Why Democrats can't hold office.

[Roland_Deschain]

Most people do not live their entire lives JUST as democrats or republicans. Their views change and differ from time to time and stage to stage.

However democrats and republicans live by completely different terms and principles regarding how a country is run. Ranging from effective communication with the rest of the world and also within our own country.

Both are sound principles in a way... and both have their ups and downs.

The problem is that such random changings from office between the two partys makes our country unstable and hard to get used to.

Now how come Democrats cannot make a temporary hold on the country? Let me try and explain.

A rebublican is a lot different than a democrat in terms of unified beliefs... the rebuplicans in general feel more in aggreance with each other.

Democrats CANNOT aggree with each other for the common good. They all have something different set in their eyes. Abortion, womans rights, africans american rights, immagrant rights, drug laws, socialism attitudes, alternative fuels, green peace and enviormental protection.

The problem is that so many Democrats refuse to get along with each other on the small issues, and look towards the bigger ones... EXCEPT when they HAVE to.

Lets takes a look at Obamas campaign. Before 9/11 and the war in Iraq democrats and liberals are exactly the same as they are now... fighting and bickering with each other before they can even stand together.

Then 9/11 and the Iraq war happen... what happened to the Democrats?? They all said nothing to each other. They kept quiet, and stuck their heads together, along with many republicans. Why did they do this now?

When America was in a crises and needed a change the democrats were ready and geared to move together on the main issues and put aside their small differences. And thats how the young black senator defeated the man who had been in line for president for a decade.

However, now that all of those things are said and done, national health care has been put out (and fluked), democrats are back to fighting each other... such a diverse crowd cannot maintain control, especially when they cannot control each other.

I cannot say who I would vote for... allthough perhaps it would be Obama, for no reason other than we need to stop making radical changes in the current goverment... and give one a chance to set in and take affect.

Most people do not look at it like this, but we are not really voting for just a president. We are voting for a party. It does not matter which because we have trouble ahead and work to perform no matter who gets in office. I only suggest that we give one of the partys more of a chance than a pathetic four years to make a difference.

"A Democrat wins when he/she THINKS" - Bill Clinton

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Well I think that Democrats have a good way of thinking. I mean our country was doing just fine under clintons outfit until the republicans stepped up and screwed us. And you cannot just blame that just on bush because it was also those around him. The republican house has been pretty much a downer the last couple decades as far as actions go. I mean sure Obama didnt FIX all of those things... how could he? However they are problems created by the republican house.

I think that we need to get back on good terms with the world. Ive noticed most of the world likes obama more than us. I am neither party... just for whoever seems to make sense... and right now I would like the democrats to stick longer... but thats just my opinion

And MattDamon can blow me =P. I dont care what mr.hollywood says because I KNEW the work Obama had before him. And anyone who couldnt see the unrealistic porportions of his goals were not looking very hard. I mean America at the time was so desperate for a change of house in order to wash our hands...hell, we would have elected a talking parrot. At least he didnt make things 100 times worse, like our last republican president.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

Democrats can't hold office as they're no better than their Republican friends.

Elections aren't determined by who the better candidate is. Economic policies, reforms, voting records. None of those things are important in terms of which candidate people vote for.

The only thing that matters in current era politics is money.

The candidate who raises the highest campaign contributions will win 90% of the time. Obama did it in his race against McCain. Other candidates have done the same.

Basically, you have a political climate where politicians with bad policies, bad reforms and bad voting records can get into office if they're skilled at fundraising.

Fundraising is the most important aspect which determines whether a candidate is voted into office. This precedent holds true for both democrat and republican parties.

Hence, you have the quality of politics declining.

Even Sarah Palin who probably** knows jack shit about policy or reform can gain office if they can only raise higher campaign funding than their opponent.

Both political parties are plagued by this, and it shows.

 

[ANGRYWOLF]

Because Rupert Murdock, The Koch Brothers...brother from another mother, rotfl....just had to throw that one in and other people with certain leanings use money to influence the electorate here in the US.

Rupert isn't even an American citizen but he bought Fox, hired Roger Ailes who hired Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill OReilly and others to promote right wing propaganda.

They're good at it.Better than the dems are.

That's the main reason.

Another is the Repub party back in the 60's used race/racial divides to take over the Us south politically.They called it their southern strategy and it has worked every since.

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

shrugs.

Being a Stephen King fan I am reminded of his book "The Dead Zone" where a ruthless President starts WW3 and of course the hero who can see the future when he touches people has to stop him. I always think of a republican when I think of that btw.That a future repub President might be responsible for this happening eventually.

Just my opinion.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

I guess I should try to post evidence for my point of view.

Positive claim: Campaign funding and fundraising are the most important aspects determining political success or failure.

Evidence: The reason for the democrats decline is a result of them losing a good deal of their financial and fundraising monetary $$ support.

A revolt among big donors on Wall Street is hurting fundraising for the Democrats' two congressional campaign committees, with contributions from the world's financial capital down 65 percent from two years ago.

Posted Tuesday, July 6, 2010

The drop in support comes from many of the same bankers, hedge fund executives and financial services chief executives who are most upset about the financial regulatory reform bill that House Democrats passed last week with almost no Republican support. The Senate expects to take up the measure this month.

This fundraising free fall from the New York area has left Democrats with diminished resources to defend their House and Senate majorities in November's midterm elections. Although the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have seen just a 16 percent drop in overall donations compared with this stage of the 2008 campaign, party leaders are concerned about the loss of big-dollar donors. The two congressional committees have raised $49.5 million this election cycle from people giving $1,000 or more at a time, compared with $81.3 million at this point in the last election.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502913.html

Basically, the republicans won on democrats losing a large portion of their financial support in the last elections.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

I agree with what most of you guys posted. However money for fundraising has to come from certain places for certain reasons.

You can throw money towards people for their campaigns for numerous reasons. It can be simply to better your own future state... or simply because you believe in canidate at hand.

I mean money and belief go hand in hand sometimes. Obama winning may have been because of the money put forward towards his election, yet at the same time that reflects the number of people who actually had reasons to invest in him.

Now as bad as it may seem regarding how important the cash is, we must also be aware that a lot of this money is not just based out of greed, but also organizations and people that want to invest in what the canidate stands for.

However the point I made was pretty valid regarding the election of Obama. For a short period of time... the democrats (and citizen democrats) managed to work together for the common goal of dropping the republicans.

I think that if the war in Iraq never happened, we might be looking at totally different result as far as the current president... at least the election would have been closer.

Its easy to look at everything in terms of money being the most important because thats the world we live in. Hell, anything could be looked at in those terms if we try hard enough. There are definately other matters outside of that though.

As they say, democracy will fail to work when people stop believing in it.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

Well, there may be a quantifiable reason why cash may have a tangible effect on elections, and issues, policies, and reforms do not.

Have you ever asked someone who supports healthcare reform to explain precisely how reform is intended to make healthcare cheaper?

99.9% of healthcare reform supporters couldn't explain it. In the past, I've hung out in places which were supposed to be populated by intelligent and educated people. Even those who were college professors and similar academics who, in theory, are supposed to be smart couldn't justify how healthcare reform is intended to decrease the price of healthcare for americans.

The most they could do is quote the CBO or other sources they relied upon to give them something which may or may not be a legitimate answer, without understanding for themselves the basic principles behind it.

Its the same with Obama's job plan, ethanol in gasoline, the tax issue and practically every current era political topic. People don't understand issues well enough to make an accurate judgment of what is and isn't a good option.

I'll give you another example.

Obama's job plan which wasn't passed not too long ago

This is Obama's job plan

1. Raise taxes on upper income bracket demographics.
2. Use raised taxes to give certain demographics tax cuts.

A critic might say that Obama was raising taxes to prevent people from paying taxes -- which on the surface might sound like a dumb & redundant measure.

In a worst case scenario, Obama's job plan may have been as dumb as raising taxes to give yourself a tax cut sounds.

But, americans wouldn't notice.

They'd simply assume that somehow, someway, it is a smart measure despite the appearance of foolishnes. And, that somehow, it was intended to work in their own best interests.

Americans and many people in this world are not equipped to identify a good policy from a bad policy. And simply take politicians and others word that their plans are good plans no matter how ill-conceived or ineffective they may seem.

Thus, policies, reforms and similar things don't factor in to the equation.

Political success or failure is determined far more by how many commercials, advertisements and similar things people see on tv than it is by how good a candidates economic plan, or foreign policy may be.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

This is Obama's job plan

1. Raise taxes on upper income bracket demographics.
2. Use raised taxes to give certain demographics tax cuts.

For someone who's criticizing other people for being uninformed, you do yourself no favors by over-simplifying what the job plan was. Yes, that was part of it - but you also ignore the public works projects for schools and roads, the extension of unemployment benefits, and the support to local governments to keep public teachers and police employed. Not to mention you ignore that the economic prosperity of a nation is more than the net worth you gain from taxing citizens. Or that bills are commonly blocked in their totality but then parts are voted in piecemeal.

I don't really care what you think about any of that, but if you're going to criticize other people for being ignorant, perhaps you should be informed yourself. Then again, you could always be purposely obfuscating the truth to make the job plan look worse, in which case you're just a tool.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

For someone who's criticizing other people for being uninformed, you do yourself no favors by over-simplifying what the job plan was. Yes, that was part of it - but you also ignore the public works projects for schools and roads, the extension of unemployment benefits, and the support to local governments to keep public teachers and police employed. Not to mention you ignore that the economic prosperity of a nation is more than the net worth you gain from taxing citizens. Or that bills are commonly blocked in their totality but then parts are voted in piecemeal.

I don't really care what you think about any of that, but if you're going to criticize other people for being ignorant, perhaps you should be informed yourself. Then again, you could always be purposely obfuscating the truth to make the job plan look worse, in which case you're just a tool.

Look how long my post is.

The topic was the job creation portion of Obama's plan. Not necessarily the portion which involved government contracts or jobs but moreso the portion that affects the majority of people.

If you want, I can comment on everything you mentioned and possibly explain exactly why those aspects of his plan are as foolish and ill conceived as the other portions I mentioned.

I'm not really certain what your beef is.

Do you want me to elaborate or do you simply disagree with what I said & have a different opinion?

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

The topic was the job creation portion of Obama's plan. Not necessarily the portion which involved government contracts or jobs but moreso the portion that affects the majority of people.

The public works projects/contracts are also part of job creation, so you missed a bit if you were concerned with the job creation portion. You were unclear on what you were focusing on anyway, and my "beef" was that you were misrepresenting information while simultaneously criticizing other people for being ignorant (at least, it appeared to be so because your focus was unclear). By referring to the job plan in totality, it's pretty vague, as it's not only concerned with job creation.

My concern was with accuracy, not what your opinion was. Though discussing the merits/flaws/etc of various economic solutions would be pretty interesting, that's more suited to a general economic thread than this one.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

The public works projects/contracts are also part of job creation, so you missed a bit if you were concerned with the job creation portion. You were unclear on what you were focusing on anyway, and my "beef" was that you were misrepresenting information while simultaneously criticizing other people for being ignorant (at least, it appeared to be so because your focus was unclear). By referring to the job plan in totality, it's pretty vague, as it's not only concerned with job creation.

My concern was with accuracy, not what your opinion was. Though discussing the merits/flaws/etc of various economic solutions would be pretty interesting, that's more suited to a general economic thread than this one.

Like I said, I'm not writing a book here. You can't criticize the fact that I didn't bother writing a 20 page dissertation on the supreme suckiness of government contracts and state jobs.

I never implied tax cuts were the only portion of the plan.

I didn't comment on the entire thing - so what?

I never claimed it was a comprehensive or complete overview only that the part I mentioned was obviously ill conceived and foolish.

Its a classic case of someone(you) straining themselves & bending context to find a legitimate criticism in lieu of a valid argument.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

You can't criticize the fact that I didn't bother writing a 20 page dissertation on the supreme suckiness of government contracts and state jobs.

That's good, because that's not what I'm doing.

I never implied tax cuts were the only portion of the plan.

But that's all anyone could infer. You stated "This is Obama's job plan", as though you were going to list/explain/summarize the whole thing, and then made a list of only two pieces of it.

I never claimed it was a comprehensive or complete overview only that the part I mentioned was obviously ill conceived and foolish.

Except you kept referring to the "job plan" in totality by being vague. Regardless of what you intended, it's what you said.

Its a classic case of someone(you) straining themselves & bending context to find a legitimate criticism in lieu of a valid argument.

You don't have an argument. You just said it sucked without any explanation. There's nothing there to criticize.

It's clear it was a misunderstanding, there's no need to be so butthurt about it.

-------------

Regarding the actual topic of the thread, I don't think either party is all that unified. Both parties deal with their fair share of extremists/divisions - just look at the Republicans and the Tea Party movement and Ron Paul. I disagree with the view that regardless of who's in office it's identical - social/moral laws are a major contention between the parties and that has actual effect. It's just that some issues won't really be affected by who's in office - like the war, the Patriot Act, the embargo on Cuba, etc. Some things just won't change regardless of whether a party wants it to because it's so ingrained.

Besides, it's a cause for alarm when presidents like Reagan are ever considered a good representation of what the American public wants.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

That's good, because that's not what I'm doing.

Heh.

I say: Obama's job plan raises taxes to fund tax cuts.
You say: That doesn't explain every single detail of Obama's 20-40+ page job plan.

Well, no shit! What an amazing discovery you've made!

But that's all anyone could infer. You stated "This is Obama's job plan", as though you were going to list/explain/summarize the whole thing, and then made a list of only two pieces of it.

Find a dictionary. Look up the word: generalization.

Know that not everything someone says is implied literally. Look that word up, too. Problems cease to be problems.

Except you kept referring to the "job plan" in totality by being vague. Regardless of what you intended, it's what you said.

Better description than "job plan" == _______?

You don't have an argument. You just said it sucked without any explanation. There's nothing there to criticize.

To clarify, you don't comprehend how raising taxes to give someone tax breaks has a high potential to be inefficient, bloated, and wasteful?

Is that what you're saying?

Regarding the actual topic of the thread, I don't think either party is all that unified. Both parties deal with their fair share of extremists/divisions - just look at the Republicans and the Tea Party movement and Ron Paul. I disagree with the view that regardless of who's in office it's identical - social/moral laws are a major contention between the parties and that has actual effect. It's just that some issues won't really be affected by who's in office - like the war, the Patriot Act, the embargo on Cuba, etc. Some things just won't change regardless of whether a party wants it to because it's so ingrained.

Besides, it's a cause for alarm when presidents like Reagan are ever considered a good representation of what the American public wants.

You're reciting the standard textbook point of view.

Which, I believe, has numerous gaping holes and flaws as a result of the personal bias, ulterior motives, and agendas present in politics.

Reagan was a good man & a genius in a lot of ways. I think the real cause for alarm are smear campaigns against Reagan and Andrew Jackson being accepted by the general public without skepticism nor question.

Andrew Jackson could unintentionally cause the fatalities of 100 indians.

George Bush could unintentionally cause the fatalities of 1,000,000 people during the 2nd Iraq War.

And, people would call Andrew Jackson a mass murderer and xenophobic race killer and call George Bush a hero who got the economy a little bit wrong.

Things are skewed and biased in ways which should be obvious, but somehow, are not.



I haven't seen many posts from you, but I would guess you're an atheist considering you make the same horrible, contextual & critical thinking devoid, arguments which are quickly becoming an atheist trademark.

If that's the case, I wish you'd just recognize me - a person who believes in a God as your critical thinking and intellectual superior and not ask me to point out the gaping holes in your ridiculously flawed point of view.

I've argued with lots of atheists, some of them are smart. But most are very not smart.

They're good at blindly believing everything they see on youtube or read in a text book.

But, when it comes to independent thought or critical thinking they're damn horrible.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Find a dictionary. Look up the word: generalization.

Cry some more, why don't you? You over-generalized, you didn't mean it, I misunderstood what you meant - why is this even still an issue?

Is that what you're saying?

Nope. It's just that you claimed you made an argument. Stating that something's dumb isn't an argument.

I think the real cause for alarm are smear campaigns against Reagan and Andrew Jackson being accepted by the general public without skepticism nor question.

What the hell are you talking about? I see most Americans praising the memory of Reagan without much thought, even though his economic policies were more often than not rubbish. His various tax-cuts and trickle-down theory were ill-thought, not to mention the drastic increase in military spending and the suddenly bloating deficit thanks to all of these awful policies. The war on drugs was a waste of money and caused more problems than it solved (which was none), and the Iran-Contra affair was a giant sign of incompetence. You must have a low threshold for calling someone a genius.

Andrew Jackson could unintentionally cause the fatalities of 100 indians.
George Bush could unintentionally cause the fatalities of 1,000,000 people during the 2nd Iraq War.
And, people would call Andrew Jackson a mass murderer and xenophobic race killer and call George Bush a hero who got the economy a little bit wrong.

I don't know who would smear Jackson and then glorify Bush, but I'd call Bush a complete moron who repeated every one of Reagan's mistakes and then launched us into an unjust, bloody, and protracted war.

And while I agree with a lot of what Jackson did, he caused way more than 100 Native American deaths. It was obvious to everyone that while the Indian Removal Act was supposed to occur only with Native American consent, the government was forcing and coercing them to do so. He sponsored that bill and signed it into law, and because of it and the forceful military removal of the Cherokee from their land, it caused 4000 deaths. I don't know why anyone would try and whitewash that like you're doing.

but I would guess you're an atheist

Dang, you must be a psychic. It's not like it's obvious from my signature or any of my religious posts or anything.

considering you make the same horrible, contextual & critical thinking devoid, arguments which are quickly becoming an atheist trademark.
If that's the case, I wish you'd just recognize me - a person who believes in a God as your critical thinking and intellectual superior and not ask me to point out the gaping holes in your ridiculously flawed point of view.
I've argued with lots of atheists, some of them are smart. But most are very not smart.
They're good at blindly believing everything they see on youtube or read in a text book.
But, when it comes to independent thought or critical thinking they're damn horrible.

Haha, oh wow. My religious views or lack thereof have no impact on my views of economy and most issues in government, but you can go ahead and keep being a bigot if you like.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

Cry some more, why don't you? You over-generalized, you didn't mean it, I misunderstood what you meant - why is this even still an issue?

I "over-generalized" how?

Straight answer or quit, plz.

Nope. It's just that you claimed you made an argument. Stating that something's dumb isn't an argument.

You dodged my question.

Try again: do you or do you not understand how raising taxes to give someone tax breaks has a high potential to be wasteful, bloated and inefficient?

What the hell are you talking about? I see most Americans praising the memory of Reagan without much thought, even though his economic policies were more often than not rubbish. His various tax-cuts and trickle-down theory were ill-thought, not to mention the drastic increase in military spending and the suddenly bloating deficit thanks to all of these awful policies. The war on drugs was a waste of money and caused more problems than it solved (which was none), and the Iran-Contra affair was a giant sign of incompetence. You must have a low threshold for calling someone a genius.

The reason for Reagan's tax cuts are largely swept under the rug. Criticizing them reveals your failure to understand the topic outside of the biased consensus dumbass college professors less intelligent than my dog, propagate.

A man earns $20,000 in income.

If he pays 50% total taxes, roughly $10,000 of his income will go towards the economy in some form.

If he pays 25% total taxes, roughly $15,000 of his income may go towards the economy.

It is therefore accurate to generalize: reducing taxes is an economy booster, raising them has a side effect of killing economic growth, especially given the bloated, inefficient and wasteful nature of government contracts and socialism in general.

The concept of Reagan being a butterfly who flapped its wings causing an economic tornado in 2008 is farfetched at the very least.

Reagan had a real threat in the form of the Cold War.

Bush had invisible, imaginary, WMD's and an afghan war similar to the one soviets waged for nearly a decade before losing. Seeing russia lose their war in afghanistan should have been a good indicator for why such a was is a bad concept. But then war isn't necessarily about the things people say it is.

I don't know who would smear Jackson and then glorify Bush, but I'd call Bush a complete moron who repeated every one of Reagan's mistakes and then launched us into an unjust, bloody, and protracted war.

And while I agree with a lot of what Jackson did, he caused way more than 100 Native American deaths. It was obvious to everyone that while the Indian Removal Act was supposed to occur only with Native American consent, the government was forcing and coercing them to do so. He sponsored that bill and signed it into law, and because of it and the forceful military removal of the Cherokee from their land, it caused 4000 deaths. I don't know why anyone would try and whitewash that like you're doing.

Reagan's war was real. Bush's was imaginary. You can't compare the two and pretend they're similar. Likewise, the reasons for Reagan's tax cuts and Bush's were wholly disproportionate and not comparable.

Andrew Jackson is demonized for 4,000 fatalities and people pretend that outweighs massively worse atrocities committed by US presidents & others who have done far worse. That = smear campaign.

George Bush caused near to 50% of 4,000 fatalities just by having his administration cut maintenance funding to the New Orleans levees prior to Hurricane Katrina. And he didn't do it to foreigners or indians, he did it to his own people. And, yet there are massive campaigns to convince people Andrew Jackson is a "bad guy" and George Bush isn't?

Would you say that's a bit odd?

What it comes down to is...something like.

1. Rich people have the most money.
2. Rich people fund smear campaigns against politicians they who work against their best interests.
3. Andrew Jackson, Ronald Reagan & others become targets as they've done the most to turn the tables in favor of the common man and show less undue privelege and favortism towards the wealthy.

Dang, you must be a psychic. It's not like it's obvious from my signature or any of my religious posts or anything.

You added that sig quote after I said it.

Haha, oh wow. My religious views or lack thereof have no impact on my views of economy and most issues in government, but you can go ahead and keep being a bigot if you like.

Heh. That's what I mean when I say atheists don't understand context.

Someone can say: republicans make horrible arguments & its an opinion.

But, if I say: atheists make horrible arguments its "bigotry"?

Way to twist things to suit your own self interests, bro.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

You dodged my question.
Try again: do you or do you not understand how raising taxes to give someone tax breaks has a high potential to be wasteful, bloated and inefficient?

I already answered your question: No, that is not what I was saying. The question you just raised is a different one, and yes, I think it has great potential to be inefficient.[/QUOTE]

The reason for Reagan's tax cuts are largely swept under the rug. Criticizing them reveals your failure to understand the topic outside of the biased consensus dumbass college professors less intelligent than my dog, propagate.

Criticism means I'm wrong? You criticize cutting taxes in certain places and then raising them in others - but that's exactly what Reagan did. He made sweeping tax cuts, many of them at higher income tax brackets, and that's what he's most known for. But he also, steadily, signed in smaller tax raises throughout both of his terms. And guess what tax cuts stayed in - those to the wealthy. I say Bush repeated his mistakes because he cut taxes for the wealthy even more.

The concept of Reagan being a butterfly who flapped its wings causing an economic tornado in 2008 is farfetched at the very least.

Um, that's great, but I wasn't asserting that Reagan's policies were what caused our current financial crisis. They were just poor plans in the long term.

Likewise, the reasons for Reagan's tax cuts and Bush's were wholly disproportionate and not comparable.

Nope, they were both poorly informed tax cuts coupled with massive increases in government spending. A strong economy is good, but it doesn't matter if you can't get enough tax revenue to cover the enormous military spending you're making.

Andrew Jackson is demonized for 4,000 fatalities and people pretend that outweighs massively worse atrocities committed by US presidents & others who have done far worse. That = smear campaign.

I really haven't met anyone who demonizes Jackson to the extent you're talking about. As in: that he's the worst president ever.

And he didn't do it to foreigners or indians, he did it to his own people.

So Native Americans being slaughtered and marched to their deaths isn't as bad? Because they're not as important as citizens?

And, yet there are massive campaigns to convince people Andrew Jackson is a "bad guy" and George Bush isn't?

I wouldn't say there's a "massive campaign", since I haven't seen anyone defending Bush. If there is, I haven't taken notice of it because I know Bush Jr. was awful. And the "smearing" of Andrew Jackson I think lies more in the fact that economic history, except very vaguely, isn't well-explained in most American schools. Which isn't good, and it leads to most people not knowing Andrew Jackson's good points. Still, it doesn't change the fact that the Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears are bad things.

You added that sig quote after I said it.

I can't tell if you're trolling or actually serious.

Heh. That's what I mean when I say atheists don't understand context.
Someone can say: republicans make horrible arguments & its an opinion.
But, if I say: atheists make horrible arguments its "bigotry"?
Way to twist things to suit your own self interests, bro.

Wut? Saying Republicans make bad decisions, as in all Republicans make bad decisions regarding everything, is a bigoted opinion. Using universals in arguments tends to set one up for easy refutation. What am I twisting?

We should probably stop this before we derail the thread any further. I won't reply if you reply to this post (on unrelated topics to the thread), even if you try to insult me a bunch again.

-----------------

I think the Republican party is facing the same problems you're pointing out that the Democrats have had, Roland. The presidential nominees for this election and Obama's election were pretty awful for the Republican party. As much as I dislike Bush, he at least had a strong backing which was good for his party. Mccain was a bit impotent and their current nominees feel like a bit of a crapshoot.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

Alrite, on topic.

Criticism means I'm wrong? You criticize cutting taxes in certain places and then raising them in others - but that's exactly what Reagan did. He made sweeping tax cuts, many of them at higher income tax brackets, and that's what he's most known for. But he also, steadily, signed in smaller tax raises throughout both of his terms. And guess what tax cuts stayed in - those to the wealthy. I say Bush repeated his mistakes because he cut taxes for the wealthy even more.

I wouldn't say you're completely and totally wrong. You've undoubtedly read a good deal of the current era political commentary. What you're missing is a good deal of what is said in the mainstream media is biased, agenda-based, revisionist, and plain wrong.

I'll give you an example. The following comes from the government's own house.gov website:

Heres the link: http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

The criticism that the tax payments of the rich would fall under ERTA was based on a static conception of human behavior. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. Unfortunately, estimates of ERTA by the Democrat-controlled CBO continued to show falling tax payment by upper income taxpayers, even after actual IRS data had become available showing a surge of income tax payments by affluent taxpayers.

The government's own website says Reagan's tax cuts - WORKED! The biased and "democrat-controlled CBO" released biased and fabricated data saying they didn't despite hard IRS data to the contrary! I think the CBO was shit then and its still shit now, btw.

Another example, further down the same page...

Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. The graph below illustrates changes in the tax burden during this period.

More things that suggest Reagan's tax plan worked...

The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

Reagan's plan would also seem to have a side effect of lowering taxes on the poor and middle class and raising them on the rich.

In ways, it may be the complete opposite of what Bush did.

Bush and current era politicians are more about screwing the poor and middle class in favor of the rich.

Reagan and 1980's politics was more about screwing the rich in favor of the poor and middle class.

The comparisons between Reagan and Bush era taxation may well be a very flawed comparison as they're complete and total opposites!

Its not about accuracy or facts. Its about demonizing Reagan to avoid having people support Reagan's policies & reforms which historically screw the rich for the good of everyone.

Um, that's great, but I wasn't asserting that Reagan's policies were what caused our current financial crisis. They were just poor plans in the long term.

They were good plans -- but good at the expense of the wealthy.

Which is why wealthy individuals are willing to pay people with history and political science backgrounds in academia blood money to fabricate massive misinformation and smear campaigns against Reagan and others who raised the standard of living of americans at the expense of the rich.

Nope, they were both poorly informed tax cuts coupled with massive increases in government spending. A strong economy is good, but it doesn't matter if you can't get enough tax revenue to cover the enormous military spending you're making.

Responded to this above.

I really haven't met anyone who demonizes Jackson to the extent you're talking about. As in: that he's the worst president ever.

Ah, nvm then. Reagan and Andrew Jackson are two of the most demonized Presidents in my experience.

The President who really should be demonized is Woodrow Wilson, I think.

So Native Americans being slaughtered and marched to their deaths isn't as bad? Because they're not as important as citizens?

Well, if a person destroys a rock which isn't a living thing we wouldn't put that person in prison as if they had committed murder would we? There are relative degrees to things, possibly.

I wouldn't say there's a "massive campaign", since I haven't seen anyone defending Bush. If there is, I haven't taken notice of it because I know Bush Jr. was awful. And the "smearing" of Andrew Jackson I think lies more in the fact that economic history, except very vaguely, isn't well-explained in most American schools. Which isn't good, and it leads to most people not knowing Andrew Jackson's good points. Still, it doesn't change the fact that the Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears are bad things.

Its just a droplet of bad in an ocean of it.

Wut? Saying Republicans make bad decisions, as in all Republicans make bad decisions regarding everything, is a bigoted opinion. Using universals in arguments tends to set one up for easy refutation. What am I twisting?

We should probably stop this before we derail the thread any further. I won't reply if you reply to this post (on unrelated topics to the thread), even if you try to insult me a bunch again.

Its a stereotype / generalization. You're right it is a bit cheap and lame.

I think the Republican party is facing the same problems you're pointing out that the Democrats have had, Roland. The presidential nominees for this election and Obama's election were pretty awful for the Republican party. As much as I dislike Bush, he at least had a strong backing which was good for his party. Mccain was a bit impotent and their current nominees feel like a bit of a crapshoot. [/COLOR]

I would maintain what I said earlier - the problem is americans don't know enough to identify good policy from bad policy.

Hence, how good a candidates reforms, policies and plans are have no bearing on who wins the election or receives the most votes.

It all boils down to money and campign funding for the most part.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Actually I would like to get re centered with this debate. We are starting to grow off topic. The Topic is "Why the democrats can't hold office".

I have heard a few differents things.

That their viewpoints for running a country are inferior to republicans.

That the republicans tend to run dirtier campaigns agaisnt the democrats.

That the media and news is biast towards the republican agenda.

No matter what you believe the reason to be, you can take a look at this topic all the same for the republicans. The underlined discussion I would like to see is "Why we cannot stick with one party for very long?"

Honestly I believe it in the countries best intrest for a little stability. If we can't have repeat democrat/republican presidents, than I would like to at least see us keep a president for 2 terms.

 

[CassinoChips]

Couple things.

1) Ad hominem arguments are logically fallacious. One's religious views has no bearing on their intelligence or ability to create a valid argument. Attack the argument, not the person.

2) As Roland mentioned, we're straying away from the topic of the thread a bit. Natural spin-offs are fine, but let's not go too far off the main path.

Keep it civil.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Actually I would like to get re centered with this debate. We are starting to grow off topic. The Topic is "Why the democrats can't hold office".

I have heard a few differents things.

That their viewpoints for running a country are inferior to republicans.

That the republicans tend to run dirtier campaigns agaisnt the democrats.

That the media and news is biast towards the republican agenda.

No matter what you believe the reason to be, you can take a look at this topic all the same for the republicans. The underlined discussion I would like to see is "Why we cannot stick with one party for very long?"

I think the answer to that is pretty simple: there is a constant swing in support from one party to another as people see (or at least think they see based on what the media is telling them) our country doing poorly. Regardless of uncontrollable factors, people are going to blame the person in charge and look to replace them when they want to see things going better.

As we've all seen (both in history and in the last decade), it's notably easier to mess everything up than it is to fix things. When things are bad, repairs become all the more difficult because they cannot come as fast as people want them. Until we wind up with some sort of utopia where everyone's rights are supported and their freedoms don't encroach upon others (and religious people stop thinking they need the power to control others when no harm is actually coming to anyone) we're going to switch from party to party. The grass is always greener on the other side, and shy of utopia, there will always be another side. So long as things aren't as good as we want them to be, we'll be willing to go somewhere else to help get us a little closer to our ideal.

Democrat, Republican, doesn't matter. U.S. citizens in general will have loyalty to whoever isn't sucking at the time, and that often winds up being whoever isn't in power.

Honestly I believe it in the countries best intrest for a little stability. If we can't have repeat democrat/republican presidents, than I would like to at least see us keep a president for 2 terms.

Stability can be as much of a threat as instability - the trouble being that the longer we have someone doing damage in a position to do so, the greater the damage can become. The constant switching between parties and presidents keeps us safe from any one person or party molding the U.S. too much into what they want to see it become. Some times this may be for the better, but others it could lead us into ruin. The inherent instability protects us from one single set of views taking control.

Well, if a person destroys a rock which isn't a living thing we wouldn't put that person in prison as if they had committed murder would we? There are relative degrees to things, possibly.

I cannot believe you would make this comparison. It shows an incredible disregard for human rights and the value of life. To compare killing Native Americans to destroying rocks is simply disgusting, and to then go on to imply that they are less of humans and their life is of less value because they were not U.S. citizens is unbelievable. You can think what you will about the intelligence of yourself and others, but this says all I need to know about you.