The Democrat Thread

[southsider2k5]

No I am asking you to name the party or candidate you have voted for who never was hypocritical in their life.

 

Its so easy to just sit on the sidelines and claim you are the most pragmatic person in the world, I am asking you to prove it. Because from what I have read you have supported or voted for a candidate before, and I would basically bet every penny my entire family has that I can find them being hypocritical at some point.

 

Which in turn means your just lowering your standards and as hypocritical as the rest of us, you just refuse to admit it.

 

Great, you want me to prove the impossible.

 

I will not vote for someone who has changed a core belief. I will not vote for Mitt Romney for example. I voted for Ron Paul in our Primary on Tuesday even though there was no real reason to do so.

[BigSqwert]

Pol Pot never changed his mind. You could trust his word.

[southsider2k5]

This is your opinion. I dont think they support Obama because they think they have to, they do it because they choose to, huge difference.

 

Furthermore if you actually read people's posts, you would have noticed many people did say they did not vote for Obama in the primary etc and voted for another candidate who was more in favor.

But in the Presidential election, there will not be another Democrat who is stronger in support of gay rights, who has a chance to actually win.

 

Id rather be the winner then the guy with the most pragamatism points. Whats the reward for that? s***ty life being treated unequal, but knowing you stood by your principles.

 

Pass.

 

And that is Democrats own fault for supporting these type of candidates.

[StrangeSox]

You say this like you don't think that a politician could ever have a change of mind or change of heart on an issue. That's a pretty high bar to live up to. People do change and their views do too. I don't doubt that a big part of his views are shaped by polling numbers. You could argue that's pandering. And its true if the views change with every audience. Something candidates like Mitt Romney, and to a lesser extent, John Kerry were very good at - as well as Abraham Lincoln, actually. However, if your views change because society changes, and your governance reflects the people you represent - that's not pandering, that's properly representing the people who elected you.

 

I don't know why we have to assume that his mid-90's and 2012 positions are the dishonest ones and the 2008 position is his true feelings anyway.

[StrangeSox]

Great, you want me to prove the impossible.

 

I will not vote for someone who has changed a core belief. I will not vote for Mitt Romney for example. I voted for Ron Paul in our Primary on Tuesday even though there was no real reason to do so.

 

Ron Paul repudiated the extreme racism he endorsed in his news letters.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Except when it was that marriage was only between a man and woman.

 

I think you're stretching it.

 

He has remained at the same end of the spectrum the entire time.

[southsider2k5]

Pol Pot never changed his mind. You could trust his word.

 

Big difference between little things and core beliefs. Obama supposedly changed his religious beliefs the other day. I don't buy that for a second.

[StrangeSox]

And that is Democrats own fault for supporting these type of candidates.

 

LGBT's aren't a unified, one-issue voter block.

[southsider2k5]

I don't know why we have to assume that his mid-90's and 2012 positions are the dishonest ones and the 2008 position is his true feelings anyway.

 

Thanks for making my point. There is no way of knowing what he actually stands for.

[Soxbadger]

Great, you want me to prove the impossible.

 

I will not vote for someone who has changed a core belief. I will not vote for Mitt Romney for example. I voted for Ron Paul in our Primary on Tuesday even though there was no real reason to do so.

 

So you mean Ron Paul never changed his tune on Global Warming?

 

http://newhampshireprimary.blogspot.com/20...-flip-flop.html

 

Gingrich has come under frequent fire from climate change deniers for his obvious flip-flop on global warming. Now it appears as though Ron Paul himself flip-flopped on the issue. The Texas Congressman’s own fan site provides his quotes on the subject from three separate interviews, one from 2008 and two from 2009.

 

In 2008, Ron Paul had this to say about global warming:

 

It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

 

By 2009, Paul was singing a different tune:

 

The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.”

 

It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful.

 

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/

 

After additional consideration and analysis and shortly before the release of the Climategate emails in late 2009, Ron Paul identified the artificial panic around Global Warming as an elaborate hoax:

 

I cant believe you would support someone who would change their core beliefs.

 

For shame, for shame.

 

Do you really believe that any politician doesnt do this? I mean you are seemingly knowledgeable on politics, so I just assume you are playing the game and trying to dissuade people to vote for Obama to ensure that your preferred candidate will win.

 

To find this about Ron Paul took me 5 seconds, I didnt even look hard, I just had to type "Ron Paul flip flop."

Edited May 10, 2012 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

So you mean Ron Paul never changed his tune on Global Warming?

 

http://newhampshireprimary.blogspot.com/20...-flip-flop.html

 

Gingrich has come under frequent fire from climate change deniers for his obvious flip-flop on global warming. Now it appears as though Ron Paul himself flip-flopped on the issue. The Texas Congressman’s own fan site provides his quotes on the subject from three separate interviews, one from 2008 and two from 2009.

 

In 2008, Ron Paul had this to say about global warming:

 

It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

 

By 2009, Paul was singing a different tune:

 

The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.”

 

It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful.

 

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/

 

 

 

I cant believe you would support someone who would change their core beliefs.

 

For shame, for shame.

 

Do you really believe that any politician doesnt do this? I mean you are seemingly knowledgeable on politics, so I just assume you are playing the game and trying to dissuade people to vote for Obama to ensure that your preferred candidate will win.

 

To find this about Ron Paul took me 5 seconds, I didnt even look hard, I just had to type "Ron Paul flip flop."

 

Global warming isn't religion.

 

[StrangeSox]

Thanks for making my point. There is no way of knowing what he actually stands for.

I don't think I've disagreed with this?

 

But I do think the balance of the evidence is in favor of him coming around to actually supporting gay marriage. That's to be expected from everyday people as something continues to gain support and acceptance in society--they will gradually change their own positions as long as it isn't a core, strongly held belief. Even if Obama did legitimately believe man-woman before, it never seemed to be an especially important issue for him.

 

Again, that's open for criticism (an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere), but it doesn't mean he's cynically abandoned a core belief.

[StrangeSox]

Global warming isn't religion.

 

What about his incredibly racist newsletters that he now disowns?

[StrangeSox]

Interesting post on the incoherence of Obama's statement on gay marriage and leaving it to the states and his administration's constitutionality argument regarding DOMA:

 

The problem with the President’s position is that it cannot be reconciled with the Administration’s stance on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. According to Attorney General Eric Holder, he and the President concluded that the constitutionality of legal distinctions based upon sexual preference cannot be defended. In their view, because DOMA precludes federal recognition of same-sex marriages, it violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. Further, according to Holder’s statement, they concluded that no “reasonable” constitutional argument could be made in DOMA’s defense. Yet if DOMA is unconstitutional under equal protection, which applies to the state and federal governments equally, then how could any state law barring recognition of same-sex marriages survive constitutional scrutiny? In other words, while the President says he believes that states should be allowed to reach “different conclusions at different times” on the question of same-sex marriage, the administration’s legal position is that a state’s refusal to treat opposite-sex and same-sex couples alike is unconstitutional. So while the President may say he’d like to leave this question to the states, that’s an option his administration has already taken off the table.

 

If DOMA is unconstitutional thanks to equal protection, state laws banning same-sex marriage would be unconstitutional as well.

[southsider2k5]

What about his incredibly racist newsletters that he now disowns?

 

I am not convinced of all of the validity of that, but if convinced, I would discard Paul as well. I have never been a true supporter, but voted for him mostly because he holds some of the same philosophies. I am not committed to Paul for President by any stretch. My main point was that I would not vote for the guy who is going to be the GOP nominee because of who he is. Picking at the Ron Paul thing is meaningless.

[Soxbadger]

Global warming isn't religion.

 

What we have here is a hypocrite.

 

At this point we can just say, well economy isnt global warming, well military spending isnt religion.

 

Is that how you rationalize your hypocrisy?

 

Because I think its more principled to admit to being a hypocrite (like I do) than to sit and lie to yourself and make up fake lines in the sand about what is okay to flip on and what isnt.

 

In my view the most okay thing to flip on is religion, because as soon as you take off the blinders, its so easy to see the absurdity.

[Soxbadger]

And going down that road, arent the biggest hypocrites of all Christians, because didnt they flip flop on Judaism? You cant trust anyone who flips on religion right?

[southsider2k5]

What we have here is a hypocrite.

 

At this point we can just say, well economy isnt global warming, well military spending isnt religion.

 

Is that how you rationalize your hypocrisy?

 

Because I think its more principled to admit to being a hypocrite (like I do) than to sit and lie to yourself and make up fake lines in the sand about what is okay to flip on and what isnt.

 

In my view the most okay thing to flip on is religion, because as soon as you take off the blinders, its so easy to see the absurdity.

 

You hate religion. If you were to come back tomorrow and say you loved Jesus, I wouldn't believe you,a nd I would wonder why you changed. I don't think that is absurdity, I think it is common sense.

[southsider2k5]

And going down that road, arent the biggest hypocrites of all Christians, because didnt they flip flop on Judaism? You cant trust anyone who flips on religion right?

 

[Rex Kickass]

Great, you want me to prove the impossible.

 

I will not vote for someone who has changed a core belief. I will not vote for Mitt Romney for example. I voted for Ron Paul in our Primary on Tuesday even though there was no real reason to do so.

 

Would you have voted for Reagan? Because he did that. (Unions)

Would you have voted for Bush Sr? Because he did that. (Abortion, Supply Side Economics)

Did you vote for Bush Jr? Because he did that. (Cap and Trade/Global Warming, Assault Weapon Ban, Nationbuilding)

What about McCain? Because he did that. (The Right of Enemy Combatants to trial, Immigration)

 

Politicians change core beliefs all the time. To not vote because they suddenly represent the policy you support instead of having been there all along means you'll probably never vote again.

[StrangeSox]

I am not convinced of all of the validity of that, but if convinced, I would discard Paul as well. I have never been a true supporter, but voted for him mostly because he holds some of the same philosophies. I am not committed to Paul for President by any stretch. My main point was that I would not vote for the guy who is going to be the GOP nominee because of who he is. Picking at the Ron Paul thing is meaningless.

 

He does not deny that they were published in his newsletter and under his name, only that he personally did not write or approve them. He will not say who wrote them, but many believe it was likely Lew Rockwell. Still, he allowed these racist screeds to be published under his name to garner support and campaign contributions. It's not like the right-wing libertarian political strategy of the 80's isn't known; Paul was not the only one to cater to the Stormfront/neo-nazi/militia-survivalist crowd with racist overtones.

 

Fostering racism for political gain is surely much worse than supporting gay marriage for political gain. You voted someone who cynically exploited racism for political advantage at best, and yet you're castigating others who believe Obama's move is good for the LGBT community.

[Soxbadger]

You hate religion. If you were to come back tomorrow and say you loved Jesus, I wouldn't believe you,a nd I would wonder why you changed. I don't think that is absurdity, I think it is common sense.

 

I dont trust Obama and I think he changed because he wanted money and because hes been taking heat for not really doing much in terms of social equality.

 

That being said, I dont trust any politicians (on the national level). They wouldnt be politicians who got that far, if they werent lying, making deals, etc.

 

I wish the system was different, but unfortunately I have to play by the constructs of the game. I dont like it, I wish there was a candidate who agreed with me, but exactly where are you going to find the following:

 

Extremely pro- social rights and extremely anti- big govt.

 

I admittedly have to put 1 above the other, so I vote with my heart (social rights), because that is what burns brighter inside of me.

[southsider2k5]

Would you have voted for Reagan? Because he did that. (Unions)

Would you have voted for Bush Sr? Because he did that. (Abortion, Supply Side Economics)

Did you vote for Bush Jr? Because he did that. (Cap and Trade/Global Warming, Assault Weapon Ban, Nationbuilding)

What about McCain? Because he did that. (The Right of Enemy Combatants to trial, Immigration)

 

Politicians change core beliefs all the time. To not vote because they suddenly represent the policy you support instead of having been there all along means you'll probably never vote again.

 

Out of that list, the abortion one is the biggest red flag. I don't know that the rest fall under core beliefs.

[CanOfCorn]

ss...

 

Do you think that you can be religious but not believe in every core belief of that religion?

 

For instance, can you be Catholic, but believe women should be allowed to be priests? Or that divorce is acceptable? Because, just because you believe in a religion doesn't mean you have to side with their beliefs ABSOLUTELY, IMHO.

[StrangeSox]

Greene County (Va.) Republican Committee Newsletter Editor Calls for Armed Revolution if the President Is Re-Elected