The Democratic Party Has Become Everything It Once Was Against.

Something I've been writing about 'all year'. I was off in my own little world most of the Obama presidency, especially when it came to left/right politics I was 'F this, F all them and all that left/right BS'. This year I stepped out of the time capsule and took a full look and was blown away. They're 10x worse off into cult crazy town than the Bush lovers ever were, despite the fact that half of their platform those last couple Bush years was in creaming the Bush supporters for being every name involving fools in the book for staying the course with him. In this regard, consider majority of them seem completely oblivious to there even being cause to doubt Obama. At least most of the Bush people had gotten over him by then, at least publicly. These DNC people, I'm convinced they'd have him for at least another 2 terms if given the choice (total cult of personality stuff), even tho he has his own version of Iraq in Syria, despite the fact that in Syria we never actually had an axe to grind with them (and that total DOUBLE THINK angle where the Democrat's supposedly LOVE Muslim's, yet its okay for Hillary to blow their nation up just because the guy a dictator while so are her pals in Saudi Arabia). And all the rest of that 'dictator stuff' that Bush was infamous for, at least Bush had the post-9/11 "wartime powers' climate as his excuse. Now, the DNC is ALL ABOUT employing AL QAEDA the group responsible for 9/11! THE ENEMY.

Ten years ago the DNC by far made the most sense on every issue. Now, they don't make a lick of sense on anything, more like complete and total nonsense it's embarrassing that I was ever buddies with them more than any other, that they make up half of my nations population, etc. And this is all putting it lightly.

a reply to: Edumakated

They've moved too far left. The entire party platform is one of victims and identity groups. They completely abandoned the blue collar middle America union worker. The party focuses too much on NYC and CA.

I completely agree that the Democrat seems to have abandoned those that once made the party much stronger, the union workers, and their relationship with the unions seem to be one of lip-service. But I would not say they have moved too far to the Left. The party now embraces corporate and big money interests, more than the people.

I also believe that they focused too much on the social issues and that may be one of the reasons they lost sight of other things going on around them.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It isn't bunk. She won the popular vote regardless of where most of the votes came from. That is something you'll just have to accept.

Doesn't matter. The US is a republic. That's something you'll just have to accept.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

It isn't bunk. She won the popular vote regardless of where most of the votes came from. That is something you'll just have to accept.

The underlying premise is inaccurate because it assumes that CA and NYC represent the entire country. It does not. While she may have technically won the popular vote, it is a failure of logic to say it means anything in the context of an election for the entire country.

a reply to: Edumakated

It MEANS that liberalism isn't as unpopular as conservatives like to claim it is which is what my point has been since post 1. Stop projecting your own arguments onto me.

a reply to: Edumakated

Oh look, a progressive shill

Have you ever noticed that it's mostly right-wing posters who call people shills in political threads? What about your posting is distinctly un-shill-like? As far as I can see, you go around towing the line as much or more than most. Are you a shill?

if it weren't for CA, Hillary would not have won popular vote.

Does that seem like a profound statement to you? There are nearly 40 million people in California. That's about as many Americans as the bottom 22 states in the Union by population plus the District of Columbia. I live in NJ, should my vote count as third as much as a that of a person living in a state like Wyoming because nobody wants to live in Wyoming?

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It isn't bunk. She won the popular vote regardless of where most of the votes came from. That is something you'll just have to accept.

Doesn't matter. The US is a republic. That's something you'll just have to accept.

Someone didn't read the thread and just stuck his foot in his mouth in a sad attempt to try to be cute!

I actually have no problems with the electoral college. The EC has been the way we pick our President since the Constitution was ratified. It's spelled out IN the Constitution. I'm all for that. But that wasn't the reason I posted that link.

linkies

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

It isn't bunk. She won the popular vote regardless of where most of the votes came from. That is something you'll just have to accept.

Right... and Balti-murdermore is a # hole just like most other major Democrat run cities. That is my point. Outside of major cities, most of the country is red. The main reason Democrats continue to control those cities is because of an unbreakable voting block of poor and minorities who almost always vote Democrat.

Chicago? Atlanta? LA? Baltimore? Detroit? You can't be this blind...

a reply to: theantediluvian

Does that seem like a profound statement to you? There are nearly 40 million people in California. That's about as many Americans as the bottom 22 states in the Union by population plus the District of Columbia. I live in NJ, should my vote count as third as much as a that of a person living in a state like Wyoming because nobody wants to live in Wyoming?

Your vote was counted as one vote, not a third of one vote.

a reply to: Edumakated

Outside of major cities, most of the country is red.

Apparently someone doesn't understand what population density means. Being spread out over a wider area doesn't mean you are more popular, by the way.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I read the thread, little liar. There's that projection thing you keep bringing up. If you're saying people voted for Hillary because of her liberalism, you'd be lying again.

a reply to: infolurker

On the other side of the planet, this US election cycle has clearly shown that the hardcore Democrats (and turncoat Republicans) and their brainwashed gimps are intolerant of differing opinions and will literally pay people to deliberately cause havoc because It ’s a very easy thing for Republicans to say, ‘ Well, they ’re busing people in. ’ … We’ve been busing people in to deal with you f ----- ‘ a ------- for fifty years and we ’re not going to stop now, we ’re just going to find a different way to do it.

Yours Sincerely,
Scott Foval
(Americans United for Change, DNC operative - employment terminated)

a reply to: TheTory

Ah. I see. My bad. Sorry for assuming. You were just being an ass. Ok. Ignored now.

a reply to: TheTory

Go tell that to the right-wingers flipping out at the thought that the electoral college might not elect Donald Trump. All of a sudden that "the US isn't a direct democracy" and "the US is a republic not a democracy" talk flies right out the window to be replaced with rants about the "undermining of democracy" and threats of violent overthrow of government.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your argument that because Hillary won the popular vote, therefor liberalism is popular, is made of sand and stuffed with air.

a reply to: TheTory

Awesome. Care to back that up with any reasoning or should I just read your mind instead?

a reply to: theantediluvian

I'll tell that to people who say their vote is counted as a third of someone else's.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You made the argument. I'm only showing that the logic does not follow.

This article does touch on the main point I see as a driving force that makes me cringe when I see one of the 4 amigos post. Hubris. I used to think it was Smug, but Hubris covers the attitude really well. Yes, we all have our shortcomings, and none of us are right all the time, but the arrogant way everyone else is talked down to is so in your face, it makes for really bad discussions. I don't want to talk with them, I really just want to make them realize how ignorant and smug they appear. That isn't healthy and it's bad form. But when so much arrogance is presented, knocking that smug look off the pedestal seems like the only logical choice.

Keep thinking you are superior. It's been working super for you so far.

a reply to: TheTory

No. You said. "I disagree" Then you ended your post.