DEMOCRATS vs REPUBLICANS

[HazelGod]

Tripod, I appreciate your passion...you know this.

But factuality isn't the issue here. I'm not disputing that I find most neo-Con philosophies to be misguided crap.

The issue is that reducing all politics to a black/white dichotomy discourages people from analyzing things critically for themselves. That us vs. them mentality doesn't serve the greater good...it only makes it easier for people to hate one another without having to think about why.

But it doesn't serve any common good to poke a stick in the other side's eye just to do it. We need positive leadership, not continuation of partisan disagreements.

And yes, KOS is nearly as bad as the neocon blowhards...different words, perhaps, but the same divisive message.

 

[vince]

I've been blathering on and on for the need for a multi-party system.

The only way it happens, if some prolific individual breaks rank, and starts are party or joins one.

For once I agree with you. But as someone pointed out the other day, third parties are always on the extreme of the left or right. A centrist party may have a chance now, but I'm not sure. I guess Ross Perot was the close to the centre-right, but that party was a one trick pony.

This is true but American politics have descended to the 'lowest common denominator' for years now. Turn on any cable news show and watch the pundents scream and yell at each other. This 'infotainment' is to the detriment of debate and actual what one might leisurely call 'knowledge transfer'. But it gets good ratings. And that's all that matters to the bid media companies which are supposed to play a vital role in a democracy. That vital role has been usurped for profit.

I couldn't agree more. It's seems to me that more and more regular people are copying that method of "debate". Witness any forum concerned with politics. 90% of the posts are ad hom attacks with people just screaming past one another.

 

[tripod]

The issue is that reducing all politics to a black/white dichotomy discourages people from analyzing things critically for themselves. That us vs. them mentality doesn't serve the greater good...it only makes it easier for people to hate one another without having to think about why.

I am in total agreement.

**************************************************

The problem I have is that us progressives must constantly walk a tight rope act of simultaneously trying to debunk disinformation, lies and propaganda while not displaying any partisanship.

The Republicans NEVER got accused of partisanship by the mainstream media during the Bush administration. Obama has repeatedly offered his hand to the Republicans only to have it smacked down... how long do you keep offering your hand until you become a fucking two bit sucker?

The Republicans need to be exposed for what they are and what they have been doing to this country. The American people need to know the REAL difference between democrats and republicans. Most average Americans think that Democrats stand for welfare and labor unions while the Republicans are for the military and the stock market. This misinformation by the media has got to stop.

What the Daily Kos was doing was attempting to illustrate the actual differences between the two parties. Markos Moulitsas has an acid tongue and anything coming out of his website will have his characteristic smarmy tone, this shouldn't be news to anyone. Mr. Moulitsas is a bold Democrat and he has every right to be.

The Democratic party of today is the closest thing this country has to a legitimate ruling body that will actually serve the people. They aren't perfect, but the party has too many things that are good about it to be marginalized or eschewed in favor of other more nefarious political parties.

Our Democracy is still in danger of being ruined by the Republicans and they should have the light shone on them so that the general public can see them for what they are.

Now is not the time to be sweet and compassionate towards the Republicans. It's the time to tar and feather the Neocons before marching them out of town via perp parade for all of the Republicans to witness.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I can read this article and completely understand where they're coming from. If we were to look at this issue from a non-PC standpoint, what Tripod said doesn't come off as being too off the mark. Many people find Obama's actions to reach out to conservatives, although a considerate move, is just futile. At the same time, I think everyone (to some level) wants to put an end to the extreme left/right bickering that gets nothing accomplished.

Maybe one day we'll actually see a middle ground to truly emerge. Those who can take the information from both sides of life and come up with a compromise that satisfies them. But I don't think it may be possible with the current batch of Democrats & Republicans in office now. Too many of them want it just their way or no way at all, refusing to negotiate or sacrifice.

 

[vince]

If Starinvestor doesn't get back soon, I'm going to have to switch sides here. :tongue:

 

[deleted15807]

I am in total agreement.

**************************************************

The problem I have is that us progressives must constantly walk a tight rope act of simultaneously trying to debunk disinformation, lies and propaganda while not displaying any partisanship.

The Republicans NEVER got accused of partisanship by the mainstream media during the Bush administration. Obama has repeatedly offered his hand to the Republicans only to have it smacked down... how long do you keep offering your hand until you become a fucking two bit sucker?

The Republicans need to be exposed for what they are and what they have been doing to this country. The American people need to know the REAL difference between democrats and republicans. Most average Americans think that Democrats stand for welfare and labor unions while the Republicans are for the military and the stock market. This misinformation by the media has got to stop.

What the Daily Kos was doing was attempting to illustrate the actual differences between the two parties. Markos Moulitsas has an acid tongue and anything coming out of his website will have his characteristic smarmy tone, this shouldn't be news to anyone. Mr. Moulitsas is a bold Democrat and he has every right to be.

The Democratic party of today is the closest thing this country has to a legitimate ruling body that will actually serve the people. They aren't perfect, but the party has too many things that are good about it to be marginalized or eschewed in favor of other more nefarious political parties.

Our Democracy is still in danger of being ruined by the Republicans and they should have the light shone on them so that the general public can see them for what they are.

Now is not the time to be sweet and compassionate towards the Republicans. It's the time to tar and feather the Neocons before marching them out of town via perp parade for all of the Republicans to witness.

Tell It To My Heart

I gave conservatism a chance but it became real obvious real quick that the entire movement rested on a platform of hate. It's all about what they hate and why and not about what works for everyone and here's how.

Behind all the pretty graphs and Think Tank propaganda ooops studies lies the true motivation, a rampant desire to help CEO's and shareholders. Private policy has morphed into public policy. And a remarkable ability to snooker everyone else in believing they are for the common man.

.....the current Republican Party is an alliance between the preachers and the plutocrats — between the religious right, which hates gays, abortion and the theory of evolution, and the economic right, which hates Social Security, Medicare and taxes on rich people. Surrounding this core is a large periphery of politicians and lobbyists who joined the movement not out of conviction, but to share in the spoils.
​

-Paul Krugman

If Starinvestor doesn't get back soon, I'm going to have to switch sides here. :tongue:

He's made it obvious where he gets his 'news' Faux News. So just turn it on and transcribe it to the board and BINGO you got Star.

 

[Bbucko]

I've been blathering on and on for the need for a multi-party system.

The only way it happens, if some prolific individual breaks rank, and starts are party or joins one.

Yeah. That worked so well for Teddy Roosevelt.

Our system is set up for extremely limited numbers of political parties because, evidently, that's how the framers intended it. Washington, for instance, found all political parties to be inherently loathsome and strongly warned against them.

I vote issues rather than party, as I find both parties to be highly manipulative and totally corrupt. But in practice, it's really hard to do. I've always been a big fan of William Weld, but his vision of Republicanism divorced from the meme of "social conservatism" doomed any chance he ever had for national politics. It would probably shock most everybody here to learn that the first governor to support the forming of High School Gay/Straight Alliances was a straight Republican.

He was a man of honor attempting to play a slimy game, and got slimed (and mostly by his own party). The radical change between John McCain 2000 and the organizer of the worst presidential campaign in my lifetime eight years later only goes to re-enforce my basic point.

Switching to a parliamentary system of representative government just isn't in the cards for the USA. The institutional stability we gain comes at the expense of nuanced policy, to our detriment IMO.

 

[Guy-jin]

That's from some dude's blog hosted on Daily Kos, not from "Daily Kos" as an organization. Just pointing that out.

As for the "multi-party system" stuff as some sort of solution:

Without a major overhaul of the "majority" votes rule thing, and the organization of the House and Senate, the idea of a multi-party system isn't a very good one. Reason being, a multi-party system where majority party and votes rule merely results in "coalition" governments when there is no majority party.

Example: Say Libertarians become a major party, taking a lot of Democrats and a few Republicans. Libertarians and what remains of the Republicans form a "coalition" after the Libertarians attract away enough left-leaning centrists who are disenfranchised with the Democrat's social programs and taxation, and as a consequence, a right-wing Conservative agenda is pushed through at the behest of the Libertarians, who are siding with what they, as a party see as the lesser of two evils.

Eventually they tire of Republicans forcing their own social programs and "big government" agenda, so they swing the other way and a left-wing Liberal agenda is pushed through after they side with Democrats.

It doesn't really "fix" or "change" much of anything. It makes me think of Japan's government and how ineffective they are at getting anything done thanks to their multiple parties and coalitions. Or even Britain's. You think the US government is bad, you should see theirs.

Not that I can't see the government being changed to fit a multi-party set-up better. But the way things are, it wouldn't really change much to have more than two "major" parties.

 

[bek2335]

Tripod rocks! Love your posts in this thread!

 

[Cowabanga]

Im a liberal, that being said, The democratic party aint it either.

There was a time when huge contribution from a corporation was consider bribery, and now both side do it and the size of the corporation were allow to grow into a dead briar patch. There was a time that any corporation growing too large were split up into new division. Such as Microsoft overseas have drop the browser and sell them into seperate deal. There was a time when a business failing were put out of misery and there were no benefit in letting it die for tax breaks.

If corporate contribution to politician became illegal, I bet you will see a bigger difference between the party that are more representation of the people, and the people would make better choices for the reason that are much more tangible than the propaganda that we get now. Both party have become brand names and the difference between them are the marketing ploy and presentation.

The superbowl have come and pass, and yet people really get heated up on who the best team that they are rooting for. But really, what are the difference between the team? why rally behind one and not the others? Is this what our political parties have become?

I dont think we need a third party option, but I think we need to revoke citizenship privelidge of corporation and only allow real people those rights. Stop fining corporation for crime committed and go back to jailing CEO that commit the crime instead.

 

[deleted15807]

I think we need to revoke citizenship privelidge of corporation and only allow real people those rights. Stop fining corporation for crime committed and go back to jailing CEO that commit the crime instead.

Yes one of the defining moments in U.S. history was when corporations were given the rights of a citizen. Bad bad idea. Citizens typically care a great deal about the country they reside in and indeed are expected to have allegiance to it. Not so with this special citizen, the corporate citizen. This is a unique citizen that is by law has a fiduciary duty to care only about it's shareholders which can be all over the world.

Exxon-Mobile can make $45 billion a year and that booty BELONGS to it's shareholders but if Exxon-Mobile lost $45 billion well now it's time for the real citizens to bail it out. Sweet sweet deal. Too bad real citizens can't set something like that up.

 

[Flashy]

Exxon-Mobile can make $45 billion a year and that booty BELONGS to it's shareholders but if Exxon-Mobile lost $45 billion well now it's time for the real citizens to bail it out. Sweet sweet deal. Too bad real citizens can't set something like that up.

Well who should it belong to, huh? That is *NET* income. The company has already paid its taxes, it has paid its operating costs...who else should those profits belong to?


and if you are going to critique a company you can at least get its name right.

 

[Blagoblog]

I tend to vote Dem more than GOP, and I hate all that trashing of one party over another. Just from a tactical standpoint, it's stupid to assign all those bad qualities to your competitor.

To be fair, "all those bad qualities" only apply to the extremists; not all Republicans adhere to theocratic dogma or believe that this country can or should try to subjugate the rest of the world, and they are less purely Republican to the extent to which they are more reasonable.

Also this chart is hilarious IMO: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...x_partners_in_the_last_12_months_been_men.JPG

 

[Branleur49008]

Well, I certainly thought the blog was accurate.

And if that upsets some Republicans, then get a grip and take your party back from the brand of dolts that have nearly run this country into the ground over the past 8 years.

Rescue your party from the brand of conservatism that has handed over the reigns of the party to a bunch of wingnut, neo-Puritan religous dickwads. From Reagan on, the right wing Christian conservative faction has sought to take over control of our government. If the Republicans would cut them loose, and get back to the basics of the Republican party, I don't think people would hate them so damned much. I know I wouldn't. While I might still not agree with their political philosophy, I'd at least respect them as a viable alternative.

But, as long as the Pat Robertsons, Donald Wildmons, Jerry Falwells, and Tony Perkins of the world have entree to glom onto the political machine via the Republican Party and pull the strings of government, then yeah...the Republican Party is a big, bad, nefarious pile of shit that needs to be flushed down the toilet.

 

[Blagoblog]

Sadly, there are enough people who actually agree with the agents of intolerance to keep them politically relevant; the trick under a two-party system is to get the opposition party moderate enough to remain large enough to keep away from power whatever party they join, whether as the Dixiecrats of the mid-20th century or the mainstream GOP of the present day, and IMO the Democratic party has done a good job and should continue to just be a little more progressive than the nation as a whole.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Why not take the best of both parties, and form a third: one that represents social liberals, who are also economic conservatives?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Why not take the best of both parties, and form a third

That's been attempted many times, but nobody has yet to step up and become a voice & visual for such a cause and be successful. Dare I say it? McCain COULD have been that person in '08? Even I remember him in '06 when it seemed he was "coming to his senses" to some level. I know some people who thought he would of had a better chance to win the election if he did run as an Independent, especially with the message he was trying to portray.

Not sure if that would have been enough to sway my decision personally, but it would have made me think about it a little longer.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Yes one of the defining moments in U.S. history was when corporations were given the rights of a citizen. Bad bad idea. Citizens typically care a great deal about the country they reside in and indeed are expected to have allegiance to it. Not so with this special citizen, the corporate citizen. This is a unique citizen that is by law has a fiduciary duty to care only about it's shareholders which can be all over the world.

Actually corporations have GREATER rights than people.

For instance, in California, under Prop 13 (limiting property taxes), if a person sells their house, or dies, then the house is reassessed, at a new, generally much higher basis, especially if they have owned the property for some time. However, if a corporation, owning property is sold, or taken over, the property is not termed "sold," because it was stock transfer, not a straight asset sale.

What this means in human terms is if your grandma bought a house in Malibu for $25K in the 70's, her kids, or grandkids would probably have to resell it because it would be worth $2M-5M, even in this down market, and taxes would escalate from $200 to $30K+ a year. Nothing to feel sorry for them about, but still a massive increase that could force the family to sell their childhood home.

If Corporation ABC bought a downtown LA building in the 70's for $200K, and has merged into another corporation today, it still pays on the same $200K basis, (adjusted by no more than 2% per year), as it did back then, even though that building could be worth $20M today.

So, you could be paying more taxes on grandma's house than a corporation is on a downtown office building. Fair, hardly, but it's the law.

This is one tiny example of how corporations are legally far more economically advantaged than individuals. Add-on the ability for corporations to easily jump state, and country borders, it is no wonder governments cannot track, or tax accurately where the money has gone.

Cisco Systems alone has well over $2-4 billion in profit, that they will not "bring back" to the US until they are offered another tax "amnesty." When was the last time you were offered a tax "amnesty" on your social security payments?

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

That's been attempted many times, but nobody has yet to step up and become a voice & visual for such a cause and be successful. Dare I say it? McCain COULD have been that person in '08?

Good point.

I think the main reason it has not been able to stick is because it is hard enough to raise the money needed for a two year long "slog-fest" of primaries, nomination, and finally the general election IF you are in one of the two mainstream parties. Publicly financed elections, which by their nature, would be infinitely shorter in duration, would open to the door to other parties.

McCain seriously could have been an interesting 3rd party candidate for those very reasons you mention, IF he had stuck to his '00 script. Instead in the ensuing years, he veered violently of course, sucked up to Bush literally, pandered to the moral conservatives, and war hawks during the campaign, and finally self-detonated on his pick of Palin.

Would he have made those same choices, if he was able to have public financing as a third party candidate? I don't know, but it's an interesting question.

 

[D_Chaumbrelayne_Copprehead]

To be fair, "all those bad qualities" only apply to the extremists; not all Republicans adhere to theocratic dogma or believe that this country can or should try to subjugate the rest of the world, and they are less purely Republican to the extent to which they are more reasonable.

True, which is why it's just silly to make blanket statements about either Republicans or Democrats. Plus ... if you ARE a partisan Democrat, as the author of the column we're talking about clearly is, you are going to want the Democrats to succeed.

Competitively ... and strategically ... it's just dumb to take the worst characteristics and assign them to your entire competition. If you are interested in the Dems forever being more successful than the GOP, you'll want to study your competition in detail, start making some guesses about what they're likely to do next, and stay ahead of them in that chess game, rather than simply saying blanketing, negative statements about them.