A Better Democrat Party

[Immanuel Can]

What? A ban on homosexuality?

No, since that is impossible. What I advocate for is an intellectual turning where a hierarchy of values is clearly established.

How? What's the relevant policy?

[Immanuel Can]

...Maybe they need a more broad view of the lives of American women...

ask a dem (even Justice Jackson) what a woman is and they can't answer (or what a broad is for that matter)...

Yes, that was a fault of their previous practice: while styling themselves "women's rights advocates," they were unable even to suggest what a "woman" is. Clearly they could do better; at minimum, by having some idea of the entity for whom they claim to be advocating.

Point taken.

asking republicans who needs "better" democrats?

Well, I'm not either. But we all have an interest in seeing a two-party system maintained, and right now, it's the Democrats that are seriously missing the boat, judging by the last election's results. So unless we no longer have an interest in democracy, it's a matter of concern to everybody.

[Immanuel Can]

But there's no reason why people HAVE to keep making bad decisions. And at the very least, you can point out to them what decision they should be making instead.

I am looking at things differently, and I hope I have made it clear.

I find myself wishing you'd address the topic of the thread.

The Democrat Party has become *infected* with bizarre strains of ideology. You and I share some experience with James Linsday so we can, at least, share some conceptual base here. The disease is essentially a spiritual one. That is perhaps my most troublesome and contentious assertion.

Fine. But you're not suggesting how they could get better. So that's not relevant to the present issue.

When a person is *infected* with the disease I refer to, they cannot actually make "good decisions".

But then, not all Democrats are so "infected," as Gabbard and Kennedy surely show.

[Immanuel Can]

So what's "clear" about that?

Are you still seeking clarity concerning what AJ is advocating for? Or has AJ explained it enough to you?

I'm still wanting somebody to answer the proposed question. It's a bit worrying that American responders seem unable to transcend their partisan interests (on either side), and continually revert to either insulting the failures of the Dems, or, on the opposite side, advocating their failed policies yet again or merely whining about the new incumbents -- as if any of those responses had the least bit to do with democracy or a better future.

I'm astonished that no Democrats here seem to have even the slightest interest in the betterment of their party, and just circle the drain one more time. Maybe that party really is doomed, if that's the only sort of thinking they're capable of. It's certainly the sort of locked-in blindness their opponents will find very easy to exploit.

But who will advocate for the sustaining of a two-party system? It seems nobody cares about that, either.

[Alexis Jacobi]

How? What's the relevant policy?

If anything I am speaking of a social attitude (in this instance against sexual deviancy). For example, consider the reaction (emotional, intellectual) of a parent who intensely dislikes that the educational system perverts his children. It begins in that realm of intolerant reaction. But it is not, at first, any “policy” at all.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm still wanting somebody to answer the proposed question.

Oh, give up on that. Work with what is developing.

I find myself wishing you'd address the topic of the thread.

How is insanity defined?

[Immanuel Can]

How? What's the relevant policy?

If anything I am speaking of a social attitude (in this instance against sexual deviancy). For example, consider the reaction (emotional, intellectual) of a parent who intensely dislikes that the educational system perverts his children. It begins in that realm of intolerant reaction. But it is not, at first, any “policy” at all.

Get to the policy. You can't change "attitudes" without changing something in real life.

[Immanuel Can]

How is insanity defined?

Apparently, in going to you for answers.

You're capable of better. I have no idea why you don't want to show it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Get to the policy. You can't change "attitudes" without changing something in real life.

Oh you’ve really got it backwards. When inner realization occurs, it is something intellectual (in the intellectus sense). What the Soul realizes (on that inner plane) to be true, has not, yet, affected any choices (policy).

I told you: my interests are adjacent. Not totally separate, but different.

What I talk about has 100 times more relevance and importance than you silly subterfuge of focus.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But then, not all Democrats are so "infected," as Gabbard and Kennedy surely show.

But that does not in any sense touch on the sickness or the infection that exists. My interests are served by better defining what *it* is (the infection) and what its opposite (or antidote) may be.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Since it's so clear, tell us what policy he's advocating the DP adopt?

Gary? What’s your answer?

[Immanuel Can]

Get to the policy. You can't change "attitudes" without changing something in real life.

Oh you’ve really got it backwards.

Actually, no. Have you got anything relevant to say?

Never mind. I've asked that before, and I know the answer.

[Alexis Jacobi]

We define “relevancy” differently.

[Immanuel Can]

We define “relevancy” differently.

I would define it by the question that was asked, not the "answer" that the respondent thought he wanted to supply...especially when that "answer" failed to correspond to anything that was asked or pertained to the subject in hand.

But you define it as you like.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But you define it as you like.

That works for me!