A Better Democrat Party

[Walker]

Yes, that's the topic: how should they do it?

By not doing as they have done.

That's not a very good answer. It amounts to "Just stop it."

Okay, but what should they START doing, instead? For surely they cannot offer a platform that reads no more than, "We're stopping it."

That depends upon the clarification of your premise, by you, that we await.

If the Democrats are to rise from the ashes as other than as they have been, their “START” will likely be other than, rising from the ashes as something other than as they have been.

If they continue being as they have been, they shall rise as they have been and continue their old ways. There is also a start for that, but it's likely different than the alternative.

Kindly clarify your premise to encourage relevant philosophy that who knows, could even change the world as philosophy rolls on and permeates not only presence awareness of awareness here, but if pure just might penetrate the mountains and leap over the oceans (which when you think about it with a broad horizon, is part of the topic, considering the considerable power of the USA, USA.)

[Walker]

TO BE as they have been,

OR NOT TO BE as they have been.

THAT IS THE QUESTION, and perhaps the real topic.

[Immanuel Can]

By not doing as they have done.

That's not a very good answer. It amounts to "Just stop it."

Okay, but what should they START doing, instead? For surely they cannot offer a platform that reads no more than, "We're stopping it."

That depends upon the clarification of your premise, by you, that we await.

Then ask your question. What don't you understand about the first post? It seems rather clear, I would say.

[Walker]

That's not a very good answer. It amounts to "Just stop it."

Okay, but what should they START doing, instead? For surely they cannot offer a platform that reads no more than, "We're stopping it."

That depends upon the clarification of your premise, by you, that we await.

Then ask your question. What don't you understand about the first post? It seems rather clear, I would say.

I have no questions for the Democrat Party. Their answers are lies or at best, ostensible cover for any-means-required, legal or illegal.

IC, intelligent and objective folks such as us go by the evidence and not pie-in-the-sky ideology, like the Democrats Who Hate America with their modern-day versions of Marxist crap, and who require a Totem to hate en mass, such as Trump.

*

Dem Rep lays out his ‘shadow cabinet’ picks to thwart Trump agenda: ‘Adam Schiff as our shadow AG…’
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2024/11/15 ... g-1503090/

Here, the Democrats are signaling that they will not stop doing as they have done. Since their obvious intent so far is to rise from the ashes of their recent electoral shellacking and continue being as they have been in the past as the party of slavery, eugenics, and social engineering for the purpose of Power to the Party, then continued subversion of the People’s Choice will guide their actions.

The Democrats will lie in the shadows like snakes, ready to rise from the ashes like cobras, to strike and destroy the legitimate processes and institutions in order to titillate their totalitarian cravings, shaping them into instruments of power over the people, rather than power of the people.

Their demonstrated, preferred method of subversion is to simply ignore laws, procedures, and regulations, to knowingly break the law as they did by ignoring immigration laws at the border in order to tie up the courts, turn border enforcement agents into the Federal Welcome Wagon, and flood the country with a human tide of illegals who will someday be citizens with the power of the vote, but none of the responsibilities.

[Walker]

Pennsylvania Democrats openly admit to counting illegal ballots in McCormick-Casey race
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsy ... casey-race

"I think we all know that precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country," Bucks County Commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia, a Democrat, said Thursday as she and other Democrats voted to reject a GOP-led challenge to ballots that should be disqualified.
"People violate laws anytime they want. So, for me, if I violate this law, it’s because I want a court to pay attention. There’s nothing more important than counting votes."

She's obviously emboldened by past performance, such as the 2020 counting.

The Democrats are rising from the ashes as they were … unencumbered by ostensible, holier-than-thou misdirection. This one isn’t even making the effort to lie.

[Immanuel Can]

That depends upon the clarification of your premise, by you, that we await.

Then ask your question. What don't you understand about the first post? It seems rather clear, I would say.

I have no questions for the Democrat Party.

No: I mean what are you uncertain about in the original question I posed in the first post. You said I needed to "clarify" my "premise." What needs "clarification" about that? It seems to me perfectly clear. I was quite careful with my wording, you'll note.

Here, the Democrats are signaling that they will not stop doing as they have done.

That's not really the question. The question is what they COULD do, not what they necessarily WILL. Whether or not they will is something we are not in control of, and with which we cannot help them. But we can tell them what they could do, assuming some of them would wish to do better than they manifestly have done so far.

[Walker]

Well, my attention upon that hinges on the quality of your responses to my most recent contributions, which are far more cogent and specific than some generalized notions of what and to whom constitutes, "Better." I declare myself to be the sole judge of the quality of your response in this situation, which will determine the future degree of attention conferred upon what The Democrat Party might define "Better," to be. Our refining of the topic through dialogue has served to make this clarification of your interest into what the topic actually is, since it isn't Shakespeare.




"Situations are my guru."
- Trunga Rinpoche

[Immanuel Can]

Well, my attention upon that hinges on the quality of your responses to my most recent contributions, which are far more cogent and specific than some generalized notions of what and to whom constitutes, "Better."

I'm not interested in carping about either the present Democrat Party or the present Republican Party. That's useless, and anybody can find a thousand sites on which to do it. I'm trying to pose a better kind of question here. You don't have to be interested in my question, but I'm not interested in going in the direction of mere complaining and insulting of either side. That's too easy.

So, if you have no response to the question I actually asked, thanks for your time, and feel free to find a thread where they're addressing that; but here, I have no real interest in pursuing the conventional and predictable, partisan routes. The real concern of this thread is not the faults of the Dems so much as it is the survival of the two-party option for voters. It's about the prospects of the US democratic process, really.

Anything to say on how the Dems can do better?

[Walker]

Is the Democratic Party Ready to Face Its Own Truth?
https://redstate.com/joesquire/2024/11/ ... h-n2182169

Axelrod’s suggestion of Rahm Emanuel as DNC chair may feel like a blast from the past, but it underscores a key point: Democrats need leaders who understand the importance of winning elections, not just making noise. Emanuel, for all his flaws, has a proven track record of political strategy. As a congressman, he helped engineer the Democratic takeover of the House in 2006. As mayor of Chicago, he faced his share of controversies, but his pragmatic, results-driven approach stands in stark contrast to the idealism of the progressive left.

Translation: Stepping into the future, in order to accomplish their primary focus of gaining power (as opposed to serving the people) in order to win elections the Democrat Party will likely place less attention upon the crude and blatantly false demonization of political opponents (we can always hope), and place more attention on crafting more sophisticated lies that are more convincing than those told about Obamacare, Inflation Reduction, The Border, economic projections, and so on, because after awhile even the most detached of folks begin to smell something rotten in Denmark, and so the vision for future prosperity must be made more believable to the unwashed who have access to more data. Since the Democrats do like their totalitarians, they will likely be looking for a slick salesman like Obama, all hat and no cattle who somehow has earned a vast fortune, wouldn't that be interesting to know how.

[Walker]

Anything to say on how the Dems can do better?

As just mentioned in the previous posting, get a slick salesman like Obama to sell their lies, then they can do better at what they have been doing. Get someone who can whip the crowd into a frenzy just with cadence and tone, and slip in content such as fundamentally transforming the United States (i.e., The Constitution.)

[Immanuel Can]

Anything to say on how the Dems can do better?

As just mentioned in the previous posting, get a slick salesman like Obama to sell their lies, then they can do better at what they have been doing. Get someone who can whip the crowd into a frenzy just with cadence and tone, and slip in content such as fundamentally transforming the United States (i.e., The Constitution.)

That's the sort of thing they've been aiming for in the past. But I think the last election proves it a significant failure.

What we're aiming at is better policies...not a regurgitation of the old policies, or a doubling-down on their current, failed ideologies. I'm not even asking what might be strategic if they wanted to remain devoted to their old, failed ideology, and how they would drive that program forward -- I'm not sure it can even be done, and I'm certain it would be a disaster anyway. But that's what your answer really amounts to, and it's not very useful.

America needs two parties. Sustaining a Republic or Democracy requires it.

So let's drop the cynicism (however richly earned it may be) and try to help America here.

I'm really wondering what a "better Democrat Party" would look like. Go.

[henry quirk]

]What learnings do the *Democrats need to take from this past election, in order to make their party more viable in the future?

Don't lie, don't steal, don't defraud. Serve, don't rule. Know your audience.

*or any party

[Immanuel Can]

]What learnings do the *Democrats need to take from this past election, in order to make their party more viable in the future?

Don't lie, don't steal, don't defraud. Serve, don't rule. Know your audience.

*or any party

Okay, good. That's what they shouldn't do. Now, what should they start doing?

We might even ask, instead of merely catering to the radical Left, how should the party be ideologically oriented? That would be a good question, too.

[henry quirk]

what should they start doing?

Be honest and open about their agendas. If, like Big Mike, they see people as cogs, and, like Big Mike, believe accepting this will bring on a near-utopia, then, like Big Mike, be upfront about it.

[Immanuel Can]

what should they start doing?

Be honest and open about their agendas. If, like Big Mike, they see people as cogs, and, like Big Mike, believe accepting this will bring on a near-utopia, then, like Big Mike, be upfront about it.

Okay...that's a good thought. Make your agenda open and frank. And if it's good, people will vote for that.

Here's another: put up a real candidate. The last two elections...were these really the best man and woman the Dems could find in the country? Really? The most accomplished? The most leader-like? The one with the most integrity? The most eloquent, intelligent and visionary? Really?