09-28-2023, 05:25 PM
(09-27-2023, 06:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: I do not doubt these instances, protesters for one tend to have some more say extreme elements within them. I would, however, doubt that it goes so far that it can legitimately be called a trope for the democratic party as a whole. Eg. in case of that mayor, where I (of course I don't read all that much) have yet to see someone of importance calling him out for not being the right kind of black. As far as I can tell, in this specific instance skin color does not factor much into it and as long as the narrative doesn't switch that way, I will find it unnecessary to bring it up.
Not the Democratic part, no. Outside of Biden they're smart enough not to publicly state as much. That's left to their proxies in the media. But, as I already stated, it was unfair to bring that up in the context of this board.
Quote:That would be an ideal, but I do not think the political landscape makes that realistic. I of course do not have any first hand experience. But from my perspective, intense refusal of the other party is among the most vivid motives for folks to vote a certain direction. Hardly any political argument fails to mention how awful the other party is, often there's no point beyond that. It's good versus evil on both sides. And not that I like it, but I guess that is also how many voters in Dallas feel.
I don't think making this switch in this highly polarized society is a good start for a meaningful debate. Most people, I assume, won't really listen and just stay angry. But alas, maybe I am wrong.
But what would they be angry about? The man isn't going to govern differently. His policies haven't changed. He isn't all of the sudden engaging in the worst excesses of the GOP. He simply acknowledged that the Democrats have failed the public so badly on this issue, and continue to do so, that he was compelled to switch to a party that actually safeguards the citizenry. In his opinion of course, although I don't know anyone who could make a strong argument against that belief.
Quote:I guess she will not. As for me disliking the two party system, I do not see a contradiction here. If there weren't a two party system, Mr. Mayor could switch to a third, less polarizing party, for example. Imho it can also be argued that without a two-party system, cities would not automatically be so deeply blue and hence many more extreme and misled policies would not see the light of day in the first place.
It doesn't contradict your belief regarding the two party system, it fails to acknowledge why he had only one real option because of it. You can't dislike our two party system and then criticize someone for jumping to the only other major party. By your own admission he's making the only viable choice available to him.
Quote:That is absolutely true, but it still is the reality of things regardless. You can not separate the republican party from Trump these days. I could not do that. And I guess many voters could not do that either. Much like you say you never vote for a Democrat again if things do not change - which I can understand - I would (theoretically, of course) feel the exact same way about the GOP as long as they do not stand up to Trump. If one switches to this party, one can not be perceived as doing so in complete ignorance of Trump and what he stands for.
Sadly, for many you are correct. Trump certainly has an outsized influence on the GOP, one we both wish he did not possess. But I disagree that his mere presence makes any connection to them odious by dint of this association. Trump is more the GOP than any single Dem can be said to be the Democratic party. But he is no way "the GOP". There are millions of GOP voters who would prefer someone else, who also find more to loathe about Democratic policies and politics than a GOP with Trump in it.
Quote:Had Mr. Mayor just left the democratic party, all these points - and yeah they are not addressing the issue at hand, apparently - might not have been so dominant. That would be my point from before. I get the argument of having access. But if it's more about a symbolic act and to start a meaningful debate, this was not the best way to go, imho. One can see how not meaningful the debate turns out to be now.
Left and been a party of one? Maybe get Sinema to join him and have two people? Again, you're ignoring the realities of the two party system you so dislike. This move was his only legitimate option. As I said before, he doesn't have the autonomy of a Senator. He needs a political network to be able to function as needed. By your own admission Sinema will lose her bid for reelection, would she not stand a much better chance of returning the the Senate if she ran as a Republican?
