If Harris Loses, Should Democrats Move Right?

[Along Came Jones]

America as a whole has gone to the right over the last few decades, and the Democratic party has gone from, for example, unions as a core value to only some candidates having support for unions. And then there's the matter of restoring the Nixon and Eisenhower top tax rates, which were MUCH higher than under the "communist" Obama.

This is why Bernie garnered such grassroots support. He wanted to take us back to those kinds of values.



You knew what you were doing. Get it right--it's the Democratic party. Unless you want us calling the other side the Rethuglican party...

RE: You knew what you were doing. Get it right--it's the Democratic party. Unless you want us calling the other side the Rethuglican party...

You've confused me with @Gardener I was making light of my own mistakes as something we all do.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

And you've not established that any coup was attempted.

That was not the point. The point was that you attempted to argue, without any evidence, in total ignorance, that winning an election is equal to a coup.

The academic charge being tossed around is that Trump attempted a self-coup. That is an allegation you and many others believe and remains unproven.

I wasn't adressing that, I was still trying to get you to understand how nutty your "coup=election win argument is.

I can explain how what the Orange ****er did was a coup attempt, but lets get the basics straight first. lets see you walk before you run, because you are currently face planted on the floor.

Since you understand the era so well, why did Congress believe the 22nd Amendment was necessary?

To make tradition....law.

On the face of it, the amendment disallows voters to democratically elect the president of their choice.

Now you are going off on a new fallacy, a voter can write in whoever they want to vote for....another face plant.....and it is weird since now you are making argument against the 22A.

I wish you would take this one step at a time.

 

[Along Came Jones]

That was not the point. The point was that you attempted to argue, without any evidence, in total ignorance, that winning an election is equal to a coup.

I wasn't adressing that, I was still trying to get you to understand how nutty your "coup=election win argument is.

I can explain how what the Orange ****er did was a coup attempt, but lets get the basics straight first. lets see you walk before you run, because you are currently face planted on the floor.

To make tradition....law.

Now you are going off on a new fallacy, a voter can write in whoever they want to vote for....another face plant.....and it is weird since now you are making argument against the 22A.

I wish you would take this one step at a time.

I never mentioned a coup until after you tossed in that rabbit. You're quite a desultory fella.

This is what got your little heart fluttering off the rails:

This is far from the first time we've faced down foundational challenges. We've adapted and overcome. One bit of evidence is the ratification of the 22nd Amendment limiting a President to two terms of office. Had Roosevelt's health been better he might well have been elected to a fifth consecutive term.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I never mentioned a coup until after you tossed in that rabbit. You're quite a desultory fella.

Look, you were arguing the point, you didn't object to discussing the point with me until now, and this "I never mentioned it" is weak -ass sauce. You don't continue to argue a point and then attempt to hand wave like this.

This is what got your little heart fluttering off the rails:

This is far from the first time we've faced down foundational challenges. We've adapted and overcome. One bit of evidence is the ratification of the 22nd Amendment limiting a President to two terms of office. Had Roosevelt's health been better he might well have been elected to a fifth consecutive term.

And like other posters tonight, you are going to rewind and act as if none of what you argued was what you posted, that you suddenly forgot that we spent multiple posts on the topic before YOU suddenly got confused.
You are now trying to cover for this face plant....by arguing it wasn't what was said, and you never challenged me to prove that Donny did attempt a coup. Apparently that was somebody else, perhaps someone else behind the screen. There is a lot of that about tonight.

 

[iguanaman]

I purposely did not speak of that scenario and was deliberate in my response.

I am not willing to speculate on that question right now, although I concede that it is a possibility.

I desperately want to have faith in our government and it's foundational plinths, but I will go on the record to say that I am concerned over how eroded that foundation might be and how it could be severely tested.

Like Obama says "Don't have faith.....VOTE!" It is your right. Not voting to defeat Trump will haunt your dreams.

 

[Along Came Jones]

Look, you were arguing the point, you didn't object to discussing the point with me until now, and this "I never mentioned it" is weak -ass sauce. You don't continue to argue a point and then attempt to hand wave like this.

And like other posters tonight, you are going to rewind and act as if none of what you argued was what you posted, that you suddenly forgot that we spent multiple posts on the topic before YOU suddenly got confused.
You are now trying to cover for this face plant....by arguing it wasn't what was said, and you never challenged me to prove that Donny did attempt a coup. Apparently that was somebody else, perhaps someone else behind the screen. There is a lot of that about tonight.

Oh lordy . . . This is everything I've said, mi amigo.

Second post:
Well, so you say. Magazines and newspapers of the era, most of which people here will not know ever existed, routinely labeled FDR a self-anointed King, dictator, despot and much worse. Of course, the historically deprived might overlook the similarities. I'll settle for being your kind of dumb. Don't mean nothing.

Third post:
And you've not established that any coup was attempted.

The academic charge being tossed around is that Trump attempted a self-coup. That is an allegation you and many others believe and remains unproven.

Since you understand the era so well, why did Congress believe the 22nd Amendment was necessary? On the face of it, the amendment disallows voters to democratically elect the president of their choice.

Fourth post:
I never mentioned a coup until after you tossed in that rabbit. You're quite a desultory fella.

This is what got your little heart fluttering off the rails:

This is far from the first time we've faced down foundational challenges. We've adapted and overcome. One bit of evidence is the ratification of the 22nd Amendment limiting a President to two terms of office. Had Roosevelt's health been better he might well have been elected to a fifth consecutive term.

If I were you, the question I would have asked in the beginning would be, what similarities? So, take your indignation and have a good sleep on it.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

If I were you, the question I would have asked in the beginning would be, what similarities?

Between what?

A: Between FDR's 3 election wins......and....wait for it...a coup, ie the "foundational challenge", from the guy "not likely to give up power willingly and who will stop him from declaring himself President for life?"

I asked you for the similarities, I pointed out how they are different. You now say that was not the topic. You even challenged me to discuss how what he attempted was a coup.

You can keep playing dumb, saying you were not involved in a discussion about Donny not giving up power, that you did not attempt to equate FDR's 3 wins as a coup, as a dictatorship.....you can repost your quotes but not show what you responded to......but ANYONE can review and see that was what you did.

So go and change the argument to whatever you like so as to avoid a loss of the point, it seems really important to you.

 

[Along Came Jones]

Between what?

A: Between FDR's 3 election wins......and....wait for it...a coup, ie the "foundational challenge", the guy "not likely to give up power willingly and who will stop him from declaring himself President for life?"

I asked you for the similarities, I pointed out how they are different. You now say that was not the topic. You even challenged me to discuss how what he attempted was a coup.

You can keep playing dumb, saying you were not involved in a discussion about Donny not giving up power, that you did not attempt to equate FDR's 3 wins as a coup, as a dictatorship.....you can repost your quotes but not show what you responded to......but ANYONE can review and see that was what you did.

So go and change the argument to whatever you like so as to avoid a loss of the point, it seems really important to you.

I reposted every word I wrote. Your reading problem is not my problem.

 

[Felis Leo]

Simple question prompted by this Vox article. Should Kamala lose here in two weeks, do the Democrats need to pivot to the right to gain more voter support?

If Harris loses, expect Democrats to move right

Even though Harris is running as a moderate, progressives are likely to get blamed for her defeat.

www.vox.com

...moderates in the party are seeding the narrative that Harris was doomed by the Biden administration’s excessive deference to left-wing interest groups and aversion to orthodox economics. Some progressives suggest that Harris may be undone by her ties to big business, failure to articulate a “vision for the country,” and complicity in Israeli atrocities in Gaza...

No. The Democratic Party should become a progressive party and move further to the left, most especially with regard to economic issues and social welfare programs. A platform they have all but abandoned in favor of pro-corporate liberal policies with a handful of table crumbs to give to the working class, like the increased child tax credit and trimming around the Affordable Care Act, instead of transformational change like Medicare for All and publicly-provided daycare for children under four.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I reposted every word I wrote. Your reading problem is not my problem.

You can't even clarify what the 2 things are that have "similarities" in this comment:

If I were you, the question I would have asked in the beginning would be, what similarities?

 

[Along Came Jones]

You can't even clarify what the 2 things are that have "similarities" in this comment:

On the Indian subcontinent clarified butter is called ghee.

 

[iguanaman]

When you equate Trumpism with Nazism, everyone is victimized by that level of ignorance and dishonesty

Yes and the fact that 2 decorated American **** Generals that worked with him in the Whitehouse say he is a fasc ist and that he constantly said he admired Hitler doesn't mean a damn thing. Right? You actually think you are a rational human being? That is so weird. Either you are in denial or are just lying and already know Trump wants a dictatorship and you are fine with it.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22/poli...-comment-atlantic-jeffrey-goldberg-src-digvid

 

[Real blank]

Yes and the fact that 2 decorated American **** Generals that worked with him in the Whitehouse say he is a fasc ist and that he constantly said he admired Hitler doesn't mean a damn thing. Right? You actually think you are a rational human being? That is so weird. Either you are in denial or are just lying and already know Trump wants a dictatorship and you are fine with it.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22/poli...-comment-atlantic-jeffrey-goldberg-src-digvid

I doubt Trump is well read about world war 2. I think these guys are lying

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Those Angry Days | Author Lynne Olson

lynneolson.com

listened to it a couple of weeks back, part of my "we've been here before" study of 1900-'50.

 

[Felis Leo]

I doubt Trump is well read about world war 2. I think these guys are lying

What on Earth are you talking about? When has Donald Trump evidence any in-depth knowledge of the Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime? It's surface-level History Channel knowledge.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I don't think anyone needs to change their beliefs.

I think the government needs to realize that a less than 5% margin means that the government needs to listen and do what it can for both sides no matter who wins the election. One of the greatest fears of the people who set up our government was that 51% of the people would take away the rights of the other 49% legally.

This whole concept of my way only, the people have spoken, is one the most ignorant ideas going. If one side was clearly right the numbers would not be so equally divided. That is unless someone like the rich and powerful were using their money, their media, and their parties to keep us divided. That is how the few can control the many. Keep us busy fighting each other while they get what they want.

But surely we can't be that stupid? Or are we? We do believe a 5% margin is a landslide victory. It is not looking good.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I doubt Trump is well read about world war 2. I think these guys are lying

Being a fascist, or more so a NAZI, doesn't really require political theory knowledge. The NAZI's substituted propaganda for any sort of political ideology. The Party was Hitler, the politics were being against anything that was a threat to the Fatherland....which was Hitler.
Donny's family has lots of fascist tendencies. Very Right wing authoritarian. Donny has expressed all sorts of fascist-RWA tendencies.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

That’s excellent news. Fracking is completely stupid. I mean, unless you like flammable ground water and earthquakes in new places.

I live in Northern PA. Yes we had flammable ground water before anyone did any fracking. My grandfather showed my that when I was teenager. That has been common knowledge to the people living in the area where well water and natural gas coexisted for millions of years. Actually the removal of the gas should eventually may put an end to the problem. I guess they need to stop fracking in California and put a stop to all those earthquakes.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

This brings up an interesting thought: Republicans actually have a great opportunity here in the event of a Harris victory.

If Trump loses, that's going to leave a giant void to be filled, because that's gonna be the end for him, no doubt about that. If the GOP responds to that accordingly (a BIG if) and ends up restructuring the party back to how it used to be, I'd say Harris is likely guaranteed to lose re-election (unless there's a scenario where she ends up as some incredible POTUS). A big chunk of Harris support relies upon people despising Trump to the core, so if you remove him and the MAGA stuff out of the picture, she can easily fall behind without that support.

I would like to see Trump lose rather than inherit the mess Joe and Harris have created. I don't believe anyone can fix it. At some point the people will have to pay for all this spending. It won't be me if the democrats can kick the can down the road long enough for me to pass on. In the mean time break out that credit card and spend baby spend. Steak and lobster for everyone and had the bill to our children.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

I would like to see Trump lose rather than inherit the mess Joe and Harris have created. I don't believe anyone can fix it. At some point the people will have to pay for all this spending. It won't be me if the democrats can kick the can down the road long enough for me to pass on. In the mean time break out that credit card and spend baby spend. Steak and lobster for everyone and had the bill to our children.

Apparently, you don't know what Trump did to the national debt do you? Furthermore, percentage wise, the national debt has increased way more under GOP rule than it has under democrats over the past 50 years. It would be nice if people did a little research before, they post nonsense.

 

[Juks]

Simple question prompted by this Vox article. Should Kamala lose here in two weeks, do the Democrats need to pivot to the right to gain more voter support?

If Harris loses, expect Democrats to move right

Even though Harris is running as a moderate, progressives are likely to get blamed for her defeat.

www.vox.com

...moderates in the party are seeding the narrative that Harris was doomed by the Biden administration’s excessive deference to left-wing interest groups and aversion to orthodox economics. Some progressives suggest that Harris may be undone by her ties to big business, failure to articulate a “vision for the country,” and complicity in Israeli atrocities in Gaza...

If Kamala Harris loses, the problem isn't that the Democrats need to move right. A loss would signal something much deeper and more dangerous: a majority of American voters have lost faith in their own constitution and democratic institutions. This is incredibly serious for any country.

Historically, countries that experience this kind of erosion in trust often see a shift toward authoritarianism. Take Brazil, for example. Before the military coup in 1964, Brazil was a democracy, but political polarization, economic instability, and a growing belief that the government couldn't solve the country's problems led to a complete breakdown of democracy. The military, supported by conservative elites, took power, and Brazil entered into decades of authoritarian rule. Censorship, persecution of opposition, and suppression of civil liberties became the norm.

The same danger exists for the United States. If the voters starts believing that the constitution can't protect their rights or that democratic elections don't matter, it opens the door for leaders who promise to 'restore order, often at the cost of democracy itself. A Harris loss wouldn't just be a political defeat for the Democrats; it could represent a significant step toward a country that no longer believes in the very system that has kept it free for centuries.

We’re already seeing signs of this: deep polarization, growing distrust in election results, and populist leaders gaining support by attacking democratic norms. If this continues, the US could face severe political and social fragmentation. And as we've seen in places like Brazil, that path leads to one thing: a gradual erosion of democracy, giving way to authoritarianism.

The real question we should be asking isn't whether Democrats will move right if Harris loses, it's whether the US will remain a democracy if the people lose faith in its institutions.

 

[Gatsby]

No. The Democratic Party should become a progressive party and move further to the left, most especially with regard to economic issues and social welfare programs. A platform they have all but abandoned in favor of pro-corporate liberal policies with a handful of table crumbs to give to the working class, like the increased child tax credit and trimming around the Affordable Care Act, instead of transformational change like Medicare for All and publicly-provided daycare for children under four.

It's difficult for me to see how daycare for some children for 4 years is transformational change, but a child tax credit for all children for 18 years is "table crumbs". The child tax credit expansion was the biggest improvement to the welfare state since the ACA...bringing it back would be popular, achievable, and an excellent policy.

Medicare For All would be nice but it's just not going to happen anytime soon. Even a public option for the Affordable Care Act is an extremely heavy lift. There's no reason to promise voters lots of stuff that is politically impossible; the best case scenario is that it works, Democrats win the election, and then piss the voters off by not delivering what they promised. And that's the best case scenario.

 

[PeteEU]

How's the kool-aid?

How is that "Roe vs Wade " is established law and abortion is safe?

 

[eohrnberger]

Yeah that's exactly what I meant. Like she's hiding something.

Yup. Hiding something? Yes, it sure does. Hmm. 'Hiding something', I think that's how Harris got her start in San Francisco politics - hiding something.

I'm sure there are plenty but they like to keep that quiet.

Based on how she holds back I'd say she probably uses vulgar language. She acts like my mechanic buddies did around women with their children.

I hadn't thought of that comparison.

I think it's so they can take over when she desperately wants to tell an expletive or slur.

The nanny thing, her staff using this as leverage against her? Its already out and public, but the Dem's MSM propagandists don't report on it.

Yeah it is liberating

I'm trying to avoid using that term.

As often as that term has been used here to smear conservatives of every color, it would seem appropriate to use it when the opportunity presents itself.

 

[DrewPaul]

How is that "Roe vs Wade " is established law and abortion is safe?

For whom is the abortion safe?