|
|
Post by Doctor Fishcake on Sept 26, 2011 14:59:04 GMT -5
That's the Obama that ran for the WH and the world fell in love with in the first place...then went into his shell when he got in.
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Sept 26, 2011 15:01:05 GMT -5
I don't know if I'd call those comments progressive, so much as "not being a dick". In the US, that's pretty much what "progressive" means. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 26, 2011 15:10:10 GMT -5
That's great he can say stuff like that. Now lets see if he can actually get something passed without pandering to the idiots. Unless we get a liberal democratic majority in both the house and senate, he pretty much has to pander. |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Sept 26, 2011 15:54:31 GMT -5
Well if he gets re-elected, a lame duck president doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected so he could have four years of doing his job and not worrying what everyone thinks. Thing is, there is a reason such a president is called “lame”.  |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 26, 2011 17:22:57 GMT -5
That's great he can say stuff like that. Now lets see if he can actually get something passed without pandering to the idiots. Unless we get a liberal democratic majority in both the house and senate, he pretty much has to pander. Then why doesn't the right wing have to pander when they're something other than the absolute majority? |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Sept 26, 2011 17:26:55 GMT -5
Then why doesn't the right wing have to pander when they're something other than the absolute majority? Because I don’t think we’ve ever actually had a liberal democrat majority. At least not since Congress became so one-sided. The Repubs can always get to the blue dogs. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 26, 2011 17:40:21 GMT -5
Then why doesn't the right wing have to pander when they're something other than the absolute majority? Because I don’t think we’ve ever actually had a liberal democrat majority. At least not since Congress became so one-sided. The Repubs can always get to the blue dogs. Which makes me wonder why anybody on the left spectrum should ever support a blue dog Democrat. If they're just going to go with the right wing position, what's the point? Why is it that the less than insane Republicans are expected to work with only their party's extreme members, but the moderate Democrats are expected to work with the other party over members of their own party? Why do the Democrats welcome people into their party that obstruct their core values and are actually politically more in line with the values of the opposing party? (if you actually look at the core values of the Democrat party, they are quite liberal) |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Sept 26, 2011 17:46:59 GMT -5
Why is it that the less than insane Republicans are expected to work with only their party's extreme members, but the moderate Democrats are expected to work with the other party over members of their own party? The Democrats value a certain open-mindedness. Unfortunately, it seems to have crossed into that brand of open-mindedness where the brain falls out. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 26, 2011 18:04:39 GMT -5
Why is it that the less than insane Republicans are expected to work with only their party's extreme members, but the moderate Democrats are expected to work with the other party over members of their own party? The Democrats value a certain open-mindedness. Unfortunately, it seems to have crossed into that brand of open-mindedness where the brain falls out. So then I guess we should go out of our way to not support blue dogs and only support liberal Democrats, including financially. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 26, 2011 18:06:12 GMT -5
Because I don’t think we’ve ever actually had a liberal democrat majority. At least not since Congress became so one-sided. The Repubs can always get to the blue dogs. Which makes me wonder why anybody on the left spectrum should ever support a blue dog Democrat. If they're just going to go with the right wing position, what's the point? Why is it that the less than insane Republicans are expected to work with only their party's extreme members, but the moderate Democrats are expected to work with the other party over members of their own party? Why do the Democrats welcome people into their party that obstruct their core values and are actually politically more in line with the values of the opposing party? (if you actually look at the core values of the Democrat party, they are quite liberal) This is why I think the Democrats are not a real political party until they either force them into line or kick them the fuck out. |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Sept 26, 2011 18:10:42 GMT -5
The Democrats value a certain open-mindedness. Unfortunately, it seems to have crossed into that brand of open-mindedness where the brain falls out. So then I guess we should go out of our way to not support blue dogs and only support liberal Democrats, including financially. Yeah. That’d be it. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 26, 2011 18:11:16 GMT -5
They are real enough to put candidates on the ticket and sometimes in office.
What would you call them ltfred?
|
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Sept 26, 2011 18:23:23 GMT -5
Well if he gets re-elected, a lame duck president doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected so he could have four years of doing his job and not worrying what everyone thinks. Yep, the guy now has the total freedom to be the president everyone was hoping for in'09, and when he can't actually do anything he says he wants to he can blame those scoundrels in congress. With no power comes no responsibility! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 26, 2011 19:25:59 GMT -5
They are real enough to put candidates on the ticket and sometimes in office. What would you call them ltfred? They're not a political party. A political party wants to achieve an ideology (X) by passing policies (Y). They achieve that by 1) winning elections, 2) party loyalty, 3) public debate and 4) parliamentary trickery. That's a party. The democrats are, as far as I know, unique in world politics in that they do not have X, Y, 2, 3 or (to some extent) 4. That means they are not a political party- people who run as 'Democrats' do not necessarily abstain from campaigning from other parties, believing other ideologies, or deliberately saboutaging the party's policy goals for personal gain. I'd say that they are little more than a fundraising buisness. |
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Sept 26, 2011 20:21:58 GMT -5
That's a great creative definition, Fred.  Democrats do all those things on the state and the national level. One very high profile example of parliamentary trickery on the state level would be the recent Wisconsin Democrats fleeing in an attempt to delay the gutting of the public service worker salaries, pensions, etc. Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that Republicans don't also have competing strains within them as well. The tea party, was born from a Republican social conservatism that has been in American politics for decades. There are others, including moderates in both major parties. There are even "log cabin Republicans." The only thing the major parties are loyal to is getting reelected, in my opinion. But within the major parties, opinions can and do differ; doesn't make them any less of a Democrat. |
|
Democrats do all those things on the state and the national level. One very high profile example of parliamentary trickery on the state level would be the recent Wisconsin Democrats fleeing in an attempt to delay the gutting of the public service worker salaries, pensions, etc. Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that Republicans don't also have competing strains within them as well. The tea party, was born from a Republican social conservatism that has been in American politics for decades. There are others, including moderates in both major parties. There are even "log cabin Republicans." The only thing the major parties are loyal to is getting reelected, in my opinion. But within the major parties, opinions can and do differ; doesn't make them any less of a Democrat.