• 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!

A basic political point to think about

Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Sampson Simpson said:
This is a complete lie. Can any of you be honest? Republicans had their hands all over Obamacare. They were involved in the process, because democrats aren't scumbags. Why the hell do you think you can get away with such obvious lies? Oh, because Fox news said it was crammed down our throats? A lot of the measures that caused problems were put in by republicans, so spare me this "shoved down our throats' lie.

What was truly shoved down the throats was this tax cut for the rich nonsense, Democrats couldn't even read it until it was up for a vote. REpublicans did it all without any input, behind closed doors. They did the same under Bush when they had both houses of congress. Spare us this dishonest right wing bull****.
Click to expand...
Nay, you have your history wrong. I suggest you do some googling.

And how trump like was that post, lol. Running off and not knowing the facts.

:
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Craig234 said:
There is a choice for a politician.

Every politician has to make choices, to pick this group of people or that group of people, in some way.

You can please the 'more bombs we have, the better' crowd or the 'keep military spending to a minimum crowd'. You can please the workers, or you can please the owners. You can please the environmentalists, or you can please those who profit from harming the environment. You can please the advocates of public education or the advocates of private education. On and on.

But there is a basic approach to choose from. One is the 'you should try to do what's best overall, trying to treat everyone as deserving you to respect their interests and rights', the 'you represent everyone whether they voted for you or not' approach.

Or, you can take the 'totally serve your voters, and totally screw those who don't vote for you' approach.

trump might be the furthest on the second case in history. So anything his voters want - red states and targeted purple states - he'll try to get. Like billions in payouts to compensate for his policies. Nothing voters in blue states matter; he'll try to cut as much to them as he can, not only indifferent, but an enemy. Even trying to prevent Democrats from being able to vote or having their vote matter is ok.

It's up to voters in the 'pandered group' to demand their candidate respect everyone; if they don't, then they just happily take all the pandering and are happy to 'screw' their fellow citizens, the 'enemy', and winning become all the more important to protect their 'tyranny of the majority'.

If the second type is chosen, the minority tends to support leaders who most pander to them and to not care about the other side, that has been abusing their power. Only voters can really pick which of these two approaches they want. And it's largely a reflection of their character.

There's an old saying about defending the right for people you disagree with to say what they want. The alternative here would be, 'I'm happy for only my side to get heard, and the other side to not get heard at all.' Which do people want?

A common way it's done to justify this is to demonize the 'other side', paint them as criminals, as immoral, as things where it's justified to deny them rights.

It makes 'equal rights' seem wrong. Voters can fall for that, or they can disagree.
Click to expand...

The more I hear folks on the alt-Right screeching about how "The United States is not a democracy because democracy is mob rule"...the more I see ACTUAL MOB RULE working its magic in the alt-Right.

See my sig line :)
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Simpletruther said:
And this is why things will not get better^

We rational folks understand there are ugly people on both sides, and do not punish the whole group for the sins of theirs.

The left has a pretty large mob of crazies. But I do not randomly punish dems because of their crazies.

You guys are doing that, and the media winks at it.
Click to expand...

And again, you fail to condemn the utter reprehensible jackasses walking around with grab them by the ***** shirts, wearing **** your feelings hats, etc.

So please, spare me your odious rhetoric.

This is a war.

No. Middle. Ground.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Obscurity said:
And again, you fail to condemn the utter reprehensible jackasses walking around with grab them by the ***** shirts, wearing **** your feelings hats, etc.

So please, spare me your odious rhetoric.

This is a war.

No. Middle. Ground.
Click to expand...
Reading comprehension problems ^

i clearly said there are ugly people on both sides. It seems to me you are a trump want to be. You are acting just like him.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Simpletruther said:
Reading comprehension problems ^

i clearly said there are ugly people on both sides. It seems to me you are a trump want to be. You are acting just like him.
Click to expand...

Yes, we forgot, you alone are the arbiter of morality and you alone can smear and generalize all you like.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Obscurity said:
Yes, we forgot, you alone are the arbiter of morality and you alone can smear and generalize all you like.
Click to expand...

Another comprehension fail, I didn’t imply any such thing.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Simpletruther said:
Another comprehension fail, I didn’t imply any such thing.
Click to expand...

Yawwwwwn.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Checkerboard Strangler said:
The more I hear folks on the alt-Right screeching about how "The United States is not a democracy because democracy is mob rule"...the more I see ACTUAL MOB RULE working its magic in the alt-Right.
Click to expand...

They're projecting. They don't even understand that they're choosing to create a system in which only one 'side' that wins then is oppressive to the other - they think that's just how it works, largely I think because they're lied to so much that they are so horribly abused by Democrats, by things like having to sell cakes to gay couples or to hire black people fairly, much less affirmative action (which they'd call reverse discrimination).
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Simpletruther said:
Only by reading the worst into everything trump says can one think that.

Trump is rude and boorish. And he attacks people who attack him childishly. But most all of the progressive claims that’s he hates groups and insults them is just political rhetoric.

And besides, going after him, and treating home unrespectfully I get, he asks for it sometimes. But the vile way trump suppprters are being treated only solidifies the trump base and justify the worst instincts in their minds. “See how evil the other side is”
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who you are using the word 'childishly' about, hopefully trump. No, it's not "just political rhetoric". It's classic scapegoating, and actually harmful, and definitely promotes hate of groups - with plenty of evidence he agrees with the hate - and insults them.

His main targets appear to be Muslims and non-white immigrants (legal or not). Your point about 'political rhetoric' applies more to people such as the leader of Denmark this week, when he was idiotically saying he wanted to 'buy Greenland', and she said the idea was absurd - which everyone but trump cultists was thinking - and he then attacked her as a "nasty" woman for saying the word absurd, and cancelled his visit to Denmark.

It's bad enough, the promotion of hatred and insults to get political power. The words came out of his mouth, of thousands of examples, of "ban all Muslims" and "rapists and murderers" and conflating refugees with MS-13. But he goes further, causing a lot of harm. He always supports authoritarians harming and killing and torturing it seems, with rare exceptions of Iran and Venezuela, though he no doubt just wants different authoritarians loyal t him ovr those countries. He supports ending sanctions for harm; ending them especially against Russia, for things like their seizing of Crimea the rest of the world condemned, while trump wants to re-admit Russia to the G8 the world kicked them out of, as well as things like not taking any action against Saudi Arabia's leader for murdering a US resident.

He intentionally causes suffering to refugees, claiming it's justified by trying to deter them, including permanently separating families intentionally to try to scare people from applying for asylum. He cancelled all aid to Honduras, which could help prevent some of the refugees, increasing the suffering of people there. He's causing great suffering with sanctions on places such as Iran and Venezuela. You don't hear a peep of support from him for democracy protesters globally.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Simpletruther said:
And this is why things will not get better^
Click to expand...

trump beginning "his campaign insulting his way to the top. It's not progressive claims. He literally insults groups" isn't the problem, the problem is Obscurity criticizing his doing so, that's your argument?

We rational folks understand there are ugly people on both sides, and do not punish the whole group for the sins of theirs.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about a few 'ugly people' at trump rallies yelling something hateful - we're talking about the president, their chosen leader, saying the hate speech, and the whole rallies cheering him. Remember when McCain had a supporter attack Obama as untrustable as an "Arab", and McCain defended Obama (albeit not Arabs), instead of leading chants of "lock him up"? 90% support of trump's hate speech is why there is 'group blame'.

The left has a pretty large mob of crazies. But I do not randomly punish dems because of their crazies.
Click to expand...

The 'crazy' is trump, and the 'crazies' are the 90% of Republicans who support him without criticizing his hate speech, just as you falsely are denying it in this thread, just whitewashing it as 'political rhetoric' as if it's nothing that all politicians don't do.

You guys are doing that, and the media winks at it.
Click to expand...

We're actually condemning the hate and the support of trump's hate speech, and the media is very correctly reporting that and editorializing against trump's wrongs. You act like a cult member in complaining about the criticism of him and people who support his wrongs - even if you admit he deserves some criticism, which is better than most of his followers.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Simpletruther said:
Nay, you have your history wrong. I suggest you do some googling.
Click to expand...

No, actually, his history is right, and yours is wrong. For example, the ACA was delayed as Obama worked with Republicans who stalled things demanding a lot of changes for their support. The act was weakened with a lot of changes Republicans demanded; and then not one Republican voted for it and it passes without one vote to spare, before Republicans voted over 50 times to repeal it.

And how trump like was that post, lol. Running off and not knowing the facts.
Click to expand...

Oh boy.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Obscurity said:
This is a war.

No. Middle. Ground.
Click to expand...

But let's not ignore the topic of this thread, that when Democrats win that war, they won't act like Republicans and treat half the country like enemies, instead of citizens they represent, even if they disagree with them on things like equal gay rights.

You won't see Democrats trying to provide disaster relief only to Democratic states, for example, like trump has done and threatened to do. trump has also pushed programs to punish Democratic states economically just for politics.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Obscurity said:
Spare us your inane nonsense. This all began with Newt Gingrich, Grove Nordquist, and the nihilistic autocrats of the old Virginia Libertarian school of racist sentiment and austerity for the rich. Newt himself is the father of modern day republicanism; rant and rave, shout and hollar, point fingers, blame the other, name call, throw ****, etc.

Maybe if some of you right wingers had some sense you'd go back and WATCH how Newt and Grover degraded political commentary in endless, venomous, hate filled rants left and right all aimed at democrats.
Click to expand...

This sounds like you're making excuses for those politicians who rather cynically call tens of millions of Americans, "deplorable", "iredeemable" and "the dregs of society", then plan to rule over them as second-class citizens.
Do not blame Newt for the new crop of Leftist Democrats calling all Trump supporters, "racists".
They did not come by their pure, unfiltered disdain for the American people by way of ANY Republican.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Craig234 said:
No, actually, his history is right, and yours is wrong. For example, the ACA was delayed as Obama worked with Republicans who stalled things demanding a lot of changes for their support. The act was weakened with a lot of changes Republicans demanded; and then not one Republican voted for it and it passes without one vote to spare, before Republicans voted over 50 times to repeal it.



Oh boy.
Click to expand...

I suggest you hit google up again. Not a single republican voted yes, not in the house,or senate.

Not
A
single
One.

And public opinion was agaisnt it st the time .


Yes, I was dead on with my statement. It was rammed down our throats.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Craig234 said:
trump beginning "his campaign insulting his way to the top. It's not progressive claims. He literally insults groups" isn't the problem, the problem is Obscurity criticizing his doing so, that's your argument?



We're not talking about a few 'ugly people' at trump rallies yelling something hateful - we're talking about the president, their chosen leader, saying the hate speech, and the whole rallies cheering him. Remember when McCain had a supporter attack Obama as untrustable as an "Arab", and McCain defended Obama (albeit not Arabs), instead of leading chants of "lock him up"? 90% support of trump's hate speech is why there is 'group blame'.



The 'crazy' is trump, and the 'crazies' are the 90% of Republicans who support him without criticizing his hate speech, just as you falsely are denying it in this thread, just whitewashing it as 'political rhetoric' as if it's nothing that all politicians don't do.



We're actually condemning the hate and the support of trump's hate speech, and the media is very correctly reporting that and editorializing against trump's wrongs. You act like a cult member in complaining about the criticism of him and people who support his wrongs - even if you admit he deserves some criticism, which is better than most of his followers.
Click to expand...

Give you a couple of examples of him actually insulting groups.

Crazy left wing politically correct rules don't count. They have t be actual insults to the group.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Simpletruther said:
I suggest you hit google up again. Not a single republican voted yes, not in the house,or senate.

Not
A
single
One.

And public opinion was agaisnt it st the time .


Yes, I was dead on with my statement. It was rammed down our throats.
Click to expand...

The statement was that Obama worked with Republicans, who demanded many changes, and Obama weakened the law to give Republicans many changes they wanted. And then, as I said, not one Republican voted for it anyway. You denied the statement that Obama had worked with Republicans. You're wrong.

You then cite no Republican votes to 'prove' Obama didn't try to work with them, when he did (too much - I criticize him for doing so). Their zero votes for the bill are not proof Obama did not try to work with them, but only of Republicans refusing to vote for the bill after Obama bent over backwards trying to accommodate them. That they betrayed the good faith he had in compromising with them.

The topic is not whether is was 'rammed down the throats' of its opponents.

It was. Amongst a lot of opposition based on Republicans lying loudly about what it did. And then, just as Pelosi said - and Republicans lied about what she said also - after it was in effect, Americans came to understand better the actual policies, and supported them. Now the ACA has majority support.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Acadia said:
This sounds like you're making excuses for those politicians who rather cynically call tens of millions of Americans, "deplorable", "iredeemable" and "the dregs of society", then plan to rule over them as second-class citizens.
Do not blame Newt for the new crop of Leftist Democrats calling all Trump supporters, "racists".
They did not come by their pure, unfiltered disdain for the American people by way of ANY Republican.
Click to expand...

There's nothing "cynical" about calling people who support hate speech deplorables. Democrats do not want to treat "deplorables" as second class citizens, the way the deplorables want to treat Muslims and most people of color as second-class citizens.

New Gingrich did do a lot to create division in the country as a political tactic, to build hate as a political weapon. Democrats don't have "pure, unfiltered disdain for the American people" - Republicans who manipulate them to get their votes so they can pass plutocracy and give all the money and wealth to a few do that.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Craig234 said:
The statement was that Obama worked with Republicans, who demanded many changes, and Obama weakened the law to give Republicans many changes they wanted. And then, as I said, not one Republican voted for it anyway. You denied the statement that Obama had worked with Republicans. You're wrong.

You then cite no Republican votes to 'prove' Obama didn't try to work with them, when he did (too much - I criticize him for doing so). Their zero votes for the bill are not proof Obama did not try to work with them, but only of Republicans refusing to vote for the bill after Obama bent over backwards trying to accommodate them. That they betrayed the good faith he had in compromising with them.

The topic is not whether is was 'rammed down the throats' of its opponents.

It was. Amongst a lot of opposition based on Republicans lying loudly about what it did. And then, just as Pelosi said - and Republicans lied about what she said also - after it was in effect, Americans came to understand better the actual policies, and supported them. Now the ACA has majority support.
Click to expand...

Sorry be zero votes from the other side, and public opinion agaisnt it, is the definition of ramming it down our throats.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Craig234 said:
I'm not sure who you are using the word 'childishly' about, hopefully trump. No, it's not "just political rhetoric". It's classic scapegoating, and actually harmful, and definitely promotes hate of groups - with plenty of evidence he agrees with the hate - and insults them.

His main targets appear to be Muslims and non-white immigrants (legal or not). Your point about 'political rhetoric' applies more to people such as the leader of Denmark this week, when he was idiotically saying he wanted to 'buy Greenland', and she said the idea was absurd - which everyone but trump cultists was thinking - and he then attacked her as a "nasty" woman for saying the word absurd, and cancelled his visit to Denmark.

It's bad enough, the promotion of hatred and insults to get political power. The words came out of his mouth, of thousands of examples, of "ban all Muslims" and "rapists and murderers" and conflating refugees with MS-13. But he goes further, causing a lot of harm. He always supports authoritarians harming and killing and torturing it seems, with rare exceptions of Iran and Venezuela, though he no doubt just wants different authoritarians loyal t him ovr those countries. He supports ending sanctions for harm; ending them especially against Russia, for things like their seizing of Crimea the rest of the world condemned, while trump wants to re-admit Russia to the G8 the world kicked them out of, as well as things like not taking any action against Saudi Arabia's leader for murdering a US resident.

