We're excited to present a great new set of boards to classic movie fans with tons of new features, stability, and performance.

If you’re new to the message boards, please “Register” to get started. If you want to learn more about the new boards, visit our FAQ.

Register

If you're a returning member, start by resetting your password to claim your old display name using your email address.

Re-Register

Thanks for your continued support of the TCM Message Boards.

X

Kyle Kersten was a true friend of TCM. One of the first and most active participants of the Message Boards, “Kyle in Hollywood” (aka, hlywdkjk) demonstrated a depth of knowledge and largesse of spirit that made him one of the most popular and respected voices in these forums. This thread is a living memorial to his life and love of movies, which remain with us still.

X

Jump to content


Photo

Future of Democratic Party?

What do Democrats need to do.

  • Please log in to reply
480 replies to this topic

#301 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,931 posts

Posted 19 December 2016 - 03:00 AM

Not sure what a Progressive v. Liberal v. Democrat is these days.

 

You're not sure of much of anything these days. That's why your posts are so wrong so much of the time.


A guy once told a chick he didn't agree with her and that's why feminism is needed - he shouldn't be allowed to do that.


#302 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 18 December 2016 - 05:52 PM

Socialism as it is practiced in Europe is a combination of government control of certain things that are government controlled here - roads, police, military, etc. But they also have affordable college, and the government supplies healthcare. The government is not in the business of producing goods that are best left to the private sector - autos, clothes, soft drinks, boats, etc. The way you describe socialism is more like how Communism was practiced in eastern Europe than how socialism was ever practiced in western Europe.

 

If the average American "barely tolerates" Medicare I guarantee that each and every one of those "average Americans" will get more tolerant of it as they turn 65 and get sicker, older, more disposable by their corporate masters. I've never seen anybody cry on the sidewalk because they had Medicare or VA coverage.

" I've never seen anybody cry on the sidewalk because they had Medicare or VA coverage."   Who is crying on the sidewalk and about what are they crying?  What has VA to do with it?  Many people "on the sidewalk" actually are covered by Medicare, Medicaid, SS Disability, SSI Disability or VA Disability.  If not, they get no cost medical care at hospitals and clinics.  If that is about whom you are speaking.

The socialists in Europe have tried to control the things you mentioned and failed terribly.  One example has been the automobile industry in Great Britain.  Also, the European countries are moving away from socialism in many respects because the people have tired of it.  Heck, China, Vietnam and Cuba are moving away from it and Soviet Union failed because of their system.

Regardless, America is based on capitalism with some aspects of socialism.  America is not Europe.

Not saying the government shouldn't do more than it is, but the people who actually vote in America will not accept Socialism.  I support the ACA and would like to see it expanded, but almost no one I know does - and they vote.

Not sure how college costs compare in US vs. Europe, but main problem here is how much the colleges charge.  Then again, we have too many people going to college to get degrees that mean nothing.  Far too many jobs that used to require a HS diploma now require a college diploma and no real difference in education or training really needed.

If voters really thought college cost too much, they would elect state legislators who would lower the costs.  They don't.  If public colleges cost significantly less, private colleges would be forced to charge less as well.

As for healthcare, the vast majority of people in US, especially the voters, believe it should be left to the private sector, but with government oversight.  I have heard many people complain about hospitals, medical and pharmaceutical costs, etc.  But when I mention ACA or government healthcare as an alternative, they become adamant against it.

No person is going to be elected in US by campaigning on raising taxes by 20+% on working class, middle class, small businesses, etc. so they can provide free college education and free healthcare to someone else.

However, the original issue is how to get the voters to elect more progressive or moderate or liberal or Democratic officials.  

More socialism is not the answer to winning elections in US.



#303 calvinnme

calvinnme

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,525 posts

Posted 18 December 2016 - 04:38 PM

The average American voter does not want socialism.  Socialism is the people through the government controlling production, distribution and exchange-the whole economy. Americans want capatalism.  It is not about what you mind, but what the average voter and citizen minds.  They barely tolerate Medicare for people over 65.

Incidentally, there has never been a true communist state, just some variation of socialism.  They called themselves communist, but really weren't.

I'm sure that the single payer system was on the table until Obama's more knowledgeable advisors and others pointed out that it would NEVER get out of committee, much less pass in Congress.

 

Socialism as it is practiced in Europe is a combination of government control of certain things that are government controlled here - roads, police, military, etc. But they also have affordable college, and the government supplies healthcare. The government is not in the business of producing goods that are best left to the private sector - autos, clothes, soft drinks, boats, etc. The way you describe socialism is more like how Communism was practiced in eastern Europe than how socialism was ever practiced in western Europe.

 

If the average American "barely tolerates" Medicare I guarantee that each and every one of those "average Americans" will get more tolerant of it as they turn 65 and get sicker, older, more disposable by their corporate masters. I've never seen anybody cry on the sidewalk because they had Medicare or VA coverage.


  • mr6666 and Bogie56 like this

#304 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 18 December 2016 - 02:23 PM

Obama had to give up on a single payer system since House Dems in moderate states wouldn't have voted for it because they would have likely been defeated in the next primary (and if not there in the general).    

And very likely been replaced by a GOPer, as many were in 2010 and 2012.



#305 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 18 December 2016 - 02:15 PM

Obama DID fold like a cheap suit on single payer after promising that would be on the table. I don't mind paying taxes for "Medicare for all". We also need to make it so that in a single payer system the government can negotiate the price of prescription drugs. The problem the average American has is that he/she cannot tell the difference between socialism and Communism - which is the dictatorship of the proletariat, and pretty much a discredited system worldwide. And the Republicans LIKE it that the average American cannot tell the difference.

The average American voter does not want socialism.  Socialism is the people through the government controlling production, distribution and exchange-the whole economy. Americans want capatalism.  It is not about what you mind, but what the average voter and citizen minds.  They barely tolerate Medicare for people over 65.

Incidentally, there has never been a true communist state, just some variation of socialism.  They called themselves communist, but really weren't.

I'm sure that the single payer system was on the table until Obama's more knowledgeable advisors and others pointed out that it would NEVER get out of committee, much less pass in Congress.



#306 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,059 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 18 December 2016 - 02:12 PM

Obama DID fold like a cheap suit on single payer after promising that would be on the table. I don't mind paying taxes for "Medicare for all". We also need to make it so that in a single payer system the government can negotiate the price of prescription drugs. The problem the average American has is that he/she cannot tell the difference between socialism and Communism - which is the dictatorship of the proletariat, and pretty much a discredited system worldwide. And the Republicans LIKE it that the average American cannot tell the difference.

 

Obama had to give up on a single payer system since House Dems in moderate states wouldn't have voted for it because they would have likely been defeated in the next primary (and if not there in the general).    


  • TheCid likes this

#307 calvinnme

calvinnme

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,525 posts

Posted 18 December 2016 - 02:06 PM

The average voter in the US would not vote for Bernie (or Warren), at least not in enough numbers to matter.This last election proved that.

Obama did not "fold" on a single payer healthcare system as it was never an option.  It never would have made it out of Congress even with the Dem. majorities in 2009.  Then there would have been years of court cases over it.  What he did was to provide a bridge toward single payer while covering millions who had not been covered at any cost.

As for the costs, compare them to regular private insurance, if you could get it at all.

The ACA cost the Dems. control of the House in 2010 and the Senate later.

America is not ready for a single payer system.  I assume you understand that single payer means the federal government, e.g. the taxpayers?

I can still remember the HUGE controversy and fighting over Medicare for people over 65.  If not for LBJ and Dem control of Congress, it never would have passed.  Even now, the GOPers are trying to reduce it and the GOPers are there because the average voter voted them into office.

 

Obama DID fold like a cheap suit on single payer after promising that would be on the table. I don't mind paying taxes for "Medicare for all". We also need to make it so that in a single payer system the government can negotiate the price of prescription drugs. The problem the average American has is that he/she cannot tell the difference between socialism and Communism - which is the dictatorship of the proletariat, and pretty much a discredited system worldwide. And the Republicans LIKE it that the average American cannot tell the difference.



#308 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 18 December 2016 - 01:50 PM

Let me preface my remarks by saying I voted for Hillary only because I didn't have Bernie as an option. What is missing from both parties is anything for the average person.  Obama puts his foot down about transgendered bathrooms and the children of illegal aliens getting in state tuition but folds like a cheap suit when it comes to going to a single payer healthcare system like the rest of the world has?

The average voter in the US would not vote for Bernie (or Warren), at least not in enough numbers to matter.This last election proved that.

Obama did not "fold" on a single payer healthcare system as it was never an option.  It never would have made it out of Congress even with the Dem. majorities in 2009.  Then there would have been years of court cases over it.  What he did was to provide a bridge toward single payer while covering millions who had not been covered at any cost.

As for the costs, compare them to regular private insurance, if you could get it at all.

The ACA cost the Dems. control of the House in 2010 and the Senate later.

America is not ready for a single payer system.  I assume you understand that single payer means the federal government, e.g. the taxpayers?

I can still remember the HUGE controversy and fighting over Medicare for people over 65.  If not for LBJ and Dem control of Congress, it never would have passed.  Even now, the GOPers are trying to reduce it and the GOPers are there because the average voter voted them into office.


  • Princess of Tap likes this

#309 calvinnme

calvinnme

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,525 posts

Posted 18 December 2016 - 01:07 PM

Let me preface my remarks by saying I voted for Hillary only because I didn't have Bernie as an option. What is missing from both parties is anything for the average person.  Obama puts his foot down about transgendered bathrooms and the children of illegal aliens getting in state tuition but folds like a cheap suit when it comes to going to a single payer healthcare system like the rest of the world has?

 

I'm not saying I'm against what he did on the other issues but paying 9K a year to UHC for a bronze plan with a 6K deductible and no subsidy if you make 50K a year is ridiculous. I'm sure that the racketeers cried when prohibition ended, but it was the right thing to do. It is also the right thing to do to get rid of the for profit health insurance racket.

 

Bottom line: expect more Donald Trump clones as long as Republicans only care about headstones for aborted fetuses and the left only cares about making sure Muslims are never offended.



#310 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 18 December 2016 - 10:09 AM

For all the “hope” and “change” he promised, Obama has remained a staunch moderate through and through. Which is why when it comes to replacing his good buddy Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair, Obama seems not too keen to select Minnesota congressman, progressive, and black Muslim Keith Ellison.

During the last press conference of the year, President Obama touched on the DNC race, heaping praise on Ellison’s opponent Tom Perez....

 

Ellison has clashed with Obama many times during his tenure, opposing the president’s trade deal, the TPP, as well as pushing for the president to curb the rapid deportation of undocumented immigrants.

For Democrats and progressives who feel Obama has fallen far short of their ideals, this split from Ellison is yet another sign that he would make the ideal DNC chair.

 

 

Not sure what a Progressive v. Liberal v. Democrat is these days.  Then throw in Moderate, Centrist, and Left or Right of Center.

I think the Dems started using the word progressive lately because the Republicans had done such a great job of turning Democrat and liberal into "obscenities."  They are in process of doing the same with Progressive.

I still believe that the best course for the Dems to be successful at the state and local and Congressional levels is to return to left of center.  They have got to appeal to the working class and small business class.  Ellison is not the person to do that.  While he may have some good ideas, he will be offensive to too many voters.

Bottom line is that no matter how good your ideas or intentions are, you don't accomplish much, if anything, if you cannot get elected.

As for Obama's "hope & change," it was defeated by the Republicans who were elected in 2010, 2012 and 2014 at the local, state and national levels.  The GOPers were hugely successful because they ran against the "liberal/progressive" agenda of the Dems as it was perceived by the voters.


  • Princess of Tap likes this

#311 HIGHWAY

HIGHWAY

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,205 posts

Posted 18 December 2016 - 09:49 AM

00-dnc-leaks-010816.jpg?w=1000&h=960



#312 mr6666

mr6666

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,344 posts

Posted 17 December 2016 - 08:25 PM

For all the “hope” and “change” he promised, Obama has remained a staunch moderate through and through. Which is why when it comes to replacing his good buddy Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair, Obama seems not too keen to select Minnesota congressman, progressive, and black Muslim Keith Ellison.

During the last press conference of the year, President Obama touched on the DNC race, heaping praise on Ellison’s opponent Tom Perez....

 

Ellison has clashed with Obama many times during his tenure, opposing the president’s trade deal, the TPP, as well as pushing for the president to curb the rapid deportation of undocumented immigrants.

For Democrats and progressives who feel Obama has fallen far short of their ideals, this split from Ellison is yet another sign that he would make the ideal DNC chair.

 

https://trofire.com/...-reason-choose/

 

 


"A small elephant is not a rabbit."


#313 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,590 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 11 December 2016 - 12:25 AM

Can you imagine being stuck in an enclosed space with

this dude for over five minutes. Where's the exit, please.


Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get.


#314 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,931 posts

Posted 10 December 2016 - 09:57 PM


A guy once told a chick he didn't agree with her and that's why feminism is needed - he shouldn't be allowed to do that.


#315 darkblue

darkblue

    child of vision

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,931 posts

Posted 09 December 2016 - 07:33 PM


A guy once told a chick he didn't agree with her and that's why feminism is needed - he shouldn't be allowed to do that.


#316 mr6666

mr6666

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,344 posts

Posted 07 December 2016 - 06:48 PM

Progressive-Backed Rep. Keith Ellison Says Would Vacate Seat to Head DNC-

'The Democratic Party must be the party that delivers for working people,' Ellison says

 

"In his new statement, Ellison, who can count Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) among his progressive backers, said that "the Democratic Party must be the party that delivers for working people. We can do that by meeting folks where they are, looking them in the eye, treating them with respect, and working to solve their problems. For me, that means a chair with only one full-time commitment."

 

http://www.commondre...e-seat-head-dnc


  • Bogie56 likes this

"A small elephant is not a rabbit."


#317 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,787 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 06 December 2016 - 03:32 AM

This Washington Post article points to criticism of Trump and the GOP tat the democrats should be using...

https://www.washingt...m=.248ac42ec8cb

Under Trump, red states are finally going to be able to turn themselves into poor, unhealthy paradises

The article points out that it is the red states that are most dependant on government money and will be hurt the most with Trump's tax cuts.

You don’t have to be a political scientist to see the blue state/red state pattern here. Red state voters may talk a good game about small government and low taxes, but in reality they are socialist moochers.

Rather than wallowing in the hypocrisy of all this, however, Democrats should see the opportunity here — an opportunity to turn the Republican program to their selfish advantage and create the kind of society where people look out for each other and business interests are not allowed to run roughshod over workers and consumers.

After all, if Republicans cut taxes — in particular, taxes on investment income — then the biggest winners are going to be the residents of Democratic states where incomes, and thus income taxes, are significantly higher.
In time, however, blue state Democrats could look forward to the satisfaction of watching Trump's voters stew in their own political juices as Red State America finally frees itself from the evil grip of global elites and big government and turns itself into a low-tax, low-wage, low health paradise where it's every man for himself.

As H.L. Mencken once put it, “Democracy is a theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it, good and hard.”



#318 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,059 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 05 December 2016 - 07:16 PM

52% of the people who voted, voted for someone else.  That means the majority voted against Clinton.

As an aside, my town has city council/mayoral elections seperate from all others.  Most cities in S.C. do this.  Of about 2,500 registered voters, only 10% bother to vote.  In a highly contested, highly publicized election 15% may vote. Ironically, the city, county and state elections have more direct effect on people and a single vote means much more.  

 

In CA city and county elections are 'gamed' by both sides to help ensure victory;   e.g.  if the Dems want a tax increase they will only place it on the ballot during a presidential election because voter turnout is high.     If the GOP wants something that leans right they will place it on the ballot during a non presidential election since lower voter turnout means a higher percentage of moderate\lean right voters.  

 

Dems now control 2\3s of the state reps and that allows them to pass new taxes and tax increases (CA law requires a 2\3 majority for any increase in taxes).      Brown who is a moderate Dem advised them to use power wisely.    If they raise taxes on those making over 80K or so (I use that figure since those making over 150K already have 2 or 3 additional taxes that they only pay),   to pay for social handouts (especially to illegal immigrants) it may backfire on them.      They tried to get Obamacare subsidies for illegal immigrants but that was prevented by a Federal Judge.  

 

Like with the GOP having so much power in the Feds,  when a party is viewed as being too 'radical' they often quickly lose that power.



#319 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,192 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 05 December 2016 - 06:01 PM

Actually, you can't combine those two ways of talking about voters/non-voters.

 

People are not compelled to vote. So we are bound by those who do vote. Ideally, the electoral vote and popular vote should go together, but they don't always.

 

But -- saying that the "majority" wanted someone else is not accurate. There could be voters who didn't vote who wanted Clinton. Same for Trump. We have to go by those who voted.

 

I wish more people would vote, but I am a strong believer that if they don't, that's they're prerogative.

52% of the people who voted, voted for someone else.  That means the majority voted against Clinton.

As an aside, my town has city council/mayoral elections seperate from all others.  Most cities in S.C. do this.  Of about 2,500 registered voters, only 10% bother to vote.  In a highly contested, highly publicized election 15% may vote. Ironically, the city, county and state elections have more direct effect on people and a single vote means much more.  



#320 Swithin

Swithin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,179 posts
  • LocationNew York City

Posted 04 December 2016 - 10:14 PM

Under our system, no it does not matter.  Incidentally, so far Clinton has only received about 48% of the popular vote, so the "majority" wanted someone else.  Since no one received a majority, do you think we should have a run-off between the top two?  That is what would be required.

 

 

Actually, you can't combine those two ways of talking about voters/non-voters.

 

People are not compelled to vote. So we are bound by those who do vote. Ideally, the electoral vote and popular vote should go together, but they don't always.

 

But -- saying that the "majority" wanted someone else is not accurate. There could be voters who didn't vote who wanted Clinton. Same for Trump. We have to go by those who voted.

 

I wish more people would vote, but I am a strong believer that if they don't, that's they're prerogative.


  • Princess of Tap likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users