Political Forums

Political Forums (http://www.politicalchat.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.politicalchat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Why The Democratic Party? (http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=12027)

bobabode 10-15-2017 09:40 PM

Why The Democratic Party?
 
Being a third generation Democrat, it's never occurred to me to vote otherwise. It's not for tradition's sake or anything so maudlin, it's because the party stands first and foremost for the average working stiff. In other words the majority, the great unwashed masses who don't mind working an honest day's work. Be you a laborer or a lawyer or even a physician, the Democratic party represents your interests. The Republicans these days do not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.6449d3bc255f

donquixote99 10-16-2017 07:33 AM

In Roman times during the late Republic there were two factions. The Populares sought the support of the plebes, while the Optimates were the standard-bearers for the aristocratic class, which naturally believed that the 'best' people should rule.

Things haven't changed much.

Dondilion 10-16-2017 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99 (Post 362632)
In Roman times during the late Republic there were two factions. The Populares sought the support of the plebes, while the Optimates were the standard-bearers for the aristocratic class, which naturally believed that the 'best' people should rule.

Things haven't changed much.

I noticed you qualified best. :)

Dondilion 10-16-2017 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobabode (Post 362626)
Being a third generation Democrat, it's never occurred to me to vote otherwise. It's not for tradition's sake or anything so maudlin, it's because the party stands first and foremost for the average working stiff. In other words the majority, the great unwashed masses who don't mind working an honest day's work. Be you a laborer or a lawyer or even a physician, the Democratic party represents your interests. The Republicans these days do not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.6449d3bc255f

Reinforcing why the telescopic selection of Clinton was so galling. It suppressed many qualified and new blood candidates from running.

The Democrats ended with an awfully stale candidate, weighed down with her own baggage and that of her husband.

With so many aspiring Democrats not wanting to be seen impeding the Clinton train, the opportunity was grasp by a senior stalwart (independent) to
project his pet ideas. He was, I believe, just enjoying himself.

whell 10-16-2017 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobabode (Post 362626)
Being a third generation Democrat, it's never occurred to me to vote otherwise. It's not for tradition's sake or anything so maudlin, it's because the party stands first and foremost for the average working stiff. In other words the majority, the great unwashed masses who don't mind working an honest day's work. Be you a laborer or a lawyer or even a physician, the Democratic party represents your interests. The Republicans these days do not.

Serious question: do you actually believe this is still the case? When the party's leading contributors are hedge fund managers, investment firms, and left - of - center PAC's whose agendas don't typically align with "the average working stiff"?

Frankly, I think both major parties have been hijacked by organizations and individuals whose narrow interests don't represent the "average working stiff", and haven't represented those interests for years.

MrPots 10-16-2017 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 362641)
Serious question: do you actually believe this is still the case? When the party's leading contributors are hedge fund managers, investment firms, and left - of - center PAC's whose agendas don't typically align with "the average working stiff"?

I think we'd be fools to believe any political party works for the working stiff.

Our halls of "leadership" are nothing but puppet chambers for the 1%.

Rajoo 10-16-2017 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 362641)
Serious question: do you actually believe this is still the case? When the party's leading contributors are hedge fund managers, investment firms, and left - of - center PAC's whose agendas don't typically align with "the average working stiff"?

Frankly, I think both major parties have been hijacked by organizations and individuals whose narrow interests don't represent the "average working stiff", and haven't represented those interests for years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPots (Post 362642)
I think we'd be fools to believe any political party works for the working stiff.

Our halls of "leadership" are nothing but puppet chambers for the 1%.

Agreed. As long as there is money in politics, only thing distinguishing the two parties are their names.

Democrats rammed through ACA unilaterally, the Repubs are tearing it down piece by piece, the average person is left helpless. Whom do you trust?

For Democrats to have any credibility, likes of Schumer, Feinstein and Pelosi need to vacate their perches, but they never will. And Hillary the Loser needs to go into exile permanently, won't happen either. Tough to be yesterday's. :mad:

whell 10-16-2017 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rajoo (Post 362644)
Agreed. As long as there is money in politics, only thing distinguishing the two parties are their names.

Democrats rammed through ACA unilaterally, the Repubs are tearing it down piece by piece, the average person is left helpless. Whom do you trust?

For Democrats to have any credibility, likes of Schumer, Feinstein and Pelosi need to vacate their perches, but they never will. And Hillary the Loser needs to go into exile permanently, won't happen either. Tough to be yesterday's. :mad:

Agreed.

Now that said, and you can fault the logic behind it, but that's why Trump gained traction, and also why Sanders was able to pose a modest challenge to Clinton, during the last election cycle. Regardless of the names and faces, I think most voters are troubled by what they're seeing inside the beltway and want change...on both sides of the aisle.

whell 10-16-2017 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dondilion (Post 362640)
Reinforcing why the telescopic selection of Clinton was so galling. It suppressed many qualified and new blood candidates from running.

Well, Debbie Wassermann-Shultz apparently helped box out other challengers for the Dem nomination as well.

donquixote99 10-16-2017 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dondilion (Post 362638)
I noticed you qualified best. :)

The politics was class-based. They were of course sure that they were the best.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.