• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Problem with being a Democrat is being a Democrat

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
Oh, this is rich. Excuse me while I pull my pant legs up. I don't want to get them dirty. Imagine an occupation army coming into the US and shooting our citizens, bombing our hospitals, raiding our homes at 3 in the morning, using our churches as barracks for their troops, restricting our movements so much you go thru 5 check points to get to the market, everytime you look at them they point a gun at you, they take control of our natural resources and then, DeeJayH......are you listening, and then, after 2-3 years of this bullshit were going to say, "Oh yeah, you guys were right. You know what's best for us. Thank you for destroying our infrastructure. Were soooooo grateful." Is this what you would call a pleasure? Talk about conservative pyscho-babble.

You liberals fail to understand that the middle east is being taken over by extremists and crazy dictators. If we don't make the region a peaceful place, they might just end up nuking us all.
 

DivineComedy

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Diogenes said:
Your key phrase is "have the candidates offer real solutions to the problem" and that is the core problem of the Democrats.

Exactly, but personally I think the core problem is manifest in factions, period, not just in the Democratic party, because I describe a problem and the Republican Party in Congress obviously has no solution.

Say “I have a problem” to a certain shrub and they say “contact a lawyer,” and it does not register in the Republican’s brain that I need a law enforcer, or a lawmaker, and I do not want a damn stinking lawyer that will take weeks to get a solution.

Warning: the following between brackets is a gratuitous waste of time just in case a Republican lawmaker happens upon this post, and it is not to be considered a part of the post, but is to be considered a brain fart:

{Marriage is supposed to be until death. Why bother if it is not. A spouse can legally hide a debt from their spouse, a debt that I have irrefutably proven in this topic that the usurers (VISA) think is funny, and the usurers face no penalty for their gamble, but by law the unknowing spouse faces all the penalties for their gamble, for a joint account can have a garnishment placed on it with the aggrieved spouse having no rights except to divorce and get a lawyer. That is a problem that can be fixed by requiring the usurers to require both spouses acknowledge the debt in each month‘s statement, with failure to get acknowledgements stopping further debt. Married people should not be allowed to get a new credit card without the approval of the other spouse, or joint assets should not be allowed to have a garnishment placed on them. By law deprive the usurers of the power to attack joint accounts or joint assets unless in a court of law, where the debtors must be present to face their accusers, and force the usurers to prove that both spouses acknowledged and approved of all the debts at the time they were acquired. Lawyers are not a fast as law enforcement, and a garnishment that can be done without knowledge of the accused can take bread and medicine out of the mouth of the innocent and devastate a family. The gamble should be equal! If I didn’t know about the debt, and the usurers think it is funny, to be fair, the usurers should have to eat the debt, if I do not want to eat the debt. One spouse can acquire a massive debt behind the back of the other, with the law on the side of the usurers. That is a problem that needs a law to protect the family, and law enforcement that does not harm the family, as I do not want to harm a family, and this should not be a problem that needs a lawyer. How dare the Republicans claim they are for families, they are in power, and they are for usurers that prey upon families, and therefore All Republicans in Congress must be LIARS! ALL Republicans in Congress are LIARS! Feel free to prove me wrong by actually fixing a problem.}

Only a candidate can have a solution to the problems. Parties can not have a solution to the problems. Neither party can have a solution to the specific problems, unless we accept all solutions and drink the Kool-Aid.

Kandahar wants us to withdraw from Iraq while we still have a UN mandate in Resolution 1511 to restore international peace and security to Iraq, and for obvious reasons the Iraq war should not be a party issue!

Kandahar wants to “Protect abortion rights” which is fine by me, but if a party adopts that platform, when it is really a presidential or senatorial issue, votes will be lost unnecessarily, when candidates with more individualistic platforms might have been elected to the House of Representatives so as to address the greater number of issues. Abortion is the kind of issue that should not be on a party platform. We have many problems that need solving, but with this in your face “take it all or leave it” proposition we will still have the majority of the problems.

We need Winnie the Pooh to have a problem getting honey, and each other character in his world also has some kind of a legitimate problem, and there are candidates that have actual solutions to the individual problems, but the two party moulds that make candidates do not agree except on a few points, so fewer problems get fixed. Everyone gets cheap honey, because Winnie the Pooh is the main character, and only Winnie the Pooh eats honey.
 

