The Democratic Party is on Life Support!

[BlueOak]

12 hours ago, Hardkill said:

So, why are the Democrats, particularly the Democratic leadership, still struggling to come up with an effective message strategy right now? 

Donors. They can't give things to the people because they are paid by companies, so those companies can sell them instead.

Also just sitting on their hands waiting for Trump to just self destruct. - Trouble is he's a populist and a fascist to boot; that support doesn't tend to end easily if you play to the base. It may happen but it may well not. Maybe losing a war, or alternatively looking weak like he's bowing down to Putin or Xi. - Both of those outcomes will erode fascist hard right support.

He's already in Israel's pocket - but that does serve the greater strategic agenda right now in the east vs west cold war, so nobody hits him on it too hard.

Edited 20 hours ago by BlueOak

[Hardkill]

12 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Donors. They can't give things to the people because they are paid by companies, so those companies can sell them instead.

Also just sitting on their hands waiting for Trump to just self destruct. - Trouble is he's a populist and a fascist to boot; that support doesn't tend to end easily if you play to the base. It may happen but it may well not. Maybe losing a war, or alternatively looking weak like he's bowing down to Putin or Xi. - Both of those outcomes will erode fascist hard right support.

He's already in Israel's pocket - but that does serve the greater strategic agenda right now in the east vs west cold war, so nobody hits him on it too hard.

Well, going to war with China isn't happening for the foreseeable future, not to mention how truly catastrophic that would be for our economy and the rest of the global economy. Having all of NATO really join Ukraine in the war against Russia would be suicidal.

So, do you think that the US should wage an all-out war in the Middle East against Iran? 

[Razard86]

On 7/3/2025 at 9:36 PM, Raze said:

I think Trump will cause so much damage democrats will do well in 2026 and 2028.

The issue is they’re going to try and maintain the establishment status quo and kneecap any progressive insurgency.

You can see how they tried it with Mamdani, Cuomo had something like triple the amount of funding. They’ll be even more intense in races they view as more important like congress or presidential primaries.

I think they’ll succeed, the progressive base really is not organized or coherent enough to challenge the establishment. The Bernie Sanders losses and the whole stuff and backlash seemed to have shattered them.

While polls show democrats are unhappy with the party and leadership, the candidates they rate highly are different people with the exact same establishment views and positions. 

Democrats like to market themselves as the party of the people, but until they connect in a meaningful way with their progressive base they will never have true lasting power. True Progressive implementation would push the United States forward in a meaningful way but the Democrats are too interested in politics as usual. Too much corporate interests/influence over the party's mainstream candidates. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Razard86

[BlueOak]

8 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Well, going to war with China isn't happening for the foreseeable future, not to mention how truly catastrophic that would be for our economy and the rest of the global economy. Having all of NATO really join Ukraine in the war against Russia would be suicidal.

So, do you think that the US should wage an all-out war in the Middle East against Iran? 

This was not my endorsement of the strategy they are doing. If I was running your party, you'd all be hard-left, populist, democratic socialists. If was being smart instead, i'd elect someone who is 30-40 speaks with more passion than trump, is white, is a man, and isn't easily rattled but is status quo enough for the donors. - I'd do these things as America has enough of a racist element for it to matter (skin color), the liberal party is hurting for masculine role models in an era when they are being sort out, and right now looks weak. I'd want my own version of a strong man that has enough morals, awareness, and intelligence that he'd take trump to pieces, because despite what people say 'owning the libs'. People love it when their opponents in the republicans are 'owned' also. I think these base instincts are not helpful to long term stability, but they do win elections in the dual party system that America embraces.

tl;dr look for the ruler archetype and elect an intelligent, capable white male version of it.

There is a good chance there will be a war with Russia now. I'm quoting the general's in charge when I say this, as they have told me so. If that happens a war with China is much more likely. The conseus is these will likely happen at the same time. We are already in a cold war, with proxy wars. This is one reason we need a strong democratic leader in America, one who isn't rattled or cowardly but also isn't reactionary to escalate things.

Should the US wage war anywhere - no war is insanity, its the base level breakdown, when all other stages of potential realignment or adjustment are missed.

Should they wage war now, with the world the way it is. No. They should help israel eliminate Iran's missile production facilities and keep them suppressed. This takes out another source of Russian munitions, and if a wider war does start (as the general's say it will), it helps remove the threat to oil production and our allies in the Middle East. - The US should hold its troops back until Russia, China or anyone else actually makes the first move over the borders into NATO, Israeli or Taiwanese territories.

BTW I would rather we ditched the reliance on oil 40 years ago, and had a one world government or at least a meta-authority that had authority over the planet, but my bias isn't considered here, merely the state of the world.
 

Edited just now by BlueOak