Who speaks for the Democrats?

[canpakes]

Please share with us how Trump experienced humiliation.

You want to know how? He experiences humiliation as a narcissistic injury.

Have you seen the post-Putin press conference? Holy crap, Trump sounded like a beaten, owned and drunk derelict.

[huckelberry]

That has already been exhaustively explained. If you still can't see it, you're probably beyond help!

..,................
Mormonism, progressivism, Marxism, communism, socialism, all focus on the idea of enhancing the collective through a shared mindset. Conservatism emphasizes the importance of strengthening society by promoting individualism, which fosters independent thought. This approach ultimately benefits a greater number of people, in contrast to collectivism, which tends to result in a hierarchy where a select few leaders are followed, as individuals struggle to think for themselves.

If you genuinely think that Jasmon Crockett should run for president, it might be time to reconsider your life choices, wouldn't you agree?

Do you believe Bernie speaks for the Democrat party?

I believe Jasmon Crockett was Ajax 's suggestion, not mine.

I keep wondering how to get Hound to share some thoughts explaining his view. I have read some of Ayn Rand's books. Well a couple of them. Perhaps I will just consider some of her thoughts. The difficulty is my views are that she is not all wrong but has her head on a bit off. I have loyalty to independent thought and effort. I believe free enterprise is important. I also consider that no man is an island. No invention is one person alone.

[Jersey Girl]

You want to know how? He experiences humiliation as a narcissistic injury.

Have you seen the post-Putin press conference? Holy crap, Trump sounded like a beaten, owned and drunk derelict.

I think I did see all of it. It's pretty obvious that he was either physically exhausted at the time or whatever was said at the meeting rendered him unable to brag on himself or deliver good news. I think that alone would leave his ego entirely deflated and that itself would render him physically exhausted. Somewhere between the greeting and meeting he went down like a cheap dollar store balloon.

I've got a strong feeling (that's all I have) that during that private meeting he realized that he can't manipulate Putin. Putin is Honey Badger. Putin don't care. Putin don't give a crap and I think that Trump fully knows it now. He should have paid attention when Biden called Putin a thug. People like Putin play dirty games and they play them for keeps. They don't verbally reduce their political opponents or compare ratings numbers, they kill them dead.

I've said it before. I don't think that Trump admires these dictator types. I think he's scared shitless of them. From the moment Putin walked towards Trump, Trump displayed and behaved (in my eyes) in full deference to Putin. Trump applauded him, shook his hand, touched his body as a man might guide a female's body, gave him a cushy and heavily armored ride in US gov't property (The Beast) and I don't know what happened during the meeting but when Trump left and did the presser I swear I got the impression that Putin bitch slapped the hell out of him in that meeting.

These are only my impressions mind you. Observing behavior is all I really have to go on but I sincerely doubt that we're going to hear Trump rave and brag about how great the meeting went or make any declarations about Putin because Putin has shown himself to be unpredictable, impervious to Trump's well worn and obvious manipulation tactics, and I wouldn't be at all surprised that if Trump were to brag or issue solid predictions about the war at this point that Putin would bitch slap him publicly.

He already did it with his visit at the presser and he did it in full public view on US soil with the President at his side.

If Trump had any sense at all, he'd do his homework. Kinzinger recently described how and why Russia is losing the Ukraine war. The best thing Trump could do is supply Ukraine with the weaponry they need and let it flow like a river.

Rambling. Stopping. Shutting up. I don't post on Sundays.

[Gunnar]

Chap, interesting question. In a simple way it is a reminder of the differences in our systems. Our parties are broader and less focused than those you describe. Times like now leave people wondering which leader or leaders will come forward. That uncertainty has always been part of politics here. A variety of people present some leadership, but no one individual is selected. There is an individual head of party in the House, another in the Senate. They certainly influence but remain among a variety of people providing some leadership.

Leaving all of us wondering about who might lead.

Valid and insightful observations, Huck, which is so typical of you!

[ajax18]

Have you seen the post-Putin press conference? Holy crap, Trump sounded like a beaten, owned and drunk derelict.

I think I did see all of it. It's pretty obvious that he was either physically exhausted at the time or whatever was said at the meeting rendered him unable to brag on himself or deliver good news. I think that alone would leave his ego entirely deflated and that itself would render him physically exhausted. Somewhere between the greeting and meeting he went down like a cheap dollar store balloon.

I've got a strong feeling (that's all I have) that during that private meeting he realized that he can't manipulate Putin. Putin is Honey Badger. Putin don't care. Putin don't give a crap and I think that Trump fully knows it now. He should have paid attention when Biden called Putin a thug. People like Putin play dirty games and they play them for keeps. They don't verbally reduce their political opponents or compare ratings numbers, they kill them dead.

I've said it before. I don't think that Trump admires these dictator types. I think he's scared shitless of them. From the moment Putin walked towards Trump, Trump displayed and behaved (in my eyes) in full deference to Putin. Trump applauded him, shook his hand, touched his body as a man might guide a female's body, gave him a cushy and heavily armored ride in US gov't property (The Beast) and I don't know what happened during the meeting but when Trump left and did the presser I swear I got the impression that Putin bitch slapped the hell out of him in that meeting.

These are only my impressions mind you. Observing behavior is all I really have to go on but I sincerely doubt that we're going to hear Trump rave and brag about how great the meeting went or make any declarations about Putin because Putin has shown himself to be unpredictable, impervious to Trump's well worn and obvious manipulation tactics, and I wouldn't be at all surprised that if Trump were to brag or issue solid predictions about the war at this point that Putin would bitch slap him publicly.

He already did it with his visit at the presser and he did it in full public view on US soil with the President at his side.

If Trump had any sense at all, he'd do his homework. Kinzinger recently described how and why Russia is losing the Ukraine war. The best thing Trump could do is supply Ukraine with the weaponry they need and let it flow like a river.

Rambling. Stopping. Shutting up. I don't post on Sundays.

Do you still think that Putin and Russia were responsible for Trump winning the 2016 election?

[Jersey Girl]

I think I did see all of it. It's pretty obvious that he was either physically exhausted at the time or whatever was said at the meeting rendered him unable to brag on himself or deliver good news. I think that alone would leave his ego entirely deflated and that itself would render him physically exhausted. Somewhere between the greeting and meeting he went down like a cheap dollar store balloon.

I've got a strong feeling (that's all I have) that during that private meeting he realized that he can't manipulate Putin. Putin is Honey Badger. Putin don't care. Putin don't give a crap and I think that Trump fully knows it now. He should have paid attention when Biden called Putin a thug. People like Putin play dirty games and they play them for keeps. They don't verbally reduce their political opponents or compare ratings numbers, they kill them dead.

I've said it before. I don't think that Trump admires these dictator types. I think he's scared shitless of them. From the moment Putin walked towards Trump, Trump displayed and behaved (in my eyes) in full deference to Putin. Trump applauded him, shook his hand, touched his body as a man might guide a female's body, gave him a cushy and heavily armored ride in US gov't property (The Beast) and I don't know what happened during the meeting but when Trump left and did the presser I swear I got the impression that Putin bitch slapped the hell out of him in that meeting.

These are only my impressions mind you. Observing behavior is all I really have to go on but I sincerely doubt that we're going to hear Trump rave and brag about how great the meeting went or make any declarations about Putin because Putin has shown himself to be unpredictable, impervious to Trump's well worn and obvious manipulation tactics, and I wouldn't be at all surprised that if Trump were to brag or issue solid predictions about the war at this point that Putin would bitch slap him publicly.

He already did it with his visit at the presser and he did it in full public view on US soil with the President at his side.

If Trump had any sense at all, he'd do his homework. Kinzinger recently described how and why Russia is losing the Ukraine war. The best thing Trump could do is supply Ukraine with the weaponry they need and let it flow like a river.

Rambling. Stopping. Shutting up. I don't post on Sundays.

Do you still think that Putin and Russia were responsible for Trump winning the 2016 election?

Why do you think I thought that to start with?

[Physics Guy]

Parliamentary democracy based on the British system is by far the most popular form of democracy in the world. Nobody else has adopted the American model, which was an excellent first draft in 1789 but in retrospect was clearly a Democracy version 1.0. This point that Chap raises may be one of its subtler problems: the party that loses the Presidency loses not only power but direction.

As far as I can see, the only time that both American parties ever have clear leaders or spokespersons is during a Presidential election. Each candidate for President certainly seems then to have the role of leading their whole party. After the election, one of those candidates becomes President, and continues to act as effective leader of the party for the duration of their administration. The losing candidate becomes nothing, however, and for the next three-and-half years or so, until the next federal campaign, the party that loses the Presidency has no clear leader at all.

I guess it can sometimes happen that someone other than the sitting President emerges as a leading voice for a party. During Bill Clinton's presidency, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich seemed to be the one Republican that got all the attention. The big point, though, is that whether an American party has any such kind of leader seems to be a matter of circumstances and personality, not of institutional fact. The parties have national committees with chairpersons, but these people do not hold or run for public office. Hardly anybody ever knows who they are, or cares. They are nobodies.

In a Westminster model, in contrast, every party somehow designates for itself an official leader, and it's really important who this person is, because if their party attains a majority (or can cobble one together with other parties) then they will automatically become Prime Minister, and thus personally control both the executive and legislative branches of government until the next election. The office of Prime Minister is in that sense much more powerful than any American office is; a Westminster premiership is like the offices of President, Speaker of the House, and Senate Majority Leader, all rolled into one. And there is no separate, direct election for Prime Minister. The party leader gets the job automatically, if their party wins the vote for the legislature.

The leaders of losing parties still remain party leaders, and may even have an official role in Parliament as Leader of the Opposition. A party can languish out of government for many years, wandering in the political wilderness, but it will still be led by some Moses. And every party leader is in principle only one election away from undivided government power, so they generally get attention even if they're not in government office. They can keep on effectively advocating their party's platform as a coherent alternative to the government's policies. Political opposition in a Westminster system is thus a few big guns rather than a swarm of people sniping against the government from all different directions. Opposition parties retain their own positive agendas and do not become defined in purely negative terms as just being somehow against the governing party for whatever reasons.

In a Parliamentary system the party leader may not even themselves be a member of Parliament. They are always a candidate, but if the election goes badly then even they may not win their own seat, in which case some party member who did win a seat in the legislature resigns so that the party leader can run in a special election, which they invariably win because the chosen seat is a super-safe one for the party and everybody likes to have a party leader as their representative. Until that special election takes place, however, the party may be led by a leader who is not themselves in the Parliament. That person is still the official leader of the party. Pierre Poilievre is currently in this situation now in Canada, leading one of the country's two main parties while campaigning to get back into the House of Commons. At the moment he has no role in government at any level, but nobody has to ask who speaks for the Conservative Party of Canada: he's the guy.

[ajax18]

Do you still think that Putin and Russia were responsible for Trump winning the 2016 election?

Why do you think I thought that to start with?

What you and other liberals on this board wrote back in 2017.

[huckelberry]

Why do you think I thought that to start with?

What you and other liberals on this board wrote back in 2017.

Notice was made of evidence of Russian efforts to influence the election. I do not think there is any way to know if that effort was the actual reason Trump won, it was American citizens who voted. American citizens are responsible for better or worse.

[Jersey Girl]

Why do you think I thought that to start with?

What you and other liberals on this board wrote back in 2017.

I don't recall ever commenting on the issue much less stating an opinion. You'll have to dig up a post and quote me on that one.