Under Obama, the Democratic Party has moved further to the right since Reconstruction

Mott the Hoople said:
I know. Gore was the first Time I ever voted for a Democrat for President. It left a sour taste in my mouth. I think political scientist for years to come will use his campaign as the great example of how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in politics.
Click to expand...

I agree.

If democrats can claim that Nader stole the victory from a hapless Al Gore, then they must also believe that Clinton became president only because of Ross Perot.

Neither makes any sense because political parties do not own votes. They must earn them.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I'd like to think that it was Al Gore running a weak assed and whimpy campaign against an opponent who had holes in his platform you could drive an aircraft carrier through that was responsible for Bush becoming President. Even then Gore still managed to win the popular vote but history never was one of your strong points, was it?
Click to expand...

Idea for an historical argument: counter one contributing factor with a different one, and claim victory. Well done, dumbass.

It's not relevant as to how appealing Gore was, given that he WON the popular vote. Had he been the candidate in 2004, then yes. Kerry was largely to blame for his own loss. But since the 2000campaign came down to Florida, then the final nail in the coffin was Ralph Nader. Gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.
 
BTW, Mott, the Republicans in WA lost a Senate seat and a gubernatorial race in 2000 and 2004 due to a strong Libertarian Party out here. The GOP even won the popular vote in 2004, but lost the election in the King County College.
 
hazlnut said:
You mean a pragmatic leader making unpopular decisions durning multiple crisis?
Click to expand...
In the end this is the gist. Also the 'enemy' organized the very day of his inauguration to oppose him on anything and everything because they were sore losers then spend 3 1/2 years calling his administration 'failed'.... It's bullshit and it's all because he's a Democrat and Black.
 
Haiku said:
In the end this is the gist. Also the 'enemy' organized the very day of his inauguration to oppose him on anything and everything because they were sore losers then spend 3 1/2 years calling his administration 'failed'.... It's bullshit and it's all because he's a Democrat and Black.
Click to expand...

If the 'enemy' opposed everything the President did and the President's iniatives were popular with the voters wouldn't the 'enemy' suffer at the hands of the electorate during the mid-term elections?
 
cawacko said:
And Democrats lie all the time about Republicans. You either choose not to see it or just ignore it when you do because you support their agenda. Like I said it's a big world out there when you take off the partisan blinders.

However I do understand those who are fed up with the two party system and the constant partisan bitching back and forth while the two parties often act in the exact manner.
Click to expand...

I support helping people. It's that simple. When millions are without medical insurance and someone objects at least they shouldn't lie about the reason. If some folks don't believe in helping others just come straight out and say so which I have to admit Romney and Ryan and a few other Repubs are doing even if it's not their intention to be quite so direct.
 
apple0154 said:
I support helping people. It's that simple. When millions are without medical insurance and someone objects at least they shouldn't lie about the reason. If some folks don't believe in helping others just come straight out and say so which I have to admit Romney and Ryan and a few other Repubs are doing even if it's not their intention to be quite so direct.
Click to expand...

You support government helping people with other people's money. If you want others to be honest you have to be honest yourself. You attempt to frame your argument such that if one doesn't support big government programs then they "don't care" or "aren't compassionate" unlike your who can feel all high and mighty by saying "I support helping people".
 
FactsRStubborn said:
I feel sorry for you. Sounds like you are setting yourself up for loads of disappointment. No wonder libs are always so angry.

They think thier affirmative action president is a shoe in yet they are still so angry all the time. Makes no sense
Click to expand...

The only anger is due to the lies concerning social policies. However, that didn't stop ObamaCare from being enacted so on the whole life is pretty good. Their lies and a Supreme Court challenge didn't stop it and by the time the next election rolls around in '16 the topic will be moot. There will no going back to the old ways. The Repubs know that. That's why they threw everything they had at it.

Obama still has a job to do. That's why the battle still rages. And it's not just about being a shoe in. It's about how big a majority. Hopefully, a majority big enough so the Repubs can just go home and let Obama get on with his job. :)
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this is where the liberals show their insanity. Apples insistence that the government is in charge of us, that they are the boss, that they created our society. It's insane. The history revisionism is necessary for her to believe that, I guess. That is why I asked the question, if they are the ones in charge, the ones with the 'big picture', why would they let us uneducated proles elect or unelect them? her answer 'that's democracy' fails beyond comprehension, because democracy implies that 'we the people' would be the ones in charge, not the government.
Click to expand...

Wrong! When you hire a contractor do you tell him how to do his job? You may tell him what has to be done but he does it his way. An electrician will follow the electrical code whether the home owner likes it or not. The same with government elected personnel. We elect someone to do a job. IE: run the country. They run it their way until the next election.

Back to the contractor. You set a price and sign a contract. You can't come along the next week and, for example, say you want to save money so forget the building code requirement for a basement drain and use that money for new front steps. It ain't gonna happen. He is going to install the drain and to hell with your front steps and you WILL pay him or he'll put a lein on your house or sue you.

Now, being the elected government they will do what is Constitutionally permitted whether or not the people like it. The reason being they can see the big picture just as Obama realized ObamaCare was necessary even though the majoriy may have been against it when initially suggested. Of course, we know why the majority were against it. It was due to the lies and deliberate mischaracterization of government medical. More and more people are realizing it is a good thing because......take a guess.....because it is a good thing and the more people realize there is little job security it makes no sense to have medical insurance tied to ones job. That, my slow but congenial friend, is seeing the big picture.
 
blackascoal said:
Nothing rare about Obama but the color of his skin in the big chair. Other than that, he's all day corporatist with a foreign policy to the right of George Bush.

He should kill innocent people so the republicans can't call him weak? Needless to say, I am in sharp opposition to that.

Again, this isn't about Obamacare, it's about the direction of the Democratic Party.

Today, democrats are every bit as warmongering as the right-wing. They are every bit as callous about innocent human life .. which I rarely hear one single word about from democrats. If one wanted to create a thread that democrats won't comment on, create one about war and the destruction of human life under Obama .. and listen for the crickets.

We will have this conversation again when Obama is re-elected and turns even further to the right.

What will you claim then?
Click to expand...

Did you not see Cheney going on and on about Obama withdrawing troops? Drones not withstanding less people are killed when there's less troops in foreign countries and Obama is bringing the troops home even under the constant bitching he's weakening the US. If Obama suggested cutting one cent from the military we'd never hear the end of it. So, the logical solution is to bring the troops home, lower their numbers, then suggest cuts.

Fewer troops, less killing.
 
cawacko said:
You support government helping people with other people's money. If you want others to be honest you have to be honest yourself. You attempt to frame your argument such that if one doesn't support big government programs then they "don't care" or "aren't compassionate" unlike your who can feel all high and mighty by saying "I support helping people".
Click to expand...

It's not a case of high and mighty. It's a case of logic.

Gawd, I've explained this a dozen times. How do you or anyone else know who needs help? How does the guy in NYC know if the guy in Kansas needs help? Do you even know if someone on your block has problems paying for medical care?

If everyone believes in helping then what's the problem with government help? You wrote, "You support government helping people with other people's money." Yes, I do unless you're going to bring a dinner casserole to a family in Mississippi or Oregon. People don't know who needs help. It's not like it was when there were close communities and people lived in the same place all their life.

Charities are great but they usually help a specific "type" of individual. Donating to a woman's shelter is not going to help a single mother trying to feed her kids at home. The governemnt can see the big picture. Who needs food. Who needs a place to stay. What children require help. Individuals can not know. That's why government involvement is necessary.
 
apple0154 said:
Did you not see Cheney going on and on about Obama withdrawing troops? Drones not withstanding less people are killed when there's less troops in foreign countries and Obama is bringing the troops home even under the constant bitching he's weakening the US. If Obama suggested cutting one cent from the military we'd never hear the end of it. So, the logical solution is to bring the troops home, lower their numbers, then suggest cuts.

Fewer troops, less killing.
Click to expand...

I must give you credit for being honest. You are about politics not principle (or human life).

If you are afraid to do something (the right thing) because someone might complain you are in the wrong business.
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
I must give you credit for being honest. You are about politics not principle (or human life).
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary. Just like ObamaCare is to stop deaths, the 45,000 who die every year from a lack of medical insurance, by slowly withdrawing the troops he is accomplishing his goal. Just like ObamaCare is a far cry from government medical if Obama had insisted on more he would have got nothing. The same applies to the troops.

If you are afraid to do something (the right thing) because someone might complain you are in the wrong business.
Click to expand...

And if you try to do the right thing at the wrong time and get the boot all is lost. What would be gained if Obama tried to do everything and was voted out? Better to do a little at a time.

Don't forget, on many occasions Obama has said he has perseverance and he does. He got ObamaCare passed when the odds were not in his favor considering assorted politicians have been trying for 100 years! If I can use a metaphor he not only opened the door to government medical he took it right off the hinges. There is no door left there to close. Now he will widen the doorway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top