Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Because compromise is what makes government and our society in general work. You prove my point, there's no difference between either major party.
So you think average Americans should sacrifice their livelihood so that the wealthy can make more money than they need?
Originally posted by Lestov16
So you think average Americans should sacrifice their livelihood so that the wealthy can make more money than they need?
This is why I said it is hard to differentiate Dems from Republicans: the Bailout.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/business&id=6430408
A "yes" vote is a vote to pass the bill.
Voting yes were 172 Democrats and 91 Republicans.
Voting no were 63 Democrats and 108 Republicans.
Hardly the "GOP supports the 2%" picture you were painting. It seems the opposite, right?
We both know that the GOP generally supports big business but that particular vote makes it seem opposite. This is why people like Archaeopteryx and myself claim it is difficult to say the parties are "different" because they are not all that different.
Also, here, several Dems lied about the bailout vote:
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/democratic-bailout-baloney/
Those lying scumbags! 😠 😠 😠
I know democrats phuck up, but not on the level Republicans are. Democrats are the guys who will steal 5 dollars from your wallet if they know you have 20. Republicans will steal 5 dollars from your wallet if they know it is the only money you have left. Sure democrats have supported big business, but they've never sided with big business against the basic welfare of the American people. They've never held the economy hostage for literally no good reason.
Originally posted by Lestov16Most of the population is of average intelligence or below. 😉
I'm just honestly shocked that riots aren't breaking out to get these people out of office. Just like Oliver North said, even after the Republican party shot down all attempts at economic reform in 2011 and then ran a [b]completely bullshit presidential campaign, almost half the nation still voted for these people. Why? Why? Why?Why? Why?.....(ad infinitum) [/B]
The Republican party is not entirely w/o value. It's modern incarnation essentially expouses self-reliance over dependence on government. If nothing else, it certainly keeps another party from having all the power. It's problem, imho, is that it represents the Old World: one that resists change in an attempt to sustain the illusion of a Norman Rockwell planet where white people rule happily ever after, where heartless competition and unbridled greed are good. However, Earth has grown too small and too diverse for this mindset to continue.
I certainly don't think the Democrats have all the answers, and for the most part, a politician is a politician is a politician. But I am inclined to favor a party which, for example, had the courage to put a woman on the vice-presidential ticket a whole generation before the other did.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Please tell me what, other than lip service, that the Democrats are actually doing to help the poor and middle class. Give specific examples.
Are you supporting the Republican stance? My stance here isn't supporting Democrats, it's lambasting Republicans. And also, pretty sure the fact that they aren't voting no basic disability rights bills, attacking unions, and holding our economy hostage gives them a lot more credibility than Republicans. Also, I'm pretty sure it was the Republicans who ran us into our current financial crisis that is affecting the poor and middle class and it was the Republicans who have been obstructing Obama's attempted economic reforms ever since his presidency began. And sure, his solutions aren't perfect, but they're the best ones we got.
Please tell me what are Republicans doing better than Democrats. Tell me how they are benefiting are country at all. That's the thing with D and R. Democrats have good and bad days. GOP has only bad days.
Originally posted by Mindship
Most of the population is of average intelligence or below. 😉The Republican party is not entirely w/o value. It's modern incarnation essentially expouses self-reliance over dependence on government. If nothing else, it certainly keeps another party from having all the power. It's problem, imho, is that it represents the Old World: one that resists change in an attempt to sustain the illusion of a Norman Rockwell planet where white people rule happily ever after, where heartless competition and unbridled greed are good. However, Earth has grown too small and too diverse for this mindset to continue.
I certainly don't think the Democrats have all the answers, and for the most part, a politician is a politician is a politician. But I am inclined to favor a party which, for example, had the courage to put a woman on the vice-presidential ticket a whole generation before the other did.
I entirely agree. I guess Republicans do serve as a balance of power, but couldn't they just be replaced by Libertarians? Libs essentially believe in the same things as GOP but aren't greedy spiteful businessmen. Republicans are definitely an outdated and obsolete relic of the 50's, and no longer serve a practical purpose in our government. Matter of fact, they are a detriment.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Are you supporting the Republican stance? My stance here isn't supporting Democrats, it's lambasting Republicans. And also, pretty sure the fact that they aren't voting no basic disability rights bills, attacking unions, and holding our economy hostage gives them a lot more credibility than Republicans. Also, I'm pretty sure it was the Republicans who ran us into our current financial crisis that is affecting the poor and middle class and it was the Republicans who have been obstructing Obama's attempted economic reforms ever since his presidency began. And sure, his solutions aren't perfect, but [b]they're the best ones we got.Please tell me what are Republicans doing better than Democrats. Tell me how they are benefiting are country at all. That's the thing with D and R. Democrats have good and bad days. GOP has only bad days. [/B]
Do you even read my posts?
You think Democrats should compromise just because that's the system an ideal government would take. Sadly, this is not an ideal government, and these are not ideal circumstances. There are situations in which compromise is not an option, and this is one of them. Americans shouldn't have to sacrifice their livelihoods to support the wealthy elite. Wouldn't matter if it were GOP or democrats supporting it. They'd be in the wrong and that's what I'm talking about here.
Originally posted by Lestov16
I entirely agree. I guess Republicans do serve as a balance of power, but couldn't they just be replaced by Libertarians? Libs essentially believe in the same things as GOP but aren't greedy spiteful businessmen. Republicans are definitely an outdated and obsolete relic of the 50's, and no longer serve a practical purpose in our government. Matter of fact, they are a detriment.
By "50s" you meant "1850s" right? Right? RIIIIIGHT? 😆
But, yeah, it was founded in the 1850s by peeps that, generally, were anti-slavery. Those liberal Republicans! *shakes fists with extreme chagrin*
Originally posted by Lestov16
You think Democrats should compromise just because that's the system an ideal government would take. Sadly, this is not an ideal government, and these are not ideal circumstances. There are situations in which compromise is not an option, and this is one of them. Americans shouldn't have to sacrifice their livelihoods to support the wealthy elite. Wouldn't matter if it were GOP or democrats supporting it. They'd be in the wrong and that's what I'm talking about here.
I asked you for specific examples on the Democrats and you dodged the question. Right now a compromise, especially on the "fiscal cliff" is needed in Washington. I do not see how the Democrats are helping anyones livelihood.....other than the upper percentile. Both parties are parties of the rich....you obviously havn't been paying attention.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
I asked you for specific examples on the Democrats and you dodged the question. Right now a compromise, especially on the "fiscal cliff" is needed in Washington. I do not see how the Democrats are helping anyones livelihood.....other than the upper percentile. Both parties are parties of the rich....you obviously havn't been paying attention.
I don't see how it can be avoided: the rich are the ones that fund the elections. Seems obvious that the eventual outcome is a bunch of connected, rich people getting elected to public office.
Maybe if we severely limit:
1. Lobbying and the way it can be done.
2. The amount that can be spent on an election (different levels of spending for different public offices from local town hall committee to PotUS).
3. Limit house and senate terms.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't see how it can be avoided: the rich are the ones that fund the elections. Seems obvious that the eventual outcome is a bunch of connected, rich people getting elected to public office.
Pretty much agree with this
Maybe if we severely limit:
1. Lobbying and the way it can be done.
2. The amount that can be spent on an election (different levels of spending for different public offices from local town hall committee to PotUS).
3. Limit house and senate terms.
I think all of those are needed, especially theamount spent on elections.
1 Lobbying by for profit entities should be severely limited though I wouldn't change it for non profits.
2 Limit the time legal campaigning can be done to 3 months before the election and set a fixed amount of money a candidate can spend.
3 One term for the President, two terms for Senate, and four terms for the House
And most importantly, it needs to be easier for other political parties to involved in the process, that's the only real way we'll truely get change.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryxthe two sides clearly have different priorities in regard to how to tackle the debt. the democrats are mostly concerned over protecting "entitlements" while the republicans are against any hike in tax rates for the rich. you can argue about which stance would help the middle class more. that doesn't change the fact that they're two different stances, hence why the compromise is hard to come by in the first place.
I asked you for specific examples on the Democrats and you dodged the question. Right now a compromise, especially on the "fiscal cliff" is needed in Washington. I do not see how the Democrats are helping anyones livelihood.....other than the upper percentile. Both parties are parties of the rich....you obviously havn't been paying attention.
how does this fit into the "there's no difference between the two parties" hypotheses?
Originally posted by Dolos
Obama will go down as the Einstein of politics. The one who tried to unite the Republicans and the Democrats, giving the US something it's never had before, cooperation. A new theory that when tested proves successful in running things.
No.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Dividers? Why should he and the majority of the nation have to compromise and sacrifice their basic needs so the top 2% can profit more than they already exorbitantly do. That's the disgusting thing about it. The 2% don't even need to worry about the tax hike affecting their overall wealth and living conditions, but Republicans still won't compromise, out of a mix of greed and spite.Obama shouldn't have to compromise a damn thing. The plans he and his administration have been putting on the table would undoubtedly benefit everyone across the board, hell, even Warren Buffett came up with a reasonable plan, but the Republicans are being unreasonable and are staunchly supporting 2% of the population, at the detriment of the rest. They are the ones who need to fold, as they are [b]clearly
in the wrong here, and Obama shouldn't have to adjust his plan so that the livelihood of middle-class workers can be sacrificed, even a little, so a wealthy CEO can make even more money than they need. It's an utterly senseless sacrifice and the Republican Party should be ashamed of themselves for demanding it.I think this is the point where business-influencing-government has become more blatant than ever before, as now basic rights are being attacked purely for profit. Our economy is actually being held hostage, for the second time in 4 years, and for literally no logical reason (as billionaire CEOs do not need the smidgens more that they would pay in taxes).
I'm just honestly shocked that riots aren't breaking out to get these people out of office. Just like Oliver North said, even after the Republican party shot down all attempts at economic reform in 2011 and then ran a completely bullshit presidential campaign, almost half the nation still voted for these people. Why? Why? Why?Why? Why?.....(ad infinitum) [/B]
Because your ideas are not the only ones, and to a certain extent you're repeating Democratic propoganda talking points here, not working with data or actual policies.