He intentionally causes suffering to refugees, claiming it's justified by trying to deter them, including permanently separating families intentionally to try to scare people from applying for asylum. He cancelled all aid to Honduras, which could help prevent some of the refugees, increasing the suffering of people there. He's causing great suffering with sanctions on places such as Iran and Venezuela. You don't hear a peep of support from him for democracy protesters globally.
Click to expand...

Realistic and well said! Good to see good rational folks posting what is really going on. It's not that hard to see, unless you have blinders on.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Simpletruther said:
Sorry be zero votes from the other side, and public opinion agaisnt it, is the definition of ramming it down our throats.
Click to expand...

Which I already agreed with, while you ignore the rest of my post.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Craig234 said:
Which I already agreed with, while you ignore the rest of my post.
Click to expand...

I was called a liar by the other poster for what you are claiming to agree with me on. Thst was my objection, not your comment.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

What a load of crap.

Craig234 said:
One is the 'you should try to do what's best overall, trying to treat everyone as deserving you to respect their interests and rights', the 'you represent everyone whether they voted for you or not' approach.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the candidates who are sticking to the "those guys are the deplorables" guys? The ones rallying around a few openly anti-semitics? The ones who openly hate successfu...err...evil rich people?

Or, you can take the 'totally serve your voters, and totally screw those who don't vote for you' approach.
Click to expand...
Oh wait...this must be the democrat party. Wait...I'm confused.

trump might be the furthest on the second case in history. So anything his voters want - red states and targeted purple states - he'll try to get.
Click to expand...
"His" voters don't want tax hikes. Looks like those are coming.
"His" voters don't want to see the deficit go through the ceiling. Looks like that's not happening.


Even trying to prevent Democrats from being able to vote or having their vote matter is ok.
Click to expand...
I'm definitely going to need a citation or two on this crap.

It's up to voters in the 'pandered group' to demand their candidate respect everyone
Click to expand...
Pandered group? Is that like how democrats openly pander to blacks, Mexicans, etc. but HATE the Jews and "rich people?" That kind of pandering?

the minority tends to support leaders who most pander to them and to not care about the other side
Click to expand...
...and this is why black people typically vote "democrat." That's the party promising all the free stuff (including reparations).

There's an old saying about defending the right for people you disagree with to say what they want. The alternative here would be, 'I'm happy for only my side to get heard, and the other side to not get heard at all.' Which do people want?
Click to expand...
From what I've seen from both sides in the past 15 years of so, you can pack up the leftists into a rocket, and fire that sucker into the sun. They're the party of "divide and conquer." They're the party of cultural segregation. They're the party of "we'll say whatever you want as long as you vote for us."

A common way it's done to justify this is to demonize the 'other side', paint them as criminals, as immoral, as things where it's justified to deny them rights.
Click to expand...
See the following:
Rashida Tlaib (anti-semite #1)
Ilhan Omar (anti-semite #2)
Bernie Sanders (Robin Hood wannabe)
Joe Biden (wait...is Matlock on?)
Elizabeth "Look at me! I'm an indian!" Warren.

If Tulsi won the nomination, I'd think about voting for her. But if she doesn't, and Trump wins? Again...this is all YOUR party's fault for propping up such horrible, horrible candidates.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Simpletruther said:
I was called a liar by the other poster for what you are claiming to agree with me on. Thst was my objection, not your comment.
Click to expand...

You still ignored the rest of my post. Also, the part I'm agreeing with is that is was 'rammed down the throats' of opponents eventually - but the other poster was right, as I said, that Obama bent over backwards trying to make concessions to Republicans before that.
 
Re: A basic political point to think about: representing all the people

Craig234 said:
You still ignored the rest of my post. Also, the part I'm agreeing with is that is was 'rammed down the throats' of opponents eventually - but the other poster was right, as I said, that Obama bent over backwards trying to make concessions to Republicans before that.
Click to expand...

Hey eat this dog poo.

Tell you what, I will concede and sprinkle some sugar on it, wait I will also slow roast it with basil sauce, I will work with you here.

The point I made was accurate. That they tried to come to an agreement and negotiated is to be expected. It doesn’t alter the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom