Democrats brace for Chicago battle over superdelegates.....

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by MMC, Aug 19, 2018.

  1. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't like the radical left either. But I despise the other extreme, a gov't by and for a tiny few elites. We might be in better shape to have a radical left DP and an elite owned GOP, for we might end up somewhere in the middle, and away from extremism coming from both sides.

    Of course, what you call radical, which would include anything FDR helped to create, is to me, radical. I don't buy into the idealism and disconnected from reality conservative principles that fail time and time again. Yet I agree with some conservative ideas, but some of those ideas are nothing but idealism, which never works.

    I like those ideas, implemented, that moved us from a gilded age, and the depression that excess created, into a model, a left leaning model, that saw the creation of the largest middle class in world history here in the US. Whatever we did, to foster that, was intelligence in operation, and I got news for you. It was not conservatism that did it. When conservatism can repeat this history making paradigm, only then will it prove itself to work for average people, in large numbers.

    Proof is always in the pudding.
     
  2. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The DP served working americans, the common man for decades, until they stopped it. So I don't agree with you at all. I know what they serve as today, and you are right. But that isn't the way the DP once was.
     
  3. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know, I believe firmly in a Commons, that includes what is called welfare, but the problem is, as you say, these things were structured as programs that would create dependency, and encourage a lack of motivation and laziness. The people who are then on them, and never try to make it on their own, vote for democrats.

    And now we have a new problem in regards to this paradigm. Our economic model is not in the interest of our fiscal health as a nation, nor is it in the interest of providing jobs that pay enough to keep people off of welfare. It all only about the maximization of profit. The idea of social responsibility has been scrubbed from our current form of capitalism. (and I love capitalism) But I have always believed, (and I operated in this manner as a business owner) that I am still responsible to this nation and american society, which made me settle for a reasonable profit. Instead of maxing it out by paying industry averages in wages. Industry averages were not living wages in my sector. And yet, I kept less for myself, and paid living wages. And was lucky to be in a sector where I could do this. And it had its benefits as well, to my business. Minimum turnover, and my workers did not go to my competitors for higher wages, their employees came to me. ha ha

    I basically practiced capitalism the way others did here before the 80s and later years. Blame it on FDR. And his idea of reasonable profits and being socially responsible, which is not what Milton Friedman promoted.
     
  4. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,773
    Likes Received:
    14,565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't say anything about "DP." I didn't say anything partisan. I didn't mention any political party but wrote about politcal parties in general. Do you know why you disagree with me?
     
  5. Crawdadr

    Crawdadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,293
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe they should vote on a rule where they dont favor one of their candidates over another from the very beginning. Oh thats right they have that rule yet chose to disenfranchise a whole slew of their own members. Of course I am SURE that was the only time that has happened.
     
    TrackerSam likes this.
  6. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    34,260
    Likes Received:
    8,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If they get rid of the superdelegates, I almost feel sorry for the saps that fix the primaries, its will get a lot harder...
     
    drluggit likes this.
  7. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    12,114
    Likes Received:
    5,379
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I thought the "public" was the political party. The money they run on comes from the "public". We want your money but you'll have no say in it. But you're OK with the political elite choosing your candidate. That's exactly what the DP did - the political elite chose the Democrat candidate. Hillary won before the first vote was cast.
     
  8. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,773
    Likes Received:
    14,565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Honestly, I think it is ridiculous for the public to belong to political parties. I wish we had no political parties but the politicians apparently seem to need them. An alternative would be to have many parties. This two party system seems to me to be the basis of the "political divide." People say they believe whatever the party tells them to believe rather than what common sense tells them to believe. It is a corrupt system not worth supporting.
     

Share This Page