Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

2,251 to 2,300 of 4,260 << first < prev | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:

\

And seriously, the Democrats are Republicans thing is such bull. If you were honest about it and claimed it was "Republican+pro choice+LGBT rights+civil rights+ womens' right plus " party vs the "original flavor - science - environment - health care - social security + even more war". You can make something of an argument that Democrats on broad economic issues are closer to Republicans of the 60s or so, while being vastly better than those Republicans on nearly every social issue, but you can't then imply that modern Republicans are anything like those Republicans even on the economic issues. And it's not just Trump, it's the whole damn party. Democrats may not be making the steps forward we'd like to see, but Republicans are working on rolling back the whole damn 20th century. Medicare, Social Security, public education, environmental protections. They want it all gone.

That's perfectly fair, the republicans of today are maniacs, or at least the candidates that run are, but that's because the democrats of today are pro-business corpratist war hawks.

Who do you vote for if you want wall street bankers brought to justice? Who do you vote for if you want less war? Who do you vote for if you're anti-fracking? Heck who do you vote for if you want to keep anything from the new deal? Bill Clinton and Obama have talked about privatizing social security, Obama made Bush tax cuts permanent, Bill Clinton repealed banking regulations . . . I mean when the supposed non-republicans are doing things that republicans can only dream about you have to wonder what's the point of voting if the people are pretty much ignored and a corpratist agenda is being rammed through regardless of who's in charge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
To a lot of people, for reasons I don't completely understand, Trump comes across as the guy who says what he thinks and tells it like it is - even when he's lying through his teeth or has no idea what he's talking about.

"People don’t drink the sand because they’re thirsty, Lewis. They drink it because they don’t know the difference."

Whoops, I guess that's my Liberal Elitism(TM) again...

Prob'ly.

I've got two takes on it myself. The more cynical one is that they hear him say a lot of offensive things that they think, but bite back because they think they'll get in trouble in this modern politically correct world. He "tells it like it is" because he says what they want to say and gets away with it.
More subtly, and probably working on a different subset of supporters, he doesn't lie like a politician. He doesn't equivocate and mince his words and spin things, he just outright lies. It's different than the usual politician lies, so it feels like truth. It doesn't seem like he's hiding things. He's plain spoken. It's the Big Lie technique. "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."

The two work together to an extent - someone routinely saying offensive things can't possibly be carefully considering their words, they've just got to lack self-control and just spit out whatever's on their mind, so they really be capable of deceiving people.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I thought you though she did try the "dirty republican tricks"? My point was she didn't even bother with standard campaign attacks. Bernie never got enough traction to need it. You can blame the media for that, if you like, but Clinton and the DNC sure as hell don't run the media or they wouldn't have spent nearly so much time on Clinton scandals. It might have been closer than the Republican race, but it wasn't nearly as close as the Obama/Clinton race in 2008 was.

Let's be honest, Obama is just a superior politician to Sanders, I'm not a fan of everything he's accomplished but if Obama had been running in 2016 Sanders wouldn't have even been a road bump. Bernie is not particularly charismatic, not a great public speaker, but his message was one that people liked. Obama had both, it's why the Clinton machine couldn't stop him, and while I like Bernie's message and I respect him as a person, if I had a choice between Bernie and Obama I'd probably pick Barrack because I think he'd have a far better chance of defeating whatever the republicans had to offer.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
And seriously, the Democrats are Republicans thing is such bull. If you were honest about it and claimed it was "Republican+pro choice+LGBT rights+civil rights+ womens' right plus " party vs the "original flavor - science - environment - health care - social security + even more war". You can make something of an argument that Democrats on broad economic issues are closer to Republicans of the 60s or so, while being vastly better than those Republicans on nearly every social issue, but you can't then imply that modern Republicans are anything like those Republicans even on the economic issues. And it's not just Trump, it's the whole damn party. Democrats may not be making the steps forward we'd like to see, but Republicans are working on rolling back the whole damn 20th century. Medicare, Social Security, public education, environmental protections. They want it all gone.

That's perfectly fair, the republicans of today are maniacs, or at least the candidates that run are, but that's because the democrats of today are pro-business corpratist war hawks.

Who do you vote for if you want wall street bankers brought to justice? Who do you vote for if you want less war? Who do you vote for if you're anti-fracking? Heck who do you vote for if you want to keep anything from the new deal? Bill Clinton and Obama have talked about privatizing social security, Obama made Bush tax cuts permanent, Bill Clinton repealed banking regulations . . . I mean when the supposed non-republicans are doing things that republicans can only dream about you have to wonder what's the point of voting if the people are pretty much ignored and a corpratist agenda is being rammed through regardless of who's in charge.

The Republicans are maniacs because of Democrats? Seriously?

It's all the Democrats fault. No matter what. The Democrats force Republicans to go full on crazy. Somehow.

Look, I get it. In many ways, they're both farther to the right than I'd like, but the differences are real. The agenda may be corporatist, but one version is insane and the other is at least limited. You're right back to the false equivalence after agreeing the Republicans are maniacs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I've got two takes on it myself. The more cynical one is that they hear him say a lot of offensive things that they think, but bite back because they think they'll get in trouble in this modern politically correct world. He "tells it like it is" because he says what they want to say and gets away with it.

Agreed. In fact, some of them have all but come out and said as much.

thejeff wrote:

More subtly, and probably working on a different subset of supporters, he doesn't lie like a politician. He doesn't equivocate and mince his words and spin things, he just outright lies. It's different than the usual politician lies, so it feels like truth. It doesn't seem like he's hiding things. He's plain spoken. It's the Big Lie technique. "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."

Again, I agree. But that just strikes me as a longer way of saying "they don't know the difference." Seriously. To believe much of what he says, one would have to be unable and/or unwilling to think critically.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

My number one voting issues are inevitably environment and science. If you think the republicans, who really really want to shut down the EPA and who still insist climate change isn't real, are the same as democrats, I don't think we share the same reality.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

The Republicans are maniacs because of Democrats? Seriously?

It's all the Democrats fault. No matter what. The Democrats force Republicans to go full on crazy. Somehow.

It's not the democrat's fault that republicans are maniacs, and it's not the republican's fault that democrats are now corporate stooges, the thing we can blame for the current state of affairs is money in politics. You have two parties fighting for money and corporate interests aren't that dissimilar . . . which is why democrats and republicans aren't that dissimilar. Get money out of politics and you'll have more democrats like Sanders, and some that would make him look more like the moderate that he actually is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:

The Republicans are maniacs because of Democrats? Seriously?

It's all the Democrats fault. No matter what. The Democrats force Republicans to go full on crazy. Somehow.

It's not the democrat's fault that republicans are maniacs, and it's not the republican's fault that democrats are now corporate stooges, the thing we can blame for the current state of affairs is money in politics. You have two parties fighting for money and corporate interests aren't that dissimilar . . . which is why democrats and republicans aren't that dissimilar. Get money out of politics and you'll have more democrats like Sanders, and some that would make him look more like the moderate that he actually is.

And again: "aren't that dissimilar"

I really can't take anything you say seriously while you keep saying things like this.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Guy Humual wrote:
Get money out of politics

That would require overturning the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Get money out of politics
That would require overturning the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United.

That by itself wouldn't do it as money in politics was already a problem before that decision made it worse. It would however, be a start.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
It's hilarious to watch someone ridicule other people's belief in God while at the same time worship thier lord and savior Bernie Sanders.
Slow down chief, Bernie was the best candidate running in 2016, but that's like being the thinnest kid at fat camp. The field was not stellar. You had two people who most people hated winning the nominee. Suggesting that Bernie was a perfect candidate is just plain silly. People liked his message. If you're not a fan of socialized medicine, free public education, and income inequality than I suppose you're fine with whatever the republican + pro choice party, or republican (original flavor) are putting out.

I love that other people get to decide I'm not a liberal and make up facts about why I made my choice. People go on and on about how democrats need to listen to specific groups of people, but then don't actually care what other people have to say. Do you have anything to say other than that I'm "not a real Scotsman?"


Irontruth wrote:
Do you have anything to say other than that I'm "not a real Scotsman?"

I honestly thought you were more Irish myself...


Manx by heritage (supposedly).

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

And again: "aren't that dissimilar"

I really can't take anything you say seriously while you keep saying things like this.

So, what you consider dissimilar is clearly different from what I consider dissimilar. Obama was supposed to get the US out of wars, by the end of his term he was bombing 7 different countries. Almost none of the bankers responsible for the 2007-2008 crash haven't been prosecuted. Bush era tax cuts have been made permanent. Under Obama Habeas Corpus has been further threatened, people called terrorists, even US citizens, can be obtained and held indefinitely without a trial. We've discovered that government surveillance has increased. These issues are big and maybe the republicans would be worse somehow? It's hard to imagine.

As for the EPA, science, health care, social security, LGBT rights, the conservatives are saying some really terrible things that's for sure, how anyone in their right mind could vote for them is beyond me, but actually implementing some of these things isn't going to be easy. For one thing, as I've said, they're behooved to their donors, who might not want things like LGBT rights changed, and they have their own maniac supporters who aren't going to like social security or health care being changed. They might run maniacs but they're also maniacs on a bit of a leash.

I suppose it's possible that as bad as the democrats seem to be the republicans could be worse, but that remains to be seen. Right now I don't think there was much difference between Obama and Bush. Trump looks like a complete disaster, like he'll mess up the US for generations to come, but as of right now all he's doing is signing papers and looking like a clown. On paper and on the campaing trail there's a world of difference, but in office? I don't see much difference between a republican and a democrat these days.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Guy Humual wrote:
On paper and on the campaing trail there's a world of difference, but in office? I don't see much difference between a republican and a democrat these days.

Then you're either blind or intentionally obtuse.

Sovereign Court

Irontruth wrote:


I love that other people get to decide I'm not a liberal and make up facts about why I made my choice. People go on and on about how democrats need to listen to specific groups of people, but then don't actually care what other people have to say. Do you have anything to say other than that I'm "not a real Scotsman?"

Did I imply you're not a liberal? If you were happy with Clinton you could have been making the pragmatic decision, which I didn't agree with, but some of stated that they felt incremental change was safer to run on then the bold change Bernie was proposing. I think Hilary was to the right of Obama on a lot of issues though, and Obama was closer to Reagan then FDR.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alternately, perhaps Democrats and Republicans are similar in some ways, but dissimilar in others?

As for being beholden to corporations: Generally speaking, you need lots and lots of money to win elections. It's isn't a big leap to see where the problem lies...

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thunderspirit wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
On paper and on the campaing trail there's a world of difference, but in office? I don't see much difference between a republican and a democrat these days.
Then you're either blind or intentionally obtuse.

What did Bush do that democrats didn't vote for?

Sovereign Court

bugleyman wrote:

Alternately, perhaps Democrats and Republicans are similar in some ways, but dissimilar in others?

Well the big difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that the Republicans haven't had to lead in nearly a decade. They were the opposition and only had to be generally horrible, now they're trying to govern, so it remains to be seen if we actually have a noticeable difference.


Guy Humual wrote:
thunderspirit wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
On paper and on the campaing trail there's a world of difference, but in office? I don't see much difference between a republican and a democrat these days.
Then you're either blind or intentionally obtuse.
What did Bush do that democrats didn't vote for?

Look, over there!

But seriously, if you can't see a number of very clear differences in the Democratic and Republican platforms then meaningful discussion simply isn't possible.


Guy Humual wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Alternately, perhaps Democrats and Republicans are similar in some ways, but dissimilar in others?

Well the big difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that the Republicans haven't had to lead in nearly a decade. They were the opposition and only had to be generally horrible, now they're trying to govern, so it remains to be seen if we actually have a noticeable difference.

No, that's a difference. And a debatable one, at that, since the Republicans have held at least part of the legislative branch since 2010.

Also, have you somehow not noticed the Republican assault on science, women, and pretty much the very concept of functional government? This feels like a discussion from a mirror universe. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Guy Humual wrote:


As for the EPA, science, health care, social security, LGBT rights, the conservatives are saying some really terrible things that's for sure, how anyone in their right mind could vote for them is beyond me, but actually implementing some of these things isn't going to be easy. For one thing, as I've said, they're behooved to their donors, who might not want things like LGBT rights changed, and they have their own maniac supporters who aren't going to like social security or health care being changed. They might run maniacs but they're also maniacs on a bit of a leash.

I suppose it's possible that as bad as the democrats seem to be the republicans could be worse, but that remains to be seen. Right now I don't think there was much difference between Obama and Bush. Trump looks like a complete disaster, like he'll mess up the US for generations to come, but as of right now all he's doing is signing papers and looking like a clown. On paper and on the campaing trail there's a world of difference, but in office? I don't see much difference between a republican and a democrat these days.

Uh...You do realize that the GOP is putting forward a healthcare plan that will cause in the long run 24-26 million people to loose there health insurance, not to mention defund planned parenthood. That they have already have been rolling back massive amounts of environmental regulation, and proposed budget changes are going to massively gut a lot of important social and environmental services. That the order to protect transgender kids and let them use the bathroom of their choice has been dropped.

"Suppose it is possible"...No that stuff is happening right now, and will only continue to get worse as long as the GOP controls everything.


Differences between platforms is not the Democratic Party's problem. Continual loss of assorted 'seats' at the local, state and federal levels is their problem.

Sovereign Court

bugleyman wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Alternately, perhaps Democrats and Republicans are similar in some ways, but dissimilar in others?

Well the big difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that the Republicans haven't had to lead in nearly a decade. They were the opposition and only had to be generally horrible, now they're trying to govern, so it remains to be seen if we actually have a noticeable difference.
No, that's a difference. And a debatable one, at that, since the Republicans have held at least part of the legislative branch since 2010.

They did things like try to repeal the ACA, things that were never going to happen with Obama's veto and the dems controlling the senate so they wasted time. Now they don't have excuses, they don't have a safety net, and so now they have to actually do things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

P1: Republicans have two arms, two legs, and two eyes.
P2: Democrats have two arms, two legs, and two eyes.
C: Therefore, Republicans and Democrats are identical unless proven otherwise.

*boggle*

Sovereign Court

MMCJawa wrote:


Uh...You do realize that the GOP is putting forward a healthcare plan that will cause in the long run 24-26 million people to loose there health insurance, not to mention defund planned parenthood.

They've put it forward, I'm not sure it's going to pass. Personally I think the republicans are going to replace "Obamacare" with the ACA.


Guy Humual wrote:
They did things like try to repeal the ACA, things that were never going to happen with Obama's veto and the dems controlling the senate so they wasted time. Now they don't have excuses, they don't have a safety net, and so now they have to actually do things.

You *seem* to be saying that we can only judge a party by what it does when it controls all branches of government (a rare occurrence, btw)?

I'm sorry, but I'm having a really hard time following your logic.


Guy Humual wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:


Uh...You do realize that the GOP is putting forward a healthcare plan that will cause in the long run 24-26 million people to loose there health insurance, not to mention defund planned parenthood.

They've put it forward, I'm not sure it's going to pass. Personally I think the republicans are going to replace "Obamacare" with the ACA.

So...goals and intentions aren't a meaningful point of differentiation? Sorry, but you've lost me.

Both parties are beholden to wealthy corporations, and in that sense they are similar. In pretty much every other meaningful sense, they seem quite different to me.

Sovereign Court

bugleyman wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
They did things like try to repeal the ACA, things that were never going to happen with Obama's veto and the dems controlling the senate so they wasted time. Now they don't have excuses, they don't have a safety net, and so now they have to actually do things.

You *seem* to be saying that we can only judge a party by what it does when it controls all branches of government (a rare occurrence, btw)?

I'm sorry, but I'm having a really hard time following your logic.

When Bush was in office democrats talked about how they'd do things different, pushed progressive agendas, but when they got into office they whiffed on a lot of these things. Don't get me wrong, LGBTQ rights are important, the ACA was better then what existed previously but it was still a republican plan, and I will conceded that economic constraints did limit what Obama could do with spending, but both parties usually tone down when they have the presidency. Checks and balances usually guarantee this but the dems didn't really take advantage of those few years when they had control of the senate and house and so it remains to be seen if the republicans will continue to be maniacs now that they actually have to govern.

Sovereign Court

bugleyman wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:


Uh...You do realize that the GOP is putting forward a healthcare plan that will cause in the long run 24-26 million people to loose there health insurance, not to mention defund planned parenthood.

They've put it forward, I'm not sure it's going to pass. Personally I think the republicans are going to replace "Obamacare" with the ACA.

So...goals and intentions aren't a meaningful point of differentiation? Sorry, but you've lost me.

Both parties are beholden to wealthy corporations, and in that sense they are similar. In pretty much every other meaningful sense, they seem quite different to me.

What I'm saying is although they seem like maniacs that doesn't mean all of them are (or at least not all the time). Now that their votes could actually take health care away from their constants they likely will have second thoughts about voting for a replacement. This is a terrible bill and they might not be able to convince everyone in their own party to vote for it. Trump doesn't want his name attached to it. It's a republican bill but that doesn't mean every republican is going to vote for it.


An article from a few years ago discussing why the two parties are sometimes viewed as flip sides of the same coin.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Oh, and as it turns out, we apparently do have some idea what the Republican party would have thrown against Sanders (see point #2, in particular).

Jumping back here, since I actually stopped to read this

I gave up after the first paragraph set off my bullshiznit detector.

A Jill Stein-voting fan of Kurt Eichenwald? Don't buy it for a minute.

Sovereign Court

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Oh, and as it turns out, we apparently do have some idea what the Republican party would have thrown against Sanders (see point #2, in particular).

Jumping back here, since I actually stopped to read this

I gave up after the first paragraph set off my bullshiznit detector.

A Jill Stein-voting fan of Kurt Eichenwald? Don't buy it for a minute.

Ha!


Guy Humual wrote:


As for the EPA, science, health care, social security, LGBT rights, the conservatives are saying some really terrible things that's for sure, how anyone in their right mind could vote for them is beyond me,

It's not that hard.. because the other person warned about abstract threats to people you don't really care about, and then she said she was going to shut down the coal mine where you worked at where you supported your family. Of course she didn't actually say that, but that's how her words rang in your ears.


Guy Humual wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


I love that other people get to decide I'm not a liberal and make up facts about why I made my choice. People go on and on about how democrats need to listen to specific groups of people, but then don't actually care what other people have to say. Do you have anything to say other than that I'm "not a real Scotsman?"
Did I imply you're not a liberal? If you were happy with Clinton you could have been making the pragmatic decision, which I didn't agree with, but some of stated that they felt incremental change was safer to run on then the bold change Bernie was proposing. I think Hilary was to the right of Obama on a lot of issues though, and Obama was closer to Reagan then FDR.

You didn't imply anything. You said I wanted a republican + pro choice. That doesn't seem like couched language. It doesn't seem vague, or have a lot of wiggle room.

You're saying she was a Republican, and that I was fine with that.

I voted for Clinton in my caucus btw.

Sovereign Court

Irontruth wrote:


You didn't imply anything. You said I wanted a republican + pro choice. That doesn't seem like couched language. It doesn't seem vague, or have a lot of wiggle room.

You're saying she was a Republican, and that I was fine with that.

I voted for Clinton in my caucus btw.

She started off as a republican and then when her husband became president they passed bills that a republican could only dream of passing. If she were running in Canada I'd imagine she'd be a Conservative. I see the Clintons as republicans + pro choice. Obviously you don't share my opinion of the Clintons. When I think democrat I think of the party of FDR and it would be nice to have a democrat that's for the people rather then the corporations.

However I didn't mean to say you're not a liberal, though people who identify as liberals have voted for republicans in the past, but obviously I see how you could take my comments as an affront. If I was voting in the US primaries I'd have picked Bernie over Clinton. As I said earlier I have no illusions that he wasn't a perfect candidate, but he was more in keeping with what I want a democrat to be. Apparently that makes me childish and idealistic, maybe sexist, possibly violent . . . but that's according to the US news media of course.


Ah, you prefer the liberalism of someone who put 120,000 people in concentration camps. Cool.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Ah, you prefer the liberalism of someone who put 120,000 people in concentration camps. Cool.

Yes, because that was the only thing FDR ever did.


Better response, Citizen Humual, would have been to go after her, not negligible part in creating the mass incarceration state.

But he's right; FDR sucked, too.

Sovereign Court

I'm not really interested in pointing out how terrible Hilary was, she lost to Trump, that's an accomplishment that will live in infamy.

However, back to defending FDR: he was, like anyone else, a product of his time. It's very easy to look back now and realize how wrong the internment of Japanese American citizens was, but judging people by our standards today isn't fair. However whitewashing history is even worse. Yes, FDR was wrong for internment camps, and we need to remember why that is, but to suggest that's only accomplishment or his only legacy is to do that man a great disservice. You want to judge people based on our modern values and you're not going to have many heroes. However, anyone old enough today to have been interred in WWII is likely collecting social security rather then being a burden on their families or starving on the streets.


bugleyman wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
They did things like try to repeal the ACA, things that were never going to happen with Obama's veto and the dems controlling the senate so they wasted time. Now they don't have excuses, they don't have a safety net, and so now they have to actually do things.

You *seem* to be saying that we can only judge a party by what it does when it controls all branches of government (a rare occurrence, btw)?

I'm sorry, but I'm having a really hard time following your logic.

No, he's quite happy judging Democrats by anything that's proposed or any compromises they make, whether they're completely in control or not.

Only Republicans get the benefit of the doubt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:

I'm not really interested in pointing out how terrible Hilary was, she lost to Trump, that's an accomplishment that will live in infamy.

However, back to defending FDR: he was, like anyone else, a product of his time. It's very easy to look back now and realize how wrong the internment of Japanese American citizens was, but judging people by our standards today isn't fair. However whitewashing history is even worse. Yes, FDR was wrong for internment camps, and we need to remember why that is, but to suggest that's only accomplishment or his only legacy is to do that man a great disservice. You want to judge people based on our modern values and you're not going to have many heroes. However, anyone old enough today to have been interred in WWII is likely collecting social security rather then being a burden on their families or starving on the streets.

He also cost some 200,000 Jews their lives by turning them away as refugees.

But you think extending the Bush tax cuts is a bridge too far.

You're the one who wanted to judge people without context. Don't cry foul now, you set the rules. Your liberal icon was a bigot who locked up 120,000 Americans because he was a racist. He took us into the largest global conflict in history where millions of people died. It's interesting how you're willing to apologize and over look all this, but you want to disavow Obama. How many civilians died in USAAF bombing during WW2? I bet it's more than have been killed by drones.

Want to guess what my opinion of your righteous indignation is?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:


But you think extending the Bush tax cuts is a bridge too far.

Note that it was "extending some of the Bush tax cuts". The highest end was cut but the lower end cuts were kept. The deal involved making everything permanent and setting the cut off for the sunset higher than Obama wanted.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Guy Humual wrote:
What I'm saying is although they seem like maniacs that doesn't mean all of them are (or at least not all the time). Now that their votes could actually take health care away from their constants they likely will have second thoughts about voting for a replacement. This is a terrible bill and they might not be able to convince everyone in their own party to vote for it. Trump doesn't want his name attached to it. It's a republican bill but that doesn't mean every republican is going to vote for it.

If you actually pay attention to the backstory and political dealings involved in the current republican plan, you would see that NONE of what you describe is coming true. Yes, there is a small faction, largely in purple/blue states, who are concerned about the lost of the medicaid expansion. But these folks are expected to fall in line. The Republicans most loudly criticizing the bill are the Freedom caucus, who think the current Republican plan is TOO GENEROUS. The bill is almost certainly going to become worst in negotiations, because of that faction.

The majority of the Republicans will go for it. If it doesn't pass, that has less to do with any sort of "Oh we didn't mean it" amongst the Republican establishment and more that the Democrats are totally opposed, which gives the Republicans a very slim margin; any defection from their own ranks will kill the bill. If democrat, who you seem to argue are the same as republicans, had even less influence...than the Republicans wouldn't even have to worry about that.


Irontruth wrote:
Want to guess what my opinion of your righteous indignation is?

Well, to be fair, Citizen Humual's Canadian and I wouldn't expect him to have the dirt on US presidents from 75 years ago, especially one so hagiographed as FDR; in addition to everything you mentioned, the use of federal troops for strikebreaking at North American Aviation in Inglewood, CA; the loopholes in the New Deal to exclude black domestic and agricultural workers, the dragging of feet in support of civil rights in order to appease the Dixiecrats (sound familiar?), etc., etc.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
They did things like try to repeal the ACA, things that were never going to happen with Obama's veto and the dems controlling the senate so they wasted time. Now they don't have excuses, they don't have a safety net, and so now they have to actually do things.

You *seem* to be saying that we can only judge a party by what it does when it controls all branches of government (a rare occurrence, btw)?

I'm sorry, but I'm having a really hard time following your logic.

No, he's quite happy judging Democrats by anything that's proposed or any compromises they make, whether they're completely in control or not.

Only Republicans get the benefit of the doubt.

I judge the democrats harshly because they're the party I would want to vote for. I don't really care how horrible the republicans are because that's expected of them. The republican politicians are regressive, xenophobic, short sighted people and for the most part they live up to that standard. Every now and than they impress but usually they're just doing the bidding of their business interests.

I expect more from one then the other. Why complain about the republicans, especially in a thread about the democrats?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
They did things like try to repeal the ACA, things that were never going to happen with Obama's veto and the dems controlling the senate so they wasted time. Now they don't have excuses, they don't have a safety net, and so now they have to actually do things.

You *seem* to be saying that we can only judge a party by what it does when it controls all branches of government (a rare occurrence, btw)?

I'm sorry, but I'm having a really hard time following your logic.

No, he's quite happy judging Democrats by anything that's proposed or any compromises they make, whether they're completely in control or not.

Only Republicans get the benefit of the doubt.

I judge the democrats harshly because they're the party I would want to vote for. I don't really care how horrible the republicans are because that's expected of them. The republican politicians are regressive, xenophobic, short sighted people and for the most part they live up to that standard. Every now and than they impress but usually they're just doing the bidding of their business interests.

I expect more from one then the other. Why complain about the republicans, especially in a thread about the democrats?

Wanting the democrat party to change is fine: those arguments work best during the primaries. When it's time to actually choose between the Republican and Democrat candidate, abstaining from voting or voting for third party longshots is just enabling all the many socially regressive and environmentally harmful positions that the Republicans endorse.


Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
They did things like try to repeal the ACA, things that were never going to happen with Obama's veto and the dems controlling the senate so they wasted time. Now they don't have excuses, they don't have a safety net, and so now they have to actually do things.

You *seem* to be saying that we can only judge a party by what it does when it controls all branches of government (a rare occurrence, btw)?

I'm sorry, but I'm having a really hard time following your logic.

No, he's quite happy judging Democrats by anything that's proposed or any compromises they make, whether they're completely in control or not.

Only Republicans get the benefit of the doubt.

I judge the democrats harshly because they're the party I would want to vote for. I don't really care how horrible the republicans are because that's expected of them. The republican politicians are regressive, xenophobic, short sighted people and for the most part they live up to that standard. Every now and than they impress but usually they're just doing the bidding of their business interests.

I expect more from one then the other. Why complain about the republicans, especially in a thread about the democrats?

Because you keep saying Democrats really are just like the Republicans.

Problems with the Democrats are worth talking about, but you can't compare the worst proposals or compromises the Democrats have made to what Republicans have been able to succeed at and say they're the same. You've said Obama talked about privatizing social security and then handwaved away horrific Republican proposals since you think they won't likely be passed.

I'm also pretty sure he never made any serious talk about privatizing Social Security - Not sure if Bill Clinton did. He did offer cuts to Social Security as part of a failed deal for other tax increases. Something he was willing to give up, not a policy goal of his.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:

I'm not really interested in pointing out how terrible Hilary was, she lost to Trump, that's an accomplishment that will live in infamy.

However, back to defending FDR: he was, like anyone else, a product of his time. It's very easy to look back now and realize how wrong the internment of Japanese American citizens was, but judging people by our standards today isn't fair. However whitewashing history is even worse. Yes, FDR was wrong for internment camps, and we need to remember why that is, but to suggest that's only accomplishment or his only legacy is to do that man a great disservice. You want to judge people based on our modern values and you're not going to have many heroes. However, anyone old enough today to have been interred in WWII is likely collecting social security rather then being a burden on their families or starving on the streets.

He also cost some 200,000 Jews their lives by turning them away as refugees.

But you think extending the Bush tax cuts is a bridge too far.

You're the one who wanted to judge people without context. Don't cry foul now, you set the rules. Your liberal icon was a bigot who locked up 120,000 Americans because he was a racist. He took us into the largest global conflict in history where millions of people died. It's interesting how you're willing to apologize and over look all this, but you want to disavow Obama. How many civilians died in USAAF bombing during WW2? I bet it's more than have been killed by drones.

Want to guess what my opinion of your righteous indignation is?

Canada was equally racist in WWII, we also turned away Jews fleeing the Holocaust and that's a shame and disgrace, but we can't change the past, all we can do it try to shape the present. I'm not sure if you realize this but a lot of people were racist back then. More so then today . . . and people are pretty racist today. Heck in 80 or 90 years from now whatever we're doing today is likely going to seem super racist or unethical to people of the future.

Did I say the Bush tax cuts were a bridge too far? I liked Obama, for the most part I understand he was in a difficult position, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize him for things he did in office. I happen to like FDR more but that doesn't make him immune to criticism either. There's nothing wrong with yours or
Comrade Anklebiter's condemnation of him as a racist, but I think his social programs would eventually help most Americans, even those he likely hated.

Also, entering WWII wasn't really America's choice, you were attacked by the Japanese, and as they were an alley of the Germans it's not like you were going to let that slide. America might have been mobilizing towards war anyways, but there wasn't much of a choice after Pearl Harbor. Drone strikes in Yemen on the other hand probably aren't making the US any safer, they're probably helping the Saudis, and that in turn is keeping oil prices down, but killing people in one of the poorest countries on Earth probably isn't necessary for national security. You think I should let that slide because it's a democrat doing it? You can be damn sure I'm going to be upset at Trump now that he's taking over and so I'm not going to be hypocritical by giving Obama a pass.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:

Because you keep saying Democrats really are just like the Republicans.

Problems with the Democrats are worth talking about, but you can't compare the worst proposals or compromises the Democrats have made to what Republicans have been able to succeed at and say they're the same. You've said Obama talked about privatizing social security and then handwaved away horrific Republican proposals since you think they won't likely be passed.

I'm also pretty sure he never made any serious talk about privatizing Social Security - Not sure if Bill Clinton did. He did offer cuts to Social Security as part of a failed deal for other tax increases. Something he was willing to give up, not a policy goal of his.

There's supposed to be a counter balance. I'd expect republicans to try to privatize social security, the democrats are the ones I'd expect to fight them on that, there's supposed to be a natural balance, but when both sides are being funded by corporations, entities designed to squeeze the last cent out of the public, we lose that balance and instead you have one side making horrible proposals with the other side proposing less horrible things. In the democrat's defense they're the ones proposing less horrible things but they're not exactly on the side of the public these days either.

2,251 to 2,300 of 4,260 << first < prev | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards