Democrats a permanent minority?

RDKirk · Mar 8, 2025

mark46 said:
fair enough

I do think of liberalism as a US political movement to be the Democratic legacy of Humphrey.

whoops, I meant to say that liberalism (Progressivism) started with the Republican Party in 1854.

RDKirk · Mar 8, 2025

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
"Woke" is essentially the same as "political correctness," just under a different name in another era. It is not related to CRT or DEI.

The early years after the Civil War had been relatively free of structural racism--racism built into the legal infrastructure of the nation--and the black Civil War and following generations saw enormous economic and social advancement from the depths of slavery. As Jim Crow began to harden in the late 1800s and early 1900s, W.E.B. DuBois and Marcus Garvey started using "woke" as the concept of black Americans being aware of the increasing embedding of structural racism to block our economic advancement.

That is what "woke" meant until the early 2000s when Critical Theorists appropriated the term as the name of their activities across the span of cultural Marxism, including Critical Race Theory, Radical Feminism, and Critical Gender Theory (all the bases of DEI). The right wing (which was certainly no student of W.E.B. DuBois or Marcus Garvey) first made note of "woke" as it is used by Critical Theorists.

Black Americans have lost our original use of the term "woke." Its use today is an example of cultural appropriation....done by the left wing.

mark46 · Mar 8, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
When a faction of a party caters to a minority of the population (even it's own party) so far to one end, how can they ever hope to be a majority?

hasn't Trump done exactly that?

Always in His Presence · Mar 8, 2025

Polling consistently shows that while Americans don’t condone discrimination, they also don’t support transgender female athletes competing in women’s sports. A January New York Times/Ipsos poll found 79 percent of the public with doubts, including a whopping 67 percent of Democrats.

But the backlash to Newsom’s comments — not to mention the dearth of Democrats defending him — shows that the party is not only grappling with how to approach one of the nation’s most explosive issues but also struggling to even have an open conversation about it. Former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who is lesbian, told my POLITICO colleagues the remarks were “disgusting,” while LGBTQ+ organizations made it clear that any Democrat who agrees with Newsom can kiss their presidential dreams goodbye.

RDKirk · Mar 8, 2025

Always in His Presence said:
Polling consistently shows that while Americans don’t condone discrimination, they also don’t support transgender female athletes competing in women’s sports. A January New York Times/Ipsos poll found 79 percent of the public with doubts, including a whopping 67 percent of Democrats.

But the backlash to Newsom’s comments — not to mention the dearth of Democrats defending him — shows that the party is not only grappling with how to approach one of the nation’s most explosive issues but also struggling to even have an open conversation about it. Former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who is lesbian, told my POLITICO colleagues the remarks were “disgusting,” while LGBTQ+ organizations made it clear that any Democrat who agrees with Newsom can kiss their presidential dreams goodbye.

This is the contention between the Democratic Party leadership, which has gone fully Critical Theory ideological, and so many Democrats outside the Party leadership who have not.

The next four years will see which kind of Democrat prevails.

mark46 · Mar 8, 2025

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
In the 1960s, when progressives advocated for civil rights, their efforts were often viewed as unconventional and outside the social structure. This perception is similar to how today's progressive advocacy for transgender issues is seen by some as contrary to natural selection. While civil rights movement is widely accepted and considered mainstream, it was once seen as disruptive to social norms and creating an unfamiliar society. Likewise, many people today perceive the transgender community in a comparable manner.

There is no classical progressivism or modern progressivism. The concept of progressivism is to challenge norms and push boundaries in every era.

I think that my disagreement is that I view progressivism as much, much more than simply pushing the boundaries of government policy. MYI view that this movement should always be grounded in the principles of protection of right and providing for the poor, affirmed and imprisoned.
==========
You speak as if there are no boundaries. I'm sure that you mean differently.

Should liberals and progressive really support the RIGHT of a school to allow a child to determine her or his name and sexual orientation, with counseling and promotion of the rights of a 10 year old (or a 15 year old) to have counselling. Is it OK for a school to teach that sexual identity is simple a choice? And EVEN IF this is OK and supported by the elected school board, should we support the requirements that parents not be told about any of these discussions or decisions?

Make no mistake, advocating for the right of a child in school to make sexual identity decisions without even advising the parents is NOT acceptable to the vast majority of Americans.

Europe Adopts A Cautious Approach To Gender-Affirming Care For Minors

For several years, Europe has been moving in a different direction from the U.S., as Europeans exercise greater restraint when treating children with gender dysphoria.

www.forbes.com

====
MY BOTTOM LINE ON THIS POLITICAL FORUM
1) Parents are the primary decision-makers for our children, barring abuse.
2) Parents should be told of any issues a child is having regarding gender identity.
3) If we are to have men's and women's sports, qualifications should be tied to biological not social factors. Certainly, this should be the case in schools.

As an aside, I have zero objection for hormone or other medical therapies to be illegal for children, barring a court order. And can schools require that boys not wear dresses. Of course they can, with the approval of the local school board.
=====
SO-CALLED PROGRESSIVES
continue to alienate millions of Americans with their focus on making sure that children are taught about their choices regarding gender and sexual idenity.

As an aside, this position is wholly different from the rights of adults to voting, healthcare, and all the safety net programs on an equal basis.

RDKirk · Mar 8, 2025

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
In the 1960s, when progressives advocated for civil rights, their efforts were often viewed as unconventional and outside the social structure. This perception is similar to how today's progressive advocacy for transgender issues is seen by some as contrary to natural selection. While civil rights movement is widely accepted and considered mainstream, it was once seen as disruptive to social norms and creating an unfamiliar society. Likewise, many people today perceive the transgender community in a comparable manner.

There is no classical progressivism or modern progressivism. The concept of progressivism is to challenge norms and push boundaries in every era.

There was Progressivism by those in the latter 1800s who explicitly called themselves so, with Theodore Roosevelt as their national political leader. If you look at his speeches of the day, he covers nearly all the same issues as the Progressives of the Democratic Party in the 1960s (distinguished from the "Dixiecrats"): Civil rights, immigrant rights, labor rights, women's rights, the environment, prison reform...Theodore Roosevelt and his Progressives were on the side of the angels in all those categories. That is what I'd call "classical Progressivism."

RDKirk · Mar 8, 2025

mark46 said:
I think that my disagreement is that I view progressivism as much, much more than simply pushing the boundaries of government policy. MYI view that this movement should always be grounded in the principles of protection of right and providing for the poor, affirmed and imprisoned.
==========
You speak as if there are no boundaries. I'm sure that you mean differently.

Should liberals and progressive really support the RIGHT of a school to allow a child to determine her or his name and sexual orientation, with counseling and promotion of the rights of a 10 year old (or a 15 year old) to have counselling. Is it OK for a school to teach that sexual identity is simple a choice? And EVEN IF this is OK and supported by the elected school board, should we support the requirements that parents not be told about any of these discussions or decisions?

Make no mistake, advocating for the right of a child in school to make sexual identity decisions without even advising the parents is NOT acceptable to the vast majority of Americans.

Europe Adopts A Cautious Approach To Gender-Affirming Care For Minors

For several years, Europe has been moving in a different direction from the U.S., as Europeans exercise greater restraint when treating children with gender dysphoria.

www.forbes.com

====
MY BOTTOM LINE ON THIS POLITICAL FORUM
1) Parents are the primary decision-makers for our children, barring abuse.
2) Parents should be told of any issues a child is having regarding gender identity.
3) If we are to have men's and women's sports, qualifications should be tied to biological not social factors. Certainly, this should be the case in schools.

As an aside, I have zero objection for hormone or other medical therapies to be illegal for children, barring a court order. And can schools require that boys not wear dresses. Of course they can, with the approval of the local school board.
=====
SO-CALLED PROGRESSIVES
continue to alienate millions of Americans with their focus on making sure that children are taught about their choices regarding gender and sexual idenity.

As an aside, this position is wholly different from the rights of adults to voting, healthcare, and all the safety net programs on an equal basis.

And all of that is the explicit agenda of Critical Gender Theory.

mark46 · Mar 8, 2025

RDKirk said:
This is the contention between the Democratic Party leadership, which has gone fully Critical Theory ideological, and so many Democrats outside the Party leadership who have not.

The next four years will see which kind of Democrat prevails.

Within the Democratic Party, I fear that 4 years is nowhere near enough. One requirement is that far-left Democrats understand why their positions have failed and will not be successful. This can happen only after a huge defeat, if ever.

The centrist has had many candidates, some of whom succeeded with little active support from the left. The left has NEVER had their candidate come close to winning, even when their candidate Sanders strongly supported the other left-wing candidate: Hillary.
the centrists have had their candidates
KENNEDY
JOHNSON
HUMPHREY
CARTER
CLINTON
GORE
OBAMA
BIDEN

The left has had its candidates
MCGOVERN
MONDALE
DUKAKIS
KERRY
HILLARY CLINTON

The left will likely get its chance in 2026.

RDKirk · Mar 8, 2025

mark46 said:
Within the Democratic Party, I fear that 4 years is nowhere near enough. One requirement is that far-left Democrats understand why their positions have failed and will not be successful. This can happen only after a huge defeat, if ever.

The centrist has had many candidates, some of whom succeeded with little active support from the left. The left has NEVER had their candidate come close to winning, even when their candidate Sanders strongly supported the other left-wing candidate: Hillary.
the centrists have had their candidates
KENNEDY
JOHNSON
HUMPHREY
CARTER
CLINTON
GORE
OBAMA
BIDEN

The left has had its candidates
MCGOVERN
MONDALE
DUKAKIS
KERRY
HILLARY CLINTON

The left will likely get its chance in 2026.

I agree four years may not be enough, sadly. At this point, the Democratic leadership cannot conceive that their basic ideology is flawed. It took the Russians 70 years trying to practice it. Unfortunately, it's such a pie-in-the-sky concept that it takes such abject failure in the real world to get people to give it up.

You are calling Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey, Carter, Clinton, and Gore "centrists" only in hindsight. They were "Left" by everyone's definition at the time, but not "Far Left."

Obama was a Critical Theory ideologue, which is as I've been saying, a very different thing from the traditional American Left. Biden had been traditional American Left, but by 2020 he was elderly enough to be controlled by the Democratic Critical Theory ideologues.

What you're calling the Left here were (except for Clinton) the traditional Left. Clinton herself was still traditional Left in 2008 (which is why the DNC punished her and gave the nomination to Obama), but she had been re-educated into Critical Theory Ideology by 2016.

mark46 · Mar 8, 2025

RDKirk said:
You are calling Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey, Carter, Clinton, and Gore "centrists" only in hindsight. They were "Left" by everyone's definition at the time, but not "Far Left."

Yes, Jack Kennedy, LBJ were left of the political center of the country, but much closer to the center than left within the Democratic Party.

Clinton and Gore literally had to form the own political group to separate themselves from the left.

RDKirk · Mar 8, 2025

mark46 said:
Yes, Jack Kennedy, LBJ were left of the political center of the country, but much closer to the center than left within the Democratic Party.

Clinton and Gore literally had to form the own political group to separate themselves from the left.

If you connect an automobile music system to ground at more than one location (say, the head unit is connected to ground at one point and the amplifier is connected to ground at another point), the system will see the ground closer to the car battery as "more negative" than the ground father from the car battery.

The "more negative" connection point sees the "less negative" connection point as positive...and a noisy feedback loop will form between them, ruining the music output.

Merrill · Mar 8, 2025

My wife was a Democrat her entire life, and my best friend was also a Democrat

both left the party in recent years because of the radical shift in ideology and politics

even Gavin Newsom and Fetterman have distanced themselves from the more extreme positions of the party, because they see the writing on the wall. They know it is a complete clown-show right now

the transgenderism, irrationalism, open borders, authoritarianism --Americans don't want this garbage. They made that clear in the general election. Harris was an unelectable joke --and those who thought she was a good candidate, or that she would be elected, need to get some more education and stop smoking pot

the party needs to move to the center, get rid of bad ideology, kick the extremists to the curb (AOC, Jackson, Walz, etc.), and stop supporting the military-industrial complex

the Democratic Party right now represents the worst political positions of both the GOP and the Dems: neocon adventurism, corporate-welfare , authoritarianism, open borders, waste and fraud, looney social policy, etc.

Merrill · Mar 8, 2025

mark46 said:
Yes, Jack Kennedy, LBJ were left of the political center of the country, but much closer to the center than left within the Democratic Party.

Clinton and Gore literally had to form the own political group to separate themselves from the left.

Bill Clinton looks like Ronald Reagan compared to Kamala

the party has gone hard-left in the last 10 years, and has been subverted by activists and bad actors

I voted for Obama in 2008 largely because of 2 reasons

1. Healthcare needed to be reformed
2. John McCain was a neocon Warhawk who would get us into WWIII

Obama had other positions I disagreed with, but those 2 above are of critical importance

I voted for Trump in November because

1. I want a peace agreement in Ukraine--not escalation and potential WWIII
2. I want sanity and law returned to our borders
3. Kamala's economic and energy policies were looney

mark46 · Mar 8, 2025

Merrill said:
Bill Clinton looks like Ronald Reagan compared to Kamala

the party has gone hard-left in the last 10 years, and has been subverted by activists and bad actors

I voted for Obama in 2008 largely because of 2 reasons

1. Healthcare needed to be reformed
2. John McCain was a neocon Warhawk who would get us into WWIII

Obama had other positions I disagreed with, but those 2 above are of critical importance

I voted for Trump in November because

1. I want a peace agreement in Ukraine--not escalation and potential WWIII
2. I want sanity and law returned to our borders
3. Kamala's economic and energy policies were looney

mark46 · Mar 8, 2025

Merrill said:
My wife was a Democrat her entire life, and my best friend was also a Democrat

both left the party in recent years because of the radical shift in ideology and politics

even Gavin Newsom and Fetterman have distanced themselves from the more extreme positions of the party, because they see the writing on the wall. They know it is a complete clown-show right now

the transgenderism, irrationalism, open borders, authoritarianism --Americans don't want this garbage. They made that clear in the general election. Harris was an unelectable joke --and those who thought she was a good candidate, or that she would be elected, need to get some more education and stop smoking pot

the party needs to move to the center, get rid of bad ideology, kick the extremists to the curb (AOC, Jackson, Walz, etc.), and stop supporting the military-industrial complex

the Democratic Party right now represents the worst political positions of both the GOP and the Dems: neocon adventurism, corporate-welfare , authoritarianism, open borders, waste and fraud, looney social policy, etc.

Why is the answer to join the party of Trump the autocrat and the MAGA movement that wants to tear apart all the civil rights and safety net programs of the last 100 years?

There are many Democrats that don't believe the far-left nonsense. Newsome or Federman (or Emmanuel or Buttigieg) couldn't win a place on the national ticket in 2026. The answer is NOT to give up. The answer to change the party one vote at a time. Obviously, the same goes for those anti-MAGA folks in the Republican Party. A huge loss for the leftist candidate in 2026 may provide a way forward.

Clearly, both groups could give up any chance on national wins for a while and build up a 3rd party. They COULD have a candidate in 2026, one with almost no chance of winning as in 1992. However, such a run could be the first step to a new leadership for the Democratic Party.

mark46 · Mar 8, 2025

Merrill said:
Bill Clinton looks like Ronald Reagan compared to Kamala

the party has gone hard-left in the last 10 years, and has been subverted by activists and bad actors

I voted for Obama in 2008 largely because of 2 reasons

1. Healthcare needed to be reformed
2. John McCain was a neocon Warhawk who would get us into WWIII

Obama had other positions I disagreed with, but those 2 above are of critical importance

I voted for Trump in November because

1. I want a peace agreement in Ukraine--not escalation and potential WWIII
2. I want sanity and law returned to our borders
3. Kamala's economic and energy policies were looney

Obama was very necessary in 2008, for health care to work with the Bush administration and bankers to save the world from a depression. Hillary or McCain would likely have resulted in a much worse world than the one we had under Trump's first term.

Merrill · Mar 8, 2025

mark46 said:
Why is the answer to join the party of Trump the autocrat and the MAGA movement that wants to tear apart all the civil rights and safety net programs of the last 100 years?

