• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What should democrats run on?

Restoring democracy.

No more stong man crap.

Return to respect, to science, to honesty.

That wasn't enough for Harris. I thought it would be, along with abortion rights, and women wanting to elect the first female president.

Business as usual for the Dems is trying to preserve the things they gained a long time ago, while Republicans incessantly chip away at those gains. That's not going to be enough. They need to put forth new things to attain, like universal healthcare.
 
Lower prices come from capitalism and competition in (largely) free markets, and the left hates all three.

You're looking at the result of 50 years of neoliberal economic policy and blaming the outcome on the left? You can simply look at any productivity-profit graph since Reagan and see that "free market" policies have lead to the wealthy absorbing the increased wealth production instead of lowering prices.
 
When have you ever seen him to form this opinion?

I first heard of him about a month ago:

 
And that is the danger of Epstein. That Trump realizes that leads me to believe not that I am underestimating him but that I am blind to where he is intelligent.

To your point - the younger generation - especially white and hispanic men - are notably more radical than their elders. What's perhaps most ironic is that it seems to me that the death cult of dispensationalist Christianity was almost a containment zone, perhaps intentionally so. Evangelical Christianity is highly dogmatic, anti-intellectual and regressive - no doubt - but it's also extremely commercialized to the point of almost being sterile. It's the Walmart of religious fundamentalism. As far as there is conviction and true belief, it is mostly performative and ineffective. No one is going on a crusade for Joel Osteen.

It's still playing out, but it's becoming clear that the youth I mentioned want nothing to do with Reaganite neoconservatism or Evangelical Christianity. Their impression - true or not - is that they are materially worse off than the boomers and so shlocky and decadent political movements are going out of style. They want something serious and for something to be serious, it often needs to be competent. The concern is that Democrats couldn't even go toe to toe with Trump, who had no will to govern and was a master of squandering huge amounts of political capital.

What happens if the Democrats/political left have to go toe-to-toe with a serious person? They're going to get eaten alive - literally.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how democrats will be able to come up with a coherent platform, because right now, cost of living is probably the number one issue for American voters.

So how can democrats reduce our cost of living? They can't. Everything they support either restricts supply or makes production more expensive. The states with the highest cost of living are (of course) the most progressive, e.g. California, MA, NY, etc.

But wait, it gets worse. These states also have sky-high state and local taxes. This is what the left does: they make everything expensive, and then on top of that, they tax the living shit out of you.

Zohran Mamdani is going to win because his platform is focused on lowering the cost of living in NYC. However his "solution" is to subsidize demand in addition to even more government control over the economy. This has never worked, and will never work.

Lower prices come from capitalism and competition in (largely) free markets, and the left hates all three.
They typically run as of late on ideas that are vague and almost meaningless. Hope and change progress and so forth.
 
I don't see how democrats will be able to come up with a coherent platform, because right now, cost of living is probably the number one issue for American voters.

So how can democrats reduce our cost of living? They can't. Everything they support either restricts supply or makes production more expensive. The states with the highest cost of living are (of course) the most progressive, e.g. California, MA, NY, etc.

But wait, it gets worse. These states also have sky-high state and local taxes. This is what the left does: they make everything expensive, and then on top of that, they tax the living shit out of you.

Zohran Mamdani is going to win because his platform is focused on lowering the cost of living in NYC. However his "solution" is to subsidize demand in addition to even more government control over the economy. This has never worked, and will never work.

Lower prices come from capitalism and competition in (largely) free markets, and the left hates all three.
Why do you think government control over the economy has never worked?

US Constitution Article I:

"Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce..."

And it only makes sense. Capitalism is like a massive engine of productivity. But like any powerful engine, it needs to be controlled. If allowed to run wide open throttle it will blow up.

The problem with unregulated capitalism is those with the most capital use that inherent power to take advantage of everyone else. Everybody knows our government is bought. Rich and powerful operatives exert heavy influence on government in return for astonishing favors. Democrats favor more government oversight of commerce. Americans are getting ripped off. The only entity powerful enough to stand up to greedy capitalists is the government.

What is the justification for crippling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? (I don't expect a coherent answer because we both know you don't have one.) It was ready to force Navy Federal Credit Union to return $80 billion to consumers which was ripped off from them. Trump cancelled that. The bankers and rich investors get to keep what they ripped off from consumers. That's bullshit.

Powerful capitalists (billionaires) want you to vote for Republicans so they can minimize any chance of government oversight, and also pay lower taxes even as the US debt soars. Democrats do a better job of standing up for the people, but Democrats are bought, too.

What America needs to do is take local action to support the American Anti Corruption Act. That should be a slam dunk. Congress won't even consider the proposed Act. We have to act locally to send the message that we want our government to Represent Us.

Now, who wants to take a public position in favor of corruption? Nobody. All we have to do is pass local non-binding resolutions in favor of the Act. We need to do this all over America to change the political landscape.

It has come down to this, America. Either you get up off your butt and get involved in local politics, or you accept the status quo, which obviously is not going to change, but only get worse. So ya gotta ask yourself. How bad does it have to get before you do something?

It's not like you're being asked to do something difficult. Nobody is going to take a public stand in favor of corruption. This measure spends no money, and it makes everyone look good. So go make some new friends and get this done in your local government.

When that happens all across America, it sets the stage for new candidates (of any party!) who are not bought. When enough of them take over Congress, new laws and Amendments can pass and we, the people, will take back our government from they, the billionaires.

If you give a shit.
 
The subject of OP’s thread is possible DNC platform ideas/strategies.

OP makes no mention whatsoever, or even implies, that he’s referring to DNC Primaries.

In fact, the only candidate mentioned is Zohran Mamdani, who has already won his primary.

Try paying better attention.

That (bolded above) was my initial point. Mamdani won (the primary) based on promising more government subsidies, paid for by increased taxation of “the rich”.
 
That (bolded above) was my initial point. Mamdani won (the primary) based on promising more government subsidies, paid for by increased taxation of “the rich”.
Feeble, failed recovery attempt noted.
 
For decades I was the first to admit that libertarianism is a political loser.

Then an ancap became president of a country in south america, so now I don't know what to think about it.

I think that South America is alot different than the US.
That's a good start, but tariffs are only one of the many costs imposed by government on businesses that get passed on to consumers.

And now you are going the libertarian route that no one sane cares about. Most of us are OK with food that is safe, doctors that have licenses, cars that have back up cameras, factories having to have safety guards on their machines, and so on.
 
I think that South America is alot different than the US.

Yes, it's way more left-wing than the US, which makes Milei's win even more astonishing.

And now you are going the libertarian route that no one sane cares about. Most of us are OK with food that is safe,

Here's a restaurant in the most regulated city in the world.

doctors that have licenses,

And yet:

Medical errors have more recently been recognized as a serious public health problem, reported as the third leading cause of death in the US. One study reported that approximately 400,000 hospitalized patients experience some preventable harm each year, while another estimated that >200,000 patient deaths annually were due to preventable medical errors.


cars that have back up cameras, factories having to have safety guards on their machines, and so on.

If people want safety features, then the market will provide them.
 
They should run on any road that gets then out of Washington D.C. :cool:
 



The first two points they would both agree on of course.

"Push racial division" seems like it would only apply to Hitler, but Stalin deported people based on their ethnicity, and that's not uncommon for commies

They both supported strict gun control. The German Weapons act loosened gun control for party members, but tightened them up for Jews.

"Climate change agenda" Hitler was an environmentalist, Stalin was an environment destroyer.

Neither of them would support the WEF

There were no voting machines in either country, and no elections either.

They both hated Jews, but Hitler of course hated them more.

And lets not forget that these two had an alliance, "cemented in blood" and had a goddamn parade together.

They are very, very similar ideologies. One is focused on race, and the other is focused on class - two slightly different forms of collectivism.
 
Sure am. Know why? I make sound decisions and don’t look to the government to take care of me. I don’t see a president being able to affect my quality of life.
Are you drinking clean water? Eating uncontaminated food? And so on.

Your position is cute, but untenable. Unless of course you are generating your own power to get on the internet...oh wait, that's the government too.
 
Are prices going down where you live? They're going up where I live. What is it you think you are defending? We hear the same doom and gloom from the gop every election. Did Biden crash the markets, tens of thousands of jobs lost every month like W caused when he crashed the markets? Biden beat the jobs expectations month after month, is trump doing the same?

Mamdani is promising to lower the cost of living in NYC. He is not going to be able to deliver.

Universal healthcare is a very popular idea on both sides of the aisle, and it would be the first really meaningful legislation passed in about 50 years.

1. No, it's unpopular with seniors on medicare. The aarp does not support medicare for all, because they know adding 260 million people to medicare is going to ruin it for the 70 million seniors who are on it now.

2. It's also unpopular with the healthcare lobby because it would mean price controls. The healthcare lobby is one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, lobby in the district of criminals.

3. Harris had always supported universal healthcare, but she had to drop that idea when she ran for president.

4. Only if the young commies take over the party will a dem presidential candidate run on universal healthcare.
 
Back
Top Bottom