• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Losing Politics of Contempt

Kurmugeon said:
The Clinton's and their corruption did great damage to the Democratic Party, it is true.

But Obama, and his shift to the radical, ethnocentric, pro-Muslim, anti-Working-White, Anti-American, Far-Left... well, that did, IMHO, far more damage to the Democratic Party, than the self-serving, money-grubbing, corruption of the Clintons.

Bill Clinton reluctantly signed work requirement welfare reform, which greatly improved the economy.

Obama aided and abetting a huge wave of Mexican, Central American, and Muslim Invaders to deliberately, and openly stated, displace and replace Working White Americans! This was nothing short of TREASON!

The Clintons were Greedy and Corrupt, but Obama was Anti-American, and Anti-Working-White Traitor.

A nation is damaged by, but can survive its top leaders being Greedy and Corrupt, but another Obama, and America is destroyed.

-
Click to expand...

My reading, which has yet to be confirmed but I expect it will be in the coming years through books now that Clinton Corp has failed, is that Obama rarely was interested in work, and was not much more interested in the health of the party than Clinton Corp was, and so he allowed himself to get talked into following the Clinton program, not least because him getting some credit for America finally getting a female President was his wet dream.

And this being Obama that female sucking was not a deal breaker.

Obama like many believed that the Gods had told.

Hillary being President was destiny.

He wanted to be part of it.

GLORY BE!
 
Helix said:
our two party system has been utter in-group / out-group hyperpartisan hatred for decades. where this issue is concerned, neither side has enough moral high ground to build a ****house on.
Click to expand...

And that will only change long term after term limits for Congress are enacted. There is too much entrenched power in congress in both parties.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I strongly disagree. Yes, many didn't really want Trump either, but saw him as much superior to another four to eight years of the status quo that we would have had with Hillary. Trump offered us something to vote for. Hillary didn't.
Click to expand...

Yep. What the left and even many on the right still refuse to acknowledge is that in the 2016 election, it was not about liking or disliking Trump. It was about the majority of voters having had it over status quo establishment politics. Trump tapped into that. I thoroughly disliked Trump during the republican primaries, however when he debated Hillary, I liked what he had to say regarding policy and the promises he made...which so far he is making every effort to follow through on.
 
ludin said:
ok so you can't address the argument that is what I figured.

I could careless about protests. destroying other peoples property and threatening them is not protesting it is rioting. if you don't understand the difference then well
that is your issue.
Click to expand...

The only reason there is outrage over these incidents -- which were weeks ago, by the way -- is because they serve to dismiss and/or brand your political opponents. Your talking points are tiresome.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
The only reason there is outrage over these incidents -- which were weeks ago, by the way -- is because they serve to dismiss and/or brand your political opponents. Your talking points are tiresome.
Click to expand...

Again I am not branding anyone these people brand themselves.
What do you mean weeks ago. Yet another liberal just the other day called for the president to be assasinated.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Yep. What the left and even many on the right still refuse to acknowledge is that in the 2016 election, it was not about liking or disliking Trump. It was about the majority of voters having had it over status quo establishment politics. Trump tapped into that. I thoroughly disliked Trump during the republican primaries, however when he debated Hillary, I liked what he had to say regarding policy and the promises he made...which so far he is making every effort to follow through on.
Click to expand...

That's it. I liked most--not all but most-- of his stated goals in the campaign even though he was certainly not my first, second, third, fourth. . . .choice. But once he won the nomination, I chose to support him because he had so many goals that I thought not only commendable, but excellent. And I have continued to support him because he is doing his damndest to meet those goals even with a permanent political class Congress that doesn't want to disturb the status quo.
 
ludin said:
Again I am not branding anyone these people brand themselves.
What do you mean weeks ago. Yet another liberal just the other day called for the president to be assasinated.
Click to expand...

You are branding. Johnny Depp speaks for Johnny Depp. "Liberals" or "the left" encompass a wide range of belief systems and actions.

You'll also find people trying to brand conservatives through association with the KKK and the abortion clinic shooter. Do those people speak for you?
 
If the Democrats acted as if their opponents were wrong and not evil they would be much more effective. They should be attacking conclusions with the goal of changing minds rather than attacking character with a goal of shaming. The character assignation of their political opponents is naturally going to be resented by the people that voted for those opponents. That resentment is being expressed at the ballot box.

Seems like a poor strategy for these Democrats to insult the people they want to support them. Calling for violence against the people I voted for or painting them as ignorant, uncaring, and evil isn't going to make me change my vote or my views. It is just going to make me even more dismissive of their arguments and push me to avoid them all the more because by extension, they are painting me with same brush.

Rather than raising their voice, they should reinforce their argument. But that concept seems lost on the Democratic party these days.
 
AlbqOwl said:
There is nothing on the right that compares to the blind hatred and toxic vitriol being spewed from the left right now. I have lived a long time now and have observed many campaigns and presidencies and though there are memorable unpleasant words and incidents from all campaigns, I have never seen anything like this. And until good honest Democrats admit that and start denouncing it, I think there isn't much hope for the Democratic Party.

See my Post #12.
Click to expand...

as i said, neither side has any moral high ground.
 
ObamacareFail said:
And that will only change long term after term limits for Congress are enacted. There is too much entrenched power in congress in both parties.
Click to expand...

possibly. i'd rather see gerrymandering banned first.
 
Helix said:
possibly. i'd rather see gerrymandering banned first.
Click to expand...

The federal government does not have the power to ban gerrymandering. Apportioning districts happens at the state level. In my opinion, turnabout is fair play. The democrats held the gerrymandering advantage for roughly seven decades....and they very much took advantage of it. The republicans winning over 1000 legislative seats in the 2010 midterms gave the republicans that advantage. And they are likely to hold onto it for quite a while as well. There are waves that change which party is in power in congress, however such waves are rare at the state level. My state's legislature in 2010 went from democrat to republican for the first time since Ulysess S. Grant was president. I am not convinced that there is a way to take partisan politics out of re-apportionment. However if we ever enact term limits in congress, that should alleviate some of your concerns about gerrymandering.
 
ObamacareFail said:
The federal government does not have the power to ban gerrymandering. Apportioning districts happens at the state level. In my opinion, turnabout is fair play. The democrats held the gerrymandering advantage for roughly seven decades....and they very much took advantage of it. The republicans winning over 1000 legislative seats in the 2010 midterms gave the republicans that advantage. And they are likely to hold onto it for quite a while as well. There are waves that change which party is in power in congress, however such waves are rare at the state level. My state's legislature in 2010 went from democrat to republican for the first time since Ulysess S. Grant was president. I am not convinced that there is a way to take partisan politics out of re-apportionment. However if we ever enact term limits in congress, that should alleviate some of your concerns about gerrymandering.
Click to expand...

1. of course the federal government has the power to ban gerrymandering.

2. i don't want either side to be able to gerrymander. do you?
 
Helix said:
1. of course the federal government has the power to ban gerrymandering.
Click to expand...

It's been around since our founding. It would take a constitutional amendment to ban it altogether. Re-apportionment will not go away.

2. i don't want either side to be able to gerrymander. do you?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, it should be reformed, but not abolished. Redistricting should remain in the hands of the states. There should be rules that restrict for instance racial gerrymandering, cutting through towns etc. I think the voters should pick the politicians, not the other way around. However can you honestly say that you opposed gerrymandering long before 2010, when the republicans gained control of gerrymandering?
 
ObamacareFail said:
It's been around since our founding. It would take a constitutional amendment to ban it altogether. Re-apportionment will not go away.



In my opinion, it should be reformed, but not abolished. Redistricting should remain in the hands of the states. There should be rules that restrict for instance racial gerrymandering, cutting through towns etc. I think the voters should pick the politicians, not the other way around. However can you honestly say that you opposed gerrymandering long before 2010, when the republicans gained control of gerrymandering?
Click to expand...

i have always opposed gerrymandering. it's the definition of conflict of interest, and it's a cancer on the democratic process.
 
Helix said:
i have always opposed gerrymandering. it's the definition of conflict of interest, and it's a cancer on the democratic process.
Click to expand...

However the only way to do away with gerrymandering is to do away with reapportionment altogether.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom