I just can't figure Democrats out. Are they actually dumber than Republican's?

For me it seems the blue print is right in front of their faces.

Stay 100% committed to your social causes. They might not be perfect but they're not layered in hypocrisy.

Move more to the right fiscally.

The right has no chance in the next 20 years to attract minorities. None. 2016 cost them 20 years. Maybe more.

Slowly phase in a more fiscally "conservative" view of America.

Basically a fiscal Democrat. Am I missing the boat? Are these people out there and in Washington?

I know this is a pipe dream until we can eradicate the $$ from DC, but a guy can dream.

What does “fiscally conservative view of America” mean to you

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:What does “fiscally conservative view of America” mean to you

An example would be tax dollars and federal/state employees. The retirement these people will live on is ridiculous. The tax roll cannot support it. So it has to be cut. I'm sorry. It happens. You made enough as an asst fire chief. Why are you and your wife who was a postal employee now going to retire on a combined over 100k annually? We cannot afford that. It's running us into the ground. But as soon as you suggest cutting some benefits they march on the state capital and demand their money. "we havent had a raise in 10 years! Well, I'm sorry, we can't afford it.

kingstonlake wrote:For me it seems the blue print is right in front of their faces.

Stay 100% committed to your social causes.  They might not be perfect but they're not layered in hypocrisy.

Move more to the right fiscally.  

The right has no chance in the next 20 years to attract minorities.  None.  2016 cost them 20 years.  Maybe more.

Slowly phase in a more fiscally "conservative" view of America.

Basically a fiscal Democrat.  Am I missing the boat? Are these people out there and in Washington?

I know this is a pipe dream until we can eradicate the $$ from DC, but a guy can dream.

Look at the results from Virginia and Alabama...all indicators show that the Dems are setting up for a tidal wave in 2018. Believe it or not Polling shows that even the senate is up for grabs. Not sure how much the Dems really need to shift.

Okay, so that’s one pretty specific issue.

kingstonlake wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:What does “fiscally conservative view of America” mean to you

An example would be tax dollars and federal/state employees. The retirement these people will live on is ridiculous. The tax roll cannot support it. So it has to be cut. I'm sorry. It happens. You made enough as an asst fire chief. Why are you and your wife who was a postal employee now going to retire on a combined over 100k annually? We cannot afford that. It's running us into the ground. But as soon as you suggest cutting some benefits they march on the state capital and demand their money. "we havent had a raise in 10 years! Well, I'm sorry, we can't afford it.

Are you suggesting that the democrats should come out and tell firemen, police officers and military veterans that they should kiss their pensions good bye? Good luck with that idea.

steveschneider wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:For me it seems the blue print is right in front of their faces.

Stay 100% committed to your social causes.  They might not be perfect but they're not layered in hypocrisy.

Move more to the right fiscally.  

The right has no chance in the next 20 years to attract minorities.  None.  2016 cost them 20 years.  Maybe more.

Slowly phase in a more fiscally "conservative" view of America.

Basically a fiscal Democrat.  Am I missing the boat? Are these people out there and in Washington?

I know this is a pipe dream until we can eradicate the $$ from DC, but a guy can dream.

Look at the results from Virginia and Alabama...all indicators show that the Dems are setting up for a tidal wave in 2018. Believe it or not Polling shows that even the senate is up for grabs. Not sure how much the Dems really need to shift.

Eh the 2018 thing is over-hyped. Of the 35 Senate seats up for grabs, 25 are currently held by Democrats. It will be more defense than offense for Dems in 2018.

Democrat values are much more in line with America than Republican values are. Democrats need to keep promoting their social issues, standing up for average Americans, denounce the hate, misogyny and bigotry from the right and I think (hope) America will follow.

oh - and America? Please stop getting "news" from the mainstream media - the sooner you get out of the sewer that is the mainstream media, the better off everyone will be.

steveschneider wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

An example would be tax dollars and federal/state employees. The retirement these people will live on is ridiculous. The tax roll cannot support it. So it has to be cut. I'm sorry. It happens. You made enough as an asst fire chief. Why are you and your wife who was a postal employee now going to retire on a combined over 100k annually? We cannot afford that. It's running us into the ground. But as soon as you suggest cutting some benefits they march on the state capital and demand their money. "we havent had a raise in 10 years! Well, I'm sorry, we can't afford it.

Are you suggesting that the democrats should come out and tell firemen, police officers and military veterans that they should kiss their pensions good bye? Good luck with that idea.

Of course not. The example is from my family btw. Maybe its class envy on my part. I just thinks its a bit much to have a 300k house with a sweet ass pool, just bought a condo in FL, have 400 hours of vacation that will be paid out in cash in Jan., go to at least 5 "conferences" a year, at least two cruises per year, regularly...and i mean regularly be golfing during working hours for work related "outings". This is on top of the two weeks per year for our fishing trip and hunting trip. He's had a sweet ass and i mean sweet ass cushy job behind a desk for 30 years. I'd be willing to bet this isn't isolated as far as government jobs go. Then pile on a golden parachute pension on the tax payer dime? Seems unreasonable to me. Seems un-affordable.

kingstonlake wrote:

steveschneider wrote:



Are you suggesting that the democrats should come out and tell firemen, police officers and military veterans that they should kiss their pensions good bye? Good luck with that idea.

Of course not. The example is from my family btw. Maybe its class envy on my part. I just thinks its a bit much to have a 300k house with a sweet ass pool, just bought a condo in FL, have 400 hours of vacation that will be paid out in cash in Jan., go to at least 5 "conferences" a year, at least two cruises per year, regularly...and i mean regularly be golfing during working hours for work related "outings". This is on top of the two weeks per year for our fishing trip and hunting trip. He's had a sweet ass and i mean sweet ass cushy job behind a desk for 30 years. I'd be willing to bet this isn't isolated as far as government jobs go. Then pile on a golden parachute pension on the tax payer dime? Seems unreasonable to me. Seems un-affordable.

And he probably spends election cycles talking about having to look out for the little guy. LOL Yep, Democrat hypocritical values..............

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Okay, so that’s one pretty specific issue.

In general the government payroll for federal state employees is so far out of wack.

TheReal_LWS wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

Of course not.  The example is from my family btw.  Maybe its class envy on my part.  I just thinks its a bit much to have a 300k house with a sweet ass pool, just bought a condo in FL, have 400 hours of vacation that will be paid out in cash in Jan., go to at least 5 "conferences" a year, at least two cruises per year, regularly...and i mean regularly be golfing during working hours for work related "outings".  This is on top of the two weeks per year for our fishing trip and hunting trip.  He's had a sweet ass and i mean sweet ass cushy job behind a desk for 30 years.  I'd be willing to bet this isn't isolated as far as government jobs go.  Then pile on a golden parachute pension on the tax payer dime?  Seems unreasonable to me.  Seems un-affordable.

And he probably  spends election cycles talking about having to look out for the little guy. LOL Yep, Democrat hypocritical values..............

He's very mute politically.  I strongly suspect he's an R reaping the benefits of a D's work (union). At least that's my conclusion based on some of the social positions he has.

kingstonlake wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Okay, so that’s one pretty specific issue.

In general the government payroll for federal state employees is so far out of wack.

So this is generally just a thread about that. I mean, that’s not really what most people think about when they think “fiscal conservatism” so that’s why I figured I’d ask.

TheReal_LWS wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Look at the results from Virginia and Alabama...all indicators show that the Dems are setting up for a tidal wave in 2018. Believe it or not Polling shows that even the senate is up for grabs. Not sure how much the Dems really need to shift.

Eh the 2018 thing is over-hyped. Of the 35 Senate seats up for grabs, 25 are currently held by Democrats. It will be more defense than offense for Dems in 2018.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/13/roy-moore-needed-to-lose-but-what-does-it-mean-for-2018/

"The latest Marist poll gives Democrats a 13-point margin when voters are asked whether they would prefer to vote for a Democrat or a Republican next year."

"Democrats in 2017 have been outperforming in special House elections from Georgia to South Carolina to Montana. "

Alabama last night the Republicans absolutely blew it, but the most story out of last night is the incredibly high turnout by African Americans. They punched up and delivered that victory for Jones. Multiple experts this morning are arguing that few seats are safe for the republicans in 2018. Looks to me like Trump and Trumpism is on its way out.

kingstonlake wrote:

TheReal_LWS wrote:

And he probably  spends election cycles talking about having to look out for the little guy. LOL Yep, Democrat hypocritical values..............

He's very mute politically.  I strongly suspect he's an R reaping the benefits of a D's work (union). At least that's my conclusion based on some of the social positions he has.

What? No snarky response from Bee now that this dude is ID'd as a likely R and not the D he was so quick to slam?
I'm shocked!

You must Know any folks who were caight be surprise when they were served divorce papers.

A lot of Democrats are like spouses whose mate cheats on them.  They have the firm belief there are boundries and rules that are universal.  

The GOP is like the cheating spouse.  Laws can be skirted and they take advantage of the trusting spouse's attitude that their partner believes in the same goals so they wouldn't ever knowingly undermine what is thought to be good for both people.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

In general the government payroll for federal state employees is so far out of wack.

So this is generally just a thread about that. I mean, that’s not really what most people think about when they think “fiscal conservatism” so that’s why I figured I’d ask.

It's an example of waste and overspending based on what I've seen in my personal life. You can't spend more than you make. simple concept. Dem's should be public with this concern or at the very least address is importance.

kingstonlake wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

So this is generally just a thread about that. I mean, that’s not really what most people think about when they think “fiscal conservatism” so that’s why I figured I’d ask.

It's an example of waste and overspending based on what I've seen in my personal life. You can't spend more than you make. simple concept. Dem's should be public with this concern or at the very least address is importance.

Easy fix is to cut the military spending by about 10%, then I think we could cover all social issues and balance a budget. But that'll never happen.

InTenSity wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

It's an example of waste and overspending based on what I've seen in my personal life. You can't spend more than you make. simple concept. Dem's should be public with this concern or at the very least address is importance.

Easy fix is to cut the military spending by about 10%, then I think we could cover all social issues and balance a budget. But that'll never happen.

Yeah intensity gets it

InTenSity wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

It's an example of waste and overspending based on what I've seen in my personal life.  You can't spend more than you make.  simple concept. Dem's should be public with this concern or at the very least address is importance.

Easy fix is to cut the military spending by about 10%, then I think we could cover all social issues and balance a budget. But that'll never happen.

our industrial military complex is insane.. and, in general, folks just line up behind politicians on both sides of the aisle when they hear "military" because "9/11" and "troops" isn't far behind... then they'll put a magnetic yellow ribbon on their SUV to help them sleep at night..

But there is no reason why our levels of spending needs to look like this:

InTenSity wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

It's an example of waste and overspending based on what I've seen in my personal life. You can't spend more than you make. simple concept. Dem's should be public with this concern or at the very least address is importance.

Easy fix is to cut the military spending by about 10%, then I think we could cover all social issues and balance a budget. But that'll never happen.

You can't think this way. It's just the other side of the military spending coin. It's the reason we go back and forth every election cycle. If you feel military spending needs to be cut (and I agree) then you can't think that every social program needs to be fully funded and or expanded. Spending cuts must include social programs as well.

kingstonlake wrote:

InTenSity wrote:
Easy fix is to cut the military spending by about 10%, then I think we could cover all social issues and balance a budget. But that'll never happen.

You can't think this way. It's just the other side of the military spending coin. It's the reason we go back and forth every election cycle. If you feel military spending needs to be cut (and I agree) then you can't think that every social program needs to be fully funded and or expanded. Spending cuts must include social programs as well.

Why must? Also, assuming you don’t receive direct benefits of social programs, doesn’t mean that you aren’t receiving indirect benefits that aren’t nearly as apparent.

But, in answer to your original question.... because not everyone agrees with you.

steveschneider wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:For me it seems the blue print is right in front of their faces.

Stay 100% committed to your social causes.  They might not be perfect but they're not layered in hypocrisy.

Move more to the right fiscally.  

The right has no chance in the next 20 years to attract minorities.  None.  2016 cost them 20 years.  Maybe more.

Slowly phase in a more fiscally "conservative" view of America.

Basically a fiscal Democrat.  Am I missing the boat? Are these people out there and in Washington?

I know this is a pipe dream until we can eradicate the $$ from DC, but a guy can dream.

Look at the results from Virginia and Alabama...all indicators show that the Dems are setting up for a tidal wave in 2018. Believe it or not Polling shows that even the senate is up for grabs. Not sure how much the Dems really need to shift.

The only thing the Democrats are doing to cause that is to be Not Trump. They can absolutely take advantage of the Not Trump platform next year, but that doesn't mean that their message is connecting with more Americans.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

You can't think this way. It's just the other side of the military spending coin. It's the reason we go back and forth every election cycle. If you feel military spending needs to be cut (and I agree) then you can't think that every social program needs to be fully funded and or expanded. Spending cuts must include social programs as well.

Why must? Also, assuming you don’t receive direct benefits of social programs, doesn’t mean that you aren’t receiving indirect benefits that aren’t nearly as apparent.

But, in answer to your original question.... because not everyone agrees with you.

Doesn't appear your a fan of bipartisanship.

kingstonlake wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Why must? Also, assuming you don’t receive direct benefits of social programs, doesn’t mean that you aren’t receiving indirect benefits that aren’t nearly as apparent.

But, in answer to your original question.... because not everyone agrees with you.

Doesn't appear your a fan of bipartisanship.

You're*

I’m totally fine with it. As long as the ideas aren’t bad and lead to more problems. Cutting social programs in the name of having an insanely bloated military and tax cuts for billionaires is terrible policy. So yeah, I guess you could say I’m not a fan of that.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

Doesn't appear your a fan of bipartisanship.

You're*

I’m totally fine with it. As long as the ideas aren’t bad and lead to more problems. Cutting social programs in the name of having an insanely bloated military and tax cuts for billionaires is terrible policy. So yeah, I guess you could say I’m not a fan of that.

"I'm totally fine with bipartisanship as long as the other side completely surrenders to my side's points"  

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

You're*

I’m totally fine with it. As long as the ideas aren’t bad and lead to more problems. Cutting social programs in the name of having an insanely bloated military and tax cuts for billionaires is terrible policy. So yeah, I guess you could say I’m not a fan of that.

"I'm totally fine with bipartisanship as long as the other side completely surrenders to my side's points"  

I mean... I’m fine with that! But I don’t really give a shit about my own “bipartisanship” (which I don’t really think is the right word here) since I’m not a politician. There’s no reason why I need to concede that cutting social programs is a good idea when it simply flat out isn’t and would hurt Kingston and I more than it would help us (since it wouldn’t help us at all so any amount of hurt is more.)

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

Doesn't appear your a fan of bipartisanship.

You're*

I’m totally fine with it. As long as the ideas aren’t bad and lead to more problems. Cutting social programs in the name of having an insanely bloated military and tax cuts for billionaires is terrible policy. So yeah, I guess you could say I’m not a fan of that.

Well, I never suggested it was good policy...I agreed that cutting military spending is a good idea. I also suggested that cutting funding (more cutting back, not eliminating) is also a good idea.

Are there any stats on how younger people lean? I’d have to guess it’s heavy left, right? I’d imagine republicans are fucked. But I’m basing this on not much.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Are there any stats on how younger people lean? I’d have to guess it’s heavy left, right? I’d imagine republicans are fucked. But I’m basing this on not much.

It’s heavy left. However, they are not the first group of young people to vote heavy left. The trick is to keep them there... which like I was saying in a different thread, I think involves competing in elections all the time, even when you’re probably going to lose. Give them something to vote for and someone to get involved with.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
"I'm totally fine with bipartisanship as long as the other side completely surrenders to my side's points"  

I mean... I’m fine with that! But I don’t really give a shit about my own “bipartisanship” (which I don’t really think is the right word here) since I’m not a politician. There’s no reason why I need to concede that cutting social programs is a good idea when it simply flat out isn’t and would hurt Kingston and I more than it would help us (since it wouldn’t help us at all so any amount of hurt is more.)

And that's ok. But it sounds pretty silly to say that you're "totally fine" with bipartisanship, and then qualify that with a statement about how you won't accept any compromise on the issue being discussed.

I'm totally fine with Michigan winning games, as long as they never score more points than their opponents.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I mean... I’m fine with that! But I don’t really give a shit about my own “bipartisanship” (which I don’t really think is the right word here) since I’m not a politician. There’s no reason why I need to concede that cutting social programs is a good idea when it simply flat out isn’t and would hurt Kingston and I more than it would help us (since it wouldn’t help us at all so any amount of hurt is more.)

And that's ok. But it sounds pretty silly to say that you're "totally fine" with bipartisanship, and then qualify that with a statement about how you won't accept any compromise on the issue being discussed.

I'm totally fine with Michigan winning games, as long as they never score more points than their opponents.

I could have also just said “bringing bipartisanship up here is silly nonsense since I’m not in Congress. My views don’t need to be bipartisan.” But I tried to be less of a dick. Sorry Miami I promise I’ll be a dick from now on.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Look at the results from Virginia and Alabama...all indicators show that the Dems are setting up for a tidal wave in 2018. Believe it or not Polling shows that even the senate is up for grabs. Not sure how much the Dems really need to shift.

The only thing the Democrats are doing to cause that is to be Not Trump. They can absolutely take advantage of the Not Trump platform next year, but that doesn't mean that their message is connecting with more Americans.

Which circles back to the original question raised by the OP. After last night I think it's pretty evident the republicans are stupider. Failure to govern and self inflicted blunder after blunder is going to make it very easy for the Dems to win in 2018. I don't think they should have to tweak their message much to win big next year.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
And that's ok. But it sounds pretty silly to say that you're "totally fine" with bipartisanship, and then qualify that with a statement about how you won't accept any compromise on the issue being discussed.

I'm totally fine with Michigan winning games, as long as they never score more points than their opponents.

I could have also just said “bringing bipartisanship up here is silly nonsense since I’m not in Congress. My views don’t need to be bipartisan.” But I tried to be less of a dick. Sorry Miami I promise I’ll be a dick from now on.

It's not being a dick to simply say that no, you aren't fine with bipartisanship.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Are there any stats on how younger people lean? I’d have to guess it’s heavy left, right? I’d imagine republicans are fucked. But I’m basing this on not much.

Sincerely,

Every young person for 50+ years.

Youth have always been more left leaning. Yet the country as a whole is pretty centrist and the hard core party supporters are pretty evenly split. People change, priorities change, interests change. The parties change, too.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I could have also just said “bringing bipartisanship up here is silly nonsense since I’m not in Congress. My views don’t need to be bipartisan.” But I tried to be less of a dick. Sorry Miami I promise I’ll be a dick from now on.

It's not being a dick to simply say that no, you aren't fine with bipartisanship.

Haha. I guess. It was just a bad comment and now we’re sorta off track. My job though, as a voter, is not bipartisanship. It is my representatives job to make choices to get a deal done (aka, bipartisanship) that I may not otherwise like. I’m comfortable with that for the greater good or to get other things that I like done. So yes, Miami, I am okay with bipartisanship as that is a thing where we sometimes have to compromise things that I’d otherwise not compromise. What we’re doing here is not bipartisanship related whatsoever. What we’re doing here is bullshitting about bullshit.

steveschneider wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
The only thing the Democrats are doing to cause that is to be Not Trump.  They can absolutely take advantage of the Not Trump platform next year, but that doesn't mean that their message is connecting with more Americans.

Which circles back to the original question raised by the OP. After last night I think it's pretty evident the republicans are stupider. Failure to govern and self inflicted blunder after blunder is going to make it very easy for the Dems to win in 2018. I don't think they should have to tweak their message much to win big  next year.

Can you blame the GOP for thinking Moore would win despite all the bullshit? Most of us thought they were right. After the last election cycle, I think assuming that Alabama's electorate wasn't going to be repulsed by Moore's past was rather reasonable.

I really think the DNC might be stupider than the GOP. Say what you will about the GOP, but those craven fucks are shrewd as hell. They're like a snake oil salesman that never leaves town and keeps making sales. It's crazy, but perhaps its starting to turn.

Cameron wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Which circles back to the original question raised by the OP. After last night I think it's pretty evident the republicans are stupider. Failure to govern and self inflicted blunder after blunder is going to make it very easy for the Dems to win in 2018. I don't think they should have to tweak their message much to win big  next year.

Can you blame the GOP for thinking Moore would win despite all the bullshit? Most of us thought they were right. After the last election cycle, I think assuming that Alabama's electorate wasn't going to be repulsed by Moore's past was rather reasonable.

I really think the DNC might be stupider than the GOP. Say what you will about the GOP, but those craven fucks are shrewd as hell. They're like a snake oil salesman that never leaves town and keeps making sales. It's crazy, but perhaps its starting to turn.

my problem with the Democratic party recently is that they have a moral conscience. That's a good thing, obviously - but the "when they go low, we stay high" approach isn't overly effective when your opponents are racist, sexist, bigoted misogynists whose supporters are as immoral as they are.

last night in Alabama was refreshing, though - I think (hope?) it showed America is craving a leader and party that is respectful, humble, intellectual and dignified. To that end, even Alabama had to go with the Democrat. Good for them.

Cameron wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Which circles back to the original question raised by the OP. After last night I think it's pretty evident the republicans are stupider. Failure to govern and self inflicted blunder after blunder is going to make it very easy for the Dems to win in 2018. I don't think they should have to tweak their message much to win big  next year.

Can you blame the GOP for thinking Moore would win despite all the bullshit? Most of us thought they were right. After the last election cycle, I think assuming that Alabama's electorate wasn't going to be repulsed by Moore's past was rather reasonable.

I really think the DNC might be stupider than the GOP. Say what you will about the GOP, but those craven fucks are shrewd as hell. They're like a snake oil salesman that never leaves town and keeps making sales. It's crazy, but perhaps its starting to turn.

I can't find anything smart about supporting a child molester to win a seat in the senate. Not only did he lose, but it has stained the party and will cost them in 2018. I've never seen self inflicted blunder after blunder like the Republican party is currently doing to them selves.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Can you blame the GOP for thinking Moore would win despite all the bullshit? Most of us thought they were right. After the last election cycle, I think assuming that Alabama's electorate wasn't going to be repulsed by Moore's past was rather reasonable.

I really think the DNC might be stupider than the GOP. Say what you will about the GOP, but those craven fucks are shrewd as hell. They're like a snake oil salesman that never leaves town and keeps making sales. It's crazy, but perhaps its starting to turn.

my problem with the Democratic party recently is that they have a moral conscience. That's a good thing, obviously - but the "when they go low, we stay high" approach isn't overly effective when your opponents are racist, sexist, bigoted misogynists whose supporters are as immoral as they are.

last night in Alabama was refreshing, though - I think (hope?) it showed America is craving a leader and party that is respectful, humble, intellectual and dignified. To that end, even Alabama had to go with the Democrat. Good for them.

Always makes me think of this: