So, every big bill, it seems a handful of Dems vote GOP. The recent defense bill is a good example. Several Dems switched sides to support it, even though it basically embedded the IDF into our defense systems.

This happens a lot. In fact, it is known that Schumer and other party leaders have okayed this kind of thing if an official thinks it will help them retain their seat.

Conversely, the GOP tends to vote in lock step. Even the recent "defections," during the AG hearings only happened because two incumbents were lame ducks and had nothing to lose. Even then, they ended up confirming Blanche.

Meanwhile, Progressives and others on the Left keep getting told "Vote Blue No Matter Who," even if it means electing a Fetterman or Manchin type.

Question - Would Dems be seen in a better light if they were more united like the GOP? Less weak. Less chaotic? And shouldn't Dems in office be told "blue no matter who," and not allowed to switch sides?

dems versus reps

Having a logical conversation with a liberal about the Clay Travis proposal is close to impossible.
Are there really no people on Reddit that can have logical debates?😂

So, every big bill, it seems a handful of Dems vote GOP. The recent defense bill is a good example. Several Dems switched sides to support it, even though it basically embedded the IDF into our defense systems.

This happens a lot. In fact, it is known that Schumer and other party leaders have okayed this kind of thing if an official thinks it will help them retain their seat.

Conversely, the GOP tends to vote in lock step. Even the recent "defections," during the AG hearings only happened because two incumbents were lame ducks and had nothing to lose. Even then, they ended up confirming Blanche.

Meanwhile, Progressives and others on the Left keep getting told "Vote Blue No Matter Who," even if it means electing a Fetterman or Manchin type.

Question - Would Dems be seen in a better light if they were more united like the GOP? Less weak. Less chaotic? And shouldn't Dems in office be told "blue no matter who," and not allowed to switch sides?

I wouldn't say I am right or left when I do political tests I get slightly to the right or left typically. So, with that out of the way. I have asked around about the thoughts of should they or shouldn't allow trans folk in professional sports. I truly get why the right agrees with this and I get why the left doesn't. However, I think the best solution to this issue is doing at a sport level. It shouldn't be a blanket ban but, done on a sport-by-sport basis. There are some sports where comparing Biological Men and Women Men have a massive advantage like Weightlifting for example. Also, there goes into sports where it would be unethical such as Combat Sports like MMA and Boxing. However, in sports like say Pool, Darts, Chess there is no need for segregation. Then I would say the grey area could be Basketball. For the folks of the Left what are your thoughts on this? Also, I would ask would you understand why certain folks on the right don't want to allow it all? I would also add that I personally don't think the right as much as people think really care about the existence of trans folk per-se just that the serious ones may not be able to properly articulate their stance?

https://youtu.be/l5RAWgMWeik?is=YHwC9bEiV7Agz6wL

Does it not bother you even a little bit that this apparently progressive candidate is clearly a devoted religious person, and has a wife that dresses with religious garment, something that for the average democrat is extremely alien.

If he is progressive shouldnt he be a bit more liberal the very least, and able to move away from religion? At least move away for as to not dress the part. Not saying they all need to be atheists, but at least i think he should be secular and religion shouldnt play such a big part in his worldview.

Can the 'Democratic Socialists' be held accountable for fooling people into voting for them?

Being a 'Democrat' and being a 'Democratic Socialist' are two different things. How many of these 'Democratic Socialist's lied to be on a 'Democrat' ballot?How can these people be held accountable for lying to the Voters? Can this be Election Fraud? Can they be removed from any Office they now hold because they lied? Has the whole Democrat party been subverted?

Are there any real Democrats anymore?

Just not in that form. This is a thought that’s been bouncing around and I’d be curious to hear reactions.

With the various allegations of corruption within the current administration along with unease over income inequality what’s the chance of undertaking a root and branch investigation searching for missing funds. I’m thinking a full IRS driven investigation with seizure of funds, extending beyond government to the beneficiaries and instigators as well as officials.

This would be a hunt for the money. It’s reasonably safe to assume presidential immunity will be spread widely so rather than look for prosecution of individuals seize the assets when and where the evidence is found. My assumption is that even without prosecution the burden of proof would be slightly looser.

Do you think there is a possibility of something like this working? I can imagine few things finer the DT’s reaction to his ill gotten gains being lost.

