the Great Compromise...that (D) behind your name does not make you a Democrat...

[islandmkl]

the core principles of the Democratic Party, as embodied by FDR, Truman, JFK, RFK, Johnson, McGovern, Carter, Wellstone...have been supplanted by the Third Way/old-DLC triangulated Wall Street/MIC/global corporatists and their single desire to have it all...

she has already jilted us...but many see still the shine in her smile and the twinkle in her eye...they just haven't realized the smile and the twinkle is not for them...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

1. Yes, it does!

Democrat is an affiliation, not an ideology.

"A Democrat" means "a member or supporter of the Democratic party, as it is now".

It does not mean "a subscriber to a simplified, idealised and bowdlerised version of the political positions the Democratic party supported 50 or 60 years ago, regardless of party affiliation".

And it certainly doesn't mean "a subscriber to the political positions that FDR actually held" - nowadays the Democratic party is *against* segregation.

[FreakinDJ]

2. No wonder Registered Democrats are outnumbered 2:1 by Independants

[RKP5637]

4. I left. I just will not appear supportive of the DNC/DLC/DWS. I am now

unaffiliated, but apparently the new D party does not need me. They don't give a F what we do.

[islandmkl]

3. now...THAT'S a really nice convenient way to define a Democrat....

i would say the shelf life of your definition is near expiration...maybe another 4 years or so...

you can only site one simple example of the core principles that supposedly support your premise...oh, and you do know, or maybe not considering what is apparently a lack of true Democratic Party historical perspective, that Truman integrated the military:

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=84 which led to the migration of the initial Dixiecrats..which the Civil Rights Act, signed by Johnson, finally caused them all to join the Republicans...

you can attempt to rewrite or ignore all the history you want...but the Democratic Party since 1988 has 'evolved' into nothing more than RepublicanLite™...

Harry Truman (1948):

Well, I have been studying the Republican Party for over 12 years at close hand in the Capital of the United States. And by this time, I have discovered where the Republicans stand on most of the major issues. Since they won't tell you themselves, I am going to tell you. They approve of the American farmer--but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor a minimum wage--the smaller the minimum the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them... They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.... They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.

[Lizzie Poppet]

8. That's true...and it's also why I coudln't give a damn about party branding.

Bereft of commitment to a slate of political ideals that if not actually fixed, are at least consistently reflective of a coherent set of core ethical values, the party brand is not really any different from that of a sports team. Except it's not based on anything fun or even uplifting like a sports team can be...it's based on a broken, corrupt, failed political system that no longer serves the people.

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. You are correct. "Democrat" today is nothing more than a check mark on a form.

It's a tiny thing that makes one part of a club. It says nothing about what a person believes, but defines who they are beholden to. The 1%.

[Armstead]

13. The two parties are supposed to represent competing ideologies

Heck, if you want to take that out and just talk about affiliations, I'd rather go out on the town with Trump than Clinton. It'd be a lot more fun.

[Zorro]

14. Amen

You nailed it.

It's amusing/annoying to hear such idiocies as "Hillary's not a real Democrat" spewed in these forums.

[pdsimdars]

5. In graphic form

The D behind your name does not make you a Democrat.
It's those core principles you support.




Tell me now, who's the REAL DEMOCRAT?

[CorporatistNation]

18. Bernie IS The TRUE Dem!

For Sure!

[OilemFirchen]

6. One of he funnier Sanders tropes.

The base of the Democratic Party are, according to brogressives, the 20% of the population who identify as left-leaning "Independents" and who, specifically, are not registered as Democrats.

#SillySandersShit

[Lizzie Poppet]

9. "brogressives"

One-word automatic Ignore trigger.

Oh, and stick that sexist insult where the sun don't shine, pinwheel.

[OilemFirchen]

12. Bye!

[JoePhilly]

15. Bwahahahaha!!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. "Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson

[Dem2]

10. Another dumb name-calling turd way post

I've yet to meet a Democrat that knows what the Third Way is. So silly, you just can't get over the politics of 1992. That was a long f****** time ago.

[islandmkl]

16. your limited exposure to anyone who knows what the Third Way is anecdotal at best...

declining Party participation, growth of the independents segment, across-the-board losses in federal congressional offices, state governorships, state congresses, etc. since 2000....and one President (two if you want to throw in Bill C.) which somehow is supposed to justify their programs...

if they, all the Democrats your purport to have met, don't know what the Third Way is by name, they DO know by the results...

[Dem2]

17. It is true that after 12 years of Republican Rule and losing Congress

That the Democrats had to do something to have a chance at winning the presidency again. I know you're smart enough to know that the Democrats can't just wave a wand and take over Congress and the presidency and we even lost the Supreme Court. So I am not saying that the phenomenon of what happened didn't happen, what I am saying is we need to move on and stop obsessing about the past.

( I realized the Democrats hadn't lost Congress when Bill was elected but it was well on its way as the follow on Election showed)

[silvershadow]

19. No compromise for me. I'm done with triangulation. nt