A Better Democrat Party

[Alexis Jacobi]

Then...not relevant to the question in hand.

No, but relevant to my interests. And relevant adjacently to the topic.

[Immanuel Can]

Then...not relevant to the question in hand.

No, but relevant to my interests. And relevant adjacently to the topic.

Carry on with yourself, then.

[henry quirk]

Okay. But then we end up with a one-party autocracy in the US.

Like I say up-thread: I don't want *them reformed; I want them gone.

*all parties

[Immanuel Can]

Okay. But then we end up with a one-party autocracy in the US.

Like I say up-thread: I don't want *them reformed; I want them gone.

*all parties

Fair enough. I still see the need for some way of identifying who you're voting for, but if you think you can do all the necessary research on your own, then there is, in principle, nothing wrong with that.

[henry quirk]

I still see the need for some way of identifying who you're voting for

Sure. Party identification just happens to be a lousy way to go about it.

But, we already went back & forth on all that.

Anyway, mebbe you can recap what steps the dems could take to better the party?

[Immanuel Can]

I still see the need for some way of identifying who you're voting for

Sure. Party identification just happens to be a lousy way to go about it.

But, we already went back & forth on all that.

Anyway, mebbe you can recap what steps the dems could take to better the party?

Well, they're all back on pages 1 and 2. And really, we don't need more than the first two pages, since there's been precious little relevant to the point since. Since then, all people have wanted to do is carp about either party -- to say over, and over, and over again, in all the elaborate terms they can fashion, what horrible people the folks on the other side are...but without a single helpful idea about what they should become.

So we've had page after page of me trying to get people to answer the question, and respondents just wanting to prove yet again that they could be insulting to the other side.

I'm kind of bemused by the fact that people who would fain regard themselves as philosophers, and at least somewhat sophisticated, find it so alluring to be petty, and so difficult to be useful. They seem to want to wallow in, or gloat about past failures, rather than look for positive solutions.

Maybe that's just human nature.

[Walker]

Maybe that's just human nature.

Maybe that’s just a mapping of the leopard’s spots that can't change.

[Immanuel Can]

Maybe that's just human nature.

Maybe that’s just a mapping of the leopard’s spots that can't change.

Yes, but we could tell that "leopard "what "spots" it ought to have, even if it refuses to have them.

[Impenitent]

zebras have better eyesight

-Imp

[Walker]

Leopards will be able to play checkers with their spots when parrots fly and dolphins live at sea.

[Walker]

The Spots tell the tale, although past performance doesn’t guarantee future results. Speaking for The Democrats Who Hate America:

Will the Democrats Who Hate America impeach Trump a third time, on the grounds that he is negotiating with foreign leaders on behalf of the United States before being sworn into office with his hand on the Bible? What about separation of church and state?

Does the constitution allow for that, or does the constitution in fact call such negotiations behind the current president's back, treason? We can dust off some 200 year-old law that was never applied, twist it here and there and see if a hair-brained conclusion adheres.

Let’s plan the bullshit impeachment for after the mid-term elections, when hopefully MAGA loses the House of Representatives because of the propaganda we’re going to keep spewing for the next two years.

Do we still have that Lawfare hitman on speed dial? What’s his name, yeah, Jack Smith. A taxpayer-paid budget of a hundred million dollars for operating expenses, lunches, travel and such should get the ball rolling.

(Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us a thousand times, ain’t we stupid.)

[Walker]

The Democrat Party would be better for Humanity, if ...

... it stopped selling obvious lies. But here's the conundrum. If The Democrat Party stopped trying to sell obvious lies, and stopped trying to sell less obvious lies, then it wouldn't be the oppositional party to Truth, Justice, and The American Way.

The purpose of the oppositional party is to provide an alternative view. Trump offered a third option. He is not catering to either party, but rather, to the constitution. He is the crest of the new generation that is latching onto the Republican Party out a natural affinity not with the party, but with Trump, who has constitutionalists for advisors.

This is quite obvious and puts the Democrat Party in the position of being oppositional to Truth. One would think that's a tough sell, but plenty have swallowed it in the name of Any Means Necessary to achieve a desired end. We could say that Kamalala was the poster child for that rather shallow Philosophy.

The Democrats should own up to their desired end
Because the ostensible has grown too thin
To disguise propaganda

The swamp runs deep through the culture.

Here's an example of this from the recent past:
https://x.com/mazemoore/status/18634071 ... w-n2648480

[Walker]

This is 48 seconds of post-election, big-time Democrat chutzpah ... ostensibly about how The Party can do better.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1864860500200489007

[FrankGSterleJr]

As the Democratic party’s presidential candidate, Kamala Harris really needed yet still took for granted the political support of Arab, Muslim and Palestinian American voters — but especially those in the swing-state of Michigan, a generally strongly pro-Palestinian demographic who are particularly sickened by the largescale slaughter occurring in Palestine over many months now.

For the last year or so, the U.S. presidential administration, of which she is vice president, seems to have been essentially saying to the Israeli government and/or Israel Defense Forces: ‘Here are our best bombs for your unconditional use, as per usual; but, for the political and media record: please do not use them against non-combatant civilians.’ … Israel’s reply appears to have been, ‘Duly noted’, while continuing its brutal business-as-usual.

The campaigning Kamala Harris’s publicized view on this? Simply, Israel has the right to defend itself.

When the Biden/Harris administration had finally called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza in April, the timing gave it the strong odor of political expediency — for re-election purposes. Since then, there’s been multiple ceasefire requests by the Biden administration — while continuing to fully arm thus enable Israel to do as it deems fit.

Meantime, a sizable chunk of traditionally Democrat voters — adamantly against, angry about and even stomach-sickened by the mass starvation and carnage of Palestinian non-combatants by Israel — credibly threatened to punish the administration through presidential candidate Kamala Harris at the ballot box.

Judging from their rightful passion and the seriousness of the human crisis involved, it was doubtful the most adamantly pro-Palestinian and anti-war demonstrators and voters would compromise, sell their souls, by politically forgiving the Biden/Harris administration come election day for the very consequential stance it took/takes in continuing to provide Israel with the mass-casualty weaponry being used against Palestinian non-combatants.

Michigan’s vote tally from the election: Kamala Harris received 2,714,167 votes, or 48.3%; Donald Trump received 2,795,917 votes, or 49.8%. … In 2019, Michigan’s Arab American population on its own numbered 221,631.

[FrankGSterleJr]

A Palestinian (or Arabic) American living in swing-state Michigan who was briefly interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's TV news channel said she was actually going to cast her ballot for Trump this election instead of her usual vote for the Democratic candidate. Why exactly, she didn’t specify, other than the obvious Biden/Harris administration’s unconditional arming of Israel’s mind-bogglingly massive starvation, sickening and slaughter of Palestinian non-combatants over the last year.

However, it’s likely also due to the establishment Democrats’ neo or phony liberalism on this great-human-disaster issue: they should be morally well above the Republican Party and Trump's unconditionally pro-Israel foreign policy. (Recall, for example, that he even appointed his Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to head his administration’s Israel-Palestine portfolio.)

But the Democrats are not much or not at all above Trump’s as well as the Republican party’s transparent, very-long-standing thus expected unconditional political and military-arms support of Israel. In their phoniness (at least on this issue) those Democrats want to both have and eat their cake by also expecting the political support of pro-Palestinian and anti-war Arab, Muslim and Palestinian Americans.