2012 Election Thread

Note to self, the next time a democrat has a good chance of winning the presidency, buy stock in gun companies shortly before election.
 
[quote name='dohdough'] but that's libertarianism for you.[/QUOTE]

Thank you! I've always thought libertarianism is total BS. You can't look at the entire world as absolute boolean terms which is what their platform seems to boil down to.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']It kind of sounds like your definition of "radical" is "people who believe things".[/QUOTE]

I don't think those are centrists positions, and I do think they are quite left. I could probably go look through some polls to see where the majority of Americans fall on them, but to me, gay marriage, single-payer healthcare, amnesty to illegal immigrants, and across the board tax increases are radical ideas that the far left embrace. Not the centrist Democrats.

[quote name='dohdough']If you're saying that he's further left than you on a bunch of issues, it might behoove you to think about where your stances actually lie on the spectrum.

If you can't see how your laundry list of things "the left" doesn't hold him accountable for is directly related to the things "the left" Does hold him accountable for, then the problem isn't "the left," but your lack of perspective and dismissal of reality.

And yes, we all realize that you're an ideological mess, but that's libertarianism for you.[/QUOTE]

It's rad to paint me with a Libertarian paintbrush, but the paint won't stick. I believe in banning of alcohol and drugs, believe there should be more regulation in health care to reduce costs of procedures, don't think States should try to pass things that the Federal govt prevents (whether it be immigration laws, drug laws, etc), think it's naive to say shutting down half the goverment organizations is the way to a lean budget. There are TONS of Libertarian positions I disagree with. If I agreed with them, I'd be a Libertarian.

Which Democrats have condemned him for not closing Gitmo Day 1? Or ending the wars he said he would end (and not according to Bush's timeline). Who in the Democratic Party has ripped him for not pushing through single-payer or not making gay marriage legal at the federal level? At least based in the reports I've seen, very few. Again, it might be the idea that they don't want to bust the President's balls for fear of making the election tighter, and maybe they'll start now, but I sure haven't seen much criticism from the far left regarding Obama.

So you're telling me, when I say those who chose Nader over Gore would be considered radical left, that you wouldn't agree? Gore was just a wee bit too conservative for them, so they went further left to support Nader or this year, Stein? Maybe I'm not the one who should reconsider their position on the political spectrum.

I love being called an ideological mess. That's an enormous compliment coming from you, because I pick and choose positions based on what I believe, not what the letter after the guy's name is. I like some of what Dennis Kucinich proposes, I like some of what Ron Paul does. I like some of Obama's positions, I like some of Romney's. I like some of Obamacare, but I think it put a federal band-aid over a tumor, while the cancer continues to grow. It didn't address the source, IMO.

Anyhoo, debate away, call me an idiot, moron, asshole. I got my 2-3 posts in before the personal attacks started so that's a minor win in my book.
 
[quote name='berzirk']It's rad to paint me with a Libertarian paintbrush, but the paint won't stick. I believe in banning of alcohol and drugs...
[/QUOTE]


Why do you believe in banning alcohol and drugs, and is it all of them or just particular things?
 
[quote name='ID2006']Why do you believe in banning alcohol and drugs, and is it all of them or just particular things?[/QUOTE]

I think alcohol is one of the most dangerous substances on earth. More crime, death, and suffering come as the result of people abusing it, than probably anything else on the planet. As a person who doesn't drink or do drugs, banning of it doesn't impact me in the slightest, so heh, if I don't want it, and there's more bad than good in it, why not ban it? I would support legalization of weed over alcohol. Obviously alcohol is never going to be banned again, so it's a little like hoping for Congressional term limits, but it's something I would implement if I were dictator of the world.
 
Why is it that even when conservatives say one or two sane things, it's only a matter of time before the batshit starts oozing out again?
 
[quote name='berzirk']I don't think those are centrists positions, and I do think they are quite left. I could probably go look through some polls to see where the majority of Americans fall on them, but to me, gay marriage, single-payer healthcare, amnesty to illegal immigrants, and across the board tax increases are radical ideas that the far left embrace. Not the centrist Democrats.[/QUOTE]
Those are radical ideas? Compared to what? Most modern democracies have universal healthcare, gay marriage, and higher taxes. Immigration is a tricky one and the US has unique circumstances that make the issue of immigration different from Europe, Asia, and even Canada.

It's rad to paint me with a Libertarian paintbrush, but the paint won't stick. I believe in banning of alcohol and drugs, believe there should be more regulation in health care to reduce costs of procedures, don't think States should try to pass things that the Federal govt prevents (whether it be immigration laws, drug laws, etc), think it's naive to say shutting down half the goverment organizations is the way to a lean budget. There are TONS of Libertarian positions I disagree with. If I agreed with them, I'd be a Libertarian.

Which Democrats have condemned him for not closing Gitmo Day 1? Or ending the wars he said he would end (and not according to Bush's timeline). Who in the Democratic Party has ripped him for not pushing through single-payer or not making gay marriage legal at the federal level? At least based in the reports I've seen, very few. Again, it might be the idea that they don't want to bust the President's balls for fear of making the election tighter, and maybe they'll start now, but I sure haven't seen much criticism from the far left regarding Obama.
Click to expand...
NIMBY and obstructionism are two concepts that you should've internalized by now when it comes to Obama and those issues. This example proves that there was no pandering unless non-pandering is the "new" pandering. Or maybe everything is pandering to you? Or maybe you can explain to me how same sex marriage(equal treatment under the law) is the same as electing Michael Steele the head of the RNC(we're not racist cause we have a black guy too) or picking Palin(we'll throw in a woman for the milf factor)...cause goddamn, those things couldn't be more different.

So you're telling me, when I say those who chose Nader over Gore would be considered radical left, that you wouldn't agree? Gore was just a wee bit too conservative for them, so they went further left to support Nader or this year, Stein? Maybe I'm not the one who should reconsider their position on the political spectrum.
Click to expand...
If Nader and Stein are the radical left, how the hell would you label Bernie Sanders? The only spectrum you're using is the Overton Window of the US and it shifts. Seriously, the modern Democratic Party is slightly left of 90's Republicans and still a center-right group on Most issues. So who's going to be the "radical left" when the window shifts more to the left? I know exactly where I stand, but at least I'm pragmatic instead of throwing my hands up.

I love being called an ideological mess. That's an enormous compliment coming from you, because I pick and choose positions based on what I believe, not what the letter after the guy's name is. I like some of what Dennis Kucinich proposes, I like some of what Ron Paul does. I like some of Obama's positions, I like some of Romney's. I like some of Obamacare, but I think it put a federal band-aid over a tumor, while the cancer continues to grow. It didn't address the source, IMO.

Anyhoo, debate away, call me an idiot, moron, asshole. I got my 2-3 posts in before the personal attacks started so that's a minor win in my book.
Click to expand...
You're an ideological mess because your stances conflict with one another, superficial, and it's dogmatic. Your holier-than-thou-because-I-don't-pick-a-letter-ism doesn't change that. Stances are not always goals.
 
[quote name='Clak']Why is it that even when conservatives say one or two sane things, it's only a matter of time before the batshit starts oozing out again?[/QUOTE]
You gotta peel that onion, man.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/[/QUOTE]


:lol:


Also, Clak, if that comment was to me than I agree. I am batshit crazy about drunk driving....if you think about the amount of people who get killed and or have life altering injuries from it...its insanity.

The choice between taking some 10 year olds leg off or calling a cab should be an easy one.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']Actually, I beat you both to it on the previous page ;)[/QUOTE]
And I just beat you telling everyone that you beat them.:lol:
 
[quote name='dohdough']Those are radical ideas? Compared to what? Most modern democracies have universal healthcare, gay marriage, and higher taxes. Immigration is a tricky one and the US has unique circumstances that make the issue of immigration different from Europe, Asia, and even Canada.[/QUOTE]

Compared to where a majority of Americans are, or at least where I suspect they are. If you have poll numbers to prove me completely wrong, I'll readily admit being incorrect. Why compare American domestic politics to the landscape in France, Sweden, China?