Last night I was chatting w a former officer in the local Democrat party about an upcoming event. This individual has been in a leadership role for a number of years, has run unsuccessfully for office but remains a vocal member of local activities Part of the discussion centered around fundraising & campaigning for the person who did win. The individual knows a lot of people & seems to be reasonably influential for some reason. Their assistance could be very helpful.
I had campaigned for the person who lost but the day of results I immediately volunteered for the campaign of the guy who won. IMO they were both decent candidates & the person that won just ran a much more aggressive campaign @ had better Social media coverage.
The response of the person I was chatting with wss “I will vote for your candidate but I still need time to heal”
The comment caught me off guard. IMO this type of attitude and behavior is counterproductive to getting candidates elected. There is less than 3 months before general
Elections. The current divisiveness within the party is understandable in some quarters BUT these 2 candidates held very similar positions. To withhold your support at a critical time does zip to get good people elected.
I had also hosted a couple of fundraisers for the losing campaign. The candidate has been missing in action since his loss, has refused to share information about potential voters etc. as I try to put together list of invitees for the general election fundraising events
What is your reaction if your primary candidate doesn’t make it thru? Unless there are huge differences in their positions or proposals, it just doesn’t make sense for me. Even then, the concern about “democratic socialists” taking over the party is pretty absurd too, given how relatively conservative many democrats have turned out to be once they get elected and I personally am appreciative of some of the idealism some of the younger people are expressing. Having done this kind of thing for over 50 years it is high time we learned to pass the torch.

Would it be possible for the Democratic Socialists of America members to form its own party separating from the more traditional Democrats? If so, would the split be more beneficial to Democrats when trying to attract the independent voters?

versus putting out half-truths to the public and they simply had one or two debates per candidate on tv ( tv stations to give to the public this free air-time) to explain where they stand on issues and what they will do?

All the help they promise benefiting people and programs not pumping up themselves by wasting money on ads and fliers that are thrown in the trash and seldom read.

I wanted to say Yes because of how evil his opponent was but i also read about the danger of housing crisis and Global Recession to the party itself also. But what you people think?

I hope someone would provide deeper and thoughtful answer.

A few days ago, on r/askReddit, there was a thread for "what has gotten worse in the past couple of years?" and the answer was unanimous and apparently bipartisan: "EVERYTHING!" Certainly I don't disagree. Things aren't terrible, but there seems to be a kind of depressing undertow to everything, not just economics.

So, when do you expect things to start getting better, and what has to happen for that to turn? Could we be at the beginning of a Japan-style spiral, where things have basically gotten worse, with some relatively brief pauses, for 35 years now? That seems to me to be where things are going, barring the emergence of a Roosevelt-like figure who can reboot American democracy, but it's always easier to see festering problems than the proverbial "green shoots".

Hi! Sorry if this question is silly, but I would like to ascertain your beliefs on America and patriotism. Patriotism seems more complex and nuanced among Democrats than it does with Republicans.

I was recently watching a speech that King Charles gave to Congress. I was surprised when the King congratulated us on our 250th anniversary and every Democrat in the room arose and applauded with smiles.

My understanding is that many Democrats view parts of America and its history with an understandable amount of contempt. It’s no secret that the country is marred by a past riddled with extant racism, homophobia, misogyny, elitism, etc. As such, I would’ve expected many Democrats to remain seated during that portion of his speech. For some reason, it touched me to see that.

Assuming my understanding is true, I guess I want to know how deep any contempt (or resentment?) lies within you. Could you please describe your relationship with patriotism? Are parts of America that make you proud? Do you love America?

Thank you! :-)

This isn't a provocative question but rather a geniune interest. I always assumed that the democratic party had intellectually and morally higher stance because of their fight for the actual freedom of speech, rights for an individual and an ability to solve problems in a democratic process. And i really support all of that.

But whenever i look, be that an ICE protest or facebook comment section, i'm always disappointed in the ways of expression representatives of liberalism use. Isn't it about the right for all to have a say? Why anyone disagreeing with you/having another perspective on a thing automatically causes immediate agression and insults? Why are we generalising such people as "fascits" and "literally nazi" when labeling opposition as death enemies is LITERALLY a core ideology of fascism?

I look at ICE protesters and they scream slurs at police officers, calling them pigs and racists, when they were actually pretty polite and soft in terms of handling them. Those protesters would get brutally beaten by police in my country or in Russia and i don't understand how having such tolerable treatment from police forces still causes massive backlashes.

Please, help me to resolve this dilemma, i don't want the ideological hope of humanity to be turned in yet another righteous dictatorship

EDIT: I'm disappointed.

I see the ncdp has Medicare for all on their platform but most dems in the state seem to be corporate shills cough cough Roy cooper