|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 17 2016 23:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 22:41 Plansix wrote:
Populist ideas always gain some level of traction. The problem is when politicians cynically use the populist promises to get elected. As much of a pain as Bernie was, I don’t believe he is cynical and really wants to implement the things he exposes. My problem with him is his distain of pragmatism, which mirrors a lot of my problems other progressives. I will take 1/2% ever month over the chance 100% every 8 years. But some people don’t like that. But to be fair, I am also a firmly middle class guy that has a pretty stable life, so I have the luxury of patience.
I'm talking of the left of course. Right wing poor people are being sold myths.
Poor white people tend to be religious, so myths are all they know. Church is a way to form a bond between families and communities, so they tend to get really defensive about religious issues. They see it as a part of their family and things their families believe. It's basically just a cheap way for people to feel a sense of community.
|
On June 17 2016 23:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 22:41 Plansix wrote:
Populist ideas always gain some level of traction. The problem is when politicians cynically use the populist promises to get elected. As much of a pain as Bernie was, I don’t believe he is cynical and really wants to implement the things he exposes. My problem with him is his distain of pragmatism, which mirrors a lot of my problems other progressives. I will take 1/2% ever month over the chance 100% every 8 years. But some people don’t like that. But to be fair, I am also a firmly middle class guy that has a pretty stable life, so I have the luxury of patience.
People really in need know better than fantasies of revolutions. They want concrete things, and most of all, they want things that are achievable. Which is why they supported Obama and now support Clinton. I'm talking of the left of course. Right wing poor people are being sold myths.
What if "people really in need" "on the left" are also being sold myths? What if "focussing on things that are achievable" is a myth? I find your view rather myopic.
Mohdoo
Poor white people tend to be religious, so myths are all they know. Church is a way to form a bond between families and communities, so they tend to get really defensive about religious issues. They see it as a part of their family and things their families believe. It's basically just a cheap way for people to feel a sense of community.
There are no expensive ways for people to feel a sense of community. Group cohesion always rests on myths 
|
Rubio is running for re-election. Interesting.
|
I don't think anyone took his "I'm done with this senate shit" shit seriously
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Is he popular? Given how his own state didn't even vote for him in the primaries, I feel like there is a genuine chance for him to get beaten.
|
That and him saying his job as a Senator wasn't important. Running for President was.
|
On June 18 2016 00:01 ticklishmusic wrote:
Rubio is running for re-election. Interesting.
I think this is a signal that the GOP is somewhat abandoning Trump. Or at least, the GOP is not willing to take many chances on Trump. I think this was decided after gauging the response to Trump's doubling down post-Orlando. I think Trump saw an opportunity to potentially turn the whole campaign upside down, took the risk, and its blowing up. They are seeing the polls not roll in the direction they need to, and they are seeing this in response to what was widely considered the type of thing that would make Trump invincible.
Past elections, we've seen the entertainment industry always lean liberal. But this year, it's as of society as a whole is against Trump except for his supporters. I've never seen such blatant, direct hatred and favoritism. I think it is justified, but we are seeing a culture where it is not only preferred NOT to vote republican, but it is taboo and really bad. In a lot of ways, Trump's stigma is overshadowing Clinton's because of how explosive it is. Trump is seen as so, so, so incredibly awful that the election isn't even about Clinton. The fight against Trump is almost like some kinda civil rights movement, lol.
And I think the establishment intelligentsia is seeing that. I think they know this is going way worse than they thought it could.
Edit: And I think the Romney summit had a lot to do with this. Did Romney save the GOP? Could he run in 2020?
|
On June 17 2016 22:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 16:23 plated.rawr wrote:On June 17 2016 14:00 oBlade wrote:On June 17 2016 09:49 Nyxisto wrote:On June 17 2016 09:47 SolaR- wrote:On June 17 2016 09:34 Nyxisto wrote:On June 17 2016 09:31 SolaR- wrote:On June 17 2016 09:17 Nyxisto wrote:On June 17 2016 09:11 SolaR- wrote:
To be honest I don't see why it matters if it was a direct attack from ISIS or not. It is still ISIS's influence, it is still radical Islamic terrorism, and it is clear the guy was heavily inspired by ISIS. So, what is the point? I actually think it's much worse of a situation, that an American citizen became a home grown Islamic terrorist, influenced by a radical group from the other side of the globe. The guy claimed allegiance with three terrorist groups who all at the same time are at war with each other. Isis is a brand for those guys. It makes about as much sense as blaming Ford when someone drives a Fiesta into a crowd of people. These terrorists are basically like pirates, they aren't Osama Bin Laden. The lawyer of the French cell leader described the guy as "as stupid as an empty ashtray who hadn't even read the Quran". You're not dealing with the same terrorists we had 20 years ago. Again, why does it matter? It doesn't matter that his ideas were disjointed and that he supported multiple groups. What does matter is that Radical Islam is influencing more and more Islamic youth at a drastic pace. I think this form of terrorism is much worse and much more alarming. At least 20 years there was some semblance of who the enemy was. Now anyone can be an Islamic terrorist. It matters because it means that his primary motivation likely lay elsewhere. If he wouldn't have taken Islam as a motivation he could have put on a black trenchcoat and we'd be back to discussing videogames. No it doesn't. It is clear that is motivation stemmed from radical Islamic beliefs. His motivation stemmed from radical Islam in general. He didn't care about the inside political war between the different extremists groups in the middle east. He related to their ideals, and their hatred of western culture. says who exactly? Claiming allegiance isn't sufficient. Breivik claimed to be influenced by Christians and thought he was some kind of templar. This doesn't mean that we're going to hold any church responsible for his lunacy. According to Wikipedia, he said his religion was "Odinism," he wrote his own manifesto, and the templar stuff was a schizophrenic fabrication? In other words, he said he was loyal to an organization that doesn't exist and therefore has no history of spreading propaganda or controlling territory or calling for terrorist attacks, may as well have said he was an Illuminati. The difference is between Charles Manson crazying up some "Helter Skelter" nonsense and Dylann Roof actually being seduced by neo-Nazism. Breivik originally identified as a christian conservative anti-jihadist and anti-culturalmarxist. The odinism is a more recent thing, and marks his recent attempts at tying himself towards classical nationalism and neo-nazism rather than what he claimed post 11th july. If anything, Breivik is an example that you cannot take the words of such people at face value. They will claim association and ideologies to make their actions seem grander, justified and to fit a narrative. Tjeir actual motivation isnt neccessarily apparent, even to themselves.Blamimg the big scary muslim for the gay bar shooting is very much misfiring your ammunition. We already understood the idea of a loner feeling rejected by society seeing the distant light of ISIS Jihad and signing up with their open membership program. He doesn't have to be a member with two way communication with HQ. He only needs to be inspired. ISIS itself gave encouragement earlier this month before the attacks for any jihadist to hear the call and commit terrorist acts. Just look at year-to-year victims of terrorists explicitly praising ISIS. You're simply unbelievable deflecting with "big scary muslim" rhetoric. Maybe if terror attacks were once a year, maybe if he was the first lone gunman to ever identify with ISIS. It's been an identified pattern. But take heart, the president himself called ISIS a nihilistic ideology. That's one fun step further than you: he claims the entire organization knowingly rejects Muslim teaching in favor of, well, a power goal free from religious meaning. So you can call ISIS non-Muslim *period* and have support too.
I have no problem seeing that daesh is a problem, and that it calling for people to killl in their name around the globe working as a, if not motivator, then at least as an excuse to label themselves before an action.
What I am objecting to here, is assigning every lunatic who shouts "LOOK AT ME, I DO IT FOR ALLAH" or whatever with daesh. This doesn't change the circumstance of the action done - it only empowers the individual doing the action, as well as the organization which is presented as the primus motor. By accepting every lunatic claim that an action is done on behalf of daesh, the threat seems greater, and their method of foreign policy - that of spreading terror - is amplified. If instead fucked up individuals using excuse en vogue to justify their massacres were treated as fucked up individuals instead of members of a global conspiracy,daesh would be viewed in its actual shape - a middle-eastern rebel faction with occational terrorists in the western world - instead of the scourge of the western world.
Also, we might have been able to avoid labelling muslims in general as terror sympathisers.
|
On June 18 2016 00:53 plated.rawr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 22:51 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2016 16:23 plated.rawr wrote:On June 17 2016 14:00 oBlade wrote:On June 17 2016 09:49 Nyxisto wrote:On June 17 2016 09:47 SolaR- wrote:On June 17 2016 09:34 Nyxisto wrote:On June 17 2016 09:31 SolaR- wrote:On June 17 2016 09:17 Nyxisto wrote:On June 17 2016 09:11 SolaR- wrote:
To be honest I don't see why it matters if it was a direct attack from ISIS or not. It is still ISIS's influence, it is still radical Islamic terrorism, and it is clear the guy was heavily inspired by ISIS. So, what is the point? I actually think it's much worse of a situation, that an American citizen became a home grown Islamic terrorist, influenced by a radical group from the other side of the globe. The guy claimed allegiance with three terrorist groups who all at the same time are at war with each other. Isis is a brand for those guys. It makes about as much sense as blaming Ford when someone drives a Fiesta into a crowd of people. These terrorists are basically like pirates, they aren't Osama Bin Laden. The lawyer of the French cell leader described the guy as "as stupid as an empty ashtray who hadn't even read the Quran". You're not dealing with the same terrorists we had 20 years ago. Again, why does it matter? It doesn't matter that his ideas were disjointed and that he supported multiple groups. What does matter is that Radical Islam is influencing more and more Islamic youth at a drastic pace. I think this form of terrorism is much worse and much more alarming. At least 20 years there was some semblance of who the enemy was. Now anyone can be an Islamic terrorist. It matters because it means that his primary motivation likely lay elsewhere. If he wouldn't have taken Islam as a motivation he could have put on a black trenchcoat and we'd be back to discussing videogames. No it doesn't. It is clear that is motivation stemmed from radical Islamic beliefs. His motivation stemmed from radical Islam in general. He didn't care about the inside political war between the different extremists groups in the middle east. He related to their ideals, and their hatred of western culture. says who exactly? Claiming allegiance isn't sufficient. Breivik claimed to be influenced by Christians and thought he was some kind of templar. This doesn't mean that we're going to hold any church responsible for his lunacy. According to Wikipedia, he said his religion was "Odinism," he wrote his own manifesto, and the templar stuff was a schizophrenic fabrication? In other words, he said he was loyal to an organization that doesn't exist and therefore has no history of spreading propaganda or controlling territory or calling for terrorist attacks, may as well have said he was an Illuminati. The difference is between Charles Manson crazying up some "Helter Skelter" nonsense and Dylann Roof actually being seduced by neo-Nazism. Breivik originally identified as a christian conservative anti-jihadist and anti-culturalmarxist. The odinism is a more recent thing, and marks his recent attempts at tying himself towards classical nationalism and neo-nazism rather than what he claimed post 11th july. If anything, Breivik is an example that you cannot take the words of such people at face value. They will claim association and ideologies to make their actions seem grander, justified and to fit a narrative. Tjeir actual motivation isnt neccessarily apparent, even to themselves.Blamimg the big scary muslim for the gay bar shooting is very much misfiring your ammunition. We already understood the idea of a loner feeling rejected by society seeing the distant light of ISIS Jihad and signing up with their open membership program. He doesn't have to be a member with two way communication with HQ. He only needs to be inspired. ISIS itself gave encouragement earlier this month before the attacks for any jihadist to hear the call and commit terrorist acts. Just look at year-to-year victims of terrorists explicitly praising ISIS. You're simply unbelievable deflecting with "big scary muslim" rhetoric. Maybe if terror attacks were once a year, maybe if he was the first lone gunman to ever identify with ISIS. It's been an identified pattern. But take heart, the president himself called ISIS a nihilistic ideology. That's one fun step further than you: he claims the entire organization knowingly rejects Muslim teaching in favor of, well, a power goal free from religious meaning. So you can call ISIS non-Muslim *period* and have support too. I have no problem seeing that daesh is a problem, and that it calling for people to killl in their name around the globe working as a, if not motivator, then at least as an excuse to label themselves before an action. What I am objecting to here, is assigning every lunatic who shouts "LOOK AT ME, I DO IT FOR ALLAH" or whatever with daesh. This doesn't change the circumstance of the action done - it only empowers the individual doing the action, as well as the organization which is presented as the primus motor. By accepting every lunatic claim that an action is done on behalf of daesh, the threat seems greater, and their method of foreign policy - that of spreading terror - is amplified. If instead fucked up individuals using excuse en vogue to justify their massacres were treated as fucked up individuals instead of members of a global conspiracy,daesh would be viewed in its actual shape - a middle-eastern rebel faction with occational terrorists in the western world - instead of the scourge of the western world. Also, we might have been able to avoid labelling muslims in general as terror sympathisers.
I think that for a lot of people, the Orlando guy in particular, giving their lives for the sake of something is an opportunity to finally feel like they have meaning. It is clear that the Orlando guy had massive self worth issues growing up and was a complete mess from day 1. It's not hard to imagine how excited he would get to finally feel like his life had an intrinsic value and a special purpose. He had been needing that his entire life.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's not really a seeking of meaning. it's more like finding the wrong kind of meaning, believing in the meaning too much etc. guys who reject the entire world and society in so fundamental a way either kill themselves or other people, as a way of asserting power from a position of marginalization.
|
On June 18 2016 00:34 Mohdoo wrote:Edit: And I think the Romney summit had a lot to do with this. Did Romney save the GOP? Could he run in 2020?
Don't think so. I predict the Republican party will probably be destroyed after Trump. Hillary is going to beat Trump. The only chance the Republicans have is if Trump wins. This is their last election. And leftists will think this is a good thing, because they see the country moving in the right direction.
I think they may still hold a lot of seats in the congress and senate for a very long time to come, but on a presidential level they seemed doomed forever.
|
Rubio was still polling better than the other Republicans. I always doubted his sincerity, but I think when he made the promise not to run, he meant it at the time. Who knows this story could be wrong.
This is risky, if he loses again what future does he have? Interesting he thinks he can win, despite Trump...
Lots of calculations going into this one. And the democrats will spend who knows how much money to beat him.
|
On June 18 2016 01:27 Introvert wrote:
Lots of calculations going into this one. And the democrats will spend who knows how much money to beat him.
Both sides will be dumping general election money into Florida for Rubio. I think it's a good investment. The things that make people vote for Rubio also make them vote for Trump. A senate florida win says good things about a presidential win.
|
On June 18 2016 01:20 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 00:34 Mohdoo wrote:Edit: And I think the Romney summit had a lot to do with this. Did Romney save the GOP? Could he run in 2020? Don't think so. I predict the Republican party will probably be destroyed after Trump. Hillary is going to beat Trump. The only chance the Republicans have is if Trump wins. This is their last election. And leftists will think this is a good thing, because they see the country moving in the right direction. I think they may still hold a lot of seats in the congress and senate for a very long time to come, but on a presidential level they seemed doomed forever.
Uncertain times for the GOP for sure. I wonder how tje democratic party will develop. They're showing some signs of going the same way.
|
On June 18 2016 01:33 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 01:20 SK.Testie wrote:On June 18 2016 00:34 Mohdoo wrote:Edit: And I think the Romney summit had a lot to do with this. Did Romney save the GOP? Could he run in 2020? Don't think so. I predict the Republican party will probably be destroyed after Trump. Hillary is going to beat Trump. The only chance the Republicans have is if Trump wins. This is their last election. And leftists will think this is a good thing, because they see the country moving in the right direction. I think they may still hold a lot of seats in the congress and senate for a very long time to come, but on a presidential level they seemed doomed forever. Uncertain times for the GOP for sure. I wonder how tje democratic party will develop. They're showing some signs of going the same way.
I certainly don't see the resemblance.
The tea party tried to move the GOP away from the center and it worked
Bernie tried to move the DNC away from the center and it did not work
I would be more worried about the Democrats following the Republicans if Bernie did win and his socialist idea's alienated a large part of the center voting block.
Yes young people are the future and the Democrats have been moving with the general feel of the country on social issues like gay rights for a while now. I don't see why they will not follow the young voters in the years to come.
|
will rubio support trump though, or is he going to drag the moderate republicans to vote johnson/blank for president and rubio for senate i wonder
|
On June 18 2016 01:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
will rubio support trump though, or is he going to drag the moderate republicans to vote johnson/blank for president and rubio for senate i wonder
He will do whatever gets him votes.
I don't think he cares who people for vote as president so long as he gets to keep his Senate seat.
|
On June 18 2016 00:53 plated.rawr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 22:51 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2016 16:23 plated.rawr wrote:On June 17 2016 14:00 oBlade wrote:On June 17 2016 09:49 Nyxisto wrote:On June 17 2016 09:47 SolaR- wrote:On June 17 2016 09:34 Nyxisto wrote:On June 17 2016 09:31 SolaR- wrote:On June 17 2016 09:17 Nyxisto wrote:On June 17 2016 09:11 SolaR- wrote:
To be honest I don't see why it matters if it was a direct attack from ISIS or not. It is still ISIS's influence, it is still radical Islamic terrorism, and it is clear the guy was heavily inspired by ISIS. So, what is the point? I actually think it's much worse of a situation, that an American citizen became a home grown Islamic terrorist, influenced by a radical group from the other side of the globe. The guy claimed allegiance with three terrorist groups who all at the same time are at war with each other. Isis is a brand for those guys. It makes about as much sense as blaming Ford when someone drives a Fiesta into a crowd of people. These terrorists are basically like pirates, they aren't Osama Bin Laden. The lawyer of the French cell leader described the guy as "as stupid as an empty ashtray who hadn't even read the Quran". You're not dealing with the same terrorists we had 20 years ago. Again, why does it matter? It doesn't matter that his ideas were disjointed and that he supported multiple groups. What does matter is that Radical Islam is influencing more and more Islamic youth at a drastic pace. I think this form of terrorism is much worse and much more alarming. At least 20 years there was some semblance of who the enemy was. Now anyone can be an Islamic terrorist. It matters because it means that his primary motivation likely lay elsewhere. If he wouldn't have taken Islam as a motivation he could have put on a black trenchcoat and we'd be back to discussing videogames. No it doesn't. It is clear that is motivation stemmed from radical Islamic beliefs. His motivation stemmed from radical Islam in general. He didn't care about the inside political war between the different extremists groups in the middle east. He related to their ideals, and their hatred of western culture. says who exactly? Claiming allegiance isn't sufficient. Breivik claimed to be influenced by Christians and thought he was some kind of templar. This doesn't mean that we're going to hold any church responsible for his lunacy. According to Wikipedia, he said his religion was "Odinism," he wrote his own manifesto, and the templar stuff was a schizophrenic fabrication? In other words, he said he was loyal to an organization that doesn't exist and therefore has no history of spreading propaganda or controlling territory or calling for terrorist attacks, may as well have said he was an Illuminati. The difference is between Charles Manson crazying up some "Helter Skelter" nonsense and Dylann Roof actually being seduced by neo-Nazism. Breivik originally identified as a christian conservative anti-jihadist and anti-culturalmarxist. The odinism is a more recent thing, and marks his recent attempts at tying himself towards classical nationalism and neo-nazism rather than what he claimed post 11th july. If anything, Breivik is an example that you cannot take the words of such people at face value. They will claim association and ideologies to make their actions seem grander, justified and to fit a narrative. Tjeir actual motivation isnt neccessarily apparent, even to themselves.Blamimg the big scary muslim for the gay bar shooting is very much misfiring your ammunition. We already understood the idea of a loner feeling rejected by society seeing the distant light of ISIS Jihad and signing up with their open membership program. He doesn't have to be a member with two way communication with HQ. He only needs to be inspired. ISIS itself gave encouragement earlier this month before the attacks for any jihadist to hear the call and commit terrorist acts. Just look at year-to-year victims of terrorists explicitly praising ISIS. You're simply unbelievable deflecting with "big scary muslim" rhetoric. Maybe if terror attacks were once a year, maybe if he was the first lone gunman to ever identify with ISIS. It's been an identified pattern. But take heart, the president himself called ISIS a nihilistic ideology. That's one fun step further than you: he claims the entire organization knowingly rejects Muslim teaching in favor of, well, a power goal free from religious meaning. So you can call ISIS non-Muslim *period* and have support too. I have no problem seeing that daesh is a problem, and that it calling for people to killl in their name around the globe working as a, if not motivator, then at least as an excuse to label themselves before an action. What I am objecting to here, is assigning every lunatic who shouts "LOOK AT ME, I DO IT FOR ALLAH" or whatever with daesh. This doesn't change the circumstance of the action done - it only empowers the individual doing the action, as well as the organization which is presented as the primus motor. By accepting every lunatic claim that an action is done on behalf of daesh, the threat seems greater, and their method of foreign policy - that of spreading terror - is amplified. If instead fucked up individuals using excuse en vogue to justify their massacres were treated as fucked up individuals instead of members of a global conspiracy,daesh would be viewed in its actual shape - a middle-eastern rebel faction with occational terrorists in the western world - instead of the scourge of the western world. Also, we might have been able to avoid labelling muslims in general as terror sympathisers.
I don't think ISIS risks being identified as a global conspiracy when they are noticeably encouraging individual action. They've been very clear that you too can be ISIS. I don't believe in the strategy of mislabeling the threat in the hopes of lowering their perceived power. They primarily recruit Muslims, can you agree? I see a marked absence of lunatic Roman Catholics swayed by their ideology and buying guns to commit terror. Now if you believe a certain way about Jihad, a future Caliphate, and are very upset about anything from gays to materialism, you're prime picking grounds. ISIS recruits well from disaffected generally young Muslims, particularly second generation in western countries. Their modus operandi is understood and walking it back to ignorance about why and how is a lunatic path.
Reserve your incredulity for shooters with no motivation beyond to kill people. If Dylann Roof said he did it for Islam or Adam Lanza was on global jihad, I'd be chumming it up with you and patting your back. In this case it's a pretty clear path with longstanding history and actual motivation, not your original's post "actual motivation isn't apparent."
Per standard procedure, when they looked into Mateen, FBI agents ran his information against law enforcement and intelligence databases, did name-checks with the alphabet soup of spooky agencies in Washington, DC, and didn’t find very much. While the FBI understandably now wants to downplay its looks at Mateen in 2013-14, it seems unlikely that they found much of interest about him. He was simply yet another American Muslim with dangerous views and a penchant for violent trash-talk, but no criminal record. Until we outlaw crimethink, Omar Mateens will be in our midst, nasty people you don’t want to be your neighbor or co-worker.
That said, the FBI’s initial investigation into Mr. Mateen lasted ten months and included placing informants close to him while tapping his phones. This was not just box-checking. The Bureau learned that he was angry and confused, eager to affiliate himself—at least in his own head —with any jihadist groups that were enemies of the United States. He came across as a delusional wannabe, not a bona fide terrorist. Significantly, the FBI concluded that Mateen’s workplace outbursts, which had a pronounced Islamic bent, were caused by “co-workers discriminating against him and teasing him because he was Muslim.” John Shindler for the Observer, (entire article worthwhile)
|
On June 18 2016 01:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
will rubio support trump though, or is he going to drag the moderate republicans to vote johnson/blank for president and rubio for senate i wonder
He will basically just mirror Paul Ryan, IMO. "I strongly support the dude running against Clinton. But he says some goofy shit that I think is very bad."
|
On June 18 2016 01:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 01:33 RvB wrote:On June 18 2016 01:20 SK.Testie wrote:On June 18 2016 00:34 Mohdoo wrote:Edit: And I think the Romney summit had a lot to do with this. Did Romney save the GOP? Could he run in 2020? Don't think so. I predict the Republican party will probably be destroyed after Trump. Hillary is going to beat Trump. The only chance the Republicans have is if Trump wins. This is their last election. And leftists will think this is a good thing, because they see the country moving in the right direction. I think they may still hold a lot of seats in the congress and senate for a very long time to come, but on a presidential level they seemed doomed forever. Uncertain times for the GOP for sure. I wonder how tje democratic party will develop. They're showing some signs of going the same way. I certainly don't see the resemblance. The tea party tried to move the GOP away from the center and it worked Bernie tried to move the DNC away from the center and it did not work I would be more worried about the Democrats following the Republicans if Bernie did win and his socialist idea's alienated a large part of the center voting block. Yes young people are the future and the Democrats have been moving with the general feel of the country on social issues like gay rights for a while now. I don't see why they will not follow the young voters in the years to come.
The DNC has a lot people that side with the party simply out of default that the GOP actively opposes issues they care about. If the GOP could magically drop their focus on social issues and actively opposing issues that women, Hispanics and Blacks care about, they could compete for a chunk of the DNCs base. But they have not done that in decades upon decades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
