Talk:Democratic Party

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

IP Block Response[edit]

Interesting that Osaka went to all that trouble to cover up the fact that he accused me of a fallacy he himself had used and I was just responding to concerning Cohen's Law, hiding the conversation, protecting the page, and instituting of an IP ban just to try and prevent people from seeing his little mistake. I'm actually surprised he didn't try archiving the discussion or removing the material, maybe he figured on waiting a day or two in hopes people wouldn't notice.

And all that to avoid addressing the substance of my points that the Democrats were the ones who controlled Congress, I suppose I should be flattered you need to go to such extremes to avoid debating me, claiming false fallacies and seeking to shut down discussion. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

April 15th[edit]

I fail to understand the significance of "April 15th" in the quote attributed to Ronald Reagan. Can someone explain it to me? Or maybe we could have it explained in a footnote. Corpse in the bed (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

April 15th is the deadline for filing US federal income tax returns. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

liberal Republicans are Ike Republicans?[edit]

Jesus, who wrote this crap? Nixon must've been a liberal Republican, and Rockefeller a communist. nobsOne who's been there.

"Nixon must've been a liberal Republican." Well... Osaka Sun (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"Dead On Arrival"[edit]

Can we talk about this section please? It seems a bit overly pessimistic, after all as FCP points out Clinton actually got just as much support as Obama did...just not in the right places. I'm just as guilty as anyone of feeling doom and gloom right now, but Trump didn't flip Rust Belt voters, just barely enough of them stayed home that Trump was able to squeak on through. Remember, eighty thousand votes plus the lowest favorability rating of anyone to enter the Oval Office and he's already screwing up. Plus, his win has scared millions of Americans into action across the country. Anyone with any decency is settling in for a grueling, hard fought slog the moment the man steps into the White House. I don't think we're down and out just yet. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Holy fucking shit[edit]

I made a small edit amending it from far-left to center-left. Then I come back and find out much of the article has been re-written. I think they would do well to restore the Funeral Pyre and Center Cannot Hold sections. Both were relevant to what is currently going on. I'm a new poster and "Christopher" responded to me encouraging me to make an account. I don't know enough to meaningfully edit many articles, but there are no far left factions in the Democratic Party. I also wouldn't even particularly agree that any of the Progressives described as European style Social Democrats are anywhere close to actual socialists.Manicman (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Who wrote this intro?

The Democrat Demokkkrat Democratic Party is a center-left party in the United States. Widely perceived to be left-wing, it's best to think of it as a decentralized tent of far-left to center-right factions who can't agree on anything. "Democrats are divided!" has been a running for decades. Republicans have historically boasted of being a "Big Tent", while Democrats scramble to keep people on the same team from voting them down.[2][3] They can't sell their solutions to the masses because they can't close and coffee is for closers.

Democrats ruled Texas the same way they ruled the big-city north. The "Southern Democrats" were a pro-segregationist sect which in no way reflects the Democrats of today. Then came the Southern Strategy, and those same supporters switched to the Republican party. Goldwater ran in 1964, the same year the Civil Rights Act was passed—not exactly a huge time gap going on here.

When Republicans lose, they run to the right. Reagan was the product of the Goldwater Revolution, and at least in the short term it worked. The reason why it works is because it excites people and gets them out to vote, gets them to phone bank, face bank or whatever bank. (See the Eagle Forum.) The Democrats did not look to the left for answers, they ran to the middle. From '68-a ridiculous amount of time the Democrats ran to the left, mostly because they had controlled congress for so long that they thought they could do whatever they wanted. But when they lose, they will always run to the middle.

It's just a liberal stream of consciousness. Why? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 13:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


Why? Well, you autopatroled the person who made most of that disaster... Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a good thing RationalWiki has no shortage of blame. It'd be disastrous otherwise. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 15:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
You need to point out the inherent racism in the Democratic party. The Democrats controlled blacks under the 3/5 Rule in the pre-Civil War era (a census count of 50,000 slaves counted for 30,000 constituents in a white Southern Democrat Congressional district) in the pre-Civil War era. White Democrats have always considered themselves stewards of black's wellbeing, since in their view, blacks are incapable of doing it themselves. Then the Republicans extended the vote to blacks, but Democrats will be goddamned if they let Republicans divide the relationship and control they have had over blacks since the founding of the Democratic party, so they bought them off with welfare and food stamps to keep them on the plantation. The subservient relationship between blacks and their white Democrat Masters hasn't changed much over the years, with a few bumps in the road like Reconstruction, when Republicans tried to corner blacks as a voting block, earning the GOP the undying hatred of white Democrats til this day.nobs 14:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
1: That's irrelevant to the shit posted above.
2: It's almost like nobs willingly ignores some major party switch in the past century. I wonder why. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 14:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
1. It's definitely relavent to to the party's history and makeup.
2. There never was a switch in parties. Welfare and food stamps have not altered the social relation between white Democrats and blacks, keeping them dependent on their overseers. Just as the Democratic slave masters fed blacks on the plantation, so have the Democrats continued (in theory) since Lyndon Johnson and the War on Poverty. nobs 15:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
And I presume black Democrat representatives are just the capos of the Dem gang? FuzzyCatPotato of the Dumb Apples (talk/stalk) 15:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
When Republicans ended the 3/5 Rule and extended the vote to blacks, white Democrats (and some blacks) viewed this as an effort to divide the traditional social relations in Southern society, when in reality blacks and whites were economically dependent on each other. Democrats initially reacted with violence and voter suppression tactics (the KKK). Over time, as the federal government expanded and times became more prosperous, Lyndon Johndon decided to lock up blacks as a voting block in the Democratic party (respecting the principal of one-man-one-vote) once and for all, as the GOP had failed to do so after Reconstruction. Johnson ended the social political divisions the GOP created between blacks and white Democrats. nobs 16:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
In this sense, Trump & Johnson are uniquely alike - at war with their own party over ideology in an effort to expand it and lock up coveted voting blocks. Just as Johnson was willing to abandon bedrock party principals like segregation to win blacks back en masse, Trump is willing to dump free trade to win blue colar workers and labor unions. nobs 16:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's do a survey of contemporary racist groups in America (KKK, Neo-Nazis, Aryan Brotherhood, Race Realist, etc...) about who they voted for over the last 30 years of so, including this election, and which current political party most aligns with their views. I'm predicting Hillary, Obama, Kerry, Gore and Bill and the Democratic party in general aren't going to be ranked too high in the results. Petey Plane (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The groups you cite, according to hate group watchdogs like the SPLC & ADL, number barely 10,000 members in the United States. And even that number may be exaggerated. So the point you rather lamely make is irrelevent. nobs`
And you tied the modern Democratic party to the historical Democratic party's relationship to the KKK, which hasn't been supportive of the Democratic party in nearly half a century, so i'm a little confused as to how my argument is lame and irrelevant, yet yours is not. The simple fact is, modern racists and "race-realists" more closely associate and self-identify with Republicans and conservatives. Petey Plane (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Bullshit. White Democrats vote Democrat to get government benefits, but they're still racist as common shit. nobs 15:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow, you've convinced me. Your argument of "Bullshit!" proves that the vast majority of Democrats are in-fact racists. Petey Plane (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

+

@nobs: Your comparison of Trump and Johnson would be a bit better if African-Americans hadn't begun voting Democratic in 1932. From the American Pageant: "One striking feature of the election (of 1932) was the beginning of a distinct shift of blacks, traditionally grateful to the Republican party of Lincoln, over to the Roosevelt camp...Beginning with the election of 1932, they became, notably in the urban centers in the North, a vital element in the Democratic Party."
But besides that, you're right about Trump and Johnson. The only question is if Trump will keep his promise of better lives for blue-collar workers. If he doesn't, then who will the Rust Belt turn to? That's what I want to know. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, 1932 the Democrats did do better among blacks for the first time since the Civil War. But they didn't embrace the the Democrats en bloc until 1960. African-Americans for the most remained Lincoln Republicans until 1960. The GOP was the party of Civil Rights from the Civil War til Eisenhower. FDR always opposed the GOP longstanding proposal for a federal anti-lynching law. But Eleanor Roosevelt was personally popular among blacks. nobs 19:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Petey:Learn from me. See what your bullshit talking points got you? Not a Fucking Thing! No White House. No Congress. No Senate. No Supreme Court. You got 8 measely states out of 50 where you have any influence at all. You control only four, and that ain't enough to win Electoral College, even if they were the four largest.
And to think, you were ridin' high a few years ago; the world was becoming center left progressive, remember? How did this happen? Talking bullshit, calling everybody under the goddamn sun a racist for the fun of it. Will you ever learn from your errors?
If the Democrats ever wanna be effective again and overcome the mistakes they made, they need to admit their lives are out of control and only a power higher than themselves can restore them to sanity. Show some compassion for your fellow citizens, and stop calling everybody a goddamn racist. nobs 18:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Why in God's name did you delete my response to you, nobs? RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. I got a new tablet and its been nothing but problems. Sorry. nobs 19:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Ronin, have you ever seen this picture? It is an object lesson in studying history. It was widely circulated upon the news of FDR's death, and seemed to express the mood of the nation upon hearing the news. Now, when I was a student of history in the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, this photo was re-circulated by media and party propagandists with new spin for a new generation: that blacks had been loyal Democrats since the New Deal. But ask anyone who was alive in 1945 and they will tell you the exact opposite: the significance of the photo was national unity, that even Republicans were shedding tears. And national healing, that Democrats, who were no friend of blacks, could touch a Republican in such an emotional way. nobs 19:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"stop calling everybody a goddamn racist." Wait, didn't you just call all Democrats racist? I'm still waiting on the evidence you have of that. Also, if you'd read closely, i never called all Republicans racist, or you for that matter. I said that modern racists and racists movements more closely align with Conservatives and Republicans, and believe that Republicans (and Trump) best represent their views, of the two current political parties. Petey Plane (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC))
White Democrats vote Democrat to get VA or SSI benefits but call blacks the N word behind their back. They hate Republicans cause their afraid the GOP will cut their benefits back. They join in the chorus of DNC bosses calling Republicans racist to motivate blacks to get out and vote for the Democrat sugar daddys. And its easy cover for them, blaming Republicans for the racism that's been handed down in their families since Andrew Jackson. Their 'ideology' is simple: deceive blacks to get what you want and need out of them, and milk the public purse. Democrats hold these as virtues since before Andrew Jackson.
All you're reciting above with, 'modern racists and racists movements bla bla bla..." is DNC talking points to get blacks out to vote and keep blacks on the DNC plantation. Vote for me or the bogeyman is gonna getcha. nobs 20:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, still looking for some citations on most Democrats being racists. Petey Plane (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Better yet, you present evidence other than the fewer than 10,000 members of organized racist groups that supposedly endorse Republicans. Again, your bullshit is flawed; the Aryan Brotherhood is a prison gang of felons who in most states (except for a few run by Democrats) can't vote.
Who are you gonna cite, the SPLC? Of their 917 "hate groups", of which 20% are black separatists added for balance, look at Lobelville Tennessee, for instance. You'll find two dead people constitute three "hate groups". You need better evidence for any of your claims other than the DNC or SPLC.
But you're missing my main point: the reason DNC is wallowing in the dumpster now and will continue for the foreseeable future is because of people like you exhibiting the behavior you exhibited here. Unlike Reagan & the Bush's, Trump may make the crossover Democrats to the Republican party permanent. Those voters know when they vote Democrat they are "blue collar", when the vote GOP they are "racist". They are tired of the DNC's bullshit.
And didn't a bunch of Islamophobic bigots just make Keith Ellison, the DNC's biggest fundraiser, ride the back of the bus? Ordinarily being the number one fundraiser gets you the job as DNC Chair. Not Ellison, because he is black he is held to a different standard. nobs 19:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@nobs, no, I hadn't. Thanks for sharing! RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


I approve of the edit from center left party to just centrist party. They really can't be called center left at this point. It would be relevant to note that one of the main reasons they are perceived as left wing is that their rhetoric certainly is liberal.-Manicman — Unsigned, by: 66.152.101.94 / talk 20:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


I keep editing it to reflect this, and someone keeps deleting it. It's worth noting that the main reason the Dems are falsely perceived as left wing is because of their left wing rhetoric. Leave this edit there! — Unsigned, by: 66.152.101.94 / talk 20:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Liberal v. Progressive[edit]

Yesterday I added California rep Maxine Waters to the "liberal" section. Today she was moved to the "progressive" section. I remember a similar, longer edit war happening a few months ago with the same thing, just on Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris. So in the hopes of not doing that again, I thought we should make a section for who's a liberal vs. who's a progressive, since those seem to be the categories where the lines are most blurred. Post any changes you'd like to make here, so we can hash them out before starting an edit war. ClintWayne (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)ClintWayne

Shouldn't they all be in the same section of "Opportunists who pretend to care about particular ideologies/causes when it suits them"? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)