Why Don't The Democrats Want Their Party Back?

I was reading the thread about martial law on the home page and wondering why the usual suspects aren't worried about their own party.

Let me give a little context. Bush pushed the republican party left (auto bailouts, bank bailouts, no child left behind, illegal immigration, etc). It was a party that was hard to tell from the left (at the time). McCain was a continuation of that. The base was furious. They had been beaten and abused by the party which no longer represented their ideals. So they started the tea party and began taking the party back to the right, where it would properly represent the base.

Obama pushed the democrat party to the extreme left (climate change, taxes, economic stagnation, LGBT, etc) and took Washington corruption to a whole new level. The DNC literally rigged their own primary under his watch. Yet all of the dems I know (personally and online) are more worried about Trump than their own party. In fact, they actively deny that their party has a problem. They deny that the DNC put their hands on the scales in hillary's favor, despite their lawyers arguing they did exactly that. They deny that their views are extreme left and unpopular, despite the continual drubbing they get when they run on their issues outside of the blue coasts. (lol)

The DNC used to be the party of the downtrodden. Well, they claimed to be. They were the party of blue collar workers. Now they want to outsource those jobs and bring in illegal immigrants to do the only blue collar work left. They used to be the party of "abortion is a necessary evil" now they actively view abortion as population control. They used to be the party against free trade, now they're the party of not just free trade, but unfair free trade, where the US worker gets screwed. They used to want to break up big companies like microsoft, now they are the party of amazon, google, facebook, apple, and netflix (though, only a few are monopolies worth breaking up).

All of these positions make total sense if you're an elite dem wanting power. You've got the immigrants to vote, you've got a new dependent class from outsourced jobs, and you've got the rich to fund you. But to the ordinary democrat voter, where is the motivation to go to the polls? If you're not motivated to go to the polls, why aren't you finding someone that motivates you to go to the polls?

I get that they hate trump, but as bernie said last night, trump hatred isn't going to cut it. Where is the movement to take your party back? Where is the democrat version of the tea party?

I ask this because, while a two party system sucks, a one party system is much worse. This country needs a loyal opposition. I've pulled the lever for democrats multiple times but with the direction they're moving I'm going to be stuck voting for republicans who I disagree with on a host of important issues, simply because the democrats have gotten so much worse they're basically anti-american right now.

a reply to: Dfairlite


Those terrible, horrible Democrats. Why can't we just get rid of them? Anti-American traitors.

That's basically what you wrote. Nice.

Why do Republicans HATE so much?

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: Dfairlite


Those terrible, horrible Democrats. Why can't we just get rid of them? Anti-American traitors.

That's basically what you wrote. Nice.

Why do Republicans HATE so much?

You shouldn't make us hate so much.

Ya think?

Why do dems want to be so stupid?

Farrakhan is in vogue now, for you guys?

A racist anti semite?

Seriously?

Go ahead and invoke David Duke and we can compare.

Get a friggin job!

a reply to: Dfairlite

They never were about that at all.

I didn't understand when i was growing up, Repubs were rich guys.

Then I had to grow up and start working for a living.

Nothing wrong with a 2 party system.

Who wants to be italy?

What could go wrong in the usa with 9 parties?

#ing seriously?!

Talk about divisive.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: Dfairlite


Those terrible, horrible Democrats. Why can't we just get rid of them? Anti-American traitors.

That's basically what you wrote. Nice.

Why do Republicans HATE so much?

And this is why adults cant have conversations

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
We can still have conversations as long as a common ground can be established. Unfortunately that ground seems to be diminished. We as Americans need to get that back.

a reply to: Dfairlite

The DNC hasn't moved to the left. I don't know many people that identify as Democrats. I do know a whole lot of people that hate Trump. If the DNC did move to the left it wouldn't have supported a Neo-con (Hillary) for President. It wouldn't have allowed a health care system that gave the insurance companies a money grab and it wouldn't have allowed a drone program that kills American citizens illegally. No one that's actually a "leftist" supported Obama by the end of his Presidency. This is some nonsense the conservative echo chamber pushes to hide how far to the right they've come.

The real problem is that the BRICS countries are trying to end the petrodollar to hurt our economy at the betterment of their own. When people in this country that consider themselves the most "patriotic" Americans side with nations that are adversarial to our own interests and have publically been so, I take pause.

The Democrats have had pretty good luck with moderates in the special elections. That will continue. The GOP is going to stick with "Southern Strategy" Tea Party styled candidates that are farther to the right than their adversaries are to the left.

The pendulum always swings the other way, eventually.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
We can still have conversations as long as a common ground can be established. Unfortunately that ground seems to be diminished. We as Americans need to get that back.

thats why we need to start electing libertarians.
id love to see this country run by a party which protects the constitution and fundamentally oppose the mickey mouse bullsnip by both dems and repubs...

*liberty for all, welfare for none*

originally posted by: Dfairlite
So they started the tea party and began taking the party back to the right, where it would properly represent the base.

Actually, the Ron Paul "Revolution" started the Tea Party, then Fox News (the primary source of his undoing in 2008) co-pted the movement and made it their own.Then imploded it, is my impression. Honestly it didnt matter after that. Republican Party isn't even conservative any more than the Democrat Party is liberal.

a reply to: odzeandennz

But we have Neo-McCarthyism now its so exciting Russian's hiding under every bed again what would we do without them?!>!

originally posted by: Dfairlite
The DNC used to be the party of the downtrodden. Well, they claimed to be. They were the party of blue collar workers. Now they want to outsource those jobs and bring in illegal immigrants to do the only blue collar work left. They used to be the party of "abortion is a necessary evil" now they actively view abortion as population control. They used to be the party against free trade, now they're the party of not just free trade, but unfair free trade, where the US worker gets screwed. They used to want to break up big companies like microsoft, now they are the party of amazon, google, facebook, apple, and netflix (though, only a few are monopolies worth breaking up). .

That's all that needed to be said; it needs to be said everyday.

Big Money NWO Limo-Lib Democrats are running The Party.

They've been getting exposed and clipped but not fast enough (yet).

Their "Day" is coming 😳

A few dozen convictions might help get rid of 'em 😎

This is what they want(ed):


This is what they're getting:

I believe it needs mentioned that despite tea party demands, the republican party, trump included, has failed to stop blowing up the deficit, repeal obamacare, enforce the border, etc.

The establishment people on the dems and repubs are not two parties, they are all about power, and they have an agenda that agree with each other. So like Obama, they pretend to do things there base wants, like the dems base wanting to go after wall st., yet they do nothing to that end and continue to push the establishment policies.

We will see if trump is any different. What I do know is that Trump has the estblishment people scared, and so they arre pulling out all of the stops.

As far as the dems, I know many people on the left who "want their party back". Though if they are honest, it nevcer was there party. Thats why many are seeking a radical change in the party, pushing it further left (in some good and some bad ways in my opinion).

However, these voices are drowned out by establishment types and their media cohorts, and by people that hate trump so much that they are willing to cheer for the very establishment they once railed against.

Many liberals are seeing themselves now be forced to be considered right wing. For example advocates of free speech (of which I am one), a position that used to be a very liberal idea, are now being forced to be lumped in with the center or right because the left has deemed much speech they disagree with to be hateful and in need of censorship. Thats why you see people like Dave Rubin, Brett weinstein, Jordan peterson, Christina Hoff Sommers, and many others now censored and pushed to the right, even though their views would have been considered classically liberal.

These people understand, as do progressives like Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, Jill stein and others, that the democratic party is a corrupt establishment not truly interested in liberal values.

a reply to: Grambler

Certainly the uniparty exists, no doubt about that.

But the more centerist dems aren't trying to reclaim the democratic party. Like those you mentioned, they have given up on the party. Yet, I guarantee you, in november they will vote D where it counts. So in the end their relative quiet about the state of the democratic party, will end up being an endorsement of that corrupt party they claim to dislike so much. They will have done little to nothing to change it.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Grambler

Certainly the uniparty exists, no doubt about that.

But the more centerist dems aren't trying to reclaim the democratic party. Like those you mentioned, they have given up on the party. Yet, I guarantee you, in november they will vote D where it counts. So in the end their relative quiet about the state of the democratic party, will end up being an endorsement of that corrupt party they claim to dislike so much. They will have done little to nothing to change it.

Thats true, but again, you could say the same of the republicans. After all of the bluster of the tea party, they will continue to vote republican and for people that wont repeal obamacare, wont enforce the borders, wont stop massive debt spending, etc.

Now to their credit, they did get trump elected.

But to be honest, the dem voters tried to elect Bernie, it was just their party was more openly corrupt, and cheated him.

But when the republicans screwed ron paul over, did right wing people abandon the republican party? Not many, most just kept right on voting for them because the dems would be worse in their minds.

a reply to: Grambler

Not at all, republicans ran conservative challengers against many establishment republicans and won. Those candidates may or may not have made it to the house/senate, but that started the insurgency. Voting R with a more conservative representation was progress within the party, even if you were stuck with an establishment R to vote for in your state. The house freedom caucus is a direct result of the tea party effort.

