Orme: I already pointed out their failure, multiple times. I'm just not willing to pretend the Republicans are innocent bystanders.

Joxur: I don't understand what you are saying.

Ask Tarot or Leo, I'm REALLY not kidding here heh.

I have no doubt, but don't jump my shit for trolling

Big difference between my comment and the level troll you've displayed lately on the forums. I'm not really asking for your opinion, or even if you agree. Just that I'm disappointed is all.

It should be obvious by now that I'm not going to change the way I post. I was merely pointing out how absurd it was to comment on my level of troll when you make a post like yours.

You have a kid who gets and wrecks his car. He has a friend in the car with him who was also .

Do you say to your kid, "you ultimately had the power not to drive the car, but your friend is to blame too?"

No. You hold your kid accountable for what he had the power to control. The ultimate blame is in the hands of the kid who drove the car.

Same here. Did the Republicans help stop the legislation? Yes.
Does the ultimate control and blame lie in the Democrat's hands? Yes.

Plain and simple - your apologist attitude and cop-outs forgive the party that is failing you. This is the same shit that lead to 4 more years of Bush - people saying "at least he isnt' Kerry".

Hulk Hogan says you're wrong.

But Orme, we're talking about 100 people here that all have a hand in driving the car, not 2. It takes 51 to pass legislation of ANY party, assuming no filibuster, and 60 otherwise. Your analogy isn't even close to working.

It might even take more than 60. It's not like the Democrats all one big happy family with the exact same stance on the issues. People won't even bother with some of the good liberal legislation just because the red state Democrats wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole. It's not even close to "control".

Personally I think the Democrats have made a lot of blunders these past few years(especially when Obama took over), but that doesn't excuse the Republicans either. When it's coming down to every last person's vote, everyone shares a little responsibility.

Whoever allowed the excrement that is in that bill is to blame.

If they WANTED to do any sort of reform they would have started by passing smaller "low hanging fruit" changes that would get towards a better system.

I wonder how many people who think this have looked at the history of what the republicans countered the Clintons with once upon a time and remember what Romney was campaigning for on the topic. The republicans themselves once thought this centrist bill was the right idea/way to go about it. But that doesn't matter now, all that matters is making the other side fail. Obama and the democrats should have realized this and just pushed single payer. Moving to the middle will never get the LockStep brigade to vote for anything that comes from a democrat. As Obama himself remarked, they back out of bills they themselves have sponsored just because Obama thinks they are a good idea. Lunacy.

Using this logic, Dems share the blame for Iraq.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

They most certainly do. They voted for the war.

Nothing about that Act says anything about going to war over it. Regime change != war.

However, yes, it is correct that many Democrats are to blame for going to war. However, keep in mind that fewer Democrats voted for the war(as in the 2002 vote for the authorization for use of **force**) than Republicans. 6 Republicans Nays in the HoR with 126 Nays from Democrats, and 1 Republican Nay and 21 Nays from the Democrats in the Senate.

Hell even with that first bill, which didn't authorize force, it had fewer Democratic votes than Republican.

History tells us Clinton thought the reason's were valid enough to sign that little policy into law so few years prior.






5 years later, they were Bush's lies.

Well, I'm done and your party has mostly lost. Keep apologizing for your own party's failure. At least when Republicans had power, they got their agenda through.

At least now Obama is begging Republicans for help. Maybe there is hope if he concedes defeat, which he seems to be ready to do.

Orme the born-again Republican is way less interesting of a poster than Orme the fallen-away Republican

Unless the new Orme is just Orme the disenfranchised, in which case welcome to the fold

See, understand for most folks it's a competition - nothing more. Politics has turned into a spectator sport. It's really fucking sad to see =/

I can't say this enough...

STOP VOTING FOR THE TWO PARTIES!!!!

There's been a viable third party/independent candidate in the last 20 years?

When?

I think we're still waiting on his answer for that one =p

In terms of positions on issues, the Democrats are still generally close to my own positions. The Green Party is the only other one that comes close. As long as their positions remain close to mine, it still makes more sense for me to vote for them rather than for a Republican.

Positions on issues, or record of actions? Not ribbing anyone, just saying because this is why most folks are disenfranchised.

Even if the Democrats seem ineffective, and the Republicans ARE effective, given my stance on the issues doesn't it still make more sense for me to vote for a Democrat? Why would I vote for someone because they are effective, if they are only effective at implementing policy I disagree with?

Because the ineffectual side may get the hint and start actually trying. The fact they can count on peoples' votes no matter what they do is a lot of the problem here.

So vote for people who hold many beliefs I abhor, just so that *maybe* the other side would notice that and "actually try."

Yeah... sorry not going to happen.

If anything, if everyone did that, wouldn't that simply kill the Democratic party and offer the Republicans tremendous political capital? The Democrats still get a few things through, too little for my tastes, but it's definitely better than going backwards. As it was said, "nothing" is better than what the Republicans are offering at this point.

The Democrats certainly wouldn't get my vote "no matter what", but as things stand right now they are the best offering. Gradual change is called for, and people espousing their views and pushing for that change. It won't happen overnight, but I think eventually third parties will come into play. Great change simply can't happen overnight. Asking for that and a cake and a bag of potato chips will leave us with nothing instead.

Besides, the Republican party didn't exactly get everything they wanted, either. The Marriage Act didn't pass. They didn't completely stop Stem Cell research dead in the water. They didn't end up completely denying a woman's right to choose. They weren't able to privatize Social Security or Medicare. The list goes on.

The only reason they had their way for a while there was because Bush gained a significant amount of political capital after 9/11. He also gained the public trust after that. He spent that political capital on the Iraq War(among other things), and succeeded.

That, and the country continues to lean more and more towards the right(it always has, in international terms, but moreso in the last few decades). There are more Red State, conservative-leaning Democrats than there are Blue State liberal-leaning Republicans(there are obviously a few Blue State Repubs, but they usually don't need to lean as liberal to get elected as Democrats need to in conservative states).

So it's not really a simple "they're effective and better at getting stuff done". They have had the odds tipped in their favor.

You don't have to vote Republican sans Democrat; you could vote for the Green candidate or the Libertarian. Things won't change as long as the status quo is upheld.

Either side, when in the minority, will sit holding their breath in anticipation of punishing the other for the 'crimes' committed when they are the majority. Thoughts about the will of the public are in the back seat, and brought out only during campaign time.

I really think the biggest problem with the Dems is the choice of leadership. Pelosi, Reid and Obama's key staff.

Pelosi and Reid were great opposition leaders for their party. But they are not doing well governing. Obama's staff was great during the campaign, but are giving him terrible advice while governing. Obama needs to fire Rahm Emanuel and the Dems would benefit greatly from a change in Senate and House leadership.

This is not just about President. Look at a third party for Congress, State races, local races.

Hell, in many areas of Texas there are more Libertarian candidates than Democrat. You can't build a party by focusing on the top seat, you will never get anything accomplished. You have to start with the offices that are closest to the people then move upward.

You confirmed my argument by using the word "Libertarian" -- quite possibly the worst party after the Dems and Repubs.

And even then, they're kinda secondary. For a politician of any party running for major office, cultivating the interests of the folks with $$ is a lot more important, because the electorate is pretty easily swayed if you have the cash for a lot of TV advertising. Obama's use of the internet for small-scale fund-raising looked like it might change this, but the Supreme Court's ruling a couple weeks ago on campaign finance (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/po ... cotus.html) kind of shot that one down.

I'd like to hear Leo's thoughts on this, as one who's been (or still is?) in the trenches.

I guess I don't really understand what you're trying to say. I have never been a die-hard for either side. I was excited in '00 because I felt it was time for tax breaks, which we got. But then, lots of mistakes were made. I voted for Bush in '00, Kerry in '04, and Obama in '08... so I'm hardly a Republican.

If your interpretation of intersting are people who argue without any intellectual honesty, then I can't help you. The Democratic apologists on this board are simply vacant of any true honesty because, as Ellessar noted - it's all about "winning" and "losing" for most people.

I don't understand why people can't just say "my side failed me".

Scott Brown disagrees.

And I don't understand why some people have apparently been stricken with selective illiteracy...seeing as though people (Fribur) have been saying that the democrats failed from the beginning of this discussion.

Not sure why people keep harping on this like it's some huge, sweeping event that's indicative of the end of the political world as we know it or some crap.

(And besides, I'm pretty sure Fribur was saying "not going to happen" as in he's not going to vote that way. Not that a Republican wouldn't get elected.)

What Bovinity said... in both posts.

That's why I'm advocating speaking out and getting the message out about the problems with the two-party system. With a big enough voice and a strong enough message it's possible to gradually enact change; Besides, no one's going to know we're voting for D and R at the same time Like I said in the other thread, if there were enough people that would willingly vote for a candidate that's not within the two-party system, it would be a nobrainer to vote for them. One vote to make it an independent's 1035th vote doesn't really enact change. Maybe in the movie Braveheart where that sentimentality is meaningful.

Unless the elections are close enough for the siphon vote to count; which they have been lately. The 3+ party doesn't have to actually win to enact change.

Some elections have been, some have been landslides. I'm not sure if I would say many come that close with a third party candidate. On the federal level, at the very least, it's tricky to find viable third-party candidates. On the local level, such as mayoral races and state legislature, I think it's viable, which I why I'd be all for that kind of thing on that level.

They don't have to win, but it sure as hell makes them more effectual. At that point we're still talking about chalking up votes for the other side, especially if more Republicans decide NOT to go for the third-party candidate. The decision in that case ends up being: "Do you think that the third party candidate getting a few more votes will allow him/her to enact more change than if you decided to forgo your Democratic vote in which case you may very well lose critical Congressional battles for essential rights?". More often than not, I would say bloody unlikely.

I'm not sure they have, yet. Unlike Fribur, I won't say that quite yet. People seem to be arguing that the democrats should walk lock-step like the republicans. I'm actually more ok with a party that has dissenters in the ranks than the "party line towers" of the current republican party.

I need to see Obama and the democrats plans play out over time to truly understand what they are after, where they are heading. It is the exact same benefit of the doubt I extended to Bush back in March 11th, 2003 when I wrote the words, "I fear a fall, I guess, for an America taking bolder and bolder strides, and what appears to be things upsetting the balance. I feel torn between a need to support my country, and a feeling like I’m supporting the wrong choice, walking into darkness," about Iraq. I thought it was the wrong decision but I wondered if maybe they really did know something I didn't from my vantage point. So I waited to see, because that really was the only option. It wasn't like I could stop the war.

My verdict on that one only came in after the whole WMD thing was played out for the lie I feared it was.

I'm in the same boat at the moment with Obama. I'm frustrated with some things I see as mistakes, but there's this sense once again that maybe I don't know the full story and there's a larger game being played at the moment. It could be intentional. It could be coincidental. And again, only time is going to tell me what i need to know.

So no, I won't say they failed me until I know for sure they did. You may think 1 year is enough, but to me, it hasn't been definitive.

I was referring to your "I think I'm a Democrat" era. It was really interesting reading the perspective of a bright person who, after some self-analysis, was changing parties (or at least political leanings). I found Fribur's shift in religious perspectives similarly interesting (still do, though we don't rant about religion much on these boards anymore).

Now you seem to have lost that enthusiasm, and more or less abandoned the Dems. It's not that I think you're wrong, or that I'm pissed you're leaving my team (I'm not a Democrat), I just think your posts are less interesting for it.

And yeah I was off base, looking at that thread again I guess your transition's been Libertarian --> Democrat --> wherever you fall now. My bad.

Heh, I almost look forward to the next time we have a religion thread here, because my shift is even larger than you may realize, and has been brewing for the last two years or so.

Here is where I fall: reasonably limited government and following through on campaign promises.

What I absolutely will not do is blindly support someone, and I am not above admitting I am wrong - which that thread (in my opinion) clearly demonstrates. And that is where some of the folks on this thread annoy the shit out of me.

Now, I'm just hoping the Republicans can pick up more seats in 2010 and skew the power back to the right. Maybe in 2012 someone will emerge who can give a spark. I dunno.

Having followed politics for almost 20 years now maybe has lead to my ultimate disenfranchisment (is that a word?). It's funny to think that the best president of my lifetime has been Bill Clinton.

If you don't understand that, then why is anyone talking to you? I'll explain:

In 2008, the country handed the Dems the keys to the kingdom.
In 2009, one of the most liberal areas of the country said "Oh shit, that was a bad idea."

End of the world? No. End of the Dem's reign? Possibly.

That's funny. NY23 gets a Dem and it's means nothing. Coakly manages to fuck everything up and it's a direct rebuke of the president.

asdfadfsdfsfdsfdsfsdauyhierghiuijiogjojwerqigq$#&q*^@

One thing you can say for the republican locksteppers, they are effective at hammering home a message they want people to have. They manage to say the same thing enough times and people start to believe it just because they heard it over and over.

I'm personally excited to see Palin is rising in the polls as the republican candidate of choice for 2012. I can not wait. Please let it happen.

Big picture, Orme.

Who got elected instead of a Democrat? A Republican. Who'll get elected when a Republican doesn't next time? Probably a Democrat.

The pendulum swings one way, then the other, then back again, and keeps on going...but people are too shortsighted to see past one cycle.

Have you actually looked at the polls?