Byakuya769
Member
Unrelated, but Cyan I was getting really annoyed with you in another thread, until I realized your are not Numble (the true subject of my ire).
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Unrelated, but Cyan I was getting really annoyed with you in another thread, until I realized your are not Numble (the true subject of my ire).
Terra Firma
Banned
Tell me how the Republicans have significantly differed from the Democrats on:
a) Foreign policy
b) Civil liberties
c) Economy
Both have been for the following:
a) veiled threats against Iran; targeted killings of Iranian scientists in Iran; in fact, the US committed an act of war against Iran by trying to target its infrastructure with computer code, which may have potentially killed hundreds if not thousands had it not backfired
b) illegal breaches of another country's sovereignty (Pakistan), killing women, children, civilian men, and even Pakistani army men using unmanned aircrafts; the resulting death toll has a high ratio of civilian to terrorist deaths
c) continuation of Gitmo; didn't Obama say he would close it in the first Spring of his presidency?
d) continued use of torture, despite being against international law; using bully tactics to scare anyone who dares bring this up
e) continued use of extraordinary rendition, where torture is outsourced to corrupt regimes including Syria, which is a regime that is most definitely not any friend of the US
f) killing American civilians, including a 16 year old American who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time
g) bailing out financial institutions (this I do think is necessary)
h) taxation being seen as a taboo (why do neither of the parties want to increase taxation, especially on the rich? now if Democrats did want to do that and we saw Democrats doing so, then I'd say they are truly different from the Republicans on economy but they're not doing this)
Terra Firma
Banned
As I've been repeating myself over and over, it is a matter of religion. Whichever party had the more evangelical Christians delivered more votes but that still does not discount the fact that the religious African American community, which votes overwhelming for Democrats still voted for prop 8.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I like Terra Firma because he's sort of a unifier in the PoliGAF community in that it's one person vs. everyone.
Also what the hell are you talking about? So there's no difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties on most policy issues (including gay rights) and your proof is of voting habits of red states vs. blue states?
Voters aren't legislators and don't determine party platforms, generally. My dad is a conservative Democrat who's iffy on gay marriage but he's not making the laws, and every Democrat in the state senate/house voted against the gay marriage ban here, and Gov. Dayton (D) vetoed it (because it's a constitutional amendment though, it doesn't require the governor's approval so it was purely symbolic).
I would wager, quite comfortably that Prop 8 would fail if it were up for a vote this Fall. And even in 2008 there was more support for gay marriage in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party.
Also what the hell are you talking about? So there's no difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties on most policy issues (including gay rights) and your proof is of voting habits of red states vs. blue states?
Voters aren't legislators and don't determine party platforms, generally. My dad is a conservative Democrat who's iffy on gay marriage but he's not making the laws, and every Democrat in the state senate/house voted against the gay marriage ban here, and Gov. Dayton (D) vetoed it (because it's a constitutional amendment though, it doesn't require the governor's approval so it was purely symbolic).
I would wager, quite comfortably that Prop 8 would fail if it were up for a vote this Fall. And even in 2008 there was more support for gay marriage in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Great news about that the piece of shit amendment in Minnesota(my state) is likely to go down in flames. We'd be the first state to reject amending the state constitution to prohibit homosexuals from marrying?
Terra Firma
Banned
I didn't realize Minnesota had a large Republican population (it doesn't).
Also, follow the link to the source. It's easy to infer that it isn't Republicanism, but evangelism that is limiting this because at least 55% of Republicans are willing to accept some form of legal recognition (which obviously isn't sufficient but the word "marriage" is the major hiccup for evangelicals).
Minnesota is also a predominantly white state, which would mean that the religious community in Minnesota also tends to vote Republican, indicating that it is their evangelism and version of Christianity that makes them more likely to oppose gay marriage than their Republican tendencies.
Well, you're all Americans and I'm just providing an outsider perspective.
I'd move on to why your wrong on the Economy but your still struggling to grasp why they differ on SSM rights. Ill try and put this as clear as I can for you. It is considered a national party platform for republicans to be against SSM. Socially liberal and Fiscally Conservative people are in the pathetically small minority in this nation in fact you almost never hear about them because they are so minuscule on the national radar. Democrats are the ones that support SSM rights while they ones that don't are in the minority.
So can we conclude that you were factually false about the similarities between the democrats and republicans on SSM now???
Aaron Strife
Banned
Dayton won by less than a point and is the first Democratic Governor we've had in 20 years. Minnesota is solidly blue on the presidential level but there is a substantial Republican base here that's given the GOP several statewide victories over the past few years, Tim Pawlenty and Norm Coleman being the most notable.
Incidentally, Coleman and Pawlenty are both against gay marriage and their Democratic replacements (Al Franken and Mark Dayton respectively) both support it LOLOLOLOL
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
a) Foreign Policy - I've already explained to you that the majority of the US is united in our foreign policy misadventures. That said, Republicans differ in foreign policy in that they don't believe we should answer to the UN, they believe in something called American Exceptionalism which suggests that the world is ours for the taking, and they believe war is a better answer than peace talks, because talking projects being a pussy. Democrats believe in a larger world order, a collective of nations working together where possible, acting where we must and abstaining where there's no good outcome.
b) I'd answer this but I'm being watched.
c) There are vast differences between the left and the right on the Economy. The left are largely Keynesians while the right are supply-side trickle downers that believe the poors deserve it and the rich are the sole creators of jobs. It's silly that you know so much about America but haven't picked up on this.
a) Iran? What difference would you want? I think your problem is that you expect American liberals to be pacifists. They're not.
b) More of the same. This doesn't make Obama "exactly like Bush."
c) Please take an American Civics course and learn about the separation of powers. In case google is broken, Obama doesn't have that power and Congress wouldn't vote on it.
d) Continued use of torture? Wtf is this?
e) Oh, you mean by proxy? This is making me uncomfortable.
f) what are you talking about
g) Financial bailouts were unavoidable. I don't think you're being serious.
h)...
Ok, your issue is that American Liberalism has failed? You're right. Too many times Democrats fight on the ground of conservatism that taxes aren't necessary and that war is either just or required.
But if you really believed Bush and Obama were the same, you don't think there'd be a difference if GWB was still in office? Seriously, gtfo. Politics and leadership is more than policy, and the way our nation is designed leads to two parties that really aren't that far apart.
Sorry for dismissing you so quickly earlier, you're just extremely arrogant about stuff you really don't understand. I highly suggest looking into the separation of powers and who does what. Part of what you think you might be observing is actually called gridlock. The rest is called corruption, greed, and lust of power.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I think I just in a round about way agreed with a TA post from a few days ago, where he was arguing that a President is more than his results. "Yes he raised taxes but he didn't want to." Or something.
I know what you mean now, TA. It's still wrong, but at least I understand.
On topic: I think Romney would be more liberal in practice than he lets on, but that's liberal optimism for ya.
I know what you mean now, TA. It's still wrong, but at least I understand.
On topic: I think Romney would be more liberal in practice than he lets on, but that's liberal optimism for ya.
Terra Firma
Banned
The moniker that is used for fiscally conservative but socially liberal differs depending on which party one's affiliated with. If a person is both and a Democrat, he calls himself a progressive. If a person is both and a Republican, he may call himself libertarian. Many companies and corporations that support Republicans tend to be fiscally conservative but also socially liberal. That is why a lot of businessmen and even politicians who may be Republicans tend to vote Republican purely because of their fiscal conservatism. As I've mentioned, even Dick Cheney is pro gay marriage. Many upper tier Republicans are socially progressive but have to tow the party line because of the evangelical base and I've said this many times already.
Again, can you point me to a list where I can read the party platforms of both the Democratic and Republican parties? If you can, then I will concede that that these parties are inherently and diametrically opposed on this issue.
From the GOP 2008 national platform -
The DNC 2008 national platform (they didn't talk about it all that much, but I fully expect it to be featured much more prominently in the 2012 platform, public opinions have shifted dramatically in the last 4 years) -
Seriously man, stop digging.
Everybody post stupid shit from time to time, you're not obliged to defend everything that came out of your keyboard.
At least I hope not, because fuck if I'm doing it.
TF, you're trying to argue in macros to prove your point, but the fundamental differences between the two parties should be expressed at an individual level in government while respecting the make-up of their constituents and the demographics they serve.
Your example of black liberals being against SSM is only an example that it is possible to hold beliefs supporting both parties. But they are a minority. This is the distinction. The democratic party is generally for SSM. You see it at the state level where blue states lean toward more liberal policies including things like allowing SSM.
Your example of black liberals being against SSM is only an example that it is possible to hold beliefs supporting both parties. But they are a minority. This is the distinction. The democratic party is generally for SSM. You see it at the state level where blue states lean toward more liberal policies including things like allowing SSM.
Again your being purposely obtuse by pulling out a name or two to support your theories. I can tell you right now that I'm not going to both responding to your other questions because your just going to pull ridiculous one offs to "prove" your point. Ill just say that for you saying that democrats and republicans are the same is like me going on a rampage about how the Conservative Party of Canada, New Democratic Party, Liberal Party of Canada are all exactly the same. Just because you don't live in our country doesn't make your outsider ignorance correct.
RustyNails
Member
I see a new junior wave has arrived
If it has TF wasn't part of it. He arrived in 09 but didn't really start posting until recently. Which begs the point maybe he is just a troll trying to stir it up or someones alt.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'm not going to do this for every single state, so I'll choose three. All red states.
Montana Democratic Party:
Montana Republican Party:
Texas Democratic Party
Texas Republican Party
(Note: This is not even a specific policy, this is one of the 11 Principles stated at the top. There's an entire section on "family values" about half of which is devoted to this issue)
Wyoming Democratic Party
The Wyoming GOP just links to the national party platform, which explicitly mentions they're opposed to gay marriage.
The United States has weak, decentralized parties because of our institutional arrangements. We are a large, diverse, federal republic with a presidential system and strong interest groups. Nearly every aspect of our political system militates against strong, ideologically cohesive parties. Our political parties are not nearly as strong as in most other democracies. Consequently, our parties are more diverse, and you will observe more convergence than in other democracies. Nevertheless, partisan influence exists as I noted. Even from identical constituencies, Democrats and Republicans pursue divergent agendas. Perhaps not on every issue, but on many issues. Why does this exist absent a manifesto? Because Democrats broadly pursue a more liberal agenda whereas Republicans pursue a more conservative agenda even if they are elected from identical constituencies. It behooves them to cooperate to pursue shared interests. Thus, your earlier proposition was refuted.
Why are Republicans appeasing Evangelicals while Democrats are not? Because the Republican platform is more conservative. Hence, Republicans are different from Democrats. Political parties are not inherently meaningful distinctions. They are reflections of their constituencies.
Correct. There are fifty states. You contended that partisan distinctions were incidental to constituencies. But if the difference is primarily the constituencies, the state parties would diverge on geographical fissures instead of party. And while there are geographical distinctions as you note, and I noted in my previous post, the partisan distinction is also noticeable. A whopping zero Republican state parties endorse marriage equality. If it's the constituencies instead of the party, why are the partisan platforms distinguishable? Ultimately, there are various cleavages. Geography is certainly important. Yet so are the partisan distinctions. You identify the former, yet inexplicably miss the latter.
Terra Firma
Banned
See, I have no problem when foreign intervention is warranted, like it was in Bosnia or in Rwanda (where no one responded) or in Iraq when the Shi'a were massacred (not in 2003, but in 1992 when the US incited the uprising but failed to support them, resulting in the senseless slaughter of 200,000 Shi'as). I also wish the US would depose of Asaad in Syria sooner rather than later.
Have you not been reading my posts? I've been saying over and over that the Republicans always call for trickle down economics but they never work so whenever the Republicans do come into power, they cut taxes for a few but end up with bailouts or other government aid, just like Bush did and even Reagan did this. So, in practice, there is little difference because these things are necessary. Trickle down economics do not work.
See, this would make sense if Iran was an actual threat but it isn't. How is Iran a threat to America? It has no nukes. The UN says that it would take Iran 5 years to attain a nuke and it said the same thing 3-4 years ago in its previous inspection, which is a clear indication that Iran's nuclear program is not progressing in the "weapons" direction but on the "energy" direction.
On the other hand, Israel DOES have nukes but it's Iran's bad luck that it signed the NPT, whereas Israel hasn't done so. Israel already has nukes and they act as an excellent deterrent against any attacks from its neighbours. Now, if Iran even thought of developing enough nukes to rival Israel, it would take it a lot more than 5 years.
Furthermore, Israel is more than sufficient in completely obliterating Iran since it has one of the most technologically advanced military in the world, not to mention a large nuclear arsenal.
No, you're right. It makes him worse than Bush because Bush saw Pakistan as an ally. Obama is jeopardizing this relationship big time. And Pakistan has nuclear weapons and a population of 200 million. It also has one of the largest armies in the world. Why would Obama try to make enemies with its only real helpful ally in that region? Anti-American sentiment is at an all time high, not just among the religious, but even the secular and modernist Pakistanis. And they have every right to be angry and pissed off. Imagine if China was bombing near the US/Mexico border, killing hundreds of US civilians because some Tibetan terrorists were hiding out in the region.
I'm not American but just so you know, Obama does have the power. There's something called the executive order. He signed it in January 2009 that Gitmo would be closed in a year. But then, he delayed that order for 6 months. But still, Gitmo remains open.
Have you been blind for the past 11 years? America has been torturing POWs for the past 11 years to force confessions out of both terrorists and non-terrorists alike. It just likes to call it "advanced interrogation technique", whereas the world calls it torture (including the Geneva convention).
A notable case is that of a Canadian who was handed over to the American government, which flew him off to Syria to be tortured for a year - all of this happened without any charges being laid (in fact, most of the terror suspects that have been tortured by the US government have never been charged). He was found innocent and the government had to pay him and apologize. That is just one person who was cleared. There are dozens if not hundreds of people who are being held just because they happened to be in the vicinity of a terrorist and they've not even been charged.
Don't worry, even the UK is guilty of using this technique.
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/
If you don't know, Obama signed the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), which allows him to sign off on assassination orders of American citizens. Basically, Obama can have you killed if he feels like it. Not even Bush had that power.
I am being serious. Financial bailouts have to be done so that the economy can move on instead of recede further or stagnate. Bush wanted to do it and so did Obama.
Yes, this is my major gripe with the Democratic party. It is supposed to be a party of liberalism but it is utterly pathetic when you compare it to any liberal party in the developed world. It's been either silent or too slow to act on many major issues. On the other hand, the Republicans have been talking crap about liberalism that it has been associated with being almost a slanderous concept, along with socialism. Nearly all the developed nations of the world, except the USA, have highly socialist policies and are liberal on all fronts, from immigration, to LGBT, to minority rights. But in the US, the right wing has turned Europe into a curse word and Democrats don't embrace liberalism as they should.
That is my major issue. The parties appear indistinguishable to us outsiders because both parties seem to believe that liberalism and socialism are some foreign, un-American concept. The US Constitution keeps getting brought up as if it is the word of God on both sides for some reason when it should not be seen as such. For example, the right to bear arms is anti-liberal and the US has the highest rate of fatalities by guns. So obviously, any sane person would seek to outlaw or at least limit all guns and dismiss anyone who disagrees as an ignorant hick but no, groups like the NRA are given a large platform and are one of the biggest (if not the biggest) lobbying groups in the US.
As for your question, from what I've seen of Obama, no I don't think there'd be a difference if Bush was still in office. He'd have probably exited Iraq by now as he was already winding it down and after killing Bin Laden, he would have done the same in Afghanistan. The only thing that Obama did was bring up the healthcare mandate (which still isn't socialism/liberalism but market dependent i.e. capitalist) and ended DADT (which is the only positive I see from him). Everything else he is doing, Bush was already on a tangent of doing, since even many Republican talking heads were speaking against the bailouts of the banks.
It is not about giving pretty speeches. Obama is a great orator but people who speak well also have the ability to lie and trick others while having a smile on their face. His works speak louder than his words. So far, he has managed to keep Gitmo open, destroyed American civil liberties, made it legal for the president to assassinate US citizens, remain inactive on the issue of gay rights (again, doing nothing but saying something on the subject in the last year of his term) - many of the same things Bush was doing towards the end of his presidency. I do agree that Bush in his first term was a complete bloodthirsty warmonger but by the end of his second term, he and Obama are very close to each other if not the same.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Sorry for the ganging up on you Terra. I know you asked not to be shot since you are Canadian, but you seem to have open a can of worms. If you tend to lean conservative, then I would wait for some new headline news to drop and then you can get back up from Kosmo or Enark. Otherwise, posting silly nonsense will put you into the deep end and wake the Kraken. Dax, I don't see why you had to make numerous posts to demand an answer when you know this guy was going to be piled upon. If you want 10 Republican politicians, and they can be local then here you go:
Mark Grisanti - NY
James Alesi - NY
Roy McDonald -NY
Stephen Saland - NY
Jodi Rell - CT
96 Republicans in NH vote against repealing same sex marriage.
I know these are outliners, but you didn't give me that limit. Anyway welcome Terra and don't take things so seriously. You'll last longer that way.
Mark Grisanti - NY
James Alesi - NY
Roy McDonald -NY
Stephen Saland - NY
Jodi Rell - CT
96 Republicans in NH vote against repealing same sex marriage.
I know these are outliners, but you didn't give me that limit. Anyway welcome Terra and don't take things so seriously. You'll last longer that way.
I'll just say again that being an outsider doesnt excuse ignorance of policies of the political parties of america and to be able to pass it off as fact. I wonder what would happen to one of us if we went into the canadian or European threads for politics and started making the assumptions TF makes.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'd take issue with Jodi Rell - she promised to veto gay marriage. If that's what we're discussing, she's as progressive on LGBT rights as Chris Christie.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
TF: Do you have any evidence that the US is still torturing POWs?
So I'm going to address this point specifically, because it's bullshit.
http://www.equalitygiving.org/Accomplishments-by-the-Administration-and-Congress-on-LGBT-Equality
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Not trying to prove anything. Don't even agree with Terra's assertion about US political parties. I agree more with Jackson 50. Just didn't like Dax and others hounding this guy for examples when he is new. Is our objective to dog pile everyone that comes in here with a crazy belief? Then we'll get no one new. And we are already in the community section as it is. I suggest to read others posts confronting Terra. If you feel that he already has enough on his plate, then don't pile on. I would like him to stick around because to me he represents the average voter here who doesn't follow the day to day stuff. Otherwise how could he make such ignorant statements?
Terra Firma
Banned
See, that is all that I'm looking for: a party platform. I didn't know either of these parties had a platform because I've read about Republican politicians being for gay marriage and for a woman's right to her body.
I will concede on this point (you're the only poster who has managed to fully show me what I've been looking for).
Now if the same can be shown for all the other points I've brought up, I won't make a fuss.
I've listed a bunch of reasons why the Democrats and Republicans are the same. Chichikov has shown me that pro/anti gay marriage issues are part of the platform so I concede on that point.
And you'd have a much tougher job trying to prove any of those parties being mirror images of each other. Three of those parties are left of centre, though, whereas both the Democrats and Republicans are firmly right of centre, with the Republicans further right. The Democratic party is actually more right leaning than our Conservative party.
I am neither. If I was a troll, I'd pursue only one point. I've provided a list of reasons why I believed the Democrats and Republicans are similar. You on the other hand, stuck to one issue (gay marriage) and since I did not know about the existence of actual party platforms, I used the fact that there are dissenting views in both parties against the presumed party position to show that these positions are not representative of the party. I was wrong, of course, as the platform statements show decisive antagonism towards gay marriage in the Republican platform.
Yeah, thanks. Would've helped from the get go. See reply to Chichikov. And again, thanks.
What I was looking for was something that would be an accurate representation of the party ideology. I wasn't provided with any platform positions since I didn't know they existed, because I've heard of and seen many dissenting views from politicians and the public in both parties where they don't talk or walk the presumed party line. I was unwilling to accept a "majority" representation because historically, which party is left-wing or right-wing has changed throughout history. The Democrats have been recently left-leaning and the Republicans have been recently right-leaning but there has been enough admixing between these two groups to not really show any real distinctive qualities.
For example, many Republicans like to talk about Reagan this and Reagan that, even though Reagan did many things that were liberal or socialist. Reagan's presidency had a shaky start because of fiscal conservatism. It was socialism that came to the rescue. Reagan proposed to close tax loopholes for the wealthy, for example, whereas some Republicans would have us believe that we should not tax the wealthy at all so that their money will trickle down to the lowly masses.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
TF: I think I just realized you're asking for logical consistency from American political parties.
There is none, and there's no way to understand it without studying history. You might note that the Lincoln (R) freed the slaves, Teddy (R) was an environmentalist, Wilson (D) was a sexist, and Nixon (R) did a lot for the environment.
And yes, as TA hates mentioning, Reagan in practice was far more economically liberal than conservatives pretend, though he was still a terrible president.
I suggest studying American history at least back to JFK, the first modern Democrat. To understand Republicans, you have to understand and learn about the evangelical embrace that Reagan conducted and how it's nearly brought down our entire country since then.
There is none, and there's no way to understand it without studying history. You might note that the Lincoln (R) freed the slaves, Teddy (R) was an environmentalist, Wilson (D) was a sexist, and Nixon (R) did a lot for the environment.
And yes, as TA hates mentioning, Reagan in practice was far more economically liberal than conservatives pretend, though he was still a terrible president.
I suggest studying American history at least back to JFK, the first modern Democrat. To understand Republicans, you have to understand and learn about the evangelical embrace that Reagan conducted and how it's nearly brought down our entire country since then.
Terra Firma
Banned
I'm not conservative. Sorry if I gave you that impression. It's just that I don't see the Democrats in the US as being a decent representation of liberalism, whereas better representations exist here in Canada and across Europe.
Also, that list doesn't help now since I've been shown that what they're doing is against their party platform.
Now that is just nitpicking. Can you show any meaningful changes that were done? That is a BS PR statement. The main issue, which has always been marriage, even during his election year, wasn't touched with a ten foot pole until the recent North Carolina disaster.
If he was truly serious about equality, he would have talked against proposition 8 when he got elected since it was fresh in everyone's mind. He had so much time to talk against it. The amendment to the hate crime bill only passed AFTER the deaths of people from the LGBT community.
I didn't really follow that discussion that closely, but seriously, I posted the national platforms of both parties, go ahead compare and contrast.
Why are we arguing about facts?
Terra Firma
Banned
Yeah, I remember reading about this. In fact, I even remember hearing that the evangelicals were seen as fools by the Bush administration in one of the Iraq documentaries I was into watching during the run up to the war and were just tools to get into the White House.
But then Democrats supported the war, including Hillary (and she is not remorseful of that). So, even though there are inconsistencies on the Republican side, they also exist on the Democrat side.
I'm not a huge fan of speculative history, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that a Democratic president does not go to Iraq.
Oh, and if I was to do the fair and balanced thing I would've noted that I think we would've seen a very similar financial crash had Kerry won in 2004.
But that fair and balanced thing is stupid, so fuck that shit.
Terra Firma
Banned
Is that all there is of the GOP platform? There is no mention of foreign policy. Everything else besides the faith-based issues (anti-abortion, traditional marriage, religion in politics eugh) or peripheral issues (firearms, affirmative action) are all vague and general statements.
I agree with you completely about the Iraq issue. The Bush administration outright fabricated evidence. But even my dumbass teenager self in 2002 saw through that BS, yet so-called professionals with their law degrees and PhDs swallowed it all, hook, line, and sinker.
The reason I compare is because I guess we have a broader spectrum of differences in Canada and Europe, compared to the US, which is why there are many commonalities between the Democrats and Republicans, but it is difficult to do so for two major parties of other countries.
Just look at France, for example, where the Socialists recently creamed Sarkozy. The Socialists are pro-immigration, pro-socialism (obviously), pro-government funded programs, making hospitals public again, lowered the retirement age back to what it was before Sarkozy, having a tax rate of 45% of people earning over 150k Euros (about $190k), and so on and so forth. (more here http://otherjones.com/2012/05/01/presidential-elections-how-the-french-do-it/)
They are very similar to the New Democrats and somewhat close to the Liberals here in Canada. They are markedly different from our Conservatives, who recently upped the retirement age from 65 to 67, decreased our tax rates, decreased funding for many programs such as daycare, etc.
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/
Though it's mostly going to be vague and general, such is the nature of such documents.
I agree with most of this, but I thought Obama signed an executive order to prohibit any interrogation techniques not listed in the army field manual ie outlawing waterboarding and other techniques that the Bush administration were calling "Enhanced Interrogation". Are we still torturing people?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Why be sorry? He made a series of ridiculous assertions with no backing, moved goal posts, and now wants to pretend like he's surprised he was wrong after people posted links. Yea ok
Clearly we agree on most things, he seems liberal etc etc. But next time don't barge in telling everyone what's what
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
So you guys ready for this thing to be overturned? I'm starting to think about the lengths this court has gone and now I'm pretty sure it's done. The amount of panic, palpable fear, and liberal revulsion I'm seeing is huge.
I hope Obama comes out swinging, but does anybody believe that he will?
I hope Obama comes out swinging, but does anybody believe that he will?
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Terra Firma
Banned
The devil lies in vagueness. As I'm going through both platforms, I see that on issues of foreign policy, neither parties are different, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (seems like one party paraphrased the other), the Iranian issue, the Afghanistan and Iraq issue (although the Republicans are being particularly dishonest by portraying the Democratic position as defeatist), vagueness on Pakistan and India, vagueness on Asia and Africa besides developmental goals, and so on.
On issues of economy, one side is crying about the other removing the former's tax cuts, whereas any sane economy with such a big deficit would seek to raise taxes, especially for bigger corporations. Bush went against his own party's platform (bailing out private institutions) and so did Obama (promising to repeal all laws that allowed violation of privacy, promising to end rendition, promising to close Gitmo, promising to end torture rather than redefine it, promising to end indefinite detention). In fact, just go through this site: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/
It is hard to see any real differences at a national level when it comes to these platforms since a lot of the promises that if Obama would have kept them, they could have made him distinct from Bush, but since he didn't, a lot of what he's done pertains to ongoing development in the war or to create a foundation for both insurance companies and patients for the mandated healthcare plan. He has even backed out on cancelling the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Obama himself is a professor of constitutional law - he himself would know whether his own damn bill was constitutional.
It is bullshit that a 9-member panel (5-member, really) has such unmatched control over the public discourse. Checks and balances aren't working, clearly. Bush v. Gore proved that.
"Gee, looks like the presidential election is more or less a tie. May as well give it to the Republican then, JUST TO BE FAIR."
Was the prospect of having President Hastert for a couple weeks while Florida was sorted out really that horrifying?
Terra Firma
Banned
So, wait...I concede on one point and thus my entire argument is null and void?
Yeah, great logic.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
- Status