0
   

Democrats How To Win Back Support

 
 
btflatt
 
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 07:16 pm
The Democrats must return to their progressive program, and must spend the resources necessary to remind the people that the GOP, the right wing, the Tea Party are just plain wrong on the issues. Democrats How To Win Back Support | The 2012 Presidential Election
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 929 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 09:21 pm
@btflatt,
Hopefully the Massachusetts loss has made Obama go back on the progressive track.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 05:47 am
@bisurge,
I have an idea !

Stop sucking wall street cock !

Oh wait - that's impossible. Obama IS Wall Street.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfNhj1fX7MA
btflatt
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 06:32 am
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;69945 wrote:
I have an idea !

Stop sucking wall street cock !

Oh wait - that's impossible. Obama IS Wall Street.
]


Large corporations game the system and dominate American politics. I mean rule, no matter who is in the White House and who controls Congress.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 12:41 pm
@btflatt,
What is interesting about the 2 party system is the people never actually vote FOR a party.

They always vote AGAINST THE OTHER ONE.

The net result is the people are misrepresented 100% of the time - but amazingly they are so dumb they can't figure it out.
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 03:13 pm
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;69963 wrote:
What is interesting about the 2 party system is the people never actually vote FOR a party.

They always vote AGAINST THE OTHER ONE.

The net result is the people are misrepresented 100% of the time - but amazingly they are so dumb they can't figure it out.

I have to disagree. Tax cuts, healthcare reform, abortion, and several other things are why I know many people support the Democrats. Although neither party fully represents its people, there are still many reasons why we vote for one party and not the other one, and not because we simply don't like the policies of the other one.
You could say that voting for healthcare reform is voting against no healthcare reform, but if you vote for a Democrat, you vote against a Republican. That's common sense. But the reasons for voting are still often in favor of a party and not to spite of another.

Also, I don't think Obama is Wall Street. I think Wall Street is White House. Obama did make plans against corporations and banks; he wants to roll back the Supreme Court decision making corporations people by making legislation that does not make corporations people (that was established a century before now; it was just used to make Supreme Court's decision).
JackFlash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 06:10 pm
@bisurge,
bisurge;69965 wrote:
I have to disagree. Tax cuts, healthcare reform, abortion, and several other things are why I know many people support the Democrats. Although neither party fully represents its people, there are still many reasons why we vote for one party and not the other one, and not because we simply don't like the policies of the other one.
You could say that voting for healthcare reform is voting against no healthcare reform, but if you vote for a Democrat, you vote against a Republican. That's common sense. But the reasons for voting are still often in favor of a party and not to spite of another.

Also, I don't think Obama is Wall Street. I think Wall Street is White House. Obama did make plans against corporations and banks; he wants to roll back the Supreme Court decision making corporations people by making legislation that does not make corporations people (that was established a century before now; it was just used to make Supreme Court's decision).


I agree whole-heartedly. For 50 years this country thrived with a Democratic Congress. One decade of Republican control and look at the mess we've got.
The proof is in the pudding, and the Republican's pudding is rancid.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 07:07 pm
@JackFlash,
JackFlash;69991 wrote:
I agree whole-heartedly. For 50 years this country thrived with a Democratic Congress. One decade of Republican control and look at the mess we've got.
The proof is in the pudding, and the Republican's pudding is rancid.


While it is true that on the average the economy was doing better under Democrats it doesn't actually prove anything.

For example you will have to agree that Obama inherited this crisis - which contradicts your own logic - Economy is worse under Obama than it was under Bush so it must all be Obama's fault ?

But more importantly you have no clue about the true causes of the current crisis. You obviously didn't read the articles at my link:

Article Page

You really should. You'll be glad that you did.
JackFlash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 09:13 pm
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;69995 wrote:
While it is true that on the average the economy was doing better under Democrats it doesn't actually prove anything.

For example you will have to agree that Obama inherited this crisis - which contradicts your own logic - Economy is worse under Obama than it was under Bush so it must all be Obama's fault ?

But more importantly you have no clue about the true causes of the current crisis. You obviously didn't read the articles at my link:

Article Page

You really should. You'll be glad that you did.


I read your stuff, I just wasn't impressed.

I see nothing that contridicts my logic.
The economy is not worse under Obama. What The Republicans and Bush did will be here for decades to come no matter what anyone does.
You can't tell me that I have no clue; you have no idea what I know and don't know.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 10:05 pm
@JackFlash,
JackFlash;70000 wrote:
You can't tell me that I have no clue; you have no idea what I know and don't know.


what i have specifically been referring to is that the seeds of the current depression were sown before Bush.

in fact it goes back to something like 1971 when Nixon canceled the Bretton Woods agreement.

Nixon Shock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

US was blowing bubbles since then.

Bush inherited a blown dot com bubble and proceeded to reinflate it which resulted in the housing bubble.

Obama inhereited a blown housing bubble and is trying to reinflate that.

But ultimately bubble economics lead only to market crashes.
JackFlash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 10:45 pm
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;70003 wrote:
what i have specifically been referring to is that the seeds of the current depression were sown before Bush.


There are many reasons, converging at the same time, that led to this depression, if that's what you want to call it. They are all centered on one aspect of human nature, greed. Mostly, greed on the part of the banks and large corporations, and, to a lesser extent, greed on the part of the consumer.

Consumer greed can be controlled by tightening credit, which didn't happen. Corporate greed can be controlled by government regulation, which not only didn't happen, but was all but eliminated by congressional legislation and K street bribes.

Uncontrolled Capitalism will breed periodic depressions and recessions, and eventually, it's own collapse; all due to greed.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 11:04 pm
@JackFlash,
JackFlash;70007 wrote:
There are many reasons, converging at the same time, that led to this depression, if that's what you want to call it. They are all centered on one aspect of human nature, greed. Mostly, greed on the part of the banks and large corporations, and, to a lesser extent, greed on the part of the consumer.

Consumer greed can be controlled by tightening credit, which didn't happen. Corporate greed can be controlled by government regulation, which not only didn't happen, but was all but eliminated by congressional legislation and K street bribes.

Uncontrolled Capitalism will breed periodic depressions and recessions, and eventually, it's own collapse; all due to greed.


Agree with you about the role of banks and deregulation. But your statements about greed miss the point by a mile.

Saying that greed was responsible is like saying "we must support our troops". It is an emotionally charged statement devoid of meaning by design. Such statements are made by politicians with the express purpose of winning support of the average voter which is known statistically to be incapable of reasoning.

In the case of current crisis the argument is used also because when you place the blame on "greed" it takes the heat off those actually responsible - like the corrupt officials who made deals with the bankers. Blaming the economic collapse on greed is like blaming the earthquake in Haiti on a "pact with the devil" that Haitians supposedly signed. Metaphysical concepts like "evil" when discussing a real-world problem only serve to confuse the issue.

Greed is the engine driving the economy. Without greed we would still be living in the stone age.

The actual responsibility lies with CORRUPTION where he FED, government and Goldman Sachs all conspired to profit from plundering the economy.

In an honest, transparent system with adequate regulation and oversight Greed is a good thing.
JackFlash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 12:03 am
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;70011 wrote:
The actual responsibility lies with CORRUPTION where he FED, government and Goldman Sachs all conspired to profit from plundering the economy.


And why did they conspire to plunder the economy? One guess.......


[SIZE="5"]Greed[/SIZE]
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 12:14 am
@JackFlash,
JackFlash;70019 wrote:
And why did they conspire to plunder the economy? One guess.......


[SIZE="5"]Greed[/SIZE]


when you blame problems on human nature you are left with only one solution - the kind Hitler had for the Jews.

wouldn't it be nice if only wall street bankers were greedy ? we could then just shove them into gas chambers.

problem is there is nothing unique about wall street bankers. they simply had the OPPORTUNITY to act on their greed, while you and i haven't.

your complaints about greed not only offer no solutions - but in fact prevent the possibility of any.
JackFlash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 12:55 am
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;70021 wrote:
wouldn't it be nice if only wall street bankers were greedy ?

problem is there is nothing unique about wall street bankers. they simply had the OPPORTUNITY to act on their greed, while you and i haven't.

your complaints about greed not only offer no solutions - but in fact prevent the possibility of any.


If you read my earlier post on greed, you will see that I attribute the problem to mainstreet as well as the bankers and corporations. Hell, most of the people I know were in debt up to their eyeballs before the collapse in 2008, much of it on credit cards with up to 30% interest. Millions of people bought houses they could not afford to pay for. It's a quest for more, more, more; and the fact is, there is only so much to go around. So, something has to give.

You would also see that I did propose a solution, regulation.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 01:12 am
@JackFlash,
JackFlash;70024 wrote:
most of the people I know were in debt up to their eyeballs before the collapse in 2008, much of it on credit cards with up to 30% interest. Millions of people bought houses they could not afford to pay for.


that's not being greedy. that's being profligate.

on the contrary - greedy person is more likely to be frugal.
JackFlash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 01:27 am
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;70025 wrote:
that's not being greedy. that's being profligate.

on the contrary - greedy person is more likely to be frugal.


I meant greed by it's definition. profligate and frugal are after the fact, and opposites.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Democrats How To Win Back Support
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/03/2021 at 01:08:27