Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

2,301 to 2,350 of 4,260 << first < prev | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | next > last >>

Guy Humual wrote:
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.

Has social security been privatized?


Not yet, but Hillary was looking into it.

Clinton Might Be Moving Toward Social Security Privatization

I can only presume the Republicans' plan is worse.

Sovereign Court

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Not yet, but Hillary was looking into it.

Clinton Might Be Moving Toward Social Security Privatization

I can only presume the Republicans' plan is worse.

Yes, I remember that, and I've also heard, not sure how true it is, that Bill Clinton had a deal with Newt Gingrich to privatize social security, but the next day Monica Lewinsky happened. Again, not 100% sure it happened but it makes a great story.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Not yet, but Hillary was looking into it.

Clinton Might Be Moving Toward Social Security Privatization

I can only presume the Republicans' plan is worse.

Mind you, it was never something she endorsed, it was a proposal from one of her supporters. Nor was it actually Social Security privatization, but a proposal for a separate retirement savings plan - essentially national 401Ks.

Not a replacement for Social Security, but an addition. Instead of expanding Social Security benefits, perhaps.

Not a plan I'm fond of, but a long stretch from that headline.


That's the way I've heard it, too. Think I called for some intern to give Obama a hummer somewhere on these boards when something similar was being discussed. Maybe Simpson-Bowles? I forget now.


thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Not yet, but Hillary was looking into it.
Not a plan I'm fond of, but a long stretch from that headline.

I agree. My tag was more accurate than Forbes'.


I can't imagine what it must be like to be Hillary Clinton. Didn't even win the election; still blamed for she did as president.


Well, without an edit of your last phrase, I'm not sure how to craft a snarky reply, but,

As some of our more hailing-from-social-democratic-countries Paizonians might be better able to explain (not Madame Sissyl), the standard privatizing playbook is to create a private alternative to the public service, underfund the public service, point to the relative successes of the private alternative, and then cutback the public service even further.

I take no solace in Hillary's non-endorsing of it pre-election; attacking Social Security is still, I believe, widely unpopular with huge swathes of the American electorate and has been a recurring motif in Clintonian politics for awhile. Whether they could get the rest of the Democrats to go along with, never mind the Republicans, I would have no idea.

I'd also point out that this plan, like Obamacare, probably looks better the more and more the American capitalist class used their decades-long globalization excuse to attack labor, organized or otherwise, and the virtual disappearance of decent employer-paid health, welfare and pension plans.

Whether this constitutes blaming Hillary when she doesn't even win the presidency, I couldn't say, but it provides some context to Citizen Humual's comments about Democrats proposing less horrible horrible things than the horrible horrible things the Republicans propose.


Thing is, we're at so many removes from anything real at this point: It's not something Clinton actually proposed, but a proposal from a supporter. It's not actually Social Security privatization, but something that might be a move in a long term strategy to privatize it.

And we use this to show how horrible Democrats are.

How many times over the last 8 years did we talk about how the latest move was really, for sure this time, the time Obama was going to gut Social Security?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

About a half-dozen times if my post history is any indication, but I may have missed some.

Don't see anything about "this time for sure" in there, though. Maybe someone else said that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Random Paizo Politroll Nostalgia

It's kind of amazing that five years later, it's pretty much the same posters saying the same things to each other. On the other hand, it becomes obvious that these conversations aren't a complete waste of time. For example, I would never have voted at all in 2012. So yay! for you, although, I consider this a rightward drift on my part.

Can't believe I'm letting you liberals rub off on me.


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

To be honest I wish I lived in a world where I didn't need to think about politics because I knew everything was going A-ok

As is, Paizo does provide a bit of a venting ground for me on politics, and I genuinely learn new things on threads like this that I didn't know about before.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Random Paizo Politroll Nostalgia

It's kind of amazing that five years later, it's pretty much the same posters saying the same things to each other. On the other hand, it becomes obvious that these conversations aren't a complete waste of time. For example, I would never have voted at all in 2012. So yay! for you, although, I consider this a rightward drift on my part.

Can't believe I'm letting you liberals rub off on me.

I genuinely like and respect most of the people in these threads, even if I don't always agree with them, and hearing different opinions is important when it comes to forming your own opinions. There have been some Conservative voices here, like Kryzbyn, that I like hearing from and your, some would say extreme, left wing opinions helps serve as a strong counter balance.

I love these threads and often learn new things. If people don't agree with me on somethings that's fine, I'm not offended, I'm not going to agree with you on some things, however, for the most part, I think we handle these discussions relatively peacefully and that's admirable considering the topic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

FDR "context" "product of his time"

HRC is a politician in a time when big money donations is the only proven viable path to victory.

Seems like someone can't maintain internal consistency.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:

FDR "context" "product of his time"

HRC is a politician in a time when big money donations is the only proven viable path to victory.

Seems like someone can't maintain internal consistency.

So your argument is that Hilary appearing corruptible is understandable as people from Hilary's generation (folks born in the 40s and 50s) think corruption is normal. It's only us modern kids, with out progressive values, that frown on corruption.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

To be honest I wish I lived in a world where I didn't need to think about politics because I knew everything was going A-ok

As is, Paizo does provide a bit of a venting ground for me on politics, and I genuinely learn new things on threads like this that I didn't know about before.

sad that the peanut gallery of a gaming site is more informative than most news sources...


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, without an edit of your last phrase, I'm not sure how to craft a snarky reply, but,

Well... If it's in the interest of snark...


Guy Humual wrote:
Did I say the Bush tax cuts were a bridge too far?

Yes, you considered it so egregious that you included it in your list of sins of how democrats are just republicans.

Guy Humual wrote:


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.

Also, you keep apologizing and making excuses for what FDR did. I'm not sure why you insist on digging your moral pit deeper, but you keep doing it. Please don't feel like you need to educate me on the subject. I'm no expert, but fairly familiar with it.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Random Paizo Politroll Nostalgia

It's kind of amazing that five years later, it's pretty much the same posters saying the same things to each other. On the other hand, it becomes obvious that these conversations aren't a complete waste of time. For example, I would never have voted at all in 2012. So yay! for you, although, I consider this a rightward drift on my part.

Can't believe I'm letting you liberals rub off on me.

Just curious, what political decision making process do you envision to enact the will of the people after the worker's revolution?

Sovereign Court

Irontruth wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Did I say the Bush tax cuts were a bridge too far?

Yes, you considered it so egregious that you included it in your list of sins of how democrats are just republicans.

Right, and I'm saying that I want democrats to be less like republicans, that tax cuts should be a thing a republican should have tried to make permanent and not a democrat. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have voted for Obama has I known he was going to do that, but just because I would have voted for him doesn't mean I'm not happy about it. If memory serves the republicans were holding government hostage by refusing to vote on a budget bill. The tax cuts were part of the compromise. I don't think he should have compromised. That was something he should have fought on.

Right now there's effectively two serious choices, republican or democrat, or horrible and less horrible, and you could also not vote which a large chunk of the population choose to do.

Irontruth wrote:
Also, you keep apologizing and making excuses for what FDR did. I'm not sure why you insist on digging your moral pit deeper, but you keep doing it. Please don't feel like you need to educate me on the subject. I'm no expert, but fairly familiar with it.

Hey, you got behind a former Goldwater girl, course that was during the 60s, during the civil rights movement and before the tied of public opinion had changed. Maybe if FDR had of lived through the civil rights movement he also might have had a change of opinion regarding non-whites, but he was born only 17 years after slavery was abolished in the US. I suppose though Things were more racist when Clinton was a kid though.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"You’re asking a good question, and I can’t give you a definitive answer. Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats." Bernie Sanders


Guy Humual wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Did I say the Bush tax cuts were a bridge too far?

Yes, you considered it so egregious that you included it in your list of sins of how democrats are just republicans.

Right, and I'm saying that I want democrats to be less like republicans, that tax cuts should be a thing a republican should have tried to make permanent and not a democrat. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have voted for Obama has I known he was going to do that, but just because I would have voted for him doesn't mean I'm not happy about it. If memory serves the republicans were holding government hostage by refusing to vote on a budget bill. The tax cuts were part of the compromise. I don't think he should have compromised. That was something he should have fought on.

Right now there's effectively two serious choices, republican or democrat, or horrible and less horrible, and you could also not vote which a large chunk of the population choose to do.

And then you held up FDR as your ideal democrat, who interred 120,000 people because of their ethnicity and denied safe refuge to another 200,000, resulting in their death.

You would rather have a democrat who denies thousands of people their liberty for no reason and/or put them in a deadly situation, than one who compromises on taxes.


An interesting pod-cast.

Most recent episode she interviews Rick Wilson. To political insiders, he's famous for writing Republican attack ads, such as the Jeremiah Wright ad in 2008, and the Max Cleland ad in 2002. He's an opposition research specialist.

In his opinion, the easiest way for democrats to win back Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio is to give up on gun control. Give in on that one issue and democrats swing back all four states easily.

I've been thinking about it some over the course of the day and I'm leaning towards supporting the idea. It's a fight worth having, but right now it's so entrenched that no meaningful ground can actually be made. Maybe if we solve some other issues an opportunity will open up down the line, but for now just concede defeat on this one.


Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Random Paizo Politroll Nostalgia

It's kind of amazing that five years later, it's pretty much the same posters saying the same things to each other. On the other hand, it becomes obvious that these conversations aren't a complete waste of time. For example, I would never have voted at all in 2012. So yay! for you, although, I consider this a rightward drift on my part.

Can't believe I'm letting you liberals rub off on me.

Just curious, what political decision making process do you envision to enact the will of the people after the worker's revolution?

Voting in workers councils.

Sovereign Court

Irontruth wrote:


And then you held up FDR as your ideal democrat, who interred 120,000 people because of their ethnicity and denied safe refuge to another 200,000, resulting in their death.

You would rather have a democrat who denies thousands of people their liberty for no reason and/or put them in a deadly situation, than one who compromises on taxes.

Well I guess if someone is racist everything else he's ever done is evil then? Who's your ideal democrat?


Irontruth wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Did I say the Bush tax cuts were a bridge too far?

Yes, you considered it so egregious that you included it in your list of sins of how democrats are just republicans.

Right, and I'm saying that I want democrats to be less like republicans, that tax cuts should be a thing a republican should have tried to make permanent and not a democrat. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have voted for Obama has I known he was going to do that, but just because I would have voted for him doesn't mean I'm not happy about it. If memory serves the republicans were holding government hostage by refusing to vote on a budget bill. The tax cuts were part of the compromise. I don't think he should have compromised. That was something he should have fought on.

Right now there's effectively two serious choices, republican or democrat, or horrible and less horrible, and you could also not vote which a large chunk of the population choose to do.

And then you held up FDR as your ideal democrat, who interred 120,000 people because of their ethnicity and denied safe refuge to another 200,000, resulting in their death.

You would rather have a democrat who denies thousands of people their liberty for no reason and/or put them in a deadly situation, than one who compromises on taxes.

The Internment of Japanese Americans and the ban on Jewish immigratio were a product of the time not jut one man, even a President. The reforms of Roosevelt are the reason that the United States even had a middle class for as long as it did.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

[Shakes head]

You guys really gotta learn to go harder on the offensive.

For example, if someone waves FDR turning away 200,000 Jewish refugees to their deaths, you hit them back with Obama turning away 800,000 Central American refugees to their possible deaths.

Like so:

Obama’s Death Sentence for Young Refugees


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think FDR did do some good things that have benefited this country. I don't lionize him as some sort of hero though. He probably cost millions of people their lives, but also helped install one of the best social safety nets in our country, improving the lives of millions of others. One doesn't excuse the other, nor is one necessarily tarnished by the other. Both are part of his legacy and must be accepted.

Do you get the difference? Stop trying to put people on one side of things or the other. Stop making it an all or nothing decision.

No president will be my ideal democrat, because a president is a compromise made by millions of people. It's ridiculous to think that a president is going to reflect all of my ideals, because I am a very small fraction of that coalition of millions of people and many of them have disagreements with me.

Obama failed on a lot of progressive issues, but he also succeeded on quite a few. At this point, I don't think anyone in that office is capable of turning aside some of the momentum of institutions and policies we've had in place for decades, regardless of their intentions. It's purely hypothetical, but if Sanders had gotten the nomination and won the presidency, I think a lot of people would be disappointed at how drone strikes were still a thing that continued to happen.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

[Shakes head]

You guys really gotta learn to go harder on the offensive.

For example, if someone waves FDR turning away 200,000 Jewish refugees to their deaths, you hit them back with Obama turning away 800,000 Central American refugees to their possible deaths.

Like so:

Obama’s Death Sentence for Young Refugees

Which if you ask me, is part of the reason I'm in favor of open borders and the free movement of labor. But you can't have that without free trade as well.

Hence why I'm in favor of globalization, I want workers to be able to escape dangerous situations and find better lives where they can.


Yes, I know. We've had this conversation many, many times.

Sovereign Court

Irontruth wrote:


And then you held up FDR as your ideal democrat, who interred 120,000 people because of their ethnicity and denied safe refuge to another 200,000, resulting in their death.

You would rather have a democrat who denies thousands of people their liberty for no reason and/or put them in a deadly situation, than one who compromises on taxes.

No, I said when I think of a democrat I think of the party of FDR, the one that gave you social security, the minimum wage, Glass-Steagall Act., introduced a 40 hour work week, guaranteed overtime for some jobs, prohibited child labor, created the Fair Employment Practice Committee to prohibit racial and religious discrimination in the national defense industry, helped defeat the Nazis, brought the country out of it's worst depression in it's history, dropped the unemployment rate from 25% to 1.9% (though that was admittedly helped by the war), and I guess helped set up the UN, which to be honest is frustrating at times, but they have accomplished a few things more then the League of Nations ever did.

Now if you want to assume that I like FDR because of his internment camps and his turning away refugees that's fine, power to you, but it's a little hypocritical for you to suggest that I'm a bigot after I apologized for suggesting you weren't a liberal by saying Clinton was a republican + pro choice.

Sovereign Court

Irontruth wrote:

I think FDR did do some good things that have benefited this country. I don't lionize him as some sort of hero though. He probably cost millions of people their lives, but also helped install one of the best social safety nets in our country, improving the lives of millions of others. One doesn't excuse the other, nor is one necessarily tarnished by the other. Both are part of his legacy and must be accepted.

Do you get the difference? Stop trying to put people on one side of things or the other. Stop making it an all or nothing decision.

No president will be my ideal democrat, because a president is a compromise made by millions of people. It's ridiculous to think that a president is going to reflect all of my ideals, because I am a very small fraction of that coalition of millions of people and many of them have disagreements with me.

Obama failed on a lot of progressive issues, but he also succeeded on quite a few. At this point, I don't think anyone in that office is capable of turning aside some of the momentum of institutions and policies we've had in place for decades, regardless of their intentions. It's purely hypothetical, but if Sanders had gotten the nomination and won the presidency, I think a lot of people would be disappointed at how drone strikes were still a thing that continued to happen.

Oh, is that how elections work? You mean I don't have to agree with 100% of what they're running on to vote for them? Wow, I have been enlightened today. Very lucky for me that in the 22 years I've been voting in Canada that I've always had a candidate that was a perfect fit for me at every level of government. So, quick question though, if I don't agree 100% with someone how do I express that? Apparently complaining means I'm all or nothing. Expressing dissatisfaction with the direction the democrats are going, in a thread about the direction the democrats are going, means I'm completely against them. Also that I can't see nuance. I eagerly await your instructions as I'm dreadfully confused.

Serious question though: if you don't think that that anyone in that office is incapable of "turning aside some of the momentum of institutions and policies we've had in place for decades, regardless of their intentions" why get upset when I say democrats and republicans are not dissimilar? If regardless of someone's intentions (what I'd suggest are right of center) policies are getting past that progressives aren't happy with, why is an actual republican worse in this case? Clearly they're also incapable of "turning aside some of the momentum of institutions and policies we've had in place for decades, regardless of their intentions" no?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Random Paizo Politroll Nostalgia

It's kind of amazing that five years later, it's pretty much the same posters saying the same things to each other. On the other hand, it becomes obvious that these conversations aren't a complete waste of time. For example, I would never have voted at all in 2012. So yay! for you, although, I consider this a rightward drift on my part.

Can't believe I'm letting you liberals rub off on me.

Just curious, what political decision making process do you envision to enact the will of the people after the worker's revolution?
Voting in workers councils.

This is a tangent for your own thread on all things Communist, Comrade Anklebiter: how are these councils formed, how do they police themselves and what is the structure of the gov't you envision?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I shall attempt to deal with that at a later date, Mad Comrade, either here or there, but for now, amusing labor article for stuffy grammarians:

A court’s decision in a Maine labor dispute hinged on the absence of an Oxford comma


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

I think FDR did do some good things that have benefited this country. I don't lionize him as some sort of hero though. He probably cost millions of people their lives, but also helped install one of the best social safety nets in our country, improving the lives of millions of others. One doesn't excuse the other, nor is one necessarily tarnished by the other. Both are part of his legacy and must be accepted.

Do you get the difference? Stop trying to put people on one side of things or the other. Stop making it an all or nothing decision.

No president will be my ideal democrat, because a president is a compromise made by millions of people. It's ridiculous to think that a president is going to reflect all of my ideals, because I am a very small fraction of that coalition of millions of people and many of them have disagreements with me.

Obama failed on a lot of progressive issues, but he also succeeded on quite a few. At this point, I don't think anyone in that office is capable of turning aside some of the momentum of institutions and policies we've had in place for decades, regardless of their intentions. It's purely hypothetical, but if Sanders had gotten the nomination and won the presidency, I think a lot of people would be disappointed at how drone strikes were still a thing that continued to happen.

Oh, is that how elections work? You mean I don't have to agree with 100% of what they're running on to vote for them? Wow, I have been enlightened today. Very lucky for me that in the 22 years I've been voting in Canada that I've always had a candidate that was a perfect fit for me at every level of government. So, quick question though, if I don't agree 100% with someone how do I express that? Apparently complaining means I'm all or nothing. Expressing dissatisfaction with the direction the democrats are going, in a thread about the direction the democrats are going, means I'm completely against them. Also that I can't see nuance. I eagerly...

I'd like to deal with this one issue at a time, for clarity sake.

Please explain to me how Republicans and Democrats are similar on issues regarding LGBTQ rights. Not concerned with the parties that were 20 or 30 years ago, how are they the same right now.


Actually, turns out the Wikipedia page is a decent thumbnail on their history and organization for starters:

Workers' council


Irontruth wrote:
I'd like to deal with this one issue at a time, for clarity sake.

Given the number of planks or issues to be covered, there is going to be a lot of one at a time discussions...

Sovereign Court

Irontruth wrote:
Please explain to me how Republicans and Democrats are similar on issues regarding LGBTQ rights. Not concerned with the parties that were 20 or 30 years ago, how are they the same right now.

Depends on who you ask, Pence is against LGBTQ rights, but Trump has said that "I think I’m evolving, and I think I’m a very fair person, but I have been for traditional marriage," So much like Obama's opinions "evolved" in his presidency Trump is checking to see what's popular and is going to do that. If he thinks the majority of people like marriage equality then he's not going to touch it. As far as Transgender rights, the democrats have my preferred position on the matter, Obama instructed schools to allow students to use the bathroom they identify with. Again, Pence is an ogre, believing people should have the right to discriminate, but Trump at the very least has said that it should be a state's right matter.

The party itself is a few years behind the democratic party, which has been the trend, and so while they had an openly gay member on their party platform comity they were unlikely to take a progressive stance. We'll have to see if their opinions evolve while in office. Trans gendered Americans aren't going to see any progress, perhaps even a little regression, but I'm not sure the republicans are going to actually move on marriage equality as there are some powerful donors who are happy with the current law.

It should be noted that up here in Canada, we had marriage equality about 10 years before you, and when Stephen Harper was in opposition he was very much apposed, but when he got into office he did diddly squat. It's one thing to claim to be against something when your party has no chance of doing anything about it, but when it comes time to legally break up loving couples that trigger is a bit harder to pull.


Interestingly, and (I admit) atypically, the Kentucky bathroom bill and "religious freedom" (to discriminate against homosexuals) bill were introduced into the House earlier this year by a Democrat to the consternation of the Tea Party governor and GOP House Speaker, mostly because they were concerned about the economic ramifications of a boycott blowback.

To be fair, the rest of the state Dems denounced the bill, but, nonetheless, interesting story.

Since then, I believe, the Republican-introduced senate bathroom bill has passed; don't know about the House bills.


This is one of those things that drives the false equivalence. Yeah, you can often find a handful of Democrats on the wrong side* of any given issue and maybe a handful of Republicans on the right side - this Democrat who introduced a bathroom bill and Trump not really caring about persecuting LGBTQ issues.
But then we look a little more broadly and we see that Trump picked Pence and we see this one Democrat stood alone.

The conservative end of the Democratic party overlaps with the moderate end of the Republican party, but the centers of each are far apart.

*In some cases of course I'd say both are on the wrong side, but even then the differences are usually pretty stark. Where Democrats are bad, Republicans are awful.


Irontruth wrote:

An interesting pod-cast.

Most recent episode she interviews Rick Wilson. To political insiders, he's famous for writing Republican attack ads, such as the Jeremiah Wright ad in 2008, and the Max Cleland ad in 2002. He's an opposition research specialist.

In his opinion, the easiest way for democrats to win back Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio is to give up on gun control. Give in on that one issue and democrats swing back all four states easily.

I've been thinking about it some over the course of the day and I'm leaning towards supporting the idea. It's a fight worth having, but right now it's so entrenched that no meaningful ground can actually be made. Maybe if we solve some other issues an opportunity will open up down the line, but for now just concede defeat on this one.

Maybe. It wouldn't be quick though. "Democrats will take your guns" is too entrenched. You don't have to run on it or pass any bills for the NRA to come out full force against you.

Honestly, Democrats had pretty much given up on gun control, at least the national leadership, until recent mass shootings sparked public outrage. This really was driven by the grassroots not the leadership.

Interesting if the argument is that Democrats should have ignored their populist base on this, but are fools for ignoring it elsewhere?


Guy Humual wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Did I say the Bush tax cuts were a bridge too far?

Yes, you considered it so egregious that you included it in your list of sins of how democrats are just republicans.

Right, and I'm saying that I want democrats to be less like republicans, that tax cuts should be a thing a republican should have tried to make permanent and not a democrat. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have voted for Obama has I known he was going to do that, but just because I would have voted for him doesn't mean I'm not happy about it. If memory serves the republicans were holding government hostage by refusing to vote on a budget bill. The tax cuts were part of the compromise. I don't think he should have compromised. That was something he should have fought on.

IIRC, it wasn't a budget bill, but that all the tax cuts were expiring and he wanted to keep the lower income cuts. Republicans demanded the entire package stay in place (or be allowed to expire all together). The compromise was that the cuts on the highest rate did expire and the lower ones became permanent, but the cutoff between the two was higher than Obama had wanted.

It's easy to say "he should have fought", but harder to see what he could have done differently and how he could have got a better outcome. He did fight. He got much of what he wanted and didn't give up everything Republicans wanted. That is a compromise. It's what you do in politics when you don't have the votes to get everything you want.
"Fighting harder" doesn't magically mean you get what you're fighting for.
I do agree that in general, especially at first, Obama was too inclined to compromise and offer deals. Which would normally be a good trait in a politician, but was unrealistic faced with unprecedented obstruction from the Republican side.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Federal courts are saying Trump's new travel ban is just as unconstitutional as the first one.

Basically, you can't make a bigoted unconstitutional effort to restrict travel by members of a particular religion 'pass legal muster' no matter how much you water down and/or disguise it... the intent will always be unconstitutional.

Funny how that works. You'd have thought a former prosecutor like Giuliani would know that, but apparently not, because he went on national TV and bragged about how they were going to revise the "muslim ban" to 'make it legal'. Immigration lawyers have been using that, and other equally bone-headed statements by Trump and his advisers, to hammer them in court.

In short, team Trump is demonstrably incompetent. There is no 'brilliant plan' to distract the media with seeming mis-steps... they really are just this inept. Ergo, the democrats should go at them head on and let the country see 'the Donald' flailing about helplessly. Heck, some of the Republicans have started to do so.


CBDunkerson wrote:

Federal courts are saying Trump's new travel ban is just as unconstitutional as the first one.

Basically, you can't make a bigoted unconstitutional effort to restrict travel by members of a particular religion 'pass legal muster' no matter how much you water down and/or disguise it... the intent will always be unconstitutional.

Funny how that works. You'd have thought a former prosecutor like Giuliani would know that, but apparently not, because he went on national TV and bragged about how they were going to revise the "muslim ban" to 'make it legal'. Immigration lawyers have been using that, and other equally bone-headed statements by Trump and his advisers, to hammer them in court.

In short, team Trump is demonstrably incompetent. There is no 'brilliant plan' to distract the media with seeming mis-steps... they really are just this inept. Ergo, the democrats should go at them head on and let the country see 'the Donald' flailing about helplessly. Heck, some of the Republicans have started to do so.

. . . Butbutbut! It said right in the text this time that it wasn't discriminating on religion, and all these so called judges judicially overreached by considering its intent. He's trying really hard to make America great again you guys! :P


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Random Paizo Politroll Nostalgia

It's kind of amazing that five years later, it's pretty much the same posters saying the same things to each other. On the other hand, it becomes obvious that these conversations aren't a complete waste of time. For example, I would never have voted at all in 2012. So yay! for you, although, I consider this a rightward drift on my part.

Can't believe I'm letting you liberals rub off on me.

As I said at the time, I'm calling that one a win, Doodles.

I'm amazed at the things you find amazing; you were also amazed at the number of posters in this thread, weren't you? I mean, why would you be amazed that the thread has a small number of participants, or that we have the same opinions that we did then? Those two things sort of exemplify the function of internet message boards IMNSHO.


The Mad Comrade wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I'd like to deal with this one issue at a time, for clarity sake.
Given the number of planks or issues to be covered, there is going to be a lot of one at a time discussions...

A lot of these discussions get lost by people jumping from topic to topic to topic. People put out a jumble of ideas, don't defend them, then later on, put out a similar jumble of ideas again. It keeps happening and happening. It's constant, predictable and repeats.

Besides, look at the page count, we're already a long discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Please explain to me how Republicans and Democrats are similar on issues regarding LGBTQ rights. Not concerned with the parties that were 20 or 30 years ago, how are they the same right now.

Depends on who you ask, Pence is against LGBTQ rights, but Trump has said that "I think I’m evolving, and I think I’m a very fair person, but I have been for traditional marriage," So much like Obama's opinions "evolved" in his presidency Trump is checking to see what's popular and is going to do that. If he thinks the majority of people like marriage equality then he's not going to touch it. As far as Transgender rights, the democrats have my preferred position on the matter, Obama instructed schools to allow students to use the bathroom they identify with. Again, Pence is an ogre, believing people should have the right to discriminate, but Trump at the very least has said that it should be a state's right matter.

The party itself is a few years behind the democratic party, which has been the trend, and so while they had an openly gay member on their party platform comity they were unlikely to take a progressive stance. We'll have to see if their opinions evolve while in office. Trans gendered Americans aren't going to see any progress, perhaps even a little regression, but I'm not sure the republicans are going to actually move on marriage equality as there are some powerful donors who are happy with the current law.

It should be noted that up here in Canada, we had marriage equality about 10 years before you, and when Stephen Harper was in opposition he was very much apposed, but when he got into office he did diddly squat. It's one thing to claim to be against something when your party has no chance of doing anything about it, but when it comes time to legally break up loving couples that trigger is a bit harder to pull.

The parties aren't just Pence, Trump and Obama. You also have thousands of governors, state legislators, etc. Around the country, states considering/passing bathroom bills are Republican controlled states. Trump cabinet members are already beginning the process of rescinding departmental rules changes that treated LGBTQ people equally. There were quite a few non-law rule changes that were made the past 8 years and Republicans are all too happy to rescind those changes.

So, do we agree the parties are significantly different on this issue? I'll let you pick, either switch to a new issue (your choice) or continue debating this one.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Please explain to me how Republicans and Democrats are similar on issues regarding LGBTQ rights. Not concerned with the parties that were 20 or 30 years ago, how are they the same right now.

Depends on who you ask, Pence is against LGBTQ rights, but Trump has said that "I think I’m evolving, and I think I’m a very fair person, but I have been for traditional marriage," So much like Obama's opinions "evolved" in his presidency Trump is checking to see what's popular and is going to do that. If he thinks the majority of people like marriage equality then he's not going to touch it. As far as Transgender rights, the democrats have my preferred position on the matter, Obama instructed schools to allow students to use the bathroom they identify with. Again, Pence is an ogre, believing people should have the right to discriminate, but Trump at the very least has said that it should be a state's right matter.

The party itself is a few years behind the democratic party, which has been the trend, and so while they had an openly gay member on their party platform comity they were unlikely to take a progressive stance. We'll have to see if their opinions evolve while in office. Trans gendered Americans aren't going to see any progress, perhaps even a little regression, but I'm not sure the republicans are going to actually move on marriage equality as there are some powerful donors who are happy with the current law.

It should be noted that up here in Canada, we had marriage equality about 10 years before you, and when Stephen Harper was in opposition he was very much apposed, but when he got into office he did diddly squat. It's one thing to claim to be against something when your party has no chance of doing anything about it, but when it comes time to legally break up loving couples that trigger is a bit harder to pull.

The parties aren't just Pence, Trump and Obama. You also have thousands of governors, state legislators, etc. Around the...

Exactly...I keep having points I want to make but you and TheJeff make them so much better for me.

You have to consider the overall consensus of the party, and what they have supported, and the context of that support. The republicans fought tooth and nail before and somewhat afterward the Supreme Court Decision regarding gay marriage. Losing at the Supreme Court level deflated their ability to do much on this front. As far as the recent fight goes, the democrats overall were instead very supportive of the gay marriage fight.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
In short, team Trump is demonstrably incompetent. There is no 'brilliant plan' to distract the media with seeming mis-steps... they really are just this inept. Ergo, the democrats should go at them head on and let the country see 'the Donald' flailing about helplessly. Heck, some of the Republicans have started to do so.

It feels like these guys binge watched "24" and have decided they now know how the government works.


Irontruth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
In short, team Trump is demonstrably incompetent. There is no 'brilliant plan' to distract the media with seeming mis-steps... they really are just this inept. Ergo, the democrats should go at them head on and let the country see 'the Donald' flailing about helplessly. Heck, some of the Republicans have started to do so.
It feels like these guys binge watched "24" and have decided they now know how the government works.

I think it's a pretty safe bet to include House of Cards. Maybe some West Wing, but c'mon, Bartlett? Not the president Trump wants to be!

2,301 to 2,350 of 4,260 << first < prev | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards