The Democrat Thread

[BigSqwert]

Sorry but this administration doesn't behave in a way that reflects my values. Lets just keep extending those tax cuts for the wealthy!

[Balta1701]

Sorry but this administration doesn't behave in a way that reflects my values. Lets just keep extending those tax cuts for the wealthy!

So why do your values include discrimination against homosexuals?

[BigSqwert]

So why do your values include discrimination against homosexuals?

Huh? Obama was fine with discriminating against homosexuals for 2 years before he bothered to do anything.

[Balta1701]

Huh? Obama was fine with discriminating against homosexuals for 2 years before he bothered to do anything.

And since the Adminstration has now turned its back on that period, and you said that this administration doesn't share your values, that means you went from opposing legalized discrimination to supporting it. Why did you decide last december to support legalized discrimination of homosexuals?

[StrangeSox]

No, this is Balta's terrible argument:

 

If you don't vote for Obama, you must be against every one of his policies. Because Democrats and Republicans are entitled to 100% of the vote, any vote that isn't for a Democrat is categorically for a Republican, so by voting for Cynthia McKinney, you're really voting for Sarah Palin.

[Balta1701]

so by voting for Cynthia McKinney, you're really voting for Sarah Palin.

Frankly, yeah, I think they're both nuts, so I'd buy that completely.

[BigSqwert]

And since the Adminstration has now turned its back on that period, and you said that this administration doesn't share your values, that means you went from opposing legalized discrimination to supporting it. Why did you decide last december to support legalized discrimination of homosexuals?

GMAFB with your lame argument.

 

And why do you oppose gay marriage? I don't. See 2 can play at that.

Edited April 26, 2011 by BigSqwert

[StrangeSox]

And since the Adminstration has now turned its back on that period, and you said that this administration doesn't share your values, that means you went from opposing legalized discrimination to supporting it. Why did you decide last december to support legalized discrimination of homosexuals?

 

Hey, you hated Bush, why do you oppose AIDS aide for Africa?!?!!!

[Balta1701]

GMAFB with your lame argument.

Oh, so wait, you're willing to accept that sometimes the administration does share your values.

 

So your vote is not against the administration sharing your values on some issues, it's a question of which issues you prioritize.

[BigSqwert]

Oh, so wait, you're willing to accept that sometimes the administration does share your values.

 

So your vote is not against the administration sharing your values on some issues, it's a question of which issues you prioritize.

 

And the current Democratic leadership isn't addressing most priorities I find important. Cutting off heating oil subsidies for poor isn't a priority of mine. Neither is giving billionaires and corporations tax breaks.

[Balta1701]

And the current Democratic leadership isn't addressing most priorities I find important. Cutting off heating oil subsidies for poor isn't a priority of mine. Neither is giving billionaires and corporations tax breaks.

So why do you insist on casting a vote that will make both of those things happen?

[StrangeSox]

So why do you insist on casting a vote that will make both of those things happen?

 

We already said we're not voting for Obama.

 

Gotta quote this again since it's right on the money.

So it's time in 1964 to wake up. And when you see them coming up with that kind of conspiracy, let them know your eyes are open. And let them know you -- something else that's wide open too. It's got to be the ballot or the bullet. The ballot or the bullet. If you're afraid to use an expression like that, you should get on out of the country; you should get back in the cotton patch; you should get back in the alley. They get all the Negro vote, and after they get it, the Negro gets nothing in return. All they did when they got to Washington was give a few big Negroes big jobs. Those big Negroes didn't need big jobs, they already had jobs. That's camouflage, that's trickery, that's treachery, window-dressing. I'm not trying to knock out the Democrats for the Republicans. We'll get to them in a minute. But it is true; you put the Democrats first and the Democrats put you last.

 

Look at it the way it is. What alibis do they use, since they control Congress and the Senate? What alibi do they use when you and I ask, "Well, when are you going to keep your promise?" They blame the Dixiecrats. What is a Dixiecrat? A Democrat. A Dixiecrat is nothing but a Democrat in disguise. The titular head of the Democrats is also the head of the Dixiecrats, because the Dixiecrats are a part of the Democratic Party. The Democrats have never kicked the Dixiecrats out of the party. The Dixiecrats bolted themselves once, but the Democrats didn't put them out. Imagine, these lowdown Southern segregationists put the Northern Democrats down. But the Northern Democrats have never put the Dixiecrats down. No, look at that thing the way it is. They have got a con game going on, a political con game, and you and I are in the middle. It's time for you and me to wake up and start looking at it like it is, and trying to understand it like it is; and then we can deal with it like it is.

 

[BigSqwert]

So why do you insist on casting a vote that will make both of those things happen?

Casting my vote for Obama will also ensure that these things happen. It will also ensure that we continue to occupy two, potentially 3, countries in the middle east and maintain a bloated Military Industrial Complex.

Edited April 26, 2011 by BigSqwert

[Balta1701]

By the way, different but linked topic...since the Affordable Care Act of 2010 allows states to set up their own system, it appears that the State of Vermont is going to establish fully universal health care in that state.

 

Of course, we'd be better off if those 30 million people that the PPACA will help would remain uninsured, and we should vote that way.l

[Balta1701]

Casting my vote for Obama will also ensure that these things happen. It will also ensure that we occupy two, potentially 3, countries in the middle east.

And so your solution is to cast a vote that will help a person take power who would ensure we occupy 4-5 countries in the middle east.

[StrangeSox]

We'd be better off if progressives stopped voting for crappy politicians who sell them down the road every time and instead voted for--wait for it--progressive politicians.

[StrangeSox]

And so your solution is to cast a vote that will help a person take power who would ensure we occupy 4-5 countries in the middle east.

 

And your vote makes sure the Democrats keep putting out bad candidates who can't or won't get any real progressive policies in place. What's better, long term?

[Balta1701]

We'd be better off if progressives stopped voting for crappy politicians who sell them down the road every time and instead voted for--wait for it--progressive politicians.

So, if progressive and centrists democrats were to split the vote and the next President was Donald Trump/Sarah Palin/Mittens, we'd be "Better off"?

 

Your standard.

[Soxbadger]

If this is what happened with Obama as President, I can only imagine what would have happened with McCain/Palin.

 

And I guess Im agreeing with Sullivan, first time for everything.

 

As for the rest, Obama is just the President. His position as President comes with "sway" but it does not come with the ability to unilaterally make change.

 

If McCain was in office, would they have attempted Health Care reform? If McCain was in office, what would we be doing about immigration.

 

Im pretty sure that McCain has advocated far more involvement in Libya than Obama.

 

And I dont agree that there are 2 central questions of American govt. In fact the actual statement is kind of butchered. He starts with the 2 problems of self-govt (power and money) and then changes it to the 2 most central questions.

 

2 biggest problems does not equal the 2 biggest questions.

 

And the problems of American govt will never go away as long as we are capitalists.

 

[Balta1701]

And your vote makes sure the Democrats keep putting out bad candidates who can't or won't get any real progressive policies in place. What's better, long term?

In the year 2000, I might well have agreed with you.

 

Then the next 4 years happened. I can without any hesitation say that Democrats who didn't do anything progressive would have been a Hell of a lot better than that administration.

[BigSqwert]

Enjoy another 4 years of disappointment and the status quo.

[StrangeSox]

So, if progressive and centrists democrats were to split the vote and the next President was Donald Trump/Sarah Palin/Mittens, we'd be "Better off"?

 

Your standard.

 

If it means centrists democrats (republican-lite) weren't as powerful in 2014 and 2016 and the Democrats nominated someone who actually deserves the progressive vote, perhaps.

 

The problem is that 2009-2011 is likely the best we'll ever see the Democrats. They had huge majorities and, by all accounts, a President who was at least sympathetic to progressive policies. And what did they accomplish? A heavily compromised health care reform bill and losing the framing battle with Republicans on every single issue. Whoppee.

[southsider2k5]

Enjoy another 4 years of disappointment and the status quo.

 

Its not quite "Change" but I think it will work.

[Balta1701]

Here's one more point for you guys...the Republicans have also proven to be more than happy to use the infrastructure of government as a tool to make sure that Republicans stay in power. The Bush administration's Attorney firing/DOJ politicization is a good starting point. The dismantling of the Unions is a more recent, much more active one.

 

here's a non-farfetched hypothetical. Imagine that you cast a protest vote in 2012, Obama loses, and one of the first steps is to ban collective bargaining amongst national public employee unions, Wisconsin-style.

 

The kind of progressive change that the Unions support would be gone, as would any chance of future progressive change. That'd be it and you know it.

[BigSqwert]

Here's one more point for you guys...the Republicans have also proven to be more than happy to use the infrastructure of government as a tool to make sure that Republicans stay in power. The Bush administration's Attorney firing/DOJ politicization is a good starting point. The dismantling of the Unions is a more recent, much more active one.

 

here's a non-farfetched hypothetical. Imagine that you cast a protest vote in 2012, Obama loses, and one of the first steps is to ban collective bargaining amongst national public employee unions, Wisconsin-style.

 

The kind of progressive change that the Unions support would be gone, as would any chance of future progressive change. That'd be it and you know it.

 

Where is Obama during any of this? Didn't he say once that he'd stand with the Unions if they ever tried to ban collective bargaining?