Garrett78
Garrett78's JournalDemocratic Party slogan
An article was posted with which I (and clearly many others) take some exception. However, the article made a valid point about the Democratic Party slogan. I think it needs to be provocative and pack a punch.
I suggest the following: "Saving America from Traitors and Bigots"
It's not about f***ing "political differences."
It's one thing to agree on facts but differ about how to respond to said facts, or about the causes. It's one thing to differ over the role of government. It's one thing to differ over tax rates. And so on.
But constantly lying, misleading and obfuscating is another thing.
Denying facts and inventing "alternative facts" is another thing.
Fomenting and exploiting racism, sexism, misogyny and xenophobia is another thing.
Separating families, and caging asylum-seekers (including children) is another thing.
Bragging openly about sexual assault and defending serial assaulters is another thing.
Suggesting that your supporters find a "2nd amendment solution" for your political opponent is another thing.
Refusing to show your tax returns, stiffing contractors and operating a phony "University" is another thing.
Violating the emoluments clause (that alone would have had Obama impeached) is another thing.
Race-based voter suppression and gerrymandering is another thing.
Obstructing justice is another thing.
Blatant hypocrisy about SCOTUS nominees - and everything else under the sun - is another thing.
Colluding with a foreign adversary is another thing.
Befriending vicious dictators and alienating vital allies is another thing.
There's nothing "uncivil" about protesting any and all of that. There's nothing uncivil about protesting those who are committing crimes against an entire nation, or aiding and abetting said criminals. On the contrary, it would be indecent to not do so.
So, anyone who is concerned about supposed acts of incivility toward SHS or Stephen Miller or Nielsen or McConnell or any of the Trumps, just fuck off. Those inhumane criminals are actively destroying lives and any semblance of democracy that remained. I don't give a shit if they can't eat dinner in peace or if they get shouted at. They should be in prison.
Political differences?!? Are you fucking kidding me?!?
Is there any chance the 2016 election results and everything done since then could be nullified?
I find myself feeling hopeless and clinging to what I'm sure is an unrealistic fantasy.
The daily horrors brought on by the Trump Administration and Republicans as a whole are overwhelming.
Republicans have been fighting a "procedural war," while Democrats fight a "policy war."
The posting of a David Faris article and this SCOTUS news reminded me that someone had asked me to re-post the following article, which is one I think Democrats better take to heart once they are back in power or sooner:
https://www.vox.com/2018/5/1/17258866/democratic-party-republicans-trump-election
I definitely want to get into some of these structural barriers, but let’s be clear about this point you’re making. A lot of people still think there’s some meaningful connection between policy outcomes and voter decisions, but there’s a good bit of political science research to suggest that’s just a fantasy.
David Faris
Right. People just don’t seem to make the connection between policies and the party in power.
So, for example, the Democrats passed Obamacare and gave millions of people heath care, and yet tons of people who benefited from it have no idea what it is or how they benefited. And it’s like that with a lot of policies — voters simply don’t connect the dots, and so they reward or punish the wrong party.
I think the idea that we’re going to deliver these benefits to people and they’re going to be like, “Thank you Jesus, thank you for everything that you’ve done, let me return you with a larger majority next time,” is just nonsense. It’s the wrong way to think about politics.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do things for people, but we’ve got to be serious about how elections are won. And they’re not being won on the basis of policy proposals or policy wins.
Sean Illing
In the book, you say that Democrats are engaged in “policy fights” and Republicans are waging a “procedural war.” What does that mean?
David Faris
The Constitution is a shockingly short document, and it turns out that it’s extremely vague on some key procedures that we rely on to help government function at a basic level. For the government to work, cooperation between parties is needed. But when that cooperation is withdrawn, it creates chaos.
Since the ’90s, when Newt Gingrich took over Congress, we’ve seen a one-sided escalation in which Republicans exploit the vagueness or lack of clarity in the Constitution in order to press their advantage in a variety of arenas — from voter ID laws to gerrymandering to behavioral norms in the Congress and Senate.
Sean Illing
What the Republicans did to Merrick Garland was one of the most egregious examples I’ve ever seen.
David Faris
Right. They essentially stole a seat on the Supreme Court — a swing seat, no less. But they correctly argued that they had no clear constitutional obligation to consider the president’s nominee for the seat. They didn’t violate the Constitution. They violated the spirit of the Constitution. They violated the norms that have allowed these institutions to function normally for years and years.
This is the sort of maneuvering and procedural warfare I’m talking about, and the Republicans have been escalating it for two decades. And they’ve managed to entrench their power through these dubious procedures.
The result is that the structural environment is biased against Democrats and the Republicans have engineered it that way.
...more at the link.
Had roles been reversed, what would Republicans have done?
Had Democrats refused to consider a Republican president's nominee for the SC, what would Republicans have done?
I suspect there would have been torches and pitchforks involved.
Regarding the supposed "identity crisis" within the Democratic Party.
Why There Is No 'Liberal Tea Party'Because their goals of reducing the scope of government and reversing cultural change are difficult to achieve in practice, Republican officeholders are vulnerable to accusations of failing to uphold principles. They risk becoming targets of interest groups, media outlets and rival politicians who see their role as enforcing symbolic commitment to conservative orthodoxy.
The Democratic Party, by contrast, is organized as a coalition of social groups. Democratic voters tend to view politics as an arena of intergroup competition rather than a battlefield for opposing philosophies, and the party is dominated by an array of discrete interests that choose candidates on the basis of demographic representation and capacity to deliver policy. Tensions within the party coalition have eased over time — to the benefit of Democratic leaders, who are now better able to satisfy the various demands of their members and avoid facing a mutiny from within.
Democratic voters detest Mr. Trump just as much as Republicans disliked Barack Obama, but they have different ways of expressing their opposition. The Tea Party movement reflected a popular dissatisfaction with cultural change, of which Mr. Obama’s election was a powerful symbol. Politicians, media personalities and interest group leaders on the right encouraged these sentiments but channeled them into opposition to Democratic economic priorities such as the Affordable Care Act by activating broader symbolic conservative predispositions.
Republican critics accused Mr. Obama of imposing socialism and favoring runaway government; Democrats attack Mr. Trump for his mistreatment of vulnerable social groups. The most visible manifestations of Democratic mobilization since Mr. Trump’s election have been a series of protests, each focused on one issue and led by a specific element of the group coalition. Large-scale national events have highlighted the concerns of feminists, racial minorities, young people, environmentalists and unionized public employees. Democrats promote a different cause nearly every week, with each rally promoted as an opportunity to mobilize social groups for elections and a practical policy agenda.
Mr. Trump’s rise has jump-started political activity among Democrats, but this resurgent energy has seldom produced fierce internal battles. Lara Putnam and Theda Skocpol, who have studied emerging grass-roots networks of Democratic activists, report that they “hail from across the broad ideological range from center to left” but are “working shoulder-to-shoulder” rather than igniting intraparty squabbles — a pragmatic mobilization, they explained, aimed at winning general elections.
This year, Democratic candidates remain focused on challenging vulnerable Republican-held seats more than purging ideologically impure incumbents. Unlike Republican debates over philosophical fidelity, Democratic primaries produce arguments about who will do a better job addressing the real-world priorities of key constituencies as well as competition to secure endorsements from party-aligned interest groups.
...more at the link.
Nate Silver's take on Ocasio-Cortez's victory.
Looks like soon we’re wrapping up for the evening, so I’d like to reiterate one last time the not-so-hot take that primaries are extremely idiosyncratic and one ought to be cautious about global conclusions from local events. On the one hand, Ocasio-Cortez’s win was extremely impressive in New York 14 tonight against the establishment Democrat Joe Crowley; on the other hand, Chelsea Manning received only 6 percent of the vote in her challenge to establishment Democrat Ben Cardin in Maryland’s U.S. Senate primary. (Cardin won with 81 percent.)
I think pundits might do better to focus on the particular combination of attributes that Ocasio-Cortez brought to the table: young, Latina, from the community, media-savvy enough to draw a lot of coverage from lefty outlets (but not very much from mainstream outlets, which she may not have wanted anyway), ran some good ads, very openly and proudly a progressive Democratic socialist, but also running against an old white dude who, while mostly a party-line Democrat, was asleep at the wheel in a district that had undergone a lot of demographic change. And the race was maybe in an in-between zone whereas it was just competitive enough that her voters were excited and turned out, but also enough to the periphery of the radar enough that Crowley’s voters didn’t.
Which of those elements were most essential to her success? Which of those factors might be replicated elsewhere? It’s hard to say. My personal bias is to think being cut from the cloth of the district is pretty important, whereas candidates who are famous for other reasons, such as Cynthia Nixon (who hasn’t made up her deficit with Andrew Cuomo in the polls) aren’t going to resonate in the same way and won’t have the same underdog quality. But maybe the combination is pretty unique — and will be hard to replicate — given that she’s the first challenger to defeat a Democratic incumbent for the U.S. House since 2014.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/june-26-election-results/
Protesting racists and liars is not equivalent to being a racist and liar.
I can't believe I have to make that point.
Violating the emoluments clause: that alone would have had Obama impeached.
Even if Democrats had the majority, Obama would have been impeached.
We know Republicans won't allow for Trump to be impeached, even if Democrats were to take back the House and Senate by slim margins. But at what point are Democrats duty-bound to bring forth articles of impeachment? Only after Mueller reveals concrete evidence that Trump colluded with Russia?
Political affiliation is holding pretty steady.
At least according to this: https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
Does anyone have a link that shows something different?
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:47 AMNumber of posts: 10,721