Now, I have to admit that it takes time. the HFC was only formed in 2014-2015. So that's about 6-7 years. Trump took the full 8 year cycle to come about. But what I don't see is the people fed up with the democratic party's corruption running candidates that actually represent anything other than anti-trump, pro sjw, cultural heavy politicians. At this point the tea party was having huge events, highlighting the policies they didn't like about bush and obama and recommending candidates with actual changes.

Now, granted, the tea party had a spark with the absurdity that was obamacare being passed in the middle of the night on christmas eve. The dems don't have such a spark to unite people behind (I mean, give the government more money isn't exactly a line that brings the house down).

a reply to: Dfairlite

Dint get me wrong, I agree with a lot of what your saying.

You say that dems are running more pro sjw candidates. Well that is incdicitive of the problem. To progressives, people like ellison (the racist he is) represent a move away from the establishment dems.

That is a further move to the left, and thats what many progressives want.

Now I agree with the progressives arguments about the dems being estbalishment and horrible in some regards. For example, being pro nation building and war despite mr. nobel peace prize Obama pretending to be all about peace. Or about claiming to care about workers, only to do everything they could to undermine them.

But the bad is progressives feel like the dems have paid lip service to SJW causes, but have not done much. And they are right. So they want a further push to sjw causes. And that is terrible in my opinion.

This means more separation of people based on innate characteristics such as race and gender, more censorship of opinions they disagree with, and more socialists policies.

Hence the appeal of someone like Bernie.

So classic liberals that were once dems that support free speech and individuality are now finding themselves forced to the right, because the left is either establishment war hawks like Hillary and Obama, or socialists sjw's like Bernie.

a reply to: Grambler




F'k Ron Paul.

He's nothing and would be a punching bag like Carter and the other little guy.

Anyway, they are embarrassed or moved into the red zone.

So far left, Che is their next golden boy.

I would just like to point out a few things....
bush didn't push the party to the left, he pushed it so far to the right that it ended up in far left field.
it was him that decided it was a good idea to go into iraq and oust saddam... he was the commander that forgot to guard saddams weapons depots and let the isis folks come in and take what they wanted. it was him that got rid of saddam and left a gap we were unable to control as well as saddam did. yes, he was a ruthless dictator, but he had the ability to keep a handle on the fundie islamics!! it was under bush's watch that it was decided that they would just not worry about how much money his "crusade" was costing us. and it was him that decided to short the states out of too much of the funds they were getting for their medicaid programs that caused the states and counties to start increasing every danged tax or fee they could to make up the shortfall. and when the taxpayers began revolting over it, it was him who began his line about being an "ownership" society and pushing the idea of buying houses. well, the banks became loose with the lending, and peddling their notes as grade AAA when most probably should have been closer to FFF. but hey, the property values went up and the states, counties, and taxpayers got what they thought of as relief because higher property values meant higher property taxes... so, instead of hearing you will be paying more taxes because we need the money for the medicaid program, it was you will be paying more taxes because you home value has increase!!! yah!!! yippie!!! let's go out and get a second mortgage on the house, we are rich!!! well, the pie in the sky had to fall on our faces, so, as bush was leaving office, the whole thing came down, effecting not only our country the whole world economy! one of his last acts was the great bailout plan, because you know, they are too big to fail!
and ya know what else I remember bush saying over and over again?? OUTSOURCING IS GOOD FOR OUR ECONOMY!!
bush was the great "compassionate conservative" republican elected to office by republicans.
obama came in, and is blamed for the great big deficit that was caused by the economic collaspe and the great "crusade" he felt he needed to have. I know that the life insurance industry got hit hard by the banking debacle, they had lots of investments that consisted of what was really useless paper. can't help but ask... was the health insurance industry also invested in the crap? could that have been the reason for the need to quickly get a plan together to bail them out.... named obamacare? people lost their homes, they lost their retirement plans at work, the lost their investments in the stock markets, they lost their jobs... they lost much more wealth than was fictitiously created by the bankers. just where did this money go, if not to those who profited within the banking/real estate industry and those who profited through wars?
now we have trump.... first major thing he manages to accomplish is this big tax cut for the top and we all wait to the imaginary trickle down to occur and we get our share, which more than likely any we get will be eaten up, plus more by other taxes either on the federal, state, or local level as they find the need to cut funding for various needed programs. they are already trying to loosen the banking regulations so the banks can step in and play their game again. and how much money does he want for the defense contractors?? push as far right as you can go oh republicans.... push us so far right that we are in emergency status and only the left's policies will even have a chance to get us on course... then leave office and again blame the left for all your problems!!!

a reply to: dawnstar

The dems were all in on Iraq, not so much with the tax cuts.

They gave a big FU to most of America.

Who needs them anyway?