NIMBY and obstructionism are two concepts that you should've internalized by now when it comes to Obama and those issues. This example proves that there was no pandering unless non-pandering is the "new" pandering. Or maybe everything is pandering to you? Or maybe you can explain to me how same sex marriage(equal treatment under the law) is the same as electing Michael Steele the head of the RNC(we're not racist cause we have a black guy too) or picking Palin(we'll throw in a woman for the milf factor)...cause goddamn, those things couldn't be more different.
Click to expand...

So the answer to my qustion: "Which Democrats have condemned him for not closing Gitmo Day 1? Or ending the wars he said he would end (and not according to Bush's timeline). Who in the Democratic Party has ripped him for not pushing through single-payer or not making gay marriage legal at the federal level? At least based in the reports I've seen, very few. Again, it might be the idea that they don't want to bust the President's balls for fear of making the election tighter, and maybe they'll start now, but I sure haven't seen much criticism from the far left regarding Obama."

is none? Or NIMBY? If they feel those things were blocked by Congress, then they should be screaming about it so it's a national topic that other outraged citizens can demand action on from their Democratic and Republican elected officials. Part of Obama's first election was changing the status quo and the stagnation that was American politics. He got into office, then basically did all the same stuff Bush did with 2-3 exceptions. Shouldn't the Democrats be irate? Like I said...maybe they were biting their tongues til after the election, like Obama wanted to do on gay marriage until Biden forced the issue a few months ago. I fail to see how Richard Steele and his ineptitude which was widely commented on publicly by Republicans is even moderately related. Most people realize Palin was a liability, I mean hell, if they were pandering, they did a piss-poor job of it.

If Nader and Stein are the radical left, how the hell would you label Bernie Sanders? The only spectrum you're using is the Overton Window of the US and it shifts. Seriously, the modern Democratic Party is slightly left of 90's Republicans and still a center-right group on Most issues. So who's going to be the "radical left" when the window shifts more to the left? I know exactly where I stand, but at least I'm pragmatic instead of throwing my hands up.
Click to expand...

I don't even know who Bernie Sanders is (Googled...a Socialist. OK, whatever), nor could I tell you who the leader of the Tea Party is, or if they even have a leader. I know Bachman the Witch is heavily involved, but I don't think I could give you two other names if I had to. They're a cheesedick, radical, fringe group. They're politically irrelevant to me. But to say Nader and Stein aren't far left? Uh...dude, really? You've got to think you're of the minority opinion there, right? Do you really think most Americans view the Green Partly as slightly left? Come on. I can't imagine someone who is bright like you would believe that. It's got to be some attempt at deflecting or being deceitful. I think the current Republican Party is extremist, and has shifted very far away from center. Talk radio is to blame for it, because I don't think, and the past two elections prove this, that the Republican constituency has shifted so radically to the right.

You're an ideological mess because your stances conflict with one another, superficial, and it's dogmatic. Your holier-than-thou-because-I-don't-pick-a-letter-ism doesn't change that. Stances are not always goals.
Click to expand...

I thank you again for the compliment. I am superior to Democrats and Republicans. It's like I've evolved, while you guys are still circle-jerking and bonking your political warm bodies in the head with a club and dragging them off to a cave.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']:lol:


Also, Clak, if that comment was to me than I agree. I am batshit crazy about drunk driving....if you think about the amount of people who get killed and or have life altering injuries from it...its insanity.

The choice between taking some 10 year olds leg off or calling a cab should be an easy one.[/QUOTE]
No, actually it was about berzirk. Dude says a few sane things occasionally, then drives off the road and into a ditch.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Compared to where a majority of Americans are, or at least where I suspect they are. If you have poll numbers to prove me completely wrong, I'll readily admit being incorrect. Why compare American domestic politics to the landscape in France, Sweden, China?
[/quote]

Lots of polls are showing over 50% support for gay marriage now. And it was just approved in 3 states and MN rejected a ban. So tides are definitely turning. And, on immigration exit polls showed: "In exit polls on Tuesday night, two-thirds of voters said undocumented immigrants working in the United States should be offered a chance to apply for legal status." (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/opinion/the-republicans-post-election-day.html?ref=opinion)

As for comparison to other countries, that's not the point. The political spectrum isnt' a US only construct. It's a range of values/beliefs on government that goes from the extreme far left to the extreme far right with countries falling in different places on it.

The US is currently center right. The US democratic party and Obama are just barely left of center.

Things like gay marriage, universal health care etc. aren't far left ideas. They're just further left than where we are now. The far left positions are full on communism/socialism where the government owns all the means of production, controls all wages etc.

So the answer to my qustion: "Which Democrats have condemned him for not closing Gitmo Day 1? Or ending the wars he said he would end (and not according to Bush's timeline). Who in the Democratic Party has ripped him for not pushing through single-payer or not making gay marriage legal at the federal level?
Click to expand...

Lots of of people on here have posted about being unhappy that we didn't get single payer, that Gitmo is still open, about drone strikes and extensions of the patriot act etc.

Liberal talking heads have knocked him for those things too. Stewart is pretty hard on him on the Daily Show at times. Lately things have been a bit quieter as you don't want to talk down your party's guy near an election as even if you're not happy with them they're still much better than the alternative.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's what kills me about the whole left/right comparison. If you take the western world as a whole, the idea of universal health care isn't far left, I'm not even sure it's left at all. The U.S. is one of the few places in the western world where the idea of health care for all is a bad thing. The American democratic party would probably be the conservative party in many other countries. We live in this kind of bubble, where we aren't aware of politics in other similar areas of the world. It's why you have republicans acting as if Canada is some red communist state just because they have a health system that covers everyone, they do it because they can get away with it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Lots of polls are showing over 50% support for gay marriage now. And it was just approved in 3 states and MN rejected a ban. So tides are definitely turning.

As for comparison to other countries, that's not the point. The political spectrum isnt' a US only construct. It's a range of values/beliefs on government that goes from the extreme far left to the extreme far right with countries falling in different places on it.

The US is currently center right. The US democratic party and Obama are just barely left of center.

Things like gay marriage, universal health care etc. aren't far left ideas. They're just further left than where we are now. The far left positions are full on communism/socialism where the government owns all the means of production, controls all wages etc.



Lots of of people on here have posted about being unhappy that we didn't get single payer, that Gitmo is still open, about drone strikes and extensions of the patriot act etc.

Liberal talking heads have knocked him for those things too. Stewart is pretty hard on him on the Daily Show at times. Lately things have been a bit quieter as you don't want to talk down your party's guy near an election as even if you're not happy with them they're still much better than the alternative.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, I can absolutely appreciate that compared to other countries the US is Conservative leaning, but we vote in the US Elections, and live in the US. It makes more sense to me to compare our political positions to our historical positions, not that of a country with a different history, location, size, economy, and issues.

I get that people on CAG gave posted displeasure with Obama over his shortcomings on things he promised, or issues they hold near and dear, but where is the frustration from senators, congressman, people in the government? They've been silent. It's not exclusively an Obama issue, it would be nice for more Congressman to speak out when they think a President isn't doing enough, or doing what they said they would. Oregon has a congressman, Peter DeFazio, who traditionally was very liberal, but over time, hasn't been afraid to butt heads with Presidents Clinton and Obama. I admire that. I wish there were more like him.

But saying Jon Stewart, or dohdough on CAG, or Rachael Maddow have knocked the Pres, isn't like saying Senator so-and so has. That's where support for party over principles drives me crazy. If you see something shitty, speak out about it.
 
That's fine, but even in the US views are moving to the left on the social things you mentioned.

Small majority in favor of gay marriage, 2/3rds in exit polls support paths to legal residence for illegal immigrants (edited to add that one to my post after you quoted apparently).

As for comparison to other countries, it's still valid. Other countries have a lot of things I wish the US had. If not for issues of language barrier etc. I'd probably have moved overseas by now.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Compared to where a majority of Americans are, or at least where I suspect they are. If you have poll numbers to prove me completely wrong, I'll readily admit being incorrect. Why compare American domestic politics to the landscape in France, Sweden, China?[/QUOTE]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...s-record-low/2012/05/22/gIQAlAYRjU_story.html

You being incorrect is something I'll get to later.

As for comparing domestic policies, if access to healthcare is a problem and increased access is the goal with better outcomes, a UHS is, so far, the cheapest and most efficient method of delivery in terms of outcomes and social costs, which lead to economic costs. Same sex marriage shouldn't even need to be explained because as a married person, you should know all the benefits you get for being married. Higher taxes tend to pay for infrastructure and social safety nets, which lead to less crime because people aren't starving in the streets.

So the answer to my qustion: "Which Democrats have condemned him for not closing Gitmo Day 1? Or ending the wars he said he would end (and not according to Bush's timeline). Who in the Democratic Party has ripped him for not pushing through single-payer or not making gay marriage legal at the federal level? At least based in the reports I've seen, very few. Again, it might be the idea that they don't want to bust the President's balls for fear of making the election tighter, and maybe they'll start now, but I sure haven't seen much criticism from the far left regarding Obama."

is none? Or NIMBY? If they feel those things were blocked by Congress, then they should be screaming about it so it's a national topic that other outraged citizens can demand action on from their Democratic and Republican elected officials. Part of Obama's first election was changing the status quo and the stagnation that was American politics. He got into office, then basically did all the same stuff Bush did with 2-3 exceptions. Shouldn't the Democrats be irate? Like I said...maybe they were biting their tongues til after the election, like Obama wanted to do on gay marriage until Biden forced the issue a few months ago. I fail to see how Richard Steele and his ineptitude which was widely commented on publicly by Republicans is even moderately related. Most people realize Palin was a liability, I mean hell, if they were pandering, they did a piss-poor job of it.
Click to expand...
There's no answer because you haven't defined what "pandering" means because you don't know what it means. You like using the word as if it gives what you're saying some gravitas, but you can't even see how it works in the examples I provided.

I don't even know who Bernie Sanders is (Googled...a Socialist. OK, whatever), nor could I tell you who the leader of the Tea Party is, or if they even have a leader. I know Bachman the Witch is heavily involved, but I don't think I could give you two other names if I had to. They're a cheesedick, radical, fringe group. They're politically irrelevant to me. But to say Nader and Stein aren't far left? Uh...dude, really? You've got to think you're of the minority opinion there, right? Do you really think most Americans view the Green Partly as slightly left? Come on. I can't imagine someone who is bright like you would believe that. It's got to be some attempt at deflecting or being deceitful. I think the current Republican Party is extremist, and has shifted very far away from center. Talk radio is to blame for it, because I don't think, and the past two elections prove this, that the Republican constituency has shifted so radically to the right.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how things like increased consumer protection, financial regulation, and increased access to higher education are radical things especially when they're not calling for workers to own the means of production. All I see is you saying that they're radical because they're left of the Democrats and this is the same level of analysis that most people in the US give. Frankly, it's pathetic. If neo-cons are to the right of Republicans, does that make Republicans liberals?

I thank you again for the compliment. I am superior to Democrats and Republicans. It's like I've evolved, while you guys are still circle-jerking and bonking your political warm bodies in the head with a club and dragging them off to a cave.
Click to expand...
:rofl:
 
There is still a strong feeling of anti-european sentiment in the US. I don't know why really. It feels like it's just that "America, fuck yeah!" attitude.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's fine, but even in the US views are moving to the left on the social things you mentioned.

Small majority in favor of gay marriage, 2/3rds in exit polls support paths to legal residence for illegal immigrants (edited to add that one to my post after you quoted apparently).

As for comparison to other countries, it's still valid. Other countries have a lot of things I wish the US had. If not for issues of language barrier etc. I'd probably have moved overseas by now.[/QUOTE]

Yah, I did miss the links, sorry bout that. I do realize that we're shifting positions on those issues too. I'm still not sold that it makes a lot of sense to compare our political landscape to other countries, but I'm cool with chalking it up to different opinions on it.

I too have kicked around the idea of moving overseas. Having kids and family here is sort of the main reason the move hasn't taken place, but the UAE, Oman, both locations I've very seriously considered moving to, to the point where I've maintained a few business relationships with folks there in case I have a change of heart someday.
 
[quote name='dohdough']http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...s-record-low/2012/05/22/gIQAlAYRjU_story.html

You being incorrect is something I'll get to later.

As for comparing domestic policies, if access to healthcare is a problem and increased access is the goal with better outcomes, a UHS is, so far, the cheapest and most efficient method of delivery in terms of outcomes and social costs, which lead to economic costs. Same sex marriage shouldn't even need to be explained because as a married person, you should know all the benefits you get for being married. Higher taxes tend to pay for infrastructure and social safety nets, which lead to less crime because people aren't starving in the streets.

There's no answer because you haven't defined what "pandering" means because you don't know what it means. You like using the word as if it gives what you're saying some gravitas, but you can't even see how it works in the examples I provided.

I fail to see how things like increased consumer protection, financial regulation, and increased access to higher education are radical things especially when they're not calling for workers to own the means of production. All I see is you saying that they're radical because they're left of the Democrats and this is the same level of analysis that most people in the US give. Frankly, it's pathetic. If neo-cons are to the right of Republicans, does that make Republicans liberals?

:rofl:[/QUOTE]And thus the smugness I spoke about recently...
 
[quote name='berzirk']Fair enough, I can absolutely appreciate that compared to other countries the US is Conservative leaning, but we vote in the US Elections, and live in the US. It makes more sense to me to compare our political positions to our historical positions, not that of a country with a different history, location, size, economy, and issues.

I get that people on CAG gave posted displeasure with Obama over his shortcomings on things he promised, or issues they hold near and dear, but where is the frustration from senators, congressman, people in the government? They've been silent. It's not exclusively an Obama issue, it would be nice for more Congressman to speak out when they think a President isn't doing enough, or doing what they said they would. Oregon has a congressman, Peter DeFazio, who traditionally was very liberal, but over time, hasn't been afraid to butt heads with Presidents Clinton and Obama. I admire that. I wish there were more like him.

But saying Jon Stewart, or dohdough on CAG, or Rachael Maddow have knocked the Pres, isn't like saying Senator so-and so has. That's where support for party over principles drives me crazy. If you see something shitty, speak out about it.[/QUOTE]
dmaul beat me to the reply, but what you're doing is shifting goal posts. First it was about pandering(it wasn't), then it's about people not saying anything(but you just named people that did), and now it's about the "right" people not saying anything(when quite a few of them do).

Just face it man, you might know a lot about the Middle East, but the fact that you think you're above parties because you don't subscribe to one is really born out of ignorance.
 
[quote name='dohdough']There's no answer because you haven't defined what "pandering" means because you don't know what it means. You like using the word as if it gives what you're saying some gravitas, but you can't even see how it works in the examples I provided. [/QUOTE]

You're right, it's too complicated for me to understand. Up next we're going to work on defining vote, eat, and poo.

Political pandering to me is catering your message to the people you think can win you an election, even if it's not something you personally believe in. It means burying an issue you believe in so you're more electable. It's basically cookie cutter Mitt Romney. His flip flops were a result of him catering to the radicals in the Republican party when it was federal election time, because there is this gross misunderstanding that you need to do that to be electable. McCain did it, Romney did it, the primary candidates...no, they were pretty much already radical extremists, but it's all over the place. Obama's black preacher voice when speaking to black audiences and talking up issues he thinks they want to hear, pandering. Talking about undying support for Israel when talking to AIPAC, while privately trying to freeze settlements...pandering. It's groveling, unbecoming behavior from a candidate, and it's done constantly.

I fail to see how things like increased consumer protection, financial regulation, and increased access to higher education are radical things especially when they're not calling for workers to own the means of production. All I see is you saying that they're radical because they're left of the Democrats and this is the same level of analysis that most people in the US give. Frankly, it's pathetic. If neo-cons are to the right of Republicans, does that make Republicans liberals?
Click to expand...

OK...maybe we can make this more basic. Republicans...typically synonymous with conservative. Democrats, typically synonymous with liberal. If you are to the left of the Democratic party, one could say you're more liberal than the base party. I would suggest the Green Party is more liberal than the Democratic base. If you're to the right of the base of the Republicans, one could say you're more conservative. It works the other way too...so to answer your question, if someone is to the left of the radical right (we can call them neo-cons), then yes, they would be more liberal than the base of the party. I knew you understood it!
 
I've met people like that, who think they're above labels or being categorized. They get openly hostile if you do try labeling or categorizing them. I'm sorry, but all I have to do is create a new category, and there you go. The only reason you might feel that you don't don't fit with a party is because we have so few real political parties. It's hard to really fit everyone into column A or B, but if we had many more parties, I bet we'd could place you in one with good accuracy. The smugness part comes from your unwillingness to accept this.
 
[quote name='dohdough']dmaul beat me to the reply, but what you're doing is shifting goal posts. First it was about pandering(it wasn't), then it's about people not saying anything(but you just named people that did), and now it's about the "right" people not saying anything(when quite a few of them do).

Just face it man, you might know a lot about the Middle East, but the fact that you think you're above parties because you don't subscribe to one is really born out of ignorance.[/QUOTE]

Whoops, agreed. My error was when I said "Democrats aren't condemning Obama..." I thought it was assumed I was talking about our elected leaders, and not just any Tom, Dick, and Harry (not Reid) that happened to be a registered Democrat. I thiiiink I made that more clear in subsequent posts, but if you were under the impression I was complaining that registered Democrats weren't on the President for not doing the things he said he'd do, then I apologize. That wasn't made as clear as it could have been. I'm talking about the lack of outrage from our elected leaders who share a party with Obama.

So with that out of the way, which elected Democrats have complained about Obama's foreign policy, NDAA, killing of an American citizen, or lack of single-payer. I'm actually curious, because I would immediately have more respect for them.
 
We know what you're getting at, but that's synonymous with politics. It's extremely rare for elected members of a party to criticize the president if he's in their party. Not that it never happens, but it's rare. If you demand that they do, then you will always be disappointed with politics. Sometimes you just have to accept that something is the nature of the beast, so to speak.
 
Elected officials are almost never going to criticize the president when he/she is of the same party.

Hard enough to get anything done with the other party being critical and obstructive. Just the way it is.

Also, just because they aren't publicly criticizing him or lobbying him to close Gitmo or raise taxes on the wealthy or to have pushed for single payer during the health care debates etc. doesn't mean that they weren't doing all that in private in negotiating with him etc.
 
[quote name='berzirk']You're right, it's too complicated for me to understand. Up next we're going to work on defining vote, eat, and poo.

Political pandering to me is catering your message to the people you think can win you an election, even if it's not something you personally believe in. It means burying an issue you believe in so you're more electable. It's basically cookie cutter Mitt Romney. His flip flops were a result of him catering to the radicals in the Republican party when it was federal election time, because there is this gross misunderstanding that you need to do that to be electable. McCain did it, Romney did it, the primary candidates...no, they were pretty much already radical extremists, but it's all over the place. Obama's black preacher voice when speaking to black audiences and talking up issues he thinks they want to hear, pandering. Talking about undying support for Israel when talking to AIPAC, while privately trying to freeze settlements...pandering. It's groveling, unbecoming behavior from a candidate, and it's done constantly.[/QUOTE]
So that brings us back to the original point of how Democrats are pandering to the radical left. Or are you saying that Obama isn't a liberal because he's only pandering, according to the definition you provided, to other black people? And by extension, wouldn't that mean that the Democrats aren't liberal? Did I just blow your mind?

OK...maybe we can make this more basic. Republicans...typically synonymous with conservative. Democrats, typically synonymous with liberal. If you are to the left of the Democratic party, one could say you're more liberal than the base party. I would suggest the Green Party is more liberal than the Democratic base. If you're to the right of the base of the Republicans, one could say you're more conservative. It works the other way too...so to answer your question, if someone is to the left of the radical right (we can call them neo-cons), then yes, they would be more liberal than the base of the party. I knew you understood it!
Click to expand...
That's a circular argument and not my point. My point I'm trying to not beat you over the head with is that no one is thinking critically about what makes Democrats "the left" and Republicans "the right." If it's just a matter of perception, then those labels of left and right are meaningless.

edit: What we perceive as left/right today isn't necessarily how it'll be perceived tomorrow. If the Overton Window shifts to the left and current Democratic issues are then considered conservative, does that then make Republicans, liberals? Of course not. Does it make the Democrats liberals if they start championing current Republican ideas?

[quote name='berzirk']Whoops, agreed. My error was when I said "Democrats aren't condemning Obama..." I thought it was assumed I was talking about our elected leaders, and not just any Tom, Dick, and Harry (not Reid) that happened to be a registered Democrat. I thiiiink I made that more clear in subsequent posts, but if you were under the impression I was complaining that registered Democrats weren't on the President for not doing the things he said he'd do, then I apologize. That wasn't made as clear as it could have been. I'm talking about the lack of outrage from our elected leaders who share a party with Obama.

So with that out of the way, which elected Democrats have complained about Obama's foreign policy, NDAA, killing of an American citizen, or lack of single-payer. I'm actually curious, because I would immediately have more respect for them.[/QUOTE]
Alan Grayson, Anthony Weiner, and Jim McDermott.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='The Crotch']You're all jerkfaces.[/QUOTE]

YOU'RE THE JERKFACE.

What I am saying is that you have the FACE OF JERK.
 
All these examples . . . Latinos! We're not going to get the Latino vote by opening the borders and saying, you know what? Let anybody in who wants to come in.
Click to expand...

The party is split now between people that think its the ideology and people who believe it was simply the weakness of their candidate. The lines have been drawn in the litterbox.

SE Cupp was talking about why Romney lost yesterday. She tried to weave this narrative where , it was the wrong year to run the guy that created socialized healthcare in his own State , and then turnaround and try to be the guy that runs against that position.
I couldn't stop laughing. As if theres a "good" year to do that.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']The party is split now between people that think its the ideology and people who believe it was simply the weakness of their candidate. The lines have been drawn in the litterbox.

SE Cupp was talking about why Romney lost yesterday. She tried to weave this narrative where , it was the wrong year to run the guy that created socialized healthcare in his own State , and then turnaround and try to be the guy that runs against that position.
I couldn't stop laughing. As if theres a "good" year to do that.[/QUOTE]
I don't follow conservative media, but I'm guessing that they're saying that the ideological message wasn't conservative enough?
 
No I think Cupp made it clear that shes in the "it was the candidate" camp. (Which I think is ridiculous) Whereas Rush can only paint with an absurd brush : as if anything that might honestly address Latino voters is "catering".
Take the DeLorean back to that horror movie that was the primaries and you have Santorum building a fence ,the pizza guy electrifying it , and the default nominee asking people to "Self Deport". Every opportunity to embrace that community presented itself( especially given The Presidents deportation policies) and they answered with wheeling out a Marco Rubio Hand Truck.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']No I think Cupp made it clear that shes in the "it was the candidate" camp. (Which I think is ridiculous) Whereas Rush can only paint with an absurd brush : as if anything that might honestly address Latino voters is "catering".
Take the DeLorean back to that horror movie that was the primaries and you have Santorum building a fence ,the pizza guy electrifying it , and the default nominee asking people to "Self Deport". Every opportunity to embrace that community presented itself( especially given The Presidents deportation policies) and they answered with wheeling out a Marco Rubio Hand Truck.[/QUOTE]
As detestable as most of Perry's stances are, he was the one guy that said anything close to bringing in Latinos. He took a lot of shit for it too. I don't even think Huntsman had anything to say about it.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']How the hell does that video not have the best line?

"No, dig up, stupid!"[/QUOTE]

I like to think it adds to the metaphor that that simple light bulb of logic never went off in their brains they're gonna be stuck in that hole for the foreseeable future.
 
Blatantly stolen from the "white people mourn" tumblr:

tumblr_md6y5oqGCh1rkd8gso1_500.png


Not blatantly stolen from tumblr: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/donald-trump-deletes-parts-twitter-tirade
 
Yeah, some idiots I knew in high school have been posting worries about Obama taking their guns on Facebook.

Amazing how ignorant many people are in shit they worry about, especially in backwoods places like WV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top