Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (378351)	7/24/2018 10:32:48 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541058

You are conflating two separate but related issues. The message and the envelope it is in are two separate things. Or going back to my theme and plot analogy, what you are trying to achieve and how you achieve them are separate. I was talking about things the party should stand for and achieve not on the messaging. Now if you want to talk about the messaging, we can say that, "If we can afford to pay trillions to the bankers and Wall Street, we sure can afford to help hard working Americans get some debt relief/affordable daycare/education fund/etc." Similarly, this is Dems chance to own the national security issue. I am willing to bet that if you package it right, not only you can be the protector of US from Russia, but you can also be the one who wins the veterans...something along the lines of "if you served your country in Iraq and Afghanistan, you deserve to have a chance at a better life." Those services offered can then be extended to other segments of the society. As to gerrymandering, it is imperative that it must go. I grant you that it is a hard one to sell to the average voter. But that doesn't make it less important. So it must be packaged in a way that voters can relate to. One possible option is to use it to make your candidates seem like selfless people who are interested in uniting the country and getting rid of the polarization. Hence the part on working with GOP. When I listen to you, I get a sense that your sole focus is winning the elections. If "winning" is all that you want, why don't you join the Republicans when they are strong and switch back to Dems when GOP is out of favor? It is not supposed to be about putting your sociopaths ahead of their sociopaths; it should be about achieving something substantial. If you can't do that, you have failed even if you win. ST