Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
The US GOP Primary Results/Prediction thread [UPDATE: Santorum suspends campaign]

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 22 NEXT
 

Agema:

Seekster:

So based on what you said the inference is that when a Republican wins the nominee they stop saying "stupid shit" that puts off moderates? Strange I dont remember that being true for the Democrats, they havnt stopped saying stupid shit that puts off moderates either.

So you say, but I think you may be letting your partisanship show as it almost certainly can't be true.

You yourself have cited statistics saying that 40% of the country self-identify as conservative, 20% as liberal, and 35% or so as moderate. Then, roughly 50% of the country votes Dem, and 50% Rep.

Therefore, given that conservatives very heavily tend to vote Republican and liberals Democrat, the Democrats necessarily carry much more of the moderate vote every single election. In fact, assuming anywhere more than four-fifths of conservatives vote Republican, the Democrats get more votes from moderates than they do from liberals.

Thus I would suggest to you that the Democrats clearly cannot be saying as much stupid shit that puts off moderates as Republicans. The Democrats inherently really, really need the moderates. You could even go so far as to say that as moderates (and the few Democrat conservatives) constitute over half the Democratic Party's voters, actually the Democrats are a moderate party.

In my experience Republicans and Democrats still say stupid shit even after the nomination so your earlier assertion doesnt make any sense.

Liberal candidates (which in this day and age might as well be Democratic candidates) have to win more moderates than the Republican/Conservative candidate does yes. If they do win then obviously it means they won more moderates than the Republicans did. If the Republicans win it doesnt necessarily mean they won more moderates but it often does mean that.

Given that more moderates lean conservative than lean liberal I would disagree that the Democrats are the moderate party. Moderates don't embrace the Democratic party anymore than they embrace the Republican party. They will vote for specific candidates they like or they will just vote for the party that is out of power if things arent going well.

The funny thing is that if the Tea Party were to split off and become its own party (which is highly unlikely but bear with me) then that would essentially make the Republican party the moderate party in relative terms at least (all the really far right wing people would presumably go to the Tea Party which would make the Republican party more moderate overall and thus more appealing to moderates).

In truth though there is no "moderate party" in America. Right now there is a left-wing party and a right-wing party and the moderates get to choose the lesser of two evils.

I will say this for the Democrats though, their essential need to win more moderates keeps them from going as far to the left as the Republicans are able to go to the right. The Democratic party simply cannot afford to lean as far to the left as the Republican party leans to the right. In theory this should make them more appealing to moderates but in America we vote for candidates not parties (I understand in the UK at least you vote for parties) so the theory may or may not hold true for the candidates of each party.

Seekster:

In my experience Republicans and Democrats still say stupid shit even after the nomination so your earlier assertion doesnt make any sense.

Everyone says stupid shit. But my point still stands that the Democrats must, necessarily, annoy moderates less than the Republicans do.

Given that more moderates lean conservative than lean liberal I would disagree that the Democrats are the moderate party. Moderates don't embrace the Democratic party anymore than they embrace the Republican party.

More moderates may lean more conservative. But overall moderates must vote Democrat: it is statistically impossible otherwise without a vast proportion of conservatives in the Democratic party.

I'm so unconvinced, I decided to actually look up the source:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx

Republicans (28%): 73% conservative, 24% moderate, 3% liberal.
Independents (37%): 34% conservative, 45% moderate, 20% liberal.
Democrats (36%): 22% conservative, 40% moderate, 38% liberal.

No matter how you want to argue it, figures suggest more moderates are voting Democrat than Republican, and more Democrats are moderates than liberals. If by some chance all those conservative independents vote Democrat (which we both know won't be the case) then if the Democratic party has that many conservatives, it would be by necessity a moderate party anyway, by needing to cater to the liberal and conservative wings.

In truth though there is no "moderate party" in America. Right now there is a left-wing party and a right-wing party and the moderates get to choose the lesser of two evils.

No, I think you've got a majority moderate minority left party, and a majority right minority moderate party. You've certainly got a moderate President at the moment. That's why so many liberals are spitting feathers.

You're doing what you always do. Whenever the right is worse at something, you trot out the "as bad as each other" line to try to cover it up. You just want to pretend moderates are split or conservative, because you like the idea your favourite party isn't the more extreme one.

Donald Trump is endorsing Romney, its so cute that he thinks he is relevant, although its pretty sad that in some circles he is.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/02/nevada-primary-donald-trump-newt-gingrich

This changes nothing besides perhaps inflates Trumps ego, but its still primary news, so I thought I would post it.

GrimTuesday:
Donald Trump is endorsing Romney, its so cute that he thinks he is relevant, although its pretty sad that in some circles he is.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/02/nevada-primary-donald-trump-newt-gingrich

This changes nothing besides perhaps inflates Trumps ego, but its still primary news, so I thought I would post it.

*sigh* yes, I had heard that. I had really hoped we could go three months without discussing the troll that is Trump, and we got close too, but my hopes had been dashed again.

GrimTuesday:
Donald Trump is endorsing Romney, its so cute that he thinks he is relevant, although its pretty sad that in some circles he is.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/02/nevada-primary-donald-trump-newt-gingrich

This changes nothing besides perhaps inflates Trumps ego, but its still primary news, so I thought I would post it.

The funny thing is earlier there were reports that he was going to endorse Gingrich. Gingrich's campaign even told the press Trump was going to endorse him...Ooops.

Agema:

Seekster:

In my experience Republicans and Democrats still say stupid shit even after the nomination so your earlier assertion doesnt make any sense.

Everyone says stupid shit. But my point still stands that the Democrats must, necessarily, annoy moderates less than the Republicans do.

In general yeah or appeal to them more. If they don't they lose. In 2010 the Republicans didnt necessarily appeal to Moderates more, its just that the Democrats annoyed moderates more.

Agema:

Seekster:
Given that more moderates lean conservative than lean liberal I would disagree that the Democrats are the moderate party. Moderates don't embrace the Democratic party anymore than they embrace the Republican party.

More moderates may lean more conservative. But overall moderates must vote Democrat: it is statistically impossible otherwise without a vast proportion of conservatives in the Democratic party.

I'm so unconvinced, I decided to actually look up the source:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx

Republicans (28%): 73% conservative, 24% moderate, 3% liberal.
Independents (37%): 34% conservative, 45% moderate, 20% liberal.
Democrats (36%): 22% conservative, 40% moderate, 38% liberal.

No matter how you want to argue it, figures suggest more moderates are voting Democrat than Republican, and more Democrats are moderates than liberals. If by some chance all those conservative independents vote Democrat (which we both know won't be the case) then if the Democratic party has that many conservatives, it would be by necessity a moderate party anyway, by needing to cater to the liberal and conservative wings.

The Democratic party has more of a need to moderate itself because the views of its liberal base are more out of touch with main stream America than the views of the Republican party's conservative base. Fortunately for the Democrats the liberal base in general is much more engaged in politics than the rather cynical conservative base so the Democratic party has the advantage of not needing to "win over" the liberal base. They can essentially take the votes of liberals for granted. The Republican party can't really do that because if you moderate yourself too much then you risk a situation where most of the Conservative base just stays home because while they dont like the other guy they don't like you either (see McCain in 2008). This is the advantage of the Democratic party in politics today.

All of this is of course based on the appeal of parties though, as I said in America we vote for candidates not parties.

Agema:

Seekster:
In truth though there is no "moderate party" in America. Right now there is a left-wing party and a right-wing party and the moderates get to choose the lesser of two evils.

No, I think you've got a majority moderate minority left party, and a majority right minority moderate party. You've certainly got a moderate President at the moment. That's why so many liberals are spitting feathers.

You're doing what you always do. Whenever the right is worse at something, you trot out the "as bad as each other" line to try to cover it up. You just want to pretend moderates are split or conservative, because you like the idea your favourite party isn't the more extreme one.

Obama is moderate by European standards but unfortunately he is the President of the United States and here he is most certainly a liberal. As a liberal he could be considered a moderate liberal (in the same way that Mitt Romney could be considered a moderate conservative actually, like Romney Obama has the people to the left of him howling that he isnt a true liberal) I suppose but he is still a liberal.

I am my own favorite party.

I defend the Republicans more than the Democrats on this site for two reasons. 1 because as a Conservative I tend to agree with them more than the Democrats and 2. because they get attacked more on this site than the Democrats do. Percentage wise I think I'm about equal in who I defend, maybe with a slight favoritism to the Republicans simply due to reason 1 but I am not defending the Republican party when they do stupid stuff anymore. I will defend everyone, even Obama, from unfair attacks and I will defend positions I agree with but I will not defend something I disagree with.

And yes the Republican and Democratic party are just as useless as each other. I would so love for one or the other party to prove me wrong in that regard but neither seems to be able to get important stuff done and they just blame each other for their failures.

As for what kind of party the Democratic party is, sure if you want to call it a majority moderate and minority liberal party that is technically accurate in terms of its maximum support (though not so much in terms of policy) by simple virtue of the fact that even winning about half the moderates in the country that still outnumbers the amount of liberals in the country.

Seekster:

GrimTuesday:
Donald Trump is endorsing Romney, its so cute that he thinks he is relevant, although its pretty sad that in some circles he is.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/02/nevada-primary-donald-trump-newt-gingrich

This changes nothing besides perhaps inflates Trumps ego, but its still primary news, so I thought I would post it.

The funny thing is earlier there were reports that he was going to endorse Gingrich. Gingrich's campaign even told the press Trump was going to endorse him...Ooops.

I'm not going to believe that endorsement is going to Romney until at least 24 hours after it comes out of Trump's mouth. Would it not be the greatest troll to build up a massive endorsement for Romney, only to then change it on stage to Newt Gingrich?

Slightly more than 48 hours until the Nevada Caucuses end.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:

GrimTuesday:
Donald Trump is endorsing Romney, its so cute that he thinks he is relevant, although its pretty sad that in some circles he is.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/02/nevada-primary-donald-trump-newt-gingrich

This changes nothing besides perhaps inflates Trumps ego, but its still primary news, so I thought I would post it.

The funny thing is earlier there were reports that he was going to endorse Gingrich. Gingrich's campaign even told the press Trump was going to endorse him...Ooops.

I'm not going to believe that endorsement is going to Romney until at least 24 hours after it comes out of Trump's mouth. Would it not be the greatest troll to build up a massive endorsement for Romney, only to then change it on stage to Newt Gingrich?

Slightly more than 48 hours until the Nevada Caucuses end.

There are people accusing Trump of giving Gingrich the impression that he would get the endorsement and then giving the impression to the press that Romney would get it. Its actually quite brilliant if its true, after all what gets more press coverage? Trump to endorse Candidate A or Trump to endorse Candidate A...no B...wait no A...wait... Trump is an attention hog, he loved press coverage so he will milk it for all its worth. Of course Trump's people are saying the only people making this a guessing are the media for reporting something without double checking and actually that is a valid point. Its not the first time this campaign when the media has said that someone will be endorsing a candidate only to have that person come out and say "no I'm not".

Seekster:
The Democratic party has more of a need to moderate itself because the views of its liberal base are more out of touch with main stream America than the views of the Republican party's conservative base. Fortunately for the Democrats the liberal base in general is much more engaged in politics than the rather cynical conservative base so the Democratic party has the advantage of not needing to "win over" the liberal base. They can essentially take the votes of liberals for granted. The Republican party can't really do that because if you moderate yourself too much then you risk a situation where most of the Conservative base just stays home because while they dont like the other guy they don't like you either (see McCain in 2008). This is the advantage of the Democratic party in politics today.

Yes; when one party in a two-party system is slightly right of the most conservative mainstream parties in Europe, while the other is ever so slightly left of Mussolini, it does make a fair amount of sense that those with a liberal view would do everything in their power to push people towards the option that doesn't completely disgust them. The advantage of the Democratic party has less to do with the idea that liberals are "less jaded" (oh, believe me, we're plenty jaded) and more with the fact that the only effective competition does not contain a party that caters to liberals, but a party that caters to those who want "government small enough to fit into your bedroom".

Obama is moderate by European standards

You can pretty much stop here, but the next part is almost hilariously ironic:

but unfortunately he is the President of the United States and here he is most certainly a liberal.

I think that pretty much speaks for itself.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
The Democratic party has more of a need to moderate itself because the views of its liberal base are more out of touch with main stream America than the views of the Republican party's conservative base. Fortunately for the Democrats the liberal base in general is much more engaged in politics than the rather cynical conservative base so the Democratic party has the advantage of not needing to "win over" the liberal base. They can essentially take the votes of liberals for granted. The Republican party can't really do that because if you moderate yourself too much then you risk a situation where most of the Conservative base just stays home because while they dont like the other guy they don't like you either (see McCain in 2008). This is the advantage of the Democratic party in politics today.

Yes; when one party in a two-party system is slightly right of the most conservative mainstream parties in Europe, while the other is ever so slightly left of Mussolini, it does make a fair amount of sense that those with a liberal view would do everything in their power to push people towards the option that doesn't completely disgust them. The advantage of the Democratic party has less to do with the idea that liberals are "less jaded" (oh, believe me, we're plenty jaded) and more with the fact that the only effective competition does not contain a party that caters to liberals, but a party that caters to those who want "government small enough to fit into your bedroom".

Obama is moderate by European standards

You can pretty much stop here, but the next part is almost hilariously ironic:

but unfortunately he is the President of the United States and here he is most certainly a liberal.

I think that pretty much speaks for itself.

Your lack of comprehension in regards to the American political system is astounding but I would love to point out that it was Obama who quoted Lincoln during the state of the union addresses saying that government should do for people only what they cannot do better for themselves and nothing more...a pity he doesnt seem to actually practice that big of wisdom.

And my point on the liberal base is that they are less likely to just stay home than conservatives are. Conservatives have a more cynical view towards government in general not just towards political parties.

Uh oh....this could be bad.

BOOM headshot65:

Uh oh....this could be bad.

Meh what he said isnt bad it just sounds bad if you only say part of what he said. Think about this way, did the "I like firing people" thing sink his campaign? No because the only people who made a huge deal out of that were the people who werent going to vote for Romney anyway. Everyone else listened to the whole thing in context and that was the end of that.

Seekster:
The Democratic party has more of a need to moderate itself because the views of its liberal base are more out of touch with main stream America than the views of the Republican party's conservative base. Fortunately for the Democrats the liberal base in general is much more engaged in politics than the rather cynical conservative base so the Democratic party has the advantage of not needing to "win over" the liberal base. They can essentially take the votes of liberals for granted. The Republican party can't really do that because if you moderate yourself too much then you risk a situation where most of the Conservative base just stays home because while they dont like the other guy they don't like you either (see McCain in 2008). This is the advantage of the Democratic party in politics today.

1) Right, so you now accept that the Democrats are a moderate party. Good, that's sorted.

2) As they are more of a moderate party, in fact they are more in touch with more Americans, possessing a broad based appeal. The Republicans appeal heavily to a conservative plurality, but relatively little outside.

Obama is moderate by European standards but unfortunately he is the President of the United States and here he is most certainly a liberal. As a liberal he could be considered a moderate liberal (in the same way that Mitt Romney could be considered a moderate conservative actually, like Romney Obama has the people to the left of him howling that he isnt a true liberal) I suppose but he is still a liberal.

No, I can assure you Obama - by policy - would be considered right-wing in most European states. Consider on (say) healthcare, most European right wing parties support a universal healthcare system considerably more comprehensive than Obamacare comes close to.

He enacted a healthcare policy virtually indistinguishable from the Republican plan of the 1990s and (as above) far short of any European system. The stimulus and economy plans he presented after taking office fell far short of what his considerably more liberal economic advisors suggested. He put forward a debt reduction plan that was only about one-third funded by tax increases. He continued the wars of his predecessor and helped out a new one. Did not fight the Bush tax cut extension. Expanded those security-related detention rights sort of stuff, failed to close Guantanamo. Promoting oil drilling.

These are all major issues: and in none of them has Obama actually pushed a strong liberal position. In fact, Obama has passed virtually no major piece of liberal ideology at all, although a few minor ones here and there. With that record, how can anyone (unbiased) say Obama is a liberal?

Agema:
With that record, how can anyone (unbiased) say Obama is a liberal?

because in america the conservatives have hit on the wonderful strategy of saying untrue shit over and over again until enough people believe it. americans think obama is a liberal because the republicans keep saying he is, its ignorance at its best.

Agema:

Seekster:
The Democratic party has more of a need to moderate itself because the views of its liberal base are more out of touch with main stream America than the views of the Republican party's conservative base. Fortunately for the Democrats the liberal base in general is much more engaged in politics than the rather cynical conservative base so the Democratic party has the advantage of not needing to "win over" the liberal base. They can essentially take the votes of liberals for granted. The Republican party can't really do that because if you moderate yourself too much then you risk a situation where most of the Conservative base just stays home because while they dont like the other guy they don't like you either (see McCain in 2008). This is the advantage of the Democratic party in politics today.

1) Right, so you now accept that the Democrats are a moderate party. Good, that's sorted.

2) As they are more of a moderate party, in fact they are more in touch with more Americans, possessing a broad based appeal. The Republicans appeal heavily to a conservative plurality, but relatively little outside.

No the Democratic Party is a liberal party and as such HAS to win more moderates than the Republicans do during elections or else they will most likely lose. After the elections moderates often go back to being independent within a matter of months.

Nice mental gymnastics there but no, overall the Republican party and the Democratic party are just as appealing and unappealing as each other to Americans as a whole. Stop trying to twist the facts to support your views. I acknowledged the facts for what they are and I encourage you to do the same.

Agema:

Seekster:
Obama is moderate by European standards but unfortunately he is the President of the United States and here he is most certainly a liberal. As a liberal he could be considered a moderate liberal (in the same way that Mitt Romney could be considered a moderate conservative actually, like Romney Obama has the people to the left of him howling that he isnt a true liberal) I suppose but he is still a liberal.

No, I can assure you Obama - by policy - would be considered right-wing in most European states. Consider on (say) healthcare, most European right wing parties support a universal healthcare system considerably more comprehensive than Obamacare comes close to.

He enacted a healthcare policy virtually indistinguishable from the Republican plan of the 1990s and (as above) far short of any European system. The stimulus and economy plans he presented after taking office fell far short of what his considerably more liberal economic advisors suggested. He put forward a debt reduction plan that was only about one-third funded by tax increases. He continued the wars of his predecessor and helped out a new one. Did not fight the Bush tax cut extension. Expanded those security-related detention rights sort of stuff, failed to close Guantanamo. Promoting oil drilling.

These are all major issues: and in none of them has Obama actually pushed a strong liberal position. In fact, Obama has passed virtually no major piece of liberal ideology at all, although a few minor ones here and there. With that record, how can anyone (unbiased) say Obama is a liberal?

His healthcare plan would have been even more liberal without the wave of opposition he faced and in the end he not only had to water it down but also had to buy votes for it through bribery.

His debt reduction plan was put into place because we was forced to by a Republican Congress. In effect though the debt reduction plan reduces the rate at which the debt grows (in theory) but not the debt itself. The national debt has skyrocketed under Obama.

He continued the wars because no American President wants to be known as someone who lost a war. That and the fact that Bush had left him with a nice exit strategy from Iraq and all he had to do was follow it. Afghanistan has been much less controversial than Iraq. Nobody really questions whether we should have gone into Afghanistan in the first place but seeing as it is the longest war in American history is not surprising that most people want to leave it. Kudos to Obama at least for knowing it would be foolish to leave things as they are now. We have one more year to finish combat operations and then a year after that to train the Afghans and they are on their own.

Obama kept most of Bush's security policy because they work and it would be foolish to get rid of most of them.

The tax cuts he didnt fight because he would lose that fight. Honestly I am ready to let the tax cuts expire myself.

Obama has been a big enemy of the oil industry and has made things harder for them. Not to the extent his environmentalist supporters want of course but he has elections to think about.

Obama is most certainly a liberal by American standards, that point is not even up for debate.

Seekster:

Agema:
[quote="Seekster" post="528.336708.13802877"]The Democratic party has more of a need to moderate itself because the views of its liberal base are more out of touch with main stream America than the views of the Republican party's conservative base. Fortunately for the Democrats the liberal base in general is much more engaged in politics than the rather cynical conservative base so the Democratic party has the advantage of not needing to "win over" the liberal base. They can essentially take the votes of liberals for granted. The Republican party can't really do that because if you moderate yourself too much then you risk a situation where most of the Conservative base just stays home because while they dont like the other guy they don't like you either (see McCain in 2008). This is the advantage of the Democratic party in politics today.

Obama is most certainly a liberal by American standards, that point is not even up for debate.

This is all so ... misguided. The country on the whole is progressive, Poll after poll will tell you that, 70% of the country says raise taxes on the rich so they pay a fair share, more than half says legalize marijuana, 75% say legalize it for medical purposes, more people want to cut defense than education but policy wise we are doing the opposite. Corporations run the gov't pure and simple, and if you say otherwise, then youre naivette is painfully obvious.

Obama is not liberal, I wish he was, but hes not on the fundamental issues. Would a liberal have cut taxes on the very wealthy like bush? Would a strong liberal cave into damn near every single demand by the now insane republican party? Would a liberal cut education, foreign aid and infrastructure creating jobs? Would a liberal accept a health care policy created by the republican think tank Heritage foundation? The health care plan he accepted is 100% a republican proposition. The insurance companies love it, you think those guys are progressive? Wake the fuck up

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

Agema:
[quote="Seekster" post="528.336708.13802877"]The Democratic party has more of a need to moderate itself because the views of its liberal base are more out of touch with main stream America than the views of the Republican party's conservative base. Fortunately for the Democrats the liberal base in general is much more engaged in politics than the rather cynical conservative base so the Democratic party has the advantage of not needing to "win over" the liberal base. They can essentially take the votes of liberals for granted. The Republican party can't really do that because if you moderate yourself too much then you risk a situation where most of the Conservative base just stays home because while they dont like the other guy they don't like you either (see McCain in 2008). This is the advantage of the Democratic party in politics today.

Obama is most certainly a liberal by American standards, that point is not even up for debate.

This is all so ... misguided. The country on the whole is progressive, Poll after poll will tell you that, 70% of the country says raise taxes on the rich so they pay a fair share, more than half says legalize marijuana, 75% say legalize it for medical purposes, more people want to cut defense than education but policy wise we are doing the opposite. Corporations run the gov't pure and simple, and if you say otherwise, then youre naivette is painfully obvious.

Obama is not liberal, I wish he was, but hes not on the fundamental issues. Would a liberal have cut taxes on the very wealthy like bush? Would a strong liberal cave into damn near every single demand by the now insane republican party? Would a liberal cut education, foreign aid and infrastructure creating jobs? Would a liberal accept a health care policy created by the republican think tank Heritage foundation? The health care plan he accepted is 100% a republican proposition. The insurance companies love it, you think those guys are progressive? Wake the fuck up

There are more Conservatives in America than moderates, and more moderates than liberals. Conservatives will support changes that need to be made (as I have said many times, Conservatives do not oppose change just changes that dont seem to be necessary, you can make a strong argument that raising taxes a bit is necessary and the pot debate doesnt interest me so I will leave that alone though if I had to choose I would say keep it illegal but again I wont respond to any more comments about that issue).

Obama didn't cut taxes he simply left the Bush tax cuts in place.

A liberal would if he had no choice which is the situation Obama is in.

No its not a Republican proposition though some elements are based on a Republican proposition from the 90s, a proposition that was wrong then and is still wrong now no matter who is proposing it.

Your lack of information and understanding explains why you mistakenly believe me to be naive.

BOOM headshot65:

Uh oh....this could be bad.

Two very, very funny things about this:
1. The "struggling poor" is debatably around 50% of the population, depending on where you set the bar.
2. The republican party has, for the longest time, been the party advocating getting rid of or weakening said safety net.

Seekster:
Obama is most certainly a liberal by American standards, that point is not even up for debate.

If this statement is true, then it stands to argue that "Liberal by American standards" is the kind of statement that has found its parallels in "Blasphemous by Saudi standards" or "Capitalist by Soviet standards".

Stagnant:

BOOM headshot65:

Uh oh....this could be bad.

Two very, very funny things about this:
1. The "struggling poor" is debatably around 50% of the population, depending on where you set the bar.
2. The republican party has, for the longest time, been the party advocating getting rid of or weakening said safety net.

Seekster:
Obama is most certainly a liberal by American standards, that point is not even up for debate.

If this statement is true, then it stands to argue that "Liberal by American standards" is the kind of statement that has found its parallels in "Blasphemous by Saudi standards" or "Capitalist by Soviet standards".

Or what passes for Moderate or Conservative by European standards?

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

Obama is most certainly a liberal by American standards, that point is not even up for debate.

This is all so ... misguided. The country on the whole is progressive, Poll after poll will tell you that, 70% of the country says raise taxes on the rich so they pay a fair share, more than half says legalize marijuana, 75% say legalize it for medical purposes, more people want to cut defense than education but policy wise we are doing the opposite. Corporations run the gov't pure and simple, and if you say otherwise, then youre naivette is painfully obvious.

Obama is not liberal, I wish he was, but hes not on the fundamental issues. Would a liberal have cut taxes on the very wealthy like bush? Would a strong liberal cave into damn near every single demand by the now insane republican party? Would a liberal cut education, foreign aid and infrastructure creating jobs? Would a liberal accept a health care policy created by the republican think tank Heritage foundation? The health care plan he accepted is 100% a republican proposition. The insurance companies love it, you think those guys are progressive? Wake the fuck up

There are more Conservatives in America than moderates, and more moderates than liberals. Conservatives will support changes that need to be made (as I have said many times, Conservatives do not oppose change just changes that dont seem to be necessary, you can make a strong argument that raising taxes a bit is necessary and the pot debate doesnt interest me so I will leave that alone though if I had to choose I would say keep it illegal but again I wont respond to any more comments about that issue).

Obama didn't cut taxes he simply left the Bush tax cuts in place.

A liberal would if he had no choice which is the situation Obama is in.

No its not a Republican proposition though some elements are based on a Republican proposition from the 90s, a proposition that was wrong then and is still wrong now no matter who is proposing it.

Your lack of information and understanding explains why you mistakenly believe me to be naive.

The spread of misinformation (Fox news), and refusal of the press in general to call out politicians on their bs is what leads people to believe they are steadfast conservative. IN reality, the political spectrum has shifted so radically to the right, that even Reagan would be considered a bleeding heart liberal and unelectable by the gop today. The bush cuts were set to expire, therefore Obama had to actively reinstate them, that is cutting taxes plain and simple.

Would you like to respond to my point about the 100% conservative health care bill that people on the right so lovingly call Obamacare? Is it not hypocrisy to attack a bill that the republicans themmselves proposed?

As for the "pot debate", it doesnt concern you that prohibition has created a MASSIVE black market that drains the economy instead of strengthening it? In this economic climate, it should be on your short list of issues. That more people are in prison today for pot use and possession today than any other crime combined, contributing to the creation of private prisons where incarceration is incentivized?

Seekster:

No the Democratic Party is a liberal party and as such HAS to win more moderates than the Republicans do during elections or else they will most likely lose. After the elections moderates often go back to being independent within a matter of months.

Nice mental gymnastics there but no, overall the Republican party and the Democratic party are just as appealing and unappealing as each other to Americans as a whole. Stop trying to twist the facts to support your views. I acknowledged the facts for what they are and I encourage you to do the same.

Oh please!

So, you say most Americans are conservative, not only actual conservatives but also that most moderates lean conservative. Yet you concede that the Democrats must appeal to more moderates; more moderates vote Democrat. And you simultaneously try to argue that the Democrats advance a 'liberal' platform that is 'out of touch' with most Americans.

Can you please stop for a moment to think how plainly absurd such reasoning is? To simplify:

Seekster: "Hardly any Americans believe in the Democratic Party platform."
Other: "So how do they ever win any elections?"
Seekster: "Stop twisting facts!"

Agema:

His healthcare plan would have been even more liberal without the wave of opposition he faced and in the end he not only had to water it down but also had to buy votes for it through bribery.

Dude, the initial plan he put out there was considerably to the right of what the average liberal would back, never mind after watering down.

blah

So, Obama has enacted a load of moderate legislation, blah blah... he's a liberal, then!

Right.

So, what do liberals think of Obama? Here's a taster:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/obama-the-moderate-conservative/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-revealed-a-moderate-republican/2011/04/25/AFPrGfkE_story.html
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/07/22/Barack-Obama-The-Democrats-Richard-Nixon.aspx#page1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/president-obama-moderate-poll_n_811555.html
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/vote-moderate-republican-vote-obama/

Now, I know you're very fond of saying as a conservative your opinion on matters conservative carries more weight than anyone else. So, why don't you accept in return that liberals might get priority on deciding who conforms to liberalism?

And it's pretty clear, an awful lot of liberals don't consider Obama a liberal.

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:

This is all so ... misguided. The country on the whole is progressive, Poll after poll will tell you that, 70% of the country says raise taxes on the rich so they pay a fair share, more than half says legalize marijuana, 75% say legalize it for medical purposes, more people want to cut defense than education but policy wise we are doing the opposite. Corporations run the gov't pure and simple, and if you say otherwise, then youre naivette is painfully obvious.

Obama is not liberal, I wish he was, but hes not on the fundamental issues. Would a liberal have cut taxes on the very wealthy like bush? Would a strong liberal cave into damn near every single demand by the now insane republican party? Would a liberal cut education, foreign aid and infrastructure creating jobs? Would a liberal accept a health care policy created by the republican think tank Heritage foundation? The health care plan he accepted is 100% a republican proposition. The insurance companies love it, you think those guys are progressive? Wake the fuck up

There are more Conservatives in America than moderates, and more moderates than liberals. Conservatives will support changes that need to be made (as I have said many times, Conservatives do not oppose change just changes that dont seem to be necessary, you can make a strong argument that raising taxes a bit is necessary and the pot debate doesnt interest me so I will leave that alone though if I had to choose I would say keep it illegal but again I wont respond to any more comments about that issue).

Obama didn't cut taxes he simply left the Bush tax cuts in place.

A liberal would if he had no choice which is the situation Obama is in.

No its not a Republican proposition though some elements are based on a Republican proposition from the 90s, a proposition that was wrong then and is still wrong now no matter who is proposing it.

Your lack of information and understanding explains why you mistakenly believe me to be naive.

The spread of misinformation (Fox news), and refusal of the press in general to call out politicians on their bs is what leads people to believe they are steadfast conservative. IN reality, the political spectrum has shifted so radically to the right, that even Reagan would be considered a bleeding heart liberal and unelectable by the gop today. The bush cuts were set to expire, therefore Obama had to actively reinstate them, that is cutting taxes plain and simple.

Would you like to respond to my point about the 100% conservative health care bill that people on the right so lovingly call Obamacare? Is it not hypocrisy to attack a bill that the republicans proposed?

As for the "pot debate", it doesnt interest you that prohibition has created a MASSIVE black market that drains the economy instead of strengthening it? In this economic climate, it should be on your short list of issues. That more people are in prison today for pot use and possession today than any other crime combined, contributing to the creation of private prisons where incarceration is incentivized?

If you are going to claim that you know Americans better than they as individuals know themselves then there is no discussing anything with you.

I don't really watch Fox News except for occasionally watching Brett Baier of Shephard Smith (who are actually solid journalists and certainly two of the only people worth a damn on Fox News).

Thats not cutting taxes that keeping taxes from going back up. They were not cut any further than they already were.

I did but let me respond again. Obamacare is not 100% based on the Republican (not Conservative) idea from the 90s but it borrows some ideas from it. The Republican plan was a bad idea then and its still a bad idea now. Its no more hypocrisy than the Democrats not supporting a balanced budget amendment, after all they were the first to propose it.

Agema:

Seekster:

No the Democratic Party is a liberal party and as such HAS to win more moderates than the Republicans do during elections or else they will most likely lose. After the elections moderates often go back to being independent within a matter of months.

Nice mental gymnastics there but no, overall the Republican party and the Democratic party are just as appealing and unappealing as each other to Americans as a whole. Stop trying to twist the facts to support your views. I acknowledged the facts for what they are and I encourage you to do the same.

Oh please!

So, you say most Americans are conservative, not only actual conservatives but also that most moderates lean conservative. Yet you concede that the Democrats must appeal to more moderates; more moderates vote Democrat. And you simultaneously try to argue that the Democrats advance a 'liberal' platform that is 'out of touch' with most Americans.

Can you please stop for a moment to think how plainly absurd such reasoning is? To simplify:

Seekster: "Hardly any Americans believe in the Democratic Party platform."
Other: "So how do they ever win any elections?"
Seekster: "Stop twisting facts!"

Agema:

His healthcare plan would have been even more liberal without the wave of opposition he faced and in the end he not only had to water it down but also had to buy votes for it through bribery.

Dude, the initial plan he put out there was considerably to the right of what the average liberal would back, never mind after watering down.

blah

So, Obama has enacted a load of moderate legislation, blah blah... he's a liberal, then!

Right.

So, what do liberals think of Obama? Here's a taster:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/obama-the-moderate-conservative/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-revealed-a-moderate-republican/2011/04/25/AFPrGfkE_story.html
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/07/22/Barack-Obama-The-Democrats-Richard-Nixon.aspx#page1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/president-obama-moderate-poll_n_811555.html
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/vote-moderate-republican-vote-obama/

Now, I know you're very fond of saying as a conservative your opinion on matters conservative carries more weight than anyone else. So, why don't you accept in return that liberals might get priority on deciding who conforms to liberalism?

And it's pretty clear, an awful lot of liberals don't consider Obama a liberal.

Its not a concession, its an acknowledgement of a fact. There simply are enough liberals for the Democratic party to win elections without convincing a large majority of moderates to vote for them. In short they have to fool more moderates than the Republicans party do because the Republican party has a larger base. Both parties are still largely out of touch with mainstream America.

"
Seekster: "Hardly any Americans believe in the Democratic Party platform."
Other: "So how do they ever win any elections?"
Seekster: "Stop twisting facts!""

Yeah that would be absurd, good thing I have NEVER SAID THAT! The Democratic party wouldnt be around if hardly any Americans believed in their platform or at least saw it as the lesser of two evils. The same is true for the Republican party in fact. So what we end up with is the Democratic Party and Republican Party will usually split the electorate and whoever is able to win a little more than the other side wins the election. The Republican party has a larger base so to compensate the Democratic party has to moderate themselves more than the Republican party has to. This doesnt make them the Moderate party because there is no moderate party. A moderate party would have a moderate base which is something neither party has.

So what? What do some Conservatives think of Romney? So does that mean that Romney isnt a Conservative? No of course not and in the end the conservatives will largely support Romney just like that liberals will largely support Obama because in the end he is still a liberal even if he isnt as liberal as they want him to be. Same deal with Romney, he is still a conservative even though he isnt as conservative as some conservatives want him to be.

I am a conservative independent. This means that I have a conservative political ideology (more or less...political tests and quizzes seem to indicated that I have a moderate conservative ideology that puts me somewhere between Huntsman and Romney) but it also means that I have no inherent loyalty to either party and over the past few years this independence has allowed me to more objectively see the two parties and their qualities in a way that no Republican or Democrat could ever see. I will differ to the liberals on what liberal ideology is (though liberals on this site act as if they know what conservative ideology is and I don't which is amusing) but when you say Obama isnt a liberal it remind me of what I am hearing from the far right about how Romney isnt a conservative.

Seekster:
Snip

There was a gallup poll done, where issues were asked about, and at the end people were asked to identify what party they supported. As it turns out, people identifying on either side tended to agree on the big issues (e.g. raise taxes on the rich instead of the middle class). In reality, there is only one party, the corporate party. I guess what Im trying to get across (rather hastily) is that the GOP doesnt represent its conservative base. GOP leaders are FAR more right wing than the average conservative on economic issue. Im not saying i know these people better than themselves, just that they are oblivious to the fact that the GOP is not working for them, but rather using them for their own gain. You know Mitt Romneys plan is to cut taxes by six and a half trillion dollars? Is he Mental? Hes also going to cut spending to. While hes at it he might as well put wings on pigs and stop global warming with a song. Talk about balancing the budget.

The whole party system is fixed nowadays. The republicans are paid to sell out the american people, and the democrats are paid to let it happen, its the harlem globetrotters versus the washington generals. Until we can surgically extract the cancer of money in politics, the middle class will continue to shrink until the entire nation collapses on itself

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:
Snip

There was a gallup poll done, where issues were asked about, and at the end people were asked to identify what party they supported. As it turns out, people identifying on either side tended to agree on the big issues (e.g. raise taxes on the rich instead of the middle class). In reality, there is only one party, the corporate party. I guess what Im trying to get across (rather hastily) is that the GOP doesnt represent its conservative base. GOP leaders are FAR more right wing than the average conservative on economic issue. Im not saying i know these people better than themselves, just that they are oblivious to the fact that the GOP is not working for them, but rather using them for their own gain. You know Mitt Romneys plan is to cut taxes by six and a half trillion dollars? Is he Mental? Hes also going to cut spending to. While hes at it he might as well put wings on pigs and stop global warming with a song. Talk about balancing the budget.

The whole party system is fixed nowadays. The republicans are paid to sell out the american people, and the democrats are paid to let it happen, its the harlem globetrotters versus the washington generals. Until we can surgically extract the cancer of money in politics, the middle class will continue to shrink until the entire nation collapses on itself

Neither party is working for anyone except themselves. The only interest of a political party in a Democratic system is to win elections and they will do and say anything that helps them achieve this. I am not looking for sincerity from political parties, I am looking for a political party that will do things that I want them to do policy wise, I could care less why they do it.

Cutting spending is an absolute requirement if you plan to balance the budget, raising taxes just makes it easier to do because you dont have to cut as much.

The lobbying system and the tax system are badly in need of reform but I reject the severity of the apocalyptic collapse you are suggesting. Regardless much needs to be done and nobody seems willing to do what needs to be done.

Seekster:

Neither party is working for anyone except themselves. The only interest of a political party in a Democratic system is to win elections and they will do and say anything that helps them achieve this. I am not looking for sincerity from political parties, I am looking for a political party that will do things that I want them to do policy wise, I could care less why they do it.

Cutting spending is an absolute requirement if you plan to balance the budget, raising taxes just makes it easier to do because you dont have to cut as much.

The lobbying system and the tax system are badly in need of reform but I reject the severity of the apocalyptic collapse you are suggesting. Regardless much needs to be done and nobody seems willing to do what needs to be done.

Well we agree on that, what I dont understand is how you can know this, and at the same time support Mitt. Unless you are a millionaire, Romney is not working for you.

ABsolutely right about cutting spending, balancing the budget is impossible without it. However you're wrong about raising taxes only making it easier. Raising taxes is equally important, every equasion has 2 sides, you cant cut and cut and cut and expect to balance the budget. Cutting stifles the economy, because it makes the working class save more and more, and in the consumer based economy of our time, this is deadly. In effect, tax cuts are a form of spending whether you like it or not, and they must go if we are to restablize. Im not saying the apocalypse is upon us, but look at history, and the g. depression of last century; income inequality is now congruent with levels from that era, income tax rate for the top bracket is at the same rate as that era, a deep, global depression is coming because those in power are actively driving us off this cliff.

Its not simply that no ones willing to do anything about, its that correcting americas course runs directly counter to the size of their paycheck, plain and simple.

As a conservative, do you agree with 13.9% rate for capital gains? Would you be against a 3% tax on each financial transaction over $100,000?

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

Neither party is working for anyone except themselves. The only interest of a political party in a Democratic system is to win elections and they will do and say anything that helps them achieve this. I am not looking for sincerity from political parties, I am looking for a political party that will do things that I want them to do policy wise, I could care less why they do it.

Cutting spending is an absolute requirement if you plan to balance the budget, raising taxes just makes it easier to do because you dont have to cut as much.

The lobbying system and the tax system are badly in need of reform but I reject the severity of the apocalyptic collapse you are suggesting. Regardless much needs to be done and nobody seems willing to do what needs to be done.

Well we agree on that, what I dont understand is how you can know this, and at the same time support Mitt. Unless you are a millionaire, Romney is not working for you.

ABsolutely right about cutting spending, balancing the budget is impossible without it. However you're wrong about raising taxes only making it easier. Raising taxes is equally important, every equasion has 2 sides, you cant cut and cut and cut and expect to balance the budget. Cutting stifles the economy, because it makes the working class save more and more, and in the consumer based economy of our time, this is deadly. In effect, tax cuts are a form of spending whether you like it or not, and they must go if we are to restablize. Im not saying the apocalypse is upon us, but look at history, and the g. depression of last century; income inequality is now congruent with levels from that era, income tax rate for the top bracket is at the same rate as that era, a deep, global depression is coming because those in power are actively driving us off this cliff.

Its not simply that no ones willing to do anything about, its that correcting americas course runs directly counter to the size of their paycheck, plain and simple.

As a conservative, do you agree with 13.9% rate for capital gains? Would you be against a 3% tax on each financial transaction over $100,000?

I support Mitt because between Him, Obama, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul I see Mitt as the best choice for President to actually get things done, mostly because he is the least divisive figure. I imagine Romney isnt popular on the left but he can't be hated like Gingrich is.

I am all for doing away with the Bush tax cuts, just like the Bush and Obama stimulus plans they did not work as advertised. Get rid of the tax cuts, close the tax loopholes and then balance the budget by cutting spending as much as you can and if after that you still need to raise taxes to make ends meet then do that but dont just raise taxes to pay for more spending.

I'm a foreign policy and a social issues guy. I can talk about economic and financial issues in general terms based on a basic understanding of these things but when you start asking me about the nuts and bolts details I will differ to people more qualified to talk about that. I focus on other things and while I can tell you that the tax system badly needs to be reformed but if you ask me for the details on how I couldnt tell you. It is foolish to talk about things in detail that you don't know about so I tend to avoid doing that (really wish others would follow that example but meh).

Seekster:
snip

Well sure, the economy is far more important than any ideological issue but Id still like to know your stance on things> Do you believe Gays should be banned from having equal right like the gop does? How about our ABYSMAL foreign policy, which can be summed up as "side with Israel on everything no matter how fucking stupid theyre being"?

Seekster:
I support Mitt because between Him, Obama, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul I see Mitt as the best choice for President to actually get things done, mostly because he is the least divisive figure. I imagine Romney isnt popular on the left but he can't be hated like Gingrich is.

I really wish you'd stop framing this as though Obama is disliked because he's somehow radical or doesn't understand the republicans. It's not accurate. The main reason Obama didn't make any headway was because the Republicans were unreasonable fuckwits.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
I support Mitt because between Him, Obama, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul I see Mitt as the best choice for President to actually get things done, mostly because he is the least divisive figure. I imagine Romney isnt popular on the left but he can't be hated like Gingrich is.

I really wish you'd stop framing this as though Obama is disliked because he's somehow radical or doesn't understand the republicans. It's not accurate. The main reason Obama didn't make any headway was because the Republicans were unreasonable fuckwits.

Can you blame them though? I mean, the more unreasonable they were, the more Obama wanted to reason with them. He just kept capitulating, and of course their going to ask for more more more. And after nearly 4 years, it looks like Obama is finally standing up for progressives in some small way, just in time for the elecetion. After that, Im sure there will be more capitulating to be had

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:
snip

Well sure, the economy is far more important than any ideological issue but Id still like to know your stance on things> Do you believe Gays should be banned from having equal right like the gop does? How about our ABYSMAL foreign policy, which can be summed up as "side with Israel on everything no matter how fucking stupid theyre being"?

No, same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits as married couples. What the state calls a same-sex union is a grammatical matter that is left up to individual states. However no matter what you call it there is no reason to give certain rights and benefits to married couples but deny them to same-sex couples. Also I left the GOP in 2008 but I can tell you there is internal debate on the same-sex issue and there are notable groups in the GOP that actually support recognizing same-sex marriage for various reasons (for example libertarians argue that the government has no business telling people what is and is not a marriage).

Our foreign policy is not perfect but it good enough for us. Israel is our ally, who are we going to side with if not our ally? As for siding with them no matter what, thats simply untrue. If Israel hypothetically were to go nuts and say try and annex Lebanon we would demand that they stop it and if they didnt...see Iraq when that former US ally refused to get out of Kuwait (though Saddam's Iraq and Israel are vastly different countries and it would be unfair to compare them outside of a hypothetical).

Stagnant:

Seekster:
I support Mitt because between Him, Obama, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul I see Mitt as the best choice for President to actually get things done, mostly because he is the least divisive figure. I imagine Romney isnt popular on the left but he can't be hated like Gingrich is.

I really wish you'd stop framing this as though Obama is disliked because he's somehow radical or doesn't understand the republicans. It's not accurate. The main reason Obama didn't make any headway was because the Republicans were unreasonable fuckwits.

I wish I didnt have to but thats why the conservatives and the moderates that are against Obama don't like him. I assume the liberals don't like him have their own reasons which are very different. But I wont tell you what those reasons are because a person of one ideology A tells a person of ideology B what people of ideology B believe or think is just foolish. In other words I wish you would quit being foolish. If you want to tell me what you think fine but don't tell me what I and other Conservatives think.

SurfinTaxt:

Stagnant:

Seekster:
I support Mitt because between Him, Obama, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul I see Mitt as the best choice for President to actually get things done, mostly because he is the least divisive figure. I imagine Romney isnt popular on the left but he can't be hated like Gingrich is.

I really wish you'd stop framing this as though Obama is disliked because he's somehow radical or doesn't understand the republicans. It's not accurate. The main reason Obama didn't make any headway was because the Republicans were unreasonable fuckwits.

Can you blame them though? I mean, the more unreasonable they were, the more Obama wanted to reason with them. He just kept capitulating, and of course their going to ask for more more more. And after nearly 4 years, it looks like Obama is finally standing up for progressives in some small way, just in time for the elecetion. After that, Im sure there will be more capitulating to be had

The funny thing is that the Republican party has been criticized by the Conservatives for capitulating to Obama on things like raising the debt limit and the automatic spending cuts and what not. The times when Obama ends up having to cave are often overlooked because that is what the people who don't like Obama WANT the Republicans to do...though I would rather the Republicans do other things too.

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:
snip

Well sure, the economy is far more important than any ideological issue but Id still like to know your stance on things> Do you believe Gays should be banned from having equal right like the gop does? How about our ABYSMAL foreign policy, which can be summed up as "side with Israel on everything no matter how fucking stupid theyre being"?

No, same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits as married couples. What the state calls a same-sex union is a grammatical matter that is left up to individual states. However no matter what you call it there is no reason to give certain rights and benefits to married couples but deny them to same-sex couples. Also I left the GOP in 2008 but I can tell you there is internal debate on the same-sex issue and there are notable groups in the GOP that actually support recognizing same-sex marriage for various reasons (for example libertarians argue that the government has no business telling people what is and is not a marriage).

Our foreign policy is not perfect but it good enough for us. Israel is our ally, who are we going to side with if not our ally? As for siding with them no matter what, thats simply untrue. If Israel hypothetically were to go nuts and say try and annex Lebanon we would demand that they stop it and if they didnt...see Iraq when that former US ally refused to get out of Kuwait (though Saddam's Iraq and Israel are vastly different countries and it would be unfair to compare them outside of a hypothetical).

Ah yes, libertarians, theyre so cute. If only they would realize that the constitution is a framework for the law, not the law itself. Of course, I would prefer someone who overly respects the constitution to one that wipes his ass with it (Bush, and more egregiously, Obama).
As for internal debate within the GOP, I applaud the libertarians for it but I doubt that its a real priority for them on the whole.

On Israel annexing Lebanon, I could almost guarantee you that NOTHING would be done on our part. The president would issue a stern rebuke, but that would be the extent of it. The reason Israel doesn't do this is because even the current radical right administration there doesnt want that much instability in the region.

You say we side with them because they are our allies, well what about Turkey? Turkey has been a steadfast ally of the us for decades, and we sided AGAINST them w/ Israel when they murdered Turkish civilians during the flotilla debacle. ALL THEY WANTED WAS AN APOLOGY! LOL, fucking Israel man.

ANd dont get me started with palestinian state-hood, netanyahu claims to support a two state solution then goes behind our backs and sabotages any and all attempts to come to that solution. The US totally rejected palestine's bid for UN membership, why? Because we are slaves to the Israeli agenda

SurfinTaxt:
Can you blame them though? I mean, the more unreasonable they were, the more Obama wanted to reason with them. He just kept capitulating, and of course their going to ask for more more more. And after nearly 4 years, it looks like Obama is finally standing up for progressives in some small way, just in time for the elecetion. After that, Im sure there will be more capitulating to be had

Seekster:
I wish I didnt have to but thats why the conservatives and the moderates that are against Obama don't like him. I assume the liberals don't like him have their own reasons which are very different. But I wont tell you what those reasons are because a person of one ideology A tells a person of ideology B what people of ideology B believe or think is just foolish. In other words I wish you would quit being foolish. If you want to tell me what you think fine but don't tell me what I and other Conservatives think.

You know, taking these two posts, I'd think that you two live on separate worlds.

And then I see something like this:

Seekster:
The funny thing is that the Republican party has been criticized by the Conservatives for capitulating to Obama on things like raising the debt limit and the automatic spending cuts and what not.

And realize that it's Seekster living in his own private little world, one which has only glancing similarities to our own, and where things like "not raising the debt ceiling" actually count as reasonable political choices.

Look, Seekster, do I really have to explain why raising the debt ceiling was necessary? Or why those who were against it should be ousted from office the same way that those who are in favor of nuking Beijing should be? I sure as fucking well hope not. "The electorate is largely comprised of complete and utter retards" is not a legitimate reason for those elected to be equally retarded.

The automatic spending cuts are another interesting thing - if I recall correctly, not only are the republicans strongly in favor of cutting spending, but as far as I can tell, they kinda had to agree on the supercomittee deal to begin with in order for it to take place.

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:

Stagnant:

I really wish you'd stop framing this as though Obama is disliked because he's somehow radical or doesn't understand the republicans. It's not accurate. The main reason Obama didn't make any headway was because the Republicans were unreasonable fuckwits.

Can you blame them though? I mean, the more unreasonable they were, the more Obama wanted to reason with them. He just kept capitulating, and of course their going to ask for more more more. And after nearly 4 years, it looks like Obama is finally standing up for progressives in some small way, just in time for the elecetion. After that, Im sure there will be more capitulating to be had

The funny thing is that the Republican party has been criticized by the Conservatives for capitulating to Obama on things like raising the debt limit and the automatic spending cuts and what not. The times when Obama ends up having to cave are often overlooked because that is what the people who don't like Obama WANT the Republicans to do...though I would rather the Republicans do other things too.

I dont really understand your point here. Who are these people wanting the GOP to do, and what are the GOP doing that they want? Do you mean over cutting discretionary spending and further tax cuts? Because only millionaires and people who dont understand how economics works like that.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked