776 replies to this topic

[HalfDemonInuyasha]

Again, party agenda has flipped despite the names, and have done so multiple times.

Unfortunately, names and labels seem to be all some people care about rather than what goes on underneath them.

The Democratic Party of at least the 1860s to 1960s was the conservative side and their descendants are those who are now called "Dixiecrats" that left the party in the 1960s, especially after LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act, and joined the Republican Party to which they also took in the far right religious nuts and others in order to pad their voter base through the "Southern Strategy" to elect Nixon and they have only become more and more right wing ever since.

The Republican Party of at least the 1860s up through Eisenhower used to be the progressive side, whereas in the eyes of the Republican Party today, ones like Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt would be seen as really extreme leftists.

That's how much things have shifted behind the party labels.

[Nate River]

Unfortunately, names and labels seem to be all some people care about rather than what goes on underneath them.

The Democratic Party of at least the 1860s to 1960s was the conservative side and their descendants are those who are now called "Dixiecrats" that left the party in the 1960s, especially after LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act, and joined the Republican Party to which they also took in the far right religious nuts and others in order to pad their voter base through the "Southern Strategy" to elect Nixon and they have only become more and more right wing ever since.

The Republican Party of at least the 1860s up through Eisenhower used to be the progressive side, whereas in the eyes of the Republican Party today, ones like Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt would be seen as really extreme leftists.

That's how much things have shifted behind the party labels.

 
Elaborate on what you mean by progressive from the 1860's thru the 1950's. Are we just talking race...because the Republicans of the early 1900's were know for there laissez faire economics, particularly in the 1920's. Hardly a progressive policy. The Supreme Court at the era...it's reading of the commerce clause...well, let's just say it made the regulations progressive really like hard to keep in place, well up until a Democract tried to pack it. And, Trump won by winning three states in the Rust Belt and nearly winning Minnesota; States Republicans have been consistently losing for nearly a generation. And did so running as a protectionist when Republicans have been pretty gun-ho about free trade since Regean. At the same time, he leaves the impression he's interest in easing up economic regulations domestically. AHK's assertion is correct. And you're general assertion about labels is also correct, but you don't really follow through on your own advice. You don't look underneath any more than Dalton does. 
 
You keep talking about the right-ward drift of Republicans, while totally ignoring the leftward shift of your own party. Bill Clinton was the exception, but the party has been drifting left ever since McGovern. It's turn was especially sharp in 2008.
 
3. Far right religious nut jubs? What right do you have to complain about labels when you talk like that....
 
4. I think Dalton's argument is poor because its irrelevant. It, however, gets made because Democrats say horsekitten like this: 
 
http://abcnews.go.co...back-in-chains/

[HalfDemonInuyasha]

 
Elaborate on what you mean by progressive from the 1860's thru the 1950's. Are we just talking race...because the Republicans of the early 1900's were know for there laissez faire economics, particularly in the 1920's. Hardly a progressive policy. The Supreme Court at the era...it's reading of the commerce clause...well, let's just say it made the regulations progressive really like hard to keep in place, well up until a Democract tried to pack it. And, Trump won by winning three states in the Rust Belt and nearly winning Minnesota; States Republicans have been consistently losing for nearly a generation. And did so running as a protectionist when Republicans have been pretty gun-ho about free trade since Regean. At the same time, he leaves the impression he's interest in easing up economic regulations domestically. AHK's assertion is correct. And you're general assertion about labels is also correct, but you don't really follow through on your own advice. You don't look underneath any more than Dalton does. 
 
You keep talking about the right-ward drift of Republicans, while totally ignoring the leftward shift of your own party. Bill Clinton was the exception, but the party has been drifting left ever since McGovern. It's turn was especially sharp in 2008.
 
3. Far right religious nut jubs? What right do you have to complain about labels when you talk like that....
 
4. I think Dalton's argument is poor because its irrelevant. It, however, gets made because Democrats say horsekitten like this: 
 
http://abcnews.go.co...back-in-chains/

Actually, Democrats are far more center or even slightly right wing compared to how they used to be and that's because right wing Republicans have been pulling things more and more right wing ever since Nixon and it's been especially evidence through W. Bush, Romney, and now Trump. Even Bernie Sanders' policies were actually more in line with Eisenhower's policies. They only appeared "far left" because that's just how far right the Republican Party has shifted, where even being Centrist makes you look like a "flaming liberal" to them.

[T XD]

 

Not that I know of. You're probably think of Al Gore.

Ah yeah him :)

[Nate River]

Actually, Democrats are far more center or even slightly right wing compared to how they used to be and that's because right wing Republicans have been pulling things more and more right wing ever since Nixon and it's been especially evidence through W. Bush, Romney, and now Trump. Even Bernie Sanders' policies were actually more in line with Eisenhower's policies. They only appeared "far left" because that's just how far right the Republican Party has shifted, where even being Centrist makes you look like a "flaming liberal" to them.

As if the center is some immovable fixed target, which is what you argument presumes. It's not. A simple example would be executive agencies. They have rule-making power. Those rules have the force of law and are, effectively legislative powers. Both parties probably up until Woodrow Wilson would have believed idea that Congress could effectively delegate its authority to an executive branch agency (which is what the SC has held they did) to be crazy. Yet, it's accepted wisdom and has been since at least the 1930's.
 
Eisenhower is also an incredibly poor example as he was the only Republican President elected between 1932 and 1968. It would not be unexpected for a Republican nominee to look more Democratic in an era of Democrat dominance. Just like it would not be unusual for a Democrat to look more like a Republican during an era of Republican dominance. Like say, Bill Clinton, especially post 1994 Bill Clinton. 
 

And Mitt Romney of RomneyCare fame and who managed to somehow serve as a governor of one of the bluest states in the country....is your evidence? Oh, man.

 

In the end, you are doing exactly what I figured you were doing...defining yourself and your party as the reasonable center while labeling everyone else as the cranks. I 'd have plenty more to say, but if this is what it is going to boil down too, then I'm done. I'm not interested in wasting my time if this is where this is going.

[HalfDemonInuyasha]

I'm actually Independent, not Democratic. Democrats are just Republican lite these days.

[Nate River]

Republicans say the same about Democrats.

 

Independent in what sense? The terms is so broad as to almost lack meaning. I am literally independent in that I am not formally registered with any party, but my politics tend to make me sympathetic to the more libertarian wing of the Republican party and generally vote accordingly. 

[totherpage95]

Reading this thread for the first time wow this is disappointing... and seriously memes are more accurate than the news. I guess election workers are less useful than random people running elections too because they are part of the "evil government". I was a election judge this election and it was devastating to work all day to try and volunteer and make a difference in a election that apparently no one took seriously. And then even after the election weeks later trump is still talking horsecrap about illegal immigrants voting for hillary.

Edited by totherpage95, 30 November 2016 - 05:00 AM.

[trang95]

I regret checking out this thread.

[T XD]

The thing is, people, not all of them, are believing everything the candidates are saying during elections.

 

I think not much change and difference will happen in the next 4 years. Things need time and progression. Not flat out do things and everything will be much better.

 

Plus, it's not a president that will make a difference. It's the people. Nothing will make much difference if the people don't make the effort to change what they want to change for the good of all the citizens in said country and cooperate.

Not relying on the president that s/he will make a country better just because they know how to do something, they said that s/he will do this or that, and another party cause the current party didn't do well and that's that.

Nothing will change if there's no effort by the people. Not the president. Time will show the effort, whatever and however it may be, and its result.

 

Something else is needed to be kept in mind too. Once a president sits in the president's designated office and knows what the business s/he has to deal with, s/he will see and/or realize that not everything may happen the way they want something to be.

Edited by T XD, 03 December 2016 - 08:46 PM.

[totherpage95]

The thing is, people, not all of them, are believing everything the candidates are saying during election

The thing is trump supporters don't really care about what he says in their minds they are at war with the democrats and they must vote republican to save the country. Its the same reason republicans refuse to let obama appoint a supreme court justice no matter who he picks. But it is true that what trump said about hillary and her emails caused people to lose trust in her

[alexander]

 

Amazing, just amazing. These bastards get to harass and censor people, and the goverment has the nerve to say these muslims are exercising their free speech. How is scaring off gay people from the streets and harass women for their dress code in any way "free speech"?

 

And people are still ignorantly wondering why the far right parties are winning over all of europe so easily. Because, they, unlike the worthless goverments in power, are willing to openly adress the issue and find a solution for it, even if it means deporting a bunch of undesirables. That's why Brexit won, that's why the far right controls Poland, that's why the far right is about to win in Austria, that's why Marine Le Pen will very likely win in France next year and that's why the right winged German AfD party, despite only being 3 years old, is seeing it's popularity going skyrocket. Because they are the only ones willing to protect the interest of the european people and not discard them for the sake of immigrants that refuse to integrate and spit on the european values.

Edited by alexander, 04 December 2016 - 09:44 PM.

[sushi.]

The thing is, people, not all of them, are believing everything the candidates are saying during elections.
 
I think not much change and difference will happen in the next 4 years. Things need time and progression. Not flat out do things and everything will be much better.
 
Plus, it's not a president that will make a difference. It's the people. Nothing will make much difference if the people don't make the effort to change what they want to change for the good of all the citizens in said country and cooperate.
Not relying on the president that s/he will make a country better just because they know how to do something, they said that s/he will do this or that, and another party cause the current party didn't do well and that's that.
Nothing will change if there's no effort by the people. Not the president. Time will show the effort, whatever and however it may be, and its result.
 
Something else is needed to be kept in mind too. Once a president sits in the president's designated office and knows what the business s/he has to deal with, s/he will see and/or realize that not everything may happen the way they want something to be.

I think a lot will change. Republicans now control all factors of tge government, as far as I can remember. The only way to stop them is to make them listen to people, but I wouldn't bet my life on that.

[T XD]

I think a lot will change. Republicans now control all factors of tge government, as far as I can remember. The only way to stop them is to make them listen to people, but I wouldn't bet my life on that.

By ' not much change and difference would happen ', I meant as toward the positive. Changing and making difference in a country or the world for the better need time and progression to have a good result.

[totherpage95]

Is there a thread about the pipeline protest going on in north dakota yet? There are some terrible things going on there

[Nate River]

Is there a thread about the pipeline protest going on in north dakota yet? There are some terrible things going on there

 
No, there is no thread on that. If you think it needs one apart from the politics thread go ahead and create it. If for some reason it can't stand alone, then I can merge them later. 
 
 
 

I think a lot will change. Republicans now control all factors of tge government, as far as I can remember. The only way to stop them is to make them listen to people, but I wouldn't bet my life on that.

 
They control the Presidency and both houses of Congress. Supreme Court currently has 8 members (Republicans will appoint a 9th at some point...though they could always amend that as the number of justices is determinate via Congressional statute (be a real surprise if they actually did this). Who "controls" it is a more complication matter. For simplicity sake it's 4 liberals, 3 conservatives, and Anthony Kennedy who is conserved a swing voter, though his voting pattern is fairly predictable. How SC breaks down in practice is more complicated than that though.
 
Also don't forget executive agencies. Trump will appoint their heads, but most of the employees are protected by federal statute from being swept away by a new regime (it works both ways). These rank and file employee are overwhelming liberal. It doesn't effect policy the way the elected positions and department heads do, but it's not irrelevant either. 
 
Also, alexander, the Freedom Party in Austria lost, though the President in Austria is largely ceremonial.

Slow news day at the dailybeast: http://www.thedailyb...000-people.html

[alexander]

 

Also, alexander, the Freedom Party in Austria lost, though the President in Austria is largely ceremonial. 

 

I saw just now, even though it smelled of jury rigging considering how the opposition to the Freedom Party seemly allowed certain people to vote that shouldn't be allowed to, such as minors and undocumented immigrants. So I am suspicious of sabotage here. Now only time will tell if Austria will follow the EU path of self destruction or not. Thought they are not as relevant as the elections in France and German next year will truly decide the future of the european union.

[totherpage95]

http://tinyurl.com/z65m2r7

 

looks like the military will be moving into trump tower. the royal family must be protected at all cost

[sushi.]

I totally understand it's going to be america first, but could we just say norway second? :))
and sweden last pls

Edited by sushi., 08 February 2017 - 10:36 PM.

[totherpage95]

I totally understand it's going to be america first, but could we just say norway second? :))
and sweden last pls

as long as there aren't any refugees there. also if there are any Islam practitioners don't try to get on a plane to the us

Edited by totherpage95, 08 February 2017 - 10:52 PM.