Diogenes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
3,059
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
DivineComedy said:
Exactly, but personally I think the core problem is manifest in factions, period, not just in the Democratic party, because I describe a problem and the Republican Party in Congress obviously has no solution.
I agree with you that factions are the problem, and the problem exists in both parties. It is even more difficult when the members of a faction are fanatical single-issue activists, and IMO it has gotten worse in the last several years.

The problem you describe in your sidebar is real - a coworker of mine was deserted by her husband, the credit card company would not allow her to cancel the card or her participation in the debts he subsequently rang up, and threatened to reposess everything she had - but that's a state problem rather than a federal one. In Minnesota, for instance, one spouse is allowed to sell the car of the other spouse even though his/her name is not on the title. This insanity (always enacted and supported in the name of "fairness" of course) seems to be more prevalent in blue states than in red states, since it promotes the redistribution of wealth from those who have earned it to those who haven't.
 

^graff

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Location
Southeast US
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
"Only a candidate can have a solution to the problems. Parties can not have a solution to the problems." - Divine Comedy

I love this analysis - as far as i can tell it's nearly always true. There are precious few cut and dry issues in today's politics, and the two parties are separated by a canyon of animosity. With these prominent issues so debatable and the two parties incapable of rational and calm discussion, every issue becomes a party issue, when in reality what our nation needs is a body of non-partisan leaders that do what they think it best for our nation, not a congress of nervous old men voting along party lines.
 

DivineComedy

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Diogenes said:
I agree with you that factions are the problem, and the problem exists in both parties. It is even more difficult when the members of a faction are fanatical single-issue activists, and IMO it has gotten worse in the last several years.

The problem you describe in your sidebar is real - a coworker of mine was deserted by her husband, the credit card company would not allow her to cancel the card or her participation in the debts he subsequently rang up, and threatened to reposess everything she had - but that's a state problem rather than a federal one. In Minnesota, for instance, one spouse is allowed to sell the car of the other spouse even though his/her name is not on the title. This insanity (always enacted and supported in the name of "fairness" of course) seems to be more prevalent in blue states than in red states, since it promotes the redistribution of wealth from those who have earned it to those who haven't.

Diogenes you are right about the “fanatical single-issue activists“ and I think it is also a byproduct of turning so many state related issues into federal ones. Some people are seeking to homogenize us and they seek to reduce the number of parties that need convincing to get their utopia. I would like to think that if reasonable laws are unavailable that I could at least move to some other state that isn‘t full of shrubs.

A State Republican shrub actually expressed “concern” about the problem I described, and then claimed that it was a matter that “should be resolved through the court system.” The Royal Republican shrub apparently must think laissez-faire means that a usurer should be able to prey upon the weaker subjects in his State, and the shrub must believe that usurers should have the ability to get a judge to issue a sneak attack on the joint bank accounts of the peasants. Begging for a crust of bread after failing to take preemptive measures is no fun. I would like to think we could pass a law at the State level to preempt the problems that the usurers think are funny, but the Republican shrub will only get passionate about changing laws to keep a Chia® pet alive. What it boils down to is the fact that the Republican shrub is against protecting families from predatory satanic usurers that think it is funny to tempt our spouses. It is an old story.

Since the Republican shrub wants us to use the court system, maybe I should lobby my lawmakers for a law to let us get a court order for indulgences to kill usurers, because preemption is the only sure way to protect oneself from a usurer. “Neither a borrower nor a lender be;” if a spouse has no choice on the borrowing, don’t let a lender be.
 

DivineComedy

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
^graff said:
in reality what our nation needs is a body of non-partisan leaders that do what they think it best for our nation, not a congress of nervous old men voting along party lines.
I agree! In my state we must register as a party animal or accept less in the way of choices, which can only mean fewer choices on the issues as the Kool-Aid drinkers rule.
 

OdgenTugbyGlub

Active member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
292
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I agree! In my state we must register as a party animal or accept less in the way of choices, which can only mean fewer choices on the issues as the Kool-Aid drinkers rule.

Are the Kool-Aid drinkers supposed to be the black people, because if so...


HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :rofl !


Best non-PC PC name EVER!
 

DivineComedy

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OdgenTugbyGlub said:
Are the Kool-Aid drinkers supposed to be the black people, because if so...


HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :rofl !

The Kool-Aid drinkers in the context that I used it are those that are pure party animals, and race was not an issue in my thinking.

A Kool-Aid drinker type party animal looks with glowing eyes like a mob following Hitler on parade, like they were looking at Clinton during the Democratic National Convention when he talked about the International Criminal Court that as The Rome Treaty stands would be pure treason to the July 4, 1776 principle of “consent of the governed.” There was not a “boo” in the house from the Royal subjects of King Clinton, and it is no wonder that they picked another one to evoke images of Camelot. A Kool-Aid drinker would think there is nothing wrong with signing a treasonously flawed criminal court treaty, that does not contain the words “United States Supreme Court,” or with supporting only “some protection from politically motivated prosecutions.”

“President Bush says that the cooperation of other nations, particularly our allies, is critical to the war on terror. And he's right. And everyone in this room knows he's right. Yet this administration consistently runs roughshod over the interests of those nations on a broad range of issues -- from climate change, climate control, to the International Court of Justice, to the role of the United Nations, to trade, and, of course, to the rebuilding Iraq itself. And by acting without international sanction in Iraq, the administration has, in effect, invited other nations to invoke the same precedent in the future, to attack their adversaries or even to develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons just to deter such an attack.” (John Kerry) http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=6576

Be not deceived for the lovable Royal parrot reiterated it for you and corrected what International Court Lurch actually meant to reference:

“The president had an amazing opportunity to bring the country together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in the struggle against terror.
Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice. They chose to use that moment of unity to try to push the country too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors had finished their work, but in withdrawing American support for the climate change treaty, and for the international court on war criminals, and for the anti-ballistic missile treaty and from the nuclear test ban treaty.” (Bill Clinton) http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/26/dems.clinton.transcript/

Personally I like a President that “runs roughshod over the interests of those nations on a broad range of issues” especially when The Rome Treaty is not in our sovereign July 4, 1776 interests. I just love picture 62 in Hillary’s book where they are with one world government Walter Cronkite, it just puts it all into perspective.

Now, back to the race issue that you brought up. With two major parties we have a system whereby the lesser of two evils is chosen after the major parties have chosen, and the only way blacks come into it is when one party picks a black and the other a white. If there was no party primary and the people actually voted for who they want to represent them, based on what the candidates positions are, then many blacks would probably get elected more often. As it is likely that many candidates would get elected with less then forty percent of the vote, more racists might get elected too in districts so inclined; the spirit of Hosea Williams would know where to march. The ultimate result would be that racists and non racists alike would pay more attention to the debates and positions of the candidates, but many would find themselves voting on the issues, when they can’t get the field whittled down to make it between the black and the white.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The problem with democrats is their party ahs been hi jacked by the extreme far left of the party.........A moderate or a conservative has no say on the issues.............This country is mostly made up of moderates and conservatives and until the democratic party wises up and moves closer to the center they will continue to lose elctions......

My 2 cents......
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
galenrox said:
then what do you think about the republican party, they've been hijacked by the far christian right, but you have no issue with that. Would you even claim for a second that the republican party represents moderates?
I'm fairly moderate, and the reason I classify myself as a moderate is solely because the republican party moved too far right for me, WAY too far right for me.

Well as you know I am neither Republican or Democrat and not sure I agree with your analysis but the Republicans must be doing something right because they are the ones that are winning national elections........

I personally think that is becasue moderates and indpendents like myself usually vote Republican because we believe Christian values are better then no values at all..........
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
galenrox said:
I actually feel offended at the republicans claiming that they represent christian values. I also feel offended that so many of my faith are dumb enough to fall for it.
The republicans support a couple of things that are shared by a few churches. The democrats support the one thing that all christian churches hold in common, which is charity. The democrats believe in taking care out of the sick and the poor, which is the message from about 60% of the bible, while when it comes to abortion and homosexuals, there might be a couple of lines in Paul about them, and Jesus never mentioned them. He certainly mentioned taking care of your brother, which is something that the republican party is pretty fervently against.
And remember the tale of the righteous man and the sinner at prayer. The righteous man bragged about how christian he was, how righteous he was, and how great God was for allowing him to be so great, essentially. Then the sinner prayed for forgiveness, and when they left only the sinner was saved.
Republicans brag about being the party of christian values, but anyone who would advertise that isn't truely christian, not in God's eyes.
They win elections cause they're good at politics. That's it, their ideas are terrible, the effect that they've had on this country is terrible, and they are terrible people, but fantastic politicians. Bravo for them!

LOL Dude, come on. Our ideas are terrible?? No, actually I think Republicans generally have better ideas than Democrats, which is why I became a Republican. I agree with some, "liberal" ideas like have a socialist state for the poor and the disabled and I support stem cell research. But for the most part, I think Republicans look at things better. Say what you want about Bush but at least he didn't cheat on his wife and betray his own family like Klinton and numerous other Democrats have.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
galenrox said:
I actually feel offended at the republicans claiming that they represent christian values. I also feel offended that so many of my faith are dumb enough to fall for it.
The republicans support a couple of things that are shared by a few churches. The democrats support the one thing that all christian churches hold in common, which is charity. The democrats believe in taking care out of the sick and the poor, which is the message from about 60% of the bible, while when it comes to abortion and homosexuals, there might be a couple of lines in Paul about them, and Jesus never mentioned them. He certainly mentioned taking care of your brother, which is something that the republican party is pretty fervently against.
And remember the tale of the righteous man and the sinner at prayer. The righteous man bragged about how christian he was, how righteous he was, and how great God was for allowing him to be so great, essentially. Then the sinner prayed for forgiveness, and when they left only the sinner was saved.
Republicans brag about being the party of christian values, but anyone who would advertise that isn't truely christian, not in God's eyes.
They win elections cause they're good at politics. That's it, their ideas are terrible, the effect that they've had on this country is terrible, and they are terrible people, but fantastic politicians. Bravo for them!

Well when you have a party that promotes Abortion and Gay Marriage you have a problem selling that party to the American people......That is one of the main reasons Christians voted overwhelmingly for President Bush..........

I know I am a Catholic Christian Conservative and I support all kinds of charities for the poor...........I personally think the main job of the government is to defend this countries and not provide all these welfare programs that are full of corruption........I think that churches and charitable organizations should take care of the truly poor in this country...........

I look at the 2 past candidates for president nominated by the democratic party and they were both very flawed.......I actually could have voted for a decent candidate but none were offered by the democrats.......President Bush has is deficiencies, there is no question about that but when it comes to your party candidates it was a slam dunk as to who would get my vote.........

Until your party nominates some Moderate candidates you will continue to lose elections.....The problem is when you have a moderate candidate for president like a Leiberman he has no chance of winning because the base of your party is controlled by the far left.........

I saw Senator John Breax, a democrat on C-SPAN recently......He is considered very moderate on the political issues...............When the moderator asked him why don't you take a run at the presidency he said becasue I would have no chance to win the nomination.........

I think that says volumes.........
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Navy Pride said:
Well when you have a party that promotes Abortion and Gay Marriage you have a problem selling that party to the American people......That is one of the main reasons Christians voted overwhelmingly for President Bush..........

I know I am a Catholic Christian Conservative and I support all kinds of charities for the poor...........I personally think the main job of the government is to defend this countries and not provide all these welfare programs that are full of corruption........I think that churches and charitable organizations should take care of the truly poor in this country...........

I look at the 2 past candidates for president nominated by the democratic party and they were both very flawed.......I actually could have voted for a decent candidate but none were offered by the democrats.......President Bush has is deficiencies, there is no question about that but when it comes to your party candidates it was a slam dunk as to who would get my vote.........

Until your party nominates some Moderate candidates you will continue to lose elections.....The problem is when you have a moderate candidate for president like a Leiberman he has no chance of winning because the base of your party is controlled by the far left.........

I saw Senator John Breax, a democrat on C-SPAN recently......He is considered very moderate on the political issues...............When the moderator asked him why don't you take a run at the presidency he said becasue I would have no chance to win the nomination.........

I think that says volumes.........

Speaking of politics on television, look at cross fire. Liberals always seem angry. That Carville guy is nearly psycotic. He gets so angry and hot headed, I wonder if he's actually just been released from the psych ward.
 

Diogenes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
3,059
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Navy Pride said:
I look at the 2 past candidates for president nominated by the democratic party and they were both very flawed...
Gosh, I count them as being seriously flawed all the way back to McGovern in 1972. The two Democrats elected since then, Carter and Clinton, hardly turned out to be bright lights in our national history.

George_Washington said:
Speaking of politics on television, look at cross fire. Liberals always seem angry. That Carville guy is nearly psycotic. He gets so angry and hot headed, I wonder if he's actually just been released from the psych ward.
Or escaped.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Since 1968 the Democratic party has held the presidency for 12 years........Republicans would have held it for 28 years at the end of this term and if it had not been for Perot in 1992 you would of had the presidency for 4 whole years.........

You Liberals and democrats just don't get it............never will.......
 
Top Bottom