Rogue One wrote:

The end of the Democrat Party

...This is what the Party is currently reduced to; name calling with the help of a compliant media. Democrats will now identify themselves only by what they are not. What about policy, anything there?...

...Unless there is a policy that isn’t predicated on government planning, something tangible and real, can the Party really make a comeback? If the Democrat Party didn’t exist, would it be a good idea now?...

Read the full article here: http://conservativefiringline.com/the-e ... rat-party/

Not so fast!

They are just getting started just as the tea party did right after Obama won in 2008
Perhaps you are too young to remember when Nixon was president and the marches began slowly against the Vietnam war?
It took a few years even after Nixon proudly announced that he was not a crook. Soon after he was gone.

Will history repeat itself?
Who knows?

Donald the Unready

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/opin ... tml?src=me

"Betsy DeVos, whom Donald Trump has nominated as education secretary, doesn’t know basic education terms, doesn’t know about federal statutes governing special education, but thinks school officials should carry guns to defend against grizzly bears.

Monica Crowley, selected as deputy national security adviser, withdrew after it was revealed that much of her past writing was plagiarized. Many other national security positions remain unfilled, and it’s unclear how much if any of the briefing materials prepared by the outgoing administration have even been read.

Meanwhile Rex Tillerson, selected as secretary of state, casually declared that America would block Chinese access to bases in the South China Sea, apparently unaware that he was in effect threatening to go to war if China called his bluff.

Do you see a pattern here?

It was obvious to anyone paying attention that the incoming administration would be blatantly corrupt. But would it at least be efficient in its corruption?

Many Trump voters certainly thought they were choosing a smart businessman who would get things done. And even those who knew better may have hoped that the president-elect, his ego finally sated, would settle down to running the country — or at least delegate the boring business of governing America to people actually capable of doing the job.

But it’s not happening. Mr. Trump hasn’t pivoted, matured, whatever term you prefer. He’s still the insecure, short-attention-span egomaniac he always was. Worse, he is surrounding himself with people who share many of his flaws — perhaps because they’re the sort of people with whom he is comfortable.

So the typical Trump nominee, in everything from economics to diplomacy to national security, is ethically challenged, ignorant about the area of policy he or she is supposed to manage and deeply incurious. Some, like Michael Flynn, Mr. Trump’s choice as national security adviser, are even as addicted as their boss to internet conspiracy theories. This isn’t a team that will compensate for the commander in chief’s weaknesses; on the contrary, it’s a team that will amplify them.

Why does this matter? If you want a model for how the Trump-Putin administration is likely to function (or malfunction), it’s helpful to recall what happened during the Bush-Cheney years.
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

See Sample Manage Email Preferences Privacy Policy

People tend to forget the extent to which the last Republican administration was also characterized by cronyism, the appointment of unqualified but well-connected people to key positions. It wasn’t as extreme as what we’re seeing now, but it was striking at the time. Remember “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job”? And it caused very real damage.

In particular, if you want some notion of what Trump governance is likely to look like, consider the botched occupation of Iraq. People who knew anything about nation-building weren’t wanted; party loyalists — and corporate profiteers — took their place. There’s even a little-known connection: Betsy DeVos’s brother, Erik Prince, founded Blackwater, the mercenary outfit that, among other things, helped destabilize Iraq by firing into a crowd of civilians.

Now the conditions that prevailed in Iraq — blind ideology, contempt for expertise, effective absence of any enforcement of ethics rules — have come to America, but in a far more acute form.

And what will happen when we face a crisis? Remember, Katrina was the event that finally revealed the costs of Bush-era cronyism to all.

Crises of some kind are bound to occur on any president’s watch. They appear especially likely given the crew that’s coming in and their allies in Congress: Given the stated priorities of the people about to take charge, we could very well see collapsing health care, a trade war and a military standoff with China just in the next year.

But even if we somehow skirt those dangers, stuff always happens. Maybe there will be a new economic crisis, helped along by the rush to undo financial regulation. Maybe there will be a foreign affairs crisis, say over adventurism in the Baltics by Mr. Trump’s good friend Vladimir. Maybe it will be something we’re not thinking about. Then what?

Real crises need real solutions. They can’t be resolved with a killer tweet, or by having your friends in the F.B.I. or the Kremlin feed the media stories that take your problems off the front page. What the situation demands are knowledgeable, levelheaded people in positions of authority.

But as far as we know, almost no people meeting that description will be in the new administration, except possibly the nominee for defense secretary — whose nickname just happens to be “Mad Dog.”

So there you have it: an administration unprecedented in its corruption, but also completely unprepared to govern. It’s going to be terrific, let me tell you.

Read my blog, The Conscience of a Liberal, and follow me on Twitter, @PaulKrugman. "

Our new president is acting like a 7 year old constantly complaining about the media that is pointing out his lying about crowd sizes and the intelligence community.

Sad

Telcoman

I didn't even bother to read the article. Simply clicking on the link and seeing the name of the site convinced me it was going to have all the credibility of the liberal sites that were predicting the end of the Republican Party just a few months ago. Those sites with all the propaganda they have to tailor to keep their partisan audiences are not worth the time it takes to click on the link.

By Jared Whitley

Sorry, there’s not going to be any 'blue tidal wave' this fall, and Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. The party that once genuinely championed the working-class and traditional liberal values has been hijacked by elite coastal millionaires; insane college professors; impossible-to-please social justice warriors; and an unending, unthinking mob of protesters. The Democrats’ “big tent” has become a three-ring circus.

The writing is simply not on the wall for a Democratic blow-out. The president’s approval rating has been consistently higher than Obama enjoyed at the same point in his presidency. Economic news has been staggeringly good. The unemployment rate is at a 44-year low. The Democrats have no coherent message. The NRA is flush with cash following this year’s extremist anti-gun rhetoric. And the RNC has 40 million dollars more than the “dead broke” DNC.

Conventional wisdom suggests the party out of power will pick up seats in a midterm election, which does seem reasonable. But keep in mind that the same people predicting disaster assured us two years ago that Trump could never be the nominee, and then could never win the White House. After miscalculating the 2000 elections, pundits became cautious. After imploding in 2016, they became hysterical.

So ignore the obstinate, biased, alarmist headlines: the blue tidal wave will, at best, be a blue trickle.

both parties have long jumped the shark

dems complain and simply say they are the opposite of what gop is, but never say what they stand for

and the gop only stands for reducing taxes or bombing something, that's all they have, smh

LIBRILZ wrote: ↑

Tue May 15, 2018 2:43 am

both parties have long jumped the shark

dems complain and simply say they are the opposite of what gop is, but never say what they stand for

and the gop only stands for reducing taxes or bombing something, that's all they have, smh

I'm just sitting here wondering what is wrong with bombing stuff...

flartius wrote: ↑

Mon May 21, 2018 10:11 am

LIBRILZ wrote: ↑

Tue May 15, 2018 2:43 am

both parties have long jumped the shark

dems complain and simply say they are the opposite of what gop is, but never say what they stand for

and the gop only stands for reducing taxes or bombing something, that's all they have, smh

I'm just sitting here wondering what is wrong with bombing stuff...

Apparently nothing as Obama dropped more than G.W. Bush. Although Bush was the first to use drones, authorizing nearly 50 drone strikes, Obama expanded drone warfare, launching at least 10 times as many drone strikes as his predecessor. Ryan Lizza, Washington correspondent for the New Yorker summed it up in one tweet. "Countries bombed: Obama 7, Bush 4."

Bernie Sanders: Blue Wave Is Dead; Midterms Will Be "Very, Very Close"

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) says he "doesn't believe" that there will be a so-called "blue wave" of Democratic victories sweeping the midterm elections, and that it will be a "very, very close" situation. Speaking with The Hill's Krystal Ball on Monday while stumping from Iowa Democrat J.D. Scholten, Sanders said that the outcome from the November 6 elections will be determined by a "handful of votes." "You know a lot of people talk about this "blue wave" and all that stuff - I don't believe it. I happen to think that on election night we're gonna find a very, very close situation, and that maybe a handful of votes determining whether Democrats gain control of the House." "We have an entity able to stand up to [President] Trump or we don’t," added the former Presidential candidate whose aspirations for the Oval Office were derailed after Hillary Clinton and the DNC "rigged the primary" against him in 2016. Sanders - rumored as a 2020 hopeful against Donald Trump, told Hill.TV that he's doing everything he can to promote promising Democratic candidates such as Scholten - stating "we desperately need his voice" in Congress. Democrats will need to pick up 23 seats during midterms in order to take back control of the House.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10- ... very-close

We are witness to history in the making. The Democrat Party has moved away from the party of Thomas Jefferson, giving birth to the Socialist Democratic Party of America. To be sure they may delay changing the name, but that's only to try to hold onto some sense of respectability. With apologies to Shakespeare, a skunk by any other name would still stink.

The final nail in the Democrat Party's coffin will be Trump's landslide re-election. Maybe the Republican Party will adopt CHEETOS as the official party snack food.