Democratic Party Rebuild

[Outlaw]

Asking the Democratic nominee to layout a future for the country beyond "I'm not Trump" shouldn't be a controversial idea. I really don't think it's an unreasonable ask.

She did. Are you trolling or obtuse?

 

[the next guy]

perhaps it's a southern thing @the next guy

Good ole girl who loves Jesus!!

 

[the next guy]

Or people could have just fukkin voted for Kamala and we wouldn’t be in this position

Voting is about minimizing damage. You are never getting everything you want from a candidate so vote for the person who gives you at least a little of what you want and protects marginalized groups instead of the opposite

Having purity tests for politicans or people in general is a fruitless endeavor

Kamala lost because she did not do an effective enough job communicating how her presidency would be a departure from Biden or preferable to Trump. "I'm not the other guy," might be an effective electoral strategy because of what a disastrous run Trump and the Republicans are having. But I don't think people asking "any other reasons I should vote for you besides you're not the other guy?" should be treated with derision and scorn.

Unless you are begging for the proletariat revolution like Hasan and smooth mind, no one who sincerely cares about the well being of the marginalized and disenfranchised is voting third party in 2028. And I’m glad they are letting it be known early so we know not to take them seriously for the next several years when they let it slip

The “lesser of two evils” strategy has just led to the evil becoming even more fascist every 4 years

Or people could have just fukkin voted for Kamala and we wouldn’t be in this position

Voting is about minimizing damage. You are never getting everything you want from a candidate so vote for the person who gives you at least a little of what you want and protects marginalized groups instead of the opposite

Having purity tests for politicans or people in general is a fruitless endeavor

Okay,


1) Yes people should have voted Kamala
2) No, she wasn't the best candidate
3) She ended up with Bidens staff
4) There is sexism and racism and America!! Clearly
5) You still have to win - winning candidates do


Its time to give someone else a chance. It's time for the Obama/Biden/Clinton proxy wars to be done with.

 

[Loose]

Or people could have just fukkin voted for Kamala and we wouldn’t be in this position

Voting is about minimizing damage. You are never getting everything you want from a candidate so vote for the person who gives you at least a little of what you want and protects marginalized groups instead of the opposite

Having purity tests for politicans or people in general is a fruitless endeavor

Republicans have a clear ideological purity test, and the result is that they consistently get the candidates who meet that test.

Republican voters wanted tax cuts. Their elected officials delivered major tax cuts.

Republican voters wanted abortion restrictions. They achieved sweeping bans across many states.

Republican voters wanted aggressive immigration enforcement. Deportation policies and crackdowns expanded.

Republican voters wanted reductions in social programs. Their lawmakers have repeatedly pushed cuts or rollbacks.

On the Democratic side, the dynamic is very different. Democratic voters are often told they must make broad concessions “for the sake of democracy,” and the party’s platform frequently becomes more about preventing Republican victories than advancing any progressive legislation. The overall message from the likes of you and establishment is simply: keep Republicans out of office and maintain the status quo.

 

[wire28]

Okay,


1) Yes people should have voted Kamala
2) No, she wasn't the best candidate
3) She ended up with Bidens staff
4) There is sexism and racism and America!! Clearly
5) You still have to win - winning candidates do


Its time to give someone else a chance. It's time for the Obama/Biden/Clinton proxy wars to be done with.

If I don’t agree with everything the someone else says can I just lump them in with Obama/biden/clinton?

 

[Outlaw]

Republicans have a clear ideological purity test, and the result is that they consistently get the candidates who meet that test.

Republican voters wanted tax cuts. Their elected officials delivered major tax cuts.

Republican voters wanted abortion restrictions. They achieved sweeping bans across many states.

Republican voters wanted aggressive immigration enforcement. Deportation policies and crackdowns expanded.

Republican voters wanted reductions in social programs. Their lawmakers have repeatedly pushed cuts or rollbacks.

On the Democratic side, the dynamic is very different. Democratic voters are often told they must make broad concessions “for the sake of democracy,” and the party’s platform frequently becomes more about preventing Republican victories than advancing any progressive legislation. The overall message from the likes of you and establishment is simply: keep Republicans out of office and maintain the status quo.

Breh can you think for yourself or do you continue to repeat leftist grifter talking points without stress testing it in your own mind?

The only litmus test the Republican Party has is fealty to Trump.

Whatever Trump decrees becomes the edict of the party henceforth.

Republicans were for free markets, anti big tech, neutral about illegal immigration, anti Russia before Trump.

 

[Loose]

Breh

Breh can you think for yourself or do you continue to repeat leftist grifter talking points without stress testing it in your own mind?

What are you babbling about?

The only litmus test the Republican Party has is fealty to Trump.

This is factually untrue. Republican politicians and voters have been pushing the policies I listed since the 1960s. Trump was simply the loser vessel who ran to finally delivered many of them for republicans. Meanwhile, we’re still two years out, and losers like you are already sticking your neck out to pressure voters to lower their standards and rally behind a candidate who doesn’t seem to stand for much.

 

[Outlaw]

What are you babbling about?



This is factually untrue. Republican politicians and voters have been pushing the policies I listed since the 1960s. Trump was simply the loser vessel who ran to finally delivered many of them for republicans. Meanwhile, we’re still two years out, and losers like you are already sticking your neck out to pressure voters to lower their standards and rally behind a candidate who doesn’t seem to stand for much.

Reagan did amnesty and bush pushed for it as well.


The entire Republican Party was for free markets and open global trade until Trump

 

[Loose]

Reagan did amnesty and bush pushed for it as well.


The entire Republican Party was for free markets and open global trade until Trump

They still are for those things, trump accomplished everything else they wanted hence why they're ok with a small concession.

While on the other hand you want democrat voters to do a full concession to shytty candidates because we'll republicans the last 40 years.


Voter: what are you going to do for me?
Democrat: I'm not them

Strategy for last 40 years.

 

[Outlaw]

They still are for those things, trump accomplished everything else they wanted hence why they're ok with a small concession.

While on the other hand you want democrat voters to do a full concession to shytty candidates because we'll republicans the last 40 years.


Voter: what are you going to do for me?
Democrat: I'm not them

Strategy for last 40 years.

What policy platforms do you think the democrats should adopt that can pass the senate?

 

[KFBF]

She did. Are you trolling or obtuse?

I'm referring to Newsom.

I acknowledge Kamala did. People don't find it compelling enough to vote for her (and for her to be able to overcome the built in disadvantages she was facing).

 

[Loose]

What policy platforms do you think the democrats should adopt that can pass the senate?

I'll answer it after you answer this, what was the democrat policy platform the last 30 years ?

 

[mastermind]

Or people could have just fukkin voted for Kamala and we wouldn’t be in this position

Voting is about minimizing damage. You are never getting everything you want from a candidate so vote for the person who gives you at least a little of what you want and protects marginalized groups instead of the opposite

Having purity tests for politicans or people in general is a fruitless endeavor

Stfu you idiot

 

[wire28]

I acknowledge Kamala did. People don't find it compelling enough to vote for her (and for her to be able to overcome the built in disadvantages she was facing).

The fact we need a generational candidate every time to beat back fascism is yet another indictment on the electorate.

We are already working with a dumb baseline and we have people willingly using their platforms to convince people Cornell west 2028 is their best option. These people need to be shamed accordingly

 

[Outlaw]

The fact we need a generational candidate every time to beat back fascism is yet another indictment on the electorate.

We are already working with a dumb baseline and we have people willingly using their platforms to convince people Cornell west 2028 is their best option. These people need to be shamed accordingly

The irony is that if hypothetically Newsom after winning in 2028 was able to bring us back to the 2016 status quo then implemented the 2016 Clinton platform he would be seen as transformational and Newsom would be held as a GOAT.

What’s missed on these people who can’t be compelled to vote but know that they should vote is if Clinton won in 2016… we’d be much closer to the socialist paradise they envision than we are now.

Republicans winning doesn’t keep the country in a holding pattern that subsequent left leaning presidents can continue to build on, the Republicans regress the country substantially, not voting is cutting off your nose to spite your face.