By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The Tea Party - how frightening is this movement?

Kasz216 on 29 October 2010
theprof00 said:
badgenome said:

If you really believe that's not a common sentiment on the left wing of the Democratic party, you are not being honest with yourself.

It's not, nobody in the democratic party considers blue dogs as healthy activity. You're trying to point out hypocrisy that doesn't exist.

There is a huge amount of overlap among the "groups" you named to the point that, with the exception of the religious right, you're just talking about the same people and calling them different things. To the extent that there is a war in the Republican party, it's the result of a leadership vaccum and the fact that conservatives are fed up with the GOP establishment who have been no more fiscally responsible than Democrats. The first problem should be solved once nominate a presidential candidate (if he's not an unelectable sack), and the second will be solved once the Karl Roves of the world realize they're not in the driver's seat anymore and can't win shit without those groups.

The only overlap in those groups is a shared end. They all want liberals out of power. How can you even begin to compare blue dogs with the division in the right between GOP and Tea Party? I'm surprised, to be honest. You act like it's such a small division can easily be fixed by a nomination! Let's wait til that happens and see what you say then. Just so I can be sure, what kind of candidate would be ideal?  

Really, the Democratic party is at least as fraught with internal contradictions as the Republican party. Probably much moreso.

Says the side who complains that liberals vote along party lines 95% of the time. The right is always right, right?



Except every Union democrat and you know, conservative democrat in the states that they exist in... and the large number of democrats that thought the healthcare bill was a bad idea.

Blue Dog democratic senators opposed the bill because it was a shitty bill their consitutiants didn't want.

I mean, why the heck else do you think they did it?  Heck why do you think so many senators and representatives are set to lose their positions?

Why did Scott Brown win a seat in a highly democratic state when his platform was "No to the healthcare bill."



Around the Network
theprof00 on 29 October 2010
Kasz216 said:

Except every Union democrat and you know, conservative democrat in the states that they exist in... and the large number of democrats that thought the healthcare bill was a bad idea.

Blue Dog democratic senators opposed the bill because it was a shitty bill their consitutiants didn't want.

I mean, why the heck else do you think they did it?  Heck why do you think so many senators and representatives are set to lose their positions?

Why did Scott Brown win a seat in a highly democratic state when his platform was "No to the healthcare bill."

Massachusetts is not a huge democratic state. I live here. There is a very large republican base. The only thing Mass has a lot of is minorities and college students who vote during presidential elections but not during senatorial elections. Add on top of that that nobody liked martha coakley. 

You also have to factor in the very sizable contributions that the blue dogs received from healthcare.

How could the healthcare bill pass if there was such a huge division?



ShadowSoldier on 29 October 2010

The rednecks gotta go somewhere



Black Women Are The Most Beautiful Women On The Planet.

"In video game terms, RPGs are games that involve a form of separate battles taking place with a specialized battle system and the use of a system that increases your power through a form of points.

Sure, what you say is the definition, but the connotation of RPGs is what they are in video games." - dtewi

Kasz216 on 29 October 2010
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:

Except every Union democrat and you know, conservative democrat in the states that they exist in... and the large number of democrats that thought the healthcare bill was a bad idea.

Blue Dog democratic senators opposed the bill because it was a shitty bill their consitutiants didn't want.

I mean, why the heck else do you think they did it?  Heck why do you think so many senators and representatives are set to lose their positions?

Why did Scott Brown win a seat in a highly democratic state when his platform was "No to the healthcare bill."

Massachusetts is not a huge democratic state. I live here. There is a very large republican base. The only thing Mass has a lot of is minorities and college students who vote during presidential elections but not during senatorial elections. Add on top of that that nobody liked martha coakley. 

You also have to factor in the very sizable contributions that the blue dogs received from healthcare.

How could the healthcare bill pass if there was such a huge division?

Because politicans usually ignore what the people who vote for them want until they are about to lose their jobs?

I mean, you are kidding right? 

 

Not to mention the Democrats also have to deal with a highly angry "liberal" side on the other side.

Did you watch Obama's daily show interview?

 

Right now the democrats are facing a lot of anger from both conservative and liberal democrats, and it's why the democrats will lose a bunch of seats.



Mr Khan on 29 October 2010
badgenome said:
theprof00 said:
badgenome said:

Yeah, that's not an uncommon sentiment. It's amusing how, when the Tea Party says that sort of thing, it's a civil war in the Republican party (!) or a Stalinist purge (!!!). When it occurs in the Democratic party, it's just the raucous but healthy nature of the Big Tent.


I don't think that's the sentiment anywhere. If you really believe there is no major split in the Republican party, you are not being honest with yourself. Blue Dogs are few and far between. Republican party is looking at aggression from the tea party, independant party, ultra conservatives (sarah palin), and line conservatives, not even taking the booming religious right. Things are not looking good for the republican party.

Democrats have the blue dogs, and ...what? Crazy athiests? 

If you really believe that's not a common sentiment on the left wing of the Democratic party, you are not being honest with yourself.

There is a huge amount of overlap among the "groups" you named to the point that, with the exception of the religious right, you're just talking about the same people and calling them different things. To the extent that there is a war in the Republican party, it's the result of a leadership vaccum and the fact that conservatives are fed up with the GOP establishment who have been no more fiscally responsible than Democrats. The first problem should be solved once nominate a presidential candidate (if he's not an unelectable sack), and the second will be solved once the Karl Roves of the world realize they're not in the driver's seat anymore and can't win shit without those groups.

Really, the Democratic party is at least as fraught with internal contradictions as the Republican party. Probably much moreso.

The Democrats' problems are largely self-made, given that we're willing to recruit people who don't stick to the core ideology 100% (like my own congressman), for the sake of winning districts, so then you have a party that isn't 100% committed on every issue, and we get feet-draggers more readily (making us less likely to push really progressive legislation), but ultimately i don't think anyone in the Left is of completely opposed points (except maybe the Unions and the Environmentalists), but the American right is conglomerated of a lot of points that, on paper, are rather opposed to one another



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 29 October 2010
Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
theprof00 said:
badgenome said:

Yeah, that's not an uncommon sentiment. It's amusing how, when the Tea Party says that sort of thing, it's a civil war in the Republican party (!) or a Stalinist purge (!!!). When it occurs in the Democratic party, it's just the raucous but healthy nature of the Big Tent.


I don't think that's the sentiment anywhere. If you really believe there is no major split in the Republican party, you are not being honest with yourself. Blue Dogs are few and far between. Republican party is looking at aggression from the tea party, independant party, ultra conservatives (sarah palin), and line conservatives, not even taking the booming religious right. Things are not looking good for the republican party.

Democrats have the blue dogs, and ...what? Crazy athiests? 

If you really believe that's not a common sentiment on the left wing of the Democratic party, you are not being honest with yourself.

There is a huge amount of overlap among the "groups" you named to the point that, with the exception of the religious right, you're just talking about the same people and calling them different things. To the extent that there is a war in the Republican party, it's the result of a leadership vaccum and the fact that conservatives are fed up with the GOP establishment who have been no more fiscally responsible than Democrats. The first problem should be solved once nominate a presidential candidate (if he's not an unelectable sack), and the second will be solved once the Karl Roves of the world realize they're not in the driver's seat anymore and can't win shit without those groups.

Really, the Democratic party is at least as fraught with internal contradictions as the Republican party. Probably much moreso.

The Democrats' problems are largely self-made, given that we're willing to recruit people who don't stick to the core ideology 100% (like my own congressman), for the sake of winning districts, so then you have a party that isn't 100% committed on every issue, and we get feet-draggers more readily (making us less likely to push really progressive legislation), but ultimately i don't think anyone in the Left is of completely opposed points (except maybe the Unions and the Environmentalists), but the American right is conglomerated of a lot of points that, on paper, are rather opposed to one another

I'm pretty sure for one side to have a bunch of points that conflict... when the otherside disagrees with everything... that means the other side has a lot of completely opposite viewpoints as well.



whatever on 29 October 2010
HappySqurriel said:
badgenome said:
HappySqurriel said:

The majority of Americans wanted healthcare reform bill that was straight forward and focused on eliminating the problems in the current private system, not the destruction of the current system with a public system put in its place.

It's even worse than that, I think. Prior to its being jammed through Congress, Shikha Dalmia warned that Obamacare, far from creating real reform, would lead to a state of permanent revolution and upheaval in the health care system. In his otherwise completely uninteresting (and self-diminishing) Daily Show interview this week, Obama admitted to as much. As huge and contrived and expensive as this piece of shit is, it would just be the beginning if he has his druthers; I hope to God he doesn't.

I understand that, I was just pointing out that the Democrats were unable to pass through their comprehensive reform bill (even though they controlled both houses, had a president in the white house, and had a filibuster proof majority) because of how amazingly unpopular it was; not because the powerless Republicans blocked it. If it was even moderately popular with conservative Democrats or independent voters it would have passed without any trouble, and if it was popular with the majority of Americans many Republicans would have been "forced" to back it.

Yes, well, the propaganda campaign against it worked extremely well.  So many people were so uninformed and spouting nonsense it became a joke.  I gave up caring once the public option was off the table.



theprof00 on 29 October 2010
Kasz216 said:

Because politicans usually ignore what the people who vote for them want until they are about to lose their jobs?

I mean, you are kidding right? 

What do you mean?

 

Not to mention the Democrats also have to deal with a highly angry "liberal" side on the other side.

Did you watch Obama's daily show interview?

Yeah I did. But Obama's also right on with what he's saying. We focus on the 10% that is bad. That's liberal by nature. Barrack is absolutely right when he says 'people voted for change we can believe in, but forgot that it requires hard work'. That's the problem with our party. We're simply not proactive enough. 

 

Right now the democrats are facing a lot of anger from both conservative and liberal democrats, and it's why the democrats will lose a bunch of seats.

I agree we are gong to lose seats, but I think it has a lot more to do with being in a very difficult time with a lot of angry people than something to do with internal division.





badgenome on 29 October 2010
theprof00 said:
badgenome said:

If you really believe that's not a common sentiment on the left wing of the Democratic party, you are not being honest with yourself.

It's not, nobody in the democratic party considers blue dogs as healthy activity. You're trying to point out hypocrisy that doesn't exist.

There is a huge amount of overlap among the "groups" you named to the point that, with the exception of the religious right, you're just talking about the same people and calling them different things. To the extent that there is a war in the Republican party, it's the result of a leadership vaccum and the fact that conservatives are fed up with the GOP establishment who have been no more fiscally responsible than Democrats. The first problem should be solved once nominate a presidential candidate (if he's not an unelectable sack), and the second will be solved once the Karl Roves of the world realize they're not in the driver's seat anymore and can't win shit without those groups.

The only overlap in those groups is a shared end. They all want liberals out of power. How can you even begin to compare blue dogs with the division in the right between GOP and Tea Party? I'm surprised, to be honest. You act like it's such a small division can easily be fixed by a nomination! Let's wait til that happens and see what you say then. Just so I can be sure, what kind of candidate would be ideal?  

Really, the Democratic party is at least as fraught with internal contradictions as the Republican party. Probably much moreso.

Says the side who complains that liberals vote along party lines 95% of the time. The right is always right, right?



So the only division in the Democratic party is the Blue Dogs, and it's generally agreed among Dems that if they'd just purge them, they'll be one happy, unified bloc? That's pretty funny considering the Dems pride themselves on having "the big tent". It's also pretty funny because after NY-23, Frank Rich and his revoltingly stupid ilk were screaming their heads off about a Stalinist purge in the Republican party. Which was pretty curious because, if it's such a bad thing for Republicans, why would Frank Rich of all people have such angst over it?

I think an ideal candidate would be someone like Paul Ryan or Chris Christie. They're able and willing to be specific when almost nobody else is. They have a lot of the same qualities that helped Obama to get elected in terms of their charisma and stage presence - something no Republican nominee since Reagan has had - but without the arrogance and unbecoming thin-skinnedness he tends to display. And both are conservative in the ways that I care about without having all the baggage and weird hang-ups the preponderance of social conservatives have.

Finally, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about with this "says the side" business. For one thing, I'm not a "side". For another, I don't think I've ever complained that liberals vote along party lines. I do complain that their ideas are stupid and destructive. But everyone knows (or should know) that people tend to vote with their party 90% of the time, which is why all this business about HURRRRRR CHRISTINE ODONALD IS A FUCKIN RETARD WHORE is beyond me. The average Congressperson or Senator doesn't set out to write the most poignant, transformative piece of legislation in a generation; they're little more than a rubber stamp for their party.



badgenome on 29 October 2010
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:

The Democrats' problems are largely self-made, given that we're willing to recruit people who don't stick to the core ideology 100% (like my own congressman), for the sake of winning districts, so then you have a party that isn't 100% committed on every issue, and we get feet-draggers more readily (making us less likely to push really progressive legislation), but ultimately i don't think anyone in the Left is of completely opposed points (except maybe the Unions and the Environmentalists), but the American right is conglomerated of a lot of points that, on paper, are rather opposed to one another

I'm pretty sure for one side to have a bunch of points that conflict... when the otherside disagrees with everything... that means the other side has a lot of completely opposite viewpoints as well.

No way, dude. Obama voters didn't help pass Prop 8. It was teh Mormons!