were wiped out by the Obamacare fiasco. Their ideas have been totally discredited.
So now what?

They will bet on a black Muslim to carry them to power...oops they already tried that. But Ellison is their fave...

 

[ding]

"It seems that certain things in this world simply cannot be discovered without extensive experience, be it personal or collective. This applies to the present book with its fresh and revealing perspective on the millennia-old trends of socialism. While it makes use of a voluminous literature familiar to specialists throughout the world, there is an undeniable logic in the fact that it emerged from the country that has undergone (and is undergoing) the harshest and most prolonged socialist experience in modern history. Nor is it at all incongruous that within that country this book should not have been produced by a humanist, for scholars in the humanities have been the most methodically crushed of all social strata in the Soviet Union ever since the October Revolution. It was written by a mathematician of world renown: in the Communist world, practitioners of the exact sciences must stand in for their annihilated brethren. But this circumstance has its compensations. It provides us with a rare opportunity of receiving a systematic analysis of the theory and practice of socialism from the pen of an outstanding mathematical thinker versed in the rigorous methodology of his science. (One can attach particular weight, for instance, to his judgment that Marxism lacks even the climate of scientific inquiry.) World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis, features which the author of this volume points out repeatedly and in many contexts. The doctrines of socialism seethe with contradictions, its theories are at constant odds with its practice, yet due to a powerful instinct--also laid bare by Shafarevich--these contradictions do not in the least hinder the unending propaganda of socialism. Indeed, no precise, distinct socialism even exists; instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. The twentieth century marks one of the greatest upsurges in the success of socialism, and concomitantly of its repulsive practical manifestations. Yet due to the same passionate irrationality, attempts to examine these results are repelled: they are either ignored completely, or implausibly explained away in terms of certain "Asiatic" or "Russian" aberrations or the personality of a particular dictator, or else they are ascribed to "state capitalism." The present book encompasses vast stretches of time and space. By carefully describing and analyzing dozens of socialist doctrines and numerous states built on socialist principles, the author leaves no room for evasive arguments based on so-called "insignificant exceptions" (allegedly bearing no resemblance to the glorious future). Whether it is the centralization of China in the first millennium B.C., the bloody European experiments of the time of the Reformation, the chilling (though universally esteemed) utopias of European thinkers, the intrigues of Marx and Engels, or the radical Communist measures of the Lenin period (no wit more humane than Stalin's heavy-handed methods)--the author in all his dozens of examples demonstrates the undeviating consistency of the phenomenon under consideration. Shafarevich has singled out the invariants of socialism, its fundamental and unchanging elements, which depend neither on time nor place, and which, alas, are looming ominously over today's tottering world. If one considers human history in its entirety, socialism can boast of a greater longevity and durability, of wider diffusion and of control over larger masses of people, than can contemporary Western civilization. It is therefore difficult to shake off gloomy presentiments when contemplating that maw into which--before the century is out--we may all plunge: that "Asiatic formation" which Marx hastened to circumvent in his classification, and before which contemporary Marxist thought stands baffled, having discerned its own hideous countenance in the mirror of the millennia. It could probably be said that the majority of states in the history of mankind have been "socialist." But it is also true that these were in no sense periods or places of human happiness or creativity. Shafarevich points out with great precision both the cause and the genesis of the first socialist doctrines, which he characterizes as reactions: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. The author also convincingly demonstrates the diametrical opposition between the concepts of man held by religion and by socialism. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity. Even though, as this book shows, socialism has always successfully avoided truly scientific analyses of its essence, Shafarevich's study challenges present-day theoreticians of socialism to demonstrate their arguments in a businesslike public discussion."
ALEKSANDR I. SOLZHENITSYN

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich