Flyover-Country Dems Release Loopy List of Demands

[BvBPL]

So it’s come to this: Gem State Democrats have released a list of nutty “demands” as their party platform. This platform demonstrates how so-called “progressives” seek to upend American politics by pushing through populist policies at odds with traditional values.

For example, take a look at the education plank. The Party wants to fund Idaho public schools directly through the state’s Legislature. This turns the traditional US structure of funding public education, paid locally through property taxes, on its head. For this demand to be met, the state’s government would have to somehow develop a means to fund on a per-student basis, rather than letting education funding come down to local property values.

The aggressive phrasing of the platform is intentional. Just look at the number of times the platform uses “we demand” or “we require” at the front of an item. “We demand equal pay for equal work.” “We demand the elimination of all sales tax exemptions.” “We demand diplomacy before sending the… Armed Forces into harm’s way.” This sort of entitlement language is so typical of “progressive” politicians; they think it’s their right to govern as their supporters want. It’s like they want a revolution from how the US government works. Make no mistake, the use of such aggressive terms means these Democrats will fight hard for the zany ideas in this platform.

Even what the platform doesn’t say is crazy. Absent are any condemnations of the other side. There’s nothing at all that calls out the GOP. We all know that in today’s political world, you don’t get far without getting into the mud and slinging it against the other side. The sort of idealism that the Idaho Democratic Party avows has little place in contemporary US politics.

Idaho’s Democrats have become unmoored from the standards and principles of politics as we know them across the country. Of course they’re doomed; no group could govern as we do presently by demanding revolutionary changes, speaking directly to the desires of its constituency, and not continually attacking the other side. Why the Party adopted this bizarre platform that seeks to steer the ship of state in a very different direction is a mystery.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Of course they’re doomed; no group could govern as we do presently by demanding revolutionary changes, speaking directly to the desires of its constituency, and not continually attacking the other side. Why the Party adopted this bizarre platform that seeks to steer the ship of state in a very different direction is a mystery.

Can't tell if serious.

 

[Berzerker]

I dont have a problem with school funding via general revenue, we should be trying to provide a semblance of equality of opportunity for students in poor districts.

 

[rah]

While I agree in terms of providing equality, I'm scared to give the extra tax revenue to the state for dispersion since they've so thoroughly screwed things up in Illinois.

 

[Synobun]

It's becoming increasingly difficult to determine if your posts are satirical, BvBPL.

 

[Hygro]

It's satirical guys. Paragraph 4 for us slower folks.

 

[Ryika]

12. We Uphold America’s Tradition Of Welcoming Immigrants
● We recognize immigrants as our neighbors, our co-workers, and our schoolmates. Our children will lead Idaho together and make Idaho strong.

● We demand the ethical treatment of those seeking opportunity and safety in the country.

● We demand comprehensive and compassionate immigration reform.

WTF! Do they want America to be overrun by Illegals??? Might as well just have written "ABOLISH ICE!".

 

[Zkribbler]

This platform demonstrates how so-called “progressives” seek to upend American politics by pushing through populist policies at odds with traditional values.

Let's look at what these violations of "traditional values:"
Equality And Respect For All Idahoans
An Economy That Works For All Idahoans
Free, Safe, And Equal Public Education
Accessible, Affordable, And Comprehensive Healthcare
Widespread Voter And Civic Participation
Labor Unions
A Fair And Equitable Tax Policy
Honor Military Service
Good Stewards Of The Environment
A Fair And Effective Criminal Justice System
Uphold America’s Tradition Of Welcoming Immigrants
Legalization Of Cannabis
Full Text Of The Second Amendment

Sounds good to me.

The Party wants to fund Idaho public schools directly through the state’s Legislature.

California adopted this policy decades. The problem with funding schools from local property taxes is that rich districts have well-funded schools and poor districts have schools with neither text books nor school supplies. It's all about equal opportunity.

We demand comprehensive and compassionate immigration reform.
... WTF! Do they want America to be overrun by Illegals

Last year, the US Senate passed a bi-partisan comprehensive and compassionate immigration reform bill with 95 votes.
Most House members said they wanted to vote for it, but the GOP leadership refused to allow a vote.
This year the House Democrats have unanimously proposed a comprehensive and compassionate immigration reform bill.
The GOP leadership refuses to assign it to a committee for discussion.
The GOP is unable to agree on their own proposal.
And so our do-nothing Congress does nothing.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Even what the platform doesn’t say is crazy. Absent are any condemnations of the other side. There’s nothing at all that calls out the GOP. We all know that in today’s political world, you don’t get far without getting into the mud and slinging it against the other side. The sort of idealism that the Idaho Democratic Party avows has little place in contemporary US politics.

A party that doesn't want to engage in mudslinging is... bad?

Unfortunately mudslinging is considered normal these days, but I've noticed that it's usually the right-wing that engages in it, sometimes in a ridiculous way, but other times in a really vicious way.

Back in the '90s, the right-wing lost the federal election to Jean Chretien's Liberals partly because they released an attack ad that mocked Chretien's facial paralysis (he had polio as a child and one side of his face is paralyzed so his smiles are lopsided and he has some difficulty speaking). That was so far beyond completely unacceptable, the way they showed close-up photos and asked, "Is this the face of a Prime Minister?" as though nobody who survived such a horrible disease should ever even think of wanting to be Prime Minister, and that somehow it meant he wasn't intelligent enough to hold the office.

Nowadays they confine their attack ads to more superficial things like mocking Justin Trudeau's hair (as in he has nice hair). This time around there will no doubt be months' worth of attack ads mocking his socks (he likes colorful and geeky-themed socks like Star Wars) and his admittedly awkward trip to India where he wore too many Indian costumes and put on a brief but awkward display of bhangra dancing. Normally he's not bad at bhangra, but that wasn't the right time or place to do it.

It's satirical guys. Paragraph 4 for us slower folks.

That's not entirely clear. There really are political parties that figure mudslinging is a necessary part of a properly-run campaign. There have been some elections where it really didn't matter if I voted Liberal or NDP (since the Conservatives always won), so I just voted for the candidate whose party did the least amount of mudslinging.

 

[Ryika]

That's not entirely clear. There really are political parties that figure mudslinging is a necessary part of a properly-run campaign. There have been some elections where it really didn't matter if I voted Liberal or NDP (since the Conservatives always won), so I just voted for the candidate whose party did the least amount of mudslinging.

The reason that paragraph gives away that the post is 100% satirical, is that he does not deliver any explanation as to why political mudslinging "must be" the primary way to go, and why the more reasonable approach the cannot work. He makes it seem like it's self-evident, which it obviously isn't. Quite the opposite, it is a common criticism of the American democratic process that parties react to a lot of issue-based arguments with some disguised form of "Well, look at them. They're way worse than us!"

I really don't understand why so many people in these forums have trouble understanding that sort of satire. The framing of the issue, and the things that are left out make it rather obvious, even for someone who doesn't know anything about the political opinions that BvBPL has expressed in the past.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Let's look at what these violations of "traditional values:"
Equality And Respect For All Idahoans
An Economy That Works For All Idahoans
Free, Safe, And Equal Public Education
Accessible, Affordable, And Comprehensive Healthcare
Widespread Voter And Civic Participation
Labor Unions
A Fair And Equitable Tax Policy
Honor Military Service
Good Stewards Of The Environment
A Fair And Effective Criminal Justice System
Uphold America’s Tradition Of Welcoming Immigrants
Legalization Of Cannabis
Full Text Of The Second Amendment

Sounds good to me.

Sounds like dirty feelthy COMMUNISM to me!

 

[AmazonQueen]

The reason that paragraph gives away that the post is 100% satirical, is that he does not deliver any explanation as to why political mudslinging "must be" the primary way to go, and why the more reasonable approach the cannot work. He makes it seem like it's self-evident, which it obviously isn't. Quite the opposite, it is a common criticism of the American democratic process that parties react to a lot of issue-based arguments with some disguised form of "Well, look at them. They're way worse than us!"

I really don't understand why so many people in these forums have trouble understanding that sort of satire. The framing of the issue, and the things that are left out make it rather obvious, even for someone who doesn't know anything about the political opinions that BvBPL has expressed in the past.

That and no group could govern by speaking directly to the desires of its constituency.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

For example, take a look at the education plank. The Party wants to fund Idaho public schools directly through the state’s Legislature. This turns the traditional US structure of funding public education, paid locally through property taxes, on its head. For this demand to be met, the state’s government would have to somehow develop a means to fund on a per-student basis, rather than letting education funding come down to local property values.

Well I don't know about anything else, but this doesn't sound nutty at all (even though I guess you're being sarcastic). Tying a school's funding to the value of the property in the local area seems a surefire guaranteed way to ensure that education in poor areas remains poor forever. That kind of sounds like an awful system. I must admit I'm ignorant as to how schools are funded in my country, but I hope to God it's not like this.

 

[Arwon]

Is everyone pretending not to understand the OP or what?