ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

theyoungdem said 05/16, 09:55 PM
First of all the democratic national party never officially adopted the symbol of the donkey. However you are correct about it deriving from Andrew Jackson from the mudslinging during his campaign.

Even though it's the most widely used symbol, other places uses different symbols for the democratic party. Such as if you voted in Oklahoma, Kentucky, or Indiana, you would notice the symbol there for democrats is a rooster. Democrats in Missouri use a Statue of Liberty.

The animal itself has no value, I'm sure we're all aware of that. It's what the candidates stand for which really matters, it's what the politicians' views are in that party which matters. The animal itself is simply a mascot which has sentimental values, not literal values.

You may wish to change the animal, I'm sure many people wouldn't mind the symbol being a dragon instead of a donkey, but the donkey isn't presented in an allegoric level to portray "stubbornness and ignorance".

As I said before it stands more sentimentally not literally.

theyoungdem said 05/19, 05:57 PM
At first you said, " I don't believe the democratic party want to present an image to the electorate which suggests stubbornness and ignorance", now you say, "the point I wanted to make was that if the democrats have a widely used symbol which is recognised to represent that party, why not make it a symbol which does not derive from a mud slinging campaign"

You're making two totally different arguments there. To reply your first argument, I gave my response on how the donkey does not represent those qualities, they have more sentimental values, and it is more of a "pride" issue. In response to your second statement, that is totally believable, you may have that belief if you wish, though the donkey has been the mascot for so long, most dems are fine with it, and have no grudges towards it.

theyoungdem said 05/21, 05:41 PM
I said there's no real emotional connection? Look again, I stated that there are sentimental values not literal values. You are right, there is not reason it could not be changed, but at the begginning you said it should be changed because of what a donkey stands for, if you don't know what I'm talking about reread your first argument.

I accepted this challenge to counter your argument and say that is not what the donkey stands for thus it should not be changed soley for that reason. I stated it could be changed, and many people may have that belief.

You now basically are saying in your last argument, that it could be changed, therefore use an animal that better suits the democratic party.

Not only is that a completely valid statement, but your suggestion that an animal based on democratic ideology should be placed. I never knew there was an animal that strived for universal health care or ending the war in Iraq. If you mean an animal which would provide representation of strength, i.e. the moose, how is that more suited with the democratic party than the donkey, which derived from a democratic campaign many years ago?

It may be changed, but not for that first reason.