Why Democrats Should Be Losing Sleep Over Generation Z

Nov 2005
7,274
1,911
California
#51
Try as you may i have no interest in discussing the gop, presidents and their effects on the deficits or any of the other things you are arguing inside of your head in this thread.
I have explained the relevance to the topic.
Your opening post and the very email subject line YOU CREATED talks about "Why Democrats Should Be Losing Sleep Over Generation Z"
The reality is that no party is perfect and voters typically go with the party that has the most overlap with their position.

Your originating article specifies two issues (out of a multitude of issues) that the author feels Generation Z will like the GOP for. But claiming "Why Democrats Should Be Losing Sleep Over Generation Z" is ridiculously premature based on just two issues.
Analogy:
Suppose a Generation Z member wants to buy a car. He unfortunately has only two basic options.
Car_GOP has two features which the salesman claims he will like. However, there are a list of other features that Car_GOP either does not have or actually is defective in these areas.
Car_DNC => salesman claims those two features are not available or the car is actually defective in these areas. But the Car_DNC has a list of other features which are available and they are missing for Car_GOP (or defective).

Based on the above, any realistic sales person would realize that Car_DNC manufacturers should not blindly "lose sleep" just because of those two Car_GOP options.
THAT is the thing you repeatedly refuse to discuss.


I will gladly discuss genZ and the DNC as that happens to be the topic.
Yet you won't discuss areas where the DNC is strong for GenZ (i.e. GOP weak).
And you fail to comprehend why that's relevant...


The fact that the DNC is currently fracturing happens to be on topic.
Actually, no. It's really not.
It's not fracturing.
Your opinion on it fracturing (even if it were a fact) is not relevant either.
NOTHING in your article claimed that GenZ has concerns over the DNC "fracturing".
But it's what you want to discuss, so you'll happily demand discussion of what you want and anything you don't want to discuss you demand it be in other threads that you ignore as well...


So Bernie Sanders, Alexandra occasional cortex and the number of other socialists w/in the party making a play to reshape the direction of the DNC and the support they are gaining from the people is not real? You need evidence of this?
Again, you make claims that ignore the actual definition of the word socialism.
Is Bernie Sanders Really a Socialist? | Daniel J. Mitchell
When Crazy Bernie became a national political phenomenon back in 2015, I pointed out that the Vermont Senator isn’t actually a socialist.​
As I remarked in this brief interview with Melissa Francis, the technical definition of socialism involves government ownership and control over the “means of production.” In other words, policies such as collective farms and government factories.​


And like I have said repeatedly, the presence of such elements is not the point I am contending.
Earlier, you claimed that socialism was actually redefining the DNC path. THAT is what I am rejecting.
I have pointed this out multiple times now.
Instead of addressing what I actually say, you instead try to pretend I said something different which amusingly enough is exactly what you accuse me of doing without giving any actual example.
Here, I have provided an explicit example of how you are engaging in strawman...