There are many Democrats that don't believe the far-left nonsense. Newsome or Federman (or Emmanuel or Buttigieg) couldn't win a place on the national ticket in 2026. The answer is NOT to give up. The answer to change the party one vote at a time. Obviously, the same goes for those anti-MAGA folks in the Republican Party. A huge loss for the leftist candidate in 2026 may provide a way forward.

Clearly, both groups could give up any chance on national wins for a while and build up a 3rd party. They COULD have a candidate in 2026, one with almost no chance of winning as in 1992. However, such a run could be the first step to a new leadership for the Democratic Party.

What Civil Rights are Trump abolishing exactly? Honestly?

You might say something about abortion, but Trump's SCOTUS appointments simply sent that issue back to the states where it belonged (legally). Transgender "rights"? --no man has the right to walk into a woman's bathroom or athletic team. That violates the rights of women and girls

The restrictions on Muslims entering the country? That was overblown, and was specific to certain war-torn countries

The "rights" of parents to trans and castrate their kids in order to get social capital on social media? Trump is protecting kids, not psycho parents

I am very much a civil rights guy, and not in favor of authoritarianism --Trump has done nothing so far to limit my rights. A few Republicans have done some things to limit freedom of speech, such as DeSantis --and I called that out.

The Biden administration was literally censoring media outlets and social media companies for years. This was confirmed by Zuckerberg, newspaper CEOs, and others.

Now the social safety net is another issue, but Trump has not done a thing to cut social security, Medicare, etc. --he campaigned on NOT cutting those programs

so can you point me to something factual, vs. MSNBC talking-points?

mark46 · Mar 8, 2025

Merrill said:
What Civil Rights are Trump abolishing exactly? Honestly?

You might say something about abortion, but Trump's SCOTUS appointments simply sent that issue back to the states where it belonged (legally). Transgender "rights"? --no man has the right to walk into a woman's bathroom or athletic team. That violates the rights of women and girls

The restrictions on Muslims entering the country? That was overblown, and was specific to certain war-torn countries

The "rights" of parents to trans and castrate their kids in order to get social capital on social media? Trump is protecting kids, not psycho parents

I am very much a civil rights guy, and not in favor of authoritarianism --Trump has done nothing so far to limit my rights. A few Republicans have done some things to limit freedom of speech, such as DeSantis --and I called that out.

The Biden administration was literally censoring media outlets and social media companies for years. This was confirmed by Zuckerberg, newspaper CEOs, and others.

Now the social safety net is another issue, but Trump has not done a thing to cut social security, Medicare, etc. --he campaigned on NOT cutting those programs

so can you point me to something factual, vs. MSNBC talking-points?

Ok, let's just wait and see AGAIN.

I have come to terms with having trump as president and for likely having MAGA leading us for the next 8 years. Choose to believe that the Ttump DOJ will protect civil rights and voting rights. If trump can sell that idea, he can sell anything and may even get Canada to continue selling energy and nickel to us.

Merrill · Mar 8, 2025

mark46 said:
Ok, let's just wait and see AGAIN.

I have come to terms with having trump as president and for likely having MAGA leading us for the next 8 years. Choose to believe that the Ttump DOJ will protect civil rights and voting rights. If trump can sell that idea, he can sell anything and may even get Canada to continue selling energy and nickel to us.

The American media paints Trump's efforts as some kind of authoritarian power-grab that will threaten civil rights

but unelected bureaucrats in the DOJ and anywhere else do not run the country. The FBI doesn't run the country

Trump's powers are kept in check by SCOTUS and Congress --and if he goes too far, he will be limited

I have always been against the imperial presidency, but congress is hopelessly corrupt and inefficient right now--and this is why we have an executive, for better or worse

we will see what Trump does going forward--he does have authoritarian tendencies, but he has yet to do anything seriously problematic in my book: he has not gotten us into a war (Bush Jr., Biden), has not issued any terrible executive orders (like Biden's cancellation of student loan debt--which amounted to forgiving the loans of his supporters using tax dollars, among many other things he did).

Democrats a permanent minority?

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Jesus is the only Way

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads