Besides opposing Trump, what do Democrats stand for?

“The national brand is toxic,” said Democratic Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, who unsuccessfully challenged Pelosi for the title of House minority leader last year, in an interview. “There’s just no doubt about it. We are not connecting with people the way we need to connect with them.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/handel-ossoff-democrats-trump-special-elections-congres/531363/

“Right now, the one discernible message is opposition to President Trump. That might be enough to get through next year’s midterm elections, though some savvy Democratic elected officials doubt it. What’s needed is a message that attracts voters beyond the blue-state base of the party.”

“History says a president with approval ratings as low as Trump’s usually sustain substantial midterm losses. That could be the case in 2018, particularly if the Republicans end up passing a health-care bill that, right now, is far more unpopular than Obamacare. But Trump has beaten the odds many times in his short political career. What beyond denunciations of the Republicans as heartless will the Democrats have to say to voters?”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/beyond-opposing-trump-democrats-keep-searching-for-a-message/2017/06/24/6bb05b54-5857-11e7-a204-ad706461fa4f_story.html?utm_term=.203c34f91b25

Turtleneck wrote:What vision does the Republican party have for America? They clearly oppose Obama, but that is no substitute for a real legislative agenda. Let us imagine a hypothetical: Republicans take back the House in 2010. What level of organization have you seen from Republicans that tells you with confidence they are in position to advance legislation backed by broad party support? Yes, I realize the Republicans have legislative preferences. I also realize being shut out of both chambers of Congress and the White House makes it hard to act on those preferences. However, Republicans do not seem to be articulating a long-term vision. They seem lost at sea, and they cannot rely on an anti-Obama message to actually accomplish anything practical.

“The national brand is toxic,” said Democratic Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, who unsuccessfully challenged Pelosi for the title of House minority leader last year, in an interview. “There’s just no doubt about it. We are not connecting with people the way we need to connect with them.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/handel-ossoff-democrats-trump-special-elections-congres/531363/

“Right now, the one discernible message is opposition to President Trump. That might be enough to get through next year’s midterm elections, though some savvy Democratic elected officials doubt it. What’s needed is a message that attracts voters beyond the blue-state base of the party.”

“History says a president with approval ratings as low as Trump’s usually sustain substantial midterm losses. That could be the case in 2018, particularly if the Republicans end up passing a health-care bill that, right now, is far more unpopular than Obamacare. But Trump has beaten the odds many times in his short political career. What beyond denunciations of the Republicans as heartless will the Democrats have to say to voters?”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/beyond-opposing-trump-democrats-keep-searching-for-a-message/2017/06/24/6bb05b54-5857-11e7-a204-ad706461fa4f_story.html?utm_term=.203c34f91b25

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:What I'm saying is that they need to be careful not to do the same thing republicans did, which is find themselves as the dog who finally caught the car. "Repeal and replace repeal and replace! Oh fuck we won. What were we going to replace it with again? Shit. Tim, you had an idea didn't you? Yeah, that one time at the bar you said... fuck. Goddamn it Tim. What the hell are we gonna do now?"

Being resistant is good to a point, but they'll have to figure out what it is that they want to do once they can do it again at some point. When that point is? I don't know, but for now, I really think it's okay. The problem is if they don't come up with a vision in the next two years.

Rocinante wrote:I'm not a Democrat, but here's what I believe in and am fighting for every day:
- Healthcare acknowledged as a right, not a privilege.
- Public Lands staying in public hands.
- Stronger Public Education - No public dollars to for profit education
- Worker's rights
- Campaign finance reform (every dollar for a candidate or cause accountable to the person who gave it - and public record)
- Science-based policy making.
- Equal rights for all / expansion of protected classes under the Civil Rights Act.
- Free and readily available contraception for all (see healthcare is a right)

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:What I'm saying is that they need to be careful not to do the same thing republicans did, which is find themselves as the dog who finally caught the car. "Repeal and replace repeal and replace! Oh fuck we won. What were we going to replace it with again? Shit. Tim, you had an idea didn't you? Yeah, that one time at the bar you said... fuck. Goddamn it Tim. What the hell are we gonna do now?"

Being resistant is good to a point, but they'll have to figure out what it is that they want to do once they can do it again at some point. When that point is? I don't know, but for now, I really think it's okay. The problem is if they don't come up with a vision in the next two years.

Exactly. But are they doing that? Right now they seem to be playing the role Republicans played for eight years. Yes, there is obviously much to oppose with this administration, but you also have to put together a serious legislative agenda to promote to the people.

Rocinante wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Exactly. But are they doing that? Right now they seem to be playing the role Republicans played for eight years. Yes, there is obviously much to oppose with this administration, but you also have to put together a serious legislative agenda to promote to the people.

And marginalizing where the real energy is coming from.

Turtleneck wrote:

Rocinante wrote:I'm not a Democrat, but here's what I believe in and am fighting for every day:
- Healthcare acknowledged as a right, not a privilege.
- Public Lands staying in public hands.
- Stronger Public Education - No public dollars to for profit education
- Worker's rights
- Campaign finance reform (every dollar for a candidate or cause accountable to the person who gave it - and public record)
- Science-based policy making.
- Equal rights for all / expansion of protected classes under the Civil Rights Act.
- Free and readily available contraception for all (see healthcare is a right)

When leading Democrats get in front of the camera, this is how they need to oppose Trump. By putting forth more specific policies. As Travis said above - I cannot believe I am quoting that guy - the Democrats needs to avoid being "the dog who finally caught the car."

Turtleneck wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

And marginalizing where the real energy is coming from.

What do you mean by that?

GRR Spartan wrote:Government transparency including candidates tax filings and making 501c's donors be taken out of the shadows and names listed. We can't change Citizen's v United but we can stop the dark money for all candidates.

Making voting easier, not more difficult.

Campaign against privatization of roads, bridges, schools, prisons, selling off Federal lands and charging more than a song for leasing of Federal lands

Major infrastructure including roads, bridges, water, sewer, electrical.

Net neutrality

EPA and FDA's roles in protecting population

Turtleneck wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Government transparency including candidates tax filings and making 501c's donors be taken out of the shadows and names listed. We can't change Citizen's v United but we can stop the dark money for all candidates.

Making voting easier, not more difficult.

Campaign against privatization of roads, bridges, schools, prisons, selling off Federal lands and charging more than a song for leasing of Federal lands

Major infrastructure including roads, bridges, water, sewer, electrical.

Net neutrality

EPA and FDA's roles in protecting population

I think we know what they stand for, but the message is not clear. They need to have something substantive other than anti-Trump.

Rocinante wrote:I'm not a Democrat, but here's what I believe in and am fighting for every day:
- Healthcare acknowledged as a right, not a privilege.
- Public Lands staying in public hands.
- Stronger Public Education - No public dollars to for profit education
- Worker's rights
- Campaign finance reform (every dollar for a candidate or cause accountable to the person who gave it - and public record)
- Science-based policy making.
- Equal rights for all / expansion of protected classes under the Civil Rights Act.
- Free and readily available contraception for all (see healthcare is a right)

Rocinante wrote:I'm not a Democrat, but here's what I believe in and am fighting for every day:
- Healthcare acknowledged as a right, not a privilege.
- Public Lands staying in public hands.
- Stronger Public Education - No public dollars to for profit education
- Worker's rights
- Campaign finance reform (every dollar for a candidate or cause accountable to the person who gave it - and public record)
- Science-based policy making.
- Equal rights for all / expansion of protected classes under the Civil Rights Act.
- Free and readily available contraception for all (see healthcare is a right)

LooseGoose wrote:

Rocinante wrote:I'm not a Democrat, but here's what I believe in and am fighting for every day:
- Healthcare acknowledged as a right, not a privilege.
- Public Lands staying in public hands.
- Stronger Public Education - No public dollars to for profit education
- Worker's rights
- Campaign finance reform (every dollar for a candidate or cause accountable to the person who gave it - and public record)
- Science-based policy making.
- Equal rights for all / expansion of protected classes under the Civil Rights Act.
- Free and readily available contraception for all (see healthcare is a right)

So you want to significantly boost Federal Healthcare spending? The 30% of doctors and 80% of dentists won't take Medicaid. Would you require them to do so? The fight at the federal level has not been over health care, it's been over health insurance but you know that. The health insurance available right now does nothing to guarantee access to care.

Even in the Western States? Most of them are 40% Federally owned and up to 80%. Would it hurt to sell some of that to raise $$ and bring that land into the property tax rolls to help local governments?

In real inflation adjusted $$ spending on education has skyrocketed and outcomes haven't. Do you support that continued trajectory rather than look for innovation outside of pouring more $$ in?

What rights are workers lacking that we need to fight for?

If every dollar were on record do you support caps on giving or spending?

I'm all for this if equally applied.

What classes of people do you consider unprotected at this time?

Have you ever had trouble obtaining a contraceptive? Do you personally know someone that has endured this struggle?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

So you want to significantly boost Federal Healthcare spending? The 30% of doctors and 80% of dentists won't take Medicaid. Would you require them to do so? The fight at the federal level has not been over health care, it's been over health insurance but you know that. The health insurance available right now does nothing to guarantee access to care.

Even in the Western States? Most of them are 40% Federally owned and up to 80%. Would it hurt to sell some of that to raise $$ and bring that land into the property tax rolls to help local governments?

In real inflation adjusted $$ spending on education has skyrocketed and outcomes haven't. Do you support that continued trajectory rather than look for innovation outside of pouring more $$ in?

What rights are workers lacking that we need to fight for?

If every dollar were on record do you support caps on giving or spending?

I'm all for this if equally applied.

What classes of people do you consider unprotected at this time?

Have you ever had trouble obtaining a contraceptive? Do you personally know someone that has endured this struggle?

Yes.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Yes.

Care to elaborate or would that fall under the banned "having a discussion" category?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Care to elaborate or would that fall under the banned "having a discussion" category?

I mean, it wasn't literally me but a friend of mine so there's only so many details I can give you other than they don't particularly have much money and for a time she couldn't get birth control through her employer. I assure you, it happens.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I mean, it wasn't literally me but a friend of mine so there's only so many details I can give you other than they don't particularly have much money and for a time she couldn't get birth control through her employer. I assure you, it happens.

So she was left with no way of preventing pregnancy? for how long?

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I mean, it wasn't literally me but a friend of mine so there's only so many details I can give you other than they don't particularly have much money and for a time she couldn't get birth control through her employer. I assure you, it happens.

So she was left with no way of preventing pregnancy? for how long?

LooseGoose wrote:LOL @ once again pullng knuckledragger out.

More of that wonderful conversation you yearn for - Way to start things off with "If you happen to disagree with me you're a rude, crude, stupid ass" - which takes the possibility for honest disagreement right out of the equation.

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:LOL @ once again pullng knuckledragger out.

More of that wonderful conversation you yearn for - Way to start things off with "If you happen to disagree with me you're a rude, crude, stupid ass" - which takes the possibility for honest disagreement right out of the equation.

LooseGoose wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

thank you for this wonderful addition to the conversation.

You all do a lot more bitching about the conversation than participating in it.

Rocinante wrote:I'm not a Democrat, but here's what I believe in and am fighting for every day:

- Science-based policy making.

LooseGoose wrote:

Rocinante wrote:I'm not a Democrat, but here's what I believe in and am fighting for every day:
- Healthcare acknowledged as a right, not a privilege.
- Public Lands staying in public hands.
- Stronger Public Education - No public dollars to for profit education
- Worker's rights
- Campaign finance reform (every dollar for a candidate or cause accountable to the person who gave it - and public record)
- Science-based policy making.
- Equal rights for all / expansion of protected classes under the Civil Rights Act.
- Free and readily available contraception for all (see healthcare is a right)

So you want to significantly boost Federal Healthcare spending?  I didn't say that.  The 30% of doctors and 80% of dentists won't take Medicaid.  Would you require them to do so?   The fight at the federal level has not been over health care, it's been over health insurance but you know that.  The health insurance available right now does nothing to guarantee access to care.  And that's the problem.  Healthcare is treated as a commodity now, except when it's not.  People show up at an emergency room, they are guaranteed care, the cost of that care is 1). never fully compensated,
and 2). spread around the community through direct payments from municipalities to hospitals for uncompensated care.  Those payments come from various sources (often property taxes).  If that's not socialized medicine, I don't know what it is.  Why not let's formalize it and treat these people before their conditions become emergency room worthy (it's cheaper)?  Or, we need to say definitively that healthcare is a privilege, and allow (no, demand) that hospitals turn away people that can't pay because as a society we will not pay for it.  Healthcare is a right, or it isn't.  We can't go on the way we are.  And yes, if we go universal, doctors will be forced to either take the payments agreed upon by the system, or learn a new trade.  The horror.

Even in the Western States?  Most of them are 40% Federally owned and up to 80%.  Would it hurt to sell some of that to raise $$ and bring that land into the property tax rolls to help local governments? Property taxes are already paid to local governments by the federal government - it's called "payments in lieu of taxes"  Could some of the property be offloaded?  Maybe.  The problem is that the property that is desirable to private interests is also the most valuable (monetarily and environmentally.  The ranchers don't want the scrub steppe out in the middle of nowhere.  They want the well-vegetated grassland with the stream running through it.
 Further, private interests already have default privatized public property by buying up land all around it and land locking huge acreages.  There is no requirement that the public get access to our lands.  They own public land by default.  I am all for common sense land exchanges that benefit the public by restoring access, but to just sell off public land is unrealistic, because the public will be left with the dregs... which is of course the whole point.

In real inflation adjusted $$ spending on education has skyrocketed and outcomes haven't.  Do you support that continued trajectory rather than look for innovation outside of pouring more $$ in? Of course.  We spend a lot with poor results.  Innovation? Great!  Adding the motivation of profit?  The dumbest idea of all time.
When profit is the goal, a good education is not.  And I believe it can't be both.  There are many examples all over the world of lower spending with better results.  But none of those include for-profit education systems.

What rights are workers lacking that we need to fight for? There is a general anti-collective bargaining propaganda machine that has beaten down collective action since... well forever.  And there's no doubt that propaganda machine has won.  Labor is dead.  Although there is nothing overtly stopping people from collective bargaining,
the income gap is at its widest since prior to the great depression and even in this supposedly booming economy, when labor scarcity should be driving up wages, it's not.  So, to answer your question, I think "right to work" should be abolished, and unions should be strengthened.  And yes, that means I believe that if a large enough group of workers agree that there should be dues paid to a union by everyone, then it should be a requirement.

If every dollar were on record do you support caps on giving or spending? I think caps would inevitably be arbitrary.  Eliminating dark money would be the goal here.
 I would also like to see a return to the fairness doctrine (on all platforms), which is related to my support for net neutrality.  We can talk more about that if you want.

I'm all for this if equally applied.

What classes of people do you consider unprotected at this time? Formally, LGBT folks are completely unprotected by federal nondiscrimination law.

Have you ever had trouble obtaining a contraceptive?  Do you personally know someone that has endured this struggle? When I was a sexually active teen, absolutely.  I think condoms should be anonymously available in every junior high and high school in the country for free.  As medically feasible, I think girls should be able to obtain BC for free as soon as they are sexually active without parental consent.  I think sex education needs to be open an honest about what kids are doing and what the consequences are without demonizing the child for what they naturally want to do.  You can present the info without moral judgement and without encouraging it.  Abstinence only sex ed is dumb.  I think a more liberal approach to sex ed and contraception would lead to a lower instance of abortion, which I think is a goal we all have in common.

LooseGoose wrote:

Rocinante wrote:I'm not a Democrat, but here's what I believe in and am fighting for every day:

- Science-based policy making.

A very specific question, see if you can answer this with a simple yes or no and no name calling:

Do you believe that science determines the sex of human beings?

LooseGoose wrote:Bullshit. Show me ONE post where I parrot Hannity. It would be impossible since I've not listened to his show in at least 5-6 years and probably not 10 times total lifetime. Another of your fantasies.

Please post which sources are ok to link to for your threads? I note you don't question whether the info from Newsbusters is true, just that you don't like it.

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Bullshit. Show me ONE post where I parrot Hannity. It would be impossible since I've not listened to his show in at least 5-6 years and probably not 10 times total lifetime. Another of your fantasies.

Please post which sources are ok to link to for your threads? I note you don't question whether the info from Newsbusters is true, just that you don't like it.

LooseGoose wrote:Ah fuck it.

LooseGoose wrote:Ah fuck it.

Rocinante wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

A very specific question, see if you can answer this with a simple yes or no and no name calling:

Do you believe that science determines the sex of human beings?

No.